topics
GreenCine Movie Talk
	Independent Talk about the world of independent film.	42

Stanley Kubrick - overrated?
	Topic by: kamapuaa Posted: November 23, 2003 - 2:00 PM PST Last Reply: October 14, 2004 - 2:13 PM PDT

page  1  2  3  4  5  6  7      prev | next

author	topic: Stanley Kubrick - overrated?
KPman1	post #81  on September 14, 2004 - 4:33 PM PDT   I don't really think Star Wars had that effect and if it did it was much broader than just science fiction. Blockbuster movies are a phenomenon of themselves. Some of the best science fiction movies I have seen are very modern: The Matrix, Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind, Minority Report, Alien, Dark City. What kind of science fiction movies should they make? Movies like Shadow of the Torturer and Hyperion? Personally I would prefer more literal adaptations of PK Dick. I'd also like to see some adaptations of the Ender series, The Uplift books (shut up douch bags, space operas is good), and some Neal Stephenson and Jack Vance books.
Catullus	post #82  on September 14, 2004 - 4:54 PM PDT   you spelled douche bag wrong, anyway hyperion would make a sweet movie series.
Cinenaut	post #83  on September 14, 2004 - 5:03 PM PDT   I wouldn't mind seeing some Gene Wolfe adapted. Maybe The Fifth Head of Cerberus?
woozy	post #84  on September 14, 2004 - 5:07 PM PDT   >(shut up douch bags, space operas is good), God, you're a nasty piece of work!
hamano	post #85  on September 14, 2004 - 5:41 PM PDT   > On September 14, 2004 - 5:07 PM PDT woozy wrote: > --------------------------------- > >(shut up douch bags, space operas is good), > God, you're a nasty piece of work! > --------------------------------- Hey, nothing wrong with liking space operas! I was reared on the Heinlein juvenile SF space opera books! I loved Brin's Uplift Series! Are there any new ones of those? Jack Vance is sort of a hack, but there are good stories in there. Didn't they turn that Space Hospital book into a TV series? Neal Stephenson is a great author, but it would be difficult to make coherent movies out of his books. I guess Snow Crash would be good, but it'll be tough. They should make some sea operas! Arthur C. Clarke's juvenile fiction would make great movies... Dolphin Island, The Deep Range... The sea's kinda murky so animation and CG would work pretty well in those, I think. What was that book about the intergalactic truckers? That was a fun book. Oh, and you know what would make a great movie? The Sparrow by Mary Doria Russell. It has a built-in sequel... Cinenaut, did you ever read that book?
woozy	post #86  on September 14, 2004 - 6:17 PM PDT   > Hey, nothing wrong with liking space operas! I meant the drek movie space operas which are mostly poor. No excuse to let a minor disagreement disgress to name calling. > > I loved Brin's Uplift Series! Are there any new ones of those? There's a second trilogy but you've probably already know about it. Speaking of Brin, I wish "the Postman" had been better. (A bad but underrated movie in my opinion). I would love to see a movie of Octavia Butler's "Clay's Ark" or, if you like space operas her "Survivor". "Patternmaster" would be good too.
KPman1	post #87  on September 14, 2004 - 6:24 PM PDT   Well gee willikers Woozy, I'm sorry. Anyway, I might as well fess up, I don't like Hyperion. Also, I'd rather read Tales of a Dying Earth than Shadow of the Torturer. Why would anyone say Vance is a hack? Not pretentious and boring enough? There are only 6 Uplift books. I loved the first trilogy. I don't care for the second. Asimov should be off limits though. They can't seem to make a good movie from any of his work including AI (I don't care what anyone says) which brings us back to the topic.
Eoliano	post #88  on September 14, 2004 - 6:38 PM PDT   > woozy wrote: ...and the Shining, which seemed a poor movie because the story which was only a cheesy horror didn't fit the treatment). But he's clearly talented and influential. Lucas may be remembered as a revolutionary producer but as a director he's mechanical at best. Okay, I've been busy and I'm just beginning to catch up on the boards and thought I'd chime in, albeit a little delayed. I am a fan of Kubrick's films, though I certainly wouldn't consider myself a fanatic. As hamano has said, comparing George Lucas to Stanley Kubrick is like comparing apples to oranges, but I'd take that one step further by saying that there is no comparison whatsoever. Lucas isn't nearly as talented as Kubrick was, and as evidenced by every film he has made since The Empire Strikes Back, he will never be a great director. David Thompson of The Guardian, one of Kubrick's biggest detractors, said that for him, "TheShining... is Kubrick's one great film, so rich and comic that it offsets his several large failures. The elements of horror story have been turned into a study in isolation, space, and the susceptible imagination of a man who lacks the skills to be a writer. The Shining is about intuitive intimations, good and bad, and it has an intriguingly detached view of its story's apparent moral situation. Perhaps Jack Torrance is a monster, a dad run amok; perhaps family is the suffocation that anyone should dread. The film is very funny (especially as Nicholson goes over his edge), serenely frightening, and endlessly interesting. For the Overlook Hotel is not just a great set but a museum of movies, waiting for ghostly inhabitants."
Cinenaut	post #89  on September 15, 2004 - 9:39 AM PDT   In an effort to keep this thread on-topic, I made a new topic called: /a>. I wouldn't pick The Shining as Kubrick's best film, but I haven't seen it since it came out. I was very disappointed with it at the time, after having read the book.
Cinenaut	post #90  on September 15, 2004 - 9:42 AM PDT   Don't you hate it when that happens? The preview button is my friend. The preview button is my friend. The preview button is my friend. The preview button is my friend. The preview button is my friend.
Cinenaut	post #91  on September 15, 2004 - 9:43 AM PDT   In an effort to keep this thread on-topic, I made a new topic called: The State of Science Fiction Films.
Eoliano	post #92  on September 15, 2004 - 10:29 AM PDT   > I wouldn't pick The Shining as Kubrick's best film, but I haven't seen it since it came out. I was very disappointed with it at the time, after having read the book. I read the book way back when as well but it didn't alter my appreciation, nor is it my favorite Kubrick film, that would be... 2001: A Space Odyssey.
Cinenaut	post #93  on September 15, 2004 - 11:05 AM PDT   > On September 15, 2004 - 10:29 AM PDT Eoliano wrote: > --------------------------------- > I read the book way back when as well but it didn't alter my appreciation, nor is it my favorite Kubrick film, that would be... 2001: A Space Odyssey. > --------------------------------- I can't remember the specifics of my disappointment. It had something to do with downplaying Danny's inner life and psychic abilities in the movie, I think, which of course would be very difficult to bring to the screen. I suppose I'd have to pick 2001 as my favorite, too.
Eoliano	post #94  on September 15, 2004 - 11:32 AM PDT   > I can't remember the specifics of my disappointment. It had something to do with downplaying Danny's inner life and psychic abilities in the movie, I think, which of course would be very difficult to bring to the screen. It's often better to leave some things to the viewer's imagination, though even an imaginative director can fall short with too much exposition. I think he got the psychic point across cinematically, with Danny's visions, his relationship to Tony, and clearly, his relationship with Dick Hallorann. I think Kubrick's central focus was Jack Torrance's descent into madness and his consummation by the Overlook, plus his use of music is very deft; it's extremely haunting and is subliminally mesmerizing. It casts its own spell.
kamapuaa	post #95  on September 15, 2004 - 9:37 PM PDT   > And I would say that the use of a Strauss waltz for the shuttle docking sequence (as opposed to something formal or theatrical, like a piece from a ballet pas de deux or something) implies "casual" or "vulgar (common place)"... Maybe you should broaden your musical horizons a bit more... I worked for several years at at classical sheet music & instrument store, briefly (if unsucessfully) imported classical sheet music to re-sell, and have little doubt that I know quite a bit more than you, dckweed! Why would Kubrick have such such slow scenes and classical music (most 1968 viewers wouldn't think "it's time to dance!" upon hearing "The Blue Danube" any more than they would think of gladiators with "Enter the Gladiators," your claims are pedantic) and "also sprach zarusthra" and slow-motion shots and whatnot, if not to impress an awe at spaceflight to the audience? > American Pie was more fun than anything Kubrick! Maybe even Josie and the Pussycats! I don't think you can say "more fun"="better director" Well, if neither director has much else going for them, why not? I wouldn't call the Farrelly Brothers great directors, but they're better than J.B. Rogers, who directed "Say it Isn't So." "Something About Mary" is funny. > > and Kubrick's movies are worth watching only for conversational purposes > Well, that's important if you're serious about thinking about film history... Huh, what? > rent and watch The Killing and Reservoir Dogs together! Seen them. "Reservoir Dogs" was a direct re-make of the coolest part of "City on Fire" (Tarantino admits it, and it's nothing subtle), and "City on Fire" had a great number of films to possibly draw upon as influence, including "The Killing." "The Killing" doesn't strike me as much of an influence on "City on Fire," although it could be one of many. > I think you're talking more about the film-making "style" that's popular today. Style goes in cycles, though. But the giants of cinematic imagery stand no matter what the current popular "style" is. My impression is that Godard's films used hand-held cameras before film cameras were even designed to be hand held (I guess the camera guy was pretty strong), and rigged a wheel-chair to make the tracking shots far longer than what had been seen before, and that the jump-cuts didn't have a precedent but today are commonplace. Not to mention, I'm not so sure about this cyclical view of style, as much as the "it took a while before all of Hollywood was doing it as well" view of style. Characters have never stopped coming in from the side of camera, people never stopped zooming in, streets have never stopped being wet with puddles when shown at night, large set pieces with static cameras have never made a comeback, etc. And now (well actually, it's becoming less true) Bollywood looks like an MGM production. > Godard and Stallone are your Two Greatest Directors? OK, now I see why you're comparing Lucas and Kubrick and saying Lucas is better... Sylvester didn't actually direct "Rocky." So he only narrowly misses out the #1 position on my favorite active directors list. And Godard has gotten a little wacky or something. Him and Scorsese would probably be my 26 and 27.
kamapuaa	post #96  on September 15, 2004 - 9:59 PM PDT   > On September 14, 2004 - 2:52 PM PDT Catullus wrote: > --------------------------------- > George Lucas is a great director? don't make me laugh myself to death. > > Evidence: Phantom Menace and Clone Wars > > George Lucas may have done a few good movies but now he has 0 talent whatsoever. Basically his movies stink. I love the Beach Boys, I think they're among the best pop bands ever, but I wouldn't buy anything they've made in the last 30 years. So many directors and other artists have "lost it" that I think you have to give them a bit of a break, especially for those no longer active, and concentrate on the good bits. But my point wasn't that George Lucas is a great director, but rather an incendiary choice of an obviously-not-great director who I still think is better than Kubrick.
hamano	post #97  on September 16, 2004 - 12:47 AM PDT   > On September 15, 2004 - 9:37 PM PDT kamapuaa wrote: > --------------------------------- > I worked for several years at at classical sheet music & instrument store, briefly (if unsucessfully) imported classical sheet music to re-sell, and have little doubt that I know quite a bit more than you, dckweed! > > Why would Kubrick have such such slow scenes and classical music (most 1968 viewers wouldn't think "it's time to dance!" upon hearing "The Blue Danube" any more than they would think of gladiators with "Enter the Gladiators," your claims are pedantic) and "also sprach zarusthra" and slow-motion shots and whatnot, if not to impress an awe at spaceflight to the audience? If you have to resort to calling people pedantic dckweeds here, obviously you didn't learn a whole lot about music and popular culture peddling sheet music so you're feeling a tad insecure... Just tell me exactly how Kubrick hoped to impress and awe an American audience by setting his film to music that was used in Loony Tunes Cartoons? He used The Blue Danube precisely because it was a beautiful dance number AND because it was instantly recognizable as such AND because people were familiar and comfortable with it if they didn't already love it AND it had no risk of distancing any audience members as "inaccessible classical music". If you didn't think "Let's dance" when you heard The Blue Danube, you'd have to be some kind of musical idiot no matter what year you heard it! It's a Strauss Waltz for Xmas sake! The music AND the choreographed spaceship visuals are being used to draw the audience in and put them at ease after the wordless and unsettling prehistoric sequence, not to bowl them over with "awe"! Then you try to cloud the issue by comparing Johann Strauss to Julius Fucik, but oh, I forgot, you're the one who was comparing Kubrick and Lucas, so I shouldn't be surprised. Next to Strauss (Johann OR Richard) Fucik is a mote of a footnote in the history of popular classical music. Why would anyone think of gladiators when they hear Fucik's magnum opus when A) they don't even know the piece is called "Enter the Gladiators (Einzug der Gladiatoren)" B) they don't even know who composed the piece and C) they usually recognize the piece as "circus" or "clown" music???? Really you're trying to force us to compare apples and donuts again... it's obvious to everyone but you that ANYONE living in ANY AGE would recognize that The Blue Danube is a great waltz AND nice dance music, from my 8 year old daughter to the late genius Chuck Jones!
hamano	post #98  on September 16, 2004 - 12:59 AM PDT   > On September 15, 2004 - 9:37 PM PDT kamapuaa wrote: > --------------------------------- > Sylvester didn't actually direct "Rocky." So he only narrowly misses out the #1 position on my favorite active directors list. And Godard has gotten a little wacky or something. Him and Scorsese would probably be my 26 and 27. > --------------------------------- Right... it was Avildsen. BTW, I wholeheartedly agree with 85 to 90% of your choices for Best Directors on that list. But Stallone narrowly misses #1? While Godard and Scorsese are #26 and 27? Come on!
hamano	post #99  on September 16, 2004 - 6:49 AM PDT   Alrighty, kamapuaa. Upon careful reflection I noticed you wrote "your claims are pedantic" and not "YOU are pedantic" so I guess I was taking your criticism too personally. I apologize for my ungentlemanly behavior.... I guess I AM a dckhead. But I'm sticking by what I said about how Kubrick is using The Blue Danube in 2001. Any dckhead can see that the use of a Strauss Waltz here is to engage the audience, not to impress and awe them. The only ones who are impressed are serious film students and cineastes who are often bowled over by Kubrick's apt use of music in his films.
Eoliano	post #100  on October 10, 2004 - 3:13 PM PDT   Not overrated! In advance of the new two-disc 40th anniversary DVD of Dr. Strangelove due for release next month, there is an amusing if unsettling article in The NYTimes, 'Truth Stranger Than 'Strangelove'. The article sheds some light on the origins of the film as well as identifying a couple of the public figures that inspired some of the characters. Special Features: Remastered in High Definition Original 1.66 Aspect Ratio / 16x9 Anamorphic Audio: English Dolby 5.1 / DTS, English Mono, French Mono Subtitles: English, French "Inside Dr. Strangelove: How I stopped worrying and love the Bomb" documentary "No Fighting in the War Room: Dr. Strangelove and the Nuclear Threat" All new documentary "The Art of Stanley Kubrick: From Short Films to Strangelove" documentary "Best Sellers Or: Peter Sellers is Dr. Strangelove" featurette Original Split-Screen Interviews w/ Peter Sellers and George C. Scott "Insights on the Nuclear Threat by a Political Expert" - An interview with Robert S. McNamara, Secretary of Defense under President Johnson at the time of Dr. Strangelove's original 1964 release Theatrical Advertising Gallery Filmographies Bonus Trailers Free registration to The NYTimes is required.

page  1  2  3  4  5  6  7      prev | next