Are you seriously claimin' right now? Kubrick

[PurposeDriven]

Sorry, friends got in on my name, well, you see the rest.

[J.R. Hudson]

LOL *:D

Kubrick is a bitch.

[PurposeDriven]

Hudson, Don't be pissed 'cause KUBRICKS all up on you. Be pissed because your favorite directors are Robert Rodriguez and that Kid.

[Brad_Thames]

2001 made me want to shoot myself in the head. What a waste of time it was watching that. Great imagery, but geez, 2 + hours? Lord!...

[PurposeDriven]

firstly, Lord is right. Secondly, I'm fairly certain you wanted to shoot yourself in the eye before seeing 2001. Thirdly, you're a Bronze Member. Respect the Gold.

[PurposeDriven]

Sorry, friends got in my name and they were being lame, sorry again.

[Anartiste]

If you don't have patience, just play it in x2.

If it's still too long for you, play it in x4.

If it's still too long... well, watch MTV and shut the fuck up.

But if you're a real cinema lover, play it frame by frame. Each of them contains a diamond.

One of the best cinema lessons ever.

[J.R. Hudson]

Hudson, Don't be pissed 'cause KUBRICKS all up on you. Be pissed because your favorite directors are Robert Rodriguez and that Kid.

LOL LOL :D :D

Rodriguez is crap! The kid's alright making music videos and color correcting; I'll make my decision on him when he Directs a feature.

Kubrick is all up on me. On my.......

;D

[PurposeDriven]

Moronic friends posted this, sorry once more.

[Phil]

John you better stop or Purpose is going to have a heart attack... :)

Hey Purpose we all like and dis like directors. Thats the best part of opinions. Its all good.

[Brad_Thames]

firstly, Lord is right. Secondly, I'm fairly certain you wanted to shoot yourself in the eye before seeing 2001. Thirdly, you're a Bronze Member. Respect the Gold.


Show me something to respect.

(Say, this is fun!)

[BLWolf]

I had to break out my copy of the WB's "Moisha dictionary" to understand half of this thread.

[CheckYourself]

I wasn't expecting this to turn into a race war thats for sure. You should be proud of your joke BL. Classy. Anyways, I'm claimin 2001 hard like a mutha'. Kubrick's fully all up on me. It's like, no matter how hard you deny it, Kubrick is all up on all of us. Step up and accept it.

[Phil]

word

[David Jimerson]

Eyes Wide Shut sucked, and ended on one of the biggest sellouts I've *ever* seen in cinema.

Clockwork Orange pretty much rocks the world, and I really, really dislike violence.

[Brad_Thames]

Show me something to respect.

(Say, this is fun!)

I'd like to retract that. No point in getting juvenile. My only point is that 2001 wore me out after a while. Like I said, the imagery was great, but story is important to me, too

I don't think Kubrick is (was) some flawless film god, but I'm not saying I think all his films suck either. Full Metal Jacket is my favorite Vietnam film, maybe favorite war film period.

But no director is 100% for everybody on every film. Everyone has their own thing they look for and get out of a film. We should all be entitled to this and allow others their critiques.

[Barry_Green]

Okay, I have no idea what any of you are saying...

... but if you want to understand 2001: A Space Odyssey, there's really no way other than to read the book. Clarke and Kubrick wrote the book and the screenplay simultaneously, in a rather unique experiment. Much of the screenplay reads word-for-word the same as the novel. But in the novel, it's all EXPLAINED. Seeing the movie, without reading the novel, will make it nearly impossible to understand.

[BLWolf]

What? There's no "race war" here. Please, don't blow things out of proportion in that respect.

I'm sorry if I offended you, "CheckYourself;" that wasn't my driving Purpose.

And, Kubrick IS overrated. He is an accomplished director, no doubt, but he's not a genius.

[David Jimerson]

Okay, I have no idea what any of you are saying...

... but if you want to understand 2001: A Space Odyssey, there's really no way other than to read the book. *Clarke and Kubrick wrote the book and the screenplay simultaneously, in a rather unique experiment. *Much of the screenplay reads word-for-word the same as the novel. *But in the novel, it's all EXPLAINED. *Seeing the movie, without reading the novel, will make it nearly impossible to understand.

Sounds like "Dune." ;)

But yes, Barry; you're right . . . even if they did go to Saturn in the book (yes, I know why it was changed to Jupiter in the movie).

[Brad_Thames]

But in the novel, it's all EXPLAINED. *Seeing the movie, without reading the novel, will make it nearly impossible to understand.


Point taken.

[Anartiste]

If we only needed one proof for old Stanley's unique talent : this thread is the first one I've seen gathering so many posts in such a little time since I've been wandering on these (jarred) lands.

Yes he was a genius, even though I don't like half of his films.

My favourites :
The Shining
2001
Clockwork Orange
Lolita
The Paths Of Glory
Dr Strangelove
The Killer's Kiss

And although I think the script of "Eyes Wide Shut" gets stuck in the swamp of indecision on its second part, it contains at least two unbelievable scenes : the revelation scene (Nicole telling Tom Cruise her fancying the sailor) and the orgy scene (with the mystical music by Jocelyn Pook).

Kubrick can't be overrated : he's unratable.

[J.R. Hudson]

Sigh......

I think he's more legend than legit. Like the Wolfman said; he is accomplished and a few (IMHO) are good films (Full Metal being my favorite) but It's just not my bag.

I think people get caught up in the Man more than Movies.

[BLWolf]

I*think people get caught up in the Man more than Movies.


I agree with you, John.

Kubrick was a skilled director, but I see no reason to deify him.

To each his own, I guess.

[J.R. Hudson]

From the mouth of the Wolf. :)

[BLWolf]

LOL :)

[Anartiste]

Kubrick is a bitch.

John, come on...

Be careful : you're not a God anymore (The Lord Jarred inexplicably decided to make this site an atheist one a few days ago). Your back-to-human status forbids you to blaspheme. ;-)

Being up there, Uncle Stanley is one of them Gods now, and he sure is a frowny one.

Kneel down, and humbly ask for mercy or as your punishment, you'll have to be the main character of a Z snuff movie shot on VHS called : "0.2001, a Cheap Odyssey, or How I Became the Sexual Toy And Then Got Eaten By a Nasty Tribe Of Hairy Republican Pre-Humans". *:-/

[J.R. Hudson]

LOL

Sounds like a familar story "A god being reduced to immortality!"; but, alas, I am a DVX FILMMAKER now! Bwhahahah!

[STORYTELLER32]

I think this little argument can be settled with a brief paragraph from the voice of reason (uhhh... me?) ;D

I credit/blame MTV quick cutting videos and TV shows, for making a slow paced film unacceptable to the average viewer these days. Hence the reason why your average viewer wouldn't have the patience to watch 2001 today.

But one must remember that it's very easy to look back on someone's body of work today and say "eh, what's so special about it?" if you don't put it into the context of the time it was created. One must remember that when Kubrick was in his hayday, he was considered a visionary. He was doing things that hadn't been done at the time, thus making them unique. Now, years later, after many a film maker has learned from and expanded upon Kubrick's innovations, it can come across blase. Thus giving rise to such comments as "kubrick sucks". And why is that you ask? Because your average viewer has seen it done and redone again a billion times in other films since. So if you look at Kubrick's work now, it's not so special anymore, right?

Typically, it is rare for the average viewer to see the subtle emotional undertones of what a gifted film maker is going for. Usually, they just pay attention to the surface techniques and are easily wowed by eye candy. But remember, eye candy is easy. Connecting on an emotional level is hard. This requires participation from both the film maker and the viewer though. If the viewer has no depth to him, then odds are he's going to be one of those "DUDE, YOU ROCK MAN. THAT WAS TOTALLY AWESOME" kind of guys. Rarely does someone with this kind of thinking "get it" and there's only so far a film maker can take someone like this.

On a closing note: In my view, Rodriguez is an eye candy guy and not even a really great one at that. Only really good eye candy I've seen from him was Desperado. The rest were just average looking to me. And he's a horrible storyteller. Can you say "once upon a time in mexico"? There's a reason they held that movie in the can until Johnny dep hit it big in Pirates. Only really great thing about Rodriguez is he knows how to make a film under budget which is a great talent in itself.

Just my 2 cents.

[J.R. Hudson]

Thats a nice try. I, unfortunate for the Kubrick fans, can see beyond the times. I can objectively watch something and say "That sucked.".

We can use your example for every generation of any artistic genre. We could discuss Cubism in the Art Movement and the importance of the influence but it will still suck in my opinion.

My like or dislike for a film (or any art for that matter) is objective and if it doesn't do it for me; it doesn't do it for me. I have not seen all of Kubricks films but the ones I have seen have not done it. A skilled Director? Of course. A deity among filmmakers? Not for me.

For me it has nothing to do with the MTV generation and being awed by eye candy. It either moves me or it does not.

Doing something that no one else is doing is nice but that doesn't mean it's good. Look at Pollock's work (as portrayed by Ed Harris); the art still sucked "But oooooh.... Ahhhhhhhhh.... what vision!"

People like art (and film is an art form with many types of work) for different reasons and Kubrick's films I find usually (not always) a waste of my time.

The take that "...considered a visionary. He was doing things that hadn't been done at the time..." completely validates my take earlier of people being caught up in the "Man more than the Movies."

Terms like "He was a visionary" and "He shunned the system and did things his own way" is great for the book but it doesn't speak anything about the actual work.

[Anartiste]

I second Storyteller's view...almost totally.

The "almost" part is that I don't think Kubrick's been much copied. Or so badly that I can't consider that a valuable argument for viewers of today to get bored in front of 2001. The only aspect I could think of would be the extensive use of steadycam like he did in "The Shining", but even there, I never found this shortissimo-focal-length-with-subject-centered-in-the-frame style anywhere else.

[Anartiste]

My like or dislike for a film (or any art for that matter) is objective and if it doesn't do it for me; it doesn't do it for me.

You mean "subjective", John ? Still the ex-God syndrom.

You're a lucky bastard I like you very much — at least your DVXuser avatar. For anyone else, I would already be on my way to you with my axe, my cane and my bowler hat whistling a Beethoven tune.

I kind of remember we already had a disagreement on which Alien was the greatest. You chose Jim "caterpillar" Cameron and I chose Ridley "hawk eye" Scott.

You're a great challenge for my sense of tolerance, John. But I like you though because you're a passionate guy :)

[J.R. Hudson]

No, no. I meant Objective

Uninfluenced by emotions or personal prejudices: an objective critic or
Based on observable phenomena; presented factually: an objective appraisal.


I concur my Parisan friend. But if I see you coming with the ax I'll have to conquer.

[Anartiste]

I'm in a hurry so I'll try to make this short (for once).

I don't think there's such thing as "objective", especially when talking about art. The best we can do is to temper our subjectivity with the others' subjectivity, and that's already quite a challenge.

I'll quote you again, John : "My like or dislike for a film (or any art for that matter) is objective and if it doesn't do it for me; it doesn't do it for me."

In a single phrase, you just say that your vision being objective, when it's not working for you, then it's not working in the absolute.

Wahoo… I hope this is not the bottom of your thought (I know it isn't, is it ?) This is the kind of philosophy that lead some rascals to burn thousands of book 70 years ago in the streets of Berlin. And this was just a few years before they burnt the authors of the books. :-X

I don't want to take that chatting too seriously — we're all kind persons here. But I'm appalled by your view. Am I the only one ?

[Barry_Green]

For anyone else, I would already be on my way to you with my axe, my cane and my bowler hat whistling a Beethoven tune.

Anartiste, you are one funny guy. I gotta say it's usually between you and IAL as for who's funniest on this board. The fact that you're pulling it off and it's a foreign language to you is just amazing!

[Brad_Thames]

I think this little argument can be settled with a brief paragraph from the voice of reason (uhhh... me?) ;D

I credit/blame MTV quick cutting videos and TV shows, for making a slow paced film unacceptable to the average viewer these days. Hence the reason why your average viewer wouldn't have the patience to watch 2001 today.


For the average viewer maybe so. But I am not an average viewer and I still didn't like it, though I had the patience to watch the whole thing. I'm not saying it sucked, it just didn't do it for me.

I haven't watched MTV since Headbangers Ball ended around 1990. Can't stand it. I am very much drawn to slow paced movies. I just watched Koyaanisqatsi for the first time and sat mesmerized for an hour and a half. And even though it had some visually fast sequences with time-lapse, it was still a slow-paced film. It was also made 20 years ago and I still got it.

[David Jimerson]

I just watched *Koyaanisqatsi

Did you type that from memory? Tell the truth!

[Brad_Thames]

weeelllllll....no. OK, so I had 2 "n's" instead of 2 "a's". But I was dang close. Thank God for high-speed internet ;)

[David Jimerson]

I think I would have put in the K and the I and then just inserted random As, Ns, Ts, and Ys.

[J.R. Hudson]

I'm in a hurry so I'll try to make this short (for once).

I don't think there's such thing as "objective", especially when talking about art. The best we can do is to temper our subjectivity with the others' subjectivity, and that's already quite a challenge.

I'll quote you again, John : "My like or dislike for a film (or any art for that matter) is objective and if it doesn't do it for me; it doesn't do it for me."

In a single phrase, you just say that your vision being objective, when it's not working for you, then it's not working in the absolute.

Wahoo… I hope this is not the bottom of your thought (I know it isn't, is it ?) This is the kind of philosophy that lead some rascals to burn thousands of book 70 years ago in the streets of Berlin. And this was just a few years before they burnt the authors of the books. *:-X

I don't want to take that chatting too seriously — we're all kind persons here. But I'm appalled by your view. Am I the only one ?

I have thought about my like or dislike for Kubrick. *I have thought 'Objectively' (You know, *"Uninfluenced by emotions or personal prejudices: an objective critic or *
Based on observable phenomena; presented factually: an objective appraisal.)

If it satisifies you, we can say that my 'Objective Opinion' or simply say my "like or dislike" of ANYTHING stems from a 'Subjective' decision.

To compare this 'thought process' to a "philosophy" is what's really at the "bottom" and to liken it "that lead some rascals to burn thousands of book 70 years ago in the streets of Berlin. And this was just a few years before they burnt the authors of the books" is what is really appalling.

You can be shocked/dismayed and on the verge of tears. *The opinion still stands and to disagree or attempt to discredit this opinion is really the kind of thought process that leads down the road you are trying to navigate.

And in asking the predictable question of "Am I the only one?" is really just an attempt to rally support, isn't it?

[PaleRider]

I would like to adress the gentlemen, Check Yourself.

I agree, Kubrick is all up on every single one of us. It is inevitable that those without an argument will, indeed, stoop so low, to go so far as to claim that the films he makes are too long to watch. Only the week minded are able to use this *excuse. Kubrick utilizes pure cinema, images without words, to convey to us the audience his genius.

2001 Changed my life. It gave me a purpose to go on living.

[David Jimerson]

Aw, man -- this is starting to take on all the characteristics of a Mac v. PC debate . . . :-/

[PaleRider]

What the bloody are you talking about PC v. Mac. There's no bloody comparison. The mac triumphs.

So Say I.

[David Jimerson]

Yes. Just like that.

[PaleRider]

How much of my life must I sacrifice before becomeing a Platinum member?

[PaleRider]

Daisy, Daisy.

So Say I.

[Brad_Thames]

Weak minded? Not even close.Two hours or 20 minutes, I didn't like it. :P

[PaleRider]

Yes, Brad. The weak of mind believe that movies are here only to entertain. they will waste two hours of their lives in front of TWO FAST, TWO FURIOUS or BIKERBOYZ and feel that their time is well spent.

I lead the life of the mind. Therefore, when I go to waste two hours and twenty minutes of my life, I expect to have an epiphone, whereby the rest of my life is revealed and I re-evaluate the path I am on. I dont go to see movies. I go to the Cinema. I bow down before the almighty ashen Monolith.

[David Jimerson]

Ummm . . .

"Epiphany."

:D

[David Jimerson]

Oh, and ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

[J.R. Hudson]

http://www.epiphone.com/images/42_01.jpg

[David Jimerson]

Ratts.

[J.R. Hudson]

Usually all I get at the theatre is a free CD Single with a Large Coke. Are they giving away Les Pauls in Austrian theatres?

[PaleRider]

If Kubrick is not our god, who then shall it be? The only other earth man that even measures up with Kubrick is the Uninvited Kid. He wails.

[n0signal]

You all know the motto "Opinions are like assholes..."

Mine is that Kubrick was an amazing and influential filmmaker and a true auteur. 2001 is one of my favourite all time films. Anyone has the right to disagree.

I read a letter in a film mag the other by someone slagging off Seven Samurai. :o

[David Jimerson]

You all know the motto "Opinions are like assholes..."



How true! ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

[PaleRider]

I was actually talking about receiving a guitar (epiphone) when I showed up to see the film. It actually happened, but that's another story. Good catch. After hearing sustain on that baby I knew my life would change. Try it with some distortion on it.

[Brad_Thames]

Yes, Brad. The weak of mind believe that movies are here only to entertain. they will waste two hours of their lives in front of TWO FAST, TWO FURIOUS or BIKERBOYZ and feel that their time is well spent.


Oh, I will so agree with you there! Few movies that make it to the screen are anything but a waste of film stock.

But, like I said before, each of us pulls different things from films. Some just want mindless entertainment. I'm sorry for that, but they are welcome to it. "Therefore, when I go to waste two hours and twenty minutes of my life, I expect to have an epiphone, whereby the rest of my life is revealed and I re-evaluate the path I am on." --That doesn't sound like a waste of time to me

[PaleRider]

WIZARD OF OZ, PINK FLOYD DARK SIDE OF THE MOON. Anybody?

[BLWolf]

I can't help but wonder what a Kubrick Devotee would think of the films if it were possible for them to revisit the films with absolutely no knowledge of Kubrick or this "Kubrick mystique." If they could view the films with true objectivity would they then proclaim the person who made those films a genius? Maybe, but I doubt it.

It's like trying to tell a Morrissey fanatic that Morrissey isn't a God. There's no answer to this debate and probably neither party will budge.

[David Jimerson]

WIZARD OF OZ, PINK FLOYD DARK SIDE OF THE MOON. Anybody?

An amusing dorm-room trick which gets boring after the first time you try it, and usually even before that unless you're under the influence of something. Ancient history.

[PaleRider]

As I believe that Led Zeppelin not only invented Modern rock but rock me personally harder than any other band, I also beleive that it is possible to get beyond the mystique and judge objectivly both man and his work.

I have done so and determined that yes, he is a form of Deity worthy of worship, but also that everyone should hold this position. Those who don't need to undestand that there is a place for them in films like DAWN OF THE DEAD or BIKERBOYZ.

I am Sparticus

[J.R. Hudson]

probably neither party will budge...

You're probally right. The difference of the two being, those that 'don't dig it' have to listen to the banter of 'those who do' dropping to thier knees and begging god to make them understand why the poor blind ones cannot see the vision they are seeing.

Some people need these things. Better yet, some people need to feel this way about a filmmaker, musician or artist as if there is this higher meaning that warrants lifting the said high above the shoulders and proclaiming "All is good!"

Then there's chanting and sacrifices and big hairy apes and...

[PaleRider]

Thanks for your info regarding the FLOYD. However I was asking if anyone had ever watched the film backwards while listening to the album.

[PaleRider]

You have to sink the music up with the final list of credits.

[PaleRider]

Kubrick works in mysterious ways. To his disciples the path is shown, to the others, I only have sympathy. They do not know what they do.

[David Jimerson]

Backwards? Riiiight. And it's "sync," not "sink."

[J.R. Hudson]

Someone got a hold of the bad water I think.

[BLWolf]

They got ahold of the bad water and got Montezuma's revenge of the mouth.

[J.R. Hudson]

"Montezuma's revenge of the mouth"

I have heard of this; and I have heard it is not good.

[David Jimerson]

Lo, I have witnessed it tonight.

[STORYTELLER32]

Oh hey now, I never said Kubrick was my film god. I just said he was a visionary. His work merits viewing and study by upcoming film makers. There is stuff to be learned by looking at his work and he should not be dismissed as "oh he sucks".

Can someone on this board explain to me why the email notification never seems to work beyond two notices? I missed a whole page worth of follow ups and just wandered in here on my own. (...ahem... john? Mr. moderator sir?) ;D

[J.R. Hudson]

:D

I always clear my notifcations cause I am here every 2 seconds :P

"I never said Kubrick was my film god. I just said he was a visionary. His work merits viewing and study by upcoming film makers. There is stuff to be learned by looking at his work and he should not be dismissed as "oh he sucks".

You are right. I can dig that. And for the record, when I said he was a 'bitch' that was all in good fun as me and the PRO were having a lil fun smack.

Sigh....

[Brad_Thames]

Yeah, and where'd Purpose go anyway? He started this crap.

[J.R. Hudson]

LOL :D

[STORYTELLER32]

Oh I know you guys weren't seriously ragging on each other. At least that's what I was HOPING was the case, lol...

I never clear my notifications and rarely am I notified about posts to a given subject. Can you ask the powers that be about this? Am I the only one having this problem? By the way, how is it you're ALWAYS here, John? ???

[David Jimerson]

Oh hey now, I never said Kubrick was my film god. I just said he was a visionary. His work merits viewing and study by upcoming film makers. There is stuff to be learned by looking at his work and he should not be dismissed as "oh he sucks".



Don't worry -- I don't think anyone was referring to you . . .

[J.R. Hudson]

STORYTELLER32

Do you use quick reply when responding?

Quick Reply Box

Note: quick replies do not recieve email notification

[gearman]

here we go again a another Bruce Logan section, When the film was in the pre stages, Kubrick
had all his Dp's go all over the world to find a desert shot, They came back empty handed, He was pissed, he received a film students reel of a beach in liverpool, that was shot by Bruce Logan and Kubrick freaked out and yelled for this guy to shoot the scene, Bruce made kubricks Dp's look like crap, and he did all this in UK....he was 16 years old......but again I am honored to have worked with Bruce Logan for 12 years........most unreal DP...