Prove me wrong

Prove me wrong.

Attached: TARKOVSKY KUBRICK.png (1030x706, 840K)

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=pJH8hO7VlWE
youtube.com/watch?v=nJiDSbbfk8U
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

I can't, it's all true.

Attached: 1554113326024.jpg (437x437, 66K)

Work on your bait next time.

Spartacus -- a film about man's yearning to be free
Dr. Strangelove -- passionate plee against the absurdity of war
Lolita -- the effect of moral decay on healthy relationships
The Shining -- a compassionate exploration and vindication of a wife and child in the face of the isolation of an abusive husband
Etc.

Solaris -- the protagonist destroys an empathic extraterrestrial intelligence through ego
Stalker -- ego-centric seekers of their individual solipsistic nirvanas risk life and limb to achieve a glorious hedonism
Sacrifice - a delusional patriarch is glorified in the process of persuing his religious mania, his family's ruin a mere trifle

Nice work dude, Talk more.

it's not wrong, but kubrick was all about soullessness, how different aspects in our life dehumanize us. so he's succeeded anyway

more like soul - intellect

Kubrick was the master of making the subjective seem objective, whereas Tarkovsky was the master of making the objective seem subjective.
- some whatever youtube comment, but sound true enough

Kubrick was an autist who didn't understand art. His concept of good art was being autistic about little details and hiding silly shit in every frame.

cute meme

Attached: kubrick photo swing tark .jpg (1140x1167, 240K)

Name one kike with a soul.

bet tark doesn't even have a qt cultist daughter

Attached: Vivian Kubrick.png (2150x1768, 2.79M)

This desu. I think Tarkovsky was a bit autistic too as he approached art in this 2deep4u religious-poetic kinda way. Thought poetry and metaphysics was an excuse for not thinking and DUDE WEIRD SHIT LMAO.

Someone post that meme with his dad telling him to stfu.

>I don't get Kubrick movies and find them boring, but how can I attack them from an angle that makes me look like an intellectual? Will pretending to like Tarkovsky work?

I can't

Tarkovsky is babby's first 2deep4u director, most people can't even explain why they like him past a few sentences containing platitudes about "poetry"

The Mirror might be the only movie more boring than Barry Lyndon

yes, but also people who say that "you have to go deeper in kino bro" when tark, kurosawa etc come up are the real pseudos

Its hard to describe why you like something as simple and elegant as his films. His films evoque a primordial feeling of beauty just like a sunset or a waterfall

A: the "soul" v "soulless" meme is soulless.
B: Kubrick was an overwhelmingly more important director from a technical perspective. He was innovating industrial standards that took filmmaking into the future. Even ignoring the movies themselves, Kubrick was always a much bigger deal.

And then when you watch their movies critically, Tark was literally ripping off Kubrick half the time. He was like Salieri getting buttmad at Mozart and always trying to one-up him, and fucking goofing it. And the irony is that Kubrick thought Tark was great. He loved his movies. While Tark was filling notebooks full of the kind of shit you'd expect a 14-year-old edgelord to write. Tark was too tryhard, too angry, too bitter. He was a reactionary and his movies failed to appealing to anyone other than Kubrick contrarians. He'll always just be a footnote as "that Russian Kubrick knockoff."

Attached: BASED KUBRICK.jpg (500x380, 62K)

BASED

>Tark was literally ripping off Kubrick half the time.
>that Russian Kubrick knockoff
Have you honestly seen a single Tarkovsky film?

Solaris is 100% a reaction to 2001. They've both acknowledged that.

Indeed. While I do sort of agree with the sentiment that Kubrick was something of a cold, mechanical filmmaker, his technical achievements alone earned him his rightful place in film history.

>cuckovsky
Self reflective bitch

Reaction, not recreation. It's the polar opposite of anything Kubrick, just like any other Tarkovsky film.

more like the master of masturbating over dumb meaningless shit just like this comment LMAO

>Reaction, not recreation
yeah being a reactionary makes you a cuck. Other people are determining what you do. You're ceding your own agency and committing your time to spiting someone else's efforts.

Kubrick bailed on the holocaust movie he spent years developing when her realized that Spielberg beat him to the punch. His interests (to his detriment kind of) were always about pushing into new territory and doing things that nobody else was doing. He didn't go watch a boring space movie and think "I need to make an EVEN MORE BORING space movie!" That was Tark. And that's why Tark will never be remembered as fondly. He made one good movie that is mostly just liked now because it had a vidya made of it, and then he made some autistic reactionary films that weren't appealing to 80% of people.

Kubrick understood consumer psychology way better than Tarkovsky. He understood what people need to feel from how a movie is edited and paced and everything else WAY better than Tarkovsky. Normie retards who had no idea wtf 2001 was about still left the movie feeling excited because Kubrick new on a very visceral level how to manipulate the audience into feeling things, while also making movies that dared them to explore their thoughts. Tarkovsky didn't really. Or he just didn't care about it as much. He seemingly had contempt for everyone, which is why normies call his movies "boring."

Attached: The-Shining-011.jpg (620x372, 79K)

>Other people are determining what you do.
>Spends half a post afterwards explaining why Kubrick pandering to retarded dumbfucks is somehow a good thign

Yes Kubrick was a better commercial director who could make a better "product" for the masses. Tarkovsky couldn't give a shit about the Hollywood audience, at all.

Also while you're defending your replacement father Stanley, be aware that he jewed against the work of many other people or work that could be better than his work.
Kubrick was aware of how great Fail-Safe is so he and the pussy ass jew studio sued Lumet for adapting the same novel as him and Lumet had to postpone the release with Kubrick getting all the attention and Lumet releasing it under the shadow.

Fail-Safe is so great it should be played in schools as a mandatory viewing, while Strangelove is just a well executed war satire. Also Henry Fonda plays the best on-screen american president in cinema history, period.

Attached: fail-safe.jpg (1280x720, 285K)

>Lolita -- the effect of moral decay on healthy relationships
KEK

Holy shit. This is the most retarded post I've ever read in tv/. I hope you are baiting. If that's the case, good work.

they're both great, fuck off

Kubrick was more of a craftsman. He needed the stories of others. He could never have made something like Zerkalo.

>Spends half a post afterwards explaining why Kubrick pandering to retarded dumbfucks is somehow a good thign
making movies that are enjoyable to a broad audience is what filmmaking is m8. Kubrick was a producer/director. He was DEEPLY involved in the distribution and marketing and financing of his projects. It was incredibly important to him that his projects make money and have broad market appeal, so that he could continue getting funding for more projects. That's not being a reactionary that's being a good filmmaker.

Making movies that are only appealing to tryhards and contrarians and kind of actively annoy 80% of the movie going audience doesn't make you a good filmmaker it makes you a fucking self-destructive asshole.

>Yes Kubrick was a better commercial director who could make a better "product" for the masses.
He made some of the most influential and important films in history. 2001 is easily fucking "smarter" and more ambitious and ambiguous than essentially anything that came before it, AND it was well-executed and normatively appealing enough that it was one of the first "event movies" that people HAD to see.
>Tarkovsky couldn't give a shit about the Hollywood audience, at all.
Yeah he's a cunt. He's not as good, or smart, of a filmmaker. He was a reactionary idiot.
>Also while you're defending your replacement father Stanley,
not reading anymore. You've made it clear you don't actually have an argument lol. And is this projection? How could it not be?

What's up with daddyfaggots and Tark?

Attached: kubrick nicholson selfie.jpg (1024x755, 124K)

Kubrick loved The Sacrifice tho. Kubrick unironically follows Tarkovsky philosophy of thought behind filmmaking and clearly read Sculpting In Time later in his career. Pretty much all of Tarkovskys films are about a free thinking sort of dreamer romanticist character going up against a sort of cold, material world, he grew up in the fucking soviet union so this isnt exactly unfounded. the main difference is Tarkovsky never put out a bad movie but Kubrick had MANY stinkers even late in his career, and the first three films he made he tried to have destroyed because they were so embarrassing

>making movies that are enjoyable to a broad audience is what filmmaking is m8
fucking lmao

yeah capeshit is the pinnacle of filmmaking.

*Blocks your path*

youtube.com/watch?v=pJH8hO7VlWE

Attached: Paths of Glory final scene.jpg (1191x725, 92K)

>tark fags SO btfo that they're calling Kubrick capeshit
learn to cope comrade.

Attached: kubrick-photo-book-05 monkey lady.jpg (1200x1202, 291K)

Tarvosky is one of the most overrated directors of all time

Who is this Tarvosky guy?

but he's right, you can't reduce an artform to a metric purely based on appeal to an audience

How many times have you rewatched tarkovsky's movies? maybe you saw stalker twice because you didn't really get it all the first time? okay, how many times have you rewatched stanley kubricks films? Like 5 times each film. and if you haven't then you don't care about film
/thread

These threads are cringe. Why can't you retards enjoy both?

I've seen Mirror about 7 times, 2 times screened in a theater.
If you haven't done that you don't care about film.

basic tribalism and superiority syndrome

everyone wants to both fit into a group and to feel like they are better than everyone else

Also (not him), that wasn't what he was saying at all. Rich that you've called him out on bad argumentation.

It is annoying. Makes browsing this site so tiresome. I wouldn't mind a proper Kubrick or Tark thread every now and then but it's always spergs calling each other pseuds

At least Kubrick is not a pretentious hack

Kubrick was kind of a reactionary too tho?
FMJ for example was a response to Rambo & some other movies to show what the was was really like.

> and the first three films he made he tried to have destroyed because they were so embarrassing
Only Fear and Desire, he never tried to do anything about Killer's Kiss and The Killers because they're solid Film Noirs.
>Tarkovsky never put out a bad movie
Nostalghia

Kubrick is good. Tarkovsky is also good for different reasons.

yeah and Kubrick stands WAY above Tark by every standard. My point about "consumer psychology" wasn't that he's pandering to stupid people. it's that Kubrick is literally better at editing and understanding the whole gestalt of how his film is experienced, while Tark is kind of a fuck you autist that seemingly just didn't care about pacing or structure or ending with a crescendo or anything else.

Tark's movies FEEL unsatisfying because they aren't as well executed. They aren't as well edited, and that sabotages the "final product." Kubrick was so brilliant because he was making fuck you autism movies that even if you had no idea what the fuck you just watched, it just felt right at the end. This isn't "appeal to an audience" this is "appeal to human psychology." There is the logical, surface level narrative aspect of filmmaking, and there is that unspoken aesthetic FEEL and the subtext connected to it. You can make a movie full of retarded plotholes or narrative fuckery, but if you get the beats and the flow right people don't give a shit. Kubrick understood this far better than Tarkovsky. That's why his movies were appealing to most people instead of primarily just contrarian snobs.

Attached: kubrick fa af.jpg (1050x1445, 504K)

Define "soul"

Are you calling Kubrick a contrarian snob? Because he loved Tarkovsky and his films, even Solaris.

Kubrick loved White Men Can't Jump too

>Kubrick bailed on the holocaust movie he spent years developing when her realized that Spielberg beat him to the punch.
Now, that is cuckoldry.

You're just a seething contrarian, OP

>that is mostly just liked now because it had a vidya made of it
>because it had a vidya made of it
Imagine being this much of a brainlet.

Attached: 323.jpg (1030x718, 156K)

Kubrick generally was able to appreciate every movie he watched. While fucking Tarkovsky was writing in his journal that EVERYTHING he watched was trash.

That's kind of the irony of calling Kubrick "soulless" and Tarkovsky "soul." Tarkovsky was fucking miserable and bitter about everything, while Kubrick was legitimately an avid film lover and appreciated the production and effort behind most everything, to a certain degree.

Attached: kubrick photo calling all fags.jpg (800x826, 58K)

Damn, OP eternally BTFO

>Kubrick's two last films
>Full Metal Jacket
>Eyes Wide Shut
>FMJ
>EWS
>FMJEWS
>Freemasons and Jews
He was based and redpilled and Tarkvosky is literally worthless sad boy boo hoo faggotry for male art hoes

>While fucking Tarkovsky was writing in his journal that EVERYTHING he watched was trash.
He absolutely loved films from Bresson, Bergman, Chaplin, Mizoguchi, Kurosawa, Bunuel.

Nice imaginary headcanon you have there.

Attached: japan_kuro.jpg (493x516, 76K)

Who is this Tarkvosky guy?

I don't think anyone denies the fact that Kubrick was redpilled af
Still, Tarkovsky is one of the greatest and better than anyone alive today

should a cat really be eating spaghetti?

love Kubie, but Killers Kiss is one of the worst movies ive ever seen in my life. its abominable, nothing in it works, theres a part where the female lead is giving the backstory of her family, the exposition is so unbelievably awful, the dialogue so terribly delivered, It might be one of the worst scenes ever recorded on film. Its also a strangely racist movie, the Killer in Killers Kiss is a wacky black new york pimp that rides around in a convertible, hes obsessed with this white lady that rejects him and he eventually kidnaps her and she has to be saved by the films protagonist, whos sort of a Philip J Fry looking everyman.

>better than anyone alive today
>what is Kubrick
The Mars landing is going to be his magnum opus.

he also hated a lot of their movies. Particularly by the 70s. i didn't save the images that one user posted one time of his journals where he just lists movie after movie that he recently saw and calls them all the same kind of reddit-tier complaints.

Attached: Kubrick_qt sefie.jpg (2560x966, 502K)

>Tarkovsky
>soul
Tarkovsky is a major hack and his Stalker is pointless trite.

>He was based and redpilled
he made multiple movies explicitly about how white men in America are self-destructive idiots being driven insane by their impossible ideologies. He wasn't some nazifaggot tribalist. He thought America was being crushed and ruined by reactionary idiots.

Attached: jack-d-ripper toxic masculinity.jpg (314x244, 13K)

go stare at a painting then you fucking faggot

Well clearly he's not a blind consuming cock sucking fanboy that must automatically love every single film they ever made to in order to love their other work.
He also liked Terminator, doesn't mean he would like Avatar.

The Killing was great though. Fear and desire is his only bad film.

I bet you only like STALKER because of the game lol

>dude go see a painting lmao
What's next? Trying to make reading literature an argument against film?

You need to be Russian and boiling a little bit in the whole intelligentsia circles, to understand that Tarkovsky is hardly unique.

y'all are fucking children. worst thread on the board tbqh.

nice projecting

What stinkers did Kubrick have late in his career?
Fear and desire and killers kiss are stinkers definitely.Lolita isn't very good either.Other than that what bad films he made?

elaborate on this ivan

the virgin russian vs. the chad jap

full metal jacket and eyes wide shut are terrible movies by his standards

>all those buzzwords
you're doing a good job of LARPing as Tarkovsky lol. Doing a great job of proving the point that he's only really appealing to reactionary contrarians.

Attached: kubrick icarus.png (1200x804, 1.09M)

Still better than 90% of threads actually.At least it's discussion for something other than that shitty fucking show and fucking shit fucking shitty fucking capeshit.

>Tarkovsky was fucking miserable and bitter about everything,

Typical for soviet intelligentsia.

So Kubrick is a reactionary contrarian, yet again?

Ok discord tranny

shove that phone up your ass

That's a great quote.

I really like Tarkovsky, but I also really dislike his vision on what the world should be. There is a always a path to redemption through spirituality in his books, which is a totally totalizing and overbearing theme. The very scenes and the time he spends on them , is him trying to beat that spiritual vision into you, which is extremely tiresome.

All of Kubrick's movies have at their center a critique of society and more specifically decadence and mind control. Although his themes are pretty obvious and he never had the gift Tarkovsky had behind the camera, there is a lot going on under the text. Kubrick's movies like the Shining and Eyes wide shut are still analyzed for the little hidden clues he left. It very rare that a director ever managed that.

Jesus, the retards we share a board with.

Kubrick is one of the greatest filmmakers ever. One of the most influential artists in 21st century. You are not Stanley Kubrick. Stop trying to equate your uppity contrarian movie consumer tribalism to his appreciation of a movie that was made as a reaction to his movie.

Attached: kubrick naggy lady.jpg (1194x1200, 123K)

>classic ESL response

Attached: paths of glorying this thread.webm (1788x1080, 2.81M)

>we
you're all alone kiddo. you're always alone. It's just you and your black mirror.

Attached: kubrick busy room girl focus.jpg (1200x627, 98K)

>and he never had the gift Tarkovsky had behind the camera
bruh, look at this dude

The thing is with Kubrick his movies never made me rewatch them again and again.
Whereas Tarkovsky
>Ivan's Childhood
>Andrei Rublev
>The Mirror
>Stalker
>The Sacrifice

I could watch these movies every single year of my life and still find enjoyment.

Tarkovsky's cinematography is unmatched. This is perhaps the reason why he stayed in history as one of the greatest. His scripts , not so much.

BASED

So not everyone who likes a Tarkovsky film is a reactionary contrarian? Good.

>grrr i have been found out
SEETHING

You are a faggot. I love them both.

Attached: hqdefault (1).jpg (480x360, 14K)

you are you sniveling nigger. Keep shucking and jiving. Keep struggling with the language ESL cuck.

>White Men Can't Jump
That's a great movie though, pleb.

>evoque

Like I said here
Tarkovsky is a VERY definitive example of what was the late Soviet intelligentsia (both creative and so called "junior scientists").
And, since I'm sort of grown up on the works of said intelligentsia and their worldview (bitter, cynical, with the delusions of "small man that knows how the world should work" type, with the pseudo-"soul" faggotry and searching for "hidden meanings" everywhere, complete lack of direct honesty despite claiming opposite), his work barely seems out of the place.

I dunno if westerners or americans will understand that, but Tark belongs to a group of men who would snitch on each other to KGB while claiming how they are free thinkers, are opressed by soviets, and so honest and moral. And under that sauce they would circle jerk their awesomeness, instead of well... having actual merit.

The most ironic thing is that, once USSR collapsed, such people would delve into straight up degeneracy masqueraded by "thou don't understand TRUE ART".

That's why there is not that much good kino after the Perestroika, and "Perestroika films (and 90-ies films)" is, pretty much, it's own genre of Russian movie, characterized by being total trash. Ironic, but soviet censorship was also serving as quality control, by which outright shit and "hack"ness would get filtered.

when you say "discord tranny" what you're telling everyone else is:
>you don't comfortably speak english
>you're easily influenced by whatever other people are doing
>you are a newfaggot polcel invader
>you use discord
>you jerk off to tranny porn
prove me wrong

Attached: kubrick photo car.jpg (1200x1245, 246K)

ment for you.

What is ESL? Google says Electronic Sports League

English as a Second Language.

Attached: kubrick creapnpeep.jpg (1362x766, 126K)

>Tarkovsky
>"searching for "hidden meanings" everywhere"
lmao you don't know shit about Tarkovsky, do you? He's literally against symbolism and hidden meanings.

If his films are not enough of proof, here's a quote from Tarkovsky himself about
>People always try to find "hidden" meanings in my films. But wouldn't it be strange to make a film while striving to hide one's thoughts? An image cannot be a symbol in my opinion. Whenever an image is turned into a symbol, the thought becomes walled in so to speak, it can be fully deciphered. A symbol contains within itself a definite meaning. An image — as opposed to a symbol — is indefinite in meaning. One cannot speak of the infinite world by applying tools that are definite and finite"

Stalker is better than any of Kubrick's movies. But every single other Kubrick movie is better than any other Tark movie.

Ahem

Attached: IMG_20190509_215902.png (1046x800, 1.91M)

Andrei Rublev > Mirror > Kubrick films

Attached: tarkovski.jpg (944x617, 176K)

>we
spotted the retard

Why don't you prove yourself right?

aбcoлютли бpeйнлeт тэйк

Moжeшь идти нaхep.

>Bunuel: vulgar
>Where have all the great ones gone?
>Where has poetry gone?
>Fellini is afraid
>Antoinioni is afraid
>muh Bresson
>muh trades said Fellini is a disaster
>Tre Fratellie was awful
>monstrous
>Tonino sucks
>Refremov was a HACK
>Vadim is a PLEB
>I'm glad everyone thinks I'm a cunt
>Rerberg is a cunt tho
>no true artsman but me!
>disreputable whore
>he is a corpse
idk this Tarkovsky guy seems like a real jerk

Attached: tarkovsky notes.jpg (638x1252, 377K)

So how isn't multi-billion dollar directors like the Ruffalos above Kubrick by your estimation? You castigate Tarkovsky followers in comparison to the more numerous Kubrick followers as a lynch pin to your argument, but one can easily say the same comparing Kubrick followers to the more numerous capeshitters. Where do you draw the line, and how would you justify it?

Your other points are more valid, despite the glaring subjectivity of the phrase, "it just felt right at the end", but this just sticks out like a sore thumb.

Literal Yea Forums poster before there was Yea Forums

Efremov was actually a hack though, easily the worst example of commie SF.

>So how isn't multi-billion dollar directors like the Ruffalos above Kubrick by your estimation?
Russos? Why would they be? Kubrick wasn't making popcorn schlock tentpoles.
>You castigate Tarkovsky followers
only because the frigging suck and always make everything about fucking Kubrick. Never see a Tarkovsky thread that isn't mostly just a fuck Kubrick bait thread.

Personally I think Tarkovsky movies are fine, for what they are. I don't think they stand up as "timeless" as well as Kubrick's movies do though. And it seems like he was an uppity asshole IRL while the more you see behind-the-scenes shit with Kubrick it just seems like he was living a comfy, happy life trying his darnedest to make good, successful movies. Kubrick is inspirational and cool and Tarkovsky was kind of an inferiority-complex, virtue signaling, pretentious dick.
> but one can easily say the same
you Russian?
>comparing Kubrick followers to the more numerous capeshitters.
k.
>Where do you draw the line,
this is all just Peterson/Russian propagandist shit. I didn't make this thread comparing Kubrick and Tark. Whatabouting to capeshit made decades after their deaths is waste of time.

I think that Kubrick is essentially better than everyone. He repeatedly made "timeless" movies, jumping from genre to genre, that were smart, technically innovative, and appealing to general and niche audiences at the same time. I don't think Tarkovsky is REALLY anywhere near him tbphwyf. He made like 2 notable films and a bunch of circlejerk films.

Attached: stanley kubrick comp 1984.jpg (598x409, 49K)

For the benefit of the audience, ITT, your characterization of Tarkovsky is laughable. While the type of person you describe existed in the USSR, Tarkosvky didn't even come close. You think you have it all figured out, but you're just a regular seething brainlet

>Never see a Tarkovsky thread that isn't mostly just a fuck Kubrick bait thread.
lies

This isn't empty whataboutism. If you want you can replace the Russos with any metaphor you want. I'm attacking your views on art theory as whole.

You spew a bunch of film platitudes and unwarranted attacks on character, which is whatever. My issue is that you are substantiating it with faulty evidence and you are avoiding it hard.

what did he mean by this

Attached: soarwtf.png (1920x1200, 1.18M)

Imagine being Kubrick and seeing Solaris for the first time. You're still riding high the wave of 2001, convinced you've made a genuinely great movie, and you look forward to seeing whatever Tarkovsky has thought of. And as you watch it you realise he hasn't simply done "reacted" to you, but bettered your Magnum opus in every meaningful way. It must have felt like being a Sunday car racer seeing prime Schumacher drive in front of you. Somehow able to understand what is happening but aware of your utter inability to even mimick it. It's no wonder Kubrick's following projects were utterly disappointing, he was condemned to dream of attaining a craftsmanship he could never reach.

> I'm attacking your views on art theory as whole.
yeah ad hominem shit. Appeals to hypocrisy. All of this is whataboutism when you get right down to it.
>You spew a bunch of film platitudes and unwarranted attacks on character,
not really. Tarkovsky being a pretentious dick informs his movies. He's like bizarro spiteful kubrick to me. Kubrick watched stuff and read everything he could and wanted to build on it and use what worked, while with Solaris at least Tarkovsky saw 2001 and kind of set out to spite it. He had a malignancy and annoying ideology that made him kind of sabotage his own movies. I've watched Nostalghia twice and I still don't fucking remember shit about it. It was fucking boring on purpose and I don't really respect a filmmaker that has contempt for the people getting hoodwinked into watching his fucking movies.

Like the terms "progressive" and "conservative" have kind of been memed into meaningless political newspeak but that's kind of the big differences between them to me. Kubrick was about the future and building on the education we've gotten in the past and the endless cyclical clash between tradition and innovation. And Tarkovsky was moaning about le wrong generation shit constantly and kind of driven by a reactionary conservative impulse and doing things out of spite. Kubrick kind of rejected/ignored shit like spirituality while Tarkovsky kind of used it as a crutch.

Attached: kubrick boot shine.jpg (700x737, 193K)

You know that Solaris is an adaptation of a book that's older than 2001, right?

Attached: 1443092880535.jpg (236x318, 15K)

That was neither an ad hominem nor an appeal to hypocrisy. It seems like you aren't that interested in having a discussion, more just dissecting phrases and going off into unrelated poorly substantiated tangents. We're done.

Attached: 4w5j7k.jpg (600x338, 38K)

I've only rewatched A Clockwork Orange (many times) and 2001 (twice). The rest is meh, Shining is an absolute overrated trash.

Tarkovsky is utter boring pseudo pleb shit destined to be forgotten.

Soz.

doesn't really mean much. Even the fucking wiki says that he was motivated by 2001.
>Another inspiration was Tarkovky's desire to bring emotional depth to the science-fiction genre, which he regarded as shallow due to its attention to technological invention; in a 1970 interview, he singled out Stanley Kubrick's 1968 film 2001: A Space Odyssey as "phoney on many points" and "a lifeless schema with only pretensions to truth."

He didn't even want to make Solaris until the commies rejected Mirror.
>That was neither an ad hominem nor an appeal to hypocrisy.
yeah it literally is.
> It seems like you aren't that interested in having a discussion, more just dissecting phrases and going off into unrelated poorly substantiated tangents. We're done.
well yeah you started whatabouting to capeshit and "attacking my views" instead of just engaging with anything meaningful. If you need to "attack" someone else to justify why a movie or a filmmaker is good, you're grasping at straws.

Attached: Stanley-Kubrick-on-the-set-of-Spartacus-1959.jpg (1024x796, 163K)

Stfu already, you speak like a typical american retard. Kubrick is overrated and you don't seem to know much about european cinema (well, like a typical american retard).

>attacking my views
what the fuck do you think argument is?

Good thread. I like the Soul/Intellect idea.

Attached: 9856896y9865ju.png (635x371, 202K)

I'm interested in what YOU think is an argument. And what IS your argument?

>Tarkovsky is good, and now I will demonstrate this by "attacking" anyone that disagrees

Like I've made plenty of positive assertions in support of my "argument" that you could "attack." Kubrick was more innovative, more important by movie historian standards, more capable of making movies that were normatively appealing, had a better appreciation for the unspoken aesthetic feels you get from editing and pacing, etc etc. What the fuck are you "attacking me" for? What's wrong with my argument?

Honestly do you slavs not get that this shit is NOT how rational people communicate? I get that you were raised in societies that use whataboutism as a go-to self-justification strategy but it's cancer. It's literally NEVER an argument.

>Stfu already, you speak like a typical american retard.
see what I'm talking about? Literally cannot handle argumentation, so it immidiately switches to ad hominem and labeling and everything else.
> Kubrick is overrated
feels based argument. meme concept based on your perception of popular opinion. Once again making everything about Tark connected to reactionary contrarianism.
>and you don't seem to know much about european cinema
idk I have a degree in this shit. I like talking about movies, you seem to like "attacking people."

Why are Eurogooks such malignant assholes?

Attached: appeal to hypocrisy.jpg (625x565, 76K)

I have already stated my argument. I know it's really easy to dismiss a claim by means of a buzzword but consider making an attempt to think about what I've said. You seem to be buttmad over my use of the term "attack", it simply means to put a viewpoint to the test. It's funny how you are the one now resorting to ad hominem between us two.

isn't me btw

Should YOU be eating spaghetti?

>tfw original Star Wars is better and had more impact on the 20th century than anything Kubrick or Tarky ever did
young Lucas was probably and unironically the biggest (and luckiest) genius in cinema history. He took all the essential elements from human culture, mythology and philosophy and created something that no one has ever seen before, but something that resonates with everyone, regardless of their education, status, sex or race. A timeless monomyth. The ultimate cultural zeitgeist.

Attached: georgelucasyoung.jpg (402x500, 38K)

This guy gets it. Kubrick made some great films but none of them have any personal motives behind them. The more personal a form of art is, the more soul it has.

I can vibe with this statement when put to more of a continuum.

>nostalghia
>bad film
Oh, the poor taste...

His films inspired everything wrong with most filmmakers today, with every uneducated indie shitter having a pissing contest over who can be the most deep and nihilistic ("""truthful""") film about humanity.

Nolan is one of them, but at least he knows how to make his films entertaining for most people, while others just go the DUDE 2DEEP4U route and produce 2 1/2 housrs of boredom, as well as obscuring their message out of insecurity.

>I have a degree in this shit
In playing a retard on Yea Forums? Ah yes.

Tarkovsky is pure pretense, how is it soulful when it makes you feel nothing other than boredom and maybe a little depressed from the shitty and hopeless atmosphere of his films?

Kubrick is the far superior story teller, I can go and watch any of his movies and be at least somewhat entertained. Watching Stalker again would put me to sleep

>I have already stated my argument.
but that's a meme argument. And it's also just a contrarianism argument. Kubrick=capeshit. Got it.

And like any kind of "where do you draw the line" shit is just muddy waters nonsense. I stated that I "draw the line" at Kubrick is kind of better than everyone. Whatabouting to The Avengers isn't really an argument. Kubrick kind of started the concept of the "event film" with 2001, which led to blockbuster event film shit like Star Wars, which led to shit like the Avengers. The repercussive effects of his movies on the industry and history are kind of unparalleled.

>I know it's really easy to dismiss a claim by means of a buzzword but consider making an attempt to think about what I've said.
but I don't CARE about that. I don't CARE about "followers" or public perception. my arguments about Kubrick are that he was technically and historically a huge game changer. I don't care about the popularity contest contrarianism memes.

Plus your argument was against a strawman of my argument. Follower count is NOT the "lynch pin to my argument" AT ALL.

Attached: kubrick spy cam.jpg (500x626, 40K)

>Blaming Kubrick for film sucking in 2019
do you blame the beatles for modern pop sucking too? weirdo

>Paths of Glory - based on the novel of the same name by Humphrey Cobb

>Spartacus - based on the novel of the same name by Howard Fast

>Dr. Strangelove - The film is loosely based on Peter George's Cold War thriller novel Red Alert, also known as Two Hours to Doom

>2001 - was partially inspired by Clarke's short story "The Sentinel which was expanded and modified into the novel and movie 2001: A Space Odyssey.

>Barry Lyndon - The film is based on the 1844 novel The Luck of Barry Lyndon by William Makepeace Thackeray

>Full Metal Jacket - It is an adaptation of the 1979 novel The Short-Timers by Gustav Hasford

>Eyes Wide Shut - drama film based upon Arthur Schnitzler's 1926 novella Dream Story.

>The Shining - The film is based on the novel of the same name by Stephen King.

>A Clockwork Orange - film adaptation of Anthony Burgess's 1962 novella A Clockwork Orange.

>Lolita - based on the classic novel of the same title by Vladimir Nabokov

>The Killing - based on the novel Clean Break by Lionel White.

kubrick was a fucking hack

>Make a really good film
>some armchair film history critic pseud calls it an "event film" and blames you for 22 capeshit movies

Star Wars would exist without 2001 anyway. Perhaps it would utilize some different techniques, but it would still exist. 2001 wasn't the main inspiration. Now you will probably claim that it would not have been good and successfull without Kubrick, a classic "whatifism" of a fixated individual.

event films became more and more important as home entertainment technology became cheaper and more common. Kubrick didn't cause it, he just was at the forefront of it. He correctly anticipated that the role of the cinema in the future was going to be entirely different when everyone could watch whatever they wanted on a tablet at the dinner table.

Attached: 2001 ipad kubrick.jpg (1280x720, 74K)

>Kubrick=capeshit. Got it.
Are you even trying? That wasn't my claim in the slightest. I'm starting to lose faith in you. What follows is more of your penchant for tangents, whatever makes you feel like you're making cogent points.

>I don't CARE about "followers" or public perception
See
>"That's why his movies were appealing to most people instead of primarily just contrarian snobs."
>"more capable of making movies that were normatively appealing"

These seem like clear appeals to popularity. Feel free to outline any nuance i'm missing, and try to stay on point.

>Lolita -- the effect of moral decay on healthy relationships

Attached: 1471799070217.jpg (323x241, 13K)

>Star Wars would exist without 2001 anyway.
honestly it probably wouldn't. THX-1138 was literally inspired by 2001, and probably would never have been greenlit without 2001 having proven that "smart" boring technology movies could make money.

And no THX, no Star Wars. Lucas even said that 2001 was "hugely influencing" on the writing and production of Star Wars.

Like the whole resurgence in "smart" space movies in the 70s happened BECAUSE of 2001. They wouldn't have been financed without it having paved the way and been a proof of concept. Lucas likely would have kept making teeniebopper movies if it wasn't for Kubrick.
>Now you will probably claim that it would not have been good and successfull without Kubrick
I mean we can't undo time but my argument is it would never have existed at all without Kubrick.

Attached: kubrick apollo sweater.jpg (600x338, 35K)

I dunno, I kinda respect the fact that he stuck to adaptations of other people’s work. He was a lover of good stories, and stayed in his wheelhouse of putting the written word to film. Can’t say I like his movies that much though, Kubrick could set up a beautiful shot but the acting in his films was atrocious. Hammy, B-movie tier performances.
>TRY THE WIIINNE

It's really weird how Kubrick already reached his magnum opus in 1968, everything after that was mediocre and pretty soulless in comparison to 2001. A Clockwork Orange was the only great film (still, not as good).

Attached: 2001 - Dave.jpg (1440x782, 371K)

>nice projecting
...you destroyed him

>"That's why his movies were appealing to most people instead of primarily just contrarian snobs."
yeah you're literally a contrarian snob. Everything you, and the Tarkfags on Yea Forums always do, is make contrarian arguments. Doesn't mean that there aren't other people that appreciate his movies, but the only people shilling for him and arguing that he's "better" than Kubrick are 100% "contrarian snobs."

Learn to cope.

>"more capable of making movies that were normatively appealing"
yeah this is what filmmaking is. You can make a 6 hour film of a building if you want, it doesn't make you a good filmmaker. These are expensive productions with lots of moving parts, the goal is to execute your vision in a way that is pleasing to the audience.

And these quotes you're cherrypicking to "attack" in your autistic appeal to hypocrisy bullshit are NOT the "lynchpin" of my argument. Those are supplements to the larger point: That he was a better filmmaker, by essentially EVERY measurable standard.

>These seem like clear appeals to popularity.
nope you're just stupid. You have no argument. You just exist to muddy waters and be disingenuous until you're left alone again.

Attached: kubrick selfie.jpg (1236x1920, 382K)

he sounds like a frenchman

>the goal is to please the audience
Well that's entirely debatable

It's rich that you were the one complaining about ad hominem. Do you lack awareness?

I'll preface (since character means alot to you in argument) that I don't believe that one filmmaker can be objectively more valuable than another, and that Kubrick and Tarkvosky (Tark being #1) are two of my favorite directors in terms of filmographic consistency. As you'd expect, I do take issue with art objectivists and their measures of quality, and appeals to popularity as a metric for such is something I take the most issue with. Don't get me wrong, they damn well seem like appeals to popularity.
>the goal is to execute your vision in a way that is pleasing to the audience
How else would you quantify what's pleasing to the audience?

Also keep in mind that I have a class soon, so your response may be in closing.

please , no !

unironically Inception is a movie about fucking your intern

the spinning top at the end is the broken marriage that spread over a age long dreamlike stupor (aka the dream within the dream)

I mean really the "goal" is to at least make your money back. That is most easily achieved by making something that audiences don't hate. Tark is interesting because he was getting that commie funding on a lot of his shit so there wasn't as much of a for-profit motivation behind them. He could make whatever the fuck he wanted (length and pacing wise at least) and he pretty much had a guarantee that it'd be shown in all the theaters right?

I think that's an interesting thing to think about I guess. Kubrick had no qualms with "capitalism" or the idea that he was a "capitalist." He built his entire career by starting with a small loan to do a small project, and increasingly upping the scale as each project he worked on made money. He was a very "American" success story and was making movies about America/The West, designed to be successful in those places, while also pushing technological progress and trying to tell subversive and innovative stories.

He didn't have all these kind of handicapping pretenses of spiritual ideological purpose like Tark did. He was more of a scientist and had more of a scientist's mind, while Tark always seems kind of like an emotional reactionary that cared more about proving he was an artist than making compelling shit for consumers to watch.

Attached: kubrick drunk couple.jpg (544x550, 40K)

Why ascribe a strictly profit-based axiom to all filmmakers? Isn't the concept of true artistic freedom appealing to you?

Related question, do you enjoy avant-garde cinema? Not like 2001 or Stalker, like Stan Brakhage or Micheal Snow?

>It's rich that you were the one complaining about ad hominem. Do you lack awareness?
Yeah I was complaining about it because it always just descends into talking about talking. Which you are still doing.
>I'll preface (since character means alot to you in argument)
It means nothing to me. I don't know who (You) are. Tits or gtfo.
> I don't believe that one filmmaker can be objectively more valuable than another
I mean "objective value" is a weird concept so yeah. In terms of industrial value, historical value, financial value, etc, things that are generally "objectively" determined, I think you can totally determine and compare relative value.
>and that Kubrick and Tarkvosky (Tark being #1) are two of my favorite directors in terms of filmographic consistency.
ok
>Don't get me wrong, they damn well seem like appeals to popularity.
I mean we're talking about their historical, industrial, film critical, etc relevance and whatever else. I'm not saying "Kubrick is better because he's more popular" I'm saying that his success (caused by his ability to always make money distributing his movies, was what allowed him to keep revolutionizing the industrial shit and pushing the narrative boundaries of large budget studio productions, etc. He was a fucking monster.

And nobody really knew anything about him so he it was just these fucking weird movies made by this crazy robot doing things that nobody had ever seen before technologically AND blowing their minds. He was making movies made to sell tickets. You'd go back and watch the Shining again partially just to see how the FUCK he did the steadycam shots, on top of it being goddamn bananas in the last act. He was THE filmmaker.

He was all of movie history up to that point condensed into crazy "must see" event movies designed around triggering people into repeat business. His movies were designed to innovate the cinema experience. Tark's just aren't as interesting to me imhotep.

Attached: Kubrick bendy water lady.jpg (673x1030, 93K)

I was going to disagree with you about sci-fi going into recession after the golden age of the 30s and the late golden age of the 50s , because of all the new and exciting tech like computers, robots, laser, spacecraft etc, that were emerging.
As Azimov said that "The dropping of the atom bomb in 1945 made science fiction respectable" to the general public" but it appears that the space race has lost its draw on captivating the broad public's interest by the 70s.
what you've stated is essentially true.

looks right

>Why ascribe a strictly profit-based axiom to all filmmakers?
I don't think you NEED to. In the west you do. If you make a movie and it loses people money you don't get to make any more movies. We never had gubment funded movies like commies did.
>Isn't the concept of true artistic freedom appealing to you?
Yeah but movies are expensive. they cost a lot of time and money to make. Filmmaking isn't just "art." It's industry first. People invest years of their lives to these projects, having the projects be fruitful is good for them and their future etc. Granted I have a producer/production kind of pow first and an artist pov second most likely.
>Related question, do you enjoy avant-garde cinema?
I did when I watched a bunch in college and highschool but I haven't given a shit about it since like 2012 tbphwyf.
>ike Stan Brakhage
I checked out some compilation dvd probably in the aughts but don't remember anything about it
>or Micheal Snow?
I think I saw corpus colosseum at some point? the wiki sounds familiar. idk if i recognize any of the others. Should I?

Attached: kubrick rich couple.jpg (1600x1030, 472K)

Just re-watched The Shinning lads, honestly not as good as I remembered it to be. Has this happened to you guys with a Kubrick or Tark film?

>EENBIN simply EENBIN
in case anyone wanted the translation

>We saw Zombie II -science fiction horror film. Ghastly; repulsive trash.
What did he mean by this?

Attached: Zombie_2.jpg (259x384, 25K)

how many kubrick pics does this obnoxious reddit faggot ITT have?

idk like 70

Attached: kubrick photo passed out lady.jpg (236x337, 13K)

This fucking thread. Tark made good movies but he was too emotional. Kubrick being "souless" was an aesthetic choice to make the characters in his films be held to an objective standard. Tark never understood that, and seemed to get more pretentious and not be able to keep his personal emotions out of his movies, where as Kubrick always kept it objective and reinvented his craft with each new film.

I love Tark, but it's like saying a fish is "better" than the ocean.

based and truthpilled

It seems like he doesn't really "get it" about a lot of stuff. Like he doesn't really "get" genre theory.

That's crazy that he anticipated ipads in the 1960s.

Attached: Man_working_at_analog_computer,_1968.jpg (1200x948, 314K)

ITT: Tarkfags BTFO

Attached: hey alright.webm (600x255, 187K)

can you elaborate on this?

what was the general russian opinion of him as his movies were coming out? WAs he more of a meme after he died? In America nobody was really talking about him at all until I went to college in 2006. But he seems to be real popular amongst Russians, seeing how as more Russians started using Yea Forums he started becoming more and more of a meme.

Like was he kind of seen as "Russia's response to Kubrick" to you guys? It's hard to avoid the parallel because of Solaris but is that kind of the gist of it?

Like it seems weird that a religious conservative-y type of guy was getting money from the state in the first place. What was public perception of him like?

>Tarkovsky is babby's first 2deep4u director

stick to capeshit redditor

>philosophy
>star wars

sure redd-it

Attached: 1525160155825.gif (265x257, 1.78M)

Attached: 1557420510358.png (1030x706, 588K)

it’s true, he didn’t

it’s astonishing to me that you wrote this as a defense of kubrick. “handicapping pretenses of spiritual ideological purpose”? as in, talking about the human condition and man’s relationship to the divine? as in, the subject of every great work of art that has ever been made? you think it’s a good thing that kubrick avoided that?

saved

Attached: mfw %22discord tranny%22 .png (1370x614, 249K)

are you even human??? this is cinema. it’s not a technical exercise, it’s a dream, a fever, a hallucination. if one is utilising the medium to make art, why should one even consider for a second taking one’s personal emotions out of it?

Attached: leftists.jpg (700x695, 107K)

>I'm not saying "Kubrick is better because he's more popular"
If you got the sense that I was trying to reduce your argument to -just- that then I'm sorry. You were using that appeal to substantiate a greater claim and I found it faulty. Nevermind the "lynch pin" claim, I see your greater point now. I still don't agree with that particular premise but whatever. It's just rich how you seemed to be obsessed with my character until I've stated my position. Don't be shirty.

>Filmmaking isn't just "art." It's industry first.
This is where we are at an impasse, and it's probably the source of our disagreement. I recognize the importance of industry, however I value the art first. It's a really complicated issue and I'd probably agree with you with on a lot of points.

I get what you're saying now, it's just that I don't think audience appeal should play into one's evaluation of a work of cinema.

Tarkovsky has too much soul. His work is vertibably counter-revolutionary.

i’ll take zerkalo over some bullshit revolution any day of the week

Have sex

To benefit the viewers experience.

Attached: 1550315437855.jpg (645x644, 94K)

t. Discord tranny

you think people enjoy seeing emotionless films?

Yikes!

Attached: EC1BACE6-1F50-4ACA-802C-DF8171EDF14F.jpg (703x879, 60K)

>it’s astonishing to me that you wrote this as a defense of kubrick.
I don't need to write shit in defense of Kubrick. Tarkfags are the ones that really NEED to make ANY kind of positive assertions to substantiate their position. By every "objective" measurable standard, Kubrick>Tarkovsky.

So now we need to start looking at their subject philosophical positions and all of that shit if we want to actually have a conversation.

>“handicapping pretenses of spiritual ideological purpose”? as in, talking about the human condition and man’s relationship to the divine?
yeah. woogie boogie stuff for morons. Religion is make pretend. It's crazy how you commies had religion banished for like 80 years and you're gayer for that shit than Italians now.
>as in, the subject of every great work of art that has ever been made?
nah
>you think it’s a good thing that kubrick avoided that?
absolutely. Fuck religion. Fuck ALL that nigger shit. That's retard shit for fucking children. Literally Santa.

Kubrick's "villain" in 2001 was a robot that had conflicting orders. It was reflection on how even the best intended human actions can, when left in the inhumane hands of an artificial intelligence, cause drama and chaos in the development of humanity.

He didn't need "god" or "spirituality" to justify his story. It was a story about humans making mistakes and the consequences that arise from them AS WELL AS a story about how "god" is most likely just some incomprehensible alien cube of pure intelligence and study beyond any individual's perceptive grasp. That's fucking FANTASTIC. STILL nothing has that message.

Like wtf happened to you slavs? This shit SHOULD have been hugely popular in a country that actively rejected religion. It demonstrates a "god concept" entirely absent of religion. How the FUCK do former-commies now hate Kubrick while shilling for some christfag?

Attached: dat floor.jpg (800x509, 109K)

Attached: image.jpg (1464x1093, 679K)

staggering intellectual discourse fellas

why do eastern euro shills rely so heavily on strawman propaganda to justify themselves?
дeлaeт ли cyщecтвoвaниe пpидypки ..

oпpaвдaть быть мyдaкoм ?

does this make sense?

Attached: kubrick dick.jpg (500x639, 39K)

Shut up NERD! Lmao

>explicitly

i’m an anglo, matey, but nice try. revel in your automation all you want. no wonder you dichotomised producers and artists earlier on. you are a sentient filing cabinet.

You should know by now that NAZIS arn’t allowed on 4channel

Attached: C8971A66-FA52-4899-B1D8-C529A9EEED5B.png (500x501, 268K)

>still no argument.
Thought you were the slav I was talking to earlier. Glad to see now it's just some christfag. Time is a flat circle with (((you people))).

And I don't WANT to make ad hominems, you just aren't making ANY kind of argument to respond to.

Honestly why are you such zero-sum cancer? What's wrong with your family?

Attached: 2001 centerfuge magic.webm (852x480, 2.26M)

what’s wrong with yours? quasi-randian, nazi-lite drones don’t spring into being by happenstance, do they? although, truthfully, i imagine the circumstances of your birth involving some form of asexual reproduction.

I was the "slav" you were talking to earlier, and i'm not a slav. I'm as american as apple pie.

Sad to see that you're running out of kubrick pics. I'll be here watching my awesome praxis-based slow cinema while you autistically examine how a porcelain penis fits in with a golden ratio. Loser!

i am curious, truly: when was the last time you saw a piece of art that moved you? have you seen anything by bosch, da vinci, caravaggio? to hell with rational processing - how did the garden of earthly delights make you feel?

Shut the fuck up alt-right incel

Attached: 85794D3E-CBE1-4AD4-AEA6-A64DAAEABA29.jpg (607x504, 62K)

>what’s wrong with yours?
my family? They're ok. Notice that reflexive NO U LOL. Get hosed on cuck.
> quasi-randian, nazi-lite drones don’t spring into being by happenstance
I thought you said you were "anglo" why are you now talking like a slav nigger again? Unironically post proof you fucking liar.
> although, truthfully, i imagine the circumstances of your birth involving some form of asexual reproduction.
Yeah 100% slav comment. What's the deal with you losers? Why is EVERYTHING about how you're an unfuckable faggot?
Whole board full of gook(s) I reckon.
> I'm as american as apple pie.
I bet.
>Sad to see that you're running out of kubrick pics
I'm not it just tied into the time is a flat circle meme.
>. I'll be here watching my awesome praxis-based slow cinema
nobody knows who you are. If you can't share you opinions and build an argument you literally mean nothing to anybody. Nobody will notice or care when you're dead.
> while you autistically examine how a porcelain penis fits in with a golden ratio.
nope
>Loser!
SAD!
>i am curious, truly:
you aren't. You're a nigger.
> when was the last time you saw a piece of art that moved you?
honeslty Chernobyl ep 1 was fantastic.
>have you seen anything by bosch, da vinci, caravaggio?
yeah in person
>how did the garden of earthly delights make you feel?
going to Madrid this summer I'll let you know.
I'm not.

Attached: kubrick betsy circus.jpg (425x440, 60K)

>oh, a thread about two great directors
>it's just name-calling and elitism

Attached: 1553366199280.jpg (960x960, 91K)

read this friend, it'll suit you

Attached: 4u.jpg (1696x2560, 314K)

Attached: Screenshot_142.png (644x644, 936K)

dope contribution random user without an argument.

Attached: annett put down.webm (1280x720, 2.95M)

now i want to know what your beef with slav people? is it the same stuff you have against jews and black people, or is it something deeper? for a man living a life steeped in rationality you seem to harbour some weird beliefs.

how did chernobyl make you feel?

I'm being sincere, you really need it.

This is literally you nazi scumbag.

How about leaving your mom’s house instead of being racist on the internet,ok sweetie?

Attached: F9DAC543-CBE7-47A6-A969-A28E04911640.jpg (960x692, 81K)

>now i want to know what your beef with slav people?
none at all. I think that whataboutism is mind cancer and it's largely been pushed by people under Russian control for the last 100 years. People that use whataboutism and appeals to hypocrisy in lieu of an argument are cancer, and their death is ideal for the good of humanity.
> is it the same stuff you have against jews and black people
I have no actual issues with anyone. I use words based on how effective they will be on the person I'm talking to.
>or is it something deeper?
All humans are exactly the same. We have the exact same brains. Our superficial appearances and relatively-recent environment adaptations mean nothing in the grand scheme.
>for a man living a life steeped in rationality you seem to harbour some weird beliefs.
k
I'm being sincere, get a point.
>>This is literally you nazi scumbag.
why do you feel the need to turn everything into strawman labels? You seem INCREDIBLY disingenuous right now tbphywf. I'm nowhere near your memes.
>How about leaving your mom’s house instead of being racist on the internet,ok sweetie?
yeah this is a falseflag. You're Russian right? Prove you aren't.

Attached: kubrick gravity toilet.png (180x279, 13K)

how did chernobyl make you feel?

tak about that in the chernobyl threads cunt. NONE of this is an argument about anything related to this conversation. It's ALL desperate distraction. If you have a point about chernobyl that you want to make, make it.

Attached: 2001 centrifuge .jpg (830x1149, 173K)

why are you being evasive? i’m not even memeing here, i genuinely want to know how the show made you feel. would it really cost you anything to tell me?

nah I don't really trust the good faith efforts of the people I'm talking to anymore and I'm also drunk and tired so I bow out

Attached: True Grit I Bow Out.gif (320x136, 678K)

Listen sweetheart, I know you haven’t had sex yet and will continue to be a racist incel, but nobody in 4channel wants you here body, /pol/tards need to stay in their place

pic related is you

Attached: 03F05889-5A46-431A-9172-7B6EB1D3E4F5.jpg (900x1200, 168K)

>posted from st petersburg

That's not really an insult to kubrick. He wanted his work to be more machine like in some cases