Nobody comes close

>brocks your pathu

Attached: IMG_5812.jpg (250x361, 36K)

>studies subject for several years
>reads novel 10+ times
>does several takes
>makes sure it's perfect
>isn't easily manipulated by staff
>refuses to make a bad film
Kubrick
>makes political reactionary movies
>little to no respect for lore or history
>board room of 15+ diverse people making decisions
>churns out anything that will return a profit
post-Kubrick

Eyes Wide Shut was horseshit.

>S tier
2001, clockwork orange, Barry Lyndon, shining
>A tier
Spartacus, dr Strangelove, paths of glory
>B tier
....
>C tier
Lolita
>D tier
Eyes wide shit
>doesn’t count tier
AI

Attached: 7C88D3A2-7727-4037-B64C-BE754C5490B6.png (951x613, 305K)

Attached: wump.png (620x372, 164K)

Technique? Maybe he's the best.
Storytelling and emotion? He can't hold a candle to Tarkovsky.

Kubrick was a perfectionist, but Tarkovsky's scenes were the embodiment of SOUL. Watch Ivan's Childhood and Paths of Glory back to back and you'll see what I mean.

fpbp

100% agree. but S tier are all 9/10 films

Orson could be a downright fucking cunt but I'm damned if I've found any interview with him where I disagree with something he says.

>Eyes Wide Shut
>D tier
On what grounds?

Clockwork Orange is overrated.
Eyes Wide Shut is shit.

Zoomer here. The only things I know about Orson Welles is he made Citizen Kane, fucked the hottest celebrity women at their prime, and is the coolest guy all around. Is Citizen Kane the only movie he made that's worth watching? Are his films as good as Kubrick's? I'm genuinely interested in this obelisk of a man.

the killing is a tier at least tho for me personally its s, otherwise agree.

>Is Citizen Kane the only movie he made that's worth watching?
No. What a plebeian question.

>Orson could be a downright fucking cunt
That's what's appealing about him

>Is Citizen Kane the only movie he made that's worth watching?
Literally everything he made is worth watching. Touch of Evil, Chimes at Midnight and F for Fake are must sees.

True, but it's also part of what made him unable to get more films made which is a shame.

God tier:
Citizen Kane, Magnificent amberson, Mister Arkadin, Lady from shangai, Touch of evil
Great tier:
F for fake, Chimes at midnight, The trial
Good tier:
Othello, Macbeth, The stranger, The other side of the wind
Meh tier:
The immortal story
This is not a matter of preferences. This is objective. I personally prefer F for fake and Falstaff to lady from shangai for instance.

Full Metal Jacket would be B or C tier. Definitely one of his weakest.

FMJ is so good

He wouldn't have such a cult of personality surrounding him if it wasn't for his sado-autistic tendency to do 1000 takes of a guy opening a door.

Yeah, I’ve never bought that BS from guys like David Fincher when they claim stuff like “I actually used the 48th take” or whatever.

>Storytelling and emotion? He can't hold a candle to Tarkovsky.
fuck off Russia. Tarkovsky only "compares" because fucking Soviets were desperate for their own Kubrick. Tark being a religious hot head makes his movies worse.

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

What about the guy who made Battleship Potemkin?

>storytelling and emotion
How does Tarkovsky have better storytelling? Elaborate please.

>emotion
Completely subjective. Just because you got emotional over a film doesn't mean everyone else will so this is a meaningless criteria.

Tarkovsky, Bresson, Antonioni, Visconti, Angelopoulos, Tarr, Ozu, Yang, Tsai Ming Liang, Hou Hsiao-hsien, Murnau, Eisenstein, Griffith, Wilder, Kurosawa, Mizoguchi, Bergman, Dreyer, Vlacil.

There are many directors that are on the same level, and even higher than Kubrick.

Attached: pf0599.jpg (700x505, 61K)

They're good, but none of them have made films as great as 2001, Barry Lyndon, Paths of Glory and so on. I think you're just trying to appear special through contrarianism.

N O L A N
O
L
A
N

t. hasn't watched any Tarkovsky, Bresson, Antonioni, Visconti, Angelopoulos, Tarr, Ozu, Yang, Tsai Ming Liang, Hou Hsiao-hsien, Murnau, Eisenstein, Griffith, Wilder, Kurosawa, Mizoguchi, Bergman, Dreyer, Vlacil

Yes, they have. Maybe i just have my own opinion instead of parroting other people's opinions.

I watched a couple of them, they make boring movies.

So this is the attention span of Kubrick's fanboys.

I like Nolan more than Kubrick.

Based (but I'm more of an Ozu man, myself)

That explains everything.

That's explains that you're a movie nerd without life who faps on his elitism.

Stanley himself looked up to Eraserhead and tried to mimic the feeling with The Shining

Name one

Attached: 15.gif (257x200, 1.24M)

Truth

Kubricks good in the sense that he made ‘art films’ but never got trapped in the humanistic tendency of thought or the anti humanistic tendency of thought. But at the same time he’s basically on the intellectual level of an average Rick and Morty viewer when it comes to vision. 2001 is probably the greatest example of this, Kubrick unironically thought (at least at one point in his life) of the conception of the universe in the vein of Neil Degrasse Tyson or Joe Rogan, and he was actually artistically inspired by this, and that’s a mistake that can’t be forgotten. Kubricks film repeatedly showcase this same sort of nihilistic, sardonic ‘Rick Sanchez’ overture that’s become so common place nowadays (partly because of Kubrick himself), it almost can’t be forgiven. Kubrick was great, but these lapses in vision in his films are glaring. I hate the humanists like Ozu or Pasolini or Fellini, I hate humanistic filmmaking and Kubrick was basically a neighbor to that type of work. Wojciech Has, Tarkovsky, Bunuel and the more spiritually meditating films of Mizoguchi are all much better work.

>including Wilder and not Capra

Attached: 1550194354596.gif (200x200, 3.89M)

Christopher Nolan

>Tarkovsky only "compares" because fucking Soviets were desperate for their own Kubrick.
What's that supposed to mean?
The Soviet film boards wanted to shut the filming of Stalker after they found that some of the footage was lost, it's not like the "soviets" were pushing him

if only he had more time

Attached: image.jpg (483x617, 391K)

>he’s basically on the intellectual level of an average Rick and Morty viewer when it comes to vision
I bursted outloud laughing, not out of anger or disgust, but out of the hyperbole of the statement.
Comedy is hyperbolic.

Yes, i watch films that's why i post on board about films. I do have a life although i have been actively combating it so soon i won't have one.

>y-you have no life!
is this Yea Forums?

Here

based and retarded

Attached: batman.jpg (480x467, 18K)

He was actually ostracized in the USSR cause he left the country.

What about him? He was a major innovator in editing and film theory and shit but his movies as a whole were pretty fucking boring. Even with Potemkin, people only give a shit about the massacre sequence on the stairs and the boat mutiny. The other 60 minutes of the movie are fucking boooring. His Mexico movie was boring. His Ivan movies were boring.

Like Eisenstein was an important innovator and is kind of "required reading" in film history but he's really only remembered for a baby stroller falling down some steps.

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

Well it was quickly written. Capra, Lubitsch, Rivette, Lang etc. I missed some for sure.

You'll die a more accomplished and enriched individual than that user anyway.
Godspeed kinobro.

> on board about films
This board is about tv series, superhero movies and bane memes.

>Kubrick unironically thought (at least at one point in his life) of the conception of the universe in the vein of Neil Degrasse Tyson or Joe Rogan
wtf does this even mean? Is this just like what a religious fag says or what?
>Kubricks film repeatedly showcase this same sort of nihilistic, sardonic ‘Rick Sanchez’ overture that’s become so common place nowadays
You're a cringey faggot.

Attached: kubrick cat.jpg (2048x2048, 266K)

lmao he isn't /fa/, just trying to stay warm

Nice list of nobodies. Kill yourself for trying to square the Kube

Thanks user.
Well from time to time there are some good discussions here.

>but his movies as a whole were pretty fucking boring.
It's like you WANT to attract Griffithfag or something

Reminder than when Kubrick does hundreds of takes it's genius but when Fincher does it it's childish perfectionism even though Dave makes better movies than Stan

Hold it right there, OP

Attached: Michael_Cimino_1979.jpg (700x875, 92K)

Because Kubrick's film structure is too formulaic. While both him and Tarkovsky diverge from the 3 act structure, the divergence is much more noticeable in Kubrick's films for worse.

Almost all of Kubrick's films have the same structure, basically two big acts that are loosely related, but are also self-contained from one another. Some times this work for his benefit, as to present compare the first part to the second in an attempt to express certain themes, but always the plot of these films suffers from lack of focus and coherency. Again, all of this is done on purpose, and Kubrick technically executes it well. The problem is that this structure is too formulaic and it hurts the story.

As for emotion, I just feel like there are many scenes that just don't have the emotional strength they are suppose to do. Just take the Lady Lyndon poison scene for example. It's shot perfectly for the time, everything in that scene is excellent, except to give you the feel for compassion towards the character.

Kubrick's scenes are much more technically complex than Fincher's, my guy.

Listen I love Kubicks films, I have this poster behind my TV but that vision of the creation of the universe as an artistic inspiration is laughable, it’s incredibly dated. 2001 has aged phenomenally worse than Solaris, that is just a fact. It is also widely known and accepted that 2001 was a propaganda film for NASA, that’s not a theory. Kubricks lapses in vision cannot be ignored if you want to be objective, I’m convinced Kubrick would even admit this himself that HE was the one being a cringey faggot. He hated being seen as a genius, you’re just a sycophant.

Attached: 5A6EC034-B669-4C40-909D-9C1F2F198795.jpg (371x550, 43K)

Have sex

>What's that supposed to mean?
WE MUST NOT HAVE AN AUTEUR GAP
>The Soviet film boards wanted to shut the filming of Stalker after they found that some of the footage was lost, it's not like the "soviets" were pushing him
I mean yeah they still were. He burned bridges with Stalker, but the reason he's always compared to Kubrick in the first place is because Solaris was made as a "reaction" to 2001, which the Soviets were happy to throw money at. And it's clear from all the Russian posters that circlejerk about him that in their culture he was clearly seen as "their Kubrick," considering how much they love to force that pissing contest.

And I don't dislike Tarkovsky's movies but he seems so far away from Kubrick, in terms of the whole gestalt of their careers. Kubrick never really dropped the ball. All of his movies are somebody's "favorite." While Tark is kind of just remembered for Solaris and Stalker. I'm pretty sure I watched Ivan's Childhood but I'll be goddamned if I remember shit about it.

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

> 2001 has aged phenomenally worse than Solaris
Nope, and I prefer Tarkovsky
>2001 was a propaganda film for NASA
Oh never mind, you are just schizo

give me the link to your blog post

>2001 was a propaganda film for NASA

Attached: 1462894438612.jpg (701x923, 238K)

Shame all that complexity doesn't make for good movies

>While Tark is kind of just remembered for Solaris and Stalker.
Not true. Andrei Rublev, Mirror and even Nostalghia and Sacrifice are well regarded and people's favourites. Kubrick also dropped the ball in his first films, also with Lolita. Tark's career was perfect from start to finish.

cope

Did someone seriously just say david fincher is better than kubrick..... Its not worth arguing with these people. Also tarkovsky and kubrick were both masters of the craft no sense in comparing the two.

As a Russian poster I have to say that I don't like Tarkovsky at all and as a director he's not popular among common people. His movies are autistic.

maybe directors have different messages/styles that have meaning to you based on the kind of person you are so comparing which ones are better is stupid

Attached: homer.jpg (569x428, 108K)

2001 literally starts with 40 minutes of men running around in cheap monkey suits in front of fake looking backdrops, all to make some juvenile associative statement about evolution that only an actual baby boomer would find any intellectual merit in, it’s ridiculous and laughable that anyone would consider that serious filmmaking, it’s a joke.

Don't reply to me, dumbass, you don't know what the fuck you are talking about. Go see a doctor.

Kube is overrated
Some great stuff. Not perfect. Good.
Kube worshipers love to feel elite.

>Because Kubrick's film structure is too formulaic. While both him and Tarkovsky diverge from the 3 act structure, the divergence is much more noticeable in Kubrick's films for worse.
I mean, DOES Kubrick ackchually diverge from the 3 act structure?
>FMJ is 3 acts: Bootcamp, Tet, Sniper
>2001 is 3 acts: Moon, Middle, Beyond Jupiter
>Shining is kind of a traditional 3 act
>Barry Lyndon is 3 acts
>EWS is 3 acts
>Strangelove is 3 acts
>ACO is 3 acts

Like thinking about it, he doesn't necessarily do the "Hollywood" 3 act structure with 15 minute beats, which is really 4 acts with the second act midpoint, but I can't really think of any of movies that DONT do 3 discernible acts.

>but always the plot of these films suffers from lack of focus and coherency.
I mean it depends. He definitely liked to use the second act to lull people into the world with tracking shots and lingering WSs and stuff, but the goal of that is to get the audience thinking about the subtext and broader themes of the story, which is always super focused. Like every scene in 2001 informs the underlying "story" if they seem kind of random or unfocused at first.

> The problem is that this structure is too formulaic and it hurts the story.
I wish more people and movies did the big crescendo endings like he would generally do. ACO, 2001, and Strangelove all do the same kind of big closing image music cue thing and they're probably my favorite endings in any movies. Just end on a big confident huzzah.

>Just take the Lady Lyndon poison scene for example. It's shot perfectly for the time, everything in that scene is excellent, except to give you the feel for compassion towards the character.
I still think that Lyndon is his worst of the movies that count. He got too into circlejerking about muh lenses and muh shot composition and "every frame a painting" and the movie itself was very aloof and you don't really give much of a shit about the characters.

Attached: vivian kubrick barry lyndon lens.png (1666x1462, 1.88M)

>but that vision of the creation of the universe as an artistic inspiration is laughable
When is that? You mean beyond Jupiter? And ARE you a christfag then?
>It is also widely known and accepted that 2001 was a propaganda film for NASA,
Or just a Russian cuck? They literally don't mention NASA. There's no suggestion that it's even still a thing. And they show Russians, British, Americans all hanging out on the space base in the first act. Both 2001 and ACO are meant to show a post Cold War world.
>that’s not a theory.
It essentially is though. Makes no sense. He didn't care about NASA he cared about humanity escaping the planet by any means possible.

>Kubricks lapses in vision cannot be ignored if you want to be objective
Again wtf does this mean? Sounds an awful lot like you're triggered about some religious shit or something.
>I’m convinced Kubrick would even admit this himself that HE was the one being a cringey faggot.
Because he portrays a godless universe? The only "villain" in 2001 was a minor mistake in the programming of an AI? What the fuck is so cringey to you?
>He hated being seen as a genius, you’re just a sycophant.
I don't think he did hate being seen as a genius. Listen to his 1965 or whenever interview when he was working on 2001, he doesn't give a shit about pandering to stupid people. He doesn't give a shit about not being rude if someone is incorrect about something. He intentionally kept his movies vague and mysterious and essentially never revealed shit about his thought process because he knew that the mystery made everything seem smarter than it was. His whole mystique was about selling his movies as "genius."

And how am I a sycophant? You're seemingly making Rick and Morty memes about Kubrick because he's not some (((Abrahamic))) shill or something?

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

2001 IS a propaganda film, that’s its whole artistic effort. It wasn’t funded by NASA or IBM in secret or anything crazy, it’s not like they planned it out like some conspiracy. It’s overtly and clearly a propaganda film, I’m not some conspiracy theory crackpot, you are just being obtuse.

PoG, 2001, FMJ, Barry, ACO all follow this two big chunks loosely connected structure. Just because they have sort of a beginning and sort of conclusion, the formula is still there.

>PoG, 2001, FMJ, Barry, ACO all follow this two big chunks loosely connected structure.
But FMJ is 3 clear acts though. It just seems like 2 because the first act is boot camp and the second and third acts are Nam. But the second act ends with the Tet Offensive and the third act is the Sniper.

And I haven't seen Lyndon in a decade at least but it's still 3 acts. First act he's a nobody, second act he's made it, third act is downfall or whatever.

And with 2001 I guess it's Dawn of Man and Moon base are the first act, and the second act ends when Hal kills all the other passengers. Then third act is Dave killing Hal, traveling beyond Jupiter, is observed in the human zoo, then sent home.

And ACO is much more clearly 3 acts. First act is all the Droog chaos, second act A is prison and re-education, second act B is being released up to getting beat up by cop droogs, 3rd act starts when he arrives at the TRY THE WINE guy's house I think.

POG is first act war, second act trial, third act execution.

Like I agree that he doesn't do as obvious of a structure being driven by the protagonists but I'm pretty sure it's always 3 acts.

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

>hating on Ozu
not cool man

Kubricks attitudes, sympathies, objectives and tendency of thought are all undeniably reddit and ‘Rick and Morty’ in essence, this is what I mean by Kubricks ‘lapses in vision’. Look at what you said here
>I don't think he did hate being seen as a genius. Listen to his 1965 or whenever interview when he was working on 2001, he doesn't give a shit about pandering to stupid people. He doesn't give a shit about not being rude if someone is incorrect about something. He intentionally kept his movies vague and mysterious and essentially never revealed shit about his thought process because he knew that the mystery made everything seem smarter than it was. His whole mystique was about selling his movies as "genius."
In other words he’s Intelligent, nihilistic, and has a wicked sense of humor. You basically just described the arch type of Rick Sanchez. Kubrick was possessed by this type of thinking and it infects his work. Its like the epitome of the Gen X ubermensch ideal, a phantom idol in Kubricks mind and in the minds of whole generation of Americans, and the phantom even possess’ ‘artists’ working today.

>It’s overtly and clearly a propaganda film,
For what? If he was shilling for NASA and if the goal was to be propaganda for NASA he likely wouldn't have had the "antagonist" be an AI that was given conflicting instructions which caused it to think it needed to kill everyone.

Like if it is "overt" propaganda, who for? Who against? What specifically is the messaging that makes it "propaganda" in terms of political messaging?

I can agree that it's "propaganda" in that it's "pro-space travel" and depicts a "technologically progressive" society or whatever but it's not necessarily "pro computer" propaganda that IBM would like because the computer is the villain, and it's kind of not even humanist propaganda because the computer is a villain because of a stupid mistake made by humans.

Like what exactly is it that you think makes it "propaganda?"

Attached: 2001 birth of man.webm (1280x720, 2.84M)

>the post where user lost the argument and all credibility

I THINK IT'S PROPAGANDA BECAUSE IT'S SHIT, STOP FUCKING REPLYING TO ME, RETARD.

What about tarkovsky? Another great director from the 5'7 master race

>Kubricks attitudes, sympathies, objectives and tendency of thought are all undeniably reddit and ‘Rick and Morty’ in essence,
Again this is such a stupid buzzwords thing to say. Means nothing to me. Reddit is full of all kinds of different retarded circlejerks and idk wtf "Rick and Morty" means in context, other than that it depicts a godless universe and is about science or whatever.
>this is what I mean by Kubricks ‘lapses in vision’
Calling something a website and a tv show doesn't help explain what you mean though.
>In other words he’s Intelligent, nihilistic, and has a wicked sense of humor.
Yeah these are good things. And he's not actually nihilistic. 2001 is all about humanity's advancement beyond being apes and literally ends with der ubermensch looking down on earth.
>You basically just described the arch type of Rick Sanchez.
Why is everything about cartoons with you? I don't really care if you think it's like Rick Sanchez. 2001 came out like 50 years before R&M was even a thing. It having potentially influenced a cartoon show decades later doesn't matter.
>Kubrick was possessed by this type of thinking and it infects his work.
WHAT? WHAT EXACTLY ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT WITHOUT MENTIONING RICK AND MORTY OR REDDIT? He liked absurdism, he liked the idea that humanity is it's own worst enemy, he liked scientific advancement, he didn't care about whether or not some Abrahamic "God" existed.

Are you just talking about God shit or not? I keep asking and you keep not answering.

> Its like the epitome of the Gen X ubermensch ideal
Again, him having influenced generations that came later isn't a fucking argument.

>a phantom idol in Kubricks mind and in the minds of whole generation of Americans,
WHAT?!? Being "intelligent, nihilistic, and having a sense of humor?" Why the fuck do you want everyone to be dumb, spiritual, and humorless?

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

So you literally have no argument. You just say things and hope nobody questions them.

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

>2001 has aged phenomenally worse than Solaris

All the machinery is scientifically minded and accurate
Designs are clean and subtle and with no contemporary cheesiness
Literally predicted tech decades in advance unimaginable back then like fucking tablets streaming news

You're fucking retarded.

Attached: 2001.jpg (570x320, 58K)

Neil Degrasse Tyson specifically cites 2001 as the sole inspiration that led him to get involved with astrophysics. Look at the psychological arch type of people like moviebob, this tendency of thought is infectious and spread everywhere.

>retards were inspired by something great
Wow, you are so smart for noticing that!

How are you this obtuse and ignorant? Reddit and Rick and Morty are the perfect synthesis of the collective brain rot of the Gen X ubermensch ideal egregore phantom that has possessed the minds and hearts of countless individual sovereign souls. It’s an illusion, it’s a phantom, these ideas don’t have any depth, it’s charlatanism at the most extreme. Everyone (on here) (should) know what a person means when they say something is ‘reddit’, you can’t keep up with simple dumbed down cultural concepts. It has nothing to do with the portrayal of a ‘godless universe’ and everything to do with it. If you think that’s a mundane point of disagreement, you’re reddit.
>2001 is all about humanity's advancement beyond being apes and literally ends with der ubermensch looking down on earth.
This is reddit
Look at the actual cultural significance of something like that

are you a philosophy bachelor or something?

No I’m just simple kinoisseur fighting a war against reddit. One post at a time

>sam raimi (uncensored)

Do tell more, Im interested

Based

>Martin Scorsese
subtle bait

Because he almost named the J*w and got himself killed for it

>only whites and asians

OY VEY GOY THATS NOT ENOUGH DIVERSITY!!
WHERE'S JORDAN PEELE IN THAT LIST!!!