Boards > Discussions
Start a Discussion
I have been going through some film threads and one of the predominant subject is related to Kubrick as a film maker and him being seen as overrated. Now dont take out your pitchfork fanboys, i just want to hear what you all have to say.
I think some of his movies are absolutely brilliant, especially compared to other movies of their time. The thing is, a director is the glue that holds the production together but he is not the whole production. A director may say "yes" or "no" to a script, but he usually doesn't write it. He helps hire actors, but it's hard to tell how they will perform together under adverse conditions. The DP and producers have a huge influence on the end product too. All directors have good movies and bad movies, it's just that the greats tend to have better good movies while bad directors' "good" movies usually still aren't that good.
Now let's talk about Michael Bay, who is an evil genius at making bad movies! Seriously, he KNOWS his movies are crap and laughs all the way to the bank!
January 13, 2017 at 11:45AM
Pearl Jam is overrated. The Beatles are overrated. Everything is overrated. What does that even mean? You either like Kubrick or you don't. The older you get the more you realize that everything is an opinion, and opinions are best kept to yourself. Who cares if twenty million people like an artist when you don't? What does it matter? Not to be a jerk or anything, really, but who cares? Do YOU like him? What does it matter what anyone else thinks? Would you change your opinion based on someone else's? If so, you don't really believe in, or stand for, anything. Just a thought.
January 17, 2017 at 10:47PM
Are Opinions facts? nope so there is still a line of argument, is he overrated? Apparently, there is a metric.
February 8, 2017 at 8:54PM
Yes he is.
Stanley Kubrick was the cinematic embodiment of Artsy Fartsy Pretentiousness.
Understand that when you don't understand something that something is not necessary above your intelligence, sometimes that thing really doesn’t make sense and the more you objectively analyze it the less it makes it.
Friends of Kubrick like Spielberg, Scorsese, Coppola even George Lucas never had that problem telling much clearer and also objectively, Better Stories.
Stories like Jaws, The Godfather, Taxi driver, Star Wars and many more before and after Kubrick’s career.
But because they were financial successes that connected with worldwide audiences; unlike Kubrick’s, they are seen as inferior pieces by Kubrick lovers.
Kubrick lovers; often film students or wanna be artists, think he is a "genius" not because they got to that conclusion by themselves but because they are told he was a "genius" by artsy fartsy teachers that were equally indoctrinated into thinking that. They want to sound “intelligent”, like film “connoisseurs” as they regurgitate that stablished opinion without even really understanding what happens in his movies much less daring to judge them objectively because they think they are somehow “sacred”.
Problems start when they start calling “ignorant” or “idiot” everyone else who dares to judge them through the same magnifying glass every other movie of its time is judged and gets to the conclusion that they either don’t make sense, they are not really that good, or they are objectively, BAD movies. Such as “2001”. Aspiring filmmakers who differ watch his movies several times forcing themselves to like them just to fit with their filmmakers fellows, others decide to label everything he made a “master piece” wether they watched it or not, and others decide to remain silent to avoid conflict, and that’s why I dare to speak loud.
“2001” is mesmerizing even today on its visual level, but that is entirely thanks to the visual effects technicians whose work and effort put in the film were screwed by Kubrick's incoherent narrative. Having “2001” being directed by someone else, like Alfred Hitchcock, would have not only reached a wider audience but also it would have had a beginning, middle, and end that together make sense.
No doubt Kubrick's cinematography was influential but I bet it was because the film makers that admired his movies then said to themselves "I can do a better movie using this tools”. That one was George Lucas. He made Star Wars that using the same techniques of scale models, forced perspective, and matte paintings used in 2001 achieved the same level of visual quality as “2001” but “Star Wars” was made for the audience and 2001 was made for Kubrick himself only.
Indeed some Kubrick lovers did their homework and many wildly different explanations of the second half of “2001” have been given; some more elaborated than others, but the best developed and well explained ones required a lot of investigation from different sources, and at the end they are still just that; the justified interpretation of one member of the audience and not Kubrick’s. Which makes them as valid as any explanation you and I can give.
The reason why most of the people who watches “2001” see the movie so drastically different from each other’s understanding or lack of it, is because the thing doesn’t explain itself.
No piece of art or entertainment should require you to do that, it must be self contained, self explanatory. The requirement of external media to understand something is so criticized today with novels and comic book adaptations, but Kubrick keeps getting the free pass.
I still DARE any of those hardcore fans to come here and give us 3 well explained reasons; objective and not subjective cinematic reasons of WHY he was "A GENIUS"... A plus if they can explain the ending of one of his movies and that ending is canon.
In my opinion Kubrick is a glorified John Waters but without a sense of humor attached to justify his work.
June 7, 2021 at 7:26AM