Kubrick is overrated

Okay, now you, something that goes against the grain, that people want to argue with when you say it.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=07TsE6w5M_Y

 

Most things I say, apparently. I have weird tastes and a dislike in far too many things that far too many fucking people seem to like.That list could go on forever.

I really do agree about kubrick, actually... I am not a fan -hides-.

 

Charles dickens is also overrated.

I read david copperfield when I was 12.

it affected my writing style, but, I was 12. it is not life changing shit.

 

Kubrick was a very talented director. A ****, sure, but a great director.

 

Perhaps it's more tempting to argue if you added a reason why you think he was overrated? Not that most people wouldn't fall over such a statement about an overall much appreciated someone/something...

 

In what way was he a ****?

I'm going to go all out and suggest that this thread has failed from the initial post, and is probably very ghey.

ps. I think Kubrick is a fucking genius.

 

That kinda shiz.

 

In what was does all that say he is a ****!

Kubrick was a perfectionist, and demanded a lot from his actors. He fucked about with them in order to get out of them what he wanted, a lot of directors do that, it's part of their job. It can be difficult to communicate to actor exactly what you want them to be, so sometimes it's necessary, and often works better than just telling them.

There may be some who refused to work again with him afterwards, but every other actors who hadn't yet been in one of his films was queueing up for a part, I guarantee.

I'm sure Nicholson had no regrets about starring in The Shining, he might have hated it but I'm sure he loved the end result, as did most people who appreciate films.

 

Perfectionism is one thing, 120 takes is absolute overkill.

 

Its understandable if his films do not suit your taste but Kubrick isn't over-rated, he was a master of his craft if ever there was one.

 

Well, he's an artist. More often than not, eccentric people.

 

I disagree.

the problem is many people assign features to a director that are not in fact their doing, and, he is good

but he is not as wonderful as so many pretend him to be.

 

Who cares if he's a ****, when people talk about he being overrated and all it's not about his personality
To me, in general, it seems rather pointless to call someone overrated or not. I love 2001: a space odyssey and I can see the quality of directing in a movie like Full metal jacket, but if he made one or two shitty movies does that make him less of a genius? Probably. I don't think I wanna get it :cheers2:

 

Well, Kubrick is given more credit that he deserves.... but that's the way people always approach movies. If a movie is good they are going to praise the director, even if the produces/ writer/ whatever is more responsible for the quality.

 

Writing the lines is one thing, turning them into a film is quite another.

Both the book and the film were created concurrently in the case of 2001, and in my view the film is way better. Possibly the greatest film ever made.

As for Clockwork Orange, I'm sure the book is equally amazing and the film would be nothing without the words. No-one could have done a better job of turning that book into a film though.

 

The film's ending is better in Clockwork's case.

 

when I read a book, I remember it as though it were a film

there are comic books I have read, I am not sure if they were issues of a comic, or if they were episodes of their respective cartoon series

that's just how my brain processes it

the film I see when I read 2001 is better than the one kubrick made

the book has better pacing, provides much more detail, and does not rely on cheap tricks to move forward.

the later books, I like even more.

 

2001, the book, was written concurrently with the movie which Kubrick was a coauthor, and was released after the film came out.

 

I am aware

book, still a better movie.