I hate Stanley Kubrick

[Izulde]

And I believe every word Nabokov said about only two or three words in his script being used practically.

[tanglewood]

I haven't seen it, but I do know that the studio forced a lot of changes upon Kubric for the film. IIRC he wasn't very happy with the end result either.

[Greyroofoo]

I like Dr. Strangelove

[JeeberD]

I love Full Metal Jacket

[tanglewood]

And anyway, Nabokov was pissed off that Kubrick said 'Thanks, but no thanks' to the completely infeasable 300 page screenplay he wrote for the film.

Plus Kubrick is a genius so anyone who hates him is a maroon.

[Izulde]

Well I've no doubt that a lot of it was due to 1950s American mores, etc, etc (which actually helps immensely for the final paper I have to write on the two films and the novel), but it's irritating all the changes that were made.

Then again, 1997 with Adrian Lyne's version, which was -much- more faithful to the novel and a pretty brilliant adaption I have to say, is it allowed to play in American theatres?

Nope. First US showing was a warm summer night on Showtime.

[Fonzie]

Stan's the man.

[flounder]

There wasn't nearly enough nudity in Eyes Wide Shut.

[st.cronin]

Stanley Kubrick's movies are way too fucking long.

[Mr. Wednesday]

Originally Posted by Izulde

And I believe every word Nabokov said about only two or three words in his script being used practically.

This looks like a reasonable conclusion without any context to inform it.

[Calis]

Kubrick sure can make a beautiful looking film though. He was a master of lighting, great stuff.

He sounds like he ranks up as one of the worst people in the world to have to work for though from what I've read.

[Izulde]

Yeah, his anal retentiveness is legendary

[Izulde]

Originally Posted by Mr. Wednesday

This looks like a reasonable conclusion without any context to inform it.

Well, normally such a statement would be hyperbole, but in this case, it doesn't seem to be such.

[Schmidty]

Originally Posted by Izulde

And I believe every word Nabokov said about only two or three words in his script being used practically.

I'm sure he cares while he's playing checkers in Limbo with baby jess......doh!!!!!

I guess he's in New Jersey now. Send him a post card.

[Izulde]

Heh, well I finally got through the travesty. Ugh, what a horrible film.

[Chief Rum]

Originally Posted by Izulde

Well, normally such a statement would be hyperbole, but in this case, it doesn't seem to be such.

Okay, umm, Mr. Wednesday was actually saying in a round about way; "WTF are you talking about? I don't have a clue?" I am hear to echo his unsaid statement. What the freak are you talking about?

Your response is even more incomprehensible.

I only know whatever you're on has something to dow ith Kubrick and apparently a movie he made from a novel. When I think of anyone named Nabakov, I think about the San Jose GK, and then I think of that line from the Police "Don't Stand So Close To Me" that goes "that famous book by Nabakov".

[Mr. Wednesday]

He's referring to the latter. Kubrick made a movie from "that book by Nabakov", see his Wikipedia entry.

The problem, though, is that I sort of understand the point of the original post, but without context it doesn't provide a basis for discussion.

Basically, so what?

[Pumpy Tudors]

Evgeni Nabokov does a kick save better than that fucking hack Kubrick ever did.

[Izulde]

Discussion? On an internets message foruM?

[Lorena]

Originally Posted by Greyroofoo

I like Dr. Strangelove

This is next on our Netflix queue, I can hardly wait!!

[Chief Rum]

Originally Posted by Mr. Wednesday

He's referring to the latter. Kubrick made a movie from "that book by Nabakov", see his Wikipedia entry.

The problem, though, is that I sort of understand the point of the original post, but without context it doesn't provide a basis for discussion.

Basically, so what?

Got it. Lolita? Never saw the movie nor read the novel (although I am vaguely familair with the storyline).

[Schmidty]

Originally Posted by Dodgerchick

This is next on our Netflix queue, I can hardly wait!!

Geoffrey Rush self-indulgently plays a bunch of characters in a movie that futilely shows the "futility" of the nuclear arms race. Psshhh.

What a piece of poop.

[cthomer5000]

I haven't seen all of his stuff, but I think he makes very interesting movies, regardless of how flawed any of them may or may not be. As I've said a lot of times, I'd rather have a director try and fail than not try at all (90% of movies).

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by Schmidty

Geoffrey Rush self-indulgently plays a bunch of characters in a movie that futilely shows the "futility" of the nuclear arms race. Psshhh.

What a piece of poop.

Geoffrey Rush?

[Schmidty]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Geoffrey Rush?

If I have to explain it, it won't be funny.

Hell, even if I don't have to explain it, it might not be funny.

[WVUFAN]

I've like one and a half of Kubrick's movies: Clockword Orange and the first half of Full Metal Jacket.

He destroyed The Shining (don't believe me, Stephen King felt the same way), and Strangelove is only halfway decent because of Sellers, not because of anything Kubrick did.

He did make what I consider to be the worst film ever made: 2001.

[KWhit]

The Shining is a great movie. Not faithful to the book, but who cares? It's a completely different piece of entertainment that is very effective.

And Dr. Strangelove is outstanding.

[korme]

A Clockwork Orange is the shit. I'll pass on Barry Lyndon a second time, however.

[SFL Cat]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Geoffrey Rush?

If you're talking about "Dr. Strangelove" that was Peter Sellers.

I'm a solid "meh" on most of Kubrick's films. His early stuff was better.

[Joe]

well Stanley Kubrick would think you're a hack

[Groundhog]

2001 is one of my favourite movies, and Clockwork Orange is excellent. Full Metal Jacket is OK, but I'm a little tired of all these 'horrors of war' movies... that's no fault of Kubrick's though, I guess. Don't believe I've seen anything else of his, except for the first half of Dr Strangelove while drunk a few times.

Oh, and Eyes Wide Shut. It would have been better if it had an ending. The only thing that kept me watching was wanting to know what was going on, and then it just finished which destroyed the whole experience for me.

[Honolulu_Blue]

Huh.

Well, people have all sorts of different tastes, but I think Kubrik is an amazing filmmaker, easily one of the best directors of all time. While not all of his movies work, the ones that do are simply brilliant.

Dr. Stangelove (one of the top 20 films of all time), Paths of Glory (no one has mentioned this and it's one of his best, in my opinion), Spartacus, A Clockwork Orange, Full Metal Jacket, and the Shining are all excellent films. While I am not the biggest fan of 2001: A Space Odysessy, I do acknowledge the craftsmanship involved. It's top notch.

As for the "Shining", it's an excellent film. It may not be a perfect re-creation of the book, but it easily stands on its own and it's still the best Stephen King book made into a film, despite what King might think.

I did not like "Eyes Wide Shut." Not a huge fan of "Barry Lyndon" either, and I haven't seen the rest of his films.

[Honolulu_Blue]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Geoffrey Rush?

Geoffrey Rush played Peter Sellers in the movie "The Life and Death of Peter Sellers."

Originally Posted by Schmidty

If I have to explain it, it won't be funny.

Hell, even if I don't have to explain it, it might not be funny.

I explained it and I didn't particularly find my explanation funny, but I really wasn't trying and I am sure you could've done more with it.

[14ers]

Is this movie actually available? AI:"The Kubrick Edit"

http://www.djfilms.com/AI.html

As a tribute to Stanley Kubrick, I have re-edited the existing footage of AI in an attempt to create a film that I feel is more consistant with
Kubrick's vision of the story. I call it "The Kubrick Edit". It turned out to be about an hour and 54 minutes, thats 30 minutes shorter than
the original film.

The Story

Act I
This act includes one of the Professor Hobby scenes that I removed; However, every scene with the Swinton family, I left alone.
This is the only part of the story that I know for sure stuck to Kubricks version.

Act II
Most of the stuff I cut out is from this act. In addition to scenes with Professor Hobby, Gigalo Joe, and Dr. Know; I also removed
several lines that no longer made sense after those scenes were removed. I also removed several lines from the flesh fair scene
that detracted from the dark mood of the story.

Act III
I cut down this act significantly. There is very little dialogue, its mostly just visuals put to music, reminescent of the ending of 2001

I thought the ongoing, never ending, endings of A.I. killed the movie.

[Fonzie]

Originally Posted by WVUFAN

He did make what I consider to be the worst film ever made: 2001.

Really? You would consider movies like Gigli, Battlefield Earth, The Adventures of Pluto Nash, Look Who's Talking 2, Leonard, Part 6, or any of the Ewe Boll movies to be better than 2001: A Space Oddysey? I'm not saying your opinion is wrong, but if that's what you're saying then...wow, that's quite a condemnation.

Originally Posted by Honolulu_Blue

Paths of Glory (no one has mentioned this and it's one of his best, in my opinion)

Agreed! Paths of Glory is an amazing movie. Another one of his early movies that I love is The Killing.

[Rizon]

2001 and The Shining are two of my favorite movies.

[Izulde]

Oh, tanglewood, you wouldn't happen to have a legitimate source I can point to about the studio ordering the changes, would you?

[SFL Cat]

2001 is actually a beautiful cinematic movie that obviously bores more narrative-driven audiences to distraction.

[cody8200]

The Shining is in my top 5. Clockwork Orange in my top 25.

[tanglewood]

Originally Posted by Izulde

Oh, tanglewood, you wouldn't happen to have a legitimate source I can point to about the studio ordering the changes, would you?

He breifly mentions it here. I'll try to look for something else that goes into more detail though.

http://www.visual-memory.co.uk/amk/doc/0069.html

Edit:

I haven't thourghouly read this but ti seems like it might be of use to you:

http://www.visual-memory.co.uk/amk/doc/0106.html

[stevew]

The second time I watched Eyes Wide Shut I thoroughly enjoyed it. I dunno what it was, maybe the themes or something, but it really resonated with me. I wouldn't suggest that you go out of your way to rent it, but if it's on, check it out. FMJ is one of my favorite movies as well.

[GoDukes]

Originally Posted by WVUFAN

I've like one and a half of Kubrick's movies: Clockword Orange and the first half of Full Metal Jacket.

He destroyed The Shining (don't believe me, Stephen King felt the same way), and Strangelove is only halfway decent because of Sellers, not because of anything Kubrick did.

He did make what I consider to be the worst film ever made: 2001.

King is pissed that Kubrick didn't want his screenplay. Bummer. King's screen version was freaking horrible.

2001 is one of the best movies I've ever seen. Then again, I think you might have to appreciate Nietzsche and some other influences as well to truly appreciate it. IMO, the movie is still untouched in the SciFi genre.

I will say that Eyes Wide Shut is one of only two movies I've ever walked out on.

[cthomer5000]

Originally Posted by WVUFAN

He did make what I consider to be the worst film ever made: 2001.

You're now in my personal "bad guy" category.

[WVUFAN]

Originally Posted by Fonzie

Really? You would consider movies like Gigli, Battlefield Earth, The Adventures of Pluto Nash, Look Who's Talking 2, Leonard, Part 6, or any of the Ewe Boll movies to be better than 2001: A Space Oddysey? I'm not saying your opinion is wrong, but if that's what you're saying then...wow, that's quite a condemnation.

I've only seen Battlefield Earth and Look Who's Talking 2 out of your list, and I would put 2001 below those in my humble opinion.

I tried on two separate places to watch the movie, and I wound up (not literally) yelling at the screen going "WHAT ... THE ... HELL ... IS THIS?".

I would call 2001 the epitome of pseudo-intellectual crap, the very thing I hate about most "art" house films. With a couple exceptions, Kubrick is boring as all hell.

As for the Shining, if you're not gonna be true to the source material, I don't think you should make it. If Kubrick wanted to make a film so dramatically different from the book, he should write it and call it something else. To do what he did and try to sell it off to fans of the book is a disservice and an insult to the author.

But, then again, this isn't just me talking, King said something very similar. (shrug) -- nothing wrong with doing your own thing, just remove the name of his book from the title, don't pander it to fans of King's books and you can do whatever you want.

[Schmidty]

Originally Posted by WVUFAN

As for the Shining, if you're not gonna be true to the source material, I don't think you should make it. If Kubrick wanted to make a film so dramatically different from the book, he should write it and call it something else. To do what he did and try to sell it off to fans of the book is a disservice and an insult to the author.

This argument rings hollow to me, as it always does in these situations.

I agree that the movie is much different than the book, and I don't like it nearly as much as most people; HOWEVER, the point of a movie (for the most part) is to be entertaining to the audience, not to cater to the minority of hardcore devotees of the source material (see the Harry Potter movies).

Most people that see this particular movie are very entertained and affected by it, because they're watching the movie for what it is, not for what they want it to be.

[WVUFAN]

Originally Posted by Schmidty

I agree that the movie is much different than the book, and I don't like it nearly as much as most people; HOWEVER, the point of a movie (for the most part) is to be entertaining to the audience, not to cater to the minority of hardcore devotees of the source material (see the Harry Potter movies).

That's true about the point of a movie, but for some films (comic book, books or characters based on popular shows or well-known characters) that has a built-in base of fans, the director has a duty when choose to use those characters to be true to them. Otherwise there's no point in using them other than to cater to the built-in-fans.

Why do Harry Potter books if you can't adhere to the plots of the books? When a sizable amount of your audience will be fans of the books, you're doing them a disservice when you don't follow the books' plot.

Nothing is stopping a director from taking the very basic concept of Harry Potter (group of friends are budding magic users fighting an big bad guy while going through the trials and tribulations of growing up) and not use Harry Potter. Kubrick could have used the basic idea of King's novel, went his own direction and not called it "The Shining".

The only reason he, or any director uses names like that is because they WANT that hardcore audience. You make a Superman movie expecting fans of Superman to see it. You make movies based on King's novel because you want fans of the novel to watch it. If you're gonna do that, be true to the novel.

[WVUFAN]

Originally Posted by GoDukes

King is pissed that Kubrick didn't want his screenplay. Bummer. King's screen version was freaking horrible.

I thought the TNT mini-series version of The Shining was heads and tales above when Kubrick did. Dunno if that was King's screenplay, but it was much, MUCH better.

2001 is one of the best movies I've ever seen. Then again, I think you might have to appreciate Nietzsche and some other influences as well to truly appreciate it. IMO, the movie is still untouched in the SciFi genre.

Alot of people think like you, and that's cool. I felt it has no cohesive plot, and no ending whatsoever. I've been told the ending is up to "personal interpretation", to which I feel is just damn lazy.

Then again, even though I'm a huge geek and fan of sci-fi, I guess I'm not target audience of the movie. I hate Ingmar Bergman films for the same reason.

I will say that Eyes Wide Shut is one of only two movies I've ever walked out on.

I was lucky enough to choose not to buy a ticket for it.

[KWhit]

Originally Posted by WVUFAN

I thought the TNT mini-series version of The Shining was heads and tales above when Kubrick did. Dunno if that was King's screenplay, but it was much, MUCH better.

SAY WHAT!?!?!?

[Honolulu_Blue]

Originally Posted by KWhit

SAY WHAT!?!?!?

What he said.

[gkb]

Originally Posted by Honolulu_Blue

Huh.
As for the "Shining", it's an excellent film. It may not be a perfect re-creation of the book, but it easily stands on its own and it's still the best Stephen King book made into a film, despite what King might think.

I don't disagree that "Shining" is a good movie, but I would pick "The Shawshank Redemption" and "The Green Mile" before it as Stephen King's best writing made into film.