I hate Stanley Kubrick [Archive] - Front Office Football Central

Izulde

04-21-2007, 11:04 PM

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

04-21-2007, 11:06 PM

Stan's the man.

flounder

04-21-2007, 11:15 PM

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

st.cronin

04-21-2007, 11:17 PM

Stanley Kubrick's movies are way too fucking long.

Mr. Wednesday

04-21-2007, 11:27 PM

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

:confused:

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

Calis

04-21-2007, 11:33 PM

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

04-21-2007, 11:36 PM

Yeah, his anal retentiveness is legendary

Izulde

04-21-2007, 11:37 PM

:confused:

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

04-22-2007, 12:21 AM

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

04-22-2007, 12:27 AM

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

Chief Rum

04-22-2007, 12:36 AM

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

04-22-2007, 12:38 AM

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

04-22-2007, 12:38 AM

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

Izulde

04-22-2007, 12:45 AM

Discussion? On an internets message foruM?

Lorena

04-22-2007, 12:47 AM

I like Dr. Strangelove

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

Chief Rum

04-22-2007, 01:04 AM

Schmidty

04-22-2007, 01:29 AM

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

04-22-2007, 01:48 AM

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

04-22-2007, 02:24 AM

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

04-22-2007, 02:47 AM

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

04-22-2007, 04:11 AM

KWhit

04-22-2007, 08:32 AM

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

04-22-2007, 01:11 PM

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

SFL Cat

04-22-2007, 05:56 PM

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

04-22-2007, 06:00 PM

well Stanley Kubrick would think you're a hack

Groundhog

04-22-2007, 06:06 PM

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

04-22-2007, 06:50 PM

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

04-22-2007, 06:53 PM

Geoffrey Rush?

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

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

04-22-2007, 07:01 PM

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

04-22-2007, 09:40 PM

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.

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

04-22-2007, 09:59 PM

2001 and The Shining are two of my favorite movies.

Izulde

04-22-2007, 10:01 PM

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

04-22-2007, 10:04 PM

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

cody8200

04-22-2007, 10:43 PM

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

tanglewood

04-23-2007, 06:32 AM

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

04-23-2007, 06:53 AM

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

04-24-2007, 10:32 PM

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

04-24-2007, 10:52 PM

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

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

WVUFAN

04-24-2007, 11:16 PM

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

04-24-2007, 11:28 PM

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

04-25-2007, 12:05 AM

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

04-25-2007, 12:20 AM

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

04-25-2007, 12:20 PM

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.

:eek:

SAY WHAT!?!?!?

Honolulu_Blue

04-25-2007, 12:27 PM

:eek:

SAY WHAT!?!?!?

What he said.

gkb

04-25-2007, 12:40 PM

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.

Pumpy Tudors

04-25-2007, 12:56 PM

I will say that Eyes Wide Shut is one of only two movies I've ever walked out on.
I'd love to know what the other movie was.

lordscarlet

04-25-2007, 01:17 PM

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.

Shawshank, to the best of my knowledge, was only a screenplay, not an adaptation.

Axxon

04-25-2007, 01:18 PM

Axxon

04-25-2007, 01:31 PM

I'd love to know what the other movie was.

FWIW, the only movie I've ever walked out on was "Kiss of the Spider Woman."

Wrong time and place for me to be seeing that one I'm afraid. I was so not into it.

I was headed for the john and one of the two old ladies in front of me on the way to the exit said to the other "This is horrible. I have no idea why we've wasted our time watching this junk"

At that point, but for almost assuredly different reasons, I agreed with grannie and went and watched Invasion USA instead and I actually enjoyed it.

That I remember all of that 12 years later will let you know how bad I hated that movie. :)

gkb

04-25-2007, 01:41 PM

Shawshank, to the best of my knowledge, was only a screenplay, not an adaptation.

I was wondering about that. I knew that it hadn't been a full-blown book so I looked it up on Wikipedia. Here's an excerpt:

Rita Hayworth and Shawshank Redemption (1982) is a novella by Stephen King, originally published in Different Seasons. The novella was adapted for the screen in the film The Shawshank Redemption.

The novella appears under the "Spring" section of Different Seasons under the heading "Hope springs eternal". This is also the name of a documentary on the special edition DVD for the film. Different Seasons also contains The Body, which was made into the film Stand By Me, and Apt Pupil, which was also made into a film by the same name.

I read Different Seasons a LONG time ago and I don't remember the story at all.

Butter

04-25-2007, 02:41 PM

FWIW, the only movie I've ever walked out on was "Kiss of the Spider Woman."
...

That I remember all of that 12 years later will let you know how bad I hated that movie. :)

That's older than 12 years, isn't it?

JeeberD

04-25-2007, 05:47 PM

I read Different Seasons a LONG time ago and I don't remember the story at all.

:confused:

Dude, that's some of SK's best work. And that's coming from a huge fan of his...

Groundhog

04-25-2007, 06:08 PM

Only movie I've ever walked out on was that King Arthur movie from a few years ago. The one where the Danes spoke like New Yorkers.

Axxon

04-25-2007, 06:09 PM

That's older than 12 years, isn't it? Yep, +10. Can't do math very well while doing tech support at the same time. :D

st.cronin

04-25-2007, 06:10 PM

I almost walked out of Blair Witch Project. I think I've actually walked out of a couple of others, but it wasn't because they were bad, it was because they were so boring that I have since forgotten everything about them.

Axxon

04-25-2007, 07:01 PM

I really wanted to walk out of the movie Grizzly when I was a kid. I was 13 years old and nowhere near ready for the violence in this thing. Plus it was a drop off deal so I was seeing it alone. I have no clue why I wasn't id'ed or anything but there you go.

I felt physically ill after it was over but my ride hadn't come by and even with the queasiness I watched the thing again since it was sickening and yet cool at the same time.

Ah, to be a kid again. :)

[edit]

Just checked and it was only rated PG. Hmm, decapitating a horse and blowing a grizzly bear up with a bazooka only rates a PG. Glad there wasn't a nipple or two showing, mighta gotten an NC-17 or something.

gkb

04-26-2007, 10:39 AM

:confused:

Dude, that's some of SK's best work. And that's coming from a huge fan of his...

I'm not disagreeing with you, but for whatever reason I just don't recall reading that story at all. I remember Apt Pupil...although I never saw the movie and I suspect that it sucked. I should re-read Different Seasons.

My favorite short story/novella of his would be The Mist. My favorite movie based on his work is probably Shawshank, followed closely by Green Mile. My favorite book is probably The Stand. I haven't read any of his more recent stuff though...

Izulde

04-28-2007, 10:07 AM

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

I just wanted to say thanks for this, since I belatedly realized I hadn't before. It's proven an immense help in my paper. :)

GoDukes

04-28-2007, 11:12 PM

I'd love to know what the other movie was.

Magnolia was the other. However, later I saw it and liked it. I just wasn't in the right frame of mind at the time I think (I was trying to bang the chick I was there with).

Grammaticus

04-29-2007, 11:39 PM

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.

I'd probably put Misery above Green Mile, but both are great.

And on the Kubrick thing, A Clockwork Orange is a piece of art.

Groundhog

04-30-2007, 12:42 AM

As far as books to films go, Kubrick managed to best the books more than any other filmmaker I can think of. Clockwork Orange, 2001 and Shining were all much better than the books they were based on IMO.

Lorena

04-30-2007, 02:26 AM

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.

I just saw it... or, barely saw it this weekend I kept falling asleep! A little overrated IMO. Oh well, I tried.

JonInMiddleGA

06-30-2011, 10:13 PM

Not sure where to put this post, maybe this is as good a thread as any.

Watched Full Metal Jacket tonight with my son (my umpteenth viewing, his first complete) & while surfing the net during I stumbled across this site.

The Short-Timers (http://www.gustavhasford.com/short.htm)

Hasford was the author of Short-Timers which was the basis for a gigantic portion (damned near the whole thing best I can tell) of the movie.
The story of Hasford's eventual death was unfamiliar to me, maybe not to some of you.

The big find for me here, and the reason I'm posting, is that the writer's friends who maintain the site have included the entire book in .html or .txt form. Great reading after literally just watching the movie. If you've never read it, worth the time IMO. The changes in the movie are interesting, as are noting where things were taken word for word although sometimes used in an entirely different situation.