Movies Steven Spielberg or Stanley Kubrick - Who is the more versatile film director?

[Madmick]

Spielberg and it's not even close. I'm amazed anyone would think it is.

Nearly every movie Kubrick made was a cerebral, dark, satirical drama.

 

[moreorless87]

Spielberg and it's not even close. I'm amazed anyone would think it is.

Nearly every movie Kubrick made was a cerebral, dark, satirical drama.

Its true he had a very definate style although I think he deployed it in a wide range of genres whilst making classics, everything from at least Strangelove onwards for me.

By comparison I think Spielberg's best work was either action thrillers or horror, I don't think any of his latter "serious" work is on the level of Kubrick personally, much of it is "good" but I think lacking in real inspiration.

 

[PurpleStorm]

Spielberg was probably more versatile as he's worked in more varied genres. On depth of brilliance I'm team Kubrick.

 

[Bob Gray]

Using the word versatile gives it to Spielberg pretty handily, imo. As incredible of a director Kubrick was, he was never gonna make something like E.T. Or Jurassic Park. Or The Indiana Jones movies. Or Hook, etc. Now, Im not arguing as to which films are better. What I'm saying is Spielberg has displayed far more versatility than Kubrick. On top of his crowd pleasers and blockbusters, you still have the likes of Munich, Saving Private Ryan, Amistad and, quite obviously, Schindlers List.

As far as who has the more varied output, I think its undeniably Spielberg.

 

[Bob Gray]

You don't think Spielberg took some risks in his career? His filmography is quite varied from animation, to sci-fi, to war, to comedy, musicals, you can go on and on.

For real. I think it only seems like it wasn't as risky because they became so successful.

Studio: "Hey, can you make a scary movie with a low budget and a shark prop that doesn't work? We'll release it in the summer time because summer blockbusters wont be a thing until your movie"

Spielberg: "I got you, Fam." (Creates one of the top films ever made, and and establishes on of the best villains ever put to film by not showing it to you.")

Studio: "A'ight. A'ight. What'choo gona do now?"

Spielberg: "How about make one of the best movies of all time, again, this time by making people love a puppet?".

Studio: "Uhhh....can you do that?"

Spielberg: *Makes the number one grossing movie of all time starring, yeah, a fucking puppet*

Studio: *Literally swimming in money*...."Ok, do whatever you want..."

Spielberg: "Lemme use your money to make some of the most successful crowd pleasers of all time. Change the way filmmaking is done because Dinosaurs are fucking tight. Then win a bunch of academy awards by belting out a couple of classics about World War 2 shit"

Studio: "Proper."

 

[Bob Gray]

That's fine but your argument isn't much more than he's done more films which almost always have bigger budgets. Spielberg is great but he hasn't really done anything that Kubrick couldn't have done. Kubrick could have directed any of Spielberg's movies and created something at least as interesting and worth watching imho. I can't say the same about Spielberg directing Kubrick's movies.

Just to give an example, think about what The Terminal would be like if Kubrick directed it. If both Kubrick and Spielberg directed a version of The Terminal which would you be more interested in seeing? I basically know exactly what I'm going to get from Spielberg whereas I'm genuinely interested in seeing what Kubrick does with the script.

But on that note, what would Kubrick have done with something like Indiana Jones? Jurassic Park? E.T.? Kubrick has never really played those notes. He didn't go for pleasing the crowd. He wasn't ever gonna do something like Hook. I'd argue Kubrick also never dug as deeply into the range of emotions as Spielberg did with something like Schindlers List. Kubrick never made a movie that made me cry. Nor has he, for me anyway, given me a scene that gives me chills every time I see it. Spielberg has this several times.

I feel like Kubrick is kind of like the technical artist. The musician who must have all of his instruments tuned just so...and his technique is always unparalleled. His work is always an accomplishment in many different shapes and forms and was always profoundly interesting, but he was not a virtuoso of the human spirit like Spielberg. Kubrick can always make you marvel at his technical acumen, but Spielberg has done the same, and also been able to heighten your emotional response to his material in a way Kubrick never did.

Again, this isn't an argument that Spielberg's movies are better, but his resume is so much more varied, imo.

 

[fungi]

Stanley Kubrick was a talented, genius level filmmaker.
Phteven Spielberg is a hack. A talentless hack.

There is no comparison.

 

[Takes Two To Tango]

Stanley Kubrick was a talented, genius level filmmaker.
Phteven Spielberg is a hack. A talentless hack.

There is no comparison.

I guess you don't like any of his films.

 

[fungi]

I guess you don't like any of his films.

As a matter of fact I do not.
The only one I, sort of, like is "Minority report", but I like the idea more than the execution. And the idea was Philip K. Dick's.

 

[Bob Gray]

Im honestly shocked the poll is as close as it is.

 

[Streeter]

Kubrick was cutting edge and always ahead of the curve. From a Art point of view Kubrick was better director/movie maker but Spielberg was also but he figured how to do that to a point but not sacrifice what the audience wants.

As for greater range how is this a question ? Spielberg went from Indiana Jones , ET, etc to Color Purple an Schildlers list . What greater range is there?

 

[SirRealKiller]

Hard to pick. Spielberg had many more films and a lot of them were great but Kubrick also wrote most of his as well as directed and I think his films were more "out there" in his era than Spielberg's.

They both have films in my top 5 of all time:
Jaws
Saving Private Ryan
Goonies
Full Metal Jacket
The Shining

And several others that would be in my top 20.

 

[blaseblase]

Lol TS makes a thread and immediately leaps in to shill for one director

 

[Fedorgasm]

Spielberg is insanely overrated.

Robert Zemeckis has a better filmography and hardly ever gets mentioned, yet for some reason everyone thinks Spielberg is brilliant.

 

[Fedorgasm]

Also, neither are known for comedies, but the one time Speilbwrg dabbled in comedy, the result was 1941, a bad movie that nobody talks about anymore.

The one time Kubrick dabbled in comedy, he made Dr Strangelove, which is an all time classic.

So who's more versatile? It's not even close

 

[BFoe]

Kubrick is the GOAT.

 

[BFoe]

If you believe that's your prerogative. That's all good. I just think Spielberg is the more versatile guy because he touched on so many different genres and done well with them. Not just average films. But good quality to masterpieces.

Kubrick obviously has a smaller filmography, but you don’t find them versatile? A historical drama like Barry Lyndon, comedy like Dr. Strangelove, horror with the Shining, epic sci-fi like 2001, war movie like Full Metal Jacket…
Kubrick is pretty much able to make a masterpiece in any genre.

 

[Chesten_Hesten]

Stanley was an artist. Spielberg after Jaws was basically a Corporate Disney director.

 

[Bob Gray]

Kubrick obviously has a smaller filmography, but you don’t find them versatile? A historical drama like Barry Lyndon, comedy like Dr. Strangelove, horror with the Shining, epic sci-fi like 2001, war movie like Full Metal Jacket…
Kubrick is pretty much able to make a masterpiece in any genre.

But it's not like Spielberg doesn't have Jaws (a horror classic), Private Ryan (a classic war film), Schindler List (classic historical drama), numerous sci fi (Close Encounters, E.T, Minority Report) and yeah, he never did a great true comedy, but Kubrick was never one for a crowd pleaser, either. Kubrick wouldn't do Indiana Jones, and if he did Indiana would probably be an alcoholic with rape fantasies or something.

Now, personally, I'd have Jaws above The Shining but it's not really worth arguing over. But I'd definitely put Schindlers above Barry Lyndon, and Private Ryan above Metal Jacket, which I always felt had a bit of a weaker second half.

If we're talking just versatility, I don't see a comparison. Spielberg did more genres, and was more elastic in how he could do something dark and dramatic as well as uplifting and heartwarming.

 

[Ezekiel 25:17]

Whats up with this poll. It says versatile. Which director IS as versatile as SS? Guy has made so many different types and genres of film its actually quite crazy.