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

[mozfonky]

Im not trying to sound dismissive of your opinion, but it seems kind of at odds with everything that recall hearing about The Beard. Some people have argued he's more or less responsible for the success of other movies that he didnt get credited as directing. For example, Poltergeist, which Zelda Rubenstein more or less confirmed before her death that Spielberg was the guy on set calling the shots on a day to day basis.

could be, I wouldn't know really and he's certainly got the credit. I took a film class and in the chapter on blocking (the placement of actors) they used the town meeting scene of Jaws to show how it's done, ya, I'm sure he knows his craft. I'm sure he's put in the work too, but I do know a lot of guys like him who have a fancy title and they are pieces of shit really who just had some luck mixed with being in the right places at the right times and I fucking hate guys like that because they always did their own versions of a casting couch with me, although usually not in a sexual way as far as I know. They were always trying to get me to do all the work to make them satisfied while they did nothing but recieve all the good stuff. It's the world we live in though. Bezos, Musk, Gates, whoever, take the lions share of the credit and the adulation and all the good things of being on top while not having to do any or much of the real work, that's just the world we live in.

As for me, I just don't feed into it anymore. And it's good that all these idiots like diddy, Weinstein, Epstein or whoever are being outted for really not being shit in the first place. More as if they are chosen to do what they do rather than having earned their spot.

 

[horc00]

Spielberg ALL DAY.

Dude thought "I'mma make a movie about sharks" and then made THE definitive movie about open water horrors.

Dude thought "I'mma make a movie about dinos" and then made THE definitive movie about dinosaurs.

Dude thought "I'mma make a movie about aliens" and then made THE definitive movie about friendly aliens.

Dude thought "I'mma make a war movie" and then made THE definitive D-Day movie.

Fella was revolutionizing genres.

 

[mozfonky]

Spielberg ALL DAY.

Dude thought "I'mma make a movie about sharks" and then made THE definitive movie about open water horrors.

Dude thought "I'mma make a movie about dinos" and then made THE definitive movie about dinosaurs.

Dude thought "I'mma make a movie about aliens" and then made THE definitive movie about friendly aliens.

Dude thought "I'mma make a war movie" and then made THE definitive D-Day movie.

Fella was revolutionizing genres.

If popularity is everything then sure.

 

[horc00]

If popularity is everything then sure.

Even if popularity isn't everything, it's still Spielberg.

 

[mozfonky]

Even if popularity isn't everything, it's still Spielberg.

naw, some of that cutesy shit is annoying to some of us. He caters to the audience and not everyone wants their asses kissed.

 

[horc00]

naw, some of that cutesy shit is annoying to some of us. He caters to the audience and not everyone wants their asses kissed.

Cutesy shit? Asses kissed? Catering to audience? Gee I wonder who Kubrick makes movies for if not his audience. Lmao people be saying anything these days to look cool.

 

[mozfonky]

Cutesy shit? Asses kissed? Catering to audience? Gee I wonder who Kubrick makes movies for if not his audience. Lmao people be saying anything these days to look cool.

naw man, I'm not cool and kubrik could likewise be accused of being artsy fartsy, i plain do not get a lot of the wierd shit in the shining and I just read some reviews on Eyes Wide Shut where people were accusing him of being oblique and obtuse just to appear artsy. In that case though, I'm not even sure if Kubrick was even around to complete eyes wide shut, I know he died somewhere around the time it was being made so , kinda cruel to bust his chops for that one not being very clear and concise.

 

[horc00]

naw man, I'm not cool and kubrik could likewise be accused of being artsy fartsy, i plain do not get a lot of the wierd shit in the shining and I just read some reviews on Eyes Wide Shut where people were accusing him of being oblique and obtuse just to appear artsy. In that case though, I'm not even sure if Kubrick was even around to complete eyes wide shut, I know he died somewhere around the time it was being made so , kinda cruel to bust his chops for that one not being very clear and concise.

I've no problems with artsy fartsy directors. I personally just don't think Kubrick has shown a wider range and versatility than Spielberg. And I don't see how Spielberg appealing to a wider audience diminishes his versatility in any way. On the contrary, I find his success and influence in such differing genres as a testament of his versatility.

 

[mozfonky]

I've no problems with artsy fartsy directors. I personally just don't think Kubrick has shown a wider range and versatility than Spielberg. And I don't see how Spielberg appealing to a wider audience diminishes his versatility in any way. On the contrary, I find his success and influence in such differing genres as a testament of his versatility.

I dont' want to be catered to, that's for sure. I don't like directors being tranparently manipulative either.

Kubrick's artsy fartsy stuff is only a problem for me when there is no real reason other than seeming posturing behind it. Then, I have to wonder if I'm wrong, the twins in the shining? Some have said he was saying something with that symbol (forget what now, think it was something to do with 911) and his scene with the bear and man screwing around was similar, was it something I should figure out or was he just trying to be a cool artist and not really say anything? Then, people will mention his IQ and insist that he meant something but I don't know.

I remember my musical hero, Prince, saying that sometimes there was no meaning at all behind things he did, other than being "sick" which was defined by him as doing something no one else would do; artsy fartsy, but as a kid I thought he was cool. only later, as we both aged, did i really tire of his little games.

 

[horc00]

I dont' want to be catered to, that's for sure. I don't like directors being tranparently manipulative either.

Kubrick's artsy fartsy stuff is only a problem for me when there is no real reason other than seeming posturing behind it. Then, I have to wonder if I'm wrong, the twins in the shining? Some have said he was saying something with that symbol (forget what now, think it was something to do with 911) and his scene with the bear and man screwing around was similar, was it something I should figure out or was he just trying to be a cool artist and not really say anything? Then, people will mention his IQ and insist that he meant something but I don't know.

I remember my musical hero, Prince, saying that sometimes there was no meaning at all behind things he did, other than being "sick" which was defined by him as doing something no one else would do; artsy fartsy, but as a kid I thought he was cool. only later, as we both aged, did i really tire of his little games.

Sometimes directors will add some real artsy symbolic or cryptic messages in their movies. Sometime they don't but viewers think they did and then make all sorts of fantastical connection or artsy interpretation to things that didn't initially exist. The thing about art is that there's really no way to tell if the message was intentional or not, unless the artist themselves comes out to clear things out like Prince did, but rarely will they actually do that.

 

[Bob Gray]

If popularity is everything then sure.

It's not like Kubrick was some art house indie filmmaker. On release his films were often pretty divided in critical consensus, but generally popular with audiences (which is kind of ironic, but what do you know?). Some movies regarded as classics now didn't have universal critical praise at the time (2001 and The Shining are probably the best examples).

 

[mozfonky]

It's not like Kubrick was some art house indie filmmaker. On release his films were often pretty divided in critical consensus, but generally popular with audiences (which is kind of ironic, but what do you know?). Some movies regarded as classics now didn't have universal critical praise at the time (2001 and The Shining are probably the best examples).

2001 came out when i was a baby so I don't remember the impact at the moment, just the rep. The Shining was popular at the time, but don't know what the critics said.

It's interesting that a lot of classic albums and movies weren't looked at very favorably in all quarters at the time of release. Mick Jagger has said Exile on Main Street wasn't that well recieved at the time it was released. Raging Bull, which I do recall as a kid getting all sorts of attention, but it's said that it wasn't that highly regarded at the time but by the end of the 80's it was on the films of the decades list.

 

[Bob Gray]

2001 came out when i was a baby so I don't remember the impact at the moment, just the rep. The Shining was popular at the time, but don't know what the critics said.

It's interesting that a lot of classic albums and movies weren't looked at very favorably in all quarters at the time of release. Mick Jagger has said Exile on Main Street wasn't that well recieved at the time it was released. Raging Bull, which I do recall as a kid getting all sorts of attention, but it's said that it wasn't that highly regarded at the time but by the end of the 80's it was on the films of the decades list.

Yeah, I was legit shocked when I read about Kubricks history. I just assumed he'd be a critical darling that maybe made a profit with his movies but not much else. Its not like any of his work was reviled or anything. But it took time for it to get the appreciation it gets today.

The thread actually made me go and watch 2001, which I hadn't seen since I was maybe 12 or so. I remembered almost nothing about it save for the ape people intro and obviously a couple of lines with HAL are iconic at this point.

Anyway, separate from the movie itself it's absolutely shocking how well it holds up visually. Regardless of how you feel about the movie, it's mind blowing how good and even realistic it looks for something that preceded Star Wars by the better part of 15 years.

 

[mozfonky]

Yeah, I was legit shocked when I read about Kubricks history. I just assumed he'd be a critical darling that maybe made a profit with his movies but not much else. Its not like any of his work was reviled or anything. But it took time for it to get the appreciation it gets today.

The thread actually made me go and watch 2001, which I hadn't seen since I was maybe 12 or so. I remembered almost nothing about it save for the ape people intro and obviously a couple of lines with HAL are iconic at this point.

Anyway, separate from the movie itself it's absolutely shocking how well it holds up visually. Regardless of how you feel about the movie, it's mind blowing how good and even realistic it looks for something that preceded Star Wars by the better part of 15 years.

what shocked you about Kubrick's history?

I defintely didn't like everything he did but he did cover a lot of ground. Didn't he do Lolita? and he did that comedy/war film strangelove neither which I really liked at all but they certainly show a difference in how he could work. I've never seen Speilberg show that kind of variety. I could probably pick a spielberg film just based on the music and the story.

 

[Bob Gray]

what shocked you about Kubrick's history?

I defintely didn't like everything he did but he did cover a lot of ground. Didn't he do Lolita? and he did that comedy/war film strangelove neither which I really liked at all but they certainly show a difference in how he could work. I've never seen Speilberg show that kind of variety. I could probably pick a spielberg film just based on the music and the story.

Just how his movies werent instantly recognized as classics, and theyseemed maybe even more popular with audiences than critics as a whole (of the time).

 

[dc007]

Spielberg has always been an awesome commercial director while Kubrick was more of an artist. I appreciate both but the nod goes to Kubrick for me

 

[Berserker13]

racist board is racist

 

[mozfonky]

Just how his movies werent instantly recognized as classics, and theyseemed maybe even more popular with audiences than critics as a whole (of the time).

I was a kid for many of his classics but I do recall "here's johnny" being a cultural thing when the shining came out.

Full Metal Jacket was pretty good but in an era of empty vietnam movies, it might have been a bit too much for that audience to fully appreciate. I don't remember it being the hit that rambo was.

 

[mozfonky]

racist board is racist

against who? aliens? sharks?

 

[moreorless87]

Yeah, I was legit shocked when I read about Kubricks history. I just assumed he'd be a critical darling that maybe made a profit with his movies but not much else. Its not like any of his work was reviled or anything. But it took time for it to get the appreciation it gets today.

The thread actually made me go and watch 2001, which I hadn't seen since I was maybe 12 or so. I remembered almost nothing about it save for the ape people intro and obviously a couple of lines with HAL are iconic at this point.

Anyway, separate from the movie itself it's absolutely shocking how well it holds up visually. Regardless of how you feel about the movie, it's mind blowing how good and even realistic it looks for something that preceded Star Wars by the better part of 15 years.

You could argue I spose he was never really much inline with other film movements of the era and although he made films in genres that were somewhat "in fashion" at the time they were often quite different to what you typically saw and often a comment on it.