Steven Spielberg vs. Stanley Kubrick - Who's the better director?

[HenryFlower]

A clockwork orange was decent, but didn't even reflect the whole fucking basis of the book. The entire message of the prize winning book was not even mentioned in the movie. The Shining was decent, but again missed vital parts from the novel that it originated from. As for Spielberg, as much as everyone just thinks of him as fluff, really no one has presented a better description of the reality in his serious films. And in his "big" pics, no one has ever matched the show he puts on.

adaptation shouldn’t always strive to be a precise replication of the source material, but should use the source material as a guide to create something that can stand alone as its own artistic vision.

also, not for nothing, but Burgess didn’t even love his own book & hated how much popularity it gained after the release of Kubrick’s movie, iirc, & then Stephen King oversaw a different adaptation of his novel that ended up being 100% shite. so who even cares, really?

 

[Madmick]

Spielberg's largely a popcorn director (a very good one at that) whereas Kubrick was an artist, at the risk of sounding pretentious.

I might even say I prefer SS top 10 vs SK, but objectionably you have to say SK was a more talented, visionary director.

I'm tired of this people saying this.

These are "popcorn" films? These are masterpieces.

His most underappreciated classic. Took me a long time to love it. I can't believe how many times I've had to hear, "The aliens at the end were fucking stupid."

Uh, no, bud. The "aliens" aren't the dumb ones.

Just because Spielberg delivers films that deliberately intend to be appreciated on a popular level, to excite and explore the imagination, specifically the dreamlife of boys still full of hope and idealism, doesn't mean he isn't every bit the artist Kubrick is. Why do people always confuse cynicism for artistry?

 

[Hitman81]

Spielberg is probably my favorite director of all time. I appreciate Kubrick but I only like a handful of his movies.

 

[Holic]

Apples and oranges but

If I'm laying on my couch and I have to sit through a marathon of either one, I choose Spielberg for easier digestion.

 

[Halge]

Stanley Kubrick.

I don't want to poop all over Spielberg. He has done quite a few movies I enjoy, or at least find interesting (Duel, Jaws, Schindler's List, Saving Private Ryan), and surprisingly few movies that I actively dislike. If one were to compare the two objectively I don't know who would come out on top.

Kubrick's movies, few though they are, just has a special air about them. The majority of them doesn't really interest me simply because they deal with niche themes. Those that do interest me, I consider some of my favourites of all time.

 

[Takes_Two_To_Tango]

I thought the poll would be a little a bit more closer like 60/40 for Kubrick. But so far the results haven't surprised me much.

 

[djacobox372]

Surprised and impressed by the support for Kubrick on sherdog.

I wouldn't have thought this forum would have so many people who actually understand what a master he was.

 

[JSN]

I like Spielberg and think the Indian Jones Trilogy holds up as popcorn cinema at its very best, but better than Kubrick?

 

[LockardTheGOAT]

I wanna say Kubrick but objectively it's Spielberg. Yes, he did a lot more popcorn films that were largely crowd pleasers, but that doesn't make him an inferior filmmaker - Nor does it change the fact that he has a good handful of truly artistic masterpieces to his name as well.

One important thing that stands out about Spielberg is how large his body of work is. Kubrick took half a lifetime in between each of his films, whereas Spielberg rarely took more than a couple years at most between one movie and the next. And often he'd produce hit after hit, classic after classic, back to back with each other. That's extremely impressive in itself.

 

[THE BOSS]

Kubrick- Moon Landings. Winner.

 

[Fox by the Sea]

tarkovsky

 

[I Fusion I]

Spielberg, because you can rewatch his movies more times and he has a bigger catalog with comparable highs.

 

[SuperHoss]

Spielberg is more commercial, but both are incredible. Personally, I think some of Kubrick's works will stand the test of time better, which is remarkable considering how much earlier he was. Spielberg has many great moments and is more consistent. I think Kubrick took more chances and some paid off spectacularly, some flopped.

 

[Bacco]

Kubrick may be better artist, but Spielberg entertained me more during my life

 

[pointblankstrike]

Kubrick

 

[Texan6533]

In my opinion, Steven Spielberg is the greatest director of all time. He has created and been a part of some of the greatest movies in history and rarely has a dud. The dude has been relevant for decades.

 

[Adamant]

Spielberg in the 80s was GOAT. Hasn't been good in decades though. Jurassic Park might have been his last excellent film. Though Catch Me If You Can was pretty great too.

The Shining is a GOAT level film.
2001 is horrendously overrated. It's 1/3rd a good movie and 2/3rds WTF is this shit?
Full Metal Jacket was pretty good.

I'll take Spielberg

 

[moreorless87]

adaptation shouldn’t always strive to be a precise replication of the source material, but should use the source material as a guide to create something that can stand alone as its own artistic vision.

also, not for nothing, but Burgess didn’t even love his own book & hated how much popularity it gained after the release of Kubrick’s movie, iirc, & then Stephen King oversaw a different adaptation of his novel that ended up being 100% shite. so who even cares, really?

Besides being their own films I think you could argue a lot of Kubricks work is actually commenting on the source material.

A Clockwork Orange is really pushing how far the personal freedom message can be pushed by making Alex such an unrepentant sociopath, Barry Lyndon I think the narrator represents more the view of the time that would look at Barry purely in terms of ambition when we see actually he's more human than that or the Shining playing down the supernatural aspect in favour of family violence and the idea the legacy of colonialism is in US culture as a whole.

As far as the original question goes I think Kubrick is a vastly better "art director", Speilbergs atempts at such cinema from the 90's onwards have never gone beyond "pretty good" for me but of course Kubrick never made pure entertainment cinema the way Speilberg did before that so really best vs best is apples to oranges for me.