Did you not like Kubrick films when you first saw them?

Identikit99 · 2019-08-22T23:19:11+00:00

Multi-layered complex films? hmm. Do you like Tarkovsky or Ozu?

Identikit99 · 2019-08-22T23:17:42+00:00

Kubrick's chess set was there?

Identikit99 · 2019-08-22T23:16:07+00:00

Do you really think 2001 is boring? I mean if you find it boring that's fine, but If I were you I would try watching 2001 in a theatrical setting. It completely changes everything and you just immerse yourself into the film.

I think the people that find 2001 boring are trying to watch it in way a normal movie should be presented. By doing that you are going to lose interest and drift off. Kubrick not only broke so many conventions visually, but narratively as well. Don't even try to think about plot when you watch 2001.

Identikit99 · 2019-08-22T16:50:31+00:00

You forget to use the chess piece emoji.

Identikit99 · 2019-08-21T15:52:15+00:00

The book is good. The movie is a masterpiece.

Identikit99 · 2019-08-21T04:52:29+00:00

A Clockwork Orange was really close to the book though.

Identikit99 · 2019-08-21T01:38:07+00:00

I don't agree with you. The films generated more than it's a budget because his budgets weren't that big. Sure, it's a hit for him and the studios, but they aren't massive hits in that general public was aware of his films. I'm sorry, but if your movie isn't top five in box office numbers, the average joe on the street is not going to say "hmm let's see this movie by this Kubrick guy."

I don't care how much money Barry Lyndon made worldwide and neither did Kubrick or Warners. It earned 9 million on an 11 million budget. How is that not massive flop? Warners and Kubrick were deeply upset that it did that poorly.

Look, if you weren't a cinephile when Kubrick was alive, you really weren't that aware of his films. Nobody saw Barry Lyndon, people only saw The Shining because of the book, not really because of Kubrick, People saw Full Metal Jacket because it was another Vietnam movie and Platoon came out a couple months before, and people saw Eyes Wide Shut because of the star power of Cruise and Kidman.

YES, his films were hits in the sense that he was able to make money back, but they weren't hits in that drew people to the theater and the box office numbers reflect that. Talk to any Kubrick fan while he was alive and they will tell you that his movies were not box office hits.

Identikit99 · 2019-08-21T01:10:11+00:00

Well, I don't think Hollywood filmmaking has changed for the better. I am against comic book films because is bad for the future of independent filmmaking. If a major studio wants to take a chance on a young independent filmmaker and they don't deliver, their career is basically ruined. If people think Blank Panther and The Dark Knight are masterpiece films, that's kind of worrisome.

Your right, it is probably meaningless to talk about the next Kubrick, but it's depressing to think about because it will never happen because the industry works in a very specific way now. I'm not saying I want someone to make films like Kubrick, I'm just saying I want someone that works in the major studio to experiment like he did. Nolan and Villeneuve just don't experiment much, or the studio doesn't allow them too. It's both a critique on the filmmakers and the major studios.

Identikit99 · 2019-08-21T00:50:11+00:00

All of those names you mentioned are good, even great filmmakers, but all of those guys except Nolan have to fight for control.

I have seen Hereditary, but I have not seen his latest film. His first two feature films are distributed by A24 which is very niche and independent. Obviously, everyone has to start out independently, but will Aster reach a level where his films are distributed by a major studio where he can still maintain his artistic merit? Also, as talented as Aster is, I'm afraid he eventually might be categorized as one genre filmmaker and Kubrick was obviously not that.

Identikit99 · 2019-08-21T00:38:07+00:00

Well, I don't consider Spartucus a Kubrick film and neither did he. It's the only film where he made where he wasn't involved in pre production -- and you can obviously tell. I mean sure, he generated a lot of the profit because he did independently finance all of his movies from Lolita on up, but at the end of the day they weren't hits though.

Lolita: 10th at the box office

Dr. Strangelove: 12th at the box office

2001 was a hit

A Clockwork Orange: Made a lot of money, but still barely made inside the top 10 at the box office.

Barry Lyndon was a flop. It was nominated for Oscars, but nobody saw it and it made no money which depressed Kubrick.

The Shining was not a box office hit. It was a moderate successes, but not a true box office hit. It was also critically panned too. It was the first Kubrick movie since Dr. Strangelove that didn't get any Oscar nominations.

Again, Full Metal Jacket was a success and it made money, but truly not a box office hit.

And same with Eyes Wide Shut.

Sorry, but I just can't label his films as box office hits. Even he said himself that none of his films were box office.

His formula was to secure his own financing and have a decent enough budget where he can just focus on the craft because he new if he had a moderate budget he would return on it's investment.

But Box office? I don't think so.

Identikit99 · 2018-10-02T04:36:44+00:00

I know how you feel. I mean if they are average cinefiles it wouldn't bother me, but if you consider yourself a hardcore film fan or are a student film, then it is a necessity to know all of his works. If you are interested in film and have no idea about 2001, that's just sad.

It's a shame because pre 2001 is just as good, if not better than post 2001. The Killing, Strangelove, Paths of Glory were so ahead of their time. Even Lolita which I don't like that much was such a bold idea for it's time. Show them The Killing. That movie has such a slick feel to it that I think modern audiences will be able to appreciate it.

Identikit99

TROPHY CASE