RogueScribner wrote:but Spielberg is coming up from behind!
man, that's nearly exactly what I think when I see his "endings" lately...here comes Spielbergo, rapin' my ass yet again

RogueScribner wrote:but Spielberg is coming up from behind!
Keepcoolbutcare wrote:RogueScribner wrote:but Spielberg is coming up from behind!
man, that's nearly exactly what I think when I see his "endings" lately...here comes Spielbergo, rapin' my ass yet again!
thedoglippedone wrote:Well Zombie went for Peter Jackson, so he obviously found the choice way to difficult.
thedoglippedone wrote:I know, I thought I'd try the joke without the wink emoticon......
Bad judgment by me as usual.......
Flumm wrote:I just don't have the proccessing power to work it out. I can not choose. I just can not. Who's better than who? Who's the greater genius? Who cared more? Who levitated beyond the boundires of their craft? Of themselves? There can be no way for me to discern such a thing. Alas I am free from the binds of subjectivity, but crippled by the inadaquacy of logic.![]()
So I'm announcing myself as a vote for hire. Want your guy to win? My vote is yours for the taking. The most interesting post, the most compelling arguement, the most inventive, incisive, irrelevent information is all valid.
Convince me.
thedoglippedone wrote:Keepcoolbutcare wrote:RogueScribner wrote:but Spielberg is coming up from behind!
man, that's nearly exactly what I think when I see his "endings" lately...here comes Spielbergo, rapin' my ass yet again!
LOL! The perfect a set up!
magicmonkey wrote:Well, I voted. I thought long and hard, but ultimately there was no question about it. Kubrick.
No matter what mood I'm in, he has a film for me. No matter how many times I've watched his films there is always something to look out for or pay closer attension to. The dude was a craftsman.
His films are instantly recognisable as his work. He puts alot of time and effort into his films and it shows, it leaks out of the screen, everything is composed, sculptured almost. Sure, Hitchcock had his own style and trademarks, but it could easily be argued that ultimately he was all style without substance, but hey, what style he had!
Kubrick delivered substance in spades, he didn't take sides, he didn't point out that someone is particularly heroic or evil, but just as a product of who they are, he knows we're all fallible, so when he does put something "warm" in his films it means something. Just check out "Paths of Glory", see Kirk Douglas defend humanity in the face of violent conflict, power struggles and corruption, then see the product of his struggle, the soldiers jeering almost heartbreakingly at a captured German girl, before weeping as she sings.
If you like your independents and you like your blockbusters, then Kubrick is your man. The dude IS without a "Shadow of a doubt"(heh) the greatest director eva!!!!!1111111
Peven wrote:Hitch is the man. and Kubrick's "2001" is only responsible for the slow, boring science fiction of today. even though Hitch worked further in the past than Kubrick i think his influence is more prevelant on modern day cinema than Kubrick, who was more of a niche director. i don't think think there is much doubt that Hitch had more range in regard to subject material he directed, whereas Kubrick seemed to be repeating the same message over and over only using different settings/characters to do so. man is flawed, man is flawed, man is flawed. yeah, we got it Stan, man is flawed, move on already.
Peven wrote:Hitch is the man. and Kubrick's "2001" is only responsible for the slow, boring science fiction of today. even though Hitch worked further in the past than Kubrick i think his influence is more prevelant on modern day cinema than Kubrick, who was more of a niche director. i don't think think there is much doubt that Hitch had more range in regard to subject material he directed, whereas Kubrick seemed to be repeating the same message over and over only using different settings/characters to do so. man is flawed, man is flawed, man is flawed. yeah, we got it Stan, man is flawed, move on already.
Peven wrote:Hitch is the man. and Kubrick's "2001" is only responsible for the slow, boring science fiction of today. even though Hitch worked further in the past than Kubrick i think his influence is more prevelant on modern day cinema than Kubrick, who was more of a niche director. i don't think think there is much doubt that Hitch had more range in regard to subject material he directed, whereas Kubrick seemed to be repeating the same message over and over only using different settings/characters to do so. man is flawed, man is flawed, man is flawed. yeah, we got it Stan, man is flawed, move on already.
Peven wrote: Kubrick's "2001" is only responsible for the slow, boring science fiction of today.
Peven wrote:Kubrick ends up coming across to me as sitting on the sidelines criticizing all the the time while never presenting a viable alternative.
Fried Gold wrote:Peven wrote: Kubrick's "2001" is only responsible for the slow, boring science fiction of today.
For example?
Peven wrote:Fried Gold wrote:Peven wrote: Kubrick's "2001" is only responsible for the slow, boring science fiction of today.
For example?
see, that was a joke. since i find "2001" to be slow and boring for the most part. wow, tough crowd, lol
Adam Balm wrote:Peven wrote:Kubrick ends up coming across to me as sitting on the sidelines criticizing all the the time while never presenting a viable alternative.
Well, that's because art presents you with questions. Something that provides the questions and the answers is called propaganda. If you want to be told what to think or what conclusion to come to, then I suppose Kubrick isn't your guy.
thomasgaffney wrote:Peven wrote:Fried Gold wrote:Peven wrote: Kubrick's "2001" is only responsible for the slow, boring science fiction of today.
For example?
see, that was a joke. since i find "2001" to be slow and boring for the most part. wow, tough crowd, lol
Or bad joke. Ba Dum Bum!
Peven wrote:sorry if i come across as slinging mud at Kubrick, Locke. merely using the standard compare/contrast method to state why i chose Hitch over Kubrick, who happens to be #1 in the voting at present.
Peven wrote:Adam Balm wrote:Peven wrote:Kubrick ends up coming across to me as sitting on the sidelines criticizing all the the time while never presenting a viable alternative.
Well, that's because art presents you with questions. Something that provides the questions and the answers is called propaganda. If you want to be told what to think or what conclusion to come to, then I suppose Kubrick isn't your guy.
sure, art is there to present questions, but it can also present alternatives, solutions, and that isn't necesarily propaganda either. you don't have to ram an idea down someone's throat to put it out there for people to digest and decide if it works for them. creating art that presents hope and optimism, or simply more balanced in its presentation of good and evil, is no less artistic than or credible than material that is purely critical and cynical. simply ciritcizing everything around you without presenting a viable alternative, leaving THAT up to others, is a cop out to me.
John-Locke wrote:I just couldn't bring myself to criticise any of the people on the poll too much, I have too much respect for all of them unless The Terminal or The Aviator are being talked about, then the gloves come off.
ZombieZoneSolutions wrote:Peven wrote:Adam Balm wrote:Peven wrote:Kubrick ends up coming across to me as sitting on the sidelines criticizing all the the time while never presenting a viable alternative.
Well, that's because art presents you with questions. Something that provides the questions and the answers is called propaganda. If you want to be told what to think or what conclusion to come to, then I suppose Kubrick isn't your guy.
sure, art is there to present questions, but it can also present alternatives, solutions, and that isn't necesarily propaganda either. you don't have to ram an idea down someone's throat to put it out there for people to digest and decide if it works for them. creating art that presents hope and optimism, or simply more balanced in its presentation of good and evil, is no less artistic than or credible than material that is purely critical and cynical. simply ciritcizing everything around you without presenting a viable alternative, leaving THAT up to others, is a cop out to me.
The thing is that he doesn't ram ideas down your throat. He has an
uncanny ability to present a completely objective view that doesn't
provide easy answers. One of the best examples of this is Full
Metal Jacket. I have heard both pro-war and anti-war people
extol its virtues. I don't think I have ever seen a filmmaker be able
to pull that off.
You are mistaking objectivity for cynicism.
Peven wrote:ZombieZoneSolutions wrote:Peven wrote:Adam Balm wrote:Peven wrote:Kubrick ends up coming across to me as sitting on the sidelines criticizing all the the time while never presenting a viable alternative.
Well, that's because art presents you with questions. Something that provides the questions and the answers is called propaganda. If you want to be told what to think or what conclusion to come to, then I suppose Kubrick isn't your guy.
sure, art is there to present questions, but it can also present alternatives, solutions, and that isn't necesarily propaganda either. you don't have to ram an idea down someone's throat to put it out there for people to digest and decide if it works for them. creating art that presents hope and optimism, or simply more balanced in its presentation of good and evil, is no less artistic than or credible than material that is purely critical and cynical. simply ciritcizing everything around you without presenting a viable alternative, leaving THAT up to others, is a cop out to me.
The thing is that he doesn't ram ideas down your throat. He has an
uncanny ability to present a completely objective view that doesn't
provide easy answers. One of the best examples of this is Full
Metal Jacket. I have heard both pro-war and anti-war people
extol its virtues. I don't think I have ever seen a filmmaker be able
to pull that off.
You are mistaking objectivity for cynicism.
"Full Metal Jacket" is a very good film in regard to its portrayal of a soldier's experience in the military during that time, and i agree that it presents an objective pov. because of that it is popular among both gung-ho bloodlusters and peace freaks alike. imo, though, a war film like "The Deer Hunter" is a far superior film precisely because it isn't as safe, middle of the road, coldly objective as "Full Metal Jacket".
this is all subjective stuff, some people don't like art to say anything, don't want it to have an opinion, and prefer it to be nothing more than a dispassionate mirror. i am not one of those people. to me, art is an expression of human emotion and experience, the particular pov of the artist, the manifestation their own human experience on film, canvas, music, etc. it is through that specific, personal expression that, imo, people are able to make a connection to others, to find a greater understanding and empathy for their fellow human beings.
Peven wrote:am i the only one who feels like someone in the pews being preached down to while watching a Kubrick film?
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest