Spielberg interpreting Kubrick!!! No no no no No!!

[Ribena]

So I read on this film site about A.I spielbergs new film from a stanley kubrick idea. Am I the only one in the world disgusted by this!?? Ok so I'll see the film and see whether spielberg can prove me wrong. But I have a feeling that this film is going to shit on the grave of kubrick and everything he's ever tried to achieve.


Just wanted to know what you all think?

[LAmind]

I have very little (almost no) respect for Kuberick. All of his movies are based on books. The Shining was his only brilliant movie. It's in my top 5. But everything else he made was pretty crappy. 2001 was crap, Clockwork Orange is....eh ok, but after the second time it gets boring and stupid as hell. Eyes wide shut...total shit!

I like the sets in his films, that's about it.

As for AI, it's gonna suck big time. But then again it's more of a kids movie.

-Ivan

------------------
"A place for everything and everything in it's place".

[justinmorgan]

LAmind - you are mistaken. The fact that you can't spell his name shows that you know little on the subject. How does basing a film on a book make you a bad filmmaker? Film and literature are COMPLETELY different medium - a book must be completely re-interpreted in order to make it into a cohesive film - the book is the seed of the idea.

Stanley Kubrik was without doubt a genius in the film medium. He has created some of the greatest and almost perfect pieces of cinema ever. You can say that you don't like them but to say they are crappy is just foolish.

With regard to AI I'm not sure - I think Spielberg could do it depending whether he's in 'Jaws/Schindler's List/fFirst -half -an-hour-of 'Saving Private Ryan' or Jurassic Park/Hook' mode.

I'm sure that he must feel some pressure from the ghost of Kubrick to create something credible - we'll have to wait and see...

[Spoon boy]

"You can say that you don't like them but to say they are crappy is just foolish"
What?s the difference?
Hmm.. it makes me laugh that when 2001 came out, the critics dished it and now they are willing to wank all over it and give it so much praise.
Indeed "The Shining" was cool and "Strange Love" was fun but I don?t think MR. Kubrik was a genius? Einstein however he was a genius.

Happy Day to one and all!

[sdchown]

I find his films interesting, but a little pretentious.

But then what I think all movies need is more car chases, explosions and gunplay.

Later
Stephen

[Chance1234]

I think Kubrick was techinically artisitic,
and need i say, without kubrick where would motion control be and steadi cam ?

but what a bizarre original post ! think about it.

[HH3]

I don't think it's such a bizarre original post. Ribena has a point in that the two are such different filmmakers.

Kubrick was more into trying to explain the human condition. Heavy into allegory, not only thematically, but also with the use of the camera and sound. In The Shining think of when little Danny is riding through the halls of the hotel and you hear only the sound of his Big Wheel against the bare floor and the carpet. That is so simple, yet so effective. How about when Jack is using the ax on the the bathroom door and Kubrick decides to follow the action of the ax with the camera as it swings. Not to mention all of the wide shots to create isolation.

Spielberg would have handled this film very differently. He probably would have put an underscore with Danny's Big Wheel (dreadful) and he would have used multiple cuts in the ax scene. Speilberg is a great storyteller, but he is not a great filmmaker in the way Kubrick was, IMO.

Kubrick fans notice these subtleties of shots, sound and editing (or lack of!), and that adds to the enjoyment and appreciation of his brilliant films.

[Red House Painter]

Kubrick did use a lot of books on which to base his films, but so do lots of other directors. Hitchcock took some of his best ideas from them. 2001 was written as the film was being made and Clarke wrote it in collaboration with Kubrick. the fim 2001 makes the viewer have to think which a lot of films today don't do, i personally find it a lot more interesting than a film where everything is laid out with a stupid plot explanation by one of the heros.

[Red House Painter]

On another piont, in what way do you guys think Kubrick is pretentious?

[HH3]

Kubrick was if anything an intellectual and intellectuals can be considered pretentious.

Just the other day I was watching Charlie Rose (PBS talk show in America) and he had Stanley's widow, Christiane, Jan Harlen his producer, and Martin Scorsese on the show discussing the new documentry. One of the things that came out was the fact that Kubrick would watch just about any film and, even though no specific names were given, it sounded as if he did watch the blockbuster crap too.

Kubrick was also very close friends with Spielberg and admired his work greatly, so maybe he wouldn't mind Spielbergs version. But of course he'd never put his name on anything Spielberg did!

Stanley Kubrick read everything he could get his hands on, he loved playing chess, he was a perfectionist and his movies made one think all throughout and long after the last frame had ended. That's pretty pretentious don't ya think?