/lit/ - Literature

Well considering about 90% of his screenplays are based on existing novels I would be hesitant to give him much credit as an author.

>>10119853
>Was Kubrick inspired by Postmodern literature in style and approach?
no

>>10120770
he chose shitty books to adapt on purpose--so that he could make them better. cant wait for the triggered nabofag.

>>10120784
b-but 2001 wasn't that bad

>>10120789
The movie wasn't all that either.

>>10120784
Come on, anon knows making a good adaptation something better is different from creating an original work.

Kubrick makes good low brow films. His works are more akin to genre fiction than literature though.

>>10119853
>>Do screenplays count as literature?
No.
>>Was Kubrick inspired by Postmodern literature in style and approach?
No.
>>What books did he like ^^^^
I don't remember, but according to the Eyes Wide Shut screenwriter's book, around that time Kubrick got so obsessed with internet porn he barely got out.

>>10120845
>so obsessed with internet porn he barely got out.
/ourguy/

>>10120784
>he chose shitty books to adapt on purpose--so that he could make them better.

That's not true. I read any interesting interview with Kubrick where he discussed the criteria he looked for in books to adapt; or rather, he discussed the importance of remembering, and preserving throughout the rigors and delays and vexations of the filmmaking process the aspects of the story - the feels, in essence - that attracted you to the story, and to hold onto those feels as a kind of golden thread to guide you through the process

>>10120804
C'mon, Kubrick is at least middlebrow given that he's enjoyable on a superficial level, but he definitely injects hidden meaning and symbols for the discerning viewer.

>>10120979
He's very good, people who say otherwise don't know anything about film history. That said, Kubrick always fell in the autist than artist category. He's a mad perfectionnist and would keep at something until he got what he wanted, but really didn't work by feeling. It also seems that a lot of time he didn't really knew what he wanted, just what he didn't want, and that he would know when something was ok when he would see it.

>>10120979
>hidden meaning and symbols

Signs of a terrible film maker

>>10121113
You are the one who doesn't know about film history if you think Kubrick is good

>>10121152
He pioneered a lot of things, almost all his films are a breakthrough for a different reason and his work is pretty much always technically perfect even if it's a bit too cold and calculated at times. He's good. He's important. You're retarded. That said, if you want to talk about him, go to /tv/.

>>10121152
i bet you think films like the seventh seal and 8 1/2 are 'true masterpieces'

>>10121149
I understand it can be hard to grasp at your level, but there are many approaches to filmmaking. Now go to /tv/.

>>10121149
I won't argue since I don't know shit about film, but if we're ranking on a low/mid/high-brow scale, Kubrick doesn't rank on the low end since there was artistry in his work (whatever you think of it). Lowbrow is for cgi driven movies, capeshit, whatever. If you think he's on the same level as Michael Bay, I don't know what to tell you.

>>10119853
This image looks like it was drawn by a retard

>>10121301
>This image looks like it was drawn by a retard
u wot m8?

kubrick was a good filmmaker, but not an artist or anything like that in the traditional sense, like bresson or something. kubrick is like steven spielberg squared