Speilberg said it was a shame that Kubrick died before the project could be completed. he will put all of his attentions into its production and direction. It will be scheduled for release in the summer of 2001 (aptly dated dont you think?)

Now I think that Steven is a decent director, but he's NO Stanley. I think he will do an apt job but he had better do a damn great job. Director's better suited would be Jean Caro or Alex Proyas.

 |  IP: Logged

It's not that I like being a Jedi Master Film Handler...I don't! There's just nothing I can do about it right now. It's such a long way from here.

That's your uncle talking...

Yeah, my uncle!

I need your help Luke... She needs your help...I'm getting too old for this sort of thing...

Did i forget to mencen that it must be in 6 track Mag sound with a CP200

 |  IP: Logged

 |  IP: Logged

He made some bizarre stuff in his life, some of it obscure, and some of it mediocre, but all of it 10x more interesting than anything playing on any of our screens tonight (20x if you're doubling "Erin Brockovitch")

Coppola? You mean the guy that directed "Jack" and "One From the Heart"? Puh-leeese! Welles? OK, "Citizen Kane" and maybe "Magnificent Ambersons", and. . . ?

Ever hear the joke about the guy who went to heaven and at the gates he was talking to Peter and then he saw Stanley Kubrick. He said to Peter, "Woah is that Stanley Kubrick?"
Peter Replies, "No that's God, he just thinks he's Stanley Kubrick"

And by the way, Lucas is most likely, NOT directing Episode II, or so I've read.

Ok, 2 cents dropped...

------------------
If ya smell, what the Zach is cooking.

No, I have not seen all of Kubrik's films, but I have seen enough to comment on his style. It seems that one of his supporters here on the forum does agree with me that some his work was "bizare ... obscure ... [and] mediocre". My only response to that is the fact that Kubrik had total artistic control after Sparticus (1960), and made films only for the enjoyment of himself. The audience is secondary, and there is the key to my disliking of him. A director should make films for the enjoyment of the audience. This is why many of films failed at the box office. Yes, the critics liked the films, but critics are liberal types that hold artistic rebels in high esteem anyway. In essence they liked him because he screwed the system, not because his films had any legitimate messages (violent human nature - don't we see enough of that from Turner's bizare, obscure, and mediocre CNN).

I respect your positions on the man. Perhaps you do think he was brilliant. I, however, do not. Why? Because he rejects traditional values and is never optimistic in his films. He directs for his own enjoyment, and the enjoyment of a core minority of film goers. I don't think posterity will pay Stanley Kubrik the acolades he received from his contemporaries.

If you're interested, I've seen four of his films: "Sparticus", "Strangelove", "Full Metal Jacket", and "Eyes Wide Shut". I could not get out of "Eyes" fast enough! The worst movie of 1999. Again, I'm sorry if I offended anyone.