[The Slim Reaper]

Originally Posted by arista

Clockwork Orange
a Great Cinema film.

Yeah, but it's no muppets christmas carol.

[Tom4784]

Stanley Kubrick was an auteur but he will forever be an absolute prick for what he did to Shelley Duvall.

I find it difficult to appreciate his work when he essentially drove someone in his care to madness.

[James]

Originally Posted by Dezzy

Stanley Kubrick was an auteur but he will forever be an absolute prick for what he did to Shelley Duvall.

I find it difficult to appreciate his work when he essentially drove someone in his care to madness.

Where's the evidence for that?

[Niamh.]

Originally Posted by Dezzy

Stanley Kubrick was an auteur but he will forever be an absolute prick for what he did to Shelley Duvall.

I find it difficult to appreciate his work when he essentially drove someone in his care to madness.

what was that about?

[Tom4784]

Originally Posted by James

Where's the evidence for that?

A lot of the cast have acknowledged Stanley Kubrick's behaviour during the filming of The Shining and there's plenty of pieces that go into the history of that film.

Originally Posted by Niamh.

what was that about?

Basically during the (very long) shoot for The Shining, Stanley Kubrick bullied Shelley Duvall relentlessly and isolated her from the cast and crew to make sure no one could comfort her or help her. He belittled her talents repeatedly, forced her to do over a hundred takes for shots for no good reason and was generally a sociopathic piece of **** towards her. A lot of her acting in that film isn't believed to be acting but her literally having breakdowns under the stress Kubrick heaped on her. She legitimately had to keep bottles of water close by at all times because her tears left her dehydrated because she was forced to cry for twelve hours a day. I'm pretty sure there's other stuff that I'm forgetting but he was generally evil towards her which is strange because he chose to cast her against Jack Nicholson's advice who wanted Jessica Lange to be cast instead. I believe it was because Kubrick probably knew he couldn't have done to Lange what he did to Duvall.

She never really acted much after that film was done and the experience has been attributed to driving her off the edge as she suffers from mental issues now.

I can't really appreciate his talent in the light of what he did to Shelley Duvall.

[Niamh.]

Originally Posted by Dezzy

A lot of the cast have acknowledged Stanley Kubrick's behaviour during the filming of The Shining and there's plenty of pieces that go into the history of that film.



Basically during the (very long) shoot for The Shining, Stanley Kubrick bullied Shelley Duvall relentlessly and isolated her from the cast and crew to make sure no one could comfort her or help her. He belittled her talents repeatedly, forced her to do over a hundred takes for shots for no good reason and was generally a sociopathic piece of **** towards her. A lot of her acting in that film isn't believed to be acting but her literally having breakdowns under the stress Kubrick heaped on her. She legitimately had to keep bottles of water close by at all times because her tears left her dehydrated because she was forced to cry for twelve hours a day. I'm pretty sure there's other stuff that I'm forgetting but he was generally evil towards her which is strange because he chose to cast her against Jack Nicholson's advice who wanted Jessica Lange to be cast instead. I believe it was because Kubrick probably knew he couldn't have done to Lange what he did to Duvall.

She never really acted much after that film was done and the experience has been attributed to driving her off the edge as she suffers from mental issues now.

I can't really appreciate his talent in the light of what he did to Shelley Duvall.

I never heard that before, how awful if true. I must do a bit of reading up on it

[Tom4784]

Originally Posted by Niamh.

I never heard that before, how awful if true. I must do a bit of reading up on it

It is fascinating although difficult to read at some points, from what I read he pretty much manipulated the crew into having no sympathy for her and blaming her for the film's problems during the shoot. Quite typical behaviour for an abuser.

[Ammi]

Originally Posted by Dezzy

A lot of the cast have acknowledged Stanley Kubrick's behaviour during the filming of The Shining and there's plenty of pieces that go into the history of that film.



Basically during the (very long) shoot for The Shining, Stanley Kubrick bullied Shelley Duvall relentlessly and isolated her from the cast and crew to make sure no one could comfort her or help her. He belittled her talents repeatedly, forced her to do over a hundred takes for shots for no good reason and was generally a sociopathic piece of **** towards her. A lot of her acting in that film isn't believed to be acting but her literally having breakdowns under the stress Kubrick heaped on her. She legitimately had to keep bottles of water close by at all times because her tears left her dehydrated because she was forced to cry for twelve hours a day. I'm pretty sure there's other stuff that I'm forgetting but he was generally evil towards her which is strange because he chose to cast her against Jack Nicholson's advice who wanted Jessica Lange to be cast instead. I believe it was because Kubrick probably knew he couldn't have done to Lange what he did to Duvall.

She never really acted much after that film was done and the experience has been attributed to driving her off the edge as she suffers from mental issues now.

I can't really appreciate his talent in the light of what he did to Shelley Duvall.

...one of the scenes filmed was a ‘record breaking scene..’...for any known dialogue scene.../...it had over 120 takes with her swinging a bat at Jack Nicholson...it was reported that she was sobbing hysterically between the takes...with Kubrick telling others not to speak to her...and then he finally got the ‘reality’ of his shot...when he emotionally drained her and isolated her from any comfort...

[Ammi]

...having just watched Avengers: Endgame...I would completely disagree with him, there is a huge depth to it, so many threads running through it and a huge stretch of emotions throughout...it stretches you from one side of the emotional plain to the other...it’s surely a movie that for me would require a few watches to completely absorb...that wouldn’t be a definition of any kind of ‘shallow’ movie...

[James]

I kind of feel his generation were more creative film-makers than the people making films now.

The current films are made by Gen-X'rs and older Millennials that grew up in the 80s with all the great popular culture that came out of that decade, and for whom Star Wars in 1977 was year zero for films - they kind of want to copy all of that, and the earlier films of the seventies that they admire.

Obviously the way the Internet hypes up the big superhero films and recognisable IP, at the expense of everything else, contributes also.

[user104658]

I fundamentally disagree, but it would take me more time than I have right now to elaborate. I might later . I guess all I'll say in the shortest terms is, he's mistaking "completely different" with "inferior".

[Alf]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

I fundamentally disagree, but it would take me more time than I have right now to elaborate. I might later . I guess all I'll say in the shortest terms is, he's mistaking "completely different" with "inferior".

Nobody ain't got time for one of your novels.

[Oliver_W]

Originally Posted by Alf

Nobody ain't got time for one of your novels.

I'd be interested to hear!

[Alf]

Originally Posted by Oliver_W

I'd be interested to hear!

I'd make a packed lunch and a flask a tea for the event if I was you.

[user104658]

Originally Posted by Alf

Nobody ain't got time for one of your novels.

Nobody ain't? Aw thanks Alf!

[Alf]

Black Panther has a rating of 7.3 on IMDB

That doesn't sound like it was overly impressive with the public.

Not seen it myself, so I couldn't tell you anything about it.

[Shaun]

Originally Posted by Alf

Black Panther has a rating of 7.3 on IMDB

That doesn't sound like it was overly impressive with the public.

Not seen it myself, so I couldn't tell you anything about it.

IMDb is a hard thing to gauge because nowadays most films (especially popular ones) have a particular reactionary movement from snobs/web bros.

Every time there's a movie that comes out now with some level of tokenism ("all black cast! first gay superhero! women produced/directed 85% of the movie!") there's usually a counter-movement from the anti-PC brigade that'll give it a 1/10 without even having seen the movie. The female remake of the Ghostbusters was the most notable recent example: it was a perfectly "fine" movie, nothing amazing but nothing terrible either, but meninists took it upon themselves to decry it as the worst thing since the Holocaust.

Edit: even the films that most people agree are amazing/classics, you'll find a bunch of trolls giving it 1/10s to make sure its total score ends up falling below a movie they're trying to champion

[Alf]

Originally Posted by Shaun

IMDb is a hard thing to gauge because nowadays most films (especially popular ones) have a particular reactionary movement from snobs/web bros.

Every time there's a movie that comes out now with some level of tokenism ("all black cast! first gay superhero! women produced/directed 85% of the movie!") there's usually a counter-movement from the anti-PC brigade that'll give it a 1/10 without even having seen the movie. The female remake of the Ghostbusters was the most notable recent example: it was a perfectly "fine" movie, nothing amazing but nothing terrible either, but meninists took it upon themselves to decry it as the worst thing since the Holocaust.

Edit: even the films that most people agree are amazing/classics, you'll find a bunch of trolls giving it 1/10s to make sure its total score ends up falling below a movie they're trying to champion

Maybe, although I'd expect they have a system that can identify trolling.

I still think it's the best rating system online for films. I've found it more helpful than Rotten Tomatoes in finding a film I like. Although the likely hood is that more guys use it more than girls, so guy type films will likely score higher.

[Niamh.]

Originally Posted by Alf

Maybe, although I'd expect they have a system that can identify trolling.

I still think it's the best rating system online for films. I've found it more helpful than Rotten Tomatoes in finding a film I like. Although the likely hood is that more guys use it more than girls, so guy type films will likely score higher.

Why would you think more guys than girls use it?

[Vicky.]

Originally Posted by Niamh.

Why would you think more guys than girls use it?

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features...imed-at-women/

Hes probably right

Seventy percent of IMDb TV show raters are men, according to my analysis, and that results in shows with predominantly female audiences getting screwed

Just a blog really, but makes sense.

Also makes sense that men deliberately sabotage films/shows that are 'aimed' at women. Though its surely pointless to be so spiteful..

[Tom4784]

Originally Posted by Alf

Black Panther has a rating of 7.3 on IMDB

That doesn't sound like it was overly impressive with the public.

Not seen it myself, so I couldn't tell you anything about it.

IMDB is a terrible barometer to measure a film's worth since it's infested with trolls and the like. I remember reading yesterday about one film in particular on that website in which the top reviews were overtly racist and had statements like 'This film would be better if it had less *insert racial slur here*'.

[Shaun]

I think I get (and agree with) what he's saying: they're largely crowdpleasers and meant to wow people in the same sense that fireworks displays and theme parks are. I'm sure there are thousands of people who take the same sort of emotional impact from these films as others do with the likes of The Departed/The Godfather/No Country for Old Men etc... but they're usually teenagers

This whole thing will be spun out of proportion though and made to sound as if he's this horribly bitter bloke with a contempt for the state of the film industry when he's, presumably, quite unbothered and happy with his success

[Ammi]

Originally Posted by Shaun

I think I get (and agree with) what he's saying: they're largely crowdpleasers and meant to wow people in the same sense that fireworks displays and theme parks are. I'm sure there are thousands of people who take the same sort of emotional impact from these films as others do with the likes of The Departed/The Godfather/No Country for Old Men etc... but they're usually teenagers

This whole thing will be spun out of proportion though and made to sound as if he's this horribly bitter bloke with a contempt for the state of the film industry when he's, presumably, quite unbothered and happy with his success

...I don’t think he seems bitter or contemptuous in any way but I don’t agree with what he’s saying because the Marvel movies of today...as in recent years...are still an unknown in terms of their general value to the film industry...he’s generalising Marvel in a way that he wouldn’t want his own movies to be generalised...and he would have had to have watched every one as well, I wonder if he has because there is no analysis of the movies in any way...just sweeping statements...

[Vicky.]

Hmm yeah, been ages since I watched Hancock, but from bits I remember, you are likely right

[Tom4784]

Rotten Tomatoes is better since they've taken a lot of steps to prevent trolls from tanking scores.