Kubrick or Spielberg?

[Gordon]

A run off from the other thread.

Fairly self-explanatory.

[ilovemovies]

Spielberg for sure.

[X-Nightcrawler]

Steven Fat Fatterson.

Much, much, much better.

[zombievictim]

Spielberg. Definitely.

[Jig Saw 123]

This is debatable. Spielberg seems to be a better story teller, while Kubrick is more of an artsy style director. I voted for Spielberg only because he has a bigger library of movies that I love. But Kubrick is hands down a better director.:p

[DaMovieMan]

I am still trying to find the quote maybe he said its one of his favorite films but I remember it was said in a documentary about Kubrick. He was completely blown away by Schlinders List.

With that being said, I definitely still think that Schlinders List is better than any Kubrick film. I mean, he freakin recreated the Holocaust.:eek:

Also it seems that the American Film Institute agrees with me too. (Schindlers List is rated at #9, while the highest Kubrick film is #22):p

Also Kubrick only directed like 9 films which I think kinda holds him back as being the "best of the best".

I hope you don't mind that I've transfered the discussion over here echo, but it seems like this is the appropriate place now. Cheers Gordon.

I'm sure the Kube was blown away by Schindler's List, I think I remember reading or hearing that he always wanted to do a holocaust movie himself but that once he saw Schindler's List he didn't see much point to it because the List was that good.

Schindler's List is the only movie by Spielberg that could be considered next to Kubrick's movies in terms of depth, aestheticism, etc. While almost every Kubrick film is worthy of a book-long analysis. That alone should tell you something.
Secondly, Kubrick created the most realistic vision of space! He recreated Cold-war paranoia through parody, and so on and so forth..
Thirdly, the AFI says a lot of things, I wouldn't use them as proof of who's the greatest. Kubrick wasn't really liked and he lived most of his life in London, England.
Finally, the fact that Kubrick directed only 13 films is a good indication that his films were more consistent as he took much longer to make them, while Spielberg has many more films on his repetoir he made some pretty terrible ones (War of the Worlds, Hook...examples off the top of my head)

As a final statement I'll just summurize what CosmicPuppet said so well in the other thread,
Kubrick told wonderful, deep stories. Spielberg spoon-fe(e)d(s) wonderful, entertaining stories (just replace 'entertaining' with 'emotional' when talking about Schindler's List)

[DarkKnight81]

Spielberg. Kubrick doesnt get double extra brownie points for making bizarre movies.

[Cronos]

Spielberg

[sarah1980]

Spielberg for sure.

yup :D

[Dragula]

Kubrick. Speilberg is good, but will never live up to the #1 director of all-time.

[athf1980]

I'm going with Speilberg because He is more capable for the general public to get on. Kubrick is more towards the ubermovie fans.

[Powerslave]

Kubrick. Spielberg is without a doubt one of the best, in the top 10 for sure, and has made some of my all-time favorite films, but Kubrick is simply the best there's ever been, as far as I'm concerned.

[APzombie]

That's like asking if i would like fried gold or sexy sex sex with monica bellucci.

both are extraordinary. I think Spielberg takes it by a hair. He has accomplished a bit more.

[X-Nightcrawler]

DaMovieMan, that is so unbelievably unfair, dude.

Schindler's List is the only movie by Spielberg that could be considered next to Kubrick's movies in terms of depth, aestheticism, etc. While almost every Kubrick film is worthy of a book-long analysis. That alone should tell you something.

Any movie in history is 'worthy' of a book-long analysis. Have you seen the amount of essays and stuff people have written about the "Saw" movies? I won't discuss those here, but looking at them as movies, how they're written and executed, it's hard to use that as a claim to fame. Anyone with enough time and verb can write 100-page long essays about the depth of any movie. This doesn't tell me anything; all Spielberg movies are technical wonders, the man explores depth in both storytelling (in all his movies) and in technological breakthroughs.


Secondly, Kubrick created the most realistic vision of space! He recreated Cold-war paranoia through parody, and so on and so forth.. This is but a list of his movies. Spielberg recreated the holocaust ("Schindler's List"), world war II drama ("Saving Private Ryan"), extremely complex sci fi intrigue ("Minority Report"), intense drama ("The Color Purple"), re-defined horror ("Jaws"), re-defined adventure (Indy), and played with comedy in the most accessible ways (because, okay, Kubrick did "Dr. Strangelove" but half the people who see it won't laugh, as it's my experience; It's just not very accessible). Spielberg has a much, much, much more varied array of genres and thematics he's played with and mastered. What's more important, he's played with them and mastered them in a way that most people can enjoy, not just film nerds, which I think is a much, much more important feat. There's absolutely no comparison.


Finally, the fact that Kubrick directed only 13 films is a good indication that his films were more consistent as he took much longer to make them, while Spielberg has many more films on his repetoir he made some pretty terrible ones (War of the Worlds, Hook...examples off the top of my head)
Hardly an indication for me personally. Spielberg seems to be the one director who seems to be absolutely unafraid of trying something he hasn't tried. The man jumps at the first chance he gets to expand his artistic portfolio and loves exploring every inch of the art of film. That's why he has so many movies. That is respectable.


Kubrick told wonderful, deep stories. Spielberg spoon-fe(e)d(s) wonderful, entertaining stories (just replace 'entertaining' with 'emotional' when talking about Schindler's List)Both tell wonderful, deep stories. Only Kubrick tells them to few and Spielberg to many.

There's a lot Spielberg doesn't spoon feed you. You think what regular people see in an average Spielberg movie is all he put in there? Of course not. Search Spielberg like you search Kubrick, you'll see the impressive depth and attention to artistic detail, symbolism, etc, hidden to trained eyes.

I do think Kubrick is a legend, but Spielberg is a fucking god when it comes to film.

[Shockwave]

Spielberg. Kubrick doesnt get double extra brownie points for making bizarre movies.

Amen.

To his credit, he did make alot of GREAT bizzare movies, but Speilberg destroys him in my eyes.

[therealjohng]

Spielberg is MILES ahead of Kubrick who is a good filmmaker. But no one touches The Beard.

[Le_Big_Mac]

Honestly, I don't give a fuck how much the general public likes a movie, which is why Kubrick is clearly the victor to me.

[Buck Turgidson]

This is a Bobby Van.

[darknite125]

Kubrick. He and Spielberg are both great but Kubrick was more revolutionary and creative.

[Orson-Cockart]

Spielberg's given us so much fun: Jurassic Park, Indiana Jones, Jaws, Close Encounters, E.T, Catch Me If You Can, Minority Report. Not forgetting his serious side: Schindler's List and Saving Private Ryan.

Kubrick's films are more polished, with regards to cinematography. Paths of Glory, Spartacus, and Eyes Wide Shut are the only Kubrick's I consider great.

Kubrick's good, but I much prefer Spielberg.

[DaMovieMan]

Honestly, I don't give a fuck how much the general public likes a movie, which is why Kubrick is clearly the victor to me.

Well said.



DaMovieMan, that is so unbelievably unfair, dude.

Any movie in history is 'worthy' of a book-long analysis. Have you seen the amount of essays and stuff people have written about the "Saw" movies? I won't discuss those here, but looking at them as movies, how they're written and executed, it's hard to use that as a claim to fame. Anyone with enough time and verb can write 100-page long essays about the depth of any movie. This doesn't tell me anything; all Spielberg movies are technical wonders, the man explores depth in both storytelling (in all his movies) and in technological breakthroughs.

No, not every movie in history is worthy of a book-long analysis. Just because someone wanted to write a thesis on Saw doesn't make the film worthy of it. By your claim, Freddy got Fingered is worthy of a 100 page essay while its actual only worth is to be burned and never shown to human eyes.
Technological breakthroughs = yes, he had money.
Storytelling = eh, he was good in this before but lately his movies seem to drag and have flawed pacing, so I don't think he's been consistent in this, not like Kubrick who told a good story in every single film he made and told it in a way that you can't imagine be better any other way.


This is but a list of his movies. Spielberg recreated the holocaust ("Schindler's List"), world war II drama ("Saving Private Ryan"), extremely complex sci fi intrigue ("Minority Report"), intense drama ("The Color Purple"), re-defined horror ("Jaws"), re-defined adventure (Indy), and played with comedy in the most accessible ways (because, okay, Kubrick did "Dr. Strangelove" but half the people who see it won't laugh, as it's my experience; It's just not very accessible). Spielberg has a much, much, much more varied array of genres and thematics he's played with and mastered. What's more important, he's played with them and mastered them in a way that most people can enjoy, not just film nerds, which I think is a much, much more important feat. There's absolutely no comparison.

I don't know what you mean by much, much, much varied genre but I'm sure if you step back you can see which director dealt with which genre more. Kubrick did war, comedy, sci-fi, horror, drama, thriller, spy, romance and period. Every one of his movies is almost a completely different genre while Spielberg did more films but not as many genres..
[Just to use an example of a WWII film of the same year (it's not Kubrick, but Malick's style has been compared to Kubrick's) but Thin Red Line did a MUCH better job of recreating World War II drama than the overrated Saving Private Ryan. So many different angles, so much more epic, more beautifully shot etc.]



Hardly an indication for me personally. Spielberg seems to be the one director who seems to be absolutely unafraid of trying something he hasn't tried. The man jumps at the first chance he gets to expand his artistic portfolio and loves exploring every inch of the art of film. That's why he has so many movies. That is respectable.


He has many films because he works fast and it takes him like two months to shoot a movie. He's not a perfectionist like Kubrick. That statement about exploring every inch of the art of film is a bit of an exaggeration I think but EVEN IF it's true his best work is the genre of adventure (Jaws, E.T., Indian Jones, Jurassic Park etc.) except Schindler's List. That's the only only exception to everything Spielberg has done and it's on such a different level that it seems like it almost feels like it's not a Spielberg movie (if it wasn't for the little red girl that is SUCH a Spielbergian touch, it wouldn't look like a Spielberg movie)

Both tell wonderful, deep stories. Only Kubrick tells them to few and Spielberg to many.

It seems like "good general opinion" is a prerequisite you need to have in order to be a great filmmaker when in fact the general public doesn't give two shits about the artistic value of film, all they want is to have a good time. Spielberg's movies (at least his early ones) do that better than Kubrick's. But we're not talking about entertainment here, we're talking about direction, art, influence, contribution to film as an art-form first, entertaining medium second. (At least that's what I'm talking about, in my view it's much harder to create art than to entertain the masses) Spielberg is an excellent business man, he knows how to make money, and he can write a book about how to entertain an audience, he's a master at it (or used to be, I have to keep stressing that because War of the Worlds was really terrible, but Munich was great so I'm sure he still has it. Thankfully he took some much needed time off)

There's a lot Spielberg doesn't spoon feed you. You think what regular people see in an average Spielberg movie is all he put in there? Of course not. Search Spielberg like you search Kubrick, you'll see the impressive depth and attention to artistic detail, symbolism, etc, hidden to trained eyes.

I do think Kubrick is a legend, but Spielberg is a fucking god when it comes to film.

This might be true, but I think there's a point where you stop with Spielberg and can't go any further. I don't search directors, I look at their films and see what they have to tell me through them. I mean, seriously, how deep is Jaws? Or Indiana Jones? These films were made in the perfect time, because they sold like hot cakes and the masses ate 'em up. This is what Spielberg is a master of and it's not something that makes him a great filmmaker, it's something that makes him a great business-man. Now I'm not saying he's NOT a great filmmaker, he's definately in the top ten of all time I believe but not near Kubrick.

Nightcrawler, please don't take offense at what I'm about to say, but I have a feeling that you're fairly young and I think everyone knows that your favorite film of all time is the Lion King, so I think I can assume how you're viewing these two directors. I can totally understand and respect why you wouldn't like some of Kubrick's most daring movies, why you wouldn't laugh with Dr. Strangelove (I find it gets more hilarious the more times you see it but it's also much more than a comedy) and why you would totally love most of Spielberg's stuff. It's not like your opinion doesn't count, not at all, it's just that we're not looking at the same thing in the same way but we're both right in a sense, you know what I mean?

Spielberg has a knack for knowing what the general public wants to see, he's best years are behind him I think but I hope he continues making movies until he's very old and gray because I usually love watching his stuff, great way to be entertained. But when it comes to stimulating the mind, to the composition of shots, use of music, a complete transportation to another realm (and to do this consistently not with one or a few of the films in your repertoire) ...the Kube owns almost all (except Kurosawa with Bergman not far behind :p).

[X-Nightcrawler]

?

You seem to have misunderstood my thesis on "the many". And some other things (like the "films worthy of analysis" bit), but I don't see me re-explaining it any better so, if you care enough, and I don't blame you if you don't, read again.

This one thing does bother me. I didn't say that it takes more talent to appeal to 'general audiences'. It takes more talent to appeal to both 'general audiences' and 'artsy film nerds'. This is one thing Spielberg does well; much better than Kubrick and most 'tards like Lynch. But let's keep . . . him . . . out of this.

Nightcrawler, please don't take offense at what I'm about to say, but I have a feeling that you're fairly young and I think everyone knows that your favorite film of all time is the Lion King, so I think I can assume how you're viewing these two directors. I can totally understand and respect why you wouldn't like some of Kubrick's most daring movies, why you wouldn't laugh with Dr. Strangelove (I find it gets more hilarious the more times you see it but it's also much more than a comedy) and why you would totally love most of Spielberg's stuff. It's not like your opinion doesn't count, not at all, it's just that we're not looking at the same thing in the same way but we're both right in a sense, you know what I mean?Well gawsh, I'll try not to take offense at that.

Well, I couldn't. But that's okay, I suppose. Because you clearly misunderstood and no, you don't 'totally understand', I'm afraid (keep reading, what I'm saying isn't nearly as confrontational as it sounds). I never said I don't like most of Kubrick's stuff. I think I said more than once how much I respect Kubrick's work and his movies (even "2001"!), or didn't say I didn't laugh at "Dr. Strangelove", because I did.

I can't fault you for misunderstanding, since I know you wouldn't have said that if I had had "Mulholland Drive" as my favorite movie up there. "The Lion King" throws people off. Many people.

Favorite movie = Something I personally get enjoyment of because of many possible reasons.

Maybe my father died when I was 10 so TLK makes me feel warm and fuzzy every time I see it. Maybe it was the last movie I saw with my late girlfriend so I remember her when I watch it. Hopefully you understand how my favorite movie has absolutely nothing to do with my taste in movies. Don't make the mistake of thinking you understand someone's point of view because of his favorite movie.

Though I sincerely apologize for the smoke coming out of my ears. I get fucking pissed every time someone pulls that one on me. Try to understand.

[DaMovieMan]

?

You seem to have misunderstood my thesis on "the many". And some other things (like the "films worthy of analysis" bit), but I don't see me re-explaining it any better so, if you care enough, and I don't blame you if you don't, read again.

By your thesis on "the many" you're talking about what exactly? The many genres Spielberg did or the many films he did? I mean, looking at their respective filmographies as wholes, I don't understand how you can't see that Kubrick experimented with more genres while Spielberg incorporated one main genre (the adventure) into many.
And it was you who misunderstood by initial meaning of 'worthy'. I just tried to explain it a bit better. A worthy film is a film that is complex, deep, symbolic etc. Again I say, by your definition of 'worthy' you can make an argument that Freddy got Fingered, or Meet the Spartans, is worthy of a 100-essay paper. Are you saying this?

This one thing does bother me. I didn't say that it takes more talent to appeal to 'general audiences'. It takes more talent to appeal to both 'general audiences' and 'artsy film nerds'. This is one thing Spielberg does well; much better than Kubrick and most 'tards like Lynch. But let's keep . . . him . . . out of this.

I agree about keeping Lynch out of this, he's definitely for a select few. The problem with what you're saying is that most "artsy film nerds" as you call them wouldn't think Spielberg is better than Kubrick. Spielberg generally appeals to the masses while Kubrick generally appeals to "artsy" people. Is this not fair to say? This is my experience anyway.

Well gawsh, I'll try not to take offense at that.

Well, I couldn't. But that's okay, I suppose. Because you clearly misunderstood and no, you don't 'totally understand', I'm afraid (keep reading, what I'm saying isn't nearly as confrontational as it sounds). I never said I don't like most of Kubrick's stuff. I think I said more than once how much I respect Kubrick's work and his movies (even "2001"!), or didn't say I didn't laugh at "Dr. Strangelove", because I did.

I did misunderstand one thing for sure. When you said "as it's my experience" I thought you meant that's how you experienced the film, not how you experienced others experiencing the film. I apologize for that.
Respecting a work and liking a work is two very different things. I honestly didn't know you respected 2001 because I distinctly remember you saying how boring it is (were you just joking? sometimes i can't tell with you).


I can't fault you for misunderstanding, since I know you wouldn't have said that if I had had "Mulholland Drive" as my favorite movie up there. "The Lion King" throws people off. Many people.

I thought we weren't going to bring Lynch into this.. if you had that film and posted the exact same post we'd be having a very similar conversation.


Favorite movie = Something I personally get enjoyment of because of many possible reasons.

Maybe my father died when I was 10 so TLK makes me feel warm and fuzzy every time I see it. Maybe it was the last movie I saw with my late girlfriend so I remember her when I watch it. Hopefully you understand how my favorite movie has absolutely nothing to do with my taste in movies. Don't make the mistake of thinking you understand someone's point of view because of his favorite movie.

Though I sincerely apologize for the smoke coming out of my ears. I get fucking pissed every time someone pulls that one on me. Try to understand.

That's okay, I also apologize for hitting that nerve and I do understand. But it's not just The Lion King, you absolutely adore Ice Age and Ice Age 2 or am I wrong? I mean, listen, your list of favorite films and your list of greatest films could be completely different but it's like a ying-yang thing (fucking hell, I can't think of a better image than that!) in that both lists are related and have a piece of each other in the other. And by the looks of your post it seems that you're labeling Spielberg greater because you find him more enjoyable...am I completely off?

I don't know it's late and I'm getting tired so I might be just babbling on, but I hope you understand where I'm coming from

[Crazy Dud]

The two are not even comparable. Spielberg's primary intention with most of his films is to entertain, while Kubrick's primary intention was to create great art. They set out to make completely different movies, and made completely different movies. It's honestly rather hard to compare a great pulp entertainment film like Indiana Jones with a great artistic achievement like 2001: A Space Odyssey.

Although, truth be told, Kubrick isn't really comparable to anybody. He was completely unique. Never before had there been a filmmaker like him, and there probably never will be again.

[X-Nightcrawler]

By your thesis on "the many" you're talking about what exactly? The many genres Spielberg did or the many films he did? I mean, looking at their respective filmographies as wholes, I don't understand how you can't see that Kubrick experimented with more genres while Spielberg incorporated one main genre (the adventure) into many.
And it was you who misunderstood by initial meaning of 'worthy'. I just tried to explain it a bit better. A worthy film is a film that is complex, deep, symbolic etc. Again I say, by your definition of 'worthy' you can make an argument that Freddy got Fingered, or Meet the Spartans, is worthy of a 100-essay paper. Are you saying this? Sure. Hell, a sociologist and film analyist could write an essay about the appeal of such films to the masses, explore the reasons why such stuff makes so much money, etc, etc. Anything could make a worthy analysis.




I agree about keeping Lynch out of this, he's definitely for a select few. The problem with what you're saying is that most "artsy film nerds" as you call them wouldn't think Spielberg is better than Kubrick. Spielberg generally appeals to the masses while Kubrick generally appeals to "artsy" people. Is this not fair to say? This is my experience anyway.
No, not really saying that. But I do think they find appeal in Spielberg stuff, just as average joes would, and like average joes wouldn't with Kubrick.



Respecting a work and liking a work is two very different things. I honestly didn't know you respected 2001 because I distinctly remember you saying how boring it is (were you just joking? sometimes i can't tell with you).
Nah, I wasn't joking. I do think it's boring as hell. But that doesn't make it a bad movie (though it definitely takes points off in my book). I think my point in that thread was that "Minority Report" was a superior sci fi movie (coincidentally) because it was just as deep and complex, only not boring.




I thought we weren't going to bring Lynch into this.. if you had that film and posted the exact same post we'd be having a very similar conversation. Sorry, not "Mulholland Drive". Anything you want that isn't an animated family movie. But I do think that if you didn't know anything about my taste in movies at all, you wouldn't have jumped to the assumption you did up there. Am I really wrong? Nothing wrong if you would, I understand why anyone would; people, schmoes here, do it all the time.


That's okay, I also apologize for hitting that nerve and I do understand. But it's not just The Lion King, you absolutely adore Ice Age and Ice Age 2 or am I wrong? I mean, listen, your list of favorite films and your list of greatest films could be completely different but it's like a ying-yang thing (fucking hell, I can't think of a better image than that!) in that both lists are related and have a piece of each other in the other. The first "Ice Age", yeah. The second just makes me laugh a lot. And yes, I adore that too, but if you look closely at some of my posts, you'll notice how I really, really dislike animated movies in general (can't stand Pixar, can't stand most of Disney stuff except their 90's shit which I 'like'). "The Lion King"/"The Lion King 2" and "Ice Age" are sole exceptions (with maybe except the "Final Fantasy" movies, but those just happen to be animated; they're PG-13 action/sci-fi movies like "Minority Report"). DOn't get thrown off.

And although I have never made a list of "Greatest movies of all time", they wouldn't mirror my favorites as much as you might think; the only one I can think that would be way high in both is "The Constant Gardener", which is my second favorite movie of all time.

But no, I'm not saying that Spielberg is a better director because I "find him more enjoyable". This has nothing to do with favorites (since there are very, very, very few Spielberg movies, if any, in my favorite movies list) or personal preference. I just think he makes more quality films in the most objective position. Neither has made many movies I personally adore in the "it's a favorite" sense, though "The Shinning" is way up. . . though so is "Minority Report".

[echo_bravo]

The two are not even comparable. Spielberg's primary intention with most of his films is to entertain, while Kubrick's primary intention was to create great art. They set out to make completely different movies, and made completely different movies. It's honestly rather hard to compare a great pulp entertainment film like Indiana Jones with a great artistic achievement like 2001: A Space Odyssey.

Although, truth be told, Kubrick isn't really comparable to anybody. He was completely unique. Never before had there been a filmmaker like him, and there probably never will be again.

God forbid a director sets out to entertain his audience. Oh the horror!

I love Kubrick. I really do. The SHining is in my top three favorite films ever. With that being said, the dude isnt perfect. Some of his earlier work is shit on a stick. Sparticus was pretty bad but I cant totallly fault him for that cause I believe he didnt have final cut.

And you mean to tell me that Full Metal Jacket is superior to Saving Private Ryan?! I will definitely agree that The Thin Red Line is superior to both of them but thats irrelavent cause thats a Malick film.

2001 was definitely a visionary masterpiece but then again so was Raiders of the Lost Ark and Close Encounters.

I also think that the American Film Institute is definitely a reliable source to go by. They have a lot of weight in their opinion and its widely respected.

[DaMovieMan]

Sure. Hell, a sociologist and film analyist could write an essay about the appeal of such films to the masses, explore the reasons why such stuff makes so much money, etc, etc. Anything could make a worthy analysis.

Yeah you completely misunderstood what i meant by "worthy". I meant analysis of the film's themes, characters etc. not why a film made money or appeals to the general public.


No, not really saying that. But I do think they find appeal in Spielberg stuff, just as average joes would, and like average joes wouldn't with Kubrick.


Not my experience but alright.


Nah, I wasn't joking. I do think it's boring as hell. But that doesn't make it a bad movie (though it definitely takes points off in my book). I think my point in that thread was that "Minority Report" was a superior sci fi movie (coincidentally) because it was just as deep and complex, only not boring.

:) Perfect example. In my opinion Minority Report is nowhere as deep as 2001, not to mention that 2001 was way more groundbreaking in terms of sci-fi. The only Spielberg sci-fi film that could be compared to 2001 is the brilliant Close Encounters, but even that falls short (again, my opinion).

Sorry, not "Mulholland Drive". Anything you want that isn't an animated family movie. But I do think that if you didn't know anything about my taste in movies at all, you wouldn't have jumped to the assumption you did up there. Am I really wrong? Nothing wrong if you would, I understand why anyone would; people, schmoes here, do it all the time.

I wouldn't have called you out about on how you're viewing these films, you're right. But we would be having the same conversation when it comes to the two directors themselves..


The first "Ice Age", yeah. The second just makes me laugh a lot. And yes, I adore that too, but if you look closely at some of my posts, you'll notice how I really, really dislike animated movies in general (can't stand Pixar, can't stand most of Disney stuff except their 90's shit which I 'like'). "The Lion King"/"The Lion King 2" and "Ice Age" are sole exceptions (with maybe except the "Final Fantasy" movies, but those just happen to be animated; they're PG-13 action/sci-fi movies like "Minority Report"). DOn't get thrown off.
Oh God you liked Lion King 2! :rolleyes::D


And although I have never made a list of "Greatest movies of all time", they wouldn't mirror my favorites as much as you might think; the only one I can think that would be way high in both is "The Constant Gardener", which is my second favorite movie of all time.

Fair enough then. I also loved The Constant Gardner.


I just think [Spielberg] makes more quality films in the most objective position.

Then we have to agree to disagree :)

[DaMovieMan]

God forbid a director sets out to entertain his audience. Oh the horror!

It's more like "God forbid that because he makes more entertaining movies somehow makes him the greater filmmaker" Horror.


I love Kubrick. I really do. The SHining is in my top three favorite films ever. With that being said, the dude isnt perfect. Some of his earlier work is shit on a stick. Sparticus was pretty bad but I cant totallly fault him for that cause I believe he didnt have final cut.


Everything he's done since The Killing is a masterpiece, Spartacus is a special case because he was brought in out of the blue and he didn't have full creative power..


And you mean to tell me that Full Metal Jacket is superior to Saving Private Ryan?! I will definitely agree that The Thin Red Line is superior to both of them but thats irrelavent cause thats a Malick film.

Full Metal Jacket and Saving Private Ryan are very different war films. I'd say Paths of Glory is closer to Saving Private Ryan and yes, Paths of Glory is superior.


2001 was definitely a visionary masterpiece but then again so was Raiders of the Lost Ark and Close Encounters.

2001 brought you "the dawn of man" and was set entirely in space, made in the late 60s! Close Encounters is amazing, Raiders of the Lost Ark is great fun but I don't think they can compare to 2001..


I also think that the American Film Institute is definitely a reliable source to go by. They have a lot of weight in their opinion and its widely respected.

They have weight and are widely respected maybe by the Hollywood community and some "average joes", but that's about it. They make some crazy exaggerations like putting Vertigo ahead of Psycho, taking Frago off but putting The Sixth Sense etc. (this is the updated list btw, where Schindler's List is #8 and 2001 #15 :D)

Another thing that is a matter of personal taste is that I prefer Kubrick's "main theme" over Spielberg's "main theme". Kubrick's dehumanization over Spielberg's family values.

[BakeTheMooCow]

I went with Kubrick, because Spielberg just doesn't know how to end his movies. Most of the time, the ending either goes on too long or is sickly sweet.

[echo_bravo]

I will say that Kubrick is definitely the more DARING of the two. The dude knows how to take risks more than any other filmmaker period.

My main gripe with Kubrick is that he just didnt make enough films to be crowned the greatest ever.

And Full Metal Jacket is no masterpiece. The first hour is awesome but it loses some steam after that. Still a good film though.

I also am factoring in all the cultural significance that Spielberg films have given us (E.T., Raiders of the Lost Ark, Jurrasic Park, Close Encounters, Jaws etc etc). Not to mention his films do amazing job at the box office but that isnt too important it just shows that people dig his films a ton.

[DaMovieMan]

My main gripe with Kubrick is that he just didn't make enough films to be crowned the greatest ever.


This is unfair. When comparing directors I think you should look at their body of work as wholes. It shouldn't matter how many films Kubrick did because that has nothing to do with the quality of the films themselves, it's just the way he worked. Same with Spielberg.

Plus I believe that releasing so many films tends to become a problem at the end because not all of them are going to be of the highest quality like some of Spielberg's aren't.

[Lazy Boy]

The two are not even comparable. Spielberg's primary intention with most of his films is to entertain, while Kubrick's primary intention was to create great art. They set out to make completely different movies, and made completely different movies. It's honestly rather hard to compare a great pulp entertainment film like Indiana Jones with a great artistic achievement like 2001: A Space Odyssey.

Although, truth be told, Kubrick isn't really comparable to anybody. He was completely unique. Never before had there been a filmmaker like him, and there probably never will be again.

I was going to come in and post the usual "do you really want me to choose?" and found the above comment to be most satisfying to my line of thinking.

I would have to say Kubrick, but I'm not denying the brilliance of a lot of Spielberg's works -- yes, even pop iconic films such as E.T. can be masterpieces, or, in the case of A.I., near masterpieces. Speaking of that, what a picture for Kubrick's name to live through, and what a project that inspired some of Senor Spielbergo's greatest, most poetic images. They had their own separate ways of filmmaking, but at that moment, a symbiotic relationship was formed between a talent who was channeling from beyond, and a prodigious student of the craft who was taken by Kubrick's legacy.

Both great filmmakers, both indelible.

[bigred760]

I agree that the two are barely comparable, but Spielberg's my favorite director.

Went with him.

[Crazy Dud]

I was going to come in and post the usual "do you really want me to choose?" and found the above comment to be most satisfying to my line of thinking.

I would have to say Kubrick, but I'm not denying the brilliance of a lot of Spielberg's works -- yes, even pop iconic films such as E.T. can be masterpieces, or, in the case of A.I., near masterpieces. Speaking of that, what a picture for Kubrick's name to live through, and what a project that inspired some of Senor Spielbergo's greatest, most poetic images. They had their own separate ways of filmmaking, but at that moment, a symbiotic relationship was formed between a talent who was channeling from beyond, and a prodigious student of the craft who was taken by Kubrick's legacy.

Both great filmmakers, both indelible.

Absolutely.

Although, if I HAD to choose, I suppose I would go with bigred and give Spielberg the edge.

[InHopelandish]

You honestly cant compare the two. Entertainer. Artist.

I prefer Kubrick, I understand people who prefer Spielberg. Schindler's List is one of the greatest movies of all time. But so are more than HALF of Kubrick's movies (I still have yet to see a few).

The argument is futile, because there's no winner. But I would like to briefly touch on one issue.

I've heard people give flack for Kubrick because of how inconsistent he was with actors... ummm... WHAT? What are you TALKING about.

I'd like to see you round up a group of actors, put them in monkey suits and recreate the dawn of man.

that's definately not as easy as it looks.

[redorblue01]

After a quick count, I've seen twice as many Spielberg films as I have Kubrick, 24 to 12, which makes it difficult right off the bat. I don't want to post the ratings for all 36 films here but I'll say that I've giving an A+ (or 10/10, whatever you consider the highest rating to be on your scale) to 5 of Kubrick's films and 3 to Spielberg.
The lowest rating I've given to one of Kubrick's films is a B (Full Metal Jacket), whereas the lowest rating I've given to one of Spielberg's is a C (The Lost World/War Of The Worlds). As it's been stated, this is a contest of two great directors whose bodies of work showcase their tremendous talent and craft. However, my vote has to go to Kubrick because each of the films I have seen by him (and I do admit I wish I have seen a film by him before 1955) have been at such a high level of art and entertainment.
Some of Spielberg's films have reached this level (such as
Schindler's List and Jaws, my favorite of the 24 films) and what I appreciate about him is the way he can reinvigorate a genre with just one film, like he did with Science Fiction in Close Encounters and Minority Report (my third favorite by Spielberg) or with Adventure in Raiders Of The Lost Ark.
However, he's being compared to a true innovator, whose films that I've seen have all been challenging or ambitious, which is more than I can see for Spielberg. There is a difference in quality between Kubrick's films but he was a true artist who made sure that he made all of his films the best he could.
So after all that, I'll go with Kubrick.

[InHopelandish]

Just thought everyone would like to know. Spielberg's vote is for Kubrick...

"Stanley Kubrick was the grandmaster of filmmaking. He copied no one, while all of us were scrambling to imitate him." - Steven Spielberg

;)

[jeo4]

Spielberg

[Gordon]

Just thought everyone would like to know. Spielberg's vote is for Kubrick...

"Stanley Kubrick was the grandmaster of filmmaking. He copied no one, while all of us were scrambling to imitate him." - Steven Spielberg

;)

This has actually been covered. The reason I made this was because there was an extensive argument in another thread of mine. I think the poll is nonsense, myself, because not only did they have extraordinary respect for one another but Kubrick just outshines everyone.

[LordSimen]

Spielberg. Although I do love The Shining better than any movie Spielberg has ever done, I enjoy Spielberg's overall filmography better... Plus Spielberg made Duel, and that's an awesome fucking movie.