There's no one like Kubrick

[Rowdy Roddy McDowall]

There are good and bad popcorn movies. JURASSIC PARK and INDIANA JONES IV need lots more work than JAWS or RAIDERS. I prefer SAVING PRIVATE RYAN and MUNICH to even SCHINDLER'S LIST, incidentally. But I don't like Spielberg to be gutless, as when he takes out a kid's death from Crichton's novel despite having freaked us out with Alex Kintner's death in JAWS, or eliminating the guns from his classic E.T. over 20 years later while taking all the drama from the scene just because he claims he thought he made a mistake. He made a mistake by changing it in the first place, so he changed it back after getting scores of millions for the second version of E.T. Are we supposed to believe he's as dumb as George Lucas? Why didn't he remove the guns from SCHINDLER'S LIST or take out the dead girl in the red clothes if he's against children at risk? Pardon the digression. But Kubrick had guts in every movie and was willing to unsettle his audience, including his summer popcorn film FULL METAL JACKET.

 

[barnaclelapse]

My genre categories may not line up with everyone's, but:

Robert Wise did historical drama, disaster, musical, horror, thriller, war, science fiction, and crime. I can't think of a comedy off hand.

Robert Altman did period drama, contemporary drama, fantasy, comedy, thriller, mystery, science fiction, musical, western and crime.

John Ford did period drama, biopic, current-event drama, documentary, war, romance and of course western. Borderline on comedy and mystery and no real musical but there was so much song and dance in Ford movies that one critic said they felt like long trailers for imaginary musicals.

Justin

Altman is a really good one. Same with Ford.

And I love Kubrick, but I wasn't expecting to like "Barry Lyndon", which I finally saw a couple of months ago, as much as I did.

 

[Flying Spaghetti Monster]

as when he takes out a kid's death from Crichton's novel

I read the novel for JP and don't remember Lex or Tim dying

 

[sojourner]

, including his summer popcorn film FULL METAL JACKET.

That. was not. a summer popcorn film.

 

[Drago-Kazov]

He never did anything that would remind you at anything Michael Bay did.

 

[Tom Servo]

There are good and bad popcorn movies. JURASSIC PARK and INDIANA JONES IV need lots more work than JAWS or RAIDERS. I prefer SAVING PRIVATE RYAN and MUNICH to even SCHINDLER'S LIST, incidentally. But I don't like Spielberg to be gutless, as when he takes out a kid's death from Crichton's novel despite having freaked us out with Alex Kintner's death in JAWS, or eliminating the guns from his classic E.T. over 20 years later while taking all the drama from the scene just because he claims he thought he made a mistake. He made a mistake by changing it in the first place, so he changed it back after getting scores of millions for the second version of E.T. Are we supposed to believe he's as dumb as George Lucas? Why didn't he remove the guns from SCHINDLER'S LIST or take out the dead girl in the red clothes if he's against children at risk? Pardon the digression. But Kubrick had guts in every movie and was willing to unsettle his audience, including his summer popcorn film FULL METAL JACKET.

What kid dies during the novel Jurassic Park? I just re read it, and not one kid does, unless you're counting the baby in a scene with the compys, which would have an unnecessary scene for the film. If you're gonna call out Spielberg for removing something, get your facts straight.

Jurassic Park is a fantastic film, and is the upper level of the big budget summer blockbuster. There is a reason that it is revered as it is today, besides its revolutionary VFX work. If that weren't the case it'd simply be another The Last Starfighter.

 

[JarodRussell]

Characters we actually care about. Non-cookie-cutter personalities. Suspense in who lives or doesn't. The music and effects in JURASIC PARK were its only assets. It sure as hell wasn't the acting.

But that's not "the story".

 

[Mister Fandango]

There are good and bad popcorn movies. JURASSIC PARK and INDIANA JONES IV need lots more work than JAWS or RAIDERS. I prefer SAVING PRIVATE RYAN and MUNICH to even SCHINDLER'S LIST, incidentally. But I don't like Spielberg to be gutless, as when he takes out a kid's death from Crichton's novel despite having freaked us out with Alex Kintner's death in JAWS, or eliminating the guns from his classic E.T. over 20 years later while taking all the drama from the scene just because he claims he thought he made a mistake. He made a mistake by changing it in the first place, so he changed it back after getting scores of millions for the second version of E.T. Are we supposed to believe he's as dumb as George Lucas? Why didn't he remove the guns from SCHINDLER'S LIST or take out the dead girl in the red clothes if he's against children at risk? Pardon the digression. But Kubrick had guts in every movie and was willing to unsettle his audience, including his summer popcorn film FULL METAL JACKET.

You and I clearly have different defintions of "popcorn movie." In fact, your definition is completely and utterly alien to the term as used by the vast majority of the world's population. (Hint: "Popcorn movie" != "summer movie" != "critical acclaim" != "blockbuster." Those are all separate terms.)

 

[Rowdy Roddy McDowall]

All too true. FULL METAL was a summer movie, and it was the closest thing Kubrick ever got to a popcorn movie....which is to say, not very. Technically, people ate popcorn watching it, but that's not the same thing. But when Lee Ermey cuts loose on his men, those are the film's popcorn moments. I also follow your distinctions.

Tom Servo: What kid dies during the novel Jurassic Park? I just re read it, and not one kid does, unless you're counting the baby in a scene with the compys, which would have an unnecessary scene for the film. If you're gonna call out Spielberg for removing something, get your facts straight.

Jurassic Park is a fantastic film, and is the upper level of the big budget summer blockbuster. There is a reason that it is revered as it is today, besides its revolutionary VFX work. If that weren't the case it'd simply be another The Last Starfighter. ''

Me: Take away the FX work, and what's left? What's the other reason it's revered? It's a massive moneymaker, but so are Adam Sandler and Preparation H. The difference between it, JAWS and RAIDERS is painfully clear. And one kid does die: the baby. Babies are kids. That's a straight fact.

Not that I'm calling for Spielberg to get all bloodthirsty on infants a la the horrible AVP 2 REQUIEM, but for me JP was all predictability by-the-numbers with a third-rate story in comparison to Spielberg's better works. Even those not reading the book could tell who would die and who would not. There's good popcorn movie like RAIDERS and JAWS, because of their stories. Then there's JURASSIC.

 

[Drago-Kazov]

All too true. FULL METAL was a summer movie, and it was the closest thing Kubrick ever got to a popcorn movie

That would be Spartacus.

 

[JarodRussell]

Me: Take away the FX work, and what's left? What's the other reason it's revered? It's a massive moneymaker, but so are Adam Sandler and Preparation H. The difference between it, JAWS and RAIDERS is painfully clear. And one kid does die: the baby. Babies are kids. That's a straight fact.

The original novel has no FX. It seems I really don't get your argument.


Speaking of Kubrik... I never really saw the appeal in his films. 2001, for example. It's bloated. It could be cut down to half an hour without losing anything (well, except for the overlong shots). I don't really see the magic in it. Or for Full Metal Jacket. The beginning is interesting, but only because of Ermey. And then his character dies because he's an idiot, and then it turns into a somewhat crazed, but still rather typical anti-war movie.

Hitchcock on the other hand, that man's films are truly worthwhile, and he had a much greater influence on the following generations, in my opinion.

 

[Gaith]

There's good popcorn movie like RAIDERS and JAWS, because of their stories. Then there's JURASSIC.

Given a choice between a story about a fish that not only goes out of its way to hunt a specific boat, but also willingly and repeatedly uses its most sensitive body part as a battering tool against wood, and a story about dinosaurs escaping from their theme park... I'll go with the latter, thanks.

 

[Rowdy Roddy McDowall]

Real sharks aren't as tenacious as in JAWS as far as we know. Of course, if we believe the final sequel JAWS: THE REVENGE, the latest shark actually carries a blood vendetta against the wife and children of the man who killed two of his fishy relatives. I'll take JURASSIC over JAWS IV. I'm not THAT crazy.

''The original novel has no FX. It seems I really don't get your argument.''

I'm not slamming the book. I'm slamming the film in comparison to what Spielberg is capable of with his other, better films. Perhaps if JURASSIC is preferable to JAWS, to some it may be a generational thing. I was 10 when I saw JAWS but 27 when I saw JURASSIC so I had different reference points. Anyhow, if LINCOLN is at least as good as MUNICH or better I'll be very satisfied.

I also love 2001 and the majority of Hitchcock.

 

[Harvey]

There's good popcorn movie like RAIDERS and JAWS, because of their stories. Then there's JURASSIC.

Given a choice between a story about a fish that not only goes out of its way to hunt a specific boat, but also willingly and repeatedly uses its most sensitive body part as a battering tool against wood, and a story about dinosaurs escaping from their theme park... I'll go with the latter, thanks.

If we're going to get reductive about plausibility, I think a movie about a shark that eats people and attacks a boat is more plausible than anything you'll find in Jurassic Park. Think about it; a corporation is able to keep secret a group of scientists cloning hundreds of dinosaurs from partial DNA samples and the construction of a massive, hugely expensive theme park -- both of which appear to have been accomplished in a relatively short period of time.

 

[Maurice]

Speaking of Kubrik... I never really saw the appeal in his films. 2001, for example. It's bloated. It could be cut down to half an hour without losing anything (well, except for the overlong shots).

Perhaps you expect the film to be about the plot. It's not. It's an entirely visual exercise, and, as I believe Kubrick said, "Nothing important [in it] is conveyed in dialogue."

 

[Gaith]

If we're going to get reductive about plausibility, I think a movie about a shark that eats people and attacks a boat is more plausible than anything you'll find in Jurassic Park. Think about it; a corporation is able to keep secret a group of scientists cloning hundreds of dinosaurs from partial DNA samples and the construction of a massive, hugely expensive theme park -- both of which appear to have been accomplished in a relatively short period of time.

I'm far more interested in in-movie consistency than with plausibility per se. Pretty much everything about Jurassic Park is big and outlandish all the way through, so I can roll with it. Jaws, on the other hand, is fairly low-key, believable and realistic in the first half, with a few swimmers getting munched on here and there, then turns into Terminator On Water! in its second. An hourlong movie wouldn't have been marketable, granted, but from an artistic standpoint, I'm inclined to think the whole expedition/hunt sequence ought to have been scrapped, or at the very least drastically reduced. In Man vs. Monsters terms, I much prefer Alien, a rather more internally consistent film.

 

[JarodRussell]

Speaking of Kubrik... I never really saw the appeal in his films. 2001, for example. It's bloated. It could be cut down to half an hour without losing anything (well, except for the overlong shots).

Perhaps you expect the film to be about the plot. It's not. It's an entirely visual exercise, and, as I believe Kubrick said, "Nothing important [in it] is conveyed in dialogue."

So Kubrik is the godfather of everything I hate in Hollywood films? And then, there's nothing important in the visuals of, for example, the docking sequence that couldn't have been conveyed in a tenth of the time.



For 2001, the criticism guys brought up against Jurassic Park applies even more: take the FX out, what's left? The entire film disappears.

 

[Rowdy Roddy McDowall]

That's also true, though 2001 is unique in its intentions and to me is one of our rare cinematic poems. It's in three acts, but these acts are not dependent on what traditional films rely on. I think it succeeds on its own unique terms. Being an earlier film, it has less effects than STAR WARS or JURASSIC, but its intentions are for the viewer to partially decide.

Having read the Marvel comics Jack Kirby treasury edition long before actually watching the film, the hidden ideas Kubrick was aiming for seemed pretty evident even though I was 11 at best.

''Jaws, on the other hand, is fairly low-key, believable and realistic in the first half, with a few swimmers getting munched on here and there, then turns into Terminator On Water! in its second. An hourlong movie wouldn't have been marketable, granted, but from an artistic standpoint, I'm inclined to think the whole expedition/hunt sequence ought to have been scrapped, or at the very least drastically reduced.''---Gaith.

JAWS, unlike most movies, is a two-act tale, first on land, then at sea. It takes one hour for the isolated trio to prevail, except of course for Quint. So the pacing of part two, even for a pre-George Lucas film, may have seemed unnatural. Luckily you had Richard Dreyfuss to keep it hilarious and Robert Shaw to keep it dramatic. Spielberg tried not to have his audience guess that Scheider would be the winner, even though he IS top-billed and all and arrives right at the beginning, unlike his two shipmates. The shark kills five people, which is also impressive by 70s standards. When the TERMINATOR came on the scene that body-count skyrocketed....
Bottom line: the pacing was unusual. Seeing it as a kid, I was surprised how long they were at sea.....and nervous for the safety of the trio. This was intentional, which is why Spielberg actually filmed at sea. CGI didn't exist. But if it had, I can't see how it could've made JAWS more memorable. Does anyone out there prefer DEEP BLUE SEA?

 

[JarodRussell]

There is indeed the thing that CGI enabled filmmakers to do everything they want, and, most of the time, that turns out to be bad. Sometimes, not always, heavy restrictions make a film great.

I got the Complete Making of Indiana Jones, and the first draft for The Last Crusade was horrible. It was called The Monkey King, and had Indy riding on a rhino, a three story tall German tank, an army of speaking gorillas, and more totally ludicrous stuff. But they couldn't do it technically, and that's how we got a much much better film with a much much better script.

And then they could do stuff, and we ended up with the Star Wars prequels and the Transformers films.


Had Spielberg had today's technology back then, Jaws wouldn't have been as good. Or Jurassic Park. The best moments of these films are the result of working around the limitations they had. Don't show everything because you can't show everything. And if there's a moment where they truly show everything, it is a very special thing and the entire narrative leads up to that moment. Today, they can show what they want, and nothing has to lead up to anything anymore.

That's why, for example, the dinosaurs in the Jurassic Park sequels become less and less impressive and less and less scary.

 

[Rowdy Roddy McDowall]

''Had Spielberg had today's technology back then, Jaws wouldn't have been as good.''

I agree 1000 percent there. Plus, the test audiences would no doubt have mucked it up by adding one teenager and a woman on the boat, and they'd be played by----no, scratch that. I don't want to give them ideas for the 2037 remake.

JAWS is considered the first true blockbuster since it was the first to make 100 million in its first run, but STAR WARS and RAIDERS had a greater effect. Both started with a bang, then had roughly 30 minutes of peace and quiet. After that, they deliver a climax just about every ten minutes. Those films both did them well, but it influenced other films to do it badly.

Pauline Kael called STAR WARS ''a box of Cracker Jacks that's all prizes.'' For summer films at least, it's definitely the norm now. Unfortunately, Kael had different beefs with Kubrick.