The Shining 4K UHD (1980)

[monstermidget]

I wasn't looking for an argument. I never once claimed she went to war nor am I acting like it. I'm not claiming that you or anyone else here have made any attempts to directly excuse Kubrick. Everything I said still stands.

[KubrickKurasawa]

Originally Posted by monstermidget

I wasn't looking for an argument. I never once claimed she went to war nor am I acting like it. I'm not claiming that you or anyone else here have made any attempts to directly excuse Kubrick. Everything I said still stands.

And yet many many more wished to work with Kubrick again, and never got the chance. Jack Nicholson is one of many that went on record saying this in interviews.

You have to do/act in a way the Director wants and I think Shelly thought she knew everything (she played Olive OIL!!). Kubrick did try the most takes of almost anyone though. Maybe she bit off more than she could chew imho. The fact is Kubrick MADE HER WORK.

[LordoftheRings]

Cameron too is a tough guy to work with. But Kubrick made a lot of people getting closer to what real suffering is, acting with him directing. Malcolm had his share too.

[KubrickKurasawa]

Originally Posted by LordoftheRings

Cameron too is a tough guy to work with. But Kubrick made a lot of people getting closer to what real suffering is, acting with him directing. Malcolm had his share too.

He OWNED all his equipment , cameras etc. when you came to work for him he wasn't renting the studio's equipment. So that allowed him the ability to focus on more takes. It also allowed him to budget his movies for less and get more out of them. This film the shining took over a year to shoot because of this strategy. The Overlook inside interior was completely rebuuilt only the outside was real. This movie set imho is the most intriging set in film.

[KubrickKurasawa]

My point is that most movies take a couple months. She probably hated being contracted that long, and told to act convincingly for her role as an abused wife for over a year LOL.

[jabba359]

Originally Posted by KubrickKurasawa

He OWNED all his equipment , cameras etc. when you came to work for him he wasn't renting the studio's equipment. So that allowed him the ability to focus on more takes.

Equipment rentals are generally only a very small portion of a film budget, especially on a major production like his. Most of the money would go to actors, writers, producers, renting studio space/locations, and paying crew. I seriously doubt owning the equipment had any appreciable impact on how many takes he could do, considering how relatively small the budgets for camera and grip & electric equipment are.

Did he save some money there? Sure. Did he save enough to justify all the additional time (and costs associated with paying for more work days, location rental days, etc.) by owning the equipment? Not even close.

[TheDarkBlueNight]

He also worked with a smaller crew than mainstream productions. A few people close to him often did multiple jobs that could (and perhaps should?) be done by several different crew members. Kubrick had very unique way of making films, which led to fantastic results but possibly at tremendous cost in mental and even physical health for many of the involved...

[ROSS.T.G.]

I swear Kubrick has become some mythical being.

[s2mikey]

Opening price of $35.90. I know it will drop when we get closer to October 1st but geesh.

Its a Day 1 though unless the price is/stays stupid.

[Cherokee Jack]

Originally Posted by s2mikey

Opening price of $35.90. I know it will drop when we get closer to October 1st but geesh.

Its a Day 1 though unless the price is/stays stupid.

$24.99 at Best Buy.

[LordoftheRings]

Originally Posted by ROSS.T.G.

I swear Kubrick has become some mythical being.

He is not alone ...

* The price will drop to $19.99 ... I bet.

[Kyle15]

Originally Posted by monstermidget

I wasn't looking for an argument.

Dude your tone was argumentative/debative. Am I not supposed to respond if I want to? You quoted me.

I never once claimed she went to war nor am I acting like it.

You gave the impression that's how you feel.

I'm not claiming that you or anyone else here have made any attempts to directly excuse Kubrick.

The last comment you made could be read that way, if that wasn't your intent that's cool.

Everything I said still stands.

See, there's the argumentative thing. How about what I say stands actually?

[Poya]

She lived and had a great career. The movie was great. She was great in it. Get over it.

Now can we please talk about what happened at Cannes?

[LordoftheRings]

You tell us; what happened @ Cannes?

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by jabba359

Equipment rentals are generally only a very small portion of a film budget, especially on a major production like his. Most of the money would go to actors, writers, producers, renting studio space/locations, and paying crew. I seriously doubt owning the equipment had any appreciable impact on how many takes he could do, considering how relatively small the budgets for camera and grip & electric equipment are.

Did he save some money there? Sure. Did he save enough to justify all the additional time (and costs associated with paying for more work days, location rental days, etc.) by owning the equipment? Not even close.

Kubrick may well have owned his cameras and lenses but he certainly didn't pay for the literal millions of feet of film that he shot throughout his career.

[monstermidget]

Originally Posted by Kyle15

Dude your tone was argumentative/debative. Am I not supposed to respond if I want to? You quoted me.

You are absolutely entitled to respond.
I was simply stating the fact that I was not looking for an argument, in response to that part in your first response to me where you said you weren't "arguing with any of this". You speculated. I speculated. Arguments are largely pointless. You have you own preconceived notions, your own opinions and anything a stranger on the internet says is unlikely to change that very much.

Originally Posted by Kyle15

You gave the impression that's how you feel.


The last comment you made could be read that way, if that wasn't your intent that's cool.

You infer things that were not there. I can't fairly be held accountable for the impressions you take from what I have said. Stating that someone who went through a year or so of prolonged stress and abuse is extremely, extremely unlikely to come away from the experience completely unscathed is not a comparison with war.
If you want to get into details about how serious the abuse was or was not, or how it might affect a person; that is another conversation, and one we probably shouldn't continue here in a thread for the imminent 4k release of a classic film, one which folks are rightly excited and happy about and probably don't want to see bogged down with such discussions--the world is depressing enough already.

[Bobbyjoe766]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

Kubrick may well have owned his cameras and lenses but he certainly didn't pay for the literal millions of feet of film that he shot throughout his career.

A pity he wasn’t stopped from destroying some of it then.

[Geoff D]

Right, but if you had Mr Kubrick make a movie for you then you were employing him to shoot as much film as he needs, as well as explicitly accept his omniscient power over the entire production despite other people having paid for it. My point was purely to do with the issue of budget that the excitable KK raised, that there's no corollary there whatsover between owing the camera and being able to do a bajillion takes on what passes through the camera. He could do it because he was Stanley Kubrick.

While it's true he went to the same people over and over again and generally got 1 person to do 5 jobs (that's on a slow day) he did still make full use of lots of crew, extras etc when needed. The whole 'SK does everything' myth is cute but it's not quite the full picture.

[KubrickKurasawa]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

Right, but if you had Mr Kubrick make a movie for you then you were employing him to shoot as much film as he needs, as well as explicitly accept his omniscient power over the entire production despite other people having paid for it. My point was purely to do with the issue of budget that the excitable KK raised, that there's no corollary there whatsover between owing the camera and being able to do a bajillion takes on what passes through the camera. He could do it because he was Stanley Kubrick.

While it's true he went to the same people over and over again and generally got 1 person to do 5 jobs (that's on a slow day) he did still make full use of lots of crew, extras etc when needed. The whole 'SK does everything' myth is cute but it's not quite the full picture.

True...let's not forget Charlie Chaplin on that list. Happy?

They are the only 2 that had their own production companies separate to the studio system.

IDC.

[multiformous]

Originally Posted by gates70

Whatever, English is not my first language, French is. How's your French?

It was just a joke in your reference to how people quibble over trivial details. Mon francais c'est mal.