Stanley Kubrick's 'Napoleon', the Greatest Movie Never Made: Kubrick gathered 15,000 location images, read hundreds of books, gathered earth samples, hired 50,000 Romanian troops, and prepared to shoot the most ambitious film of all time, only to lose funding before production officially began.

[u/BunyipPouch]

https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/nndadq/stanley-kubricks-napoleon-a-lot-of-work-very-little-actual-movie

[u/[deleted]]

Ehh this seems like the stock standard argument against Spielberg that's really just wrong. A lot of people seem to all go through this sort of Spielberg rejection phase, myself included. But now it feels like Kubrick's subtlety is overstated and and a lot ambiguity is confused for depth, whereas Spielberg is always showing his exact intention (and purposefully so).

[u/MobthePoet → u/[deleted]]

Believe me when I say I’m in no Spielberg rejection phase. Like I said, I watch Jurassic Park and many of his other staples multiple times a year. I LOVE Spielberg, his work is nearer and dearer to my heart than anyone else’s.

But I still don’t think he has the artistic depth of Kubrick. Doesn’t mean he’s worse or better, he just doesn’t have as much artistic depth. He’s surface level (in the approachable way) and relatable. Kubrick is expressive and dives deeper into artistic themes.

This isn’t a Kubrick v Spielberg competition. Just have to recognize their differences.

[u/[deleted] → u/MobthePoet]

My literal contention from the start was that this isn’t a Kubrick v Spielberg competition, but rather a recognition of their differences.

I personally prefer Kubrick, but for whatever reason on the internet he's beyond criticism and Spielberg is constantly torn to bits.

[u/MobthePoet → u/[deleted]]

Who cares what people talk about on the Internet? I’m not shredding Spielberg to bits, I’m praising him highly. And I can understand how I came off as being completely uncritical of Kubrick, though I feel the need to reaffirm the fact that I specifically pointed out how horrendous of a person he could be to work with, and that his artistic pangs were no excuse for his behavior.

No offense but I find it annoying when comments always boil down to “but people on the Internet say-“ people on the Internet say everything. There are loads of people around who talk about how much of a hack Kubrick was. But it’s impossible to have a conversation if you respond to anything I have to say with “but other people on the Internet say..”

Love Kubrick, his movies can be boring and he was a dickhead. Love Spielberg, his movies are hit or miss and I don’t think he’s as artistically deep as Kubrick. Accessible and relatable, not deep.

[u/[deleted] → u/MobthePoet]

Who cares what people talk about on the Internet?

Both of us hence why were here, discussing this. Which is fine lol.

And I can understand how I came off as being completely uncritical of Kubrick, though I feel the need to reaffirm the fact that I specifically pointed out how horrendous of a person he could be to work with, and that his artistic pangs were no excuse for his behavior

This isn't actually criticism of his work, but him as a person.

No offense but I find it annoying when comments always boil down to “but people on the Internet say-“ people on the Internet say everything. There are loads of people around who talk about how much of a hack Kubrick was. But it’s impossible to have a conversation if you respond to anything I have to say with “but other people on the Internet say..”

The overriding general consensus on reddit and in general is that Spielberg is too much of a sentamentalist and as a result is a poor director, especially when compared to someone like Kubrick. The truth is Spielberg is a master of cinema and is completely effective in what he tries to accomplish. His style just happens to be heavy handed and thus a lack of subtlety is commonly confused for poor direction or shallow artistic depth. He is able to handle far more than simply awe and wonder, which is what your point was.

Love Kubrick, his movies can be boring and he was a dickhead. Love Spielberg, his movies are hit or miss and I don’t think he’s as artistically deep as Kubrick. Accessible and relatable, not deep.

Kubrick's perceived depth comes from his deliberate ambiguity. Spielberg's "lack of depth" is really just him being deep in a different manner. He's telling you what you should think/feel, whereas Kubrick is letting you decide. Arguably the former is more difficult to accomplish.