Talk:Stanley Kubrick/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Numerology

Removed from the main article by User:Revolver:

Kubrick reportedly died exactly 666 days before January 1 2001, a fact noted by trivia buffs and conspiracy theorists. [1], [2].

---

Hey, I wasn't doubting whether Kubrick died exactly 666 days before the year 2001. That's probably true. I didn't remove the sentence because I doubted its truth -- I removed it because it's irrelevant. People play with numbers all the time and if you take enough combinations, you're going to come up with coincidental things like this. Are we going to start putting references to every single irrelevant numerological thing that someone finds?? Revolver

Well, it makes the reader to laugh (or, at least, this is true for me) :) Is there any better way to end an article from writing something funny? Optim 03:52, 25 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I added the info in Number of the Beast (numerology). Optim 03:56, 25 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Of course not. But this is one which is noted by trivia buffs and conspiracy theorists. Anthony DiPierro 04:35, 10 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Well, usually these are the ONLY people who note such crap, so I don't see what difference that makes. Revolver 19:59, 10 Feb 2004 (UTC)

If people are noting something, wikipedia should report it. Anthony DiPierro 20:52, 10 Feb 2004 (UTC)

How many people are really noting this? I think the number is pretty low. Just because there are a lot of websites devoted to something, doesn't mean a lot of people are noting it. I would bet there are thousands of other things "noted" by similarly minute portions of the populations...do we make a note of all of these? Revolver 21:28, 10 Feb 2004 (UTC)

If it's a verifiable NPOV fact, yes, we do. Anthony DiPierro 21:30, 10 Feb 2004 (UTC)

But that's where I disagree with you -- NOT every verifiable NPOV fact has a place on wikipedia. I could believe that aliens captured Stanley Kubrick's body and whisked him away, and "convince" 10 of my friends this was true (or to say it was true), then it would be a verifiable fact that the 11 of us believe and note this; do we deserve mention?? Wikipedia is not a dictionary, not a source vault, not a place for random (true) lists, not a place for random bits of information, not a place for everything. Lots of verifiable NPOV facts get thrown out on the VfD page all the time, so that doesn't make sense as an argument to me. There are at least half a dozen numerological factoids about Kubrick that certain people take very seriously...should we list all of them here? If not all of them belong here, do they deserve their own article? I think it would be shot down in 2 seconds flat on VfD if I made an article called "Facts about Stanley Kubrick noted by trivial buffs and conspiracy theorists". I don't think the number of people who note these things warrants it being mentioned on the Kubrick page...it DOES warrant it being mentioned on the numerology or conspiracy theorist articles, because it's part of a larger thing (the whole thing really has to do with people believing in numerology, it has almost NOTHING to do with Kubrick per se). So, put it on the numerology article, put it on the conspiracy theory article, but I don't think it warrants being here. Now, I'm not going to change it back, because I don't want to get into an edit war; I just want to state my case for the record before moving on to other things. Revolver 00:11, 11 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Perhaps not every verifiable NPOV fact has a place on Wikipedia. But this one does have a place. In fact, it has multiple places. One of them is right here. As for your alien question, no, that wouldn't belong on Wikipedia. It would not be a verifiable fact. The number of days between Kubrick's death and January 1, 2001 is a verifiable fact. As for your list of what wikipedia is not, you're mixing in reasons for articles to be deleted with reasons for facts to be deleted. Wikipedia is not a dictionary, but a good encyclopedia entry commonly starts with a dictionary definition, for example. Obviously an article called "Facts about Stanley Kubrick noted by trivial buffs and conspiracy theorists" would be shot down. But then, so would "List of birth and death dates of people named Stanley Kubrick." That's not an argument against the fact itself being in the article. I think it does warrant being here. As much as his date of birth or date of death or that he "owned and resided at Childwickbury Manor in the district of St Albans" or that he was "interred in Childwickbury Manor." As for not starting an edit war, that's good, because it's been added by three people now and only removed by you. Anthony DiPierro 00:26, 11 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Should all half a dozen factoids about Kubrick be mentioned here? Maybe. What were you thinking? I wouldn't want to put his sign, since this isn't something very unique to Kubrick. But that's just a guess about what you were talking about. Anthony DiPierro 00:30, 11 Feb 2004 (UTC)

No, the aliens thing isn't verifiable. But it's verifiable that TEN OF MY FRIENDS BELIEVE IT'S TRUE. People believe false things, but reporting that they believe false things is considered okay, because it's verifiably true that that's what they believe. What if my 10 friends believed some random, irrelevant TRUE fact about Kubrick? Would that warrant inclusion. And no, I DON'T think all half dozen factoids belong here. In any case, obviously people don't understand my argument. The "666" thing is not something unique to Kubrick. IF YOU LOOK LONG ENOUGH, YOU WILL FIND THAT MANY FAMOUS PEOPLE ARE RELATED TO FAMOUS EVENTS BY THE NUMBER "666", KUBRICK IS NOT UNIQUE IN THIS ASPECT. So, if his sign is not okay to put here, neither is "666". The BELIEF of the factoid is important because people believe it; the fact itself is RANDOM and has nothing to do with Kubrick. I find the fact that people actually think the "666" factoid is on some kind of similar level as where Kubrick was born, lived, raised, and interred to be frankly, laughable. If that's the level of quality these articles are going to be written at, fine...I'll go back to writing and editing math articles until other more serious contributors and thinkers come here and take this stuff down. Goodbye. Revolver 02:03, 11 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Verifiability doesn't mean that something could conceivably be verified by someone somewhere. In the case of this fact, it is trivially verifiable by anyone who wishes to do the math (assuming you accept the date of his death, you do, don't you). Comparing it to a theory by 10 of your friends is not anywhere near the same thing. Besides verifiability, that would fail Wikipedia:No original research. Go have fun with your math articles. Anthony DiPierro 13:55, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)

What if my 10 friends believed some random, irrelevant TRUE fact about Kubrick? Would that warrant inclusion? Do you even read what I write, or are you able to understand it? If 10 of my friends believe a VERIFIABLE, TRUE thing, this is not just a "theory". As I've said, I'm not debating the VERIFIABILITY of the 666 fact, if you'd bother to read what I say; I'm debating the verifiability of NUMEROLOGY. The ONLY reason this fact belongs here is if you believe in numerology, otherwise, it ONLY belongs on the numerology page. The only exception is if enough people believe the 666 fact has significance that it has a major effect or influence on Kubrick or his work, and this is patently false. Revolver 22:28, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Are you all really this superstitious or something? I just can't figure out why people think this is important, that it has anything to do with Kubrick. Revolver 02:05, 11 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Just noticed that my edit of the notorious 666 paragraph pretty-much takes it back to as it was after an earlier edit by Optim. I am a newcomer to Wikipedia, but I'm confident that the "Completely trivial coincidence" heading, and the "Wow!" have no place in a thoughtful article. I would prefer the paragraph not to be there at all, and had hoped that my leaner version would be acceptable. Since Optim's version was basically the same and the tabloid stuff was put back in, I guess my edit is doomed also. Gary Jones 13:41, Mar 3, 2004 (UTC)

---

Apparently the contributors to this article are either unable or unwilling to grasp my argument, so let me spell it out in painstaking detail.

• POINT 1: Only true, verifiable facts belong on wikipedia.
• POINT 2: Simply being a true and verifiable fact is not sufficient to warrant inclusion -- e.g. the records of police blotters are not considered worthy of inclusion. Also, not every true and verifiable fact belongs on every article. A true, verifiable fact about Mickey Mouse has no place in an article on quantum physics, or vice versa.
• POINT 3: This is the important point -- THERE ARE ONLY 2 REASONS WHY THE '666' FACTOID BELONGS ON KUBRICK'S PAGE, AND HERE THEY ARE:
  • REASON 1: The '666' factoid is relevant to Kubrick himself, in other words, the '666' factoid tells us something about Kubrick as a person, artist, filmmaker, or world figure, or else it has had a direct effect of Kubrick's life as a person or artist, and this effect needs to be explained. I claim that none of these criteria are met, and the ONLY way you can believe that the '666' factoid, by itself, is relevant as described above, is if you believe in numerology. The reason for this is, as I said above, you can find endless occurrences of the number '666' in reference to world figures, artists, dates, times, etc., etc. The existence of this particular '666' factoid has NOTHING TO DO WITH KUBRICK. THIS FACT IS THE FUNDAMENTAL FACT THAT REFUTES NUMEROLOGY. If you refuse to accept this, I don't know how to convince you. Go on believing in fairy tales.
  • REASON 2: The only other possible reason the '666' factoid might be relevant would be if the PHENOMENON OF PEOPLE THINKING IT IS IMPORTANT is ITSELF important enough to warrant inclusion. This means a lot -- it means not only that there must be a significant number of people who believe the fact is important (and by implication, believe in numerology in general), but it also means that this phenomenon, this group of people, HAS HAD AN EFFECT ON KUBRICK'S LIFE, ART, INFLUENCE, OR PERCEPTION BY THE WORLD. I claim that none of these things was greatly affected (if at all) by some general belief in the '666' factoid. If you can give me some true, verifiable evidence that Kubrick's life, work, art, or perception were affected by some phenomenon of a group of people believing the '666' factoid was important, please show me. My understanding is that this is a freak, fringe observation (one finds barely a handful of matches on 'google') that the mainstream that studies Kubrick doesn't even acknowledge, let alone believe is important.

Since NIETHER of these 2 reasons exist, there is no reason for it to be there.

In closing, I just want to say that a LOT of people are going to coming to wikipedia in the next several months and years, and as long as stuff like this is present on articles, it will continue to give people who want to call wikipedia a joke ammunition. I don't care if I'm ****ing people off, someone needs to stand up and say something. Revolver 22:48, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Point 3, reason 2 is the heart of the issue, of course. Anyone who wants to add this bit of trivia back to the article should address it before doing so. Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 12:21, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Decided to delete the 666 paragraph. My earlier edit was a wishy-washy attempt to appease the people who seem to think the 666 factoid has a place here. I've now taken the bull by the horns and deleted the damned thing. If anyone really thinks it belongs here, well feel free; I'll not edit it again. Gary Jones 12:15, Mar 5, 2004 (UTC)

---

Personally when I am reading a Wikipedia article I expect to find trivia info. It's very useful, especially for the creation of quizzes etc. I don't see why people keep deleting the 666 paragraph, but since I have noted this fact on the 666-article, I hope those who are interested will find it from the search. Optim^·.· 12:24, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)

It is less inappropiate at the 666 article than it is here. May be a reasonable compromise. Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 12:39, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)

---

Spartacus rewording

I'm having trouble parsing this sentence: Kubrick's one attempt to adapt to the Hollywood "epic" film, Spartacus, is considered a great film itself, but Kubrick was at odds with both the cast (especially its star Kirk Douglas) and the crew. Is Spartacus an attempt at adapting to a film? Was it Kubrick's only attempt? What is being adpated to the epic film?

Is the following a better sentence? Spartacus was the result of Kubrick's one attempt to adapt himself to the Hollywood-style "epic" production, and although it is considered a great film in and of itself, Kubrick was at odds with both the cast (especially its star Kirk Douglas) and the crew. Wikibob | Talk 13:39, 2004 Mar 20 (UTC)

---

I removed the porche material, it was not any sort of policy violation but I fail to see the relevance. Re-include if it is necessary (people who have this on their watchlist or others). GrazingshipIV 02:52, May 14, 2004 (UTC)

---

Homage section

I suggest a section on the many homages to Kubrick from film-directors. As when Stanley Kubrick in 2010: Odyssey Two is shown on the cover of Time Magazine, as the Soviet premier (and Arthur C Clarke as the U.S. President.).

Template:Kubrick

I'm planning to personally update the articles for each Kubrick film, especially adding to those outside of the Kubrick Collection (short films, Fear and Desire, Killer's Kiss, The Killing, Paths of Glory, Spartacus), and add this template to the bottom of each page. Any comments or template changes? --Max Terry

I like this template, except for the inclusion of A.I., which is (in my opinion) too much a Spielberg movie to be listed simplistically as a Kubrick feature film. I would recommend changing '(Posthumously)' to something like '(based on Kubrick screenplay)' or just '(screenplay only)'. The Singing Badger 18:05, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Good point. Rather than even mentioning A.I., which ended up a definite Spielberg film, in the template, I think I'll list his 13 features, 3 shorts, and a link to Uncompleted/Abandoned Projects, an article which will discuss all projects planned, but never completed by Kubrick personally (from The German Lieutenant to Napoleon to Blue Movie to A.I., and everything in between). This will be Uncompleted Kubrick films. --Max Terry 21:18, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

---

EWS conspiracy

I'd like to know whether or not anyone can source the Eyes Wide Shut conspiracy theory mentioned under "Kubrick's death and influence." The way the blurb is written suggests to me that it's anecdotal and seems to have been rather hastily added. There seem to be "Masonic" conspiracy theories about every subject under the sun; is there any reason to repeat this (presumedly) wildly speculative hogwash? Unless someone knows where this came from perhaps it should be deleted. Bumhoolery

I agree, this anecdotal, unsubstantiated text full of weasel words is now removed, - Wikibob | Talk 23:44, 2005 Jan 16 (UTC):

However, film scholars believe that if Kubrick had lived to see the film's release, he might have edited the film less. Conspiracy theories purport an alternate ending that would have much more serious implications to the perception of this film due to its nature in masonic sex ritual. Some claim his death as no accident, an inside job due to revealing too much symbolism of the nature of said secret society, much like what's said about Mozart's Magic Flute. One may ask if it is his only work on dealing with the subject of such symbolism to gain insight on this matter.

"Trivia" section

I weeded out the "Trivia" section. I must say that that earlier "666" thing gave me some doubts: if a matter as simple as that can be a cause of wrangling...

I will try to give sufficient reasons for my extensive edits. Let's start with the most important one:

At present, the Kubrick article leans far too heavily to the personal side of things. Instead of collating (true and untrue) bits of biography, we should concentrate on providing a clear overview of Kubrick's filmmaking career, i.e. what makes his films noteworthy and unique.

In developing a Wikipedia article, I see the "Trivia" section as a list of relevant tidbits that should be incorporated to the main article at a later date. Conversely, I do not see the section as a mandatory part of Wikipedia articles (cf. regular encyclopedias).

So, most of the stuff that remains listed under "Trivia" is accurate, uncontested biographical material.

I also created the subsection "Unsubstantiated tabloid rumors", which serves to collect all of that junk (Oops, is this POV? Revert, revert!) under one roof.

I removed a number of entries:

• After the completion of The Shining, actor Jack Nicholson vowed that he would never again work with Stanley Kubrick, who he found extremely difficult to work with.

Creative differences, avowals and subsequent refusals of said avowals are a common occurrence in the arts, and esp. in the film industry. This entry clearly refers more to the (caricatured) man than to the work. In the case of Nicholson, we find both the negative 1980s comments, and the positive ones found in SK: A Life in Pictures, where Nicholson says he and Kubrick kept in touch after The Shining and talked about further collaborations.

• From the 1970s onwards, he was often described as a recluse, but he frequently socialized with people (though mostly on his own idiosyncratic terms), and was often involved with minutiae regarding the treatment of his films and his estate. During the 1980s he was involved in a fractious dispute with neighbors to his property in Hertfordshire.

Parts of this entry could be salvaged, but as it now stands, it merely has the appearance of a cluster-fuck. The key components seem to be: 1. "often described as a recluse" 2. "often involved with minutiae" 3. "a fractious dispute with neighbors"

1 is related to the whole "eccentric recluse" myth, a myth that should be discussed: the origins, propagation and debunking (by family and biographers, etc.) of the rumors should perhaps be addressed in a section of its own. The Baxter "biography" seems to have a lot to do with the growth of the myth.

Component 2 talks about SK's perfectionism and level of control, while 3 reports a petty and, as far as I know, unsubstantiated rumor. In any case, neighborly rows are not uniquely Kubrickian. :)

• Both Brian Aldiss and Fredrick Raphael who worked for several years with Kubrick on projects testified to his eccentric working and personal habits (including eating desserts with his main course at meals) though Kubrick's aides have disputed their accounts. The journalist Jon Ronson has been given access to Kubrick's extensive files and reports that in preparation for Eyes Wide Shut he had an aide photograph every front door in the Islington area of London.

The word "eccentric" is saturated with POV. "Wow, he used to mix desserts with main courses! That's crazy, man." The comment based on the Ronson article should be used when discussing SK's perfectionistic approach to the preparation of his films.

To summarize: I'm a new user, and I would like to help create a great Stanley Kubrick article. I'm trying to be bold so that we might have something solid to build on. If it turns out that most of the people interested in Kubrick are just lazy rumormongers, I will conclude that the current Wikipedia format is not worth the effort. 195.148.74.159 18:40, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Some of that should probably be re-instated. The Jon Ronson bit about photographing front doors, and the bit about being "involved with minutiae regarding the treatment of his films and his estate" is certainly true, eg the repainting of an NY cinema before it could show one of his films (may have been Clockwork Orange). Also, I don't think there's enough discussion of his expatriate status. Having to film Full Metal Jacket, Lolita or EWS in Britain is part of what makes them unusual. There's already a comment about NY "not looking like NY" in EWS (that's because its London!). JW 23:00, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

Old "lead" section

Maybe some of this proves useful at a later date (esp. the quotes):

Stanley Kubrick (July 26, 1928 - March 7, 1999) was a Jewish-American film director born in The Bronx, New York City who lived most of his life in England. His films are highly acclaimed for their technical perfection and deep symbolism. As a director he was legendary for relentless perfectionism. Several of his films were extremely controversial upon release for their supposed thematic repugnance and stark portrayal of sexuality and violence.

Explaining his theory of the role of director, Kubrick told Joseph Gelmis: "A director is a kind of idea and taste machine; a movie is a series of creative and technical decisions, and it's the director's job to make the right decisions as frequently as possible." Describing his aesthetic approach to Michel Ciment, he said "I think that one of the problems with twentieth-century art is its preoccupation with subjectivity and originality at the expense of everything else... Though initially stimulating, this soon impeded the full development of any particular style, and rewarded uninteresting and sterile originality." 213.250.75.193 20:40, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Uncompleted Kubrick films (a keepsake)

A long list of uncompleted Stanley Kubrick films remain after the director's death in 1999. For a noted perfectionist, who would spend the vast majority of his time on pre-production, and had a career spanning forty-eight years, this is hardly surprising. Some of the most notable projects include I Stole 16 Million Dollars (which would have starred Kirk Douglas), Napoleon (infamously "the greatest film he never made"), The Aryan Papers (a Holocaust story postponed because of Schindler's List), and A.I. (eventually completed by colleague Steven Spielberg).

Short films (archive of redirected stubs)

The reason the early short films of Stanley Kubrick are remembered at all is because, well, they are the early short films of Stanley Kubrick. They were initial stabs at filmmaking by a future master, and there just isn’t enough weight behind them to justify individual articles.

Furthermore, the most interesting things that can be said of any of these three shorts all relate closely to SK’s biography, and commentary on the films would work better as a part of the main article.

Day of the Fight is a 1951 short subject documentary focusing on prize fighter Walter Cartier during the height of his career. It was the first picture directed by Stanley Kubrick.

The knock-out scene was not filmed by Kubrick himself, as he was reloading a negative cartridge in his camera at the time of the blow.

Flying Padre is a 1952 short subject documentary about a priest who flies around in a small airplane to reach every little farm in the countryside of New Mexico. It was the second picture directed by Stanley Kubrick.

The Seafarers is a 1953 promotional film produced by the Seafarers International Union to encourage membership. It was director Stanley Kubrick's first color film, third (and final) short, and lone commercial effort.

Re: Pending tasks

I personally agree with everything you've layed out regarding the pending tasks, and have redone the first section. 213.250.75.58, I like what you did with the opening section, your prose, so feel free to go over and smooth out what I just added. Anyone can and should obviously. If there are any issues with what should/shouldnt be done, or with what I added in particular, raise them here please --Clngre 20:39, Apr 1, 2005 (UTC)

Also, is his fathers name Jacques or Jack? I've heard both numerous times --Clngre 20:41, Apr 1, 2005 (UTC)

Hi Clngre. I'll go over your prose in the near future - it's pretty good, but I think it could edited so that the text itself would paint us a picture of SK section by section. The current version kind of presupposes that the reader knows what a legend Kubrick was, etc. Know what I mean?

I too am a bit confused over his father's name. My best bet is that his birth certificate said 'Jacques' but he went by the name of 'Jack'. I think he could be refered to as Jacques (Jack) Kubrick, or something. 62.148.218.148 17:14, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I know what you mean about progressively building him up, I think that's a good idea. I do think that we should constantly address and support our final conclusion, whatever that may be. For instance, if the crux of his identity and role in cinema is his independance, perfectionism, creativity, etc, we should constantly reaffirm that and build up evidence. There should definately be a clear and concise theme throughout. I can't say with certainty what exactly that should be, but I do support the idea of putting a lot of weight on his spirit of independance; to me that seems like one of his most unique and defining characteristics --Clngre 17:29, Apr 3, 2005 (UTC)

True. But we don't want to go over the top and write a hagiography. The facts should speak for themselves. We don't need to sugarcoat them.

I'm not sure, but I think that the early life is now sketched out perhaps in too much detail! (I also spotted a few clear factual errors; for example, SK had two daughters with his third wife.) Are you OK with me cutting off the bits and pieces I feel are perhaps too trivial?

The Kubrick article is clearly building up critical mass! Good work. Best, 62.148.218.148 17:49, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I know that the early life section it disproportionately large, but the other sections have yet to be expanded. It was just too much to do all at once. Nevertheless, bloat is bloat, so feel free to trim whatever you'd like. I don't mind at all, you dont have ask me, the article obviously comes first. I'll contribute what I can, but I so far trust your opinion and knowledge more than my own, so lead the way --Clngre 18:03, Apr 3, 2005 (UTC)

Biography rewrites

I've begun rewriting the biography. Note that some of the stuff mentioned in the earlier version will come up later on in the revised text.

Later on, a new section should be added:

Style / Stylistic trademarks

• "Non-submersible units" (Editing, storytelling, playing with time, adaptation)
• Narration (by voiceover and title cards/intertitles, irony, points of view, perhaps interest in language: inventive slang (FMJ and ACO), banal chit-chat (2001 and The Shining), etc.)
• Tracking shots (camera movements)
• Zooms (perhaps "Camera work" would be a neat umbrella term for tracking shots, zooms and SK's use of light, mise-en-scene and space in general?)
• Music (classical and pop)
• Actors (acting styles, frequent performers, stars, cameos by family members)

Etc. This is just something to think about; we don't need to add any kind of skeleton structure yet. 195.148.74.159 21:05, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Barry Lyndon

Yes the film has its passionate defenders, but, there is other evidence that refutes the normal putdowns of it. Yes, it was a flop in the U.S., but was a major success in Europe in 1975, and did win two Acadamy Awards. Yes, as with all of his films money was spent, but, I have never seen the terms 'wildly overbudget' applied to this film. Yes, Ryan O'Neal garnered criticism for his performance, a wildly fluctuating Irish accent being the chief one (often missed is that Redmond Barry was one of Thackery's anti-heros, which made O'Neal's casting somewhat appropriate), but his career was not brought to any kind of halt by this performance as he was in five films in the next four years. And yes, many critics at the time pounded it. This is one of the unique features of Stanley's films - mostly loathed at release - admired later - eventually, unable to comment on the history of cinema without mentioning them. It is, perhaps, a prime example of the Hegelian dialectic in practice. MarnetteD | Talk 03:35, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Final "Abstract Sequence" of 2001

This is one of the odd legends of this film, because if you watch it even 2 or 3 times, and read Clarke's book, you will see a very linear journey after Dave leaves the Discovery in the remaining pod. After the "space tunnel" (or garage) beginning you continue to move from a galaxy, to nebula, to solar system, to planetary, to surface skim journey that leads to the final 'Bowman' aging sequence. MarnetteD | Talk 15:17, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Kubrick's Nationality

Kubrick took out UK citizenship some time before he died - it was mentioned on the BBC reports of his funeral. 194.6.112.92 10:02, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Fixing image

Could someone fix the image of Kubrick at the top of the page? I'm not very familiar with infoboxes, so I have no idea how it's done. Appears to have been messed up by the recent MediaWiki update?? --Comics 1 July 2005 23:34 (UTC)

American / British

In the first line it is reported that he was "an American film director", and he is listed in the Category:British film directors, not Category:U.S. film directors. Any consensus? How about Anglo-American film director? --Tony Hecht 15:44, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Kubrick surely ought to be classed as American. Although he lived in Britain for much of his life, all his major films were made for American studios (usually Warner Bros.). The Singing Badger 16:29, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Network - 1976

According to Joe Eszterhas in his book “The Devil’s Guide to Hollywood,” Stanley Kubrick wanted to direct “Network,” but Paddy Chayefsky objected him. Does anyone know if this is a true fact?

The warnings at top of the page

“ Wikipedia:No original research is one of three content-governing policies. The other two are Wikipedia:Neutral point of view and Wikipedia:Verifiability. - from Wikipedia:No original research, which is official policy ”

It's not quantity that matters. It's quality.

You're not allowed to write He is widely considered one of the most innovative and influential filmmakers in cinematic history without backing up your words - and that particular statement is going to be hard to back up unless you can find a Harris Poll on influential filmmakers. What you can write is "Joe Schmaltz, film critic for the Chagrin Falls Daily Twit, describes Stanley Kubrick as one of the most innovative and influential filmmakers in cinematic history", if you back it up with citation of a Wikipedia:Reliable Source, which in this case would probably be a footnote to the URL of Schmaltz saying that on the Twit's website, or the date and page of the Twit on which he wrote that.

Wikipedia says that if a statement in an article isn't backed up with a citation, any editor who comes along may remove it. There's obviously been a lot of work put into this page, and it'd be a shame to have someone do that. What's less visible is that it's also a shame when users come onto the page and say, "Hey, this is all unsubstantiated blather, and ANYONE coming along could have written this. Can I trust it? No. I'll have to look elsewhere." If you cite your sources, then the user can click through on a few of them, see that they are valid, and will tend to trust the rest.

If you fix the "verifiability" problem, the "NPOV" problem tends to go away at the same time. It's a fact, not a point of view, that Joe Schmaltz has made a statement. The No Original Research policy says that Wikipedia is a tertiary source. We don't report what happened. We don't summarize what others say happened. We report what others summarize. If you're an expert on Stanley Kubrick, you should have little trouble finding the sources for opinions you want to cite. If you're not an expert, your opinions don't matter anyway. ClairSamoht 20:33, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Chill out. Do you have some demented hatred of Stanley Kubrick? Or do you just need to vent about something? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Benjamin Ben-Ze'ev (talk • contribs) .

Kubrick direct

If I enter "Kubrick" in the search box I am directed to this article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kubrick

Great Work!

Just wanted to say thanks to all those who helped me make this article (I was the one who added Religion and Politics to the mix, and most of the quotes featured here). Just wanted to say it looks great! I know this isn't the sort of thing the discussion area is exactly for, but, seriously, there must be more info on Kubrick here than on most famous people in wikipedia! I agree fully! Just wanted to say I've been a huge fan of Kubrick for years and done much research on the matter and was HUGELY pleased and impressed with this article (specifically the religion and politics section) kudos on this page!!!

Character

I've removed the references to Kubricks out of control obsession with sex and the large pornography stash alegedly found in his home after his death as this is clearly untrue and I've never read anything to support the claim. I've also removed the line regarding communicating with actors via intercom when they came to his house. I believe this may actually have been a reference to how, when Spartacus was being remastered, Kubrick directed an actor dubbing in some lines of dialogue via fax. --Allseeingi 19:38, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

FWIW I recall reading in a newspaper obituary that he sometimes auditioned actors via intercom - probably in the Times (London), from memory. Ben Finn 22:57, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Politics

"This would indicate that Kubrick, in the grand scheme of things, and not to be overly simplified, could be said to lean to the Right side of the political spectrum." This seems to me a gratuitous non-NPOV comment, the reader can make it's own conclusions from the previous factual sentences. Removing it for now unless someone complains. Lost Goblin 20:01, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

A Clockwork Orange

I've moved the line regarding Kubrick's artistic freedom in regards to Warners to Clockwork Orange section from the Dr. Strangelove section as he did not make a film for Warners until A Clockwork Orange. --Allseeingi 16:45, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm glad you removed it, as it was certainly NPOV. In my opinion, Kubrick seems like someone who can't easily be captured by terms like "Left" or "Right," despite the differences between his earlier and later films, and to include it seems like an attempt to pidgeonhole him.--FVZA_Colonel 01:24, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

It's in the article that Burgess called A Clockwork Orange "Brilliant", and it's said that he did not actually hate it. However, as it seems to me that this is someone suffering from the common idea that anyone saying "Contrary to common belief" is telling the real truth, I will remove it, basing my doing so on an article by Blake Morrison saying that Burgess did not feel abgle to publicly denounce the film, thus saying that in an article. Zeck 17:13, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Timeless Wit?

"Kubrick's films, most of which were adapted from literary sources, are characterized by technical brilliance, inventive, often economical storytelling, and timeless wit."

Isn't that too vague? What is meant by "timeless wit"? Perhaps the last two words aren't the real problem however. I think saying that his films are characterized by those aspects is wrong and the sentence should read like this:

"Kubrick's films, most of which were adapted from literary sources, are highly regarded for their technical brilliance as well as inventive and economical storytelling." --Allseeingi 04:04, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

It is, but you forgot the last part. Timeless wit probably was meant to convey that the movies withstood the test of time (didnt become dated in 5-10 years). Bernard Elliot 22:00, 18 Nov 2006

Character

I think large portions of this section should be removed as they seem to be entirely speculative and not factual in the least.

Does the author of this section have any proof (by way of sources) for what they've written? - --Allseeingi 23:55, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

• I have made changes to the section which I believe are appropriate, and reflect, more accurately, Kubrick's life. I have read extensively on him and am willing to defend any of the information I added, and defend my removal of the speculative aspects of the section. --Allseeingi 22:06, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

The Shining

It seems to me that I read a while ago that, ironically enough, Stephen King had stated his favourite movie was The Shining, even though he was dissatisfied with it on the level of a film adaptation of his novel. Anyone else hear this? --Comics 18:27, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

I've always heard that King hated Kubrick's version. He thought Kubrick knew nothing about horror films, and that Kubrick's version eliminated the humanism and family aspects which were at the core of the novel (Kubrick thought these elements were banal and silly). King was so dissatisfied with the film that he wanted it remade, his own way. He was one of the main forces behind the 1997 TV mini-series version, which was shot at the Stanley Hotel in Estes Park, CO--the actual hotel where King wrote the novel. King wrote the teleplay, served as third-unit director, still photographer, and made a cameo appearance as a band-leader in the TV version. Exacta 01:53, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

TV Guide, in their Holloween issue, recommends horror films to watch. Sometime in the late 1980's they quoted King as saying that, while he was dissatisfied with Kubrick's version, he had come to feel that there wasn't anyone who could have made a better adaptation of the his book. Of course, this was several years before he finally got the chance to be a part of the remake. I am just noting this to point out that his attitude has moved in various directions over the years. Another note, King did not write "The Shining" at the Stanley Hotel. He was inspired to write it when he stayed there with his wife during a cross country trip. It was during the off season and they had the hotel almost to themselves.MarnetteD | Talk 16:44, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Just wanted to point out how horrendously cheesy and lame the tv version was. Hard to believe he thought that was a better adaption than kubricks.... oh well...

More youthful picture

How about a more youthful picture at the beginning of the article? Since Kubrick has passed away, it's not relevant to maintain the latest picture of him. How about one from a more critically acclaimed point of his career? (Strangelove, 2001, Clockwork Orange, Barry Lyndon). 24.7.145.61 06:39, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

I would think anything between Barry Lyndon and Full Metal Jacket. This seems to be the image most associated with him and it's certainly what I think when Stanley Kubrick comes to mind.

I was thinking that this picture, from the early '70s, might suffice. I already have it on my hard drive, so if no one voices any objections in the next couple days, I'll probably just go ahead and put it in there. Thebogusman 18:26, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Content Table

Anyone realized that "show/hide" link at content table on the left does not work properly? (at least for me). Laurentis 13:56, 16 December 2005 (UTC)Laurentis

2001: A Space Odyssey

The page currently says "Clarke also wrote a novelization of the screenplay, which was released alongside the film". I thought that the book was actually (mostly) written first, then the film script? The final book was released shortly after the film, but that was more a result of polishing than anything else. 2001: A Space Odyssey seems to confirm this. I'd make the change myself, but am not sure how to best phrase it. Mike Peel 15:50, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes, this link agrees and cites the actual words of Clarke and Kubrick. In fact it appears three wikipedia articles are consistent, but incorrect, in stating that Clarke wrote the novel from the screenplay and Kubrick wrote the film from the screenplay. The film article has: Kubrick and Clarke collaborated on the screenplay, from which Kubrick created the movie and Clarke wrote the novel version, the book article has: Kubrick and Clarke collaborated on the screenplay, from which Kubrick created the movie and Clarke wrote the novel. I have rewritten it as '"Kubrick collaborated with Arthur C. Clarke, adapting parts of Clarke's short story "The Sentinel", and together they first concurrently produced the novel that was released alongside the film, and then towards the end Kubrick simultaneously wrote the screenplay"'. Note that the book cover claims it is a novelisation of the screnplay, but I believe that is merely publisher's blurb. -Wikibob 17:18, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I know it's a complicated series of events to describe, but the current wording is extremely confusing. I'm not even sure it's entirely accurate either. Here is the basic timeline of events, as I understand them: Having read some of his stories, Kubrick asked Clarke to collaborate on a film. Clarke agreed. Kubrick chose The Sentinel as a starting point. Together they worked out the terms of their unique collaboration (though Kubrick made sure to stack the deck in his own favor): together they would write a novel, from which Kubrick would write a screenplay. The novel would appear after the release of the film, and would be labelled a novelization of the film, with authorship by "Arthur C. Clarke and Stanley Kubrick" (Kubrick's name has since been dropped). Credit for the screenplay, in turn, would be: "Stanley Kubrick and Arthur C. Clarke". Kubrick, for the most part, excluded Clarke from the production after he had lived out his use. The production was extended several times and Kubrick constantly revised his "outline" while filming. Clarke, having long since completed his work, grew increasingly impatient while waiting to see the fruits of his labor. Kubrick also forced the delay of the novel several times (even after the film was released), which frustrated Clarke who believed his contribution was being marginalized.... Now, how to condense this? Exacta 10:24, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Jewish

Why is it important that Kubrick was Jewish? For instance, in the article on Hitchcock he is never described as a Christian. Neither is Akira Kurosawa described as a shintoist. I would understand it if Jewish themes were relevant to Kubrick's film-making, but I have yet to see any account of that.

Well, if it's importance that you're looking for, he was planning on making a film called Aryan Papers for a good amount of time and even wrote the script. The project was abandonned when he found out his friend Spielberg was to make Schindler's List. I'm not sure if it's of major significance or not, but does it hurt having it in the article? It is a biography after all. –Comics (Talk) 19:05, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

A lot of actor biographies on Wikipedia mention the actors' ethnic backgrounds, like Irish-American, German-American, etc. Therefore, the same ethnic information is reported in the Stanley Kubrick article. And before you reply with the irrelevant "Judaism is a religion, not a nationality" argument, there is an ideology called Zionism which considers the Jewish people to be a nation. Therefore Jewish American.WACGuy 06:09, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

I removed this reference. That Kubrick was so profoundly atheistic or, as the article notes, naturalistic in his opinions and work, the idea of noting that he was technically Jewish in the opening line is misleading. As to the Jewish nationality argument, unless you're prepared to cite Kubrick as a "Polish Austrian Romanian French Jewish American Film Maker" then we should merely note his literal nationality rather than a litany of extraneous and, in this case, moot qualifiers. 83.70.180.202 22:19, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

he was jewish so that need to be told. who is it complaining about? someone who thinks to be jewish is a shame? some anti semitic that doesn't want to admit a jewish idol or someone who knows kubrick was really sick and disgusting and was just filling the world with disease and nonsense violence and tha's not good for the image of jewish people? could you please explain yourself? —This unsigned comment was added by 200.203.56.50 (talk • contribs) .

Kubrick's Jewishness is relevant insofar as there's a distinctive shared cultural sensibility among American Jewish artists of his generation (and a little younger) who were raised in middle-class/working class neighborhoods in Brooklyn and the Bronx or in Jewish enclaves in Southern California. Although their work is very different, it's obvious that Woody Allen, Philip Roth, Albert Brooks, Larry David, Lenny Bruce, etc. were incubated in similar backgrounds and had their sensibilities shaped by a lot of the same factors. It's one of things that's essential to putting the man's work in context.Andrewjnyc 16:50, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

christ, let's not trip out over this issue please! His father had a jewish background.. Ok, what about his mother? Where i come from that's more important in determining one's jewishness. By all accounts he had a secular upbringing and was a professed atheist in adulthood. IMHO, the article should mention his fathers roots, perhaps whatever his mother's were (again, was she jewish?), and leave it at that.

Stanley Kubruck's Mother was Austrian source. And according to just about any Rabbi or authority in Judaism when asked "Who is a jew?" they will reply: "A Jew is any person whose mother was a Jew or any person who has gone through the formal process of conversion to Judaism," source. Since Kubrick qualifies as neither, he should not be considered Jewish. I hope this helps settle some of the back and forth and allows us to concentrate on the important aspects of this article; namely the man and his works. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.60.42.6 (talk) 05:07, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Too much opinion

This article is replete with opinionated statements, such as "played to chilling perfect", or "beautifully played", and other such descriptions of Kubrick's works. Though these may be the opinions of the majority, they are still opinions, and give this article a rather review-like feel. I've done some minor editing, but there's still a lot of work to do. 141.211.210.96 19:26, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

The article makes a poor reading, mainly for the huge number of statements that are told to be a fact rather than a personal opinnion, its like a bunch of movie buffs wrote the entire article as a praise to Kubrick, not even the Lynch aticle is so indulgent. Here are some examples:

Eyes Wide Shut: " Far from an erotic thriller, Eyes Wide Shut proved to be a slow, mysterious, dreamlike meditation on the themes of marriage, fidelity, betrayal and the illusion versus the reality of sex"

"Proved"?, thats like an undisputable fact isnt it?. And what the hell does "dreamlike" mean?, such a criptic term. The whole phrase not only says very little, but what its actually saying is: "people who are really smart like eyes wide shut, just look at how many adjetives there is to describe it". Come on, good ol' Stanley was better than that.

"Eyes Wide Shut has improved its reputation with critics and audiences over time"

Citation needed.

Full metal Jacket: its basicly a fanboyish advertizing for Full Metal Jacket, here are some selected shameless adjetives and assumptions:

"It would be seven years until Kubrick's next film"

"punishing recruit training in order to release their repressed killing instincts"

"The second half of the film follows Pvt. Joker as he tries to stay sane in Vietnam."

"using his wit and sarcasm to detach himself from the absurd nature of war"

"but found a reasonably large audience" (is there something like an un-reasonable large audience?)

"The film does offer a markedly different and patently Kubrick-esque view of Vietnam"

" This adds a certain element of surreality"

There are others of course, but one or two examples make the point clear. It needs to be written in a rather more serious way than in its current "TEH RULZ" way. All phrases must have a source to back it up. Kubrick was a respectable and groundbreaking director, we all know that. Theres no need to either spice it up or justify him.

Character

Can anyone point me to where it was said that Kubrick had one of the largest porn stashes in the United Kingdom? I have studied Kubrick in depth and have never heard that before.

---

That would'nt be likely in my opinion because if you look at his portrayal of Sex in all his movies its always shown as something that is disasterous when not handled responsibly, like in Lolita or Eyes Wide Shut, or completely immoral (Clockwork Orange). The only scene that is purely sexual in content is the scene with the prostitute in Full Metal Jacket. Kubrick said he wanted to portray the way things are (in war), so that may explain it.

Some of his movies have no sex at all in them, Paths of Glory, Spartacus, 2001 A S O, Barry Lyndon, The Shining. 1-2 scenes appear briefly in Full Metal Jacket, Dr. Strange Love. In Paths of Glory for instance, the last scene shows a German woman singing to a group of drunk French soldiers a German song. The French troops react (out of basic Human compassion for the opposite gender) by singing along with her. Where are the sensational or pornographic themes that almost most modern movies seem to constanly abuse. He never seemed to lean that way, at least as an artist. I suspect that the rumor may have possibly been spread by folks in the Hollywood cliques that either saw him as closet Communist or not Liberal enough to "fit in" with Hollywood Elite. Bernard Elliot 21:35, 18 Nov 2006

Age of Sue Lyon during Lolita?

In the article, Sue Lyon is reported to have been 16 years old during filming, but in the article page about her, she is said to have been only 13 years old. Which is correct? --cslarsen 10:57, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Sue Lyon was 16 during production of the film. In Nabokov's novel Lolita is 12. Exacta 01:53, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

No, she wasn't. She was born on July 10, 1946 [3] and Lolita was filmed from November 1960 to May 1961 [4], which means she was 14 when it filmed. —Chowbok 16:53, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Use of Pop Songs

Introduction: and use of pop songs and classical music.

I haven't seen Barry Lyndon and some of his very early films, but from what I have seen, besides Full Metal Jacket, I don't recall the use of pop songs that much in any of his other films, if at all..and I can't imagine Barry Lyndon having pop music in it. So does use of pop soungs really count as a trademark?--Gяaρнic 19:39, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Dr. Strangelove: We’ll Meet Again by Vera Lynn. A Clockwork Orange: I Want To Marry A Lighthouse Keeper by Ericka Eigen; Singin’ In The Rain (Alex's versions and the Gene Kelly version); (Wendy Carlos’s music, although adapted from classlical, may still be considered pop). The Shining: Midnight, the Stars and You by The Ray Noble Band. Full Metal Jacket: Hello Vietnam by Johnny Wright; Chapel Of Love by The Dixie Cups; Wooley Bully by Sam the Sham and the Pharaohs; I Like It Like That by Chris Kenner; These Boots Are Made For Walkin by Nancy Sinatra; Surfin' Bird by The Trashmen; The Mickey Mouse March. Eyes Wide Shut: Baby Did A Bad, Bad Thing by Chris Isaak.

All the “pop” songs Kubrick ever used. As to whether his use of pop songs could be considered a trademark, I have no opinion one way or the other. I tend to think that his uses of “We’ll Meet Again” and “Singin’ In The Rain” are at the heart of the issue. They are the only two indisputably unique uses of “pop” music in his films, and the closest to universally recognizable trademarks. His use of the "Mickey Mouse March" in Full Metal Jacket is similar.

Exacta 04:13, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Depressing Movies

Shouldn’t it be somewhere in this article that many people feel that Kubrick’s movies are bloody depressing? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 172.180.247.62 (talk • contribs) .

To do so would probably be taken as introducing Point-of-View into the article in violation of WP:NPOV.

Atlant 16:29, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, it could be formulated like “Many people feel…” or “Some people say…” in the article. It think it is wrong to completely skip this. 172.176.79.192 16:10, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

'Many people feel' is a weasel expression, which is discouraged in Wikipedia. What you need to do is found some published sources (books, reviews, articles, etc.) which describe Kubrick's tendency to make 'depressing' movies. The Singing Badger 16:44, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! We just "collided" as I tried to edit-in almost exactly the same thing, included below:

But then you're likely to run up against Wikipedia:Avoid weasel words. Really, in the absence of careful studies with control groups and all that, whether or not Kubrick's movies are depressing is likely to remain a matter of opinion rather than fact.

Atlant 16:48, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, the endings of 2001, Eyes Wide Shut, and The Shining are arguably optimistic, for example. The Singing Badger 16:56, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, 2001' is a perfect example, because one part of the people actually sees it as pessimistic, while the rest sees it as optimistic. The more important point for 2001, however are the scenes halfway through, where Dave and the other astronaut fly to Mars. In theses scenes, there is a profound sense of loneliness.

Another example of depressing works by Kubrick is Clockwork Orange. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.52.57.166 (talk) 13:22, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Character, Politics & Religion

These sections strike me as slight long and rambling, though with much good material. They could do with tightening up. Ben Finn 22:55, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Number of Takes (Hundreds?)

Slim Pickens says Kubrick would make "hundreds" of takes, and I recall much the same from television reports when Eyes Wide Shut was released. This seems an important factoid omitted from the piece, right?

---

Kubrick had always said that if he took hundreds of takes of every scene then he'd never get a film done. There were only a few times where takes went over 100.

---He has also stated, in perhaps an interview for Full Metal Jacket, which can be found at www.gustavhasford.com, that he feels actors over-exaggerate the claim, therfore, I suppose, implying that it is a myth enhanced by bitter actors, many of which we known to have been products of Kubrick productions. He says that the reason he does many takes is often attributed to actors not knowing their lines. It is a fact, not a myth, that Kubrick was indeed excessive, least of all in the amount of takes he required from his cast and crew, but the extent of his excess could indeed, and undoubtably is, a myth.

---Its a stretch but heres my thoery. Its often said that Kubrick was eccentric or slightly neurotic. His movies also have alot of Moral and Social commentary in them. He may have wanted his actors to develop such a strong familiarity with the screeplay and dialoge, that the actors would unwittingly convey a sense of a fairy tale to the viewers. Fairy tales ususally convey morals in which we are familiar with. He probably wanted his movies to convey their messages in a similar fashion. Its a pretty sketchy theory, but the man did have some odd streaks in him.

Eyes Wide Shut

Was EWS actually "completed under the supervision of Steven Spielberg" as the article claims? I was under the impression Kubrick died after it was finished. JW 11:28, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

203.49.197.101 12:54, 1 September 2006 (UTC) Spielberg supervised some of the post-production, I think mainly for the U.S. release, where the orgy scene was digitally altered. The film itself is as Kubrick cut it, however.

favorite movie?

i added a "citation needed" to the statement claiming that friends and family state that EWS was Kubrick's favorite film. this snippet from IMDB seems to refute it pretty well. "Stanley called me about two weeks before he died, as a matter of fact. We had a long conversation about Eyes Wide Shut. He told me it was a piece of s**t and that he was disgusted with it and that the critics were going to have him for lunch." 192.223.226.6 17:12, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Were 2001 Reviews Good or Bad?

From the "2001: A Space Odyssey (film)" wiki article:

"Upon release, 2001 received mostly positive reviews"

From the "Stanley Kubrick" wiki article:

"Initial reactions from critics were overwhelmingly negative"

A repair is clearly needed --Sailorlula 22:03, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Barry Lyndon

Hi- Barry Lyndon is not set in the Napoleonic era- it is set during the Seven Years War (1756-1763).. the Napoleonic era is 1799-1815.

best,

RMB

• The epilogue says: "It was in the reign of George III that the aforesaid personages lived and quarreled; good or bad, handsome or ugly, rich or poor, they are all equal now." George III reigned 1760-1820. But the drama starts with the Seven Years War, and ends in 1789, as can be seen on the annuity statement signed by Lady Lyndon in one of the last scenes. Thus, I agree that the reference to the "Napoleonic era" is rather inaccurate. leifbk 17:30, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Translation "née"

"née" (early life; "the first child of Jacques Kubrick and his wife Gertrude (née Perveler)")means born in French. In this context it probably means that his mother's maiden name was Perveler.

Character

I've gone ahead and removed the line, "Over time, his image in the media became that of, at best, a reclusive genius akin to Howard Hughes..." from the character section as it seems like an exaggeration to me. Kubrick may have been reclusive, especially during his later years, but certainly nowhere near the extent that Hughes was. Also, this section mentions later on that Ryan O'Neal speaks kindly of him but I was under the impression that he and Kubrick had a falling out after the filming of Barry Lyndon? A-OK 21:47, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Death Conspiracy?

Needs a section on his death. I was thinking the same thing 193.108.134.36 15:15, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I heard mention by Benjamin Fulford http://benjaminfulford.com/indexEnglish.html , that his death was suspicious. There were suggestions that he was involved in fake films of NASA's moon landings. I know this is on the potty end of the spectrum, but I have come to the conclusion that the world is mad. I'm sure Stanley will not be turning in his grave over this suggestion. If John Travolta, and Tom Cruse think we were put on this earth by space aliens (Scientology) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientology and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xenu then my thoughts are fairly main stream! I'm not thinking he was abducted, rather more a political bumping off.

where was he born?

Why does it say in the beginning of the biography that he was born in The Bronx but in the infobox, he was born in Manhattan?

Individual film sections need to be trimmed

I think they encompass too much info for an overview of Kubrick. The information is certainly interesting but it makes the article unnecessarily long. It is better placed on each film's individual Wikipedia article. Agreed? --Steerpike 19:36, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Spoilers of the movies

I haven't seen all of Stanley Kubrick's movies, and in some of the descriptions of them in the listing, I feel that some describe the main parts of them or spoil it for those who haven't viewed it.

      maybe you should see his movies then...they're all amazing.

Character

This section is highly unreferenced, unwikified, and unverified. I added up a clean up tag because it desperately needs to be fixed. Fistful of Questions 01:24, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Early Films

In the Early Films section the following appears:

"In 1951, Kubrick's friend, Alex Singer, persuaded him to start making short documentaries for the March of Time, a provider of cinema-distributed newsreels. Kubrick agreed, and independently financed Day of the Fight (1951). Although the distributor went out of business that year, Kubrick sold Day of the Fight to RKO Pictures for a profit of one hundred dollars. Kubrick quit his job at Look magazine and began working on his second short documentary, Flying Padre (1951), funded by RKO. A third film, The Seafarers (1953), Kubrick's first color film, was a 30-minute promotional short film for the Seafarers' International Union. These three films, and other short subjects, which have not survived, ..."

This is not correct. All three of these films have survived and are available on a DVD called:

  STANLEY KUBRICK COLLECTION 1951 - 1953

However, the quality on the DVD is not good. 63.194.208.34 03:17, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, the comma is wrong, it should be "other subjects which have not". (That said, that DVD is a bootleg.) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by ThatGuamGuy (talk • contribs) 18:48, 19 March 2007 (UTC).

Links to films' main articles

Shouldn't all the films have a link to their main articles? Eg:

Main article: A Clockwork Orange

This seems to be the standard way of doing things on Wikipedia. Also, the article is long, so maybe some of the information duplicated in both the Kubrick article and the film articles should be removed from the Kubrick article? Straussian 11:42, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Academy Award-winning at the introduction

I checked at IMDB. Kubrick received the only Academy Award on Best Effects, Special Visual Effects from 2001.

I am not sure this should put at the introduction in this way? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 58.8.90.105 (talk) 17:17, 27 February 2007 (UTC).

Original Aspect Ratio?

I've heard rumors that Kubrick, altough filming in panavision/widescreen/whatever, he liked more the original academy ratio/Full-screen format. Most notably, The Shining wich was filmed (I think) in wide and re-released in full-screen (academy ratio) as his final, favorite version of the film. Did this happen to all of his films (filmed in wide) or was it just for the Shining?. I know this is not a Forum, but if some of this is true, I think it would be worth of mention. Vicco Lizcano 17:42, 27 February 2007 (UTC) ^{(Tell me where I'm wrong)}

I added a section about the aspect ratio controversy, which spreads through more than half of his filmography. Long story short, evidence regarding 'The Shining' seems to indicate that he shot it for 1.85:1, but kept the fullscreen (1.33:1) area safe. This is based on storyboards and comments from one of the editors (or possibly editor's assistants) which indicate that the reason the helicopter blade slipped in in the opening driving sequence is that they viewed the film on a Steenbeck which was matted to 1.85 with masking tape. People who argue that Kubrick preferred 1.85 extrapolate from these facts to apply them to all of his films. ThatGuamGuy 19:39, 21 March 2007 (UTC)sean

Cool, thanks for the info. Vicco Lizcano 19:51, 21 March 2007 (UTC) ^{(Tell me where I'm wrong)}

Although I appreciate the information about the aspect ratios of Kubrick's films, its inclusion here in such detail doesn't seem to fit with the rest of the article. Perhaps someone could consider moving it to its own page? Just a thought. :)

Note that in Europe the most commonly used widescreen aspect ratio was 1.66:1 rather than 1.85:1. So many of his films shot open matte were probably shown in 1.66:1 in cinemas across Europe as opposed to 1.85 in the US. 89.196.42.243 03:06, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

There is some fact errors in the aspect ratio section. Mainly that full frame ratio is 1.37:1 not 1.33:1 and there is a claim that most cinemas weren't able to show movies in full frame wich is false because most cinemas can still today show in full frame but they don't want to because the picture is then so small. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.209.12.82 (talk) 19:20, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Stanley Kubrick's Death

I read elsewhere that Mr. Kubrick was mesteriously murderd after completion of "Eyes Wide Shut" (1999). The current article, 3/14/07, mentions nothing about his death at all. Was his death tied in with The Freemasons "Jack The Ripper cover-up" as well?

68.34.34.250 00:08, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

In my opinion, you won't find any credible cites that say he was murdered. But if I'm wrong and you do find one, please feel free to bring it to our attention. -- JackofOz 14:34, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

The illuminati did it

Fair use rationale for Image:Alex Korova1.jpg

Image:Alex Korova1.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 19:02, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

American-born British filmmaker?

This doesn't seem right to me. Was he really considered British? I was going to change it to "British-based", but that sounds even more wrong. "Britain-based"? Bleh. Somebody clear this up for me, please. --Closedmouth 15:54, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

HD DVD & Bluray

Why is this in here? Shouldn't this information be more appropriate for each movie than in his own article? -- 66.92.0.62 09:43, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Kurbick exhibition

Should there be a link to the Stanley Kubrick exhibition: http://www.stanleykubrick.de/ 67.180.29.122 05:01, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Aspect Ratio Stuff

Those ratios should be in more understandable formats like 3:4 or 16:9. These ones might be more precise, but to the average layman, they're meaningless. I'm actually in this field, and the people I work with refer to ratios in the "16:9" way. I've yet to meet a person who calls it "1.85:1". Having to do mental arithmatic to reach understandable ratios sucks. Having to bust out a calculator to figure it out sucks even more. Howa0082 17:13, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't know what field of work you actually are in but the aspect ratio 16:9 is about the same as 1.78:1 not 1.85:1, if you want to make 1.85:1 to "more understandable" it would be 37:20(if you call that more understandable). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.209.12.82 (talk) 16:09, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Spartacus22.jpg

Image:Spartacus22.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 05:27, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:The shining heres johnny.jpg

Image:The shining heres johnny.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 02:20, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:The killing.jpg

Image:The killing.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 02:30, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:2001 spaceodissey.gif

Image:2001 spaceodissey.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 04:18, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Clockwork'71.jpg

Image:Clockwork'71.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 21:02, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Eyes shut.jpg

Image:Eyes shut.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 21:37, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Haley joel osment6.jpg

Image:Haley joel osment6.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 23:05, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

WP:WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers priority assessment

Per debate and discussion re: assessment of the approximate 100 top priority articles of the project, this article has been included as a top priority article. Wildhartlivie (talk) 07:19, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Cquotes, blockquotes,images etc

I've replaced all the cquotes with blockquotes throughout the article. The curly quotes are not only overly designed and cutsey-pie as hell, from what I understand their intention was to be used only for "shout outs" and pullquotes which adorn an article as a design element (which makes sense, given their look), and not to be for quoted material inside an article.

I've also truncated "Strangelove" for the section title only (and the AI section title as well). There's no reason to have the full title in the section, when the complete title is repeated twice in the next two lines. All having the long title does is force the Table of Contents to be unnecessarily wide. This is cleaner. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 04:33, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I've also adjusted image sizes. Images which are too small to be seen or properly illustrate the text are a waste of space. Each image should be large enough to be seen, to make an impact, to work, without overwhelming the text. The picture in the infobox, for instance, needs to be about that large to see anything of Kubrick's facial features - anything much less and it's useless, better to replace it with a standard head shot (if such a thing exists for SK). Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 04:55, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Discussion at the film project concerning an external link

Folks here might want to participate in a discussion here concerning a disagreement about an external link which was added to this article. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 04:47, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

His Birthdate

I'm changing 1828 to 1928. I hope that's OK with everyone.

THIS IS WHY WIKIPEDIA SUCKS.

It sucks because you spotted vandalism and reverted it within two minutes? --Closedmouth (talk) 07:19, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I'll revert you within two minutes. Oooooo!

Brancron (talk) 18:50, 29 July 2008 (UTC)Brancron

Section on Frequent Collaborators

I would prefer to keep the section on Frequent Collaborators relatively brief as it borders on a trivia section, and I encountered some fairly understandable resistance from user MarnetteD on having it there at all. As such, collaborators who were only in small supporting roles in multiple Kubrick films I suggest not be named. Thus I am for the second time removing the listing of Leonard Rossiter who appeared in both 2001 and Barry Lyndon as he had a small role in both films.
If we include Rossiter, we have to also include Margaret Tyzack who had fairly small roles in both 2001 and Clockwork Orange (before her glory days as Antonia in I, Claudius).
I'm even 50/50 about keeping Timothy Carey as although his role in Paths of Glory is substantial, his role in The Killing is fairly small. —Preceding unsigned comment added by WickerGuy (talk • contribs) 03:12, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

These sort of sections seem to be a common inclusion in director related articles. Tim Burton, James Cameron, The Coen Brothers, Martin Scorsese and Quentin Tarantino each have similar sections which are longer than the one in question, and each includes some actors whom the director has only worked with twice. Several of these sections, however, are in the form of tables, which might help if readability is an issue. S. Luke (talk) 05:17, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Stanley Kubrick needs your help

Stanley Kubrick currently contains several dozen "citation needed" tags. I will not be working on this article myself. -- 201.17.36.246 (talk) 21:06, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't know about you guys but most of the tags seem completely unreasonable. I mean, the article is in pretty good shape so you wouldn't expect such a load of tags added by someone who is part of WikiProjectFilms like User:S_Luke who has made the move: [5].
I did go over the article and provided citations all the way up to Spartacus and out of exactly 22 citation-needed tags there were 2 facts that needed slight adjustments to get it 100% sync with the sources. There are exactly 35 tags remaining, some of them pasted after each sentence. I think it's completely un reasonable and perhaps before going on with sourcing every second sentence in the article, perhaps User:S_Luke should justify the tags on Talk:Stanley_Kubrick first and limit the citations needed to ...anything that would be questionable indeed by people in the FilmProject.--Termer (talk) 04:07, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

A lot of those citation needed templates are spot-on; the article is definitely in need of more inline citations. Gary King (talk) 04:18, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

A lot of Spot-on would mean that there would be a lot of claims facts that are questionable. Since that is not the case, the article is pretty much based on the common knowledge of 'film community'. Unlike articles on WP such as History of film for example that would need some tagging indeed since most of it looks like WP:OR.
This doesn't mean that adding more inline citations to Kubrick's article would hurt it. Surely any article on WP could have some more.--Termer (talk) 04:31, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

You seem to be saying that a lot of History of film looks like OR, but the information in this article is not? It looks like OR to me until references are added. Gary King (talk) 05:06, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Please take a look at the articles and their references. there are 38 sources provided for Kubrick, out of which only Stanley Kubrick: A Biography By Vincent Lobrutto can cover the most of the article. VS. History of Film that has 3 intext citations-references. So sorry but I'm not getting it how these articles are even comparable rconsidering WP:OR--Termer (talk) 05:16, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Tons of information in the Kubrick article are still missing inline citations, which WP:BURDEN requires for information that can be challenged – which is essentially all of that analysis. Gary King (talk) 05:20, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

If you're talking about Kubrick#Character, Kubrick#Politics etc. I completely agree with you. I don't think these chapters add any value to the article anyway and I'd just get rd of these.--Termer (talk) 05:25, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm talking about pretty much all of the "Film career and later life" section. Gary King (talk) 05:28, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, everything in there is in pretty good shape, like said the tags all the way down to Kubrick#Spartacus have been provided with citations. The rest of the text from Kubrick#Lolita on might need also some but current tags are a clear overkill since there is nothing much questionable over there and more like providing citations for the earth being a ball instead of flat. But never mind, I'll just go on and add citation to every tag.--Termer (talk) 05:39, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

How is something like "In 1962, Kubrick moved to England to film Lolita, and resided there for the rest of his life." considered common knowledge? Gary King (talk) 05:46, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

That's a good catch! however, it wasn't and it's not tagged like most of the 'common knowledge' has been which proves once more how valid the tagging actually has been. It's not helping, instead of catching mistakes like that, all kinds of other things have been tagged and from Lolita on it's sometimes every second sentence that makes the work tedious so that real mistakes get missed.--Termer (talk) 06:06, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

← Here's my thoughts. The article is poorly referenced – but then again, so are many others. There's no point in placing citation needed tags as they rarely actually get others to pitch in to help out, and as an added bonus, they make the article look worse by placing tags that break the flow of the text when reading it. Gary King (talk) 06:09, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Gary King, that has been exactly my point!--Termer (talk) 06:17, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

As the person who started this discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Films#Stanley_Kubrick_needs_your_help I'd like to toss in my 2 cents here:

(1) People sometimes use "the article is poorly referenced – but then again, so are many others" and the like as arguments. I'm one of those that feels that "other stuff exists" should not be a reason to do or not do something. If many articles need improving, that's certainly no reason not to improve this article. (Wikipedia:Other_stuff_exists#General_avoidance_principle).

(2) In general, the many various "Improve this" tags should be freely used and should not be removed until the underlying problems have been addressed. People don't always have the time, expertise, or resources to address these matters themselves, but that doesn't mean that they shouldn't point out the problems for those who do.

Thanks to all discussing this and improving the article! -- 201.17.36.246 (talk) 17:50, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't trying to throw the validity of the statements themselves into question, I actually added the tags in the hopes that it would inspire members of the project to provide sources to back up the information, not remove it. The statements may be (and most of them probably are) 100% true, but at the present there's nothing to back them up. My ultimate goal is to improve the quality of the article and the best way to do that is to include more references. S. Luke (talk) 04:37, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Thats fine S. Luke, please consider in the future also putting in some actual work to improve the quality of the article by providing the citations instead of just tagging it. There are 35 citation tags left out of total 57 added by you. If you can't make it by adding at least an half of the remaining 35, a quarter would be fine. I intend to help out latest by tomorrow as well. thanks!--Termer (talk) 04:42, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Although I am interested in Kubrick, I'm not intimately familar with his work. If you can give me some pointers as to where references might be found (i.e. biographies, books on film history) I will gladly help. S. Luke (talk) 07:22, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Please look at the section I posted below at Talk:Stanley_Kubrick#Useful_books_to_use_as_references. Gary King (talk) 14:29, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. S. Luke (talk) 06:24, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Citations needed

Since it was suggested, I thought I'd provide the reasoning behind some of my tags. I believe the following statements do not constitute general knowledge, while many of these may be well known facts among film fans the average reader of wikipedia does not come from such a background, and they I belive they require referencing per WP:BURDEN. I am not trying to start an edit war, but the best way to improve the article is to reference the passages, not ignore their lack thereof.

• Nabokov wrote a three-hundred page screenplay for Kubrick, which the director abandoned; a second draft by Nabokov, roughly half the length of its first, was revamped by Kubrick into the final screenplay.Nabokov estimated that 20% of his material made it into the film.

Nabokov may have said this, but there's no reference proving he did.

A bit of help Nabokov published his own screenplay in a book some years after SK's film. It's called "Lolita: A Screenplay". This is probably a good place to find this info. --WickerGuy (talk) 23:58, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

• . . . some viewers have even wondered whether Humbert and Lolita actually embarked on a sexual affair, as most of their relationship, sexually, is implied and suggested.

With no citations provided there's nothing to prove this isn't OR.

• However, Kubrick always spoke highly of James Mason, who portrayed Humbert Humbert in the film, identifying him as one of the actors with whom he most enjoyed working.

Again while the attribution may be true we need a reference to prove it.

• Lolita's release in 1962 was surrounded by immense hype.

Although this might seem obvious to fans of film history, there's nothing to indicate to the average reader that this isn't just one editor's opinion.

• Originally intended as a thriller, Kubrick found the conditions leading to nuclear war so absurd that the story became dark and funny rather than thrilling.

This needs a reference to prove it's not OR.

• The film's special effects, overseen by Kubrick and engineered by special effects pioneer Douglas Trumbull (Silent Running, Blade Runner), proved ground-breaking and inspired many of the special effects-driven films which were to follow the success of 2001.

I'm almost positive this is true, but without a reference there's no way to prove the author and I aren't mistaken.

• . . . as a result Richard Strauss's Also Sprach Zarathustra and Johann Strauss's The Blue Danube waltz have become indelibly associated with the film.

Again, there's no reference to prove this isn't just somebody's opinion.

My two cents. I think this is far more true of ASZ than it is of BD since the latter was already extremely well-known to the public and the former was a relatively more obscure piece. The recurring use of ASZ in future films accompanied by visual or verbal references to 2001 is evidence for this. --WickerGuy (talk) 23:58, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

• However, the film was not an immediate hit. Were it not for a six-week exhibition contract, the film might not have had enough time in cinemas to have benefited from building word-of-mouth popularity.

This is a bold statement even if it is true and needs a source to back it up.

• The film's ticket sales were low during the first two weeks of its release, and it was nearly withdrawn from theaters.

Again, although it may be fact there's currently nothing to prove that its not OR.

• Actor Jack Nicholson claims that Kubrick told him that 241 people walked out of the exhibitor's screening, including the studio head.

He might have said it but the quote needs a reference to prove that he really did.

• Arthur C. Clarke has said that an MGM executive commented on the screening by saying: "Well, that's the end of Stanley Kubrick."

Same reasoning as previous.

There are many more instances, however I don't want to talk up half the talk page listing them. If anybody feels that this discussion should be moved to its own page, then I have no qualms, so long as you provide a link. I realize that many other biographical pages or poorly referenced, but just because article x is doesn't mean Kubrick's should be too. S. Luke (talk) 07:06, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

That's all fair enough S. Luke. Please keep bringing up any possible issues with the article on the talk page, the space is not limited. we can make it a mile long or start up a new page after this one gets archived etc. For now however, please consider removing at least every second citation tag from Lolita on since I personally feel it difficult to work with. and it seems I'm not the only one as nobody has addressed the tags since you added those.. In case you think a section would need more than 2-3 citations, please use general ref tag 'Unreferenced-sect' and bring all possible issues up on the talk page. Instead of tagging every second sentence that makes the text unreadable and difficult to work with. Thanks! --Termer (talk) 14:59, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Howdy. Original poster again. I strongly agree with User:S Luke's attitude here, and say again that IMHO it's extremely appropriate to place tags in the article itself. They're supposed to be "unsightly" so that people will notice them and fix the problem.

I can live with reducing a number of inline tags to one "This article / section needs attention of sort X", but personally I strongly prefer the inline tags as more specific (as User:S Luke has just illustrated above.)

Thanks again to all. -- 201.17.36.246 (talk) 17:57, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

My understanding has always been that any unreferenced statements that are could have their authenticity questioned should be either tagged or removed. There are several statements on WP:Verifiability and WP:OR to back this up. I thought it best to tag the information rather than remove it, since as you've suggested, a good deal of it may be true. WP:Verifiability mentions that it is curteous to either tag a statement or adress it at the talk page before removing it. It doesn't say to discuss it before tagging it, and indeed that is not the standard practice unless an article has protected status.

There's no rule or guideline saying we should limit the number of citation tags in any one paragraph or section. I haven't tagged every sentence, only sentences that make unverified claims. Sometimes this happens to be two or three sentences in a row. Some articles contain sections that do have references virtually every sentence. I believe the purpose for the templates are to warn the reader from the get-go that the information in the article or section is unsourced, they are meant to be used in conjunction with citation needed tags not replace them. As user (IP adress) has said, if we simply used the template then readers and editors alike would have no way of knowing which statements the templates were refering too. Yes It'll take time and effort to reference them, but they need it and I plan on doing my part to help.

S. Luke (talk) 23:52, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Please take a look at WP:OVERTAGGING, where it says:

It is best to be conservative with the use of tags. ... Placing too many tags can be seen as disruptive, or as a violation of Do not disrupt Wikipedia to make a point.

Ed Fitzgerald ^{t / c} 02:35, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Please take a look at WP:OVERTAGGING, for example, the bit in the box where it says "This is an essay, a page containing the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. You may heed it or not, at your discretion." Many Wikipedians don't agree with this essay, or at least believe that tagging is more often helpful to the project than not.

Almost anything on Wikipedia can be disruptive, and almost anything can be seen as disruptive by somebody. WP:GOODFAITH says that we should try real hard to assume that other editors are not being disruptive. -- 201.17.36.246 (talk) 05:36, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually from what I can tell WP:OVERTAGGING seems to be about tagging articles with template messages, rather than citations needed. S. Luke (talk) 06:24, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Useful books to use as references

Per the discussion above at Talk:Stanley_Kubrick#Stanley_Kubrick_needs_your_help, I have found some books that are useful as references for this article. If you can find them in your local library or book store then please use them as references to cite this article:

• Ciment, Michel (2003-09-18). Kubrick: The Definitive Edition. Faber & Faber. ISBN 0571211089. {{cite book}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
• Kubrick, Stanley (January 2001). Stanley Kubrick: Interviews. University Press of Mississippi. ISBN 1578062977.
• Walker, Alexander (September 2000). Stanley Kubrick, Director: A Visual Analysis. W. W. Norton & Company. ISBN 0393321193.
• Duncan, Paul (2003-11-01). Stanley Kubrick. Taschen. ISBN 3822815926. {{cite book}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Gary King (talk • contribs) 14:29, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Plots

I have just shortened the plot synopsis of the Shining while slightly expanding that of Clockwork Orange and Eyes Wide Shut. I have significantly expanded the plot description of Dr. Strangelove and added one for 2001 which didn't even have a synopsis. The plot of CO omitted the political angle all together, and major themes of EWS (couple's relationship) and Strangelove (Strangelove's role in story) were absent. Short Plot synopses (in article on director) should hit on major themes, but need not contain precise plot details (which I thought the Shining synopsis had more of than necessary.)

--WickerGuy (talk) 01:44, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Added a section and removed a section

Benjamin Canaan made four very good trimmings of this article. However, the stuff on Kubrick's marriage to Christiane belonged somewhere, so given that Canaan removed it from the section on Paths of Glory (probably a good idea), I have put it in a section of its own between the Paths and Spartacus discussion.
The section on "Criticism" of Kubrick which has been there since Sept. 1st cites only one person's opinion. Kubrick had several frequent detractors, notably Pauline Kael, and less often Roger Ebert. But such a section needs to have at least two or three sources, not just a citation of one person's essay. Ergo, I have removed it.

--WickerGuy (talk) 04:02, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I changed the title to make it shorter and to the point.--Benjamin canaan (talk) 04:15, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Concision

This is a general observation: We need to always keep in mind that a great deal of this page consists of short, concise summaries of much longer pages which can reached by clicking on the relevant links. Particularly in regard to the individual films, we should try to keep the sections on this page as clear and as minimal as possible. A lot of the information here would be better on the individual pages dedicated specifically to the subject at hand. For instance, the entire section on Alex North's score for 2001 (which I have not cut) really belongs on the 2001 page, and not here.--Benjamin canaan (talk) 04:13, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Suggested Rule of Thumb on short plot synopses in Kubrick article

It seems to me that relatively late plot developments which heavily connect to thematic elements of the film belong in even the brief plot synopses of the Kubrick article. This is certainly not the case with Barry Lyndon, but it is the case with most other post-Lolita films. Even the omission of Quilty from the Lolita synopsis is problematic, given how heavily his role is expanded in the film, though I've done nothing about it. I made no changes to the impeccable Full Metal Jacket synopsis, but did make additions to all others (including creating a synopsis for 2001) when I felt that they related to moral, political, and philosophical (or spiritual??) themes of the films. Although I aplaud most of canaan's trimmings, he occasionally cuts what could be shortened, and I've once again fleshed out the Strangelove synopsis.

--WickerGuy (talk) 17:02, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Please check for continuity issues introduced by your changes, all of you

Please be aware of the fact that apparently small editorial changes can have ripple effects that damage other portions of the article. Check for forward and backwards references. Not to pick specifically on user XXVI, but the old version's
"Richard Strauss's Also Sprach Zarathustra and Johann Strauss's The Blue Danube waltz have become indelibly associated with the film."
is a grammatically complete sentence, but the new version's
"Richard Strauss]]'s Also Sprach Zarathustra and Johann Strauss's The Blue Danube waltz."
is a subject without a verb. Other alterations I have seen (to the 2001 article not the 2001 section of the Kubrick article) have created similar though more subtle problems.

--WickerGuy (talk) 00:00, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Even as I wrote this User:JohnInDC has reverted most of the deletions of User:XXVI more of them than I would have.

--WickerGuy (talk) 00:03, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Guess someone else is in fact picking on User:XXVI. He's suspended due to accusations of sockpuppetry.

--WickerGuy (talk) 04:37, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Clockwork Orange plot- Care when correcting

The plot synopsis of Clockwork Orange has morphed a lot in just the past 3 weeks frequently introducing actual mistakes. One that slipped for about 3 days was that someone got specific on Sept 26 as to exactly just what Alex was imprisoned for, except it's not for the rape of the writer's wife- its for the murder of the cat-lady the following evening. On Sept. 29th, someone caught this and corrected it to the murder of an "elderly" woman. However, she's elderly in Burgess' novel, but just somewhat older in the film.
A while back (mid-September), Benjamin Canaan zapped all references to the writer's politics. I thought he was just trimming what he thought was unnecessary info, but then looked at his rationale, and in explaining his change he said the writer's politics are mentioned in the novel but not the film. This isn't strictly true. They're elaborated at some length in the novel. However, at the end of the film when the Minister of Interior promises Alex a government job, he refers to the writer as a "writer of subversive literature" who has been put away for both his good and Alex's. An oblique reference, but it's there all the same. Furthermore, some of the writer's film dialogue with Alex and the writer's conspirators discloses his involvement in political activism. I am going to say this is sufficient to once again call him a 'political' writer in the synopsis.

--WickerGuy (talk) 00:34, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Southern's role in adding comedy to Strangelove incorrect

There is a line in the Strangelove blurb (end of 1st paragraph) that is incorrect. It is a popular misconception that Southern wrote the comedic bits to Red Alert that resulted in Dr. Strangelove screenplay. Kubrick, in his own words, had already adapted the work with the "black humor" into a finished screenplay. He then invited Terry in to do polish. The polished version is the one Kubrick shot. So says the Director in this 1966 interview, here: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7362318851275701535&ei=QDjvSMrxAo-o2wKd47z0Dg Given how territorial some users of WP are (which will lead to WP's eventual demise, IMO), someone please update this info. --84.103.37.63 (talk) 12:01, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Corrected per request. I'm sure those editors who have encountered the 2001 monolith will win the edit-wars; however, I hope there is no danger of Wikipedia achieving self-consciousness and rebelling against its human masters. :) --WickerGuy (talk) 14:48, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

More seriously, any change accompanied by an addition to the talk page explaining it is a bit more likely to go unmolested.--WickerGuy (talk) 15:21, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Criticism and subsequent removal

I have added a criticism section which has been removed without good reason. This article has been treated more as a celebration of Kubrick's life, which is in violation of Wikipedia policy. This section fixes the problem. I encourage people to add other opinoins as well if you are dissatisfied. Arturobandini (talk) 17:02, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Here is a transcript of what I wrote on Mr. Bandini's talk page

Dear Arturo,

Any section in the kubrick article on Kubrick criticism needs to be a broad and general survey of diverse views on Kubrick covering a broad range. Otherwise it violates Wikipedia's WP:NPOV policy which requires a Neutral Point of View. The same applies to any other major director, Welles, Hitchcock, Fellini, etc. etc.

Regards,

--WickerGuy (talk) 16:26, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Some negative assertions about Kubrick already exist in the sections of the article entitled "Later versions of source material for Kubrick films", and the section "Character". This last is an especially good example of a balanced article that maintains the Wikipedia policy of NPOV. Some folks speak well of Kubrick, others speak quite poorly of him. Other sections of the article note that SK has received occasional negative reviews. For example, the section on Barry Lyndon reads

Some critics, especially Pauline Kael, one of Kubrick's greatest detractors, found Barry Lyndon a cold, slow-moving, and lifeless film. Its measured pace and length--more than three hours--put off many American critics and audiences,

then mentions more positive reviews from others. Your section is skewed, and your assertion that the rest of the article is just a celebration of Kubrick isn't really entirely true.

--WickerGuy (talk) 16:39, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

The case against your additions was already made in clearly laid out Wikipedia guidelines WP:NPOV. They were not directly addressed to you, but since your contributions so heavily seem to violate those guidelines, the burden of proof is on you to establish why you haven't violated them. So no, I did not have to establish my reasons for deleting your work on the talk page. You have to defend yourself there. The following is clearly laid out in the Wikipedia guidelines in the section Wikipedia:UNDUEWEIGHT

NPOV says that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each. Now an important qualification: Articles that compare views should not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views, and will generally not include tiny-minority views at all.

Your work is both a clear violation of this, and as I have argued above, while the article is fairly pro-Kubrick, negative views of Kubrick do appear elsewhere in the article.

--WickerGuy (talk) 17:11, 23 October 2008 (UTC) --WickerGuy (talk) 17:13, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Mix of life and career

I notice this article seems to have the man's life broken up between the sections on his films. This seems odd and at odds with other director entries. Would it not be better to have his life and death and personal relationships all together and not mixed in with other stuff? It strikes me as confusing. Just asking before I were to do anything.Orangenj (talk) 15:25, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Good idea. After looking at some other director articles might want to think about this. We did a while back split out the marriage to Christian Harlan out of the Paths of Glory section. Thinking cap on. --WickerGuy (talk) 05:30, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Actually, it makes a bit of sense to do Kubrick this way just because he made so few films and he took so long to make films, so there's a sense in which his bio seems interwoven with his films moreso than with other directors. Still thinking --WickerGuy (talk) 05:44, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Further subclassifying unrealised projects

A while back (after One-Eyed Jacks was put in) the unrealised projects section was split into projects completed by other directors and projects never completed. As a few more unrealised projects have been thrown in, it seems wise to subclassify these into early stuff all of which never got past the screenplay stage and later stuff most (though not all) of which went into preproduction and then was halted. This leaves two projects that don't fit either category which I put into categories of their own ("Story Outline only" and "Author Rebuff"). This might be too many categories, but at least some partial chronology is now imposed on the unrealised projects list which was ballooning in a chaotic fashion. --WickerGuy (talk) 05:37, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Image Deletion Controversy

Here's what I posted at the request for comment on posting images for deletion

• Replace - All the images in the Stanley Kubrick article were flagged for deletion in one fell swoop two years after they were originally uploaded. All images in that article were given the same rationale. While scrolling through an article this long, searching for discussion of a specific film, the images from specific films are useful for quick searching.

However, It might be better if we could use poster/cover art instead of this image, since the fair use policy of WP prefers that screenshots be used in the context of critical commentary. Indeed, we could be in trouble with "In articles and sections of articles that consist of several small sections of information for a series of elements common to a topic, such as a list of characters in a fictional work, non-free images should be used judiciously to present the key visual aspects of the topic. It is inadvisable to provide a non-free image for each entry in such an article or section." and "Barring the above, images that are used only to visually identify elements in the article should be used as sparingly as possible"

--WickerGuy (talk) 05:11, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

One of two deleted sections back

As I noted in my edit-summary, once again I find myself tracing citations for someone else's edit after it gets challenged by a third person. Yesterday, both the "Legacy" and "Character" section were deleted in toto from an IP address. Both had been justly tagged in August for having no citations whatsoever. The "Legacy" section was relatively easy to find citations for. The "Character" section will take a LOT more work before it can be reasonably restored. I slightly re-edited the "Legacy" section and removed one phrase that seemed too POV. As I have noted in the hidden comment, there are two books called "Stanley Kubrick: A biography" so the switch between authors is not a mistake.

Happy holidays, all.

--WickerGuy (talk) 19:05, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Just "Aryan Papers" please.

Three times someone has changed both references in the article to Kubrick's unfinished "Aryan Papers" to "The Aryan Papers". Although a few websites here and there refer to the film as such, ALL published books call this project just "Aryan Papers". Quit adding in the "the", please. (This is a good example of why Wikipedia doesn't like self-published works as sources.) --WickerGuy (talk) 01:10, 2 December 2008 (UTC)