61–70 of 143 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So you believe that what OP wrote is normal boss behaviour? I wouldn't want to work for you.
Normal bosses don’t get Kubrick like results.
I have to say that the 'critical' quotations from the book are uncharacteristic of a project where the target of the biography (and this is a kind of biography) is cooperating and participating - and particularly when they have veto. Most writers know the score in this respect: unauthorized coverage is harder-hitting and may be more accurate, whereas authorized coverage has inside scoops, but is unlikely to be allowe…
The author was hired to do a 'nice' book, and was pretty nice but the customer was a Prima donna and rejected it anyway.
Think we've all encountered bad customers like this.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Was it because of the privacy laws that they needed his agreement in the first place? It seems he contributed, so I assume otherwise.
My understanding is that they didn't need his agreement in the first place, but they voluntarily entered into a contract with Kubrick that gave him the final say on publishing in exchange for him agreeing to be interviewed for the book.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
From the article, it appears the big sadness for the author was he wrote back and said he was happy to work with Kubrick to discuss getting it to where he was more comfortable with it, Kubrick never responded, and then sent lawyers. That's all that's rough for the writer, here.
> From the article, it appears the big sadness for the author was he wrote back and said he was happy to work with Kubrick to discuss getting it to where he was more comfortable with it, Kubrick never responded, and then sent lawyers. That's all that's rough for the writer, here. Very. Who knows how many hours of sweat he poured into it, only to get it shelved when it was done. This, IMHO, is a good reason to recomme…
It is not. These things aren’t comparable. Most people will get nothing out of that book.
> What probably happened was that the author got the initial agreement from Kubric by being so persistent that Kubric agreed just to make them go away.
Why speculate to excuse Kubrick and victim blame Hornick, when the answer is in the article? He was commissioned to write the book:
> He had been commissioned to write the very first book on Kubrick by cinema specialist The Tantivy Press more than 50 years ago.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I would think it does, yes. It's personal rights, not concrete assets. Dead people have no right to privacy in law as I understand it. Not a lawyer, not in the economies involved in this. "it depends"
> Dead people have no right to privacy in law as I understand it. Grim reminder to better control privacy while we are still alive.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Normal bosses don’t get Kubrick like results.
Kubrick’s results were all over the map. He made maybe three great films: Dr. Strangelove Full Metal Jacket A Clockwork Orange A bunch of not bad films: 2001 Lolita Barry Lyndon The Shining Spartacus One real turd of a film: Eyes Wide Shut And a bunch of forgettable filler: All the other films he made. Compare this to the Anti-Kubrick, Clint Eastwood, who made: Unforgiven Mystic River Million Dollar Baby Letters From…
just ask reddit and reverse the results to know who is better
I love Kubrick movies, but my one bit of criticism I'd give (from me - a random guy on the internet, who's never made a movie), is that both 2001 and The Shining both require the viewer to have read the respective books to fully appreciate them. I know it's a cliché to harp on about the ending of 2001, but it really does make a lot more sense after having read the book, which in turn makes the movie a lot more enjoya…
Agreed, and I’d be comfortable calling this incompetence. Triggers cinemaphiles to hear a director that’s supposed to be ome of the finest being called incompetent, but I can’t see how it’s defendable. He failed at the _one thing_ a film is supposed to do.
You do know that in the case of 2001, the movie and book were done simultaneously, right? There’s no failure of adaptation because it wasn’t one. It makes no sense to fault the movie by comparing with the book in this case.
> He failed at the _one thing_ a film is supposed to do.
Which is what? Entertain? Make a profit? Be culturally relevant to an extent that is still felt decades later?
There is no rule which says a movie has to be a coherent linear story that spoon feeds you to be significant, good, or artistically relevant.
Nice sales trick
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Normal bosses don’t get Kubrick like results.
Kubrick’s results were all over the map. He made maybe three great films: Dr. Strangelove Full Metal Jacket A Clockwork Orange A bunch of not bad films: 2001 Lolita Barry Lyndon The Shining Spartacus One real turd of a film: Eyes Wide Shut And a bunch of forgettable filler: All the other films he made. Compare this to the Anti-Kubrick, Clint Eastwood, who made: Unforgiven Mystic River Million Dollar Baby Letters From…
Stanley Kubrick was one of that kind of people who cannot take criticism of anything they do.