Probably a lot of stuff that slowed down the pacing and wasn't necessary for the film. Scenes get cut from every movie. The reason it seems like a big deal with this movie is 100% because of the types of people who gravitate towards Stanley Kubrick. Everything seems like a big deal to them.
kubrick was friends with arthur c clarke,famous nasty homo,why no one brings this up ever?
>>42398107https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2okFk6zrVrE
>>42398107Your bussy getting pounded.
>>42398130You can be friends with somebody without knowing everything about them, and even if you magically got to know everything about them, you still wouldn't need to agree with them on everything in order to remain friends.
Kubrick was actually a horrible director. I like his movies because of the cinematography. He was a great visual artist and photographer but he had no idea how to direct a movie. Actors hated him due to his inability to direct, which resulted in him being in over his head with hundreds of takes, wasting miles of film just to get one decent performance, which he clearly had no idea how to do, and the end result was never worth all the wasted time. Mind you, he didn't have to try so hard to get good shots because that's something he was good at. It was the actual directing part that he was incapable of. All his movies are similar in that they have some of the most horrendous acting of all time. He was basically a cameraman who tried to be a director.
>>42398130Did he actually do anything wrong or are you just mad at gays because you continuously keep breaking your one-day nofap streak to femboys on twitter?
>>42398107It's all in the movie, everybody knows that a whole bunch of footage could have been cut out of the final version as well. MUCH of Cruise and Kidman's retarded "acting" could have been removed to improve the movie. That's the lame and inconvenient truth. The movie is shit, Kubrick's filming height happened in 1968!!! for Christ's sake. That movie was just a retarded wet dream of him, with a bad cast, a bad script, and a bad final cut/version.
>>42398180He was also the script writer for each of his films, right? And he was very meticulous with his planning of details, like designing the impossible layout of the hotel in the shining, or having scenes in Barry Lyndon lit only by candles. But yeah I can't think of any good acting performances from his films. Except for dr strangelove. He can't do drama where the actors must be taken seriously, but goddamn dr strangelove is good. >>42398107Epstien shit for sureHe was a jew, Yknow?
>>42398217What about Paths of Glory?
>>42398107Tom Cruise and Nicole Kidman
>>42398217>I can't think of any good acting performances from his films.lol what a shit opinion
>>42401365>who cares about them
>>42401390No, he's right. Kubrick had no idea how to direct actors. He knew how to get great shots, but that's an entirely different skill. His films have some of the worst performances I've seen. He directs actors as if he's Mel Brooks. I blame it on the fact that he grew up around the same time as Mel Brooks, a time when comedy basically didn't exist and any attempt at comedy was considered hilarious and groundbreaking because of how novel it was, and that imprinted on him, causing him to write dialogue and direct like it's some kind of vaudeville comedy. It's subtle, but it's there in all his films. It's strange because of how grim his movies usually are, but he doesn't seem to know how to write and direct with a non-comedic tone, and this hurts his films, because like everyone of his generation, he isn't funny. Mel Brooks at least had the comedy gene, but Stanley Kubrick was born without that. It hurts his films greatly. There's a huge tonal clash that's hard to get around. If he were at least kind of funny it might not be bad, but the fact that he isn't and yet directs every movie as if it's a comedy just brings how unfunny he is to the surface. Again, he's a great visual artist and photographer, but his writing and directing of people is terrible. The only films of his I can think of that don't suffer from this are 2001 and Paths of Glory, 2001 because of how minimal the dialogue is anyway, and Paths of Glory because he somehow just didn't fuck it up as badly as he did his later films, and it being the 1950's, the silly goofiness - which is already subtle for a Kubrick film - just kind of blends better. Better actors in that movie too.
>>42402807>Kubrick had no idea how to direct actors.Not the same at all as no good acting performances in his films.That is a retarded take and only comes from someone who isnt thinking at all about the performances, only whatever agenda they want to shove.R Lee Emery is all I have to say to destroy everything you and other anon pulled from your ass. And that's just one, and not even from an actor at the time.
>>42402881I have no agenda. The fact is, Kubrick films are brimming with some of the worst performances I've ever seen. Saying that Kubrick can't direct is just another way of saying that. You don't have to try to get all grammatical about it. I'm not saying you can't like his movies. He's one of my favorite directors in spite of his inability to direct actors. There are some good performances in his movies, but ideally, all if not most should be good, and they're not. There are decent actors who have given horrible performances in his movies because he doesn't know how to work with actors and has to waste miles of film because of it. He's a great artist and photographer but not a good director. Overall, he's a good filmmaker in spite of his inability to actually direct.
>>42402807>>42402881>>42403133This is truth in the sense that he's a known and accepted glowie asset. And it is common knowledge that the glowie management style ponders "optics" above anything else like "forms and language". Kubrick operates in that way, obsessing first with the "technicality" and "logistics" of the project (as you do in military operations), and some times you can't have both skills and sensibilities in one person. And given the fact that Kubrick films were high level psyops the isolation of the project made it much more impervious to include the help of outside players in sensitive areas like acting direction and assistance.
>>42398107people getting raped in the asshole
>>42398107"Extra Mile" acting, obviously. It had to be cut from the ritual party for ease of acquiring only a mere R rating.Not only that, Kubrick was a professional, he knew "show don't tell." You can tell from what's implied but missing.For instance, the costume shop kid knows what costume to suggest him. That means she's been. This is masterful foreshadowing setup, insignificant in the moment but powerful in hindsight. But no payoff.Domino's introduction goes... Nowhere. But allegedly one of the missing scenes is the ritual sacrifice of a hooker. So her sudden disappearance because she's "HIV positive" would in restored context be a cover story for her disappearance.There's also the fact that the movie is structurally palindromic, and the AAABA/BABBB structure ISN'T perfectly aligned with the middle point. But could be if the orgy ran longer.
This thread is glowing so hard>N-nothin t' see here goys!!
If dubs Kubrick was trying to open your eyes
>>42398107Nicole Kidman swimming naked in a pool to all eleven minutes of the Blue Danube.
>>42398126This 100%. If they really hated the movie they would hate made sure it didn't release at all and cut their losses because its all about the message, not making money to these people.
>>42398180>Kubrick was actually a horrible director. I like his movies because of the cinematography. He was a great visual artist and photographer but he had no idea how to direct a movie. Actors hated him due to his inability to direct, which resulted in him being in over his head with hundreds of takes, wasting miles of film just to get one decent performance, which he clearly had no idea how to do, and the end result was never worth all the wasted time. Mind you, he didn't have to try so hard to get good shots because that's something he was good at. It was the actual directing part that he was incapable of. All his movies are similar in that they have some of the most horrendous acting of all time. He was basically a cameraman who tried to be a director.Nah, his movies are good. The Shining, for example, has great acting.
>>42405650No, the here's Johnny stuff was really corny and Shelley Duvall, as good as an actress as she is, wasn't able to give a very convincing performance due to disassociated she was from the endless amount of takes. She was also being harassed by the crew, as Kubrick had ordered them to do, which only hurt her acting abilities. Kubrick didn't seem to have any faith in the abilities of professional actors and bought into the idea that everything has to be real in order to get a genuine performance, but by overworking your actors for no reason, you're not getting a more authentic performance, you're getting a less authentic performance because the actors aren't able work the way they normally do. Also less relevant but still something I'll say, he had real hatred for women, which just doesn't help when you're supposed to be working together with people to create a substantial product. He had a lot of issues, and none of them helped him in his art or made him any more interesting or sympathetic. He was a good photographer though.
>>42398172You sound like a good friend, Anon
>>42405830>No, the here's Johnny stuff was really cornyReplace corny with iconic, and you'd be correct. You're just a pretentious snob.
>>42405954It was forced and awkward. It was included so that there would be a line from the movie that people would quote. In the context of the movie, it just sounds stupid. It should have been one of those lines that gets used in the trailer but doesn't make the final cut.
>>42403133>The fact is, Kubrick films are brimming with some of the worst performances I've ever seen.Then you're pool of what you have seen is atrocious and severely limited and probably deliberately cherry picked.>There are some good performances in his moviesWeasely backpedaling already. You know you are wrong. Post discarded.>>42403195>blah blah blahCompletely irrelevant to the quality of the acting performances given in his films.Just about every single one of his films has one or more performances that are critically and publicly lauded across time.
>>42406159Shit take. This is why you are a complete unknown.
>>42398107Basically thishttps://youtube.com/shorts/U--5RzvHdKA?si=tOdPvnLJt-TeQPVV
Child rape or child torture
Hollywood is jewish, and to be in a movie theater and have any kind of fame you have to be one of them or kiss the ring or eat shit. No movie director is going to ruin their plans without being killed. The missing footage is just news cycle trivia that probably doesn't exist. If there was anything incriminating about it they wouldn't talk about it and you wouldn't know
>>42398107Nudes. It's always the nudes
>>42398196I've watched the move and I never could understand what all the fuss was about. The movie seemed like totally average Hollywood fodder.So many ppl revere it as some kind of super cerebral penetrating reveal of some super secret elites club.I always thought it was nothing but a lame cheap overproduced overrated promotional material for Tom Cruise and Nicole Kidmans career portfolios.The Ninth Gate was better than Eyes Side Shit.
>>42398107they still left in things that hint at the removals of the film. For instance, through out the film, there's two people following him and his daughter. at the end of the film his daughter goes with these two people, but it's in the background, you have to look for it.
