David Cronenberg: Stanley Kubrick didn't understand horror

Based Kubs

Cronenberg has spent his entire life to making horror films about the grotesqueness of the human psyche and he's still not come close to making something as genuinely disturbing as The Shining. He's just a whiny bitch.

The Shining really is a phenomenal film. I think it's one of Kubrick's best. Stephen King hated it, the actors hated it, and countless other directors and filmmakers over the years, none of whom were ever even asked for their opinion, have voiced that they didn't like it. you have to be a genius to make something like that.

>implying Barry Lyndon isn't about the horrors of being cucked

Kek

Kubrick has war horror kino, horror drama/ psychological drama horror kino, scifi horror kino and horror kino under his belt forever. Hes a master of horror

>The Shining
>Genuinely disturbing
When?

the shining is better than anything cronenberg has and will ever release.

Go back to watching green room kid

That's because the Shinning isn't a horror movie it's a terror movie you dumb shit

he assumes too much about genres, and thats awful, there is no recipe

I found The Green Room quite boring, actually

The shining, 2001, eyes wide shut and full metal jacket are better than anything cronenberg has and will ever release
FTFY

Ok good

green room was decent enough, what's your issue with it?

I love Cronenberg, but if this is a real quote, then he should take it down a notch and do some fucking self reflection.

Eastern Promises and the Fly were probably the best things croneburger ever did. Also... Kubrick being commercial minded.. jesus christ I wish that hairy little jew were alive today to lashback at this nigga.

Well, he isn't wrong.

The shining is an unbelievable achievement in film. Movie was visually horrifying, and much better than any horror movie released in the last 20 years.

Not him, but I never got why Videodrome was so celebrated on here. Found it lacking with fulfilling its commentary and the characters weren't interesting other than Debbie Harry having a fetish for pain. But that's literally all there is to her and she's barely in the movie

The Shining isn't scary, so I wouldn't call it horror, but it's extremely disturbing.

Videodrome was one of the worst flicks I've ever seen.

It doesn't really matter if he's right or not (I don't think he is), but his comment does give us some insight into his own work.

Why was that?

I love Kubrick but I don't love The Shining. Never understood what people found so striking about it.

The Shining is 10 times scarier than anything Cronenberg ever directed. I like Cronenberg movies, but they're more disturbing and surreal than scary.

This is one of those cases where you really don't have to take sides.

Visually interesting, it's got a creepy atmosphere, the speculation you can have with the story is fun. At least speaking for myself. I don't find it scary but I like watching it every Halloween

if you watch it as a black comedy it's fun and nicholson is hysterical in it

John Carpenter said Cronenberg was up his own ass.

He's sort of right
The shining was an amazing film but it wasn't exactly "scary"

have you honestly ever been scared by a movie?

>striking images in the book and he got that, but I don't think he really felt it
Of course he immediately goes to comparing it with stephen kings drivel
There's so many differences ranging from small to large that they're hardly even comparable.
Also yea sure the book was the epitome of the horror genre, right? That memorable moment when John busts down the door with the hammer and yelled "Take your medicine!" really sent chills down my spine. Jack busting the door down with an huge ass firemans axe yelling Here's Johnny! is childs play in comparison, right?
Bet he thinks that garbage ass miniseries really fucking "felt it"

>up his own ass

that's obvious if you've ever watched videodrome.

holy shit he just sounds asshurt to hell

what a little bitch desu

Redditor detected

Not him, but how is his statement reddit-tier?

That's cringe if I ever saw it. Damn. Cronenberg is good, but he's not THAT GOOD. This is Kubrick he's talking about.

I always loved Kubrick, even before the internet and the time it became hip to love Kubrick, but one particular movie of his never clicked with me for some reason. I found it unapproachable and even dull. It was the shining of course.
Over the years and with repeated viewing it grew on me.
The eerie and supernatural vibe the movie gives off coupled with the inevitable and unstoppable dissoluton of Jack's humanity, turning him into a batshit insane family killer is pure kino.
I watch it every winter once.

This has always been how I watch it.

Is anyone gonna respond to his points or are you just gonna insult him?

Redditors always like to add extra comments in brackets (because they cant into sentence structure). Also the sincerity of it as the cynicism has yet to set in.

And because he likes dicks.

The gold room scene with the music and mr grady is better than every film he has made combined

I never thought to watch it that way, but I find Nicholson delightfully fun in the movie regardless

do you watch BBC porn as black comedy too?
>Oh I'm laffin!

That Kubrick didn't really get the the horror "feel"?

How do you go about disproving that

>"I think I'm a more intimate and personal film-maker than Kubrick ever was,"
I think this is true of Cronenberg. Cronenberg really has some odd projects. I really love most of Cronenbergs movies, but wouldn't hesitate to say Kubrick is just a better filmmaker.

I love how you assume everyone is stupid enough to ultimately become an insincere meme spamming retard by browsing here. Kill yourself. Also there's nothing incorrect about using parentheses, you brain dead Cred Forums tard.

Based Cronenberg. And on cue we have a retard actually defending the Shining and going so far as to claim that the King, the actors, and other directors were not asked for their opinions on the film. Yes, Kubrickfags are that retarded.

>Cronenberg refers to himself alongside Fellini and Bergman

lmfao senpai

The Shining and Eyes Wide shut are practically sister films of Kubrick's, accessible to wide audiences (The Shining moreso than EWS) while containing deeper, more subtle themes that only become obvious on repeated viewings. I found both of them incredibly unsettling, and both have been dissected many time in an attempt to explain what it is about them that is, in fact, so unsettling.

The Shining is one of a handful of movies that genuinely scared me - didn't help my dad let me watch it when i was about 7, so yep:

>babby's first Kubrick

>the King
Hola reddit!

Who cares about King's opinion. He liked the miniseries and it was shit.

Cronenberg has become full of himself lately. Too snobby to even talk to John Carpenter anymore.

Cronenberg hasn't made a horror movie in years so what the fuck does he know

Cronenberg fucking blows.

>you assume everyone is stupid enough to ultimately become an insincere meme spamming retard

pls, just look at this board man.

He was pretty good as the psycho shrink in Nightbreed.

I kinda agree with him, specially about Kubrick being commercial-minded as fuck.

>I think he was much more commercial-minded, and was looking for stuff that would click and that he could get financed.
pot calling the kettle black. what a fucking hypocrite. This is what every filmmaker ever says, and yet they all whore themselves out to the jew to get the gorillions they need to make movies.

He hates cronenberg's indie movies

The shining is a bad horror movie though
It's only a great "meta" movie, as in its so strangely made that it's fascinating

It's something about watching the inevitability of madness.

Kubrick > Edgy shock jock

When I get my hands on Cronenberg what real horror looks like.

when and where?

horror doesn't have to be jump scares. Being disturbing is just another method to get under your skin.

he's correct, kubrick was too autistic, souless and self-absorbed to make a good horror movie. the shining sucks dick, full metal jacket sucks dick. paths of glory is an autistic man's rendition of human emotion. barry lyndon and 2001 are also souless as fuck, but actually great films

when did cronenberg whored himself? have you even watched his recent movies? he isn't exactly directing blockbusters

I like Cronenberg but The Shining is less cliched and better crafted than any horror film he ever did. The Fly is entertaining but it's full of cheap jump scares and gore, the themes are heavy-handed freshman philosophy class nose-pickings, and the characters are stereotypical tropes that are less developed than fucking Kubrick's, which is really not a high bar. Videodrome and The Dead Zone are excellent pictures but not remotely frightening, eXistenZ is an embarrassment to his career, and Crash suffers from the same philosophical failures as The Fly.

Kubrick was absolutely a commercial filmmaker (like Cronenberg), but he was looking to make films that were going to be commercial by default since they could only be made by milking studio resources. Within the studio system he was able to effect a far more cohesive, cogent, and intelligent artistic vision into reality, and one with a wider scope too.

>When I get my hands on Cronenberg what real horror looks like.
what

>souless
what do you mean by soulless?

nolanesque.

>Maps to the Stars budget 15m
>Cosmopolis budget 20m
>Dangerous Method budget 15m
If getting 15-20m budgets isn't whoring yourself out, boy I sure would like to not whore myself out like that.
>brotip: Where I'm at a 3m budget is considered A+ tier.

that doesn't mean he's commercial-minded at all. cronenberg is a cult figure, that's why studios/investors are willing to inject said ammounts into his movies even if they're going to bomb

>gets 15m of free gib
>not commercial minded
kill yourself

commercial-minded directors whore themselves to audiences and studios alike. the fact that people give money to cronenberg doesn't mean he's thinking commercialy. most people couldn't even sit through cosmopolis and maps to the stars, the point being he's clearly not trying to appease audiences

He's trying to appease a very specific kind of audience. That's why he's too afraid to step out of his cozy little niche.

If I loved videodrome will I like cosmopolis?

Christ, what a smug motherfucker.

It's well known that Kubrick wanted to make commercially successful films, and only an anti-capitalist like Cronenberg would see that as a fault.

As for who had a better hand at horror, Kubrick only made one, and it's more iconic than anything Cronenberg has made, but it's very much a Stanley Kubrick movie. It's so much different than what is typically defined as horror that it's hard to compare. I appreciate it for what it is. Kubrick's detachment in his films are part of what made them interesting.

Cronenberg is a great director too. Let's not trash on the guy's films just because he says dumb shit, but it does seem he's a little up his own ass these days.

>the fact that people give money to cronenberg doesn't mean he's thinking commercialy
yeah because the jews running the studios are so well known for giving filmmakers alms to make whatever crap they want. Seriously, kill yourself.

this user speaks truth.

>He's trying to appease a very specific kind of audience
who, exactly? I know several people really into cronenberg that absolutely despise his recent output. the guy is an absolute madman

/thread

The bathtub lady scared the living shit out of me.

maybe, maybe not. it's a really singular movie if you ask me

>kill yourself
you're a little baby, aren't you? I'm sorry the big bad mr cronenberg trash talked your favorite director, kiddo

Where do you think we are?

Cronenberg enlists big stars to get thrown some money. Whether or not he makes films with an audience in mind really isn't a matter of quality.

>you're a little baby, aren't you?
lurk moar?

>I'm sorry the big bad mr cronenberg trash talked your favorite director, kiddo
The irony is that I care more for cronenberg than Kubrick. But I'm actually able to separate irrelevant bullshit a director says in interviews from his actual work.

>Kubrick's understanding of the genre is different than mine, and therefore his movie is bad
Sounding a little bitter, there, Cronenberg.

>There were some striking images in the book and he got that, but I don't think he really felt it
So he basically was just an autistic bookfag.

Honestly he didn't make any valid "points".

it was just saltiness disguised as genuine critique.

He just sounds jealous to be honest.

what's cronenbergs deal? he's made some great films but he seems like a pompous asshole. especially for someone who hasn't madeanything good in years.

>commercial minded
>2001
The antithesis of commercial
>A Clockwork Orange
Yeah, gotta love those commercialized rape scenes back in 1971
>Lolita
Nothin like a good ol' commercial film about pedophilia
>Barry Lyndon
Yup, nothing says commercial like long ass shots and a languid pace.
>Eyes Wide Shut
.............

I really hate the fact that Cronenberg is one of my favorite filmmakers

>Kubrick, Kurosawa, Fellini, the list goes on...

The hallmark of the tasteless and the uninitiated. It's okay if you're just getting into the medium, but there are some (even here, on a so called ''film'' board) that actually believe they are cultured or have a snippet of taste because they like these directors, when in actuality they are nothing more than embarrassing cringeworthy copy/paste babbies with no opinion on the medium they claim to love whatsoever.

For a cinephile like myself, it is truly disgusting to watch, and the main reason I, and many others, steer far away from this pit of despair and depravity.

I really hope this is b8... for your sake, user

>tips fedora

never gets old

>It's popular, therefore shit and you can't like it

You sound like a bitch

They were pretty good except Scanners kinda got boring for me as it progressed. Naked Lunch is pretty boss.

2001 is better than almost anything anyone will ever make. I can only watch it every few years but it is not a meme, it is the real deal every time I watch it.

Mostly this but I find the parts with the kid on the tricycle riding around the empty halls in this massive building touches on some deep-seated fear from my childhood.

I've read the Naked Lunch, and I'll never understand how anybody has ever been able to make a film out of it.

What is the film like?

Kubrick's reputation is a bit overinflated, but Cronenberg is so off base here. Does being more "personal" make him a better artist or filmmaker? What kind of qualification is that?

Well he did make the fly which is scarier than The Shining. He's right about the commercial stuff, since The Kube was a Jew.

...

There's no sides, its one person shit talking the talents of a dead man

What points? His statements are highly subjective and he doesn't back them up with any real insight.

One clearly-jealous person at that. I like Cronenberg's work, but have lost respect for his actual judgment regarding other filmmaker's over this. Doesn't matter, but still disappointing.

I didn't click the link, did he say this before casting two six-foot-tall square-jawed gentiles as Freud and Jung?

I saw an interview a while ago where Carpenter laments what a turbo douche Cronenberg has become

Eyes Wide Shut is scarier than anything Cron has ever directed, a two and a half hour trip into the psyche of someone fearing to get cucked. No wonder Cred Forums loves it so much.

You could have saved everyone some time and just said you have zero conception of what it costs to make a movie. 20 million is a pittance.

Though your point is basically sound, rape scenes were incredibly commercial in 1971. Sexual liberation made for skeevy movies. Lolita was a film of a controversial bestseller, so it was a pragmatic choice - a lot of Otto Preminger's films were produced on the same kind of calculation.

If this isn't pasta and you do have valid reasons for disliking those directors other than hipsterism, I'd be interested to read them.

Kubrick was very involved on the business side of things. Cronenberg is not wrong here, even if he's coming off kind of cocky.

Actually the 70s is partially characterized by tasteless use of rape in films to generate sales through controversy

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_and_revenge_film

Carpenter has become a bitter old man though. He has never something positive to say about anyone that his name isn't Kurt Russel.

Yeah but no one would say Kubrick was in it for the money
Cronenberg just seems butthurt his films aren't more popular

> Does being more "personal" make him a better artist or filmmaker?

Yes, it does.

> What kind of qualification is that?

The only reason any of us call filmmakers artists at all, the auteur theory, dictates that the highest value be placed on those bodies of work that evince a personal vision.

Yeah, I thought about those things, but A Clockwork Orange was a very controversial film at the time, and while Lolita was a highly regarded novel, risqué material in a book is a lot different than in a film.

>using tumblrpedia as a source
kek

He's wrong to treat it as if it were qualitative.

This. If you look at how directors make movies anyway, you pretty much have to grovel to the feet of the financiers and make your films in a way it would make the most money. Most directors had to beg for money most of the time, Orwell had to get money from sleezy russian car salesmen.

The Fly wasn't scary. It was just gross.

Controversy is commercial. Lolita was a bestseller.

Nope, it was legit scary, it's an allusion to losing someone to some nasty disease.

He was positive enough about Hideo Kojima to not sue him over Metal Gear Solid

Orwell made movies?

>>Lolita
>Nothin like a good ol' commercial film about pedophilia
They used the infamy for marketing the film. The tagline was literally "How did they ever make a film of Lolita?"

What I don't think anyone is taking away from this is how amazing Stephen King's writing is.

The Shining
It
Salem's Lot
Pet Semetary
Rita Hayworth and the Shawshank Redemption
The Green Mile
The Body
Misery
Lisey's Story

>I'm too stupid to know about Death Wish, I Spit on Your Grave, The Last House on the Left, and Straw Dogs
kek

>Yes, it does.
So if someone with no filmmaking skills makes a deeply personal film, more personal than any Kubrick film, he's the better filmmaker?
>The only reason any of us call filmmakers artists at all, the auteur theory, dictates that the highest value be placed on those bodies of work that evince a personal vision.
Personal vision is not the same as being personal. Kubrick's personal vision is far more distinctive and omnipresent in his work than Cronenberg's. Easily. But not even that makes him the better filmmaker.

No, we're talking about a situation where both are more than competent. The personal filmmaker is superior to the impersonal or second-guessing one, according to the auteur theory.

> Personal vision is not the same as being personal.

By definition, yes it is.

>What I don't think anyone is taking away from this is how amazing Stephen King's writing is.

>No, we're talking about a situation where both are more than competent.
Seems to be a very narrow way of looking at filmmakers.
>The personal filmmaker is superior to the impersonal or second-guessing one, according to the auteur theory.
Auteur theory is retarded, and I don't think this is what Cronenberg was referring to.
>By definition, yes it is.
Then Kubrick is the more personal filmmaker. Again, I don't really see that as making him better, but I'm really not interested in turning films into a pissing game between directors. Cronenberg and Kubrick are both excellent filmmakers in their own right. It comes down to preference.

Is more like a trippy biopic of Burroughs than an adaptation

Now what does that even mean?

What makes Kubrick the better filmmaker is he made films that were better than Cronenberg made/makes - I liked Videodrome, loved Crash, enjoyed The Fly and so forth, but Crash - to me, with its wonderful sense of fetish - is the only film that can compete with anything Kubrick did aesthetically, technically or otherwise. Cronenberg is an important niche, but Kubrick was the better filmmaker.

I thought Cronenberg hated horror now? He wants to be considered an artistic director and not a horror director. To the point that he started snubbing people like Wes Craven and considering them less than.

No, it's the only way of looking at them if you want to have a conversation about narrative film as art.

>Auteur theory is retarded

Oh right, you don't, you're just a completely vacuous contrarian who can't even consistently disagree with what he thinks he's arguing with. Bye.

No, controversy =/= commercial

Yeah, but Wes Craven was a pompous piece of shit considering his visual sense was almost entirely dependent on effects shots.

...

No, controversy is commercial. Controversy sells tickets.

So Nymphomaniac was a commercial film? Fuck off, faggot. Stop posting.

>No, it's the only way of looking at them if you want to have a conversation about narrative film as art.
You're saying that beyond a level of competency, what matters is the degree to which a filmmaker is personal, which determines who the better filmmaker is. That is one way of looking at films, sure. And not a very productive way.

>Bye.
See ya, you pretentious blowhard.

Of course Nymphomaniac was a commercial film. How old are you? Do you think Santa Claus is real?

It made more than double its budget back

I don't think you know what the term "commercial" implies.

I still wouldn't label it commercial. I mean, if you're going to call Nymphomaniac commercial, then that pretty much leaves underground art films as the only films which aren't commercial.

The Shining is great, but Crash is about 100 times as disturbing .

>>"I think I'm a more intimate and personal film-maker than Kubrick ever was. That's why I find The Shining not to be a great film. I don't think he understood the [horror] genre. I don't think he understood what he was doing. There were some striking images in the book and he got that, but I don't think he really felt it."

Being a child is thinking the Shining is a horror film. Growing up is understanding that 2001 is a horror film

Yes, I know what you're taking it to imply, but if we deal with the reality of what it means, Nymphomaniac was an entirely commercial exercise.

> if you're going to call Nymphomaniac commercial, then that pretty much leaves underground art films as the only films which aren't commercial.

Not really, there are lots of art films not directed by smirking hucksters who started out in English-language thrillers for the video rental market and had a sideline in hardcore porn production for most of the previous two decades.

Unless your film is funded by foundations, a government, nonprofits, etc, it's a commercial enterprise. It may be destined to lose money and everyone backing it may be aware of that fact, but none of that negates the fact that people are voluntarily funding a project that will presented to the paying public in hopes of making some money. It doesn't make it wrong or dirty, but it does make it commercial. Kubrick spoke on this as have most filmmakers.

it sucks. Naked lunch is great writing, the movie adaptation is not great cinema. no movie from the 80's could do that book justice, maybe with cgi but whos going to try and take that project on nowadays?

>I know what you're taking it to imply
Well, you clearly don't realize that it's a subjective term.

>Nymphomaniac was a commercial exercise
By that line of reasoning, any film that has marketing is commerical. It's a business. And you're as full of shit as Cronenberg.

Also, your opinions on Von Trier are irrelevant.

CGI is garbage my friend. Practical effects made that movie interesting.

I think that guy managed to mash Orson and Welles together into one name

It's not a subjective term, it refers to an economic reality.

>By that line of reasoning, any film that has marketing is commerical.

No, 'real sex', famous names, and the promise of a film exclusively concerned with compulsive sexual intercourse is an intrinsically commercial combination. No tortuous 'line of reasoning' is required. It's an art porn film, made by a canny producer of both commercial art movies and hardcore pornography.

You seem to be quite immature, why are you posting on a discussion board if you get upset whenever anyone refers to empirical fact?

I agree to some extent but there were scenes in the book that just couldn't be done visually at the time and retain the drug induced majestic dreamscapes...and dudes fucking everywhere...

It was made in the 90s.

When Jack is reading that play girl article about incest.

>it's an economic reality
You do realize that people have debates on what constitutes a commercial film, right? Kinda like the one we're having now. And despite what you obviously believe, there is never a winner.

This ultimately comes down to semantics, and while there is a commercial element to the vast majority of films, I would not identify Nymphomaniac as a commercial film, myself.

>you seem quite immature
You seem like you're projecting.

The Fly is better than The Shining. Not by much, though.

No, they don't. No, it doesn't. Nymphomaniac is an obviously commercial film, yes. It's not subjective, it's not up for debate. Stop digging.

Taste is relative, but it's not.

Candyman is better than both.

> plz let me remain ignorant!

Not that user, but what constitutes a commercial film is pretty obvious - if you are uncomfortable with the concept of "commerce" and "commercial activity" that is your problem, but what is and is not commerical isn't really up for debate, unless you mean works like that of Ken Burns, which makes a lot of money for PBS, a taxpayer-and-foundation-funded organization.

>user declares himself the winner
Are you the do-nothing who always talks about how a good film must alienate he viewer? I'd put money on it.

plebs

Nope, Ken Burns is commercial cause money is involved. Not up for debate. End of discussion. Period.

We can get Cred Forums if you want, but when your work is funded directly by taxpayers, it is not a commercial enterprise. It may very well develop a commercial end, but people who pay taxes have no choice whether they want to fund his work or not - it's not commerical, it's theft by another name.

If you don't see the difference between what niche but nonetheless commercial filmmakers like von Trier and Cronenberg do and what Ken Burns does, welp...

Has Cronenberg been smelling his own farts?

I was joking, I don't exactly consider what he does "commercial". But as I was trying to convey to the other user, there is always a commercial element, and for me, that isn't the defining criteria to identify a "commercial film".

>mediocre and amateurish
It's call being artistic and creative, not being a sellout like that total hack Kubrick.

Fair is fair, friend. Have this perfect pic as a show of commercial unity.

eat a BBC

>I think I'm a more intimate and personal film-maker
>I think he was very obsessed with that, to an extent that I'm not

Who the fuck talks like this

>too deep for you?
greatest horror kubrick displayed was actually in eyes wide shut

The Shining was more autobiographical for Kubrick since he was in control of the project, which is why King and etc. hated it

Cronenberg. Fuck that guy , he ruined a perfect film in History of Violence. That last half of the film was wtf.

when the kid with the bad acting speaks in a frog voice

holy christ what world am i living im where some has been director has the balls to say kubrick "didnt know what he was doing". holy shit. its like thomas kinkaide saying picasso didnt know what he was doing. cronenberg hasnt been relevant in like 20 years, and has 2 or 3 above average films under his belt

Cronenturd doesn't understand drama but he keeps trying to make them.

It's not Kubrick's fault no one cares about him.

The shining was a piece of shit, he was right about that. Fans of the shining clearly know nothing about horror either.

>he was commercial minded not artistic
As I understand it you rail on "commercial art" because when you try to appeal to the market that leaves no room for personality, and no "personal expression", I think it can be a part of your personality to actually want to appeal to consumers which would make an asserted obligation to be "artistic" instead be the thing that compromises your personal expression. As far as I know Kubrick had shitloads of control over his works.

Kubrick knows exactly what horror is. You can see it 2001, A Clockwork Orange, or Eyes Wide Shut for example. The movies might not be entirely horror, but they have terrifying moments in them. Not many movies do as good a job as Eyes Wide Shut when it comes to instilling the fear that comes with stepping into something you shouldn't have and being WAY out of your depth.

People always bring up the furry blowjob scene as what scares them but that bathtub lady scene puts a pit in my stomach like nothing else in that movie.

10/10

Also, Full Metal Jacket

Stephen King wrote so many books that a couple were bound to be great. Not to detract from how good those stories are but everyone knows that old saying with the monkeys and typewriters.

Dead Ringers is a better psychological horror film than The Shining.

The real horror is the civil discourse going on in this thread.

I agree somewhat.

Kubrick was a far more technically skilled master while Cronenberg operates more on an artistically skilled level. I don't believe Kubrick was more commercial minded and Cronenberg is kind of full of himself but the overall point of what he's saying is fairly accurate.
I believe both are inferior to Carpenter when it comes to horror though.

Settle.

>the overall point of what he's saying is fairly accurate.
but did it really need to be said?

At least once.

Shining is literal dogshit. EWS is fucking GOAT though

rep for my dog Carpenter

ha, what a dumb jealous asshole

The Shining is crap.
Kubrick is overrated hipster meme director.
The 2001 book is significantly better and more thought provoking than the movie.

no

Eastern Promises is honestly garbage, great premise, but a very uninteresting movie

>extremely disturbing
for you
That's literally the definition of a good horror movie.

Cronenberg is a pretentious hack. His entire post-Fly work is a sad attempt to be taken seriously as an artist. He clearly resents his reputation is the gore movie man.

Literally N O N E of his movies come close to being scary, even if some are good.

fuck off, One Meme Man

I never saw it as a horror, it's a very hard genre to define but watching a guy go mad is fun

thats wrong

>Now, David Cronenberg used to be horror, but now he considers himself an artist, so he's a little bit above us, which was shocking to me. Because David and I used to be friends in the old days, and now, I don't know. I'm a little low class for him. It's really weird. So I quickly made an exit. "I don't want to bother you. Sorry!" I was like, "Hey David, how you doin'?" Wow, you're kidding me. You take yourself really seriously.
Anybody who saw M. Butterfly knows it's true.

How did Cronenberg trick millions of people into thinking he's a brilliant auteur? The guys who did the special effects deserve more credit than him.

what an asshole, I like most of his films but he's annoying

>shitting on kubrick
>"I think I'm a more intimate and personal film-maker than Kubrick ever was"

fucking kek

Redditor detected

The guy that made the Brundlefly costume got credited first in The Fly, right?

FROGGY

David Cronenberg is right in calling himself a more intimate and personal film-maker and it's obvious from looking right right at the start of his portfolio. Stanley Kubrick staged a lot of his movies on some premise he tried to paint out more broadly with his pictures then while Cronenberg went full on in. In his typical fashion of putting actors just as another asset into the frame King is obsessed with invoking the spirit of the house like the reader of the book instead of going with the characters. There is no way Kubrick would have run a porn actress run loose on screen as Cronenberg did and while he built an overarching theme about humanity in his odyssey he would have never gotten down to the bare bone like Cronenberg, who let's mankind turn back to their primal and sexual nature in a zombie movie.
Kubrick didn't get that close and personal.

>I believe both are inferior to Carpenter when it comes to horror though.
preach it brother

kubricks films are boring and paced terribly, except a clockwork

I thought the way Videodrome showed Max Renn's separation from reality was really good. I didn't mind the many things that didn't really make sense, like Barry Convex erupting into a mess of tumors, because they fit into the overarching theme of a descent into insanity.

Wtf I hate kubrick now

Horror is the most childish genre out there.

I'm glad Kubrick didn't "get" this schlock on the same level as this uppity faggot, Cronenberg.

I love how even highly regarded filmmakers shit on the Shining.

What the fuck do people see in that movie? It's like some emperors new clothes shit where people regard it as some kind of masterpiece of horror; only it's not actually scary. And this whole "nah man you just didn't get it" seems like such a cop-out. It's clearly deliberately vague for the sake of horror. There's nothing to get about it.

>pacing

Cronenberg is a hack. Horror to him is all about being gross and gory, while Stanley was more of a cerebral film maker.

he seems super down to earth in his old age

...

>you have to be a genius to make something everyone hates

uhhhh

The fly is 100% more commercial than the Shining though

>he thinks Kubrick cared about the books for his visual experience

>one of my favorite directors talks shit about one of my other favorite directors
>Cred Forums shitters saying Cornenberg sucks and The Shining sucks

It's like the perfect combination to make a thread I fucking hate.

He tricked everyone and made a movie about himself. Of course it made some people butthurt.

the only 'point' he made was
>I think he was much more commercial-minded, and was looking for stuff that would click and that he could get financed
which anyone who knows anything about Kubrick knows that's wrong. if by 'click' he means developing interesting ideas into film then yes, but really Kubrick just had an eye for what made a good cinematic story.

but go read A Clockwork Orange and tell me that someone opens that book and goes "This is a great commercial story that will definitely get financed!"

same with 2001 or Lolita

so yeah cronenberg is a hack and I will continue to insult him for genuinely believing he is better than Kubrick.

Instead of making movies, he's home playing video games, touring or talking about others, he should get off his ass and make movies.

Cronenberg's movies have this habit of starting strong , and then spreading all over the place, he indulges himself too much.
Prime example : Videodrome.

He was great in nightbreed, legit creepy.
Dr.Decker should have gotten his own movie.

I thought Jack liked it.

Cronenberg > the dogshit on the sole of my sneaker > Kubrick

get the fuck out of here

Dr. Strangelove was a better horror film

fite me

You mean Orson Welles, I think

>Kubrick
>commercial-minded

Cronenberg should just keep making films and shut up.

Was the fly even that good... Its kindof forgettable. I mean, it's a fucking fly. "OMG A HOUSEFLY AHHHHHH!!!"

It's true. Kubrick is the greater filmmaker by far but as a horror film, The Shining just isn't very effective.2001 is much scarier in my opinion. Saying that Cronenberg is the better director would be ludicrous but he's the better horror director by far.

Agreed

I feel like it's almost like a meme film of it's time. It's the film that everyone went to see and talked about and the only thing they remember from it is a gross looking fly guy.

Green Room was great, is your issue with it that it is recent and "popular"?

>Jews trying to sell their own shit while bad-mouthing their rivals
What else is new?

Could be. I just simply don't understand the sppopyness of a fucking half-man-half-fly. I mean, goddamn dude why a fly of all things. Idk fuck it. I watch a movie every night and have done so for years but that just didn't resonate with me. A pile of 'whatever' propped up by Jeff goldblum.

reddit is that way

I watched The Shining as part of my horror phase and I have to say, as a horror film it really sucks. Sure, it's beautiful but it's not scary, atmospheric or "disturbing" as some people here say. Sure, it's beautiful and really well-made, but it just feels so fake and stylized, which makes any kind of immersion necessary for the feeling of horror to arise impossible.

...

..I rewatched it as part of my Kubrick phase of course and I think one other time since and it's still a pretty bad horror film. It's stunning but it's so obvious, everything feels so stilted and telegraphed.

I guess that's why Kubrick made innovative and philosophically compelling cinema about human themes for a mainstream audience while Cronenberg was forever stuck making pseudo intellectual body horror flicks.

the day he stops making film I will seppuku

He's completely right
The Shining isn't scary and is Kubrick's plebbiest film by a long way

I was suprised when Scanners ended. I thought there was gonna be more to it. The ending didn't really feel too strong.
>Oh yeah we're brothers and your dad made you a scanner lets kill each other

How did you even make it that far, I love Cronenberg but damn, Scanners was just so unengaging. The main actor was so wooden, as was everyone else really.

Carpenter used to have a good friendship with Cronenberg. He then said Cronenberg has recently snubbed, which for Carpenter, indicates that Cronenberg has become snobbish in his attitude to films.

All horror movies suck. You can not do horror without a shitload of internal dialogue. Sorry.

That's because Carpenter makes pretty much one type of film that is extremely pulpy and over-the-top
Cronenberg used to be the same but since the early 00s/late 90s, he's moved on from body-horror and is much more diverse with films that say a lot more

>Cronenberg
>not Jewish

Wow great argument fagtron you sure convinced me with those hot opinions

Keep crying. What horror movie has invaded your dreams? I want to laugh.

The reason why The Shining is an iconic horror film is because of its pacing

itt
>he had the gall to express an opinion on a director i like, what an asshole.
What a bunch of babies.
That said, if understanding the source material leads to The Dead Zone i don't think it's a knock against Kubrick that he did his own thing.

>Not mentioning Barry Lyndon

Kubrick's goat film

This guy's ego is way bigger than his talent.

Crash is one of the worst films i ever saw. Videodrome and ExistenZ were atrocious aswell. This guy is only good when his pseudo psychologic bs is not explicitly shown like in A History of Violence for instance.

Another deadbeat hack "artist" who thinks he's hot shit because he has a small following of critics and fans? They're a dime a dozen. Give them a little success and artistic recognition, and instead of using that to create more quality work, they just sit on top of their ego throne denouncing more successful artists while putting out the same if not worse quality of works.

A good artist builds on their achievements. They don't sit on it and act like they have the authority of a living master.

Shitting on Kubrick for not being "personal" enough is weak and unfounded, and if anything should convince everyone he is clearly a hack like any other filmmaker who takes pride not being a sellout like that alone makes them a good artist

Kubrick only did Shining because Barry Lyndon flopped so he wanted to do a commercial movie for once

He is right about The Shining, it's a shit movie. However he's wrong about Kubrick, he knew very well what horror was - Eyes Wide Shut is a fantastic example of that.

No I watch it to orgasm.

What took him so long to say this?

Except he's also a good artist and Kubrick wasn't good at horror.

>t. someone who has no idea who Cronenberg is
waste of quads on an uninformed, shit opinion

Would've liked to see Cronenberg and Kubrick working together on a horror movie. I get an e-rock-tion thinking about it.