1: https://www.jimcarrollsblog.com/blog/2019/6/5/yt0trf17bh9ai4...
I do photography, and a ratio of 1000 discarded photos to one you keep would far more likely mean someone doesn't know how to select their shots more carefully and can't distinguish what's important, than it would mean that they're a perfectionist genius.
If you can suggest Kubrick is inept at composition, I can't respect you as a photographer.
This is a bit hyperbolic, but in a way I get the point OP was trying to make.
When I first started with my own photography, i'd often take dozens of photos of the same subject, day after day after day, trying to get my shot "just right". Eventually I noticed that this only created pointless extra revision work for me for no reasons other than that I was failing to note the difference between completely irrelevant, tiny differences and those worth adjusting, and that I was thus failing to simply compose more carefully with far fewer shots. Having learned these things, my photography became much less tedious without losing any existing quality.
But you can't argue with the results of his process. He's literally the GOAT. It's not close.
The idea that everyone has to take things easy, or that you can get the same results without some amount of obsession, is not borne out by reality - because no one has come close.
If I'm wearing blinders for saying so, then so is every respectable film critic of the last how many decades... Weird that we all love wearing those "blinders", when all those "tiny differences" were "unimportant".
Details matter, and a little respect for other people's process is in order, especially when they're widely known as the actual best ever.
If someone can't see why Kubrick is the best, I can't respect their eye. Same as I can't respect the ear of a musician who thinks the Beatles were overrated.
We all know he’s acclaimed. That doesn’t invalidate any of the points you’re trying to retort, and your disrespect for people with different viewpoints is an uninteresting contribution to this discussion.
And my argument was more than that he's acclaimed. You seem to have entirely missed the point, and I don't know how I could have been more clear.
Would you respect the skills of a coder who disrespects Richard Stallman, saying he doesn't know enough about open source software? Or an economist who thinks Marx didn't understand capitalism, citing their own work in a bank as proof?
One person made appeals to authority (themselves) while being disrespectful in this thread, and it wasn't me.
It's not an appeal to authority to say that Kubrick made the most beautifully framed movies, by a long shot, of any director ever. It's about as close to objective truth with such a subjective question as possible. Ask ChatGPT to tell you who made the most beautifully composed movies! I did - it told me Kubrick.
To say that Kubrick tried too hard, and could have got the same result with less effort, is bananas. It's clearly untrue on its face, because no one else ever has gotten the same result with less effort. It demonstrates a damning lack of understanding & appreciation for the art form. Which, by the way, is actually pretty different to photography - adding time changes the game.
You can say Steve Jobs could have been nicer to his employees - and you'd be right. But you can't seriously claim that you'd have gotten the same results with less effort, citing your experience as general manager of a tech store. Would you hire such a guy as your PM?
> Cimino shot more than 1.3 million feet (400,000 metres; nearly 220 hours) of footage, costing the studio approximately $200,000 per day in salary (equivalent to $720,000 in 2022), locations and acting fees.Privately, it was joked that Cimino wished to surpass Francis Ford Coppola's mark of shooting one million feet of footage for Apocalypse Now (1979).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heaven%27s_Gate_(film)#Product...
Heaven's Gate isn't even all that great to look at. There's still the matter of taste involved, and well, Cimino made some questionable decisions.
Though I love the film, the very slow rythme makes it hard to re-watch, and probably impenetrable to today's young audience.