Talk:Stanley Kubrick/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

→

Archive 10

screwy references

Just a quick heads-up about footnotes 36 and 75...something's amiss. All fixed. Thanks, Wikiwatcher. Blake Burba (talk) 04:57, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Are you relocating of deleting...?

the biographical paragraph about Kubrick's friendship with Diane Johnson and Vivian Kubrick's BBC documentary on The Shining. The latter, it seems to me, is especially important to leave in its current context.

I also see no harm in mentioning that Danny Torrance is telepathic.--WickerGuy (talk) 04:48, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Agree, Vivian's movie is relevant. But Johnson's friendship and collaboration on the film has been referred to in four other places in the article in better context with quotes, with their friendship implied.

If you can find a cite that states that Danny was officially or clinically "telepathic," as opposed to apparently, then we should add it. We stated Nicholson was a writer, and Shelley Duvall was his wife, but I believe the telepathy and paranormal events were non-vocalized mostly, leaving the viewer to guess or interpret what "the shining" was supposed to be. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 05:17, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Ah, I hadn't tracked you changes closely enough that Johnson's work on the film was referenced elsewhere. I think almost all viewers would conclude from Danny's exchange with Hallorann in the kitchen and his subsequent summoning of Hallorann that his "Shining" at least encompasses telepathy, but he also appears to have abilities some would describe as "clairvoyant" (his seeing images of the hotel). But you could be generic and say he has psychic abilities. Norman Kagan in The Cinema of Stanley Kubrick describes Danny as having a ""visions of danger in the past or future, as well as a kind of telepathy."" and the original review of the film in the magazine Cinemafantastique describes Danny as having telepathy. The book The Astrology of Film: The Interface of Movies, Myth, and Archetype on p. 178 says "Essentially, another name for telepathy, “shining” is the ability to receive and transmit information psychically." However, I think that without a citation, you can safely say "psychic abilities".--WickerGuy (talk) 06:09, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Photo revision

I'm going to replace the current Kasterine photo of Kubrick with what seems to be a better one. That the photographer says the existing one is his personal favorite would be more relevant to his article, but not necessarily Kubrick's. It has Kubrick's boots taking up twice the space as his face. And we already have a photo of SK and a camera. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 04:54, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

That was a terrific and unusual shot of Kubrick dealing patiently with the realities of production - in this case, having to wait out the rain. He has no control over the weather, but you know he's going to get what he wants however long it takes. I do appreciate the other shots you're adding to this article, but that photo should be restored. - Gothicfilm (talk) 07:38, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

 Done--Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 08:38, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

I hate to be the image police, but I am skeptical that any of these new photos fall under "Fair Use". In addition they seem to violate WP Policy: "Use of historic images from press agencies must only be used in a transformative nature, when the image itself is the subject of commentary rather than the event it depicts (which is the original market role, and is not allowed per policy)". Basically, the image itself has to be famous--just because the article discusses what is depicted in the image is not good enough. These images were created by professionals for the purpose of illustrating books and articles about Kubrick (or about the subjects depicted). These photogs invested their time and money into creating these images. It's not fair to take their images and use them to illustrate an article without paying for them. Additionally, simply citing the book where you got the image is not proper attribution. The copyright is owned by the creator of the image, and that information should be in the book somewhere. Puddytang (talk) 02:39, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Since I added them, I'll try to respond. I've read your reasons a number of times, and the only statement that I can honestly agree with is where you write, "I am skeptical . . . ." None of the other personal comments seem valid, IMO, and mostly read as opinion by expanding WP guidelines, ie. stating, "Basically, the image itself has to be famous." --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 02:59, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia policy is to have a stricter standard than what would be allowed under US law as "fair use". Maybe I am misreading the copyright tag, I was trying to paraphrase what I copied from that tag, "when the image itself is the subject of commentary." You could make the case for a couple of these images that the image itself is what you are discussing (eg. Kubrick waiting in the rain). I kind of when off into my opinion, but I was trying to illustrate why Wikipedia Policy states "Please remember that the non-free content criteria require that non-free images on Wikipedia must not "[be] used in a manner that is likely to replace the original market role of the original copyrighted media." Claiming something is a "unique historic image" needs a really good justification that the image is unique. I would like to see some of these pictures stay in the article! I think you need to concentrate on 2 or three of them and provide a really good fair-use rationale. Otherwise, I fear they are all just going to be deleted wholesale as wp:copyvio. --Just my opinion. Puddytang (talk) 04:12, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Kudos and Caveats

Before voicing any criticism of the revisions of this article, I want to say how marvelous the reworked article as a whole really is.

First of all, the article both before I ever touched in and during the entire lifetime of myself being the dominant contributor was a rather eclectic patchwork hodgepodge of interesting tidbits on aspects/dimensions of Kubrick's work, but didn't cohere as a whole. I suppose that I myself was wayyyy to reluctant too delete anyone else's work (unless blatantly false material) in the interests of "remodeling", and I was over-reliant on web-resources in spite of my having read many books on Kubrick (mostly studies analyzing his films rather than books about the person.)

That said, here's a few notes (mostly of small import) on the new version.

Re- the image policies I'm not sure that File:Kubrick-photography.jpg fully satisfies WP:NFCC#8, and at the very least the (very attractive) photo File:Kubrick-by-Kasterine.jpg needs to go near the section of the article mentioning Kasterine, and even so, as likable as the photo is, I'm uncertain about WP:NFCC#8 there as well, as with the very attractive File:Kubrick-family-sm.jpg. (And do we need two photoes by Kasterine)?

Similarly, do we need three non-free photoes of Kubrick either editing or his editing equipment? I would keep the one with Vivian Kubrick.

I love the photo of Garrett Brown but would just move it further down a few paragraphs to the Steadicam text. I very much defend its presence- I think it will satisfy WP:NFCC#8 as (given the new text) do the photos of Kubrick on set.

Addendum

On the good side, we have enough now about Kubrick's directing style to I think support most of the newly added on-set photoes.

End addendum

The deleted Lolita photo was not so much about that particular scene as it was using the scene as an example/illustration of a general quality of the film as a whole- Kubrick's dance around censorship. (It also shows one of only two major chess-scenes within a Kubrick film- the other being HAL's game with Frank Poole in Odyssey in addition to the new photo of George C. Scott and Kubrick playing chess.)

The material deleted from the Infobox of people influenced by Kubrick was deleted but had to be only because the entire section on people influenced by Kubrick was moved to the sandbox. Is a revised rework of that coming back? I certainly think it should.

The one figure deleted from the "influences" section was arguably only an influence on Space Odyssey not on Kubrick's whole body of work, so we can think about whether Pavel Klushantsev should be restored there.

I would like to see more about Kubrick's distinctive work with Peter Sellers in the article-sections on Lolita and Strangelove. It was partly to take advantage of Sellers' unique talents that Kubrick massively expanded the role of Clare Quilty in the film Lolita (he now has about 30 minutes of screentime- in a book-faithful adapation he would have had 5- and in the film Quilty impersonates other characters with various accents which is not in the book), and it was partly because of perception that Sellers was so pivotal to the success of Lolita that Sellers got recast in Strangelove. Admittedly, this is just as much about Sellers as about SK, but it was SK who had creative ideas on how to use Sellers, and did a lot for his career.

And perhaps of least importance, you also deleted the Vivian Kubrick related material about her composing the soundtrack for Full Metal Jacket and being denied as Oscar nomination. Did you feel that was too specific to FMJ or to the article on VK?--WickerGuy (talk) 22:35, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

If you can find any good reason to work this image of Stanley and Vivian Kubrick and Mr. Steadicam and Jack Nicholson into the article, please do. [1]--WickerGuy (talk) 22:41, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Upon further thought

This stuff is really on a spectrum, but the 2 photoes that most obviously violate WP:NFCC#8 are the Kasterine headshot and the family photo. When the "image police" start looking at this article (and they are also suspicious of a general abundance of non-free images), I really can't imagine how those two could be justified at all. Ranking 3 is the new photo of the teen-age Kubrick with a camera.--WickerGuy (talk) 00:11, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

And on a different subject- Influence

If and when we put back the section on filmmakers influenced by Kubrick, I think there should be some mention of employment of his distinctive techniques, slit-scan, Steadicam, etc. The most obvious example of a Kubrickian use of the slit-scan camera is the revised opening credit-sequence of the Brit TV series Doctor Who. It's clearly (in form not content) a child of Kubrick's StarGate sequence (though we need a secondary source to assert this). Same with subsequent usage of traveling matte, etc.--WickerGuy (talk) 00:15, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

That's quite a long list of topics, but here's my own opinion about most. All of the image descriptions given on their information summary page seem reasonable enough to make their inclusion acceptable, so I won't repeat those, but will respond to anything about them that seems wrong. That's true of the editing images, for example.

The photos by Kasterine were dealt with also. First I used a "Kasterine" photo that is a better biographical-type image and added a caption credit to him as the photographer and his bio in the image info. The other photo that he took was not captioned as being another example of a Kasterine photo, but a photo used to support the C.O. section with a relevant image of Kubrick during production. I removed the Lolita image and instead added one related to Kubrick, as opposed to a film frame. I feel the same way about the other screen shots, that if we had a photo of Kubrick instead of a movie frame, it would fit the bio. Screen shots used to describe the film belong with the film articles.

The photo of SK as a teenager with his first camera seems totally relevant and is discussed in detail in the commentary. The same is true of the family photo, which fits neatly into the "Marriages and family section." I have no doubt that the Wikipedia:NFCC#8 banner can be waved, since there is essentially no defense to it, in that it's erroneously based on a "subjective standard," a great example of an oxymoron, IMO. How does one respond to some editor in the future stating that they "know what three daughters and a wife" look like, and don't need pictures? The same with a picture of a "person holding a camera." At this point, whenever #8 is used as a rationale I always interpret it as meaning "because I say so, that's why." Needless to say, I'm never impressed by #8 as a reason for anything since it's been so often abused.

The topic of SK's influences obviously belongs and I plan on adding to it. The 1,000 words of non-Influences that was moved to the sandbox, unfortunately had little to do with his "influences." Just read that former section to understand why. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 03:52, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Indeed, NFCC#8 has been a hot-button bone of contention for a long time, and exists partly to protect WP from lawsuits both frivolous and justified, and it is, as such, deeply problematic. It is also true that certain editors seem to get their jollies from over-the-top challenges to non-free images, and seem to do little else on Wikipedia.

But it a bit dangerous to declare that one just doesn't respect the rule.

In addition to the main page provided, further commentary is at WP:Fair use#Images and WP:Fair use#Images 2

As I understand it, to comply with WP, one must either be:

1) commenting on the image itself (NOT NOT ONLY the subject of the image!!)

or

2)the image must illustrating an important historic event and/or enhancing the reader's understanding of a subject.

The on-set photos are marginally in compliance (I'd defend them), but the family photo & Kasterine headshop clearly do not. I predict a challenge within 2 weeks if they are left up.--WickerGuy (talk) 04:46, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Anything's possible. Since we already had a Kasterine photo, with lengthy commentary about him as a collaborator/photographer, with no problem, I can't foresee why one image over another would be an issue. Although some editor might think a picture of two large boots is more relevant to his bio than a close-up of his face. As far as his family photo is concerned, you might be right. If you've seen one family photo you've seen them all. Anyone can google-image "family pictures" and see what one looks like. BTW, can you give an example of how a person can "comment on an image" without "commenting on the subject of the image?" I never understood how you can talk about a photo without talking about what's in the photo. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 05:08, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Interesting and provocative question, but I think reflects a misconception of the issue. A Vulcan (or logic professor) would say that indeed yes you canNOT comment on an image without commenting on the subject, but however you CAN comment on the subject without commenting on the image!!! It's the latter (not the former) that makes the use of non-free images problematic.

You cannot comment on the famous photo of raising the flag at Iwo Jima without talking about the event, but you CAN comment on the event without talking about the photo.--WickerGuy (talk) 05:16, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

For WP images, we will always be commenting on the photo first, so if you're concluding that "you canNOT comment on an image without commenting on the subject," then I agree.--Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 06:13, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Since you mentioned potential lawsuits, a few paragraphs up,for improperly having a fair use image, WP should never have to worry about that. By established case law, when an image is used with a "reasonable" fair use claim, especially when low res, the courts "require" that the copyright owner first contact the alleged infringer and ask that they remove the image and state why it's not a fair use. Only after doing so, and their demand is refused, can they file suit. So getting sued is not a problem. The same is probably true of PD images if they were supported by a reasonable claim that they were PD based on due diligence. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 09:05, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately, we now DO have images in which we comment on the subject, but not the image itself, of which the family photo is the most glaring example. WP overtly states (emphasis added) "Wikipedia, as a free encyclopedia, has decided to make these criteria more strict than what is required by United States fair use law." WP:NFCC_explained#Fair_use

The clarifying/supplementary section Wikipedia:NFCI#Images requests that either the image itself (lets now say in addition to the subject) be subject of commentary or significantly aid in understanding the event it depicts.

I don't think Kubrick's family at all fits the bill (it's a well-done souvenir photo but not much more), and I'm semi-doubtful of photoes of his machinery.--WickerGuy (talk) 18:44, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Adding Kubrick's influences on others

Since that former section now in the sandbox has a lot of names of those who at least liked and respected his work, maybe some more research from that material can pull out the actual influential aspects. It may not be simple to find much on the topic. A.I is already covered in the article, with his obvious influence. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 06:13, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

In the first two paragraphs we mainly list directors who themselves say they have been influenced by Kubrick, though some of these directors are vague as to what the influence is, and in some cases the source for the info is Imdb, which WP questions the reliability of. (Both are true of Chris Nolan, for example- source is Imdb, says SK and Ridley Scott are 2 principal influences, but doesn't say how!) In one particular sentence, we have directors who say SK made one of their favorite films, which deserves at most one sentence. We have a few specific homages listed, and we have Paul Thomas Anderson's testimony that Kubrick's influence is very difficult to get away from (important remark to retain IMO). We list one instance of a director in which critics think there's a SK influence but the director claims there is none. That might be the most negligible portion of the section.--WickerGuy (talk) 18:35, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Steadicam history

I love a lot of what you've done here, but saying The Shining (1980) was the first film to make extensive use of a Steadicam to allow stabilized and fluid tracking shots is untrue. By any common definition, Marathon Man and Rocky made extensive use of the Steadicam, and they were released more than three and a half years earlier. Garrett Brown shot all of them, and Kubrick well knew what he had done. Neither man would want this claim in the article. This needs to be addressed - if you don't like how I did it, try another. I would also add in the later section more on how Kubrick got Brown to add the "low mode" bracket to mount the top of a camera to the bottom of an inverted post, which substantially increased the creative angles of the system, which previously could not go much lower than the operator's waist height. - Gothicfilm (talk) 00:34, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

I no longer recall my source though I can look for it (stay tuned), but I may have been mistaken. You seem more familiar with the gory details than I, so feel free. I had thought that Rocky used the Stdcam just for the museum steps sequence. Go ahead and put it back, though Ww1 may not want all those other films extensively listed. I can't look into this further just now.--WickerGuy (talk) 01:33, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

YOu're right. The Steadicam was used for a lot of the street scenes in Rocky and in nearly 40 minutes worth of MM.--WickerGuy (talk) 01:53, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Very good. I just added a bit on the "low mode" bracket I mentioned above. - Gothicfilm (talk) 03:28, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Image note

Per message posted on my talk page: File:Steadicam-sm.jpg is missing more rationales for each article except Stanley Kubrick. I changed the tag from "historical image" to "non-free fair use in" because Garrett Brown is still alive.... By the way, WP:NFC#UUI doesn't allow non-free images to be included in a biography of the living person, such as Brown. --George Ho (talk) 01:33, 2 March 2012 (UTC) --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 01:40, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Images Redux

On three separate occasions in the past, this article came under scrutiny of those who are concerned about violations of WP:NFCC#8 and in all three cases there was a massive purge of the images after which between 25 to 50% of the purged images were restored with far more carefully worded rationales and critical commentary. Eventually, an unofficial policy was set of at most one image per movie with an upper limit of about 7 images. In all three cases a concern expressed was the sheer quantity of images!!

(!!!For better or for worse, an excess of non-free imagery draws the ire of the admins far more quickly than excess of verbiage, which this article has also been accused of, mostly rightly!!!)

We currently have six non-free film-stills (and recently seven before the still from Lolita was removed- the Sellers images were public domain). This is I think within bounds. But we now have ten non-free images of Kubrick himself, all interesting and informative, but a bit much.

In particular, let's also look at NFCC#3a which reads "Minimal usage. Multiple items of non-free content are not used if one item can convey equivalent significant information." This mitigates against two photos of Kubrick talking on set with actors in the section "Creative and liberal atmosphere on sets" which is why I deleted one of them this morning. I dealt with the business of two photoes of his editing equipment by grouping them together in a smaller size.

I would be somewhat inclined to suggest removing the photo of SK as a teenager, as much as I like it. Its only notability is that it has his very first camera in the shot. I'm not convinced that a discussion of the source of the family photo constitutes "critical commentary". But having purged 2 images myself already, I await further discussion before further purging (in addition to two others which were restored after additional commentary was added- really good commentary in the case of the Sue Lyons photo!!)

Thanks again

to Ww1 for making this article far less jumbled and a much smoother read than the previous version.

Thoughts?--WickerGuy (talk) 23:49, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, I'm glad it's easier to read. I know that for a long article like this one, which I feel could still benefit from more visuals, readability for the average visitor is important. Considering the amount of text, and when compared to bios of other directors, like Elia Kazan for instance at 1/2 the length, the number if images seems sub-minimal. Personally, reading someone's biography without having good photos is like reading about art or an artist with few images, or playing music without speakers. Most 20th century biography books are loaded with images, from early years, parents, marriages, careers, friends, etc. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 02:31, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree. To remove good photos today out of concern someone else may remove them tomorrow is not something I would do. - Gothicfilm (talk) 02:54, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Well, aesthetically, I entirely agree. Of course, Most of the images are public domain images in both Kazan's article and in the Michael Jackson article (which I mention because its text is much longer than this one- even the older version- and yet it still reached "Featured Article" status) . We'll see what happens.

It's arguable that the old version of the Kubrick article was about 10% biography, 20% Kubrick's world view, 30% analysis of Kubrick's films, and 40% semi-trivia or at least poorly organized pieces of disparate info. I'm very glad Ww1 remodeled and brought biography to the forefront. Again, We'll have to see what happens.--WickerGuy (talk) 03:47, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Quick Note on Recent changes by Gothicfilm

The Internet Movie Database used to list Kubrick as uncredited cinematographer on both Paths of Glory and EyesWS but no longer does. Even so, we should have required a source beyond IMDb for that. Imdb still under Paths of Glory lists SK as "additional cinematographer - uncredited", but we would need an additional source beyond Imdb to confirm that before restoring it to the chart.

Thanks for the good catch.--WickerGuy (talk) 17:14, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

P.S. The Imdb is entirely in error when it lists Kubrick as an extra playing the bearded man in the cafe in EyesWS. This has been discredited several times, but is still listed in Imdb. They are correct however in stating SK is the radio "voice of Murphy" in FullMJ, and they fail to mention he does all the heavy astronaut breathing in 2001. --WickerGuy (talk) 17:18, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

TIe-in to earlier point

This, I think, vindicates my earlier suggestion that we should purge from the "influences" section all mention of directors for whom the only source that says Kubrick influenced them is the Imdb unless we can find corroborating sources.--WickerGuy (talk) 17:20, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Note on sources

There are many many more sources that say that Kubrick is effectively uncredited cinematographer on Spartacus(!!) and the one I can find (a theatre playbill) that says this on Glory actually misidentifies the cinematographer on Glory as "Russell Metty" who was actually the credited cinematographer on Spartacus. I think we can safely assume that some sources have confused the situation on the latter Kirk Douglas/SK film with the former, and the Imdb picked up on the confused ones. At any rate, since a lot of sources say effectively, Kubrick DID do cinematography on Spartacus, we could say this, but I think more as a footnote to the chart rather than as a check box.--WickerGuy (talk) 17:31, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

It should not be on the chart because that listing is for the principal cinematographer. Even if Kubrick did do uncredited "additional cinematography" on Paths of Glory (which I doubt - he more likely stepped in as an additional camera operator, as he did on several other films), he would not be listed as the cinematographer.

On Spartacus, the story Kubrick told was about Metty imitating him looking through the viewfinder. But Metty stayed on the film and did the lighting. In no way should Kubrick be listed as cinematographer, even if he dictated camera placement on every shot. The cinematographer's principal job is lighting. The story shows how unusual it was for a director to get that precise with camera placement before 1960. Even Hitchcock said he didn't use a viewfinder. - Gothicfilm (talk) 23:05, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

A paragraph about his involvement with the photography aspect may be worth including in the Spartacus section. I can then add one of many photos that shows him operating the camera with Metty standing behind him (and not looking very pleased about it!) --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 23:13, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Sounds good - I'd like to see that. Those photos most likely are of Kubrick lining up a shot - as opposed to actually rolling during a take - but that is arguably more important. - Gothicfilm (talk) 23:23, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

The fact that Kubrick did step in as a camera operator on several films - particularly with A Clockwork Orange - is worth mentioning in the Cinematography section as well. - Gothicfilm (talk) 23:32, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Hasty Photo Replacements??

The current text of the article mentions the spare and unsentimental nature of the film Paths of Glory, which the old photo film still (public domain to boot!!) illustrated, but the new photo illustrates Kubrick setting up a reverse tracking trench scene of which there is no mention in the text at all.

Likewise, the text mentions that Kubrick's only Oscar was for the special-effects of the film 2001 which the old photo illustrated (it shows in particular his innovative use of the slit-scan), while the new photo has absolutely no tie-in to the text of any kind.

Please keep in mind that WP policy is quite clear that non-free photoes cannot be used in a merely decorative way and the new photo of Kubrick in Space Odyssey just screams "Decorative"! It doesn't tie in with or supplement the text of the article in any way at all!!

Insofar as film stills are illustrative of Kubrick's innovative style and directing technique they are just as appropriate in a bio article as in a filmography article. There are nine film stills in the article on Orson Welles, five film stills in the article on Alfred Hitchcock, four in the article on Chaplin, though admittedly none in several other articles on directors (Ingmar Bergman, Frederico Fellini, Martin Scorscese, Francis Ford Coppola, Steven Spielberg and Woody Allen).

Are we moving towards elimination of all film stills?--WickerGuy (talk) 06:24, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Postscript

For me in (my personal opinion) an optimum would be to have about 8 revealing photoes of Kubrick directing (the Spartacus photo is an excellent choice IMO), all of which reveal something about his directorial style and roughly 6 film stills, showing either directing technique or iconic photoes (such as the elevators with blood in The Shining or the Ludovico Technique in A Clockwork Orange).--WickerGuy (talk) 06:38, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

The last paragraph in the Paths of Glory section covers reverse tracking in the trench. In general, I feel that a screen capture from a film can be useful for the film's article, if there's some relevant commentary, and a photo of its director directing a film is logical for the director's bio. For 2001, since the photo shows him doing what he won his Oscar for, the link seems reasonable. The main reason the other bios you listed resorted to screen shots is, IMO, because it's simpler.--Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 09:16, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

I utterly failed to pick up on the new Glory quote (I really am overworked these days). However, Kubrick won his Oscar for best visual effects, not for directing generally. A more appropriate shot might be Kubrick in the monolith pit on the moon. There is nothing in the current Kubrick shot involving special effects, and the film's most famous special effects sequence was in the discarded shot.

I'm more ambiguous about the Glory biz, seeing your quote, but the old photo (public domain, I repeat) captured a quality that pervades the entire film, although you are correct that the reverse tracking shot has become a classic.--WickerGuy (talk) 13:18, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Movies list in Table of Contents?

Here's another idea for keeping the film titles in the TOC:

1. Consolidate "Short Films," Uncredited Work," "Work on A.I.," and "Unrealized projects" into one section at the end of "Career" section to be called "Other film work", keeping them with sub-sections but off the TOC.

2. Combine "Fear and Desire," "Killer's Kiss" and "The Killing" into one section head with all 3 listed in head. Right now each section is very short.

3. Remove Notable works from Info box since the TOC list could suffice.

That would get the TOC down a bit to key films, and even though the TOC is longer then most bios, so is the bio, so it's probably proportional to the others. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 02:48, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

"Short films" needs its own section, because it precedes all the features. The section on Napoleon should be merged into "Unrealized projects". "Uncredited Work," "Work on A.I.," and "Unrealized projects" are different subjects, and should not be merged together. Taking out the decade listing is the best compromise. The ToC is already so long one has to scroll through it. Making it a little longer to list the most important items - his films - is fully justified, IMO.

But several of the following subcategories could be merged, like Cinematography. Right now we've got info on the Steadicam spread over multiple sections, for example. I'd like to see that all in one place, if possible. - Gothicfilm (talk) 03:09, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

I like this version by Gothicfilm in which Kubrick's works (including year) appear in the table of contents rather than the artificial decade style. Binksternet (talk) 03:38, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

I would go with Ww1 except I would have first a "short films" section than a section called "Early films" which would cover "Fear and Desire" all the way up through at least "Spartacus"(!!) and only start listing individual films beginning with either Lolita, Strangelove or Space Odyssey.

The section on Unrealized Projects is currently a stub with a link to a larger article, but keep "Napoleon" (his biggest unrealized project) in with the flow of the biography, IMO.

I also agree that we don't really need Notable Works in the Infobox (though I would like the Influenced section back some time).--WickerGuy (talk) 03:40, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

The section on "Napoleon" mostly talks about events years later, so it doesn't really fit in with the flow of the bio. - Gothicfilm (talk) 03:54, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Your new version is a compromise - with only 13 features, I think we can list them all. At minimum, The Killing and Paths of Glory should be visible in the ToC, IMO. - Gothicfilm (talk) 04:02, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Quite possibly. As is sometimes said in the software world, this version is "engraved in jello". Would like to get the opinion of Ww1 and others.--WickerGuy (talk) 04:10, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

I added some thoughts to the jello bowl. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 04:25, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

I see where you're going, but I do feel that the films that were eventually directed by others should be kept distinct from those that were never made. Probably best to keep One-Eyed Jacks and A.I. where they are in the flow of the filmography. Surely the best place for A.I. is where it now is, after Kubrick's last film, directed by the man he wanted it made by. - Gothicfilm (talk) 05:09, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

It seems that consensus is moving towards the first version listed above.--WickerGuy (talk) 05:36, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

FWIW, I think keeping A.I on an equal TOC level with his other films, is a mistake. He mostly wrote drafts and had phone conversations, and even the screenplay was rewritten by Spielberg. On his own films he worked on most of the key areas of production, so the balance is not even close. With the two options, I'd give prominence to weight over chronology. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 06:07, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

It's not equal, it's labelled as Work on A.I., and it is a good follow through on his filmography - especially since he wanted it that way - unlike the other projects, which were not made the way he wanted, if at all. - Gothicfilm (talk) 06:18, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Grouping

Another possible article grouping instead of by decade is two groups- films made in America and films made in England. First group everything thru Spartacus- the rest in other group. You could still display all the titles.

AI

I agree with GthFlm than AI was completed the way Kubrick wanted it to be (it was even executive-produced by SK's bro-in-law Jan Harlan who exec-produced all of SK's films from Lyndon to the end). There is, as I recall, a small minority of books on the subject "films of Stanley Kubrick" which even include a chapter on AI along with a chapter on each of the others, though I'd have to high-tail it over to Stanford U library to refresh me on which the chapters are.--WickerGuy (talk) 14:41, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

It used to be grouped by decades but with the film titles mentioned in the level 2 heading (ie, "1970s: A Clockwork Orange and Barry Lyndon". I personally think this was fine. It would perhaps be better if we could think of a more interesting way to divide them (with a heading describing that stage in his career, the films don't even necessarily need to be mentioned), but it may be tricky. I've done this before on other bios and just sort of made up headings that indicate the direction/focus of their career at that point. --Lobo (talk) 16:32, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

The cleanest one so far IMO is the last outline by Gothicfilm. Adding the location dimension only adds complexity, since most readers will care about the film, not where it was filmed. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 18:15, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Grouping it by decades or locations (if the titles are not displayed) is much less useful to a reader who doesn't know which film goes where, or even what films he made. I do believe the film titles should be visible in the ToC.

The way it is right now is good - as said above, with only 13 features, I think we can list them all. Though one notes the ironic fact it's now slightly longer by grouping the titles under country. - Gothicfilm (talk) 01:26, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

The only reason I thought of grouping titles by country is it also corresponds to two eras, all pre-61 films in America, all post-61 films in England. I have no speciall attachment to it. Ww1 seems to prefer your first attempt.--WickerGuy (talk) 15:53, 6 March 2012 (UTC)-

If you simply take out the country headings it will be the same as my very first version, which I still like best, as it shows all the titles individually. - Gothicfilm (talk) 16:14, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

too many quotes and non-fair use images

Is the only thing to do is copy and past quotes...."Using too many quotes is incompatible with an encyclopedic writing style". "Quotations that can't be justified for use in an article directly may be placed in Wikiquote and a Wikiquote template put on the article to inform readers that there are relevant quotations regarding the subject" - WP:QUOTEFARM. "If you want to enter lists of quotations, put them into our sister project Wikiquote - WP:NOTDIRECTORY." Would also like to point out one reason this failed GA review in the recent past was because of excessive uses of non-fair images - we now have many more....Moxy (talk) 00:51, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Copy and paste is not what has been done with any of the text material. "Copy and paste," in fact, is taking the above paragraph and copying and pasting it repeatedly elsewhere. Quotes I personally add mostly come from books, typically biographies. If a sentence or brief comment fits well within the context of an article's section, and improves it, it should be OK. I'm not sure if any of the quoted text I've added would be of any use to a compendium of quotes like Wikiquote. If you think so, you can copy some. In the meantime, it would be nice if you discontinued using the erroneous term "copy and paste" everywhere. It's derogatory, irrelevant, and inaccurate in describing carefully selected citations or quotes added to context.--Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 01:39, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

What we are looking for is to take facts from quoted material and rewrite them as to reflect there point(s)....Not to copy the text over but to summarizes the meaning of the text (quote) and link to the source. To simply copy it is lazy and not what is considered good for an encyclopedia in any manner. Pls see Paraphrase: Write It in Your Own Words.Moxy (talk) 01:46, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

I thinks the section Directing techniques is somewhat overdependent on quotations and could use some paraphrasing, but the rest of the article looks fine to me.

Though I disagree with Ww1 that "copy and paste" means repeated pasting.--WickerGuy (talk) 01:51, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Broadly, the quotes are interspersed with our own commments on those quotation which provides a context. However, the quotes used should probably be trimmed down to about 30 words each.--WickerGuy (talk) 01:58, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

@Moxy. Since I rarely "copy" web-based material, linking is not an option. If you think reading large printed biographies, then typing and adding a relevant sentence here and there to improve the context of articles, is a "lazy" method, try it some time.--Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 02:13, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Quoting is considered nonacademic and not generally used in "any" encyclopedia(s). As pointed out before in another article - someone like Hitler "FAMOUS" for his speeches and auditory ability does not have quotes like this - instead we try to summarize his views and the views of others when possible to keep a proper scholarly tone and some academic credibility. No way would I let a student use quotes like this in a proper paper. It clearly tasks more effort and skill to paraphrase then just to copy what is already printed. I think all was done in good faith - just not in a scholarly manner. Texas A&M University a division of Undergraduate StudiesMoxy (talk) 02:30, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Agreed, I wouldn't have been your top student. But I'm not sure I would have gained much from your analogies either. You're comparing personal memoir quotes by a movie star (ie. "At first, I guess I didn't know what was love and what was not"), with the public rants of the megalomaniac dictator who started World War II, saying that quotes by either are equally out of place. That's like comparing apples and hand-grenades, IMO. I would have probably said that in your class, in fact, and get sent to the rear of the room—by my ear, no doubt.--Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 03:17, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

I am not a good teacher !! LOL - Quotes should only be for important things like John F. Kennedy saying ""Ask not what your country can do for you; ask what you can do for your country" - we should not quote random things when we can take the time to paraphrase - why because quotes standout to much thus making the text look more important then it realy is -- giving undue weight because of its appearance. How many quotes do we need to say that Dr. Strangelove was a comedy - cant we sum up all of these quotes that realy are not inportant enough to quote.Moxy (talk) 03:30, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

According to one source on writing, "writers use quotes for several reasons: to assert facts; as a voice that adds authority or color to an assertion being made; and most importantly, to avoid plagiarism." In the case of Wikipedia, where anyone with a finger can add statements or opinions, credibility and verifiability is always at risk since the world knows how open it is. You don't even need a password. A direct quote overcomes that defect. Although Ency. Britannica didn't have a credibility problem, since most of their writers were certified experts, so quotes were not as necessary.

Yes, we could just say "Dr. Strangelove was a comedy," and move on. But don't you think that persons interested in the article would benefit from learning that the producer of his three previous films chose not to produce this one because he didn't see how the subject could be funny? His producer is quoted:

"I said to myself, 'I leave him alone for ten minutes and he's going to blow his whole career.' I was actually convinced he was out of control to do this as a comedy — as it turns out, it's my favorite Kubrick picture." Such quotes add color and authenticity to any biography, IMO. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 04:05, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Why not paraphrase all the above over copy and pasting copy right material? Why is the quote so important?Moxy (talk) 04:47, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Although I think the amount of direct quoting should be reduced, it is true that Ww1 has chosen very colorful quotes that give the article a bit more flavor & zest. I think this is what has motivated a lot of the direct quoting.--WickerGuy (talk) 05:29, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

So important and informative we must quote it? - come on we are here to inform not give flavor to our articles . - "At first I didn't recognize him, he looked like a biblical patriarch. Then I saw the old Stanley when he smiled slightly, and there was that old gleam in his eyes. I adored the man, worshiped him like a hero, and regret that I never told him that I was enormously grateful to him". Simply dont see why we have over 20 quotes of this nature. Moxy (talk) 06:04, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Copying and pasting a random quote from a large and detailed biography without adding the required context, then asking and expecting editors to explain why it's "so important," is a bit strange. In fact it would be strange even if you had ever contributed anything to the article, which you haven't. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 07:09, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

O well - I see this is going nowhere - I take it your not going to take the time to fix all the copyrighted material that has been added despite our policy. I guess I will have to take the time to fix all this...Moxy (talk) 07:34, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

• Well, you can try. It's been tried before though. Bottom line, nobody really cares about the WP:NFCC policy anymore. This article is one of the top 15 heaviest users of non-free content on the entire project of nearly 4 million articles. But, you see, Kubrick's just a visual kinda guy so we have to be visual on the article! The stupid NFCC policy just gets in the way of being encyclopedic. There's a multitude of sections on the article lacking an image. I'm sure we can find screenshots for every movie mentioned. We might even add a gallery showing progression of film styles. --Hammersoft (talk) 12:23, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

At one point the number of non-free images had been reduced to seven, which I felt was fair for this subject. They were all film stills. At that point the article was largely focused on Kubrick's films. Ww1 has heavily restructured and remodeled this article so now it is much more a biography of Kubrick the man rather than a critical study of his films. As such, he has removed most of the old images and added a lot of portraits of Kubrick most of which exemplify some aspect of his personality or directorial style, largely (according to Ww1) to enhance readability for such a long article. Many of them seem to me to pass NFCC- some do not (two have already been deleted- one of which I took the initiative on), but I figured this is a work-in-progress. However, the rationale is no longer "Kubrick's just a visual kinda guy so we have to be visual on the article!"- that really applied to the old version which was attempting to be a study of SK's films.--WickerGuy (talk) 13:46, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Quote reduction

I've now gone through and purged and paraphrased a lot of the longer quotes, but there remain two or three long quotes I thought were so good, they could for now be retained.

Of the fair use images, I think the most dispensable are that of Kubrick playing chess with George C. Scott, Kubrick and Clarke in in his apartment (really bad fail of NFCC#8), and the Kasterine photo as Kasterine is no longer discussed in the article (it was originally in as Kasterine's favorite photo of SK). The photo of Kubrick and Nicholson also adds little to the text, and the Strangelove setup shot in Cinematography doesn't add a lot either. I would purge these, and keep most of the others.--WickerGuy (talk) 15:18, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Good job Wikipedia:Do not include the full text of lengthy primary sources -Avoid including entire texts of treaties, press releases, speeches or lengthy quotations, and so on.Moxy (talk) 15

29, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Very good integration and trimming work. It might even improve the article's Page Rating ;) --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 17:54, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Generally speaking, as a reader, I would rather see a quote of what someone actually said, instead of how a WP editor paraphrases it. Much more personal and authentic. Even though it's an encyclopedia, a bit of the personal touch is good. Especially when you're dealing with the bio of a guy like Kubrick. And you took Kubrick's Dr. Strangelove paradoxical nature of deterrence quote out altogether - not even paraphrasing it. Why? To my mind, the article is now less than it was before. Don't be afraid to defend what you've built up on this page. You don't need to implement what one person commenting on here demands. WW1's responses to him had validity. There was no consensus for this, and there probably never would have been. And the pictures add a lot to the page, they should stay. - Gothicfilm (talk) 22:20, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

50/50. Although there are WP guidelines on this, there were three longish quotes in there I thought were so damn good (re personal touch you mentioned), I just had to leave them alone. On the other hand, there were one or two in which the direct quote struck me as utterly and completely unnecessary. And you may have made a case for a better reworking of the Strangelove material and some restoral there. Always good to hear a critique like that. Also, quotes from actors who worked with Kubrick, in turn quoted by a biographer are more justifiable.

I think the pictures are on the whole extremely well-chosen (Ww1 has a superb visual eye). However, a few seem to clearly violate WP's NFCC#8 or #3 criterion, especially the pic of Kubrick and Clarke in Kubrick's New York apartment, and as much as we may like them, I suspect they will need to go.--WickerGuy (talk) 22:36, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

YOu're specifically referring to the stuff about Strangelove in the section on "Writing" not the section on "Strangelove". IMO, this should go back when there is more discussion of his writing style on other movies, and various commonalities or shifts can be discussed. Although the "Strangelove" section didn't mention paradox, most of the stuff excised from "Writing" is duplicated in the "Strangelove"--WickerGuy (talk) 22:41, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Ethnicity, lol

Funny, Martin Scorsese, James Cameron, David Lynch, Micheal Mann, Francis Ford Coppola, Tim Burton.. and so on have no "ethnicity" stat. But Stanly Kubrick sure needs one. Guess why?

Some folks on Wikipedia seem to really have fetish regarding this topic. It's almost like in the third reich, "have some jewish relatives? get the jew badge" (even if your ties to it are very limited) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.66.104.103 (talk) 15:35, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

I guess being Jewish is special! But seriously, I do think it is of interest in celebrated people (no, not "like in the third reich") & am always happy to hear that someone is of Jewish heritage. I don't think the solution to any awkwardness you might feel about it is a studied avoidance of the topic. Rather, other directors can have their ethnicity "unmasked" too.... Martin Scorsese is "Italian-American", etc.... Valerius Tygart (talk) 14:24, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Great article! It contains trivia lacking from the pages of the films that are mentioned though.

The pages for Kubricks movies are lacking many of the facts which are present in this article, so someone should go and edit the pages of the films he directed and include some of the trivia that is present in this article. I have never edited wikipedia without it being reversed so I doubt I am a good candidate to preform such a task. Anyone who is experienced at doing this should do it because, at least Dr. Strangenlove is lacking a lot of the details mentioned in this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.248.153.146 (talk) 05:24, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

(Request to delete this section) Future Projects (Request to delete this section)

Do we know if Kubrick is planning any future projects? Has he mentioned anything in the news? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.30.156.66 (talk) 00:32, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

N/m, just found out he's dead. Sorry, ignore this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.30.156.66 (talk) 00:37, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

OKAY!--88.111.125.204 (talk) 19:07, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Reception

Is there a reason there is no "Reception" or "Assessment" section for an article on such an important director?? Valerius Tygart (talk) 14:25, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

The only other major director that has such a section is Steven Spielberg. Often reception is deferred to articles on individual films. This article used to have such a section but there was a major revamp of this article to make it less like a cross-critical study of the landscape of Kubrick's films, and more like a biographical portrait of Kubrick the person, in keeping with most of the other articles on directors. The section that existed was also heavily criticized by the main editor doing said revamping for using second-rate sources and minor middle-weight critics. I myself, who had written the section, felt the critics cited were reasonably representative of general trends, but I decided to do nothing at least until the revamp was more or less finished.--WickerGuy (talk) 17:45, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

It seems reasonable for any major artist to have an "Assessment" section to put his/her reputation in long-term context. I'm sure these days an assessment of Kubrick's reputation would be very good, but also with strong dissenters. I was reading one such today: David Thomson (a real heavyweight) is scathing on Kubrick in his recent books and makes a powerful case. Perhaps a balanced "Assessment" section (no doubt mostly positive, to reflect current critical opinion, but also presenting the other side) would be a good idea. Valerius Tygart (talk) 01:31, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

By "reception" and "assessment" I guess you mean critical reviews of his films. If so, I agree that the lengthy film articles are where they seem to belong. But if you're referring to assessments of his directing style or writing, a lot of that is already in this article. Once a film is released to the public, it takes on a life of its own, with positive and negative opinions that the filmmaker can't control. That's why those opinions would belong with each film's article, IMO. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 03:22, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

No, not exactly. The Encyclopedia Britannica often has an "Assessment" section at the end of an article on a major public figure (not just artists) who has passed away. It is essentially a summation & consensus of the critical or academic opinion of his/her entire career or "legacy". The person's reputation and "place in history". It changes, of course, over the decades. In the case of Kubrick it would be a fairly high place these days among film directors in the US & the world -- at least judging by the Sight & Sound 2012 poll of 10 greatest movies of all time (2001 gets #6 on the critics' list & #2 on the directors' list; Barry London, although it doesn't make the top 10, has also been polling high on such lists in recent years). But it's not just a matter of opinion polls or popularity contests. It would be a summation of serious critical opinion, such as Thomson's (negative, as it happens) view in his books. Anyway, it would be an assessment of Kubrick's place in all of cinema history. Valerius Tygart (talk) 16:28, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

And as I have pointed out in the past here, quite a few critics make sweeping generalizations about the body of a director's work as a whole or write comparative critical studies of multiple films by a director. Books like Randy Rasmussen's Stanley Kubrick: Seven Films Analyzed and even more so Pat Webster's Love and Death in Kubrick or Nelson's Kubrick: Inside a Film Artist's Maze are filled with critical observations that deserve to be in the article about Kubrick per se for this reason. Even when they talk about specific films they compare with how a similar theme is handled in another film--WickerGuy (talk) 02:03, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

An assessment section would be extremely relevant and suitable for this article. I do not agree with Wikiwatcher1's argument that critical analysis should stay at the individual film articles. Certainly an overarching directorial style has been observed and discussed in published sources, also an arc of development as Kubrick gains experience. Such a section would of course focus entirely on Kubrick and not wander off into reviews of the individual films. Binksternet (talk) 03:47, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

My main concern with an assessment section is that it would be unlimited in size. There are dozens of general books about Kubrick, along with many biographies and probably thousands of reviews, all of which try to assess Kubrick's overall style. His large bios each assesses Kubrick's work as a whole. Other writers of critical studies do the same. Many reviewers naturally discuss a work as part of Kubrick's overall style and effect. The topic would become massive and there would be no limit on such a general subject.

One of the briefest assessments I've seen is by Thomson, in The New Biographical Dictionary of Film, which takes up a little more than a page. However, even he consistently relies on a film or films to support his observations, for example:

"The ridiculous labor of 2001, the cavernous sets, and the special lenses, ride upon a half-baked notion of the origins and purpose of life that a first-year student ought to have been ashamed of." (p. 479)

The other writers do the same. Any general assessments are always written with supporting references. To to this with numerous writers and try to keep it within the bounds of an article section strikes me as undoable. Thomson's brief essay, which is very general, is over 1,100 words. And for a quote like the above, Arthur C. Clark, Spielberg, and countless others, would offer different and varied opinions. Kubrick assesses his own work in a 5,000-word interview with Playboy. And that's for one film!

The article now has many subsections focusing on a particular aspect of his film direction. Most, if not all, have assessments by others about that aspect, such as cinematography or screenwriting. That seems more logical in the case of Kubrick, who has had so many articles and books about his directing. With other lesser directors, fewer books and articles have been written, making a section like that manageable. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 05:31, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Some of Wikiwatcher1's objections to a possible Kubrick "Assessment" section ("it would be unlimited in size"... "There are dozens of general books about [it]"... "probably thousands of reviews"... "would become massive and there would be no limit on [it]"...) would make good arguments against the creation of Wikipedia back in January 2001. BTW, Thomson's 1100 word essay is mostly made up of paragraphs devoted to single films arranged in chronological order of release. By no means are all 1100 words oriented to an assessment of his entire career. Also, I don't propose a collection of remarks by the likes of Clarke, Spielberg, Kubrick himself, etc, from throughout history. Just a relatively brief summary of serious and informed critical opinion from recent years. Valerius Tygart (talk) 14:26, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Wikiwatcher1's objections can easily be addressed by summarizing the main points made by the main biographers, and limiting direct quotes to a minimum. Binksternet (talk) 14:40, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

vague

'In 2012, the documentary film Room 237 was released, which speculates about overt and hidden meanings behind the The Shining. The film includes footage from that, and other Kubrick films, along with discussions by a number of Kubrick experts. The film includes nine segments, with each segment focusing on different elements within the film which "may reveal hidden clues and hint at at a bigger thematic oeuvre."[62]'

Of these 3 sentences, the first says something (not much), the other two say nothing. If the documentary is really of significance (I've never seen it), it deserves a better description. If it's not so significant on its own, perhaps something like "There has been much speculation, including some/a documentary film (Room 237), about the meanings hidden in The Shining (including the tinfoil-hat notion that The Shining alludes to Kubrick's role in creating footage of the moon landings for the Apollo program, which according to that theory was a hoax)." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.171.156.23 (talk) 01:11, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

One Point Perspective

We should not his use of one point perspective as it is only mentioned once on the entire page and is considerd by many to be his defining charactersitics.

Refrecnes

• http://wetalkworld.net/stanley-kubrick-one-point-perspective/925
• http://vimeo.com/48425421

Bump--79.69.101.118 (talk) 15:47, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Can you clarify? Where is it stated that it's his film's "defining characteristics?" And if it is, are you suggesting we expand on the subject since it's only mentioned once? --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 18:03, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

I want more mention on the subject as well please!--88.111.113.78 (talk) 19:02, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Give us a few sources (excluding the video) that we can use. Thanks. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 19:12, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Coincidentally, the street shot in the "Early years" section of the article has a photo he took when he was only 21, which looks like another symmetrical one-point perspective shot. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 20:16, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

http://io9.com/5939802/just-how-obsessed-was-stanley-kubrick-with-one+point-perspective-watch-this-video-to-find-out--88.111.113.78 (talk) 16:20, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

An extra source has been added!--88.111.127.125 (talk) 16:13, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

This should be included!--88.111.121.131 (talk) 17:53, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

It should be mentiond with his other techniques!--88.111.117.148 (talk) 17:27, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

I think a second soucre could be used.--88.111.123.155 (talk) 17:55, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Intro compression

The intro is way too long--88.111.113.78 (talk) 16:59, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Seems about right to me. A 400-word lead for an 18,000-word article is reasonable. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 18:04, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Look at the one point perspective article I think the intro should be shortend to about 300 which would that a entire 1/45 of the article would not be the intro http://www.wolframalpha.com/share/clip?f=d41d8cd98f00b204e9800998ecf8427equfpsm8kat --88.111.114.152 (talk) 18:35, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Info : Just to add the The Aryan Papers is adapted from a novel by Louis Begley (I've read it and it's a good book) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shelbycarp (talk • contribs) 15:33, 1 October 2012 (UTC) Iy should be shortend--88.111.121.131 (talk) 17:53, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Has it been shortended. ?--88.111.123.155 (talk) 17:55, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Filmography

Should AI and The Spy Who Loved Me, two films which Kubrick was barely involved in, be in the same list as the films he spent hundreds of hours directing? User WickerGuy seems think he has the final say. So I brought it here for discussion. Cosprings (talk) 23:15, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

I assume most readers who see the section called "Filmography" will expect the filmmaker did more than just give advice or help write a story. Since a full section on AI is already included, there's no reason to list it here. And to keep Spy in, for which he was a consultant, is very misleading, even with descriptive text. It was not part of his filmography. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 23:52, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

I think we can say his involvement in Spy was fairly trivial. He was essentially part of the camera/lighting department helping the set designer with whom he had worked on other films (In addition to Spy Who Loved Me, Ken Adam was also set designer on Doctor Strangelove and Barry Lyndon. I don't think the filmography would suffer from its absence, though I disagree with the claim that it is "very misleading" or not part of his filmography. (We do after all have four columns, writer, director, producer and other, and we have filled in only the "other" column for that film.)

But the basic seed of "AI" was planted by Kubrick, and he toyed with the project for several years before the film was made by Spielberg- it was Kubrick who originally bought the rights to the story from Brian Aldiss, and he considered handing it to Spielberg with himself as producer, with "AI" being ultimately produced by Kubrick's brother-in-law Jan Harlan while directed by Spielberg and all with the permission of the Kubrick estate which is managed by Harlan.

The "British Film Institute"'s book on Kubrick even has a whole chapter on "AI" treating it effectively as a Kubrick film, though this is admittedly not common, and the anthology of essays The Philosophy of Stanley Kubrick edited by Jerold J. Abrams has an entire essay on "AI", comparing its concept of artificial intelligence with that in Space Odyssey.

OK, we don't really need Spy any more than we need a list of TV shows he was second-unit director on ("Omnibus" from the 50s anyone?), but to omit AI from the filmography strikes me as terribly wrongheaded.--WickerGuy (talk) 05:41, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Then I personally think the explanatory notes should be revised. It's not typical that coming up with the idea, ie. "concept," or being a "dedicatee," "intending to direct", or helping someone write a treatment, are things that warrant being part of someone's official filmography. It sets the bar too low. If any standard could be used, it should be no more than what the Academy gives awards for. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 06:19, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Food for thought. I would simply sum up my previous statement by saying there is a difference between making a small contribution and making a small and marginal contribution. The contribution to Spy is both small and marginal. The contribution to AI is small but not at all marginal!!

I'm not sure if Wikiproject Film has ever addressed this, and I fully realize appealing to other pages on WP is not always good, but I will nonetheless note that the filmography for Fellini includes a film (Lovers and Liars) he came up with the idea for 20+ years before it was made and then it was finally done by an entirely different set of folks. Goodness the Tim Burton filmography includes The Fox and the Hound for which he was just one of many animators. At any rate, I'd be interested to know if this has ever come up an Wikiproject Film.--WickerGuy (talk) 01:29, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Overall, I think the criterion of Oscars is usually a good standard for what should be in filmography, but I would think that extensive critical discussion of the person's contribution would also be a factor. Several reviews of AI discussed the touch of Kubrick on the film, as well as the two Kubrick books mentioned above.--WickerGuy (talk) 01:32, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

I at least merged the info about Spy into the main article. Now it's not mentioned even once. I still very much think A.I. should not be included because he had absolutely nothing to do with the film as it was actually released, because it was all begun after his death. How can that be part of his filmography? Wickedguy, I don't know what the "word" "wrongheaded" means but you should stop using it.Cosprings (talk) 14:55, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

"Wrongheaded" is a standard synonym for misguided. It is defined in Merriam-Webster as "contrary to sound judgment" or stubbornly so, and M-W reports that it's first known use was the year 1723!! It's even used in the title of a book published in 1993 entitled Myth-Informed: Legends, Credos, and Wrongheaded "Facts" We All Believe. It is a real word, not a neologism coined by myself.

I've already given my basic arguments above and in the new notes re AI's occasional treatment in scholarly discussions of Kubrick's work as effectively a Kubrick work completed by Spielberg (though this certainly isn't consistently done!). A third example I didn't list is the website "The Kubrick Corner" http://kubrickfilms.tripod.com/ devoted to collecting articles on all of Kubrick's work and their inclusion of AI.

It's true that Kubrick had no control over the final shape or style of the film other than the fact that a story treatment he closely supervised was the basis for the final screenplay. (Actually, I failed to mention that production design drawings by Chris Baker supervised by Kubrick were used by Spielberg as well.) But it seems to many observers that Spielberg rather than just making the movie his own was consciously "collaborating" with Kubrick. Heck, there's an entire book just on the making of AI with a foreword by Spielberg and intro by Kubrick's long-time producer (and producer of AI), Jan Harlan, and comments by the author of the source material, Brian Aldiss, which treats the entire film as essentially a Spielberg-Kubrick collaboration!! That book is A.I. Artificial Intelligence: From Stanley Kubrick to Steven Spielberg: The Vision Behind the Film edited by Jane Struthers. Short of trying to contact Kubrick through seances, everyone was aware of the "presence" of Kubrick's ghost throughout production.

I'd be open to a text-mention of "Spy" either as a footnote to the chart or in the text, though it seems like relatively trivial info. It would need to be properly contextualized. Perhaps it could be introduced in the context of a discussion of his work with Ken Adam.--WickerGuy (talk) 15:32, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

I think the question about whether AI should be an "official" part of his filmography should not be subjective, which it's leaning towards. A few recent general news articles about his true filmography are here and here, which don't mention that film.

But for WP to include it with an "other" reason, despite "scholarly discussions," still seems wrong. The very first "other" sentence is reason enough to remove it: Concept (uncredited) and dedicatee. Even if his concept were credited, neither of those two leading reasons warrant being part of his filmography. Nor do I think interpreting some "scholarly studies" is enough, and strikes me as closer to OR: a book on the making of the film with a foreword by Spielberg treats the film as effectively a collaboration. "Effectively a collaboration"? Not enough. The TOC acts as a filmography already, listing all his films with dates and details. AI is included with a "work on" prefix, which is as far as we should go. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 18:07, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

I suggest taking it out of the chart and simply placing it below the chart as a text addendum. However, the first two of the now three scholarly studies I mentioned quite literally lists it in the "Filmography" (by that exact word) in the back, the second as "completed by Spielberg". So no OR is involved at all. The two news articles you cite do not purport to give a complete filmography, for example, the second article you cited for example never mentions A Clockwork Orange (except as a tag at top)- however in your favor, both articles are about a museum exhibit which probably doesn't doesn't do much with AI (it opens in a few weeks) - they're showing all his films including Spartacus, but definitely not AI.--WickerGuy (talk) 18:51, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Frankly, there's a lot more OR in your claim these articles about his "true" filmography then there is in my interpretation of the scholarly sources which actually use the exact word "filmography".--WickerGuy (talk) 18:53, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

An addendum seems reasonable. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 19:07, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

FWIW, the "Place of A.I." section seems to be written as a debate or argument. I don't think the last two paragraphs, the multi-cited "he said, she said," material are really necessary. The first paragraph sums the subject up nicely and I think is all that's needed under that section's phrasing to make the basic point. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 06:43, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

You could be right. Let's mull about it (and/or get other opinions). Or it could be vastly shortened with perhaps some material relegated to a footnote. I've written a few similar sections in articles that were a result of WP editorial disputes, notably The Great Dictator#The Jewish barber and Chaplin's Tramp character and also Lolita (1962 film)#Quilty's "Dr. Zempf" and Peter Sellers role as Doctor Strangelove--WickerGuy (talk) 15:37, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

"Place of A.I. in Kubrick Filmography"

Having this section is even worse than just including it in the filmography. A section about whether or not a film is part of his filmography? Sounds like something for the discussion page, or the AI section which is further up the article. Cosprings (talk) 12:48, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Now that it's shorter we can probably take it out of a separate section.--WickerGuy (talk) 14:31, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Quote farm

Need to clean up this quote farm - need editors to summarizes things instead of copy and pasting 40+ quotes. Will go over this in the next few days and clean it up. No need to spam copyrighted text all over this article. Moxy (talk) 20:12, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Disagree. You have not contributed to this article at all, except for adding the same "quote" tag, which implies "drive by" tagging and little more. Nor are any of the quotes in any way spam as they are all fair-use and in context. A brief, concise quote from the speaker is inherently more valuable than some anonymous WP editor's rephrasing. You should at a minimum use this talk page to give an example of a quote, along with your suggested rephrasing, proving that it would have the same benefit but with much less text. Per your own statement: Please stop tagging (adding templates) to the top of every article you read and actually take the time and fix the problems. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 20:59, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Stop plagiarizing quotes and pictures all over. Please take the time write things in your own words over copy and pasting copyright items. And as I have indicated I will be fixing the problem over the next few days. Not sure why you cant write things in your own words like everyone else instead of plagiarizing all the time.Moxy (talk) 21:27, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Huh? Cited quotes are, by definition, never plagiarism. Nor are pictures. And why are you doing the same tagging you tell others not to do? --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 22:10, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Would be nice if you summarized the work - this is not high school, thus we expect our editors to take the time to paraphrases things in there own words over copy and pasting. We have Wikiquote that can be linked to from every article. As for the tag as I have explained now for the 3rd time I will be fixing the problems over the next few days (by summarizing the copyrighted material).Moxy (talk) 22:53, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

How Kubrick phrased his thoughts is of much more interest and value to me than the paraphrasing of some self-appointed editor. I support keeping the quotes in, and if this one editor takes them out I would support reinstating them. I also support removing his "Over-quotation" tag. - Gothicfilm (talk) 22:58, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

I have removed that tag - simply don't have the energy to fight or explain what an encyclopedia is all about. Please in the future just try to make the effort to paraphrases things as quotes are incompatible with the encyclopedic writing style the rest of us are trying to archive - this is not a blog or a personal website about what Stanley Kubrick had to say.Moxy (talk) 23:14, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. But this article, which I have contributed to over the last many months, though not so much in the last few, does not read like a blog or a personal website. - Gothicfilm (talk) 23:20, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

I would have to state that quoted material, used correctly, is infinitely more useful than summarized quotes. This article doesn't seem to be a "quote farm", and I would also state that simply paraphrasing is a weak exercise in its own right, pushed mainly in high school. I see no problem with the amount or usage of quotes here. Icarus of old (talk) 23:38, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Just a question - if 40 quotes is an ok number - what do you believe would constitute a quote farm - 50 plus quotes? look at some of our GA of FA bios like Adolf Hitler who is famous for his auditory abilities.Moxy (talk) 23:59, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

There is no exact number. If they're in context and appropriate, they're good. And the Hitler point is irrelevant. Kubrick didn't give speeches. - Gothicfilm (talk) 00:16, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

I encourage all to participate in some GA and FA article reviews to get a felling for the content of what our good and featured articles contain.Moxy (talk) 00:27, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

It seems to me a question is are the quotes appropriately contextualized and well integrated into the rest of the article??--WickerGuy (talk) 16:43, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Super Technirama 70

I've changed the Super Technirama details used in "Spartacus" section and added a link to Super Technirama's page. The previous version erroneously stated Super Technirama being a 70 mm process, while in fact is was anamorphic 35 mm horizontal (basically "anamorphic" VistaVision). Also, Kubrick didn't chose it for the filming, but rather inherited it from previous director, as scenes in a slave camp were already filmed. The use of Super Technirama 70 was a producer's decision in early stages of pre-production.

109.65.175.252 (talk) 01:09, 20 March 2013 (UTC)aspalex

Trumbo anecdote

I'm trimming most of the following paragraph in the Spartacus section as undue, as it takes up over 25% of the section, and is more relevant to Douglas's bio than Kubrick's. I'll see if part of this will fit there.

Kirk Douglas insisted that Trumbo be given screen credit for his work, which helped to break the blacklist. Trumbo had been jailed for contempt of Congress in 1950, after which he had been surviving by writing screenplays under assumed names. Douglas' intervention on his behalf was praised as an act of courage. In his autobiography, Douglas states that this decision was motivated by a meeting that he, Edward Lewis and Kubrick had regarding whose name/s to put against the screenplay in the movie credits, given Trumbo's shaky position with Hollywood executives. One idea was to credit Lewis as co-writer or sole writer, but Lewis vetoed both suggestions. Kubrick then suggested that his own name be used. Douglas and Lewis found Kubrick's eagerness to take credit for Trumbo's work revolting, and the next day, Douglas called the gate at Universal saying, "I'd like to leave a pass for Dalton Trumbo." Douglas writes, "For the first time in ten years, [Trumbo] walked on to a studio lot. He said, 'Thanks, Kirk, for giving me back my name.'--Light show (talk) 16:38, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

While I'm not going to fight about it - I think it's a very important and historical event that is widely known; although doesn't reflect kindly on Kubrick; that should be included. As should the image of Kubrick's assistant Emilio D'Alessandro that you added that's been deleted twice; most recently - [2]. In my opinion the image satisfies WP:NFCC#8 by virtue of the text, although added text will be helpful...Modernist (talk) 18:11, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

I'd naturally like to see D'Alessandro expanded a bit, with a supporting image. Any volunteers? While the behind-the-scene arguments between producer-director-screenwriters make for good reading, the abbreviated format for each film doesn't allow much room in this article. A similar conflict for Citizen Kane was added to that film's article, which allowed for more details. --Light show (talk) 19:00, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

WP:NFC violation

File:Kubrich and Me book cover.jpg does not meet WP:NFCC #1,3,8. If the book was actually notable it would have its own article and usage on this page would still be a violation. Werieth (talk) 20:51, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

The image passes WP:NFCC #1,3 and with fairly recent added text 8, although more text is desirable. The guy worked for Kubrick, who signed his book, and notability is a non issue...Modernist (talk) 21:02, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

What does the cover add visually that text alone cannot? Werieth (talk) 22:10, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Pictures are worth 1000 words - tells us by virtue of the picture of Kubrick (indicates permission given) and the handwritten inscription by Kubrick just how relevant the book was irregardless to the fact that it is become somewhat obscure today. It demonstrates far more then just the text can - that part of Kubrick's personal life and staff...Modernist (talk) 22:31, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Its decorative. Its a picture of Kubrick and a written note. Yes pictures make things pretty, but pretty doesn't meet the second part of WP:NFCC#8. Werieth (talk) 22:53, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

It certainly is not pretty; and decorative is an utterly ambiguous concept; applicable to just about everything. The image demonstrates the text - the guy worked for Kubrick and he had a book published (no mean feat) about Kubrick who signed off on it. It's not a problem for the reader but to the point of NFCC 8 it aids the readers understanding of that segment of Kubrick's life...Modernist (talk) 23:02, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

It completely fails the second part of #8. The article isnt on that single part of his life, rather the whole thing, how is not having a book cover in a biography detrimental to understanding the biography? Werieth (talk) 23:51, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Of course it's detrimental. Many readers will skim the article and not read every word. However, when they see the book cover, "Stanley Kubrick and Me," signed by Kubrick to the author, readers will stop and read the supporting text in more detail, wanting to learn more. Combined with the cited text, the book itself is notable, even without its own article. There's also cited details about the photographer of the cover, which used to be in the article, but could be added back easily. --Light show (talk) 00:52, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

And that's the point - it passes NFCC now and added text helps it pass #8 all the more...Modernist (talk) 01:10, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Gentlemen, this is all about a different image than the one I just restored to the article.--WickerGuy (talk) 06:43, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

That's also a highly relevant supporting image]. --Light show (talk) 16:58, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Absolutely fails NFCC#8 and #1 and 3. The reader does not need to see the non-free book cover to understand that the book was written by a person close to Kubrick. The "signing off" by Kubrick adds nothing to the article. The claim ". However, when they see the book cover, "Stanley Kubrick and Me," signed by Kubrick to the author, readers will stop and read the supporting text in more detail" is absolutely the wrong reason to include non-free - we start by requiring contextual significance, not because it will draw the reader's eyes. --MASEM (t) 17:57, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

I personally agree with all that, in isolation. However, just before the quoted sentence, it states, "Many readers will skim the article and not read every word." It's the combination of skimming the section with a supporting image, that many readers will stop and read the material in more detail, which naturally increases their understanding of it. Therefore, for that particular section, not having the illustration would be detrimental to many readers. In any case, since NFCC#8 is totally subjective, it also makes more sense to allow local editors' opinions to have greater weight on what best illustrates a subject for an article they worked on. --Light show (talk) 18:27, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

No, that's not how we interpret #8. We consider the understanding, not the attention-getting, of an article. The image can be removed and we will still learn about this book and the sign off without the image. And NFCC applies globally, and is one of those policies that can be mis-interpreted when editors are too close to the target material, hence why we don't let local consensus overrule policy in the case of NFCC. --MASEM (t) 18:41, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

In my opinion it passes #1 and #3 and requires additional text to satisfy #8...Modernist (talk) 20:56, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Unless there is something super significant about the specific means by which Kubrick signed the book, I see no way added text can be included to justify the image use in an article already burdened (by necessity since this is about a director with numerous visual themes) by non-free images. The existence of this book is easily described in text, and I really see no way that the image would be needed regardless of how influential the book is. --MASEM (t) 22:09, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

While in my opinion the image passes I'm removing it per consensus - while leaving the other Barry Lyndon image...Modernist (talk) 22:21, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Part II

File:Barry12.jpg also does not meet NFC. It is used in both Barry Lyndon and Chiaroscuro which are appropriate. Since their is an article on the film which goes into details about the filming style such an image is not needed to duplicate on this page. Fails 1,3,8 again as links to either other article would suffice to serve the same purpose. Werieth (talk) 23:04, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Well, I'll admit it fails 3b and maybe 8. I would argue it actually passes 1! It's a question really of how important Kubrick's revolutionary usage of a Zeiss lense designed for a NASA telescope is to the Kubrick article in addition to the Lyndon article. Kubrick broadly did revolutionary things with camera- really extended usage of the Steadicam for The Shining, slit-screen effects for Space Odyssey, etc. We should either illustrate all of these in the Kubrick article or none.--WickerGuy (talk) 01:24, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

I think this is a sign of a larger problem with the article (not just in imagery) in that it goes into too much detail on the specific films on aspects that have no immediate direct connection to Kubrick's directorial abilities. Yes, it is interested and in fact valid, in the context of "Barry Lyndon", to talk about the use of special lens that allowed candlelit-only scenes to be films, but that has little to do with Kubrick. Since pretty much every film Kubrick did is a celebrated masterpiece (give or take) and has a dedicated article, these details don't need to be here. This is prevalent throughout the text when the films are being run down. As such it, extra non-free usages are being brought in here where they are better suited on the film articles. --MASEM (t) 13:28, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

• I think the image adds important information to the section on that film and is relevant. However one of the reasons that in my opinion the memoir book cover be included by the way - is because it is about Kubrick's personal life, and underscores that section, frankly both images are important and unique enough to be included and the book cover should be re-added...Modernist (talk) 13:45, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

• But NFCC does not allow for any use for that file. It would qualify under fair use but we require contextual significance and clearly there just isn't any. --MASEM (t) 15:31, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

• @Masem, the issue in most cases is these files are also used on the movie pages and this bio. Werieth (talk) 14:32, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

• That's my point: specific film details that are not about Kubrick's overall directorial approach should be left to the articles on specific films and avoid the repeat of non-free here. Clearly some non-free from the films to showcase his use of visuals as a director is appropriate, but like the candlelit scene, that has nothing directly to do with Kubrick. --MASEM (t) 15:31, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

The very first paragraph emphasizes one of the key aspects of his notability: his "unique cinematography, attention to details to achieve realism . . ." Since we can't easily illustrate what's in his mind when he directed, showing the results of his work is important, which the two images for Barry Lyndon do well: One shows the results of natural candlelight, the other his re-creation of classic paintings for scenes. It's also not preferred to force readers to a multitude of other articles when a thumbnail is suitable. An article about a cinematographer is similar to one about a painter, where the images support the text for a few other film explaining his various techniques, and why there really should be more supporting images, not less. --Light show (talk) 17:21, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

But we have a non-free policy that restricts such usage. There is a good (and proper) section on the article already that discusses the visual aspects of Kubrick's direction where non-free is proper (and where we are using a cross section of images from Kubrick's career to showcase his work). The aspects of the candlelight and the classical painting composition is only important to Barry Lyndon and not to Kubrick's overall career. And yes, we do have the expectation that in an encyclopedic article (not an academic article) readers will have to click through to learn more on a topic. --MASEM (t) 17:26, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

"Paths of Glory" banishment

the section on paths of glory says the film was banned in france and germany. however, in the article on the movie itself, this statement is called a "persistent urban legend". none of the two claims are verified by a source. i do not know which is true but the contradiction should at least be corrected or the statements deleted until either can be (dis)proven. Towel d (talk) 20:55, 8 September 2013 (UTC)