Talk:Stanley Kubrick/Archive 2

Graffiti removed
"In 1946, since he wasn't able to gain admission to day session classes at colleges, he briefly attended evening classes at the City College of New York (CCNY) and then left, but nobody cares. Stanley wishes people would stop putting out truthful information about his college education, as he is extremely embarrassed about the situation and wants all documents in regards to CCNY destroyed." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.27.2.130 (talk) 02:44, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Polishing
I noticed that a lot of this page is very messy in purely aesthetic terms. I've gone through some of it and tried to polish up the language and make it more readable. I don't want to step on anyone's toes, but in order to make something clearer one has to cut sometimes.--Benjamin canaan (talk) 21:26, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Gary King ( talk ) 16:06, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

71.6.81.62 (talk) 02:44, 14 January 2009 (UTC)Mathew Davison

If you cleaned up the reference to Daniel Manns' Firing from the Directorship of Spartacus, I think you improved it. Earlier text seemed viewpoint oriented - as it mentioned that the reason for his being removed was due to being unable to handle an "Epic" production. A baseless claim in the face of Mr. Manns production of "El Cid" & other BIG Films- I changed the reason for his dismissal as being due to political power plays occurring on the set (Based on my library references of events) - But the new terse "Fired by the studio" (Universal) is more to the point & doesn't interrupt the content. Thanks! (.--71.6.81.62 (talk) 02:44, 14 January 2009 (UTC)Mathew Davison|Mathew Davison]] (talk)  13 january 2009 (UTC)

Translation and dubbing
I heard that Kubrick didn't like the idea of dubbing of any of his films. As far as I know many of his movies were never dubbed for foreign markets and were always screened with subtitles instead of regular full dubbing or voice-over translation. Does anybody has exact information about what movies should've been never dubbed according to Kubrick and what exceptions were made. (i.g. The Shining was dubbed with help of Kubrick himself). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.204.203.24 (talk) 12:35, 18 December 2008 (UTC)


 * 2001 most certainly was dubbed, as reflected in the fact that HAL's disconnection song differed in various countries. In English countries, he sang "Daisy", but in France he sang "Au le Clair de Lune". Most Region 1 DVDs have a French audio track if it's available, given that Quebec is in Region 1. (2001 DVDs certainly have it.) You might consider looking up the DVD features of various Kubrick films on either the Internet Movie Database or Amazon.com. First make sure their listing for 2001 DOES list the French audio track, then see if it's listed on the others. --WickerGuy (talk) 14:33, 18 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I personally attended a screening in Vienna, Austria where Clockwork Orange was dubbed into German -- and I must say, it was an excellent dubbing job, really conveying the Alex character and narration well. It's an interesting spin on the film to hear another actor's voice interpretation. WikiTracker (talk) 21:00, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Brit vs. American spelling
WP:MOS (Manual of Style) holds one should use the spelling most closely associated with a subject, British spelling for articles on Lord of the Rings, or James Bond, American spelling for articles on Mark Twain, etc. It is unclear which of these is correct for Kubrick as he was an American expatriate living in England. However, of the 8 films he made while living in England, only two are actually set in England, with five in America, and one in outer space- this last having American astronauts who are admittedly interviewed by the BBC. An anonymous IP editor recently changed all the spelling in the article to Brit spelling ('color' to 'colour' etc.). I just reverted it, but if anyone can think of a compelling reason to use Brit spelling here, please feel free to post it (or a reason for keeping American spelling.) --WickerGuy (talk) 14:45, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

American spelling sounds good to me, he was American born and as far as I know he never relinquished his citizenship. His movies were all made with American studio money, I wouldn't call him a director of British films. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Roadshell (talk • contribs) 21:46, July 28, 2009

Great CopyEditing- But don't do it on cited material
Ronaldomundo has done some wonderful and meticulous copy-editing on this very long article, for which he should get some sort of modest award. But with one caveat: Material cited from other sources, even when it has problematic punctuation, should not be changed. It is true that "godlike" is preferable to "God-like" and "earthbound" preferable to "Earth-bound" but in the interviews with Kubrick that are in blockquotes found here, these words are in fact printed with hyphens willy-nilly for better or for worse. As such, I think they should be left that way. All of Ronaldomundo's thirty-plus other edits of course stand. --WickerGuy (talk) 13:45, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

"Liked height" quote
I removed the section talking about the fact that Kubrick "liked height." Kubrick never said this in interview, and the quote actually comes from his assistant Leon Vitali. If you read the article (which originated on DVDtalk.com), it's clear Mr. Vitali isn't technically-minded and makes a number of faux pas regarding ratios, etc., and his comments don't jive with those actually written by Kubrick (such as the sourced storyboard). The Photoplayer 22:25, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Image Change...?
I'm thinking that maybe we should change the image in the main info box at the top of the page. I think it should be an image of an older Stanley Kubrick, later when he was in the prime of his career. I think people will connect more with that Kubrick. another thing to consider would be to use the latest image of him. I particularly don't like that, but it might be Wikipedia policy or something. Thanks. --Robo56 (talk) 01:31, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Would the anonymous IP editor explain the problem with awards?
Both the article on Mulholland Drive (film) and the article on Angelina Jolie have been featured articles and both mention Academy award wins or nominations in the first two sentences. Would the anonymous editor(s) who have three times now objected to mentioning Kubrick's awards in the opening sentence on the ground this jeopardizes the articles FA capabilities explain why they think this is a problem?--WickerGuy (talk) 16:53, 14 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I've altered it for a different reason. Kubrick won only one personal Oscar, for special effects in 2001 although he received many nominations for directing and writing. His films have won several Oscars in other departments. Still the anonymous IP editor today a 4th time said you don't mention Oscars in the opening sentence of an FA article, but the two FAs cited above do so (in the second sentence).--WickerGuy (talk) 07:36, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Key Elements in Kubrick's Life
As the article is now, this is a fantastic chronology of Kubrick's life in film. I wish there were some more aspects of Kubrick illuminated, some of them very telling, and also inspiring. One has to do with influences. Max Ophuls is mentioned in the article. In particular, I believe, Kubrick somewhere said it was Ophuls' Earings of Madame de that influenced him greatly. Constantin Stanislavski was perhaps, in my opinion, one of Kubrick's greatest influences. There's an interview with Kubrick somewhere, where Kubrick talks about his influences, and Stanislavski figures prominently in how he worked with actors. When it comes to editing, Kubrick in a book entitled The Film Director as Superstar said "The most instructive book on film aesthetics I've come across was Pudovkin's Film Technique".

His relationship with Warner Brothers is important, but I don't know if I've ever read anything about it. It would be good if someone could find a reference that helps explain it, because it is what, I believe, enabled him to have free reign to make the films he wanted, because he got the budgets and time he desired and feared. I believe, Warner Brother executives gave him carte blanche to do as he wished without interference. From what I recall, they sent him the checks and many years later Kubrick would send them a movie. --crm411 10:17, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Character section is back, but still needs more work
I have restored the Character section of this article, and have just enough references to justify removing one of two tags (the one that said it had no references at all) but have retained the tag saying it needed cleanup. It still needs a lot more citations than the ones I have filled in to meet WP's highest standards of quality. Hard to trace the references to what multiple actors have said about Kubrick. This is enough to justify it's restoral, but could use a lot more clean-up --WickerGuy (talk) 01:15, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

It's easy to find any number of condemnations of Kubrick as a human being, and this section hardly exhausts them. In a nominally positive book on Kubrick's work (I don't remember the title), we're told that he had a disagreement with one of the Full Metal Jacket actors over how a scene should be played, and Kubrick agreed to shoot it both ways -- except there was no film in the camera when the actor was doing it "his way". What is particularly strange about this is that Kubrick often asked for multiple retakes, precisely to get varying interpretations from the actor. One of the actors in Eyes Wide Shut was so bothered by this that he said "Tell me what you want, and I'll give it to you." Kirk Douglas's assessment of Kubrick as "a talented shit" is probably correct, though I would say "a wildly talented shit".

It's possible Kubrick's directorial manner was unduly influenced by his being a still photographer. Still photography is ultimately static, and is potentially "perfectible", with little chance of anything unexpected happening. It's worth contrasting Kubrick with Hitchcock. Although the latter was also a perfectionist, Hitch pretty much let the actors do as they please, unless he though they were doing it wrong. WilliamSommerwerck (talk) 12:18, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Problems with Technical Errors?
Hello... there are a few inaccuracies that have crept in, one of the most annoying of which is the mention of Kubrick using "traveling Matte" effects in "2001". Needs to be changed to "Front Projection,' and 'Machine driven camera moves'. (They didn't have computers to move the cameras on model work, But they got by fine using very elaborate Worm gear driven rail & Dolly systems.) Although there were various types of "Matte" effects used in the film, the effects unit, with Kubrick's urging, deliberately AVOIDED using any "traveling Matte" shots, which is an alternative phrase for the Classic Blue Screen- or "Sodium Screen" composite techniques. The one innovative method that was utilized was a large scale application of "Front Projection'" (Unheard of up until then for such large scenes) and extensive use of Optical printer work, "Latent Image Mattes" -and even a room full of ladies employed to dab ink on star background plates under animation stands! Most of those guys hated how Blue Screen had devolved by then & thought it looked mediocre. They shot in front of Black velvet; they used full sized mirror trick shots; they hung from wires; -but I don't think there is a single frame of Stewart screen work in the entire film. Part of "Star Wars" innovation was how they 'Rescued' the color difference traveling matte from the 'ugly-shot' bin by integrating animation repair of the hold- out mattes. --- The other stand- out error i notice is that Bill Gold is credited for the Clockwork orange poster art. He is I believe the actual layout designer, and well deserves that notice. But the Airbrush art was executed by Philip Castle  who has a wikip. entry & should be linked to it. (He also did the Steel Helmet art for "Full Metal Jacket".) So perhaps it needs to read, "Poster by Bill Gold, Airbrush Illustration by Philip Castle" 71.6.81.62 (talk) 03:55, 8 October 2009 (UTC)Mathew B. Davison71.6.81.62 (talk) 03:55, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Seconded. This needs fixing. There is little, of any, matte work in 2001, but the front projection is truly innovative, and (mostly) highly realistic. WilliamSommerwerck (talk) 12:22, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

"Further Reading" - which David Hughes
In the "Further Reading" section, one David Hughes, author of "The Complete Kubrick" (Virgin Books, 2000) is wikilinked, which leads to a disambiguation page listing no fewer than 17 Wikipedia entries for people named "David Hughes". The Virgin Books site has nothing for this author, so no clue about the author. I don't have a copy of book so can't get any help there. Any ideas which if any is the "real" David Hughes? Jomeara421 (talk) 01:13, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Simpsons?
I think that the extended account (or any mention) of the Kubrick-related content in the animated television show "The Simpsons" is spurious. It adds nothing to the subject of the article and indeed it strikes me that it seriously diminishes the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.210.54.125 (talk) 11:30, 7 February 2010 (UTC)


 * The references to Kubrick's films in The Simpsons is not occasional but extremely frequent, so much so that other TV critics and historians have considered it notable, such as the one that is sourced in the article. It is true the WP has an abundance of '"x" is popular culture sections' that are a miscellany of observations made only by WP editors, but if other TV critics consider the Kubrick-Simpson connection notable, it probably belongs in this article's section on "Legacy" and is non-trivial.--WickerGuy (talk) 17:54, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

WickerGuy, spurious does not mean trivial. Are these other TV critics, and historians (presumably of film?), making the reference in a biographical account of Stanley Kubrick? It seems to me it doesn't matter how frequently The Simpsons has referenced Kubrick (incidentally, I'll wager they've referenced Star Wars more often!). The point for me is that an extended account of how a television show has quoted or otherwise referenced Kubrick is not relevant to a biographical entry on Kubrick himself. If another film maker continually referenced Kubrick, this may be closer, but it would still require a section by itself and one that I would hope required debate concerning its form. The Simpsons would only be legitimate if there was the kind of pop culture section that you referred to (and yes, you detected my annoyance at this kind of section), in my opinion. If there is a need for a section on Kubrick's influence aside from what already exists, I do not think the place to start is The Simpsons. Years of examples of visual advertising, for instance, would have not only a greater claim to pop culture influence, but also be more directly related to the work of Kubrick. I am genuinely interested if you care to respond, WickerGuy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.210.54.125 (talk) 11:02, 8 February 2010 (UTC)


 * You make several very good points. There is an earlier paragraph in the Legacy section on his influence on other film-makers, which could perhaps be expanded, and moved closer to this paragraph if it is maintained to show that Kubrick has influenced real film-makers as well. However (although not sourced here) even the official "Stanley Kubrick Exhibition" website (for the museum exhibition of Kubrick's archives) acknowledges and overwhelming influence of SK's work on The Simpsons. Furthermore (although not mentioned here), Kubrick was both a fan of the Simpsons and in regular contact with the producers of the show, as his daughter Katherina has mentioned in interviews. The references to Kubrick's films are not then the work of fanboy startup producers in awe of a legendary director but an expression of mutual professional regard and affection, just as much as the references to many Kubrick films in Spielberg's completion of Kubrick's "A.I.". I would suggest then slightly expanding the material on the Kubrick's influence on other directors, moving that material closer to the Simpson's paragraph rather than having 3 paragraphs between those two, mentioning that Kubrick was in personal contact with the producers of the Simpsons, and then keeping the paragraph more or less as is. The source already cited in the article disagrees with your evaluation of the relative weight of Kubrick/Star Wars references (You write "I'll wager they've referenced Star Wars more often!") That author directly claims that Kubrick references in the Simpsons enormously outweigh that of any other pop culture references. This includes indirect references to "Paths of Glory", "Lolita", and "Spartacus", many recognizable only to viewers of the films.--WickerGuy (talk) 16:47, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Aspect ratio section
How do we feel about that giant section about the aspect ratios on the DVD releases of Kubrick's films? There's been a citations tag on it since November 2008, and I'm not really sure it's all that relevant to the article. Nanorlb (talk) 15:13, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Since the citations that are there ultimately show that there is little to no contention about Kubrick's desires re: aspect ratio, it might clear space well to remove it The Photoplayer 16:35, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I think the discussion could be trimmed, but there is contention among fans about whether SK made the right decisions, so some discussion should be there, albeit possibly a much shorter one.--WickerGuy (talk) 17:01, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
 * There is a story, which I cannot at the moment reference, about the incorrect theatrical projection of Barry Lyndon at 1.85:1. Kubrick supposedly said that he had made a thorough study of paintings of that era, had selected an aspect ratio typical of that era's art [5:3, presumably], and had aperture plates cut specifically for it -- so why weren't they used?
 * This section ignores the question of why Kubrick shot with a specific aspect ratio in mind, but in "protected" full-frame, rather than with an in-camera mask? The likely reason is that he preferred that home-video viewers see more than, rather than too little of, the original composition.
 * Kubricks' approval of 4:3 transfers was probably in the context of the home video of the late 20th century. Given his fussiness and perfectionism, his films should be shown in their intended aspect ratios. WilliamSommerwerck (talk) 12:33, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

remodernist criticsm
Kubrick's work, described by Jesse Richards as "boring and dishonest". - so what? I mean, who cares what Jesse Richards thinks? Why is this relevant? Dlabtot (talk) 03:24, 2 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm not happy with this material entirely, but Jesse Richards is an artist and film-maker who has a WP article about him, and is a co-founder of the "remodernist film" movement. Another editor was overly eager to put something in this article critical of Kubrick and after being rebuffed several times a few of us let him put in this material.--WickerGuy (talk) 07:48, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, gee, there's already plenty of unfavorable reviews, opinions, etc in the article... Mr. Richards may be notable enough for a Wikipedia article, but that says nothing about whether his opinion of Kubrick is worth noting here. Dlabtot (talk) 16:12, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
 * You may have a point. The fellow I'm mentioning seemed a bit oblivious to the other negative mentions. However, the other negative opinions are from professional critics, whereas this is the only one in the article from a creative artist (of whatever stature, small or megahuge). As such, I'm slightly (but only slightly) inclined to keep it, unless one can find another one from a more significant creative artist.--WickerGuy (talk) 16:31, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Where was he born?
Was he born in Manhattan or Bronx? I've found some references in the web that say Bronx. Thanks. --Mzamora2 (talk) 11:43, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Lady Gaga reference
Any opinions on adding to the Legacy section the reference to Kubrick in Lady Gaga's song Dance In The Dark?

"Find your freedom in the music, find your Jesus, find your Kubrick. You will never fall apart, Diana you're still in our hearts, never let you fall apart, together we'll dance in the dark"

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Save-Me-Oprah (talk • contribs) 23:08, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Note to 76.214.192.67
While the wording of the section on reception of Kubrick is not immune to the charge of bias, there are significant problems with your efforts to correct it. First of all, you are challenging the credibility of Rice, but you deleted a sentence that establishes the dominant sense that Kubrick is pessimistic that PRECEDES the introduction of Rice. I refer to your deletion of " often taken as one of several indicators of a growing pessimism in Kubrick." That is NOT Rice's view but that of multiple writers (Sperb and Nelson) who published BEFORE RIce!!!!! If you have a problem with the discussion concluding with Rice & Spielberg's more optimistic assessment of Kubrick, isn't that what you would want to retain????? Your addition that"Many critics understandably were skeptical later of Spielberg's comments at the Oscars" is a classic standard violation of Wikipedia's policy against Weasel words. (See WEASEL). Such a phrase at least merits the "who?" tag. You can't add that in without giving a specific citation. This is standard Wikipedia Manual of Style. The article as currently phrased fully states that are Rice & Spielberg are going against the grain of opinion.

I freely admit I find Rice convincing both because I have always found an undertone of optimism in some of SK's films (notably Full Metal Jacket and EWS) that others missed (though this was absent from Clockwork and The Shining), but also because I am a fan of Jungian psychology as was Kubrick himself and I find Rice's Jungian readings of Kubrick fairly convincing. So yes my own bias is showing, but that this is a minority view is clearly stated in the text and the clear rules of Wikipedia simply don't allow you to write stuff like "Many critics understandably were skeptical later of Spielberg's comments at the Oscars" without saying who they are. Also, can you cite exactly what Kubrick scholars have negatively reviewed Julian Rice's book?

Regards--WickerGuy (talk) 04:48, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

I have now added a couple of sentences and cited a 3rd author re the view of Kubrick as pessimist to avoid conflicting with WP:Undue weight. However, specific criticisms of Spielberg's atypical assessment still need to be cited. --WickerGuy (talk) 01:18, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

First off, full disclosure--I am the author of 'The Kubrick Facade,' and I do not appreciate my work being misrepresented in this manner.

I'm not going to try to persuade anyone of the inaccuracies and distortions on this page, because someone is too clearly set in their opinion (and in general, I don't engage with anonymous trolls). All I ask at this point is that my book be left out of this loaded and very biased discussion, and I will continue to delete that reference as long as it exists because it feeds a debate, frankly, that does not exist. And so here is my take on the discussion, which WickerGuy has unfortunately monopolized and stamped out any dissent of opinion.

Yes, WickerGuy, there is an "undertone of optimism" in K's films, but, no, neither you nor Rice were the first people to see this (since you brought it up, you really need to re-read my and Nelson's respective chapters on EWS, for example, if you bothered to read them in the first place and didn't just take Rice's word--you might be surprised to find that they are hardly as cynical as his or your writing implies). Unfortunately, this excessively opinionated and poorly researched section perpetuates that fundamental scholarly inaccuracy--that everyone said his films were purely pessimistic, which then Rice heroically corrected--and should be deleted for poor research alone. If you are going to imply that all Kubrick scholarship went one way intellectually, then you really should bother to read all Kubrick scholarship or let it go.

Rice is not a credible source because he is not a film scholar and does not really engage extensively with other Kubrick scholarship, except to establish a "straw-man" argument in the beginning (as you unknowingly admit above-ie, the reason I deleted that clause is because Rice is kind of responding to a position that doesn't really exist, except in his own mind)--he is a scholar of Native American Literature who one day decided to turn his personal fandom, his gut feeling about Kubrick, into a book. Good for him, but 'Kubrick's Hope,' starting with the premise of the title, is a horrible distortion of the rich body of Kubrick scholarship that had been developed in the previous 30 years. To give you just one example, he repeatedly refers to Nelson and I's "nihilistic" "postmodern" arguments, even though I am quite certain I never used those terms (because I don't see his films that way), except at one point when I say that--ironically--'2001' was 'not' a postmodern film.

And if you love Kubrick and psychoanalysis, great, but I'm pretty sure Geoffrey Cocks, James Naremore, and numerous others already went there. In general, a much better discussion of these same issues appeared in Naremore's book, 'On Kubrick,' which is only the most recent book on the subject published before Rice.

I deleted my own negative review of Rice's book last year from a website because it was excessively unfair (but not inaccurate), and two 'very' prominent Kubrick scholars have told me in confidence not to sweat Rice's ad hominem attacks on me in the book because they felt the argument overall was complete junk. So, I let it go and moved on, but this, frankly, crappy section on Kubrick's hope has dug up all that stuff all over again. And so I will try to set the record straight.

I don't have a problem with you finding Rice convincing, but you need to understand that there are huge ramifications for posting your under-informed *opinion* on Wikipedia. It inaccurately shapes the discussion for future reference and feeds the larger perception that this website has no credibility. Its fine to love a particular book, but over-embracing it as your primary source leads to extremely biased material, more so than you seem to realize.

That is, the problem with your extensive embrace of Rice's argument is that it creates a larger false binary-- "optimistic"/"pessimistic." Most Kubrick scholars, including the ones cited, do not talk about "a growing pessimism in Kubrick", not in the way its presented here--'The Kubrick Facade' talks about a certain kind of narrative chaos, and Nelson discusses a "cinema of contingency," but those are a very different matter, and more ambivalent than presented here. And I resent my work being used, as it was in 'Kubrick's Hope,' in a poorly researched argument just as a straw man, just so that Rice has someone to disagree with. The whole section reads not only like a bias towards Rice's view, but feels like it was written by him--because it perpetuates all the same inaccuracies about writings on Kubrick that he earlier put forth. I also resent the idea of mentioning Rice last and most extensively, because it creates the false impression that he somehow got it "right" after all these years. He is just a minor writer who holds a minority opinion, and not the major academic voice on the subject your writing makes him out to be.

And I resent you disingenuously using Spielberg as a legit source in the context of a "scholarly" discussion--its comparing apples and oranges, and kinda loading the deck, don't you think? OF COURSE SPIELBERG IS GOING TO BE POSITIVE--a) he's Spielberg, and he sees his own style in Kubrick, and b) its an Oscar Tribute to K's life work, so of course he's going to put the most simplistically positive spin on the subject, in that laudatory context. But, if you want sources, all the critical reactions to 'AI,' for example, completely refuted this idea that Kubrick's work thematically was similar to Spielberg in the way that your argument suggests. At best, it is sloppy argumentation--and that's just it, the whole section reads not like a summary of encyclopedic facts, but an argument for your opinion.

In short, my problem is with this whole section is that NO ONE SAID KUBRICK'S WORK WAS PURELY PESSIMISTIC--every credible Kubrick scholar, to varying degrees, saw utopian and dystopian elements and dealt with his films with much more care and subtlety than Rice gave us credit for. The idea that there was this huge strand of unrelenting pessimism in K's films, and that Rice was the first person to ever argue for "hope" in his films is itself a fantasy of Rice's creation. In fact, this whole section reads like it was written by someone who read Rice's book, took everything he said at face value, and didn't bother to read anything else. To give you a specific example, my work and Nelson's are really the only ones that Rice (mis)quotes too, which is then repeated here.

I really think the whole section should be deleted for research sloppiness and excessive argumentation. But I am trying to respect and work within other people's efforts--like I said, all I ask for at this point is that my work be left out of this discussion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.214.202.233 (talk) 20:15, 19 June 2010 (UTC)


 * For now I just wish to register that I have read this well-written and thoughtful reply, and will diligently try to see what corrections to the article would be appropriate thereof. I should however note that in addition to Rice's book I read Nelson and Sperb (yourself) but my interpretation thereof may have been colored by my previous reading of Rice. I will try to take into account your critique in subsequent revision of this page. However, I do not at all regard Speilberg's work as similar to Kubrick and regret if anything here implied that I did. More anon. Thank you for responding in more detail.--WickerGuy (talk) 02:44, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
 * However, I must add I am really not trying to stifle dissent, but to ask by abiding by the rules of Wikipedia, which in a relatively superficial way it seemed you were violating. Dissent is great.--WickerGuy (talk) 02:53, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Final remark before I rework this section. While Mr. Rice may have engaged in gratuitous ad hominem attacks on you and Nelson, it is undoubtedly the case that many viewers characterize Kubrick as broadly pessimistic, even if detailed Kubrick scholarship was mischaracterized by Rice. The obvious examples are the New York Times obituary by Stephen Holden and the entry on Kubrick in the online Encyclopedia Britannica. One does not need to overly "rely on Rice" to pick up this impression. My revision of this section will reflect this.--WickerGuy (talk) 16:59, 21 June 2010 (UTC)


 * The section has now been reworked. Other sources have been used to reflect the claim the Kubrick is a pessimist, and more dissenting sources other than Rice have been added. Reference to your (Jason Sperb's) work has been put in but delinked from discussion of Rice, and is no longer characterized as justifying the pessimism charge. This doesn't really address all of your concerns. I'm sure you are right that Kubrick scholars are more nuanced than Rice gives them credit for, but film critics like Kael and Holden really do see Kubrick as a pessimist, so the "binary" that you mention does seem to me on some level really exist, even if Rice has made poor ad hominem attacks on various scholars who were actually more nuanced. I have shortened the Spielberg quote, but I'm not fully convinced that he shouldn't be used as a source. We use Martin Scorcese elsewhere in this article. It is generally legit in Wikipedia to cite what one filmmaker says about another filmmaker. We discuss what Trauffaut says about Hitchcock, what Woody Allen says about Ingmar Bergman, etc. etc. Respectfully, I don't think you have quite made the case for removing the Spielberg reference. Once again, thank you for responding.--WickerGuy (talk) 18:15, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

I appreciate your thoughtful efforts. I still wish my work wasn't involved in this section--primarily because I don't like the idea of my disagreements with Rice being so out in the public like this (which is why I deleted that blog review in the first place)--he and I have already done our bit of public feuding, and I hope this won't reignite that. But, in any case, I just want to put this behind me now, so I am stepping aside. Peace, JS —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.214.212.216 (talk) 21:10, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Other Projects
"When J. R. R. Tolkien sold the film rights of The Lord of the Rings to United Artists in 1969, 'the Beatles' considered making a film of it, and approached Kubrick as a possible director, but Kubrick told 'John Lennon' he thought the novel was unfilmable due to its immensity"

I assume that this isn't supposed to read this, since I doubt that The Beatles would really want to turn The Lord of the Rings into a film. Could someone tell me what it should read, or correct it please? Thanks FlipsidePro09 (talk) 22:35, 6 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Peter Jackson, director of the better-known of the two LotRings films has stated this is true of the Beatles in an interview with CNN, though he says nothing about Kubrick talking John Lennon out of it. Rather he says the project died because Tolkien didn't like the idea of the Beatles doing it. See http://articles.cnn.com/2002-03-28/entertainment/rings.beatles_1_powerful-ring-gollum-beatles-plan?_s=PM:SHOWBIZ. This has also been reported in People magazine, again citing Peter Jackson as a source. http://www.people.com/people/article/0,,623838,00.html. Ian Pryor's biography of Peter Jackson asserts (p. 237) that the Beatles did indeed approach Stanley Kubrick, about it.--WickerGuy (talk) 23:57, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Infobox bloat
Hello to all. The "influenced" section of the infobox is quite extensive and could, conceivably, grow larger. I mean there is probably an argument to be made the SK has influenced, in some manner, every filmmaker that works in the business today. Of course, as Yworo mentions in his edit summary, sourcing is needed for inclusion and this exists in the "Tributes from filmmakers, critics and imitators" section of the "Legacy" portion of the article. Since there is always the potential for new names to be added to the infobox I am wondering if we might do something along the lines of what was done to the "starring" section of the infobox for the film Love Actually. That ensemble cast had the infobox even more bloated then SK's is at the moment. As you can see we cleaned things up by creating a link to the cast section. Now this is merely a style change suggestion and if consensus is to leave it as it is that is fine too. I bring it up to generate feedback to see what others think. Thanks for you time. MarnetteD | Talk 16:24, 23 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Per my edit summary on the last two edits- Four of the directors listed had simply and merely listed one of Kubrick's films as one of their top ten favorite films. I have moved them in the "Legacy" section to a separate paragraph and removed them from the Infobox. Of course, it's possible that Kubrick influenced them in some way, but admiration is not necessarily influence. Frederico Fellini was a huge fan of Stanley Kubrick, but I don't think was especially influenced by him. While Ingmar Bergman certainly influenced Woody Allen, the reverse is not true, even Bergman was an admirer of Allen's films, etc. etc.--WickerGuy (talk) 18:08, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Inclusion of all Razzies, if any. Note to 139.168.195.253
There may be a case for omitting the Razzies from the awards list altogether but not for just one out of two. After deleting for the second time the listing of a Razzie nomination for The Shining for Shelley Duvall for worst actress, 139.168.195.253 inserted into the article the invisible markup text (visible to editors only) in the article "" However, the list of more legit and congratulatory awards includes Clockwork Orange's nomination for best actor (Golden Globe), three acting awards for Spartacus (two Globe nominations and one won Oscar), three acting nominations for Lolita, three for Stranglove etc.. Thus logically, if the Razzies are to be listed at all, we should list both of Shining's Razzies. These are clearly for awards generally given to Kubrick films regardless of the person. the invisible text-comment put in by 139.168.195.253 in, in essence, simply false!!--WickerGuy (talk) 03:31, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't think the acting awards should be listed, whether Razzies or whatever. Dlabtot (talk) 17:36, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm open to having my mind changed on this, but any acting performance is really a collaboration between the actor and the director to some extent. Sometimes directors give actors free rein (as is the case with many Robin Williams movies, and classic comedies like Marx Brothers)- other times directors have significant input into the actor's performance. Stanley Kubrick gave Peter Sellers, Malcolm MacDowell, Laurence Olivier, & R. Lee Ermey (the marine sergeant in Jacket) a lot of freedom to interpret their roles their own way. With other actors he gave very specific direction outlining exactly what he wanted.


 * We also have listed nominations for Best Cinematography (Geoffrey Unsworth for Space Odyssey), and Best Soundtrack (Wendy [formerly Walter] Carlos for Orange), Best Original Score (Jocelyn Pook for Eyes Wide Shut) Best Art Direction (John Barry- not the film composer- for Orange), so if we limit the list to awards for which Kubrick is personally nominated, the list will be pared down quite a bit. Arguably, many of these achievements are collaborations between the nominee and Kubrick- Kubrick made the hiring decisions and certainly had input into Barry's set designs for Orange etc. (obvious from the presence of paintings by Kubrick's wife in the writers apartment.) Nonetheless, it is Barry who was nominated for best art director, not Kubrick. If we eliminate the actors from the list, we should eliminate all these others as well. I generally in favor of keeping the list as is but clarifying that many of the nominees are not Stanley K.--WickerGuy (talk)20:39, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I looked for similar charts on the articles of other directors. The only one I could find was on Francis Ford Coppola. It only includes awards that Coppola won or was nominated for. That's how I think it should be done. The individual picture articles will have all the awards. Dlabtot (talk) 21:42, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Excellent & persuasive point. I would like to survey those and see what MOSFILM says (if anything) about it. For now, I have added a prose qualification at the top of the list.--WickerGuy (talk) 21:58, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Restoring one of the four or five montages deleted in September
Of the several montages deleted from the article in September (sniff), the one of Peter Sellers in his three roles in Strangelove was not an original montage, but was taken as is from the cover art for a DVD of Doctor Strangelove. It is still in use in the article on Peter Sellers. I think it therefore falls under "fair use". It definitely enhances the article.--WickerGuy (talk) 23:15, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Dlabtot (talk) 23:43, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Over the Top Fanboi-isms in the Intro
Can we please find a less cheesy way of stating that Kubrick was a historically accomplished director? These two sentences are way over the top: "Kubrick is widely acknowledged as one of the most accomplished, innovative, and influential filmmakers in the history of cinema." ....."his works are noted as some of the "most original, provocative, and visionary motion pictures ever made". There's got to be a way to get this point across without sounding like a breathless fanboi. Cshay (talk) 11:52, 31 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Indeed. Hopefully, the new lede paragraph is a bit more muted, noting some glitches and controversies. One of the two sources for the peacock language used was promotional material for the Stanley Kubrick archive (that would be The Kubrick Legacy) and thus really just needs to go. However, I have retained the accolades from Jason Ankeny because he is third-party and is really describing how others feel.--WickerGuy (talk) 16:03, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Influences on Kubrick
Recently, 3 (probably truthful) additions to the "Influences" section of the Infobox were reverted because they were unsourced. However, none of the influences in there now is sourced in the article either!!! Clearly a whole new section on this needs to be written. For now, since Welles is widely known to be an influence, I would like to replace a minor figure in the infobox with Welles, and then work on a section.--WickerGuy (talk) 18:42, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Dr. Strangelove extra details
I'm removing the sentence "Coincidentally, that same year, Columbia Studios released the dramatic nuclear war thriller Fail-Safe." in the paragraph about Peter Sellers' involvement, since it doesn't make sense to have this information mixed in with information about Sellers. The first time this information was added was in this edit. I believe it was supposed to highlight the odd occurrence of a a studio releasing two movies dealing with the same situation in the same year. Someone later added that Kubrick was thinking about suing someone about it, but decided against it. I can't seem to find any sources to reference, but if you can, the information would probably be more useful to someone in another paragraph (maybe one dealing with production?). — OranL (talk) 04:21, 4 December 2009 (UTC)


 * The section is about the movie, not just about Peter Sellers. I don't understand why it was removed. Your explanation doesn't make sense. But, oh, well... that's life in Wikipedia land. Arbitrary decisions by arbitrary people for no good reason at all. Now the article has LESS information than it did before. It wasn't just the odd occurrence of "two movies dealing with the same situation"... it was the odd occurrence of two movies derived from the SAME NOVEL in the same year. That's worth noting. JoGusto (talk) 06:37, 27 February 2011 (UTC)


 * THis stuff is dealt with extensively in the article on Doctor Strangelove. I think the removal of it here had to to with the overall flow of the paragraph. It interrupted the general direction of the paragraph to make a side point.--WickerGuy (talk) 14:55, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Fair Use debate
User:Victor falk, I don't think that User:Hammersoft has targeted any one picture here in particular. He just thinks there are too many "fair use" images here. IMO, since Kubrick is a supremely visual director and we have taken care to give an appropriate critical commentary on every one, this is all in good faith. Again, as the main uploader, I am not a neutral party here.--WickerGuy (talk) 00:55, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, the first thing I noted is that it is a very large article, at 200k. That means there is room for more than one or two pics. Without them, it would be a dreary wall of text made even drearier for having 50% more text while explaining less than 10% of what the pictures show. walk victor falktalk 01:07, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
 * There's several things to consider here. First, the argument that since this article is 200k in length, it makes sense to allow more non-free images does not work. There is no entitlement for more non-free images the longer an article gets. No wording in WP:NFCC or WP:NFC supports that position. Second, please have a look at this report. Observe that this article is tied for 19th on the list (it's actually higher, with 21 images (thanks to the montage I'm about to discuss) which shows articles using the most non-free images on the project. That makes it in the top .0005% of all articles here. That's puts it in an extreme category. Extreme usage requires extreme rationalization. In short, what makes this article so special that it must use that much non-free imagery in order for a person to understand this biographical article? Are our readers incapable of understanding the subject without all of these images? I don't think that question has even been asked, much less considered. Those are overarching concerns.
 * More specifically; reviewing the non-free images here the first problem I see is File:3SellersRoles.jpg user created montage. Such user created montages are discouraged. Even if used, there must be a rationale not for the montage, but for each image in the montage for each use of the item. We don't need a fair use rationale for the user's work, we have to have a rationale for each image. Whether we use the images separately or in a user created montage, there must be three separate rationales for each use. On this image, there is but one rationale. So, we have a WP:NFCC #10c failure. Of further concern; much of the purpose in the rationale is boiler plate material present from a template. The only purpose stated not from that is "To illustrate casting of Sellers in Multiple Roles". And it gets worse. The caption on the photo makes an original research claim; it's not supported by any secondary sources, and the text of the article is not tied to the image, such that the image is supporting the text. That generates an immediate WP:NFCC #8 failure.
 * I could go one for a while here. But, it's blatantly obvious from reviewing just this one image that there are serious problems with the use of non-free images here. I'm going to place the non-free tag back on this article and strongly encourage interested editors to resolve the problems I've outlined, and also take a very hard look at all image use and decide what is crucial and what is not crucial. Just randomly looking further down the article, the File:KidmanCruiseEyesWideShut.jpg image isn't tied to the text either, nor is that caption supported by secondary sources. I could very easily gut this article of much of the non-free content, and all of the removals would be strongly justified. So do the analysis and figure out what really has to stay based on secondary sources supporting the notability of a particular scene, or why that scene is important to the text, etc. Have a strongly critical eye. Clean it up. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:31, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
 * First could you point out where & why "montages are discouraged". Thank you. walk victor falktalk 16:41, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
 * There's been considerable discussion about montages over the years. This search may be useful to review. User created montages are extremely rare across the project. The usual problem with them is a generation of a WP:SYNTHESIS violation situation. If a user creates a montage, there's a juxtaposition of imagery that seems important to the user, but is rarely (if ever) supported by secondary sources. If there was a non-user created source for the montage, there's a pretty good chance that some external-to-wikipedia entity felt the juxtaposition was important, and usually provides a reason why. This particular montage is severely problematic. There's no secondary sources regarding Seller's appearance in the various roles in the film, and certainly not with respect to the three roles depicted as compared to each other. There's an unsourced claim in the caption that Sellers was relatively unknown in America before the film depicted (not that this has any relation to the image). There's an unsourced claim that many viewers didn't realize it was Sellers in all three roles. There's also no sources, or even text, that compares the three roles and how they were distinctive to each other. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:55, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Could you please clarify if you mean all montages or montages of copyrighted pictures only? walk <i style="color:green;">victor falk</i><i style="color:green;">talk</i> 18:06, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm referring to copyright images. But, there's principle that apply regardless. If a user creates a montage to create a new way of looking at comparative images, that's WP:OR. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:17, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Do I interpret you correctly if juxtaposing two pictures creates a new way of looking at them and is thus wp:or? <sup style="color:green;">walk <i style="color:green;">victor falk</i><i style="color:green;">talk</i> 18:48, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I think so. If an editor here juxtaposes two images to each other, discusses such juxtaposition comparatively, and provides no secondary sources regarding that comparison, the editor is very likely creating a WP:OR violation. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:51, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Ok. Let's try to apply that in practice. What is the original research not supported by sources in the Sellers montage? <sup style="color:green;">walk <i style="color:green;">victor falk</i><i style="color:green;">talk</i> 19:11, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I've already pointed out two different claims made in the caption on the montage that are not supported by citations. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:13, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Please restate them just for the sake of clarity. <sup style="color:green;">walk <i style="color:green;">victor falk</i><i style="color:green;">talk</i> 19:23, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
 * See my 16:55, 1 March 2011 comment above. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:25, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't think the claim that Peter Sellers was relatively unknown is controversial, since the only major international film he participated in was Lolita, where he also was in heavy disguise. As for your other concerns I think I have fixed them as far as I understand them: . <sup style="color:green;">walk  <i style="color:green;">victor falk</i><i style="color:green;">talk</i> 20:55, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
 * So having three cut/paste purposes in the fair use rationale where it identifies its purpose as "cover art" (it isn't cover art at all!) clears up this problem? I think I've had an absolutely catastrophic failure on my part to communicate the serious issues at hand here. Not to mention one of the refs you made was self referential. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:09, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I have fixed the cover art thing. What's wrong with boilerplates? They exist for a reason. And what ref do you mean is self referential? <sup style="color:green;">walk <i style="color:green;">victor falk</i><i style="color:green;">talk</i> 22:00, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
 * You linked "three roles" to an internal link as a ref. Regardless, there's still serious problems here. The image is not tied to the text, the one real reference provided is to a primary source, and the purposes in the rationale are not descriptive. Boiler plate rationales might be fine for things like album covers, where the rationale is going to be essentially the same each time, but this is not such a case. I strongly encourage to you write the rationales from scratch. Why does each image have to be included in the montage in order to convey the point that is (well, it's not currently) supported by secondary sources. --Hammersoft (talk) 22:15, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

It's not a ref, it's a so-called "wikilink" to another article providing further details. Ok, I have provided a secondary source and clarified the purpose. <sup style="color:green;">walk <i style="color:green;">victor falk</i><i style="color:green;">talk</i> 22:42, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Punt. I'm sorry, I give up. --Hammersoft (talk) 22:51, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I assume it's ok to remove the template then. <sup style="color:green;">walk <i style="color:green;">victor falk</i><i style="color:green;">talk</i> 22:58, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
 * No way in hell. Look, just because I can't seem to convey to you the very serious nature of the violation of this one image doesn't somehow clear the article from all the rest of the violations. --Hammersoft (talk) 23:01, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I may be daft, but I am willing to try to understand. Is there still a problem now that it is sourced, and if so what? <sup style="color:green;">walk <i style="color:green;">victor falk</i><i style="color:green;">talk</i> 23:05, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
 * No, I'll accept full responsibility for completely lacking the ability to bring home the point about this one image on the article. EVERY image on the article has to be reviewed. 19 images on one article is absolutely extreme, and the entire article must be reviewed. There has to be seriously exceptional reason why we must have all this usage. Even if this image passes (which it doesn't), there's still 18 other non-free images that must be reviewed. Removing the non-free tag would be ignorance of that. --Hammersoft (talk) 23:07, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't think it's extreme. It's a very long article on a very visual subject. <sup style="color:green;">walk <i style="color:green;">victor falk</i><i style="color:green;">talk</i> 23:24, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
 * As I previously noted, there's no entitlement to more non-free images just because this is a long article. There's nothing in WP:NFCC or WP:NFC that suggest we should permit more non-free usage just because this is a long article. As to it being a "visual" subject; this is a biography article. It's not an article on the complete works of Kubrick. --Hammersoft (talk) 23:26, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
 * As far as I know, there is no upper limit on the number of pictures an article can contain, as long as they are not in breach of policy. Actually, it is article mostly about his works. Only two and a half section out of thirteen are about his personal life. <sup style="color:green;">walk <i style="color:green;">victor falk</i><i style="color:green;">talk</i> 23:38, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Please read WP:NFCC. Please. Just because something is legal to use here doesn't mean we can include it. Forgive me if I'm putting words in your mouth, but it appears you're saying we can use as much non-free content as we like here. That's patently false. And let's not talk about there being a set number. There isn't, but (again) neither is there an entitlement to more images just because this is a long article. --Hammersoft (talk) 23:43, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I say a reasonable amount is allowed. Obviously it seems we disagree on what amount is reasonable. The presence of copyrighted material in this article does not hinder free content, as there is no alternative non-copyrighted material that could fill the same function. I think a well-illustrated article encourages people to illustrate other articles, and in creating and finding free material to fulfil that purpose. <sup style="color:green;">walk <i style="color:green;">victor falk</i><i style="color:green;">talk</i> 23:59, 1 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Two things; reasonable? As in this article being in the top .0005% of all articles reasonable? Also, as to adding non-free content to encourage the creation of free material? Wha? You totally lost me. --Hammersoft (talk) 01:47, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
 * So what? It has many more copyrighted pictures than average. This in itself is in no way a reason to delete pictures. Interesting that you feel totally befuddled by the concept that people seeing copyrighted pictures would result in them adding non-free ones. It worked for me at last. One of the reasons I started using wikipedia was that it was the best place to find pictures of album covers. So I became an editor, and I wanted to add pictures, which I did with mostly free ones and some that I created myself, because wikipedia favours the uploading of non-copyrighted material, and I support the idea of spreading non-copyrighted material. <sup style="color:green;">walk  <i style="color:green;">victor falk</i><i style="color:green;">talk</i> 02:43, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
 * It has never been the practice here to retain non-free content with the idea in mind of encouraging editors to create more free content. If that were a valid argument, we might as well include every non-free image we can as it furthers our goal of creating free content. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:04, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

It would be a shame if the end result of this is an unillustrated article. Dlabtot (talk) 00:24, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
 * The goal of WP:NFCC policy isn't to illustrate articles. --Hammersoft (talk) 01:45, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Would you prefer an unillustrated article?

"File:3SellersRoles.jpg" is  not not not  a user-created montage, but a direct copy from a DVD cover!!!!--WickerGuy (talk) 04:18, 2 March 2011 (UTC) Sorry, that would be a screenshot from DVD special features documentary. At any rate it is not a Wikipedia editor-created montage.--WickerGuy (talk) 04:27, 2 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I will work in the next day or two on citations for the captions.--WickerGuy (talk) 05:10, 2 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Whether it is or is not a user created montage addresses just one of the multiple serious concerns regarding this image. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:04, 2 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Hammersoft, I think I understand three of your four concerns well, but am having problem with the fourth one. I get

1. The number of photoes (I mildly agree with Falk but that's my personal opinion and I really do get your point)

2. The absence of a suitable rationale on the Image pages of the photoes, especially a second rationale for the Sellers montage specifically for this article (I'll work on that)

3. The absence of citations in most of the captions (I plan to address that in the next couple of days.)

What I'm not getting is your claim that

4. The images are not tied to the text of the captions. Certainly in the case of the photoes for The Shining, Barry Lyndon, Clockwork Orange, the Peter Sellers montage {Addendum: also the Paths of Glory photo and The Killing photo}, and the gallery of the Kubrick stare, there is a very tight and definite connection between the pictures and the caption. Or did you not get that the shot of Danny in The Shining is a classic Steadicam shot, and do we/I need to spell it out a lot more clearly? I spent considerable time selecting exactly those photoes for which a sound critical commentary could be employed to accompany the photoes, so the photoes would NOT be "eye candy" (which several photoes earlier deleted from the article clearly were). I didn't apply the same standard of citations to the captions as one does to article text (my bad), but both the choice of pictures for which appropriate captions could be created and the creation of the captions were done with some thought to Wikipedia standards.--WickerGuy (talk) 15:20, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I appreciate the time and energy you're taking to respond. Frankly, I've exhausted all means I personally have of explaining this issue. I would encourage interested editors to take this article to Featured article candidates to get another opinion. I'm sure this article would be savaged for its overuse. And to stave off something; I do NOT agree that non-free should be removed from this article at this time. Considerable, considerable work needs to be done on the non-free media on this page before that should happen. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:38, 2 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Well, I'll work on problems 2 &3, and I'll try rewording the captions so the clear connections I can see are a bit clearer to others.--WickerGuy (talk) 19:58, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Just keep in mind that a caption isn't much by itself, even if cited. It should be tied to the prose of text. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:21, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
 * That's an extremely useful clarification!! Thank you very much. Yes, for example, the caption of the Barry Lyndon photo mentions the (very important) fact that Kubrick developed a special lense for the very first movie ever that was shot in natural candlelight (along with the picture being such a scene), but this is not really mentioned in the text.--WickerGuy (talk) 21:40, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Also keep in mind that attempting to retrofit text to support inclusion of a non-free image is the backwards approach to this. Text should be developed that fully encompasses what a featured article would have for Stanley Kubrick. Then, an analysis should be done to determine what passages of the text really suffer without an image. Then go and find an image, hopefully free, and if not free make sure you can cite secondary sources in the prose of the article regarding that particular image or scene. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:56, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Overall, you are right, but there are at least two images (as well as both galleries) in here for which retrofit will do just perfectly- the Steadicam shot from The Shining and the candlelight shot for Barry Lyndon (both involve major cinematic innovations pioneered by Kubrick- photo by natural candlelight and use of the Steadicam)- however, for the remaining images, I will certainly need to take what you say under consideration and in particular there's no way to work in the current shot from Space Odyssey with the retrofit approach.--WickerGuy (talk) 23:27, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
 * With all due respect, your lectures, while no doubt meant in good faith, are becoming tiresome with repetition. Dlabtot (talk) 23:46, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Are you addressing Hammersoft? We are addressing the issues on a specific article. I asked a specific question and got a specific and very useful clarification.--WickerGuy (talk) 01:37, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Why thank you Dlabtot! I sincerely appreciate your adulation. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:56, 3 March 2011 (UTC)


 * It appears that a lot more of these photo captions were already tied to the article main text than I realized. A few need massaging. Considerable expansion of what the article main text says about Sellers in Strangelove, a bit more in the caption of the Space Odyssey photo, expansion of what the main text says about the Steadicam (re The Shining) was in order, and relocating of the photoes. The photoes were originally placed where discussion of anything about the movie started, rather than near where the specific topic of the photo was discussed. For example, the pic of Danny on his tricycle was at the beginning of the whole discussion of The Shining rather than near the paragraph where the use of Steadicam is discussed, but on the whole the pics, captions, and article main text mesh together extremely well, IMO. More work should be done on the rationale on the image pages. One of the three galleries at the bottom (Kubrick's fondness for corridors) has no supporting text or direct citation. In all cases, where the content of the caption is supported/cited in the main text, no further citation in the caption itself seems necessary.--WickerGuy (talk) 05:55, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
 * However, the main text tie-in statements on Lyndon, Jacket, and Full Metal Jacket all need citations. (I'm especially surprised that the Lyndon one is not cited- the special lense developed for that film is legendary. Perhaps whoever added it at first thought it so well-known as to not need citation.)--WickerGuy (talk) 06:17, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Influences Redux: Removal of "Edgar Allan Poe"
The rule for including influences in the Infobox are these:

1) We are supposed to present "clear and notable" influences only. See both Template:Infobox_director and Template:Infobox_person which is the one this article is using.

2) We are supposed to "beware supposition" (avoid original research). See same two templates as above.

3) Influences are supposed to be supplemented by material in text which is cited from reliable sources. Indeed all the other influences listed here have some backup in the body of the article with cited sources.

WP is a bit vague about what constitutes notability within an article (although very specific about notability re whether a subject merits an entire article.) However, I would say firstly since Poe is at most a moderate influence on only two of Stanley Kubrick's films, he doesn't really rise to the level of a notable influence. Further, on one of those two films, the influence may be entirely second-hand, only by way of the source material. If so, it doesn't really count. Of course Poe influenced the novels on which Lolita and The Shining are based. In the case of The Shining, co-screenwriter Diane Johnson has said that in preparation Kubrick researched the horror genre quite a lot, including reading the works of psychoanalysts like Freud, Bettelheim, and Jung about fairy tales, and reading Gothic fiction, including Poe. (But does this rise to the level of notability? I suspect not.) But in the case of Lolita I know of no indication that the influence of Poe goes beyond his (very) strong influence on the source novel by Vladimir Nabokov.

Significantly, neither Michel Ciment's nor Alexander Walker's full-length studies of Kubrick (the only two books on Kubrick based on extensive interviews with him) mention Poe as an influence at all. Nor does Vincent LeBrutto's biography which Kubrick's widow, Christianne, has declared the best bio of SK.

Some critics see Kubrick as having an artistic affinity with Poe, but seeing as how spread out Poe's influence on modern literature is, that is hardly surprising. Poe is both a co-founder of the detective genre and the horror genre.

Frankly, I would list Carl Gustav Jung or Friedrich Nietzsche as an influence before mentioning Poe. There are indications that Jung influenced several of his films (he's in the dialogue of Full Metal Jacket and mentioned directly by Kubrick in several interviews) and Nietzsche is a pivotal, central influence on Space Odyssey. But even if these were added, they would have to be accompanied by text with citations in the body of the article.--WickerGuy (talk) 02:03, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

It is also arguable that many of the Poe-ish elements in Lolita and The Shining have actually been removed from Kubrick's films.
 * Addendum.

In Lolita Humbert's adolescent love affair with "Annebel Leigh" a homophone for Poe's "Annabel Lee", pivotal & central to the books Poe-connection has been removed by Kubrick! Poe is referred to numerous times in the novel (HH calls Lolita "Lenore", there is a marginal character named Roland Pym, Humbert assumes the pseudonym Edgar Humbert, various other allusions etc.) but Poe is alluded to only once in the film when Humbert reads aloud "Ulalume". Quilty's home in the novel is described in ways that make it sound like Poe's "House of Usher"- no indication in SK's film.

Similarly, in the novel of The Shining Jack Torrance finds a scrapbook of the hotel's history in which there is a masked ball in 1945 overtly modeled on Poe's Masque of the Red Death- gone from the film! Geoffrey Cocks has argued in his book-length study of The Shining (entitled The Wolf at the Door) that while King's novel is influenced mainly by Gothic horror writers like Poe & Shirley Jackson that deal with "timeless" horror but don't engage history, Kubrick on the other hand is interested is much more interested in historically specific effects of evil, and as such (in Cock's opinion) while the novel is in the tradition of Poe (and Jackson, etc.), Kubrick's film is much more in the tradition of Joseph Conrad's Heart of Darkness and Stephen Crane's The Blue Hotel.

At any rate it is arguable that significant Poe-ish elements in these two source novels have actually been removed by Kubrick, and Geoffry Cocks has specifically made that case with regard to The Shining- all the more reason to not list Edgar Allan Poe as one of Kubrick's influences in the infobox.--WickerGuy (talk) 03:46, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

"Hommage" won't fly either
An homage in a film is a reference used by the director to another artist specifically pay honorific tribute to them for the influence of the latter's great ideas on the former. In no sense can Humbert's quoting Poe's "Ulalume" in Lolita be considered Kubrick's homage to Poe- it's a part of the plot and characterization of HH. The novel has considerable homages to Poe- the film does not. And nothing else in either Lolita or The Shining even remotely qualifies is an homage to Poe. As for the general tenor of The Shining, Poe's influence on horror is fairly universal, and as noted above, Kubrick's film is less Poe-ish than the novel.--WickerGuy (talk) 15:00, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
 * My argument is that Kubrick is intentionally channeling Poe, meaning Poe had something to do with his career. Directors don't pay homage or credit people as an influence for no reason. It would only be a homage if it was only in one film. Since Kubrick paid homage to Poe in two films, it's only logical that Poe influenced Kubrick and therefore should have a credit or reference on this page. <i style="font-family:Rockwell; font-size:medium; color:red;">Rusted AutoParts</i> (talk) 11:17 11 March 2011 (UTC)


 * If you think Kubrick is intentionally (i.e. knowingly) channeling Poe, you need to cite a source for this. You say "Kubrick paid homage to Poe in two films". A reference is not (necessarily) an homage. Look up the definition. These are references inherited from the source material by Nabokov and King, and actually toned down in Kubrick, as my posting in the main section of this thread argues. (And there are no direct references to Poe in the film of The Shining at all.) There is also the issue of Poe's thinner influence being nearly everywhere, re what might be termed the language of horror, and virtually defining the genre. Are the Jason Bourne movies an homage to Alfred Hitchcock? Is Adam Sandler's Happy Gilmore an homage to Woody Allen? Not really.--WickerGuy (talk) 15:51, 11 March 2011 (UTC)


 * What do you mean by "chaneling"? To say, Kubrick "chaneled" Poe is to imply Kubrick wanted to convey something of Poe's sensibility and message to his audience. There is no evidence for this. Indeed, it is the opposite of Kubrick's general working method which is to take other people's stories and make them his own by significantly changing the tone of the material, notably in Barry Lyndon (the novel is quite comical- the movie is not) and Doctor Strangelove (the source novel Red Alert is a straight thriller, the film is not). A character quoting Poe is neither (necessarily) an homage nor a chaneling.--WickerGuy (talk) 16:05, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Ok, you kinda being a little hypocritical. I didn't say anything about Bourne/Hitchcock homages. What i suggested was that if there are clear references in Kubrick's movies to Poe, i suggested that might indicate that Poe in a way influenced Kubrick. It's quite common for people to name Poe as a influence. It was pretty influencial. And knowing Kubrick's sometimes dark nature, i felt it necessary to make a connection. <i style="font-family:Rockwell; font-size:medium; color:red;">Rusted AutoParts</i> (talk) 13:17 11 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I was being a bit over-sarcastic to illustrate a point about the importance of precise usage of words. For example, in your last post you opened with "[SK is] intentionally channeling Poe, meaning Poe had something to do with his career". Meaning Poe...?? That is a confused understanding of both the word "intentional" and the word "channel". And you are also confused about the word "hommage" (usually uses French spelling with 2 m's in the film world- only one m in other contexts.)
 * To try to do a succinct summary, Poe's influence on Kubrick is as follows
 * Poe has had to some degree a universal influence on ALL horror fiction. This is not notable (hence my Hitchcock/Bourne comparison- the exact point I was making. Hitchcock is an influence on Jason Bourne pretty much to the degree that ALL suspense films are influenced by Hitchcock- doesn't rate a specific mention as influence or channel.)
 * Poe was a significant influence on two novels adapted by Stanley Kubrick. In both cases the Poe element has been heavily reduced by Kubrick!!! In particular, the most important and visible Poe-ism in Lolita - the homophone on "Annabel Leigh" and "Annabel Lee" is gone & departed in Kubrick, since all mention of the character Annabel Leigh in Lolita has been removed in Kubrick's film. So are less important Poe-isms such as Humbert adopting the fake name of "Edgar Humbert". The one explicit reference to Poe in The Shining is also departed. Critic Geoffrey Cocks (in a full-length book on The Shining) argues that stylistically King's novel is far more Poe-like than Kubrick's movie.
 * What is left of Poe in the Kubrick films is a second-hand inherited reference. We still have the character of Humbert being a fan of Poe, but all the copious allusions to Poe in the novel are gone. We still have a haunted house/hotel motif in The Shining, but the direct reference to Poe's Masque of the Red Death is gone.


 * A better counter-example. You might as well that argue H.P. Lovecraft is an "influnce" on Alfred Hitchcock since Lovecraft was a strong influence on Robert Bloch who wrote the novel Psycho and several episodes of the TV series Alfred Hitchcock Presents and Lovecraft also influenced Ray Bradbury who also wrote several episodes of Alfred Hitchcock Presents. Again, that is secondhand, and not valid. And Poe is a far more universal (hence less noteworthy without overt references) influence than Lovecraft.--WickerGuy (talk) 17:59, 11 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Another point. The influence of Poe on the novels Lolita and The Shining is wildly dissimilar. Professor Humbert and author Vladimir Nabokov are largely interested in Poe's moody poetry. Stephen King is largely interested in Poe's suspense stories. Further undercutting any real significance to Poe's indirect and second-hand influence on Stanley Kubrick.
 * And your last point that both Poe and Kubrick are "dark" is really insignificant. That covers between 25 to 50% of the creative artists in Western history.
 * If you can find a source discussing the influence of Poe on Kubrick, cite it and put it in. Essays on websites selling college essays don't count. (There is one on Poe's influence on The Shining)--WickerGuy (talk) 18:12, 11 March 2011 (UTC)


 * And finally your last post has the sentence "What i suggested was that if there are clear references in Kubrick's movies to Poe, i suggested that might indicate that Poe in a way influenced Kubrick." Might???? That is a clear violation of the Template directive to "avoid supposition".--WickerGuy (talk) 20:39, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Stanley Kubrick a Freemason?
Was Kubrick a Freemason? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.59.217.190 (talk) 23:18, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Interestingly, Stanley Kubrick died mysteriously four days after completing “Eyes Wide Shut.” Another curious fact is that he died exactly 666 days before the date of his famous movie “2001″ (i.e Jan. 1, 2001).


 * There is plenty of evidence that a lot of esoteric symbolism, including Masonic symbolism, can be found in Kubrick's films. There is no evidence at all that he was in any way a practicing member of the Masons. Just as many creative artists are known to have been influenced by Swedenborgianism without being formal Swedenborgians (playwright August Strindberg and poet William Blake for example), it is perfectly plausible for an artist to employ Masonic symbolism without formal affiliation with the Masons.--WickerGuy (talk) 23:36, 16 March 2011 (UTC)


 * There are also a lot of conspiracy theories surrounding Kubrick's death, but all indications are that he died from natural causes.--WickerGuy (talk) 23:38, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Now that there's a too long tag...
The first candidate for splitting into a separate section would be the whole unfinished projects set. Keep the projects finished by others here though.--WickerGuy (talk) 20:24, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

I have split off the Unrealized Projects section. More splits to come.--WickerGuy (talk) 15:43, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Scala cinema
This article states:
 * the cinema was sued and put out of business, thus depriving London of one of its very few independent cinemas.

Please see my discussion about the problems with this statement on the Scala (club) talk page. Laned130 (talk) 10:08, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Partial restoral of recently deleted images.
As we don't want to put images in here on a movie-by-movie basis (as I tried to do earlier), the article still has no image for "The Killing", "Spartacus" or "Full Metal Jacket". I have just restored the original image used for "Lolita" and gotten much better ones than were used before for "Space Odyssey" (taken from the Space Odyssey article), "Clockwork Orange" (taken from the CO article), and a brand new one for "Eyes Wide Shut"- a much better choice than the one used before with better insight and commentary. I have also restored the most important of the 3 recently deleted galleries in non-gallery format. Plus, I now have FREE images of Sellers for Doctor Strangelove (though of very poor picture quality).--WickerGuy (talk) 04:21, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Why did you delete all of the images? I quite liked them like that. 24.61.117.12 (talk) 11:17, 27 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Complex WP policy issues. But as noted, a lot are back.--WickerGuy (talk) 11:21, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Gerry Carlin's Page - Reliable source
Is Gerry Carlin's Page a reliable source? What's the Anthony Burgess essay about Clockwork Orange there posted? --<span class="I_STALK_DAMIENS">damiens.rf 05:55, 8 June 2011 (UTC)


 * The material is direct quote from the book published edition of Anthony Burgess's forward to his own stage adaptation of A Clockwork Orange, as can be easily verified from finding any copy in a University library such as Stanford or Berkeley. Linking to the text as put on the web is there for convenience. Gerry Carlin is a senior lecturer in English at the University of Wolverhampton in the UK. This absolutely fits WP's criterion for a reliable source. I shall be removing the tag.--WickerGuy (talk) 06:15, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the explanation. In this case, the book itself should be cited, and not the website. The webiste's url could nevertheless still be used as the url parameter of the cite book template. --<span class="I_STALK_DAMIENS">damiens.rf 06:44, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
 * That sounds like an idea.--WickerGuy (talk) 06:49, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

WARNING!!!
Since some here like warnings, this is to say that I just nominated one more image in the article for deletion. Check today's log. And don't expect me to do this warning all the time. It takes me precious time. --<span class="I_STALK_DAMIENS">damiens.rf 18:06, 15 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Yeah, but isn't there a WP procedure that requires the warning, and couldn't you use a less melodramatic title? It's not just that we "like it"


 * More to the point, I see the person who took the photo has released it to be used on WP, but there is an issue with the Oscar's copyright of the image of the Oscar itself, thus creating issues with any photo of any Oscar.


 * User:Amadscientist and I are going to be working shortly on the images is the rest of the article.--WickerGuy (talk) 18:26, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Image Replacement non-free with free
Although not showing up in the history of this page, the image from the film Paths of Glory has been changed. The new image is a FREE image, as it is from the preview trailer, and all preview trailers prior to the mid-1960s are now in public domain.--WickerGuy (talk) 00:47, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Downsizing suggestions
At 181K, this article should be split up somehow. How about moving some of the extensive movie plot summaries and film minutia to the articles about those films? That would keep this bio article focused and easier to read. Thoughts? --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 23:40, 6 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Actually, fairly recently there was a split-off of two sections into other articles which are now Stanley Kubrick's Personal Life and Beliefs and Stanley Kubrick's unrealized projects. There needs to be some discussion of films here, since SK's style evolved over the years. I have noticed that print bios of Kubrick more frequently discuss details about each film more frequently than do, say, bios of Hitchcock or other film-makers. SK's life story seems somehow more intertwined with the films.


 * I like the new material on Kasterine, but I think if the association with Kubrick started on Strangelove one paragraph should be put there. The second new paragraph on Kasterine seems especially in the wrong place. (It's chronologically earlier than the preceding paragraph.) I would be inclined to put all the Kasterine in a separate section along with some new material on the two biography authors who worked with Kubrick on their books about him, and perhaps on Kubrick's association with screenwriters Michael Herr and Fred Raphael and Arthur C. Clarke (all of whom wrote memoirs of working with Kubrick). Maybe an expansion of the "Frequent collaborators" section.


 * Also the new stuff you added on Kubrick's Jewishness is probably also discussed on the separate article on Stanley Kubrick's Personal Life and Beliefs, though it doesn't hurt to have it discussed briefly here in the early life section. All the new material there is good.


 * This article has gotten a LOT of flack on excessive use of non-free fair-use images, so I'm a bit concerned about the new images you have added, though I like all of them (the Kirk Douglas image is free apparently)., and I think the Kasterine photo passes WP guidelines. In earlier days, this article had one image per movie (a total of 13)- this has now been pared down to 8 non-free images from films. (The Sellers images and the Paths of Glory image are public domain since they are from the preview trailers.) Plus I changed my choice of images from Eyes Wide Shut and Space Odyssey for better compliance with Wikipedia's strict policy of using non-free images in the context of critical commentary that actually improves the reader's understanding of the subject. As much as I like the images, I am unconvinced that the high school and infant images pass WP:NFCC policy which states

"Contextual significance. Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding."
 * Exactly how is a picture of Kubrick as an infant or in high school increasing the reader's understanding of Kubrick? Yes, the pics are of historic significance, but WP:NFCCEG says to include "Images with iconic status or historical importance: As subjects of commentary"
 * which generally means there needs to be some commentary on the image itself re its historic importance. I can see keeping the pic by Kasterine, but I don't think the baby and high school pic can be justified by current Wikipedia policy. And I think the new material on Kasterine needs to be moved to a different part of the article.--WickerGuy (talk) 03:37, 8 August 2011 (UTC)


 * However, the image was just marked for deletion, so your comments might help. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 05:32, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
 * BTW, the high school image came from a valuable source, and included a link. In any case, for a bio, this image fits the early years section nicely. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 06:15, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
 * There are already two pictures of a YOUNG Kubrick in the article both of which are FREE. I side with the exclusionists here- I don't think we need two more NON-FREE ones.--WickerGuy (talk) 15:21, 8 August 2011 (UTC)


 * "Readable prose" is more important to GA and FA reviewers than total article size, and the readable prose is at 96k. That too might be considered high if Kubrick wasn't so notable and accomplished a figure. It has been pointed out to me by editors of very long FA articles that length is sometimes justified on the basis of the article being a definitive and comprehensive source of information on its subject. Bob Dylan is one example of this - at 72k of readable prose, or Michael Jackson at 81k! Not to mention Barrack Obama - which I can't get a page size reading on, but is the longest FA bio on WP(in fact, it's the longest FA article...period), and undoubtedly higher than 81k. Shirt  waist &#9742;  23:13, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Cropping Kasterine photo
I don't believe we can use the new photo and still have the rationale included, (which commentary shouldn't be in a caption anyway.) The photo is included primarily because of Kasterine's notability. He is a professional, and as the body text states, was "one of the most significant portrait photographers working in Britain from the late 1960s to the mid-1980s." It would be wrong, and possibly a violation of "fair use," for us to state that this was his favorite shot capturing the man, and then crop it. I have no doubt that Kasterine would not approve, despite the necessary cropping by a newspaper to fit their format. The link to the full image does not remove the problem.

That's also, BTW, one of the reasons the full-face portrait was more appropriate. In that one, his face took up 90% of the photo, where in this one (uncropped) it's less than 5%. Since we have stated that Kasterine was a "significant portrait photographer," it's only logical to include one of his portraits. It's also relevant that even if Kasterine liked the photo more as a Kubrick "at work" image, he was not shooting it for a Wikipedia biography that lacked any decent close-ups, and already had numerous work images. I suggest that we use both images, uncropping the sitting one. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 17:31, 9 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I think I have to mull this one over a bit of time. So I'm just posting here to acknowledge that I have read it, and am thinking about it. I am of course slightly biased, since I've already gotten a huge amount of flak for all the fair use images I myself uploaded to the article, and over the past year reduced them in number from 18 to 8 under pressure from multiple (at least 3) other editors (including Demians.rf) eager to see full and strict compliance with Wikipedia's fair use policy. A few tentative thoughts- WP policy itself prefers partial as well as low-resolution fair use images- that was my immediate motivation for using the cropped image. Your argument for the portrait is a powerful one. Can you find a good secondary source commmenting on what is good and significant about that particular portrait? WP likes that sort of thing. (I'll hunt for one too.) If so, I would gladly switch back to the portrait, partly for the reasons you suggest. However, I doubt we could justify the use of both images.--WickerGuy (talk) 18:44, 9 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Re my above-mentioned personal bias, I should probably also mention that recently this article was nominated for "Good article" status, and was rejected due to the apparent excess of fair use images. Both the nomination and the rejection were largely due to my work on the article (I estimate I have written roughly 7% of it and reworked a lot of other folk's edits to it), so I find myself in the peculiar position of being both a hero and villain re my work on this article. I'm being watchful of new image additions but hopefully in a way that is authentically sensitive to the concerns expressed by others re WP policy.--WickerGuy (talk) 20:20, 9 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I think the best and most logical argument for including a portrait is the text you added, that he was "one of the most significant portrait photographers working in Britain." This seems to be the only portrait on his site of Kubrick photos. Seems like a slam-dunk. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 23:54, 9 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I think that's indeed a very fine argument, but still just a hair shy of a slam-dunk. I think we need an outside source commenting on why that pic in particular (rather than DK's pics in general) is a specially good portrait (which I think it is) to comply with WP's fairly tight NFCC criterion.--WickerGuy (talk) 00:14, 10 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Also, a Google search of "Dmitri Kasterine Kubrick portrait" begins with a selection of images (many of which are not kubrick but other figures) which includes SEVEN copies of the current picture, and none of the one that you originally chose. Obviously, there's a somewhat broad sweeping consensus that the current photo is the one of greater cultural significance. Likewise the current shot shows up 8 times on the first two pages in a specifically "images.google.com" search, and there is one instance on page 3(three) of the pic of Kubrick with the sculpted phallus in ClocOrnge, while the pic you chose appears twice on page 6(six), and both of these are culled from....(drumroll)...Wikipedia (a back copy of the Kubrick article, and the image's own home page).


 * Just a sample of places where the current picture is shown-


 * "your international art open source" announcement of the Kasterine exhibit at National Portrait Gallery
 * Similar announcement in French La Lettre
 * Similar announcement by Nat. Portrait Gallery themselves
 * Posted by Kasterine on a blog http://chagalov.tumblr.com
 * Among portraits by DK of many celebrities, this is the one of SK used at French http://lalettredelaphotographie.com/fullscreen/1697
 * Article on Stanley Kubrick at "From Authentic Society, the Free Learning Website" (which they have mislabeled as taken during filming of Full Metal Jacket)


 * There are also several Kasterine photoes on the Facebook Stanley Kubrick but not the one originally uploaded.


 * I think it somewhat POV (even if it's a POV I'm slightly inclined to agree with you about) to go with a lesser-known DK photo of SK. I think we are safer going with the one that has the more ubiquitous web-presence (even though I entirely agree with your reasons for pushing your original choice!!!! I am not taking away weights from your side of the scale, only adding weights to my side of the scale.)--WickerGuy (talk) 01:16, 10 August 2011 (UTC)


 * You're probably right that the current photo is more widespread, no doubt because it was published more. But I'm not sure that the photo's familiarity supports the inclusion rationale we have, which relies on it being taken by a notable "portrait photographer." With the commentary heavily focused on his fame shooting portraits, then a portrait photo of Kubrick makes a natural direct connection to the text. There's also a risk that adding another work-related non-free photo could be tagged because it is redundant to numerous other shots: Your argument shifts the value of the photo to its public familiarity, while the other ties it back to the commentary about the photographer. Maybe not a hole in one, but a least a safe birdie. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 01:43, 10 August 2011 (UTC)


 * LOL on that final quip. Well, I admit I am myself ambivalent. However, our article text actually says two things- 1) DK was a distinguished portrait photographer, and 2) DK shot a lot of stills on the set of Kubrick films at Kubrick's invite. But, heck, even the "National Portrait Gallery" in its own promo of the exhibit "Twentieth Century Portraits: Photographs By Dmitri Kasterine" uses the current photo. See . (they also have a promo page which is just a photo of DK himself.) Since at this time the WP image gendarmes have raised objections to the original upload, I suggest that pragmatically we stick with this for now.--WickerGuy (talk) 03:12, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, now we're back to the key topic about cropping the photo, mentioned in the 1st paragraph. It should be answered. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 05:29, 10 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I suppose you are right, unless you want to have a version with more focus on SK's facial expression (which is interesting in the photo I think). Given that it is a historic image, we might as well do it full justice. WP slightly encourages, but certainly does not at all require, cropping fair use images. (However, I think you are dead wrong in asserting that cropping actually violates "fair use"- but that's a minor technicality). So let's go for the full version.
 * I'm away from my computer most of today. If you fix it, keep in mind you often have to do some funky stuff with clearing your browser image cache before the new version shows up on the article page. (A lot of folk have gotten frustrated uploading a new version of an image and seeing the old version persist in the article. This may be more likely to happen in some browsers more than others. If it does, try clearing your browser's cache, and or researching the problem on various Google or WP searches. Of course, the obvious workaround is to upload the new version with a different image name, instead of as a new version of an old file. That always works!) If you haven't fixed it by late afternoon today, I will.--WickerGuy (talk) 15:26, 10 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Done. In Google Chrome, initially in the article the new version was the size of the old one and distorted, but a simple page refresh fixed it. Using SeaMonkey, this problem is a lot more complex. SeaMonkey is a sort of beta experiment browser by the Mozilla people who make Firefox, but after using it for many a moon, I just found it too buggy (among other things doesn't free up unused memory appropriately- a BIG problem if you keep a constantly changing web-page open for too long re memory consumption.)
 * Our exchange has been a pleasure.--WickerGuy (talk) 03:10, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
 * The photo looks good. Thanks. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 08:15, 11 August 2011 (UTC)