Talk:Stanley Kubrick/Archive 3

New images and other edits
I came across some nice images that should help the article, and will note changes in the rationales. After the images are added, please discuss if any drastic changes are needed. Should take less than an hour. Thanks.--Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 03:25, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm also going to trim the lead of trivia and minutia that belongs in the body, if anywhere, as it's not summary information. Please talk if some edits are incorrect. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 04:45, 15 August 2011 (UTC)


 * First of all, really like the textual additions on Kubrick's early life, and good work tracking down free pics of the man himself. I particularly like the new infobox shot which is an especially good portrait photo. Good eye.


 * I tend to think that even with free pics, we should max one pic of SK per movie. We certainly do not need TWO pics of Kubrick directing Paths of Glory, especially since both pics are quite similar. (This is not meant to be a full study of SK here.) Similarly, we also now have two photos of Kubrick on set of Spartacus. I like the newer color one you found- it's a particularly good shot, although the other one is a well-known (semi-iconic) pic of him conversing with Kirk Douglas. But I tend to think one should go. Personally, I tend to think (I'm moving now to less strong language now in the "maybe" category) the new pic of him directing Clockwork Orange contributes very little to the article, although WP is generally generous towards free images of this kind. It's a kind of non-specific shot, sort of the same as other similar shots, and neither conveys any interesting information, nor is it an especially interesting image. It's just Kubrick stroking his beard (which he is also doing in the superior new Shining photo). In particular, we don't need shots of Kubrick for as many movies as possible. But that's merely my opinion.


 * I also feel that with possible rephrasing the deleted material should be restored to the lede. The lede is supposed to summarize the article, and it is appropriate to include elements of controversy in a person's life in the lede. I honestly don't think the fact that one of Kubrick's films was withdrawn for 25 years is minutiae, nor that 3 authors were unhappy with his adaptations to the point of trying to do new adaptations. This material was also put in after a (well-justified) complaint that the old lede was "fanboyish".


 * I also kinda sorta miss the early self-portrait photo you deleted with the other woman.


 * For now, I'm going to restore the lede (but put the two deleted bits next to each other), and remove one of the two Paths of Glory images. Let's all mull over the Spartacus images, and the Orange-directing image, and the removed self-portrait. As WP manual says "WP:There_is_no_deadline". --WickerGuy (talk) 06:21, 15 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the comments. Since there is only a single paragraph covering his job with Look, the two similar self-portraits seemed excessive. As for the two Spartacus photos, on the other hand, they're both very different images, which I think is what matters more for his biography.


 * The Clockwork Orange photo is likewise a good image to include. It's added between a massive amount of text (over 1,000 words!), of mostly unsourced commentary about the film: its plot, politics, and controversies. Most of it should really be put in the movie's article, not the bio. The image conveys visual information as a "thinking" view of him that others might have often seen when he was directing. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 18:43, 15 August 2011 (UTC)


 * You're quite correct that the ClkOrg photo fills up a blank area, and that SK has a kind of interesting "thinker" pose there. You're also right that much of the ClkOrg material is unsourced, and there is too much of it. All good points. Of the amount of commentary on the film, the most obvious candidate for moving out to the article on the film is the discussion as to whether of not the society is Russian. I would drastically shorten that paragraph, but retain Kubrick's mention of his skepticism of both sides of the political spectrum, and just cut the material on the details of the futuristic society. The remaining material (controversy, use of classical music, innovative photo technique) I think has a stronger case to remain here. Some of the latter does indeed need better sourcing, and I may work on this section 2nite.


 * For a while, I had a photo of Alex undergoing the Ludivico technique, but I was already nervous about using a non-free fair use image in THREE articles (it's also in A Clockwork Orange (film) and Ludovico Technique), and I thinks someone else removed it. (I think I never added a THIRD fair-use rationale to the image's home page.) There was also before that a photo of Alex just before attacking his fellow droogs at the fountain, with a caption talking about Kubrick's continued use of classical music, which got a lot of outside criticism, that there was no way to infer the statements about music from a photo. So this section of the article has been imageless for a while.


 * However, I fail to see your point about the significant difference between the two Paths of Glory photoes, although SK is talking in one, and filming in the other.--WickerGuy (talk) 19:22, 15 August 2011 (UTC)


 * My mistake - I meant the Spartacus images, and rephrased my comments above. I agree that the two Paths of Glory photos are too similar, as you note, and both aren't needed.--Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 19:36, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm very nervous about the non-free images of SK directing Jacket and Eyes. While they are indeed striking and interesting images of SK in his later years, WP policy in the use of historic images, is that they are to be used "when the image itself is the subject of commentary rather than the event it depicts". In particular read WP:HISTORIC and the immediate following section WP:IRREPLACEABLE. It's Ok to post a non-free copy of the raising of the flag at Iwo Jima, because the image ITSELF is of interest and a subject of commentary. Is it the image that is historic, or what the image is showing? As good as these photoes are, I suspect they have the same policy problems as the ones you earlier uploaded of Kubrick's high school and baby picture. Other than showing what SK looked like in advance years, and showing him working, what is the contextual significance of these images?
 * New non-free images

Do you have any sourced commentary (from Michel Ciment or someone else) on the either of images themselves? We were able to get that with the second Kasterine photo. Can we get it with these? Historicity and uniqueness alone won't cut it here in WP territory.--WickerGuy (talk) 21:17, 15 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Good points. In most articles, maybe even for the film articles, the images could be questionable. But for a bio, where the notability of the person is due to his directing movies, almost any unique photo of him directing is by its nature the subject of commentary, especially when the film is discussed extensively. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 21:25, 15 August 2011 (UTC)


 * The bottom line is the WP policy insists that if a "historic" image is non-free then the image itself (NOT what the image depicts) be the subject of sourced commentary (i.e with citation). The photo itself and its particular historical significance must specifically (NOT by indirect implication!) be the object of discussion in the article. To say that any unique photo of SK directing is "by its nature the subject of commentary" is definitely not going to cut it with the folks who overlook these things (unless you get the copyright owner's permission to use the photo here). I have had extensive tangles with four other WP users, "Delta" (he just uses the Greek symbol), User:Hammersoft, User:Damiens.rf, and User:Amadscientist over the use of non-free images, and I can assure you your argument simply won't fly with any of these folks. (I realize that Damiens has a reputation as a loose cannon, but you need to work with the policy not the people.)--WickerGuy (talk) 21:40, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I revised the licenses. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 21:52, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Agree with WG. The first thing Damiens and the FfD gang will jump on is the fact that using text simply relating to Kubrick directing movie X is not sufficient support for including a photo of him directing movie X (I can already hear the cries of "text alone is sufficient!!"), and even though I'd like to see more such pics in the article, I tend to agree with policy on this to a certain extent. The only possible exception to this argument is the shot of Kubrick and Douglas discussing something on the Spartacus set, with supporting text that describes the conflict between the two, although even that could be seen by some as "unnecessary decoration". As far as having one non-free shot of Kubrick per film, I'm all for it, but it would be a hard sell to not only the FfDers, but to GA and FA reviewers as well, I think. Shirt  waist &#9742;  22:36, 15 August 2011 (UTC)


 * The revised license (written B4 Shirtwaist posted actually)
 * Are you reasonably sure that these photos were taken specifically for promotional as opposed to journalistic purposes? The new license (promotional vs. historic) says the photo was "released by a company or organization to promote their work or product in the media, such as advertising material or a promotional photo in a press kit." Can you show when that was done? Later in the license there is a notice "To the uploader" which reads in part "This tag should only be used for images of a person, product, or event that is known to have come from a press kit or similar source, for the purpose of reuse by the media." (Italics & bold emphasis added by me-WG). Can you establish that this was done? If not, I don't think you can use this license!


 * Some lesser issues.
 * Re the earlier license (historic vs. promotional- possibly a moot point now): Examples of historic images where the image itself would be a subject of discussion (even if they are free or non-free) would include: the famous shot of Lyndon Johnson taking the oath of office shortly after Kennedy's death, the famous shot of the raising of the flag at Iwo Jima, the famous shot of Marilyn Monroe's skirt being blown up by the subway vent in the sidewalk. That's what WP wants in historic photos. And this is the core of why we could pass the Kasterine photo!!!!
 * A side note. While the amazon.com copy of Ciment's book retains these pictures, the Google books copy has masked them out, noting they are copyrighted. I realize that Ciment has copyright notices only for the film stills from a couple of the movies, not for any of the shots of Kubrick. (I have a falling apart print copy of the older edition of Ciment sans Jacket or Eyes).
 * Also, why is the title of the 2nd new photo "Kubrick-shining-Kidman"? This has nothing to do with "The Shining".--WickerGuy (talk) 22:52, 15 August 2011 (UTC)


 * The following is from an "opinion" page, that is however not official WP policy. But I think it reflects current policy. From WP:Publicity photos. This page is cited at File_copyright_tags/All in the description of the promo license
 * "Note that the above only applies to photos that are explicitly distributed for publicity purposes, and does not apply to most photographs of celebrities. For example, a wire service photo of a celebrity or a film still from the site for a movie cannot automatically be presumed to be a publicity photo distributed as part of a press kit. Publicity photos come from a very narrow range of sources, and are made available for distribution by promotional agencies, whereas many images that may appear promotional in nature are intended for commercial use by the image's copyright holder."


 * --WickerGuy (talk) 23:14, 15 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I misnamed a file, again, when I was creating a group of images. I requested that it be renamed and it's noted with the image information. As for the implied promotional purposes, that should be considered a "reasonable presumption:"  Kubrick's sets were closed, so no reporters would have gained any permission to shoot photos. Michel Ciment thanks a number of sources for the non-copyrighted images, like the two added, and among those were the studios that kept stills on file.  The very fact that they gave the author those particular stills would imply that they were also made available to the press during the film's promotional phases. Typically, a large package of film set stills were sent to major magazines, newspapers, and critics, to help them prepare articles about the film. That's also the main reason studios kept such still photographers around during filming. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 23:22, 15 August 2011 (UTC)


 * You may be right, but you are arguing by probable presumption of studio motives. It's true Kubrick always kept closed sets and went for maximum secrecy during shoots. But many many photos might be taken for possible promotional use, which are then rejected for that purpose but still resurface later in Michel Ciment's book as being of journalistic/historical interest. (Photographers take lots of stills and then only use a few for the immediate purpose at hand, but may keep the rejected stills for subsequent use in other contexts.) Kubrick also made exceptions. He allowed his daughter, Vivian, to create a half-hour "Making of" behind-the-scenes documentary for "The Shining" which is promotional only in the loose sense that it helps sell the film to the general public, but it still isn't distributed to the press on a pre-release basis, which is what I think "promotional" means in the strict sense.
 * I suspect WP is ultimately going to want you to show these are press stills found in either the press kit, press book, or in other overtly-labeled promotional materials. (One can buy a copy of the original press kit of EWS for $25 at http://www.brycehall.com/html_index.cfm?page=item_page&itemoid=74860 for $40 on ebay and a mint copy for $125 from this website http://ckmaccom.startlogic.com/product_info.php?products_id=7035&osCsid=5c37a92bfc8bb71426bc8d8e184f23af). I could be wrong, but that's my best guess.--WickerGuy (talk) 00:13, 16 August 2011 (UTC)


 * The WP license includes use by more than just press kits, however. Per the license, if a photo "has been released by a company or organization to promote their work or product in the media," then it could pass. It also expands a bit with " images of a person, product, or event that is known to have come from a press kit or similar source, for the purpose of reuse by the media." One aspect of Ciment's book of photos is that they all appear to be actual or probable promotional, professional, images of either the films, cast, and crew, including SK.  The book has no early life or notably "personal" unprofessional photos, like you see in the biographical film, Stanley Kubrick: A life in pictures. It would be unlikely, IMO, that a studio would release a "secret" cache of photo stills to a biographer unless they were meant for promotional purposes originally. If they were made "for the purpose of reuse by the media," ie. "motives," as stated, they should be OK. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 00:37, 16 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I remain a bit skeptical as these photoes are quite possibly the still (i.e. non-motion) equivalent of film "outtakes". Your specific rationale states "ap­par­ently dis­trib­uted as part of pro­mo­tional ma­te­r­ial to the press" (Emphasis added). Image oversight folk here might if they are Shakespearean-minded might quote Hamlet: "Seems, madam, I know not seems". The license also says "most likely owned by the company who created the promotional item or the artist who produced the item in question; you must provide evidence of such ownership. Lack of such evidence is grounds for deletion."--WickerGuy (talk) 01:07, 16 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Put a bit differently, in a debate I had about a year ago with User:Shirtwaist, I noted the legal distinction between "Preponderance of the evidence" (required in civil cases) and the stricter standards of "clear and convincing evidence" (used in specialized cases) and the strictest of the three "Proof beyond reasonable doubt" (used in criminal cases). These photos are most likely studio stills. That is the preponderance of the evidence. But WP seems to be asking for something stricter than this, when it says that you, the uploader, must provide evidence of the ownership of the file, and that lack of such evidence is "grounds for deletion". We have only indirect evidence, not direct evidence.--WickerGuy (talk) 02:40, 16 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Despite the clear and present danger of ultimate deletion, they're worth leaving in. Your comment, "These photos are most likely studio stills," sounds logical. In any case, the article is so-o-o long, it's doubtful that anyone will take the time to scroll down far enough to ever see them ;-) --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 02:57, 16 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Your general position is heavily backed up by the article Film still. It is true that studio stills are generally for publicity purposes. Though while SOME publicity photos are supplied to the whole world, others are supplied specifically to certain parties. (Apparently, this is true of some studio stills on Imdb.)
 * Please note whenever new images are uploaded, various admins are immediately notified, though they may take time to get around to investigating them, plus additions of new images show up on the watchlist of this article. This article is currently on the watchlist of 284 editors. Lots of folks patrol articles just for questionable images. The article has been viewed 72658 times in this month. Those are higher stats than say the Space Odyssey article (57928 views this month and and 265 watchers). So definitely people are looking. I realize you are partly joking.
 * More importantly, this article has been nominated twice for "featured article" status (2006 & 2007) and once more for "good article" status (2011- slightly less prestigious than featured) and failed all three nominations. On both the second and third round, invalid image rationales were a major reason for the rejection of the nomination!! If nominated for either status a fourth time, it will certainly bring the images under very severe scrutiny, as other images were on the last two nominations!!! For this reason, I used to be willing to monkey-around-with/skirt-the-edge of WP policy, but am less willing to do so now. BTW, I really really like the images too. I could be completely wrong. Indeed, this could be an issue that leads to very extended disagreement and debate, as has oft happened on Wikipedia admin talk pages. (You should see the debate on rephrasing NFCC Criterion 8.) Prior to a nomination of the image for deletion, this could be taken to Village pump (policy) where discussion could be more constructive.
 * There was also one previous incident of a new non-free image being the straw that broke the camel's back, and one of the gendarmes came in and deleted ALL the images from this article using a Bot. I lay low for some time before putting any back in. I really really do not want that to happen again!!--WickerGuy (talk) 04:05, 16 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Other stuff- The Douglas image.
 * According to Imdb, the copyright on the image of Kirk Douglas and Kubrick is owned as of 1991 by Universal / MPTV. See . However, other sites which sell hard-copies of the same still say the image is "rights-managed" but can be used for editorial, non-commercial purposes, so we may be OK. See  and . Still, some critical commentary would help, say, something about the relationship between SK and KD. Here is a much rarer image of Kubrick and Douglas on the Spartacus set, and one of them on the Paths of Glory set --WickerGuy (talk) 04:05, 16 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I expanded details to Eyes and Jacket, both as commentary in the article and with details in the image descriptions. The Douglas photo is PD, regardless of any copyright statements, which all such archive sources include as routine. Film still copyright rules take precedence. So I think we're on safer ground, in case anyone does actually see the photos ;) Can I go to the bathroom now? --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 05:29, 16 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Well, if I see you looking in the bathroom mirror, wiggling your finger, and asking "Tony" if we can really keep the pictures, I'm calling the doctor right away. :) --WickerGuy (talk) 06:11, 16 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Of course, all the material in the WP article "film still" fully explains why Michel Ciment has no copyright notice for any of those studio shots, but only for the actual film frames. So I guess you were on the right track all along! Hopefully, my caution was more due to mild and semi-rational paranoia rather than pedantry!!!--WickerGuy (talk) 14:55, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Downsizing questions
As a continuation from the downsizing section earlier, a particular example might be easier to deal with. The section for Eyes Wide Shut is one, and the question is why is most of this material here? It's completely redundant to its own article. It barely, and only indirectly, discusses the subject of this article, Kubrick himself. It's also about 95% uncited personal commentary and opinion.

The section is similar to earlier ones, with large chunks of unsourced and redundant text. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 17:58, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Recent changes by User:Wikievil666(User Talk:Wikievil666))
Of the eight (now ten) recent changes made by User:Wikievil666(User Talk:Wikievil666)) to this article, four (now six) strike me as excellent stylistic corrections, but three others seem pedantic and run counter to common usage in film criticism, and one is just outright silly (this last has already been reverted by me.)

The excellent corrections are those whose edit summaries read (in reverse chronological order):


 * The semicolon can connect closely related main clauses, thus "becoming" must be changed to supply a proper verb.


 * Only two generations of film-makers have made films since 1957


 * "Repeatedly" suggests that a critic will repeat the assertion.


 * Reclusiveness is always personal life.

However, User:Wikievil666 seems to object to phrases attributing agency to films which are actually quite common in film and other literary criticism. Wikievil666 objects to the use of 'eschew' in the sentence that "His later films often have elements of surrealism and expressionism that eschew structured linear narrative." on the grounds that films don't eschew anything, people do. But texts and films are often described as eschewing linear narrative. The Encyclopedia of African Literature (p. 361) describes a novel by Abdelkebir Khatibi that "eschews linear narrative" (Yes, the novel not the author). The The Columbia Companion to the Twentieth-Century American Short Story (p. 62) describes a short story by Kathy Acke that "eschews linear narrative" (again the story not the author). The Film cultures Reader talks about a film style that "eschews linear narrative" (p. 179). Of course, authors have also been described as so eschewing.

Similarly User:Wikievil666 has a problem with describing a film as seminal or having a seminal influence. User:Wikievil666 quotes one definition of "seminal" as "full of possibilities". This is a good paraphrase of Random House's third definition. Their fourth definition is "highly original and influencing the development of future events". So on the basis of the 3rd definition, User:Wikievil666 objects to the article using "seminal" entirely appropriately re Random House's 4th definition. I'm putting this one back.

This word usage is entirely appropriate if the film has influenced dozens and dozens of other films essentially adding to the "vocabulary" of film technique. Hundreds of artists and philosophers have been described as having a "seminal influence". In particular, this exact phrase has been used dozens of times to describe Kubrick's 2001: A Space Odyssey. (Samsung recently described the film as "seminal" in their defense against a patent lawsuit.) See also page 1 of "Space: in science, art and society", Building sci-fi moviescapes: the science behind the fiction Page 13 and American science fiction film and television Page 36.

Finally, it is perfectly OK when "groundbreaking" is a synonym of "innovative" to be "especially groundbreaking" and you can say "groundbreaking" of films as well as of directors. We speak of scientists as doing "groundbreaking work" (See example in Merriam-Webster's dictionary!!). The musical score of Hair was described as "especially groundbreaking". Freud's psychology has been described as "especially groundbreaking", so have various pieces of software, etc. There is simply nothing whatsoever wrong with this phrase.

But now the one really really bad edit that I already reverted, but I mention it here because it was wrong on three counts, and I only mentioned two in my edit summary. User:Wikievil666 objected to this sentence ""Considered groundbreaking was 2001: A Space Odyssey, noted for being one of the most scientifically realistic and visually innovative science-fiction films ever made while also maintaining an enigmatic non-linear storyline."" and removed "scientifically realistic" citing as grounds this edit summary: ""scientifically realistic"? When Bowman ejected himself into the airlock vacuum with no pressure suit helmet, his blood would have instantly boiled and he would have died in one second." Well, first of all, the analysis of this situation in science journals suggests that it is Wikievil666 who is wrong here. Secondly, even if this scene was flawed, Space Odyssey would still be among the most scientifically accurate movies ever made, and finally (which I did not mention in my revert summary), the point made is that Space Odyssey is publicly regarded(!!) as one of the most scientifically accurate movies ever made, which it certainly is, even if User:Wikievil666 wishes to cavil (rightly or wrongly) about one particular scene.--WickerGuy (talk) 00:56, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I feel this is a case of nitpicking, scanning areas of text that are felt to be unecessarily altered or removed altogether. Maybe his intentions are good, i don't know.  Rusted AutoParts  (talk) 3:04 31 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I think his intentions are good, but he lacks what Buddhists refer to as "skillful means".--WickerGuy (talk) 04:05, 31 August 2011 (UTC)


 * The uses of "eschew" and "seminal" were appropriate as far as my understanding of their usage goes. I'm not so sure about "especially groundbreaking" though. "Groundbreaking" seems to me to be a term that is all or nothing. "Somewhat groundbreaking" or "a little groundbreaking" would be equally inappropriate. Agree with Wickerguy about 2001 being "scientifically realistic" - it is, including the scene where Bowman survives limited exposure to a vacuum. Even A.C. Clarke says it's possible. Shirt  waist &#9742;  09:50, 31 August 2011 (UTC)


 * At least one news agency has called the Nokia cell phone "somewhat groundbreaking". Some court rulings on copyright law have been described as "somewhat groundbreaking" (See Reverse engineering: an industrial perspective By Vinesh Raja, Kiran Jude Fernandes p. 200) and the first display in the Smithsonian only about women in politics was described a "somewhat groundbreaking" in Robert Watson's The Presidents' Wives: Reassessing the Office of First Lady p. 25. I believe the phrase "a little groundbreaking" is virtually never used.--WickerGuy (talk) 14:32, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Kubrick and AI
The following 3 edit changes

29 August 2011 	58.166.236.101

31 August 2011 	124.178.195.114 31

1 September 2011 	121.220.163.49

to the Stanley Kubrick all attempted to give Kubrick writing and producing credit on the film A.I. Artificial Intelligence. The last of those three edits said that Kubrick wrote and produced AI "posthumously". Now I can understand how a director's movie could be released posthumously, and an an Oscar could be awarded posthumously. But it is completely impossible for anyone to "produce" a movie posthumously (unless Hollywood has some really wild Ouiji board magic that has been kept very secret.) The statement under the wikitable pretty much explains it.

"Stanley Kubrick was responsible for the underlying concept of Steven Spielberg's A.I.: Artificial Intelligence which was produced after his death, by his brother-in-law Jan Harlan. Kubrick is thanked in the credits, but is not credited as writer. A new screenplay was produced from scratch around Kubrick's storyline, in turn based on a short story by Brian Aldiss."

PS On my reversion of the second edit, I erroneously stated this was the 3rd instance. I was wrong. --WickerGuy (talk) 15:49, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Note & Comment on Disputed Photos
At this point, it seems likely we are (probably) going to lose virtually all of the photoes of Kubrick himself uploaded by User:Wikiwatcher1 due to the lack of complete evidence that they are public domain (though it is plausible that they are). (Naturally, the non-free Kasterine photo which we easily made WP:NFCC compliant due to its historic significance will stay.)

I find myself (a tad grudgingly and to my surprise) agreeing with User:Damiens.rf that we don't really need a separate shot of Kubrick per movie for nearly half the movies discussed in the article. (And I long ago expressed discomfort with two shots of SK from Spartacus.)

(And I apologize for my own sloppiness expressed in the discussion elsewhere confusing pictures that are de facto public, and de jure public. There is no LAW that says publicity photoes are public domain, only the fact that most publicity photoes have actually been so published. Furthermore, WP's license for photoes in a publicity kit is a non-free one. I was confused on that one as well.)

I would suggest that in the (now very likely event) that we lose all of these photoes, we incorporate as a non-free image this one or possibly better. Both are photos of Kubrick on the set of The Shining with the inventor of the Steadicam Garrett Brown. (An actual filming of a shot with Shelley Duvall and Danny Lloyd is in the second picture which is also very low resolution.) The Shining is the first motion picture to make extensive use of the Steadicam throughout much of the film (as opposed to a few earlier films which used the Steadicam in just a few shots.) The inventor of the Steadicam (again Garrett Brown) is the main contributor to the DVD commentary on The Shining and worked closely with Kubrick throughout all of the shoot (which he did not do on earlier films that used Steadicam in just a few shots), and Brown proclaimed The Shining to be the first movie to make full use of all the new cinematic possibilities opened up by the Steadicam. Although less obvious to the average movie-goer, this film is in its own way just as visually innovative as Space Odyssey. I think it would be fairly easy to make this shot fully NFCC compliant with appropriate commentary about the historical and groundbreaking use of the Steadicam in this movie.--WickerGuy (talk) 06:21, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

A.I. Artificial Intelligence
[The following is an unsigned comment by 121.220.163.49. Not sure why a bot didn't fill in the signature. My reply follows.]--WickerGuy (talk) 17:39, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

This film may have come out after his death, but Kubrick is still responsible for being the uncredited writer and the posthumous producer. That should be attached to the filmography table. Why some douche-bag wants it in a separate section is anyone's guess.


 * If you think Kubrick's a posthumous producer, you simply don't understand the meaning of either the word "posthumous" or the word "producer" (in film context), and you should look them up in a dictionary. Unless the film crew communicated with his spirit via a medium through a seance, he cannot in any meaningful sense be a posthumous producer. (Addendum: Generally people can be passive recipients of an action posthumously, like an award or publication, but no one ever actively does anything posthumously unless they are acting as a ghost like Hamlet's father.) (The pic was in fact produced by Kubrick's brother-in-law, Jan Harlan, who produced all of Kubrick's films from Barry Lyndon through Eyes Wide Shut.)


 * As for writer, Kubrick had already hired other writers that he trusted to work on the screenplay under his guidelines (much the way many of Alfred Hitchcock's writers closely followed AH's directions and guidelines, but AH never actually hit the typewriter keys himself) but SK didn't really ever do much direct work on the script. The movie is largely based on a 1990 (sic- that's not a typo) version submitted to Kubrick by Ian Watson that was in the form of a 90-page "story treatment", that followed Kubrick's stated guidelines. (See the article film treatment for a description of the difference between this and a full screenplay.) For a while, Kubrick was working with a subsequent (1994) actual screenplay by Sara Maitland, but Steven Spielberg actually threw out Maitland's screenplay and reverted to Ian Watson's 1990 "film treatment", and then based his own screenplay on that.


 * Given that Kubrick's long-time (25 years) producing partner & family member), Jan Harlan, produced AI, I'm sure if Kubrick deserved a writing credit, he would have gotten one. (Consider that although it is quintessentially Hitchcockian, Psycho has no writing credit for Hitchcock. That's because Joseph Stefano followed Hitchcock's detailed guidelines and directions closely, but nonetheless all the actual scriptwriting was done by Stefano, the only credited writer.)


 * Kubrick really IS a "uncredited writer" on Lolita because much of the specific lines of dialogue and stage and camera directions are really really written by him (and the also uncredited James Harris), pounding his fingers on the typewriter (and more productively than Jack Torrance in The Shining. But except for the bottom-line story concept, A.I really is not written by him, though the concept is his. Again, my comments on Hitchcock on Psycho in the previous paragraph.


 * Along with a lot of complements (and six barnstars) I've gotten from WP editors, I've also been called far worse things than a "douchebag" here, and I was more amused than offended. But for your sake as well as others, try to observe the guidelines of No personal attacks. At any rate, no "guessing" needs to be done as to why I want it this way. The reasoning is quite rational.--WickerGuy (talk) 07:24, 2 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Addendum. A different (and clearer, I hope) way of stating my point about Alfred Hitchcock is to say that Hitchcock was a film director who not only directed his actors- he also directed his screenwriters(!) though without actually doing any screenwriting himself! At the stage that A.I was in at Kubrick's death, Kubrick had essentially the same arrangement with writers Watson and Maitland. The final screenplay was by Spielberg based on Watson's "story treatment". Ergo, by standard film industry practice, no writing credit for Kubrick on A.I..--WickerGuy (talk) 08:07, 2 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Oh, I see. I apologise for calling you a "douche". I'm one of those people that getting angry at stuff for no reason. Again, I'm sorry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elberon (talk • contribs) 10:52, 4 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Trust me. It was an LOL. No big deal. For the future--WickerGuy (talk) 14:17, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Religion
It would be reasonable to state that he was "agnostic," if that fact is sourced. Same with "atheist." However, the Stanley Kubrick's personal life and beliefs article states neither, excluding some original interpretations for "atheism." Considering the details devoted to religion in that article, unless we find something sourced, we should hold off on stating a religion. In any case, neither "agnosticism" nor "atheism" is actually a religion. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 23:44, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Those aren't religions but if we're trying to fill a slot in a template about religious beliefs then they're appropriate designations, if sourced.   Will Beback    talk   
 * Atheist and agnostic are religious beliefs if not exactly religions per se. Template:Infobox person does not give clear guidelines as to whether "atheist" or "agnostic" can be included here. It does however say to put in something "if relevant" and as there was much discussion of SK's religious beliefs in the wake of Space Odyssey it would seem to at least pass the relevance test. The exact word "agnostic" may not be used but can be fairly inferred from the material in the beliefs article, IMO, though one can always look for better sourcing.
 * However, I concede there is no religion parameter in the infoboxes on the WP articles for Richard Dawkins, Bertrand Russell, or Thomas Huxley (who invented the word "agnostic") so you may have a point.--WickerGuy (talk) 01:38, 24 September 2011 (UTC)


 * OK, I'll remove it as a religion pending some redefinition of "religion." Although we'd then probably have to add infidel among the new beliefs. Maybe even "naturalist," like John Muir or Loren Eiseley, who both merged nature and religion in their beliefs and writings. In any case, WG, you could always ask Huston Smith, maybe still a neighbor, what he thinks ;) --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 03:09, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I assume "infidel" and "naturalist" are being suggested as a joke.   Will Beback    talk    05:41, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
 * A half-joke. The non-believing community has an ongoing debate about what to call itself, and those have been suggested as alternatives within various "secular/skeptic" groups.--WickerGuy (talk) 06:57, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Tongue in cheek, naturally. BTW, where is this "non-believing community?" I've never heard about their debates or concerns about what to call themselves. Tongue in cheek? --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 07:36, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, the organized or activist non-believing community in America is a loose amalgamation of various organizations including the Center for Inquiry, the American Humanist Association, the Skeptic Society, the Freedom from Religion Foundation, and the American Atheist Society, etc. The above-mentioned CfI is an umbrella organization which includes the Council for Secular Humanism which had a bitter splitoff from AHA in the 1980s. I am good friends with three of the top movers and shakers in the San Francisco-based "Atheists of Silicon Valley" although I certainly don't identify as "atheist" myself. Many folks in these organizations don't like the term "atheist" and/or would like a convenient nickname comparable to the word "gay". On the latter point, the term "bright" was bandied about a lot in the mid-2000s. The term "naturalist" gets bandied about as meaning "non-supernaturalist" (not "naturalist" meaning someone who collects butterflies, or watches birds), but "naturalist" is used more to describe world-views than people. There is an online "Internet Infidels" organization. "Rationalist" is also used quite a bit.
 * It must be pointed out there are thousands of Americans who identify as agnostic who have not the slightest interest in any of these activist organizations whatsover, and occasional New Republic writer Alan Wolfe (self-identified as atheist) has even written quite critically of them.--WickerGuy (talk) 14:54, 24 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Speaking of watching birds, Jonathan Livingston Seagull was simply called an "outcast" from the flock. A good movie, by the way.--Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 18:31, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

just dropping in to say 'eh'
"and often lack structured linear narrative" just wondering where that is coming from. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.158.91.66 (talk) 22:30, 28 September 2011 (UTC)


 * It refers to the fact that Kubrick's films do not follow conventional guidelines about how to structure a story or put together a plot with a classic start, middle, and finale.--WickerGuy (talk) 22:59, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Film plot descriptions
This article goes into WAAAY too much detail about the plot of each film. All that should be given is a one or two sentence summary: then if readers want to know more, they can go to the relevant film page. That's what they are there for. This article should be about Kubrick's specific decisions and influences on each film. It is an article about *him*, and that's where the focus needs to be. No disrespect to current editors but this article is huge, and desperately needs to be cut down. I've started deleting stuff (not published yet) but since it is a pretty bold edit I thought I should mention it here. I hope people understand. --Lobo512 (talk) 13:22, 24 October 2011 (UTC)


 * The article was already cut down a few months ago when Kubrick's unfinished projects and personal lifestyle and beliefs were split into separate articles, and long long before that the plot descriptions were cut down to about half their original length. The average length of the summary now is, I think, about 4 to 5 sentences. I have noticed that biographies of Kubrick generally go into more detail about the plots of his films than bios of other film-makers, I suspect because of a sense that his decisions about what to film (and the wide variety of genres he worked in as opposed to, say, Hitchcock) and the philosophical themes of the films in some sense reflect upon him personally.
 * I think the plot summaries should reflect more directly about his decision-making process and character, but as they are I think they are fine. Go to a late 2007 version of this article and you'll find them much much longer.--WickerGuy (talk) 13:39, 24 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Well that's frightening that they used to be even longer, because they are still way too long now! I really think they are. Every film from Dr Strangelove onwards gives a summary of the entire plot. Wikipedia policy asks that each article be focussed on its specific subject, which means that the plots don't even necessarily need to be given at all. I literally just think a sentence or two is all that's needed, especially when this page is already ginormous (currently 18,000+ words of readable prose, when WP:SIZE says more than 10,000 is excessive). See what you think of my edit, I'm still leaving some detail and I really think it is an improvement. I'll be done soon. --Lobo512 (talk) 13:46, 24 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I just trimmed the overly long Clockwork Orange, but left enough in for the political commentary that follows to make sense. In some sense, the art is a reflection of the man. Kubrick's disdain of both political left and right (first reflected in rejected suggestions for the script revision of Spartacus) is an important theme of this article, and when reflected in movies should be discussed here, IMO.--WickerGuy (talk) 13:54, 24 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Okay I was going to cut ACO even more, but I coppied how you left it into my edit. You can see I've significantly cut Dr Strangelove, 2001, Barry Lyndon, The Shining and FMJ. I don't think the article loses any of its meaning by doing that, and allows readers to get to the juicy stuff about the filmmaking process. --Lobo512 (talk) 14:10, 24 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I will generously review these. I am a tad concerned about losing juicy material about themes, but obviously reexpansion of the plots would have to overtly call attention to themes to be justified.--WickerGuy (talk) 17:28, 24 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I agree that the plot summaries can, and really should be trimmed, as I mentioned earlier. If any article can be trimmed, it's clearly one about directors of films, when the films have their own article. The section for Eyes Wide Shut is OK, with just a single sentence for the plot summary and the rest about Kubrick.


 * But not just plot summaries could be shortened. For instance, The Shining section discusses easily trimmable details about the Steadicam equipment, while that, and the next paragraph is essentially unsourced commentary with declaratory statements, ie. " legend of Kubrick as a megalomaniac perfectionist." However, even after I posted my thoughts about the article being too long a few months ago, and managed to trim some sections, it grew 20% longer! (181K to 217K) --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 18:54, 24 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I have been looking over the WP articles on Scorsesce, Coppola, Welles, and Hitchcock, and have duly noted the near-absence of plot summaries. However, as The Shining is literally the first film to use Steadicam for more than just a few minutes of footage, some mention of it needs to made here. It should be sourced that Shining was especially significant in giving rise to SK's perfection.--WickerGuy (talk) 19:08, 24 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I agree that it should be mentioned, maybe stressed, since it was Kubrick's choice to achieve that effect. But it could be trimmed to about half the length, for instance. Besides plot details, there are many lengthy digressions into hardware and actors that could be trimmed. BTW, I once owned a "Mini-steadicam" for a video camera, and can appreciate that technology. They're very hard to use but the effect is worth it. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 19:24, 24 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I would welcome your efforts to note and/or trim digressions. The new material in the article since your August comment is mostly mine and largely consists of the brand new sections, 7 Portrayal in film, 8 Hoaxes, mock hoaxes, and conspiracy theories, 14.4 Writing style, and 14.5 Chief innovations in technique.--WickerGuy (talk) 19:35, 24 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I think that even for Kubrick, 100K would be a reasonable size. All the films have their own articles. Looking at a typical plot summary, like Clockwork Orange, for instance, it's essentially written as one person's viewpoint, very long, and unsourced.  It could be trimmed to a single sentence.  A digression, IMO, would be a subsequent paragraph (#6) in that section, "After receiving death threats to himself and his family as a result of the controversy . . .", and the details after pointing out that fact and reasons could easily be shortened.


 * Personally, I'm not fond of the Legacy section, and its multiple sub-sections, most of which have little to do with his "legacy." The "hoaxes" material could be abbreviated at best. On the other hand, I think some new, and potentially very important aspects about Kubrick himself could be added, for instance that his films are considered "satires." There are numerous writers that consider all of his films beginning with Lolita, as being satires and/or message films, and reflected aspects of Kubrick's personality. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 20:59, 24 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes I agree with Wikiwatcher that there is still lots more stuff that can be trimmed. It needs to be remembered that this is primarily a biography article. I'm happy to make some more edits as Kubrick was the greatest director ever and deserves a top-notch page. I don't have any books about him though so wouldn't be able to add refs, which many of the statements need if we wanted to go for GA (which would obviously be great for such an important figure). Let's focus on a big clean-up first anyway, I'm getting a bit ahead of myself haha. --Lobo512 (talk) 19:48, 24 October 2011 (UTC)


 * THe article was nominated for GA earlier this year and was rejected due to alleged excess use of "fair use" non-free images.


 * It is now the 189th longest article on WP, but I think when the "too long" tag was added in April of this year it was much higher up on the list. See Special:LongPages--WickerGuy (talk) 20:27, 24 October 2011 (UTC)


 * It looks like that is ordered by KBs though, I think if it was by word count it would be even higher on the list. 18k words is a lot. --Lobo512 (talk) 23:10, 24 October 2011 (UTC)


 * The article as of now is 213 KB and 30,475 words. (Compare Orson Welles at 116 KB and 17,845 words) Lots and lots of the articles immediately above Kubrick in Special:LongPages are lists (some with the word 'list' in the title- others still a statistical breakdown of some kind) with fewer words but a lot of charts. The first article above Kubrick in Special:LongPages (ranked at 176) that is NOT a list is World War I with 216 KB and 30,037 words, just a few less words than us.
 * I wonder if some technical detail could be split off into a separate article, such as the section "Aspect Ratio" which is very technical and detailed and has about 750 words. The "Legacy" section oscillates between what other pros and critics say about him, and general discussion of his innovativeness. This needs to be more cleanly separated if not split off. And quite a bit may just be too verbose, and could be trimmed stylistically.--WickerGuy (talk) 00:40, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure how you're getting word counts, but using the User:Dr pda/prosesize tool for "readable prose" size, Kubrick is currently 17,500 words (nice round number there), while Welles is 11,714. Seeing as their output and influence are similar of similar weight, they should be able to be the same length.

For me, an ideal contents would be something clean and simple like this: 1 Biography 1.1 Early years 1.2 Entering industry 1.3 1950s: Fear and Desire, Killer's Kiss, The Killing and Paths of Glory 1.4 1960s: Spartacus, Lolita, Dr. Strangelove and 2001: A Space Odyssey 1.5 1970s: A Clockwork Orange and Barry Lyndon 1.6 1980s: The Shining and Full Metal Jacket 1.7 1990s: Eyes Wide Shut and death 2 Style and technique 3 Themes 4 Unrealized projects 4.1 Projects completed by others 5 Personal life and beliefs 6 Legacy 7 Filmography 8 Awards and nominations 9 See also 10 References 11 External links

And I'm wondering if anything that can't fit under those core headings should even be included. --Lobo512 (talk) 10:58, 25 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Of course, Orson Welles' personal weight is a different matter:)---WickerGuy (talk) 13:48, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Layout change
I just moved the layout around into a, hopefully, more coherent order. Do people approve? --Lobo512 (talk) 11:35, 25 October 2011 (UTC)


 * The new layout brings up a new question: Is this article a biography? If not, what is it? --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 18:14, 25 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I think it should be both a biography and a critical discussion of his work, especially with regard to overall impact on the film industry (as well as influence of earlier directors on SK).
 * I am 98% happy with the changes, and will probably after closer examination have a few caveats. However, I will make sure that if I think any deleted material should be re-introduced, it should be in a way that integrates well with the flow of the rest of the article. (I kinda liked the now-gone CRM section, but I agree it wasn't especially necessary, certainly not as written.)--WickerGuy (talk) 18:51, 25 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I agree, it should be both biography and commentary (about 2:1). I definitely think its a good idea to have sections on style and influence, all the good pages on musicians/authors/artists do this. It's just that both of these sections are currently about double the length they should be! I really think the legacy stuff in particular should be compressed to one tight section, with only the significant stuff mentioned. Once you've done that, you don't need all the extra trivia to know how important he was. See for instance (all FA or GA ) Bob Dylan, David Bowie, Elvis Presley, Vincent van Gogh, Ernest Hemingway, Michael Jackson. I've realised all this myself recently while working on the legacy section of an article: at first I was adding any old complimentary quote, and then it was pointed out to me that it isn't needed so long as you have solid facts that prove their importance. Less is more, in a way. As for the "style" and "themes" bits, I think the main areas need to be identified and then have three or four tight paragraphs for each section. That's what I think would be ideal for the article.


 * As for the CRM section, appologies to whoever wrote it but honestly, I was trying to read it and couldn't even work out was it was saying. It was extremely unclear, and thus seemed unimportant.


 * I hope I don't sound too bossy, I realise that I've just come along from nowhere and started being brutal about the article. There is a lot of good stuff here, I just think that it can all be compressed and the article will *definitely* be better off for it. This is just an encyclopedia page, you know. It should be clean and concise, which I'm afraid it really isn't right now. I say this as someone new to the article (as much as I love Kube, I've never properly looked at his page): it's very difficult to navigate and ingest. I know its tempting to include everything you can but part of making a good article, it seems to me, is recognising which bits are superfluous and accepting that they need to go. Hope I'm not causing offense, I do genuinely just want to improve the article...and I think it can be done! --Lobo512 (talk) 19:35, 25 October 2011 (UTC)


 * When the average person goes to this article, I think they expect a biography. So a "critical discussion of his work," namely his movies, should mostly be included within the film articles. That would include detailed plot summaries, excessive details about filming techniques and hardware, and extraneous details or trivia about actors or other crew. Separately, way too much of the article is unsourced commentary. Some might be OK, but a lot of what's here now are full of POV and uncited excess adjectives.


 * I think this article was meant to be, and should be, a biography. Only about 10% of the article is biographical, IMO. Most of it can be cut as being redundant to other movie articles. Trimming digressions and trivia would help even more. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 20:18, 25 October 2011 (UTC)


 * It should be primarily a biography but it wouldn't be a good biography if it didn't address his artistry. That is intangibly linked to him. And like I said above, all the good pages on artists (whatever medium) include this. It may even be a requirement to pass GA/FA, I don't think you could call an article on an artist "comprehensive" otherwise. Maybe Kubrick could be modeled (proprtion wise) on something like Madonna (entertainer) (although if it were up to me, that would be shorter as well)? And yes, I heartily agree that there is waay too much vague, unsourced stuff on here. It ends up just reading like trivia, and is counter-productive to having an impressive article. I would delete it all if it were up to me, but then I know it's not really my place when there must be regular editors here who have put in a lot of work and I feel bad... --Lobo512 (talk) 20:44, 25 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I agree we need a legacy section that has to "address his artistry" as this is linked. I think we need to distinguish between poorly sourced stuff and genuine trivia which has no hope of being integrated into a larger discussion. Some stuff may look like trivia but when appropriately cross-referenced with other data becomes part of an important thesis. "Critical discussion of his work" includes patterns that span "across" movies (SK made three movies about war- SK repeatedly uses classical music (composer Ligeti in three movies- that might by trivia)- SK repeatedly collaborates with published novelists on screenplays- etc. etc. etc. There's plenty of commentary about his body of work that is not at all confined to a single film. That, IMO, belongs here.
 * I'm not arguing for its re-inclusion, but the CRM section (there's still a whole WP article about it) was observing that although only 2 Kubrick movies refer to CRM 114, an urban legend has grown up that it is a recurring series of letters and numbers in many many Kubrick movies, and lots and lots of other Hollywood film makers have put in references to CRM-116 in their films as a tribute to Kubrick. (There's also a CRM 114 machine in Back to the Future for example.
 * Lobos, you haven't been brutal at all. You are a model of WP civility. Taking everything to talk page, and giving coherent reasons for your changes. What more could one ask for?--WickerGuy (talk) 21:19, 25 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Naturally, as you said, it wouldn't be a good bio without addressing his artistry. Still, using an analogy of a painter artist, I just see too much about the canvases, paintbrushes, brands of inks, art gallery, gallery owner, and art critics, and way too little about the artist himself. I think most visitors want to learn more about the artist than the other stuff. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 23:32, 25 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Actually, Kubrick's reclusiveness and unwillingness to give interviews (except to a few trusted souls) may explain why bios of him in general say a lot about his art, moreso than bios of Welles or Hitchcock- the same is true up to a point of bios of Vincent Van Gogh IMO.--WickerGuy (talk) 07:29, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

It seems that a lot of articles on various creative artists have critical discussion of works, but...
 * New thought

in articles on novelists or composers WP bios often discuss in depth only the most notable works! For example, the article on Mark Twain has extensive discussion of Huckleberry Finn and Tom Sawyer but none of Puddnhead Wilson. Likewise, the article on Richard Wagner has extended critical discussion of The Ring, Parzival, and a couple of others, but by no means all of the operas. The article on John Steinbeck has extended discussion of his 5 best-known novels (East of Eden, Grapes of Wrath, Of Mice and Men etc) but none of relatively minor ones such as The Pearl or The Red Pony.

However, this is far less frequently true of articles on film directors. The article on Orson Welles like this article tries to discuss at least briefly every film, with virtually equal space to each one. (Like Kubrick, Welles did only 13 feature-length films.) The article on Scorsese also tries to discuss almost every film of his as well (skipping over a few early ones like Alice Doesn't Live Here Any More). Even in a film article in which the films are given fairly short shrift, such as the article on Alfred Hitchcock, there seems to be a tendency to give equal-time to all of the films, rather than discussing the more famous ones (like Psycho, Vertigo, or The Thirty-Nine Steps) at greater length than the others.

I may now be repeating myself, but all the WP articles on artists seem to discuss the works of artists for essentially these reasons

a) to discuss their lasting influence on other artists in their medium.

b) to make critical remarks about their overall style of working.

c) to place them in the context of a particular school of artistry (this is especially true of articles on painters)

d) to note recurring collaborations with other artists (such as Scorsese's repeated casting of DeNiro or DiCaprio) This is, of course, the legit reason to be discussing their body of work, and make the article more than a biography, but again there seems to be a broad temptation at WP in articles on film directors, to give equal time to as many of their movies as possible, rather than being selective re which works to discuss in more detail.--WickerGuy (talk) 08:17, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

A happy exception to the noted trend is the WP article on Frank Capra.--WickerGuy (talk) 08:19, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Addendum


 * Some other exceptions for directors might be Elia Kazan, Sidney Lumet, and Roman Polanski.--Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 16:29, 26 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Especially the Kazan and Lumet articles,and they have another interesting quality. The Lumet article organizes the films by theme and directing technique rather than chronology, and the Kazan article organizes the films by collaborator. In both articles, films which don't fit those paradigms drop out of the discussion. So Kazan's Panic in the Streets drops out and Lumet's little-seen Bye Bye Braverman is also given no shrift. The Polanski article is very inclusive of his English-language films, except for the 1990s, giving short shrift to his early Polish-language films and his work in the '90s when little public attention was paid to him prior to the major revival of interest in his career with The Pianist (2002).
 * Odd, though. While Polanski's public media exposure in the 1990s was at an all-time low, Death and the Maiden(1994) was far more heavily critically acclaimed, than his more widely-discussed mega-flop The Pirates(1986).--WickerGuy (talk) 17:37, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
 * PS Put differently, although Death and the Maiden (adapted from a stage play) is one of RP's best films, it was unusual in that the marketing campaign (and later critical discussion) drew virtually no attention to the fact that it was a Polanski film. I'm not sure that's a reason to underplay it in a WP article. I would have minimized Pirates instead!!--WickerGuy (talk) 17:55, 26 October 2011 (UTC)


 * PS A huge glaring mega-problem with the Polanski article is the total and complete omission of his work in France as a theatre and opera director. His staging in Paris of Schaeffer's Amadeus is legendary. His innovative staging of three or four operas including Lulu were controversial. Interestingly, his opera production of Tales of Hoffman is mentioned in the WP article on opera singer Natalie Dessay, but there is NO mention of Polanski having EVER produced ANY opera in the Polanski article!!!!!--WickerGuy (talk) 19:14, 26 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Well I think these other director articles being mentioned are obviously incomplete, and haven't passed a rigorous review process, so I'm not sure it's very useful to use them as comparisons. That's why I mentioned those articles above: they may not be directors, but they are still artists with articles considered the best WP has to offer. And they give complete (but concise) coverage of their career, plus some sections devoted to artistry/influence. So I think that is the ideal. Anyway, we seem to be in agreement so shall we begin a clean-up? --Lobo512 (talk) 20:55, 26 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Since I haven't really added that much, it's tricky editing other people's material. But trimming plot details, which are in other articles, and trimming unsourced lengthy commentary, might be a good start. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 21:27, 26 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Sure, but of course, sourcing commentary (how do we do that on aspect ratios?) and integrating plot details with a discussion of style, themes, and influence, is always possible. So also, is just trimming verbosity and extraneous small details.--WickerGuy (talk) 21:42, 26 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Well if there's anything that can't be sourced then it shouldn't be here. Otherwise it is original research. I also feel a bit uncomfortable deleting stuff I didn't add, but no-one else has come forward to object so I think we're "allowed" at this point. And any objections can always be reversed. I might get round to a clean up in the next couple of days because I'm off work right now and have some time...it's just such a big undertaking, lol, I can hardly bare face it. I guess it's just taking it a section at a time. I think we need to stop worrying and just be WP:BOLD. --Lobo512 (talk) 22:07, 26 October 2011 (UTC)


 * And in some case, one might consider adding "citation needed" tags.--WickerGuy (talk) 22:18, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
 * And I should add, about 10% of the article at this point is by me (including the CRM 114 section you deleted- you were right it was clumsily written), but I'm pretty open to criticism of stuff that doesn't meet WP rules.--WickerGuy (talk) 22:20, 26 October 2011 (UTC)


 * One safety idea would be to put some material in a storage area, like Talk:Stanley_Kubrick\storage Talk:Stanley_Kubrick/Sandbox Storage space renamed, see below. -- Gogo Dodo (talk), so that they can be found and fixed later. Otherwise the article might end up with hundreds of "citation needed" tags. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 22:47, 26 October 2011 (UTC)


 * That's a great idea wikiwatcher! Or similarly, the revised version could first of all be developed in a subpage like that, to make sure everyone's pleased with it. --Lobo512 (talk) 10:05, 27 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I like both the storage and subpage idea (for test edits), but of course, with a reasonably good log of changes, old stuff can be pulled from previous versions.--WickerGuy (talk) 15:01, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

I've created the storage page, please people don't be shy to use it. Move anything into there that seems 1. overly detailed or unnecessary, 2. like it could be original research, 3. might be better used in a different part of the article. Then we can discuss whether or not and if yes, how it can be reintergrated into the article. --Lobo512 (talk) 15:46, 27 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I've just added some comments over there.--WickerGuy (talk) 21:10, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

I renamed the working storage space over to Talk:Stanley Kubrick/Sandbox to correct the naming convention path and usual a more typical name. It also appeared as an orphaned talk page with the previous name, but now should no longer be orphaned. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 06:49, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Even moreso than plot summaries, any one-film-specific info about actors, reviewers, staff (like cinematographer), film locations, specifics of dialogue, and musical soundtrack probably does NOT belong here. Sure, the fact that Kubrick exposed composer Ligeti to the world (he used Ligeti in three movies) is good to have, but the listing of exactly which Ligeti compositions were used certainly does NOT belong here. I also would like to see the "Aspect Ratio" section heavily trimmed.--WickerGuy (talk) 22:08, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Pruning suggestions

Likewise, discussion of film-specific characters like Quilty and HAL should be kept to a minimum here.--WickerGuy (talk) 23:34, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Be on the lookout for technical details about films that can be cut. I just trimmed the discussion of Space Odyssey a bit. There is no need here for a discussion of Alex North's rejected score, anymore than for a listing of the classical pieces used. That all belongs in the film article. (That said, I think a bit more about the plot could be said, but I've left it out for now.)--WickerGuy (talk) 01:54, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Pruning suggestions

Great work on the article last night WickerGuy, we've already cut the page by about 2,300 words! About Lolita by the way - yeah I know it is only Sellers' character who pretends to be different people, that's why I followed it with "Kubrick expanded on the idea..." but yeah I didn't make it clear. I'm afraid I still don't see why Seller's international obscurity needs to be mentioned. It still makes sense that Kubrick called him "amazing" without that. And it isn't sourced anyway. The other stuff you've reincluded is fine, although the 2001 stuff needs referencing. Is there any refs you can take from the film page? I'll take a look at the sandbox page now. --Lobo512 (talk) 10:20, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

One more thing: a lot of the article is written more like an essay than an encylopedia. The tone isn't right. It's a weird thing to get used to once you've spent all your time in education being told to make your writing interesting and to be analytical, but here it just needs to be very matter-of-fact. It's funny that I'm telling you this because only a couple of months ago I was constantly having to be told it by another editor, lol, but I get it now and there is a big and important difference. It can't be like the sort of academic or journalistic writing we're used to. --Lobo512 (talk) 10:54, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Alternative versions Could this section maybe be removed? Considering they are just alternative versions of already established material, it isn't even particularly relevant to SK. Movie adaptations of books often happen more than once, Kubrick's films certainly aren't the first to experience this. --Lobo512 (talk) 17:48, 28 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm inclined to believe that since in all three cases, the author or author's family publicly expressed dissatisfaction with the SK version and declared the new version to be the alternative/definitive adaptation, it's statistically significant, and atypical. Hitchcock's Rebecca, Psycho, and Dial M for Murder were all remade, but the remakers and/or authors of the books weren't dissing AH's version & endorsing the new one. Of films from original material, Jacques Torneur had his films of Out of the Past and Cat People both remade but the creators of the new versions just wanted a fresh take on the material, not because they thought JT had done it wrong. So I think this material should stay.--WickerGuy (talk) 18:15, 28 October 2011 (UTC)


 * But isn't it already mentioned under both ACO and The Shining that the authors were displeased? I dunno, I feel like that's enough. Maybe then a bit saying that they each collaborated on alternative versions. I think having a whole section on it is a bit much, especially when we're really trying to trim down the article. --Lobo512 (talk) 19:10, 28 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm pretty sure it's mentioned in the articles on the films but not in the film discussions here. It's a cross-film phenomenon, affecting 23% of SK's feature-film output, plus there is the common feature of the (anti-)hero/protagonist failing to find a redemption in SK's version that is in the novel.--WickerGuy (talk) 19:15, 28 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I know: it could be summarised under the "writing style" section? A comment on how the authors of work he adapted were unhappy with his changes. --Lobo512 (talk) 19:45, 28 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I like this idea very much.--WickerGuy (talk) 20:55, 28 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I'd guess it's a rarity for any novel author to be happy about films of their book. I saw Anthony Burgess complain about his Clockwork Orange adaptation during a campus visit. Sort of memorable, since after he spoke he wandered around the large mostly packed auditorium looking for a seat to watch the film. He ended up sitting right next to me! --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 20:41, 28 October 2011 (UTC)


 * John Le Carre's favorite film adaptation of any of his novels is The Constant Gardener. He finds this surprising as on the one hand, it deviates from the mechanics of the plot moreso than many others, but on the other hand (IJlCO) it captures the spirit of the novel better than any other JlC adaptation. Stephen King at the time thought Misery the best film adaptation of his work.--WickerGuy (talk) 20:55, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Film title subsections
To help readability and editing, I'll subsection the film titles, but will keep them off the TOC. If the first sample edit to come looks OK, I can do the others. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 16:58, 28 October 2011 (UTC)


 * As there is some material in each decade that does not fit into a film section, I think this is good. FOr example, Kubrick's move to England or marriage to CH can be out of the film sections.--WickerGuy (talk) 17:12, 28 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Yeah I guess that does make reading it easier. My only concern would be it slightly interupting the flow of it as a biography or summary of his career. And my personal aesthetic taste is for large sections instead of small ones with tons of headings, but I'm not massively bothered. --Lobo512 (talk) 17:26, 28 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Agree. If we end up with a lot of short choppy film sections, we can go back later and change or remove subsections. But it should help out editing a bit in the meantime.--Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 17:36, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Combining artistry sections
It seems that most of the material in the Artistry sections relate directly to particular films. Maybe cutting and adding those details to the film sections would help keep the subjects unified. That might also be true of the Legacy details per innovations, critical response, industry response, etc.

In any case, we'll need to keep bouncing between the film article and the film sections in SK to make sure there are no conflicting facts and also to minimize redundancy for purely film details.--Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 18:01, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

This is not so important with critical response, unless a critic is making a generalization about SK's work as a whole (or was very consistent in their attitudes towards SK).--WickerGuy (talk) 18:34, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
 * At some point, innovations should be listed together, Steadicam (Shining) and front-screen projection and slit-scan (Odyssey) and photographing in real candlelight (Lyndon) in one place, possibly with brevity when together, and with more in-depth discussion in individual films. See for example the article on The Beatles for a similar structure.


 * Makes sense. A paragraph or two summarizing his technical innovations would be good for the Legacy section. The finer details can go in the film sections. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 18:56, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Sandbox subsections
I have partitioned off the sandbox.--WickerGuy (talk) 18:46, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Quick comment: I just wanted to say it's great to see lots of activity going in to improve the article! I'm not able to help right now but it's great that some editors are being so proactive. The only thing I feel the need to give an opinion on is some edit waring over sources - Wickerguy, to maintain the article's integrity I think it' s important to consistently use reliable sources, and only reliable sources, even if there is some loop in the rules that allows for unreliable ones. I'll try and share my opinion more at the weekend. Keep going, the page is down to 13,400 words now! Soo much better. --Lobo512 (talk) 19:07, 16 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I have been convinced by an outside user not to use them. Unreliable sources are allowed as sources on themselves ONLY in articles ABOUT themselves, not about outside parties--WickerGuy (talk) 19:51, 16 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Everything we need to tell the reader about Kubrick will be found in multiple reliable sources. We don't have to use any unreliable ones, even if they might be interesting or unique, even if they can be argued as okay to use. Binksternet (talk) 21:13, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Greg Jenkins
This is a part of the article that I think is a little silly:

In a book-length study of how Kubrick adapts novels to the screen, writer Greg Jenkins derives the following generalizations about Kubrick's screenplays:


 * 1. Regardless of how a novel may begin, Kubrick launches his adaptation of it with a heavily visual sequence that immediately and purposefully seizes our attention.
 * 2. Where it suits his purpose, Kubrick expunges parts of the original, including some characters, episodes, and swatches of dialogue.
 * 3. Addressing himself to the portion of the narrative that remains, Kubrick distorts, reorders, and conflates many of its components.
 * 4. Although skilled with words, Kubrick is equally skilled with and devoted to images, and he tells his stories as visually as possible.
 * 5. In general, Kubrick lowers the amount and intensity of violence found in the original.
 * 6. As Kubrick remakes the original narrative, he tends, with some exceptions, to simplify it.
 * 7. Kubrick makes his heroes more virtuous than the novels' and his villains more wicked.
 * 8. Predominately, Kubrick imbues his films with a morality that is more conventional than the novels'.
 * 9. Kubrick's films are more obviously laced with moments of moderate-to-high drama than are the source materials.
 * 10. From time to time, though it countervails his mainly reductive thrust, Kubrick expands one or more aspects of the original narrative.
 * 11. Now and then, Kubrick invents his own material outright, and imposes it on the new narrative.[121]

Almost everything on this list is true for ANY adaptation of a novel for a film. I don't think you could find a single example of a film that does not expunge some parts of the original novel. So my question is, is anything on this list unique to Kubrick? Maybe, no.1 or no. 4 ? ...although film is typically more visual than novels are. No. 8 ? . . . although I don't really agree that is accurate. (ACO leaves out the conventional morals in the last chapter, I'll admit I haven't read any of the other novels except The Shining and lolita.) No. 9 ? ... because this is what makes his films good? Is Greg Jenkin's an important scholar? My inclination is to delete this whole part. Any comments? Puddytang (talk) 19:55, 18 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Tend to agree, and I also just realised that virtually everything mentioned in the "writing style" section is covered when talking about the individual films. --Lobo512 (talk) 20:13, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Also in that section: 5. In adapting The Short-Timers into Full Metal Jacket, Kubrick expanded the material set in boot camp, which is about 20% of the novel, into fully half of the film. Many viewers find this early material the most memorable in the film. Richard Jenkins believes this is consistent with Kubrick's general desire to explode the standard narrative conventions of film, as this results in the film appearing to be two short stories with the same characters told back-to-back.[118] --- reference seems to point to Greg Jenkins, not Richard Jenkins. Puddytang (talk) 20:21, 18 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't entirely agree with the notion that none of this is unique. For example, the issue is not that Kubrick shortens novels- it's HOW he shortens them, removing entire characters and subplots. Plenty of films of shorter novels are done "by the book", by trimming a little bit there, snipping a little bit there but retaining all of the book's elements albeit in reduced form- the Narnia films for example. This is generally the opposite of Kubrick's approach!! (One of the vices of David Lynch's Dune is that it tries to retain far too much of the book.) I also think Kubrick is a more "visual" filmmaker than say, Woody Allen or Ken Branagh. IMO, Branagh is more of an "actors" director- Kubrick is more IMO a "photographer's" director. Kubrick actually uses images (as opposed to dialogue) to advance the story line and propel character arcs (as opposed to just set mood) much moreso than many other directors, so I think points 1,2, and 4 point to distinctively Kubrickian traits. So also is point 9.
 * However, as a simple laundry list without further exposition of Jenkin's argument, the list contributes only minimally to the article, so I don't really miss it that much.--WickerGuy (talk) 00:20, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

You make a good point about the visual thing. I moved that section to the sandbox page if you want to bring back some of it. I'm sure that Jenkins does have some good analysis of Kubrick's writing style. The problem is there is not room to go into it in depth, and a cursory list of his conclusions just seems like it is stating the obvious. I think a lot of how a book is adapted depends on whether the filmmakers are trying to capitalize on the fans of the book. Something like Harry Potter is not going to change one little thing, but something like Total Recall (or Full Metal Jacket) doesn't even retain the original title, because they are more interested in making something unique than trying to cater to existing fans. I think it does reflect Kubrick's "control freak" way of making movies, that he didn't care at all about the existing fan's or the original author's intentions. If someone were to re-do the writing section, you might want to talk about Kubrick writing the screenplay and Clarke writing the book for 2001 simultaneously; seems like the kind of collaboration that is unique. Puddytang (talk) 03:11, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Sandbox... am I doing it right.
I copied the entire article to the sandbox [] and then went on a spree of deleting (in the sandbox). Even so, it is still too long. But I am hoping some people will look at these changes and give some feedback. Puddytang (talk) 19:35, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I've been advocating trimming the article for a while. We got it down by a lot in October, but I agree that it's still too long. I think the main thing that needs to be trimmed is the legacy section. This really shouldn't be more than one section with a few compressed paragraphs, see e.g. Bob Dylan. The only way to do this, really, would be to entirely rewrite that section. --Lobo512 (talk) 20:01, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I think doing one section at a time is a way to start. Before the Filmography section there are only five, but most of them are packed with subsections. And each of those is loaded with minutia and trivia, but little summary or introductory text to give the sections any perspective. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 20:46, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

An admin deleted the sandbox :( I guess that answers the question of whether I was doing it right... I think I can get an admin to email the stuff too me. Sorry I caused your sandbox to be destroyed!Puddytang (talk) 06:19, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

You can see my proposed deletions at []. I am still trying to get the talk page restored. Puddytang (talk) 08:26, 23 January 2012 (UTC)


 * At 163KB, that's not a sandbox, it's an entire beach. Why not just do a subsection at a time? --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 08:48, 23 January 2012 (UTC)


 * It's better IMO to shorten the article via significant restructuring rather than by deleting little snippets here and there. Some of your proposed deletions do indeed stray off topic into material better covered in the articles on individual films (such as the casting of Sterling Hayden in "The Killing"- belongs in article on film "Killing" not here). Other proposed deletions seem to be efforts to cut minutiae. You proposed deleting the material on Robert Duvall. This used to be in a much more logical article location, in juxtaposition to Nicole Kidman's more positive assessment of how Kubrick deals with actors. Of course, since Duvall never worked for SK, that's also an argument for deleting it as well.


 * Correction
 * The material on Duvall and Kidman were moved together. I was mistaken.


 * I was unaware that the original sandbox had been deleted. I falsely supposed that as a subpage it would show up on my watchlist. It included a lot of discussion about what to do with various sections, and proposed abridgments.


 * WW, you and I never came to an agreement over whether a section should even exist at all on assessments of critics. I agree the existing section was rough, but it still seems there are enough multiple critics who have made general comments about Kubrick's work as a whole, that it seems somewhat warranted. However, the only other film director whose WP article contains such a section is Stephen Spielberg. Lobo512, what is your opinion here?--WickerGuy (talk) 14:07, 23 January 2012 (UTC)


 * WickerGuy, the main thing we agreed on was that Stanley Kubrick was indeed a "film director." My very first comment on the talk page, before editing anything, was that at 178KB the article needed to be trimmed. Over the following weeks, you responded by adding another 40K, 20% more "stuff!" The lead itself is still no more than a cherry-picked compilation of so-called critical, heavily negative, commentary, or meaningless, ie. "his works have been described by Jason Ankeny . . ." Jason Ankeny? The body of this massively bloated minutia-packed article is, in addition, disorganized. Your adding another giant trivia section called "Hoaxes, parodies and conspiracy theories involving Kubrick" as a major section, equal in importance to the "Personal life", "Legacy", and "Filmography" sections, is odd. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 20:08, 23 January 2012 (UTC)


 * On the one hand- on the other hand.
 * Ummm, I don't think I did the Jason Ankeny part; I think that's a holdover from the previous lede before I revised it. I'm sure there's a better choice than Ankeny (he's mainly a music and software critic who writes for Entrepeneur magazine- yes. we should have a real film critic here- worse I don't think Ankeny is cited later in the article and ledes are supposed to summarize the rest!!) [I've fixed this in the lede now] The lede is meant to be a summary of the rest of the article, which on any director ought to briefly discuss reception of his work, his awards, the influence of his work, his most famous films (and why they are famous), what his prominent themes are, and controversies surrounding his work. Isn't that what the lede on ANY film director would do? And isn't that what this lede does? I rewrote the lede several months before you arrived [incorporating about half of the old version that preceded me] because of complaints that the earlier lede was a non-POV lede praising Kubrick to the high heavens. I certainly think I brought it into better compliance with general WP standards. As I understand it, this is what a lede is about. Personally, I think I expanded the article by closer to 5%, not the 20-40 you claim. Finally, the term "cherry picking" refers generally to selective use of evidence to support a position, while "ignoring a significant portion of related cases or data" that contradict it. I think you need a different term such as "eclectic" or "grab-bag" for your critique of my work.
 * However, you are quite right that the article is over-packed with minutiae and over-massive. The worst material I added was arguably the "writing style" section which someone else removed on grounds I almost completely agree with. But I simply don't understand your issues with the lede at all!!! I'm ambivalent on the hoax business, but honestly if Kubrick's surviving family co-operates with a major French film-maker making a feature-length spoof on Kubrick conspiracy theories- it seems to me that somewhat elevates it in noteworthiness. On the other hand, I note that the longish WP article on the Beatles contains absolutely no mention of the widespread "Paul is dead" rumor (nor does the WP article on Paul McCartney) although there IS a separate WP article on it Paul is dead. So maybe we don't need this here either. I wouldn't mourn its loss. I don't think it's essential to the article. (Then again, the Beatles just ignored this whole business while Kubrick's surviving family co-operated in producing a spooff of it.)--WickerGuy (talk) 20:50, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
 * About the lead: I do think that currently it is more like an "introduction" than a summary of the article. The lead should basically be a mini-article, saying exactly the same thing (often with the same structure/ordering of material) but with far fewer words. --Lobo512 (talk) 21:12, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Ankeny gone. Where he came from
 * The material citing Jason Ankeny was added in 2009 by editor Gordon Steerforth. Ankeny evidently wrote the bio of Kubrick in "allmovie.com" a website that is no longer online. I don't know much about the provenance of allmovie.com or why Ankeny was chosen to write the Kubrick bio for same. I just kept it in when I rewrote the lede sometime in 2010 to address complaints about its POV Kubrick-worship status.--WickerGuy (talk) 21:17, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Revision
 * Unless there's more than one Jason Ankeny, there is a Jason Ankeny who writes film reviews for Film Threat which as I noted is widely read within the film industry. I now note there were two references to JA in the lede, and I changed only one to Michel Ciment (a better choice). If he writes for Film Threat I feel there is no problem with retaining the second.--WickerGuy (talk) 21:24, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
 * In general
 * Indeed, much of the writing in this article is indeed disorganized and eclectic (which is what I think Wikiwatcher1 means by "cherry-picked") with too much minutiae, and a certain amount of the fault is mine. However, the substance of the lede is I think pretty much what film director ledes should be. Compare Orson Welles and Alfred Hitchcock.--WickerGuy (talk) 21:33, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
 * WG I'll say again, there is absolutely no point using those articles as a point of comparison. They have not been through a review or accessment process and are far from perfect. It is only worth comparing to FA articles if you want to see what a perfect lead is. As far as I know the only FA on a director is Abbas Kiarostami, but to be honest that was passed 5 years ago and I don't think it is up to today's standards. The lead is pretty weak IMO, it doesn't even cover the chronology of his career. Look at other cultural FA bios, e.g. John Lennon, Ernest Hemingway, Elvis Presley. They all provide a summary of the person's life, with some commentary on their importance as well. This is the sort of lead WP wants from its biographies. --Lobo512 (talk) 21:49, 23 January 2012 (UTC)


 * WG, that 20% figure was not a guess, but a rounded down figure from the actual increase in size from 178K to 218K (40K, not 40%) over the next month, and primarily your edits. And rather than trim, you simply inflated the article with personal essays, even unsourced!--Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 21:45, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
 * OK, I concede all points. Yes, WP:PLOT does not really allow plot comparisons as that involves synthesis.--WickerGuy (talk) 23:02, 23 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Well I absolutely think we should include critical comments. It wouldn't be a good article otherwise. They just need to be used wisely and succinctly. They can probably be interspersed in the "Technique" and "Legacy" sections. Like we've both said though, those sections pretty much need to be entirely rewritten. I wish I was able to do it, just so that it is done, but I don't have much time to spend on wikipedia and - at the moment - I'm using all that time preparing an article for FAC.
 * For the meantime, I'll add that I still don't see the need for an "Alternative adaptations" section. Also, I was thinking, why don't the uncompleted projects just get mentioned in the main biography? I think that makes much more sense, so that they can be seen among the overall chronolgy.
 * Don't worry about the sandbox, I'm sure we'll get it restored. --Lobo512 (talk) 16:45, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
 * THe main bio can certainly briefly mention the uncompleted projects. They are discussed in more detail separately in a spin-off article as a strategy for reducing the size the main project. Obviously, except for the two films completed by others (One-Eyed Jacks and A.I) the other uncompleted projects have no separate article of their one.
 * Originally, there was an entirely separate section on reviews of critics, recently removed by Wikiwatcher1 on two grounds (I can't double-check the deleted sandbox to be sure I am quoting him correctly).
 * 1) Wikiwatcher1 feels there really shouldn't be such a section, since Critical comments should be confined to articles on individual films. I feel there are enough critics to comment on SK as a whole to warrant such a separate section though I recognize Spielberg is the (just about) only other director whose Wikipedia's article contains such a section. (There is for example, no such section in the articles on Orson Welles or Alfred Hitchcock or Ingmar Bergman).
 * 2) Wikiwatcher1 also felt that the section as largely written by me contained quotes from 3 relatively obscure and non-notable critics. I think he's partially correct, though in my defense, critic Paul Lynch is extremely well-known in Ireland (if not the US), and a second obscure critic I quoted was making a general observation about other critics, and a third obscure critic I quoted was writing in a journal widely read within the community of film professionals, though it is little read by the general public (I refer to the print and online magazine Film Threat- virtually everyone who attends film festivals like Sundance reads it- the general public is generally not very aware of it.) Ww1 and I never really resolved our differences of opinion on this section, but I chose not to be overly aggressive and never restored the section to the main article.
 * It seems to me to be statistically significant that three of Kubrick's source novels (10 of his 13 films were from previous novels) were remade and that in ALL cases either the author or the son of the author openly stated they preferred the new adaptation over Kubrick's. I therefore am in favor of retaining that section.--WickerGuy (talk) 17:16, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I think critcial comments about Kubrick's general style, body of work and influence would be a great addition to the page. But I do think they would be better as a part of the Technique and Legacy sections, rather than having a stand alone one. It would obviously be ideal to quote famous critics, but I personally don't think this matters too much. If they have something interesting and insightful to say, why does it matter how well known they are? Don't worry about comparing the article to other director pages by the way - most of them are inadequate if you ask me! --Lobo512 (talk) 19:04, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

I put the talk page up for a Request for Undeletion. If you want to get this material back, you might want to add your voice to this discussion []. Sorry for the trouble. Puddytang (talk) 18:04, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

The page Talk:Stanley_Kubrick/Sandbox has been restored Puddytang (talk) 01:46, 27 January 2012 (UTC)