Talk:Stanley Kubrick/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 10

Career section idea

Since he only directed 13 films, the Career section layout might work better including the film titles, with a similar format as Francis Ford Coppola's article. This time, we can just include one film per subsection instead of multiples, which is why we originally changed to the date only. I'd vote to trim those film sections of long plot details or extraneous topics that only indirectly relate to the film. If readers need fine details they can go to the film's article. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 05:57, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

The article used to be structured on a film-by-film basis, and I think was restructured so that occasional non-film details like Kubrick's move to England and marriage could be seamlessly worked in.

IMO in this article, plot summaries should be at most 4 sentences and should give some indication as to what the thematic significance of the film in the context of Kubrick's larger body of work. Essentially an extended tagline.--WickerGuy (talk) 23:07, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Actually, I think a huge amount of material on the casting and critical receptions of the films could go!!! The plot summaries as they are seem to me to be fairly brief.--WickerGuy (talk) 00:05, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Restructuring of lede

I have shortened and restructured the lede of the article.

I completely eliminated all the material analyzing Stanley Kubrick's style, and controversy if he is an optimist or a pessimist. That was the second paragraph of the original lede.

I have retained the lede material on mixed opinions of critics, the frequent turnabout of critics, and the praise of Kubrick from other filmmakers, and drastically shortened (but not removed in toto) the lede bit on how authors of novels adapted by Kubrick felt.

In the final sum, I added some words describing Kubrick as "seminal" from Rainer Crone who edited and wrote a foreword to an anthology of Kubrick's still photography. I'm still thinking about whether we should replace the final Jason Ankeny quote. I've seen it cited in several other places including The New York Times. (Ankeny has never written FOR the NYtimes, but the NYTimes has made his bio of Kubrick originally written for allmovie.com their online bio as well, so I don't think we really need to worry much about the provenance of Mr. Ankeny.)--WickerGuy (talk) 23:24, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

To give a realistic critique about someone like SK, I would eliminate quotes from anyone not extremely notable, including authors or other non-experts. Bloggers, or those in a similar self-publishing realm, and other minor sources, should be ignored. Same for other directors, producers, actors. Unless they either worked closely with him (ie. actors) or are equal in status (ie directors), they should be left out. There are plenty of notable authors, critics, historians, and actors that have written meaningful commentaries, that someone like Ankeny should not be considered. Especially in a lead! I'd probably skip over any journalists for the same reason, unless they were quoting someone. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 00:58, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Self-published sources such as blogs are simply not allowed on WP, period, unless they have also published in reliable sources such as the New York Times. We don't have any here.

Re the lede, Sarris and Kael were the leading New York City film critics of the 60s and 70s, so I think we are safe mentioning them. (Interestingly, Kubrick himself noted he often got his most negative reviews from New York critics.) The three most widely discussed film directors of the late '60s and early '70s are arguably Kubrick, Fellini, and Ingmar Bergman, so we are certainly safe in mentioning Fellini in the lede. Rainer Crone is the editor of a book on Kubrick's still photography, and a professor of Art History at the University of Munich in Germany, but arguably not a household name. No actors are mentioned in the lede. That leaves the only troubling reference in the lede Jason Ankeny. His bio of Kubrick written for allmovie (which we are quoting) has now been appropriated by the New York Times as their online bio of Kubrick, so I think it's marginally OK, though we could surely do better. It's a striking quote, but we can search for something to replace it with. The Ankeny quote was put in by Gordon whats-his-name a year or two ago.

Outside the lede, the only actor who didn't work with Kubrick mentioned in the article is Robert Duvall. I thought his views were an interesting contrast with Kidman, and he's one of America's best-known actors, but I'm not deeply committed to retaining his comments.

I generally agree that scholarly sources are to preferred over journalists, though it depends on context. Journalists who are not stating an opinion, but simply observing facts (including IMO facts about broad trends in Kubrick criticism) are more acceptable. However, critical opinions of journalists should certainly carry less weight than critical opinions of Kubrick scholars and experts.--WickerGuy (talk) 01:25, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

I'd definitely trim any quotes by Duvall for the reasons I mentioned. BTW, I can't find the word "lede" in the dictionary. Is there some reason the word "lede" is used by others so often? --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 01:38, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section especially the first footnote.--WickerGuy (talk) 01:50, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Postscript

The Ankeny quote has now been removed so it's a moot point, but for the record the New York Times reprint of Ankeny's allmovie.com bio of Kubrick is here [1]. It is now the Time's Kubrick bio. Ankeny was on the editorial staff of All Movie Guide, a spinoff of All Music Guide, for four years. He's not mainly a film critic, and writes on several other subjects, but on the basis of the Times' use of his work, I would at least give it a Pass, if not an A.--WickerGuy (talk) 07:29, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Criticism section?

I still think this article could use a brief criticism section that deals with remarks critics have made about Kubrick's work as a whole similar to the one in the article on Steven Spielberg. I am inclined to to restart it from scratch, and will try to include more prominent & recognizable critics, rather than semi-random representatives of different opinions.

As for criticism of the now-discarded section, I realize my writing tends sometimes to be disjointed, eclectic, and fragmentary- it fails to flow especially in first draft-, but I still don't think "cherry-picking" is an appropriate word. "Cherry-picking" implies selection bias to a particular point of view. I am trying to cover as full a spectrum of viewpoints as possible, the exact opposite(!) of what is implied by the term "cherry-picking".--WickerGuy (talk) 23:37, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

You may be reading too much into this "cherry-picking" term. I can't imagine how Ankeny's quote got added as a final quote in a lead. Nor can I imagine why it's still there. Its cite wouldn't be acceptable for anyone, much less a major director. In fact, to call the inclusion of his quote "cherry picking" would be a compliment, since it isn't even worthy of being called a "cherry." Not just his cite is defective, but the very first cite in the article and lead, #1, is not even a valid cite and violates the basic WP guideline on RS and V. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 01:28, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Well, it got added by Gordon whats-his-name one to two years ago. It's no longer cite #1 as I have added additional cites to the lede. Again, I feel that since the cited source (by Ankeny) has now been appropriated by The New York Times in its entirety as their online bio of Kubrick, I feel it is fairly acceptable. We can presume a reliable expert on Kubrick vetted Ankeny's work. Perhaps we could just shift the cite to the copy at the Times. Wikipedia guidelines say you can use authors who HAVE published in reliable venues elsewhere, even when the particular cite is a blog or whatever. As Ankeny has published in print magazines, he doesn't fail RS. MY problem with Ankeny is he's mostly a music critic, who writes film criticism on the side. We should have a FULL-TIME film critic.--WickerGuy (talk) 02:01, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

I have now replaced the Ankeny quote.--WickerGuy (talk) 02:39, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Better. Also, I was referring to pseudo-cite #1 in the Notes section, which is commentary, again accentuating negatives. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 02:52, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Trimmed Hoaxes section by about half

I have taken out about 50% of the material from the controverted section Hoaxes, parodies and conspiracy theories involving Kubrick. The material on Dark Side of the Moon seems to me appropriate to retain here because of Christiane Kubrick's and Jan Harlan's involvement with the project. I have added a single sentence that many people actually believe this conspiracy theory but dropped all the rest as being appropriate to articles Moon landing hoax#Stanley Kubrick involvement and 2001: A Space Odyssey (film)#Mock hoaxes and Conspiracy Theory and unnecessary to have here.

The Conway material could or could not be woven into the biographical section but either way should be confined to three sentences, and the hat notes referring to other articles, IMO. Conway is mentioned in Baxter's biography of Kubrick (though not LoBrutto's) and Michel Ciment's acclaimed study of Kubrick (though not Walkers).--WickerGuy (talk) 23:49, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

I think the section does not fit a biography. Because it indirectly "involves" Kubrick sets the standard too low and opens the article up for more extraneous trivia. That his wife, friends, neighbors, or barber was somehow involved shouldn't justify it either, IMO. This off-topic, non-biographical "theory" junk is even stuck as a major section between his Legacy and Filmography! --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 01:10, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Well, the idea that this material could act as a coat-rack inviting more extraneous material is the best argument against this section I have heard. I've for now demoted it to part of the "Legacy" section. You are right it shouldn't be major.

Though I don't follow your conflating "wife, friends, neighbors, or barber". The significant participants in the French TV mockumentary Dark Side of the Moon were Kubrick's wife and brother-in-law, Jan Harlan, the latter of whom was executive producer of all of SK's films from Lyndon to Eyes Shut and generally has been in charge of producing all the DVDs of Kubrick's films since his death. Both Christiane and Harlan appear in the film giving mock scripted interviews, and were consultants on the film. The film's director, William Karel, normally does REAL documentaries has won an Emmy and is sometimes referred to as "Europe's Michael Moore", and has had a lot of films broadcast by the Arte and France 3 channels, the former which is kind of a European PBS. Karel, decided to make a convincing pseudo-documentary on Kubrick as a kind of exercise in seeing how well you can fool the public. IMO, this film is a significant work on Kubrick. The more sincere hoax stuff I decided to cut.--WickerGuy (talk) 01:45, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

If an author decides to write a book about Kubrick, that wouldn't make it a Legacy section, IMO. Same with a documentary about pseudo-documentaries or other tabloid gossip. It may be worthy of a sentence or two, at most, but not a section in Legacy. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 01:55, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

The section briefly discusses three only loosely related items, Alan Conway's briefly successful impersonation of Kubrick (discussed in one major bio and one major critical study of SK), William Karel's mockumentary on Kubrick (which aired on French and Australian television), and the widespread Illuminati conspiracy theory (much more tabloidy actually- it's a main subject of RationalWiki's article on Kubrick, but their main agenda is to document and rebut pseudo-science and pseudo-history so it's really up their alley). The Legacy section also includes homages, one actor playing Kubrick (possibly dispensable), and homages by painters and music videos. The Karel mockumentary is, I suppose, in a loose sense an homage. It's arguable that in restructuring the article as a whole the first two items might get relocated and the Illuminati theory get dropped. Re the last, no one in Kubrick's circle was 1) affected by, 2) took action as a consequence of, or 3) has commented on the Illuminati theory so the case for inclusion of it here is slimmer than the first two items. We are not "Rationalwiki").--WickerGuy (talk) 02:58, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

The "Homages" section is another joke! I can't believe this stuff is here. If anywhere, these 5 paragraphs belong in a subsection called "Trivia about trivia." It even makes the tabloid material seem encyclopedic.--Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 03:08, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Frankly, I think you are now verging into the territory of WP:IDONTLIKEIT which is considered an argument to avoid in deletion discussions. From that section

while some editors may dislike certain kinds of information, that alone isn't enough by itself for something to be deleted. This may be coupled with (or replaced by) the unexplained claim that they feel that the information is "unencyclopedic" (see Just unencyclopedic, above). Such claims require an explanation of which policy the content fails and explanation of why that policy applies as the rationale for deletion.

I myself am pretty happy with the homages section, but then WP:ILIKEIT isn't really considered a valid argument either.

The general WP criterion for inclusion of pop culture allusions in Wikipedia is that if a secondary source has established the cultural significance of the allusion, it passes WP's notability requirements and can be discussed. Believe me, I and another editor have reverted dozens and dozens of efforts to put in trivial Space Odyssey pop culture references into that article, all of which clearly failed WP criterion. I mean, people want to put in every measly Space Odyssey reference in really obscure Japanese video games that no one has ever heard of. Both I and User:Shirtwaist have laboriously strictly kept 2001:_A_Space_Odyssey_(film)#Parodies_and_homages fully in compliance with the criterion listed at WP:POPCULTURE reverting what seems like gazillions of bad entries.

I have tried to apply the same strict standards to the homages section here as Shirtwaist and I did to the Space Odyssey article. Everything in the homages section here except the renaming of a BAFTA film award for Kubrick is adequately sourced to entirely reliable sources in full compliance with Wikipedia guidelines for establishing notability.

(I am personally particularly intrigued that multiple painters have been doing multiple paintings based on Kubrick films. I know of no other director that has inspired painters in this much abundance. On the other hand, the Rubik's cube bit seems fairly trivial to me. It is properly sourced, but to a minor publication.)

Finally, the only directly "tabloid" material in here is the Illuminati conspiracy theory (which our main cited source denounces as bunk), unless you include a clever and sophisticated attempt to lampoon tabloid-like material, which is what Karel's mockumentary is. (There are now only four sentences about it in the article instead of three paragraphs.) When Jon Stewart cleverly satirizes tabloid journalism on The Daily Show, or PBS' NOVA does a one-hour serious rebuttal of 'tabloid' Bermuda Triangle theories, Jon Stewart and PBS are not themselves engaging in tabloid journalism, though they are acknowledging its existence. Until the mid-1970s, serious science journalism tended to ignore tabloid speculation about UFOs, the Bermuda triangle, etc. Science reporters didn't want to dignify it with a response. That ethos has now changed, and today reputable science journals engage in tabloid debunking quite routinely. IMO the current ethos is preferable. Again, Karel is a major French documentary film maker who did a clever satirical spoof of tabloid theories about Kubrick with considerable assistance from the executive producer of Kubrick's final four films and all posthumous Kubrick DVD releases, Kubrick's brother-in-law Jan Harlan.--WickerGuy (talk) 07:00, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Homages?

Continued from above post, one of the so-called homages included under Legacy is this:

The video for pop singer Lady Gaga's song Bad Romance was found by Daniel Kreps of Rolling Stone magazine to be heavily influenced by the filmmaking style of Kubrick.[196] Lady Gaga has also employed a hip-hop remix of the electronic version of Purcell's music that opens the film Clockwork Orange in her concerts and in her mini-movie The Fame. Finally, her song Dance in the Dark has the lines "Find your Jesus, Find your Kubrick".

Per your request for a rationale, the material is trivia. Suffice to say that if you feel this kind of information is worthy being part of SK's "Legacy," then we differ in opinion. It has nothing to do with anyone's legacy! The material would be trivia even on her biography. The good news is that this paragraph only takes up 75 words. The bad news is that the entire article, and other pseudo-legacy text is swamped with such trivia.

BTW, I sort of doubt Lady Gaga did her hip-hop remix as a homage to Stanley Kubrick. That would be like saying Pink Floyd recorded "Dark Side of the Moon" as a homage to the astronauts. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 07:25, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

On the one hand, as a viewer of Gaga's video would be unlikely to have their perception or understanding of Kubrick significantly altered by watching it, it is somewhat trivial. (As opposed to the paintings. A viewer of the paintings based on Kubrick's work would have their understanding of Kubrick significantly changed.) On the other hand, it certainly is NOT trivial in her biography(!!!), and there I would strongly differ.

Gaga has sourced a lot of material from A Clockwork Orange not just the electronic music in her hip-hop remix, but dialogue and costumes as well. This discussed in the book Poker Face: The Rise and Rise of Lady Gaga. More allusions to Clockwork Orange appear in her more recent video Born This Way. Allusions to The Shining appear in her very recent video Marry the Night as was pointed out by MTV news.

Passing allusions to Kubrick in one video is trivia- in three or four it's a pattern and non-trivial.

However, legacy may not be the right upper section for this.--WickerGuy (talk) 08:12, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

If any of the cites related to the homages state that they were done as a homage, then please include the statement of intent. I don't think it's editors' job to claim what celebrities intended in their creation of money-making derivative works. Very few, if any, remix jocks are creating "homages." Homages, like tributes, are clear on their face. These don't claim such honorable intentions. Nor do these homages to Steve Jobs. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 08:31, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Fair enough! In the case of Gaga, my intuition tells me "homage", but that of course doesn't count for diddly-dump on Wikipedia. The two painting exhibitions mentioned in the section are, I think, self-evidently homages- they were clearly exhibited in art museums on that assumption. Simpson creator Matt Groening's general obsession with Kubrick is well-documented- SK and MG were friendly (and Kubrick's daughter has commented on how delightful the montage of Simpson's references shown at BAFTA's lifetime award to Kubrick was), so I think we are safe on The Simpsons. In the case of The Simpsons, we're IMO looking at a peculiar symbiosis such as that which exists between the films of Ingmar Bergman and Woody Allen. The reviewer of the Rubik's cube thinks it's an homage (noting the common maze-like character of the puzzle and Kubrick's films) but that reviewer reviews toys not movies, so we may be on shaky ground there. That's a single sentence. But, yes, we probably need to establish intent more clearly on Gaga. However, IMO, her song-lyric "Find your Jesus, Find your Kubrick" is a somewhat fair indicator that the multiple Kubrick references in her videos are indeed homages. She comes out of the same counter-culture milieu as Madonna who included refs to Clockwork Orange and Lolita in her "Girlie show" tour. It's indeed NOT as clear-cut as say Kate Bush's song about Bronte's Wuthering Heights or June Carter Cash's song The Night I Read Colette, but I think a fair bet.--WickerGuy (talk) 14:40, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Less important postscript

To the degree that Gaga is using Kubrick motifs, it certainly falls under what courts call "fair use" and "transformativeness". Your analogy to the fraudulent Apple store is really badly prejudicial.--WickerGuy (talk) 14:57, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Also Trimmed Trademarks of Semi-Trivia

I just trimmed the "Trademarks" section. My choices of what to cut may be somewhat subjective, but here was my thinking. (Virtually all of the material was appropriately sourced.)

The fact that Kubrick back-references earlier movies in later movies is somewhat trivial because many directors do it, even if few do it as frequently as SK did it.

The business about Kubrick's end credits seems somewhat uninteresting, and is rarely mentioned in discussions of Kubrick's style.

I was ambivalent about Kubrick's repeated uses of scenes in bathrooms. Several critics have noted it. It is as Star Trek's Spock might say "not fascinating, but interesting". A marginal case but I cut it.

On the other hand, the Kubrick stare, the recurring chess motifs, the recurring visual motifs (long shots and corridors) and the ironic use of merry music in dreadful situations are widely attested to and frequently mentioned in discussions of Kubrick's style. They are as some scholars might put it "multiply attested", and they reveal IMO more about SK than the other stuff. So that's what I kept.--WickerGuy (talk) 03:05, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Popcorn and soda water Legacy

I just read the Legacy section and saw a few more problems. The first is that of its 2,574 words I could only liberally find 85 that could be considered some legacy material, although it's still verbose and could be condensed to about 25. So even at 85, from my reading, that makes it 3% Legacy worthy. The rest is popcorn and soda water filler, mere stuffing with non-nutrient factoids from everywhere.

However, the minimal legacy text is easily overwhelmed by what could be called material closer to an antonym of "legacy." A few examples:

On the other hand, while Darabont has followed Kubrick in directing two Stephen King adaptations, Darabont shares Stephen King's negative view of Kubrick's adaption of The Shining. In the same interview, Darabont said

It completely misses the human element. Kubrick's work on screen tends to be the eye of a scientist examining humanity as if it were a paramecium under a microscope. Sometimes that worked brilliantly, and sometimes it took a really good book like The Shining and totally fucked it up. It's an utter failure as an adaptation of great material.

A second recurring conspiracy theory surrounding Stanley Kubrick is that he was a secret member of a massive Freemason-Illuminati organization and hid clues of its existence in many of his films. Theorists claim Kubrick disclosed too much in Eyes Wide Shut and was subsequently assassinated. Cracked.com listed this as #1 in their list of 5 Absurd (But Mind Blowing) Pop Culture Conspiracy Theories.[202] Although the book The Complete Idiot's Guide to the New World Order claims to be skeptical of the actual conspiracy theories, it takes at face value the claim that Masonic symbolism is woven into Eyes Wide Shut.[203]

In sum, if we add the popcorn and soda water with the sour cherries, we get serious indigestion. Am I the only one who feels like puking at this pseudo-Legacy? --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 04:10, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Some preliminary observations.

1) Depending on how one defines "Legacy" (I'm honestly not really sure what it's appropriate usage is), some material could simply be retitled or moved to other sections. The material that is arguably more legacy-related is also the material more essential to the article in general. Not a key point, but I don't recall when an editor put the Stanley Tucci factoid in its own section or made it a sub-section of "Legacy". That really doesn't make sense to me at all. It was part of a restructuring of the article, but IMO a bad decision. It stands out like a sore thumb in its current place.

2a) Of the five sections here, I think the section entitled Influence on film industry is by far and away the most essential to the article, the best of the five sections and (as already stated) the most legacy-related, though within that section I think we might be able dispense with the closing material on Remodernist Film Manifesto (or at least not have it close the section).

2b)A very close second place in importance is Cinematography techniques. This also contains material fairly essential to the article, and is surely legacy-related.

3) A much more distant third place in importance and arguably less "Legacy" related is "Homages". The remaining sections are not really "Legacy" related at all, and if retained definitely should be resectioned into a different category.

4) However, back to filmmakers, I don't follow you on Darabont. If he both admires and appropriates some elements of Kubrick's style and detracts others than both need to be said. "Influence on film industry" should include at least a few filmmakers' negative opinions, especially if there is a love-hate relationship. Darabont is a more significant figure than the "remodernists" who are a relatively minor avant-garde group. Darabont has been nominated for 3 Oscars and one Golden Globe, so his opinion carries more weight. How exactly does this overwhelm the section? I am baffled!

6) The current "Legacy" section is 2687 words as currently edited, and the two sections I ranked at the top are 1373 words. How exactly did you reduce this to 85? Which segues into....

7a) The Illuminati business is obviously highly distasteful to you, but I suspect it nauseates you so much it is coloring your appraisal of the rest of the section. I have no deep commitment to keeping it in the article, and you are entirely correct in stating it is a potential coat-rack for additional much more patently inappropriate material, and as such a tad dangerous. It is at best a footnote in Kubrick's life, and as I said earlier as it has had no impact on anyone in Kubrick's circle, arguably for that reason fairly trivial. But I would like to get other editor's opinions.

7b) Please keep in mind as I have noted previously that you are using a mode of argumentation explicitly discouraged by Wikipedia. You are arguing from a personal point of view, without appealing to policies or guidelines. For example, the Lady Gaga songs and the Simpsons episodes may be of minor interest, but the Kubrick connection in both cases are easily verifiable and in the case of the Simpsons has been noted by two academic scholars (not the mere journalists who see the connection in Gaga), definitely covered OUTSIDE fan-based sources!! You should explain what WP guidelines this and the other material you dislike fails focusing on WP:notability (as well as verifiability, neutrality or original research), and perhaps ask how the section could be better focused. See Wikipedia:CRUFT. Stating that article material is boring or offensive is simply not a good argument to make for deletion on Wikipedia.--WickerGuy (talk) 05:43, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Of minor note

If you go to a December 2010 version of this article the section on Alternate Adaptations isn't in the Legacy section at all and the "Themes" section is in "Legacy" (though it is now under artistry). I really haven't paid close attention to these restructuring issues in the article. The "Alternate Adaptations" section, the business on Tucci, and the much-vexatious "Hoaxes" section really don't belong in "Legacy". You, Ww1, were so upset about Hoaxes being a "major" section of the article (there were originally a lot more major sections) that I hastily subsectioned it just to make it less prominent, but maybe this stuff could just go in a miscellaneous area.

However, my views on the strength of the Influences and Cinematography sections still stands and I think your suggestion of reducing all of this to 85(!!!) words is a little weird.--WickerGuy (talk) 06:05, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for commenting. I'll give you a few more examples in response, under the the main Legacy section:

Paragraph 1: A phrase like "A number of his films are recognized as seminal classics," is a general, but minimal, legacy statement. The rest of the paragraph is filler;

Paragraph 2: We could add "Among Kubrick's notable innovations in filmmaking technique are his use of special effects in cinematography. For 2001: A Space Odyssey, he made innovative uses of both slit-scan photography and front-screen projection." The other 90% of the paragraph is redundant filler and not Legacy related. However, even those 2 sentences should be condensed in a general legacy topic;

Paragraph 3: "innovative use of Zeiss camera lenses for photographing scenes lit only by actual candlelight." The rest more filler.

Paragraph 4: "among the first to use the then-revolutionary Steadicam . . . to allow smooth stabilized tracking with the camera in motion." The rest again more excess verbiage.

That's all I could find. The next 20 paragraphs are popcorn, soda water, and sour cherries. It's obvious that whoever added all these irrelevant subjects and stuck them in a Legacy section was not trying too hard to provide a legacy. A reader shouldn't need to bring a metal detector and shovel to search and and dig for the rare "Legacy" nuggets buried within. The only thing "distasteful" about the entire Legacy section is that only a tiny portion seems legacy related. I'm going by the basic definition of "legacy" as "anything handed down from the past, what a person leaves behind for others."

In general, a 170,000k director bio, already about 400% longer than most bios, is missing something when all it can say the director left as their legacy is his use of special effects, innovative use of lenses for candlelight shots, and the first to use a Steadicam. I'm sorry you don't see it as a problem. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 07:20, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Please keep in mind that a LOT of this stuff was EITHER originally NOT in a Legacy section and quite recently got stuck in there in a rather hasty act of restructuring, OR it was intentionally put in a subsection such as "Influence on filmmakers" (an important topic in its own right) with little attention paid to whatever supersection that happened to be in. Clearly some restructuring is in order. Do we need a legacy section? Most articles on other film directors don't have one. If we have it we need some consensus on what that is!!! I would have thought influence on other film-makers as part of legacy- perhaps you do not. Whether it is or not, it is a fairly important section.

In the cinematography section, much of what you are calling "filler" I would call exposition. Doesn't the reader of this section want to know where and when Kubrick used the Zeiss camera lens, and what impact Kubrick's innovation in that area had on subsequent film???? And wouldn't a section on critical comments about Kubrick's work as a whole be an asset to a legacy section?? I'll try to develop a better one.

I believe you mean 165K. The Kubrick article currently weighs in at 165KB, Orson Welles at 119KB, Steven Spielberg at 115 KB, Hitchcock is at 95KB, Charlie Chaplin at 91 KB, Woody Allen at 75K, Fellini at 53K and Ingmar Bergman at 47K. George Lucas is 34K, Cecile B. DeMille is only 29 KB and D.W. Griffith 27K. This SK article is 400% larger than only the last three of these listed, and 40% larger than the Orson Welles article. There's a very wide spectrum here.

At any rate. I'm about to trim more out of the influence section.--WickerGuy (talk) 09:23, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

I've just renamed the section. I think we will agree the "Legacy" section of the Orson Welles#Legacy section is far far more inappropriately titled than this one. However, the "Legacy" section of D.W. Griffith#Legacy is absolutely marvelous.--WickerGuy (talk) 09:38, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

The problem with this, though, is that now we're back with loads of main headings that don't deserve to be main headings. And I still think we should be aiming to have a section called "Legacy"...it just needs to be refined.

For what it's worth, I take a position somewhere between the two of you. I would not keep as much material as you, WikerGuy, but Wikiwatcher, I think you're being overly negative about the whole thing. You seem to want this whole article to have about three sentences on each topic and that's it. There's nothing wrong with a bit of development on a subject, and not every additional fact is "trivia".

I agree that the DW Griffiths Legacy section is very good. Succint and to the point. And look at how much easier it is to digest? You can read it all in 2 minutes, and that's enough to tell you the guy was important. You don't need tons and tons of quotes, just two or three of the best ones that sum it all up. --Lobo512 (talk) 11:57, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

I wonder if the section on filmmaking technique is worth splitting off into an article of its own.--WickerGuy (talk) 15:44, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

And yes, this debate seems to be between a max inclusionist [2] and a min deletionist [3]--WickerGuy (talk) 15:49, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

None of the changes made are of any benefit, IMO. Just a rearranging of the deck chairs instead of throwing them overboard to keep the article afloat. Nor do I think the D.W. Griffith Legacy section is good, but at least better in that relevant aspects are not buried in a pile of trivia. For instance, Griffith's legacy section is 377 words. If you take out the material related to awards and honors, that removes half. If you remove a few very general quotes of "respect," (unsourced, BTW) that removes another half. The remaining 2 paragraphs could easily be trimmed of more excess verbiage which got it down to 55 words. And even some of those are loose: "In making Intolerance, the director opened up new possibilities for the medium, creating a form that seems to owe more to music than to traditional narrative."

The problem with Kubrick's article in general can be explained using just the 1st paragraph of the Homages section as a simple example:

In 2001, a number of persons who worked with Kubrick on his films created the documentary Stanley Kubrick: A Life in Pictures, released by Warner Bros. It was produced and directed by Kubrick's brother-in-law, Jan Harlan, who had also been executive producer of Kubrick's last four films. The camera and sound for the documentary was managed by his son, Manuel Harlan, who was also the still photographer for Eyes Wide Shut and video operator for Full Metal Jacket.

I would have probably written something about 90% shorter: "In 2001, the documentary Stanley Kubrick: A Life in Pictures was released," with a few descriptive words about the movie, instead of the extraneous stuff about the producer, who was the brother-in-law of Kubrick, and his son, or the films his son was still photographer of - the other 90%. Nor would I glorify this kind of extraneous trivia blitzing by describing it with inflated 5-syllable words like "inclusionism," and attempted cleanup as "deletionism." --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 19:11, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

An excellent point that the participation of Kubrick's nephew is extraneous and strays from the oint and the section lacks a description of the film. I have amended the paragraph per your suggestion. I think the involvement of Harlan is a bit more germaine however. He is after all the manager of Kubrick's estate, and it's important that this is effectively an "authorized" film. The words "inclusionism" and "deletionism" are frequently bandied about in circles of Wikipedia editors reflecting different philosophies of evaluating what is appropriate content, fairly pervasive wiki-speak. I didn't make it up and wasn't trying to "glorify" anything. I am not trying to blitz the article with trivia, though there is most likely far too much minutiae and small details, which is partly but not entirely the same. Trivia is stating things like Kubrick was a fan of the New York Yankees and his favorite cartoon was Woody Woodpecker (both true but there is no basis for putting them in this article). It's inconsequential and trifling. But minutiae does overburden the reader. Uh, yeah, I write a lot more like Theodore Dreiser than I do like Ernest Hemingway.--WickerGuy (talk) 21:52, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Normally, including facts like someone being a Yankee fan and liking Woody Woodpecker, would seem like trivia. However, this megalithic bio has so few actual personal details about Kubrick, that it would actually improve this article. That example about the nephew is only one of probably a hundred others equally extraneous and trivial.--Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 23:30, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

I think you're taking this a bit far now Wikiwatcher. The article needs work, but it's not THAT bad. It's a hell of a lot better than it was a few months ago. A lot of stuff has been trimmed, I think you should at least acknowledge that. --Lobo512 (talk) 23:46, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

And might I say that I haven't noticed you make much effort to improve the article, outside the constant complaining about it. --Lobo512 (talk) 23:51, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

True. A natural tendency is to add material to improve an article. This one requires the opposite, as some of us agree. It needs trimming, so the best way to start is discussing generally what and why things should be trimmed, instead of taking out someone's preexisting edits. Otherwise, every edit could lead to lengthy discussions. But even talking first doesn't always work, and can have the exact opposite effect, as I reminded WickerGuy a few days ago: "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!" --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 01:12, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Ww1, my additions were in no way a response to your comments, but a (somewhat careless) response to the fact that a great deal of the article had already been trimmed, in particular two HUGE and DISTRACTING sections had been forked off into separate articles (the massively overlong section on "unrealized projects" and the somewhat less overlong section on Kubrick's "personal life and beliefs"). I probably miscalculated but after those longish sections were gone, I (mis)judged it safe to add in much briefer small sections of material. It's quite possible that I added so many short bits that I ended up cumulatively inflating the article back to more than its former size. If after being given $5, you make 15 purchases of 35 cents, you have in fact lost money, and I will confess to having not really paid attention to the reballooning of the article after an initial deflation.

Ww1, you note the article is lacking in "personal details" about Kubrick. Much can be found in the forked off article Stanley Kubrick's personal life and beliefs (at 33KB on its own) which was originally three sections of this article.

I have now (see two new Talk sections below) deleted the three sections of the article in its entirety (all fairly short) in which the whole section seems to me quite self-evidently consist almost entirely (at least 75%) of fairly negligible trivia, and given my reasons in the Talk section below. We should all be thinking regarding the rest on either

1) how and what to trim, prune, and snip.

2) how to make the writing more connected and less fragmented. There's a lot of stuff here (mea culpa) which may appear trivial largely because it lacks connective tissue and context, but with stylistic improvements (connecting prose) could be made more germaine and relevant.

Once again, I agree with Ww1 that scholarly sources and recognized experts are to be preferred for commentary, analysis and opinion on Kubrick, but when journalists simply state facts or make observations about other critics or are writing for very high-quality journals such as the New York Times or can be shown to have had a significant influence on opinion, I think they can be used. Critics can be used to simply describe that critic's views. A marginal case would be a minor journalist cited by a major journal (such as the now discarded Jason Ankeny).--WickerGuy (talk) 03:53, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Addendum

Effectively, with the forking off of the article Stanley Kubrick's personal life and beliefs (again at 33KB on its own), we really now have two Kubrick articles, one on his career (this article here), and the other on his personal life, the forked off one, kinda sorta like the two autobiographies Christopher Reeve published in the late '90s (of about equal length). Perhaps in forking these, a certain flavor has been lost in this article.--WickerGuy (talk) 03:56, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Deleted two sections of article

The business on Stanley Tucci playing Stanley Kubrick doesn't flow with the rest of the article and certainly isn't worthy of a section by itself.

My thinking is that if we had a situation like that of Orson Welles in which nearly half-a-dozen actors have portrayed Welles on screen- some in movies focused on Welles, and others not- it would be worth mentioning Tucci's portrayal of Kubrick. But Tucci is the only actor to have portrayed Stanley Kubrick and it is in a movie focuses not on Kubrick but on Peter Sellers. If there was some larger discussion into which Tucci's portrayal could be fit then it would be worth mentioning, but as it is, it's simply an isolated factoid.

I much more reluctantly removed in its entirety the section on remakes of Kubrick's source material which has been here a long time. I may put the material back as a standalone article with a link here. On the one hand, I find it statistically significant that four of Kubrick's 11 source novels were remade with the living authors of the novels (in 3 out of 4 cases) expressing preference for the non-Kubrick version. (Addendum in contrast, not one of Orson Welles' movies has ever been remade, unless you count Shakespeare adaptations.) However, it is still relatively speaking one of the more extraneous, or better phrased "tangential" sections of the article remaining.

(The two sections that were excised some time ago on "Unrealized projects" and "Aspect ratio" were far more extraneous, intrusive, and unnecessary than the remakes section, but if we are still looking for whole sections to cut, this would be a good third choice. The Tucci business is really a mini-pseudo-section.)

As for the much vexed section Stanley_Kubrick#Hoaxes, parodies and conspiracy theories involving Kubrick, I wonder if the Moon mockumentary could be relocated into Stanley_Kubrick#Homages, and the other material relocated or dropped. Thoughts??--WickerGuy (talk) 02:28, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

I think the majority of these kinds of topics should go in a new section called "In popular culture." That would be a good place to have very abbreviated mention of the un-homagenous material. All the homage paragraphs could be downsized to a sentence each. Same with Hoaxes, which initially should be trimmed to a few sentences in that section, and certainly not left a major section.

One of my first questions months ago was whether this is a biography. Having sections devoted to topics like "Home video and screen size" made it seem otherwise. That also opens the former bio to essentially anything remotely related to Kubrick films, including the top-selling popcorn brand for viewers of Dr. Strangelove, or whether the size of viewing screen affected the drink sizes ordered at snack bars.

Another section, "Frequent and memorable collaborators," seems to be packed with irrelevant facts within its 770 words. The paragraphs discuss many people, but the majority of them would not be considered "collaborators." Examples would be actors like Leon Vitali, authors like Walker and Ciment, Peter Sellers, etc. Working with Kubrick as an editorial helper, being an author, still photographer, or actor, does not really qualify as a collaborator as typically understood. That 770 word section can easily be condensed to a paragraph it seems. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 04:08, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

--Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 04:08, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

I reworked and trimmed the Hoaxes section by 30% though with a very different strategy than you suggested as explained in the new Talk section below. (All Illuminati material is now gone.)

As I indicated before, this is now (for better or for worse) an article focused wholly on Kubrick's work and professional career. Virtually nothing on Kubrick's world view or life experiences is in this article at all!!!! This is partly due to the fact that all material on the latter was originally in three self-contained sections of the article which have now been forked off into a separate (33K) article. You are entirely correct that this may be a significant defect!!!

I agree that the "Home video and screen size" section is mostly trivial, and have just now deleted it from the article!!! This is a major change of mind on my part. It's certainly of significant importance to the specialized audience of video afficionados but not really to the general reader, though I think your followup remarks to that are surely in jest.

I have mixed feelings about your comments on the "collaborators" section, and will put on my thinking cap. Since Kubrick allowed Peter Sellers to improvise almost all of his dialogue in the two Kubrick films he worked on, he most certainly IS a collaborator, in a way other actors on the film were not. However, you are surely correct about Vitali. That is indeed trivial. I have just deleted it from the article!!! I am mulling over the rest.

Addendum

And of course, co-screenwriters are collaborators in the fullest sense of the word.

However, I disagree with your contention that "All the homage paragraphs could be downsized to a sentence each." We want to avoid bullet-point lists, or fan-magazine style writing. Examples need exposition to explain significance and importance, as in the earlier-discussed case of Kubrick's cinematic innovations. You need per Wikipedia guidelines prose and citations to establish why these are significant homages. Reducing them to one sentence makes them more like trivia or cruft not less. In particular in the case of The Simpsons, scholars cited in the text explain why this is important material. It's an academic scholar who writes (as quoted in the article) "[it's] as if the show's admittance of these films into the show's pantheon of intertextual allusions finally marked their entry into the deepest subconscious level of the global pop cultural mind". Without this explanation, mentioning The Simpsons allusions is just fan magazine stuff, exactly what an homages section ought to avoid!!!!! (Likewise per our earlier discussion, if you mention one of Kubrick's big innovations is his use of slitscan photography, one should mention which film this is in and how it influenced subsequent cinema. I cannot agree that is "verbiage".) The Gaga material is half-way there as (multiple) reliable sources have observed the (multiple) references to Kubrick in (several of) her works, but unlike The Simpsons no scholar or expert has attested to the importance of the references. It thus satisfies some of WP's critirion for "popular culture" content, but not all of them. But if retained at all the journalistic cites and specific multiple references would have to be retained.--WickerGuy (talk) 05:04, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Addendum 2

I have just deleted all the material in "collaborators" on actors who appeared in two or more films (which ironically was once the sole content of this section). It seems on further reflection like trivia. It could IMO be justified in a much shorter article, but not in one of this length.--WickerGuy (talk) 05:11, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

So now two parts are gone, the Leon Vitali paragraph and the one I just now mentioned.--WickerGuy (talk) 05:12, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Deleted a third section of article

I have now deleted a third section in its entirety, the sub-sub-section "Family Cameos" which is part of the section "Frequent and memorable collaborators". This is mildly interesting trivia which would be retainable in a much shorter article on Kubrick, but in light of the concerns expressed about the article size, I think is entirely dispensable. The cameos is SK's films of (two of) his daughters and wife are mainly of "fan" interest.--WickerGuy (talk) 03:25, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Deleted whole paragraph restructured section formerly known as "Hoaxes"

The section formerly known as "Hoaxes, parodies and conspiracy theories involving Kubrick" has been retitled "Films about elements of Kubrick's life". All of the material on the Illuminati conspiracy theory has been removed in toto from the article. (It's more appropriate to RationalWiki than here methinks. See [4].) What is left has been restructured to emphasize the participation of Kubrick's circle and the explanation of "Dark Side" has been reworked to give it (I hope) greater relevance. I also restored the deleted Tucci material in this section which is a far better place for it than where it was before.--WickerGuy (talk) 04:29, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Further deletions (and some slight restorals).

As noted in reply to Ww1 above, I have deleted the material from "Frequent and memorable collaborators" on Leon Vitali (relatively trivial), and on actors who appear in more than one Kubrick film (mostly trivial except for maybe Peter Sellers and Kirk Douglas), in addition to having previously removed the subsection of that section "Family Cameos" as noted in two Talk sections above.

Since that reply, I also removed the single sentence from "collaborators" that the two actors Kubrick allowed to improvise most of their lines were Peter Sellers and R. Lee Ermey. This could be restored with MORE discussion of the creative/artistic significance of this (re Herr's memoir of Kubrick), but as a mere statement of fact without elaboration, it is trivia.

I have actually restored the material from "Family Cameos" of Vivian Kubrick's work on making documentaries on her father, writing the score for FMJ, and Christiane Kubrick's paintings appearing in two of SK's films. The material on the 7 cameos in Kubrick's films of family members remains deleted as essentially being trivia. As stated above, it could IMO appear in a MUCH shorter article on Kubrick but not now.

I have added to the sum section on this article's paragraph on Kubrick's abandoned projects just a wee bit more biographical material on WHY the two best-known of these were abandoned.--WickerGuy (talk) 06:35, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Response to changes

Thank you for your efforts to trim the article, WG. I know you were reluctant to remove some of this stuff, but the page is looking so much better. When I first posted my concerns about this article, it was more than 18,000 words of "readable prose". It is now down to 11,800. A big drop. And it is so much clearer to explore and easier to digest. There's still stuff that needs to be done, but let's just be positive about the changes so far, eh?! Great work, thank you.

I think the next sections that need to be trimmed/refined are "Themes" and "Influence on film industry". These are both very wordy, and essentially keep repeating themselves. There needs to be some mention of satire in the themes section, too.

Can we perhaps change the headings in the "Life and career" section back to how they used to be? The problem with having a separate subheading for each film, is that there's material there that doesn't fit under these headings. Such as smaller projects and facts about his personal life. Without these subheadings, we could very easily incorporate the "Unfinshed projects" into this main section, which would further de-clutter the article.

Once we have got the article down further, I think it would be great to inlude a summary of his character, and transfer some of the stuff from the personal life page here. It's a shame not to have any mention of that on his page page, as you both seem to agree. --Lobo512 (talk) 12:14, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Addendum

We're down to 11,800 words of readable prose?? You often find that in articles only about 60K!!!--WickerGuy (talk) 16:20, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Certainly anything repetitious in "Themes" and "Influence" should be removed!! I hadn't really looked at that. Ditto incorporating remarks about satire.

I attempted to restore to the main article the most interesting and salient points about his unfinished projects while deferring the rest to that subsection. However, it might (or might not) look better in the general bio section, rather than in a separate section by itself.

It would be great if you could put material BETWEEN sub-sub-sections but Wiki software apparently doesn't have that feature.

Stuff to include/retain

Themes section should discuss issues of Kubrick's focus on dark side of human nature in some detail. Retain optimism/pessimism discussion though perhaps trim.

On personal character- discuss reclusiveness and fear of flying and his extensive research for films. I think this last is in the article somewhere, but might be more highlighted. Retain/include material on general method of filming, multiple takes etc. Separate character article discusses his love of animals- should get mentioned here to "personalize" article re concerns of Ww1 and myself.

Addendum.

I have restored 90% of the "personal life" section from the article "Stanley Kubrick's personal life and beliefs and removed it from there, and retitled the latter article.--WickerGuy (talk) 18:51, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

PS My favorite Kubrick trivia which will never never get in here!!

Because of Kubrick's interest in Jungian psychology, a few writers here and there mention casually SK has the same birthday as Carl Gustav Jung. Many also compare Kubrick to Orson Welles, both of whom only did 13 feature films. I think I am the first to notice Welles has the same birthday as Sigmund Freud. Both trivia AND OR. By the same token, my LEAST favorite Kubrick trivia is that he has the same birthday as the director of 2010: The Year We Make Contact.--WickerGuy (talk) 16:17, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

In retrospect

Back when I was splitting off stuff from the main article into sub-articles, it was a very good move to split off the material on his unrealized projects, probably a good move to split off the section on his political and religious beliefs (these were long sections) but a very grave error to split off the section on personal character!!! Much thanks to Ww1 for indirectly noting that flaw in the article!!!!--WickerGuy (talk) 16:46, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

It would seem

that the copious amount of footnotes and bibliography do a lot to inflate the article size in raw K. Wikipedia guidelines on article size quite explicitly say you can ignore that in discussing size concerns.

The prose section of the article (including pictures) on a Google Chrome print preview is 27 and a half pages out of 42(!!!) (This is WP's "printable version".) leaving 14 and 1/2 pages of footnotes, bibliography, and list of links!!!! The printable version of Orson Welles has the prose section is 17 pages out of 22, and has considerable fewer pictures.--WickerGuy (talk) 17:37, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Yet another deletion

I have deleted from the section "Awards and Nominations" the placement of multiple Kubrick films in the AFI Top 100 lists. As with family cameos and actors in multiple Kubrick films, this is IMO justifiable in a shorter article, but should be one of the first things to go in an article of this size.

I also removed a few of the External Links. One was Clockwork Orange-specific. The YouTube had probable copyright violation.--WickerGuy (talk) 18:49, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Heidi Heidi Heidy Ho. We have readable prose about same size Orson Welles & Spielberg though raw size much larger

Wikipedia guidelines overtly state in considering article size, pay attention to readable prose!!! We've got 1003B of references, while Welles has only 302B. Using User:Dr_pda/prosesize.

Although in raw K, we are at 167K and Orson Welles is at 119 KB, in terms of the javascript mentioned at WP:Article Size that measures readable prose, I get this

Stanley Kubrick
File size: 444 kB
Prose size (including all HTML code): 111 kB
References (including all HTML code): 14 kB
Wiki text: 163 kB
Prose size (text only): 76 kB (12593 words) "readable prose size"
References (text only): 1003 B

Orson Welles
Document statistics: (See here for details.)
File size: 312 kB
Prose size (including all HTML code): 122 kB
References (including all HTML code): 4673 B
Wiki text: 121 kB
Prose size (text only): 71 kB (11909 words) "readable prose size"
References (text only): 302 B

Including HTML code we actually have LESS readable prose than the Welles article, and without it we are at 76K to Welles 71K. (WP guidelines suggest about 100K as a max, and 60K as best for "readable prose". We are definitely in the ball park.)

This should relieve a few worries!!!!

For comparison,

Steven Speilberg

File size: 459 kB
Prose size (including all HTML code): 96 kB
References (including all HTML code): 8900 B
Wiki text: 115 kB
Prose size (text only): 51 kB (8435 words) "readable prose size"
References (text only): 631 B.

Another director article with LOTS OF references and bibliography (which don't count towards "readable prose size") is

Alfred Hitchcock

File size: 281 kB
Prose size (including all HTML code): 82 kB
References (including all HTML code): 7131 B
Wiki text: 95 kB
Prose size (text only): 50 kB (8184 words) "readable prose size"
References (text only): 464 B

--WickerGuy (talk) 19:52, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

In my opinion, 76K of "readable prose" (per WP:Article Size) is an ideal size for this particular article. WP guidelines recommends probably not going over 60K unless the scope of the topic justifies it (the Barack Obama article is one of the longest bios on Wikipedia- Richard Nixon is at 72K readable prose, singer Michael Jackson is 80K! and is a "featured article"!!! - on the other hand the grossly inflated Larry Norman at 103 kB readable prose is a total disgrace!!), and virtually never going above 100K. We and Welles both being in the 70K's for "readable prose" is I think just perfect. References don't count for "readable prose" so our raw 165K size is artificially inflated.

Wikiwatcher1, if on the one hand the article contains excessive amount of intricate detail that may only interest a specific audience (such as the recently deleted aspect ratios on video releases) then we have a serious problem, and thank you for calling attention to some issues there.
However, appeals to the "average" biography size on Wikipedia is, I think, meaningless. Wp guidelines suggest a flexible upper limit, but don't make any appeals to average. There are hundreds of "stub" biographies. Perhaps you meant "typical" biography size. At any rate, saying as you did we are 400% longer than the "average" biography is kind of meaningless. If re "readable prose" we're above "consider shortening" (60K) but below "definitely shorten" (100k) and below Michael Jackson (80K) which achieved "featured article" status, I think re size per se we're doing fine.--WickerGuy (talk) 21:03, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the changes, many for the better. It would still be nice if there was a consensus about whether this article should be considered a "biography," however. If there was, my vote would be to split off most of the material below the "Character" section into an article called "Filmography of Stanley Kubrick." The few parts of those sections that are biographical could stay. As a biography, IMO, because of its undue weight to the filmography and production aspects, with little bio details, I'd rank it very low. That includes consideration of the misnamed and misplaced "Character" section, which could actually be condensed dramatically and nothing would be missed. The main benefit of a split would be to allow for some actual bio details to be added to the bio article. My personal feeling is that a lot of readers would like to imagine that he ate, slept, drank, walked, talked, thought, married, played, had kids, read books, vacationed, socialized, etc. Those real world life aspects affected why he directed what he did and his methods. He's had numerous interviews, and authors who knew him well and even collaborated with him could add a lot. As it is now, there seems to be an overall undue impression of antipathy toward SK woven throughout the article, beginning with the lead. The "Character" section included. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 22:16, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Good points. Just some observations. I have noticed that published book bios of Kubrick tend to discuss his film work for a far greater percentage of the time than in bios of other directors, notably the most famous bio by LoBrutto. So we may just be unconsciously reflecting the nature of the dominant sources. This may be due to Kubrick's reclusiveness, and thus he is known through his films moreso than others. "Filmography" articles on Wikipedia are almost always bullet-point lists with no further discussion, so I doubt that's an option. We actually have more bio-type material on Kubrick than the article Francis Ford Coppola, but on the other hand the Wikipedia articles on Woody Allen, Roman Polanski, Charlie Chaplin and Steven Spielberg are fully-fledged biographies in a way that this article is most certainly not. If the Coppola article is even more one-sidedly career-oriented than this one, ones that are about the same (im)balance as ours is Alfred Hitchcock and Orson Welles.

Antipathy you say. In 2009, there were complaints that this article was shrine worshipping Kubrick(!!!) in definite violation of WP neutrality rules. And although I am a fan, I put in some of the antipathetic material in response to those criticisms of this article. There's only two sentences of antipathy in the lede and I think they're reasonably appropriate. The character section has one out of seven paragraphs on antipathy, and MOST of the material I FAILED to restore just this morning from the split-off article (formerly entitled "Kubrick's personal character and beliefs") is either MORE antipathy which I just felt was unnecessary, or praise that was overly vague. My selection of antipathetic material was based on how well-known and specific it is. Kubrick's quarrels with MacDowell and Kirk Douglas are well-known. The antipathetic statements towards SK from a couple other actors have gotten far less attention and so I jettisoned them. But I also jettisoned the high praise from Shelley Winters and others just because it had no details- Winters just says he's a treasure without saying why in particular.

I personally find Darabont's antipathy/sympathy interesting because it's a love-hate relationship. He admires Kubrick and dislikes other aspects of his work at the same time. My prior inclusion of the material from Irish critic Paul Lynch (in the currently discarded "criticism" section) interested me for the same reason.

At any rate, we DO need to state that Kubrick had detractors among both critics and colleagues, but to what degree and how to contextualize it requires further thought.

Thank you for your thoughts.--WickerGuy (talk) 22:53, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Ww1: With all due respect Ww1, I really think you're wrong about this. Of course a film about an artist is largely going to talk about his work and techniques. Just like one about a scientist would talk a lot about their inventions. People may be interested in what "he ate, slept, drank, walked, talked, thought, married, played, had kids, read books, vacationed, socialized, etc", but this is an ecyclopedia. I agree it's nice to have some of this stuff, but only a small amount. And why do you think "Character" is the wrong name for that heading? I changed it to that from "personal life", because I thought it was far more fitting (it is almost exclusively talking about his personality). --Lobo512 (talk) 23:04, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Lobo, I didn't like the title because I personally had no idea what it was about until I read it. I'd even guess that after reading through the films sections, some might assume "character" referred to characters in his film. And I personally didn't like 90% of the material in the section as it was not encyclopedic by any stretch of the imagination. There are 10 times more details about his love of dogs and rabbits than his marriage, wife, or kids.

WickerGuy, your comment that "Filmography" articles on Wikipedia are almost always bullet-point lists with no further discussion," as a reason why a split wouldn't work will probably not pertain to SK. We've got 6,000 words purely about his filmography, after the "Character" section. And that doesn't even include the thousands in the actual film description sections before "Character."

On a side note, there seems to be an awful lot of redundancy about his so-called reclusiveness, even a likely unsourced paragraph, claiming that "some researchers speculate" he suffered from some disease called Asperger's Syndrome. I might add that to the four (not one,) antipathetic paragraphs. In any case, an entire paragraph in "Character" implies almost the opposite:

"Kubrick was in constant contact with family members and business associates, often by telephone, and called his collaborators at all hours of the day and night for conversations that lasted from under a minute to several hours. Many of Kubrick's admirers and friends spoke of these telephone conversations with great affection and nostalgia . . . Kubrick also frequently invited people to his house, ranging from actors to close friends, admired film directors, writers, and intellectuals."

On the other hand, I'm aware that many directors and actors who decide to live outside Hollywood and away from the spotlights and paparazzi, and even shun the major televised ceremonies, can be considered reclusive. It's a relative term, and for a major director who's worked with hundreds of actors, writers, producers, etc, it could be mentioned, but IMO, doesn't need constant repetition with dozens of disparaging quotes, many unsourced, from people who never even met or worked with him. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 23:53, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

The issue is that there is a widespread perception of Kubrick as a recluse (as it is clear this is we are mentioning), as mentioned in obituaries like this one from BBC [5] and recurring in books about him. It's often given an the main explanation for the success of Alan Conway's impersonation of him. Much of the opening section of the film Stanley Kubrick: A Life in Films discusses this image, although the film is in part a rebuttal to it. The recluse image is discussed in one short and one immediately following paragraph (outside the lede) in the "Character" section (just now by me condensed into one paragraph). Even the very friendly and definitive book by Alexander Walker- arguably one of the top 5 books on Kubrick- describes Kubrick as a recluse, and even once as misanthropic, and its one of two books on Kubrick that Kubrick helped a lot directly with the writing of!!! ("Recluse" in Page 360 of the second edition of the Walker book, BTW, year 2000. Can't vouch for 1971 edition.) I've added three citations now to the paragraph in question in response to your sourcing concerns.

My count of "one" disparaging paragraph was confined to the "Character" section and to the paragraph that is dominantly disparaging and it is not the one that makes any mention about reclusiveness. The other disparaging remarks about Kubrick in the article say nothing about his reclusiveness and are entirely independent criticisms. I find no redundancy or repetition there at all!!

The assertion that it was speculated he has Asperger's is directly sourced to a book by NOVA science publishers by Viktoria Lyons, a neuropsychologist who specializes in the study of Asperger's syndrome, and has an entire chapter(!!) on Kubrick. It's not even not "likely unsourced". It's impeccably sourced!! A minority of folks with Asperger's actually do have good social skills (most of the time).

Relatively little is known about Kubrick's non-professional relationship with his wife and daughters. They kept out of the spotlight. But his love of animals reveals things about his personality. And once again per WP:UNENCYCLOPEDIC, saying something is "not encyclopedic" is overtly listed in WP's list of arguments to avoid, as was your usage of WP:IDONTLIKEIT in (I believe) the Lady Gaga material.

I'm not sure how much having worked with Kubrick carries weight especially with regard to comments about his work. Frederic Raphael most certainly DID work with Kubrick (co-author of Eyes Shut screenplay), and his extremely negative statements about SK have been widely panned as the paranoid rant of demented egomaniac. Surely the remarks of any film critic or prominent professional on Kubrick's work matter whether or not they worked with Kubrick, especially if we are talking in general about Kubrick's impact on the film community.

The disparaging remarks in the "Character" section are entirely confined to those who worked with Kubrick. Those in the section "Influence on film industry" are not, and this is exactly what is appropriate.

You're a hard person to please, but always stimulating and thought-provoking.--WickerGuy (talk) 01:57, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Lead edits

Hopefully, some of the edits helped tighten up the lead without losing any substance as a summary. It's very ironic that I had to remove the Anthony Burgess complaint, since it wasn't in the body. I actually saw him give a talk where he complained about SK's adaption. He ended up sitting right next to me after his talk as Clockwork Orange was screened for the audience. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 03:45, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Good edits. The Burgess complaint had been in the now-removed "Alternative Adaptations" which in its last brief hours was renamed to "Remakes of Kubrick's source material". I'm not quite sure why you replaced one Ciment quote with another other than I failed to give a page citation for the first one. The Kael-Harris bit you removed from lede also used to be in the body and is no longer there.

When Burgess was in the article, the citation was his foreword to his stage adaptation of Orange. A bit of stage business in the script but sometimes cut from stage productions is that near the end a tramp "resembling Stanley Kubrick" comes on drunkenly singing "Singing in the Rain" and the now-adult Alex in some fashion tells him to stop being annoying. (I don't quite remember what Alex does.) Do you remember much of what Burgess said??

I like the fact that you want to take a radical approach to the article. I'm thinking of amending the "Character" section per your remarks. My own work on the article was mostly grafting and/or (less often) pruning branches onto the existing trunk, however gnarly it was, but you seem to want a new trunk. That could be a good thing.--WickerGuy (talk) 07:30, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

I do think the only way to raise an article to a high standard is often to rewrite it completely. I started working on the Katharine Hepburn page last summer because it was a complete mess, and I initally felt bad about deleting other people's work. But the only way to improve it was to completely rewrite it, it was too difficult otherwise. And it's now a featured article candidate, so I don't really think any previous contributors could complain (and no-one has). --Lobo (talk) 13:38, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I think that in the 2+ years I've worked on this article, I've been focused on the trees, not the forest. While at times finding some of Ww1's remarks about sour cherries hard to take, he does have a point about the article as a whole being rather malformed.--WickerGuy (talk) 17:20, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

I guess in relative terms saying I want "radical" changes is correct. From my perspective, I'm trying to de-radicalize it, at least in size. But our more recent comments have looked at the questions of balance, since the article seems weighted on extraneous facts and little personal info about SK, who I think should be the main trunk. That Ciment quote was only a single word, and uncited. So I just added a meaningful statement quote, with cite.

What I vaguely remember about what Burgess talked about were two aspects: 1)his original story was not taking place in the future, but was a current affair, and 2) that he wrote it not as a scifi story, but as what was then being discussed and experimented with in the UK: behavior mod with external "therapies" like shock, or internal ones with drugs. I don't remember if that was a news item anywhere, but at least in the U.K. he seemed to think it was in the works, and obviously didn't like it. It's interesting that the film was blamed for causing copycat crimes there, yet may have preempted the extreme behavior mod methods being considered. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 19:50, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Ideally, a Wikipedia article about any film director should cover his biography (including marriage and family- Ww1 is right we should say more about that), say something about his overall directing style in what is sometimes called "trademark characteristics", and have a general filmography with some discussion of the various genres the director worked in, and certainly list his awards. Finally, I think some of the director's personal opinions should be discussed (may judicially restore that bit as well). However, Discussions about directorial trademarks probably shouldn't cover small details like distinctive features of opening or closing credits. (Mea culpa!)

A WP article about a film director might but need not cover critical opinion about his work, and give brief plot synopses of major films. (With only 13 films and a wide variety of genres SK worked in, IMO (brief) plot synopses that reveal recurrent themes (not adequately tied in in this article) is I think permissible. Again, the synopses should say more about SK's recurrent themes, and they currently don't.

The article probably should not cover technical details of films about "aspect ratios" and filming locations. Save it for articles on the films. Same goes for alternate versions of films.

In most cases such an article should not discuss musical soundtracks of films, but since Kubrick had such a distinctive use of classical music across several films, I would definitely make an exception in Kubrick's case.

A HUGE problem with what remains in the article "Stanley Kubrick's personal beliefs" formerly "personal life and beliefs" before the first part was remerged here"is that it is WHOLLY focused on religion and politics. But SK had a lot to say about FILM and FILM-MAKING and there is NOTHING about that in what remains of the article NOR in the MAIN article. We really need to have something about SK's stated opinions about the process of movie-making here. IMO, a signficant defect, equal in importance to Ww1's notes about saying nothing about his family.--WickerGuy (talk) 05:01, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

More trims

I have just made about 4K of trims in the discussions of the particular films, especially focused on cutting what reveiwers said (except for Lolita & continental split on Lyndon), all mention of supporting staff (we don't care here that Douglas Trumbull did effects on Space Odyssey), filming locations (except for Jacket as that has significance re its distinctivness as Nam films, etc.

Now let's see if we can add some interesting bio material.--WickerGuy (talk) 05:52, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Y Support. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 07:02, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Recent Changes- Biographical stuff added

I just added about 10K of personal stuff to the article, and relocated the material on One-Eyed Jacks and A.I (though notably not Aryan Papers) into the main bio section of the article.

There are three sections to the article I wrote now deleted in totality. The "Writing Style" section was IMO awful but I think the best candidate for getting put back with entirely new content. The "Opinions of critics" section was IMO fair to middlin, but of somewhat less importance. The "Remakes of Kubrick's Source Material" might be a candidate for a separate article like the "personal beliefs" section. I'll try to avoid the Wikipedia philosophy of "eventualism" [6] (someone will eventually improve it) and instead try to adopt a philosophy of "immediatism" [7].--WickerGuy (talk) 22:07, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Pessimism essay

A giant section called "Themes," which is essentially about Kubrick's alleged pessimism, is moved to the sandbox for clinical observation and therapy. There must be more to the themes in his films besides this single factor. In any case, it's obviously excessive commentary about that topic and should be abbreviated dramatically. I can add the key detail back into a relevant section or sections.--Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 23:00, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Good Overhaul

Good overhaul, Ww1. All addditions good, almost all deletions good trims.

I'm slightly quizzical about the removal of all material about SK's first two short-lived marriages. His first two wives worked on his first two films respectively, and that seems to be worth mentioning. Also his unhappy experience with Spartacus is fairly pivotal to understanding why post-Spartacus he was even MORE insistent on having full creative control of his work, so I sorta think something should be said about that as well.

But all in all, well done!!

More to say on Saturday.--WickerGuy (talk) 05:01, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

PS A few other deletions are stuff I personally don't miss, but I wonder if they contravene WP guidelines. More on Saturday night.--WickerGuy (talk) 05:02, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for reviewing. I'll be adding more details about his early marriages and some about Douglas as they affected his career with better sources,and maybe even some supporting images (gulp!). --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 05:15, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

I like the way you downplayed the popular (and widespread) image of SK as recluse, mentioning it in passing and then noting it just isn't true. The film and tie-in book Stanley kubrick: A Life in Pictures open with extensively documenting that popular impression and then go for rebutting it. Mentioning it merely in passiing may be a more interesting way to go.

As your first two edits removed the material about his first two marriages, I was at first a bit apprehensive, but my fears were not justified.

Spartacus plays partly the same role in Kubrick's career as Magnificent Ambersons & Touch of Evil in the career of Orson Welles (Caveat: except OW wrote the scripts for those)- motivating the director to never ever again work on a film in which someone else had editorial control- same thing with Woody Allen's bad experience with What's New Pussycat?. The old material may not have highlighted the career-consequences sufficiently, but it needs to be said. (You don't think Kirk Douglas' autobio is a good source?)--WickerGuy (talk) 13:59, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

The Douglas book is important to give balance to that film section. I trimmed it from the "Character" section since it was focused on Spartacus, and best kept in that film's section. I think the material in this article about the films, since each has its own article, should revolve more around Kubrick's direction or effect on his own life. I try to thin out and tighten the extraneous stuff first and then add relevant bio details. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 18:58, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Oh, I didn't catch that you had trimmed the Douglas from elsewhere.--WickerGuy (talk) 20:19, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Trims redux

I am inclined to think just a bit more needs to be said for bio reasons about Kubrick's censorship struggles with Lolita, as about his dustup with Douglas on Spartacus.

If Spartacus is (kinda sorta) the counterpart to Orson Welles' Touch of Evil- with both directors wanting to virtually disown the final cut (and become even more rigid about maintaining control), Lolita is (kinda sorta) the counterpart to Orson Welles' (eventually canceled) stage production of The Cradle Will Rock which faced massive censorship controversy and both productions left their directors feeling embattled and partly wishing they had never tried. In particular, Kubrick's statement that had he known how serious the censorship problems would be had he "would have never made the film" seems to me to be something that ought to be restored.

However, the old article version may have been overly focused on production issues and insufficiently oriented to the biographical element and may have had too much detail.

The fact that Lolita's screen play is really mostly Kubrick (& Harris) in spite of his having no credit probably does not need to go back.--WickerGuy (talk) 01:59, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

I hasten to add on the positive side...

You have been massively successful in changing this article from being a survey of the landscape of Kubrick's films to being more of a portrait of Kubrick the human. Kudos!!--WickerGuy (talk) 02:12, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. There's a lot of Kubrick bio material related to the various films that will be added soon, including the details you mentioned. I appreciated having someone review changes like these. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 02:26, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, cuts are always done as part of restructuring as branches are cut one place and sometimes grafted back on somewhere else.

Some worthy material in the old version may have been inadequately contextualized due to the essential fragmented quality of the writing.--WickerGuy (talk) 03:23, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

And finally...

Somewhere, I would like to kinda sorta like to see restored (perhaps not to the place from whence it was deleted) that at least one critic regards Lolita as a transitional film between Kubrick's earlier first-rate but more imitative work and later more distinctively Kubrickian work.

In this view, Lolita (and perhaps Dr. Strangelove) holds perhaps the same place in Kubrick's body of work as the Beatles albums Rubber Soul and Revolver does in theirs. The Beatles' work prior to Rubber Soul was first-rate but still imitative of Chuck Berry, the Isley Brothers and others. In RubSol and Rev a highly distinctive Beatles sound begins to emerge which then is fully born in Sergeant Peppers as happened with Kubrick in Space Odyssey. It is no coincidence that 90% of the most famous Beatles' songs are from their last 7 albums, and much material from their first six albums (except for about 10 obvious mega-hits) is rarely heard. (When was the last time you heard "There's a Place" on the radio?) Likewise, Kubrick's last seven films are far more widely discussed than his first six.

So the fact that at least one critic sees Lolita as a transitional film for Kubrick seems to me to be worth mentioning.--WickerGuy (talk) 03:23, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree with your points about Lolita. Anything career-altering is always important to mention.--Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 04:15, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Cite format

There are two main citation formats relating to books that are being used.

The "ref name" format example can be seen in Notes #1, and the other kind is similar to #2. I've used the "ref name" most often, but I'm neutral otherwise. I think they should all be consistent. Thoughts? --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 01:03, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

I think WP actually has some software tools for combing through an article and making the citation format consistent, but I haven't got the foggiest idea how to use them. I'm not sure what you mean by #1 & 2. The ref name has limits on the ability to cite specific pages, but there may be ways to work around them. At any rate, I would go for consistency when possible. I don't think I've really answered your question.--WickerGuy (talk) 01:44, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Actually, the "ref name" format does have page references. Click on letter "f" in the Notes section, footnote #1, for an example. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 02:02, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Hidden narratives video

I came across this very interesting, well done 1/2 hour video, Kubrick's Gold Story which is about Kubrick and The Shining, but I'm not sure if should or can be used anywhere. It might relate to the Sundance film in the Homages section. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 21:59, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

It sounds like it at best belongs in the article on The Shining. There's lots of esoteric interpretations of that film out and about, but about half are by self-published sources and can only therefore me mentioned by way of being discussed in the documentary Room 237 (which BTW, extended discussion of almost surely also belongs in the article on The Shining not here, unless there are notable references to other Kubrick films in it.)--WickerGuy (talk) 00:49, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Addendum

The video you mention is by Rob Ager, who definitely does NOT qualify as a reliable source by WP standards. He is wholly self-published. A more serious work (such as "Room 237") which discusses Ager would be OK. Ager's work has actually been parodied on YouTube.--WickerGuy (talk) 04:12, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

I always thought they wouldn't take his money because they only wanted his soul. Now I know, ghosts just like gold! You can tell the film maker did his homework because there is a screenshot if the wikipedia page on the federal reserve. Puddytang (talk) 05:23, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

The Beatles LOTR

This article [[8]] seems to contradict some of the claims made in the Wikipedia article. Not sure how accurate is, since it seems to be based off a Peter Jackson interview, and maybe he didn't know what he was talking about. He claims that the project didn't go forward because Tolkien didn't want the Beatles doing it. Puddytang (talk) 06:13, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

That is also true. It's not clear to me how much power Tolkien had at the time. However, it is also true that Kubrick regarded LotR as unfilmable. Those are not mutually exclusive realities. As to which exactly killed the project, it's hard to say.--WickerGuy (talk) 12:38, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

I now see the article does overtly say that Tolkien's issues killed it. So the article here is unclear, at least, and should be clarified.--WickerGuy (talk) 12:40, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

There is another Wikipedia article that made this same claim (Kubrick said it was unfilmable), but it is not sourced. This article might be a reliable source for what it says, but all it says is "Jackson says this is how it happened." I wouldn't take it at face value since Jackson wasn't directly involved. It strikes me as not believable. If it is true that Universal owned the rights, it wouldn't matter what Tolkien thought. Puddytang (talk) 20:23, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

I can only say that at this point further research is required. I was under the impression that by this point Tolkien had already sold the film rights and had no further say in the subject. The only restriction that Tolkien had is that when he initially sold the film rights there was a clause in the contract that under no circumstances in perpetuity was LotR ever to be adapted by Walt Disney! But after that he retained no "approval rights" of any kind. He may very well have expressed unhappiness with the idea of the Beatles doing it, but my impression was that this now carried no legal weight. Will have to do some digging.--WickerGuy (talk) 02:00, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

So far various books give only fragmented snippets of info. The idea that the Beatles talked directly with SK emerges mainly in bios of the Beatles rather than other sources.--WickerGuy (talk) 02:45, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Influence on film industry

I'm moving the entire section to the sandbox as only tiny portions, interspersed within the massive commentary, are about his industry influence. The rest is mostly general praise but little else of substance. If someone can pull together the "influence" aspects it could be added somewhere, maybe within the film sections. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 02:48, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

However a lot of this is required per WP guidelines in order to list the folks influenced by Kubirkc in the Infobox, although this is a widely breached rule in Wikipedia. General praise does not belong, but if a film-makers filming technique is influenced by SK, it needs to be discussed or have the film-maker removed from the infobox.--WickerGuy (talk) 05:30, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I think a trimmed version of it should be restored, at least until something else is written. It's better than having nothing on this at all. --Lobo (talk) 07:32, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree, and would add that the section title should probably be called "Legacy," which encompasses the previous title but allows for other aspects. The way most of the sandboxed text is written mentions the "inspiration" and "influence" of his films, but ignores stating what it was that was inspiring or influential. One of the few "influences" supported that way would be the Coen brothers use of the Steadicam, except even that is somewhat of an opinion, speculating they shot a scene as an "homage" to Kubrick, with no support. An "homage" is a type of tribute, done intentionally as an expression of respect, not a mere borrowing of filmmaking technique among directors. I think that when the body of the article is filled out and balanced, putting together a real "legacy" section might be easier.--Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 09:31, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Other concerns

Because Kubrick's most career-defining films are Space Odyssey, Clockwork Orange, and The Shining, deeply affecting public perception of him, I think we can have a slightly longer discussion about them here than the other films. IMO, the business about the iconic imagery for The Shining and the controversy over the violence in CO is perfectly legit for this article, and need not be confined to the articles on the films. Kubrick's lifestyle was affected by the CO controversy, and the cited source said that the images from Shining are among the most iconic of any(!!) Kubrick film.

BTW, although the deleted material about Kubrick's work with Ken Adam had no footnote, the exact film documentary was mentioned, even if its release date and publisher were not (as with a proper footnote). It was perhaps improperly cited, but not wholly uncited. A "cite video" template would simply clear that up.

The "uncited" material about SK's reputation as a recluse starting around BLyndon was actually in the same sources that were cited for the previous sentence.

I'm not sure why the material on his frequent use of voiceover narration was deleted.

However, excellent work on the move from New York to England!!!!--WickerGuy (talk) 05:39, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

All those concerns can be easily fixed, now that they're noted. I'll be expanding CO and some other films with more SK-oriented material now that a lot of extraneous stuff focused on the films only is trimmed or sandboxed.--Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 06:01, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Also I would especially like to see restored mention of the memoirs of the collaborators with Kubrick. It may read as is like "publishing promo" but these are valuable and important snapshots of what he was like.--WickerGuy (talk) 06:44, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Movie details

Some of the added material for movies like Spartacus should be limited. I think a lot of the added movie-related text digresses into details that belong with the movie's article, not in the director's bio.--Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 05:55, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps it should be rephrased to note from the beginning that Kubrick satirized the most famous scene in his next film.--WickerGuy (talk) 06:36, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

With most of Lolita being a satire, I don't think describing any single scene works in this bio. It belongs in Trumbo's.--Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 07:37, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Sex and death?

I'm trimming some material that requires elaboration, as it doesn't make sense:

Webster sees Kubrick as frequently exploring links between sex and death as in the opening of Dr. Strangelove, for example.

It also seems to lack any apparent relevance to a section about his "influences."

The same is true of your statement,

Other recurring themes in Kubrick's films are murder, suicide, sexual jealousy and troubled husband-wife relationships.

The citation in a later paragraph lacks a page #, but this statement seems to lack any source, and again lacks relevance to his "influences." The nature of such broad comments should also have quoted text, to avoid sounding like OR. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 09:20, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Umm, I thought this was now the replacement of the "Themes" section. I should also check page numbers- I thought I supplied them for all the citations. Yes, that one sentence is problematic. You discarded the old themes section- overfocused on optimism and pessimism- I thought this was the new one.--WickerGuy (talk) 13:35, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

You have this subsection listed under "Technique", NOT under "Influences"!! What's the deal??--WickerGuy (talk) 13:38, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

The opening of Doctor Strangelove links sex and death because it shows a shot of a bomber refueling via being penetrated by another while the music for "Try a Little Tenderness" is being played. It's a link that's been noted before. Cited text can be supplied. Except for "troubled husband-wife relationships", the other generalizations are justified by the text following.

The point is the "themes" section as is currently stands observes that Kubrick worked intuitively without having conscious themes, but studies of Kubrick do indeed see recurring themes, and in any "Themes" section this needs to be noted.--WickerGuy (talk) 13:45, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Double check

The new material is indeed organized as follows

Artistry

Influences

Early years

Cinematography

Stories and writing

Directing

Technique

Themes and stories (New material I added- not under "Influences" at all)

Writing and staging scenes

Directing

Cinematography

Editing

Music Selection

--WickerGuy (talk) 13:55, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

The "sex and death" stuff was removed from the "Stories and Writing" section, which was under "Influences." Maybe a way to rephrase this is to simply say he read the daily newspapers for ideas, which rely on those same themes ;-) Your explanation about the opening to Dr. Strangelove did explain something that worried me a bit: The other day while putting gas in my car I had some easy-listening background music playing, and noticed some lady in another car giving me some dirty looks. I couldn't figure out why until now. So I'm keeping all music off at filling stations in the future -- thanks for the heads up! --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 19:21, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Ouch. I wasn't paying attention. Yes, I definitely put that stuff in the wrong place. And thanks much for my biggest laugh of the week!!!--WickerGuy (talk) 21:20, 22 February 2012 (UTC)