Talk:Stanley Kubrick/Archive 1

message: Removed from the main article by User:Revolver:
Kubrick reportedly died exactly 666 days before January 1 2001, a fact noted by trivia buffs and conspiracy theorists. , .
----
Hey, I wasn't doubting whether Kubrick died exactly 666 days before the year 2001.  That's probably true.  I didn't remove the sentence because I doubted its truth -- I removed it because it's irrelevant.  People play with numbers all the time and if you take enough combinations, you're going to come up with coincidental things like this.  Are we going to start putting references to every single irrelevant numerological thing that someone finds?? Revolver
:: Well, it makes the reader to laugh (or, at least, this is true for me) :) Is there any better way to end an article from writing something funny? Optim 03:52, 25 Jan 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I added the info in Number of the Beast (numerology). Optim 03:56, 25 Jan 2004 (UTC)

text: Of course not.  But this is one which is noted by trivia buffs and conspiracy theorists. Anthony DiPierro 04:35, 10 Feb 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, usually these are the ONLY people who note such crap, so I don't see what difference that makes. Revolver 19:59, 10 Feb 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: If people are noting something, wikipedia should report it. Anthony DiPierro 20:52, 10 Feb 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: How many people are really noting this? I think the number is pretty low. Just because there are a lot of websites devoted to something, doesn't mean a lot of people are noting it. I would bet there are thousands of other things "noted" by similarly minute portions of the populations...do we make a note of all of these? Revolver 21:28, 10 Feb 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: If it's a verifiable NPOV fact, yes, we do. Anthony DiPierro 21:30, 10 Feb 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: But that's where I disagree with you -- NOT every verifiable NPOV fact has a place on wikipedia. I could believe that aliens captured Stanley Kubrick's body and whisked him away, and "convince" 10 of my friends this was true (or to say it was true), then it would be a verifiable fact that the 11 of us believe and note this; do we deserve mention?? Wikipedia is not a dictionary, not a source vault, not a place for random (true) lists, not a place for random bits of information, not a place for everything. Lots of verifiable NPOV facts get thrown out on the VfD page all the time, so that doesn't make sense as an argument to me. There are at least half a dozen numerological factoids about Kubrick that certain people take very seriously...should we list all of them here? If not all of them belong here, do they deserve their own article? I think it would be shot down in 2 seconds flat on VfD if I made an article called "Facts about Stanley Kubrick noted by trivial buffs and conspiracy theorists". I don't think the number of people who note these things warrants it being mentioned on the Kubrick page...it DOES warrant it being mentioned on the numerology or conspiracy theorist articles, because it's part of a larger thing (the whole thing really has to do with people believing in numerology, it has almost NOTHING to do with Kubrick per se). So, put it on the numerology article, put it on the conspiracy theory article, but I don't think it warrants being here. Now, I'm not going to change it back, because I don't want to get into an edit war; I just want to state my case for the record before moving on to other things. Revolver 00:11, 11 Feb 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps not every verifiable NPOV fact has a place on Wikipedia.  But this one does have a place.  In fact, it has multiple places.  One of them is right here.  As for your alien question, no, that wouldn't belong on Wikipedia.  It would not be a verifiable fact.  The number of days between Kubrick's death and January 1, 2001 is a verifiable fact.  As for your list of what wikipedia is not, you're mixing in reasons for articles to be deleted with reasons for facts to be deleted.  Wikipedia is not a dictionary, but a good encyclopedia entry commonly starts with a dictionary definition, for example.  Obviously an article called "Facts about Stanley Kubrick noted by trivial buffs and conspiracy theorists" would be shot down.  But then, so would "List of birth and death dates of people named Stanley Kubrick."  That's not an argument against the fact itself being in the article.  I think it does warrant being here.  As much as his date of birth or date of death or that he "owned and resided at Childwickbury Manor in the district of St Albans" or that he was "interred in Childwickbury Manor."  As for not starting an edit war, that's good, because it's been added by three people now and only removed by you. Anthony DiPierro 00:26, 11 Feb 2004 (UTC)

text: Should all half a dozen factoids about Kubrick be mentioned here?  Maybe.  What were you thinking?  I wouldn't want to put his sign, since this isn't something very unique to Kubrick.  But that's just a guess about what you were talking about.  Anthony DiPierro 00:30, 11 Feb 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: No, the aliens thing isn't verifiable.  But it's verifiable that TEN OF MY FRIENDS BELIEVE IT'S TRUE.  People believe false things, but reporting that they believe false things is considered okay, because it's verifiably true that that's what they believe.  What if my 10 friends believed some random, irrelevant TRUE fact about Kubrick?  Would that warrant inclusion.  And no, I DON'T think all half dozen factoids belong here.  In any case, obviously people don't understand my argument.  The "666" thing is not something unique to Kubrick.  IF YOU LOOK LONG ENOUGH, YOU WILL FIND THAT MANY FAMOUS PEOPLE ARE RELATED TO FAMOUS EVENTS BY THE NUMBER "666", KUBRICK IS NOT UNIQUE IN THIS ASPECT.  So, if his sign is not okay to put here, neither is "666".  The BELIEF of the factoid is important because people believe it; the fact itself is RANDOM and has nothing to do with Kubrick.  I find the fact that people actually think the "666" factoid is on some kind of similar level as where Kubrick was born, lived, raised, and interred to be frankly, laughable.  If that's the level of quality these articles are going to be written at, fine...I'll go back to writing and editing math articles until other more serious contributors and thinkers come here and take this stuff down. Goodbye. Revolver 02:03, 11 Feb 2004 (UTC)

text: Wikipedia:Verifiability doesn't mean that something could conceivably be verified by someone somewhere.  In the case of this fact, it is trivially verifiable by anyone who wishes to do the math (assuming you accept the date of his death, you do, don't you).  Comparing it to a theory by 10 of your friends is not anywhere near the same thing.  Besides verifiability, that would fail Wikipedia:No original research.  Go have fun with your math articles. Anthony DiPierro 13:55, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)

text: What if my 10 friends believed some random, irrelevant TRUE fact about Kubrick? Would that warrant inclusion? Do you even read what I write, or are you able to understand it?  If 10 of my friends believe a VERIFIABLE, TRUE thing, this is not just a "theory".  As I've said, I'm not debating the VERIFIABILITY of the 666 fact, if you'd bother to read what I say; I'm debating the verifiability of NUMEROLOGY. The ONLY reason this fact belongs here is if you believe in numerology, otherwise, it ONLY belongs on the numerology page. The only exception is if enough people believe the 666 fact has significance that it has a major effect or influence on Kubrick or his work, and this is patently false. Revolver 22:28, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you all really this superstitious or something?  I just can't figure out why people think this is important, that it has anything to do with Kubrick. Revolver 02:05, 11 Feb 2004 (UTC)

text: Point 3, reason 2 is the heart of the issue, of course. Anyone who wants to add this bit of trivia back to the article should address it before doing so. Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 12:21, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)

text: It is less inappropiate at the 666 article than it is here. May be a reasonable compromise. Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 12:39, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Numerology

message: Template:Kubrick
I'm planning to personally update the articles for each Kubrick film, especially adding to those outside of the Kubrick Collection (short films, Fear and Desire, Killer's Kiss, The Killing, Paths of Glory, Spartacus), and add this template to the bottom of each page. Any comments or template changes? --Max Terry
: I like this template, except for the inclusion of A.I., which is (in my opinion) too much a Spielberg movie to be listed simplistically as a Kubrick feature film. I would recommend changing '(Posthumously)' to something like '(based on Kubrick screenplay)' or just '(screenplay only)'. The Singing Badger 18:05, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Good point. Rather than even mentioning A.I., which ended up a definite Spielberg film, in the template, I think I'll list his 13 features, 3 shorts, and a link to Uncompleted/Abandoned Projects, an article which will discuss all projects planned, but never completed by Kubrick personally (from The German Lieutenant to Napoleon to Blue Movie to A.I., and everything in between). This will be Uncompleted Kubrick films. --Max Terry 21:18, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Template:Kubrick 

message: I weeded out the "Trivia" section. I must say that that earlier "666" thing gave me some doubts: if a matter as simple as that can be a cause of wrangling...
I will try to give sufficient reasons for my extensive edits. Let's start with the most important one:
At present, the Kubrick article leans far too heavily to the personal side of things. Instead of collating (true and untrue) bits of biography, we should concentrate on providing a clear overview of Kubrick's filmmaking career, i.e. what makes his films noteworthy and unique.
In developing a Wikipedia article, I see the "Trivia" section as a list of relevant tidbits that should be incorporated to the main article at a later date. Conversely, I do not see the section as a mandatory part of Wikipedia articles (cf. regular encyclopedias).
So, most of the stuff that remains listed under "Trivia" is accurate, uncontested biographical material.
I also created the subsection "Unsubstantiated tabloid rumors", which serves to collect all of that junk (Oops, is this POV? Revert, revert!) under one roof.
I removed a number of entries:
* After the completion of The Shining, actor Jack Nicholson vowed that he would never again work with Stanley Kubrick, who he found extremely difficult to work with.
Creative differences, avowals and subsequent refusals of said avowals are a common occurrence in the arts, and esp. in the film industry. This entry clearly refers more to the (caricatured) man than to the work. In the case of Nicholson, we find both the negative 1980s comments, and the positive ones found in SK: A Life in Pictures, where Nicholson says he and Kubrick kept in touch after The Shining and talked about further collaborations.
* From the 1970s onwards, he was often described as a recluse, but he frequently socialized with people (though mostly on his own idiosyncratic terms), and was often involved with minutiae regarding the treatment of his films and his estate. During the 1980s he was involved in a fractious dispute with neighbors to his property in Hertfordshire.
Parts of this entry could be salvaged, but as it now stands, it merely has the appearance of a cluster-fuck. The key components seem to be:
1. "often described as a recluse"
2. "often involved with minutiae"
3. "a fractious dispute with neighbors"
1 is related to the whole "eccentric recluse" myth, a myth that should be discussed: the origins, propagation and debunking (by family and biographers, etc.) of the rumors should perhaps be addressed in a section of its own. The Baxter "biography" seems to have a lot to do with the growth of the myth.
Component 2 talks about SK's perfectionism and level of control, while 3 reports a petty and, as far as I know, unsubstantiated rumor. In any case, neighborly rows are not uniquely Kubrickian. :)
* Both Brian Aldiss and Fredrick Raphael who worked for several years with Kubrick on projects testified to his eccentric working and personal habits (including eating desserts with his main course at meals) though Kubrick's aides have disputed their accounts. The journalist Jon Ronson has been given access to Kubrick's extensive files and reports that in preparation for Eyes Wide Shut he had an aide photograph every front door in the Islington area of London.
The word "eccentric" is saturated with POV. "Wow, he used to mix desserts with main courses! That's crazy, man." The comment based on the Ronson article should be used when discussing SK's perfectionistic approach to the preparation of his films.
To summarize: I'm a new user, and I would like to help create a great Stanley Kubrick article. I'm trying to be bold so that we might have something solid to build on. If it turns out that most of the people interested in Kubrick are just lazy rumormongers, I will conclude that the current Wikipedia format is not worth the effort. 195.148.74.159 18:40, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Trivia" section 

message: Maybe some of this proves useful at a later date (esp. the quotes):
Stanley Kubrick (July 26, 1928 - March 7, 1999) was a Jewish-American film director born in The Bronx, New York City who lived most of his life in England. His films are highly acclaimed for their technical perfection and deep symbolism. As a director he was legendary for relentless perfectionism. Several of his films were extremely controversial upon release for their supposed thematic repugnance and stark portrayal of sexuality and violence.
Explaining his theory of the role of director, Kubrick told Joseph Gelmis:  "A director is a kind of idea and taste machine; a movie is a series of creative and technical decisions, and it's the director's job to make the right decisions as frequently as possible." Describing his aesthetic approach to Michel Ciment, he said "I think that one of the problems with twentieth-century art is its preoccupation with subjectivity and originality at the expense of everything else... Though initially stimulating, this soon impeded the full development of any particular style, and rewarded uninteresting and sterile originality." 213.250.75.193 20:40, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Old "lead" section 

message: I've begun rewriting the biography. Note that some of the stuff mentioned in the earlier version will come up later on in the revised text.
Later on, a new section should be added:
Style / Stylistic trademarks
*"Non-submersible units" (Editing, storytelling, playing with time, adaptation)
*Narration (by voiceover and title cards/intertitles, irony, points of view, perhaps interest in language: inventive slang (FMJ and ACO), banal chit-chat (2001 and The Shining), etc.)
*Tracking shots (camera movements)
*Zooms (perhaps "Camera work" would be a neat umbrella term for tracking shots, zooms and SK's use of light, mise-en-scene and space in general?)
*Music (classical and pop)
*Actors (acting styles, frequent performers, stars, cameos by family members)
Etc. This is just something to think about; we don't need to add any kind of skeleton structure yet. 195.148.74.159 21:05, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Biography rewrites

message: Yes the film has its passionate defenders, but, there is other evidence that refutes the normal putdowns of it. Yes, it was a flop in the U.S., but was a major success in Europe in 1975, and did win two Acadamy Awards. Yes, as with all of his films money was spent, but, I have never seen the terms 'wildly overbudget' applied to this film. Yes, Ryan O'Neal garnered criticism for his performance, a wildly fluctuating Irish accent being the chief one (often missed is that Redmond Barry was one of Thackery's anti-heros, which made O'Neal's casting somewhat appropriate), but his career was not brought to any kind of halt by this performance as he was in five films in the next four years. And yes, many critics at the time pounded it. This is one of the unique features of Stanley's films - mostly loathed at release - admired later - eventually, unable to comment on the history of cinema without mentioning them. It is, perhaps, a prime example of the Hegelian dialectic in practice. MarnetteD | Talk 03:35, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Barry Lyndon 

message: This is one of the odd legends of this film, because if you watch it even 2 or 3 times, and read Clarke's book, you will see a very linear journey after Dave leaves the Discovery in the remaining pod. After the "space tunnel" (or garage) beginning you continue to move from a galaxy, to nebula, to solar system, to planetary, to surface skim journey that leads to the final 'Bowman' aging sequence. MarnetteD | Talk 15:17, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Final "Abstract Sequence" of 2001 

message: Kubrick took out UK citizenship some time before he died - it was mentioned on the BBC reports of his funeral. 194.6.112.92 10:02, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kubrick's Nationality 

message: In the first line it is reported that he was "an American film director", and he is listed in the Category:British film directors, not Category:U.S. film directors.  Any consensus?  How about Anglo-American film director?  --Tony Hecht 15:44, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Kubrick surely ought to be classed as American. Although he lived in Britain for much of his life, all his major films were made for American studios (usually Warner Bros.). The Singing Badger 16:29, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  American / British 

message: I've removed the references to Kubricks out of control obsession with sex and the large pornography stash alegedly found in his home after his death as this is clearly untrue and I've never read anything to support the claim.  I've also removed the line regarding communicating with actors via intercom when they came to his house.  I believe this may actually have been a reference to how, when Spartacus was being remastered, Kubrick directed an actor dubbing in some lines of dialogue via fax.  --Allseeingi 19:38, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: FWIW I recall reading in a newspaper obituary that he sometimes auditioned actors via intercom - probably in the Times (London), from memory. Ben Finn 22:57, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Character

message: "This would indicate that Kubrick, in the grand scheme of things, and not to be overly simplified, could be said to lean to the Right side of the political spectrum."
This seems to me a gratuitous non-NPOV comment, the reader can make it's own conclusions from the previous factual sentences. Removing it for now unless someone complains. Lost Goblin 20:01, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Politics

message: I've moved the line regarding Kubrick's artistic freedom in regards to Warners to Clockwork Orange section from the Dr. Strangelove section as he did not make a film for Warners until A Clockwork Orange. --Allseeingi 16:45, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm glad you removed it, as it was certainly NPOV.  In my opinion, Kubrick seems like someone who can't easily be captured by terms like "Left" or "Right," despite the differences between his earlier and later films, and to include it seems like an attempt to pidgeonhole him.--FVZA_Colonel 01:24, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: A Clockwork Orange

message: "Kubrick's films, most of which were adapted from literary sources, are characterized by technical brilliance, inventive, often economical storytelling, and timeless wit."  
Isn't that too vague?  What is meant by "timeless wit"?  Perhaps the last two words aren't the real problem however.  I think saying that his films are characterized by those aspects is wrong and the sentence should read like this:
"Kubrick's films, most of which were adapted from literary sources, are highly regarded for their technical brilliance as well as inventive and economical storytelling." --Allseeingi 04:04, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Timeless Wit?

message: I think large portions of this section should be removed as they seem to be entirely speculative and not factual in the least.  
Does the author of this section have any proof (by way of sources) for what they've written? - --Allseeingi 23:55, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Character 

message: It seems to me that I read a while ago that, ironically enough, Stephen King had stated his favourite movie was The Shining, even though he was dissatisfied with it on the level of a film adaptation of his novel.  Anyone else hear this?  --Comics 18:27, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: TV Guide, in their Holloween issue, recommends horror films to watch. Sometime in the late 1980's they quoted King as saying that, while he was dissatisfied with Kubrick's version, he had come to feel that there wasn't anyone who could have made a better adaptation of the his book. Of course, this was several years before he finally got the chance to be a part of the remake. I am just noting this to point out that his attitude has moved in various directions over the years. Another note, King did not write "The Shining" at the Stanley Hotel. He was inspired to write it when he stayed there with his wife during a cross country trip. It was during the off season and they had the hotel almost to themselves.MarnetteD | Talk 16:44, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Shining 

message: Anyone realized that "show/hide" link at content table on the left does not work properly? (at least for me).
Laurentis 13:56, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Content Table 

message: The page currently says "Clarke also wrote a novelization of the screenplay, which was released alongside the film". I thought that the book was actually (mostly) written first, then the film script? The final book was released shortly after the film, but that was more a result of polishing than anything else. 2001: A Space Odyssey seems to confirm this. I'd make the change myself, but am not sure how to best phrase it. Mike Peel 15:50, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, this link agrees and cites the actual words of Clarke and Kubrick. In fact it appears three wikipedia articles are consistent, but incorrect, in stating that Clarke wrote the novel from the screenplay and Kubrick wrote the film from the screenplay. The film article has: Kubrick and Clarke collaborated on the screenplay, from which Kubrick created the movie and Clarke wrote the novel version, the book article has: Kubrick and Clarke collaborated on the screenplay, from which Kubrick created the movie and Clarke wrote the novel. I have rewritten it as '"Kubrick collaborated with Arthur C. Clarke, adapting parts of Clarke's short story "The Sentinel", and together they first concurrently produced the novel that was released alongside the film, and then towards the end Kubrick simultaneously wrote the screenplay"'. Note that the book cover claims it is a novelisation of the screnplay, but I believe that is merely publisher's blurb. -Wikibob 17:18, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  2001: A Space Odyssey 

message: Why is it important that Kubrick was Jewish? For instance, in the article on Hitchcock he is never described as a Christian. Neither is Akira Kurosawa described as a shintoist. I would understand it if Jewish themes were relevant to Kubrick's film-making, but I have yet to see any account of that.
:Well, if it's importance that you're looking for, he was planning on making a film called Aryan Papers for a good amount of time and even wrote the script.  The project was abandonned when he found out his friend Spielberg was to make Schindler's List.  I'm not sure if it's of major significance or not, but does it hurt having it in the article?  It is a biography after all. –Comics (Talk) 19:05, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A lot of actor biographies on Wikipedia mention the actors' ethnic backgrounds, like Irish-American, German-American, etc. Therefore, the same ethnic information is reported in the Stanley Kubrick article. And before you reply with the irrelevant "Judaism is a religion, not a nationality" argument, there is an ideology called Zionism which considers the Jewish people to be a nation. Therefore Jewish American.WACGuy 06:09, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Kubrick's Jewishness is relevant insofar as there's a distinctive shared cultural sensibility among American Jewish artists of his generation (and a little younger) who were raised in middle-class/working class neighborhoods in Brooklyn and the Bronx or in Jewish enclaves in Southern California. Although their work is very different, it's obvious that Woody Allen, Philip Roth, Albert Brooks, Larry David, Lenny Bruce, etc. were incubated in similar backgrounds and had their sensibilities shaped by a lot of the same factors. It's one of things that's essential to putting the man's work in context.Andrewjnyc 16:50, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jewish 

message: In the article, Sue Lyon is reported to have been 16 years old during filming, but in the article page about her, she is said to have been only 13 years old.  Which is correct? --cslarsen 10:57, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, she wasn't. She was born on July 10, 1946  and Lolita was filmed from November 1960 to May 1961 , which means she was 14 when it filmed. —Chowbok 16:53, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Age of Sue Lyon during Lolita? 

message: Introduction:
and use of pop songs and classical music.
I haven't seen Barry Lyndon and some of his very early films, but from what I have seen, besides Full Metal Jacket, I don't recall the use of pop songs that much in any of his other films, if at all..and I can't imagine Barry Lyndon having pop music in it.  So does use of pop soungs really count as a trademark?--Gяaρнic 19:39, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Use of Pop Songs

message: These sections strike me as slight long and rambling, though with much good material. They could do with tightening up. Ben Finn 22:55, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Character, Politics & Religion

message: Was EWS actually "completed under the supervision of Steven Spielberg" as the article claims? I was under the impression Kubrick died after it was finished. JW 11:28, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Eyes Wide Shut

message: i added a "citation needed" to the statement claiming that friends and family state that EWS was Kubrick's favorite film.  this snippet from IMDB seems to refute it pretty well.  "Stanley called me about two weeks before he died, as a matter of fact. We had a long conversation about Eyes Wide Shut. He told me it was a piece of s**t and that he was disgusted with it and that the critics were going to have him for lunch." 192.223.226.6 17:12, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  favorite movie? 

message: From the "2001: A Space Odyssey (film)" wiki article:
:"Upon release, 2001 received mostly positive reviews"
From the "Stanley Kubrick" wiki article:
:"Initial reactions from critics were overwhelmingly negative"
A repair is clearly needed --Sailorlula 22:03, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Were 2001 Reviews Good or Bad?

message: Hi- Barry Lyndon is not set in the Napoleonic era- it is set during the Seven Years War (1756-1763).. the Napoleonic era is 1799-1815.
best,
RMB
*The epilogue says: "It was in the reign of George III that the aforesaid personages lived and quarreled; good or bad, handsome or ugly, rich or poor, they are all equal now." George III reigned 1760-1820. But the drama starts with the Seven Years War, and ends in 1789, as can be seen on the annuity statement signed by Lady Lyndon in one of the last scenes. Thus, I agree that the reference to the "Napoleonic era" is rather inaccurate. leifbk 17:30, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Barry Lyndon 

message: I've gone ahead and removed the line, "Over time, his image in the media became that of, at best, a reclusive genius akin to Howard Hughes..." from the character section as it seems like an exaggeration to me. Kubrick may have been reclusive, especially during his later years, but certainly nowhere near the extent that Hughes was. Also, this section mentions later on that Ryan O'Neal speaks kindly of him but I was under the impression that he and Kubrick had a falling out after the filming of Barry Lyndon? A-OK 21:47, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Character

message: Needs a section on his death.
I was thinking the same thing 193.108.134.36 15:15, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Death Conspiracy? 

message: I think they encompass too much info for an overview of Kubrick. The information is certainly interesting but it makes the article unnecessarily long. It is better placed on each film's individual Wikipedia article. Agreed? --Steerpike 19:36, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Individual film sections need to be trimmed 

message: This section is highly unreferenced, unwikified, and unverified.  I added up a clean up tag because it desperately needs to be fixed. Fistful of Questions 01:24, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Stanley_Kubrick#Character|Character]] 

message: In the Early Films section the following appears:
<I>"In 1951, Kubrick's friend, Alex Singer, persuaded him to start making short documentaries for the March of Time, a provider of cinema-distributed newsreels. Kubrick agreed, and independently financed Day of the Fight (1951). Although the distributor went out of business that year, Kubrick sold Day of the Fight to RKO Pictures for a profit of one hundred dollars. Kubrick quit his job at Look magazine and began working on his second short documentary, Flying Padre (1951), funded by RKO. A third film, The Seafarers (1953), Kubrick's first color film, was a 30-minute promotional short film for the Seafarers' International Union. These three films, and other short subjects, which have not survived, ..."
</I>
This is not correct. All three of these films have survived and are available on a DVD called:
   STANLEY KUBRICK COLLECTION 1951 - 1953
However, the quality on the DVD is not good.
63.194.208.34 03:17, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, the comma is wrong, it should be "other subjects which have not". (That said, that DVD is a bootleg.) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by ThatGuamGuy (talk • contribs) 18:48, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Early Films 

message: Shouldn't all the films have a link to their main articles?  Eg:
Main article: A Clockwork Orange
This seems to be the standard way of doing things on Wikipedia.  Also, the article is long, so maybe some of the information duplicated in both the Kubrick article and the film articles should be removed from the Kubrick article? Straussian 11:42, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Links to films' main articles 

message: I checked at IMDB. Kubrick received the only Academy Award on Best Effects, Special Visual Effects from 2001.
I am not sure this should put at the introduction in this way? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 58.8.90.105 (talk) 17:17, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Academy Award-winning at the introduction 

message: I've heard rumors that Kubrick, altough filming in panavision/widescreen/whatever, he liked more the original academy ratio/Full-screen format. Most notably, The Shining wich was filmed (I think) in wide and re-released in full-screen (academy ratio) as his final, favorite version of the film. Did this happen to all of his films (filmed in wide) or was it just for the Shining?. I know this is not a Forum, but if some of this is true, I think it would be worth of mention. Vicco Lizcano 17:42, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I added a section about the aspect ratio controversy, which spreads through more than half of his filmography.  Long story short, evidence regarding 'The Shining' seems to indicate that he shot it for 1.85:1, but kept the fullscreen (1.33:1) area safe.  This is based on storyboards and comments from one of the editors (or possibly editor's assistants) which indicate that the reason the helicopter blade slipped in in the opening driving sequence is that they viewed the film on a Steenbeck which was matted to 1.85 with masking tape.  People who argue that Kubrick preferred 1.85 extrapolate from these facts to apply them to all of his films. ThatGuamGuy 19:39, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Cool, thanks for the info. Vicco Lizcano 19:51, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Although I appreciate the information about the aspect ratios of Kubrick's films, its inclusion here in such detail doesn't seem to fit with the rest of the article.  Perhaps someone could consider moving it to its own page?  Just a thought. :)
Note that in Europe the most commonly used widescreen aspect ratio was 1.66:1 rather than 1.85:1. So many of his films shot open matte were probably shown in 1.66:1 in cinemas across Europe as opposed to 1.85 in the US. 89.196.42.243 03:06, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Original Aspect Ratio? 

message: :Image:Alex Korova1.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.
If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 19:02, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Alex Korova1.jpg

message: This doesn't seem right to me. Was he really considered British? I was going to change it to "British-based", but that sounds even more wrong. "Britain-based"? Bleh. Somebody clear this up for me, please. --Closedmouth 15:54, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  American-born British filmmaker? 

message: Why is this in here? Shouldn't this information be more appropriate for each movie than in his own article? -- 66.92.0.62 09:43, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  HD DVD & Bluray 

message: Should there be a link to the Stanley Kubrick exhibition:
http://www.stanleykubrick.de/
67.180.29.122 05:01, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kurbick exhibition 

message: Those ratios should be in more understandable formats like 3:4 or 16:9. These ones might be more precise, but to the average layman, they're meaningless. I'm actually in this field, and the people I work with refer to ratios in the "16:9" way. I've yet to meet a person who calls it "1.85:1". Having to do mental arithmatic to reach understandable ratios sucks. Having to bust out a calculator to figure it out sucks even more. Howa0082 17:13, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Aspect Ratio Stuff 

message: :Image:Spartacus22.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot (talk) 05:27, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Spartacus22.jpg

message: :Image:The shining heres johnny.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot (talk) 02:20, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:The shining heres johnny.jpg

message: :Image:The killing.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot (talk) 02:30, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:The killing.jpg

message: :Image:2001 spaceodissey.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot (talk) 04:18, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:2001 spaceodissey.gif

message: :Image:Clockwork'71.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot (talk) 21:02, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Clockwork'71.jpg

message: :Image:Eyes shut.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot (talk) 21:37, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Eyes shut.jpg

message: :Image:Haley joel osment6.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot (talk) 23:05, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Haley joel osment6.jpg

message: Per debate and discussion re: assessment of the approximate 100 top priority articles of the project, this article has been included as a top priority article. Wildhartlivie (talk) 07:19, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: [[WP:WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers]] priority assessment

message: I've replaced all the cquotes with blockquotes throughout the article.  The curly quotes are not only overly designed and cutsey-pie as hell, from what I understand their intention was to be used only for "shout outs" and pullquotes which adorn an article as a design element (which makes sense, given their look), and not to be for quoted material inside an article.I've also truncated "Strangelove" for the section title only (and the AI section title as well).  There's no reason to have the full title in the section, when the complete title is repeated twice in the next two lines.  All having the long title does is force the Table of Contents to be unnecessarily wide. This is cleaner. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk / cont) 04:33, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I've also adjusted image sizes.  Images which are too small to be seen or properly illustrate the text are a waste of space.  Each image should be large enough to be seen, to make an impact, to work, without overwhelming the text. The picture in the infobox, for instance, needs to be about that large to see anything of Kubrick's facial features - anything much less and it's useless, better to replace it with a standard head shot (if such a thing exists for SK). Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk / cont) 04:55, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cquotes, blockquotes,images etc 

message: Folks here might want to participate in a discussion here concerning a disagreement about an external link which was added to this article. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk / cont) 04:47, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discussion at the film project concerning an external link 

message: I'm changing 1828 to 1928. I hope that's OK with everyone.
THIS IS WHY WIKIPEDIA SUCKS.
:It sucks because you spotted vandalism and reverted it within two minutes? --Closedmouth (talk) 07:19, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll revert you within two minutes. Oooooo!
Brancron (talk) 18:50, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  His Birthdate 

message: I would prefer to keep the section on Frequent Collaborators relatively brief as it borders on a trivia section, and I encountered some fairly understandable resistance from user MarnetteD on having it there at all. As such, collaborators who were only in small supporting roles in multiple Kubrick films I suggest not be named. Thus I am for the second time removing the listing of Leonard Rossiter who appeared in both 2001 and Barry Lyndon as he had a small role in both films.If we include Rossiter, we have to also include Margaret Tyzack who had fairly small roles in both 2001 and Clockwork Orange (before her glory days as Antonia in I, Claudius).I'm even 50/50 about keeping Timothy Carey as although his role in Paths of Glory is substantial, his role in The Killing is fairly small.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by WickerGuy (talk • contribs) 03:12, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: These sort of sections seem to be a common inclusion in director related articles. Tim Burton, James Cameron, The Coen Brothers, Martin Scorsese and Quentin Tarantino each have similar sections which are longer than the one in question, and each includes some actors whom the director has only worked with twice. Several of these sections, however, are in the form of tables, which might help if readability is an issue. S. Luke (talk) 05:17, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Section on Frequent Collaborators 

message: Per the discussion above at Talk:Stanley_Kubrick#Stanley_Kubrick_needs_your_help, I have found some books that are useful as references for this article. If you can find them in your local library or book store then please use them as references to cite this article:
* 
* 
* 
* 
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Gary King (talk • contribs) 14:29, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Useful books to use as references 

message: I have just shortened the plot synopsis of the Shining while slightly expanding that of Clockwork Orange and Eyes Wide Shut. I have significantly expanded the plot description of Dr. Strangelove and added one for 2001 which didn't even have a synopsis. The plot of CO omitted the political angle all together, and major themes of EWS (couple's relationship) and Strangelove (Strangelove's role in story) were absent.
Short Plot synopses (in article on director) should hit on major themes, but need not contain precise plot details (which I thought the Shining synopsis had more of than necessary.)
--WickerGuy (talk) 01:44, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Plots 

message: Benjamin Canaan made four very good trimmings of this article. However, the stuff on Kubrick's marriage to Christiane belonged somewhere, so given that Canaan removed it from the section on Paths of Glory (probably a good idea), I have put it in a section of its own between the Paths and Spartacus discussion.
The section on "Criticism" of Kubrick which has been there since Sept. 1st cites only one person's opinion. Kubrick had several frequent detractors, notably Pauline Kael, and less often Roger Ebert. But such a section needs to have at least two or three sources, not just a citation of one person's essay. Ergo, I have removed it.
--WickerGuy (talk) 04:02, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Added a section and removed a section 

message: This is a general observation: We need to always keep in mind that a great deal of this page consists of short, concise summaries of much longer pages which can reached by clicking on the relevant links. Particularly in regard to the individual films, we should try to keep the sections on this page as clear and as minimal as possible. A lot of the information here would be better on the individual pages dedicated specifically to the subject at hand. For instance, the entire section on Alex North's score for 2001 (which I have not cut) really belongs on the 2001 page, and not here.--Benjamin canaan (talk) 04:13, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Concision 

message: It seems to me that relatively late plot developments which heavily connect to thematic elements of the film belong in even the brief plot synopses of the Kubrick article. This is certainly not the case with Barry Lyndon, but it is the case with most other post-Lolita films. Even the omission of Quilty from the Lolita synopsis is problematic, given how heavily his role is expanded in the film, though I've done nothing about it. I made no changes to the impeccable Full Metal Jacket synopsis, but did make additions to all others (including creating a synopsis for 2001) when I felt that they related to moral, political, and philosophical (or spiritual??) themes of the films. Although I aplaud most of canaan's trimmings, he occasionally cuts what could be shortened, and I've once again fleshed out the Strangelove synopsis.
--WickerGuy (talk) 17:02, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggested Rule of Thumb on short plot synopses in Kubrick article 

message: Please be aware of the fact that apparently small editorial changes can have ripple effects that damage other portions of the article. Check for forward and backwards references. Not to pick specifically on user XXVI, but the old version's
"Richard Strauss's Also Sprach Zarathustra and Johann Strauss's The Blue Danube waltz have become indelibly associated with the film." is a grammatically complete sentence, but the new version's
"Richard Strauss]]'s Also Sprach Zarathustra and Johann Strauss's The Blue Danube waltz."  
is a subject without a verb.
Other alterations I have seen (to the 2001 article not the 2001 section of the Kubrick article) have created similar though more subtle problems.
--WickerGuy (talk) 00:00, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please check for continuity issues introduced by your changes, all of you 

message: The plot synopsis of Clockwork Orange has morphed a lot in just the past 3 weeks frequently introducing actual mistakes. One that slipped for about 3 days was that someone got specific on Sept 26 as to exactly just what Alex was imprisoned for, except it's not for the rape of the writer's wife- its for the murder of the cat-lady the following evening. On Sept. 29th, someone caught this and corrected it to the murder of an "elderly" woman. However, she's elderly in Burgess' novel, but just somewhat older in the film.
A while back (mid-September), Benjamin Canaan zapped all references to the writer's politics. I thought he was just trimming what he thought was unnecessary info, but then looked at his rationale, and in explaining his change he said the writer's politics are mentioned in the novel but not the film. This isn't strictly true. They're elaborated at some length in the novel. However, at the end of the film when the Minister of Interior promises Alex a government job, he refers to the writer as a "writer of subversive literature" who has been put away for both his good and Alex's. An oblique reference, but it's there all the same. Furthermore, some of the writer's film dialogue with Alex and the writer's conspirators discloses his involvement in political activism. I am going to say this is sufficient to once again call him a 'political' writer in the synopsis.
--WickerGuy (talk) 00:34, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clockwork Orange plot- Care when correcting 

message: There is a line in the Strangelove blurb (end of 1st paragraph) that is incorrect. It is a popular misconception that Southern wrote the comedic bits to Red Alert that resulted in Dr. Strangelove screenplay. 
Kubrick, in his own words, had already adapted the work with the "black humor" into a finished screenplay. He then invited Terry in to do polish. The polished version is the one Kubrick shot. So says the Director in this 1966 interview, here:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7362318851275701535&ei=QDjvSMrxAo-o2wKd47z0Dg
Given how territorial some users of WP are (which will lead to WP's eventual demise, IMO), someone please update this info.
--84.103.37.63 (talk) 12:01, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Southern's role in adding comedy to Strangelove incorrect 

message: I have added a criticism section which has been removed without good reason. This article has been treated more as a celebration of Kubrick's life, which is in violation of Wikipedia policy. This section fixes the problem. I encourage people to add other opinoins as well if you are dissatisfied. Arturobandini (talk) 17:02, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticism and subsequent removal 

message: I notice this article seems to have the man's life broken up between the sections on his films. This seems odd and at odds with other director entries. Would it not be better to have his life and death and personal relationships all together and not mixed in with other stuff? It strikes me as confusing. Just asking before I were to do anything.Orangenj (talk) 15:25, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Good idea. After looking at some other director articles might want to think about this. We did a while back split out the marriage to Christian Harlan out of the Paths of Glory section. Thinking cap on. --WickerGuy (talk) 05:30, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

text: Actually, it makes a bit of sense to do Kubrick this way just because he made so few films and he took so long to make films, so there's a sense in which his bio seems interwoven with his films moreso than with other directors. Still thinking --WickerGuy (talk) 05:44, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mix of life and career 

message: A while back (after One-Eyed Jacks was put in) the unrealised projects section was split into projects completed by other directors  and projects never completed. As a few more unrealised projects have been thrown in, it seems wise to subclassify these into early stuff all of which never got past the screenplay stage and later stuff most (though not all) of which went into preproduction and then was halted. This leaves two projects that don't fit either category which I put into categories of their own ("Story Outline only" and "Author Rebuff"). This might be too many categories, but at least some partial chronology is now imposed on the unrealised projects list which was ballooning in a chaotic fashion.
--WickerGuy (talk) 05:37, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Further subclassifying unrealised projects 

message: Here's what I posted at the request for comment on posting images for deletion
* Replace - All the images in the Stanley Kubrick article were flagged for deletion in one fell swoop two years after they were originally uploaded. All images in that article were given the same rationale. While scrolling through an article this long, searching for discussion of a specific film, the images from specific films are useful for quick searching.
:However, It might be better if we could use poster/cover art instead of this image, since the fair use policy of WP prefers that screenshots be used in the context of critical commentary. Indeed, we could be in trouble with "In articles and sections of articles that consist of several small sections of information for a series of elements common to a topic, such as a list of characters in a fictional work, non-free images should be used judiciously to present the key visual aspects of the topic. It is inadvisable to provide a non-free image for each entry in such an article or section." and "Barring the above, images that are used only to visually identify elements in the article should be used as sparingly as possible"
:--WickerGuy (talk) 05:11, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image Deletion Controversy 

message: As I noted in my edit-summary, once again I find myself tracing citations for someone else's edit after it gets challenged by a third person. Yesterday, both the "Legacy" and "Character" section were deleted in toto from an IP address. Both had been justly tagged in August for having no citations whatsoever. The "Legacy" section was relatively easy to find citations for. The "Character" section will take a LOT more work before it can be reasonably restored. I slightly re-edited the "Legacy" section and removed one phrase that seemed too POV. As I have noted in the hidden comment, there are two books called "Stanley Kubrick: A biography" so the switch between authors is not a mistake.
Happy holidays, all.
--WickerGuy (talk) 19:05, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  One of two deleted sections back 

message: Three times someone has changed both references in the article to Kubrick's unfinished "Aryan Papers" to "The Aryan Papers". Although a few websites here and there refer to the film as such, ALL published books call this project just "Aryan Papers". Quit adding in the "the", please. (This is a good example of why Wikipedia doesn't like self-published works as sources.)
--WickerGuy (talk) 01:10, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Just "Aryan Papers" please.