Mason wrote:Just thought it'd be cool to share this.

niiice

Mason wrote:Just thought it'd be cool to share this.

My god.

Funny... if you just update the picture quality to today's standards, and showed that to someone unfamiliar with the movie, they'd have no idea that was from the 60's. Kubrick really was ahead of his time.

I would say his stuff is timeless..not ahead of his time.

Redsmile wrote:I would say his stuff is timeless..not ahead of his time.

1968, this versus what... Barbarella? He was ahead of his time alright.

He made TIMELESS films. Saying ahead of his time makes it sound like his films are on par with stuff that comes out today. And they are not. They are better.

Redsmile wrote:He made TIMELESS films. Saying ahead of his time makes it sound like his films are on par with stuff that comes out today. And they are not. They are better.

Hm... Now you totally crawled out of your first sentence and grabbed onto first spot! You could say that, why not.

I'm just explaining why I would call his work timeless and not ahead of it's time. Tho I mean the point could be made for both. I just kinda wanted to start some shit

Redsmile wrote:I'm just explaining why I would call his work timeless and not ahead of it's time. Tho I mean the point could be made for both. I just kinda wanted to start some shit

... I get it though.

Mason wrote:Just thought it'd be cool to share this.

Wow, that was actually really cool.

Redsmile wrote:He made TIMELESS films. Saying ahead of his time makes it sound like his films are on par with stuff that comes out today. And they are not. They are better.

that argument makes zero sense. What if they make those types of films in 10 years....according to what you're saying that would make him ahead of his time. But you just said he isnt.