MovieChat Forums > Stanley Kubrick Discussion > I thought that Kubrick never placed anyt...

I thought that Kubrick never placed anything irrelevant in shot?

posted 5 years ago by Betamax66 (588)
10 replies | jump to latest

That every object and arrangement in shot ''meant something''?

I've seen plenty of objects in his film shots that didn't mean anything?

[–] LiquidOcelot (2407) 5 years ago

That's just Kubrick fantards trying to find meaning in everything he does even when there is none. It's pathetic.

[–] Rocky15 (509) 3 years ago

Spot on, people who worship Kubrick as some sort of god are the most pretentious movie fans I know.

[–] Satan2016 (25539) 3 years ago

No one is worse than the Nolanites.

[–] Rocky15 (509) 3 years ago

Yep they definitely give them a run for their money.

[–] scannerdarkly (1380) 3 years ago

One of those psychologists said "sometimes a bird is just a bird". I dont understand why they need to over-analyze everything this guy does. Even though some fascinating things have been found in his films, its hard to believe that every single shot has some subliminal message.

[–] TimMC (9143) 3 years ago

Dust particle number 43 in The Shining changed the game.

[–] christomacin (4658) 3 years ago

Just because EVERYTHING doesn't mean something doesn't mean nothing means anything. That's a logical fallacy.

[–] samoanjoes (56872) 2 years ago

I've never heard anyone say this.

[–] Druff (1801) 2 years ago

It's so cute that everything you say is a question?

[–] [deleted] 2 years ago

LiquidOcelot is correct.

Kubrick cultists are deluded.