Talk:Stanley Kubrick filmography

Razzies

Should the razzies here be mentioned? It's a joke organization that I don't think takes themselves too serious. -Xcuref1endx (talk) 02:45, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

splitting "awards"

Awards have to go to a separate page. They are a different subject with different categories at the bottom of the page. -Salarabdolmohamadian (talk) 23:07, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

intentional? what?

With this edit, Editor SNUGGUMS added italic markup to |work= in this citation with the edit summary cancel out italics within "work" parameter:

{{cite news|url=https://www.goldenglobes.com/film/spartacus|title=Spartacus|work=''Golden Globe Awards''|publisher=Hollywood Foreign Press Association|access-date=January 7, 2021|archive-date=March 23, 2019|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190323072331/https://www.goldenglobes.com/film/spartacus|url-status=live}}

"Spartacus". Golden Globe Awards. Hollywood Foreign Press Association. Archived from the original on March 23, 2019. Retrieved January 7, 2021. {{cite news}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |work= (help)

As you can see, that change does nothing to the rendering of the citation except to cause the template to emit the error message: . As part of the error message, the template also included this article in Category:CS1 errors: markup which is where I discovered it.

With this edit, I removed the italic markup and thus removed the error message and category. Fifty-one minutes later, Editor HAL333 reverted my edit with the edit summary This was intentional.... Not at all clear to me what that intention is because italic markup in |work= is ignored and causes error messaging in reference lists. Don't do that.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 23:09, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

My rationale is simple: I did that to avoid italicizing "Golden Globe Awards" within the reference. If that creates a formatting error, then my apologies, Trappist the monk. We can just move that text into "publisher" field instead. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 23:13, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

UPDATE: the text has now been moved accordingly. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 23:18, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Why would you do that? Golden Globe Awards is not the publisher. "Spartacus" (the article) appears in Golden Globe Awards (the website or work) that is published by Hollywood Foreign Press Association (the publisher). This really is no different from "Spartacus" (the article) appearing in The New York Times (the newspaper or work) that is published by The New York Times Company (the publisher).

While I'm at it, I'll note that {{cite web}} is a better template for this citation because Golden Globe Awards is not a news source but is a source very specific to the business of the Golden Globes, to the awards themselves, to the awards' history, etc.

And one final point: using |publisher= to avoid italic styling associated with the various |work= parameters, does a disservice to those readers who consume our citations using metadata readers. The various 'periodical' templates ({{cite journal}}, {{cite magazine}}, {{cite news}}) plus {{cite web}}, do not support |publisher= in their metadata outputs because the metadata standard adopted long long ago does not support publisher metadata for periodicals.

Were it me, I would write the citation this way:

{{cite web |url=https://www.goldenglobes.com/film/spartacus |title=Spartacus |website=Golden Globe Awards |publisher=Hollywood Foreign Press Association |access-date=January 7, 2021 |archive-date=March 23, 2019 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190323072331/https://www.goldenglobes.com/film/spartacus |url-status=live}}

"Spartacus". Golden Globe Awards. Hollywood Foreign Press Association. Archived from the original on March 23, 2019. Retrieved January 7, 2021.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 00:17, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Perhaps I should have explained my revert better. Sorry about that. ~ HAL333 23:55, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Pedantic

An uncredited lighting design role in a filmography? What are we doing here? Do we know what a director’s filmography is? 2603:8001:9F03:51D8:55FF:D247:6641:8754 (talk) 16:16, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

Yes. Why wouldn't we include it? He did the work. How is being credited important? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:55, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

It's worthy of inclusion. ~ HAL333 21:35, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

The Spy Who Loved Me credit

As was brought up in the previous section, the listing of The Spy Who Loved Me is absolutely pointless. Look up the clip of Ken Adams talking about it: he helped set up lights (according to him) for four hours. Filmmakers give advice to other filmmakers all the time, hardly means he worked on the film, he just assisted a colleague. Albert Brooks tells a story of Kubrick ringing him up and asking him about the relationship in Modern Romance which they talked about for hours. Should we add "Uncredited relationship consultant" on Eyes Wide Shut to Brooks' page? I don't think so and I don't think The Spy Who Loved Me should be listed here either. Also here's Katharina Kubrick on reddit saying Adams account isn't entirely accurate and Kubrick solely suggested to use natural lighting, a far cry away from being a complete "Lighting designer" https://www.reddit.com/r/movies/comments/8vajeu/the_spy_who_loved_me_and_kubrick/ . Now this gets more into "he said, she said" territory, but with contradicting accounts like this I imagine it's just best not to list it (e.g. you don't see Spielberg listed as an uncredited director of Poltergeist on his page). TDFan1000 (talk) 00:25, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

It's not "pointless": it's here to show all of the work he did in film, which is the literally the purpose of a filmography. As you likely know, some person claiming something on Reddit is not a reliable source, so feel free to add other work as you have reliable sources. It's not up to us to start arguing about this kind of interpretation: we just say what reliable sources say. It's pretty trivial to find reliable sources saying that he worked on or consulted for this film. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 14:47, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

I'd usually agree with you on the Reddit source point, but it's not "some person" it's Katharina Kubrick (it's verified to be her on her account and you can look through her history) who not only is Kubrick's daughter but also worked on The Spy Who Loved Me. It's funny the site you link showing "reliable sources" has websites like Slash Film and What Culture that often just regurgitate rumors. The only source for this is Ken Adams who could just be telling a tall tale for a good story. I get that a director's commentary is a more reliable source than a reddit comment, I just think when something is claimed by one individual with literally no one else to back it up but there is someone else to contest the truth of it, it's just best not to list the credit. And it's something so incidental as a director giving advice on lighting, which again I really don't think can be considered "working" on the film, as it happens all the time (another example: Del Toro's advice in the editing room of Roma made Cuaron change the flow of the film, but Del Toro is not credited as an editing consultant because its just friendly advice). Sorry this reply ended up being long winded, I just wanted to make my rationale clear. TDFan1000 (talk) 16:09, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

Whether or not someone's remark on a unreliable self-published platform contradicts it and whether or not other unreliable sources say it, reliable sources say that he worked on the film or consulted for it. Why is it you think that we should not include it? Note that this is well-sourced information that has been published by multiple sources for decades. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:44, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

I think both my previous comments make clear why it shouldn't be included but I'll jut lay them out clearly:

1. Ken Adam's remarks (aka the foundation for all these "reliable sources") has been contested and besides him (since the set was conveniently "empty" when Kubrick "set up lights for four hours") there's no proof Kubrick was even on the set. It sounds like a tall tale Ken Adam made up so he'd have a good yarn to tell. Now that's obviously disputable, but since it's been contested by Kubrick's daughter who has also worked The Spy Who Loved (and for anyone whose read about Kubrick in-depth: it does not sound like something he'd do) I would say it's better not to include it.

2. Yes, Reddit is where she disputed Adam's claim, but I guess if I can get Slash Films to report on her reddit post (which they do frequently) I can say it's legit? Maybe some day they will and I won't have to come on the talk page and hash this out since I'll have a "legit source". I know the source on the page is the DVD commentary but I'd refer back to my first point for that: It's a "yarn"-ish story that no one can back up that he just spouts out from time to time which has been published again and again with no one questioning it because it's a cool sounding story.

3. Even if Ken Adams story is true, spending a few hours on a set helping a director set up lights is completely incidental. Lighting design takes hours upon hours of planning, not just showing up to set one day and fixing up some lights. Now this is the most subjective point I'm making, so fair enough if you don't consider it incidental, but I think the fact it's such a minor contribution that may have not even happened at all should warrant it's removal.

4. Again, just to be cleared, Kubrick's daughter said through her VERIFIED Reddit account that the most her Father did was give advice to Adams over the phone to use natural lights. That is not work, it's advice. Maybe you don't believe her account, maybe it sounds as far fetch as Adam's account sounds, that's fine, but just because Adam's remarks have been widely retold doesn't mean they are true either. When there's no absolute truth is it best not just to remove such a small uncredited role that has been disputed by a relative of Kubrick who also worked on the very same project that cannot be backed up by another source other than Ken Adam?

Maybe a ton of other editors will disagree me and it will stay, fair enough if so, I've laid the case for its removal as best as I can. Let's wait and hear some other opinions if you still disagree. TDFan1000 (talk) 18:53, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

1. What kind of proof are you looking for? As I mentioned, there are plenty of other reliable citations for this going back decades. Do you just want more citations?
2. Can you say what is legit? If a secondary source quotes a primary one and that source has qualities that make it reliable (such as having editorial review), then yes, that means that there is more than just he said/she said. I have no clue why you are using scare quotes, but the fact that you are that that you're even asking this question makes me wonder if you read the guideline that I linked before. Did you?
3. This is exactly why we just say what reliable sources say instead of interpreting things. Since reliable sources say that he gave some kind of consultation on this set, it's appropriate to include it here.
4. No one said that it wasn't VERIFIED. I have no clue how that responds to what I wrote. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:18, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

Look, we're getting into condescending territory now so I apologies I didn't intend for putting quotation marks around reliable quotes to be taken as an insult and I was more using question marks to get across I'm not trying to be an absolute authority on this. I'll just reiterate that Adam's claim is dubious and yes it has appeared in sources that are considered reliable by the standards of the reliable source page (which I am familiar with to respond to your question), but these sources are just pointing out a story he tells and taking it at face value.

You won't find any legitimate books on Kubrick reiterating Adam's claim or saying he worked on The Spy Who Loved Me because the idea of Kubrick (who by 1977 was essentially a recluse) leaving his house to go to a film set that was anyone's but his own is ridiculous. I'm not the first user to bring up the ridiculousness of including this on his Filmography page, I don't think it should be included, I think I've made clear why it shouldn't be, maybe I haven't articulated it well enough but maybe some other editor who is more knowledgeable than I can phrase why it shouldn't be more clearly. If the majority of editors want to keep the credit there than well fair enough, nothing I can do then. I don't think there's much else to say here without a third opinion. TDFan1000 (talk) 21:09, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

I apologize if I wrote anything disrespectful: I'm not always the best judge of that myself. Thanks for being the bigger person. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:59, 25 February 2024 (UTC)