>1) His films don't entertain like Spielberg's. Snobs will
>wince but it's true. And entertaining matters. Bare in mind
>Kubrick is my #1 but I can clearly see why no one else in my
>circle of friends has stolen my Kubrick DVD collection yet.

While I like some not all Kubrick, he's entertaining in a different sense. Some people find Persona pleasing for aesthetic or intellectual reasons. Take The Wire. It's unflinching, it's not dominantly titillative action and is entertaining.

>2) Output. While Kubrick's legendary perfectionism is
>well-appreciated, we could have done with more than one film a
>decade. I think he could have afforded to do that and still
>control every aspect just how he wanted.

I don't know what Kubrick's circumstances were and why he wasn't banging out movies left and right.

Small output can be due to not finding $ to make a movie. Critically acclaimed/big name/major directors have struggled and still will unfortunately.

I'd guess many like to get things right before making a movie, don't work if they're not inspired, or just plain work slow.

Admittedly some directors make it hard for themselves to get a movie made whether it's their personality, grudges, and lack of business sense. Some just plain look to alternative avenues of finance and production.

A director w/ more bouts of creative block isn't automatically a lesser director than one who has less bouts of such or none.

Yang, Erice, Davies, Kubrick, etc. aren't lesser directors b/c they haven't made many feature-lengths.

>Anyways back to Spielberg, I honestly want to know if he can
>be challenged for the crown. Can anyone convincingly claim
>that another director has surpassed Mr. Spielberg all-time?
>We're talking acclaim

Acclaim (in terms of # and degree) is largely dependent on whether or not the director's work is screened a lot and in many places which is mostly dependent on ownership, access to the film, $, distribution, and marketing. Not all critics and reviewers spend their time at film archives or festivals.

>cinematic accomplishments (artistic AND
>technical... think about the groundbreaking pyrotechnical work
>on Jaws, the CGI in E.T. and Jurassic Park, or even the
>researched authenticity of the Indiana Jones films)

Cinematic accomplishments, if the term is what I think you mean, should matter much more than acclaim and box-office. However, it shouldn't matter if it's groundbreaking or on the vanguard of emerging technologies.

>box-office (three time Highest-Grossing-Movie-Ever title
>holder: Jaws, E.T., that dinosaur flick)

I disagree w/ this the most. Box-office figures are dependent partly on distribution and marketing $. However, we shouldn't discount the moviegoers' role (a huge one) in this.

Most importantly, large box-office figures are skewed by more theatre screens today than the 80s, 70s, etc.

Don't overlook the size of film industries, too. Pictures backed by the major studios have a ridiculous advantage in getting seen. Hell, foreign countries don't give their own films a chance. American films rule the screens in South Korea today, for example.


To to go by your parameters is honestly hard for me b/c 2 of 'em don't matter to me.

On the other hand, to go by your criteria, off the top, I'd bring up Chaplin and Keaton especially b/c of the box-office/popular element. They were prolific, highly acclaimed, highly accomplished, and extremely popular.

It's important to note that you're excluding lots of masters of cinema b/c of your criteria.