"I´m spartacus!!" Topic

A conversion trying to copy the Kirk Douglas film Version..
link

So am I.

No, I'm Spartacus!

No, I am Spartacus!
Great work by the way…

Nice work!

I'm Spartacus and so is my dad!

No! He's Spartacus! Can I get down now?

Great conversion! Did you get Mr. Douglas' permission to use his likeness?

All the conversions look really nice!

He looks like Kirk,great job!

He does look good. But does he have Kirk's cleft chin?

Sad memory of a great director wasting his time on a eunuch of a movie.

I am Groot.

Read Kubrick's own comments on it. With him on my side, I don't give a damn what anyone else says.

Whatever the overall result, I still think the Roman legions marching in quincunx and deploying into line stands unbeaten in the history of movie battle scenes. It got me interested in miniature wargaming.

- Ix

Don't get your logic Sobieski. The artist responsible was not happy with the finished product or the process of creation and therefore we should not enjoy the end result. Seems like it is more common than not for artists of any kind to be unsatisfied with some aspect of their creations. I find Kubriks Spartacus to be hugely entertaining (the roman army deployment is worth the price if admission alone).

Thanks :-D
I agree with lx..the Roman legions marching before the final battle is a great Scene. The movie had a lot of cuts.. like the parts of the bath Scene involving Jean Simmons.

richardcmiller.com

Keep trying, el Cid. Logic takes some application and discipline. Like punctuation and capitalisation, indeed.

If you're just going to do nothing but insult those who offer contrasting views to yours, why should anyone "give a damn" about what you say?
As for logic, you've offered no logical reasoning for your dislike for the film, nor any support for your position, nor any concrete criticism of the movie at all. Indeed, your only argument has been "I claim that Kubrick said he wasn't happy with the film, therefore I am right that it is a bad film." In short, you are making an argument for which you have offered no proof other than your own interpretation of something Kubrick may have said or written, which you may well have taken out of context, and even then you've added nothing further regarding the actual nature of the film itself or the artistic elements of it. You have not discussed the script, the plot, the direction, the acting, the art direction, the cinematography, or any other significant or noteworthy aspect of the work. Yet others are supposed to accept your statement as superior to that of critics, Kubrick's colleagues, audiences and their own personal impressions of the film? If there is any logic lacking in this discussion, it is solely on your part.
It's certainly your right to dislike the film. But don't expect anyone else to agree with you, least of all on such a weak argument as you have put forth.

And Paul-- nice work, as always!

Parzival, how can you fail to bow before such irrefutable arguments--"Cuz I sez so" and "You cain't be right 'cuz you don't type perfeck!"?
Why, I, for one, am simply paralyzed with awe from witnessing such masterful disputational expertise.