I think the title says it all. I was watching 2001 the other day and thought there was no way a major studio would finance something like this nowadays. Same goes for Clockwork Orange. I heavily doubt if he came about in today's modern movie mindset that Kubrick would be able to accomplish in a studio setting what he did in his time. I realize there are still auteur filmmakers out there, but one seldom sees them make movies like this guy did under a studio umbrella.

Others to whom I think this might apply:

Francis Coppola-his good stuff
Martin Scorsese-he still operates in the system, but it's because he's Martin Scorsese

Ones who still could:

Steven Spielberg-no way Jaws gets made the same way
George Lucas - one could argue he created the modern mindset

I don't know I think all of Kubrick's films are far more commercial and accessible than say the Tree of Life.

A new filmmaker though would not get the kind of free reign Terrence Malick has nor would a new filmmaker get Brad Pitt to sign onto a film as a star and Producer

Uh, all of them? Wasn't their ability to craft unique films of the time a large part of what propelled them to the top of their game? I don't think John Ford would have succeeded in today's market the same as I feel Nolan would have floundered in Ford's.

No of course not but all successful directors started off small. Nolan had Following, Aronofsky had Pi, Coen Brothers had Blood Simple, etc no different than Kubrick's Fear and Desire or Scorsese's Mean Streets. Spielberg didn't just walk into Jaws the same way Paul Thomas Anderson didn't walk into The Master.

I actually think Hollywood is a little bit more open to letting directors do their thing than they were even 10 years ago.

Thanks to both independent film and the ability to shoot a quality movie on inexpensive equipment, I think it's actually easier for talent to get noticed these days. The only disadvantage now is there are SO many movies being made...but people will find the good stuff.

Most of them would have done just fine. Obviously, they're vision/style would be altered to where film making is today. Without them, films wouldn't be what they are now so some of their approaches may have still been fresh. If not, they'd be offering something different then what they were known for.

People who are smart and ruthless tend to get ahead in their chosen field, no matter what time period of history they're in and no matter what the circumstances of production. Kubrick would certainly have succeeded today. He might not be making the same movies he made back then, but he would somehow succeed in working the system to his benefit to make what he thinks he could get away with today. Same for Spielberg, Coppola, Scorsese, etc.

On the other hand, those directors who kind of fell into the business might not succeed today in a system where only the most singleminded get their projects accomplished. I'm thinking of some of my favorites, like Ford, Hawks, Peckinpah, Don Siegel, and Robert Aldrich, to name a few. Hawks would get distracted by other pursuits. Ford, Peckinpah, Siegel and Aldrich kind of worked their way up from lower-level film jobs and might have eventually found success in television, where Aldrich and Peckinpah got their first directing jobs, but might not easily encounter the feature film opportunities that came their way once upon a time. A lot of really good directors started out making B-movies and worked their way up when their B-movies stood out from the pack. Those kinds of opportunities don't really exist anymore. If Sam Fuller were starting out today, he would probably be making documentaries in Iraq or Afghanistan or the Gaza Strip.

Today, Orson Welles would not get the kind of control he had with Citizen Kane at age 25.

Well, unless he develops a mobile app and sells it to Yahoo!, and uses the profits for the film.

I think Jaws could have been made today by a fresh filmmaker. M.Night succeeded with the subtle, so there's no reason to believe it couldn't happen now.

What wouldn't happen is the studio letting the project run way over budget and month after month overdue.

Werner Herzog.

Walt Disney. He made most of his films before his studio became unionized.

Well, it had a $839,727 budget in 1941 so, I dunno, I think they'd give anyone a $200m budget without thinking twice. Look at Battleship and Jack the Giant Slayer.

Realitically, that converts to roughly $12m, a little higher than what they gave a 29 year old Christopher Nolan to shoot Memento.

Yes and no.

For example, Nolan was able to have carte blanche with Inception as he signed on to direct, write, and produce The Dark Knight Rises. Without that major piece happening, Inception could've gone a different way or likely would've never seen the light of day.

Tarantino was able to make Django Unchained with a $100 million budget, despite a controversial topic, as he was coming off Inglorious Basterds which was his highest grossing film. To be fair, it also helped that Sony was willing to foot the bill in whatever way they needed to as they needed a hit badly.

In both examples, the bets paid off as Inception made over $800 million worldwide and Django just passed the $400 million mark worldwide.

In other examples, directors still have to utilize the independent strategy to get their films made. Malick had to go outside the studio system to get The Tree of Life financed even if Pitt was attached to star and produce. An Indian film company ended up footing the bill for that one. Annapurna Pictures didn't secure the financing for The Master until The Weinsteins confirmed they would distribute the film in North America. That was after Universal was going to produce and distribute the film, but dropped out due to budgetary reasons (the final product cost $32 million to make).

I think there's studios out there that will take care of their filmmakers. Despite the last example, Universal has taken a lot of gambles over the past few years by allowing Apatow, Whedon, and Romero to make the films they wanted. Some succeeded, others failed. I'd argue to state when Alan Horn ran Warner, it was the same thing where he allowed Nolan, Snyder, and others to make the films they wanted to tell.

Then there are others that don't care and still just try to aim for the bottom line.

I doubt it. Remember that the shark basically never worked. Had it worked flawlessly, we would have seen the shark much more than we actually ended up seeing it and it probably would have sucked ass. Everybody was disappointed at the time that the shark didn't work, but I think we got a much better movie BECAUSE the shark never worked and we didn't see as much of it.

Today, the shark would have been done with CGI or some shitty looking (probably not too much better than Bruce) animatronic and it would be quickly forgotten as just another monster movie. Jaws was a one in a million movie that just happened to get lucky in a number of ways, including the time period it was released. And, yes, it's a VERY good movie, but I think the movie got better because they had to make up for the shark not working. Today, the shark would work exactly how they wanted it to.

I think they'd still find their place in today's Hollywood, but maybe not as huge of a success. Much of today's most respected directors create moderate commercial success at best, while the biggest movies tend to come from less artistic directions.

I can think of more movies that would've been much more successful if released during a different era. When I watched Before the Devil Knows You're Dead, I couldn't believe it wasn't one of the most reknowned movies ever, but picture it coming out in 1975. Maybe people would discuss Cinderella Man more if it came out in 1980? Master and Commander in 1985?? Just sort of random examples...

Good year, right in between Dog Day Afternoon & Network.

Toy Story in 1919, Pearl Harbor in 1935. Yeah I can see what you mean.

But seriously what you're saying makes sense, the impact of certain films definitely could have been more, during different climates.

Michael Cimino.

Alan Smithee.

I agree with this. Maybe Kubrick wouldn't become the massive name he is now (was he even at the time? I ask out of ignorance, because I don't know), but I think it would be easier for him to make his movies today because of the low barrier to entry. Maybe not 2001, but certainly Clockwork.

Kubrick almost certainly would not have been given the huge budgets he got to make his films. He's basically a much artier version of Christopher Nolan, but worked in genres with scripts that had limited mass appeal.

After Spartacus he moved to England because he was disenchanted with Hollywood.
If he would of stayed in the US his filmography would have looked very different.