To each their own point of view, but I hope you see my main point. I actually like the compositions of Kubrick's films, but I don't think they'd need 100 or more takes to get right. Thus, if you take off the Kubrick equals genius blinders for a moment, either he was somewhat inept and covered for it by working through an absurd amount of takes, or he was obsessive about trivial details that didn't really matter visually. I can think of no other reasons for why it would take 100 or more takes to create the majority of his best scenes.
When I first started with my own photography, i'd often take dozens of photos of the same subject, day after day after day, trying to get my shot "just right". Eventually I noticed that this only created pointless extra revision work for me for no reasons other than that I was failing to note the difference between completely irrelevant, tiny differences and those worth adjusting, and that I was thus failing to simply compose more carefully with far fewer shots. Having learned these things, my photography became much less tedious without losing any existing quality.
When I first started with my own photography, i'd often take dozens of photos of the same subject, day after day after day, trying to get my shot "just right". Eventually I noticed that this only created pointless extra revision work for me for no reasons other than that I was failing to note the difference between completely irrelevant, tiny differences and those worth adjusting, and that I was thus failing to simply compose more carefully with far fewer shots. Having learned these things, my photography became much less tedious without losing any existing quality.