I hate sentences like "So and so is the next such and such." It's silly. There can be stylistic similarities, there can be epic internet discussions of rampant subjectivity concerning which one is better than the other - but nobody is the "next somebody." That's just silly. 
And seriously, there's no such thing as the "next Kubrick." Forget subjective discussions like who is "better" at what. Kubrick was singular and unique in both film style and working style. His films were completely his - for better or worse. There will never be another Kubrick. Just like there will never be another Hitchcock, or Bergman, or Truffaut, or Ozu, or ...
If you want to look at directing as a job - which is exactly what it is - then I'd submit that Spielberg is probably the best at doing that job in contemporary terms. His films have an extreme variety of story content, but they are all consistently good, consistently well crafted (which shows his ability to lead crews), and they are all consistently done in his style yet tailored to the film being made. I don't think he makes the "best films ever." In fact, there are tons of directors who's work I enjoy much more - but that goes back to subjectivity again. In purely objective terms it's hard to find fault with how Spielberg has done the job.
Everyone else I can think of has some sort of fault - Nolan's work lacks Spielberg's universality. Cameron's work lacks Spielberg's consistency and depth. Eastwood and Scorsese are generally too narrow in terms of both content and style. Now - I think all of those guys do great work, so none of this is meant to denigrate them in any way. In fact, some of what I mentioned above are those director's strengths. The thing is that I can't see any of them being able to adapt to the variety of stories and maintain the perfect balance of authorial style vs. authorial invisibility which is found in Spielberg's work.
And seriously, there's no such thing as the "next Kubrick." Forget subjective discussions like who is "better" at what. Kubrick was singular and unique in both film style and working style. His films were completely his - for better or worse. There will never be another Kubrick. Just like there will never be another Hitchcock, or Bergman, or Truffaut, or Ozu, or ...
If you want to look at directing as a job - which is exactly what it is - then I'd submit that Spielberg is probably the best at doing that job in contemporary terms. His films have an extreme variety of story content, but they are all consistently good, consistently well crafted (which shows his ability to lead crews), and they are all consistently done in his style yet tailored to the film being made. I don't think he makes the "best films ever." In fact, there are tons of directors who's work I enjoy much more - but that goes back to subjectivity again. In purely objective terms it's hard to find fault with how Spielberg has done the job.
Everyone else I can think of has some sort of fault - Nolan's work lacks Spielberg's universality. Cameron's work lacks Spielberg's consistency and depth. Eastwood and Scorsese are generally too narrow in terms of both content and style. Now - I think all of those guys do great work, so none of this is meant to denigrate them in any way. In fact, some of what I mentioned above are those director's strengths. The thing is that I can't see any of them being able to adapt to the variety of stories and maintain the perfect balance of authorial style vs. authorial invisibility which is found in Spielberg's work.
- but from a "directing as a job" standpoint, it seems like a good quality in a director.
