He will never be considered as a great film director.....

But all of Kubrick's good stuff is based on books...

he gives no soul in his work. He is a glorified cameraman at best.

Yeah... Although he gives soul to movies based on books, I wanted to see a whole movie written by him. Sound promising.

You lost all credibility when having Tarantino as a "great" lol wow.

While that's true, Stanley also co-writes to the point he receives credit and also changes material to suit his worldview and inject originality and the result is he sometimes arguably improves the source material. While Fincher picks only material that suits his worldview the screenplays are usually in place beforehand (the exception being Gone Girl) and so therefore he is arguably just a technical person which is what the OP is saying, a person that can bring an idea to the screen.

I personally don't think he will be considered a great film director, but he will be seen as very good. It is enough to just be a director, Hitchcock was, but if he's going to go down that route and hit looks like he is, he he needs to invent a way of doing something, "technically", much like Hitchcock did or Welles. Or even just get more variety into his body of work.

Also, Spielberg wrote Close Encounters and he mostly directs. Most of the good directors have proved their talents in writing as well.

He never actually said Tarantino was great, he said he had more fans, which is accurate

Don't agree with that at all.

I agree a little. His movies are so good technically and acted, plus they often have some interesting/suspenseful aspect, that I usually rate them 8 or 7. But there's too little soul in them. I think that fits even more so for a director like Nolan. I have a feeling that the newer more trendy directors will go that route; interesting themes, technically well done, maybe some pc moral or none at all, but lacking in heart or soul.

That's what the two kings Spielberg and Cameron always used to have, in addition to technical perfection.