XIXAX Film Forum

The Director's Chair => Stanley Kubrick => Topic started by: AnubisGOJ on March 18, 2003, 08:17:26 PM

Title: A.I. observations
Post by: AnubisGOJ on March 18, 2003, 08:17:26 PM
As I've previously posted, I believe this movie to be more along the lines of a Kubrick movie, than one by Spielberg. After viewing it once again, the distinctions between the two styles, and some of the obvious changes by Spielberg are quite noticable.

1. Kubrick had a certain sexual energy to his films. If it suited the story, nudity or sensuality was never an issue. The opening boardroom scene where the machine is told to remove her clothing... pure Kubrick, and changed for... more ratings-friendly reasons. Like a vestigal appendige, this "strip" scene is still there, but why? Sexuality is spread like a thin veil throughout the movie. Had this been a pure Spielberg film, hardly if any would be here.

2. The infamous long takes- Kubrick's famous long takes are still present, although toned-down just a tad. Unfortunately, people still insisted this movie dragged.

Is it just me, or does this movie actually have two endings? Let me explain: The Kubrick ending would have ended with David in the flyer, trapped for all eternity looking at his "blue fairy". The Speilberg ending had a touch of Close Encounters, and although still pertinant to the film- had a completely separate feeling- almost as if it was tacked on. I guess certain threads had to be tied-up.

The folks on this board seem to be a wise and opinionated group, so here are a few questions...

1. Do you think David shutdown at the end of the movie?
2. Do you agree with me that Gigolo Joe is the only redeeming character and that is why he'd punished?
3. If David was modeled after his creator's dead son, why would his design begin to be mass-produced?
4. Did you detect malign intent from the aliens? Were they trying to decieve David?
5. And lastly, do you agree with my perpective that there is more Kubrick than Spielberg in this movie, and how could it have been more-so in either director's direction?
Title: A.I. observations
Post by: Gold Trumpet on March 18, 2003, 08:56:59 PM
I think this movie is more of an ode to Kubrick by Speilberg in many ways, but on the other hand, the developments by Kubrick for making this movie feel like Kubrick wanted to make a movie closer to the heart Speilberg had in his movies. It wouldn't be for the first time he did this though, because I am pretty sure The Shining was influenced by Jaws and how Speilberg approached the story. He had other stories to it than just the shark one, but it was a movie completely within its genre that did nothing to bring up drama over the terror of the shark. The ending was the shark being killed and thats it. Kubrick's The Shining very much based itself off that in showing the action scenes in a similiar way and building up of the suspence. Yes, it was Speilberg doing a Hitchcock movie in many ways but there were more elements like a story between people instead of just the suspence that prolly proved more influential. And in all the interviews of Kubrick, I've never once heard him even mention Hitchcock but I could have missed it. I think Kubrick had an admiration for Speilberg, in that at his best, he could mix the fantasy of Movieland with a very personal story and show emotions a lot of other directors would feel too good to show. In preparation for A.I., Kubrick talked highly of how much he admired E.T. and wanted something of the similiar feeling to his story of Pinnochio retold. I think Kubrick honestly wanted to show that, but would have failed and in return, what he would have created would have been much more cold and distant and then interpretated by many as being for a purpose. But I think he really wanted to make his own E.T.

Then there is the relationship of Speilberg wanting to be more like Kubrick and how he did marry themes of himself and Kubrick within the story. I don't think the story ever was really finished and if Kubrick did have a chance to make it, prolly wouldn't have finished it for another ten years minumum. Kubrick always went into films not really with set goals of what exactly to film in such and such time frame, but always trying to discover something through the process of shooting and editing. Also, A.I went through many many different stages and ideas and Kubrick went down the line of science fiction writers he was writing with. I think the end result shows his indecision by having an ending that seemed very similiar to 2001: A Space Odyssey, and showing a city that was reminiscient of A Clockwork Orange in feeling and style. I think Kubrick would have changed these details for the most part while keeping a movie that did focus on the Pinnochio aspect for the most part. In the end, I think the movie basically was Speilberg doing a movie that was very much of an ode to Kubrick without fully evolving into its own identity.

the questions I am confident to answer because to have not seen movie in a while,

3.) He did model it after his dead son, but he is a businessman too who realized he had made something very valuable too. In honoring his dead son, maybe his likeness being the official image to how far machines have come was important to him. If he kept his dead son in a very respected way that was to keep it private and to himself, maybe he wouldn't have created a machine like him. But I think the main aspect of that detail is to show David coming to the realization that he is no longer unique and a machine that can be mass produced.

4.) The aliens at the end very much go towards Kubrick's own beliefs to how aliens are. In many interviews during 2001, Kubrick always attested to the belief that if there were aliens evolved enough to build spaceships to travel so far in the galaxy and such that it would be safe to assume that their brain development would be that high too and they would be very peaceful and understanding instead of being all kill kill like popular culture has said.
Title: A.I. observations
Post by: Ghostboy on March 19, 2003, 01:07:18 AM
I agree completely with Gold Trumpet's assessment. I did read, however, a rundown of Kubrick's original treatment which did include the ending in the future, with the advanced robots unthawing David and giving him a chance to be with his mother again. There was a bit more eerieness to it, though; rather than having his father and brother simply be absent, the reconstructed house simply had empty black spaces where they used to be.
Title: A.I. observations
Post by: life_boy on March 19, 2003, 02:08:10 AM
Quote from: Ghostboy
rather than having his father and brother simply be absent, the reconstructed house simply had empty black spaces where they used to be.


That's cool.
Title: Kubrick's ending
Post by: Alexandro on March 20, 2003, 01:38:57 PM
I think Kubrick's ending was the one it's in the movie. It's way more complex and interesting than just end it with David frozen in the bottom of the ocean. Being pessimistic is very easy, I think, and the "second" ending has much more to it and expands the intelectual horizons of the film. That's pure Kubrick.

The film, in my opinion, is a curious and pretty effective blend of both filmmakers style, but it's a little more Spielberg than Kubrick, even at the beggining.

About the questions, I don't think David shut down. He became human, he started to dream through his love and therefore became a real boy. The film says that the element that makes us humans is our consciousness, which both David and Gigolo Joe get to discover at some point (Gigolo says "I am, I was" before being arrested). The film (ina 2001 kind of way) is showing the evolution of man till the point where man becomes like a god, creating humans out of nothing, and giving up his place to the next species: Robots. Cause the "aliens" are not aliens, are robots. Look closer, they are robots. Spielberg explains this on the dvd.

why is gigolo joe the only redeeming character??

I think the robots were sincere on their intentions...

A.I. is a fantastic movie cause it doesn't explain everything, you have to make your own conclusions...That's why is one of my favorite films, and I honestly think is speilberg's best film to date.
Title: A.I. observations
Post by: bonanzataz on March 20, 2003, 07:28:31 PM
COOL! I never thought of them as being robots. This makes too much sense and...
 :crazyeyes:

BLAG!
Title: A.I. observations
Post by: Pubrick on March 20, 2003, 10:12:22 PM
totally agree with everything postive said about AI.

it rulzx0rz.

the ideas of kubrick with the familiarity of spielberg, it's a (big) keeper.
Title: A.I. observations
Post by: ©brad on March 21, 2003, 05:33:56 AM
Spielberg said he was happy that the film got mixed reactions because that means he actually nailed something 'kubrickian.'

AI is worth watching just for the visuals. Janusz Kaminski is incredible. This and Minority Report are his best, I think. Love the scene at the pool with David and the kids.


FYI- Kaminski's filmography includes:

Catch Me If You Can (2002)
Minority Report (2002)
Artificial Intelligence: AI (2001)
Saving Private Ryan (1998)
Amistad (1997)
Lost World: Jurassic Park, The (1997)
Jerry Maguire (1996)
How to Make an American Quilt (1995)
Tall Tale (1995)
Little Giants (1994)
Schindler's List (1993)
Class of '61 (1993) (TV)
Adventures of Huck Finn, The (1993)
Mad Dog Coll (1992)
Trouble Bound (1992)
Killer Instinct (1991)
Pyrates (1991)
Wildflower (1991) (TV)
Cool as Ice (1991)
Grim Prairie Tales (1990)
Terror Within II, The (1990)
Rain Killer, The (1990)
Title: A.I. observations
Post by: life_boy on March 21, 2003, 03:47:36 PM
Wow, the Little Giants.
Title: A.I. observations
Post by: Jeremy Blackman on March 21, 2003, 03:57:49 PM
Okay, they're robots, but they still look like aliens, and I can't get over it. Bad movie.  :yabbse-thumbdown:
Title: A.I. observations
Post by: Gold Trumpet on March 21, 2003, 08:24:30 PM
I really liked this movie, and if the last 20 minutes was gone, it would be a great movie. I want to know though from the people who didn't like the movie exactly why.

~rougerum
Title: A.I. observations
Post by: Pubrick on March 21, 2003, 08:27:36 PM
Quote from: The Gold Trumpet
I want to know though from the people who didn't like the movie exactly why.

they hate their mothers.
Title: A.I. observations
Post by: Jeremy Blackman on March 21, 2003, 08:38:03 PM
Quote from: The Gold Trumpet
if the last 20 minutes was gone, it would be a great movie. I want to know though from the people who didn't like the movie exactly why.


That's exactly why.
Title: A.I. observations
Post by: Gold Trumpet on March 21, 2003, 08:54:16 PM
Though I disliked the last 20 minutes, I still felt the rest held up its own as a great movie and made the last twenty minutes seem like a more minor detail than anything else.

~rougerum
Title: A.I. observations
Post by: Xixax on March 21, 2003, 09:01:06 PM
I'm in a similar camp with you guys, but I disliked the lats two HOURS and twenty minutes.

That movie was three hours of my life that I'll never get back, and $7.50 down the toilet.
Title: A.I. observations
Post by: Gold Trumpet on March 21, 2003, 09:08:14 PM
Again, why did you dislike the movie?

~rougerum
Title: A.I. observations
Post by: Jeremy Blackman on March 21, 2003, 09:15:11 PM
Quote from: The Gold Trumpet
and made the last twenty minutes seem like a more minor detail than anything else.


Minor detail? It changed the main character, it changed the entire world, and it had to go all sci-fi/fantasy when it really didn't need to.

It would have been a perfect movie had it ended with David stuck in the ice, gazing at the statue.

... which is why I was so pissed off about it
Title: A.I. observations
Post by: Gold Trumpet on March 21, 2003, 09:35:45 PM
Yes, even if you believed it did change all those things, it is more of a minor detail than anything else because to really judge between a good and bad movie, each come with strengths and weaknesses in different ways from story to its skill in making the movie. So in seeing all the greatness of basically all the movie, shouldn't it be looked at as a good film overall anyways? I just feel your observation, which is what I get from most people who don't like it, ignores that the rest of the movie was done to such high levels and should, for that, still stand as something redeemable in an overall context. The story and what changes and doesn't is not really that important in looking at whole spectrum of the movie.

Actually, the only thing that made me mad about the ending was the producer saying what it meant. I thought it out to be something perfectly fitting for the rest of the movie and its ideas and very well within the Kubrick idea of anti narrative in what someone expects but doesn't get. The producer fucked it for me.

~rougerum
Title: A.I. observations
Post by: xerxes on March 21, 2003, 09:41:23 PM
Quote from: Jeremy Blackman

It would have been a perfect movie had it ended with David stuck in the ice, gazing at the statue.


couldn't agree more
Title: A.I. observations
Post by: bonanzataz on March 22, 2003, 01:05:12 AM
i like the ending. I like the whole movie.
Title: A.I. observations
Post by: snaporaz on March 22, 2003, 02:21:16 AM
Quote from: life_boy
Wow, the Little Giants.


fuck little giants.

cool as ice?????

:shock:
Title: A.I. observations
Post by: tpfkabi on March 22, 2003, 04:27:21 PM
i like AI. i think i would like it more ending at the blue fairy, but this ending was Kubrick's ending.

where can i find the Kubrick treatment someone had read?

oh, too, where does Spielberg actually say they are robots? i, for the longest, believed them aliens as well. how can any machine ever move that smoothly?
Title: A.I. observations
Post by: MacGuffin on March 22, 2003, 04:34:40 PM
Quote from: bigideas
oh, too, where does Spielberg actually say they are robots? i, for the longest, believed them aliens as well. how can any machine ever move that smoothly?


From what I remember, I believe it's said in the narration (someone needs to confirm since my sister has my copy). Around the scene when the Ben Kingsley robot talks to David in the bedroom.


EDIT: From Entertainment Weekly:

Burning Question
 
Q Were those elegant, opaque creatures at the end of A.I. intended to be aliens or advanced robots?

A Despite similarities to the extraterrestrials in Steven Spielberg's Close Encounters of the Third Kind, they're androids. ''I could see where people would get mixed up,'' says F/X supervisor Dennis Muren. ''We talked to Steven about it; he said, 'It'll be okay.' ''
Title: A.I. observations
Post by: Ghostboy on March 23, 2003, 12:08:13 AM
I'm sure you can find the article I read about the treatment if you do a search on the subject....

I liked the idea of the ending very much, but there was waaayyy too much expository dialogue (first the alien, then the blue fairy, then the alien, etc.). It just dragged for me.

I also think the Flesh Fair sequence was really poorly done. It looked cheap and shoddy and unbelievable. I think it should have been cut, which also would have helped the pacing of the entire movie (possibly even solving that '4th act' problem that's plagued Spielberg's last few films).

EDIT: I did a quick search, and here's a resulting tidibit:

"It was the relationship between David and his mother that most occupied Kubrick and Ms. Maitland. An alcoholic whose Bloody Marys David would mix for her in a vain attempt to win her affection, the mother was the emotional center of the film.

At the story's conclusion, the robots that have inherited the Earth use David's memories to reconstruct, in virtual form, the apartment where he had lived with his parents. Because his memories are subjective, the mother is much more vividly realized than the father, and his stepsister's room is not there at all; it is just a hole in the wall.

For Ms. Maitland, the film would end with David preparing a Bloody Mary for his mother, the juice a brighter red than in real life: "He hears her voice, and that's it. We don't see him turn to see her." Kubrick, however, wanted a coda in which the new race of robots, because of a technological limitation, cannot keep the the mother alive after reviving her. The movie would end with David in his mother's bedroom, watching her slowly disappear. "
Title: A.I. observations
Post by: Cecil on March 23, 2003, 11:28:07 AM
kubricks original ideas sound so much better. well, you guys all know my spielberg/ kubrick theory.
Title: A.I. observations
Post by: Gold Trumpet on March 23, 2003, 02:04:35 PM
Kubrick had way too many ideas for this film. He ditched most of them so who knows where that one lays at. I've heard of it, but with all the confusion in the project as Kubrick was developing it, it is impossible to say where Kubrick would have ended up in his final film. I don't believe Kubrick himself even really knew what he wanted.

~rougerum
Title: A.I. observations
Post by: tpfkabi on March 23, 2003, 02:23:10 PM
i believe i read somewhere that his research on the Napolean film he wanted to do is going to be released this year. anyone know?
Title: A.I. observations
Post by: Derek on March 23, 2003, 02:35:45 PM
Quote from: xerxes
Quote from: Jeremy Blackman

It would have been a perfect movie had it ended with David stuck in the ice, gazing at the statue.


couldn't agree more


I have to disagree. It may have given the film a greater resonance, but it seems sadistic to leave David frozen in the ice, teasing him with his dreams forever.
Title: A.I. observations
Post by: Cecil on March 23, 2003, 02:41:03 PM
Quote from: Derek

I have to disagree. It may have given the film a greater resonance, but it seems sadistic to leave David frozen in the ice, teasing him with his dreams forever.


exactly
Title: A.I. observations
Post by: tpfkabi on March 23, 2003, 03:04:05 PM
ah, but that seems more Kubrickian, no?
Title: A.I. observations
Post by: Derek on March 23, 2003, 03:07:08 PM
I don't think so. David was too much of an innocent.
Title: A.I. observations
Post by: MacGuffin on March 23, 2003, 03:08:30 PM
Quote from: bigideas
i believe i read somewhere that his research on the Napolean film he wanted to do is going to be released this year. anyone know?


From E! News - Jul 5, 2002

Kubrick's "Napoleon" Booked

And you thought A.I. was Stanley Kubrick's final project from beyond the grave.

The late filmmaker, who died three years ago, never had a chance to see his film on Napoleon Bonaparte make it to screen. Kubrick, known for his militaristic attention to detail during his five-decade career, had obsessed over the late French emperor and dreamed of telling the story cinematically for more than three decades.

But although the film was never completed, the project will get released--in book form. Thanks to Kubrick's family, fans will soon be able to read Stanley Kubrick's Napoleon: His Greatest Film Never Made, an insider's look into the project that haunted him until the end of his days.

According to the Hollywood Reporter, the book is being put together by Kubrick's widow, Christiane, with the help of her brother, Jan Harlan, who served as the director's executive producer on all his films since 1975's Barry Lyndon.

It not only will feature Kubrick's original script, which covered the full span of Napoleon's life, but also a plethora of preproduction material amassed during the filmmaker's 30-year effort to make the movie, including notes on locations in Romania, France and Britain that were scouted for the film in the 1970s.

Harlan announced the book at the Moscow International Film Festival, where he was screening his own biographical documentary on Kubrick's life and career as part of a Kubrick retrospective.

Harlan said the planned book would be a testament to Kubrick's creative vision and a cinematic ambition never realized when the master died suddenly of a heart attack in March 1999 at the age of 70 soon after completing work on Eyes Wide Shut.

"From 1969 until his death, Stanley was fascinated by Napoleon," Harlan said. "Although Kubrick films are very different in form, there is a common denominator--the human folly and vanity built into our species that appears to be our downfall."

"Napoleon interested Stanley very much because here was a man with a huge talent and tremendous charisma, who in the end failed only because of his emotions and vanity. Napoleon was not able to control his emotions--it was his Achilles' heel."

Harlan also noted that the research Kubrick conducted for his epic alone was monumental, encompassing more than 18,000 books and documents detailing every aspect of Napoleon's life and military career, as well as 7,000 location photographs.

Given its breadth, the total budget for his proposed biopic would have topped $120 million, Harlan said, making the film tough to get green-lighted. Further, Napoleon films like 1970's Waterloo with Rod Steiger have bombed, making financing even more difficult.

All is not lost for film buffs, however.

Harlan--who helped bring one of the director's other unfinished works, A.I., to fruition (he executive-produced the Steven Spielberg-helmed film)--said he would love to see someone resurrect Kubrick's vision of Napoleon.

"It would be absolutely fantastic if it could be made," he said.

In the meantime, fans will have to content themselves waiting for the book. Stanley Kubrick's Napoleon is expected to hit shelves sometime next year.
Title: A.I. observations
Post by: Cecil on March 23, 2003, 04:39:00 PM
the screenplay has allready been out on the net for quite some time

http://web.archive.org/web/20010625040837/www.interlink.es/cookies/guion/Napoleon.txt

at the end, there are a few "production notes"
Title: A.I. observations
Post by: Duck Sauce on March 23, 2003, 05:12:52 PM
Quote from: cecil b. demented

at the end, there are a few "production notes


I like this part talking about where the bulk of the expenses will be:

Quote

1.  Large numbers of extras.
2.  Large numbers of military uniforms.
3.  Large numbers of expensive sets.
4.  Over-priced movie stars.
Title: A.I. observations
Post by: Gold Trumpet on March 23, 2003, 08:24:25 PM
The ending to A.I. just being david left in the water wouldn't necessarily be more Kubrickian, but it would be more darker. I always felt that would be a way someone like Scorsese would have ended it. I do believe though the ending in place now is more Kubrickian because I think there are anti narrative and anti expectations within it.

~rougerum
Title: A.I. observations
Post by: tpfkabi on March 23, 2003, 10:12:22 PM
thanks for the link. have you read it? i wondered what people's reaction to it was? would it have stood up with his other work?
Title: A.I. observations
Post by: bonanzataz on March 24, 2003, 12:08:35 AM
I want to read this so badly, but I'm going to have to wait for the book. I don't want to waste paper and I don't want to read it on the computer.
Title: A.I. observations
Post by: Cecil on March 24, 2003, 12:12:51 AM
i havent read it yet. and i think ill just have to get the book for the same reasons
Title: A.I. observations
Post by: Victor on March 24, 2003, 10:31:42 AM
the movie was a dark fairy tale, thats why kubrickski wanted speilberg to direct in the first place. the ending wouldve sucked if david was just left there, it wouldnt have fit at all, it wouldve been pessimistic just for the sake of being pessimistic. i like the ending so much more the way it is, because its a proper fairy tale ending, and yet its realistic and possible in the context of the film, and kind of dark as well. and maybe im a sucker, but when she tells david she loves him, fuck, that gets me every time.

the one thing that really lacks, stanley-wise, is rouge city. its well done, sure, but could you imagine how insane and hyper-sexual it wouldve been if kubrick did it?

this is in my top three for speilberg films, along with close encounters. im saving a spot for schindlers list, cause i havent seen it yet. i should just sell out and get the vhs.
Title: A.I. observations
Post by: Cecil on March 24, 2003, 11:20:51 AM
of course its hard to say which ending would be best for kubricks version cause kubrick wouldve made the film quite differently.
Title: A.I. observations
Post by: MacGuffin on March 24, 2003, 12:37:08 PM
Quote from: Lester
the one thing that really lacks, stanley-wise, is rouge city. its well done, sure, but could you imagine how insane and hyper-sexual it wouldve been if kubrick did it?


From IMDB:

In order to keep the film's PG-13 rating, a building resembling a penis was digitally removed from the "Rouge City" set.
Title: A.I. observations
Post by: Cecil on March 24, 2003, 01:08:29 PM
spielberg! you bad boy, you
Title: A.I. observations
Post by: Victor on March 24, 2003, 01:57:38 PM
oh yeah, Little Mermaid can have penises cramming the screen, but AI cant even have one? FUCK the MPAA. Fuck it hard with Kubricks dead fat cock. im gonna make it my personal mission in the industry to make the rating system obsolete.
Title: A.I. observations
Post by: ©brad on March 24, 2003, 02:05:54 PM
Over time the people on the MPAA must turn into fucking lunatics. They have to endure the 'rough cuts' of movies none of us get to see, well atleast not until an uncut dvd is released. They see all the sick shit over and over. I think natural Born Killers went through some 50 different cuts before the MPAA finally released it. Eventually those mo'fo's must go insane. Or maybe they get so used to seeing sick shit that it doesn't even affect them anymore.
Title: A.I. observations
Post by: bonanzataz on March 24, 2003, 03:04:37 PM
Quote from: Derek
I don't think so. David was too much of an innocent.


Quote from: jtm
I saw this kid in Long Beach when he was filming AI.  He was playing football with some guys in a park and I was walking by and he ran over by me and I yelled to him "I see dead people" and he stared back at me for a second and said "real fucking funny asshole!"
I was so mad, i almost abducted him.
Title: A.I. observations
Post by: Duck Sauce on March 24, 2003, 03:52:45 PM
Quote from: Lester

its well done, sure, but could you imagine how insane and hyper-sexual it wouldve been if kubrick did it?


What a fucking perfect term... hyper-sexual


Quote from: Lester
oh yeah, Little Mermaid can have penises cramming the screen, but AI cant even have one? FUCK the MPAA. Fuck it hard with Kubricks dead fat cock. im gonna make it my personal mission in the industry to make the rating system obsolete.


FALSE
http://www.snopes.com/disney/films/mermaid.htm

http://www.snopes.com/disney/films/minister.htm
Title: A.I. observations
Post by: Cecil on March 24, 2003, 04:48:18 PM
Quote from: Lester
im gonna make it my personal mission in the industry to make the rating system obsolete.


groovy.

lets team-up
Title: A.I. observations
Post by: bonanzataz on March 24, 2003, 05:00:56 PM
That little mermaid rumor isn't false. I've seen it with my own eyes!
Title: A.I. observations
Post by: BonBon85 on March 24, 2003, 05:06:08 PM
Quote from: bonanzataz
That little mermaid rumor isn't false. I've seen it with my own eyes!


So have I, but they claim it's the priest's knee under the robe.
Title: A.I. observations
Post by: bonanzataz on March 24, 2003, 05:21:46 PM
yeah, but the penis on the poster can't be argued. it is most definitely a penis.
Title: A.I. observations
Post by: MacGuffin on March 24, 2003, 05:57:10 PM
Claim: The letters S-E-X are formed by a swirling cloud of dust in The Lion King.
Status: Undetermined.

(http://www.snopes.com/disney/graphics/lionani.gif)

http://www.snopes.com/disney/films/lionking.htm
Title: A.I. observations
Post by: Pubrick on March 25, 2003, 05:45:22 AM
Quote from: MacGuffin
Claim: The letters S-E-X are formed by a swirling cloud of dust in The Lion King.

looks like S-e-e to me.

on the subject of AI ending, my opinion, if anyone cares, is that if u like the "frozen" ending then u really don't like robots. if u like the real ending which is the kid living his dream, then ur coo wit me and ur coo wit that which is beyond u and me.

i dunno bout u ppl, but i plan to die happy.
Title: A.I. observations
Post by: Duck Sauce on March 25, 2003, 11:10:54 AM
now thinking about it, I liked the full ending better than if it stopped in the ice. In the ice, he still had hope, its sadder this way/
Title: A.I. observations
Post by: Cecil on March 25, 2003, 06:33:23 PM
"Rushed to complete... hurried... at about four in the morning... inadvertently drew... didn't notice the resemblance..."

thats what i used to say to teachers when i was in school
Title: A.I. observations
Post by: Victor on March 26, 2003, 07:06:35 AM
ive tried that a few times, but i dunno, its kind of hard to find an excuse for a nine-inch erection right in the middle of a geometry paper.

but when you think about it, most architechure is somewhat phallic in nature. why do you think everyone wants to build the tallest building in the world? it says, dont fuck with us, weve got a bigger cock than you.
Title: A.I. observations
Post by: Dr. Gonzo on July 23, 2003, 01:53:52 AM
I love A.I. the way it is. It dissapoints me to know that there are still people who didn't know they were robots, not aliens, at the end. And yes, the end is needed, if not to show all the stuff about David (which has been covered so I won't say anything about it), then to show that Gigilo Joe was right..."in the end, all that will be left...is us" It shows that humans will bring their own end...is that not Kubrick?
Title: A.I. observations
Post by: Pubrick on July 23, 2003, 02:46:34 AM
Quote from: Dr. Gonzo
It shows that humans will bring their own end...is that not Kubrick?

totally man, that's so ekzellent. but i think it also shows that we will be redeemed by robot death.

if u believe in that sorta thing, of course. like this chick:
(http://www.npr.org/programs/morning/features/2002/jan/metropolis/metropolis-65a.jpg)
they'll show us who we really are.

i know this topic is dead, and there's very few reasonable ppl to discuss things with.. but i'll pose the question anyway: is the mother's perception in the final bit of the movie, in the dream, as real as her day to day "classic" reality in her mind? i would say, even moreso. the idea of 2 dream characters purely and honestly communicating in an island of time/space.. that's the real future.

it's a question of consciousness. and a place where robots and humans meet.
Title: A.I. observations
Post by: foray on December 01, 2003, 09:38:05 PM
I don't think the ending with David staring at the Blue Fairy would've been pessimistic. To me, it showed that robots had finally reached a point where they could pray. And that's why it ended quite nicely for me there.

I don't really mind the 'second' ending, because the ideas presented there are very interesting and open up the film's scope. However, it seems like it's too much of a surprise, it's a twisty doggy-leg. Are there enough elements in the film, prior to that scene, that prepares us for the final scene and all its ideas?

foray
Title: A.I. observations
Post by: Alexandro on December 15, 2003, 09:45:38 AM
Quote from: foray
I don't think the ending with David staring at the Blue Fairy would've been pessimistic. To me, it showed that robots had finally reached a point where they could pray. And that's why it ended quite nicely for me there.

I don't really mind the 'second' ending, because the ideas presented there are very interesting and open up the film's scope. However, it seems like it's too much of a surprise, it's a twisty doggy-leg. Are there enough elements in the film, prior to that scene, that prepares us for the final scene and all its ideas?

foray


Defintely

the film looks at existence as a mental state more than a phisical state, it says that the human mind or human like conciousness is the key to the meaning of existence. david only becomes a true intellect by the end, when his dreams completely shape his reality.

it's sad cause in the physical world that wouldn't be possible, but it's also upbeat cause it acknowledges the true human potential to become purely "a soul". david doesn't physically become a human being, only intelectually. the film is talking about artificial intelligence but david also represents humans and as a whol ethe movie analyzes human nature in terms of capacity to love, hate, fear and hope, our relationship with our universe and our feelings about the existence of "a creator"...this is such a deep movie, I don't think there has been a film with so much philosophical nature in ages...
Title: A.I. observations
Post by: jtm on December 17, 2003, 01:08:04 PM
Quote from: MacGuffin
Claim: The letters S-E-X are formed by a swirling cloud of dust in The Lion King.
Status: Undetermined.



http://www.snopes.com/disney/films/lionking.htm


check this out.  i was looking around that snopes site and found this...........  http://www.snopes.com/horrors/freakish/scuba.htm

...or maybe this was common knowledge.  i never heard of it.
Title: A.I. observations
Post by: eward on December 17, 2003, 06:15:55 PM
haha liar
Title: A.I. observations
Post by: jtm on December 18, 2003, 01:07:57 AM
Quote from: eward
haha liar


what?! ...explain urself.
Title: A.I. observations
Post by: eward on December 18, 2003, 07:50:07 AM
...i....was just kidding...... :oops:
Title: A.I. observations
Post by: jtm on December 18, 2003, 12:50:03 PM
Quote from: eward
...i....was just kidding...... :oops:


oh, never mind then... i thought you were thinking that i meant that i had never heard of the scuba thing at all. when what i meant was, i didn't know pta based it on a true occurence.
Title: A.I. observations
Post by: eward on December 18, 2003, 04:24:24 PM
:o
Title: A.I. observations
Post by: Link on December 24, 2003, 10:10:09 AM
A.I.'s one of my favorite movies.  Sure, it's flawed, but I like it like that anyway.  At first, I was with the people who said the better (and more Kubrick) ending would be leaving him frozen at the bottom of the water.  But now when I look at it, sure, that's what I would have done, had I made it, but I don't no of that's more "Kubrick" than the real ending.  In fact, I think the actual ending is more like him (as people have already pointed out, that ending was his idea).  He himself, of course, said that Spielberg was the ideal director for this movie, so I trust him.  I've come to love the last 15-20 minutes, and I really dig the Supermechas.  Also, the structure seems like his "non-submersible units" technique (http://www.visual-memory.co.uk/faq/index4.html, number 49).

Anyone been here?  http://www.mysteriesofai.com/index.htm

It analyzes it as a Jewish allegory.  It's an interesting read, but I think they're really pushing it.

One thing definitely missing that would have made it even more Kubrick was the "Kubrick Stare" (my favorite being Gomer Pyle's in Full Metal Jacket)

I find it extremely funny that Kubrick liked White Men Can't Jump.  I dunno why.
Title: Re: A.I. observations
Post by: Derek on January 16, 2004, 04:46:45 PM
Quote from: AnubisGOJ
Is it just me, or does this movie actually have two endings? Let me explain: The Kubrick ending would have ended with David in the flyer, trapped for all eternity looking at his "blue fairy".


It irritates me when people assume this was when Kubrick wanted to end the film. It is a very presumptiuous statement, and somehow implies that Spielberg lessened the film by ending the movie on a so-called uplifting note, which really isn't true at all.

Kubrick didn't make A.I., Spielberg did. Would you prefer no one had at all?
Title: Re: A.I. observations
Post by: Duck Sauce on February 25, 2004, 08:40:10 PM
Quote from: Derek
Quote from: AnubisGOJ
Is it just me, or does this movie actually have two endings? Let me explain: The Kubrick ending would have ended with David in the flyer, trapped for all eternity looking at his "blue fairy".


It irritates me when people assume this was when Kubrick wanted to end the film. It is a very presumptiuous statement, and somehow implies that Spielberg lessened the film by ending the movie on a so-called uplifting note, which really isn't true at all.

Kubrick didn't make A.I., Spielberg did. Would you prefer no one had at all?



Thats a point that cant be stressed enough. And regards to Spielbergs ending, I find it a bit more depressing then if it had ended with David in the flyer.

He gets to live in an empty house without a shred of the hope he had in the flyer.
Title: A.I. observations
Post by: Cory Everett on February 25, 2004, 09:08:00 PM
You received criticism for A.I. Artificial Intelligence. Was is difficult to make a movie that was someone else’s vision?

Spielberg: A.I. was an exhausting film to make. It had Stanley’s (Kubrick) spirit in my ear. He was everywhere in my life. I was trying to put Stanley’s vision on the screen. There were many things that I didn’t do because it wasn’t what Stanley would have done. On this film I was free again because it was the first film I had made since I made Stanley’s movie and now I got to make my movie and it was a great feeling to not have to think ‘what would Stanley do?’ But the funny thing about that movie and the reason why I think people don’t know Stanley as well as they think, is that all the parts of A.I. that critics thought were Stanley’s were me, and all the things that people thought I had sentimentalized were Stanley’s. The talking Teddy Bear was Stanley’s; the whole last 20 minutes and the first 45 minutes were from Stanley’s screenplay. It was Stanley’s vision – I read everything that was written about A.I. and 80% of the stuff people said was wrong. I am the guy who did the dark side of it. Stanley said in 1994 that this movie was closer to my sensibilities than his own. When he tried to talk me into doing it then I told him that I had to back out because he was too passionate when he was telling me about it in his faxes. He was the DNA of this movie, and it was only after his death and his people approached me that I agreed to do it. I pushed this movie back two years. I was going to do it and not A.I.”
Title: A.I. observations
Post by: eward on February 25, 2004, 09:12:10 PM
you know, this film sits much better with me every single time i see it.....
Title: A.I. observations
Post by: Cory Everett on February 25, 2004, 09:33:06 PM
Spielberg, in a very humorous purge, related something about A.I. that many have erroenously "blamed" him for. "If you take anything away from tonight, please let it be that it was Kubrick's original ending to A.I. to have all the schmaltzy, Spielbergian future scene with the boy having a day with his mother....for once, in public, let me set the record straight."
Title: A.I. observations
Post by: eward on February 25, 2004, 10:32:43 PM
i think i read that interview - if thats not from an interview then he gave an interview stating something very similar to that.
Title: A.I. observations
Post by: Cory Everett on February 25, 2004, 10:40:35 PM
Quote from: eward
i think i read that interview - if thats not from an interview then he gave an interview stating something very similar to that.

yeah that was from a chat in nyc where he previewed 10 min of catchme before it came out.  but i remember reading a more in-depth interview with him about A.I. after it was released and him going way into detail about how exactly the parts everyone thinks are his are stanleys and the parts people assume stanleys are his.  i searched everywhere a few minutes ago for this thing and couldnt find it.  but i did find those two notes which basically confirm the same thing.  kubrick had the beginning and end mapped out (the parts most people had a problem with), adn the whole dark middle was where spielberg had to basically look at the notes/drawings and construct it himself.
Title: A.I. observations
Post by: eward on February 25, 2004, 10:43:40 PM
further proof that spielberg is very often unfairly discredited.
Title: A.I. observations
Post by: Henry Hill on February 27, 2004, 05:28:04 PM
ive always thought A.I. had a kubrickian feel to it. i love this film.
Title: A.I. observations
Post by: MacGuffin on April 07, 2004, 10:40:25 AM
SPIELBERG'S AI 'DREADFUL'
Source: Contactmusic

The author of STEVEN SPIELBERG's movie hit ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE:AI has attacked the director's interpretation of his text.

The JUDE LAW-starring sci-fi flick was based on BRIAN ALDISS' 1968 book SUPER TOYS LAST ALL SUMMER.

But Aldiss has dubbed the movie "dreadful".

Speaking at the CHELTENHAM LITERARY FESTIVAL in England, Aldiss blasts, "When the film came out, I thought it was dreadful - over-long with a forced ending."

The film was originally intended for the late director STANLEY KUBRICK, before he died in March 1999 at the age of 70.
Title: A.I. observations
Post by: cowboykurtis on April 07, 2004, 10:55:12 AM
i still attribute my enjoyment of this film based on the amusement i got from imagining what kubrick woul have doen with this palette
Title: A.I. observations
Post by: eward on April 08, 2004, 09:48:42 AM
lol uh what was the point of that article ever being written?
Title: A.I. observations
Post by: SoNowThen on April 08, 2004, 09:51:30 AM
To expose the truth.
Title: A.I. observations
Post by: Pubrick on April 08, 2004, 09:52:47 AM
Quote from: SoNowThen
To expose the truth.

yeah, the truth that Aldiss isn't selling any books.
Title: A.I. observations
Post by: Jeremy Blackman on April 08, 2004, 11:41:02 AM
Quote from: MacGuffin
"I thought it was dreadful - over-long with a forced ending."

REDEMPTION AT LAST![/b]
Title: A.I. observations
Post by: eward on April 08, 2004, 03:22:59 PM
Quote from: SoNowThen
To expose the truth.


have u ever seen AI?
Title: A.I. observations
Post by: SoNowThen on April 08, 2004, 03:26:06 PM
Of course not. I'm still allowed to joke, no?
Title: A.I. observations
Post by: eward on April 08, 2004, 03:42:18 PM
of course you are :-D
Title: A.I. observations
Post by: Dtm115300 on January 19, 2005, 03:14:32 PM
I didn't hate A.I. but i don't think it was great ither. But the ending was deff forced.
Title: A.I. observations
Post by: Fernando on August 31, 2005, 12:07:01 PM
Found another old article in my pc, you must take into account that this one was published before Spielberg took the project, it's a good read I think.


Kubrick's unfinished return to the future.
A scriptwriter endured a stress odyssey collaborating on the driven director's re-entry into the sci-fi realm.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
By John Coffren
Special to The Sun

 
When the call came in March 1995, Sara Maitland thought it was a prank. he voice on the other end of the line introduced himself as film director Stanley Kubrick, and asked, "Would you like to write a film script for me?"
 
"He rang me, no warning," the British author recalls. "I called up my agent and said, 'What do you mean giving up my private phone?' "
 
But the call and offer were both genuine. The next day a contract arrived, beginning Maitland's yearlong adventure as the screenwriter for "A.I." (Artificial Intelligence), the legendary film director's planned return to science fiction.
 
It was an intense, sometimes frustrating experience that would end abruptly when Kubrick died this spring while "A.I." was still in pre-production. But Maitland's recollections of her work with Kubrick offer an intimate glimpse of the iconoclastic filmmaker near the end of his career.
 
Every two weeks she would drive an hour from her home in Kettering, England, to Childwickbury Manor, Kubrick's palatial 172-acre estate near St. Albans in Hertfordshire.
 
She would pass through a series of electronic gates before Kubrick would receive her, always dressed in a blue "boiler suit," (workman's coveralls) and ratty running shoes.
 
The pair would retire to a billiards room where they would brainstorm. He would show her video footage of his films and other people's films and yell at her about the script.
 
"He was just driven," says Maitland, 49, speaking on the telephone from Kettering. "He wanted it now, he wanted it yesterday."
 
But she also describes Kubrick as a great conversationalist, an energetic man, physically and intellectually, with a very clear wit. "He was interested in what you knew and curious in everything. He could be very charming, very funny in an ironic way."
 
Two weeks into their project, Kubrick handed her a paperback copy of "Pinocchio," an English translation of "Avventure di Pinocchio" (1883) by Italian Carlo Collodi, and a script with the same title. Kubrick told her to build on that foundation.
 
The script read like a futuristic version of the old fairy tale. The hero was a robot named David who yearns to be a little boy, goes on a quest to win the affections of a parent -- his mother -- and enlists the aid of other robots to this end.
 
The script, Maitland recalls, was "ragged, [a shambles], emotionally uncertain and peopled with no characters." There was no indication of the author. Four British science fiction writers hired by Kubrick had worked on the screenplay before Maitland's involvement, the last being Ian Watson.
 
Kubrick had worked on "A.I.," at least in an exploratory sense, since the late 1970s or early '80s. In 1991, he set it aside, citing the visuals as "beyond the then-state-of-the art in special effects." Two years later, advances made in computer animation, like those in Steven Spielberg's "Jurassic Park" (1993), convinced him that special effects had finally caught up to his vision.
 
Although the subjects of Kubrick's films ranged from pulp fiction ("The Killing," 1956) to social satire ("Dr. Strangelove or How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb," 1964), it was his science fiction movie, "2001: A Space Odyssey" (1968), that was perhaps his most notable -- and for many his signature -- work.
 
"2001" was Kubrick's expansion of the Arthur C. Clarke short story, "The Sentinel" (1951). Clarke's "cosmic burglar alarm" story was distilled into a single scene in the motion picture. Similarly, "A.I." was Kubrick's expansion of another short science fiction story, Brian Aldiss' "Super-Toys Last All Summer Long" (1969).
 
Kubrick felt "A.I." needed a fairy-tale quality, and wanted a storyteller to help him create a new myth. He called Maitland after reading a couple of her short stories, "The Eighth Planet" and "True North." At the time, Maitland, 49, had published more than 30 books concerning theology and fables.
 
Kubrick told her that "True North" was the kind of self-contained, magical world where nothing is explained that he wanted instilled into the "A.I." script. "True North" involves three characters, named simply "old woman," "young woman" and "man." The two women enjoy an isolated, idyllic, mutually dependent lifestyle in the barren North until the appearance of "man" upsets the balance and drives the women to passionate extremes of love and violence.
 
The real Kubrick
 
Maitland had heard rumors that Kubrick was a recluse, an obsessive-compulsive paranoid, but he never appeared "mad" to her. "If I were rich," she said, "I might live that way as well."
 
She found him professional and humane. He would always greet her with a hello but never a handshake. Lunch always consisted of tuna sandwiches served in the kitchen around a giant, central island where each of Kubrick's six dogs had a recessed bed.
 
He doted on his dogs and grandchildren, the only personal history that he would discuss, she said.
 
"He was very intent that you shouldn't talk about the work with anyone else," she said. "He had a confidential clause printed on his soul."
 
He told her that he didn't like to talk to journalists because whatever he said would be misrepresented. He told her he'd read a story that said he had a helicopter fly over his house and release pesticides once a week. Pointing out a fly clinging to an inside window pane, he told her: "Look around you, that's not true."
 
Maitland said that working with Kubrick was like working with a stern grandfather. Kubrick had to be "persuaded by ideas very quickly before he wanted time spent on them," she said.
 
Kubrick's theory of screenplay writing entailed breaking down the script into scenes, each of which was polished before moving on to the next. So, each time they met in the billiards room, Maitland would pitch ideas. Once an idea passed his scrutiny, she would return home to write it up, then deliver a few pages at a time on a computer disk.
 
These story conferences turned into twice-monthly stress tests, she says, as the director diligently looked for plot holes and inconsistencies. Only after thoroughly mulling over an idea would Kubrick have Maitland write it down.
 
"I frequently left in tears, in frustration and exhaustion and sad," Maitland says.
 
Ultimately, she believed that some of what he wanted to do with the film wasn't doable. "It's real difficult when your central character is an 8-year-old who'll never get any older because he's a robot," Maitland said. "There's no learning process. He's not going to be 9 next year."
 
Furthermore, Kubrick wanted the character of David to be digitally animated, which would have made the emotional connection even more difficult. "The technology and enormous time span was overwhelming the story," she says.
 
Kubrick's staff had warned her not to broach the subject of the director's last foray into science fiction, "A Clockwork Orange" (1971). Kubrick was disappointed in his adaptation of the 1962 Anthony Burgess novel of the same name, which depicted a brutal, nihilistic future where young men roam London mugging, stealing, carjacking and raping.
 
But Maitland ignored the warning. "I asked him why he hated 'A Clockwork Orange' and he said he didn't want his grandchildren to think that was their future," she says.
 
"He wanted to make a good future, a big futuristic myth. '2001' had been proved wrong. He was dead disappointed that we hadn't gotten any nearer. He wanted another go at the future."
 
Kubrick told her he thought people were scared of scientific development. Robots, he said, were "simply the evolutionary advancement of human beings," and he saw "A.I." as a means to help to bring about a cultural change of attitude.
 
In March 1996, Maitland presented Kubrick with a 60,000-word "novel" with minimal dialogue. "He wanted it written like a short story, or long story," she explains, adding that he'd told her, "Once we have the story, the dialogue will be easy."
 
Kubrick, though, was disappointed with the result. "I could not give him what he wanted," she says. "I had the wrong size of ego. I couldn't be the reflection board for him and couldn't quite assert myself. I couldn't say, 'I know how it should work. Shut up for two weeks, and I'll show you how it's done.' "
 
When she suggested that he take on the task himself, she says, Kubrick replied: "I'm not a writer I'm a visual person."
 
'Eyes Wide Shut'
 
At one point during their collaboration, Maitland says, Kubrick handed her a copy of "Dream Story," a 1926 novel by Arthur Schnitzler. "You should read this," he told her. "Don't you think this would make a wonderful film?"
 
Kubrick, it turned out, had been juggling two screenwriters and two scripts at the same time. From November 1994 to June 1996 he also worked with screenwriter Frederic Raphael on updating and transplanting the Schnitzler drama from turn-of-the-century Vienna to modern-day New York for a movie that would be called "Eyes Wide Shut."
 
Kubrick began shooting "Eyes Wide Shut" with Tom Cruise and Nicole Kidman on Nov. 4, 1996. He finished 15 months later, a modern production record, on Jan. 31, 1998. While "Eyes Wide Shut" was filming, Warner Bros. announced that Kubrick would return to "A.I." after the psycho-sexual thriller was completed.
 
Of course, he would not. Kubrick died at home in his sleep of a heart attack on March 7, four months before "Eyes Wide Shut" was released.
 
"In the back of my mind, I kept thinking that after he made this silly little film ["Eyes Wide Shut"], the telephone would ring, and Stanley would say, 'Right Sara, why aren't you here?' " she says. "He would have come back to it. I don't know if he would have come back to me."
 
But with Kubrick's death, Maitland thinks that "A.I." will never be filmed.
 
"If he couldn't make it, nobody could," she says. "I was dead proud of having done it. Pure swank. Proud that he wanted me."
 
Originally published on Aug 8 1999
Title: A.I. observations
Post by: jigzaw on October 14, 2005, 03:45:56 PM
I wouldn't take Aldiss' opinion of the film as an indication that Spielberg ruined Kubrick's idea.  Aldiss hated what Kubrick was doing with it when they worked together on it.  The Aldiss story is literally like 3 pages long and is clever, but it's just one scene- a robot kid playing with Teddy and not realizing that he's a robot.   The end.  

The film story with the Pinnochio theme and the ending were all in Kubrick's plan for the film.  The story only makes sense with the ending because the point is that these machines are our evolutionary heirs, and of course they will want to know us the way we want to know God or our ancestors.  The whole film is supposed to be a fairy tale told by robots, not even necessarily a "true" story, which is why it has such a floral resolution.  The point is we as the audience get to see what kind of fairy tale a future robot might create about one of it's ancestors seeking to become "real".  I think it's just plain brilliant.  
Would have loved to see Kubrick direct it, but Spielberg did a nice job.

Stephen King also hated Kubrick's The Shining because it didn't conform to the novel.  And if you see the adaptations that Stephen King had creative control over, you can see that he has no talent whatsoever for cinematic storytelling (though he's a great novelist).  They really are two seperate arts, and the originating writer is just not in a position to judge the outcome because he is (naturally) too closely tied up to the prose version.
Title: Re: A.I. observations
Post by: Stefen on August 20, 2009, 10:04:30 PM
Compiling my list of top movies of the decade, how crazy would I be to put this in my top 5? I really do think it's that good and over time, I think it's gotten better.

I think the only beef people could have is how drawn out it gets at the end but I think that's necessary. Everything else about it is almost perfect. The cinematography, use of music, acting, etc. Contemporary sci-fi is an underrated genre.
Title: Re: A.I. observations
Post by: Gold Trumpet on August 20, 2009, 11:53:33 PM
I recently went back and watched it myself. While I can understand people liking the movie, just for me, it feels like a collection of notes and ideas from Stanley Kubrick. Steven Speilberg was adaptating Kubrick's vision, but it feels like he didn't pick and choose between the material that was available to him. It seems like he took from all of Kubrick's notes and tried to incoporate it all into one film. For a filmmaker like Oliver Stone, that works because he's best at compound stories. His films try to look for conflict of character within the story, but I think for Speilberg it gives the story a "run on" kind of feeling where the film continuously has moment after moment that is supposed to be an essential moment for the characters. It becomes tiresome because the film can never center itself on one thing though it feels like it's trying to.

Kubrick always overdid the production of his films which included having his writers do many treatments on a project, but in the end he always simplified his vision into singular frames. While he wanted the audience to look at the composition of his shots on numerous levels, he still wanted to ecapsulate the drama in those singular frames. It has allowed for his composition to be the most memorable thing about his filmmaking. Speilberg has many Kubrick-esque moments, but I think in his attempt for homage, he is too faithful to the Kubrick mindset by trying to jumble everything he had from Kubrick. In the end he misses the boat because it's too much.
Title: Re: A.I. observations
Post by: Alexandro on August 21, 2009, 02:55:27 PM
Compiling my list of top movies of the decade, how crazy would I be to put this in my top 5? I really do think it's that good and over time, I think it's gotten better.

I think the only beef people could have is how drawn out it gets at the end but I think that's necessary. Everything else about it is almost perfect. The cinematography, use of music, acting, etc. Contemporary sci-fi is an underrated genre.

No. It is one of the top 5 films of the decade. It manages to be moving and disturbing at the same time. Besides, artificial intelligence and it's developement WILL be the decisive factor this century, probably this millenium for our developement as a specie, and as a social entity. A social situation like the one proposed in the film makes a lot of sense to me.
Title: Re: A.I. observations
Post by: Neil on January 28, 2010, 09:58:47 PM
This movie. Wow. Beef or no beef. What a film.  Good God.

And I have no problem with the ending.


Joe: David, I am.  I was.

Neil: Fuck yeah.
Title: Re: A.I. observations
Post by: Stefen on January 28, 2010, 11:08:14 PM
It's ahead of it's time for sure. I think people will finally be coming along to the brilliance of it soon.
Title: Re: A.I. observations
Post by: pete on January 29, 2010, 02:50:03 AM
fuck you and your cocksure tone.  it won't.  fuck you.
Title: Re: A.I. observations
Post by: Stefen on January 29, 2010, 02:54:49 AM
Congratulations on having your first beer.
Title: Re: A.I. observations
Post by: Alexandro on January 29, 2010, 03:35:44 AM
I don't know about the "soon" part. This is such an easy film to dismiss as we all know.

I kind if agree with GT's point on Spielberg's filmmaking versus Kubrick's filmmaking. He had a way of presenting things in all their glory and decadence at the same time in just a few shots. you felt like watching from the outside. Spielberg works the opposite way. he uses filmmaking techniques to relate the audience with the character. if there was a part of this movie that was pivotal in kubrick's decision of handing it to Spielberg I think it was the third act and the ending itself. I imagine Kubrick's third act for A.I. as excessively creepy, and in the end a creepy and disturbing ending for a robot is something he already had done in 2001. A.I. has a different goal in mind. If in 2001 we witnessed the human mind opening itself to the universe in A.I. we witness an expedition into the essence of the human soul, an inward journey of basic human feelings. The idea here was to make an actual heartfelt ending for the robot, and Spielberg does that wonderfully. In fact he does that so well that a ridiculous percentage of the audience still thinks that they are seeing a happy ending.
Title: Re: A.I. observations
Post by: pete on January 29, 2010, 03:48:46 AM
Congratulations on having your first beer.

sorry I'm sober now.  you absolutist cunt!!!!!
Title: Re: A.I. observations
Post by: Neil on January 29, 2010, 09:33:43 AM
May contain spoils

Ya know, I watched AI shortly after it was released on DVD.  This means I was roughly 14 or so.  I wasn't a fan at first, but this film is like all kinds of art for me.  When i come back the 2nd or 3rd time it hits me in another place.  Sometimes after many reads or viewings this may or may not happen, but  moving on. This ending is so emotional, and I'm not trying to disregard the emotional impact of the other proposed ending, I'm just talking about the film. I don't really understand why people think this ending is so happy, like Alexandro mentioned.  I don't know what i would call it, because 'bittersweet' doesn't quite cut it for me, it's much more than that.  Both endings leave things open, which i like. I don't think this one is any more resolved.  It's all contrived. If you find beauty in Monica's complete ignorance of what has happened, then.....i don't know.  There are some weird things happening at the end.  We see David at the height of his experiences.

I saw this nod to Descartes  which i referenced in my previous post.

Also, just the idea of how David's experience shapes his future.  Let's just throw this out there.  David is always clinging to other people when he gets hurt just like a kid would do.  Whether it is getting behind Martin, or grabbing on to Joe's hand, he pleads numerous times when his life is in jeopardy. So, there is this fear of his life, when others are threatening it. Except when trying to eat more food than Martin? Although he's hurting himself only in that situation, I wonder if his childish competitive attitude is what the motive behind this was programmed to do.  I wonder about his nature. I tend to feel like David didn't do anything wrong.  His programming made him react to a situation at a basic level, and since things are much more complex shit goes wrong.  I can't decide if the Martin thing in the pool is an accident, i think it is.  The only violence David partakes in is toward another David model, so again there is no threat towards humans.  I don't know as Alexandro mentioned there are some concepts in the film that are way deep.


Not sure if any of that makes sense, typing on my way out the door.  I just wonder if David is conscious because he acts a certain way, or if he actually is maturing in the sense that his experiences shape his future decisions.

ALSO : Is the Narrator one of the futuristic robots at the end?
Title: Re: A.I. observations
Post by: Alexandro on January 29, 2010, 10:52:13 AM
I think that, as the Doctor explains at the beginning, David will be programmed to love his mom unconditionally only. What they hope is that this love will cause a chain reaction in him to start developing a conscience of himself, opening up self motivation and the pursuit of ethereal ideals. The evolution of david is shown carefully as he goes from pure love to jealousy to competitiveness in the spinach scene, when he is actually going beyond his original programming. after he is left alone in the world and gets to know real suffering is that his faith in the invisible and spiritual becomes stronger to the point of being his engine for survival. Allegorically, if the film is comparing the scientists to God and david to the first human being ("didn't God create Adam to love Him?") we are that creation that went beyond the programming into a self motivating existence.

So I think he is maturing with experiences and gaining more conscience as it goes.
Title: Re: A.I. observations
Post by: Neil on January 29, 2010, 01:00:04 PM
Well it's all situational, why is there any knowledge about him leaving the family? Is it because they would eventually die anyways?  What i'm asking is how do these scientists know that david will result in a journey or whatever?    I mean it makes sense, how you have broken it down, but what i want to ask then is, would Joe not have recognized himself, had they not embarked on their journey?  if this isn't what you're saying let me know.  I feel that Joe's thought there when he says, "David, I am, I was," is situational due to the fact that he knows what is going to happen.  It's kind of similar to the flesh fair, notice how much all of them mature just based on the situation, and David's presence.  I understand Hobby's little speech about him following a dream, but still his circumstance is a bit unpredictable.  (I know it is a science fiction fairy tale)

Also, I'm wondering if there is a consensus between everyone about what "love" and all these complex emotions are, in the sense that they can be programmed. And as the woman questions Hobby in the beginning "what is our moral duty to such a creation?"  That's what i feel drives the movie.  The MECHA are less than in the sense of normality, you can see this in the awkwardness of the 1st act.  His actions aren't "wrong," it is just that the situation had never arose, so there was no context to draw from. Kind of like the wood floor test David initially does, he's never seen that, now it's processed and he says, "I like your floor."  So, to me the film is being pushed by the Scientists' own misunderstandings on certain concepts, as well as their arrogance to predict situations and all their variables. This is why i think Martin almost drowns  Allegorically it makes sense, but given the human context of Adam's history, I think you can understand where i'm coming from, he betrays God.  As you said, David will love his mother unconditionally, so isn't this to say that David will love his mother, no matter what she does, or what happens. Is this present in human emotions from son to mother?  What about Mother to son?  Can you speak in absolutes regarding these matters?  I guess it depends which data you favor, but i tend to think not.

I understand what you are saying, do these questions make any sense, or am i just causing us to talk in circles? I hope i'm not, but i just don't see where the pursuit of ethereal ideas comes in, maybe i do, but i think David isn't searching for something beyond this earth necessarily, it is more like he in inexperienced so the whole fairy tale thing isn't completely understood to him. I mean, is it rational for David to ask the Blue Fairy to be a real boy? Is that the ethereal idea, to become Orga?

Like i said, i apologize if I'm not understanding something, I'm trying real hard not to ramble incoherently.
Title: Re: A.I. observations
Post by: Stefen on January 29, 2010, 01:24:14 PM
I think the mom is almost more programmed to love than David is. I mean, one second she cares so much about David, then the son comes back and she doesn't give a shit about David anymore.

Should have just gotten a goldfish.
Title: Re: A.I. observations
Post by: Alexandro on January 31, 2010, 03:52:12 PM
Stefen, answering to your question in one word would be "yes". Becoming "orga" and by the end, getting to feel the love if his mother one more time, would be "ethereal ideals" that he is chasing. These two things are impossible in the real world, and anyone else can see it, yet it never stops David. As he found no logical way these things could happen in reality, he resorted to the ethereal, the world of dreams and faith, which in that context would actually make him human, "a real boy".

Going back to Kubrick, he had recurring theme in his filmography about what were the characteristics that makes us human beings, and in that sense David becomes human the moment he has a conscience of himself, and this starts a chain reaction within him and, as it is shown in the scene with Gigolo Joe, into others. When David helps Gigolo Joe to escape he "teaches" him the act of doing something without self interest, which he pays back later when he extends his hand to him in order to help him out, something he shouldn't have done according to his programming. Also, the film deals with this story but at the same time we are told at the beginning that "animosity" between humans and robot exists, and we are shown little tidbits of this animosity. however in notes from the development of the film, the setup is described as one in which "the world is on the brink of a civil war between robots and humans", which could mean that machines are figuring things out beyond their programming spontaneously. david's story could be one in a bunch, where robots are gaining a sense of self.

Title: Re: A.I. observations
Post by: blackmirror on May 20, 2010, 09:04:17 PM
It's ahead of it's time for sure. I think people will finally be coming along to the brilliance of it soon.

Precisely.  I am happy I found this thread.  I enjoyed the string of movies Mr. Spielberg made at the turn-of-the-century: A.I., Minority Report, and Catch Me If You Can.  All three are equally entertaining, but A.I. is the film I like best.  You are correct that it is ahead of its time.  I remember the backlash against it when it opened.  The consensus was that somewhere half-way it fell apart.  I can understand the criticism, given that Mr. Kubrick was involved in the pre-production before his death.  Essentially, Mr. Spielberg managed to preserve Mr. Kubrick’s vision of “Summer Toys Last All Summer Long” while peppering it with his own plotting.  It is two movies.  Nonetheless, Mr. Spielberg deserves kudos for salvaging Mr. Kubrick’s initial directive: we are entering the 21st Century, 20th Century science fiction is catching up with us / or we are catching up with it, so what implications are we facing with the development of artificial intelligence?  In 2OO1 (the actual year, not the movie :yabbse-smiley:), artificial intellgience was merely a plastic dummy joined by wires to a college laboratory terminal which dictated its quasi-organic functional operation.  The general public did not grasp the reality of interrelationships with sentient, symbiotic beings, because it was not reality – at least it was not their reality.  This is what hurt A.I. at the box office.  Even with the first-rate Evan Chan interactive online gaming labyrinth launched months before the movie's opening, the box-office numbers fizzled.   It was not typical, summer blockbuster fair.  It was dark, philosophical, complex, and prescient.  Then you ask, What about The Matrix? It has the same qualities.  That is correct, however, the general public was ready for The Matrix.  It hit when the Internet made its emergence as faster bandwidth connections channeled the global demographic into the web.  People got the cyber themes of interconnectedness and virtual reality because they were familiar with their own online identities.  The prophetic tone of The Matrix resonated so fervently because it secured the understanding of the general movie-going crowd.  A.I. did not.  Fake plastic robot boys?  Android slave auctions?  Unless you read the short story by Mr. Aldiss or listened to OK Computer on repeat, this movie was beyond the scope of the AMC Cineplex congregation.  This should not, by any means, divest the movie’s legacy.  It does have legs, and I have good reason to believe it will be remembered fondly – much like Blade Runner’s revered status years after its release.  Just today, news (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science_and_environment/10132762.stm) broke that US scientists have succeeded in developing the first synthetic living cell.  This is proof that artificial intelligence is not a fringe science, and solidifies the film that shares its moniker a relevant standing in motion picture history.
Title: Re: A.I. observations
Post by: Gold Trumpet on May 20, 2010, 10:06:15 PM
Yea, but lots of movies the past decade has dealt with artificial intelligence. Lots of books and movies have dealt with artificial intelligence in the past century. As far as science fiction topics go, it's an old hat subject. I don't see much correlation between the film and science starting to catch up to the idea now in a meaningful way. It's more of a coincidence. The original story was fantasy and not interested in really predicting the future. I think both filmmakers were interested in the same generalities of the story.

At least Arthur C. Clarke, when he wrote his short stories, had some attention span to how science could mix and be more like his fiction. Of course, he was mostly wrong in a lot of guesstimates, but even in 2001: A Space Odyssey, there isn't much science in the science fiction qualities.
Title: Re: A.I. observations
Post by: blackmirror on May 21, 2010, 11:15:28 AM
Thank you for your reply.  Please do not confuse my post as suggesting there was a dearth of material on artificial intelligence.  I do not deny the numerous works involving its theme.  Your point regarding Mr. Clarke’s comprehension on the interworking between human and futurist technology is accurate.  Mr. Kubrick shared this understanding, which he progressively denotes in his film adaptation of 2OO1.  It is because of this insight and mastery that I believe Mr. Kubrick selected Brian Aldiss’ short-story to adapt.  He easily could have opted for Isaac Asimov’s I, Robot, or dare I say The Bicentennial Man.  Mr. Kubrick, however, did not, and focused his attention on bringing Mr. Aldiss’ story to life.  I am probably not alone in thinking Mr. Kubrick was a visionary.  I believe the combination of his heightened regard for pensive science fiction and the human condition parallels STLASL’s examination of humanity co-existing in an advanced world of intelligent machines.  You call it coincidence, but perhaps it was divine that the timing of the fabrication of this film at the dawn of the 21st Century concurred.  I would like to think it was a mixture of both.  Mr. Kubrick was a futurist and fashioned a film evoking expansive ideas on par with 2OO1.  His unexpected passing limited the entirety of his vision for A.I.  Mr. Spielberg was the suitable choice to finish the project posthumously.  (Before his death, I understand Mr. Kubrick consulted with Mr. Spielberg regarding the film’s special effects.)  The unfortunate drawback once Mr. Spielberg inherited the movie is that it faced having two chefs in the kitchen – resulting in my previous observation that A.I. is actually two movies.  Mr. Kubrick’s concepts of New Malthusian angst and human loneliness is overshadowed by Mr. Spielberg’s Pinnochian-fairy tale.  The critical factor is that despite these vagaries, A.I. is an important film that insists us to reason the human experience facing symbiosis as a result of population control in a not-so-distant future.  Alluringly, it takes the science fiction narrative of a robot to convey this ethos.  It might require a few viewings to apprehend, but it is there.  I predict the zenith of A.I.’s essence will quietly intensify as our world moves forward.  That captivation is a fitting tribute to Mr. Kubrick’s inspiration.
Title: Re: A.I. observations
Post by: Gold Trumpet on May 21, 2010, 03:15:24 PM
Well, I stand by my opinion and can't argue against what someone calls divine inspiration, but...

The critical factor is that despite these vagaries, A.I. is an important film that insists us to reason the human experience facing symbiosis as a result of population control in a not-so-distant future.  Alluringly, it takes the science fiction narrative of a robot to convey this ethos.  It might require a few viewings to apprehend, but it is there.  I predict the zenith of A.I.’s essence will quietly intensify as our world moves forward.  That captivation is a fitting tribute to Mr. Kubrick’s inspiration.

Well, the Western World has yet to face that problem head on. China has done population control before, but it's been doing it in a backwards fashion with crude methods. I think the majority of the structurally developed world (in a distant future) will have to deal with population control in more outstanding ways that have some semblance to what is in the film, but that isn't here yet and won't be in any of our lifetimes.
Title: Re: A.I. observations
Post by: Stefen on May 21, 2010, 04:00:42 PM
Do you like A.I. GT?
Title: Re: A.I. observations
Post by: socketlevel on May 21, 2010, 04:41:55 PM
blackmirror i watched some behind the scenes with the original writer of "super toys last all summer long" (that's the correct title right?) and he said that he worked with Kubrick for a year and left the project because Kubrick himself became obsessed with the Pinocchio elements and started taking that direction. the writer wanted to create a film with lack of sentiment but Kubrick felt he had to give it heart. it's quite a funny moment in the interview he rolls his eyes quite expressively and says "and then came Pinocchio". it's easy to pinpoint certain qualities of AI and pin it on spielberg, but truthfully we don't know and should not speculate or split it 50/50. now spielberg didn't remove these elements, but Kubrick was very aware of trying not to make a bleak film that time around, one of the major reasons he approached spielberg in the first place.
Title: Re: A.I. observations
Post by: Gold Trumpet on May 21, 2010, 05:21:24 PM
Do you like A.I. GT?

I like it more for the in's it gives to things that could have been Kubrick's vision, but ultimately, I don't care too much for the film. On page 6 of this thread, Brian Aldiss rips the movie for decent reasons and without realizing it, on the same page but at the bottom, I made similar criticisms that point to my dissatisfaction with the film. I also blogged about it recently: http://filmsplatter.wordpress.com/2010/04/06/a-i-almost-9-years-later/

I think time is trying to change a lot of problems of the film. We have to look at the film as a half retrospective of Kubrick's vision, but as a whole film, it isn't that special. What is unique about the film is that Spielberg was able to dedicate himself to a full reconstruction of everything Kubrick probably considered as possible ideas for the film, but it looks like he made no editorial decisions about what to extract and what to keep. It's everything muddled together and that isn't very good. It actually changes all the ideas because the context and tone of how the ideas are shown completely change with Spielberg's handling. That isn't very good and just diminishes the whole thing.
Title: Re: A.I. observations
Post by: blackmirror on May 22, 2010, 10:56:03 AM
Consider this my first don’t-piss-on-my-leg-and-tell-me-it’s-raining Xixax moment.  I was not aware of Mr. Aldiss’ contention with Mr. Kubrick. It does catch me off-guard, and makes me slightly defensive for Stanley Kubrick.  Mr. Kubrick’s moviemaking style consistently displayed a dark edge streak – so different than Mr. Spielberg’s films.  Maybe it’s a case of “whatever your definition of is is”.  Perhaps, Mr. Aldiss’ wincing at Pinnochio is a reflection on Walt Disney’s animated feature – the universal standard that brands this story in our current age.  The heightened magical fairy tale mood of this film is a sharp contrast to Mr. Aldiss’ short story and dilutes its neurotic tone.  Mr. Kubrick’s idea might derive from Carlo Collodi’s original and more humble tale of Pinnochio.  Mr. Collodi’s novel was not the traditional fairy tale and explored the somber struggles for the basic necessities of living – primarily refuge and sanctuary.  This theme emerges in A.I. as Daniel and Teddy embark on their journey after Mrs. Swinton abandons them.  I can placate Mr. Kubrick’s decision to reference these human elements of Pinnochio.  Survival does indeed take heart and soul to overcome struggles.  Surely, Mr. Aldiss could reason with this.  As a science fiction author, he should understand the genre’s purpose of exploring the human condition and the consequences scientific advancement has on it.  And, yes, that was a typo, socketlevel – the correct title of Mr. Aldiss’ short story is  “Super Toys Last All Summer Long”.  You can hand me a shovel, and I’ll start digging. Thank you for the meaningful discussion, though.
Title: Re: A.I. observations
Post by: Cory Everett on June 21, 2010, 10:18:07 PM
major spoils:

http://www.movieline.com/2010/06/ways-toy-story-3-is-exactly-like-ai-artificial-intelligence.php
Title: Re: A.I. observations
Post by: RegularKarate on June 22, 2010, 10:29:39 AM
major spoils:

http://www.movieline.com/2010/06/ways-toy-story-3-is-exactly-like-ai-artificial-intelligence.php

I might add, absolutely not worth the spoilers.  A stretch at best.
Title: Re: A.I. observations
Post by: socketlevel on June 22, 2010, 02:32:02 PM
So i watched this again last night, I hadn't seen it since 2001 in the theatre while i was living in whistler at the time. I hated it then. This time around, pretty much the only element i really disliked was Haley Joel Osment, he just grates my nerves in almost every scene. chris rock cameo is probably my 2nd least fav thing about it. with that said, the movie was a better watch then it was in 2001, like sure the ending still sucks but i really appreciated the aliens and the minimal style of their spaceship. i loved how it tracks through the ice age landscape this time around. it very much reminded me of the x-wing fight in starwars, long narrow tunnels. it really isn't flashy either.  that whole tracking the pod-ship sequence was very kubrick-esque, down to the soundtrack. it goes to show you can use CG, not make it hand held, and still deliver something that looks stark and real. what follows that very cool tracking shot is utterly contrived though, and hope to hell kubrick had nothing to do with it.
Title: Re: A.I. observations
Post by: Pubrick on June 24, 2010, 12:13:14 PM
Dude they were robots not aliens. They weren't from outer space, randomly snooping around the remains of Earth, they were the most advanced extension of modern and future technology, the last remnants of our intelligence and the purest embodiment of it, seeking to understand their origins just like we excavate bones and "bring them to life" with our imaginations.

Maybe wait another 10 years before attempting this one again.
Title: Re: A.I. observations
Post by: Alexandro on June 25, 2010, 09:08:22 AM
At this point there should be t-shirts saying: "they were robots, not aliens".

Title: Re: A.I. observations
Post by: Just Withnail on June 25, 2010, 02:15:59 PM
At least a marquee.
Title: Re: A.I. observations
Post by: socketlevel on June 25, 2010, 03:18:21 PM
ok cool robots w/e, not really affecting my point and sadly thats all that was taken from it. robots or aliens they were the future trying to connect with the past, and either way it was done with good aesthetic sense.
Title: Re: A.I. observations
Post by: Alexandro on June 25, 2010, 04:59:15 PM
well, it is a big difference if you think about it because robots make sense in this movie and aliens don't make any sense in this movie. I just don't see it as contrived. too bad you hate osment, he's one of the best things about the movie, goes from creepy to cute to heartbreaking. wasn't his idea that a robot shouldn't blink? that's just insanely instinctive for any actor.
Title: Re: A.I. observations
Post by: socketlevel on June 26, 2010, 03:08:59 AM
it makes sense and is more rewarding that it's robots because of the protagonist's plight, however regardless of what they are i liked the way the sequence of the ship's tracking shot through the use of models/cg. so in those terms it doesn't really matter, as them being aliens or robots doesn't affect my previous post.
Title: Re: A.I. observations
Post by: Alexandro on June 26, 2010, 04:30:43 PM
actually the whole visual design of that particular film, right at the big boom of the CGI orgies and overstuffed big productions ("epic") was the main reason I got convinced Spielberg is the best special effects director in the world (despite Indiana Jones 4).
Title: Re: A.I. observations
Post by: socketlevel on June 26, 2010, 04:33:53 PM
i'd agree with that upon knee jerk answer, he does show restraint many don't. there are others i'd put up there though.
Title: Re: A.I. observations
Post by: Alexandro on June 26, 2010, 08:18:18 PM
maybe fincher, but what he does is different.