Author Topic: A.I. observations  (Read 24737 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Neil

  • The Master of Two Worlds
  • *****
  • Posts: 1118
  • Being genuine just isn't enough these days.
  • Respect: +157
Re: A.I. observations
« Reply #90 on: January 28, 2010, 09:58:47 PM »
0
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.
it's not the wrench, it's the plumber.

Stefen

  • The Master of Two Worlds
  • *****
  • Posts: 7777
  • smh
  • Respect: +191
Re: A.I. observations
« Reply #91 on: January 28, 2010, 11:08:14 PM »
0
It's ahead of it's time for sure. I think people will finally be coming along to the brilliance of it soon.
Let's go to a motel. We don't have to do anything -- we could just swim.

pete

  • The Master of Two Worlds
  • *****
  • Posts: 5516
  • freakin huge
  • Respect: +384
    • my site
Re: A.I. observations
« Reply #92 on: January 29, 2010, 02:50:03 AM »
0
fuck you and your cocksure tone.  it won't.  fuck you.
“Tragedy is a close-up; comedy, a long shot.”
- Buster Keaton

Stefen

  • The Master of Two Worlds
  • *****
  • Posts: 7777
  • smh
  • Respect: +191
Re: A.I. observations
« Reply #93 on: January 29, 2010, 02:54:49 AM »
0
Congratulations on having your first beer.
Let's go to a motel. We don't have to do anything -- we could just swim.

Alexandro

  • The Master of Two Worlds
  • *****
  • Posts: 1743
  • Respect: +470
Re: A.I. observations
« Reply #94 on: January 29, 2010, 03:35:44 AM »
0
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.

pete

  • The Master of Two Worlds
  • *****
  • Posts: 5516
  • freakin huge
  • Respect: +384
    • my site
Re: A.I. observations
« Reply #95 on: January 29, 2010, 03:48:46 AM »
0
Congratulations on having your first beer.

sorry I'm sober now.  you absolutist cunt!!!!!
“Tragedy is a close-up; comedy, a long shot.”
- Buster Keaton

Neil

  • The Master of Two Worlds
  • *****
  • Posts: 1118
  • Being genuine just isn't enough these days.
  • Respect: +157
Re: A.I. observations
« Reply #96 on: January 29, 2010, 09:33:43 AM »
0
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?
it's not the wrench, it's the plumber.

Alexandro

  • The Master of Two Worlds
  • *****
  • Posts: 1743
  • Respect: +470
Re: A.I. observations
« Reply #97 on: January 29, 2010, 10:52:13 AM »
0
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.

Neil

  • The Master of Two Worlds
  • *****
  • Posts: 1118
  • Being genuine just isn't enough these days.
  • Respect: +157
Re: A.I. observations
« Reply #98 on: January 29, 2010, 01:00:04 PM »
0
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.
it's not the wrench, it's the plumber.

Stefen

  • The Master of Two Worlds
  • *****
  • Posts: 7777
  • smh
  • Respect: +191
Re: A.I. observations
« Reply #99 on: January 29, 2010, 01:24:14 PM »
0
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.
Let's go to a motel. We don't have to do anything -- we could just swim.

Alexandro

  • The Master of Two Worlds
  • *****
  • Posts: 1743
  • Respect: +470
Re: A.I. observations
« Reply #100 on: January 31, 2010, 03:52:12 PM »
0
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.


blackmirror

  • The Call to Adventure
  • *
  • Posts: 42
  • knows no reflection
  • Respect: 0
Re: A.I. observations
« Reply #101 on: May 20, 2010, 09:04:17 PM »
0
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 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.

Gold Trumpet

  • The Master of Three Worlds
  • *****
  • Posts: 5783
  • Respect: +166
Re: A.I. observations
« Reply #102 on: May 20, 2010, 10:06:15 PM »
0
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.

blackmirror

  • The Call to Adventure
  • *
  • Posts: 42
  • knows no reflection
  • Respect: 0
Re: A.I. observations
« Reply #103 on: May 21, 2010, 11:15:28 AM »
0
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.

Gold Trumpet

  • The Master of Three Worlds
  • *****
  • Posts: 5783
  • Respect: +166
Re: A.I. observations
« Reply #104 on: May 21, 2010, 03:15:24 PM »
0
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.

 

DMCA & Copyright | Terms & Conditions | Privacy Policy