AI, Kubrick, Spielberg etc

Quote:

---

Originally posted by docraven




Spielberg says that A.I. was originally a Kubrick project.

---

He can try and seperate himself from it all he wants but it wasn't Kubrick who made that horrible film! The blame lies fully at the feet of the ego-maniacal Spielberg.

Spielberg is a genius and when challenged, as he was in "Schindler's List" and "Saving Private Ryan" can produce fantastic films, but he needs to learn to quit meddling with the stories of others. He admits that he would have "shown the shark" in Jaws had it been functioning, but the limitation of NOT having everything forced him to be more creative! He turned "Jaws" from a potential B-movie into a classic. His extended ending of "Close Encounters" was awful. The studio was right to release the tighter version.

Spielberg had become this big icon of Hollywood and people don't have the stones to say "No! that's over the top." to him anymore.

Similarly, George Lucas has gone of the digital deep-end and become enamored with what he CAN do instead of what he should do.

As regards:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by stevetseitz
… I just get so tired of the lavish praise for what I see as excellent but not truly classic films (2001, Dr. Strangelove).

---

I am placing a comment in the Kubrick forum.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by stevetseitz


He can try and seperate himself from it all he wants but it wasn't Kubrick who made that horrible film! The blame lies fully at the feet of the ego-maniacal Spielberg.

---

Really interesting comments -- I’ve left a response to this in the new Kubrick forum.

D

First of all, that film was definitely a Kubrick idea. He started it but realized his own maticulousness and passed it on to Spielberg. The boy would have aged during filming. Second of all, that film was brilliant. Spielberg took what he knew as a master film maker and presented us with a piece of artwork to pay homage to his predicessor as, in my opinion, the greatest filmmaker around. Spielberg and Kubrick arranged for Spielberg to direct it for years, since right after Schindler's List if I'm not mistaken. It's all in the AI DVD and in the documentary, "Stanley Kubrick: A Life In Pictures." Check these out for all the info you'll need to know on the back story. I know tons of people who don't like AI either. I just see it differently.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by jacobic216
First of all, that film was definitely a Kubrick idea. He started it but realized his own maticulousness and passed it on to Spielberg. The boy would have aged during filming. Second of all, that film was brilliant. Spielberg took what he knew as a master film maker and presented us with a piece of artwork to pay homage to his predicessor as, in my opinion, the greatest filmmaker around. Spielberg and Kubrick arranged for Spielberg to direct it for years, since right after Schindler's List if I'm not mistaken. It's all in the AI DVD and in the documentary, "Stanley Kubrick: A Life In Pictures." Check these out for all the info you'll need to know on the back story. I know tons of people who don't like AI either. I just see it differently.

---

The film was horrifically bad. A.I. was the perfect example of what happens to a director when no one around him has the guts to say,"Steven, that is too much." "Steven, your'e rambling." "Steven, that is over the top." Spielberg was so enamored with himself and his ability to use C.G.I. that he created a monster with no soul. It's like Spielberg has reached a level where no one dare question him. He works much better WITH limitations than without. (See: "Jaws") The film aside from neat design aspects lacked any redeeming qualities.

Here is an aside: After seeing the film, The audience in my theater sat quietly in stunned amazement, before the laughter broke out in the theater. Nearly everyone was shaking their heads while leaving the movie.

I was wonderfully touched and moved by AI and as a fan of sci fi, I felt that AI hit the themes and characterization of essence of sci fi very well. The movie he created was "a monster with no soul" but that is exactly the point. The human race had become a monster without a soul and it took an artificial person to demonstrate that to the audience. Perhaps, the audience didn't like the message but that is what makes AI so great. Sometimes people don't like a movie because they don't like what it's trying to say. The blend of Kubrick and Spielberg was fascinating and the ending haunting.

>>>The movie he created was "a monster with no soul" but that is exactly the point. The human race had become a monster without a soul and it took an artificial person to demonstrate that to the audience. Perhaps, the audience didn't like the message but that is what makes AI so great.<<<

I always have been wary of the tactic of using a criticism of a film as it's "secret weapon". It would be like me poorly filming and editing a movie with a camcorder. When critics said it is "raw and amateurish" I'd simply say, "Exactly!, that's the whole point!" If a message is worth saying it's worth saying it in a way that relates to the audience.

AI appreared to be polished requiring a big budget. I loved how adult oriented the movie was. The problem with the movie was that it wasn't a children's movie that many people possibly expected. William Hurt wasn't a sympathetic character in the end which probably put people off, but it reflected a serious commentary on the "monster" of the humanity of man while it was the artificial child that ultimately represented humanity. Just because the audience couldn't "relate" to this adult movie because of the number of child attending expecting a family-oriented movie doesn't diminish the fact that its targeted sci fi audience could find many great ideas well-depicted and its hard-hitting commentary a tribute to Kubrick's social messages of past movies. Kubrick's movie are not expected to be box office sensations nor to attract great popular following. Spielberg did well by not turning Kubrick's original idea by watering down to the general public and turning it into a cute, entertaining movie experience.

I did not find it to be amateurish. Rather, I thought AI represented Spielberg attempting to direct in the style Kubrick shot it. I think he pulled it off marvelously. Kubrick's films are more often than not slammed by the critics. Kubrick's films are always very dark with an ending of immence contraversy. Spielberg kept Kubrick's legacy of art rather than money alive. It shows that even for a man like Spielberg, it's not entirely dollars and cents.

>>Kubrick's movie are not expected to be box office sensations nor to attract great popular following.<<

>>Kubrick's films are more often than not slammed by the critics.<<


Hmmm....it seems that depending on who you listen to Kubricks' films 1. Aren't popular with the audiences 2. Don't make money
3. Are slammed by the critics.

Heck, Joe Esterhas stumbled onto that exact combination with his screenplays for "Showgirls" and "Jade", does this mean that Esterhas ,like Kubrick, is a misunderstood genius? Or how about Ed Wood? His films were never popular with audiences, bombed at the box-office and were lambasted by critics.

Kubrick's career peaked early in his life and he never matched the glory or artistic achievment of his early work, and slowly descended into a mediocre auteur. His late efforts were inconsistent at the box office, typically unpopular with average audiences and recieved a mixed-bag of critical reviews.

While I understand that huge box office numbers can be the result of a marketing juggernaut like the Star Wars series, audience approval and overall critical acclaim are objective proof of the success of a film. If it doesn't have the box office, the audience or the critics on it's side, you have to wonder just how good a film really is.

For me a good movie, like AI, has to keep me constantly involved, allow me to understand and feel the characters and their emotions as well as their motivations, has a plot that I can follow and really absorb, entail serious, substantive matters/issues. The director who can make characters come alive, use acting (less talking), brings the images to life using cinematographic techniques is making a good movie regardless of its box office receipts/audience attendance or critic reviews. The message, the consistent serious undertone, the subtle twist at the end all lend to AI being a substantive work of art.

I felt the design in the film was great and the actual images were terrific , but the film lost me with unrealistic characters. I didn't get the sense that any of the characters were consistent and many were simply over-the-top caricatures. The machines were often more unpredictable than the humans. Like radiation in the 50's, Artificial intelligence has been exploited in movies as a "Frankenstein's monster" of the 21st century. It simply shows how little understanding of what real "a.i." is.

I agree with you about the exaggerated characterization of the artificial intelligence in the movie, but I didn't see that as a draw back. If the movie were taken more in terms of Alice in Wonderland fantasy, an imaginative adventure into a cautionary tale instead of an analysis of a realistic future of artificial intelligence. Used as an allegory, I found that the movie was entertaining in exposing the foibilities of humans not the weaknesses of the scientific technological gadgetry which was merely an exciting backdrop - more along the lines of Clockwork Orange. One of the interesting articles I read about computers nowadays is that they contain inherent flaws that computer experts and the computer industry know about and have decided that it makes economic sense just to leave them in. Similarly, the artificial intelligence in AI could be seen as just the result of the crazy mixed up and inconsistent world that we already exist in that the human created. The artificial intelligence just reflects what we already are but without deflection and artifice. The story is more about humans than about artificial intelligence and it isn't a statement about them at all.

I have a problem listening to critics when it comes to my preference in movies, or anyone else but myself for that matter. Critics are known to be harsh on the artistic genius that many directors have. They typically like a "Hollywood" type film without the added contraversy. I admit, Kubrick's greatest films were done between 1964 amd 1971 (Strangelove, 2001 and Clockwork). That doesn't mean that his later movies were amateurish or diserved any lack of respect from the community at large. My least favorite of his movies was Barry Lyndon, his followup to A Clockwork Orange. I found to be long, boring and one of the hardest movies ever to sit through. That doesn't mean it's bad, it's just not fun to watch, and that's what its about for me. AI and Eyes Wide Shut are not as popular because it's not the way anyone else wants the films to be. Well, I call bullshit on that. The movies done by a true artist are just that, a work of art by the film maker. He did movies in his vision, not the vision of what the audience wanted. If someone doesn't like it, I say go make your own movie. At least then if you don't like it you have no one to blame but yourself.

As for Showgirls, there is not a single redeming quality about that film. I'd rather watch Barry Lyndon every day for the rest of my life than sit through that film one more time. Believe me, I've tried. Ed Wood is a cult phenomanon who seemed to make bad movies on purpose. Verhoven didn't to do it on purpose. Basic Instinct, Total Recall and RoboCop are terrific films, the latter two contributing quality pictures to the sci-fi tone of 20th century film making.

When box offices, critics and audiences are not in favor of a particular film, it doesn't always mean it's bad. Many people loved Pearl Harbor, I thought it was one of the worst movies since Showgirls. One of my favorite horror flicks is The Stuff, which is inherently a bad film but it knows it, makes fun of it, has very high entertainment value, and it's fun to watch every time I do. Therefore its is a good movie.

I'll also mention about Star Wars, I liked The Phantom Menace but there is no way I would have if it came out first. By itself, it is a horrible film. As a part of the Star Wars saga, it adds much of the needed story that Lucas is telling. But, like any film, we can't tell Lucas how to make Star Wars. If something in it isn't the way we wanted it to be, get over it. I've been generally let down by the new Star Wars movies. The original three blow these two out of the galaxy. Still, they tell the story we all asked to hear and I'm entertained to watch it and along with the others. If the original hadn't been the phenomanon it was, we'd never have seen Jar Jar Binks (which may not have been a bad thing).

Quote:

---

Originally posted by jacobic216
I have a problem listening to critics when it comes to my preference in movies, or anyone else but myself for that matter … movies done by a true artist are just that, a work of art by the film maker. He did movies in his vision, not the vision of what the audience wanted. If someone doesn't like it, I say go make your own movie. At least then if you don't like it you have no one to blame but yourself.

---

Of course we all feel strongly about the films we like and dislike. No one here is demanding that you agree with them. You seem to imply that “true artists” have the right to make films and the rest of us have no business criticizing them. Really! Filmmakers depend on ticket sales to pay for the films they make. If you buy a ticket you have the right to make a judgement on the value received. Besides, how are we to know who these “true artists” are? Just which directors belong to that magic pantheon of “true artists?” How many are there, and who decides?

Kubrick and Spielberg, and Paul Verhoeven for that matter, can certainly withstand whatever comments we may make here. Don’t forget that critical commentary also plays a part in creating a given director’s standing and reputation.

Criticism is part of the process. It is interesting to read differing views. You aren’t particularly fond of “Barry Lyndon.” Well, look in the Kubrick Forum archive. There are others who agree with you, and there are a couple of people who consider it their favorite film, and they give their reasons. There are those who like or dislike every film Kubrick has made. They are not wrong. They just have different sensitivities. And the arguments are enjoyable.

Quote:

---

Concerning A.I., Kubrick, and Spielberg

---

What a hoot! This thread concerning “Metropolis” has outlasted the Kubrick Forum spinoff on the main page.

After reading all these comments (here and elsewhere on FilmWurld) about A.I., I went back to the film for a review. I could still see characteristics which seemed to reflect both Kubrick and Spielberg. For the most part I like the film, but I have to agree with steveseitz that it is seriously flawed. The last 25 minutes seem out of sync with the rest of the film. The futuristic robots which echo Spielberg’s “Close Encounters” beings appear as cartoonish, paper cutouts, and certainly add little depth that I can perceive. William Hurt’s character (Professor Allen Hobby, the Visionary) just disappears leaving a number of issues unresolved, and the film takes off into a new “Alice in Wonderland” tale. I would have preferred that the film end with David in the bottom of the sea.

There is a great shift that you mention that occurs in AI after the boy gets to the bottom of the sea. I agree that there was a whole different feel, but that didn't detract from the movie because the shift occurs at the point when humanity suddenly disappears and a whole new dimension arises - the whole human world that has been disparaged and turned upsidedown in this alien environment. Leaving the boy at the bottom of the sea would be like creating another Brazil (original ending) or director's cut of Bladerunner. But Spielberg, provided a holistic touch, otherworldly spin on the whole movie. And still the ending remains ambigious when the boy sleeps - what happens then?

I liked William Hurt's character disappearing because here the reality of humanity comes full front and center and it becomes clear what lies beneath the veneer and plaster of real mankind. This Kubrick touch was great, sliding humanity into a darkened portrait, giving Hurt's character a more complex character than the ordinary movie character that audience have come to love and enjoy.

And as I mentioned the clownish artificial persons really represent the humans who created them, they became bigger than life, they become the exaggeration of humanity while humanity degraded into even more distorted, twisted characters themselves. Thus, the whole behavioral ludicriousness becomes so marvelously tied together and integral to the movie's intent.

I feel that the end of AI is very necessary the way it is. The being at the end are not aliens but the are the evolution of AI. After the boy sleeps, he has a dream and it all is right with the world. He never dreampt before. What could he dream? It's left ambiguous. I think that's what Kubrick himself had intended. I guess it also goes with Spielberg's DREAMworks.

FYI: It seems to me that the AI at the end are the very same mat that Lucas used to create the cloners in Attack of the Clones. They are identical in design and both done by ILM.

All movies are art. I find it to be the finest medium today to show art: More people go to movies than museums, more people are reached and it can express visions, sounds and anything you can imagine. Even Showgirls is art. Bad art, but art just the same.

Isn't "jacobic216" a genius or what?

>>I have a problem listening to critics when it comes to my preference in movies, or anyone else but myself for that matter. Critics are known to be harsh on the artistic genius that many directors have. <<

You have to understand that by creating a work of art and offering it to other people you are, in a way, asking for approval. It's that way for painters, sculpters, composers and directors. While many critics are wrong (a critic once called Tchaikovsky's Piano Concerto no. 1 unplayable; another said his Violin Concerto "stank in the ears") Movie critics are just doing what they do, reviewing movies. While some objective asthetic may exist, most critics are subjective humans use their own training, experience and opinions as tools to critique film.


>>...AI and Eyes Wide Shut are not as popular because it's not the way anyone else wants the films to be. Well, I call bullshit on that. The movies done by a true artist are just that, a work of art by the film maker. He did movies in his vision, not the vision of what the audience wanted. If someone doesn't like it, I say go make your own movie. At least then if you don't like it you have no one to blame but yourself.<<

Who defines who is a "true artist"? Movies are a commercial concern and the reason some actors make $20 million
for acting in a movie is because movies can make a lot of money. I mean, if Kubrick didn't care if anyone saw his film, why did he cast Cruise and Kidman? Why not unknowns?


>>As for Showgirls, there is not a single redeming quality about that film. I'd rather watch Barry Lyndon every day for the rest of my life than sit through that film one more time. Believe me, I've tried. Ed Wood is a cult phenomanon who seemed to make bad movies on purpose. Verhoven didn't to do it on purpose. Basic Instinct, Total Recall and RoboCop are terrific films, the latter two contributing quality pictures to the sci-fi tone of 20th century film making. <<

I'd have loved to see "Total Recall" in the hands of a director like Spielberg, John McTiernan or Wolfgang Peterson. It would have been a hundred times better. After watching a Verhoeven film I feel as if I need a shower. "Soldier of Orange" and "The Fourth Man" were decent but I despise his recent stuff.

>>When box offices, critics and audiences are not in favor of a particular film, it doesn't always mean it's bad. Many people loved Pearl Harbor, I thought it was one of the worst movies since Showgirls.<<

Pearl Harbor was crap, which was easy to determine because it was directed by Micheal Bay and looked like a Coke commercial.

>>One of my favorite horror flicks is The Stuff, which is inherently a bad film but it knows it, makes fun of it, has very high entertainment value, and it's fun to watch every time I do. Therefore its is a good movie. <<

It's a guilty pleasure movie, you know it's bad, but you enjoy it nonetheless. My guilty pleasure is "Cannonball Run".

>>I'll also mention about Star Wars, I liked The Phantom Menace but there is no way I would have if it came out first. By itself, it is a horrible film. As a part of the Star Wars saga, it adds much of the needed story that Lucas is telling. But, like any film, we can't tell Lucas how to make Star Wars. If something in it isn't the way we wanted it to be, get over it. I've been generally let down by the new Star Wars movies. The original three blow these two out of the galaxy. Still, they tell the story we all asked to hear and I'm entertained to watch it and along with the others. If the original hadn't been the phenomanon it was, we'd never have seen Jar Jar Binks (which may not have been a bad thing). <<


It's OK to say that Lucas dropped the ball with "The Phantom Menace" and "Attack of the Clones". He did. He confused technology with epic storytelling and like the mythical Icarus tried to soar to high while not sweating the details. It doesn't change the fact that "Star Wars"and "The Empire Strikes Back" are terrific movies. In fact George's other early films "American Graffiti" and "THX-1138" are among my favorites.

"Total Recall" had a geniune appeal to the general theater going public. It had mainstream action, values with a sci fi twist. The idea of the wife's betrayal was well-done and had good shock value. The movie was entertaining and captivating as a popular sci fi, mainstream movie - on that basis it was a hit. While I wouldn't call it hard core, serious, substantive science fiction, it had that summer action movie theme, feel-good entertainment value. Not bad for a movie I'd say and it made money.

I disagree that artwork is about asking for approval. On the surface, sure. And maybe your are correct if you are looking for approval from yourself but no one asked my approval when they made Titanic or Pearl Harbor, which I believe are two of the worst movies ever. As a matter of fact, the majority of the films shown at Cannes are quite the opposite. It's about the quality of the film, the entertainment value and love/blood/sweet/tears/etc that went into making it. Not all movies are commercial. As a lover of films you should know that. Showing a movie to other people can be just that, showing off. If you can make money while doing it, then more power to you.

Stanley Kubrick never asked anyone for approval. If you know anything about his films you'll see that each and every one pisses someone of somewhere. Lolita was ostrosized by the catholic church, he received death threats for making a clockwork orange, and here we are debating the quality of AI. Of course they want to make money, who doesn't? The Godfather is a masterpiece but it was completely commercial. However, to label all movies as such is not accurate. I believe he cast Tom and Nicole because they asked to work with him. I know that they worked for less than their usual paycheck for that film.

If a filmmaker can't take the criticism, then they are in the wrong business, as is anyone who does work that would be critiqued, novelists, playwrites, athletes, etc. All films are subject to criticism. I critique movies as I see them just so I know how much I liked it but I don't consider myself to be a critic. I just know what I like.

You want to know who defines a true artist? The artist themself. By their impact on and contribution to the culture, by their achievements and by their satisfaction with their work. I don't believe the real artists are ever truly satisfied. They want to make a better movie every time. Kubrick wanted to do just that with AI and with Aryan Papers but he never got either of them off the ground.

I have several guilty pleasures, especially in movies. The Phantom Menace is one of the guiltiest of them all. I like all of the new star wars films. I don't love them as separate works but as part of the Star Wars saga. I agree that Lucas dropped the ball big time on what should, nay needed to be done with these prequal films. Star Wars was about the adventure in space, not about George Lucas' ego. I just hope Episode III is as bleek and depressing as we all know it should be. If there is a glimmer of hope in it, I'll never forgive him. That's what Episode IV is called anyway, "A NEW HOPE." Most people forget that. Another guilty pleasure could be that I believe that "The Blues Brothers" is the greatest musical ever made, but that's just me.

Who knows if Total Recall would have been the great film it is in the hands of another director? It would have been interesting to see it done by someone else but it would have not been the same movie at all. I think it would have lost a lot of its luster. AI would have been a different movie if Kubrick had directed it, yes?

Give jacobic216 a job! He's earned it.

1. To lump "Titanic" and "Pearl Harbor" together is incorrect. "Titanic" won Best Picture and was well received by critics. Just because a film is popular with 13 year old girls does not make it bad. Certainly the non-stop publicity machine was annoying but that isn't the fault of the film. Pearl Harbor just stank.

2. A film need not be unpopular or "controversial" in order to be good. "The Bicycle Thief is one of the most beloved films of all time and has few if any detractors. The same applies to "Lawrence of Arabia".

3. A film can be "art" and still have a big box-office or commercial success. If you adjust for ticket prices "Gone with the Wind" will never be surpassed for box office success, yet it's a great film; a classic.

4. It takes talent on the part of the writer, director, actors, cinematographer and editor in addition to love/blood/sweet/tears/etc to make a great film. And even the most talented people don't always achieve success every time. Steven Spielberg was responsible for "The Lost World: Jurrasic ParkII"

5. The Godfather wasn't commercial. Crime films were considered passe in the early 70's. It wasn't popular to make a film of the Cosa Nostra at that time. Francis Ford Copalla, a true artist, rarely did anything to please producers and directors. He even had to start his own studio, American Zoetrope, to get classics like "The Conversation" made.

6. The Blues Brothers IS one of the greatest musical movies. It just happens to be hilarious also.

1) When people ask me if I liked Pearl Harbor, I tell them I hated it the first time I saw it when it was Titanic. I can't stand either film and they are both done very much the same way. 3 hours of sappy nonsence. The best part was when everyone died.

2 and 3) Star Wars Episode IV: A New Hope, when first released in 1977, was a box office success, a low budget art film, very popular, uncontroversial and one of the most beloved films of all time. I completely agree with you on these points. But for someone to say a film, any film is not art is absolutely inaccurate. I believe the greatest medium for displaying art from the end of the 20th century through today is through film. It reaches more people than paintings, books and sculptures ever did. Just look at the box office verses admission prices to museums or book store sales.

4) It does take talent to make a good movie. However, much of what is made today is not entirely talent. And even talent can make a poor film (e.g. Jurassic Park II: The Lost World), I agree. And yet there are some talents out there that have never done a poor film (Kubrick, Coen Bros, Lynch). Those are whom I would not hesitate to call call the true artists.

5) The Godfather had the claws of Paramount so deeply sunk into its skin that it was a miracle it was finished with Coppola at the helm. I'm partial to Godfather part II partly because Coppola would only do it if they gave him complete control (also partly because it was the greatest sequal ever made). It was his baby and no one could tell him bubkas.

6) The Blues Brothers was in my top 10 until the release of Being John Malkovich and to a later extent Lord of the Rings. It's one of the most quotable movies ever.

By the way, I actually am looking for a job now. Any openings? I am eager to relocate!!!

jacobic216, What can you do? While I don't have a lot of connections, I have access to community resources and information here in the community. There is growing interest in the arts and movies in the State.

<4. It takes talent on the part of the writer, director, actors, cinematographer and editor in addition to love/blood/sweet/tears/etc to make a great film. And even the most talented people don't always achieve success every time. Steven Spielberg was responsible for "The Lost World: Jurrasic ParkII">

I don't think this statement is mutually exclusive - on the one hard you have job titles and other the other you have human descriptors - thus either or both could be construed to be accurate.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by jacobic216
1) When people ask me if I liked Pearl Harbor, I tell them I hated it the first time I saw it when it was Titanic. I can't stand either film and they are both done very much the same way. 3 hours of sappy nonsence. The best part was when everyone died.

2 and 3) Star Wars Episode IV: A New Hope, when first released in 1977, was a box office success, a low budget art film, very popular, uncontroversial and one of the most beloved films of all time. I completely agree with you on these points. But for someone to say a film, any film is not art is absolutely inaccurate. I believe the greatest medium for displaying art from the end of the 20th century through today is through film. It reaches more people than paintings, books and sculptures ever did. Just look at the box office verses admission prices to museums or book store sales.

4) It does take talent to make a good movie. However, much of what is made today is not entirely talent. And even talent can make a poor film (e.g. Jurassic Park II: The Lost World), I agree. And yet there are some talents out there that have never done a poor film (Kubrick, Coen Bros, Lynch). Those are whom I would not hesitate to call call the true artists.

5) The Godfather had the claws of Paramount so deeply sunk into its skin that it was a miracle it was finished with Coppola at the helm. I'm partial to Godfather part II partly because Coppola would only do it if they gave him complete control (also partly because it was the greatest sequal ever made). It was his baby and no one could tell him bubkas.

6) The Blues Brothers was in my top 10 until the release of Being John Malkovich and to a later extent Lord of the Rings. It's one of the most quotable movies ever.

By the way, I actually am looking for a job now. Any openings? I am eager to relocate!!!

---

1. Titanic was sappy nonsense? Romance and Love are far more important to the female 50% of moviegoers than all the "Star Wars"," Lord of the Rings" and "Godfather" films combined. Just because you might not enjoy this aspect of film, certainly your "other half" can.

2 and 3. I wonder about the book store sales vs. box-office returns, the theaters around here have been sold about three times in the past few decades and they struggle to make money, but according to your previous statements exposure to mass audiences isn't what art is all about anyway. Isn't it aethetic value?

4. The Coen Brothers made "The Hudsucker Proxy" and "The Man who wasn't there". Kubrick made "Barry Lyndon" and "The Shining". David Lynch made "Dune". None of these films are that great. I don't want to hear anything about a 6 hour director's cut of Dune floating around the net. The Sci-Fi channel series seriously outclassed Lynch's effort.

5. I admit that Godfather II equalled the brilliance and quality of the original. The Godfather Epic is even better with it's careful editing of the other films and extra scenes.

6. Moulin Rouge was a recent musical that had it's share of what you might consider "sappy nonsense" I'm curious as to how you reviewed that film. I loved it.

Quote:

---

[i]Originally posted by Tabuno

<4. It takes talent on the part of the writer, director, actors, cinematographer and editor in addition to love/blood/sweet/tears/etc to make a great film. And even the most talented people don't always achieve success every time. Steven Spielberg was responsible for "The Lost World: Jurrasic ParkII">

I don't think this statement is mutually exclusive - on the one hard you have job titles and other the other you have human descriptors - thus either or both could be construed to be accurate. [/B]

---

My point was the love/blood/sweat/tears don't make the film. I can try hard to paint a oil portrait but if I don't have the discipline, the training and the talent, it will still be a poor picture. Good intentions and hustle only get you so far. Casablanca (an amazing film) was just one of hundreds of studio pictures put out by the MGM "machine" in 1942. It didn't get any more love/blood/sweat/tears than the others, but it was made by extremely talented individuals with job descriptions like writer, director, actor, cinematographer and editor.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by tabuno
There is a great shift that you mention that occurs in AI after the boy gets to the bottom of the sea. I agree that there was a whole different feel, but that didn't detract from the movie …

---

You express yourself well with respect to why you like the ending of A.I., Tabuno. But I do find your explanation very interesting and fascinating. I also like your remarks concerning the ludicrousness of the “clownish artificial persons.” You cannot, however, declare that to be the intent of the film -- only your interpretation of it. Only Spielberg can speak to the intent.

The problem for me is that this still does not address the issue of the form of the advanced robots who retrieve David. They were, in my opinion, inappropriate in the context of the film. Everything else, even the various bizarre (but interesting) human creations like Gigolo Joe and Gigolo Jane, were believable in the context. The super advanced creatures who first appear in the final 25 minutes of the film were barely three dimensional and were visually inconsistent with the look of the rest of the film.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by jacobic216
The being at the end are not aliens but the are the evolution of AI. After the boy sleeps, he has a dream and it all is right with the world.

---

This is also a very interesting interpretation, and I note that you say you think it is what Kubrick intended (Does Spielberg have a voice here?). Of course, unless Kubrick has stated this, it remains your interpretation. Good point though! I do agree that when there is resonance, a certain ambiguity is quite appropriate. I still do not think the super advanced creatures were appropriately visualized for even a dream.

Quote:

---

jacobic216 and stevetseitz on art
All movies are art. I find it to be the finest medium today to show art: -- You have to understand that by creating a work of art and offering it to other people you are, in a way, asking for approval.

---

I have no problem with the idea that all movies (or all paintings, or all plays, or all poems) are works of art. If this is how you wish to use the term, then what matters is whether or not it is good art (or whatever scale you wish to create). These judgements, of course, are individual, although some films are obviously admired by discerning viewers more than others. The confusion comes, then, when we use the word “art” or “true art” as a qualitative judgement.

jacobic216 thinks Kubrick, the Coen Brothers, and Lynch never made a poor film. That is his assessment, but it is not a universal truth. It is a judgement. stevetseitz thinks some of the Kubrick films are overrated, and he finds, for example, “Dr. Strangelove” to be very boring after the first viewing. That, too, is a judgement. I have different opinions, but they, too, are only opinions.

I think it’s great that we all bring different sensitivities to film, and that we can argue about our various interpretations.

Quote:

---

originally posted by stevetseitz
4. It takes talent on the part of the writer, director, actors, cinematographer and editor in addition to love/blood/sweet/tears/etc to make a great film. And even the most talented people don't always achieve success every time.

---

Come now, Tabuno. This statement is perfectly clear. You’re trying to make a muddle out of one of the best written statements in this string. If you want to see lack of clarity, check out the following jacobic216 remark:

“FYI: It seems to me that the AI at the end are the very same mat that Lucas used to create the cloners in Attack of the Clones. They are identical in design and both done by ILM.”

Talk about lack of clarity. What the hell does this mean?

Finally, a person who is mature enough who can disagree and make a lot of sense - "docraven." Until now, all I've ever received was immature, personal venom from people who just couldn't be criticized. However, "docraven" owns up to values and possesses confident reasoning. docraven's comments are great.

If I may, however, I would like to expand though in response to one observation:

<The super advanced creatures who first appear in the final 25 minutes of the film were barely three dimensional and were visually inconsistent with the look of the rest of the film.>

In AI, I understand how you might have a strong, negative reaction to the advanced super creatures and their apparent dissimilarity to the rest of the movie. I had some of the same reaction, but taken in context one has to try to project into the future while recognizing the changes that have occurred just in human history over the past hundred years that have made many past experience mere pale afterglows compared to today - like the difference between the original 1951 "The Thing" and Carpenter's remake years later. I perceive the same element of discontinuity and allow for the possibility of the disconnect between what we experience today and what super advanced beings of the future might be. Who knows what dimension and appearance they may have? To just make something that we are used to in AI at the end, in my opinion, would have been the more inappropriate approach to take, In keeping this movie consistent with its symbolic theme of humans, AI, and super beings, these beings needed an element of significant difference if we are to really believe in this movie.

>>Finally, a person who is mature enough who can disagree and make a lot of sense - "docraven." Until now, all I've ever received was immature, personal venom from people who just couldn't be criticized.<<


In this thread? Where? From whom? Looking back at the discussion it appears there has been no personal venom. We are all clearly mature enough to disagree. If you think "A.I." and "Total Recall" good films, I'll disagree with you to my dying day, but that doesn't make it "personal". Maturity? It's about having the confidence and courage to respond directly to someone. Personal venom? That would be making a snide comment and sweeping conclusions about those who disagree with you in some other post. Let be honest and direct, that way we can simply agree to disagree and move on to the next subject.

Touchy are we, stevetseitz? You think my comments are about you? Hm...you know, I think you may have a point though. My experience from another chatroom regarding Red Dragon over at Yahoo has crept into how my previous message about personal venom became generalized to this forum, a forum which isn't as nearly as personally degrading or immature. Still, I do like how "docraven" handles criticism however and I feel such critical comments are very good even if I disagree and I stand by my positive regard about "docraven." I'm willing to retract my comment about personal venom, I haven't had my shots from the whiplashing I get elsewhere.

Certainly glad that we have such opinionated users who express themselves with gusto. A good barometer for a post is to ask yourself if what you are writing is something you would say to someone in person. If technological buffers (websites for example) serve as divisive tools and not as ones of communal benefit, then we fail the unique opportunity to express ourselves with people we otherwise would not know. That being said, dont hold back too much...ROCK ON!

P

I don't think it was much of a stretch on my part to assume that up until docraven's comments the only person you have been debating with in this thread has been myself. You have been generally in agreement with jacobic216.

If you were not referring to my comments, I'll just have to assume you were just venting based on some other message board. In the future, since we can't keep tabs on everyone's message board antics on other websites maybe we should just keep the comments to the topic at hand.

Quote:

---

Talk about lack of clarity. What the hell does this mean?

---

It's simple. I was referring to the digital mat that they used at ILM. It's called recycling. Cartoons do it all the time.

Quote:

---

4. The Coen Brothers made "The Hudsucker Proxy" and "The Man who wasn't there". Kubrick made "Barry Lyndon" and "The Shining". David Lynch made "Dune". None of these films are that great. I don't want to hear anything about a 6 hour director's cut of Dune floating around the net. The Sci-Fi channel series seriously outclassed Lynch's effort.

---

I could care less what the sci-fi channel, critics or anyone else says about Lynch or any of my favorite film makers, films etc.

I thought all of the above movies were great for the most part. The only exception, Barry Lyndon is a masterpiece as a work of art but its entertainment value is extremely low. I'd never dispute someone claiming it's not great.

Quote:

---

jacobic216 thinks Kubrick, the Coen Brothers, and Lynch never made a poor film. That is his assessment, but it is not a universal truth. It is a judgement. stevetseitz thinks some of the Kubrick films are overrated, and he finds, for example, “Dr. Strangelove” to be very boring after the first viewing. That, too, is a judgement. I have different opinions, but they, too, are only opinions.

---

I think that Dr. Strangelove is the greatest movie ever made. My sides split every time I watch it, Peter Sellers is brilliant and the concept has yet to be redone in such a satiracal light. I have met many people who don't like it but that is their right and I respect that even if I take an offensive. I have a need to know what they disliked about it. It tells me something about the person.

Quote:

---

jacobic216, What can you do? While I don't have a lot of connections, I have access to community resources and information here in the community. There is growing interest in the arts and movies in the State.

---

This is my first forum and I have never put up my own website. My experience is hands on, mostly. I do a lot of writing and editing in my spare time. Sometimes I'll take out my camcorder and do some shooting but mostly I sit here and work on something else. If you ever do run into someone that can use me, let me know.

Quote:

---

what matters is whether or not it is good art (or whatever scale you wish to create). These judgements, of course, are individual, although some films are obviously admired by discerning viewers more than others.

---

I couldn't have said it better myself.

stevetseitz, you seem to be a very serious person.

With the exception of Spartacus, all of Kubrick's films have one thing in common: they have one or more characters who find themselves in an intolerable situation and cannot seem to break out of it.

A.I. fits the bill. His interest must have been the moral angle- a robots' synthetic love & the importance of that. People always wonder how Kubrick picks his stories. He is on record as saying that criminals and soldiers fascinate him- as they do not take life for what is. Meaning, Kubrick doesn't/didn't take life as it is. He also said as much:
"Man is adrift in a rudderless boat on an uncharted sea. The sheer meaninglessness of life forces man to create his own meaning"

I like that.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by jacobic216
FYI: It seems to me that the AI at the end are the very same mat that Lucas used to create the cloners in Attack of the Clones. They are identical in design and both done by ILM.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by jacobic216
It's simple. I was referring to the digital mat that they used at ILM. It's called recycling. Cartoons do it all the time.

---

I got the general idea with your first remark. I just couldn't connect it to the topic at hand. I did see the ATTACK OF THE CLONES, and since I was disappointed in the film, I must have missed these figures. Or, I simply don't remember them. Did you find this visualization effective in either A.I. or ATTACK OF THE CLONES? Did they work better in the STAR WARS prequil?

I know you were just offering it as a bit of information.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Johann
With the exception of Spartacus, all of Kubrick's films have one thing in common: they have one or more characters who find themselves in an intolerable situation and cannot seem to break out of it.

---

I know SPARTACUS is an exception to the rest of Kubrick's films because he had less control over the final product, and he was unhappy about it. Nonetheless, the film is about people who find themselves in an intolerable situation, and try as they might, they cannot break out.

In many ways Spartacus was free. He was almost a symbol of freedom.

Yes, he was crucified at the end, (sad scene with his wife & child) but he was able to break out of his prison as a gladiator, start a real rebellion, and basically have SOME redemption in his life. In Kubrick's other films the main "oppressed character" who cannot break out of their situation never actually sees worthwhile results from their oppression.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by stevetseitz

He can try and seperate himself from it all he wants but it wasn't Kubrick who made that horrible film! The blame lies fully at the feet of the ego-maniacal Spielberg.

Spielberg is a genius and when challenged, as he was in "Schindler's List" and "Saving Private Ryan" can produce fantastic films, but he needs to learn to quit meddling with the stories of others. He admits that he would have "shown the shark" in Jaws had it been functioning, but the limitation of NOT having everything forced him to be more creative! He turned "Jaws" from a potential B-movie into a classic. His extended ending of "Close Encounters" was awful. The studio was right to release the tighter version.

Spielberg had become this big icon of Hollywood and people don't have the stones to say "No! that's over the top." to him anymore.

Similarly, George Lucas has gone of the digital deep-end and become enamored with what he CAN do instead of what he should do.

---

You made some good points here, Steve. If you're still around, please post again. I've reconsidered A.I. since this thread began, and I still love it, but Terry Gilliam has a point with it being "a frustrating film"- what are we to make of that ending? If someone had stopped the movie halfway through and asked me what I thought would happen to David, I would've said something like: "re-uniting with his mother". I've since learned Kubrick's ending would've been DEVASTATING. Spielberg kind of leaves us feeling like the movie's over, and yeah, so what? It's possible to have a mechanical, lifelike, programmed kid in the future that you can buy off the shelf. That's possible, right? We have plenty of artificial love on this planet already, right? Robots who "love" may be the new wave. The world already has lifesize lifelike human rubber dolls you can buy.