Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Movies Media

Spielberg to direct Kubrick's AI 139

Posted by Hemos from the picking-up-where-the-master-left-off dept.
Chasuk wrote to us with the word from the Sunday Times that apparently Steven Spielberg will be directing what would have been Kubrick's next project - AI. The story is "the tale of a young 'robot' boy that he likened to the story of Pinocchio." The two had talked extensively before the latter's death, and were good friends. The movie is based on the short stoy Supertoys Last All Summer Long, by Brian Aldiss.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Spielberg to direct Kubrick's AI More

Spielberg to direct Kubrick's AI

Comments Filter:
  • Hmmm....Spielburg has a considerably different style to Kubrick. I don't think that it will much like how Kubrick would have made the film, in terms of visual "feel".
  • Thanks.. I nearly managed to get a few slashdotters to walk away from their computer in search of a human being (as much as you can call astronomy lecturers human).
  • Of all the war movies I've seen - and as an ex-professional soldier, I've seen a LOT of war movies - only SPR captured what it's like to be one of us. You'd have to serve to understand, I guess.
    Your guess is incorrect - I served, too, and in the U.S. Army, which sees (unfortunately) and prepares for much more conflict than the Canadian Army. It's also the army they were talking about in both movies. Obviously, I didn't serve in the 'Nam, but my Dad did. You'd have to be at least 50 to make that same claim for WWII (the subject of SPR). I've also probably seen as many war movies as you have. And I disagree with your assessment.

    I liked them both - they were different, but that doesn't mean that one was truer to character than the other, except in your mind.
  • I dearly hope that was a joke.
  • Wasn't AI a film/book that was later renamed to toys? And is this the sequel that's being named to the former name of the prequel?

    Probably getting confused between films though...


  • Are you sure you aren't mixing up Spielberg and Lucas? I believe Lucas's first move was called THX-1178, or something along those lines.

  • Spider Robinson, actually (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward
    The story referred to originally is by Spider Robinson called "Melancholy Elephants".

    Synopsis (as I remember it):

    In a future where humans have managed to dramatically extend their lives, the government is about to pass a new copyright law bestowing eternal rights on new works. The main proponent of this law is surprised to get a visit from the daughter of a famous (now deceased) musician who wants him to kill the bill. She has to explain to him that there is a limited number of compositions possible in music simply due to the possible combinations of notes and instruments and eventually these will be exhausted and nothing new can be created that has not been previously copyrighted, at least in part. She goes on to tell of how her father spent the last years of his life writing his final masterpiece, only to find out that it was based around a childhood song he once loved.

    Very good story from an excellent writer.
  • ... mostly a matter of mass. For all intents and purposes, Jupiter is a brown dwarf. No cookie for anyone who retorts: "The difference between a star and my [object] is just a matter of mass."
  • Hmmm... interesting one this.
    Both good directors, but very different in style.
    A good comparison that some one made before was Saving Private Ryan vs Full Metal Jacket. Very different films.

    How about that for a Slashdot poll?

    I think it still has the potential to be a good film with spielberg directing, but if Kubrick was directing it would have had the potential to be a great film!
  • The movie encountered protests on release because of the extreme depiction of violence, and ran only in one London theater (but it ran there for a year). Thinking the fuss had abated, Warner Bros released it generally, but the British tabloid press laid into the film and Kubrick personally. Kubrick and his family did receive threats, though I've never heard "a brown bag with a ticking orange"! Eventually Kubrick asked WB to withdraw the film from the UK, and they did so quietly (as if it had simply ended its run). It wasn't until years later, when the movie was not released for a Kubrick film festival, that the ban became public knowledge -- which probably accounts for the rumors surrounding it.

    Kubrick never changed his mind, and WB -- though within their full legal rights to do so -- respected his wishes.

    According to his widow this year, "the film was withdrawn because we got so many threats that the police said we must do something and he withdrew it. [He was] both artistically hurt and also scared. He didn't want to be misunderstood and misinterpreted and you don't like to get death threats for your family."

    This ban was never in effect in any other country (although it may have been banned for other reasons).
  • 2001 is full of long moments of glorious silence, the bane of todays big-budget directors, who are too set upon their mile-long checklists of product placements, talking heads, cameos, punches, swirling creschendoes, video-game tie-ins and consumer psychological attention-span profile research rapid-action editing to even dare to let a VISUAL MEDIUM do it's thing.

    It's funny how the more a director makes, money-wise, the LESS he or she is willing to take chances. I think it has to do with INSULATION. Successful directors become so wealthy and (by neccessity) reclusive, that they become surrounded by a thick membrane of Yes Men. Every idea that dribbles off their lips or pen is hailed as Genius, in hopes that the Gravy Train will not run off track.

    "Yes sir, Mister Lucas! That Jar-Jar character is a sure-fire hit! A real stroke of genius! And the chick - with the funny hair? Whoa-boy, Mister Lucas, brilliant! And Darth Maul is so cool-looking, it doesn't matter a bit that he's 2-dimensional and adds absolutely NOTHING to a story-line that doesn't really exist anyways! Fabulous! Whatever you say! Love it!"

    Sigh. As if it mattered!

  • Stanley would have made a cool movie, Spielburg will make the "feel good blockbuster of the season". Something tells me that Kubrick wouldn't have made any deals with taco bell either...
  • Many Kubrick fans were disappointed that we'd never get a chance to see AI. If these rumors are true, at least we'll get a chance to see a version of it that has at least some respect for Kubrick's vision.
  • Think this is an unfair criticism of Spielberg. Saving Private Ryan and Schindler's List were hardly feel good movies. I also cannnot remember the last time Spielberg cut a deal with Taco Bell.
  • Subject matter is interesting...

    And, despite the knee-jerk reactions to the contrary, Spielberg has made some good movies...

    Considering that Kubrick himself was considering letting him direct it this may be quite interesting.

    Josh
  • I agree. At first, I too thought "Feelgood Blockbuster ahoy!", but then I think to stuff, notably Schindlers List... Spielberg can do things like this right - it's not his acknowledged forte, but as he was friends with Kubrick, and probably understands the reasoning of AI thanks to this friendship... then maybe we'll have a good film after all.

    Mong.

    * Paul Madley ...Student, Artist, Techie - Geek *
  • Instead of another 2001 we'll get another ET.
    Sic transit gloria mundi!
  • Apparently Kubrick decided (before he died - obviously) that he couldn't direct this film because it needed a 'human element' to it that he couldn't give to it. so he chose Spielberg to direct it under his supervision as producer.

    we will have to wait and see what it turns out like without that input.

  • Spielberg!?!?!? (Score:4)

    by jass ( 83214 ) on Tuesday September 07, 1999 @01:01AM (#1699201)
    Kubrick's films have a vision which goes beyond what is common---NONE of Spielberg's do. Kubrick's view of human nature is profoundly disturbing and close to the truth. He was not, however, misanthropic as some have argued. He thought hard about why human beings are cruel and obsessed with the immediate and ignore truth and beauty. Contrary to many reviews, I think that "Eyes Wide Shut" is another extraordinary masterpiece. It shows a wisdom completely missing from Spielberg. The last scene of the movie is particularly interesting. After acknowledging the limited importance of a week...even of a single life-time, the women character forcefully, in the last line, refers to the most basic animal drive. It reminds me of a famous quote by Niels Bohr "[i]t is a great pity that human beings cannot find all of their satisfaction in scientific contemplativeness." Kubrick of course sees beauty to be of greater importance than science...or atleast greater than technology. Kubrick's explanation for the problem raised by Bohr is the sex drive and by implication evolution.

    Spielberg has NEVER produced a movie with confronts current sensibilities. In none of his movies does he challenge human nature. Not in Saving Private Ryan (which after the first 30 minutes is incredibly boring and predictable) and not in Shindler's List. One would think that the holocaust of all things would cause one to profoundly examine human nature and critique civilization. But Spielberg does not do this. Does the holocaust say something about all civilization, all countries America included? Note to Spielberg. There is nothing interesting here. Anyone who thinks there is should read more great literature and see the works of more good directors such as Bergman and Kurosawa.

    Don't get me wrong. When Spielberg is paying attention, he can tell a good story (e.g., ET etc). Spielberg also has excellent understanding of the technical side of film making. This may have been the foundation of the friendship with Kubrick. But there is a big difference between being able to tell a good story in a technically excellent fashion and creating something sublime.

  • Read the story online. (Score:4)

    by Driph ( 7107 ) on Tuesday September 07, 1999 @01:02AM (#1699202) Homepage
    Interesting.. just yesterday I was cleaning out the garage and found my copy of the story...

    If you wish to read the story that the movie is based on, it is located here. [eu.org]



    ..here are some online quotes about it..

    "Kubrick, as we well know, has had A.I. in development for several years now. The narrative follows the development of a child and his
    inter-relation with the technology that surrounds him. We can safely assume here that this technology will be represented by the AI.

    "The trick is that the film traces the boys development, not over weeks or months, but YEARS."

    June 2, 1996... A long, unsubstantiated rumor is that A.I. actually began production years ago with Joseph Mazzello (Tim from Jurassic Park)
    starring. [Scoop sent in by 'hansolo'.]

    April 2, 1996... Development on A.I. is in the final stages of set design and special-effects development, reports Associated Press. Kubrick plans to return to direct involvement with the project after completing Eyes Wide Shut. [Scoop feedback by Todd Dupler; originally reported by AP.]

    D

    ________________________________________________ _____________

  • Re:Bah! (Score:1)

    by porp ( 24384 )
    No, this is like Picasso finishing a Monet painting. Both are masters and, if necessary, Picasso surely had enough talent to "mimick" the style Monet used.
    Let's face it. Spielberg has a style and Kubrick had a very different style; nevertheless, both are two of the greatest directors the U.S. has ever produced, and it is definitely hard for me to believe that Spielberg lacks the ability to, if necessary, "mimick" Kubrick's storytelling. I mean, wouldn't Hemingway be able to write like Faulkner, or Mozart compose like Bach?

  • I'm almost disappointed (Score:3)

    by PollyJean ( 54795 ) on Tuesday September 07, 1999 @01:15AM (#1699204)

    I would personally like to see a newer, more up and coming director take over the AI project. I can't really put my finger on why, but the idea of Spielberg, whom I feel is a wonderful director, directing this film is really disappointing.

    In the week after Kubrick's death, the New Yorker published a piece by Ian Watson wherein Watson talked about how he and Kubrick were changing "Super Toys" for the film version. I believe it was this same New Yorker piece which said that the only reason Kubrick agreed to do Eyes Wide Shut was that Warner Bros. agreed to fund AI in return. I really wish they had agreed to fund AI, first, as the world suffers from a lack of truly challenging SF films (In this decade, I liked The Matrix, Ghost In the Shell, Pi, 12 Monkeys, Dark City and Cube. The decade's almost over. That's not even a film a year.).

    Back when Wired was good, they published "Super Toys Last All Summer Long [wired.com]" in the issue dedicated to HAL's birth. They also published "The Intelligence Behind AI [wired.com]," which is a piece on Kubrick & the AI project.

    The combination of such an intriguing story with such an intriguing director combined with recent special effects advances would have made for a hell of a film. I'm hoping that if Spielberg does get the film, he doesn't sentimentalize (is that even a word?) it. And for the sake of all that is holy, please, please, please do not let George Lucas or James Cameron anywhere near it. This should be a character-driven film, IMHO.

    Chris Cunningham, the director attatched to another on-again, off-again, potentially brilliant film based on another decidedly brilliant piece of fiction, Neuromancer was said to have apprenticed under Kubrick. Why not let him have a go? I think this project needs a new director, & Cunningham's stuff has certainly been gritty and unsentimental thus far.

  • Spielberg to update 2001! (Score:4)

    by jass ( 83214 ) on Tuesday September 07, 1999 @01:19AM (#1699205)
    I found this on the MGM website!!!!

    (MGM Studios, England) In response to the success of George Lucas' updated "Star Wars" and the interest in Kubrick since his death, Stanley Kubrick's family announced today the planned re-release of "2001: A Space Odyssey". Steven Spielberg has agreed to update the film. The enhanced version of the film will be released early in 2001.

    Spielberg explained, "Much of what Kubrick tried to accomplish in 1968 as limited by then-current technology. I feel this greatly impinged on the structure and style of the film, grossly affecting his ability to tell a modern story."

    Many of the changes and additions are fairly minor; only a true devotee would be expected to notice. For example, the "Pan Am" space clipper will have its logo changed to "Discount Spaceways." Other logos will be inserted, as deemed appropriate by the sponsors of the updating: "Coke" and "Nikon" will appear on food and photographic products, while the HAL 9000 computer will sport "Intel Inside" and "Microsoft Windows NT 8.5" appliques.

    Other sequences are expected to present visual and auditory changes more apparent to those who may only have seen the film a small number of times.
    * Computer displays will be rendered with true 3D modeling. As an inside joke in one scene, graphics engineers will be inserting images from "Quake 2001."
    * The "Star Voyage" sequence designed by Trumball and Veevers will be replaced by an entirely computer-generated sequence.
    * New scenes will be inserted. One known scene involves the "hominid murder;" a new computer-assisted sequence showing a battle between thousands of hominids will be added following this scene.
    * All of the music will be replaced by a soundtrack performed by U2. The soundtrack will be broadcast in digitized, Dolby-enhanced surround sound. Spielberg explained, "No one liked the music in the original, anyway."
    * The monolith, which most viewers found "boring" will be redesigned to look like a large human-shaped robot with blinking lights.
    * Frank Poole's sex will be changed, adding new interest. Also, Francine Poole will not die; She and Dave will be saved by MONOLITHMAN and will live happily every after. Spielberg explains again, "No one understood the ending; we feel that our rewrite will be much more accessible to the typical intelligent moviegoer."

    Spielberg summarized the release, codenamed "2" (short for "2001- 1999") as an "Experience for the younger generation, born well after the original. The original film was dated and did not meet the needs of new viewers. The new release will be competitive with today's movies and should provide a fulfilling, enjoyable experience to all."

    A spring, 2001 release is anticipated.
  • Bicentennial Man, as in the Asimov story? now that is an unusual choice for a film! I wonder how the production machine will manage to butcher this definitely un-filmy story!
  • "Microsoft Windows NT 8.5" by 2001?

    What *have* you been smoking?

    I doubt Microsoft will be able to release 3.5 successors to Win2k by 2061: Odyssey 3!!!
  • No wonder HAL goes nuts and tries to kill everybody. I had no idea that the Blue Screen Of Death could have such severe consequences. Sheezeluweeze! Intel inside? Between excruciating pain in his hardware and being loading with a schizophrenic OS, no wonder HAL was a basket case. This explains a lot. I hope nobody petitions the filmakers to change it to a UNIX variant ;-)
  • Somehow I can't picture Spielberg sending a print of "The Lost World" to Kubrick and expecting encouragement from Kubrick based on it.

    -Dean


  • Spielburg is a very adaptable director, one of the best in my opinion. He can direct some stunning pap, like Jurrassic Park, etc. But he can also direct with cold, stunning sincerity, such as the battle scenes in 'Private Ryan' the horrors, of 'Schindler's List' or, his best, in my opinion, 'Empire of the Sun' anyone here even remember that movie? Couldnt get too much more dystopic without being a Terry Gilliam production. For that matter, in some ways, Empire of the Sun is a good 'to use a burned out phrase' cyberpunk movie; the portrayal of technology changing the world. The death of old Japan, the rise of the new, nuclear age, witnessed first hand.
  • Good point. After all, my [object] isn't composed largely of metallic hydrogen. On-topic, I'd rather not see Spielberg direct AI. There are much better filmmakers out there. Spielberg is a competent director, but his true genius lies in marketing. Terrance Malik, or maybe the guy who directed "The Crow" and "Dark City" (lousy storyline, but great feel) or even Tim Burton would be a better bet.

  • >>Raiders of the Lost Ark

    >>Jaws

    >Those were amusement park rides

    Correction: Those were damn fine amusement park rides.

    Why does a movie have to be 'artsy' to be considered good? What's wrong with the Good vs. Evil theme? The purpose here is *entertainment*. Also, someone (not sure if it was you), scoffed at Saving Private Ryan and Schindler's list b/c they are 'good vs. evil' movies.

    1) They're **Nazi's** fer cryin out loud! That's as close to pure evil as we get on this planet.
    2) As I recall, there were some sympathetic/non-evil Germans/Nazi's in both of those movies. Remember in SPR the scene where they take out the sniper's nest out in the middle of nowhere? 'The good guys' want to shoot the poor, unwitting German soldier who really doesn't want to be a part of Nazi-ism in the first place? Where's the black+white, good-vs-evil plot there? Speilberg did a damn fine job with both movies, IMESHO.

    Some people just find it too easy to critisize them because they were popular, and therefore appeal to the mindless masses, and so they must suck.

    Oh fuck...and I promised myself 'No rants today'.


  • >>Saving Private Ryan and Schindler's List were hardly feel good movies.

    >Actually those are feel good movies. SPR feels good to american patroism idiots, and SL feels good to uneducated sophomores.

    I hardly think a movie that shows people getting bloodily shot, abused, raped, murdered, tortured, and de-humanized is a feel good movie. Yes, they both ended on a positive note. SL showing all the people who managed to survive because of Schindler, SPR shows 'private ryan' remembring the guy that saved is butt. Whether or not ending on a positive not is a good or bad thing is an artistic interpretation.

    Also: Patriotic idiots? Yeah, that's me. Guilty as charged. But SPR also shows that the govt/military does stupid brainless stuff. Like saving the last surviving son of a family by endangering the lives of a dozen or so good soldiers. Real stupid and brainless, that.

    Uneducated sophomores? I don't quite follow that one.

  • The only thing I *didn't* like about 2001 was the long, boring sequence in the monolith itself...you know, the one that looked kinda like the beginning of a Dr. Who episode, with the 'fancy hi-tech' graphics flying past. But on second thought, I think it was much, much longer in the director's cut version...so it serves me right.
  • I'm not sure if you realise, but E.T. and Close Encounters suck dead donkey turds. E.T. is a manipulative piece of tripe, and Close Encounters is almost as boring as 2001 (decent book, horrible film adaptation).

    On the other hand, since Spielberg has shown himself capable of cinema at least as putrescent as Kubrick, maybe he's not such a bad choice after all!
  • I felt the same way you did when I read the headline, but after I read the actually article, I felt a bit differently. While I agree with your general opinion of Spielberg and his movies, I don't think there is any other director who should take on this project.

    First of all, if what this article says about Kubrick's and Spielberg's relationship is true, then Kubrick must know more about him than we do, and trusts his judgement, certainly since he asked Spielberg to direct while he was still alive. Who are we to judge Kubrick's judgement? And since Spielberg has talked to Kubrick directly about this movie, he has a better idea of what Kubrick wanted it to be better than anyone else, aside from perhaps his family.

    And second, how many others directors could you name who have done a thought-provoking science fiction movie better than Spielberg? Don't even think about Lucas (I like Star Wars, but for entirely different reasons than I like 2001). 90% of "science fiction" movies are just excuse for loud, boring action movies. Ridley Scott, perhaps, could do it, but the last science fiction film he made was over 15 years ago. And Blade Runner was actually more film-noir than it was an operatic space movie. I actually haven't seen Close Encounters of the Third King (though I really should), but it sounds a lot better than, uh, Wing Commander.

    If you need evidence that Spielberg can do an interesting, un-sentimental, non-verbal movie, check out The Duel. The whole movie is basically a businessman driving in the middle of nowhere with a tractor trailer fucking with his head. It's no intellectually sublime masterpiece, but it's much different from Schindler's List.

    This also seems like a "blockbuster" project, which is perhaps why Kubrick asksed Spielberg to direct it in the first place. Nobody does that better than him.

    I've always wanted to see Martin Scorsese direct a science fiction movie, and I think he'd probably do it better than Spielberg given "equal grounding" (i.e., if Spielberg had no conversations with Kubrick beforehand), but oh well. I really think the most important qualities of a director for this picture is extreme technical savvy (which Spielberg has) and an intimate knowledge of what Kubrick wanted (which it seems like Spielberg has). This is the best way to get a movie that is most like Kubrick would have made it.
  • Excuse me, but how do you know Vietnam (the war upon which FMJ was based) wasn't itself cartoonlike or otherwise weird in that way?

    Full Metal Jacket certainly does capture what it's like to be a soldier - I refer you to a couple of scenes in particular: what happens when they screw with the washout in boot camp (instead of just tossing him out) until he snaps, and the disorder that ensues when three squad leaders in a row get capped by what turns out to be a 12-year-old girl.

    Just because Kubrick doesn't show you the moment of bullet-meets-chest impact doesn't mean it's any less "true to combat" than was Saving Private Ryan.
  • Ah. So, Harlan Ellison's so-good-it-hurts script for I, Robot never gets filmed; instead we get the Disney version of The Bicentennial Man

    NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!

  • Why won't they film Harlan Ellison's script of several Asimov novels I, Robot: The Illustrated Screenplay [harlanellison.com].

    Erik

    Has it ever occurred to you that God might be a committee?
  • Okay, I haven't seen that, but I have heard good things about it. But the Lucas point is moot, anyway, since he's busy with Star Wars until 2005 or whatever. And while I do like all of the Star Wars movies, his moralizing in the Star Wars movies would completely make him ineligible for a Kubrick film. I mean, even Saving Private Ryan is more ambigious morally than any of the Star Wars films.
  • Why?

    Mice: "Common" folks

    Cats: Greed, power, corruption

    The Mice are fleeing the Cats from Russia where they are being killed and "hunted". They come to America, singing, "In America, there are no cats". It turns out that there are cats, but instead of hunting mice in the open, they dress as mice to lure them into their clutches.

    If that ain't a great analogy and social commentary on the U.S., I don't know what is.

    "There is no surer way to ruin a good discussion than to contaminate it with the facts."

  • I have a great-uncle who was an Austrian conscript in Hitler's army. He was on active duty for a few weeks, and he said the best thing that happened to him was when his unit was captured (well, apparently, they went out of their way to surrender) - and he spent the next 4 years as a POW, one year of that doing slave labor in a French coal mine, underground for weeks at a time, living off of 500 grams of bread a day. But it was better than serving the axis.

    "The number of suckers born each minute doubles every 18 months."
  • Tim Burton? ick. no.

    He's dark, sure. But he's way too silly.

    I'd rather see William Shatner direct.

    "The number of suckers born each minute doubles every 18 months."
  • is here [nytimes.com]. It's NYTimes...so you need the free account.

    Not much for me to add. Kurick rocked my world...changed the way I look at it actually. I'm thrilled that AI might finally see the light of day. Speilberg is no Kubrick. So what? He is a good director, and if Kubrick trusted him with this project...who am I to argue?

  • Here's a thought (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward
    My grandfather came to the U.S. about ten years before the war. Had he stayed in Germany, he most certainly would have been in the German army. Instead, he fought for the U.S. and actually landed in the first wave of the D-Day invasion. Was my grandfather a heroic soldier or, "the closest thing to evil on this planet" since he could very easily have been on the other side? What did he think about killing his own x-countrymen, maybe even people he knew?. Wouldn't a story with a little more depth like this be more interesting? Better than Hollywood's enless rehashing of the senselessly evil and seemingly invincible bad guys against local boys with hearts of gold.
  • ah, this movie doesn't need a human element, it needs a machine element. The whole point is to give the audience the point of view of a machine, right?
    IMHO, only Kubrick could do this, and since he's no longer available, it ought to be scrapped, not raped. But, my opinion doesn't count for shit in Hollywood.

    "The number of suckers born each minute doubles every 18 months."
  • Shpeil-berg:
    "okay, so first, we make a few minor changes. The kid's a robot, right? so we make him super-smart. He builds a radio that detects alien life, and he finds out that they're going to invade earth, so, he also builds a small space-fighter ship, out of an old junker project-car his dad left in the garage, but abandoned because he got depressed about not being able to have any kids, then, the kid flies the car into space, and beats the alien armada, except for the mother ship, that has a death-ray aimed at his family's house. Well, this kid lands in the fighter bay of the mother ship, and gets out, and goes hand-to-hand with the alien soldiers (because he has super-powers too! he's a robot!), and we'll have like 10 different varieties of aliens, so we'll have collectable action figures, plus alien space fighter toys, and of course, the converted mustang-spaceship (get our CGI guys working on that right away), . . ."

    no thanks.

    "The number of suckers born each minute doubles every 18 months."
  • Well, I just doubt that people who can't
    understand 'Space Odyssey...' are all that
    intelligent. Sir A. Clarke's novel was written
    about us and for us. Most of his predictions
    became true.
    Apparently he was rating our intelligence too
    high when writing his '2000'. Damn it's like
    that crappy Romeo and Juliet movie.
    This will be really a pisser if mainstream movie industry turns a chez d'oeuvre into another piece of crap :(
  • By 'The closest thing to evil on this planet', I meant the Nazi ideology. People like Hitler+co., and the evil that they propagated. I'm sure that most of the soldiers involved (on both sides) didn't give a damn about ideology. The did what they were told. Be it out of national pride, hatred, because they would be court martialed/hung/shot if they didn't. Whatever. But not because they were good people or bad people. Which is a point I think Speilberg makes fairly well. Not just a rehash of evil vs. good. I think most people would agree that we were 'the good guys' in WWII, even though we (as individuals) did some pretty rotten stuff. As far as the story about your grandfather, yes that's an interesting story. It probably won't ever be movie-cized though...not too many people could relate to it. Many more people know people who's grandfather died in the war, or who's grandfather owes his life to someone else because of what happened in the war. And no, I'd never suggest that your grandfather was/is the closest thing to pure evil on this planet. Unless his name was A. Hitler...
  • Ok, so the US treated the Japanese "horribly" in the interment camps? BWAHAHAH! They were fed, housed clothed and given their freedom voluntarily - and even got an official apology from the US government and reparations. Compare that to the Japanese treatment of the US Soldiers in the Bataan death march, or the chem and bio experiments on POWs, or the beaheadings and starvation of POWs, or the forced prostitutition of Korean women or the rape of Nanking (bayonetting babies for fun). Those were barbaric evail sumbitches that deserved every bit of death hurled their way - and they *still* havent acknowledged their wrongdoings, much less apologised officially or attempted to make reparations.

    Dont be so overwhelmed about our minor transgressions when the other guys were purely evil. Or did you not learn those things (Nanking, etc) in your history classes?
  • Washout? Try viewing Empire of the Sun. And as a combat veteran let me tell you that the first 30 minutes of Private Ryan absolutely took my breath away. The only thing missing was the smells.

    If we coould get THAT kind of effort then Speilberg is up to the task if AI. But your snotty and ininformed flame mean nothing. You want "Spice Girls" of movies, go look at Cameron.
  • Of course, there are plenty of movies that don't fall into the definition of a "feel good" movie. "Feel good" movies are appealing to the masses since they manipulate the viewer into a reaction. SPR did this on both the pessimistic and optimitic sides. It documented the horrors of war (nazi killing the Jewish GI) but then paradoxically patted the allies on the back (this is the appealing part to nationalists). Personally, I don't find anything wrong with the part about depicting war a brutal. Appealing to the emotionals would serve that best. It's the pat on the back or leaving the the theater in tears of joy or pride that most of the people here have a problem with I'm guessing. For the movie to "stick" or have some long-term meaning it demands conscious involvement with the viewer and that is best accomplished by appealing to the reason of the viewer and forcing him or her to make a decision based upon what they have seen.

    I'll bet no one came out of SPR debating about the ideas presented in the movie. Nazis, bad; allies, good would have been the concensus. Compare that with a movie like Full Metal Jacket or A Clockwork Orange. Does the welfare of society outweigh the freedom of an individual? Is one question I can think of presented in both movies. This isn't something I've ever seen in a Spielberg movie.

    If Spielberg stays close to Kubrick's vision, doesn't do anything stupid like giving a girl a red coat or sticking the robot in Nazi Germany I think he'll pull it off.

    Anyway, the short answer to that last question: anything Kubrick made. Of course the definitions I used were my own. But the viewer needs to have some involvement with their own humanity and that is something that just cannot be accomplished with a purely manipulitve film.

    end stream of consciousness
  • You will need the following ingredients:

    10lbs money
    1lb Explosive sound effects
    15lbs visual FX
    5 cups hammy string orhestra music
    20 cups of children
    20 cups of "the man" (science/buisness/adults)
    10 cups sappy optimisim
    2 cups child wisdom
    1 predictable outcome
    1 underdog
    1 antagonist
    1lb hype
    1tsp good script/book/screenplay/hallucination
    2lbs cliche
    4lbs valium
    5 cups modern trends
    10 cups advertisers
    10 cups endorsement
    10 cups merchandising

    Steps:

    Lower the temperature to 72 degrees farenheight if not already so. maintain this temperature throughout.

    Take 15lbs of Visual FX, and mix slowly with the hammy string orchestra music. Sprinkle in 1tsp of your story/script/hallucination.

    Proceed to draw this out in an extremely long string, producing about sixty feet of material from this 1tsp of story.

    Now, roll in a thick mixture of children and sappy optimisim mixed together and heated lightly. Sweeten until subtle tastes are lost.

    Drizzle with the underdog, appropriately governed by the story's consistency spread thin through the material.

    At about a quarter of the way through, smother with antagonist. Soak with the man, and lighly whip in valium, to keep things nice and even for the moviegoers, don't want to suprise them.

    Now slowly start pouring on child wisdom until all has been expended. At this point take whatever FX, music, and sappy optimisim you have left and smother.

    Remove all traces of the man, and the antagonist, and dip in a predictable ending mixed with sappy optimisim.

    Mix the advertisers and modern trends together, and lightly powder with it. Sprinkle on cliche.

    Mix the hype and product endorsement and merchandising together. A thick sticky broth-like mixture should result. Add some FX, and sprinkle on sound.


    Boil your movie in this mixture.

    Here's your acadamy award.


    I'm just being cynical. Seriously, saving private ryan was OK, as was schindler's list, and empire of the sun.

    The rest is just a long drawn out toy commercial.


  • I also cannnot remember the last time Spielberg cut a deal with Taco Bell.

    Have people already forgotten Jurassic Park? It's sequel, The Lost World? Or even better, ET (which had a tie-in with a certain candy manufacturer IN ITS PLOT).

    If product placement had its Academy Awards, Spielberg would probably win life time achievement.
  • The technical ability of Spielberg as a sci-fi, hi-tech movie maker supervised by a more cerebral, in-depth producer.

    Looks promising, I mean, if only Kubrick had been able to actually supervise the making.
    Yet, I don't think of Spielberg only as a blockbuster wizard.
    Schindler's List and Saving Private Ryan weren't mere FX stunt-movies IMHO...

  • AI Rumors (Score:3)

    by Defiler ( 1693 ) on Monday September 06, 1999 @11:21PM (#1699261)
    There has been a longstanding rumor that Kubrick was working on this movie for almost twenty years, shooting footage of a child actor as he grew up. Who knows how true that is?
    What I do know is that Spielberg is the only man with any insight into directing a Kubrick film.
    Here [imdb.com] is a list of the films Spielberg has been involved in. Any man who had something to do with making Empire of the Sun can't be all bad.
    --Conquering the Earth Since 1978.
  • I think I read a SF novel sometime that basically said there were only a fixed amount of music composistions availible and what the main character thought was a original composition was something he had heard in his childhood slightly remixed.

    Perhaps this is also the case with good stories/movies. Perhaps all movies could be grouped in 7 (I like the number 7) stories.

    1. Pinocchio/Frankenstein/This new film
    2. Romeo&Juliet/..../....
    I don't claim it to be true but it could be an argument against Intellectual Property rights... "Hey, sure I copied this film, but it's a copy of a 6000 year old idea, so it should be Public Domain anyway."
  • Yer.. cause 2001 just rocked so much.. lemme guess, you read the book before you went into the cinema? Whilst you were sitting there going "oh" and "ah".. we were sitting there going *yawn* and "what the hell was that last bit about?".. yer The year we made contact was a much better movie.. Although even then it was the astronomers who were saying "oh yer.. good idea for a movie" and the rest of us were saying "ok.. don't know what the star thing is about".. (ask your astronomy lecturer to tell you the difference between Jupiter and a star).

  • If anyone can do this, Spielberg can. Contrary to what many people seem to believe, he actually has made some very good science-fiction; witness E.T. and Close Encounters of the Third Kind (never mind that the encounter to which the title refers is actually of the fourth kind).

    Can he do a Kubrick film? Perhaps. The closest he's come, as some people have pointed out, are Schindler's List and Saving Private Ryan. In other words, he's going to have to use all his skills to do this. I wish him the best of luck in that regard.
  • They were close friends and had great respect for each other actually.

    Speilberg would often show previews of his films to Kubrick before the studio had a chence ro see them.

    (We recently had a weekend of Kubrick programmes on the television here in Britain - very entertaining)
  • Yes, that too. Was the soldier good, or evil? He was certainly a turd, but he probably would have been shot for resisting the Nazi's. And Hank's character...did he do the right thing when he let the German go? And possible have him kill more allied soldiers? (himself, in this case)

    I think he made the best of a bad situation.

  • In the August 1999 issue of playboy there was a story by Ian Watson about his work with Stanley Kubrick on the movie AI. Interesting read really, and gives more details about the movie. (A robotic boy, his talking bear, and buddy gigolo robot caretaker.. not my cup of tea, but whatever floats your boat)

  • Slightly off topic, but what the heck:

    See also the brilliant "Maus" series by Art Spiegelman. A greater graphic novel has not, to my knowledge, been produced.

  • > Correction: Those were damn fine amusement park rides.

    Yep. Read on.

    >Why does a movie have to be 'artsy' to be >considered good?

    There's nothing wrong with a three-braincell flick. Speilberg does his best work with movies like "Raiders", "Jaws" and "E.T." They were one-dimensional, designed to be that way, and they were great at it! Every time Speilberg has tried to do "meaningful" movies (i.e. Empire of the Sun, Saving Private Ryan, Schindler's List) I've seen the results and just wanted to hurl! It's more cotton candy in a fancy made-for-grownups wrapper.

    Speilberg directing A.I.? * shudders * Not being familiar with the craft of moviemaking, I could be dead wrong. Perhaps the story, set, and whatnot have been worked out to the point where all that's needed is a technician with a good eye to bring Kubrick's vision to life. Frankly though, I'm not optomistic about this one.
  • I guess I'll just have to disagree with you there. I liked both SPR, and SL...have yet to see EotS. They weren't as deep as Kubrick by any stretch, and they weren't meant to be as cerebral. But I still think they are good movies. Speilberg can't touch Kubrick at what Kubrick does best. But Kubrick can't top Speilberg at his thing. And neither of them has really tried. Until now. This could be a Bad Thing. Or maybe not. The proof is in the pudding. (Whatever the hell *that* means... ;-))
  • >>Saving Private Ryan and Schindler's List were hardly feel good movies.

    Actually those are feel good movies. SPR feels good to american patroism idiots, and SL feels good to uneducated sophomores.


    An interesting definition. So, you would define (and therefore denigrate) a "feel good" movie as one which makes some miniscule slice of humanity feel good?

    Is there any movie, then, that would not be a "feel good" movie?
  • I liked "The Sugarland Express," "Empire of the Sun," "Tummy Trouble," and "Roller Coaster Rabbit."

    Jaws? Yawn. IMHO, so boring that I could have watched it while scuba diving (okay, so the logistics would have been difficult, but you get my point).

    And lets' not forget that he was responsible for that abomination "*batteries not included."

  • Isn't the plot-line about the conflict between the mother, who cannot love this robotic boy, and this robotic boy's inner struggle with trying to understand why his mother does not love him (because he doesn't know he's a machine)?

    That sounds like a lot of humanity there, not machinery.

    I agree Kubrick would have made a better movie, and I wouldn't be surprised if Speilberg adds on those infamous two minutes at the end, which says to me, "Hey, in case you are a moron, here's the message I was trying to get across."

  • You should read some of the WWII stories posted by people at ABC's The Century website. Very powerful tales of real soldiers true experiences.

    http://boa rds.go.com/cgi/abccentury/request.dll?LIST&room=ww ii_beginning [go.com]

  • Are there any stories Kafka wrote that were ever made into movies? I've only read a few of Kafka's stories, but really liked them. Just curious if a movie had ever been made out of one of them...
  • Last month, EW interviewed the CGI guys who were slated to work with Kubrick on this film. It's pretty interesting, especially for CGI buffs.

    Here [pathfinder.com] is the link.

  • This frightens me almost as much as Disney making Bicentennial Man [corona.bc.ca]. I wonder if this is an attempt to compete with that film. Damn, I hope El Spielbergo can pull this off.
  • He is just a very, very different director. Kubrick shunned the hollywood machine, while Spielburg IS the hollywood machine. This particular storyline sounds like ET 2 if you ask me, and I'm sure it will be marketed as such.
  • Considering how much detail is in the book I thought 2001 was magnificent.

    I believe it was the first film to be shown in wide screen and Dolby stereo (in the UK at least).

    Incidently, Arthur C. Clarkes sequels to 2001 reveal a lot more about the omnipotent monoliths.

    What's the problem with the ending....it actually makes you think!!!

  • It was withdrawn in the UK by Kubrick himself.
    As far as I know, the UK is the only
    place you
    • can't
    see the film on
    video or at cinema. The rumour I heard
    was that Kubrick thought the film was too
    disturbing for UK audiences and so withdrew it,
    this documentary seems to give the real reason behind
    Kubrick's actions. Shame really, I think it
    is quite a good film..

    M
  • About a boy deemed to be a musical genius by the state. he is sent to live in isolation so his talent will be unadulterated by previous composers. One day a fan plays some Bach for him and his compositions are changed for ever. he is told to never perform or compose again and becomes a donut truck driver, the story goes on, he disobeys and each time another body part is removed, his hands, tongue, etc as punishment, great story, I don't know where Card copied the idea from, but it's a great story.....
  • There was no "public" adoration, pseudo or otherwise. Kubrick and Spielberg kept their friendship a secret until the end. So whatever you've "heard" was from uninformed morons. Or possibly, and more likely, pulled out of your own ass.

  • Hmmm. Let's see. How about "Dawn of the Dead"? It's a far better examination of social conditions masked in a genre picture (zombies as the vanishing middle class, shopping mall as urban temple, etc.). That sure wasn't too hard.

    Hey. I didn't say the whole American Tail was pure genius, I pointed out it was quite keen to see that in a children animated feature. It beats Disney beating us senseless with skewed history and racial stereotypes so loud I feel like wearing a RCMP uniform and frolick with wolves just cause I'm Canuck.

    I agree, Dawn of the Dead was nicely subversive and interesting. Zombies make for great social canon fodder.

    "There is no surer way to ruin a good discussion than to contaminate it with the facts."

  • Still doesn't make it a good movie, let alone a "masterpiece".
  • Face it, the one Kubrick film that Spielberg could not make anything even close to is Dr. Strangelove. We can compare horror to horror, The Shining vs. Jaws. Sci fi to Sci fi, 2001 vs. ET and close encounters. War movies Saving Private Ryan vs Full metal jacket and Paths of Glory and so on. The differences are huge, but the one Kubrick film that Spielberg is furthest from is Dr. Strangelove. Even Kubrick couldn't touch it. It is the one that distances him the most from Spielberg.
    --Shoeboy

  • I say yay! (Score:3)

    by Enoch Root ( 57473 ) on Monday September 06, 1999 @11:57PM (#1699309)
    Now, I hear a lot of people groaning. Yeah, Spielberg is a sentimentalist director, and he just loves throwing children into his story to make them appear as both cute and the recipient of infinite wisdom.

    However, he is also perhaps the only director who can produce a story for children without having to baby-talk to them, and make the story enjoyable for adults as well. Remember An American Tail? That movie was beautiful, both for children who loved the mouse characters, and the adults like me who could appreciate events such as the Pogroms, and the sweet irony of cats dressing as mice in America.

    Will Spielberg make AI as a children movie? Well, I'm not sure. I must admit I thought AI would be a totally different story, given it was Kubrick's pet project. I know I imagine the story more along the lines of The Shining than E.T. The plot sounds to me like it should be a disturbing relationship between a child robot and a mother who just won't love him. It sounds like it should be uncomfortable.

    With Spielberg at the helm, there is bound to be hope and light in the middle of the tragedy, but it just won't be Kubrick. In the ideal world, Kubrick wouldn't have wasted time with Eyes Wide Shut and would have given us his ultimate sci-fi movie after 2001 before dying. In this world, however, I think if someone can make a good movie out of the story of AI, it has to be Spielberg.

    "There is no surer way to ruin a good discussion than to contaminate it with the facts."

  • Raiders of the Lost Ark
    Jaws

  • Bah! (Score:1)

    by cmjaw ( 39852 )
    Great. Take what could have another masterpiece and throw it in the fucking trash. This would be like letting Steven King finish up Nietzsche's last book.
  • I heard that it was because audiences of UK skinheads liked the film too much, and started going for a bit of the old ultraviolence themselves in direct copycat fashion. Maybe Kubrick felt guilty or something...

Slashdot Top Deals

Do you guys know what you're doing, or are you just hacking?

Close