March 15, 2000, 2:35 a.m. CST
by All Thumbs
That's all I have to say.
March 15, 2000, 2:37 a.m. CST
OOOOOO!! This is Too Cool!
March 15, 2000, 2:39 a.m. CST
by Alexandra DuPont
March 15, 2000, 2:39 a.m. CST
by All Thumbs
Is there any way we could get an update on the story? I just realized I got this one mixed up with "Minority Report" with Tom Cruise, but it's still nice to finally see what Spielberg is doing. (Even if I am slightly pissed at him for some of his comments reported from the DGA awards.)
March 15, 2000, 2:49 a.m. CST
by Raoul Duck
Spielberg is saying all the right things and i think he'll really pour his heart into this. AI was one of my first thoughts when i heard Kubrick had passed and i for one will be there on opening day. Great friggin' news.
March 15, 2000, 2:51 a.m. CST
by All Thumbs
It's just the first thing that come into my head. And, Alexandra, thanks for the info that jogged my memory.***Now, who should be the kid? Will Haley Joel be too busy (or too old) by then?
March 15, 2000, 2:51 a.m. CST
by Raoul Duck
Just thought that was kinda neat.
March 15, 2000, 2:55 a.m. CST
by Alexandra DuPont
From what I recall from reading the story, Haley Joel Osment would be PERFECT as the little boy. That sweet tortured look, you know? Memo to Haley: DON'T HIT PUBERTY YET; THE RUMORS ABOUT 'COOTIES' ARE IN FACT TRUE; KEEP PLAYING WITH LEGOS AND MARVELING AT HOW TALL ALL THE BIG, MEAN ADULTS ARE.
March 15, 2000, 3:17 a.m. CST
by All Thumbs
The "creative differences" (Is that the most fluffy euphenism in the entertainment world or what?) between J.K. Rowling were over Osmet??? You gotta be kidding me! I want to hear more about that.***Let's see...Haley Joel is 11 now, so that means 8 or 9 in Hollywood years. Then age is not too much of a problem if, as Alexandra says, he doesn't hit purberty, but there are drugs to take care of that. Let's see, he's shooting that movie about the kid who's doing a special good deeds project now or soon...he could do both...I think it's a go! Who else could they get? I mean, not counting an unknown (another Hollywood euphemism, meaning "a nobody" to execs).
March 15, 2000, 3:24 a.m. CST
Kubrick did some test footage using actor Joseph Mazello (whom Spielberg used in the "Jurassic Park" movies) before he died. I would hope that when the day comes that a DVD is released of the Spielberg A.I., Kubrick's pre-production materials will see the light of day. It would be nice to be able to contrast the two visions.
March 15, 2000, 4:22 a.m. CST
I respect Steven as a film maker, he is with out doubt a talented director, he has created too many classic films to name BUT for all his sucess he just isn't Stanley Kubrick! Kubrick was the most important film maker around and even now his films are still startling, 2001 in an amazing visual treat I agree that its over long and self indulgent but whos complaining when being immersed in such a splendid mix of music and visuals(remember it was made in 1969 a full 8 years before Star Wars), A Clockwork Orange is one of the most original films ever put on the screen nothing like it had ever been done before and it has influenced films like Fight Club, Romper Stomper etc.. If you add Paths of Glory(the best anti-war movie of all time), Dr Strangelove(best black comedy of that era), Lolita(Contraversial in 1962), The Shining(in everyones top 5 scary films list), Spartacus(ever wonder where Braveheart and Gladiator came from?), Full Metal Jacket(who can forget the training?), Eyes Wide Shut(Yeah well OK I made my point with the others). Kubrick is perhaps the most important film maker so far and as good as AI will be directed by Spielberg it will never live up to what Stan would have made! Kubricks version would have given us something new, Speilberg will just make a great film.
March 15, 2000, 4:26 a.m. CST
by Lazarus Long
Harry claimed that the A.I, screenplay will be "written by Spielberg himself". Before all of you go jerking yourselves off on this one, allow me to reference the book "Easy Riders, Raging Bulls" by Peter Biskind, about the film industry in the 1970's. Bisking relays a story about how Spielberg PAID a couple people to take their names off of the Close Encounters screenplay so he would get sole credit. This was because he was feeling inferior to Lucas and Coppola, who by the late 70's were making their names as "auteurs". This story alone would explain my rage and hatred for all things Spielberg. What a pathetic creature. Can't he be happy with his obvious gifts for mainsteam crowd-pleasing manipulation? If you people acutally think Spielberg can or will write the A.I script alone are pretty fucking deluded. The man is a glorified hired gun. He just has enough money to hire himself for projects he likes. Criticize Lucas all you want for pandering to kids, but Star Wars and THX-1138 are all the evidence you need to show Lucas is far more a visionary than Spielberg ever was. Spielberg has been copping stuff his entire career. I love some of his films, but the thought of him taking over a Kubrick project makes me nauseous. Kubrick was someone who couldn't care less what the public was or wasn't ready to handle. Spielberg fashions all his films so they are tailor-made for Lowest Common Denominatior consumption. Why Kubrick bothered talking to and associating with this hack is beyond me. This film will be even more insulting to Kubrick's legacy than the foolish Eyes Wide Shut detractors thought that film was.
March 15, 2000, 4:43 a.m. CST
A plot synopsis was posted on Dark Horizons last month... it follows the story fairly faithfully up to around the middle of the film, and then lurches off down it's own path, apparently (I've not read the original story yet, but thanks for that link, guy above me!). It's got what seems to be a twist ending, so don't go over to DH unless you are happy knowing that kind of thing, and please no-one repeat it in this talkback. Of course, Kubrick radically revised the work a number of times, and Spielberg may do so again, but there you go. Any word on whether Chris Cunningham is still attached in a robot-designing capacity? His robot video for 'All is Full of Love' by Bjork is wonderful....
March 15, 2000, 5:13 a.m. CST
Well, not quiet. Kubrick saw virtually every film he could get a print of in the UK, in his home screening room. Though he didn't get round to seeing ET for a year or two after it came out, then was flabbergasted at what Spielberg had achieved. Whether this meant he was flabbered that ET made almost a half billion at the cinema off an eight million dollar budget, or that that Kubrick was ghasted that Spielberg could so shamelessly retell the life of Christ through a bunch of kids and a big electric Muppet with Albert Einstien's eyes, who knows? What was the fucking point here? Who know....! Oh yeah, but apparently Kubrick was a big fat fan of ET and was always frustrated his films never reached those sort of audiences (ie a hundred million people in every country with cinemas, or electricity). This is why he started working on AI. At one point, in the last few years, Kubrick was even experimenting with doing the effects himself, on his home computer, once the techno improved sufficiently. It remains to be seen what Kubrick would have done with AI, but we just might have seen the first mushy-gushy film from him, the 'I-want-to-make-some-real-big-bucks-to-leave-for-my-family' syndrome. No doubt it would have been as cynical as all fuck, but according to co-writer Brian Aldiss, Kubrick wanted a feel-kinda-good-and-I-like-it-fine ending. Spielberg won't be able to control himself. A robot boy who wants to be more real. Kubrick was an avid fan of UK telesoap EastEnders. Any UKers out there ever here the rumour that Kubrick once, on the spur of the moment, rang the EastEnders office and the BBC and asked if he might be able to direct a few episodes himself? And that whoever took his call thought he a hoaxer and told him to bugger off? Not once, but six or seven times!!! I need to find out if this is true. Fucking love if it was. What a story for a dish-brained tele-exec to tell 'Oh yeah? Well I told Kubrick to go fuck himself. I said 'we don't want no stinking Septic Tank directing our fucking EastEnders! I don't care how long you been living here! Shove it, Kubrick!' AI is Spielberg's one, true and total chance to some something true and total about the human condition and the techno race to wipe out humanity (not humans, just the humanity). A chance to make The Film That Changes The World. Will he do that? Or take another brilliant premise, open it in head-fucking style and then gut-fuck the whole thing with soaring music and soaring hearts and 'ahhh geeee! It sure is great to be me and be American and what a truly top world this is after all'. Hmmm, Puking Private Ryan, anyone?
March 15, 2000, 5:47 a.m. CST
I grew up on Spielberg, so his films have a special place for me. I still think Jaws is one of the best directed films ever. The tension in that movie - the only other director who could have pulled that off would have been Hitchcock. Sure, there have been some lousy one (1941, Hook, Lost World) but the visions he has achieved will stand in film history forever.****I can admire Kubrick, but not love him, at least not in the way I love Spielberg. Kubrick's films are art - especially Dr. Strangelove, which still is his best film by far - but (with the exception of Strangelove) they are cold, and even, dare I say, antiseptic. They never really get dirty with the world - they are all slightly detached with it. He was a brilliant filmmaker, to be sure, but not one who I can say his films have genuinely changed my life. I can say that about Spielberg.
March 15, 2000, 5:57 a.m. CST
by Mr Logic
FUHarryKnowles you do not know what you are talking about. People like you should...........oh why the fuck am I even bothering? its just what you want to hear anyway. Well Ill have to deney you this time, so get back to masturbating over net porn while your mother bangs on the door. Mabye time for some role playing with your spotty mates later hey? more productive than commenting on great filmakers whose work you obviously have a very limited understanding of.
March 15, 2000, 6:14 a.m. CST
What's wrong, someone accidently put that in the tape case when you were renting a Jim Carey movie and you're bitter?
March 15, 2000, 6:57 a.m. CST
I'm so happy that Spielberg is tackling something other than war and war related movies. I agree with Nordling, Spielberg HAS directed some of the greatest movies of all rime ( Jaws, Close encounters, Raiders of the lost Ark ). I would also say that Spielberg is at least a fine a director as Kubrick ever was and has proven that he makes quality films. I, personally, cannot wait for this. P.S. Don't flame me, I am a kubrick fan but I still think Spielberg has the edge. Glengarry.
March 15, 2000, 7:20 a.m. CST
Hi guys! This new A.I. thing sounds good. So Kubrick didn't write like a screenplay for it or anything? Thank GOD!! After that last bag of shit he brought to us, this will be a relief. I thought Tommy would at least get naked in Eyes Wide Slut, but NO! His damn wife did. Spielberg is fine by me to write it. Just curious, will Kubrick get an executive producer credit on it? Bi!
March 15, 2000, 8:05 a.m. CST
by Vance Castaway
I always have to laugh whenever I hear someone criticize Mr. Speilberg's abilities just because he has been commercially successful. I mean.... Really!! If you were to name the single most important influence on our popular culture (oops! I used a bad word or two!!) over the last quarter-century, I would be impressed if anyone out there could make an argument for someone other than Steven. Speilberg is pop culture in a way that should never be confused with the likes of a Jan de Bont or a Michael Bay. Such men are merely imitators of the Master. It's funny, you know, I never hear people insult the artistic intrgrity of The Beatles, just because they happen to be the most successful recording act in history...hmmm. To refer to someone as genuinely gifted as Steven Speilberg as a "hack", or worse, is either the product of a juvenile or an isnscure mind... I'm not sure it has to be one or the other.
March 15, 2000, 8:32 a.m. CST
>>Steven "The Original Lost Boy" Spielberg will load this sucker with enough sugar to put an entire audience of diabetics into a coma!<< I think we'll get the Schindler's List/Saving Private Ryan Spielberg, not the Hook/Always Spielberg. I think he knows better now.
March 15, 2000, 8:43 a.m. CST
by Lance Rock
March 15, 2000, 8:58 a.m. CST
by Funny Ha Ha
While I don't claim to know the Clash personally, "Rock the Casbah" was about the inability of an oppressive dictator to squash rock & roll from the hearts and minds of his people/troops. These people were willing to risk "Bombs dropped between their minarets" (definition: a tall slender tower of a mosque having one or more balconies from which the summons to prayer is cried by the muezzin) in order to rock out with the band. The 'casbah' is merely a gathering place for the people to hear the music consistent with the middle-eastern theme of the the song. While I don't want to get too deep here, one could surmise that when this song was published, there was general fear of middle eastern terrorism in the US and the UK, and the Clash may have felt that all that was needed to free the minds of folks there was a little good music. Who knows? I just danced my kiester off to it when I was in 7th grade. I still remember playing it over and over again at a party, while NONE of 40 kids got sick of it. <sigh>
March 15, 2000, 9 a.m. CST
Dark Horizons has some scoop on the plot to Episode 2 and in his little summary, he forgets to mention that the person scooping the script(whether true or not) says that Boba Fett's role and identity will shock you. How could Garth leave that one out? Bad reporting--that's what fans are really into. And who is Boba anyway? Also, chalk up another story screwed up by H-wood. This is a film Spielberg will turn into commercial bullshit, when it could be an amazing piece. Unfreeze Stanley and let him do this one last film.
March 15, 2000, 9:29 a.m. CST
...wasn't Kubrick going to shoot this over a few years, with the aforementioned robot boy 'aging?' Maybe the wonders of CGI will make this happen? Or maybe they'll hire Eddie Murphy for all the parts!
March 15, 2000, 9:29 a.m. CST
by Salem Hanna
...amongst all you people who say Spielberg won't direct it as well as Kubrick would've done, bear in mind that Stan was only gonna be the producer (and maybe writer?) on this thing. It was planned as Steven's baby while Kubrick was alive, so I can't see how it will look or feel much different now than it would have done if it were out five years ago. And besides, Spielberg's a genius (the millions of people who still like Jaws, Schindler etc can't all be wrong) so why are you complaining? I saw SPR for the first time yesterday, and you know what? It's flawed, but still ace. And while we're on the subject of director bashing, give Michael Bay a break. The Rock was a much better flick in 96 than Mission Impossible 1, and his other 2 movies are intended more as entertainment than art - so don't take them so bloody seriously!
March 15, 2000, 10:01 a.m. CST
Alien decides to go swimming. Alien Meets shark. Shark eats alien. T-Rex falls off trasport boat from Lost World. T-Rex gets hungry. T-Rex eats shark...Oh no the Germans are coming! They fish T-Rex out of the water and come to find out his full last name is Rexstien. Rexstien is put to work at a prison camp. Can anyone save him?...I believe a certain someone with a whip, a fedora, and a smidgon of luck can. Score by John Williams of course.
March 15, 2000, 10:07 a.m. CST
Yes, there was some suggestion at one point that the boy would age as the film progressed, and so would be filmed over a protracted period of time.... however, that rumor was usually followed with a comment that Kubrick had already started, as so was probably just BS. Certainly the most recent plot synopsis has the boy turning himself off part way (half way?)through the movie and then waking up a couple of hundred years later... which seems to suggest that in the current imagining, the character does not age at all. My degree is in AI and Psychology, so I love all this: if anyone wants to email me about it, or any AI-related shtick, feel free!
March 15, 2000, 10:35 a.m. CST
Quit getting my hopes up with this project!!! Just flat out say that you are never going to do it and I'll be happy! Then give Terry Gilliam the money to do A Scanner Darkly!
March 15, 2000, 10:49 a.m. CST
Oooh. Aliteration. Anyway . . . No matter what you can say about the man, there is no denying that he has truly made film into what it is today. Such high entertainment and a part of our lives that we even have sites like this to bitch about him. And no matter what you say, I don't think anyone can honestly say they don't have a film of his that they haven't liked. From Jaws and Close Encounters to the Indiana Jones trilogy to E.T. to Empire of the Sun to Schindler's List to Jurassic Park to Saving Private Ryan (a much better war film than anything Kubrick directed and I LOVED Full Metal Jacket). Hell even his bad films aren't total losses. While he hasn't necessarily been the absolute most visionary of filmmakers, he has certainly been the most magical. He has made cinema into the awe-inspiring medium that it is. And that has given freedom to so many more to explore their own ideas.
March 15, 2000, 10:59 a.m. CST
by Monster Rain
I'm relieved that Spielberg has chosen a project like A.I. for his next effort. He's the right choice to bring Kubrick's vision to life. As for Potter, Variety reported that Spielberg wanted a more "fanciful vision" for the story. In other words, "Harry Potter" in his hands would be "Hook II". Loud, bombastic, and sticky sweet. I can just see the overly busy, cluttered sets, cutesy kids and pratfalling adults, and a maudlin tone that would be like wading through sugar-coated taffy. I think "A.I." is the best way to go for all our sakes.
March 15, 2000, 11:13 a.m. CST
Spielberg, in the eyes of 70's producer Julia Phillips, is "the ultimate writer fucker". According to Peter Biskind's excellent book, evidence would point to this. No less than five writers (probably more) worked on Close Encounters, and Spielberg refused to let the public acknowledge their contribution by giving sole credit to himself. This is a petty, immature, and downright slimy thing to do on his part. It's not enough that he can direct; he must fool the public into thinking he's a writer too. There are very few writers who can direct as well at they write - Kevin Smith (I think he handles his material well), Tarantino, immediately come to mind. By giving himself unworthy credit to himself undermines the contributions of true writer/director's everywhere, and more importantly SCREENWRITERS IN GENERAL, who are, no matter what area of film you most admire (cinematography, acting) the SINGLE MOST IMPORTANT COMMODITY IN FILM. You can have the best director, the best actors, all the special effects in the world, and what do you get? You get "The Phantom Menace." You get "Hook." Hollow films with little activity beneath the surface. You can have the best visuals but if it ain't structured properly or made interesting nobody is going to care (my personal favorite example of this is "The Fifth Element", though many disagree). Bottom line: guys like Spiely should stop stepping on guys like Mathew Robbins (who also did uncredited work on Jaws, and YES, E.T, he did alot) and Paul Schrader (who did the first draft of the script; it's unknown as to how much of his work showed up in the finished film - yet this isn't the point; he WROTE THE FIRST DRAFT AND GOT NO CREDIT). Read Biskind's book. Jaguar out.
March 15, 2000, 11:21 a.m. CST
Deep down I'd been hoping this would become a reality. Spielberg has been taking the old man's director viewfinder the past few films (Amistad, Schindler, SPR). I'm not implying that these were bad films or unnecessary films, it's just that I miss the guy who dreamed up E.T., one of my all time favorite films, it was the first film that I can remember seeing (I was 2 years old) and the first film that made me wonder "How did they make that?"... well actually that was Star Wars but oh well. I want to see him dusting off the old sci-fi thinking cap and putting that baby back on. I'm almost certain Speilberg had much respect for the late Stanley, and wanted to do this thing very very badly ever since he and Stan started talking about it. I pray he gets the old crew back together (Kathy Kennedy and Frank Marshall to produce, Michael Kahn to edit the thing and maybe, just maybe if the film fairy grants it.... Allen Daviau to shoot it). I have very high hopes for this. I love Speilberg (although he's not my fav. director right now: see my user name? he is the one I respect the most, and has the some of the best talent out of the very few good directors in hollyweird. I bet you're wondering why I haven't mentioned "Close Encounters of the Third Kind". Well it's like this: I've only seen it once or twice I think. I was very little the last time I saw it, and I don't treasure it b/c well frankly it scared the bejeezus outta me. I guess it just never struck a chord with me, and I know this is one of his most beloved works but I never really latched on. I'd rent it (I work at blockbuster) but we don't have it in stock and I've been to lazy to go elsewhere to rent it. I guess maybe I'll get around to it. Someday. Now I heard something somewhere that Spielberg in fact DID NOT write Close Encounters. I had always thought he did. Can anyone shed some light on this for me. I'd like the truth. Actually it wouldn't surprise me if he didn't. This is very common in the hollywood system. A struggling filmmaker or actor or whatever will have a great idea for a screenplay but they don't have a decent writing bone in their entire body. So they hire someone (a pro) to pen in for them. I don't know if anyone knows or heard about this but Matt Damon and Ben Affleck didn't write Good Will Hunting. They paid someone else to do it. They promised to give him credit, but when the oscar buzz hit, they ditched him and Harvey Wenstein paid him (ALOT) to keep his mouth shut about it.
March 15, 2000, 11:22 a.m. CST
So Spielberg tried to 'buy off' some writers of CLOSE ENCOUNTERS -that's NOTHING on what ol' Kubrick once tried to pull. Stanley tried to claim credit for the screenplay to SPARTACUS when it got an Oscar nom, because the actual writer, Dalton Trumbo, had been blacklisted by the Academy years before and Kubrick knew he would not be able to accept the award. Kirk Douglas, who was the producer, was so angry with Kubrick for trying to take false credit that he took a full-page ad out in Variety in which he told the world that Dalton Trumbo was the screenwriter. This would shortly lead to the end of the Blacklist. This story is told by Douglas himself in his terrific (and for once, self-penned) autobiography, "The Ragman's Son."
March 15, 2000, 11:28 a.m. CST
I'm not sure if anyone remembers, but a few weeks after Kubrick passed away, Entertainment Weekly released a two or page article with a special effect guru at ILM about some test shots for A.I. I guess they made an oil platform look like the submerged peak of a New York skyscraper (Kubrick's vision of the future was one in which the entire world was flooded with water). Anyway, the important thing was that Kubrick wanted the robotic boy character to be completely CGI so it could really seem to be eerily "un-human". They took a bunch of pictures of some kid, split and mirrored the face (so he'd be perfectly symmetrical) and widened the eyes a little more than normal. It's a great idea, and I think it would go well with the true Kubrick cinematic experience, I just hope Spielberg chooses to follow the lead... and of course not have the kid say "Exqueeze me?" in the first reel. For some reason, that seems to be some sort of rule of thumb for all current CGI characters.
March 15, 2000, 11:41 a.m. CST
by SeVen Higgins
I'm sorry everybody. I think a majority of you always bash things without ever seeing a script or viewing an almost finished product (trailers don't count) just to be felt, like some rebel fighting against the machine that is the industry. Don't get me wrong were all diffrent and I respect anyone who opinion is diffrent then mines, but to say a movie is garbage because a director is too mainstream or this actor sucks, or his custom isn't like that in the comics, is kinda harsh. And. yeah there are people that thought E.T. and Jurassic Park sucked ass, or Speilberg and Lucas are the anti-christ and the false phophet. Movies are an art form and people interpret them diffrently, but like any painting or sculpture you should't start heckling the artist when he hasn't even unveiled his masterpiece. I say lets give 'ol Stevie a chance, when people found out he was departing from the sci-fi fantasy genere, he was marked as a failure to be, but he proved them wrong by making some of the most moving movies in; The Color Purple, Schindler's List, and Private Ryan. (I would mention Amistad but it didn't move everyone like it moved me) This is just my opinion and we all know everyone has one. Thanks for reading my rant.
March 15, 2000, 11:43 a.m. CST
March 15, 2000, 11:44 a.m. CST
...is written by Brian Aldiss, who will get a Grand Master Award from the Science Fiction and Fantasy Writers of America (SFWA) in May, the same night they give out the Nebulas (remember Todd; IRON GIANT might win the dramatic one that night).
March 15, 2000, 12:01 p.m. CST
For the guy Phojus, and others who wanted more info... From the 4th Feb DarkHorizons (darkhorizons.com)... A.I.: When it comes to Kubrick's last great unfinished work, there's a whole lot of talk but not much in the way of solid information. We do know that its set in the future when the polar ice caps are melted, artificial intelligence has survived mankind's destruction, there's a very personal 'Pinocchio' style element to it, and the only footage which currently exists is a few minutes of rough FX tests shot a few years back. Well 'The Shadow' is back again this week (he's taking a breather after this) to finish up a run of great scoops with what he's heard. The plot sounds like "Bicentennial Man" on acid, but the end twist sounds like classic Kubrick. Is it reliable? Well I would still classify it as rumour for now - better to be safe then sorry: "There are several scripts in existence, but none of them were actually accepted for production or formally endorsed and workable by Stanley Kubrick. What was established through the various drafts was a semi-plot, which Kubrick was planning on drafting himself after "Eyes Wide Shut" was finally out. As was predicted eons ago, the basic opening strand does indeed comes from Brian Aldiss's short story "Super Toys Last All Summer Long", but it diverges from it quite dramatically mid-way. What was the basic plot? Here goes... [SNIP! If you don't mind spoilers, go over there to read it...it's about 300 words long] Ninety pages of treatment, with swathes of dialogue exist, along with completed storyboards outlining some angles Kubrick intended to shoot. There is test footage, but only of a CGI oil derrek entombed in a floating grave of ice, along with facial rendering tests for the boy. No one was cast, no filming was ever done, but the template is complete. But, will it happen? Let's put it like this...Would the fact that many of the original production design team have been resigned (reportedly) under new confidentiality clauses, and paid off for new re-use of their ideas be any indication? Or the fact that there's a secret studio booking at Leavesden for the start of 2001? We'll see" [Well, there you go.]
March 15, 2000, 12:04 p.m. CST
In years gone by the music industry frowned upon singers who wrote their own material because they couldn't be easily controlled. A successful singer who couldn't write a song worth shit would be more likely to stay with his label and the songwriters he trusted than be tempted by another record company's offer, but a singer who wrote his own songs couldn't give two fucks for any of that. There's also the fact that if you write your own stuff there's less work for agents, lawyers, producers, executives, ect. to do their own side deals and rip off people left and right. Hollywood is basically the same on that level. Everyone wants to piss in the pot and that's hard to do if your director can write, direct and produce his films. Hell, screenwriters in general are regarded as dirt by the movie industry. Pawns to be used in movie deals or writing monkeys to forge the lame (gag puke) ideas of producers and movie stars. And this isn't just a Hollywood thing, the whole movie industry is like this (tho it's obviously worse in hollywood) Even pretty damn independent guys like David Cronenberg have to hire ghoswriters because getting financing for a movie has gotten so damn complicated that it takes years just to make a movie. Cronenberg himself said that he hasn't written a movie by himself since Videodrome (except for eXistenZ) I yearn for the day when the next Roger Corman comes along and starts making movies for dirt low budgets in a week. It'll show aspiring filmmakers that Hollywood's way is not the only way to make films. Blair Witch Project (wether you hate it or love it) is the right step in that direction.
March 15, 2000, 12:06 p.m. CST
the only thing he ever 'wrote' was' Killer's Kiss, and A Clockwork Orange he adapted...after and before those he would tweak existing drafts of projects.. being notoriously tough on 'his writers' ,in his contracts were clauses allowing him part writing credit if only altering a sentence...Having Speilberg direct AI is a double edged sword...while bringing attention as Sam Lowry said to A Film That Will Change The World true...and hopefully so...AI/Robotics has sooo much untapped commercial potential...the mega-corp. need to know this...But we all know he'll butcher the mood and integrity of AI...Mole, didnt' the boy sit down at an amusement park near a game of some sort and run out of battery, until years later a group of AI put him in a museum and simulate his past according to his memories? Jeeez..this is such an amazing story, I too read Supertoy's.. a long while ago, Aldiss captured the pure siberian torture of misperceptions... Haley Joel Osmet is great but TOO OLD>..
March 15, 2000, 12:21 p.m. CST
While Raphael's document of his collaboration with Kubrick on EYES WIDE SHUT is fairly enlightening, I don't think there's a better "love letter" to the man than Terry Southern's BLUE MOVIE, which is proof positive of the immense ire Kubrick could elicit from his writers.
March 15, 2000, 12:36 p.m. CST
Hi Lickerish, I was wondering why you weren't showing for an AI talkback... yes, he sits down and waits for the blue fairy from the Pinnochio story to make him real, whilst all around him the human race is wiped out.... I'm not sure how Speilberg might handle a film where the second act ends with the extinction of the human race. I think it might be a stretch for him.... and by the way lady, incoming emails are currently taking up to 6 DAYS to reach me (god knows if my outgoing ones are making it), so try and cc to email@example.com if you want to chat....
March 15, 2000, 12:37 p.m. CST
...This is great news. Spielberg has been out of the director's chair for far too long. He has never made a bad movie. He has made a few that weren't so good, (Always, Hook, Amistad) but are still better than 90% of what gets released these days. Spielberg (along with Lucas) is the filmmaker that made me love the movies. I remember going to see JAWS in the summer of 75, being scared out of my mind, and never wanting to go into the water again. I still have a problem getting in the ocean. I am so happy he is going to do another fantasy/sci-fi story. It will be a different film than Kubrick would have made, and this is neither good nor bad. They have different styles. I would not be looking for a conscious imitation of Kubrick...On the CE3K matter: Yes, according to Biskind's book, there were a few writers who worked on the script but did not get credit. This is hardly the first time this has happened in film. Look closer at just about anything released this year, and there will be uncredited doctoring nine times out of ten. While we're on the subject, it seems that Orson Welles took a screenwriting credit (and oscar) for Citizen Kane even though Joe Mankewitz (sp) did most, if not all the work on it. Doesn't take away from the brilliance of the film...Although well written, Biskind seemed to take the point of view in his book that Spielberg and Lucas ruined film forever, so naturally, he's going to try to paint Spielberg in a bad light. Julia Phillips had a vendetta in her book, as well, as she was rapidly losing any power or influence in the world of film due to her self-destructive habits (drugs, drink, burning bridges.) I wouldn't trust her POV much. Whatever happened on the script for CE3K, the film is brilliantly directed, and remains one of my favorites. A lot of people confuse being popular with being bad. Just look at the sad state of pop music today and that belief seems valid. However, sometimes, people get it right: The Beatles, Seinfeld, Star Wars, and the films of Steven Speilberg.
March 15, 2000, 12:40 p.m. CST
by All Thumbs
Now, now...it's too easy to call the man a hack. He's done his fair share of total and utter crap, but he's done his share of great movies as well. He may be too sugary for some people. Personally, I think he's getting way too PC. (I so want to bring up his DGA Lifetime Achievement Award speech, but then I would be going off on a seperate tangent.)***Anyways, what I get from reading the articles on this project is that Kubrick always meant for it to be a team effort between him and Spielberg. Kubrick would produce, Spielberg direct and both of them adapt the material together and supervise the special effects. Someone mentioned making the kid totally CGI and that it Kubrick's original intention to do so. I actually hope they don't do this. I think a wonderful angle would be to focus on the contrast between the new baby and the original robotic son. With the genetics technology that this future could have, people could literally "build" their child while it's developing in the womb. In many ways, the human child would be just as artificial as the robotic child, perhaps even more so. Should add for some intersting storylines and conflicts.
March 15, 2000, 12:50 p.m. CST
by Ambrose Chappell
Are we SURE Spielberg is doing this? Seriously though, this is pretty damn cool news. Now get Chris Cunningham to do the robot designs and I'll be a happy lil' geek.
March 15, 2000, 12:59 p.m. CST
by Fuck the police
Speilburg= Sell out Kubrick= Genius Speilburg making Kubrick's film= bad Fuck Speilburg.
March 15, 2000, 1 p.m. CST
by Andre Linoge
I agree, Spielberg is total hack, you know who else is a hack too? Shakespeare. That's right. Can you believe that "perchance to dream..." shit in Hamlet. And talk about sugary sentimentality. Has anyone actually seen Romeo and Juliet? My God, there's a writer who needed to grow some fucking balls. As you could probably tell by now, I am letting my sarcasm get the best of me. Before someone takes it upon themselves to verbally castrate me for comparing Spielberg to Shakespeare, let me explain myself. Spielberg is probably the most recognized name in directing these days. And he earned that recognition with films like E.T., Close Encounters of the Third Kind, Jaws, Schindler's List. I don't care what anyone says, NO HACK IS THAT LUCKY!!! Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, by all means, but just because you find his films too flowery does not make him a hack. So Spielberg says he's returning to sci-fi, I, for one, am so there.
March 15, 2000, 1:19 p.m. CST
by Vance Castaway
Actually, I agree with everything you said.... it's just that I'd never verbally castrated someone before, and the sound of it was so enticing!!! Huzzah! : )
March 15, 2000, 1:20 p.m. CST
speilberg on kubrick? isnt that good? well do we have faith that he was on the same level as Kubricks genius? i guess we find out....
March 15, 2000, 1:34 p.m. CST
According to Lazarus Long:<<Spielberg fashions all his films so they are tailor made for Lowest Common Denominator consumption>> Yeah, boy, the kids were lined up 'round the corner for "Schindler's List" weren't they? Actually, I agree that Spielberg couldn't possibly bring the same vision that Kubrick had to this project. While I admire the hell out of both directors, it's apples and oranges as far as I'm concerned. Or is it apples and sandpaper??
March 15, 2000, 1:52 p.m. CST
...is a piece of tabloid crap filled with half-truths and conjecture. Using it to beat up Spielberg does not help your case against him. That being said, I can't get too excited about this project. It sounds like the sort of story which will bring out his worst instincts as an artist. However, I wish him the best of luck and I hope he does right by the great Stanley.
March 15, 2000, 1:55 p.m. CST
Not it's Spielburg=Sell out Kubrick=Druged-out over-acclaimed retard. Spielburg will be able to do it better then the late Kubrick if the film simply doesn't run at 1/2 speed.
March 15, 2000, 2:10 p.m. CST
Hating something because it's popular is exactly the same as liking it because it's popular. Avoiding hyped work is equal to empracing hyped work. Either way, you're at the mercy of thought that's not your own.
March 15, 2000, 2:17 p.m. CST
by Lazarus Long
In response to the above comment, Spielberg's distortion of Schindler's character was proof that he was afraid the general public wouldn't be able to process the man's real personality. By fabricating the crying/breakdown scene at the end, he allows the audience to easily feel that much more for him. Hack. Lowest Common Denominator. Black and White Holocaust films may not be what normally rakes in the money, but he made damn sure the audience would be able to swallow it easily. *** As for Agent Cooper's comment on Orson's credit in Citizen Kane, "While we're on the subject, it seems that Orson Welles took a screenwriting credit (and oscar) for Citizen Kane even though Joe Mankewitz (sp) did most, if not all the work on it." This theory was widely publicized in Pauline Kael's essay "Raising Kane" and has since proved to be complete and utter bullshit. The amazing book "This is Orson Welles" (interviews with Peter Bogdanovich) references several interviews with secretaries and friends of Orson and Mankiewicz that indicate Orson had a LARGE INVOLVEMENT in writing the script and would often complain about some of what Mank wrote. Also many things were rewritten on the set as they were filming. So please don't add to all the misconception and bashing of Welles that has been going on since he started. He doesn't deserve it.
March 15, 2000, 2:25 p.m. CST
That Kubrick faked his death and is involved with Spielberg in an elaborate conspiracy to finish A.I. and release it with a stunning press conference. Spielberg has sugared up even his serious movies, witness the "I coulda done more" speech in SL, and the framing device in SPR. Let's hope that he can restrain himself not to let it gush for even one scene, which usually has a worse effect that letting it gush for the whole movie. I hope Kubrick oversees this one, supernaturally or otherwise.
March 15, 2000, 2:49 p.m. CST
...You seem to base all of your dislike of Shindler's List on the ONE SCENE near the end of the film in which some (Spielberg acknowledged) dramatic license was used as an emotional catharsis for the audience. Spielberg is not the first director to employ dramatic license in a film inspired by factual events (take a look at The Insider and Boys Don't Cry as two examples from this year's Oscar race) nor does this scene in any way diminish the fact that Schindler's List is a great film. Entertaining and inspiring at the same time it is horrifying and educational. Don't kid yourself:very few filmmakers could pull that off. I think you seriously need to examine your Spielberg hatred. It seems unfounded and reeks of the old "whatever is popular must be bad" POV that I mentioned in my above post...As far as Welles goes, yes, I read the Kael book and got my information on the writing of CK from it. I haven't read the Bogdonavich book, but I'm sure I would find it interesting. Goes to show that there are two sides to every story, as I'm sure that there are in the CE3K script "controversy." I did not mean to tear at Welle's reputation. He is obviously one of the fathers of modern cinema and deserves all the respect and study he gets. Ultimately, that isn't the point though. This is: Script credit is often a sore spot. Just last week, Rupert Everett was trying to wrangle a writing credit on The Next Best Thing due to a few changes he suggested with his character. The various writers who worked on Demme's Beloved were involved in a bitter dispute over credit for months. These things happen all the time, unfortunately. However, the films Citizen Kane and CE3K were both guided by the strong, sure directorial hands of Welles and Spielberg. Both reflected the vision of their creators/directors and endure as classics.
March 15, 2000, 2:54 p.m. CST
I mean really Spielberg trying to step into Kubrick's shoes. Bad idea all around. Spielberg will probably throw in an extra tacky PC ending, like in most of his other hokey films. Perhaps a family of robots walking by a grave and crying or some shit like that. CAN'T YOU SEE THE MADNESS! STOP PRODUCTION OF THIS FILM IMMEDIATELY!
March 15, 2000, 3:02 p.m. CST
by Monster Rain
Whatever happened to that mental patient DMFC? Say what you will about his politics, he sure kept this joint hoppin'. I loved the hatred he provoked. He was AICN's quintissential black-hat. Perhaps he is lying in his own filth in an Atlantic City alleyway next to a befouled Barbie doll, drinking Clorox and scrawling "BigLarz" on the wall in crayon.
March 15, 2000, 3:17 p.m. CST
So, crackerfarmboy (and anyone else who has jumped on this stupid bandwagon), shut the fuck up and thank god no one really did. Pathetic that your limited vocabulary means you have to use a horrible expression like this for something so (relatively) trivial.
March 15, 2000, 3:25 p.m. CST
by Lazarus Long
Agent Cooper, I agree that CE3K was a fantastic film. I'm a big fan of Spielberg's late 70's/early 80's work. But I think paying people to take their names off a film just so you can prove your worth to your contemporaries (and friends) is so pathetic. I'm sure it does happen a lot. But that the "World's Greatest Director" did it exposes him for the hack that he is. As far as Welles was concerned, he was already recognized as a genius for revolutionizing theatre and radio. What did he have to lose? (well, much more than he thought) If you really want to hear the musings of a true artist, get the Bodgandovich/Welles book. And for those who have accused the Spielberg detractors of "hating anything popular", I happened to really enjoy The Phantom Menace. I just don't like it when entertainers pretend that they are artists with have something to say, when all they are doing is restating the obvious in a cliched fashion with a sugar-coated delivery. Spielberg refuses to answer questions in his films, and is even more resistant to posing questions to his audience. He stands for no-thinking filmmaking, black and white. His entertaining films are just that. But I don't like getting history or society lessons from a men who has his contrast turned up so high he doesn't acknowledge any shades of gray. *** As for the DMFC, I received an email recently where he claimed he and Big Larz are banned and can't get a password under any other name. I'm pretty sure there's ways around this, so they might be lurking or trolling around here, but they are definitely still reading TB. Cold out there, huh?
March 15, 2000, 3:53 p.m. CST
by The Kid
I'm glad it's being done, I wish we could have seen it come from the g-d himself, and I hope Spielberg nails our asses into the Earth's core. If ever there were a film to end all films, this is probably it. Good luck.
March 15, 2000, 3:56 p.m. CST
by The Kid
2001. Man, even in death...
March 15, 2000, 4:07 p.m. CST
by All Thumbs
I know we'll never see eye-to-eye on Spielberg (though I agree with some of your points and have my own bones to pick), but I can always count on at least one other person defending Welles to the death on here. That Welles wasn't majorly involved in the screenwriting for Kane is total and utter bullshit. Besides, people really shouldn't base your entire theory of something so complicated as Kane on one book/TV show/etc.***As for raping your chilhood, other peoples who keep saying this, the only thing Spielberg has raped is D.W. Griffith's memory by the words he said in his acceptance speech and the fact he even accepted the damn award. Ok, I just had to bring that up again because I'm so royally pissed off by the whole situation and you guys are the only ones who understand. Most people go, "D.W. WHO?"
March 15, 2000, 4:15 p.m. CST
...Here's the deal: Your use of the word "hack" in regards to Spielberg is extreme predjudice, particularly when you admit that you enjoy many of his films. I have to also take issue with your opinion that his films do not contain moral ambiguities. Take Saving Private Ryan as an example: The German soldier whose bullets take out Giovanni Ribisi's character, Wade. This man is not presented as an evil, bloodthirsty Nazi. We are shown that he is human. Scared. Perhaps even sorry for what has happened. The American soldiers release him, because as Tom Hanks' character, Miller, says, "Every man I kill takes me further from home." Later, this German soldier, having rejoined his bretheren, kills Miller in the film's final battle. Once again, this man was not presented as evil. In fact, he did not even recognize Miller. He was simply a soldier doing his job. How many American soldiers, if put in the same position, would have done the same thing? This is a grey area. A realistic situation. A genuine comment on the nature of war. This situation could have been handled another way, one in which the German could have been presented as an evil machine, and the audience would have cheered when Upham finally shoots him dead, rather than being shocked at this act.
March 15, 2000, 4:30 p.m. CST
He makes the irrational leap to "hack" by relying on the alleged incident from CE3K. Even if the story was true (and I have my doubts,) all it would speak to is Spielberg's lack of principles, and his inability to recognize his own shortcomings as a writer. It would not, however, besmirch his reputation as a cinematic storyteller, which, considering ROTLA and JAWS, is beyond reproach. I've been down this road before with Lazarus, AgentCole and Peregrin, and it's deeply frustrating because they seem incapable of accepting Spielberg as, at the very least, a gifted filmmaker. The way I see it, if Kubrick could acknowledge it (and he did,) the debate is closed.
March 15, 2000, 4:36 p.m. CST
Put it this way, as purely a matter of personal taste, belief and opinion........all of which I'm entitled to.....the A.I. project just got interesting. Spileberg is a far better director (as far as I'm concerned) then Kubrick could ever be. Kubrick just left me cold.....try as i might, I never could like Dr Strangelove. 2001 was emotionless, but with cool f/x, The Shining was blesses with moments of brilliance, but sure wasn't the story Stephen King wrote, Full Metal jacket was great...up until they left the training camp, then seemed to turn in to a whole different film, Eyes Wide Shut ? I'll catch it on satellite ! Spielberg's record on the other hand, speaks for itself, with barely a wrong step taken. Just my two cents worth.
March 15, 2000, 4:38 p.m. CST
by Alfred Hitchcock
At first, when I read this, I kinda felt dissappointed. I mean, I think Minority Report sounds like the more promising of the two projects. And, I just don't think that Kubrick and Spielberg's work mix(I could never see Spielberg directing a 'erotic thriller'). But after thinking about it, I think it could work. I'm kinda excited about it. It'd be interesting, after twenty years, to see if Spielberg's screenwriting has improven. I also think he'll bring more of a human feel to it than 2001 did.
March 15, 2000, 4:50 p.m. CST
Ha! What a crap Subject line. What was I thinking? Anyway, this Lazarus thingy. You know, I gotta say I agree with the chap. Mr Cooper's defense of the scene at the end of 'Schindlers..' is a bit thin on the ground. Sure, it is dramatic licence, but what does that licence inform us of? It informs us that Oscar was a lovely, sensitive guy who just wanted to do all he could. Well, yeah, okay, he was a heroic guy alright, but also one with a few moral ambiguities, a few flaws. The film kind of skirts around those, or ignores them. And I do think that the whole arc of the Nazi character in 'Ryan' is not one that suggests 'what would you have done in this situation, eh?', as Cooper believes. I can't think of anything in the film where Spielberg draws attention to such a notion. He is played out as a simpering, untrustworthy character, pure and simple. Spielberg might have decided that he no longer wished to paint Nazi's as cartoonish, evil characters as per the Indiana Jones flicks, but his new take on them is still either faceless or evil or both. Fine, I guess. Me, I think it should be that shite, evil philosophy and it's active adherants that should be vilified. But I have no doubt that there were many German soldiers who were 'just doing a job', whether naively or misinformed. This ain't something you see too often. On the whole Uncle Steve is just a little too earnest and too pretty in his 'serious films' - see 'Amistad', 'Empire of the Sun' and 'Colour Purple'. And somehow he never quite gets too the horror, the horror or the issues, the issues. Ahem. The best he can do, it seems, is too go 'I'll present the horrors of war by showing what people look like being blown up in a documentary like fashion. Sir.' Which was a kind of easy thing to do, and one with a long history (was it Goya who did those series of grim etchings on the horrors of war?). It's easy to go for the external and for the shock value that this imposes. It's the internal suffering and pain and terror that Uncle Steve never quite gets to. That all said, one can't deny that Spielberg has had some terrific moments in film, or that he is not a master technician. 'Duel' and 'Jaws' are wonderful films, 'ET' with it's Christ like story line is sugary and sentimental but still great, and 'CE' is flawed but a great ride. And of course there was Indy. And you know I don't mind some of the 'serious' stuff - it's just that Spielberg tries a little too hard to find the heart in his story lines, and thinks he has to write it large when he does. And this leaves me a little cold and unchallenged sometimes. Here's hoping he finds the perfect balance of art and heart with 'AI' and returns to his best kick butt, kinetic form for 'Minority Report'.
March 15, 2000, 5:17 p.m. CST
...What did Spielberg say when accepting the DGA award? You've made references to his speech a couple times today, but no specifics. Is there a site where we can read the quotes?
March 15, 2000, 5:25 p.m. CST
Sorry. Couldn't resist that subject. Really, let's get one thing quite clear. Just because Kubrick hung with Uncle Steve does not mean (1) that he was pasing on his mantle to someone else or (2) that his judgement is better than anyone elses. History is full of great artists championing crap and failing to recognise other greats. And vice versa. Just remember Bach was unrecognised as anything special in his lifetime. Oh yes. It's like those nutters who think that just cos it's a former president or air force pilot telling us they saw a UFO it must be true. As if these people are somehow less susceptible to lying, being greedy for cash or publicity or just being plain ol' fooled or gullible. Same thing here. Kubrick liking Spielberg doesn't automatically confer genius status on Spielberg. And, horror!, there are some who even think Kubrick was not without his flaws or even a bad film or two. Oh God! Strike down the blasphemer, that he may rot in Hell and have to watch Barry Lyndon repeatedly!! But it's true! The story of 'AI' shows Kubrick hanging with a lot of people on the project - different scriptwriters, effects people etc., and changing his mind repeatedly on where the story would go (a long way from the original story, which I think was Brian Aldiss). Since I don't think he really thought he was about to croak, I think it is a bit ill advised that some posters here think that Kubrick 'chose' Spielberg in some weird Jedi way to be his successor and take over work on 'AI'. And it is a bit fruitcake-ish to imply that, even if Stanley did have a midnight ceremony where he intoned the words 'You, Steven, shall from hereon by my Heir and carry the bright torch that for so long has been my burden, blah blah...', that this automatically means that it will be a great film. Let's just wait and see, shall we? Hmmm?
March 15, 2000, 6:07 p.m. CST
i didn't cry when i watched ET. i wasn't sympathetic towards schindler. i thought SPR was a stock cut out of characters from previous war movies. say what you like, if spielbergs movies give ya'll giggles, so be it. i won't deny the man has a talent for jerking on the heart strings of audiences or that he hsn't made good, entertaining movies. the guy's probably the most successful american director of the 20th century. but seriously, don't get all twisted up inside cause some folks don't get down with sugary movies. wouldn't call the guy a hack, but he's the marlowe of our time (i mention this cause some scrub up above compared spielberg to shakespeare, which is a pretty bad comparison considering Willy S. wasnt exactly the hottest thing in the UK at the time, whereas other guys, like marlowe were much more popular during that time). people still watch orson welles flicks, and none of his movies broke any box office records. how many people (aside from serious film junkies) know who DW Griffith is or actually enjoy his movies (the guy was the BIGGEST director of the teens and early 20's, well chaplin too, but...)? point is yeah spielbergs popular, yeah he's made some decent films. but he ain't all that. 20 years from now, people will watch 2001 or the shining or a clockwork orange for the first time and still be blown away. 20 years from now, your kids will think ET is shmaltz.
March 15, 2000, 6:41 p.m. CST
by All Thumbs
Well, I wish I could get a hold of a transcript of his entire speech instead of taking these quotes from articles because if they're taken out of context in the articles, I would hate to reinforce poor judgement. Basically, he agrees with the DGA's decision to take Griffith's name off the award, citing that it comes at the perfect time because a black director could be up for the Lifetime Achievement Award in the near future. He said "You could have called it the Alan Smithee award and I would be so proud to accept it." I don't know why that comment bugs me, it just does. Maybe it's the fact that this whole thing is based pretty much on one movie Griffith made and not his lifetime achievements. I think it would be wonderful for a black director to get the originally named award because it would show how far cinema and the representation of minorities has come thanks to talented directors like Spike Lee and John Singleton. You have to acknowledge the past for its greatness and its flaws, but now we're just brushing Griffith under the carpet as an embarrassment, merely as (as an article quotes Spielberg) "one of the founder fathers" instead of THE founding father of film. Spielberg said even founding fathers aren't perfect...you don't see us taking Washington off the dollar bill or getting rid of his part of President's Day.
March 15, 2000, 6:44 p.m. CST
Guys, I mean c'mon, calm down. Spielberg moving away from his overly serious films of late to tackle a great sci-fi story with the potential to rock in a serious way. Tell me how this can be a bad thing? Spielberg has made some of the greatest films of all time. I honestly can NOT see the problem here. Kubrick was good but, and don't flame me, justa little overrated. sorry. I loved that crazy little anorack he always wore, I loved that he only made a film once every ten years ( and even then took nearly three....THREE...years to get it in the can). I think Spielberg is the right man for the job, hell, he's the perfect man for the job. Kubrick was good was Spielberg is the man. Flame on. Glengarry. PS I honestly think some of you bitch for the sake of it.
March 15, 2000, 6:44 p.m. CST
by The Pardoner
Spielberg is an idiot. He couldn't make a profound film if he did The Tempest word for word. What he can do is construct fairly entertaining and immersive action scenes, with the help of millions upon millions of dollars special effects technicians and technology. He'd find a way to fuck up this movie even if Kubrick left him a polished script, detailed shooting notes, and a 40K square foot library of videotapes with advice on them (refer to Brian O'Blivion in "Videodrome"). Spielberg even managed to make Oscar Schindler unpalatable. On top of this, he's gotten worse over time. "Jaws" was at the very least unpretentions; Saving Private Ryan had to be one of the worst films I've ever seen, aside from the landing sequence. Characters so thin you could see the scenery through them, supported by acting so weak I longed for Keanu Reeves; dialogue so bad it made me feel like I had a quart of spoiled bean curd in my stomach; a movie so crammed with self-importance and leaden sentiment that Armageddon seemed inspired art by comparison. I saw a biography of him the other day... turns out he was really upset that he never gained critical acceptance. A.I. may be his last ditch attempt to buy some association with genius, since that's as close as he'll ever get. I hope Stan's got a wide coffin, because he'll be rolling quite a bit come A.I.'s release.
March 15, 2000, 6:52 p.m. CST
What a hoot! Hey, it sure is great to have someone posting here who is clearly unbiased about Spielberg. Hey, that choosing 'Short Round' as an ID - just coincidence, I tell you. Anyway, I thought SR's comment was pretty funny...' How clear-cut was "Saving Private Ryan"? Was it saying "War is Hell"? Then why did they (Tom Hanks and co.) go out of their way to take out the enemy when they could have just gone around, causing Wade's death?' Ignoring the bizarre grammar of that sentence, here's a few alternate readings - 'Uncle Steve couldn't be arsed to do anything to challenging and so made another episode of 'Combat''; It has a typical anti Nazi sentiment so any chance of taking a few of them out in the plot would be neato!'; 'Erm, they are moving through occupied France - the possibility of looking for someone unknown and also avoiding German troops might have seemed a little far-fetched'; 'It's a patriotic, "our boys were heroes who fought with honour and faced danger head on" load of old toss we've seen a thousand times before' etcetera... Some might argue that there are only so many shades of grey you can represent - i.e. soldiers don't want to fight, soldiers can't wait to fight, soldiers just do the job and hope to get home in one piece - but the problem with 'Ryan' is that it did not go much further than, say, your average 'Rat Patrol' episode in presenting any complexities of characters, any ambiguities, any unusual structure or plot devices (see 'Full Metal Jacket' for instance, as a far more incisive and reasonably complex film on a group of soldiers going through war). Really, if you were intellectually challenged by 'Ryan' - an epic but straightforward film by one of the great popularists - then... never mind...
March 15, 2000, 6:58 p.m. CST
by The Pardoner
The reason Spielberg never made, as you say, a wrong step (I assume you mena financially) is because he never stepped out of his little world of big effects, glazed emotion, and "What would you have done?" attempts at depth. That's really dumb of you, but what I can't believe is your (admittedly short) analysis of a few of Kubrick's films. See, Stan had this idea, see, that a couple other bright boys have had, about trying to make movies that deal with concepts near and dear to the human mind. Now, he may have "left you cold", but do you maybe think that he *intended* to do that? That maybe, just maybe, that was a little bit of impossibly skilled commentary on the essence of human discourse? You're right in saying The Shining wasn't what King wrote; what King wrote was absolute shite. Kubrick had a knack for taking a book and stripping it to its essence, then rebuilding it from that basis (read Descartes' Meditation on First Philosophy for more on this lovely trick). Your comment on FMJ, which I get a lot of in similar discussions, is the best evidence of your stupidity. Why do you feel that way about the second half? Simple - the first half is a carefully guided, first-person narration. Joker is the speaker, but he isn't the focus; Leonard is there only as a counterpoint to Joker, but he draws all the attention of simpletons like you. When Leonard bites the bullet (and swallows - har har har), you lost your feebly forged emotional link to the movie. If you had more than 8 active brain cells, you might have kept an intellectual link to Joker, but everyone's a genius in hindsight. --- My personal take on why Kubrick gave Spielberg A.I. is this: it's a joke. Spielberg will get this project, fuck it up beyond all recognition, and demonstrate for once just how stupid he is; all the while, Stan will be laughing from his grave. --- Radix malorum est cupiditas. ---
March 15, 2000, 7:07 p.m. CST
by The Pardoner
... for comparing Spielberg to Shakespeare. HAHAHAHAHAHHA!!!!! This comparison has to be THE single funniest thing I've ever seen on an AICN Talkback.
March 15, 2000, 7:46 p.m. CST
by The Brew-ster
Clockwork Orange was cool but most of his other stuff wasn't too great. Barry Lyndon is the only movie I've ever walked out of. What a boring piece of shit that was. I think that the major difference between Spielberg's AI & what Kubrick would have done is that Spielberg's version will probably make a lot of money.
March 15, 2000, 8:10 p.m. CST
by Wee Willie
"The Film To End All Films"? I don't think so. Get a grip you pack of nerds.
March 15, 2000, 8:45 p.m. CST
Fine. Whatever you say Steve. We're just DYING to see what "elements of your own" you're going to bring to this. I'm sure it will be along the lines of stripping all of the elements that would have made the film great in Kubrick's hands and turning it into another non-entity piece of shit, so-called "film" that you churn out disguised as one of your "important" works. I got news for ya. You don't have everybody fooled. The reason that people get all glazed-eyed when they think of your products (I'm sorry but films is far too kind a title for your drivel that you fart out) is because you have the uncanny gift to pick subjects that people have strong feelings for to begin with. The Holocaust, slavery, veterans who died in combat. All these strike a chord with everyone without having to be subjected to your self-masterbatory technique. I at least have to give you credit. If "A.I." blows (and knowing your gift for fucking up a good thing it will), at least you can fall back on the sentimental argument that "it was the way that Stanley would have wanted it." And in the name of all that is good and holy, please, PLEASE don't get that little prick from "The Sixth Sence" to contaminate it. The android at the center of the story is supposed to be physically perfect, right? Then I guess his "I haven't taken a shit in five years" kind of voids THAT policy doesn't it? And by the way, HA HA for getting booted off the "Harry Potter" film. We can read between the lines. Your ass got dumped because the author knows that you would have ROYALLY fucked it up! Too bad Michael Crichton didn't do the same thing.
March 15, 2000, 9:05 p.m. CST
by Lazarus Long
Some other people have been arguing well for my position, but let me bring up this point: Why is it necessary that we see Ryan has grown up to be a "good man"? Spielberg isn't courageous enough to leave it hanging. What if he became a criminal? What if he became an anti-war protester? If the mission is an honorable one the end result of Ryan's life is irrelevant. By insisting on using the graveyard framing story, he makes us all feel good that the mission served some greated end. This is completely lame, and what I'm referring to when I say Spielberg can't operate in shades of grey. You remarks on the whole German soldier thing have already been replied to by others. You can say what you want about the technical brilliance, but you still have a collection of cardboard characters. At least The Thin Red Line acknowledged the fact that all its characters were interchangable. The reason the narrations in that movie were hard to assign to who was speaking was that the voiceovers were meant to speak for all people. The questions that all people in those situations ask. Don't pretend Saving Private Ryan was some kind of mediation on the nature of war because it wasn't. It was high concept, just like 99% of the films out there. The Thin Red Line, for whatever faults it may have, made you rethink the way you looked at war, human nature, etc. ** Spielberg's DGA speech was a compromise as usual. He managed to not really take a position. He approves the DGA's decision, yet reminds us not to forget Griffith's work. Fucking hypocrite. I guess Amistad is now more important than Birth of a Nation. D.W. Griffith's Intolerance is a message film that Spielberg could learn a lot from. And on a smaller scale, Griffith's Broken Blossoms possesses a tenderness that Lil' Steven couldn't approach in a million years.
March 15, 2000, 9:22 p.m. CST
You're right on target concerning Speilberg and his filmmaking career. You can tell from his early days with 'Duel' and 'Jaws' that he had some vision or aspirations as a filmmaker. As his young career went along, Coppola and Lucas passed him quickly by in both recognition and praise from both the industry and the public with the likes of 'The Godfather','Apocalypse Now','American Graffiti', and 'Star Wars'. So Speilberg went for a "gimmick": satisfy the public with sugar-coated pablum that makes them feel good and become blockbusters at the box office and then ever so often come out with a "serious" film that panders to the critics which supposedly justifies him (at least in his mind) of being a "serious" filmmaker and THE renowned artist of his time such as Kubrick, Hitchcock, Chaplin, and yes, even D.W. Griffith, were in theirs. With Speilberg's current body of work, I profess a hundred years from now when people will be studying the history of cinema, Speilberg will be a footnote while these others will still be respected and admired for their contributions.
March 15, 2000, 9:36 p.m. CST
I honestly hope that Mr. Spielberg comes to his senses and moves onto another movie. The cold, hard fact is that Stanley Kubrick and Steven Spielberg have two way different visions and directorial styles. Plus Spielberg says he will add some of his own input to A.I., which makes me sink even lower into my seat. I think a better idea would be to publish A.I.'s screenplay (it's out there on the net) and add production sketches, interviews with the F/X artists, Mr. Aldriss' source story and let Spielberg write the introduction. Just a suggestion.
March 15, 2000, 9:55 p.m. CST
Or if you watch The Simpsons it means to screw like a wild animal. By the way, why is everybody down on Steve? I like tough, gritty movies. I loved American Beauty and Citizen Cain is far from happy, however Steve is one of my favorite directors and his movies rank as my favorites. Sure most of his movies end happily, some even sugar-coated happy, but what's wrong with that? Who doesn't like a happy ending? Who doesn't like to feel warm and fuzzy inside once in awhile? Maybe it's because I'm too diverse of mind to belittle a genre or director simply because of such a minute reason. I think that anyone who would dislike Steve or the movies he directs because of happy endings is nothing but an anal-retentive ne'er-do-well who wouldn't know how to be creative or artistic if they were posessed by Orsen Welles himself. God forbid you collective group of cynics pull yourselves out of the cesspool of depression you've created for yourselves long enough to let a movie like E.T. or Close Encounters Of The Third Kind truely sink in. Happy endings, yes. However there's a hell of a rollercoaster ride of sadness, depression, fear, and human condition in between the opening and closing credits to make very meaningful movies.
March 15, 2000, 9:58 p.m. CST
is this some kind of abbreviation??? am i living in a box??? what the hell?????
March 15, 2000, 10:10 p.m. CST
If Steve sucked so bad, why the hell did Kubrick like him so much? If you think all of Steve's movies were such piles of shit why don't you read Roger Ebert's reviews of Schindler's List, or The Color Purple, or Saving Private Ryan? Roger knows a hell of a lot more about what makes a good movie than you small-time freaks. www.suntimes.com/ebert
March 15, 2000, 10:21 p.m. CST
"Why did he [Oscar Schindler] change? What happened to turn him from a victimizer into a humanitarian? It is to the great credit of Steven Spielberg that his film "Schindler's List" does not even attempt to answer that question. Any possible answer would be too simple, an insult to the mystery of Schindler's life. The Holocaust was a vast evil engine set whirling by racism and madness. Schindler outsmarted it, in his own little corner of the war, but he seems to have had no plan, to have improvised out of impulses that remained unclear even to himself. In this movie, the best he has ever made, Spielberg treats the fact of the Holocaust and the miracle of Schindler's feat without the easy formulas of fiction. The movie is 184 minutes long, and like all great movies, it seems too short." -Roger Ebert
March 15, 2000, 10:25 p.m. CST
by The Pardoner
I could be wrong about this, but didn't Kubrick once call Spielberg an asshole in a rather public venue? In any case, I maintain (somewhat unseriously) that their whole relationship is a joke. Spielberg was desperate for critical recognition (LOL), and Kubrick may have found this amusing. So, he gave his last project to Senor Spielbergo (now THAT was a great bit character) to fuck up royally, making Stan look even better, and Steven like the fool he is. Sorry pal, but Roger Ebert is not the best movie critic on this planet. He's a fairly good analyst, and knows a lot of movies, but a great critic of art and drama he is not. Much like Roman Polanski ("I didn't think the characters in EWS were believable" - HAHAHA), he just doesn't understand Kubrick's films. Bloody few people do. What you need to do, jhol497, thou bel ami, is realise that not everyone is as stupid and base as you. Some people are capable of seeing more than you, and yes, more than the saintly and revered Mr. Ebert. It's a question of aptitude and influence, not stature and dogma.
March 15, 2000, 10:26 p.m. CST
"There is a moment in Steven Spielberg's "The Color Purple" when a woman named Celie smiles and smiles and smiles. That was the moment when I knew this movie was going to be as good as it seemed, was going to keep the promise it made by daring to tell Celie's story. It is not a story that would seem easily suited to the movies. The wonderful performances in this movie are contained in a screenplay that may take some of the shocking edges off Walker's novel, but keeps all the depth and dimension. The world of Celie and the others is created so forcibly in this movie that their corner of the South becomes one of those movie places - like Oz, like Tara, like Casablanca - that lay claim to their own geography in our imaginations. The affirmation at the end of the film is so joyous that this is one of the few movies in a long time that inspires tears of happiness, and earns them. "The Color Purple" is the year's best film." -Roger Ebert
March 15, 2000, 10:47 p.m. CST
I, sir, see plenty. I disagree with Ebert many times, but those times are eclipsed by the times I agree with his OPINIONS. Perhaps you could suggest a few film critics that I should read to be as informed as you. Did you read Ebert's review of EWS, I believe he liked it, as I did, and not because he influenced me. I never gave one bad word about Mr. Kubrick. I like 2001, A Clockwork Orange, I loved Dr. Strangelove (daring dark comedy for it's day). Of course you might say it was because of some stupid and base reason instead of the artistic implications Kubrick meant to put forth. By the way, why would Kubrick give "his last project to Senor Spielbergo...to fuck up royally, making Stan look even better, and Steven like the fool he is."? I thought this was a project Kubrick was working on for years, something near and dear to his heart? Why would he want it "fucked up"? How would this make Stan look better? Did you watch the interview with Spielberg on the EWS DVD? It doesn't sound like Stan disliked Steve. Of course it is a one- sided story with Stan dead. I don't appreciate being called stupid and base by someone who doesn't know me. Spielberg's most films are escapist, and I enjoy that, it doesn't mean I'm stupid. I always thought a film's major tool was emotional string-pulling. Who does it better than Steve?
March 15, 2000, 11:10 p.m. CST
Why are you so angry? I just read all your posts in this talk back. You seem to like calling others names and ripping them to shreds. I hope you're happy, you've pissed me off and I certainly didn't intend to be pissed off when I got on this sight. You must be a Type A personallity. Have you ever sat back and watched a sunset without analyzing the minutia of the hues and shades? Have you ever gone to the movies for fun? I like Spielberg but I'm perfectly willing to admit The Lost World was a pile of shit, as was Hook and a few others. However I can look at other Spielberg pics and enjoy. I hope you're happy again, you've turned me into a preachy, sugar-coated "Independance-Day"-lover.
March 16, 2000, 4:34 a.m. CST
I read the short story (thanks for that link dude) and I just don't get what the bid deal is. I just don't have the time to read through all the above posts, so sue me if this has already been stated, but hasn't everything this storytalks about already been said far better in Blade Runner? Not only that but this short story just doesn't have the substance to make a movie. It will turn into a mix of Bladrunner, Biccentenial man and E.T. The whole point of the very short story was that in a future where all the rich can eat all they want, the robotic children they buy to keep them company are confused as to weather or not they are "real". Give me Rudger and Dr. Jones any day. The whole thing from the scientific concepts to the exagerated capatalist figures has been done before. Now don't get me wrong, just because a concept has been done before does not mean it should not be tried again, in fact often it is a re-hashing of an older idea that often produces a better movie, but hears my point, the concept that are going to be in A.I are already in BETTER movies, why try again. Mind you, my whole argument stems from my reading of the short story and a few run-downs of proposed scripts i've read, so maybee the end product might pull out something interesting. But with the elements i've read about so far; Steve as director, Astro boy with a companion robotic teddy as the main characters, and a quasi watter world as the setting, I highly doubt that this movie will ammount to anything. Unless of course the robotic teddy turns out to be the same one from the end of "Screamers" and decides to see what the insides of his Artifical companion look like, but then again this is Speilberg.
March 16, 2000, 7:29 a.m. CST
Steven Spielberg is a great choice as director of this material. Kubrick was one of his idols to become a director, he was close friends with him, and I'm sure this work is a homage/delivery of the work Kubrick was unable to complete himself. If you want to read the plot and visits pages on Stanley Kubrick visit my site www.greenlightscafe.com One theme of the story is the child without the parent's love or actually being there, a theme Spielberg has used before (EMPIRE OF THE SUN) and is in tune with. Spielberg has written the screenplay. He wrote CLOSE ENCOUNTERS so that's not a surprise. The polar ice caps melting can call for splendid FX, and we know how good Spielberg is with them. I see no reason why this film can't be a tremendous success and a nice thing for Steven to do for his friend, Stanley Kubrick
March 16, 2000, 8:55 a.m. CST
by The Pardoner
I couldn't possibly think of a better way for you to spraypaint the word "IDIOT" on your back in this forum. Typing was laughed out of psychology a decade ago. Well done. Liam Lacey of the Globe and Mail is one guy I turn to frequently, but again, he's only a useful indicator; when I line him up with Ebert, Harry and Moriarty, I get a decent spread of opinion. In the end , I usually pick movies according to directors and writers; if it's a new guy, and there's good word of mouth, I'll give him a shot (Being John Malkovich). The only Kubrick reviews on Ebert's site that are worth reading are 2001 and DR. Strangelove. These, being Kubrick's early and simpler pieces of work, he had little trouble with them, and even came up with a couple of fairly novel ideas. Beyond those two, he blew it. His reviews of FMJ and EWS are among the worst I've seen - completely missed the point of both movies. My comment about Kubrick *wanting* the project fucked up WAS A JOKE, but one he might have appreciated. I'll take your string-pulling metaphor a bit further: if I'm going to embody drama in a musical instrument, I'd make it a bass. Now, when Spielbergo makes movies, he's like a 6-year old who ignores the bow, and constantly plucks the same string over and over again. If he's bold, he comes back later and brags at another. Sure, he makes noise by pulling strings, and it's coming from a bass, but that means nothing. A truly great director will play those strings without yanking them, making music instead of sound; therein lies the difference. --- The only names I've called people are ones describing the stupidity of their comments (like the guy who compared Spielberg to Shakespeare... I'm still laughing). Hopping on your next illustration (the sunset), I can and do watch sunsets (though I prefer -rises myself) and both appreciate them for their vast majesty, and pick out all the different colours, hues and silhouettes on the horizon. One of the things I continually beat into my lit.profs is that analysis must AID the comprehensive reading of a text, not replace it. That said, analysis can be a very useful tool for extracting non-obvious interpretations from a work. --- In fact, the only Spielberg movie I can watch without feeling revolted is "Hook" - the one thing I'll grant the man is that he knows children, because intellectually and emotionally he is one. --- Radix malorum est cupiditas. ---
March 16, 2000, 9:33 a.m. CST
...gone to the grave with Kubrick! Nobody should even *attempt* to try and do this project! The man's been working on it forever! Why can't Spielberg just let it rest in the grave with him. Nobody will be able to do this project as Kubrick would have intended! What a fucking shit show! I just pray that David Lynch doesn't pass away! Then Spielberg may try and do RONNIE ROCKET! Barghh!
March 16, 2000, 10:03 a.m. CST
well Harry, I wrote you that a looong time ago, even with a good source;/ Do I get Credit now ? ;p
March 16, 2000, 11:26 a.m. CST
Okay, I'm done fighting my friend. I just wanted to say this- In the textbook for my Abnormal Psych class it had a section in a chapter dealing with type A and B, the book was published in 1998. The year before in my Basic Psych class the book also had a section in a chapter. Is the subject complex Psychological fodder? Probably not, but it's still being taught in universities. I only took Latin in my freshman year of High School, forgetting most of it by now. What did that last sentance translate to?
March 16, 2000, 1:16 p.m. CST
by The Pardoner
Radix malorum est cupiditas. ~= Avarice is the root of all evil. Geoff Chaucer has a way with words, he does. Oh, and you'll also find a lot of Freud being taught in Psych courses, despite Ziggy being completely eclipsed by the superior Carl Jung, of whom very little is taught until later years. Just because it's taught in a University (one of the most overrated social institutions) doesn't make it true, or even valuable.
March 16, 2000, 1:55 p.m. CST
I wanted to see Geisha. Then it was no Geisha, Minority Report. Then no Report, and Harry Potter. Then all of it over again. Now, I don't even care.
March 16, 2000, 2:07 p.m. CST
.......to The Pardoner. Now then, make yourself comfortable, and get someone to read the opening sentence of my last talkback to you. If they read it slow enough, you'll hear that I stated that these were my opinions, beliefs etc, all of which I am entitled to. I intended no argument, no flaming, just an opinion. I will say it again, in even simpler terms......in my estimation, both as a film fan, geek, whatever, as well as my estimation as film critic for a radio station, Kubrick is over rated, cold, feelingless and remote. Spielberg is the opposite. On a purely entertainment level, which is why most, but not all of us go to watch a film, Spileberg delivers, where Kubrick could not. It's all a matter of taste. Kubrick may well be to yours. Though I find it hard to believe that anyone as socially retarded as yourself would ever visit a cinema, where you're likely to meet people, people who would ram your teeth all the way down to your ass if you had the balls to talk to them and resort to name calling the way you speak to people on this forum. I know I would ! To the above poster, who said that the Pardoner was a certain personality type......I'd say type "A"......as long as the "A" stood for asshole.
March 16, 2000, 2:25 p.m. CST
Trasnslation: "This is a terrible place!" Not bad for a jarhead, eh Lazarus? Uckfay ouya, alpay! While it is true that Spielberg would send his finished prints for reviews to Kubrick, Kubrick would not him his. That's just the way he was. Secretive about his work. Comparing the two is like comparing apples and oranges, both are good, but different. Had Kubrick lived, I'm sure his vision of "A.I." would be different than that of Spielberg's to be. No doubt. RobinP has some good points and so does The Pardoner, but I have to agree with RobinP overall. Kubrick's version would be more cerebral, Spielberg's more emotional. If I was Spielberg though, I would make one last "Indiana Jones" movie and forget about "A.I." Harrison Ford ain't getting any younger!
March 16, 2000, 2:30 p.m. CST
Trasnslation: "This is a terrible place!" Not bad for a jarhead, eh Lazarus? Uckfay ouya, alpay! While it is true that Spielberg would send his finished prints for reviews to Kubrick, Kubrick would not send him his. That's just the way he was. Secretive about his work. Comparing the two is like comparing apples and oranges, both are good, but different. Had Kubrick lived, I'm sure his vision of "A.I." would be different than that of Spielberg's to be. No doubt. RobinP has some good points and so does The Pardoner, but I have to agree with RobinP overall. Kubrick's version would be more cerebral, Spielberg's more emotional. If I was Spielberg though, I would make one last "Indiana Jones" movie and forget about "A.I." Harrison Ford ain't getting any younger!
March 16, 2000, 2:39 p.m. CST
.......and I don't mean this in any firefight, confrontational way, I found The Pardoner's choice of Spileberg film that he liked, kind of ....odd. For a guy who likes Kubrick, I'd have thought that "Hook" would be the last film on earth he'd admit a fondness for.....although an admitted Spileberg fan, "Hook" is the one I like the least, in my opinion way...waaaaay to cutesy and schmaltzy ! look to "Duel" "Jaws" "CE3K" The "Indy" movies, you'll see a full range of emotions, you want depth, look to "Private Ryan" or "Schindler" Hell, I even enjoyed "Lost World" in a check your brain at the ticket booth and enjoy the ride sort of way ! Personally, I can't say the same of Kubrick......and the reason I disliked the second half of FMJ was that the location filming in no way ever convinced me they were in Vietnam. In fact, I think thy filmed parts of it here in the UK, and it showed. As for The Shining, he never once improved on King's story, any more than Carpenter improved Christine. he merely gave HIS take on it......and in my eyes, it was lacking !
March 16, 2000, 3:28 p.m. CST
Hello Iolocus, In case you (and anyone else) is still troubled, A.I. stands for artificial intelligence. By the way, there is a real A.I. robot: Daniel Franken claims that by June 2000, his company Digital Cinema (www.dcinema.com) will be an online media broker with an online A.I. robot called Alice (created by Dr. Richard Wallace of San Francisco) to help guide indie filmmakers through the funding application process. This sounds like the best use of A.I. technology I can imagine.
March 16, 2000, 4:11 p.m. CST
by The Pardoner
I also never gave up my ability to have related opinions. Of all the reasons I've heard for disliking FMJ, yours has to be the worst - did you find Being John Malkovich unwatchable because they changed John's middle name? Picking nits is not profitable or illuminating labour. Fine, Kubrick may be "cold, feelingless and remote" (which is utter crap - remember the final shot of Bowman in 2001? Call that emotionless, will you?) but is it more likely that his films seem that way because he intended them to, or because he was a talentless wanker? Fortunately, most of the people I associate with would rather debate my arguments than resort to thinly veiled and impotent threats of physical violence in order to quell them. Why would you associate with such people? In any case, I frequently to go theatres, but find an even smaller number of people worth talking to there. The reason I liked Hook (bearing in mind that I only saw it once, when I was loaded) was that it played with archetypes in a very childish way. This may have been more the whispering of Mother Macallan than anything else, but I thought Hook had a distinctly psychological edge to it. A sort of rediscovery of childhood throught he defeat of aged and aging ideas about revenge and profit. It's not a great movie, but it's the only work of Spielbergo's that I've ever been able to sit through. It's funny that you and jhol497 keep relating movies, and particularly those of Spielberg, to roller coasters or other mechanised rides. I couldn't think of a better illustration. Rides are predetermined paths of artificially induced high and lows of emoition, usually themed on some rediculous and hyper-popular idea, operated and actualised by very limited people, and frequented by thrill-seeking losers. Sounds like a Spielberg movie to me...
March 16, 2000, 4:28 p.m. CST
I have indeed foune Being John Malkovich unwatchable......if only for the fact that it doesn't open here until tomorrow. call me a thrill seeking loser if it makes you feel adequate in any way, but I'm not the one hiding behind pseudo-psychological bull while watching "Hook". That's a sure sign of insecurity. Question......when did you last go to a cinema not to analyse, nit pick or mentally masturbate with a lengthy rambling psychological treatise......but to enjoy ? Unclench....chill out and relax. you'll live longer AND make friends.
March 16, 2000, 5:26 p.m. CST
someone asked what AI means. It's short for Aritficial Intelligence. Computer programmers were thinking about a program that could learn as it goes so wouldn't have code for everything. This story is about a Robokid who feels unloved by his "parents" and runs away to Coney Island. After a polar meltdown, robo scientists still find him there and build him a Virtual Reality world of his family and home. But it's in a musuem, so he's really living in a construct--an artificial world, if only he had the intelligence to realize it. It's a variation of the planted images of childhood in BLADERUNNER idea.
March 16, 2000, 7:19 p.m. CST
One's cerebral, the other's emotional. Hey, its a world.
March 16, 2000, 7:24 p.m. CST
by The Pardoner
I didn't call you a thrill-seeking loser... you must have made that association on your own. I thought I made it reasonably clear that my opinion of "Hook" was A) based on a single viewing B) coloured by a lot of really good Scotch C) not an actual affection for the film, but more of a sense of surprised tolerance. I was probably reading more into the film than was actually present, but it seemed pleasant enough at the time. The last time I watched a movie in your prescribed manner was two nights ago, when I watched Pulp Fiction with thirty of my fellow students. The last time I did that in a movie theatre was some time ago, since nothing good has come out lately, but I did get to see American Beauty with my girlfriend in late February. --- Ever read Henry IV? There's this great old guy named Jack Falstaff who I took life lessons from. I guess you just can't conceive of someone who can extract parallel joys from earthy life and abstract thought. How sad.
March 16, 2000, 9:34 p.m. CST
Steven Spielberg is a talented director, but he cannot match Kubrick's talents. He excels in a more commercial and less subtle genre. Whether Kubrick directed AI in his "prime" (whenever that was...Kubrick was always good) or not, he would most definetely make a superior film to anything Spielberg could muster. Spielberg knows this, and that is why this announcement seems ballsy to me. However, if Kubrick and Spielberg collaborated well, Spielberg could be the next best thing, not because of his directing talents, but because of the communication the two men had before Kubrick's unfortunate death.
March 16, 2000, 9:48 p.m. CST
by Andre Linoge
It's so refreshing to hear someone express their opinions in such a benevolent and non-oppressive way in talk-back. Especially when those opinions are backed up by the added credibility of a tapestry of references to all manner of intellectual curiosities such as Being John Malkovich, Chaucer, and of course Falstaff. I, for one, feel honored to be on the recieving end of Mr. Pardoner's proverbial wet towell snap. He certainly has a way of making you think, does he not? Kudos, Pardoner, may your well-thought out diatribes serve as a shining beacon for all those who agree with you and an ominous warning to all those with opinions different from yours. Here's to those beret and black turtleneck sweater wearing pretentious misanthropes that make talk-back such a colorful delight.
March 16, 2000, 10:10 p.m. CST
by The Pardoner
Well, excluding the black turtleneck and beret bit. I can't stand turtlenecks, and I have an innate distrust of anyone who wears a beret - don't quite know why. Maybe I was accosted by a mime in Paris... can't recall. --- You cannot ever possess the relief I felt as I read your post, Brother Andre. It was as if a weight on my withered shoulders had been replaced by a pair of silken wings, lifting me into the crystal sky into which I'd gazed for so long. I have converted The First. May you all follow his example into the Kingdom of Thought. All I request for this eternal gift is a cheque for $100 - I like Scotch almost as much as I like ranting in TalkBacks, and Springbank 21-year old ain't cheap. A small price to pay for elevation to intellectual godhood.
March 16, 2000, 11:31 p.m. CST
Well, okay. this should free up Harry Potter for the man I swear ought to do it - Burton. No one could do it better, and these books deserve, no, demand a good film treatment
March 17, 2000, 9:24 a.m. CST
Listen now, Spielburg didn't write 'Close Encounter With the Third Kind', other people did and he screwed them out of credit. No, I'm not one of the disgruntled writers who were screwed, I just happen to know this information.
March 17, 2000, 1:07 p.m. CST
In a passgae above, Nordling writes: Sure, there have been some lousy one (1941, Hook, Lost World) but the visions he has achieved will stand in film history forever.****I can admire Kubrick, but not love him, at least not in the way I love Spielberg. Kubrick's films are art - especially Dr. Strangelove, which still is his best film by far - but (with the exception of Strangelove) they are cold, and even, dare I say, antiseptic. >> - Damn. You people know writing.
March 17, 2000, 1:53 p.m. CST
Hmmmm an artificially intelligent artist making a film about an artificially intelligent robot. That has more of an interesting premise than the film itself, I suppose. I bet this movie will have quite an artificial manufactured, and glossy feel. Sure, it probably will make many artificially intelligent people cry and laugh, and i'm sure Mary Hart and the ET cronies will publicize it for days, but doesn't anyone else feel the death knell of what could have been a brilliant classic and timeless film? Please somebody call Gilliam or Fincher before it's too late.
March 17, 2000, 2:05 p.m. CST
About Spielbergs infactuation with Kubrick- I believe this in itself is Steven's way of trying to sound more intelligent and gifted than he actually is. If he truly is such an "admiror" then where lies the influence in his films? I'm sorry, but there is absolutly little Kubrickan elements in any of Stevens films. Spielberg is not a true artist. He's a pretender, and we will never see anything that is shocking or revealing from Spielberg. He's the safest bet in all of Hollywood.
March 17, 2000, 2:57 p.m. CST
spielberg to kubrick masterbation to real sex isn't it
March 17, 2000, 6:05 p.m. CST
by Hunter S Clifton
This movie should be great, hope Speildberg doesn't fuck it up, I doubt he will though.
March 17, 2000, 8:01 p.m. CST
I have all the respect in the world for Spielberg, and it's good that he using Kubrick's treatment. But Spielberg doen't have an eye for a Kubrick film. This film is on a different level than Spielberg. People will see it because it's a Spielberg movie,not because it's really a Kubrick film. That's the wrong thing.
March 17, 2000, 9:53 p.m. CST
Has anybody seen Spielberg's last four film's? I don't know... There's one in which people get blown to smithereens in one of the most grisly battles sequences ever put on film, one where he graphically portrays the plight of a group of slaves who bloodily rebel against their captors, and one where he brings to horrifying life one of mankind's worse atrocities. Oh, and that other movie showed things like people getting stomped into the ground by dinos, getting jumped by velociraptors... Spielberg got this label because he lacked the stylistic cynicism and darkness that many directors brought to the table in his day. He worked heavily in Science Fiction and other genre's. That were considered to be kid's stuff... therefore sentimental. Spielberg's an optimist, not an idiot.
March 18, 2000, 2:50 p.m. CST
by Mr. Gerbik
spielberg doesn't deserve to lick kubrick bootstraps, but I'm mildly pleased to at least see the project period compromised or not. GERBIK IS ALIVE!!