Aug. 24, 2000, 5:49 a.m. CST
Aug. 24, 2000, 6:20 a.m. CST
by Sergio Kidmark
I realise that this has been pointed out MANY times before, but can you imbeciles PLEASE STOP POSTING 'FIRST' POSTS!!??? Have you any idea what an instant asshole you become when you post this shit? (I'm sure you're a very nice guy/girl in reality) GIVE IT A FUCKING REST! FOR ONCE AND FOR ALL!!!!! JESUS!!!
Aug. 24, 2000, 6:20 a.m. CST
by GEEKBASHER 3.0
What Dreams May Come? Well My dream is to never see this tired ass washed up Syrupy Mother fucker ever again on the big screen, EVER!!!! ( in my mommie deearest wire hanger voice))) EVER!!!!! NO ROBIN WILLLIAMS IN A.I EVER!!!!!
Aug. 24, 2000, 6:24 a.m. CST
by Lazarus Long
Harry urges us not to jump to conclusions...well what the hell is the point of talkback? If you didn't want us to comment on it, then don't tell us. I doubt this forum is so we can all talk about how awesome Robin Williams is. Let me fire the first shot: I've said it before, and I'll say it again...all indicators point to this film as being a joke. Spielberg's track record in this genre does not bode well. Maybe you people are going to be pleased with another E.T., but I was hoping for something actually thought-provoking, not a sap fest. I'd bet my life savings this is going to be Bicentennial Man meets Hook. The addition of Williams in any form is going to sap this up even more. All the money, power, clout, special effect, actors, screenwriters in the world won't change the fact that Spielberg has a sickeningly sweet view of society and humanity, which is going to be very hard to lick, let alone swallow. "Artificial" is definitely the operating word.
Aug. 24, 2000, 6:53 a.m. CST
by Stephen Dedalus
I don't think that any of us could see Stanley Kubrick using an animated character voiced by Robin Williams to do narraration. If Speilberg is really doing this (there IS reason to doubt Harry's source on this), then it is clear that he is simply commercializing off a dead man's idea. We all love Stevie for his 80's films and for recent serious dramas like SCHINDLER'S LIST and SAVING PRIVATE RYAN, but try to remember that this is the same commercialist that made THE LOST WORLD and HOOK. No one is perfectly innocent in Hollywood.
Aug. 24, 2000, 7:05 a.m. CST
by Darth Boner
Aug. 24, 2000, 7:08 a.m. CST
by Marty McSuperfly
I doubt VERY much whether Spielberg would put an animated character a la Mr DNA in AI. As much as I hated Bicentennial Man (I switched it off after 20 mins because I couldn't be sure I wouldn't put my foot through my widescreen TV) the idea of Robin Williams narrating does not instantly mean he's gonna go all Robin Williams on us. Robin Williams' good films (Good Will Hunting, World According to Garp, Dead Poets Society) were great films because of the scripts NOT because Robin was in the roles. He was great, but they would have been great films anyway without him. AI sounds like a serious sci-fi tale so I doubt if Spielberg would let the hairy cornflake do his schtick. Narration is fine. IT'S JUST A VOICE. We won't see his hairy arms. I get the impression that even if Spielberg filmed it EXACTLY as Kubrick would have all you anti-Spielberg folk would still complain. By the way, I adore Spielberg but still despised Hook and The Lost World.
Aug. 24, 2000, 7:40 a.m. CST
Oh for the love of God... Kubrick was 71 years old k ? He'd just finished making Eyes Wide Shut k ? He made a film every 10 freakin years k ? That means that by the time he'd been finished with A.I. he'd have been 81. I don't know many 81 year old men who like to work 16 hours a day, every day. Before he made EWS he indeed was slated to direct A.I. but once he started production on it he called in Steven Spielberg and asked him to direct, intending only to produce it. He has said this in interviews in Euro magazines. It is a FACT. Pleaaaaaaaase stop with the "Kubrick is turning in his grave" BS. I'm pretty sure Steve is following Kubrick's notes on this project very closely, and believe me, Kubrick probably had a TON of notes. This will be a Kubrick style film. Steve can pull it off, for God's sakes he's not an idiot. He KNOWS people will look at this as an unfinished Kubrick project. It will remind you of Kubrick. Stanley wanted to make a kid's film, something reminiscent of Pinnochio. Gee, I wonder who likes Pinnichio and could make a good Kid's film ? I WONDER INDEED ?!?!?! Robin Williams is in the project ? GREAT ! Oh wait, you're worried he'll overact ? What ? Kinda like Nicholson did in the Shining ? Or Lee R. Ermey did in Full Metal Jacket. Kubrick would NEVER have someone overact in a movie NOOOOOOOOOOO... Will y'all wait and see before you moan and complain about a film. Remember Xmen ? How everyone KNEW it was gonna suck ? Guess what ? it didn't suck ! So before you post, ask yourself. Is this an intelligent thing I'm saying ? Or, am I just acting like some pretentious pseudo-critic who critisizes stuff HE HASN'T EVEN SEEN YET !?!?!?!?! Nobod knows what this will look like, WAIT first, then comment.
Aug. 24, 2000, 8:37 a.m. CST
by Brian DePalma
Oh I don't like Steven Spielberg, I like Stanley Kubrick 'cos he is way coooler and if Spielberg thinks.....blah,blah,blah,blah,blah,blah,blah,blah,blah,blah,blah,blah,blah,blah,blah,blah,blah SHUT THE FUCK UP.
Aug. 24, 2000, 8:57 a.m. CST
Let's remember that Kubrick consulted with Spielberg a lot on his ideas and visions of the film, to the point where he even said that he, Kubrick, should produce and Spielberg direct. If Kubrick had lived, we know this would never have happened because he's grown too used to control of process and vision. In a pervese way, it might mean that this AI will be the fullness of Kubrick's vision. People interpret his comment about Spielberg directing as a joke, but I think that Kubrick was making an acknowledgment that Spielberg had an ability to capture something in characters that Kubrick didn't. Now that Spielberg is doing AI, with the fullness of Kubrick's ideas and goals but his own talents put into motion, I think we're going to get the film that the creative, non-control obsessed part of Kubrick envisioned. As Col. Ripper might say: the Purity of Kubrick's Essence!
Aug. 24, 2000, 9:21 a.m. CST
Wow, wotta great Harry Head! Man, Patrick McGoohan's THE PRISONER was the very coolest and weirdest of 60's British spy shows (all 13 episodes). As for A.I., though I too am inclined to bash this a likely impending Spielbergian sap-fest, I agree with HorrorBiz and Phimseto that there was indeed a relationship between Steve and Stan. Kubrick was notrious for inviting yank action and sci-fi directors over to his mansion of recluse, particularly to pick their brains about American special effects innovations. He would then get production companies to indefinitely "loan" him equipment so he could "play" with them. This whole gearing-up-to-do-yet-another-world-famous-Kubrickian-sci-fi-film was something we heard about for decades and decades and was certainly what Stan was doing instead of actually MAKING THE DAMN MOVIE!! Now, I too, can't stand Spielberg's treacly or treacle 'n' gore treatment of most of his scripts, nor can I much stomach Williams' "I'm so human it hurts" acting style, (ha-ha "The Hairy Cornflake") but I'm tired of fighting, tired of bashing. Maybe Stan, Steve and Robin really are geniuses in their own intended ways. I'm sure A.I. will be an interesting film, if perhaps full of wrongheaded and undeserved emotion.
Aug. 24, 2000, 9:51 a.m. CST
I completely agree with everything HorrorBiz777 said. Stop this Anti Spielberg/A.I. crap. Kubrick is my favorite filmmaker and it was my biggest wish to see A.I., realized, with him at the helm... but it wasn't going to happen. As Kubrick's brother in law (Jan Harlan), said months ago ; "What really matters is that a deeply felt film for Kubrick is going to be directed by a very close friend." I'm pretty sure A.I. will be phenomenal... No doubt about it.
Aug. 24, 2000, 9:56 a.m. CST
This movie sounded like crap when Kubrick was working on it, and it sounds even worse now. It's sad how Stanley went from being a visionary to remaking Pinocchio in a Waterworld future.
Aug. 24, 2000, 10:20 a.m. CST
I am sick of the people who constantly bash Robin Williams. He is a better than average dramatic actor and a very funny comic. He has his short comings, sometimes they let him go to far on the schtick train, but overall he generally is entertaining. NOW. On to Steve. Speilberg is the BEST DIRECTOR OF OUR TIME. Second only to HITCHCOCK of ALL TIME. There are 0 Speilberg Movies which aren't at least a little entertaining. Hook wasn't made to target all you people over the age of 13, so when you aren't the target audience...SHUT-UP! Of course it wasn't your cup of tea, it wasn't suppossed to be. You guys sound like the morons who went to see Thomas and the Magic Railroad expecting breakthrough cinema. Speilberg will make an entertaining film. Sometimes he makes emotional, realistic films. Other times he makes KID films. Sometimes he makes GODZILLA, I mean The Lost World. The only thing which is a constant is that even his worst film is WELL above average in the entertainment department. Kubrick was a brilliant director, but that doesn't mean Speilberg isn't capable of bringing a great film to the theatre in his place. Also, look at the bright side, if I survived that mess called "Mission to Mars" then whatever AI becomes is sure to be at least something I can sit through.
Aug. 24, 2000, 10:28 a.m. CST
Since Mr. Kubrick appreciated the script for AI very much, and the recent development in visual effects technology convinced him to direct the picture himself. Anyway, both Mr. Kubrick and Mr. Spielberg were talking a lot about the idea of Mr. Kubrick producing and Mr. Spielberg directing. Mostly, because AI is a fairy tale of some grandeur which is rather Mr. Spielberg's kind of film than it was Mr. Kubricks. The screenplay written by Mr. Kubrick has been revised and developed further by Mr. Spielberg and his partners. It is now another version for another genre than it would have been, when Mr. Kubrick was still at the helm. However, for the genre, Mr. Spielberg intends to direct, it is a much better script now. I supervised the whole part of Mr. Spielberg taking over Mr. Kubrick's direction. This includes more than a thousand sketches and drawings that were done in recent years, as the project developed. We are still sticking close to Mr. Kubrick's intention. In my opinion as executive producer of this picture, it's the most harmonic solution we could find for AI. It's a real Stanley-Kubrick-project that has been taken over by a close friend who was involved in the development for years. Without giving away too much, we might consider to credit the film as follows: A Stanley Kubrick film realized by Steven Spielberg. But this is still not settled. I appreciate your interest in the project, but I wanted to clear things up a bit. There's no reason yet to comment on the film. I promise you that you'll be all surprised by the genius in storytelling and visuals that is behind this project - both on behalf of Mr. Spielberg AND Mr. Kubrick. Best regards, Jan Harlan Freiburg/ Aug 24, 2000
Aug. 24, 2000, 10:34 a.m. CST
by Denny Colt
...with the quickness.
Aug. 24, 2000, 10:43 a.m. CST
Please don't see the movie if you think its going to suck so much. That way I don't have to worry about sitting in the same fucking theatre with you Jack Asses.
Aug. 24, 2000, 10:51 a.m. CST
by Baba O'Reilly
We know absolutely nothing confirmed about this particular film except some cast members and Spielbergs involvement. Other then that we know little to nothing that is one hundred percent confirmed about this project. And therefore I think it is wrong for us to criticize so soon. I trust Steven Spielberg to make an amazing film, I know he will. And I am pretty sure that all of you fucking idiots who are criticizing this movie already are going to have this movie as one of your favorites of next year. I hope and believe that this movie will be a masterpiece and one for all film lovers and casual moviegoers to cherish. That sounds corny and you can make fun of me all you like, but I think there is a great movie coming out next summer and it's name is A.I.
Aug. 24, 2000, 10:56 a.m. CST
reading this talkback, from now on i'm going to look through the posts ahead of time and vow never to read posts that have the words "shut up" written in all caps, posts that have an excessive number of exclamtion points, posts that i can see the word "fag" or the terms "fuck you" or "shut the fuck up" within them. if by accident i read a post like this or any post of this nature i will disregard it right away. to anyone who wants to have a serious discussion on kubrick/spielberg's AI or anything else on this sight i suggest you take this course of action.
Aug. 24, 2000, 10:58 a.m. CST
your post was a breath of fresh air from someone actually involved in the project. -=TheKraken=-
Aug. 24, 2000, 11:11 a.m. CST
Kind of off the subject , but how can Robin Williams give us such great performances in Good Will Hunting, Dead Poets, Awakenings, and than also give us Patch Adams (the WORST movie I have ever seen,until I see Battlefield Earth) Bicentenial Man, and Jakob the Liar? I think someone who posted earlier got it right: when The script is great, even Robin cannot screw it up. I think the mark of a good actor is someone who CAN overcome a bad script, etc. I do not think Williams falls into this category.
Aug. 24, 2000, 11:43 a.m. CST
Look...it is patently clear that Spielberg and Kubrick are as different in cinematic technique as boy goerge is from luciano pavarotti...with the exception that they both know how to put on a show. Whether or not this film was slated to be a pinniochioesque kiddie film or a serious sci-fi-flick is inconsequential...Kubrick is food for worms and the beard reings supreme in films, so what's the problem?? I would rather see a serious sci-fi movie, something monumentally copol with CEOTTK aspects as well as 2001, and whithin either of these frame works Robin Williams would be fine. I agree that some of the shit he had made stinks more than a missisippi baptist stuck in the woods, however, I blame his wife Marcia, the ex-nanny, for his
Aug. 24, 2000, 11:49 a.m. CST
No, my subject is not the title of an upcoming comic series featuring the original members of "The Uncanny Magical and Inspiring Men". This refers to the phenomena in which entertainers who used to be a lot of fun, forfeit that quality to make magical and inspiring films. The two greatest offenders thus far, have been Steven Spielberg and Robin Williams. It's not that I dislike "Always" or "Good Morning Vietnam", but I really would like to see Mr.Williams explain how to draw attention to his weenie and engage in other such absurd yet profoundly humorous activities. I mean how did the director of "Duel" get so magical?! I was hoping that this movie would be a departure for Spielberg, but now...I'm begining to feel that the production might be made more complete if Tom Hanks was involved(not in a dress and fake breasts but as some sort of bright eyed and idealistically hopeful average joe government guy.) beware, omega flight approacheth!!!
Aug. 24, 2000, 12:34 p.m. CST
Lazarus Long: I agree with you wholeheartedly. Feral Kid: As strange as it sounds, I haven't seen Schindler's List, but I saw Saving Private Ryan, and it WAS enormously sappy and sickeningly sweet. When it was over, I told folks "Steven Spielberg has a faulty maudlin-o-meter." That old crotch stood there like a post and saluted a goddamn cemetery while tears streamed down his cheeks while the good ol' flag of the US of motherfuckin' A waved majestically. It's the difference between "emotion" and "sentiment." Spielberg lost touch with "emotion" a loooooong time ago. HorrorBiz777: Fables, fairy tales, and stories of fantasy aren't strictly "for children" and in referencing Pinnochio, Kubrick did not intend to make a "children's" movie. He said so himself, he was going to craft a story typical of his work around the Pinnochio archetypes, and roughly based (about as roughly as most of his films were based on the source material) on the story "Super-Toys Last All Summer Long." I agree that if he was willing to entrust it to Spielberg to carry on, then he knew what he was doing, but Spielberg is, in my view, NOT carrying it on - he seems to be bastardizing it. He does indeed seem to be making something as sappy and terrible as Hook, et al. I also agree that people jump the gun in their criticism and that we should all wait before judging it - but realize, sir, that that includes you by definition, and myself as well. And furthermore, if you're going to make such a valid point, I don't see the need to make it in quite such a hostile fashion. PRICK. Now see, how immature was that? Out of all the regular talkbackers, my absolute favorites are the ones who just show up and self-aggrandise, self-aggrandise, self-aggrandise! I AM SO MUCH SMARTER THAN YOU, COCKSUCKER, IF YOU WEREN'T SO FUCKING DUMB YOU'D REALIZE THAT YOU JUST HAVE TO WAIT FOR THE MOVIE TO OPEN BEFORE YOU JUDGE IT. YEAH THAT'S RIGHT, WAIT BEFORE YOU JUDGE IT, WHICH MEANS YOU'RE PROBABLY WRONG BUT I'M RIGHT WHEN I SAY THAT IT'S GOING TO BE GOOD. IT'S GOING TO BE GOOD AND YOU'RE WRONG AND YOU'RE STUPID AND YOU SHOULD WAIT. FUCKING IDIOT. Fucking idiots. Anyway, I didn't read any of the other posts because I got tired. I think AI stands for Alouitious Imbecile, the name of Kubrick's bastard child. Cockeyed nitwits.
Aug. 24, 2000, 12:44 p.m. CST
there...I've said all i want to say
Aug. 24, 2000, 1:24 p.m. CST
Look, I know Speilberg is sentimental. I know Kubrick is not sentimental. Speilberg is a storyteller. Kubrick is an artist. Speilberg's artsiest film is Saving Private Ryan (...okay...I'm sorry...I haven't seen Schindler's List...I'll get around to it...). Kubrick's popcorn-iest film is The Shining? (I haven't seen Lolita and everything that precedes it.) There is a very short list of very generic attributes regarding these two filmmakers. So let me get this straight, you want Speilberg to try and imitate Kubrick? You're kidding right? Hey, if you're like me and you think Speilberg is one of the greatest talents of Hollywood, you don't want him to not use his own style, his own vision, his own method of filmmaking because that will only make the project worse. A filmmaker just can't ignore his own vision and not make something his own. And if you're one of those anti-Speilberg blokes who think he's brought Hollywood straight to hell... you want that sentimental schmuch bastard IMITATING Kubrick? You think he's gonna pull it off? Think a little people! You know, it some places of the world, imitation is looked down upon. And you anti-Speilberg folks are probably the same people screaming that Matrix doesn't have an original bone in it's body, that James Cameron owes his career to Harlan Ellison and Robert Heinlein, that every decent Hollywood sci-fi flick is a rip off of Arthur C. Clarke or PKD or Alien. So, again, you want Speilberg imitating Kubrick? By the way, now that I think about it some more... Speilberg's most unrelenting, provocative (nay "Kubrick-style") flick? Close Encounters of the Third Kind. A classic of the sci-fi genre, don't you think? No tugging at the heartstrings, no manipulation... obsession, wonder, and awe from beginning to end. What if Speilberg is doing AI that way? One can hope.
Aug. 24, 2000, 1:37 p.m. CST
How is it that anyone sees movies anymore? I specifically am referring to many of you who seem to write off movies the very second you hear a casting call that you do not like. Now I grant you that if you are a huge Kubrick fan you make not be too happy with Steven Spielberg as the director of AI. From reading the talkbacks I can see that there are a large number of jaded people out there. These cynics are certain that because Robin Williams has been cast, the movie will be awful. Never mind that he is only doing the narration and the size of his role is unknown. For all we know he could be in the movie as long as Sam Jackson was in TPM. Yes, Williams has none some stuff lately that i have not liked...at all. But give a man a chance. John Travolta was making talking baby movies and then there was Pulp Fiction. I know about Battlefeild Earth and that is not the point...the point is that people can surprise you. And that is why I am waiting to at least see some sort of preview before I decide whether or not i want to see AI.
Aug. 24, 2000, 1:50 p.m. CST
Okay, I just posted but I've another point to make. First, I just want to reiterate something: Speilberg made Close Encounters! Second, why is no ill-will being aimed at Peter Jackson and the Lord of the Rings?? Peter Jackson did Heavenly Creatures and The Frighteners... THE FRIGHTENERS!! One is the story of two New Zealand friends/lesbians who plot to and do kill one of their mothers. The other is some sort of Beetlejuice-like FX flick I never saw in its entirety. This man is trusted with adapting not one but THREE movies based on the foundation of the fantasy genre. Why are the cynics not out in force on the LOTR talkbacks? There are a number of reasons... one being that KUBRICK WAS NEVER INVOLVED. And he is no longer involved in AI so give it a fucking rest! But hey, Saul Zaentz produced those Hobbit and LOTR cartoons. He's only exec-producing Jackson's films. PETER JACKSON SUCKS! I WEEP FOR THE FUTURE OF HOLLYWOOD! I hope Kevin Smith never hands over the reigns of CLERKS 2: STILL CLERKIN' over to Speilberg. Boy, I tell ya, he'll bastardize that one to no end! Actually, regarding Robin Williams, I am a tad cynical (really, I'm not being sarcastic anymore). If you're one of the ones who were strapped down and tortured with Bicentennial Man... this scoop reminds me of that annoying, dancing female robot in the Dr. I-Can-Make-You-Human's lab. Ewwww....shudder.... alright, I'm done...
Aug. 24, 2000, 1:51 p.m. CST
Most of these wannabe critics (the ones posting responses, not the guys writing the articles) couldn't even be the assistant to the assistant of the coffee boy at one of Spielberg's movies.... They don't even have clue one of how to direct a movie...the best the could probably do would resemble the Beavis and Butthead attempt to imitate David Letterman... Like someone said if you hate the movie so much DON'T GO TO IT... I'm gonna take that advise and quit reading this garbage and just enjoy the articles... Screw you guys, i'm going home...
Aug. 24, 2000, 2:08 p.m. CST
Please NO robin williams. He IS a syrupy actor and I use the term actor rather loosely. NO robin williams, please no robin, no robin. What's going on KUBRICK, the Master Cinematic GOD and frigging mork from ork. Come on, Little Stevie Schpielberg needs to get some fres air. NO robin, no robin. fandude
Aug. 24, 2000, 2:30 p.m. CST
I can understand how you think Spielberg is talented, I think that also myself. But the man IS NOT AN ARTIST. THE MAN IS NOT A GENIUS. on the other hand SPIELBERG IS A GREAT COMMERCIAL DIRECTOR. SPIELBERG GOES FOR CHEAP SENTIMENTALITY (Schindle's List, Saving Private Ryan, E.T., etc) Any of you people thinking Spielberg is a great director either don't know much about movies, love cheesy movies or just have low standards. There is no point of comparison between Kubrick and Spielberg. I am not here saying that Spielberg should do A.I. Kubrick's way, I am saying he shouldn't be doing it at all. Let's not make a movie just because we can make it, ok? Spare us the misery, Mr. Spielberg. Go make Jurassic Park 3 or another Holocaust drama instead. That's what you`re good for.
Aug. 24, 2000, 2:44 p.m. CST
by Gumpas Lev
Aug. 24, 2000, 2:53 p.m. CST
Apples and Oranges, chalk and cheese, dogs and cats, that's all i can say. SS and SK will be at the very top of the page when the final history of movies is written. What so may people seem to be missing in this whole AI debate is that two such diametrically opposed yet equally gifted filmmakers simply cannot be viewed through the same eyes. Take 2001 and Close Encounters - i'm happy to accept both of those as masterpieces, spellbinding classics from a great director. But what's important is that they are both masterpieces FOR ENTIRELY DIFFERENT REASONS. I'm tired of hearing the Kubrick die-hards bitching about SS 'hijacking' this project. 'But', they cry, 'Kubrick's movies are more CHALLENGING, more DISTURBING, than Spielberg's'. Maybe, but they (usually) weren't nearly as ENTERTAINING. Because Spielberg is a more populist director, that doesn't make him less of a director. I regard SS as the best populist film-maker ever to walk among us. Kubrick, for all his gifts, worked a different side of the street. Spielberg could not have made Clockwork Orange as well, but Kubrick's ET would not have made any grown men weep either. From what i hear of AI, the project has always been closer to that of an entertainment than a disturbing expressionistic thang, so it sounds like it's more in tune with SS's sensibility. Oh and as for Robin Williams, now and forever Good Morning Vietnam flat-out rules. 'I basically believe that Pat Boone is a misunderstood genius'. Stay off his back, he freely admits he ain't doing the likes of 'Flubber' and 'Bicentennial Man' for Oscars or acclaim, but for mon, dad, and 2.4 kids to go and enjoy at the movies. Take a look at Dead Poets, GMV, Fisher King and Good Will, then repent of you views...
Aug. 24, 2000, 2:59 p.m. CST
Recently Mr. Williams throughout The Make a Wish Foundation" contacted the son of a terminally ill friend of mine. Not only did he made the day of that 12 year old better, he actually called again to check up on the kid. And on top of that he gave as a present for the kid, out of his own pocket, a whole slew of Play Station games. He did not had to do that, he did not have to call to keep up to date on the condition of the child. But he did. He even called on the day the kid died. For the smile he gave that kid before he died, and for the small laugh he gave my poor friend two weeks ago, we are eternally grateful. So lay off him. He is a great comedian, and a real human being.
Aug. 24, 2000, 3:03 p.m. CST
...to see people thinking that they actually make a point saying that Robin Williams WAS in Good Will Hunting, Dead Poets Society and Good Morning America, as if they were good films...it's people like you who made Matt Damon and Ben Affleck academy award winner writers. For god's sake!...The horror!...hahahaha. Nah, seriously, I think Spielberg is not the right person for this job, basically because, repeat after me IT IS NOT A FAIRY TALE FOR KIDS! Read the story and then talk about it...http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/5.01/ffsupertoys_pr.html. It is quite dark and ironical. Pretty much like Kubrick. Spielberg is an enfant in emotional subjects. And by the way, Kubrick talkes with Spielberg about A.I., that doesn't mean he gave him the project. Kubrick also spoke extensively about EYES WIDE SHUT with Paul Verhoeaven (forgot how to spell his name)...that doesn't mean that he wanted Paul V. to direct it.
Aug. 24, 2000, 3:23 p.m. CST
by Mr Sparkle
..again, Harlan posted and nobody's said a word in response.
Aug. 24, 2000, 3:28 p.m. CST
I'll make you happy and reply to Mr. Harlan. Please don't do this movie. Don't think for a minute that you guys can take care of a Kubrick movie. Because regardless what everyone thinks, people will always think of this as a Kubrick movie. Tell Spielberg to find his own material. Tell him to stop bastardizing Kubrick's. But since I know these things won't be possible now that the movie is in production, tell him to TRY HIS BEST. Tell him not to fail us. Tell him to challenge himself.
Aug. 24, 2000, 3:31 p.m. CST
Mmmm...BorinquenSon. We are not judging character here. We are judging talent. I am sure Mr. Robin Williams is a wonderful human being, but he is wrong for this movie.
Aug. 24, 2000, 4:34 p.m. CST
by EL Duderino
But I do know why you guys would be pissed off by this. I do know the whole story to A.I. and I don't see it being cute or light-hearted in ANY WAY! But when you think about it, Robin William's voice as the robot, just flat out, sounds really cool, all digitized and crap. I still want to see the cold, desolate icy future that was in the original story too. Robin Williams is NOTHING to complain about. If they keep it serious, showing the frozen, decaying buildings in the cloudy white skies, with everything seemingly glowing light blue like an artic paradise, that is the film I wanted to see. BTW Harry, do you think that cgi footage of A.I. that was around here a long while back before Kubrick passed away could be reposted? I think that would be pretty cool, showing what it could have been, and may still end up being.
Aug. 24, 2000, 5:01 p.m. CST
by Bubblehead Prime
...I picked this up from a well-placed former classmate who is a graduate of the A&M Viz Lab. He is a veteran of several major fx-intense productions, including a Spielberg pic, and he's "in the know" regarding AI (*not* A.I., btw). *HE* sez that Robin Williams's character is an *agent,* kind of like a quasi-sentient Internet search program (and *not* like the badass Smiths from The Matrix!). Agents are used by humans in the AI future, to seek out information and perform digital tasks for their masters. Basically, my fellow former Ag's description of the "character" was virtually (heh, heh) identical to the "agents" described in Tad Williams's "Otherworld" novels. This Good Ag also hinted that Williams's (the avian kind, not the small amount) character would *never* utilize his own familiar features... Robin's performance will be audio-only, although they are utilizing his physical expressions and movements as templates for the digital representations of his character. Robin's agent will be intimately familiar with the story of the sentient machine who is the title character of AI. The agent will also routinely transform itself in appearance, in response to the commands of its master (for instance, being represented as a hunter, if it's tasked to go out and find a particular piece of data -- or being represented as a tank, if it's told to destroy some information. These are hypotheticals only, I *do not* know what Robin will appear like in the film -- in *any* scene! If I had that information I certainly wouldn't post it, anyway, since it would risk X's job)... Supposedly Robin has characterized this role as "possibly his last in a feature film," btw. What's *really* interesting is that this role seems to be a genuine counterpart to his performance in Bicentennial Man, which is imho an inconsequential, but hardly terrible, film. Bye now!
Aug. 24, 2000, 5:23 p.m. CST
by Regis Travolta
Of course he never really liked living in The Village anyway... Orange Alert! Orange Alert! Red Alert has not yet been declared...
Aug. 24, 2000, 5:27 p.m. CST
This is Dracolith,comin in from the outer void to bring in some vaccum and cool your hot heads. Think! remember the plot of A.I. This is an artificial intelligence trying to extrapolate all of the information it can about us humans from this "companion" robot, who doesn't know he is a robot. In order to let him loose or at least take a walk outside, they need to explain changes in flora and fauna and citiscapes and such. This narrator williams is being brought in for is an educational progam announcer, a cover for the passage of time, and a way to let us know a few things just a regular trip out couldn't. Now people, remember Mrs. Doubtfire. Remember how williams was in that scene on the Mr. Rogers/wizard/mock-scientist set? tone that down a little (or a lot.. I bareley remember that it ended in him rapping with toy dinosaurs, but that ain't what i speak of), and throw in an animated character drawn from an einstein/williams cross. Remember, he's only nuts when he isn't really acting. Or maybe it's the other way around. anyway, he has a purpose and is not just thrown in. He will be there, not for our benefit, but for the small android's. May oblivion be kind, Dracolith
Aug. 24, 2000, 5:45 p.m. CST
According to Cinescape, Williams will play Liberace in an upcoming biopic. That role has Robin's name all over it. With just the right amount of comedic balance and drama, it could very well be this year's big weiner.
Aug. 24, 2000, 5:58 p.m. CST
Robin Williams and Jim Carrey are the main culprits in my book. I think both are comedic geniuses, but when they're "on" they can't be objective and realize when they're going over-the-top. This is where the director steps in and tells them to tone it down. If the director is so enamored with the actor that they are no longer objective either, then you will get a crappy film. Look at Robin on national t.v. during interviews -- he's in a constant spasmotic state because there's no one to control him.
Aug. 24, 2000, 6:17 p.m. CST
Little boys: "NOBODY KNOWS ANYTHING" William Goldman. Clever Chap.
Aug. 24, 2000, 6:32 p.m. CST
Awesome animation! I thought it appropriate to comment on the unmitigated brilliance of McGoohan's daring sci-fi show "The Prisoner" on a talkback discussing what purports to be a thought-provoking film, "AI." I don't know how AI will turn out, but my mind is open. Between Kubrick and Spielberg, Kubrick's my type of filmmaker, but I must pay my respects to the man who made "Jaws," "Close Encounters," "Raiders of the Lost Ark" and "Schindler's List." The guy can make some good movies. But don't expect the second coming of "2001" with this one. It'll probably turn out to be closer to "Close Encounters" or "ET" with a more utopian vision of the future rather than the more dystopian mindset of Mr. Kubrick. Anyway, I love "The Prisoner" animation, and wanted to give the heads-up about it to anyone seriously interested in a TV series that actually has content and meritous aspects to it. McGoohan's Number 6 is among the most badass of all heroes in any show since TV's incarnation. The too-be-expected datedness of some of the episode's SFX is offset by its amazingly fresh and prescient view of society. In fact, some of the episodes make references to cell phones, credit cards, and the internet before any such things were invented. Great show...do what you must to see all 17 episodes. In order, if possible! Sorry for the ramble...but I love that show!!
Aug. 24, 2000, 6:55 p.m. CST
by Dwarf Sidious
Two things bother me about the post from the (alleged) AI executive producer. The first thing that bothers me is that his post would start with an incomplete sentence. The second is that he would say something like there is no reason for fans to comment at this point in AI's production. How out of touch would you have to be to suggest something like this? This site wouldn't exist except for interest in projects like AI. Instead of trying to nip criticism in the bud, perhaps the AI team should simply recognize the input for what it is, take what they want from it, and remain true to whatever artistic vision they have . . . Dwarf out.
Aug. 24, 2000, 7:07 p.m. CST
I have seen Close Encounters, E.T., Sugarland Express, Schindler's List, and the Color Purple. They all have one thing in common. Cheap sentimentalism. Not much depth. I can tell you pretty much how deep a Kubrick film can get, how every detail means something. Can you say the same about Spielberg? The way I see it, E.T. touched many people because it had cheap sentimantalism that made people connect with it. I am not saying E.T. isn't great. I am saying it is obvious. Sweet, but nothing new. It made some people re-discover how they felt as children, but Kubrick DISCOVERED things in you that you didn't know you had...Kubrick demands a lot from his audience, and many people don't like that, and they'd rather see an easily-digested Spielberg film, and that's fine with me. But we don't need a man-child kind of movie, not for A.I. Read the original story and you'll see it is not exactly a fairy tale. It shouldn't be done. Spielberg is not the man for this job.
Aug. 24, 2000, 9 p.m. CST
I see you are a Kubrick fan, but you don't understand Kubrick, do you? Full Metal Jacket, Barry Lyndon and the Shinning only work as Entertainment????? For god's sake, watch them again and tell me you were having a bad memory lapse! Full Metal Jacket is a beautiful piece of filmmaking that deals with dehumanization and false ideals. It deals with so many issues, one of them is the abuse of power, the other is an unnecessary war, the lack of individuality...etc. it is social realism!It is a social satire and a portrait of the effects of tradition...it is about the opressive obligations of social status...see the death of Barry's son and his funeral and you will understand that. The child's death brings him his strongest moment of fatherly tenderness, but then, at the boy's funeral, he must fake compusture for social status' sake. The Shinning is about (amongst many things) about how Jack loses his grip on reality and becomes a danger even to his own family. Check out Jack's scenes. The camera angle is simple but does wonders to reinforce Jack's feeling of mental imbalance. It's about men dwarfed by the greater scheme of things. It is quite an accomplishment to make a film with such a small cast of characters work like this movie does. It inflicts terror in the audience, and it puts the viewer many times in Danny's eyes...the horrible debate between loving your daddy in spite of what he's doing or hating him, even though you have always been thaught not to. And as for EYES WIDE SHUT, one of my favorite movies, is the kind of brave movie that someone like Spielberg wouldn't have dared to do. I don't think entertainment is a naughty word. But do you really think Kubrick wouldn't have gone a little bit darker than the original story? Spielberg is making it more sugary. So, while I have never read Kubrick's original A.I. screenplay, I can only imagine it being darker than the short story. Spielberg should not be doing this.
Aug. 24, 2000, 9:31 p.m. CST
Listen man, just because you didn't find the depth of Full Metal Jacket, The Shinning and Barry Lyndon, doesn't mean it wasn't there. But I guess that is kind of obvious if you state the "duality of man" remark as an indication of depth it is clear that you were not paying attention or that simply you are not mature enough to see these kinds of movies. I will give you the benefit of the doubt and say it's the first one. I'll give you an example of Kubrick's unexplained and subtle depth, even though it's kind of an obvious one. Full Metal Jacket, the film's title (it was based on a book called The Short Rounders) is about the regulations that made sure that bullets didn't explode inside in someone's body when they were shot, sort of to make killing a bit more merciful...Platoon, The Deer Hunter and Apocalypse Now don't reach anywhere near as deeply as Full Metal Jacket.
Aug. 24, 2000, 9:33 p.m. CST
Thanks for the vote of confidence, man!
Aug. 24, 2000, 9:35 p.m. CST
Okay, I've said I like Spielberg better than Kubrick before. I'm sick of the "he's making it too sugary" shit that only the die hard Kubrick fans who never saw Empire of the Sun, or Color Purple, or Saving Private Ryan, or Schindler's List are dumb enough to say. But god, Harry, did you have to bring up Mr. DNA? Okay, and animated narrator at first sounds scary, but only if you're thinking of that cheap corny animation from the Mr. DNA sequence in Jurassic Park. What if this is a CG image, and what's more what if it's a rather ominous CG image. For example, imagine a disembodied face made out of green streams of data like the codes from the Matrix, or like the VR face of the villain Cain in Robocop 2. Imagine said face addressing us like Hal from 2001, empty black eyes and a voice that is cold and cerebral. Robin Willaims may have spent his career of late trying for a dramatic performance that could get him another Oscar, but he was a character actor before he became humanitarian of the year. Imagine him giving us an emotionless voice, with only the slightest hint of something human buried deep beneath his circuits. He's a machine, but for some reason he is bent on explaining this tale to us, his phantom listeners. I am perhaps the only person on this entire stinking board who thinks this might be a cool and foreboding visual, but thank you, Harry, for putting Mr. DNA in everybody's mind.
Aug. 24, 2000, 9:42 p.m. CST
I saw Empire of the Sun, Color Purple, Saving Private Ryan, and Schindler's List. But I also saw 2001 : A space Oddyssey, A Clockwork Orange, Barry Lyndon, Eyes Wide Shut, Lolita, Killer's Kiss, Dr. Strangelove, The Shinning, Paths of Glory and Full Metal Jacket, so I think I know what I am talking about when I say that Spielberg is making the screenplay less darker than what Kubrick would have done. I am not saying he should do it Kubrick's way. I am saying it shouldn't be bastardized. It shouldn't be done at all. And by the way, your Matrix analogy sucks way more than Mr. DNA
Aug. 24, 2000, 9:56 p.m. CST
Well, irony has depth once you put it on the context of the movie, Feral. But I'd be glad to see some examples of depth in Spielberg films. Can you give me any?
Aug. 24, 2000, 10:10 p.m. CST
My Matrix analogy sucks? Considering your opinions, I don't hold that assessment in high regard. And since you aren't going to the movie, why should you care about what I think? You've made up your mind, you either won't go see it or you'll see it just to say how bad it is. Oh I forgot, you need to have the last word, sound cool here, and make up for whatever feeds that mean streak of yours. Go ahead, be that way.
Aug. 24, 2000, 10:19 p.m. CST
By the way, I forgot to thank you by the precious gratuitous generalizations you have made in your posts. You know, the "I'm sick of the "he's making it too sugary" shit that only the die hard Kubrick fans who never saw Empire of the Sun, or Color Purple, or Saving Private Ryan, or Schindler's List are dumb enough to say", and the "you need to have the last word, sound cool here, and make up for whatever feeds that mean streak of yours. Go ahead, be that way. "....Really priceless stuff here. Grow up, I am trying to have an intelligent conversation, (a conversation in which you rudely included yourself, by the way...). I am saying why I love Kubrick's movies and why A.I. shouldn't have been made. But I never said I wouldn't see the movie. I will see it, because in spite of everything, I am willing to give Spielberg a chance to shut my mouth, and I would be really glad if I get out of the theatre and say "Boy,was I wrong!" because I like good movies, Kubrick or no Kubrick. I am just saying that it seems as if Spielberg isn't going to do that. He isn't going to be brave. He's gonna play it safe, like he's always done. And that is why I have a hard time thinking of Spielberg as a more adequate filmmaker for A.I. and that is why A.I. shoulnd't be done. If you don't like my posts, just skip them when you see my nickname, because I will certainly not waste my time replying to you again until you have something actually relevant to say. (or until you say something way too stupid for me to stay quiet).
Aug. 24, 2000, 10:41 p.m. CST
We should just wait to see what happens with this flick, Spielberg has made some very entertaining films, I'm sure this will be the same.
Aug. 24, 2000, 10:45 p.m. CST
I love the way how Alex in A Clocwork Orange, a person who could be defined as one of the vilest criminals who ever rejoyced in violence is moved by the beauty of "lovely Ludwing Van", which could be considered the only element of beauty in his life, and that element of beauty turns out to be an instrumental part of his downfall...if you look closely, Beethoven is closely linked with all of his tragedies and problems. The Catlady hits him in the head with a small statue of Beethoven's head, and other stuff. I also liked how he was subtle enough to put dialogue in Catlady's lines like : "Don't touch that, that is a very important work of art!"...he amplified Burgess's novel in that aspect, because what the film represents is the exact opposite from that statement. While Catlady's dialogue suggests that art is good for you, Kubrick's movie suggests that art is often self-important and that art has no ethical pourpose. He is saying that works of art affect us when they illuminate something we already feel, they don't change us. I also like the scene in which Alex is dinning alone in Mr. Alexander's home, he has a feel of impending but unlocalized fatefulness, where he is a prisoner and he doesn't know it. And I love how he links Clockwork Orange with 2001 in the scene where Alex turns agaisnt his friends. Check out how he jumps, pulling the knife out of the cane. it is almost exactly the same expression as the ape in 2001 when he learns he can use the bone as a deadly weapon.
Aug. 24, 2000, 11:23 p.m. CST
Dear Harry, I am not the motherfucker to be taking grammar lessons from. And obviously you can put whatever you want upon your web sight here. But that said I REALLY wish you would lay off the upons. Don't you think "more on Robin Williams" would sound better? And I don't just mean because it sounds like "moron Robin Williams." I'm just saying you put alot of upons upon the sight and it starts to get upon a motherfucker's nerves. Written upon the occasion of one two many upons, your friend Vern.
Aug. 25, 2000, 1:04 a.m. CST
...when i say that those who are saying that the movie will suck when we are 11 months from its release are the biggest mother-fuckers (literally) in the history of mankind.
Aug. 25, 2000, 1:46 a.m. CST
by Regis Travolta
From an Eternally Imprisoned Talkbacker who strives to escape from this cyber-village each and every week for 17 weeks, only to learn that we are all Prisoners in Our Own Minds! Problem is that here on AICN Harry is Number One. Or is he?? That's the fun of The Prisoner, right Cadbury?
Aug. 25, 2000, 2:15 a.m. CST
Am I wrong, or is Once Upon A Time maybe the most intense hour of television ever? If I'm wrong, then it means Fall Out is, which I can accept! All you need is love, love...love is all you need.
Aug. 25, 2000, 7:16 a.m. CST
"It's about a man dwarfed by the greater scheme of things. It is quite an accomplishment to make a film with such a small cast of characters work like this movie does. It inflicts terror in the audience, and it puts the viewer many times in David's eyes..." Of course I'm talking about the teriffic "Duel" ;)
Aug. 25, 2000, 8:14 a.m. CST
Great references to Clockwork Orange - all good - here's another one of my favorites, among many other glorious moments of depth: After Alex has done his little performance on stage and everyone has seen the sickening effects of his treatment, the minister of the inferior interior and the prison charlie are arguing about the moral points that such a thing implies. The minister has said he's only concerned with cutting down crime, and the chaplain insists the boy has no moral choice; he ceases to be a criminal, he ceases also to be a man, etc. And while they argue, what we see is a shot of Alex listening to both their points of view, and their hands on each of his shoulders. For the duration of their argument, he is their puppet - they pull and yank him and squeeze and push. It's beautiful.
Aug. 25, 2000, 9:38 a.m. CST
Look, after about a zillion of you yelling at Steven and a zillion of you yelling at those who yell at Steven and a wonderful few actually calmly discussing the topic.... just about everything has been said. So please either say something original (and cool-headed if possible) or don't say anything. That's all.
Aug. 25, 2000, 3:20 p.m. CST
I, too, love Kubrick and think that you make some very intellegent, persuasive arguements. You've obviously done your homework and studied these films thouroughly. However, did you actually tell Mr. Harlan that he couldn't "handle" a Kubrick film? I find that remark astouding because someone with your knowledge on the subject is surely aware that Mr. Harlan has been "handling" Mr. Kubrick's films in one capacity or another since 2001. How can you presume to know better than he whether or not he can "handle" it? Pompous ass.
Aug. 25, 2000, 4:16 p.m. CST
Good point, Sonata. I didn't express myself very well in that post, I am sorry, because I understand how that can seem unclear. I was saying that more or less to the effect of "what makes you think you can handle a Kubrick film without Kubrick"...I didn't say it right, and I apologize.
Aug. 25, 2000, 10:55 p.m. CST
Speilberg do Kubrick? Kinda like Britney Spears covering the Stones, don't cha think? Stevie hasn't made a decent film since CLOSE ENCOUNTERS, and don't tell me you fell for the gross sentimentality and historical re-writtings of of his "Heavy, Please Notice Me Academy, Trilogy: Saving Amistad's List." That kind of fictionalization of real events is about the fear of truth and is against the instincts of real art. You want war, check out "COME & SEE." You want Holocoust, see "." You want slavery, hell, I'd give MANDINGO as much credit
Aug. 25, 2000, 10:58 p.m. CST
Speilberg doing Kubrick? Kinda like Britney Spears coving the Stones, don't cha think? Speilberg made "S
Aug. 25, 2000, 11:12 p.m. CST
Speilberg doing Kubrick? Kinda like Britney Spears covering the Stones, don't cha think? The guy hasn't made a film uninfected with sentimentality in 20 years and he decides to interpret the work of one of the 20th centuries bleakest and unsentimental artists? And don't tell me you fell for the "Heavy Please-Notice-Me-Academy Trilogy." These cheap, simplistic, fictionalizations of history couldn't be any more simplistic and false. They show a lack of interest in TRUTH that goes against the insticts of any real artist. You want war, watch "COME & SEE." You want holocoust, checkout "THE SORROW & THE PITY." You want slavery, hell "MANDINGO" is about on par with "Amistad." The guy suffer from small-thinkers disease, I'm mean really, Jack Hill has more ideas in a single one of his films than Stevie's whole slop-pile. (Okay, maybe I'll give him "Jaws" & "Something Evil.") It's sad really, 'cause he has a visual gift but no ideas to insert into the frame. But why bother, history will treat him no more seriously than Frankin Schaffner.
Aug. 26, 2000, 1:36 p.m. CST
by Pips Orcille
hehehehe... I mean, it's a narration, isn't it? I'm sure Robin Williams won't have to do any crap like he did in "Patch Adams"
Aug. 27, 2000, 8:06 p.m. CST
now that some calm has come to this talkback.... i'd like to say that i understand (somewhat) why kubrick fans are so upset with this news. however, these are two very different directors who both have (or had) their own individual genius. i've seen people cite examples of brilliance in both kubrick and spielberg's films in this talk back. even if spielberg uses manipulation and "cheap" sentimentality most of the time you have to admit he's pretty fucking good at it. and kubrick, who can deny this man's genius? without movies like a clockwork orange and 2001 the cinematic scene would be much, much different today (and the same goes for close encounters and jaws). maybe A.I. will be something comletely different than anyone expects and will blow us all away. or maybe it will suck, but for now, i'll try not to make any assumptions, although it's difficult not to.
Aug. 28, 2000, 7:32 a.m. CST
I happen to be Mr.Spielberg's number one fan, and I love everything he does. His films are a magical experience, and he is the most BRILLIANT man EVER. LEAVE HIM ALONE. AT LEAST WAIT UNTILL THE FILM COMES OUT AND SHARE YOUR OPINION. BLUBBERING FOOLS.