Slashdot Mirror
Spielberg To Direct New Kubrick Movie
tgd writes, "According to an article on Boston.com, Steven Spielberg has agreed to direct the film that Stanley Kubrick was working on when he died, a film called A.I. that Kubrick had been developing for 18 years."
maybe try someone else with a better eye for cinemetography, maybe ridley scott.
Amen. Spielberg is a completely unidimensional director. This is sacrilege. The only sense I can make out of the comment that he 'shows movies how the need to be seen' is that he panders to an idiotic eye-candy craving audience--and this public 'need' he is fulfilling is evidenced by dollars alone. Kubrick's least acclaimed movie, Eyes Wide Shut, was far better than Schindler's or Saving Private Ryan. They were both pathetically shallow, and were only significant in that they incorporated a easy-to-swallow political message in addition to the eye candy. Praise for Schindler's List: "You know when I was really moved... when I saw that little girl appear in colour in a b&w movie" (how ever did he dream that effect up?) "He created such a deep, human, and flawed hero in Schindler" (yes, the man who, in the most contrived review of his behaviour, bemoans how many others he could have saved with one more dollar *right at the end of the movie*...) "He demonstrated daring in treatment of historical and personal material by having that trainload of holocaust victims be taken to true 'showers'" (Or, saved the heros to draw out the movie... or thought that original device of 'near escape from tragedy' was missing... or valued $$$ above historical realism...) Eyes Wide Shut was the perfect way for Kubrick to go out... Spielberg might as well be digging him up to cast him in a sequel.
>> A Clockwork Orange was one of those movies that shaped me as a child into the well adjusted individual that I am today. >> I to pray that this is in jest. If a Clockwork Orange shaped you as a child, then I, and hopefully anyone else with a brain, do *not* want you living next door to me.
I agree there were a lot of misspellings and elitist crap in that post but I must agree that I share some of "fraud's" worries. Kubrick and Spielberg are two very different directors. The question is whether Spielberg will do this project justice. I love the visual aspects of Kubrick's directing which is something I miss in all but a precious few of Spielberg's films. I was _very_ impressed by the first 30 minutes of Saving Private Ryan, but the rest of the movie contained many instances of soft, cheesy music+atmosphere which in my view is too cajoling. It's just to obvious. Kubrick was always very discreet. Now, I will probably go see this movie whatever the critics or anyone else say and I am optimistic since I really believe S. and K. spoke about the idea (although I don't think K. wanted S. to make it). I also know that if S. dumps some of that Hollywood-cheese-crap he can make wonderful stuff...
It would be like Stephen King trying to complete an unfinished Dostoyevsky's book.
Spielberg is too mainstream to make a Kubrick film, I like some spielberg movies they dont require much insight just good flicks, which is what i want esp when im usually working 12 hours a day the last thing i want is something that trys hard to make some deep point, but falls way short. This idea should remain a "What if he made this" Kubrick movie, not a "man hollywood raped that movie" movie. Kubrick was the only man who should make Kubrick movies.
Tom Cruise is sitting at the dinner table, when suddenly the family notices that he's sculpted a naked woman out of his mashed potatoes.
"Open the pod bay door E.T."
Strapped to a chair with his eyes clamped open, Timmy is forced to watch CGI dinosaurs over and over and over...
An animal bone, a space station, a kid on a bike, a pan-am spaceliner, and an upside-down sports stadium, all in orbit together.
Pinned down by North Vietnamese fire, Private Joker makes his escape with the help of an abandoned mine car and a bullwhip.
I saw the coolest bumper sticker the other day.
It simply said: Aliens Suck
that's what I'm talking bout
Hope that he manages to make it as good as previous Kubrick films i.e: The Shining, one of my favs.
No thank you.
Don't forget the Bjork video Cunning ham did. "You can educate yourself right out of a relationship with God." [Tammy Faye Bakker
No, you're just following the herd here.
Kubrick/Linux/uncommercial = "Good"
Spielberg/Windows/profit - "Bad"
You got it... Kubrick movies suck horribly for the most part. 2001 I liked but could have done with a bit less breathing! Just because the great kubrick makes a movie people love it even though they have to watch it 6 times just to make it to the end without falling asleep!
A good movie is a good movie regardless of the director. bad movies include ACO, EWS (suck suck suck suck suck suck), and Howard the Duck.
I love Kubrick
I hate Spielberg
Kubrick is Art and Light.
Spielberg is Money and Vanity
I thought the bomb in Dark Star explored that in a funny way.
Clockwork Orange not available on DVD?!?!
wtf??
OK then, how come I have got the film on DVD in my livingroom in Berkshire, UK then, hmmm?
*sigh*
JAWS CE3K ROTL Three of the best movies ever made. Anything from ET onwards has been not vely good
Kubrick himself put the ban on A Clockwork Orange
And even Strangelove was overrated
Let's see. If I remember the Playboy article correctly this movie was about a woman in the future who isn't allowed to have a kid because of quotas (Idea that's been rehashed to death), so gets a robotic little boy who has a talking teddybear and wanders around the city with a robotic gigolo companion.
uh-huh.
I hope it won't happen. I enjoy Spielberg's movies very much (with the exception of Schindler's List) but he is not, and will never be, at the same level as Stanley Kubrick.
I hope people don't judge my writing skills based on a term paper I wrote in seventh grade...
Geez man, that was one of the prototypical sci-fi flicks. X-files owes a huge debt to that movie.
It would be nice to have a non "human sufering" Spielburg flim after his last 3
Here is the link .
Kubrick/Linux/uncommercial = "Good"
Spielberg/Windows/profit - "Bad"
Like many things that show up on Slashdot, this one is an old story
Actually, like many things that show up on Slashdot, this one already showed up on slashdot. All the way back on September 7, 1999.
And as far as I can tell, the discussions were EXACTLY the same back then, too.
No.
He is an ok director who aims mostly for populist pap, but in general could not carry Kubricks jock-strap. S-List is his only serious work with merit, and that is due mostly to the subject matter.
the opening to Saving Private Ryan, film which was incredibly poignant and powerful
Oh please. The opening of Saving Pvt R. is a ripoff of the grainy black and white battle footage from WW2, as seen on the series "Battlefield" and others. SS has added color, and a louud sound track. You want poignant? Watch the black and white originals.
Lots of people eat at Burger-King et al. Lots of people like velvet Elvis paintings. And I won't even comment on PC operating systems.
Popularity does not make art.
Kubrick was one of the great directors of the 20th century. Spielberg on the other hand is a hack director who reduces every story to a comic book formula. Spielberg's works are middle-brow programmers at best. Kubrick's work encompasses some of the most innovative and intelligent cinema of the 20th century:
No further proof is needed than to contrast Hollywood's attitude. Kubrick was a Hollywood outsider, a maverick who rocked the boat. Kubrick had extreme difficulty financing his controversial films. He was ahead of his time and unappreciated by the morons that comprise most of Hollywood. Kubrick was not unlike Orson Welles in this respect. And like Welles, Kubrick turned to Europe for sustenance.
Speilberg in contrast is the ultimate Hollywood insider. Rich behyond measure, he is fawned over by the Hollywood elite, all of whom desire some Spielberg shekels. Speilberg is incapable of innovation, but instead relies on the techno effects and comic book story lines to carry the day. Spielberg is a little sizzle and no steak. The idea that Spielberg is smart enough or worthy enough to tackle a Kubrick project is absurd.
I've been reading for eons that Spielberg's next film would be another sci-fi flick based on a Phillip Dick storz, "Minority Report" supposedly staring Tom Cruise. Sounds pretty good too. Anyone know its status? - Steve
Man, no responces! I was hoping to get something good I could make a funny reply to. Oh well :-( Natalie Portman breasts are the best :-)
Dude. Learn to spell. And to punctuate. And separate your ideas into paragraphs.
You had some great points and you sound like and educated (wo)man, but no one's going to take you seriously if you can't clearly express your thoughts.
Best Kubrick film? "Full Metal Jacket", a great movie to show how (l)user education should be done
But really, to compare the two people is useless.
Eyes Wide Shut:
- nice visuals (or so some say. I thought the camera work was gratiutous)
- presented with the director's "vision", including drawn-out pauses and actors' blank stares
- no fucking plot
Crooklyn:
- nice visuals
- presented with the director's "vision", including drawn-out pauses and actors' blank stares
- no fucking plot
ACQ has been out on DVD in the states for ages. I bought it and had it sent over to the UK some time ago. I keep trying to sit down and watch it, but never seem to have the patience. Will Speilberg have the same effect? Popey http://www.popey.com/
It was a rumour than included Ewan McGregor as Alex, and include Robert Carlyle & Johnny Lee Miller as Droogs. I believe they were going to change the ending and have Spielberg & Lucas dig up the corpse of Kubrick and violate it on screen, which is what it would have been.
To get back to the point, Chris Cunningham liased with Kubrick on much of the design for AI, this is the fellow who directed the Aphex Twin videos for Come To Daddy & Windowlicker, and has an eye for the bizarre. Combined with the [Brian Aldiss?] storyline(Supertoys last all summer long?), I think we might be in for a bit of a treat.
Stx23, who can't remember his password, and can't get it mailed despite hitting that dang button multiple times. And while I'm at it, why did the error messages change to 'pater@slashdot.org'?
'Save keys to open doors'
Give the man a chance. Spielberg directed "Jurassic Park" and "E.T." which were closer to science fiction than real life drama. Spielberg's talent seems to be that he can take something that is not believable (Jurassic Park, E.T., even Jaws) and turn it into something people see as possible. You only need one kidney anyway, the other is just a spare.
Real men dump cores! Read my journal, I am neat.
I just know that this jew will turn it into some sort of Disney bullshit.
Geez... that's twice that you misspelled 'and' as 'nad'.
What's on yer mind there, sport?
Check your facts. Steven Spielberg didn't direct Back to the Future, Robert Zemeckis did. Back to the Future stands as a new film classic, for obvious reasons. Zemeckis' attention to detail made BTTF a super-smash.
Steven Spielberg was the Executive Producer of the film, and had little to do with the day-to-day filming of the movie.
Your loyal Backie and Slashdot Author,
--Emmett
Also, check out #slashdot on irc.openprojects.net
Kinda OT, but an interesting fact for those who don't know...For the past year and a half, Chris Cunningham has been developing Neuromancer. That's right, the Gibson novel. I am chomping at the bit to see this one. I have tried to collect all of his music videos. He definately has a flare for the abstract, which is so refreshing. We as an audience need to see less re-hashed junk, (sequels, prequels, horror, teen movies), and something more along the lines of A Clockwork Orange. Here are some premises from some of Chris' videos: An Osaka insane asylum for children, in which the minds of a dog and an orderly are switched (Squarepusher's Come on my Selector), Some Ultra-Violent little children running around breaking stuff, scaring the crap out of an old lady and her dog (of which is wearing a neuter collar), while carrying around a TV. A Nosferatu-like being comes out of the TV and screams at the old lady. (Aphex Twin's Come to Daddy). A mock-rap video, with a Michael Jackson-like dancing Aphex Twin, alot of booty, and some bearded ladies on a beach (Aphex Twin's Windowlicker). A band that is hovering in a dank alley, flowing as if they were under water, oblivious to everything else (Portishead's Sour Times). This is definately the guy I would want to be working on Neuromancer. I just can't wait.
Dyslexic.
This comment is brought to you by the drug caffiene, and the number 5.
. . . or whenever I'm feeling "creeped-out", I still hear the soundtrack from the sniper-scene in Full Metal Jacket. . .
I wish I had a nickel for every time someone said "Information wants to be free".
These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
The only Existentialist Bomb to ever appear in a movie :)
:)
Bloody excellent film - one of my all time favourites - especially the elevator scene
Troc
Troc's dubious podcast and blog: http://www.trocnet.net
>A Clockwork Orange was one of those movies that :)
>shaped me as a child into the well adjusted
>individual that I am today.
I'm assuming that that's pretty tounge in cheek.
Yeah, CO was pretty intense. I know I'll never think of "Singing In The Rain" quite the same way again...
I mean, take a look: Kubrick vs. Spielberg. I do like some of Spielberg's movies (Close Encounters, the Color Purple), but come on! This is Kubrick we are talking about! You can't match Close Encounters to 2001, can you? Jaws has nothing to do with The Shining. And what do you want to match Full Metal Jacket up to? Ryan? Are you nuts?!?
Spielberg makes movies that are to be swallowed, not to be enjoyed. You open your eyes and shut your brain.
Zemeckis directed BttF, not Spielberg. Spielberg produced it.
The Schindler's List is a one sided manipulation of the espectator's feelings regarding a very sensitive subject. The performance and realization are magnificent, that can't be denied, but it's manipulation nevertheless. That's a pretty low thing to do as a director.
Don't get me wrong. That's what's it's all about, but in the case of TSL, Spielberg leaves the espectator no choice. He cages him and then makes him agree with his own opinions. That's what I have a problem with
Yes, check a recent Leelee Sobieski interview out. For those too lazy to check the link out:
So our wish may soon become reality. :-) (btw, she was joking for you serious types)
Since you used the 'p' word -- plausibility -- in describing a Spielberg movie, how 'bout the rest of Saving Private Ryan after that admittedly brilliant first twenty minutes? I've never, ever seen a story in a war movie suck so badly -- so many unbelievable, even impossible things in one "good" film! (Browse the movie's comments on imdb.com for a while and you'll see what I mean.) And to think it was based on a true incident (the family name was actually Niland) makes the whole thing worse.
"How many light bulbs does it take to change a person?" --BMcC-->
spielberg has actually been make some decent film in the last several years - let's hope he doesn't poison this kubrick piece by trying to sneak Grover's voice in it or some other muppet trip....
First off, Spielberg didn't "agree" to direct
it. He started trying to get control of it
before Kubrick hit the floor. He doesn't stand
a chance of doing the theme justice - alienation,
not to spoil it for you - he'll either turn it
into a bittersweet Pinnochio remake or scrap the
storyline altogether.
He won't pay the same attention to cinematography
- he'll just go with silhouettes and godlight. If
it gets made, it'll be a travesty and an insult.
And now I see they're rereleased A Clockwork
Orange. Good for us, who'll get to see it on
a decent screen, but another insult for Kubrick,
who never wanted it to be seen again.
Grr.
K.
-
-- Proud descendant of semi-nomadic cattle-herders.
Both this movie and B.M. are about unhappy A.I.s.
Kubrick's is about a presumably cute child A.I.,
perhaps more in line with the frustrations of
last year's Iron Giant boy.
B.M. suffered being too faithful to the Asimov
story and having too many subplots that made it
drag on.
You see alien heads all over GenX stuff.
I attribute this mainly that every GenX kid
saw the E.T. movie and quite a few saw Close Encounters of the 3rd Kind.
Good news - But I wonder what a Kubrick Film would be like in the hands of a director that isn't known to be a perfectionist, as Kubrick himself was known to be.
It'll be interesting when "A Clockwork Orange" opens in the UK on Friday - Kubrick himself banned the movie, and it hasn't been available on video/DVD! - I think when he died, somebody must've realised that they could make a shed-load of cash by lifting the ban, and re-releasing it in the UK.
I've seen a pirated version on video & It'll be great to finally see it in the cinema.
>Anyone know any more about this?
It's being re-released in the UK on Friday.
Is it also re-opening in the states?
>> How plausible is it that we communicate
>> with aliens through music and not something
>> more advanced, like mathematics?
Umm, I think you need to look into music theory
a little more. There are numerous links between
music and mathematics. So in that sense, music
between the common ground between alien races
doesn't seem implausible at all.
arvind rulez
Don't forget the Bjork video Cunningham did.
All is full of love, featuring a robot Bjork. Now where do you suppose those designs came from?
I knew I heard this before...</a>
This story most likely has more information than the preveous incarnation.
Anyway
I don't actually exist.
Here's the link:
http://us.imdb.com/Title?0212720
The info is thin, though. No mention of Kubrick. Mentions Aldiss as a writing credit and that's it.
---
- Give a man a fire and he's warm for a day, but set him on fire and he's warm for the rest of his life.
If I remember correctly, the movie was taking so long because Kubrick wanted to show the actors as they aged naturally, rather than using people of different ages who sort of look the same.
If this is true I just hope its better than Eyes Wide Shut was.
He's also going to write it, something he hasn't done since Close Encounters. There's a little blurb about A.I. at yahoo, and I also heard something on CNN a few minutes ago.
http://dailynews. yahoo.com/h/nm/20000315/en/film-spielberg_1.html
They seem bland, generic, badly acted and terribly scripted.
Do you remember "Raiders of the Lost Ark?" Not bland. Not generic. Not badly acted. That was and still is a great movie. It is a classic "larger than life" hero in classic "good vs. evil" story. Harrison Ford a bad actor? Come on.
How plausible is it that we communicate with aliens through music and not something more advanced, like mathematics?
Music is based on mathematics. Check out the frets on a guitar some time. They are spaced based on the log() function. Admittedly, math would most likey be the first basis of communication, PI begin a good starting point, but it's a movie, and you have to take some leeway to reach the audience.
If you want contact by using math, rent "Contact" with Jodi Foster. The first message the aliens send are a list of prime numbers. Oh, and plans for a space craft.
Oddly enough, both Raiders and Contact were on TV last week.
--
then it comes to be that the soothing light at the end of your tunnel is just a freight train coming your way
I really don't remember the part of Schindler's List where I felt good. Sure, there is a ray of light in that movie (Schindler), but it was definately not a feel-good movie.
True, Indy is a pretty shallow character. RotLA was pure escapism. It also happens to be one the best adventure flicks in existance. Make it a point to watch that movie with kids. You get a pretty good vibe going off of that one.
I won't knock Kubrick. 2.001K was a great flick. CW just rules. I didn't see EWS, but that's due to a Tom Cruise aversion.
I'll turn my kids onto Kubrick when they get older. For now, Indy will have to do.
Speilberg definately has picked his main evil character (either present or implied) to be Hitler. You could look at the collective works of Speilberg to be a warning/reminder of Nazi Germany. It's not terribly morally complex (Hitler was wrong. End of Story.) but does prove a point.
Speilberg has been quietly working on the Shoah (sp?) foundation to preserve the stories of Holocaust survivors. Give him kudos for that.
--
then it comes to be that the soothing light at the end of your tunnel is just a freight train coming your way
to Georgie Lucas and his little epic "Star Wars."
Kubrick's 2001 had just come out: he expected it to the end-all of space movies and special effects. Georgie released his little fantasy flick and it clobbered everything.
Kubrick of course, didn't like this...he toyed with the idea of A.I., which he figured could do as well. Eventually, though, he gave up on hating Lucas for the piece of mass-market trash he'd released (in his eyes at least) and left this idea in a bin for the next few decades.
At least this is the story from my class on George Lucas at USC. BTW, the man himself is gonna come in in a few weeks. Anybody have a few good questions?
What does diogenic mean? If we were playing Scrabble, and I had challenged you, you would have lost with my dictionary.
;->
Of course, I remember losing a challenge to my uncle on the word "VEX" while playing Scrabble with his dictionary.
So, all things being equal, could you answer this question, or do I have to pull out the OED on you?
A sure sign that you're overeducated: words you use conversationally are not in the dictionary. Are you underpaid too?
I agree entirely with your post BTW. Now lettuce speak of cabbages and Kings.
I remember reading about this at the time of Kubrick's funeral. Also put about was the rumour that Speilberg and George Lucas were going to team up to do a re-make of "A Clockwork Orange" (was going to be 2001, but they decided it would take far too long;). Anyone know any more about this?
--
another 70's computer movie
As a child, Spielberg was my favorite director.
But now that I'm (23) old, I really think his film only show one point of view, and are much oriented to this point of view. In Kubrick's film camera adopt's many POV, in Spielberg's, only one, (except a little moment in Shindler's List).
I suspect he won't be able to do what Kubrick had in mind, even if he also tries to understand it during the next 18 years. The result might be a good Spielberg but far from the one Kubrick should have directed. I really think, by respect for Kubrick's memory, Spielberg should not turn this movie.
You can't re-score "The Ring", not even the fire of the fiercest dragon, Ancalagon the Black could harm it. You must take it the Mount Doom, in the land of Mordor.
George
Yes it is, yes it is..
It includes the famous line:
"you would sell your own mother for a piece of fudge" sometthing I tell the sales people at work every day.
So how did "Schindler's List" reinforce middle-class-while assumptions about life?
Then I guess "X" reinforced black-lower-class assumptions.
Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
After I saw "Dr. Strangelove" I rented every Kubrick movie I could get my hands on, including "The Killing" and a few others of his 50's movies ("Fear and Desire", "The Seafarers", etc). I was extremely disappinted to discover that nothing else he had directed was even a fraction as incredible as "Dr. Strangelove".
Adam
"Science fiction fans seem to like their films to be more thouroughly thought through."
So, something along the lines of "Close Encounters," one of the best sf movies ever?
BTW, if you think ET was a soppy kiddy fantasy flick, you need to watch it again, this time with your eyes, and mind, open.
Adam
A) Study both math a music for at least 4 years... Then come back and try to spout this nonsense about mathematics being more advanced.
B) I've seen many moveies based on a real story that were mutilated and butchered by the director.
C) The digital dinosaurs impressed me the first time... That was more than enough.
D) Harrison Ford, Sam Neill, Jeff Goldblum, Liam Neeson, Ben Kingsley, Ralph Fiennes, Whoopi Goldberg, John Malkovich, Christian Bale, Richard Dreyfuss, Tom Hanks... I'm not quite sure where you're pulling this "badly acted" crap from...
Adam
Don't get me wrong... There is not doubt that ET is soppy (and sappy), and that it's aimed at kids... However, there's much an adult can, and should, take away from watching that movie. I'm doubtful that Speilburg's only intention was to entertain a bunch of three year old kids.
Rent the movie, sit back, and watch what spring to life (pun intended).
Adam
Oh, please! The only good Kubrick movie was "Dr. Strangelove." All the others were monotonous, bories, and just plain bad...
Adam
"and that is why i do not want to ever see AI without the resurrection of kubrick from the grave or some amazingly talented director taking his place (and speilburg isnt that guy)"
Then don't go see the movie when it comes out... Certainly that's a concept that an intellectual elite individual who is well read and understands the concept of art and meaning within a film can understand?
I don't think I've ever read such an elitist piece of crap on Slashdot since I stopped reading Jon Katz's articles.
Adam
"you could fall asleep during one scene and awaken to hear the same musical theme and feel comfortable with the ten minute gap in the score. Some people think this is wonderful, that he drives the themes home. I find it dreadfully boring and fall asleep for the entire opera. Spielberg is like this. You can miss half of a film by him and still get the same vision, which makes you wonder why the film is so much longer than it needs to be."
And this is different from a Kubrick movie how? Hell, you can fall asleep in a Kubrick movie, wake up 30 minutes later and still get the same visision of a bloated, monotonous, piece of crap the movie is (unless it's Dr. Strangelove).
Adam
Hmmm... I guess Jurassic Park and ET were science fact?
Adam
When I first heard of Kubrick's death, I remember being distraught not only at the demise of a brilliant man, but also because "AI" would never be realized. After reading this article, I have somewhat mixed feelings. Sure, Spielberg has come through with some stunning movies, but most of them were aimed more or less at box-office draw. I just find it hard to believe that he will honestly be able to replace such an amazing visionary, no matter what Kubrick's brother-in-law (or whomever) thinks.
However, despite my apprehension, it's deceidedly better that the movie is made rather than forgotten. The concept of AI that Kubrick began exploring with HAL has never really been explored any further (with the possible exception of the Matrix) despite its potential for stunning impacts on every human philosophy should it ever actually come to fruition.
OK, well, to give Spielberg some credit, Close Encounters was pretty thought-provoking. Not in the way that Kubrick's movies are, though. Special effects were a means to him, not an end in and of themselves.
--frood
Please, Mr. Spielberg, would you be so kind to
stay away of this? Also, it's rumored you're
going to shoot Space Odissey.... How about just
taking a vacation for a year or two instead?
Thanks alot.
KuroiNeko, who's disappointed
KuroiNeko
Everyone is demanding that Spielberg stays faithful to Kubrick's wishes. But no one has defined which set of Kubrick's wishes. Are we talking about the early Kubrick or the later-day Kubrick that was most interested in Nicole Kidman's bum? And lots of perky young ladies lounging around with wrinkly old men!
Does Spielberg have a yen for gratuitous arse shots?
"Mummy look! A troll."
Any have any info as to what it's about? AI seems like it could be a pretty cool movie. I hope the HAL 9000 shows up, personally.
I think that's exactly the point - Speilberg deals with schmaltzy, feel-good movies where there's a clear "good" guy and a clear "bad" guy. Kubrick isn't so blunt. In all the movies I've seen of his (everything except Eyes Wide Shut) there's a moral ambiguity to the heroes/villains of the story. Speilberg, either through his direction or through the scripts he chooses to direct, seem unable to create some sort of moral complexity. Alex from CW was the protagonist of the movie; you felt for the character, sometimes even rooted for him, even though by all accounts he was an evil person. Contrast this character ot Indiana Jones or any other Speilberg protagonist.
I agree with you - I think Speilberg is very good at what he does. Though he has gotten better, Speilberg really hasn't showcased his ability to handle moral ambiguity. Schindler's List does tackle this somewhat, but there's still that clear coating of "good versus evil". I would argue that Speilberg came close in Saving Private Ryan, in the scenes immediately after the storming of the beach. Showing the American soldiers executing their German counterparts who had just surrendered while still maintaining their moral superiority was somewhat effective, even if the rest of this epic was a little lackluster. However, most of the Speilberg library is filled with clear "right and wrong" with very few shades of grey.
I'm not confident that Speilberg could direct a movie like Clockwork Orange, Full Metal Jacket, or Dr Strangelove. I feel that he spends too much time moralizing in places where he could easily let the audience draw their own conclusions (a la Jurassic Park re. science). Where Kubrick forced the audience to interact with the movie (2001 had all of 27 minutes of dialogue! what else could you do?), Speilberg presents everything to the viewer in a nicely packaged whole.
robot that doesn't know it's a robot.. Sounds like an idea from blade runner to me. And technology was good enough to make that movie about dozen years ago or so..
Mmm.. Maybe a real life version of Truman show with a poor AI at the center of the attention?
Spielberg then sighed and looked out the window. "You know, I'm just glad to be alive. I hope some day I can piss out Umberto Eco's Foucault's Pendulum, then maybe do Neal Stephenson's Cryptonomicon. All those people in the world who don't read would really love those films, as long as I directed them. I think that would get me even more babies named after me."
Spielberg then ended the interview by rocking back and forth in his stool and singing softly to himself.
... who doesn't admire Spielberg movies? They seem bland, generic, badly acted and terribly scripted. Sure, the concepts are awesome at first, but they wear thin very soon. How much war documentary can you watch in one sitting? How many times can digital dinosaurs impress you? How plausible is it that we communicate with aliens through music and not something more advanced, like mathematics?
His movies are great eye candy, but offer little to go on. The only exception I can think of was Schindler's List, but that was based on a real story so he couldn't screw it up too much.
Anyways, consider this a troll if you must, but I can think of at least three other directors I would have liked to see work on this project.
Bart
I guess it depends. Will it be directed by the Steven Spielberg who directed Schindler's List, Saving Private Ryan, and The Color Purple.
Or will it be directed by the Steven Spielberg who directed E.T., Close Encounters of the Third Kind, and the Jurassic Park movies.
It it is the first, A.I. might be a worthy tribute to Kubrick.
(yes I know there is only one Spielberg)
Yet Another Web Site
It's about fucking time something like this happens. Maybe Spielberg will get the film industry off its ass and start making some good films again cause God knows it has been nothing but shit lately. Did you see Mission to Mars? What the fuck was that?
Nooooooooooooooooooooo!
Rhapsody in Numbers
(1) There is the "Boo!" "Ahh! You scared me!" type of terrified that one might find in ye ol' horror film; and
(2) the terror of wondering what might happen to you in a dark alley at night, or thinking what the government (penal system, establishment, whatever) might do to a person. Really, would you want to live in a world where people are programmed? Have you ever read Aldus Huxley's Brave New World? To me, that is truely terrifying.
Rhapsody in Numbers
If I remember the idea correctly, the reason it took Kubrick so long is because he wanted to use one actor from childhood through adult, and was actually filming the kid growing up in the movie...as he grew up in real life. I wondered whether that was urban legend, or what, but if he's been working on the movie for almost 20 years, it sounds very plausible.
42 Up is the latest in a series of films on a group of people that have had documentaries on their lives every 7 years(or multiples of). They started the series when they were 7, 7-Up being the first.
-WG
"America, I smoke marijuana every chance I get."
I have to credit Spielberg for creating the "summer blockbuster" genre with Jaws. (I especially love Robert Shaw's portrayal of the swarthy sea-captain). Spielberg at his best is quite good, but he doesn't have the high standards of Kubrick, who was a perfectionist. Let's just hope that Spielberg takes his time and gives it his best. The last thing we want is for Stanley's vision to get churned out like "Batteries not included" or "The Lost World".
In any case, I will be seeing this movie when it comes out. It may not be what Kubrick originally envisioned (Speilberg said he was going to add some of his own ideas), but it could still be a good movie.
Yeah, I can't think of any Spielberg Sci-Fi films either! HA HA HA Close Encounters was not really science or fiction, coz those aliens really do exist. Same goes for E.T. Jurassic Park was all about Dinosaurs, which of course did exist. and Poltergeist was a ghost flic Not to mention his production work on: Gremlins/Back to the future/innerspace/batteries not included/seaquestDSV/Earth2/Twister/Men in Black/Deep Impact. Thanks for making me laugh my ass off this morning
My UID is prime!
I would much rather see Spielberg (sp?) direct one of the lost Ed Wood films. Like a sequel to "Plan 9".
- Truth, not tolerance.
ET was a soppy kiddy fantasy flick about friendship. Jurrasic park was a monster movie. (Okay, so the science fiction themes were explored a bit more in JP, but that was more Michael Crichton's input)
Science fiction fans seem to like their films to be more thouroughly thought through.
How plausible is it that we communicate with aliens through music and not something more advanced, like mathematics
Seems likely to me. Music will have easy to spot patterns, and there are only a limited number of ways in which you can encode it on to a radio signal (FM, AM, Polorization, PWM, binary signal versions of the above). Mathematics on the other hand would have to rely on known formulae and constants. Encoding a number such as Pi requires a number base, a direction (LSB first or MSB first), a format and an encoding method.
I remember hearing that he wanted to use some genuine AI in the film. I never did work out what that actually meant though. Any ideas I came up with just seemed odd. A virtual actor? AI camera work?
Well, I thought Close Encounters was quite a good piece of SF. And I really don't want to sound like I'm crucifying ET because despite how negative my comments sound I did enjoy it.
Still, it has been a few years since I saw it, so what did I miss in ET?
Is it really Science fiction? (I know it's a subjective term). Why did he have this telepathic link with Elliot? How can he levitate? The whole point of the film seems to have been about a child's friendship, and how that overcomes humanity's natural fear of things that they don't understand. This is all well and good, but it still makes it a soppy flick (in my opinion). It's aimed at kids and ET's powers are magical not scientific, so it's a fantasy. Actual science fiction themes were limited. Unless I missed something important, ET might as well have been a baby dragon or a goblin for all that mattered to the story.
Well, Spielberg has shown that he can make real films with Saving Private Ryan, Schindler's List, and even Jaws.
Admittedly the first two of these were a bit too emotional for my liking, but it does show that Spielberg does have some flexibility. It will probably be not quite the film that Kubrick would have made, but I think Spielberg will make a good job of it.
I think this is one of those things that we should just say "I wonder what A.I. would of been like? I wish Kubric was still alive.."
With kubric doing it, I know I would of been suprised and or dazzled by something in the movie. With Spielberg doing it it will probably be a nice movie, but only a pale shadow of what kubric would of done. Now I don't like all of kubrics stuff, but it was always interesting to watch.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
2 Spielberg To Direct New Kubrick Movie by emmett on 09:43 AM March 15th, 2000 EDT 94
2 Spielberg to direct Kubrick's AI by Hemos on 09:00 AM September 7th, 1999 EDT 144
hmmm... they cannot remember, and don't know that they can search?
Guess it's a slow news day.
Anyone remember Jurassic Park? Girl sees 3d represented file system and says "Oh! This must be a UNIX system. I've used these before!" I'm not saying that that isn't possible, but you'd be hard-pressed to find someone who manages something that huge with graphical representations of the files in regions as it appeared on the screen. Not to mention that they appeared to be using a cray, which I believe tend to run UNICOS anyway. I was still using DOS when I saw that, and not yet shaving, but even to me it was a distraction from the plausibility of the movie. Certainly anything sci-fi would have to keep the plausibility to be exciting. (Was that a death threat or a review of Mission to Mars?)
WARNING: there is a trojan on your
I've been waiting for a couple months now to hear whether or not someone would pick Kubrick's film up. Even though his latest film, Eyes Wide Shut sucked, his other movies are sheer genius. We have Kubrick to thank for Clockwork Orange, 2001: a space odyssey, and, my ALL TIME FAVORITE, Dr. Strangelove! Since seeing 2001, I've been waiting for Kubrick to go back to the future and now he will. I hope, however, that Speilberg can handle the vision Kubrick had for AI.
Flush out your head gear, new guy. You think we waste gooks for freedom? This is a slaughter. If I'm gonna get my balls blown off for a word ... my word is "poontang."
I'm no authority on the art of film making, and I seriously doubt any of these "Kubrick/Spielberg is over-rated" people are authorites on the subject either. Who cares what the critics and the general public think? If you like a film, good for you, if you don't, find a better reason than "It's over-rated". I'm only bringing this up because I totally agree with the title of the post: "Ugh, negativity on Slashdot"
I, for one, am thrilled that Kubric's magnum opus will see the light of day, particularly after the disapointing eyes wide shut. Besides giving us a deep look into the psychology of war with A Clockwork Orange, Stanley also directed one of the most monumental sci-fi films of all time, the classic 2001.
OK, so most of 2001's appeal was in the novel by the brilliant Arthur C. Clarke, which the movie served as a companion for more than a stand alone peice. Still, the collaboration between Clarke and Kubric was one of the first to explore what happens when a well-meaning but unrestricted artificial intelligence experiences a moral conflict. It filled a niche between the stereotipical "evil monster" image and Asimov's perfect servants that had never been seen before.
As a result of Kubric's experience with Clarke, and his own natural genius, I imagine that A.I. will continue to probe the dark reaches of computer psychology, revealing many moral questions we never thought to ask. Whether Spielberg can live up to Kubric's vision remains to be seen.
Anonymous Luddite: "What do you think of the dehumanizing effects of the Internet?"
Andy Grove: "Not Much."
Kubrick is cool though, I have liked every movies of his that I've ever seen.
Guess what people, Speilberg is a great director. You can say what you want about his movies, but he has an uncanny way of filming movies the way they need to be seen.
Speilberg is a pedestrian director because he films movies the way people expect them to be seen. He caters to the lowest common denominator with his stereotyped characters, cliched plots, and boring filmic techniques. He manipulates the viewer's emotional states in the basest of ways, and provides little or no food for the intellect or soul. He is a barren director.
Everything Speilberg has tried to do has been done better by others. Night and Fog tops Schindler's List, The Thin Red Line is poetry to Saving Private Ryan's false realism, 2001 or Strangelove or any of Kubrick's films outshine Jurassic Park, ET, or any of Speilberg's.
Kubrick knew how to work with light, with the frame, with music, with unconventional actor choices, and with startlingly original narrative material. Speilberg knows how to merchandise. This is like comparing a master chef to the McDonald's food lab. (Pardon the cliche.)
Because they were filmed the right way by a camera under the direction of man who knows how to capture motion video.
Film is not video. Get your facts straight.
If you can do better than Spielberg, then you can talk.
Since you are "talking" I assume you can do better than Spielberg? Take a logic course.
It is sad to me to see such continuing evidence for the intellectual and aesthetic impoverishment of America.
P.S. I can see redeeming features in Close Encounters of the Third Kind. Empire of the Sun had some nice set pieces. But I wouldn't compare these films to Kubrik.
-----
A rich couple found their ideal pet in a dog that makes e-mail programs.
Spielberg is, in his own right, a living legend as well. He created some of the modern conventions we see used in popular films. This isn't a bad thing.
So, personally, I don't think it's a question of who's bad and who's good. It's just a matter of style. Besides, if Spielberg decided to commit every waking moment of the next five to seven years for one film, be anal enough to film every single shot 50+ times, and demand complete loyalty from the cast and crew -- he might actually make something at least CLOSE to Kubrick's style.
Besides, I'm sure Spielberg realizes the shoes he's been hired to fill. If that's not a little intimidating, I don't know what is.
Be glad they didn't give it to someone like Joel Schumacher, Roland Emmerich, or Jan De Bont.
Yes, yes, because 'A Clockwork Orange' was monotonous, and so was 'Full Metal Jacket'...oh wait a minute, those films kept many people on the edge of their seat. As did of Kubrick's more 'psycholgical' films. Mind you, most movie's cater to an audience with the attention span of a eight year-old, (as has been made painfuly obvious by the all action, no substance shlock that fills most theatre's.) But you're right, 'Dr.Strangelove' was a fun film.
Spielberg will bring this movie to the masses, and it will probably get good reviews, and lots of people will watch it. No, it wont be as good of a movie as it would have been if Kubrick was around to make it, but he's not. Spielberg will at least have the capability to provide a good, polished film. The point is that this will bring Kubrick's ideas to the masses. That's a good thing.
Money I owe, money-iy-ay
heh, think what you want, but the truth is, if speilberg wasn't more than 'ok', then how does he have so much money. He has do be doing something right....
"What luck for the rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler
Exactly, Kubrick never came close to saying anything definite about AI. He did however have things to say about Spielberg's films - which Kubrick thought of as overly sentimental and commercially exploitative. There were several pieces which came out around the time of Kubrick's death which mention the relationaship between Spielberg and Kubrick. Kubrick treats film as art, Spielberg treats film as entertainment - it is asinine to assume that AI will bear any resemblence to any treatment Kubrick would have given it (indeed, if he would have ever bothered).
Spielberg is a great marketing man; he knows intimately the archetypes of the 20th-century American collective unconscious, and how to exploit them to move the masses. Nobody else can quite put bums on seats the way Spielberg can.
However, that is not what makes a great director in my opinion. Knowing how to make up the numbers, to sell to the majority, does not make art. Spielberg's stories tend to be facile and simplistic; rather than making people think (and alienating those who prefer not to), he moves them with sentiment and emotion down a broad path. Whether it's the wisdom of children or the evil of the Nazis, his treatments aren't something you can find much in to inspire thought or ask questions. Spielberg's films are reassuring, never challenging.
I already have an idea of his version of AI: spectacular special effects, heartwarming sentiment and Tom Hanks or Robin Williams in a starring role, over a simple-minded, unambiguous plot.
How can you even being to expect ANYONE to replace Kubrick?
:(
Do we want an E.T. or a 2001?
Um, well...E.T. did sell a lot more toys...I guess the public would rather have another Spielburg film.
I just love how Kubrick was constantly trying to smash people's expectations about film. Spielburg tends to reinforce what we expect out of it, as well as many middle-class-white assumptions about life.
Do we have an Kubrick DNA? Bring him back!!!!
Know what I like about atheists? I've yet to meet one that believes God is on their side.
Folks,
You're all doing a major disservice by thinking that Steven Spielberg is incapable of directing a movie based on the ideas of Stanley Kubrick.
People forget that Spielberg is a MAJOR admirer of Kubrick's work, and in fact were friends for many years. Also, Spielberg has done movies like A COLOR PURPLE, SCHLINDLER'S LIST, and SAVING PRIVATE RYAN, all of which show very strong maturity in dealing with adult characters.
Spielberg is not an Irving Thalberg Award and two-time Best Director Oscar winner for nothing.
In short, I don't have to worry, because Spielberg has proven he CAN take on difficult projects.
Raymond in Mountain View, CA
Clockwork Orange was terrifying
Was it hell. This statement makes me wonder if you've really seen the film. It was a brilliant and imaginative movie, but even for the time it was made it was hardly terrifying, more like comedic (except perhaps for the rape scene).
Consciousness is not what it thinks it is
Thought exists only as an abstraction
It's pretty hard to take a rant lamenting the decline of intellectualism seriously when the author can't put coherent thoughts together.
Seriously, just slogging through that post proved to be a chore. It's called grammar, spelling and punctuation. Learn those, and then whine about the lowbrow tastes of the average american. Sheesh.
--
grappler
Vidi, Vici, Veni
Haven't you seen "The Killing" ?
Now there's a kick-ass movie!
My laserdisc copy should be arriving in a couple of days. Yummy!
Pope
It doesn't mean much now, it's built for the future.
On the other hand, Kubrick was a master of cinematography, always integrating diogenic and non-diogenic sound in a very compelling way as opposed to the over the top, beat it through the thick skull of the common moviegoer method that Speilburg uses.
I think you are referring to diagetic sound and non-diagetic sound. Please, look up any big words you use before you look foolish. Diogenic is a word I have never heard before, but I found it here. According to that site, it means cynical. I'm not even sure what to make of that sentence. You praise Kubrick for being a master cinematographer, then you talk about sound? Both elements are very important to a particular scene, but they are not related to each other.
Kubrick was a master of the camera who is famous not only for his vision but the way that he did it-if you ever watch a kubrick film notice the ceilings-something few directors ever utilize (mainly because the films are shot in real places instead of sound studios) nad his tracking shots where the camera goes for a long period of time without a cut to a different angle,
Yes, I agree that Kubrick was a master of the camera, but what makes you think that just because you see a ceiling, that it wasn't shot in a sound studio? There's really nothing wrong with using sound studio, it depends on the effect the director is going for.
Also, a tracking shot is when a camera is physically moving. It used to be on a dolly and on tracks (to smooth out the movement), now you can have them on helicopters with digital stabilizers. What you were referring to was a long take. Again, long takes and short takes are used for effect and to convey a particular meaning in the scene. Kubrick used both masterfully, as do many directors.
Another major problem and the one that i feel could tear apart AI once and for all is the way that Speilburg has to make everything epic-he has to impose a greater meaning on every film and proceed to wallop his audience over the head with that idea. Kubrick also takes on epic tasks in his films, but his theme resides below the surface and stays there the whole film, the effective nature of a true artist who conveys his ideals without the audience even realizing they have been indoctrinated.
I think that you don't know what epic means. Here's the definition from my film class textbook (which I only had a semester of, so I'm no expert):
I got this definition from Undertanding Movies 8th edition, by Louis Gianetti.
I'll not deny that Speilberg makes epics. He's made a lot of epics. I haven't seen many Kubrick films, but he's no stranger to epics, like Spartacus. I'm not sure what you mean by "epic tasks".
I now have to take issue with your entire last paragraph. There are plenty of people who don't fit the following despcription:
generally stupid, consider the USA today their source for news and NASCAR and WWF adequate sources of entertainment.
The segment of society that you have ignored is well read and do understand the concept of art and meaning in film and still enjoy Spielberg's films because, as a great director himself, he has injected his films with passion and poignancy. Have you ever seen Empire of the Sun? The Color Purple? Tell me again, how Speilberg only makes films for mega-bucks and awards to soothe his ego.
Spielberg's not perfect. I mean, for every The Color Purple he has a The Lost World: Jurassic Park, but sice I do enjoy most of Spielberg's work, I felt that I must come to his defense, even to a post as incoherent as this one.
Please learn the jargon that you're using before you post, so you don't look quite so foolish next time.
What an oddly appropriate nick.
"... message passing as the fundamental operation of the OS is just an excercise in computer science masturbation."
Speilberg could be the perfect person to do a scifi on A.I, given that he probably won't give into the sensationalism that's out there (you know, the stuff that made Y2K such a 'crisis').
The man does his research.
My first reaction was, "Gee, I didn't realize trolls were allowed on the front page of Slashdot." (no offense Emmett)
Then the horrible reality sunk in. Spielberg finishing a Kubrick work. Just so you know where I stand, I love Kubrick's body of work and tend to loathe Spielberg's. That being said, anyone I might annoy can stop reading this post.
"Why?" you might ask. "Meticulous" was the word Jack Nicholson used to describe Kubrick's sense of direction (after the umpteen-millionth take of him coming down a staircase). I believe Kubrick would have hand edited every frame of his films if it were sane. If Kubrick were insane, we would never have seen a thing from him.
This is how a project winds up taking 18 years, and now Spielberg will finish it in 1 because that's why Hollywood movie execs love him. Not to say that Spielberg isn't meticulous at times; IMHO he is. It's just that he does it in an intense and rapid fury, it's his style, and I've heard several actors comment on his frenetic direction. This inhibits the ability to make a movie with meaning, where every minute expresses a thought and the whole 120 minutes or so expresses a vision. Take Saving Private Ryan, the whole movie expresses maybe one or two thoughts, but no overall vision. The combat scenes are gruesome and brilliant, but by the end they just become so much filler. I personally failed to feel any tension at all when the German tanks rolled over the bridge and felt nothing but boredom when the Elder Ryan shed a tear at the grave of his deliverer. That scene was obvious, it was stock denoument, it was emotional filler, and it was artless.
Which brings us to Pucini. Those of you familiar with opera will know that Pucini wrote operas for people who liked to sleep at the opera house. That is, you could fall asleep during one scene and awaken to hear the same musical theme and feel comfortable with the ten minute gap in the score. Some people think this is wonderful, that he drives the themes home. I find it dreadfully boring and fall asleep for the entire opera. Spielberg is like this. You can miss half of a film by him and still get the same vision, which makes you wonder why the film is so much longer than it needs to be. You can't do that with a Kubrick film. Every minute counts.
In a way, Spielberg is perfect for the retouch job. He can direct all the filler and attempt to orchestrate a film out of the Master's footage. I wish him luck. But until he learns patience, to make films like red wine and let them age and mellow, he'll just be making a really good white Zinfindel.
Hope everyone is now pissed off. Punctuate this post with a big fat IMHO. This is Torodung signing off. (why'd it have to be a movie about technology and computers?!? *SOB*)
Remember that Kubrick intended for Spielberg to direct this film. This is why the film was held off, Spielberg was not available. Kubrick felt that Spielberg had a better angle on the FX and child-work that were needed, which is true on both counts.
John Grisham to finish "lost" Faulkner novel.
"I'm sure Bill would have wanted this work finished, and we think Mr. Grisham is the man with the Integrity to do it." Said Faulkners descendants in a prepared statement. "We are also making a killing of the merchandising.", they added.
Microsoft Corp, to release "Directors Cut" of UNIX(tm).
Working from notes left by the late Ken Thompson and Dennis Ritchie, Microsoft plans to release UNIX2000, which they say will more closely reflect the legendary programmers original vision. "Petty office politics and a restrictive moral climate never permitted UNIX(tm) to become the stunning work of art that was envisioned by it's creators. We here at Microsoft corp. are dedicated to realizing that vision" said Microsoft pres. Steve Ballmer. UNIX2000 should hit shelves in early '05.
screaming in horror,
-nme
Like many things that show up on Slashdot, this one is an old story (not that being old news is intrinsically bad - old news is still a good starting point for discussion).
This first showed up as a rumor while Kubrick was still alive - shortly after the ShoWest teaser for Eyes Wide Shut appeared (this was one featuring a single shot of Kidman, topless, with three words successively covering up the "naughty bits" - Cruise, Kidman, Kubrick, then the title Eyes Wide Shut0). At that time, it was to have been a collaboration. There was even a young actor named who'd been booked for summers for many many years. The stock for AI on the Hollywood Stock Exchange doubled that day (it had been doing well because of Kubrick's name, then slumped when Eyes Wide Shut was announced).
People that play HSX find many rumor sites to get info on upcoming movies (HSX is a play stock exchange speculating on the success of upcoming movies - usually gets opening box office take right within a million). Perhaps the two most well-known are the following:
Enjoy.
-----
Klactovedestene!
The Schindler's List is a one sided manipulation of the espectator's feelings regarding a very sensitive subject. The performance and realization are magnificent, that can't be denied, but it's manipulation nevertheless. That's a pretty low thing to do as a director.
I'd totally disagree with you there on that last point. It's part of a director or writer's job to manipulate their audience, whether it be through the cinematography, the characterisations or through the plot. A successful film manipulates its audience in many ways, subtle and not-so subtle, and without that a film is sterile, leaving wondering what you were doing far the last hour and a half.
Sure, Schindler's List may be a pretty extreme example of audience manipulation - I don't know, I haven't seen it myself. But the subject matter is an extremely sensitive one and is bound to provoke strong feelings, even if the film was poorly executed. And anyway, I'm sure the director's views would be shared by the majority of the audience before they saw the film, if anything making the film less manipulative rather than more.
if this is the film I'm thinking of, it has taken so long because the film details the life of a person, and kubrick thought it would be really neat to use the same person. ie film some when the kid was 5 wait a few years, film some more when the kid was 10. etc. he bought up a ton of the same film stock when he started the project, so that he would be filming on the same stuff throughout the project. meaning that the quality and color remains constant through the entirty of the film.
No! This can't be true: Such a great director as Kubrick didn't deserve to be taken over by some mulit-billion-dollar typical-hollywood-filmmaker as Spielberg! I'm sure that Kubrick would have made this one a terrific and social-critic-classic. But now I guess it's just going to be some nice effects bundled with some well-known actors.
I was really looking forward to that after Kubrick's 2001 this would have surely been the second well-to-remember-film about humans and computers!
It's just like if your thanks-giving-meal is going to be at McDonald's!
What a pitty!
Apparently Kubrik stopped work on AI some time ago, because he realised that the state of digital special effects wasn't good enough to bring his film to life. He saw an advanced screening of Jurassic Park and was so impressed with the ILM digital effects, that he resumed production. I think Spielberg will do a very good job, it really is his forte, this kind of film: robot kid doesn't know it's a robot, growing up etc etc, perfect Spielberg fodder.
My UID is prime!
kgb
I find that most people are sincere about their own motives but always question other people's motives. Why is that?
:-)
Need I remind you that Mr. Spielberg has just about all the money he could ever want and achieved more than most people could hope for? (including, eventually, an Oscar
----
Stop worrying about the risks of nuclear power and start worrying about the risks of not using nuclear power.
If I remember the idea correctly, the reason it took Kubrick so long is because he wanted to use one actor from childhood through adult, and was actually filming the kid growing up in the movie...as he grew up in real life. I wondered whether that was urban legend, or what, but if he's been working on the movie for almost 20 years, it sounds very plausible.
The story is based on...let's see if I can remember...something about toys, an attic, and lasting all summer? Damnit, IMDB used to have an entry for it, too, but I can't find it. :(
d
www.HearMySoulSpeak.com
Kubrick brought an individual vision to his movies. Speilberg tries to appeal/exploit the collective consciousness.
Kubrick wrestled with dichotomies like mother/whore and whether human traits are wired in us or learned through our environment. Speilberg only wants to tell a story.
Kubrick explored isolation. Speilberg explores fables and broad morals.
Kubrick realized that the importance of the aural aspect of cinema was paramount to presenting a strong vision, meticulously detailing every sound, score and format (he didn't like THX). Speilberg relies on strings to instruct us what to feel about a scene or how to react.
Speilberg can make any movie he wants to. Why does he feel that he can contribute to or continue Kubrick's vision? I see them coming at cinema from two non-complementary camps. Speilberg is a manager. Kubrick was a creator.
People are lambasting this decision and chiding the selection of Spielberg based on his tendency to make mega-blockbusters that target a popular audience.
Guess what people, Speilberg is a great director. You can say what you want about his movies, but he has an uncanny way of filming movies the way they need to be seen. Films like Jurassic Park, ET, and Back to the Future sold a lot of merchandise, yes, and were targeted at mainstream America. They still amazed us (or else we wouldn't have kept going back to see them). And let's not forget Schindler's List, Close Encounters of the Third Kind, and the opening to Saving Private Ryan, film which was incredibly poignant and powerful. Why were these movies like this? Because they were filmed the right way by a camera under the direction of man who knows how to capture motion video.
Personally, I think Spielberg will adhere to Kubrick's wishes, especially given the reverence that he has for film in general. The fact of the matter is that this movie will probably be a good one no matter who directs it just because of its content, and in the hands of a masterful director, it could be great. I can think of maybe two or three others that might be able to do what Spielberg can do with the camera, but I don't think any of them have the vision to know what needs to be done with the futuristic vision.
If you can do better than Spielberg, then you can talk. Personally, I would rather see this movie made by Spielberg than by Slashdot.
I'm a HUGE Kubrick fan, as I believe lots of people here are. Spielberg and Kubrick have had a long-lasting friendship, but to me it always seemed like the kid brother trying to impress. Spielberg would send Stanley prints of his films before they were released. Kubrick made Spielberg wait just like the rest of the world.
;-) However, Spielberg is not the director that Kubrick was. The differences? Spielberg films ALWAYS tug at your heartstrings EXACTLY where you'd expect them to. Spielberg films are visual, and straight forward.
BUT, Kubrick cancelled a holocaust project because Spielberg wanted to do Schindler's List (which was a good, if not formulaic movie). AI has had more rumors flying around it than any other film I can think of. It WILL end up a good movie, because the premise is pretty good (in my opinion, you can't recycle Blade Runner too many times
Kubrick? His films are much more subtle. His films are deep and symbolic. His movies make you THINK, which is what I believe seperates art from entertainment. The Shining is creepy. Eyes Wide Shut stayed with me for WEEKS after seeing it. Clockwork Orange was terrifying (though the book was more so; Alex grows up, showing the atrocities of the rest of the book as nothing more than normal teen angst and the progressing to a "normal" person).
So will it be good? Yes. I have high hopes for this film. But as far as exciting geeky films, I'll wait for Lord of the Rings. Hell, even the Matrix sequels will be deeper than AI now.
At least Lucas isn't doing it.
Bad things often happen to good people,
It is up to them to see that they remain good.
Spielberg said Kubrick had been developing "A.I.'' -- which stands for "artificial intelligence'' -- for nearly two decades before his death in March.
This suggests to me that either Kubrick had an idea that he liked but couldn't ever get it work or it was something he sort of liked but not enough to actually ever do. In either case this film probably won't do Kubrick's reputation any good, especially if it's mauled by writers, editors and so on.
What is this trend with taking someone's half-finished work after they die, attempting to finish it and then publishing it as a "tribute", saying it's what they would have wanted. I'm sure that in many cases it would definitely not have been what they wanted.
Harlan said Kubrick and Spielberg discussed "A.I.'' at length and said that before his death Kubrick "came to realize that Steven would actually be the ideal director for the project.''
Oh please. This is very convenient for Spielberg and Harlan isn't it? I mean it's not like they would stand to benefit from producing this film is it? Call me a cynic but I doubt Kubrick ever came anywhere close to saying something definite about making the film.
Now i am a self-proclaimed movie buff and i have read some about this AI feature and i too was looking forward to seeing this--unfortunately kubrick died so i thought that there would be no hope, and right now i am beginning to think that i would have preferred to never see the movie than one completed by Speilburg.
Dont get me wrong, Speilburg is a good director and all, but he has inherent weaknesses that effectively ruin any attempt he makes at a serious intelligent movie. Speilburg has a tendency to be mellowdramatic, playing up the cheesy soundtrack in the background and focusing on something that will prove important later in the movie or hammers his theme in a little more nad holding that shot for a couple seconds too much. On the other hand, Kubrick was a master of cinematography, always integrating diogenic and non-diogenic sound in a very compelling way as opposed to the over the top, beat it through the thick skull of the common moviegoer method that Speilburg uses. Kubrick was a master of the camera who is famous not only for his vision but the way that he did it-if you ever watch a kubrick film notice the ceilings-something few directors ever utilize (mainly because the films are shot in real places instead of sound studios) nad his tracking shots where the camera goes for a long period of time without a cut to a different angle, also kubrick was great at capturing shadows and lighting especially on faces, which makes his films more memorable and more real (surreal sometimes). Again Speilburg is the opposite of this, everything he does is standard-on occation he will get a really good sharp significant shot and it will be very strong-but in the context of the film it stands out as different-that is the only reason why it stands out-otherwise Speilburgs camera isnt all that special. One other thing is that kubrick understood the notion of "nothing" time where there is no dialogue or any action, just very real "nothing," in real life we arent reading from a script so there is that "nothing" time-kubrick understands that perfectly while have you ever felt totally drawn into a speilburg film because it was soo real, well i havent and it is because there is always something going on (great for the short attention span audience btw). Another major problem and the one that i feel could tear apart AI once and for all is the way that Speilburg has to make everything epic-he has to impose a greater meaning on every film and proceed to wallop his audience over the head with that idea. Kubrick also takes on epic tasks in his films, but his theme resides below the surface and stays there the whole film, the effective nature of a true artist who conveys his ideals without the audience even realizing they have been indoctrinated.
I guess what i have been meaning to say the whole time is that the two directors work towards different audiences: kubrick towards the intellectual elite audience who is well read and understands the concept of art and meaning within a film and, speilburg who makes his movies for the masses (because guess what-those movies make money and get the awards that make ego-centric speilburg go) and guess what else-the masses are generally stupid, consider the USA today their source for news and NASCAR and WWF adequate sources of entertainment. When one mixes these two ideologies-there are going to be inherent problems, and that is why i do not want to ever see AI without the resurrection of kubrick from the grave or some amazingly talented director taking his place (and speilburg isnt that guy)
latre
-eric
For those geeks that are interested, this is the short story that Kubrick was using as the starting off point for A.I.
t oys.html?topic=robots_ai&topic_set=newtech nology
http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/5.01/ffsuper
(it's of course only an embryo of an idea).