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."
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.
> The movie is tedious, boring, and highly overrated...
They say vampires can't see themselves in mirrors. D'ya suppose it's the lack of a soul, or some other defect?
--
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
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
Wired had an article on this some time ago which is quite a nice read, and they where kind of enough to reprint the whole of the short story which is found here.
The only Good System is a Sound System
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!
Well it's based on this book the book "Supertoys last all summer long" by Brian W. Aldiss which is a story about a young woman who adopts a young robot as a child. A lot more info can be obtained atCorona Productions.
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).