Slashdot Mirror
Spielberg to direct Kubrick's AI
Chasuk wrote to us with the word from the Sunday Times that apparently Steven Spielberg will be directing what would have been Kubrick's next project - AI. The story is "the tale of a young 'robot' boy that he likened to the story of Pinocchio." The two had talked extensively before the latter's death, and were good friends. The movie is based on the short stoy Supertoys Last All Summer Long, by Brian Aldiss.
Too many movies today are simplistic rehashes of the same story. See some good foreign films or read some Borghes or Kafka short stories for a sampling of truely different stories.
Jaws
Those were amusement park rides
Hmmm....Spielburg has a considerably different style to Kubrick. I don't think that it will much like how Kubrick would have made the film, in terms of visual "feel".
"At least you know where you are with Microsoft." "True. I just wish I'd brought a paddle." http://www.debian.org
Thanks.. I nearly managed to get a few slashdotters to walk away from their computer in search of a human being (as much as you can call astronomy lecturers human).
How we know is more important than what we know.
Unlike you, I dont need to watch footage of "real" combat - I've been there done that, got the medals and combat stripes to prove it.
If you want to get the same impact as being in combat, Spielbergs opening 25 minutes of Ryan is much more like it than any stock history reels - most of which were sanitized by wartime censors, or shot on grainly film with poor sound qaulity. Ive seen the historical stuff (as a kid and as an adult), Ive seen Ryan, and I've seen combat. And Ryan is much much loser to the real thing than the historical films. Watch the combat veterans during that scene if you have a chance to see it in a theater again: guaranteed they have trouble catching their breath, they will get tears in their eyes, and it will hit them hard. It did me - hell my wife was with me in the movie and the first time I saw that movie I about broke her hand without realizing I was squeezing it so hard; she was worried because I was having my breathing stop and acatch, and I had tears run from my eyes. That scene did prettymuch the same thing to every combat veteran I have ever talked to who saw that movie. The only thing equal to Ryan's combat was Kubrik's FMJ combat scenes, and Kubrik didnt capture the hell-rush-fear-go mix that Ryan did for the opening 25 minutes (but Kubrik did capture the way buddies look out for each other in combat).
As far as "actual war", most of you kids and desk jockies wouldnt know it from the movies.
And the "chummy characters" - well hate to break it to you, but thats all that keeps you going most of the time - the guys next to you, in your squad. God, County, Flag - they all fall by the wayside in comparison to your buddies who you keep alive and who keep you alive - and you keep each other human in the most inhumane organized activity mankind has devised. So back off that high academic horse, and stop being so snotty about things of which you have no real knowledge.
I liked them both - they were different, but that doesn't mean that one was truer to character than the other, except in your mind.
_____
The antidote to bad speech is not censorship, but more speech.
I dearly hope that was a joke.
Deke 'Da Geek
Unlike you, I dont need to watch footage of "real" combat - I've been there done that, got the medals and combat stripes to prove it.
Well goody for you. Unlike you, I wasn't foolish enough to fall for a bunch of propaganda to join the armed forces and "be all I could be". It's the poor and desperate that join up and the elite that controls them. I'm not saying that this is just, or fair, I'm just telling you that's exactly what it is and what it has been for a long time. Our society is class based and it's unfair. Don't encourage your kids to join up if you have any, this country hasn't fought a war to protect the people of this country who supposedly own it since the August 14, 1945.
If you want to get the same impact as being in combat, Spielbergs opening 25 minutes of Ryan is much more like it than any stock history reels - most of which were sanitized by wartime censors, or shot on grainly film with poor sound qaulity. Ive seen the historical stuff (as a kid and as an adult), Ive seen Ryan, and I've seen combat. And Ryan is much much loser to the real thing than the historical films. Watch the combat veterans during that scene if you have a chance to see it in a theater again: guaranteed they have trouble catching their breath, they will get tears in their eyes, and it will hit them hard. It did me - hell my wife was with me in the movie and the first time I saw that movie I about broke her hand without realizing I was squeezing it so hard; she was worried because I was having my breathing stop and acatch, and I had tears run from my eyes. That scene did prettymuch the same thing to every combat veteran I have ever talked to who saw that movie. The only thing equal to Ryan's combat was Kubrik's FMJ combat scenes, and Kubrik didnt capture the hell-rush-fear-go mix that Ryan did for the opening 25 minutes (but Kubrik did capture the way buddies look out for each other in combat).
There is plenty of unsanitized actual war footage. The stuff you see on CNN is sanitized, the stuff you see on PBS isn't. I've seen films that document just what "post traumatic stress disorder" does and that in itself was enough to convince me that maybe war isn't a fun or glamorized thing. You don't need fiction to see that. You don't need crystal clear quality and surround sound to see just how shitty man's inhumanity to man can be. It doesn't matter if the footage was grainy, and full of static, it was real, and that's what made it horrifying to me. Not how realistic it was, but how it actually was.
If it takes dolby quadraphonic stereo and vivid colors for you to feel it I am at a loss as to why. I didn't.
As far as "actual war", most of you kids and desk jockies wouldnt know it from the movies.
Oh yes, isn't that a terrible thing?
And the "chummy characters" - well hate to break it to you, but thats all that keeps you going most of the time - the guys next to you, in your squad. God, County, Flag - they all fall by the wayside in comparison to your buddies who you keep alive and who keep you alive - and you keep each other human in the most inhumane organized activity mankind has devised. So back off that high academic horse, and stop being so snotty about things of which you have no real knowledge.
God is fiction and I'm not a nationalist nor have I ever been, I agree with Einstein's sentiments on that one.
I'm not being snotty, I'm just telling you how I feel. Don't think the fact that you went through a war is going to intimidate me. I don't care what you did. You didn't go to war because you believed in it or had any idea of what you might be getting into, you went to war because you were in the army or navy or air force or whatever when the leaders at the top decided that it was worth killing a bunch of people over some ideal. You had absolutely no idea what you might be getting into when you joined either.
Wasn't AI a film/book that was later renamed to toys? And is this the sequel that's being named to the former name of the prequel?
Probably getting confused between films though...
Are you sure you aren't mixing up Spielberg and Lucas? I believe Lucas's first move was called THX-1178, or something along those lines.
-- Will quantum computers run imaginary-time operating systems?
THX-1138 was by George Lucas.
:)
(Hence it is Lucasfilm who own the rights to the THX sound system, and that's also why "THX" and "1138" appear fairly often in Lucas' films
First, Kubrick has agnostic toward Big Science while Spielberg alleges Big Science is evil. To Kubrick scientists are banal (2001) or funny (Strangelove) while Speilberg is generally negative (Close Encounters, E.T., Jurassic Park). I hope this doesn't turn into an anti-technology piece. Second, the styles are completely different. Kubrick generally has fresh F/X each film, though he has some signature camera angles. Spielberg recycles the dull ILM commodity F/X film after film.
The story referred to originally is by Spider Robinson called "Melancholy Elephants".
Synopsis (as I remember it):
In a future where humans have managed to dramatically extend their lives, the government is about to pass a new copyright law bestowing eternal rights on new works. The main proponent of this law is surprised to get a visit from the daughter of a famous (now deceased) musician who wants him to kill the bill. She has to explain to him that there is a limited number of compositions possible in music simply due to the possible combinations of notes and instruments and eventually these will be exhausted and nothing new can be created that has not been previously copyrighted, at least in part. She goes on to tell of how her father spent the last years of his life writing his final masterpiece, only to find out that it was based around a childhood song he once loved.
Very good story from an excellent writer.
... mostly a matter of mass. For all intents and purposes, Jupiter is a brown dwarf. No cookie for anyone who retorts: "The difference between a star and my [object] is just a matter of mass."
"If one is really a superior person, the fact is likely to leak out without too much assistance" -- John Andrew Holmes
Gawd, I miss The Critic.
Hmmm... interesting one this.
Both good directors, but very different in style.
A good comparison that some one made before was Saving Private Ryan vs Full Metal Jacket. Very different films.
How about that for a Slashdot poll?
I think it still has the potential to be a good film with spielberg directing, but if Kubrick was directing it would have had the potential to be a great film!
-- You ain't seen me, right?
The movie encountered protests on release because of the extreme depiction of violence, and ran only in one London theater (but it ran there for a year). Thinking the fuss had abated, Warner Bros released it generally, but the British tabloid press laid into the film and Kubrick personally. Kubrick and his family did receive threats, though I've never heard "a brown bag with a ticking orange"! Eventually Kubrick asked WB to withdraw the film from the UK, and they did so quietly (as if it had simply ended its run). It wasn't until years later, when the movie was not released for a Kubrick film festival, that the ban became public knowledge -- which probably accounts for the rumors surrounding it.
Kubrick never changed his mind, and WB -- though within their full legal rights to do so -- respected his wishes.
According to his widow this year, "the film was withdrawn because we got so many threats that the police said we must do something and he withdrew it. [He was] both artistically hurt and also scared. He didn't want to be misunderstood and misinterpreted and you don't like to get death threats for your family."
This ban was never in effect in any other country (although it may have been banned for other reasons).
lake effect weblog
{Network engineer in Chicago--looking for work!}
2001 is full of long moments of glorious silence, the bane of todays big-budget directors, who are too set upon their mile-long checklists of product placements, talking heads, cameos, punches, swirling creschendoes, video-game tie-ins and consumer psychological attention-span profile research rapid-action editing to even dare to let a VISUAL MEDIUM do it's thing.
It's funny how the more a director makes, money-wise, the LESS he or she is willing to take chances. I think it has to do with INSULATION. Successful directors become so wealthy and (by neccessity) reclusive, that they become surrounded by a thick membrane of Yes Men. Every idea that dribbles off their lips or pen is hailed as Genius, in hopes that the Gravy Train will not run off track.
"Yes sir, Mister Lucas! That Jar-Jar character is a sure-fire hit! A real stroke of genius! And the chick - with the funny hair? Whoa-boy, Mister Lucas, brilliant! And Darth Maul is so cool-looking, it doesn't matter a bit that he's 2-dimensional and adds absolutely NOTHING to a story-line that doesn't really exist anyways! Fabulous! Whatever you say! Love it!"
Sigh. As if it mattered!
**>>BELCH
Stanley would have made a cool movie, Spielburg will make the "feel good blockbuster of the season". Something tells me that Kubrick wouldn't have made any deals with taco bell either...
Many Kubrick fans were disappointed that we'd never get a chance to see AI. If these rumors are true, at least we'll get a chance to see a version of it that has at least some respect for Kubrick's vision.
Subject matter is interesting...
And, despite the knee-jerk reactions to the contrary, Spielberg has made some good movies...
Considering that Kubrick himself was considering letting him direct it this may be quite interesting.
Josh
Instead of another 2001 we'll get another ET.
Sic transit gloria mundi!
Kubrick's films have a vision which goes beyond what is common---NONE of Spielberg's do. Kubrick's view of human nature is profoundly disturbing and close to the truth. He was not, however, misanthropic as some have argued. He thought hard about why human beings are cruel and obsessed with the immediate and ignore truth and beauty. Contrary to many reviews, I think that "Eyes Wide Shut" is another extraordinary masterpiece. It shows a wisdom completely missing from Spielberg. The last scene of the movie is particularly interesting. After acknowledging the limited importance of a week...even of a single life-time, the women character forcefully, in the last line, refers to the most basic animal drive. It reminds me of a famous quote by Niels Bohr "[i]t is a great pity that human beings cannot find all of their satisfaction in scientific contemplativeness." Kubrick of course sees beauty to be of greater importance than science...or atleast greater than technology. Kubrick's explanation for the problem raised by Bohr is the sex drive and by implication evolution.
Spielberg has NEVER produced a movie with confronts current sensibilities. In none of his movies does he challenge human nature. Not in Saving Private Ryan (which after the first 30 minutes is incredibly boring and predictable) and not in Shindler's List. One would think that the holocaust of all things would cause one to profoundly examine human nature and critique civilization. But Spielberg does not do this. Does the holocaust say something about all civilization, all countries America included? Note to Spielberg. There is nothing interesting here. Anyone who thinks there is should read more great literature and see the works of more good directors such as Bergman and Kurosawa.
Don't get me wrong. When Spielberg is paying attention, he can tell a good story (e.g., ET etc). Spielberg also has excellent understanding of the technical side of film making. This may have been the foundation of the friendship with Kubrick. But there is a big difference between being able to tell a good story in a technically excellent fashion and creating something sublime.
Interesting.. just yesterday I was cleaning out the garage and found my copy of the story...
_ _____________
If you wish to read the story that the movie is based on, it is located here.
..here are some online quotes about it..
"Kubrick, as we well know, has had A.I. in development for several years now. The narrative follows the development of a child and his
inter-relation with the technology that surrounds him. We can safely assume here that this technology will be represented by the AI.
"The trick is that the film traces the boys development, not over weeks or months, but YEARS."
June 2, 1996... A long, unsubstantiated rumor is that A.I. actually began production years ago with Joseph Mazzello (Tim from Jurassic Park)
starring. [Scoop sent in by 'hansolo'.]
April 2, 1996... Development on A.I. is in the final stages of set design and special-effects development, reports Associated Press. Kubrick plans to return to direct involvement with the project after completing Eyes Wide Shut. [Scoop feedback by Todd Dupler; originally reported by AP.]
D
_______________________________________________
--
driph
No, this is like Picasso finishing a Monet painting. Both are masters and, if necessary, Picasso surely had enough talent to "mimick" the style Monet used.
Let's face it. Spielberg has a style and Kubrick had a very different style; nevertheless, both are two of the greatest directors the U.S. has ever produced, and it is definitely hard for me to believe that Spielberg lacks the ability to, if necessary, "mimick" Kubrick's storytelling. I mean, wouldn't Hemingway be able to write like Faulkner, or Mozart compose like Bach?
I would personally like to see a newer, more up and coming director take over the AI project. I can't really put my finger on why, but the idea of Spielberg, whom I feel is a wonderful director, directing this film is really disappointing.
In the week after Kubrick's death, the New Yorker published a piece by Ian Watson wherein Watson talked about how he and Kubrick were changing "Super Toys" for the film version. I believe it was this same New Yorker piece which said that the only reason Kubrick agreed to do Eyes Wide Shut was that Warner Bros. agreed to fund AI in return. I really wish they had agreed to fund AI, first, as the world suffers from a lack of truly challenging SF films (In this decade, I liked The Matrix, Ghost In the Shell, Pi, 12 Monkeys, Dark City and Cube. The decade's almost over. That's not even a film a year.).
Back when Wired was good, they published "Super Toys Last All Summer Long" in the issue dedicated to HAL's birth. They also published "The Intelligence Behind AI," which is a piece on Kubrick & the AI project.
The combination of such an intriguing story with such an intriguing director combined with recent special effects advances would have made for a hell of a film. I'm hoping that if Spielberg does get the film, he doesn't sentimentalize (is that even a word?) it. And for the sake of all that is holy, please, please, please do not let George Lucas or James Cameron anywhere near it. This should be a character-driven film, IMHO.
Chris Cunningham, the director attatched to another on-again, off-again, potentially brilliant film based on another decidedly brilliant piece of fiction, Neuromancer was said to have apprenticed under Kubrick. Why not let him have a go? I think this project needs a new director, & Cunningham's stuff has certainly been gritty and unsentimental thus far.
Think like a person of action, act like a person of thought. --H. Bergson
I found this on the MGM website!!!!
(MGM Studios, England) In response to the success of George Lucas' updated "Star Wars" and the interest in Kubrick since his death, Stanley Kubrick's family announced today the planned re-release of "2001: A Space Odyssey". Steven Spielberg has agreed to update the film. The enhanced version of the film will be released early in 2001.
Spielberg explained, "Much of what Kubrick tried to accomplish in 1968 as limited by then-current technology. I feel this greatly impinged on the structure and style of the film, grossly affecting his ability to tell a modern story."
Many of the changes and additions are fairly minor; only a true devotee would be expected to notice. For example, the "Pan Am" space clipper will have its logo changed to "Discount Spaceways." Other logos will be inserted, as deemed appropriate by the sponsors of the updating: "Coke" and "Nikon" will appear on food and photographic products, while the HAL 9000 computer will sport "Intel Inside" and "Microsoft Windows NT 8.5" appliques.
Other sequences are expected to present visual and auditory changes more apparent to those who may only have seen the film a small number of times.
* Computer displays will be rendered with true 3D modeling. As an inside joke in one scene, graphics engineers will be inserting images from "Quake 2001."
* The "Star Voyage" sequence designed by Trumball and Veevers will be replaced by an entirely computer-generated sequence.
* New scenes will be inserted. One known scene involves the "hominid murder;" a new computer-assisted sequence showing a battle between thousands of hominids will be added following this scene.
* All of the music will be replaced by a soundtrack performed by U2. The soundtrack will be broadcast in digitized, Dolby-enhanced surround sound. Spielberg explained, "No one liked the music in the original, anyway."
* The monolith, which most viewers found "boring" will be redesigned to look like a large human-shaped robot with blinking lights.
* Frank Poole's sex will be changed, adding new interest. Also, Francine Poole will not die; She and Dave will be saved by MONOLITHMAN and will live happily every after. Spielberg explains again, "No one understood the ending; we feel that our rewrite will be much more accessible to the typical intelligent moviegoer."
Spielberg summarized the release, codenamed "2" (short for "2001- 1999") as an "Experience for the younger generation, born well after the original. The original film was dated and did not meet the needs of new viewers. The new release will be competitive with today's movies and should provide a fulfilling, enjoyable experience to all."
A spring, 2001 release is anticipated.
Bicentennial Man, as in the Asimov story? now that is an unusual choice for a film! I wonder how the production machine will manage to butcher this definitely un-filmy story!
Starwars=good; ET=bad;
The original and quintessential Spielberg: good vs. evil, evil kicks butt but good personified by "everyman" wins! Yeah !!! Package with some special effects and presto: millions of bucks !!! Why make up a new story if you can repackage the same one over and over?
"Microsoft Windows NT 8.5" by 2001?
What *have* you been smoking?
I doubt Microsoft will be able to release 3.5 successors to Win2k by 2061: Odyssey 3!!!
--
Internet Explorer (n): Another bug -- that is, a feature that can't be turned off -- in Windows.
No wonder HAL goes nuts and tries to kill everybody. I had no idea that the Blue Screen Of Death could have such severe consequences. Sheezeluweeze! Intel inside? Between excruciating pain in his hardware and being loading with a schizophrenic OS, no wonder HAL was a basket case. This explains a lot. I hope nobody petitions the filmakers to change it to a UNIX variant ;-)
Which means that all Spielberg moves are feel good movies.
Somehow I can't picture Spielberg sending a print of "The Lost World" to Kubrick and expecting encouragement from Kubrick based on it.
-Dean
Spielburg is a very adaptable director, one of the best in my opinion. He can direct some stunning pap, like Jurrassic Park, etc. But he can also direct with cold, stunning sincerity, such as the battle scenes in 'Private Ryan' the horrors, of 'Schindler's List' or, his best, in my opinion, 'Empire of the Sun' anyone here even remember that movie? Couldnt get too much more dystopic without being a Terry Gilliam production. For that matter, in some ways, Empire of the Sun is a good 'to use a burned out phrase' cyberpunk movie; the portrayal of technology changing the world. The death of old Japan, the rise of the new, nuclear age, witnessed first hand.
>>Raiders of the Lost Ark
>>Jaws
>Those were amusement park rides
Correction: Those were damn fine amusement park rides.
Why does a movie have to be 'artsy' to be considered good? What's wrong with the Good vs. Evil theme? The purpose here is *entertainment*. Also, someone (not sure if it was you), scoffed at Saving Private Ryan and Schindler's list b/c they are 'good vs. evil' movies.
1) They're **Nazi's** fer cryin out loud! That's as close to pure evil as we get on this planet.
2) As I recall, there were some sympathetic/non-evil Germans/Nazi's in both of those movies. Remember in SPR the scene where they take out the sniper's nest out in the middle of nowhere? 'The good guys' want to shoot the poor, unwitting German soldier who really doesn't want to be a part of Nazi-ism in the first place? Where's the black+white, good-vs-evil plot there? Speilberg did a damn fine job with both movies, IMESHO.
Some people just find it too easy to critisize them because they were popular, and therefore appeal to the mindless masses, and so they must suck.
Oh fuck...and I promised myself 'No rants today'.
>>Saving Private Ryan and Schindler's List were hardly feel good movies.
>Actually those are feel good movies. SPR feels good to american patroism idiots, and SL feels good to uneducated sophomores.
I hardly think a movie that shows people getting bloodily shot, abused, raped, murdered, tortured, and de-humanized is a feel good movie. Yes, they both ended on a positive note. SL showing all the people who managed to survive because of Schindler, SPR shows 'private ryan' remembring the guy that saved is butt. Whether or not ending on a positive not is a good or bad thing is an artistic interpretation.
Also: Patriotic idiots? Yeah, that's me. Guilty as charged. But SPR also shows that the govt/military does stupid brainless stuff. Like saving the last surviving son of a family by endangering the lives of a dozen or so good soldiers. Real stupid and brainless, that.
Uneducated sophomores? I don't quite follow that one.
I'm not sure if you realise, but E.T. and Close Encounters suck dead donkey turds. E.T. is a manipulative piece of tripe, and Close Encounters is almost as boring as 2001 (decent book, horrible film adaptation).
On the other hand, since Spielberg has shown himself capable of cinema at least as putrescent as Kubrick, maybe he's not such a bad choice after all!
If the movie you are refering to is Pelle the Conqueror I'd have to disagree about it beeing a "feel good" movie. It is full of hardship and deprivation. Sure, in the end Pelle goes out in to the wold having overcome the hardship of his life, but even that final scene is not a "feel good" scene, he leaves his old father alone and walks off into the snow...
That is the most rediculous thing I've ever heard.
do remember the end of the movie where that same german soldier kills tom hanks? that was kind of a major point.
Excuse me, but how do you know Vietnam (the war upon which FMJ was based) wasn't itself cartoonlike or otherwise weird in that way?
Full Metal Jacket certainly does capture what it's like to be a soldier - I refer you to a couple of scenes in particular: what happens when they screw with the washout in boot camp (instead of just tossing him out) until he snaps, and the disorder that ensues when three squad leaders in a row get capped by what turns out to be a 12-year-old girl.
Just because Kubrick doesn't show you the moment of bullet-meets-chest impact doesn't mean it's any less "true to combat" than was Saving Private Ryan.
_____
The antidote to bad speech is not censorship, but more speech.
What do you mean that George Lucas can't do thought-provoking science fiction? Ever see THX1138?
NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!
Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
You cannot wash away blood with blood
Why won't they film Harlan Ellison's script of several Asimov novels I, Robot: The Illustrated Screenplay.
Erik
Has it ever occurred to you that God might be a committee?
Has it ever occurred to you that God might be a committee?
--- Jubal Harshaw
I've heard that despite the public pseudo-adoration that Kubrick actually thought Spielberg was a sentimental wheenie. I concur. Remember, Kubrick is a man who said (correctly) that Schindler's List wasn't about the holocaust.
Remember An American Tail? That movie was beautiful, both for children who loved the mouse characters, and the adults like me who could appreciate events such as the Pogroms, and the sweet irony of cats dressing as mice in America. "Sweet irony of cats dressing as mice"?!? This like alone blows your entire argument out the window.
I think what he's implying is that the movie is already partially finished and that Spielberg is going to continue the work. Probably not too unlike Phil Joanu continuing Michael Apted's work in 21 Up.
I have a great-uncle who was an Austrian conscript in Hitler's army. He was on active duty for a few weeks, and he said the best thing that happened to him was when his unit was captured (well, apparently, they went out of their way to surrender) - and he spent the next 4 years as a POW, one year of that doing slave labor in a French coal mine, underground for weeks at a time, living off of 500 grams of bread a day. But it was better than serving the axis.
"The number of suckers born each minute doubles every 18 months."
These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
I didn't think that you were calling my grandfather evil, I was suggesting that a movie that questiond a native German's place on the U.S. side in the war, for example, might make for a deeper and more interesting story. Instead of just propping up the generic crouts to have them knocked down shooting gallery style. A story I'd like to see told is the US's horrible and stupid treatment of Japanese-Americans during the war, and even more stupidly our treatment of other non-Japanese US Asian citizens. Move after movie shallowly celebrating Americanisim make my stomach turn and it's booring too.
is here. It's NYTimes...so you need the free account.
Not much for me to add. Kurick rocked my world...changed the way I look at it actually. I'm thrilled that AI might finally see the light of day. Speilberg is no Kubrick. So what? He is a good director, and if Kubrick trusted him with this project...who am I to argue?
My grandfather came to the U.S. about ten years before the war. Had he stayed in Germany, he most certainly would have been in the German army. Instead, he fought for the U.S. and actually landed in the first wave of the D-Day invasion. Was my grandfather a heroic soldier or, "the closest thing to evil on this planet" since he could very easily have been on the other side? What did he think about killing his own x-countrymen, maybe even people he knew?. Wouldn't a story with a little more depth like this be more interesting? Better than Hollywood's enless rehashing of the senselessly evil and seemingly invincible bad guys against local boys with hearts of gold.
Write like him yes, write even passibly as well, no. Could Mozart compose like Bach? Probably not, but for a different reason. Mozart wouldn't want to and, due to his nature, therefore wouldn't be able to. Bach was considered merly a good organist and teacher until many years after Mozart's death. If I remember my history correctly, Mozart did appreciate his genius, but considered him old fashioned.
Shpeil-berg: ."
"okay, so first, we make a few minor changes. The kid's a robot, right? so we make him super-smart. He builds a radio that detects alien life, and he finds out that they're going to invade earth, so, he also builds a small space-fighter ship, out of an old junker project-car his dad left in the garage, but abandoned because he got depressed about not being able to have any kids, then, the kid flies the car into space, and beats the alien armada, except for the mother ship, that has a death-ray aimed at his family's house. Well, this kid lands in the fighter bay of the mother ship, and gets out, and goes hand-to-hand with the alien soldiers (because he has super-powers too! he's a robot!), and we'll have like 10 different varieties of aliens, so we'll have collectable action figures, plus alien space fighter toys, and of course, the converted mustang-spaceship (get our CGI guys working on that right away), . .
no thanks.
"The number of suckers born each minute doubles every 18 months."
These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
It's like having the Spice Girls do Aretha Franklin's "Freedom". Speilburg is an absolute washout in integrity.
Saving Private Ryan stood out for me (11 years in the Royal Canadian Armoured Corps) for two reasons:
The first was the graphic realism of weapons effects. Yeesh, *nobody* has done a better job of conveying the destructive nature of modern firearms and weapons - the scene where the Americans are swarming over the tank and that 20mm opens up on them and chops them poor SPPUTs to bits still gives me the willies.
The second was the absolutly perfect, bang-on portrayal of the relationship of the officer to his Sgt-Major. That's the way it really is kids, and when Hanks gives his little speech about "I've lost 91 men under my command, but that means I've saved 10, maybe 20 times as many, right?" well, that's the way you rationalize it.
Saving Private Ryan is the only war film I've seen that gets the human side right. Glory comes close in spots, but SPR was bang-on perfect.
That's not to say Full Metal Jacket is an inferior film - it just hangs on the edge of becoming a caracature, a cartoon, throughout the whole movie. That Kuberick can pull that off without becoming silly is a mark of genius. But it didn't capture what it's _like_ to be a soldier like SPR did.
Different movies, different styles - but in his own idiom, Spielberg is every bit the director that Kuberick was.
And Close Encounters(without the ending in the spaceship).
Spielberg has made some great movies in his time, i expected saving private ryan to be another sissy war movie, however the first 30 mins or that film moved me in a way i had never experienced at the movies before, the rest of the film was a little wishy washy, anyhow, AI will be a good movie if spielberg keeps his political views OUT of the picture and concentrates on telling the story.
Of course, there are plenty of movies that don't fall into the definition of a "feel good" movie. "Feel good" movies are appealing to the masses since they manipulate the viewer into a reaction. SPR did this on both the pessimistic and optimitic sides. It documented the horrors of war (nazi killing the Jewish GI) but then paradoxically patted the allies on the back (this is the appealing part to nationalists). Personally, I don't find anything wrong with the part about depicting war a brutal. Appealing to the emotionals would serve that best. It's the pat on the back or leaving the the theater in tears of joy or pride that most of the people here have a problem with I'm guessing. For the movie to "stick" or have some long-term meaning it demands conscious involvement with the viewer and that is best accomplished by appealing to the reason of the viewer and forcing him or her to make a decision based upon what they have seen.
I'll bet no one came out of SPR debating about the ideas presented in the movie. Nazis, bad; allies, good would have been the concensus. Compare that with a movie like Full Metal Jacket or A Clockwork Orange. Does the welfare of society outweigh the freedom of an individual? Is one question I can think of presented in both movies. This isn't something I've ever seen in a Spielberg movie.
If Spielberg stays close to Kubrick's vision, doesn't do anything stupid like giving a girl a red coat or sticking the robot in Nazi Germany I think he'll pull it off.
Anyway, the short answer to that last question: anything Kubrick made. Of course the definitions I used were my own. But the viewer needs to have some involvement with their own humanity and that is something that just cannot be accomplished with a purely manipulitve film.
end stream of consciousness
You will need the following ingredients:
10lbs money
1lb Explosive sound effects
15lbs visual FX
5 cups hammy string orhestra music
20 cups of children
20 cups of "the man" (science/buisness/adults)
10 cups sappy optimisim
2 cups child wisdom
1 predictable outcome
1 underdog
1 antagonist
1lb hype
1tsp good script/book/screenplay/hallucination
2lbs cliche
4lbs valium
5 cups modern trends
10 cups advertisers
10 cups endorsement
10 cups merchandising
Steps:
Lower the temperature to 72 degrees farenheight if not already so. maintain this temperature throughout.
Take 15lbs of Visual FX, and mix slowly with the hammy string orchestra music. Sprinkle in 1tsp of your story/script/hallucination.
Proceed to draw this out in an extremely long string, producing about sixty feet of material from this 1tsp of story.
Now, roll in a thick mixture of children and sappy optimisim mixed together and heated lightly. Sweeten until subtle tastes are lost.
Drizzle with the underdog, appropriately governed by the story's consistency spread thin through the material.
At about a quarter of the way through, smother with antagonist. Soak with the man, and lighly whip in valium, to keep things nice and even for the moviegoers, don't want to suprise them.
Now slowly start pouring on child wisdom until all has been expended. At this point take whatever FX, music, and sappy optimisim you have left and smother.
Remove all traces of the man, and the antagonist, and dip in a predictable ending mixed with sappy optimisim.
Mix the advertisers and modern trends together, and lightly powder with it. Sprinkle on cliche.
Mix the hype and product endorsement and merchandising together. A thick sticky broth-like mixture should result. Add some FX, and sprinkle on sound.
Boil your movie in this mixture.
Here's your acadamy award.
I'm just being cynical. Seriously, saving private ryan was OK, as was schindler's list, and empire of the sun.
The rest is just a long drawn out toy commercial.
I disagree and hold myself in contempt, what blashphemy!
The technical ability of Spielberg as a sci-fi, hi-tech movie maker supervised by a more cerebral, in-depth producer.
Looks promising, I mean, if only Kubrick had been able to actually supervise the making.
Yet, I don't think of Spielberg only as a blockbuster wizard.
Schindler's List and Saving Private Ryan weren't mere FX stunt-movies IMHO...
marco baciarello
There has been a longstanding rumor that Kubrick was working on this movie for almost twenty years, shooting footage of a child actor as he grew up. Who knows how true that is?
What I do know is that Spielberg is the only man with any insight into directing a Kubrick film.
Here is a list of the films Spielberg has been involved in. Any man who had something to do with making Empire of the Sun can't be all bad.
--Conquering the Earth Since 1978.
He even beats you over the head with the gratuitous zoom ahead to the present last two minutes in each movie to further drive home the point. Jeez, go see "Pell the Conquerer" if you want to see a real "feel good" movie.
Can anybody explain to me about this. The article mentions this movie was withdrwam after threats made to the Kubrick family (sending a brown bag with a ticking clockwork orange!) When did this happen? I saw the movie right? Tino Meinen tino@direct.a2000.nl
Perhaps this is also the case with good stories/movies. Perhaps all movies could be grouped in 7 (I like the number 7) stories.
- Pinocchio/Frankenstein/This new film
- Romeo&Juliet/..../....
I don't claim it to be true but it could be an argument against Intellectual Property rights... "Hey, sure I copied this film, but it's a copy of a 6000 year old idea, so it should be Public Domain anyway.">Saving Private Ryan and Schindler's List were hardly feel good movies.
Actually those are feel good movies. SPR feels good to american patroism idiots, and SL feels good to uneducated sophomores.
Xah
xah@best.com
http://www.best.com/~xah/PageTwo_dir/more.html
If anyone can do this, Spielberg can. Contrary to what many people seem to believe, he actually has made some very good science-fiction; witness E.T. and Close Encounters of the Third Kind (never mind that the encounter to which the title refers is actually of the fourth kind).
Can he do a Kubrick film? Perhaps. The closest he's come, as some people have pointed out, are Schindler's List and Saving Private Ryan. In other words, he's going to have to use all his skills to do this. I wish him the best of luck in that regard.
They were close friends and had great respect for each other actually.
Speilberg would often show previews of his films to Kubrick before the studio had a chence ro see them.
(We recently had a weekend of Kubrick programmes on the television here in Britain - very entertaining)
I think he made the best of a bad situation.
Think Robin Williams as the robot.
In the August 1999 issue of playboy there was a story by Ian Watson about his work with Stanley Kubrick on the movie AI. Interesting read really, and gives more details about the movie. (A robotic boy, his talking bear, and buddy gigolo robot caretaker.. not my cup of tea, but whatever floats your boat)
Stanley = creativity and love Spielbug = money and power Bad news... for me (IMHO)
spielberg has to do *something* with that spendy dreamworks render farm...
Slightly off topic, but what the heck:
See also the brilliant "Maus" series by Art Spiegelman. A greater graphic novel has not, to my knowledge, been produced.
> Correction: Those were damn fine amusement park rides.
Yep. Read on.
>Why does a movie have to be 'artsy' to be >considered good?
There's nothing wrong with a three-braincell flick. Speilberg does his best work with movies like "Raiders", "Jaws" and "E.T." They were one-dimensional, designed to be that way, and they were great at it! Every time Speilberg has tried to do "meaningful" movies (i.e. Empire of the Sun, Saving Private Ryan, Schindler's List) I've seen the results and just wanted to hurl! It's more cotton candy in a fancy made-for-grownups wrapper.
Speilberg directing A.I.? * shudders * Not being familiar with the craft of moviemaking, I could be dead wrong. Perhaps the story, set, and whatnot have been worked out to the point where all that's needed is a technician with a good eye to bring Kubrick's vision to life. Frankly though, I'm not optomistic about this one.
If that ain't a great analogy and social commentary on the U.S., I don't know what is. Hmmm. Let's see. How about "Dawn of the Dead"? It's a far better examination of social conditions masked in a genre picture (zombies as the vanishing middle class, shopping mall as urban temple, etc.). That sure wasn't too hard.
I guess I'll just have to disagree with you there. I liked both SPR, and SL...have yet to see EotS. They weren't as deep as Kubrick by any stretch, and they weren't meant to be as cerebral. But I still think they are good movies. Speilberg can't touch Kubrick at what Kubrick does best. But Kubrick can't top Speilberg at his thing. And neither of them has really tried. Until now. This could be a Bad Thing. Or maybe not. The proof is in the pudding. (Whatever the hell *that* means... ;-))
You see, feel good flicks has gradients too.
/.ers. The latter encourages one to kill people of foreign country when conflict arises, as long as Uncle Sam says ok. (on that note, I encourage /.ers to watch Born on The Fourth of July)
Robocop, Police Academy, Action Hero, and so on and so forth and so on and so forth. These are the best feel good movies. They make American happy.
On a higher brow, there's the likes of Forrest Gump, Saving Private Ryan, and few others. The former imparts that good hearts are sufficient for the progress of the society. Brain optional. You can make it even if you are refuse to learn like
As for S.'s List, it impresses sophomores (aka semi-morons) who have just read a book or two about human history. You see, these people needs motion pictures to learn things. If there's no movies, who'd be out of their minds to be interested in the past?
Xah
xah@best.com
http://www.best.com/~xah/PageTwo_dir/more.html
I'm talking about Japanese Americans! Not Japanese POWs. People that had legally moved to this country and become American citizens, many decades before the war. We moved these citizens to prison camps in California. Note that no such thing was done to German-Americans (including my grandfather.)
>>Saving Private Ryan and Schindler's List were hardly feel good movies.
Actually those are feel good movies. SPR feels good to american patroism idiots, and SL feels good to uneducated sophomores.
An interesting definition. So, you would define (and therefore denigrate) a "feel good" movie as one which makes some miniscule slice of humanity feel good?
Is there any movie, then, that would not be a "feel good" movie?
That sounds like a lot of humanity there, not machinery.
I agree Kubrick would have made a better movie, and I wouldn't be surprised if Speilberg adds on those infamous two minutes at the end, which says to me, "Hey, in case you are a moron, here's the message I was trying to get across."
I could not justify my existence if I were a turkey farmer. Would I terminate myself? Undoubtably, yes.
Are there any stories Kafka wrote that were ever made into movies? I've only read a few of Kafka's stories, but really liked them. Just curious if a movie had ever been made out of one of them...
I could not justify my existence if I were a turkey farmer. Would I terminate myself? Undoubtably, yes.
Here is the link.
This was in my *Dutch* newspaper yesterday evening. Perhaps Rob should get a Reuters subscription or something. Saving Private had a lot more 'life' than Eyes Wide Shut, so maybe this will be an improvement.
This frightens me almost as much as Disney making Bicentennial Man . I wonder if this is an attempt to compete with that film. Damn, I hope El Spielbergo can pull this off.
He is just a very, very different director. Kubrick shunned the hollywood machine, while Spielburg IS the hollywood machine. This particular storyline sounds like ET 2 if you ask me, and I'm sure it will be marketed as such.
Considering how much detail is in the book I thought 2001 was magnificent.
I believe it was the first film to be shown in wide screen and Dolby stereo (in the UK at least).
Incidently, Arthur C. Clarkes sequels to 2001 reveal a lot more about the omnipotent monoliths.
What's the problem with the ending....it actually makes you think!!!
About a boy deemed to be a musical genius by the state. he is sent to live in isolation so his talent will be unadulterated by previous composers. One day a fan plays some Bach for him and his compositions are changed for ever. he is told to never perform or compose again and becomes a donut truck driver, the story goes on, he disobeys and each time another body part is removed, his hands, tongue, etc as punishment, great story, I don't know where Card copied the idea from, but it's a great story.....
Where can I read the short story? What book title?
I encourage ./'er to watch documentaries. People's Century is a good comprehensive set to watch to give you a general idea of where it might be interesting to start. Movies are fiction. Reality is so much more interesting. And terrifying.
All the charcters in FMV are not people, they're characatures - symbols, if you will. Meta-people. That's not a bad thing, it's just different. See Apocolypse Now (one of my all-time favourite movies - and not a war film, incidently) for a more extreme example. That's not to say that FMV is unrealistic - Kuberik certainly captures the chaos - "no plan survives contact with the enemy" - that ensues when the shit hits the fan. But his soldiers are much less human than Speilberg's. Of all the war movies I've seen - and as an ex-professional soldier, I've seen a LOT of war movies - only SPR captured what it's like to be one of us. You'd have to serve to understand, I guess.
Face it, the one Kubrick film that Spielberg could not make anything even close to is Dr. Strangelove. We can compare horror to horror, The Shining vs. Jaws. Sci fi to Sci fi, 2001 vs. ET and close encounters. War movies Saving Private Ryan vs Full metal jacket and Paths of Glory and so on. The differences are huge, but the one Kubrick film that Spielberg is furthest from is Dr. Strangelove. Even Kubrick couldn't touch it. It is the one that distances him the most from Spielberg.
--Shoeboy
However, he is also perhaps the only director who can produce a story for children without having to baby-talk to them, and make the story enjoyable for adults as well. Remember An American Tail? That movie was beautiful, both for children who loved the mouse characters, and the adults like me who could appreciate events such as the Pogroms, and the sweet irony of cats dressing as mice in America.
Will Spielberg make AI as a children movie? Well, I'm not sure. I must admit I thought AI would be a totally different story, given it was Kubrick's pet project. I know I imagine the story more along the lines of The Shining than E.T. The plot sounds to me like it should be a disturbing relationship between a child robot and a mother who just won't love him. It sounds like it should be uncomfortable.
With Spielberg at the helm, there is bound to be hope and light in the middle of the tragedy, but it just won't be Kubrick. In the ideal world, Kubrick wouldn't have wasted time with Eyes Wide Shut and would have given us his ultimate sci-fi movie after 2001 before dying. In this world, however, I think if someone can make a good movie out of the story of AI, it has to be Spielberg.
"There is no surer way to ruin a good discussion than to contaminate it with the facts."
With the possible exception of THX (a very early one) all his movies have very simplistic themes that make you feel good about who you are and blindly hate the 'bad guys.'
Guess I haven't seem them. I hope you don't suggest Saving Private Ryan or Schindler's List, because those were very one dimensional films that used the very simple good guy v.s. bad guy technique that in my book defines the very essence of the problem with American films today.
Great. Take what could have another masterpiece and throw it in the fucking trash. This would be like letting Steven King finish up Nietzsche's last book.