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.
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According to his widow this year, "the film was withdrawn because we got so many threats that the police said we must do something and he withdrew it.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
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
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.
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.
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?
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.
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."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.
Here is the link.
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."