Re: Movie rant
The Avengers took it too far. They knew it was a crap film so they got BIG teddies, LOTS of BIG teddies AND PURPLE BIG teddies!!1 c.f also Aphex Twin videos.
Re: Movie rant
was stupid. Oh, and the plot at the end was too. But the teddy! The Teddy factor wins again. It seems that crap movies can be made clean by adding a teddy! The Avengers took it too far. They knew it was a crap film so they got BIG teddies, LOTS of BIG teddies AND PURPLE BIG teddies!!1
Re: Movie rant
On Mon, Oct 01, 2001 at 05:15:34PM +0100, Leon Brocard wrote:
Simon Wilcox sent the following bits through the ether:
What the hell was Steven Spielberg on and can he pass it round ?
I kind of liked AI. I had to feature a teddy in my summary. Greg and I
both think the teddy is the cutest part of the film and can't wait to
get one.
Teddy is clearly the best thing in the film.
It was quite interesting. However, it was too long. By half. It should
have stopped, errr, when he saw the boxes (he says carefully not
giving the plot away), or even before. The gratuitous CGI and the end
was stupid. Oh, and the plot at the end was too. But the teddy!
I and the friend I saw it with decided that there were at least 4
different places it could have ended. Sadly, none of them was where it
*did* end.
As to the question of whether it would have been substantially the same
if Kubrick had directed it... I don't think so. I think it would have
been... well, darker, if nothing else. Also, thematically, it struck me
as being much more up Kubrick's alley than Spielbergs - which might have
made it better, regardless of a happy ending.
I'm a big fan of Kubrick, but I certainly don't think he's infallible.
Eyes Wide Shut, for instance, did not impress me. In fact, my reaction
to that film is probably useful here: I didn't think it was that good,
but it usually takes some time to develop a firm view of a kubrick film.
With A. I., had it been made by kubrick, we might feel the same way.
With Spielberg, I have no such expectations.
dha
--
David H. Adler - [EMAIL PROTECTED] - http://www.panix.com/~dha/
for (('to you', 'dear '.shift)[0,0,1,0]) { print Happy birthday $_ }
- perl code for wishing someone a happy birthday
Courtesy of purl
Re: Movie rant
On Mon, Oct 01, 2001 at 11:03:36PM +0100, Lucy McWilliam wrote: On Mon, 1 Oct 2001, Leon Brocard wrote: I kind of liked AI. I had to feature a teddy in my summary. Greg and I both think the teddy is the cutest part of the film and can't wait to get one. I saw Enigma this evening. It doesn't feature any teddies, but it does have a big shiny calculating machine, an all-Brit cast and a vaguely intelligent plot. I'd been looking forward to this for a while - not sure why. I guess my recent reading pile has been mathematically oriented - Cryptonmicon. Contact, biostats stuff. Anyway, I wasn't disappointed. I saw posters for that while I was over. I am *really* annoyed that it shows no sign of showing up here. :-( dha -- David H. Adler - [EMAIL PROTECTED] - http://www.panix.com/~dha/ If you want a real optimist, look up Ray Bradbury. Guy's nuts. He actually likes people. - David Brin
Re: Movie rant
On Mon, 1 Oct 2001 12:25:45 -0400 (EDT) Chris Devers [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It's worth noting that this was apparently not just another gratuitous Spielbergism. It was apparently part of the story as Kubrick was planning on telling it, and as produced by Speilberg was true to that. Can you back that up at all? I'd be interested to know. Sam.
Re: Movie rant
SPOILER: AI On Tue, 2 Oct 2001, Sam Vilain wrote: On Mon, 1 Oct 2001 12:25:45 -0400 (EDT) Chris Devers [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It's worth noting that this was apparently not just another gratuitous Spielbergism. It was apparently part of the story as Kubrick was planning on telling it, and as produced by Speilberg was true to that. Can you back that up at all? I'd be interested to know. When the movie came out over the summer, there were several reviews that mentioned this, but I can't dig up anything substatial along those lines at the moment. However, this article -- apparently written before Steven Spielberg officially took on the film -- seems to back that up: http://www.supersphere.com/Zinetropa/Article.html?ID=CakewalkNAME=robot It mentions several possible directions that Kubrick might have taken the film, not all of which ended up happening (eg I don't remember the mother being an alcoholic), but it does indicate that everything that happened after the boy went underwater [SPOILER FROM HERE ON OUT] was part of the story that Kubrick Aldiss (author of the original short story) were working on together: Aldiss and Kubrick continued revising by expanding their story's timeline: now, after an initial exposition much like Supertoys, David would be found thousands of years later by other impossibly advanced robots who would recharge him in an attempt to better understand their extinct human heritage--long since disappeared from the planet. One wonders how Kubrick would have made that transition over such a vastness of time. Would it have mirrored his famous edit in 2001--that trajectory of white bone flung into blue sky, suddenly becoming a drifting space laser? Kubrick had already connected his vision to a time before recorded history; AI would have telescoped to the opposite bookend. Etc. The author of the article overall makes a pretty good case that AI was meant to be the final, threads-tying-up act to Kubrick's career, pointing out how Teddy had forebears [pun] in several previous movies, the themes being dealt with were revisits to earlier ones (Teddy == a more cuddly ( mature) HAL), etc. The look of the film may be more shiny/happy/Spielbergian, but I'm satisfied that in the meat of it the film is as Kubrick would have done it. It may feel a little different, but it makes the same points. -- Chris Devers [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Movie rant
What the hell was Steven Spielberg on and can he pass it round ? Yes I'm talking about the pile of shite that is A.I. Ok, the first half was quite interesting in that it examined some psychology around loss and grief. The second half was interesting only in that I was quite disturbed by the Flesh Fair scene [1]. The third half [2] was just crack induced ! Discuss [3]. Simon. [1] which is I suppose a purpose of cinema, to provoke an emotional response. [2] yes three halfs, it was way too long :-) [3] an attempt to move off this doom and gloom politics/industry threads !
Re: Movie rant
* Simon Wilcox ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: What the hell was Steven Spielberg on and can he pass it round ? before i read more your talking about AI Yes I'm talking about the pile of shite that is A.I. greg++ Ok, the first half was quite interesting in that it examined some psychology around loss and grief. The second half was interesting only in that I was quite disturbed by the Flesh Fair scene [1]. * SPOILERS * if they had stopped at the bit were he say `himself' in boxes, it would of been ok, but now we enter what we shall refer to as the crack induced part of the movie, as you now state The third half [2] was just crack induced ! Discuss [3]. he is a crack induced fool he wanted a happy ending and err aliens, yeah lots of aliens they sell well! ;-) Greg -- Greg McCarroll http://217.34.97.146/~gem/
Re: Movie rant
Simon Wilcox sent the following bits through the ether: What the hell was Steven Spielberg on and can he pass it round ? I kind of liked AI. I had to feature a teddy in my summary. Greg and I both think the teddy is the cutest part of the film and can't wait to get one. It was quite interesting. However, it was too long. By half. It should have stopped, errr, when he saw the boxes (he says carefully not giving the plot away), or even before. The gratuitous CGI and the end was stupid. Oh, and the plot at the end was too. But the teddy! Leon -- Leon Brocard.http://www.astray.com/ Nanoware...http://www.nanoware.org/ ... Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?
Re: Movie rant
Greg McCarroll wrote:
* Simon Wilcox ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
Ok, the first half was quite interesting in that it examined some
psychology around loss and grief.
and introduced Teddy.
The second half was interesting only in that I was quite disturbed by the
Flesh Fair scene [1].
and Teddy was in the second half a fair bit.
* SPOILERS *
if they had stopped at the bit were he say `himself' in boxes, it
would of been ok, but now we enter what we shall refer to as the
s/of/have :)
crack induced part of the movie, as you now state
The third half [2] was just crack induced !
Discuss [3].
he is a crack induced fool he wanted a happy ending and err aliens,
yeah lots of aliens they sell well! ;-)
Not aliens, but AI beings.. Unless I'm missing something. The ironic end
of the film where all the living creatures have been wiped out, and
we're just left with roberts.
I agree that it should have finished when David 'killed' himself. (Deja
vu with 'The Game', which should have ended at exactly the same point)
I did think Teddy was cool, though.
Jasper
--
split//,'019617511192'.
'1701610114101114'.
'21011141011840799901'.
'17101174';
foreach(0.. # my
$#_){$_[$_ # signature is too
++]^=$_[$_ # bignature
--]^=$_[$_
]^=$_[++$_]if!($_%
2)}$g.=$_ ,chr($g)=~
/(\w)/($o.=$1and
$g='')foreach@_;
print$o\n
Re: Movie rant
On Mon, 1 Oct 2001, Greg McCarroll wrote: [stuff stuff stuff] happy ending [more stuff] It's worth noting that this was apparently not just another gratuitous Spielbergism. It was apparently part of the story as Kubrick was planning on telling it, and as produced by Speilberg was true to that. So to me, the real question isn't that Spielberg ruined it, but that he may have been faithful to it, and if that's the case, and if you previously had a high opinion of Kubrick (obviously, not everyone does or did), then does this change it? If the exact same movie had some out but it didn't have Steven Spielberg's name on it, would you still hate it? Also, if you think about it a bit more, it's unlikely that those things at the end were aliens, though they were certainly more Close Encountersey than maybe would have otherwise been expected. Think of them as being, er, Something Else And Much More Obvious and it fits the story better. I'd blurt it out but am trying to play the no-spoilers game... -- Chris Devers [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Movie rant
Greg McCarroll sent the following bits through the ether: If you go to this film and get bored, ignore the main characters and play the popular Teddy watching game. Its much better than the crap that is in the centre of the screen. The best thing about this game is that Teddy is almost always in the shot, and quite often in the distance or in a corner. Beer is needed to play this game properly, of course. Leon -- Leon Brocard.http://www.astray.com/ Nanoware...http://www.nanoware.org/ ... Useless invention no. 404: Waterproof sponge
Re: Movie rant
On Mon, 1 Oct 2001, Leon Brocard wrote: I kind of liked AI. I had to feature a teddy in my summary. Greg and I both think the teddy is the cutest part of the film and can't wait to get one. I saw Enigma this evening. It doesn't feature any teddies, but it does have a big shiny calculating machine, an all-Brit cast and a vaguely intelligent plot. I'd been looking forward to this for a while - not sure why. I guess my recent reading pile has been mathematically oriented - Cryptonmicon. Contact, biostats stuff. Anyway, I wasn't disappointed. L. Ooh, big shiny datasets.
