A.I. - Artificial Intelligence

[vector_matrix]

Eversince I heard the title of this movie I knew it would be something I would definately like to see - being a Speilberg film also makes it even more exciting. In fact, the story is actually based on an script from the late Stanley Kubric, but Speilberg has re-written the story and has appearantly made it less serious.

So far there haven't been any good sci-fi movies in the last few years - except The Matrix and Deep Impact - So I am really looking forward to this movie.

If you watch the trailer it is very vague and mysterious, but there are clues hidden within the trailer and posters.... so far there seems to be a lot of hype because of the lack of information available.

Many people on the net have been discussing their attitude towards Speilberg and they seem to see him as a businessman first then a storyteller. I was a little annoyed when I heard that the screenplay had been rewritten to be les serious, but I do enjoy Speilberg's films and I never really felt compelled to watch Kubric's films so maybe this might be a good thing.


Even though the majority of people don't know much about this film, there seem to be alot of buzz within the die-hard movie fans... I'm a bit suprised nobody has mentioned the movie on this board.

[OG-]

I was actually thinking about posting about this movie today, but never got around to it.

I was reading about it on IGN and it's begining to look better and better. I saw the trailer awhile back, and was thinking it would be good because it was Speilberg, but I still have this sneaking suspiscion(spelling?)that its going to be like D.A.R.Y.L.

I'm sure it will be different, but I still think its going to be like that movie some how.

[bigvalbowski]

AI will be a box office smash. I have no doubts about that.

But I am concerned with Spielberg's vision opposed to Kubrick. Their styles clash. Spielberg knows cute (ET and Hook). Kubrick hates cute, witness everything he has ever done. Spielberg has a tendency to go for the easy emotion. Check out the bookends of Private Ryan and the ending to the otherwise immaculate Schindler's List. Kubrick rarely let emotion slip into his films. Kubrick was about the experience, the art, not the manipulation.

So who's version are we going to get?

If Spielberg can harness his manipulative powers then AI may not be bad at all. His casting is already a bonus. Osment is the only child actor capable of such a part and Jude Law is simply amazing.

I'll wait and see. . .

[Rodney]

I've been looking forward to this movie too. It should be very good. I agree that it will definatly be a box office mash, like most Speilberg movies.

[Zephyrus]

Yep, this one definitely looks like it's gonna be a smash! I'm actually hoping that it will be a combination of both Spielberg's and Kubrick's styles, it would definitely make for interesting viewing.

While I think it will be a good movie, I'm almost certainly sure it won't get an Oscar for best picture next year...I just saw the preview for Pearl Harbour, and if that doesn't win best picture, then I'm a monkey's uncle! :D It just looks soooooo much like Oscar material, sort of like a Titanic love story mixed with tragedy!

Looking forward to both in any case! This year will definitely be a good one for the movies (unlike last year)!! ;D

[vector_matrix]

Originally posted by Zephyrus
This year will definitely be a good one for the movies (unlike last year)!! ;D

Yeah I know what you mean, last year was so disapointing. The only movies I liked were X-Men and Perfect Storm. (I looked forward to Mission To Mars, but the ending sucked and I almost saw Erin Brockovich, but only because of the hype)

[Aditya]

Originally posted by Zephyrus
I just saw the preview for Pearl Harbour, and if that doesn't win best picture, then I'm a monkey's uncle! :D It just looks soooooo much like Oscar material, sort of like a Titanic love story mixed with tragedy!

Sounds like From Here to Eternity

[Zephyrus]

Yep, so many good movies coming out, you just don't know where to start! It's definitely gonna lighten my pocket! :D

[mightymose]

All these good movies coming out and my buddy comes up from Chicago to see TombRaider... I'll let ya'll know about it tomorrow, though I haven't heard anything good yet.

I am pretty geeked to see AI. That kid is one helluva an actor. He was brilliant in Sixth Sense and great in Pay it Forward, though the movie was horrible b/c of the ending. I am pretty excited to see what he can do in a movie like this.

I think that Spielberg will combine his style with that of Kubrick, though I think he will tend to go for the easy emotion like the earlier posts.

Overall it should be a fun movie and a fun summer... and amen to the pocketbook being lighters!

[Steve]

This flick looks good. I hope it is, I seriously do. With a preview like that, something has to be up. Theres lots of flicks to look forward to, though. I'm seeing Tomb Raider this weekend.

This year's been good so far, my favorites are The Widow of St. Pierre, Memento, Moulin Rouge, Wit, and Shrek.

mightymose, you liked Pay it Forward? Ugh!

[Yoda]

Shrek -- I've yet to find a person who didn't like that movie. I'm dead serious.

A.I. looks good -- no doubt about it. It also looks odd, though. Let's face it: this movie is going to try to make us think things through. We're supposed to come out of it with some deep, philosophical questions on our minds. This gives it a bomb-factor: if you try to make people think deep thoughts, and fail, you're toast.

That said, I don't want to venture a guess as to whether or not I will enjoy this movie. I really cannot say. I certainly want to see it, however, if only to satisfy my curiousity.

[Zweeedorf]

If anything this movie will be Spielberg's and have no ties to Kubrick at all. Kubrick had already decided to let Spielberg direct before he died, so he doesn't have any obligations to make the movie according to Kubricks criteria. The will most certainly be a Spielberg movie with great special effects and no real meaning behind it. It's pretty much a modern day Pinochio(spelling?) story and thats what Spielberg is going to with it, I think. If Kubrick had done... well thats another story, but I think that AI will be an enjoyable movie and maybe pick up a few oscar nominations.

[Yoda]

No real meaning? Uh, are we talking about the same movie? I don't see this movie as being higher on special effects than on meaning.

[Zweeedorf]

It really has no unique meaning. It's a millenium-fied Pinochio(spelling?) If Kubrick had done the film I know he would have put huge spin on the story and made it different from what you would expect. Spielberg though is just going to make it a millenium-fied Pinochio. This is all just a guess of course I'll have to see it, but the previews make it appear this way.

[Yoda]

Well, here's my theory: it's going to be all about whether or not machines are human, and will force us to think about a difficult, yet important issue: when do machines become alive? Do they at all?

This movie is here just in time: technology is at a crossroads. We will have to decide what can be done with our newfound powers (genetics, AI, etc), and what is considered moral. This movie will likely depict the rights of machines.

This will force us to examine these morals, and try to decide where the line should be drawn. Pinnochio had none of that. :) The "I am a real boy" reference is just a clever line, in my opinion.

[Zweeedorf]

I enjoy your theory on the movie and hope in the name of all that is holy that you are right.

[mightymose]

Just read an interesting article on AI... don't worry, no spoilers :)

http://www.drudgereport.com/link6.htm

[Yoda]

Has anyone else read some of the things Haley has written? This kid is obviously very bright. He's more articulate on paper than most other people years his senior. I suppose most child actors are intelligent people, with few exceptions.

[PigsnieLite]

Pigsnie just saw a preview of AI & he told me the ending. (I dont mind, I like being spoiled :)) Anyhoo, it is one of the worst endings I have ever heard, Pigsnie sounded pretty disapointed. He said people laughed at inapropriate places & kept looking at their watches thruout the movie. Some people even walked out, he said.Sad, I dont know if I want to see it now and he says this isNOT a kiddy movie so dont bring 6 year olds. :bawl:

[Steve]

I saw this movie today...WOW!

I'm not ashamed to admit that I was blown away...up to a point. I thought the ending was too "Spielbergian". It took the easy way out, and went for sentimentality.

But before that? I was moved, and shown a world that was completely new to me...I don't think I've seen a movie like A.I. before. It's so damn visionary and ambitious, but at the end, I just can't even put my finger on it... I'm not going to outline the events of the movie, but I will say that the ending feels false, and tacked on.

I think that this is one of the most visionary and original films I've ever seen...it's such a bummer that it doesn't deliver at the end. But I would not want to discourage my fellow posters from seeing it, because even in its imperfect form, it's a reminder to where films can take us. Everyone here needs to see it. It's your duty as film lovers.

And I will also say that Haley Joel Osment is one of THE best working actors. He's terrific, and deserves an Oscar nomination.

[Pigsnie]

Some Spoilage, Ok, Maybe Lots ... WARNING!

A.I. gets a 7 out of 10 rating from moi, Mr. Pigsnip. The first two thirds of the movie were pretty good & even moving (that teddy bear was some scene stealer though!) but there were little things about David's robotics that niggled at me. Like why he would eat spinach and why he even has a mecha alimentary canal. The Flesh Fair was decent, but I have seen a lot of it before in MAD MAX & BLADERUNNER. (Nevertheless, there were some astonishing images like the scene of mechas muddling about for body parts.) But the third act was truly disappointing -- Spielberg pulled another Schindler on me. (REMEMBER Schindler's 3rd Act?) David is found after 2000 years, and all he still wants is his mother's love. (He doesn't want to know what happened to Niles & Daphne? :) ) Fortunately, he has some of his mummy's hair, woooohoooo!!! Anyway, I quote Aunty Entity and sayeth the 3rd act was pigs**t. If you want to see the great movie that A.I. could have been, leave the theatre before the "Awakening."

Best things about A.I.
Osment & Law. Both deserve an Oscar nod. The film could have used a lot more of Gigolo Joe too ; he was the only thing that interested my female companion.


[Edited by Pigsnie on 06-30-2001]

[Zweeedorf]

WOW!! This was a pretty good flick up till the end, but I won't give anything away. I will say that when the end came I had tears in my eyes from laughing so hard at how stupid it was, and I remember whispering to myself something to the effect of " Oh God, oh God how could this have happened."

[fusion]

Kudos to you, Stanley!!! How very much, indeed, we needed this treat of a good Sci-Fi. What an astonishing, mesmerizing glimpse into the mind of a Kubric, ironically enough, mirrored through the deep pockets of a Spielberg. More important than the mere gathering of these visionary images to create a profitable product for Joe Schmoe, ought to be the great philosophical masterpiece which Kubric has left us with, where we're being reminded of attachment and detachment, giving and taking life, ethical dealings with and intervention in any of these previously mentioned. In short, the conflicting intricacies of technological progression and moral responsibility. At some point in the movie, I wanted to believe that it was quite unfair to have created a thinking, feeling, reasoning being like David, and then leave it entirely unprepared for emotionally traumatic experiences, say the loss of a beloved for instance, then again, if god existed, would he think of us as being "unprepared"? Think Descartes...
And yes, do leave the theater after he finds the Blue watchamacallit, to get the true "Kubri-esque" feeling, the rest is barely video-worthy.

[Zweeedorf]

No offense to anyone but if anybody puts the name "Stanley Kubrick" in a message about this film derserves to be kicked in the a$$. This was not a Kubrick and film and was so far below him that I'm about to throw up. Speilberg did a fine job killing Kubricks idea. This is not to say that I didn't enjoy the movie but the above stated director would have done it a trillion times better than the over-rated Speilberg

[Yoda]

Oh give me a break man. Kubrick is not God. God is not Kubrick. And most important of all, lay off Spielberg. The dude is good. As for the film: well, do you know something I don't about what Kubrick wanted for this film, exactly? Oh, and notice: I've moved this thread to the Movie Reviews forum. :)

Here are my thoughts on the movie: (MAJOR SPOILERS! CAREFUL!)

Having him run into a gigolo was good. Let's face it, that's what those robots would be used for quite often. Nice, realistic touch.

The parents were idiots. They hardly talked to David and didn't seem to be asking him any questions. What's up with that?

Dr. Hobby would NOT have just left him alone at the end unless he wante to see what he would do -- and if he did, we should have known about it somehow.

THOU SHALT NOT TRY TO PREDICT THE FUTURE! I'm sorry, but you simply CANNOT show those futuristic robots. It's ridiculous. No matter what, you're not going to be anywhere near right, and it's going to look stupid, so don't do anything like that. My suggested alternative:

Have him "wake up" in his house. All of a sudden, Teddy talks to him. The voice (of Teddy) explains that 2000 years have passed, and that they have decided to talk to David in this form so that he will remain comfortable. This way, we don't have to see a stupid representation of future machines, and we don't have to hear one of them who has a British accent.

When I saw the machines with him and such, my guess was that they were somehow going to alter him so that he could live with his mother (in his mind at least) forever after, thus leaving him happy.

The global warming stuff in the beginning ticked me off, and I was even less happy when, much to my chagrin, they depicted humans as having died off...HOWEVER, I give Spielberg props for keeping a sense of mystery there at the end. Those machines admired us and considered us, in some odd way, to be superior. They also talked about some supernatural things, which I thought was a good way to leave things open-ended. The movie, thanks to that, took less of a political side, and I'm glad it's in there.

The movie was poorly edited in some places. More than once I thought the movie was about to end.

I wanted to see more about whether or not robots should have the same rights as humans. I want to see a debate before a congressional body of some sort, ala X-Men. That scene in X-Men, and the whole "political" aspect of it made it seem so much more real. And isn't that one of the things this movie is about: trying to make us face an issue that will become reality in, perhaps, a couple hundered years, or less?

Some of the scene had me wanting to bawl, but I held back. Osment can really tug at those heartstrings.


Any agreements/disagreements? I'm really, really adament about not showing those creatures at the end. I kept referring to them afterwards as "aliens" by accident. I think an ending that did not specifically show them to you, or allow you to hear them, would have left the movie fairly decent.

Oh, and anyone else think that if Kubrick were more involved, the movie would have ended with David sitting there on the ocean floor, making his wish again and again forever? It's more depressing, but it might have been better. I'm torn on it really.

[Steve]

Zwee, shut up. :D

It's half-Kubrick, half-Spielberg. Kubrick's influence is obvious, mostly in the beginning, what with the slow pacing and visual style (although the overlit and backlit shots are trademark Spielberg). But the storytelling style was much less sentimental than your typical Spielberg flick, until of course, the third act. I suppose the themes of parents and children also have Spielberg's influence, but personally I found Kubrick's style to be in much more of the film than I was expecting.

Everyone on this board, go see this movie right now.

[Yoda]

Originally posted by Steve N.
Everyone on this board, go see this movie right now.

...but leave 20 minutes before it ends if you don't like poorly done endings. :D

[Pigsnie]

For a far more interesting take on androids/robots, check out two of STAR TREK: THE NEXT GENERATION's Data episodes: The Measure of a Man (is Data sentient?) and the ep (I forgot the title) in which Data fights for the custody of his android daughter. The daughter "dies" when she starts to feel emotions for the first time. (Her wires get mucked up, probably from sniffing spinach.) :)

On the idea of a child robot, WHY make one??? The parents are going to age and die; what's going to happen to the robot then? Would it be programmed to self destruct during the funeral? Basically, David is a whiny Energizer Bunny of Need, a demanding, relentless "I Love Mummy" Machine, with scarcely a thought in his head about anything else. The teddy bear is smarter than he is, and even he started to grate by the end.

PS. Anyone notice that, unlike Joe, Jane Gigola seemed just a tad dumber? For SHAME, Spielbilge !!!!! :p

[Yoda]

We didn't see more than 5 seconds of Jane, so I can't tell. However, Joe sure was awfully wise for a Gigolo though, eh? I guess all robots are smart in comparison to us. Oh, and I think that, yes, David was a bit of a "mama's boy", but he was genuine about it. I found myself sympathizing with him the whole time. He was very believable.

As for why people would make one: well, like it was said in the movie, some parents simply could not get a license to have a child. I guess it's a form of population control. Interesting thought really, and unfortunatly, it's probably a realistic possibility. I can definintely see many people being interested in having such a "child" around.

[Pigsnie]

Ha ha, the teddy bear was exceeding wise as well !! Frankly, Jude Law was wasted -- you blinked and he's gigoloed off the screen. Oh, I forgot to mention another thing that bothered me; perhaps it bugged you as well, Commish, SteveN, Zwee?

Can one clone the owner's memories from a hair?

[thmilin]

Dudes, I cried and I cried and I cried.

Why were y'all analyzing this movie? Why were you thinking about anything else except the experience? That's what I go to movies for. Sh|t, I'm even a film minor, and have done all sorts of analysis, but while I'm IN the film, that's a no-no. That's not fair to the movie, nor the experience, nor to the institution of film. Y'all are so jaded and so set on categorizing the film, it's source, and what it's made of, I'm worried that you missed the feeling behind it, the feeling it was meant to evoke, and the ideas and complications Chris touched on.

Or maybe you did all this analysis after. I sure hope so, but you're talking about fidgeting and such during the movie and all I know is, other than noticing some of the things Chris mentioned, I didn't really trip. Even with the iffy ending. I was immersed right up till the third act. Then I kept my mouth shut and waited till after to complain.

Ok, the general: This movie moved me. It made me think. Haley is incredible - I have said it before and I'll say it again, that boy is THE boy for tortured. If you ever want someone to capture true suffering, he is the one you want. Good god. Whew! Ok, and, this movie provoked me, made me feel about the characters - that, above all, is rare these days in Hollywood, esp with all that big $ being thrown around. But, I will agree, it got too sentimental in some areas, was very iffy on some logic, and grand as it wanted to be, was so grand it missed on the little details that would have made it richer, more thorough, and may have revealed a more proper and fitting ending for audience and concept. At the end I saw the credits and saw that it had been based off a short story - which may explain why it failed for us in the end.

This is a VERY depressing movie folks - there is a lot of pain for this boy and you are forewarned. A whole lot of grown folks walked out of the movie with snack bar tissues crumpled to their faces, and snotty nosed, including me. I fought it. I really did. I'm no wuss. But the story and Haley just broke my heart. Beautiful visuals in lots of places, very original characters (Jude Law, Teddy) and a wonderful sense of scope and wonder. A fantastic sense of the human desire to dream and achieve dreams.

The specific - SPOILERS ...

...
...
...

The Flesh Fair and the point of the film: I've seen Blade Runner and I've seen Mad Max and I've seen a lot of media carnage. But I have not seen it through the eyes of a 7 year old boy who does not understand human cruelty and does not realize that this is what is being inflicted upon him and others of his kind. He does not even know what he IS let alone WHY this is being done to others, or that it will be done to HIM. You know, as I child, I remember the Pinocchio story. And I remember the movie. And I remember, at that age being horrified by the underworld he visits, being filled with fear more than anything, for this boy who is clueless and does not know the danger he is in - that makes the danger that much more scary, and being his age at the time, I put myself in his place and felt that fear sharply. The same thing happened here. In general, I've always had a distinct distaste for dolls/human-like things. I don't like them. Not even the movie Mannequin really eased my fears. Body parts in any removable form - Barbies included - always felt unnatural to me. Seeing those machines was awful, disgusting, seeing them put themselves together, scavenging for body parts, seeing them as horror shows, things of nightmare, forced to do this because, as Jude's character said, humans have driven them to this, have made them and sought to destroy them and hate them - for selfish, blind, no good reasons. It's the sheer horror of human creation, the ugliness behind man's genius, the atomic bomb, racism, genocide, etc. Now, in the case of the robots with no feelings - there are obviously subtleties, but if they have intelligence, feelings, etc., they are beings, who cares of what type! what being should EVER have to experience THAT?

This is genocide of another sort, the kind that creates a race with FEELINGS and then degrades, tortures, exterminates, treats them as NOTHING, as objects, as THINGS. This is the EXACT same thing as a REAL mother giving birth and leaving her baby drowned in a toilet, or crack addicted in a garbage can. The same thing with child abuse, etc. And Fusion - and if God created human beings, but he left us to support one another, he left us with growing knowledge with numbers, with majority. The race of robots in AI had no such freedom, no such support, were at the mercy of their creators for maintenance, housing, care - or the lack of. Humans were blind, greedy, selfish, using, and believing the whole time that they were altruistic, creators, helping humankind, while in fact contributing to its moral and spiritual demise.

The lesson I think Spielberg was very blatant about painting is that we should avoid AI entirely unless we are COMPLETELY guaranteed to accept full responsibility for what we create. We cannot create a life and then negate it. WE are not God. To do so in this fashion, to serve our own purposes, is to raise up the worst in humankind and to perpetuate suffering. It is to deny humanity. I am sorry, but the moment that the movie established that some robots could feel - both emotional and physical pain - that Haley's character could LOVE - forget about hate, that boy has emotion, and that alone made him human enough for me. He feels as a human, then he should be treated as a human. What Monica did was just horrible - how others treated him, so cruel - and none of them thought they were doing a thing wrong!

Ok, plot elements ... based off Chris' list ...

Parenting - good gorsh, why the heck didn't these "parents" ever think to discipline their son and ASK what had happened? Not once did they ever think to ask the story from both boys and find out what, exactly, was the story. that's what irritated me - Monica was not supposed to imprint unless she was prepared to make the boy LOVE her. that does not mean service. that does not mean chores. that means LOVE. ie, you want love. now, why would you just randomly want someone to love you? either out of sadistic egotism, OR, you plan to love them back. so, um, why didn't Monica behave as such? she could have just had two sons she loved, good grief, it didn't have to be one or the other. and turning him out into the world liek that ... ugh. but i already covered that.

gigolo - Jude was amusing as heck but I feel we could have had more of him. they made this big deal about Haley finding out what he is and where he's from in the trailer but I really dont' think they covered that much at all. i think till the end that Haley knew he wasn't "real" but I don't think he really understand what he WAS. he bonded with no one except Teddy, and sometimes the way he'd run off i'd wonder if he was really feeling anything for Teddy at all. they didn't really cover that well - does he love only Monica and feel nothing for others?

humor - something about how this movie sits in the end has to do with this weird slide with humor. we get touches, with Teddy and Jude. But a lot of it is horrific and we lose that humor and I kind of feel that they should have incorporated more into it, since it really became so full of despair toward the end.

aliens - I totally think those were aliens. i don't think they were robots. the world froze over. i still don't understand how on earth Haley survived, but if it's cause he was under water in an "airtight" helicopter, fine, I'll let that slide. i still don't get how he was able to swim underwater without harm but spinach ruins him. but anyway, i don't know, something about the way that was set up, I am positive Spielberg wants those to be aliens. i found that highly cheesy and could have done without that. but it's something about how the robots existed - they were dependent on humans for maintenance. i'm sure in the future humans could have taught them things to some degree to maintain themselves, but i mean, idon't imagine robots as living two thousand years, ya know? and if the world froze over and such, the robots would have been just as run over and destroyed as humans, and without tools to handle themselves. and something about the way the aliens spoke about humans, as this other race of beings who created robots, not having created *themselves*. i also thought they'd do the simple thing and mess with haley's mind (since they can experience his memories) and put him in a mental box with the blasted Monica for the rest of his innocent life so he can FINALLY life happily ever after. also, what's with having the first alien speak through silence with translations to the others, then later speak aloud to them, also when alone with the others? continuity, people. Anyway, I agree, they shouldn't have shown the aliens at all. This is a "fairy tale" but there are laws to telling a story and you dont' change them at the end.

Dr. Hobby - I think he really did just go to get the others to introduce him, thinking that this robot will just chill happily in the chair understanding who/what he is and enjoying the delightful little discoveries Dr. Hobby has made. That human/scientific arrogance again. Everything the boy has known has been a lie, he has just smashed his own face in and beheaded himself. I so knew he was going to commit suicide and when he was outside on the ledge by god i was ready to scream out loud for him cause that was the part where I really started crying, I couldn't take it anymore.

whew. i'm all typed out. :)

[Pigsnie]

Must assimi ... late above re .. view. Might take a ... while. May .. be a week. :) But one .. more quest .. ion, Thmi .. lin.

Is the programmed love of a child ... REAL LOVE?

And now that I think about it ... oh oh, here is PLite in his Winnie the Pooh PJs, demanding his breakfast ... the one scene that did make me weepish is NannyBot's demise at the Flesh Fair. Sniff sniff ... alright alright, there's a carton of milk behind the salad, jeeez ......

[Yoda]

SPOILERS!

.
..
...
....
.....

I dunno: aliens? I mean, you could see their circuitry, etc. I mean, I can't really tell, but no matter what planet they're supposed to be from, I think they're supposed to be mechanical in some way. Oh, and I don't know what real love is. The only way a machine can be truly sentient, though, is if it is built to learn specifically, and even then, we may have a long way to go.

Either way, I have to doubt that machines will ever truly be like humans. And yes, I agree: Spielberg/Kubrick want us to think. That's why I wanted more political scenes. I want to feel as if this is really going to happen, so what am I going to do about it?

I also don't think David was truly Artificially Intelligent. He still followed a basic rule: love your parents. He didn't lose love for them when his mother ditched him. I don't think we're supposed to assume he is truly a being based on A.I. -- he's just a step in that direction.

[Steve]

I was moved by this movie too, but don't tell me when I'm analyzing and when I'm not...When I'm watching a movie, and something doesn't feel right, I figure out what it is. That's all. In this movie, I thought the third act felt phony. It didn't fit into the big picture of the movie's emotions and storytelling style, and since optimistic endings are trademark Spielberg, I can only assume that he had something to do with it.

And they were aliens, I'm positive. More typical Spielberg. Stanley Kubrick would have let him use that ending over his dead body.:D

[Yoda]

SPOILERS.

Why are you both so sure they were aliens? They were humanoind in nature and had circuitry. Doesn't that imply machines, seeing as how the whole movie made no mention of aliens up until that point, and talked about building machines like that the whole dang time?

[thmilin]

spoilers

...
...

I didn't tell you when you were analyzing or not. i wasn't there with you in your brain as it happened and didn't claim to know. i said it seemed like you came up with all that stuff while watching the movie and that if so, I didn't agree with that. did you get all those theories you just stated, or was it merely "feeling phony"? that's the question. and like I said, i said "seemed" and hoped that that was not the case. and this wasn't just directed at you, it was to all those who seemed to be tearing up the movie in terms of its directors and "parts" as if they did so DURING the movie, disregarding the whole and experience.

aliens: umm, i actually didn't see the "skin" or make up of the creatures as mechanical. in flat terms, it could be seen that way, and if you zoom in on us and our make up, we will look rather similar - we are made of organic machinery, and the aliens just seemed to be made of "light" - electricity really, advanced neurons, synapses, etc., that make them above and beyond humans AND robots. They seemed fluid (not necessarily made of liquid, but liquid like), as if cutting them would not reveal circuitry. they would behave much like water maybe, with an internal make up beyond normal physical mechanics, and "liquid" is the closest I can put my finger on it.

i just don't see robots in any developed form being able to manipulate reality, space, and time (the world they created for David), as they seem capable of doing. these beings had to be VERY advanced, and also, they spoke of robots as other than themselves having been created by humans in a "then" rather than lasting into "now." if Spielberg wanted them to be robots he would have stressed that point and developed that part of the plot because that would involve a whole lot more complication of their relationship to humans and to David.

love: the premise is giving David the ability to love. they didn't go into the theory of it. I didn't question it because the story established that David would love as a child would love because he'd been made that way. I assumed by then their science had perfected emotion in robots and that robots could indeed, feel just the way humans do. that they did all the research and since that's what this story's steam ran on, that's pretty much a fact in the story world. and if you want to say they can't because that feeling is put into a robot, that's an argument, but I would say emotion is a thing in itself and is what it is, regardless of where it's at.

and if you question what love is then you might as well question every variant of love between humans as well, because the love of an older man and a younger woman is different than the love between Romeo and Juliet, and the love between ... etc. so that's why I say love is love, regardless of where it's at. it will exist in some form whether we live or die, whether in a cat or a dog, whether in a robot or a human. somewhere in the universe something will love even if the human race ceases to exist. emotion is certainly a human characteristic but that does not mean emotion cannot exist without humans.

and P, sorry my post was so long ... :) I say that's a vote for the movie, it really moved me.

[Yoda]

SPOILERS.

Circuitry: my little sisters and mother saw it, too. It was undoubtedly circuitry in a computer-chip type of design. The fluidlike nature they had could simply be the result of a poorly put together ending, rather than an implication that they were aliens. We're talking 2,000 years here as well, so I don't think Spielberg would be nuts to imply that technology will seem somewhat alien like by then to us living in this time period. Basically, in short, I'm about 99% sure they were meant to be machines. Too much points to it. The whole story points to it, IMO.

[PigsnieLite]

Well I really want to see this movie now even tho Pigsnie didnt like it. AND my pajamas do not have Winny the Pooh on them, WHAT A LIE PIGSNIE !!!!!! How dare you, I weant a raise on my allowance !!!

Anyways I will review this movie when I see it. BTw. Pigsnie thinks the alien lookin dudes in the end are mechas.

[spudracer]

I haven't seen this movie and I don't think I will be able to before it comes out of the theater, but I heard it was good, but the last 30 minutes could've been taken out and still have been a good movie. That's what i've heard, but when I find out I will post what i thought of it

[Zweeedorf]

They were aliens. I'm pretty sure I remember a remark by one of them at the end that made them sound like aliens. I can't remeber it and I refuse to go see the movie again to find out. Good flick for a once through, but in all the end just ruined the whole movie for me. The more I think about it the more I hate it(the ending that is).

[Steve]

I base all my theories and feelings about all the movies I see on how they make me feel. In A.I.'s case, I felt like the ending didn't fit the rest of the emotions of the movie at all. But I still look at the experience as a whole, and I think it's a film that should be seen by everyone. I'll put it this way: All its problems aside, if I could see a film as good as A.I. once a year for the rest of my life, I would die a happy man.

And thank you, TWT, for pointing out that Kubrick is not God, or vice versa. He isn't the greatest director of all time, no matter how much some people want him to be. Spielberg is right up there with him.

By the way, I've said before that I love a good majority of Spielberg's films, but as a director he is generally optimistic; everything usually turns out OK in his films, if not for the characters then for the audience. Kubrick was a pessimist if I've ever seen one, his movies are usually bleak and illustrate how stupid people really are when contrasted with larger things. I'm not saying I prefer one over the other, but the contrast in the emotions of their styles left me feeling like the movie was uneven. And I think that Steven Spielberg didn't follow through with what felt for most of the running time, a Stanley Kubrick picture.

[thmilin]

SPOILERS

...
...

Zweedorf supports me!!! :-D

Sure, Chris, I see how if you stick to how the story is about robots that one could assume that it's all pointing to those creatures at the end as being robots BUT

- humans came first, computer chips later. zoom in on humans, you'll find the basic layout. a computer is a mechanical replica of how we work. it creates energy, etc., and all that, and runs off it's own connections, processing, etc., and THAT concept, THAT idea of circuity, THAT special build in computer chips came from looking at how HUMANS work. how basic energy is created, how information travels in all forms - the concepts within mechanics and technology came from the organic. all organic life works that way when you get down to the microscopic level. technology has just learned to simulate and synthesize it, and when they started, they started huge. then they figured out how to get smaller, hence the microchip, which technically may not even be as small as the systems WE contain. I'm not a scientist and there was a point where I stopped paying attention in chemistry and physics. :)

I do indeed remember the "circuitry" of the aliens, and the way the light zipped along the lines ... that doesn't mean they're robots. you can see the inner makings of a jellyfish underwater and that doesn't make them a lightbulb. they're organic versions of electric lightbulbs.
but they're still organic.

- and as Zweedorf said, and as I will stick by - the creatures specifically spoke of robots as being OTHER than themselves. As in, they were no relation. "Humans created you David, and you are the LAST link." nothing more concrete than the script itself. If HE is the last link, then THEY have nothing to do with it and can't be robots. If they were, they would know all about humans and not need to excavate human OR robot bodies or delve into his memories to see what was what - they would have all that information already because much as they may have disliked how human's treated them, robots catalogue everything.

[Yoda]

Not all robots. Perhaps there was a war: who knows? I think the robots we're looking at there were created by other robots, hence the distinction.

As for the circuitry: it wasn't just lines, it was obviously modeled directly after what our circuitry looks like today. If Spielberg intended for them to be thought of as aliens, why would he give them such an obviously mechanical look? Why would the film do such a 180, after being so focused on robots the whole time?

[Zweeedorf]

That can be easily answered: Spielberg goes for big finishes and he is the type of director to throw in aliens at the end. Think about it, this was the first film that he wrote the script for since Close Encounters (I'm pretty sure on this point) he would throw in aliens. As for Kubrick being a pessimist, well that's how it is in life and he didn't sugar coat it with a happy ending.

[Yoda]

Life is not always quite that bleak. C'mon, Spielberg writes a couple movies about aliens, so that means these must be aliens? The whole focus of the movie is on machines, they have circuitry obviously modeled after today's computers on them, and yet we're NOT supposed to think they're machines? Gimme a break. :)

Besides, Spielberg based this on a short story...so for all we know a fair amount of this may have been in that story, and not created by Spielberg. I honestly don't know about this, I'm just presenting it as a possibility. Oh, and I think "Super Toys Last All Summer Long" is a very witty title. :)

[Kielle]

i am suddenly feeling as though i am living in the dark age. Here in England the first trailer has just been released! i have ages to wait until its released. Oh, am v. upset :(

[PigsnieLite]

I knows what you mean. Pigsnie saw AI in preview so hes lucky. So where in England do you live therabouts?

[Zweeedorf]

TWT come on. you make an interesting arguement but they are so obviously aliens just by the way they act alone.

[sunfrog]

I'm afraid to read this thread til I see the movie, so I'll just say: If I were a robot I would eat tin cans. ARF!

[Yoda]

Originally posted by Zweeedorf
TWT come on. you make an interesting arguement but they are so obviously aliens just by the way they act alone.

And what way is that? :)

[Kielle]

Pigsnielite. i'm from the black country- near Birmingham. yep i speak in a thick accent and get mocked by Londoners.

[PigsnieLite]

Oh Birmingham. I never been there. I dont know why you always meet those snooty type Londoners but Im not one of them. I have a brother here also, his name is Pigsnie. He is a nice guy also even though he talks BBC English, hahaha.

[Zweeedorf]

The way that they talk to David and is what I mean by the way they act. They talk as if they are not from this planet and are here to learn about us.

[Yoda]

I don't think so. I think they're talking that way because in one sense, they are from another world, if not a planet. They live in a drastically different world, and as such, they refer to humans as if they are far off -- it's just far off in time, rather than distance.

[thmilin]

seems to me you're really bending the rules of their conversation with David in order to make it fit your belief they're robots.

cause they spoke to david and referred to those who made David (humans) in what we philosophers and linguists call "other" terms. they did not refer to David in any relation to themselves, which is unnatural to do if what/who you are speaking to is an ancestor.

the default in relational conversation is to refer, when the issue has arisen about where you've come from and what you are (which is the MAIN topic of discussion between the robots/aliens is with David), to your relation to whom your speaking. you will speak to others you encounter as an OTHER (you are not what I am, you are different) or as a IN (you belong to what I am).

it doesn't just work to say they belong to another world in "time." that doesn't matter; they are in the current time with David in order to speak to him, actually, HE is in THEIR world. standing in this world (present time, present space) in conversation, David is either 1) their ancestor or 2) not related to them in any way and they are investigating him and the planet they are visiting.

Whether they are from another planet or another time doesn't matter; if they are robots, David is their precedent, BUT this cannot be true because they do not speak to him any sort of way that reflects that that is, indeed, what he is to them. He is only a magnificent example of what an OTHER race created - he is not something that would awe them as the precursor to what they are now.

Let's say, 2000 years from now, advanced beings dig YOU up, Chris. If you were what allowed them to become, would you expect them to speak to you the way the robots/aliens did to David? Would you not expect them, when they sat down to lay it all out for you, as they did when speaking with David, say - you are the last link to the humans, whose successes with you allowed US to be made? you are our forefather, and we honor you, and wish you to be happy ...

they said no such thing. they recognize no link whatsoever to him; they recognize only that he is a lasting piece of evidence for another race they are fascinated with, and that is all. he is a link to the humans, not to them ... their speech demonstrates this, which is why zweedorf and I are convinced, good fellow, that yes indeedly, them creatures be aliens from far yonder in space. :)

[Steve]

And that's the quintessential truth. Ruth.

[dillane]

This was a great effort from Speilberg. He really took some of Kubrick's elements and put them in the first two acts. I was definitely on the edge of my seat for the first two acts. But, by the time the third set in, I began to realize that this movie was actually 2 1/2 hours long. Despite the slow ending and the neverending references to and cliches stemming from fairy tales, this was a very interesting film. Stan Winston provided some outstanding effects, but when doesn't he? But, most importantly, Haley Joel Osment does a heart-rendingly fabulous job as the mecha David - he has always been stellar at playing little kids with "monumental baggage." And Jude Law was pretty interesting in a fifth business role.

[Yoda]

No offense, but I don't see that at all. We have, what, 2 minutes of dialogue to analyze here? Aside from that, there are a lot of things that can be chalked up to poor editing, or poor writing. I have a sneaking suspicion that the entire "ending" was tacked on at the last minute.

Humans 2000 years from now may not think of me differently, partially because they would be just like me. Robots, however, don't necessarily think in the same terms. Humans look out for other humans, to a degree. We look out for our own kind more than other kinds. Do robots have patriotism? Do they feel loyalty to their own kind? Do they think of themselves as one "kind"? Maybe they don't, seeing as how one could vacuum your living room and another could be orbiting Saturn.

EDIT:

Would you not expect them, when they sat down to lay it all out for you, as they did when speaking with David, say - you are the last link to the humans, whose successes with you allowed US to be made? you are our forefather, and we honor you, and wish you to be happy...

They did say they wanted him to be happy, and they treated him with quite a bit of honor, don't you think? They did not say "we are robots and you are our forefather", but they shouldn't have to. They didn't say specifically, I don't think, that he allowed them to be made, because perhaps that isn't true. Perhaps another robot came along that was more revolutionary, and that robot was regarded as the one turning point.

They did describe him as a link, though.


Anyway, I'm going to do the best I can to find out the truth here. I still stand by the circuitry comment, and I defy anyone to answer it (:)): Why would they they have circuitry that looks like the circuitry we have today clearly and plainly visible in a movie ALL ABOUT robots when they wanted to imply aliens? Why why why? :)

[Steve]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by TWTCommish
I have a sneaking suspicion that the entire "ending" was tacked on at the last minute.



I think it was. Spielberg scewing up what feels like Kubrick's picture. He's done it many times before, and no doubt he'll do it again. Amistad, Saving Private Ryan, Schindler's List...

[thmilin]

circuitry - i stand by mine, too - computer circuitry is based off organic circuitry and just because the beings have a very efficient, mathematical design within their skin doesn't mean they're robots. i think this sort of fits our discussion before about evolution ... I believe in God and science. i believe nature is in fact very scientific and I find it fits very reasonably that a more genetically advanced race would have developed a higher form of existence, which could indeed involve complex "lines" that appear *mechanical* but are indeed organic.

humans 2000 years from now - um, i think humans will be very different, or at least, I hope we will be. we were very different 2000 years ago, were we not? how would we engage with someone from that time? like all biological beings, humans evolve.

the converation - was more than 2 minutes and was very explicit. they did indeed treat David with honor, but I didn't mean they wouldn't if he weren't related to them. i was tryin to show how they would defer to him - acknowledge that old and unadvanced as he is compared to their advanced existence (if they were robots) they would honor the link between THEM.

"They did not say "we are robots and you are our forefather", but they shouldn't have to."

Yes they should. Either way, this is very necessary to establish what they are because in creating this, Spielberg deliberately gave these beings a stereotypical appearance, characteristics, and actions related to our current mainstream concept of aliens, which is another reason why i'm sure that's what he wanted them to be. if he wanted them to be robots then 1) they would have looked human but said they were robots or 2) looked alien then said they were robots.

logic: and, once again, if the earth was obliterated, frozen over, etc., how would such robots continue to exist? they would have had to leave earth for another planet where they woudl have had to create/develop science and technology. not likely on their own. and to run off to another planet in the first place implies - ALIENS!! simply by having any sort of scene with earth objectified and outsiders coming in to excavate suggests THAT right away before we even meet the creatures. to have them behave in those stereotypical ways cements it - they can access his mind, etc. if they were robots, wouldn't they have that info already? why would they need David's data? why would they need him as a link at all if they were robots?

"Do they think of themselves as one "kind"? " - umm, yes, the humans made sure of that. remember, they were originally created and TREATED to be a certain way. even if humans died off and robots continued on their own, they are still made of what the humans put in there, and humans put in human thinking patterns, and logic, because they were trying to make robots as human as possible. they gave them HUMAN intelligence running on a mechanical system.

link - they specifically said David was the last link the HUMANS. not to them. i remember that.

i stand by mine!!! *booty shake* ain't nothin but some straight facts gonna change my mind ... ;)

[Yoda]

Alright, dinner is coming up, and I am on a computer so lacking in speed that it could bring you to tears, so I'll reply to that post either tomorrow, or the day after, when I return to my glorious Dell. :D Just wanted to say that, to make sure you know that I'm not ignoring your post. I will most definintely keep this interesting discussion alive! :)

[dillane]

I'm gonna agree with everyone on the ending and its tacked-on-edness. So many people do that and it's really annoying, but I guess that just means when someone invents a stellar ending that fits, it's even better. Speilberg has done some good work, though, and I stand by my feeling that it's really interesting. But, I never did say he was one to top off a script perfectly or to have this keen eye that envisions and sees everything out perfectly from start to finish. But, I will say he does a pretty good job of fixing things that get screwed up. Like JAWS. Still, A.I. is a good flick.

[Zweeedorf]

I agree it is a GOOD flick and nothing more. Worth my money and time (well not the last 20 min). What can I say Spielberg knows how to make a serious subject in to a family flick.

[Yoda]

I have been vindicated:
http://www.movieheadlines.net/ai/default.php3?postid=6618

[mightymose]

Well I finally saw AI and must say that I was pretty disapointed. The beginning was terrific and a fitting tribute to what I feel was Kubrick's vision for the movie. It was eerie and offsetting, yet somehow managed to tug at your heart strings. The 2nd act was a fun adventure, though it seemed a bit out of place, but nothing I could not live with. The 3rd act was just ridiculous and should have been cut from the film. I thought they were aliens, but apparently I was incorrect :) It seems to me that Spielberg and everyone else was smoking waaaaaaaay to much crack when they decided to add that ending. I would have given the film an 8 if it had ended at the Blue Fairy, but as it stands now I can only give it a 6.

[Zweeedorf]

I don't know if it was that bad. I'd give it a solid B

[MorpheusEK]

Hey, I'm new to this post, but I'm glad I found it. I have just seen AI, and I loved it, even the ending. And it was the ending which caused me to doubt my friends' ability to understand a movie. I thought it was VERY obvious that the beings at the end were indeed advanced robots, but my friends insited they were aliens. I can see why they may have thought that, if you look at their physical appearence (shape) and their bizarre cube-like ship. But as pointed out before, there are many reasons why they are robots :

1. The whole movie is about robots and the evolution of robots (from the crude models you saw in the cage to David).

2. The beings were mettallic and had circuit-like things in their bodies.

3. They claim to be looking for a link to humans because they beleive that what's lacking in their wolrd/society is what humans have (they don't know exactly what that is). They have tried to resurrect humans, but found that they can only live for one more day in this fashion, and it seems as if they are not currently employing this method because of its "one time only" factor. Hence, finding david, one who had much contact with humans, was a breakthrough in understanding them.

4. They don't refer to david as one of their own, and refer to the robots like david as seperate from themselves because they are seperate in many ways. It was shown earlier in the movie, that, without the aid of humans, robots will try and can survive without humans (the scrap heap robots). Jigolo Joe has the famous line "When the end comes, all that will be left is us", referring to the robots. Personally, I think that humans would not be eliminated by an ice age in 2000 years, but they never say what exactly killed us off. But, I think that robots could survive, as Joe said.

5. Now, many have suggested that the beings at the end of the movie could not be robots because of their differences from our notion of robots. I acknowledge that humans would refer to someone from 2000 years from the past as an ancestor, but that's because humans cannot physically change that much in 2000 years. How different anatomically are we from the people at the time of Jesus, 2000 years in the past? The answer is not different at all, or so little that it is undetectable. But it is different for robots! Look how fast computers can advance today. Five years ago the idea of a 1 gigahertz processor would have been like some sort of fantastical dream. 2000 years for a race of technological beings like the robots would be much, much longer. This would provide enough time for the robots to evolve to something almost entirely different from david. Would you address an ancient sea slug from the primordial waters of early earth as your ancestor?

6. Others have suggested that if they were robots, they would have no need for David's data on humans because they would have transfered it along the ages. This may sound logical, but how much of the past do we remember from 2000 years ago? Except for a few dusty books worshiped by various religons, all knowledge of the past has been lost. The pyramids are a mystery, so are many other "Wonders of the world", and we can no longer tell if the religous books are fact or fiction. Now, of course human minds cannot store or transfer data as well as computers, but consider this : The robots of David's time had only a very primitive concept of the human world (David consitently showed they he had no idea what the humans were doing or why), so that the data to be transfered was limited. Robots from his time were constanly being eliminated (the flesh fairs) so that a large amount of data was lost. And most of all, all the data that was available, in the mind of robots or in any kind of media that was left (books, cd's, whatever), would not contain the data that the beings are looking for. They want love, hate, emotion, etc. The stuff that david not only experienced, but was programmed to do. That is why they needed him, that is why he is special.

7. The beings' ability to interface not only with his power grid (when David jumped back to life) but his memory (in the weird memory swapping) leads one to beleive that they have a similar means of power and data, or at least advanced knowledge of it.

8. THE NUMBER ONE REASON THAT THEY ARE ROBOTS : We have no idea what robots could evolve to in 2000 years, and any rules we have about what robots should look or act like is entirely useless. The way they think, act, look, etc. could be so radically differernt that we can not even imagine it. Therefore, the only true way we have to determine the heritage of the beings is by examining the movie as a whole, and determining what would make the most sense, best fit the plot and theme. And, the answer is that the beings are advance robots, who have forgotten the way of humans, and nned david as the link. A movie about robots would not have aliens. It makes more sense if they are robots.

Well, I hope this cleared things up, or at least made things more interesting. I will be going on vacation with my folks for two weeks, and therefore not be able to respond to any of your posts untill i get back.

P.S., I love the irony of how david, a robot, was created to fulfill the need of love for his parents, humans. Then at the end, his mom, is recreated to fulfill David's need for love.

[Yoda]

That is ironic, isn't it? That's a very, very interesting point. Anyway, the link above explains it all. I'm still amazed that anyone thinks they're aliens, but so be it, I suppose. :) What's funny about this is even though I knew they were meant to be robots when I first saw them, I kept referring to them as "aliens" when discussing things with someone afterwards. That just goes to show you how poorly they were portrayed.

[Zweeedorf]

Just because so many people aren't sure as to what they were is just another example of why the movie isn't all that great. I figure it's a mistake and that either something very important was edited out or there should have been something in the movie to explain this to us.

[wbradney]

I too thought they were aliens. I suppose I was swayed by Spielberg's historical penchant for aliens, but to my mind everything after David wishing in front of the Blue Fairy was bogus and didn't fit the theme of the movie, even if those creatures were supposed to be robots. Actually I was about to get up and leave at the wide fade shot of the the submersible copter under the collapsed ferris wheel -- I really thought it would be roll-credits at that point. Sadly, no.

Some have mentioned that most of Spielberg's endings are crap, but I think that's unfair. I liked the endings of Private Ryan and Schindler, and thought that they didn't detract from the movie or the "message" as a whole, but the last 25 minutes of AI actually spoiled the story for me. Hollywood (and Spielberg especially) seems to always want to explain everything we've just watched, like we don't have brains and can't fill in the blanks with our own imaginations, and that's a shame. Sometimes a "..." is the best place to wrap up. Given this tendency for complete exposition, it's surprising that so many like myself were fooled into thinking those creatures were aliens. An explicit line from the English-speaker at the end informing David that they were high-order Mechas wouldn't have had a detrimental impact on an already cheese-packed finish.

Maybe, on the DVD, we could have a "Kubrick Cut" that just omits the third act...?

[Steve]

I'd like to hear the reasons you think the endings of Schindler's List and Private Ryan are good.

[thmilin]

Because I am one to readily admit I am wrong, if the producer says they're supposed to be robots, fine, I will accept that that's what they're SUPPOSED to be.

All those posts you pointed of course make sense of that in some light but at the same time ... it is a failure of the film to portray this concept thoroughly, because Spielberg deliberately gave us stereotypical shapes and presentation for aliens.

As for the robots needing David - the other robots were also programmed to feel. David's not the only one. Why should he be the last link? As for all the data "lost" in flesh fairs, all the data recorded in David would not be the only source, they said themselves they were digging up other robots. And David, and others, would have recorded data regardless of whether they've understood it or not. They have to record what's going on around them in order to interact with it.

I am arguing your points here, though, to show WHY I thought they were aliens, but yes, I know now that they weren't supposed to be. It's just the logic of the film may set it UP for the robot story but even going with your point, if we, the audience, have no idea what a robot in 2000 years would look like, then you'd better tell US, the audience, when you bring them round at the end of the film and we've never seen them before, WHAT the heck we are looking at so that there ISN'T this confusion! Kudos to all you special mindreaders who now feel so justified and vindicated because you got it the first time, but it's still perfectly as logical to ME that, from what I SAW on the screen, that they could just as easily have been aliens because the script, shots, and editing, did not properly convey otherwise.

And, with these being robots, I now say that the film did an extremely crappy job of exploring that facet of the film. If what they needed was to know emotion, if they needed to understand human feeling, and were going to do something with that, we need to see what those aliens do, or plan to do with it, not just this business of wrapping David up in a dream box with his mother for 1 day and end the movie on a depressing note and complete confusion as to the logic of it all.

Cause i'm still not getting over how Monica could be regenerated at exactly the same age not knowing anything about her other family members. If it's about when he cut her hair off (before all the sh|t hit the fan and he was dumped so cruelly away) great, but she didn't even ask where her husband, child, etc., were. She didn't notice anything was off. She was happy to spend a lovely day with David and actually told him she loved him - which I did not believe.

the irony goes deeper - the husband brought David to fill the void for Monica, who was then frightened of that ultimate love but flattered by it. For she received ideal, pure, unsullied (for it's eternal, innocent), never-failing love, but she never loved him properly in return. She was cold enough to drop him in the world knowing what was out there for him. She couldn't love him, couldn't try, couldn't bring herself to - she saw him as only a machine that looked human.

but David, when he regenerates her, regenerates her to love her properly, and though his love seems selfish, like hers, it is ultimately selfless - for he would do anything in the world for her, even to his own detriment. I think truest love is like that - ultimately selfish AND selfless. Monica's human "love" remained limited, selfish, closed. David loved her truly, and regenerated her only to be good to her, to give himself.

[Yoda]

I admit I didn't read that whole post. I'm too dang tired. :) I do agree that the cloning was absurd. You have to assume a lot of very odd things about the way our world works are true for that to become possible.

And yes, I agree that they were portrayed in a very stupid manner. As I said, I kept on calling them "aliens" even when I meant "robots" while discussing the film with others. It was kind of funny really. No doubt that the ending was poorly done. Any film that inspires debate that isn't really deep or compelling, has problems with it. This is not the way they want people to be talking about the movie. :)

[Steve]

I thought it was very deep, and on occasion compelling.

[Guy]

to clear some things up:

Kubrick originally planned to have that ending (although I doubt after test screenings he would have kept it in there). Spielburg took the ending and put in the cheesy dialogue, and watered it down / dragged it out.

Spielburg confirmed that they actually were robots, and in the original script, they were said as robots.

Seriously though, how would them being aliens advance the plot at all? It would not, and it would be totally irrelevent to the entire previous portion of the film. They were definately Mecha's by appearance, and creaters of the film.

[BrodieMan]

hey, i just saw that movie yesterday, and i honestly think it's actually pretty good. it had it's faults, yeah, but overall, it wasn't bad. i can truthfully say that it is one of the most disturbing, strange movies i've seen all year. at least it starts out that way. what i don't understand is why spielberg changed tempos? i mean, at the beginning it's pretty much the movie that you would have expected kubrick to make. the overview of humanity and the plight of the mechas is totally negative, the film is dark, cynical, yet strangely thought-provoking and interesting. it holds you. then i got the feeling that as the film wore on, spielberg was geniunely trying to create a feasible ending for the film (ideally a happy ending, since it is spielberg) and that just didn't work out. the ending was rambling, inconsistent and pretty goofy. it totally seems like he pulled it out of his ***. i half expected the movie to end at least 5 different times (no lie) and was a little disappointed with the finale. that said, the movie does a good job of what it set out to do, which was present a stimulating idea. the story was lacking, but the concepts and creativity in the movie was unbelievable. possibly one of the most ambitious and geniunely unique movie of spielberg's career. the acting was very, very good, and that makes it all the easier to empathize with david. i think the basic theme of the film was alienation, and the human instinct to hate, fear, and be confused by things that are different. very kubrickian. very kubrickian. i know that there are a lot of people that think kubrick is an amazing director, and i can tell you honestly that i am one of them, and would be lying if i said that don't think he would have done a better job. i know he would have. but this is steven spielberg's movie, and he does an incredible job of conveying a new world, new ideas, and pretty much a kubrickian view of humanity so, despite a few niggling plot holes and meandering, pointless ending, i'm gonna have to say this is an incredible movie that i would recommend to just about anyone.

[Yoda]

See, I don't know that I can pick one of the other. I mean, I think any Director that is constantly creating films with "unhappy" endings, is making some serious mistakes. Life is not so bleak as to be utterly without happiness.

Then again, not everything turns out all well and good in real life, either. However, In a movie like, say, Jurassic Park, some good guys DO die. Whether or not the ending is happy depends on how you look at things.

Overall I think there's nothing wrong with having your movies end in such a way as to feel "good" for those who have seen it. People feel cheated otherwise, because in the end most of us truly believe good will win out over evil.

[BrodieMan]

well, the problem wasn't really that spielberg intentionally reached for a happy ending, it's just that it's inconsistent with the general vibe of the rest of the movie. i have no problem with spielberg, in fact, i think he's one of history's best directors, i just think this movie comes from a pretty dark place, and he ended it poorly. trust me, that type of ending would have made sense in another film, but in AI it just felt out of place, somehow. and the way it was scripted was pretty bad, too. *SPOILER ALERT*






the whole thing about the mom only being there for a day or whatever totally lost me.... i mean, was all that mumbo-jumbo really necessary to achieve kubrick's original vision of the movie? i don't know about anyone else, but i would have ended it with david being stuck under the ferris wheel with the blue fairy. ok, that's a sad ending, but the whole movie is sad. i don't think that a movie director's style being mainly pessimistic is necessarily bad, because kubrick's movies are always trying to tell us something about mankind, or some aspect of being. he's not trying to bum us out, he's trying to communicate. so, yeah, the sad ending might have worked better. if nothing else, it would have been more poignant. what does anyone else think?

[Yoda]

I don't know if I really like either. This was not to be Kubrick's film. Before he died, he was basically, if I remember correctly, planning to film this as a joint venture with Spielberg. As such, Spielberg shouldn't try to imitate Kubrick; he should mix his own style into things. The problem is that he seemed to mix it in incredibly rarely throughout, instead opting for a big wave of his own personal flair at the end.

[Zweeedorf]

Just to let you know: Kubrick was going to hand it off to Spielberg because of the kid. Kubrick knew that he would take a year of filming and that over that time period the kid could change too much, so he handed it to Spielberg because he would film it in a month or two. Not really important, but just incase people were wondering why Kubrick was going to hand it off.

[transac]

AI
I do not recommend that you see this movie.

SPOILERS AHEAD!

.....

.....

.....

Not great, not good, but ok. I think this movie could have been good if it ended when he jumped off the building in New York.

I knew nothing about AI before I went to see it. Good overall acting and some interesting scenes, but leads nowhere. When I watched the movie I actually wanted to leave before it ended, and i never usually leave a movie. If this movie wins anything it would be the "most disappointing movie of the year".
[Edited by TWTCommish on 07-11-2001]

[sunfrog]

Wow, I guess I'm the last one to see this movie huh?
I liked it, a lot. I'll be buying this one I'm sure.
I didn't cry tho. Not at all. It's a machine not a real boy.
If Haley Joel Osment doesn't win an Oscar in his lifetime I will throw up. He should have won one for Sixth Sense and he should at least be nominated for A.I. That little kid rocks!
SPOILER BELOW
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
I agree with your guy's ending but I think it should end when he jumps in the water. No Blue Fairy stuff, no ice, no aliens, just open your mouth and suck water. They could be robots, or aliens, but if they were robots how come they have human form. That's not the most efficient. They should look like six legged monkeys or something. Why did those things at the end want him to be happy? He doesn't know happy or sad, he's a machine. I think the end was just stuck on there to give it a happy ending 'cause they didn't want it to end with him dying. And what happened at the end anyway? It said he went somewhere he never went before or something. Did he die? Did he have a dream? Did he just go into an endless loop or what? Why didn't they just reclone her every single day? Or why didn't they just clone her without memories? She would wake up and they'd tell her, this is your real life boy David. And she would say ok, and live 70 years. He wouldn't care if she had memories, he'd still love her and be with her.
Or why didn't they make a robot Monica for him. How would he know she was a robot unless he looked under her hood. They could program her from his memories of her. What if they cloned two Monicas and they both called him at the same time? ;) Ah, just chop the end off. I can't wait for the dvd to see the alternate ending.
[Edited by sunfrog on 08-03-2001]

[Yoda]

ARGH. Spoilers notice, spoilers notice, spoilers notice! Should go without saying. Anyway, I don't think Osment should have gotten the Oscar for The Sixth Sense. I'm basing this heavily on the fact that people are always talking about how wonderful he is for his age. The simple fact of the matter is that "for his age" should not come into play in the Oscars. The best performance should win, regardless of the actor's age. Should we give younger actors (say, 30 or so) the Oscar nod over older ones with more experience (50 or 60)?

Good for his age? Oh yeah, absolutely...but when it comes to the "Best BLANK" awards, that shouldn't matter, IMO.

[Steve]

I'd like to say that I think Haley Joel Osment is one of the best actors around. But he didn't deserve the oscar in that year, Tom Cruise did. I think he deserves a nomination for his performance here.

[Yoda]

I agree with Steve -- he is good FOR HIS AGE...but that's not what the Oscar ought to be based on. I think he will truly earn an Oscar sometime in his life (I think he was better in A.I. than he was in The Sixth Sense).

[Steve]

Actually, I think he's a great actor-for any age. And I agree that he'll get an oscar if he keeps acting. I also think that if you look at his performance here, his one in 6th Sense, and his one in the otherwise vomitous Pay it Forward, you get an idea of the full scope of his talent. The kid is incredible.

[Kurama]

:p ;D What do you guys think about this movie? I think it's awesome. I've seen it 4 times and I never get tired of it! LoL. Post your comments. :D

[Yoda]

Hope you don't mind, Kurama: I merged your thread with an old one on the subject. :)

[Kurama]

That's ok. I don't mind at all. ;D :D

[sadesdrk]

Originally posted by Kurama
:p ;D What do you guys think about this movie? I think it's awesome. I've seen it 4 times and I never get tired of it! LoL. Post your comments. :D Lemmie guess...Haley Joel Osment?

[spudracer]

:rotfl: