Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Movies Media

Spielberg To Direct New Kubrick Movie 163

Posted by emmett from the droogies-phone-home dept.
tgd writes, "According to an article on Boston.com, Steven Spielberg has agreed to direct the film that Stanley Kubrick was working on when he died, a film called A.I. that Kubrick had been developing for 18 years."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Spielberg To Direct New Kubrick Movie More

Spielberg To Direct New Kubrick Movie

Comments Filter:

  • Geez... that's twice that you misspelled 'and' as 'nad'.

    What's on yer mind there, sport?

  • Guess what people, Speilberg is a great director. You can say what you want about his movies, but he has an uncanny way of filming movies the way they need to be seen. Films like Jurassic Park, ET, and Back to the Future sold a lot of merchandise, yes, and were targeted at mainstream America.

    Check your facts. Steven Spielberg didn't direct Back to the Future, Robert Zemeckis did. Back to the Future stands as a new film classic, for obvious reasons. Zemeckis' attention to detail made BTTF [bttf.com] a super-smash.

    Steven Spielberg was the Executive Producer of the film, and had little to do with the day-to-day filming of the movie.

    Your loyal Backie and Slashdot Author,

    --Emmett

  • Kinda OT, but an interesting fact for those who don't know...For the past year and a half, Chris Cunningham has been developing Neuromancer. That's right, the Gibson novel. I am chomping at the bit to see this one. I have tried to collect all of his music videos. He definately has a flare for the abstract, which is so refreshing. We as an audience need to see less re-hashed junk, (sequels, prequels, horror, teen movies), and something more along the lines of A Clockwork Orange. Here are some premises from some of Chris' videos: An Osaka insane asylum for children, in which the minds of a dog and an orderly are switched (Squarepusher's Come on my Selector), Some Ultra-Violent little children running around breaking stuff, scaring the crap out of an old lady and her dog (of which is wearing a neuter collar), while carrying around a TV. A Nosferatu-like being comes out of the TV and screams at the old lady. (Aphex Twin's Come to Daddy). A mock-rap video, with a Michael Jackson-like dancing Aphex Twin, alot of booty, and some bearded ladies on a beach (Aphex Twin's Windowlicker). A band that is hovering in a dank alley, flowing as if they were under water, oblivious to everything else (Portishead's Sour Times). This is definately the guy I would want to be working on Neuromancer. I just can't wait.

    Dyslexic.
  • . . . or whenever I'm feeling "creeped-out", I still hear the soundtrack from the sniper-scene in Full Metal Jacket. . .

    I wish I had a nickel for every time someone said "Information wants to be free".
  • The only Existentialist Bomb to ever appear in a movie :)

    Bloody excellent film - one of my all time favourites - especially the elevator scene :)

    Troc
  • >A Clockwork Orange was one of those movies that
    >shaped me as a child into the well adjusted
    >individual that I am today.
    I'm assuming that that's pretty tounge in cheek. :)

    Yeah, CO was pretty intense. I know I'll never think of "Singing In The Rain" quite the same way again...

  • I mean, take a look: Kubrick [imdb.com] vs. Spielberg [imdb.com]. I do like some of Spielberg's movies (Close Encounters, the Color Purple), but come on! This is Kubrick we are talking about! You can't match Close Encounters to 2001, can you? Jaws has nothing to do with The Shining. And what do you want to match Full Metal Jacket up to? Ryan? Are you nuts?!?

    Spielberg makes movies that are to be swallowed, not to be enjoyed. You open your eyes and shut your brain.

  • Films like Jurassic Park, ET, and Back to the Future

    Zemeckis directed BttF, not Spielberg. Spielberg produced it.

  • Re:Motives (Score:1)

    by m2 ( 5408 )
    as you said Spielberg had to wait a long time for an Oscar and wasn't taken seriously by a lot of people until Schindler's List.

    The Schindler's List is a one sided manipulation of the espectator's feelings regarding a very sensitive subject. The performance and realization are magnificent, that can't be denied, but it's manipulation nevertheless. That's a pretty low thing to do as a director.

    Don't get me wrong. That's what's it's all about, but in the case of TSL, Spielberg leaves the espectator no choice. He cages him and then makes him agree with his own opinions. That's what I have a problem with

  • Do we have an Kubrick DNA? Bring him back!!!!

    Yes, check a recent Leelee Sobieski interview [leeleesobieski.com] out. For those too lazy to check the link out:

    All she would say is that Kubrick "smelled good" and that, at her request, he'd given her a lock of his hair in an as-yet-unopened envelope, her intention being to clone him.

    So our wish may soon become reality. :-) (btw, she was joking for you serious types)

  • That 'jew' comment was offensive, but for my money the 'Disney bullshit' is right on the money. I wonder how many traveling zoom shots he'll put in. And of course, we can look forward (?) to yet another John Williams score that sounds like the last couple of dozen.

  • Since you used the 'p' word -- plausibility -- in describing a Spielberg movie, how 'bout the rest of Saving Private Ryan after that admittedly brilliant first twenty minutes? I've never, ever seen a story in a war movie suck so badly -- so many unbelievable, even impossible things in one "good" film! (Browse the movie's comments on imdb.com for a while and you'll see what I mean.) And to think it was based on a true incident (the family name was actually Niland) makes the whole thing worse.

  • spielberg has actually been make some decent film in the last several years - let's hope he doesn't poison this kubrick piece by trying to sneak Grover's voice in it or some other muppet trip....
  • First off, Spielberg didn't "agree" to direct
    it. He started trying to get control of it
    before Kubrick hit the floor. He doesn't stand
    a chance of doing the theme justice - alienation,
    not to spoil it for you - he'll either turn it
    into a bittersweet Pinnochio remake or scrap the
    storyline altogether.

    He won't pay the same attention to cinematography
    - he'll just go with silhouettes and godlight. If
    it gets made, it'll be a travesty and an insult.

    And now I see they're rereleased A Clockwork
    Orange. Good for us, who'll get to see it on
    a decent screen, but another insult for Kubrick,
    who never wanted it to be seen again.

    Grr.

    K.
    -
  • Both this movie and B.M. are about unhappy A.I.s.
    Kubrick's is about a presumably cute child A.I.,
    perhaps more in line with the frustrations of
    last year's Iron Giant boy.
    B.M. suffered being too faithful to the Asimov
    story and having too many subplots that made it
    drag on.
  • You see alien heads all over GenX stuff.
    I attribute this mainly that every GenX kid
    saw the E.T. movie and quite a few saw Close Encounters of the 3rd Kind.
  • Good news - But I wonder what a Kubrick Film would be like in the hands of a director that isn't known to be a perfectionist, as Kubrick himself was known to be.

    It'll be interesting when "A Clockwork Orange" opens in the UK on Friday - Kubrick himself banned the movie, and it hasn't been available on video/DVD! - I think when he died, somebody must've realised that they could make a shed-load of cash by lifting the ban, and re-releasing it in the UK.

    I've seen a pirated version on video & It'll be great to finally see it in the cinema.
  • >Anyone know any more about this?

    It's being re-released in the UK on Friday.

    Is it also re-opening in the states?
  • >> How plausible is it that we communicate
    >> with aliens through music and not something
    >> more advanced, like mathematics?

    Umm, I think you need to look into music theory
    a little more. There are numerous links between
    music and mathematics. So in that sense, music
    between the common ground between alien races
    doesn't seem implausible at all.
  • Don't forget the Bjork video Cunningham did.
    All is full of love, featuring a robot Bjork. Now where do you suppose those designs came from?
  • <a href="http://slashdot.org/articles/99/09/07/082522 6.shtml">
    I knew I heard this before...</a>
    This story most likely has more information than the preveous incarnation.

    Anyway
  • Here's the link:

    http://us.imdb.com/Title?0212720 [imdb.com]

    The info is thin, though. No mention of Kubrick. Mentions Aldiss as a writing credit and that's it.

    ---
  • If I remember correctly, the movie was taking so long because Kubrick wanted to show the actors as they aged naturally, rather than using people of different ages who sort of look the same.
  • Personally i think it's a travesty that Steven "Hey, let's add some MORE special effects!" Spielberg is going to be directing something that the late Mr. Kubrick had set his sights on. Give it to a REAL director: David Fincher for example.

    -Andy Martin
  • If this is true I just hope its better than Eyes Wide Shut was.
  • He's also going to write it, something he hasn't done since Close Encounters. There's a little blurb about A.I. at yahoo, and I also heard something on CNN a few minutes ago.

    http://dailynews. yahoo.com/h/nm/20000315/en/film-spielberg_1.html [yahoo.com]
  • They seem bland, generic, badly acted and terribly scripted.
    Do you remember "Raiders of the Lost Ark?" Not bland. Not generic. Not badly acted. That was and still is a great movie. It is a classic "larger than life" hero in classic "good vs. evil" story. Harrison Ford a bad actor? Come on.

    How plausible is it that we communicate with aliens through music and not something more advanced, like mathematics?
    Music is based on mathematics. Check out the frets on a guitar some time. They are spaced based on the log() function. Admittedly, math would most likey be the first basis of communication, PI begin a good starting point, but it's a movie, and you have to take some leeway to reach the audience.

    If you want contact by using math, rent "Contact" with Jodi Foster. The first message the aliens send are a list of prime numbers. Oh, and plans for a space craft.

    Oddly enough, both Raiders and Contact were on TV last week.

    --
  • I really don't remember the part of Schindler's List where I felt good. Sure, there is a ray of light in that movie (Schindler), but it was definately not a feel-good movie.

    True, Indy is a pretty shallow character. RotLA was pure escapism. It also happens to be one the best adventure flicks in existance. Make it a point to watch that movie with kids. You get a pretty good vibe going off of that one.

    I won't knock Kubrick. 2.001K was a great flick. CW just rules. I didn't see EWS, but that's due to a Tom Cruise aversion.

    I'll turn my kids onto Kubrick when they get older. For now, Indy will have to do.

    Speilberg definately has picked his main evil character (either present or implied) to be Hitler. You could look at the collective works of Speilberg to be a warning/reminder of Nazi Germany. It's not terribly morally complex (Hitler was wrong. End of Story.) but does prove a point.

    Speilberg has been quietly working on the Shoah (sp?) foundation to preserve the stories of Holocaust survivors. Give him kudos for that.
    --
  • to Georgie Lucas and his little epic "Star Wars."

    Kubrick's 2001 had just come out: he expected it to the end-all of space movies and special effects. Georgie released his little fantasy flick and it clobbered everything.

    Kubrick of course, didn't like this...he toyed with the idea of A.I., which he figured could do as well. Eventually, though, he gave up on hating Lucas for the piece of mass-market trash he'd released (in his eyes at least) and left this idea in a bin for the next few decades.

    At least this is the story from my class on George Lucas at USC. BTW, the man himself is gonna come in in a few weeks. Anybody have a few good questions?
  • What does diogenic mean? If we were playing Scrabble, and I had challenged you, you would have lost with my dictionary.

    Of course, I remember losing a challenge to my uncle on the word "VEX" while playing Scrabble with his dictionary.

    So, all things being equal, could you answer this question, or do I have to pull out the OED on you?

    A sure sign that you're overeducated: words you use conversationally are not in the dictionary. Are you underpaid too? ;->

    I agree entirely with your post BTW. Now lettuce speak of cabbages and Kings.
  • I remember reading about this at the time of Kubrick's funeral. Also put about was the rumour that Speilberg and George Lucas were going to team up to do a re-make of "A Clockwork Orange" (was going to be 2001, but they decided it would take far too long;). Anyone know any more about this?
    --
  • That's the original, I was talking about the rumour about a remake. Personally, I can't wait for the re-release, nice to watch it on the big screen with proper sound, rather than a dodgy Scandinavian copy.
    --
  • I believe they were going to change the ending and have Spielberg & Lucas dig up the corpse of Kubrick and violate it on screen

    I'd heard McGregor, but not the other two, sounds a bit dodgy, was Irvine Welsh going to draft the screenplay? - "Me an' Alex wur up fir a bit aye the old ultra-violence, likesay"

    I believe they were going to change the ending and have Spielberg & Lucas dig up the corpse of Kubrick and violate it on screen

    *rofl* reminds me of the Lee and Herring sketch of the alternative ending to "Blues Brothers 2000", where Dan Akroyd and John Goodman piss on John Belushi's grave, while throwing about all the money they'd made.
    --

  • another 70's computer movie
  • As a child, Spielberg was my favorite director.
    But now that I'm (23) old, I really think his film only show one point of view, and are much oriented to this point of view. In Kubrick's film camera adopt's many POV, in Spielberg's, only one, (except a little moment in Shindler's List).

    I suspect he won't be able to do what Kubrick had in mind, even if he also tries to understand it during the next 18 years. The result might be a good Spielberg but far from the one Kubrick should have directed. I really think, by respect for Kubrick's memory, Spielberg should not turn this movie.
  • You can't re-score "The Ring", not even the fire of the fiercest dragon, Ancalagon the Black could harm it. You must take it the Mount Doom, in the land of Mordor.

    George
  • Yes it is, yes it is..
    It includes the famous line:
    "you would sell your own mother for a piece of fudge" sometthing I tell the sales people at work every day.
  • So how did "Schindler's List" reinforce middle-class-while assumptions about life?

    Then I guess "X" reinforced black-lower-class assumptions.

  • Bleh... The movie is tedious, boring, and highly overrated... It *may* have been filmed well, but that can't make up for it's drawbacks.

    Adam

  • After I saw "Dr. Strangelove" I rented every Kubrick movie I could get my hands on, including "The Killing" and a few others of his 50's movies ("Fear and Desire", "The Seafarers", etc). I was extremely disappinted to discover that nothing else he had directed was even a fraction as incredible as "Dr. Strangelove".

    Adam

  • "Science fiction fans seem to like their films to be more thouroughly thought through."

    So, something along the lines of "Close Encounters," one of the best sf movies ever?

    BTW, if you think ET was a soppy kiddy fantasy flick, you need to watch it again, this time with your eyes, and mind, open.

    Adam

  • A) Study both math a music for at least 4 years... Then come back and try to spout this nonsense about mathematics being more advanced.

    B) I've seen many moveies based on a real story that were mutilated and butchered by the director.

    C) The digital dinosaurs impressed me the first time... That was more than enough.

    D) Harrison Ford, Sam Neill, Jeff Goldblum, Liam Neeson, Ben Kingsley, Ralph Fiennes, Whoopi Goldberg, John Malkovich, Christian Bale, Richard Dreyfuss, Tom Hanks... I'm not quite sure where you're pulling this "badly acted" crap from...

    Adam

  • Don't get me wrong... There is not doubt that ET is soppy (and sappy), and that it's aimed at kids... However, there's much an adult can, and should, take away from watching that movie. I'm doubtful that Speilburg's only intention was to entertain a bunch of three year old kids.

    Rent the movie, sit back, and watch what spring to life (pun intended).

    Adam

  • Oh, please! The only good Kubrick movie was "Dr. Strangelove." All the others were monotonous, bories, and just plain bad... :-)

    Adam

  • Why waste your time and money seeing a bad adaptation, when you can get a copy of the incredible book in paperback for the same price (if not less)?

    Adam
  • "and that is why i do not want to ever see AI without the resurrection of kubrick from the grave or some amazingly talented director taking his place (and speilburg isnt that guy)"

    Then don't go see the movie when it comes out... Certainly that's a concept that an intellectual elite individual who is well read and understands the concept of art and meaning within a film can understand?

    I don't think I've ever read such an elitist piece of crap on Slashdot since I stopped reading Jon Katz's articles.

    Adam
  • "you could fall asleep during one scene and awaken to hear the same musical theme and feel comfortable with the ten minute gap in the score. Some people think this is wonderful, that he drives the themes home. I find it dreadfully boring and fall asleep for the entire opera. Spielberg is like this. You can miss half of a film by him and still get the same vision, which makes you wonder why the film is so much longer than it needs to be."

    And this is different from a Kubrick movie how? Hell, you can fall asleep in a Kubrick movie, wake up 30 minutes later and still get the same visision of a bloated, monotonous, piece of crap the movie is (unless it's Dr. Strangelove).

    Adam

  • Hmmm... I guess Jurassic Park and ET were science fact?

    Adam

  • Odd... (Score:1)

    by frood ( 71638 )
    When I first heard of Kubrick's death, I remember being distraught not only at the demise of a brilliant man, but also because "AI" would never be realized. After reading this article, I have somewhat mixed feelings. Sure, Spielberg has come through with some stunning movies, but most of them were aimed more or less at box-office draw. I just find it hard to believe that he will honestly be able to replace such an amazing visionary, no matter what Kubrick's brother-in-law (or whomever) thinks.

    However, despite my apprehension, it's deceidedly better that the movie is made rather than forgotten. The concept of AI that Kubrick began exploring with HAL has never really been explored any further (with the possible exception of the Matrix) despite its potential for stunning impacts on every human philosophy should it ever actually come to fruition.

    OK, well, to give Spielberg some credit, Close Encounters was pretty thought-provoking. Not in the way that Kubrick's movies are, though. Special effects were a means to him, not an end in and of themselves.

    --frood
  • Please, Mr. Spielberg, would you be so kind to
    stay away of this? Also, it's rumored you're
    going to shoot Space Odissey.... How about just
    taking a vacation for a year or two instead?
    Thanks alot.
    KuroiNeko, who's disappointed
  • http://www.variety.com/arti cle.asp?articleID=1117779498 [variety.com]

    Variety has an article today about how Speilberg is slated to do both movies, AI starts production July 10th, Minority Report to begin April 2001. No release date yet. Lots of hollywood exec hyperbole about 'the talented mr. speilberg' please.... kissing up to $$$

  • Everyone is demanding that Spielberg stays faithful to Kubrick's wishes. But no one has defined which set of Kubrick's wishes. Are we talking about the early Kubrick or the later-day Kubrick that was most interested in Nicole Kidman's bum? And lots of perky young ladies lounging around with wrinkly old men!

    Does Spielberg have a yen for gratuitous arse shots?

    "Mummy look! A troll."
  • The movie was indeed a work of art. Further, don't forget about the music!!!!! I am listening to it as I type!
  • Any have any info as to what it's about? AI seems like it could be a pretty cool movie. I hope the HAL 9000 shows up, personally.
  • Do you remember "Raiders of the Lost Ark?" Not bland. Not generic. Not badly acted. That was and still is a great movie. It is a classic "larger than life" hero in classic "good vs. evil" story. Harrison Ford a bad actor? Come on.

    I think that's exactly the point - Speilberg deals with schmaltzy, feel-good movies where there's a clear "good" guy and a clear "bad" guy. Kubrick isn't so blunt. In all the movies I've seen of his (everything except Eyes Wide Shut) there's a moral ambiguity to the heroes/villains of the story. Speilberg, either through his direction or through the scripts he chooses to direct, seem unable to create some sort of moral complexity. Alex from CW was the protagonist of the movie; you felt for the character, sometimes even rooted for him, even though by all accounts he was an evil person. Contrast this character ot Indiana Jones or any other Speilberg protagonist.

  • I agree with you - I think Speilberg is very good at what he does. Though he has gotten better, Speilberg really hasn't showcased his ability to handle moral ambiguity. Schindler's List does tackle this somewhat, but there's still that clear coating of "good versus evil". I would argue that Speilberg came close in Saving Private Ryan, in the scenes immediately after the storming of the beach. Showing the American soldiers executing their German counterparts who had just surrendered while still maintaining their moral superiority was somewhat effective, even if the rest of this epic was a little lackluster. However, most of the Speilberg library is filled with clear "right and wrong" with very few shades of grey.

    I'm not confident that Speilberg could direct a movie like Clockwork Orange, Full Metal Jacket, or Dr Strangelove. I feel that he spends too much time moralizing in places where he could easily let the audience draw their own conclusions (a la Jurassic Park re. science). Where Kubrick forced the audience to interact with the movie (2001 had all of 27 minutes of dialogue! what else could you do?), Speilberg presents everything to the viewer in a nicely packaged whole.

  • robot that doesn't know it's a robot.. Sounds like an idea from blade runner to me. And technology was good enough to make that movie about dozen years ago or so..
  • Mmm.. Maybe a real life version of Truman show with a poor AI at the center of the attention?
  • In recent news, director Steven Spielberg has agreed to direct a film that Stanley Kubrick was working on when he died, a film called A.I. that Kubrick had been developing for 18 years. "I'm excited and pleased to be working on this project," Spielberg was quoted as saying, "really, I am excited. His dying words to me were 'Steven, you're the best; you're the ONLY director who could possibly to do justice to my vision,' before he slumped back in his pillow dead. I really feel quite satisfied that Kubrick wasn't the moron I had believed him to be, and that in the end he knew I was the best of them all, with the possible exception of George Lucas, who is a close personal friend of mine."

    Spielberg then sighed and looked out the window. "You know, I'm just glad to be alive. I hope some day I can piss out Umberto Eco's Foucault's Pendulum, then maybe do Neal Stephenson's Cryptonomicon. All those people in the world who don't read would really love those films, as long as I directed them. I think that would get me even more babies named after me."

    Spielberg then ended the interview by rocking back and forth in his stool and singing softly to himself.

  • ... who doesn't admire Spielberg movies? They seem bland, generic, badly acted and terribly scripted. Sure, the concepts are awesome at first, but they wear thin very soon. How much war documentary can you watch in one sitting? How many times can digital dinosaurs impress you? How plausible is it that we communicate with aliens through music and not something more advanced, like mathematics?

    His movies are great eye candy, but offer little to go on. The only exception I can think of was Schindler's List, but that was based on a real story so he couldn't screw it up too much.

    Anyways, consider this a troll if you must, but I can think of at least three other directors I would have liked to see work on this project.

    Bart
  • I guess it depends. Will it be directed by the Steven Spielberg who directed Schindler's List, Saving Private Ryan, and The Color Purple.

    Or will it be directed by the Steven Spielberg who directed E.T., Close Encounters of the Third Kind, and the Jurassic Park movies.

    It it is the first, A.I. might be a worthy tribute to Kubrick.

    (yes I know there is only one Spielberg)


  • ... maybe
    Spike Lee would be a better candidate?
  • It's about fucking time something like this happens. Maybe Spielberg will get the film industry off its ass and start making some good films again cause God knows it has been nothing but shit lately. Did you see Mission to Mars [elvesontricycles.com]? What the fuck was that?
  • Nooooooooooooooooooooo!
  • Terrifying can be seen in at least two different ways:

    (1) There is the "Boo!" "Ahh! You scared me!" type of terrified that one might find in ye ol' horror film; and
    (2) the terror of wondering what might happen to you in a dark alley at night, or thinking what the government (penal system, establishment, whatever) might do to a person. Really, would you want to live in a world where people are programmed? Have you ever read Aldus Huxley's Brave New World? To me, that is truely terrifying.

  • If I remember the idea correctly, the reason it took Kubrick so long is because he wanted to use one actor from childhood through adult, and was actually filming the kid growing up in the movie...as he grew up in real life. I wondered whether that was urban legend, or what, but if he's been working on the movie for almost 20 years, it sounds very plausible.

    42 Up [imdb.com] is the latest in a series of films on a group of people that have had documentaries on their lives every 7 years(or multiples of). They started the series when they were 7, 7-Up being the first.
    -WG
  • Back to the Future was directed by Robert Zemeckis of more recent "Forrest Gump" fame.

    I have to credit Spielberg for creating the "summer blockbuster" genre with Jaws. (I especially love Robert Shaw's portrayal of the swarthy sea-captain). Spielberg at his best is quite good, but he doesn't have the high standards of Kubrick, who was a perfectionist. Let's just hope that Spielberg takes his time and gives it his best. The last thing we want is for Stanley's vision to get churned out like "Batteries not included" or "The Lost World".

  • I wonder then how much of the movie has already been filmed. Filming over an actor's life seems like a risky thing. What if the actor quits or dies? What if 5 years into it you come up with a GREAT scene you want to add but the actor needs to be young again?

    In any case, I will be seeing this movie when it comes out. It may not be what Kubrick originally envisioned (Speilberg said he was going to add some of his own ideas), but it could still be a good movie.

  • Yeah, I can't think of any Spielberg Sci-Fi films either! HA HA HA Close Encounters was not really science or fiction, coz those aliens really do exist. Same goes for E.T. Jurassic Park was all about Dinosaurs, which of course did exist. and Poltergeist was a ghost flic Not to mention his production work on: Gremlins/Back to the future/innerspace/batteries not included/seaquestDSV/Earth2/Twister/Men in Black/Deep Impact. Thanks for making me laugh my ass off this morning
  • Yes! A Clockwork Orange was one of those movies that shaped me as a child into the well adjusted individual that I am today.

    Hopefully they'll release it on DVD. Anyone know if they are planning on opening it in the US anywhere?

  • Re:Not a tribute to Kubrick (Score:2)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Exactly, Kubrick never came close to saying anything definite about AI. He did however have things to say about Spielberg's films - which Kubrick thought of as overly sentimental and commercially exploitative. There were several pieces which came out around the time of Kubrick's death which mention the relationaship between Spielberg and Kubrick. Kubrick treats film as art, Spielberg treats film as entertainment - it is asinine to assume that AI will bear any resemblence to any treatment Kubrick would have given it (indeed, if he would have ever bothered).
  • Spielberg is a great marketing man; he knows intimately the archetypes of the 20th-century American collective unconscious, and how to exploit them to move the masses. Nobody else can quite put bums on seats the way Spielberg can.

    However, that is not what makes a great director in my opinion. Knowing how to make up the numbers, to sell to the majority, does not make art. Spielberg's stories tend to be facile and simplistic; rather than making people think (and alienating those who prefer not to), he moves them with sentiment and emotion down a broad path. Whether it's the wisdom of children or the evil of the Nazis, his treatments aren't something you can find much in to inspire thought or ask questions. Spielberg's films are reassuring, never challenging.

    I already have an idea of his version of AI: spectacular special effects, heartwarming sentiment and Tom Hanks or Robin Williams in a starring role, over a simple-minded, unambiguous plot.
  • How can you even being to expect ANYONE to replace Kubrick?

    Do we want an E.T. or a 2001?

    Um, well...E.T. did sell a lot more toys...I guess the public would rather have another Spielburg film. :(

    I just love how Kubrick was constantly trying to smash people's expectations about film. Spielburg tends to reinforce what we expect out of it, as well as many middle-class-white assumptions about life.

    Do we have an Kubrick DNA? Bring him back!!!!
  • Folks,

    You're all doing a major disservice by thinking that Steven Spielberg is incapable of directing a movie based on the ideas of Stanley Kubrick.

    People forget that Spielberg is a MAJOR admirer of Kubrick's work, and in fact were friends for many years. Also, Spielberg has done movies like A COLOR PURPLE, SCHLINDLER'S LIST, and SAVING PRIVATE RYAN, all of which show very strong maturity in dealing with adult characters.

    Spielberg is not an Irving Thalberg Award and two-time Best Director Oscar winner for nothing.

    In short, I don't have to worry, because Spielberg has proven he CAN take on difficult projects.
  • Clockwork Orange was terrifying

    Was it hell. This statement makes me wonder if you've really seen the film. It was a brilliant and imaginative movie, but even for the time it was made it was hardly terrifying, more like comedic (except perhaps for the rape scene).

    Consciousness is not what it thinks it is
    Thought exists only as an abstraction
  • It's pretty hard to take a rant lamenting the decline of intellectualism seriously when the author can't put coherent thoughts together.

    Seriously, just slogging through that post proved to be a chore. It's called grammar, spelling and punctuation. Learn those, and then whine about the lowbrow tastes of the average american. Sheesh.

    --
    grappler
  • Haven't you seen "The Killing" ?
    Now there's a kick-ass movie!
    My laserdisc copy should be arriving in a couple of days. Yummy!

    Pope
  • > The movie is tedious, boring, and highly overrated...

    They say vampires can't see themselves in mirrors. D'ya suppose it's the lack of a soul, or some other defect?

    --

  • Wow. (Score:2)

    by fireant ( 24301 )
    Where to begin... I'll forgive the multiple misspellings of Spielberg because that's just too obvious.

    On the other hand, Kubrick was a master of cinematography, always integrating diogenic and non-diogenic sound in a very compelling way as opposed to the over the top, beat it through the thick skull of the common moviegoer method that Speilburg uses.

    I think you are referring to diagetic sound and non-diagetic sound. Please, look up [exposure.co.uk] any big words you use before you look foolish. Diogenic is a word I have never heard before, but I found it here [freespeech.org]. According to that site, it means cynical. I'm not even sure what to make of that sentence. You praise Kubrick for being a master cinematographer, then you talk about sound? Both elements are very important to a particular scene, but they are not related to each other.

    Kubrick was a master of the camera who is famous not only for his vision but the way that he did it-if you ever watch a kubrick film notice the ceilings-something few directors ever utilize (mainly because the films are shot in real places instead of sound studios) nad his tracking shots where the camera goes for a long period of time without a cut to a different angle,

    Yes, I agree that Kubrick was a master of the camera, but what makes you think that just because you see a ceiling, that it wasn't shot in a sound studio? There's really nothing wrong with using sound studio, it depends on the effect the director is going for.

    Also, a tracking shot is when a camera is physically moving. It used to be on a dolly and on tracks (to smooth out the movement), now you can have them on helicopters with digital stabilizers. What you were referring to was a long take. Again, long takes and short takes are used for effect and to convey a particular meaning in the scene. Kubrick used both masterfully, as do many directors.

    Another major problem and the one that i feel could tear apart AI once and for all is the way that Speilburg has to make everything epic-he has to impose a greater meaning on every film and proceed to wallop his audience over the head with that idea. Kubrick also takes on epic tasks in his films, but his theme resides below the surface and stays there the whole film, the effective nature of a true artist who conveys his ideals without the audience even realizing they have been indoctrinated.

    I think that you don't know what epic means. Here's the definition from my film class textbook (which I only had a semester of, so I'm no expert):

    epic - A film genre chracterized by bold and sweeping themes, usually in herioc proportions. The protagonist is an ideal representation of a culture - national, religious, or regional. The tone of most epics is dignified, the treatment larger than life. The western is the most popular epic in the United States.

    I got this definition from Undertanding Movies 8th edition, by Louis Gianetti.

    I'll not deny that Speilberg makes epics. He's made a lot of epics. I haven't seen many Kubrick films, but he's no stranger to epics, like Spartacus [imdb.com]. I'm not sure what you mean by "epic tasks".

    I now have to take issue with your entire last paragraph. There are plenty of people who don't fit the following despcription:

    generally stupid, consider the USA today their source for news and NASCAR and WWF adequate sources of entertainment.

    The segment of society that you have ignored is well read and do understand the concept of art and meaning in film and still enjoy Spielberg's films because, as a great director himself, he has injected his films with passion and poignancy. Have you ever seen Empire of the Sun [imdb.com]? The Color Purple [imdb.com]? Tell me again, how Speilberg only makes films for mega-bucks and awards to soothe his ego.

    Spielberg's not perfect. I mean, for every The Color Purple he has a The Lost World: Jurassic Park [imdb.com], but sice I do enjoy most of Spielberg's work, I felt that I must come to his defense, even to a post as incoherent as this one.

    Please learn the jargon that you're using before you post, so you don't look quite so foolish next time.

    What an oddly appropriate nick.

    "... message passing as the fundamental operation of the OS is just an excercise in computer science masturbation."

  • of course, I would have loved to have seen Kubrick do this one. I don't care what anyone here says, Eyes Wide Shut was excellent. A real, deep, involving movie (but had a crappy plot. I was just more impressed by Kubrick's direction and the cinematography).

    Speilberg could be the perfect person to do a scifi on A.I, given that he probably won't give into the sensationalism that's out there (you know, the stuff that made Y2K such a 'crisis').

    The man does his research.

  • My first reaction was, "Gee, I didn't realize trolls were allowed on the front page of Slashdot." (no offense Emmett)

    Then the horrible reality sunk in. Spielberg finishing a Kubrick work. Just so you know where I stand, I love Kubrick's body of work and tend to loathe Spielberg's. That being said, anyone I might annoy can stop reading this post.

    "Why?" you might ask. "Meticulous" was the word Jack Nicholson used to describe Kubrick's sense of direction (after the umpteen-millionth take of him coming down a staircase). I believe Kubrick would have hand edited every frame of his films if it were sane. If Kubrick were insane, we would never have seen a thing from him.

    This is how a project winds up taking 18 years, and now Spielberg will finish it in 1 because that's why Hollywood movie execs love him. Not to say that Spielberg isn't meticulous at times; IMHO he is. It's just that he does it in an intense and rapid fury, it's his style, and I've heard several actors comment on his frenetic direction. This inhibits the ability to make a movie with meaning, where every minute expresses a thought and the whole 120 minutes or so expresses a vision. Take Saving Private Ryan, the whole movie expresses maybe one or two thoughts, but no overall vision. The combat scenes are gruesome and brilliant, but by the end they just become so much filler. I personally failed to feel any tension at all when the German tanks rolled over the bridge and felt nothing but boredom when the Elder Ryan shed a tear at the grave of his deliverer. That scene was obvious, it was stock denoument, it was emotional filler, and it was artless.

    Which brings us to Pucini. Those of you familiar with opera will know that Pucini wrote operas for people who liked to sleep at the opera house. That is, you could fall asleep during one scene and awaken to hear the same musical theme and feel comfortable with the ten minute gap in the score. Some people think this is wonderful, that he drives the themes home. I find it dreadfully boring and fall asleep for the entire opera. Spielberg is like this. You can miss half of a film by him and still get the same vision, which makes you wonder why the film is so much longer than it needs to be. You can't do that with a Kubrick film. Every minute counts.

    In a way, Spielberg is perfect for the retouch job. He can direct all the filler and attempt to orchestrate a film out of the Master's footage. I wish him luck. But until he learns patience, to make films like red wine and let them age and mellow, he'll just be making a really good white Zinfindel.

    Hope everyone is now pissed off. Punctuate this post with a big fat IMHO. This is Torodung signing off. (why'd it have to be a movie about technology and computers?!? *SOB*)
  • Remember that Kubrick intended for Spielberg to direct this film. This is why the film was held off, Spielberg was not available. Kubrick felt that Spielberg had a better angle on the FX and child-work that were needed, which is true on both counts.
  • John Grisham to finish "lost" Faulkner novel.
    "I'm sure Bill would have wanted this work finished, and we think Mr. Grisham is the man with the Integrity to do it." Said Faulkners descendants in a prepared statement. "We are also making a killing of the merchandising.", they added.

    Microsoft Corp, to release "Directors Cut" of UNIX(tm).
    Working from notes left by the late Ken Thompson and Dennis Ritchie, Microsoft plans to release UNIX2000, which they say will more closely reflect the legendary programmers original vision. "Petty office politics and a restrictive moral climate never permitted UNIX(tm) to become the stunning work of art that was envisioned by it's creators. We here at Microsoft corp. are dedicated to realizing that vision" said Microsoft pres. Steve Ballmer. UNIX2000 should hit shelves in early '05.

    screaming in horror,
    -nme
  • Wired had an article [wired.com] on this some time ago which is quite a nice read, and they where kind of enough to reprint the whole of the short story which is found here [wired.com].

  • Like many things that show up on Slashdot, this one is an old story (not that being old news is intrinsically bad - old news is still a good starting point for discussion).

    This first showed up as a rumor while Kubrick was still alive - shortly after the ShoWest teaser for Eyes Wide Shut appeared (this was one featuring a single shot of Kidman, topless, with three words successively covering up the "naughty bits" - Cruise, Kidman, Kubrick, then the title Eyes Wide Shut0). At that time, it was to have been a collaboration. There was even a young actor named who'd been booked for summers for many many years. The stock for AI on the Hollywood Stock Exchange [hsx.com] doubled that day (it had been doing well because of Kubrick's name, then slumped when Eyes Wide Shut was announced).

    People that play HSX [hsx.com] find many rumor sites to get info on upcoming movies (HSX is a play stock exchange speculating on the success of upcoming movies - usually gets opening box office take right within a million). Perhaps the two most well-known are the following:

    • Ain't It Cool News [aint-it-cool-news.com] (reference to John Travolta in Broken Arrow). This site is widely credited with single-handedly ruining the box office of Batman and Robin. The guy that runs the site used to be loathed by Hollywood - now they invite him to screenings and studio visits.
    • Dark Horizons [darkhorizons.com]. A little slow sometimes (loading the page, not speed of rumor - either DH or AICN is equally likely to get a scoop on a rumor), being in Australia, but a good site.

    Enjoy.

  • The Schindler's List is a one sided manipulation of the espectator's feelings regarding a very sensitive subject. The performance and realization are magnificent, that can't be denied, but it's manipulation nevertheless. That's a pretty low thing to do as a director.

    I'd totally disagree with you there on that last point. It's part of a director or writer's job to manipulate their audience, whether it be through the cinematography, the characterisations or through the plot. A successful film manipulates its audience in many ways, subtle and not-so subtle, and without that a film is sterile, leaving wondering what you were doing far the last hour and a half.

    Sure, Schindler's List may be a pretty extreme example of audience manipulation - I don't know, I haven't seen it myself. But the subject matter is an extremely sensitive one and is bound to provoke strong feelings, even if the film was poorly executed. And anyway, I'm sure the director's views would be shared by the majority of the audience before they saw the film, if anything making the film less manipulative rather than more.

  • This suggests to me that either Kubrick had an idea that he liked but couldn't ever get it work or it was something he sort of liked but not enough to actually ever do. In either case this film probably won't do Kubrick's reputation any good, especially if it's mauled by writers, editors and so on.

    if this is the film I'm thinking of, it has taken so long because the film details the life of a person, and kubrick thought it would be really neat to use the same person. ie film some when the kid was 5 wait a few years, film some more when the kid was 10. etc. he bought up a ton of the same film stock when he started the project, so that he would be filming on the same stuff throughout the project. meaning that the quality and color remains constant through the entirty of the film.

  • No! This can't be true: Such a great director as Kubrick didn't deserve to be taken over by some mulit-billion-dollar typical-hollywood-filmmaker as Spielberg! I'm sure that Kubrick would have made this one a terrific and social-critic-classic. But now I guess it's just going to be some nice effects bundled with some well-known actors.
    I was really looking forward to that after Kubrick's 2001 this would have surely been the second well-to-remember-film about humans and computers!
    It's just like if your thanks-giving-meal is going to be at McDonald's!
    What a pitty!
  • Well it's based on this book the book "Supertoys last all summer long" by Brian W. Aldiss which is a story about a young woman who adopts a young robot as a child. A lot more info can be obtained atCorona Productions [corona.bc.ca].
  • Apparently Kubrik stopped work on AI some time ago, because he realised that the state of digital special effects wasn't good enough to bring his film to life. He saw an advanced screening of Jurassic Park and was so impressed with the ILM digital effects, that he resumed production. I think Spielberg will do a very good job, it really is his forte, this kind of film: robot kid doesn't know it's a robot, growing up etc etc, perfect Spielberg fodder.
  • the link [wired.com] above is broken (as pointed out by AC), but take the time to read it...the end of the online text is rather interesting... kind of a mix between 1984, & Brave New World...

    kgb [sonous.com]

  • Motives (Score:3)

    by XNormal ( 8617 ) on Wednesday March 15, 2000 @05:27AM (#1201398) Homepage
    I find that most people are sincere about their own motives but always question other people's motives. Why is that?

    Need I remind you that Mr. Spielberg has just about all the money he could ever want and achieved more than most people could hope for? (including, eventually, an Oscar :-)

    ----
  • This movie is going to get made?! Excellent.

    If I remember the idea correctly, the reason it took Kubrick so long is because he wanted to use one actor from childhood through adult, and was actually filming the kid growing up in the movie...as he grew up in real life. I wondered whether that was urban legend, or what, but if he's been working on the movie for almost 20 years, it sounds very plausible.

    The story is based on...let's see if I can remember...something about toys, an attic, and lasting all summer? Damnit, IMDB used to have an entry for it, too, but I can't find it. :(

    d

  • ...like letting Phil Collins re-score "The Ring" (Score:3)

    by fourtrackmind ( 73074 ) on Wednesday March 15, 2000 @06:28AM (#1201400)
    It's something outta his league.

    Kubrick brought an individual vision to his movies. Speilberg tries to appeal/exploit the collective consciousness.

    Kubrick wrestled with dichotomies like mother/whore and whether human traits are wired in us or learned through our environment. Speilberg only wants to tell a story.

    Kubrick explored isolation. Speilberg explores fables and broad morals.

    Kubrick realized that the importance of the aural aspect of cinema was paramount to presenting a strong vision, meticulously detailing every sound, score and format (he didn't like THX). Speilberg relies on strings to instruct us what to feel about a scene or how to react.

    Speilberg can make any movie he wants to. Why does he feel that he can contribute to or continue Kubrick's vision? I see them coming at cinema from two non-complementary camps. Speilberg is a manager. Kubrick was a creator.

  • Re:Motives (Score:3)

    by spiralx ( 97066 ) on Wednesday March 15, 2000 @05:49AM (#1201401)

    I find that most people are sincere about their own motives but always question other people's motives. Why is that?

    Because there are very few people out there who truly like everything about themselves, and that kind of introspection generally makes people rather depressed about past decisions and their consequences :) Anyway, the article wasn't about me planning to produce Kubrick's film, so discussing my motives would be somewhat offtopic thankfully.

    Anyway I'm not saying Spielberg's doing this for the money - I'd think it was blatently obvious he doesn't really need any more. It's more about recognition - as you said Spielberg had to wait a long time for an Oscar and wasn't taken seriously by a lot of people until Schindler's List. And whether Kubrick's films were popular or not they were always respected and I think that's what Spielberg gets out of this.

    And anyway I don't agree with people finishing films, books, songs or whatever after the author dies and then releasing them. I think it's both an affront to the author in that it can never really be their work, just someone else's take on it, and somewhat grisly. I mean, I've seen about a dozen new videos by 2 Pac on MTV since he was shot, with him in the videos and all! He seems to have become more prolific since he died than he was whilst alive.

  • Ugh, negativity on Slashdot (Score:4)

    by Hrunting ( 2191 ) on Wednesday March 15, 2000 @06:11AM (#1201402) Homepage
    People are lambasting this decision and chiding the selection of Spielberg based on his tendency to make mega-blockbusters that target a popular audience.

    Guess what people, Speilberg is a great director. You can say what you want about his movies, but he has an uncanny way of filming movies the way they need to be seen. Films like Jurassic Park, ET, and Back to the Future sold a lot of merchandise, yes, and were targeted at mainstream America. They still amazed us (or else we wouldn't have kept going back to see them). And let's not forget Schindler's List, Close Encounters of the Third Kind, and the opening to Saving Private Ryan, film which was incredibly poignant and powerful. Why were these movies like this? Because they were filmed the right way by a camera under the direction of man who knows how to capture motion video.

    Personally, I think Spielberg will adhere to Kubrick's wishes, especially given the reverence that he has for film in general. The fact of the matter is that this movie will probably be a good one no matter who directs it just because of its content, and in the hands of a masterful director, it could be great. I can think of maybe two or three others that might be able to do what Spielberg can do with the camera, but I don't think any of them have the vision to know what needs to be done with the futuristic vision.

    If you can do better than Spielberg, then you can talk. Personally, I would rather see this movie made by Spielberg than by Slashdot.

  • relationship; marginal respect (Score:4)

    by gnarphlager ( 62988 ) on Wednesday March 15, 2000 @06:06AM (#1201403) Homepage
    I'm a HUGE Kubrick fan, as I believe lots of people here are. Spielberg and Kubrick have had a long-lasting friendship, but to me it always seemed like the kid brother trying to impress. Spielberg would send Stanley prints of his films before they were released. Kubrick made Spielberg wait just like the rest of the world.

    BUT, Kubrick cancelled a holocaust project because Spielberg wanted to do Schindler's List (which was a good, if not formulaic movie). AI has had more rumors flying around it than any other film I can think of. It WILL end up a good movie, because the premise is pretty good (in my opinion, you can't recycle Blade Runner too many times ;-) However, Spielberg is not the director that Kubrick was. The differences? Spielberg films ALWAYS tug at your heartstrings EXACTLY where you'd expect them to. Spielberg films are visual, and straight forward.

    Kubrick? His films are much more subtle. His films are deep and symbolic. His movies make you THINK, which is what I believe seperates art from entertainment. The Shining is creepy. Eyes Wide Shut stayed with me for WEEKS after seeing it. Clockwork Orange was terrifying (though the book was more so; Alex grows up, showing the atrocities of the rest of the book as nothing more than normal teen angst and the progressing to a "normal" person).

    So will it be good? Yes. I have high hopes for this film. But as far as exciting geeky films, I'll wait for Lord of the Rings. Hell, even the Matrix sequels will be deeper than AI now.

    At least Lucas isn't doing it.

  • Not a tribute to Kubrick (Score:4)

    by spiralx ( 97066 ) on Wednesday March 15, 2000 @04:56AM (#1201404)

    Spielberg said Kubrick had been developing "A.I.'' -- which stands for "artificial intelligence'' -- for nearly two decades before his death in March.

    This suggests to me that either Kubrick had an idea that he liked but couldn't ever get it work or it was something he sort of liked but not enough to actually ever do. In either case this film probably won't do Kubrick's reputation any good, especially if it's mauled by writers, editors and so on.

    What is this trend with taking someone's half-finished work after they die, attempting to finish it and then publishing it as a "tribute", saying it's what they would have wanted. I'm sure that in many cases it would definitely not have been what they wanted.

    Harlan said Kubrick and Spielberg discussed "A.I.'' at length and said that before his death Kubrick "came to realize that Steven would actually be the ideal director for the project.''

    Oh please. This is very convenient for Spielberg and Harlan isn't it? I mean it's not like they would stand to benefit from producing this film is it? Call me a cynic but I doubt Kubrick ever came anywhere close to saying something definite about making the film.

  • Its not the money; its the inherent lack of depth (Score:5)

    by fraud ( 23424 ) on Wednesday March 15, 2000 @06:43AM (#1201405) Homepage
    Now i am a self-proclaimed movie buff and i have read some about this AI feature and i too was looking forward to seeing this--unfortunately kubrick died so i thought that there would be no hope, and right now i am beginning to think that i would have preferred to never see the movie than one completed by Speilburg.

    Dont get me wrong, Speilburg is a good director and all, but he has inherent weaknesses that effectively ruin any attempt he makes at a serious intelligent movie. Speilburg has a tendency to be mellowdramatic, playing up the cheesy soundtrack in the background and focusing on something that will prove important later in the movie or hammers his theme in a little more nad holding that shot for a couple seconds too much. On the other hand, Kubrick was a master of cinematography, always integrating diogenic and non-diogenic sound in a very compelling way as opposed to the over the top, beat it through the thick skull of the common moviegoer method that Speilburg uses. Kubrick was a master of the camera who is famous not only for his vision but the way that he did it-if you ever watch a kubrick film notice the ceilings-something few directors ever utilize (mainly because the films are shot in real places instead of sound studios) nad his tracking shots where the camera goes for a long period of time without a cut to a different angle, also kubrick was great at capturing shadows and lighting especially on faces, which makes his films more memorable and more real (surreal sometimes). Again Speilburg is the opposite of this, everything he does is standard-on occation he will get a really good sharp significant shot and it will be very strong-but in the context of the film it stands out as different-that is the only reason why it stands out-otherwise Speilburgs camera isnt all that special. One other thing is that kubrick understood the notion of "nothing" time where there is no dialogue or any action, just very real "nothing," in real life we arent reading from a script so there is that "nothing" time-kubrick understands that perfectly while have you ever felt totally drawn into a speilburg film because it was soo real, well i havent and it is because there is always something going on (great for the short attention span audience btw). Another major problem and the one that i feel could tear apart AI once and for all is the way that Speilburg has to make everything epic-he has to impose a greater meaning on every film and proceed to wallop his audience over the head with that idea. Kubrick also takes on epic tasks in his films, but his theme resides below the surface and stays there the whole film, the effective nature of a true artist who conveys his ideals without the audience even realizing they have been indoctrinated.

    I guess what i have been meaning to say the whole time is that the two directors work towards different audiences: kubrick towards the intellectual elite audience who is well read and understands the concept of art and meaning within a film and, speilburg who makes his movies for the masses (because guess what-those movies make money and get the awards that make ego-centric speilburg go) and guess what else-the masses are generally stupid, consider the USA today their source for news and NASCAR and WWF adequate sources of entertainment. When one mixes these two ideologies-there are going to be inherent problems, and that is why i do not want to ever see AI without the resurrection of kubrick from the grave or some amazingly talented director taking his place (and speilburg isnt that guy)

    latre

  • Supertoys last all summer long.... (Score:5)

    by furiousgeorge ( 30912 ) on Wednesday March 15, 2000 @05:02AM (#1201406)
    For those geeks that are interested, this is the short story that Kubrick was using as the starting off point for A.I.

    http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/5.01/ffsupert oys.html?topic=robots_ai&topic_set=newtech nology

    (it's of course only an embryo of an idea).

Slashdot Top Deals

The key elements in human thinking are not numbers but labels of fuzzy sets. -- L. Zadeh

Close