View Full Version : A.I Artificial Intelligence - teaser 2 (640x344)
AI Artificial Intelligence(2001)
http://www.mediajonez.com/film/ai-poster.jpg
Release date: March 20 2001
Director: Steven Spielberg
Writers:Stanley Kubrick
Starring: Haley Joel Osment, Jude Law, Frances O'Connor, Sam Robards, Brendan Gleeson, William Hurt, Jake Thomas, Robin Williams (narrator)
Studio: Warner Bros.
Genre: Fantasy, Sci-Fi
Plot: The film that might have been Stanley Kubrick's next project is now Steven Spielberg's next project. Set in a futuristic world flooded by melted polar ice caps, A.I. depicts a society largely dependent on computers and robots ("A.I." stands for "artifical intelligence"). But at its heart, it's a latter-day Pinocchio tale about a little boy robot (Haley Joel Osment) who's designed to serve as a surrogate son but wants to be the real thing. The big question on cinephiles' minds: Which will prevail, Kubrick's cool cerebral irony or Spielberg's warm sentimental streak? Or is there room for both?
<A HREF="http://srv14.movie-list.net/carl/ai_640X344.mov"><FONT SIZE="4"><B>A.I Teaser(25.62 Megs)</B></FONT></A>
<img src="http://srv14.movie-list.net/carl/ai.JPG">
Dunno how many people will want this but I find this teaser to be amazing. Easily one of my favourite trailers and I just had to make it an exclusive.
editman
09-09-2003, 01:08 AM
:big grin:
Call me an idiot but I've always been considering this as the unofficial final work of Stanley Kubrick.
All the teasers & trailers are great stuff. Too bad they're not all available on the DVD.
Oh... and... I :love: Teddy.
"His love is real, but he is not"
Aaahhh...it makes you all warm and fuzzy inside. A.I. is one of the few movies cried at the end. The movie sucked but the teasers were great.
trailergod
09-09-2003, 02:55 AM
nice trailers.... btw editman.. the DVD in Europe is by Warner Brothers and the teasers and trailers are on the DVD :)
IMO the movie sucked, it had potential but it was about 10 minutes too long..lol
its more of a hybrid movie between Stanley and Steven
Shrubz
09-09-2003, 04:45 AM
I haven't checked out the DVD in the U.S. yet, but according to DVDFile, it has a teaser and a trailer on it.
Originally posted by trailergod
its more of a hybrid movie between Stanley and Steven wrong. It is everything that Kubrick intended. Kubrick intended it to end the EXACT way that it did and Spielberg made no changes. The ending was well in Kubricks style and fit the film perfectly. You just have to understand it.;)
Originally posted by editman
Oh... and... I :love: Teddy.
Oh... and... I :upset: Teddy.
Teddy IMO just F'ed up the whole movie :geek:
bendermac
09-09-2003, 08:49 AM
there are only the teasers on dvd. the trailer is missing. just wanted to set this clear ;)
Shrubz
09-09-2003, 04:26 PM
Originally posted by carl
wrong. It is everything that Kubrick intended. Kubrick intended it to end the EXACT way that it did and Spielberg made no changes. The ending was well in Kubricks style and fit the film perfectly. You just have to understand it.;)
There's no possible way this movie is a perfect reflection of how Kubrick intended it to be. When you watch this film, you don't see Kubrick, you see Spielberg. Albeit Spielberg attempting to imitate Kubrick, but then it's still Spielberg isn't it? Even in the dark parts where it's supposed to be a nightmare, something Kubrick is good at, it's still a goodie-two-shoes Spielberg film. As someone once put it, a wolf in sheep's clothing is still a wolf, and a Spielberg in Kubrick's clothing is still a Spielberg. I enjoyed the film, to a point... but it would've been much better had Kubrick been able to make it himself. Sorry.
Kn'thrak
09-09-2003, 05:46 PM
I loved this movie. The ending made me cry!! Considering my parents were away on holiday for a few weeks and I watched this movie and missed my mum! First thing I did when my parents got back is greeted and hugged them.
Would like to see this movie again with my mother
trailergod
09-09-2003, 06:09 PM
i actually watched this movie in the theatres with my mama and we got so bored at the end...lol
the movie should have ended when he got forzen under water, or whatever that was.... but noooooooo they have to fast forward into the future and have new robots dig him out and but stuff into his "mind" in order to be one more time with his mom... hey now that i mentioned it, i kind of like the idea now :)
Originally posted by Mark Strube
There's no possible way this movie is a perfect reflection of how Kubrick intended it to be. When you watch this film, you don't see Kubrick, you see Spielberg. Albeit Spielberg attempting to imitate Kubrick, but then it's still Spielberg isn't it? Even in the dark parts where it's supposed to be a nightmare, something Kubrick is good at, it's still a goodie-two-shoes Spielberg film. As someone once put it, a wolf in sheep's clothing is still a wolf, and a Spielberg in Kubrick's clothing is still a Spielberg. I enjoyed the film, to a point... but it would've been much better had Kubrick been able to make it himself. Sorry. No but it is possible to know what script Kubrick was going to use, andd yes it had David being rescued in the future by Robots. That's why the film opens with a voiceover from these same Robota. That's why in Manhattan you can see all of the designs and you constantly see figures of those robots from the future. It's why Jude Laws character says that humans are scared because eventually there will only be robots left. The ending was there in the original script that Kubrick was intending to use, and I know that this was Chris's argument. That Spielberg ruined it by adding his own ending.
A.I was a fairy tale, the voiceover at the begining was something like "Those were the days," could also be said "Once upon a time." The whole story was a fairy tale that these Robots in the future were telling and so there was no other way to possibly end the film.:whistle:
Shrubz
09-10-2003, 01:34 AM
If you read my post I didn't even mention the ending or the script really, just the way he made the film. You're arguing the wrong thing here.
Guiboche
09-10-2003, 02:31 AM
My turn to poke at this film ;)
First, Kubrick always intended this film to be directed by Spielberg. They talked for years, and Kubrick would always produce, and Spielberg would direct. So, in the end, this film did (and has) turned out the way Kubrick wanted it. A respectable story (Kubrick) from a respectable visionary (Spielberg).
Second, I think this movie goes beyond the definition of "Fairytale." What Kubrick was trying to do was showcase the greatest strive humans wish to achieve. Most people get the "Fairytale" aspect, but miss the whole "point" of the movie. If you haven't seen the movie, then skip the spoiler below :eek:
Alright, my spelling and vocabulary is limited, but i'll try my best to explain ;)
What are humans striving for? To find the "One." The "Being." The "Creator." "Their" creator if you will. Humans seek to find the source of their existence. Based on what we know, first there was "God" then he created "Man." But humans haven't reach this point in time, so how does Kubrick achieve this? By going backwards in evolution (sorta).
Kubrick says Humans created Machines. What does this do? It creates an evolutionary link. Since we can't tell a story of Man seeking God, we can now tell a story of Machine seeking Man. In this story, the Machine strives to find the one who created him (Man). And in the end, this is exaclty what happens.
The Robot boy represents exaclty what humans are searching for. What's amazing about the movie is that it's correct in all aspects. It shows the creation:
Man creates Robot = God Creates Man
And the goals:
Robot searching for Man (Robot Creator) = Man searching for "God" or the "Creator."
In the end the Robot find it's creator, and the exact same thing can, and will happen to humans some day.
Hehe, I have good days and bad days explaining this movie. Today was probably a bad day ;)
trailergod
09-10-2003, 02:48 AM
huh? but the end the robot boy was found by the "new robots" which eventually means the robot found not humans but robots at the end... right?
the movie did not stop where the robot found his creators, the movie ended when the boy was found by the new robots of the future....
btw Guiboche, Avid Xpress Pro 4 0 + DV 3.5.4 is waiting for u :P
editman
09-10-2003, 03:14 AM
Spoilers tisoy. :P
Originally posted by trailergod
btw Guiboche, Avid Xpress Pro 4 0 + DV 3.5.4 is waiting for u :P
Huh!!? editman wants it too.
As for 2001: A Robot Boy's Odyssey, here's my way of interpretation:
Poor David's a creation made to love humans. He didn't fail, but since humans are flawed, they failed him.
His existence lost its purpose because he's what he is, instead of what he think he should be (a human boy) to achieve his mission, hence satisfy his internal(/build-in?) needs, hence complete him.
The way I see it David's journey's not much about seeking his creator to find out who He is, but rather seeking for a way to make himself complete, to make his life meaningful, to assure the purpose of his own existence. In other words to archive something in fact impossible. (His mother will never love him even if he is a human boy.)
That's why the story is so sad and heartbreaking because we know David's on a doomed mission. He'll never succeed even if there's a miracle. At the end an illusion has to be relied on to finish his ultimately purposeless journey.
To put it in editman's own shoes, it's as if editman's sole purpose of living is made for the girl he first fell in love. At the end she'll never love him back. But in order to give his meaningless life a purpose, he goes on a journey to find an ultimate way to alter himself so that he thinks she will then love him back. But all is in vain after all.
Anyway, my two cents.
Guiboche
09-10-2003, 09:17 AM
Originally posted by trailergod
huh? but the end the robot boy was found by the "new robots" which eventually means the robot found not humans but robots at the end... right?
the movie did not stop where the robot found his creators, the movie ended when the boy was found by the new robots of the future....
No, the Robot boy found a human: his mother. That completed the Robot's journey to seek out his creator: Man. This is why he now sleeps, and why the movie now ends.
Originally posted by trailergod
btw Guiboche, Avid Xpress Pro 4 0 + DV 3.5.4 is waiting for u :P
Whoa! :zorro:
Originally posted by Mark Strube
If you read my post I didn't even mention the ending or the script really, just the way he made the film. You're arguing the wrong thing here. Sorry I was going to talk to you about how the 2 directing styles clashed, then suddenly changed back to arguing the point with Chris, who hated the ending. :P
Originally posted by Guiboche
My turn to poke at this film ;)
What are humans striving for? To find the "One." The "Being." The "Creator." "Their" creator if you will. Humans seek to find the source of their existence. Based on what we know, first there was "God" then he created "Man." But humans haven't reach this point in time, so how does Kubrick achieve this? By going backwards in evolution (sorta).
Kubrick says Humans created Machines. What does this do? It creates an evolutionary link. Since we can't tell a story of Man seeking God, we can now tell a story of Machine seeking Man. In this story, the Machine strives to find the one who created him (Man). And in the end, this is exaclty what happens.
The Robot boy represents exaclty what humans are searching for. What's amazing about the movie is that it's correct in all aspects. It shows the creation:
Man creates Robot = God Creates Man
And the goals:
Robot searching for Man (Robot Creator) = Man searching for "God" or the "Creator."
In the end the Robot find it's creator, and the exact same thing can, and will happen to humans some day.
Hehe, I have good days and bad days explaining this movie. Today was probably a bad day ;) Not disagreeing with your interpretation. All fairy tales have morals or themes, that was the theme for A.I, but it was still a grown up fairy tale at heart.
Originally posted by editman
As for 2001: A Robot Boy's Odyssey, here's my way of interpretation:
Poor David's a creation made to love humans. He didn't fail, but since humans are flawed, they failed him.
His existence lost its purpose because he's what he is, instead of what he think he should be (a human boy) to achieve his mission, hence satisfy his internal(/build-in?) needs, hence complete him.
The way I see it David's journey's not much about seeking his creator to find out who He is, but rather seeking for a way to make himself complete, to make his life meaningful, to assure the purpose of his own existence. In other words to archive something in fact impossible. (His mother will never love him even if he is a human boy.)
That's why the story is so sad and heartbreaking because we know David's on a doomed mission. He'll never succeed even if there's a miracle. At the end an illusion has to be relied on to finish his ultimately purposeless journey.
To put it in editman's own shoes, it's as if editman's sole purpose of living is made for the girl he first fell in love. At the end she'll never love him back. But in order to give his meaningless life a purpose, he goes on a journey to find an ultimate way to alter himself so that he thinks she will then love him back. But all is in vain after all.
Anyway, my two cents.
Good start but...
His mother did love him. She activated Davids love when she herself began to love him as a son, and when her real son came back she couldn't get rid of those feelings. Her husband basically wanted rid of him straight away, as did her son but she knew that he would be destroyed and loved him enough to keep him. When she began to think he was taking a risk then she had toi get rid of him but the love was too strong for her to let him go, so she takes him to the woods where he at least stands a chance.
At the end, when the robots ressurected her she had genetic memories that were stored in space time or something. She wasn't a product of Davids imagination, she's the real woman with the same feelings, and she tells him then that she loves him.
From my review
First of all the theory that in the end David is rescued by Martians is wrong. They're not Aliens, they're the next generation of Robots who survived the destruction of man. This is made pretty clear by the film but it's a misunderstanding I hear surprisingly often. As for whether the robots fit, well to answer that I have to go back to the beginning.
That start I mentioned earlier is essential to understanding why the ending used was correct. On a second viewing of the film you'll notice that the narrator at the beginning who says "<i>Those were the times...</i>" is the voice of Ben Kingsley who plays one of those robots from the end of the film. Then you realize that "<i>Those were the times...</i>" could also be said "<i>Once upon a time...</i>" and it opens up a whole new level to the film. It's a film that's been likened to the story of <b>Pinocchio</b> before, and not without reason. <b>A.I</b> is basically a retelling of Pinocchio in the future, it's the version that these robots tell each other. The story that you're watching is not true (<i>in the context of the film I mean, obviously it's not true in real life</i>), but rather it's a fairy tale that's being told by Robots who have lived a long time after men. Then you look at the comparisons to the fairy tales that we tell now. They are always dark and hopeless stories that suddenly feature a happy ending, and <b>A.I</b> does the same thing on a bigger canvas. It's the darkest most hopeless fairy tale ever, so it required a happy ending that was darker than most. In comparison to the film, the ending to <b>A.I</b> was light and fluffy as David saw his mother again, learned to dream and whatever, yet compared to "<i>And they lived happily ever after...</i>" the "<i>And they lived happily for one day, and then she died...</i>" ending of <b>A.I</b> was incredibly bleak. In my opinion the way the film ended was the right way, and the only possible way without making the stories frequent clues confusing and redundant.Full review (http://www.epinions.com/content_112402861700)
chros
09-11-2003, 02:03 AM
Isn't this trailer has a bad cropping ?
On the left and on the upper side has black border ...
My system:
WinXP
QT Pro 6.3 for win
Originally posted by chros
Isn't this trailer has a bad cropping ?
On the left and on the upper side has black border ...
My system:
WinXP
QT Pro 6.3 for win Nope, I just checked it and the cropping is fine. I see no black bars on any of the edges.
Shrubz
09-11-2003, 02:12 AM
Yeah the cropping is fine. Sounds like a problem with your video overlay or something.
Jean-Pierre Bazinet
03-18-2004, 11:45 PM
link fixed
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.1.6 Copyright © 2012 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.