Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Movies Media

Spielberg (And Kubrick)'s A.I. 202

Posted by CmdrTaco from the stuff-to-see dept.
Ainonymous Coward writes " A teaser trailer was released for Steven Spielberg's A.I. For those who know, Stanley Kubrick had been working on this film for nearly 20 years; it is based on the Brian Aldiss short story Supertoys Last All Summer Long. Here is the trailer (Quicktime). The link comes from Ain't it Cool. Putting aside the obligatory Kubrick lamentation, I'm looking forward to this one. " I wish I could see this thing... I'm really excited about this movie.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Speilberg (And Kubrick)'s A.I. More

Speilberg (And Kubrick)'s A.I.

Comments Filter:
  • The trailer would have been better if it had featured even ONE scene from the movie. This does little more than announce that the movie will be coming out. Why did I take the time to download this?
    This trailer is to the movie as vaporware is to actual software.
  • Yea, unfortunately you're absolutely right. It's a sad commentary on American taste when "Steven Spielberg's AI" will bring a bigger audience than would "Stanley Kubrick's AI".

    You're right. Only us dumb Americans loved the following movies:

    Jaws
    Indiana Jones Trilogy
    The Color Purple
    E.T.
    Saving Private Ryan
    Jurassic Park
    Close Encounters of the Third Kind
    Empire of the Sun
    Schindler's List

    Just because Spielberg is capable of more than one movie a decade and is not a control freak doesn't mean he's any less of an artist or kick-ass director.

    -thomas
  • AI-nonymous Coward? What, joke too subtle?
  • uhh....it took over 4000 years to put man on the moon.

    Nah, it took 20 years to put man on the moon.

    It took 4000 years for man to figure out he wanted to go there.

  • I expect that it's going to spur a lot of debate about conciousness and what it means to be alive.

    My guess is that that's exactly what Spielberg and Kubrick intended...
  • Chris Cunningham, the guy who directed the Bjork video, "All is Full of Love," worked with Kubrick on this thing for about a year and a half. He apparently had piles of robots made for the thing. Judging from the robots in the Bjork video, they were probably cool as hell.

    Spielberg has hired Stan Winston to do the FX on this one though, which I'm sure means a big pile o' CGI poop.

  • I haven't forgotten Full Metal Jacket. G_d hasn't been that merciful to me.
  • "AI" is simply the sequel to "Daryl" [amazon.com]. This time around, Daryl gets the girl... and his revenge!
  • ...when it was called D.A.R.Y.L.
  • Humes are just weak little monkey boys.
  • CmdrTaco actually does have a Windows install...he must, because he plays Diablo 2.

    I guess Diablo 2 is worth the Windows bootup for him but the AI trailer isn't.

  • It's small but you can find a copy that will play on RealPlayer here [spielberg-dreamworks.com].

    I assume you mean RealPlayer plays it in a small window - this can be stretched, even to full screen (using RealPlayer on a Windows machine), but, with this preview, you aren't missing much (some CG, but basically an animated version of the poster). There are other related downloads, such as desktop wallpaper.

    BTW, could you put an extra "<BR>" or two in your sig? Too often, I read one of your comments and think the sig is part of what you are saying, that you are basically saying the person you are responding to has an incorrect opinion. I think one of your questions to an interviewee got posted that way, so it looked like you were asking a question while calling him an idiot. Of course, seeing his responce, that might have been what you were doing...

  • poor spelling, grammer[sic], and the general flaimbait[sic] nature...

    That's gotta be a troll.


  • Are you forgetting Full Metal Jacket, or did you dislike it?

    One of the best war movies ever, IMHO, and definitely Kubrick's best movie. Can't watch the others over and over.
  • The preview looked good, and with Haley Joel Osment as roboboy, it will probably be up to Kubrick's standards. He is one of the best child actors in a LONG time, and should be able to handle the emotional subleties of that role very well.

    Now I just wish Card would get off his ass and make Ender's Game...

  • Re:Is that a little slow for Joe Audience? (Score:5)

    by Stiletto ( 12066 ) on Wednesday January 24, 2001 @11:51AM (#483905)

    Maybe if we're lucky, crowds will see the Spielberg name and think "Oh, A.I.? That must be like E.T.! Let's go see it!"


    Yea, unfortunately you're absolutely right. It's a sad commentary on American taste when "Steven Spielberg's AI" will bring a bigger audience than would "Stanley Kubrick's AI".
  • Maybe slashdotters should show some spine for a change and boycott the movie which will be released by the industry litigating the DeCSS case.
    It is just pathetic to see /. pretend to care about free speech and then proceed to drool uncontrollably over a hyped up film...
  • The previous post brought to you by Gobeur, The Human Babelfish.

    ;-)

  • I wonder if it starts out in Black and white, then moves to technicolor(tm) half way through. As long as it gets to digital by the end of the movie.
  • Did anyone else think the music in the trailer was vaguely reminiscent of the Blade Runner theme?
  • Every single movie that Stanley Kubrick was involved with dealt with an aspect of dehumanization.

    Ironic that what will most likely be his last film project (he's dead, after all) will wind up being about just the opposite.

    Can't wait to see it.

    ::Colz Grigor
    --

  • Trailers are typically made with music that has nothing to do with the final movie's actual soundtrack. Witness a recent trailer (can't remember which movie it was for) using some of the music from Braveheart.

  • Re:Woo hoo (Score:5)

    by atrowe ( 209484 ) on Wednesday January 24, 2001 @10:36AM (#483912)
    The trailer certainly looks promising. A big-budget Hollywood movie like this may be just what it takes to raise the public's awareness of the dangers that artificial intelligence poses to our race. I realize that Spielberg's movie is a complete work of fiction, but the movie's plot deals with the important issue of the possible consequenses when humans try to "play God" and create a new race of sentient machines.

    With more and more vital functions of our nations government, banking infrastructure, and military defense relying on machines to perform increasingly complicated tasks, one must wonder what precautions the government is taking to prevent the machines from turning against us. I realize that this seems a bit absurd to most people, but just look at how quickly computer science is advancing. We may not have a machine with the processing power to act as a conscious being right now, but the day that we will is much sooner than you think.

    We need a strong, powerful government as proposed by such sensible leaders as George W. Bush to implement measures to ensure that a scenario will remain just fiction. I am calling for immediate government regulation and supervision of all artificial intelligence research programs. Take my advice, when the time comes for the robots to take over, you'll either be enslaved by your mechanical masters, or you'll be ground up for axle grease if you resist.

  • I wanted to look at the trailor, but I'm a bit worried that a film about Artificial Insemination might not be appropriate to download and watch in my office.
  • Agreed...Although Kubrick has made many beautiful (if not disturbing) films, he has never managed to reach a large audience (the masses). Not to say that I am complaining, as you have usually never heard of the best films of the year.

    Lets hope the Internet solves many of the distribution problems small film makers have. It is amazing to see how many GREAT film get made, but never get released because some BIG-WIG at Paramont decides the masses would like or see the movie.

    That is all!
    -Ryan
  • "But would a trailer like that capture the hearts of the audience at large?

    Why not? The "masses" aren't any one kind of moviegoer. They don't "need" a murder or chase scene...you'll notice many movies have those elements, because it's what sells. Now, is this because it's what the audience wants or what the studios think the audience wants? People will go to the movies no matter what. They'll tend to see something that at least partially sparks their interest, but they'll go if the studios put out crap or art, because they like to see a movie.


    The Good Reverend
  • I know, explosions don't have to be a part of every trailer or movie, but there was something a bit ....lacking.... in that trailer. 10 seconds of a blurry object, with fonts coming in every 4 seconds, then some fingers? Then some aerial run-down of some cartoon circuits. They could have done all that with 95K of FLASH.

    At least the online trailers for Lord Of The Ring & Star Wars were worth downloading.

    Rader

  • What was not to like about Bicentennial Man? I thoroughly enjoyed that movie. Am I missing something here?
  • beautiful trailer - looking forward to the movie...
  • "mechanical masters" ?

    Let's see....

    Television [cable/antennae/satellite]
    Video Games [playstation, nintendo, sega]
    Computers [intel, apple, m$, sun, and the applications that run on them.]
    Cars.
    Appliances [microwave, toaster, coffee pot]

    Odds are your livelihood is going to suffer a great deal were you deprived of at least one of these. Odds are greater still that one of these items is essential to your survival [computers for most of us, a car for the rest of us], hence obligating you to maintain said device at the expense of other niceties.

    There's no need for some Master System to slap the chains on us- we've already done it, eyes wide open and of our own free Will.

    As for the issue of AI- the so-called "moral question" shouldn't be an issue. In the course of creating an artificial intelligence, we've learned a lot about the construction and programming of computers, and a great deal about the human mind [as AI is a convergence of the two fields]. The creation thereof would be a step more important to the human race than setting foot on the Moon, and I fully support any research in that direction.

    Remember kiddies, Skynet can only take over the world if we LET IT. Keep such a system as a standalone, don't give it web or security access, and we'll be fine as long as science uses its head.

  • Maybe that is why I get more flamebaits and trolls then I really think I deserve. Good adivce. Yes, I meant small as in by default it plays in a smaller window than the Quicktime versions.
  • That's a good point. In that case I would reference my objection to Speilberg style. For Schindler's List and SPR, I feel that the present day wrapper footage that surrounds the live action is gratuitous.

    Although, ... I do think that Schindler's List and SPR are SS's two best films. Only in comparison to Kubrick do they falter.

    (I am admittedly a Kubrick nut, but I do try to back up my comments. My first comments doesn't back anything up though, since it would take a god damn dissertation!)

    Speilberg uses so much of the aforementioned merchandising, et al. that the rest gets buried, but those are some good examples of his more Kubrickian efforts.

  • No, but you can bet your a** everything will be delivered in a FedEx Box.
  • ...throw in a love interest to pull in women...

    If the love interest was to reach the women you wouldn't have movies like Entrapment, where the gorgeous young Catherine Zeta-Jones falls for some fossilized old guy like Sean Connery, since we all know that could never happen in real life.

  • I understand what you're saying about art and such, and I should let you know I'm a huge Kubrisk fan...

    But dude. It's a movie. We'll see if Stevie bastardizes it, but perhaps you should give it a chance before shooting it down. If anything, I think Spielberg is doing honor to Kubrick by at least making an attempt. If it's going to be good or not is unknown, but let's not go so far as to call Spielberg a "second rate charltan." ET. Close Encounters. Saving Private Ryan. Sure, some of his others sucked, but if you look at his history you'll see that action movies aren't his strongpoint... but he's damn good with drama (these are all MY opinions, mind you).

    Give the man a chance, if we go to see a movie that Kubrick had a part in then we're doing him honor by wanting to see it. I also would like to ask you where EXACTLY did you get the information that Kubrick specifically didn't want any of his movies finished? Or are you merely assuming all of this? A visionary like Kubrick WOULD want to finish his own work, but I think more importantly after his death he would want his work to be seen instead of sealed away into obscurity.

  • I've seen the previews for AI a couple of times now, and it does look quite interesting. I'm SURE it will be better than Bicentennial Man.

  • Say, who's that blue guy sitting next to that Linux box?

  • Castaway used the Braveheart music in it's trailer.
    ...and I don't know how many movie trailers have used "Spybreak!" by the propellerheads in their trailers after it was used in The Matrix.

  • 20 years, some information (Score:3)

    by Kevin T. ( 25654 ) on Wednesday January 24, 2001 @12:05PM (#483928) Homepage
    Let's squash some urban legends here:

    1) For a long time, there were rumors that Kubrick was considering filming _AI_ with the same boy actor from Jurassic Park (the kid who says, "Hey, this is UNIX!"), filming scenes months or years apart as the boy aged. From what I've been able to find, this rumor referred to another, dropped project that Kubrick had in mind, a Holocaust story called _The Aryan Papers_. Kubrick decided not to do _AP_ after _Schindler's List_ became The Holocaust Picture of the Decade.

    2) To my knowledge, Kubrick first started actively toying with developing the story for _AI_ in 1989, after he had taken a break after _Full Metal Jacket_. The "20 years in making" thing is, as far as I know, Taco foaming at the mouth. However, Kubrick was known to kick ideas around in his head for as long as 30 years (_Eyes Wide Shut_/_Traumnovelle_), it just might be that he didn't talk to scriptwriters and WB before 1989.

    2b) Soon after Kubrick died, the _New Yorker_ carried a "Talk of the Town" piece by someone who had worked with Kubrick on the story/script for _AI_ in the early 90s; apparently Kubrick went through a lot of writers, and worked at a very leisurely pace, meeting with the writer(s) once or twice a year.

    3) As Kubrick died quite suddenly (my theory is that a combination of stress and fatigue made him vulnerable to heart attack while laughing at the last line of _EWS_), it is improbable that he handed Spielberg the script and said "You are the HAL's last hope...make...this...movie." However, Kubrick frequently talked with other directors, especially those who used F/X well (Jim Cameron), so it's quite likely that he had "talked AI" with Spielberg. Despite some of the things slashdotters are saying about him today, I think Spielberg is a decent enough man to think to himself, "Would Stanley _really_ have wanted me to do this movie?"
  • It took less time to put men on the moon.
  • There's an animated GIF [spielberg-dreamworks.com] on that Quality Dreamworks page [spielberg-dreamworks.com] scrolling multiple Kubrick film posters - brilliantly, they've misspelled "The Shining" as "THE SHINNING."

    Perhaps it's a Simpsons reference. I doubt it.

    Once again: It's Rich in Quality.


    .lx
    --
    Ready to fight for your OS?
  • to know that Dubbya would be in office at the begin of the new millenia. Just kidding folks! It's a joke, you know, AI, Dubbya, etc. Ahem.
    ----------------------------------

  • Why sex is better than AI. (Score:3)

    by spludge ( 99050 ) on Wednesday January 24, 2001 @12:10PM (#483933)
    I can see that this will be a touching movie, a child concieved by AI. I can see why this movie will be controversial. How will AI affect our kids in the future?

    Sometimes it puzzles me that AI is a hot topic right now. Why so much fuss, don't people realize that AI is being used right now, every day? This isn't some far flung theory, AI is working wonderfully. There are many industries that require AI to function.. farming for example! Sure AI needs to be controlled, I can see that, and yes, it could be dangerous if it gets of hand. There is an easy solution to this though, we need to teach our kids that sex is better than AI.

    I implore you! Educate your kids now on the dangers of Artificial Insemination.

  • Not doubt - one of the worst trailers I've ever seen (though the final title setup was cool) Gee - so it tells me about an 11 year old android - well um, Star Trek has androids too :) At least one scene or something would have been nice. Don't give everything away - but tease me a LITTLE! (Boy can THAT be taken out of context! :))
  • Since when is the purpose of a "love interest" to "pull in women"? Are you stupid? If love interest pulls in anyone, it's gentlemen like myself, who hope to catch a glimpse of booty. And booty is hard science if ever there was such a thing. Don't be a snob.
  • duh - ull

    ---
  • The only way for SS to redeem himself here is to make a film like he has never made before, devoid of merchandising and marketing hype, as well as the unnecessary eye candy that he and his masses of sheep (most of the movie watching world) love so much. He will not. I've read many of SS's comments on Kubrick and it is amazing that such a talented director still does not understand how to interpret SK's vision(s), by means of avoiding singular reasoning.
    It is typical of SS to not give Kubrick higher billing for what are his inspired ideas. In fact, just from the mood of this teaser/trailer, it is clear to me that the film is already lost, and if Kubrick is/can be watching, he is certainly laughing with frustration.
    If I wasn't at work right now I would have time to write up a short novella about how 99.9% of so called "movie buffs" can't understand Kubrick's genius, and never will.
    What I can tell you is that it disappointing and typical of the masses to flock to an inferior film, constructed with menial intelligence and maximum technology to prove simple points that were only supposed to be the tip of the iceberg. SS doesn't see beyond the tip of this glacial mound, because he is at the limit of his intellectual capacity.
    Go Ravens!
  • The 'block' was that Kubrick wanted the characters to age 'naturally', so he was filming a bit every year as the actors aged.
  • Did we learn nothing from Terminator and the Matrix? Those who don't learn from the future are doomed to inherit it.
  • you almost had me going for my shotgun...
  • I believe it is true that Kubrick spent time contemplating Schnitzlers Traumnovelle as a subject for a movie since 1967 or so, which came to be Eyes Wide Shut. The Napoleon thing was in the seventies and I guess it turned out to become Barry Lyndon (for the subject of Napoleon being too ambitious ?). Obviously Kubrick was always a multitasking environment by himself.
  • Just tried to watch a Quicktime movie with a fairly recent Winebuild (20001222) and the older player from Quicktime 3 (new codecs though),and it really works. Funny thing is I have never been able to double the size in Windows, but now it works great! It doesn't shut down cleanly though.

  • We take a girl out for dinner before getting laid, but that doesn't mean we like eating first.

    The English habit of saying "We" rears its ugly head.

  • Not to mention what that horrible AI will do to our prescious bodily fluids.
  • People preferring Spielberg over Kubrick appear to be watching with their eyes wide shut
  • With a short story that nuanced and disturbing, what the hell do we need the movie for?
  • This is the second time that this movie has been mentioned on /. but I have yet to see anybody mention the 1985 movie DARYL. Sorry if this is redundant but the similarities should be mentioned. I'm still looking forward to the movie as Kubrick and Spielberg are amazing but the story has been done before.

    CParticle
  • Yea you are right the driving force behind one of the longest economic expansions ever (the computer industry) is not worth getting worked up over. Also you will notice that you are looking through the statement with a strong "I_see_a_rant" filter. Rob said he wished he could see this. I feel the same way about a number of QuickTime videos that come out. He did not say anything about M$. How you got from "I wanna see the trailer" to "M$ sucks" I'll never know. For many of us it is important it is how we feed our children and have our fun. Name something that matters more.
  • Oh, come on now. No one goes into a robot movie expecting car chases, unless it's Robocop, or Terminator. They expect to see the robot rip people's arms off. That's what I WOULD expect to see in a Robin Williams/Isaac Asimov robot story, I know that much!

    Actually, strike all this. I guess a lot of violent robot movies do contain car chases after all. After all, they get to completely run over the hero or bad guy, who just gets right back up.

    Then there was Steve Austin, the REAL one, who got into car chases WITHOUT THE CAR. Now THERE is a real man who kno, um well, a partial man, anyway.

  • Re:20 years? (Score:3)

    by luxaeterna7 ( 204579 ) on Wednesday January 24, 2001 @12:15PM (#483951)
    uhh....it took over 4000 years to put man on the moon.

  • Well said, Chorder.

    It's interesting that Kubrick saw in Spielberg something better than what many harsher critics have seen: an artless craftsman dependent on syrup.

    Personally, I greatly respect Spielberg's gifts in narrative, even if I suspect his view of human nature (and tendency to yolk every story into a happy ending).

    Yet now there is something new to consider. Much is made of Spielberg and Kubricks' independence, their safe remove from the Hollywood system. And yet with AI, Spielberg has cast that off, and chosen to labor under that most grueling of all masters -- not the money men, but the memory, work, and inspiration of one of film's true masters. What a burden and what an honor to have the late, great Stanley looking over your shoulder from Olympus as you bring his final project to fruition!

    If that does not change an artist, nothing will.
  • Robots don't kill people. People kill people.

    Well, Ok. I guess an evil robot will kill people of its own free will.

    Robot arms with chainsaw attachments don't kill people. Robots kill people. NO REGULATION OF CHAINSAW ARM ATTACHMENTS!
  • That's the first thing that I thought when I saw the trailer for this movie. I guess the Wheel of Reincarnation has gone full circle again. Look at Brendan Fraser's movie Bedazzled [imdb.com]. The first time my friend and I saw the trailer for this movie, we turned to each other at the the same time and said "That looks like Weird Science [imdb.com]."

    The previous links are all to the IMDb. Here is the IMDb page on Daryl [imdb.com].

  • Re:AI (Score:1)

    by .sig ( 180877 )
    Well, once again I stand corrected. That was a Kubrick movie? Of course I haven't seen it since it was released on video, which has been quite awhile ;-) Back that I never really paid much attention to details like who directed the movie, I just watched what looked good :)
    Oh well, I guess I should change my stance to "I really hated some Kubrick films" ;-)
  • ... that his name is not D.A.R.Y.L. [imdb.com].
  • I'm starting to become convinced that Hollywood producers will never produce a worthwhile technical flick.

    20 Years in the making means in all like-li-hood it's 20 years out of date. I'm not trolling here, it's just the way things work. You can work on a technological movie for as long as you want, but once you reach a certain time-frame you have to do one of the following.

    1) Update all your information, and waste your footage. Making 20 years about as useful as 5.

    2) Make your techno-movie only work in a certain time-line, ie: its a techno movie about technology from the past (not very likely) or:

    3) The most common solution to producing a techno movie that meets the demands of artistic license and the motto, "make me money because Akira Kurosawa's dead now" is to make the movie (from the beginning) focus on vague, general idealogies inherent in Technology of one type or another. Movies of this nature, in a nutshell, suck.

    If this movie is just another 'Data the pale Ensign' story, then its been done. It was done in Terminator back in the 80s. It was done by Gene Roddenbury... whatever, it's just old.

    If this story is about technology, and where we are realistically headed, what we have to question about our research and what we do: Then the information is outdated, sure we could predict AI 20 years ago; but if what we knew of AI 20 years ago is the basis of the plot, then I for one have already seen that story. Either way we as consumers of Spielbergs Crap for the Masses are losers. David Wong [pointlesswasteoftime.com] on the other hand will probably give it a full two stars

  • Dunno. I really liked it too, and I even read the book *first*. But then, I've never seen a Robin Williams movie that I didn't like. (Though I didn't particularly care for Mork&Mindy.)

    Of all the movies I've seen in my lifetime that were based on books rather than screenplays, I'd say this one ranks about fourth or fifth as to how well it preserves the flavor and plot of the original story.

    Sure, they through in a little sex, and sure it was juvenile. But hey, Hollywood *will* be Hollywood.

  • if i had a project that i'd been working on for 20 years and i was getting up there in age, i'd sure talk to a friend about continuing it should something happen to me..
    "Leave the gun, take the canoli."

  • Of course you realize... (Score:3)

    by kevcol ( 3467 ) on Wednesday January 24, 2001 @10:49AM (#483960) Homepage
    Kubrick would never have let a clip of his movie be leaked by the studio who gave him carte blanche because of his legend (not Sony whom he did not work for of course). His obsessive and highly secretive filmaking process which also whetted the anticipation for his work is sorely missed.
  • I remember reading way back about how they wanted to use the same kid thru his entire life to make it more real. I don't really think that happened, but that's probably part of the reason why it took so long.
    --
  • You can read the story Supertoys Last All Summer Long At:
    http://members.xoom.it/nessuno2001/kubrick/ai/su pe rtoys.html


    -----------
  • The movie followed the book to closely: (1) too heavy on ideas, (2) too short on action, (3) way too many subplots (and duration). Many families with kids walked out early and I got a sore butt.
    Speilberg won't make these mistakes.
  • Nah, it took 20 years to put man on the moon. It took 4000 years for man to figure out he wanted to go there.

    Hey, if you're going to play that game, you'll have to go back to at least 1865, if not earlier. Don't you diss on my boy Jules Verne [nasa.gov]!

    ObAI: I have trouble with most AI movies. They usually start with the premise that this is the first AI ever built, that it was built in secret by a small team, and that either it's in a perfectly human body, or we're attaching a whole lot of guns to it and we're sure it won't go berserk. That does bad things to my suspension of disbelief.

  • Sci Fi/Cinema:
    I think the deal is, a lot of us sci fi fans have had a hope that sci fi would become mainstream in our culture, so that WE would be perceived as the cool ones ("I am Darth Vader, from the planet Vulcan. . . "). In the 50s and 60s, Sci Fi fans were geeks. In the 70s, the huge potential of Sci Fi to become popular happened, thru Star Wars, but was it really Sci Fi, or Science Fantasy? In any case, it came, and suffered the same fate as every genre that has come into mainstream culture. It gets watered down by the money-making machine, because in a purely Darwinian sense, a money-making machine exists to make money, the more money it makes, the more that particular business model survives. Kissing-up to the artist has never been the money-making machine's strong point. And never will. So while we're all now able to enjoy some Sci Fi along with everyone else, it is watered down, and there isn't much hard Science anymore, nor is there a whole lot of sociological exploration going on (which, I believe was the whole point of Sci Fi in the first place, ever since Shelley's Frankenstien).

    AI:
    I think there are three kinds of opinions where it comes to AI.
    First (I belong to this category), AI is a weakly defined term, machine intelligence is inevitable, machine "consciousness" is probably impossible, how can we replicate that which we cannot even define ourselves?
    The Second group is more naturalist about it, there is noting special about human consciousness, that it just emerges from the physical properties of movind data the way the human brain moves data, so building a sufficiently powerful and properly designed computer ought to do the trick.
    The third group (most people) hasn't really thought about it, just assumes the someday science will come through, and we'll all be doomed to be destroyed by a race of killer robots. Though it's neat to see it happen on the silver screen, worth $8 every time.

    In either of the first two cases, I think that the Turing goal of creating something that will be indistinguishable, upon personal interaction, from another human being. That's certainly possible. People are stupid, and easily fooled. Cinema proves that; static images played in rapid succession become moving images. Two channels of sound can adequately simulate full environmental stereo. So what would be so hard about creating an AI that people can't tell the difference? Watch a Bot on IRC lately? Most people can tell the difference, some people will actually argue with them for hours before they figure out something strange is going on. Is this AI? IMHO, yes. But is it "good enough"? Good enough for what? What's the goal? Human interaction is simply an interface problem. How complex and advanced does a program have to be before it's actually considered AI? Does it need to emulate the way a human thinks? Are there other ways of thinking? Is human logic akin to Euclidian geometry? Are we going to discover non-Euclidian thinking? We'll never be able to prove it's conscious - we'll never be able to prove it has a soul. But long, long, long before we reach that point, I'm sure we'll have machines that are smart enough to self-replicate, and learn to survive on their own, (which may or may not lead to conflict with our survival) and possibly be able to evolve into higher intelligence.

    These squishy touchy-feely questions about whether an AI will "love" or have rights as an individual, or whether they'll be considered a "new species", and whether it will attempt to compete with other species for survival, etc. are all bullshit in my opinion. They may still have a bit of milage left for film audiences, and hip pseudoscience authors, but that's about it. At the end of the day, it's a computer program, and the code will be owned by the author, or corporation that creates it. As will all the works it creates (if the AI is "good enough" to do things like write sonnets or engineer space stations, or invent a better battery). There's always the issue of the "tool" getting up and walking away, and you know, that's probably inevitable too. But in the end - boring.

    (one of my favorite "AI" stories was Frank Miller's Ronin, and I think that would make a fucking Excellent, money-making movie, because although Virgo did do the whole "Frankenstein thing", it did it in a totally original, and very fun way).
  • with the same boy actor from Jurassic Park (the kid who says, "Hey, this is UNIX!")

    erm, that was a girl who had that line. at least in the version i saw..

    "Leave the gun, take the canoli."

  • I wish I could see this thing aswell...but not just the trailer

    I wish I could install a sorenson codec from Debian stable (not non-free)...but it's not going to happen

    I wish I could go into the cinema to watch this...but it's not going to happen

    I wish I could buy or rent a DVD or Video when it is released...but it's not going to happen

    In fact I will see this film when:

    1. I'm in a friends where they are watching it
    2. One of my local free to air stations shows it
    I guess I'll see the trailer before then though just to make it a bit more painful.
  • It's amazing to me: The animosity towards Microsoft runs so deep with these Slashdot guys that they don't even have a spare Win98 box in the corner somewhere.

    How do you all play the cool games? In WINE?

    Like it's been stated before: Its time the Slashdot crew wratched up its professionalism and drop the anti-MS crusade once and for all.

  • OK, this is just a rumour, but what i heard from a filmmaker pal about a year ago was:

    • Halfway through Eyes Wide Shut Kubrick realized the film was not going to be very good and, while he had to finish the project, he started devoting a LOT of attention to AI. (let's face it, if the poor guy hadn't died, serious critics would have torn EWS into little bitty pieces)
    • Part of this AI effort was that Kubrick had a well-known video director (I think Chris Cunningham, not sure about the name) design some "robots" for him.
    • Both parties were very, very happy with the results.
    • After Kubrick died, the robot designs were in limbo, and the video director wanted to do something with all that effort, and maybe make a buck or two in the proccess...
    • Enter: Björk - same director did a video for her featuring very humanlike robots (I have seen the video, it's gorgeous).
    • These robots were the ones designed for Kubrick's film.

    due to bandwidth limitations i haven't been able to view the trailer yet, so i don't know if these robots were the ones from the video. but this is the story i heard from someone in the film/music-video biz, and it's pretty interesting anyway.

    anybody know anything more specific or contradictory or...?
  • Remember, this is not a trailer. It's a teaser. Teasers are supposed to leave the audience wondering about the movie and to pique their interest. There will be a full trailer in the near future, I'm sure.
  • just what it takes to raise the public's awareness of the dangers that artificial intelligence poses to our race
    Speak for yourself, meat person!
  • Well I have Quicktime here, but for some reason, it didn't want to work. So, for those who need it, here is the AI movie trailer for RealPlayer [aol.com]

    Here are some other related nuggets.
    "Super-Toys Last All Summer Long" [wired.com] - By Brian Aldiss (AI is based on this short story)
    "Frog Crisis" [nebula.on.ca] - A multi-part animated series, also based on Aldiss' story, by Greg Hyland [Creator of the Lethargic Lad [nebula.on.ca] comic]

  • Hey Rob.... (Score:5)

    by SquadBoy ( 167263 ) on Wednesday January 24, 2001 @11:24AM (#483999) Homepage Journal
    It's small but you can find a copy that will play on RealPlayer here [spielberg-dreamworks.com].

  • You can read the short story (Score:5)

    by OmegaDan ( 101255 ) on Wednesday January 24, 2001 @11:24AM (#484000) Homepage
    HERE [members.xoom.it]
  • Good point!
    I guess it is a teaser.
    I guess I should just not download teasers then.

    Rader

  • Brits are cool. They're hilarious. "Two Fat Ladies" on the Food Network rules! "And I'll put it into this rrrrravishing little blender...." You know what pisses me off? The British guy from Junkyard Wars has been replaced by some bloody idiot from the States! DANGIT... I liked the old guy. But what really gets me is that all the teams now are from the States. Now I'm American, myself, but... geez. It's just not the same anymore. Where's the old show, the way it was? Now it's just a bunch of rednecks throwing around stupid phrases and "raising the roof" and all sorts of other retarded stuff that makes me almost embarrassed to be from here.

    And I mean come on... Our presidential debate, and nobody is even allowed to address their opponent. "Debate" my red American butt. Look at the Brits in parliament! If they have something to say, they bloody stand up and speak their mind! It's great to watch, anyone who hasn't is really missing out. Dubya says some idiotic thing, and we all try and play along, "He's not REALLY a moron... Seriously... No, he really got to where he was on his own merits, HONESTLY.. Give him a chance.. YES HE DOES have a mandate...." Over there, you make an idiot of yourself and the whole place erupts in laughter, and you have to actually *defend* yourself and your ideas. Hey, the Brits may be a bunch of pansies, but GEEZ, what have we become?! In the words of.. that guy, in.. that movie... "I weep for the future."

    Hey, I'm proud of my country. But DAGNABBIT, BRING BACK THE BRITS on Junkyard Wars! Geez!

    Ok, that's kinda out of my system now.. Um.. What were we talking about? AI? Um.. Well the site is Slashdat (the past-tense of the verb "to Slashdot", of course) but is it just the same trailer they had in the theaters months ago? It didn't show jack squat about the movie.. Oh well. I'm sure I'll see it anyway.

    And what's this "I wish I could see this thing.. I'm really excited about the movie," Taco? What a hypocrite. Get a life already!
    Hmm... "Get a life.." The irony....

    ;)

  • Time to dig out I Robot. (Score:3)

    by morganew ( 194299 ) on Wednesday January 24, 2001 @10:22AM (#484042)
    Hopefully this movie will redeem robotics and AI, especially after the Robin Williams "effort" last year.

    One question though:

    Who gets the product placement rights? Will it be Intel? Will he say "Intel inside"?

    Will Sun make a comeback and have the child say "I am his Sun"

    Maybe Moto can steal a march and have him say, "Well, it was a RISC to build me, but I think it was a success".

  • The only way for SS to redeem himself here is to make a film like he has never made before, devoid of merchandising and marketing hype, as well as the unnecessary eye candy that he and his masses of sheep (most of the movie watching world) love so much.
    Do Amistad, Schindler's List, and Saving Private Ryan fall into this category? IMO those were 3 very good films that had little to no merchandising, undue marketing hype, or unnecessary eye candy.
  • Were Kubrick alive and making it, I would look forward to it. Spielberg, however, does not have the talent that Kubrick had in his little finger.
    The signs already are bad: Spielberg got one of his favourite cute, towheaded child actors to play the lead, no doubt tugging the heart-strings of the audience in the syrupy, shallowly emotive style that is Spielberg's trademark.

    Spielberg is a master of marketing and mass entertainment, but he is not an artist. His films are throwaway schlock. Even his "serious" films, like Saving Private Ryan and Amistad, don't say anything challenging or thought-provoking, but just mouth simplistic platitudes.

    There is no way that AI will be even one tenth of the film Kubrick had in mind. Chances are it will be as banal and dumbed-down as the rest of Spielberg's output.

  • Kubrick and Chris Cunningham (Score:5)

    by yardgnome ( 190624 ) on Wednesday January 24, 2001 @11:31AM (#484053) Homepage
    A little-known fact about A.I. is that Kubrick was initially working with Chris Cunningham [director-file.com] on it. Cunningham (a film prodigy who designed creatures for Clive Barker's Nightbreed at age 16) is best-known for directing several music videos, including ones for Aphex Twin (Come to Daddy and Windowlicker), Bjork (All is Full of Love), Madonna (Frozen), Squarepusher (Come on My Selector), Portishead (Only You), Leftfield (Africa Shoxx), and several Auteurs videos.

    Cunningham was working with Kubrick on A.I. for about a year and a half, and now he's working on a film version of Gibson's Neuromancer. Personally, I can't think of anyone who I'd rather have work on Neuromancer, especially since I'm sure Cunningham would kill anyone who even suggested he make it like that POS Johnny Mnemonic. It's too bad that he didn't continue work on A.I., as his artistic style could have doubtless made it a mind-blowing experience.

    ---

  • QuickTime (Score:3)

    by Mike Hicks ( 244 ) <hick0088@tc.umn.edu> on Wednesday January 24, 2001 @11:14AM (#484056) Homepage Journal

    Quoth CmdrTaco:

    I wish I could see this thing...

    Indeed.. Well, considering the fact that the new Linux distributions are coming with XFree86 4.0, which has built-in YUV->RGB conversion support through the XVideo extension, I think it may be yet again time to campaign [apple.com] for a QuickTime client for Linux. Maybe something will happen once MacOS X comes out, since it's based on BSD. I suppose I shouldn't hold my breath..


    --

  • Kubrick's intentions regarding A.I. (Score:5)

    by Saint Nobody ( 21391 ) on Wednesday January 24, 2001 @11:32AM (#484057) Homepage Journal

    i recall reading (not sure where, though) that Kubrick had already done a lot for A.I. himself, and just about all that was left was the transferrence of his ideas to film, via the whole filming process, plus casting, scouting and all that mess. he even had storyboards done (a rarity for kubrick.)

    in the mid-90's he found himself in a position where he had to make a choice. There were two movies he wanted to make: an adaption of Arthur Schnitzler's Traumnovelle, and A.I. He decided to adapt Traumnovelle first, and it became Eyes Wide Shut [imdb.com]. However, days after completing that project, he died.

    However, before he died, he decided to pass the film, storyboards, and all of that on to Spielberg for him to complete the work on what had been his project for so many years. It *was* his intention for the film to be completed, and he realized he couldn't do it. He just chose somebody else to work on it in his place.

  • Mommie! They are trying to make me think! Make them stop!

    You know there are other reasons to go to movies than non-stop chase scenes and explosions...

    Still Bicentennial Man did drag in spots, but it wasn't neccessarily the lack of action scenes as much as unfortunatly unstimulating dialog in many of the scenes.
  • Your right it was a girl, he could have read the book tho, it has the boy as the geek. No big deal.


    ________

  • Well, when some people believe in something, they actually stand by it. It's called having convictions.

    Of course, they could have a Windows box around so that they can atleast verify what they're writing about.

    For all they know, it could be a troll. In this case, you can probably trust the domain, but you never know. It is, after all, a Speilberg movie with a trailer hosted by sony.com. (Speilberg is a part owner of DreamWorks.)

    There are convictions and then there's ( objectivity || journalistic integrity ), but Slashdot isn't a 'News' site, right.

    --
  • Of course I'll go see it, as will many geeks. But would a trailer like that capture the hearts of the audience at large? For a minute there in the opening it looks like it might ask you to feed the kid for just 57 cents a day or something. I fear that the masses need a chase scene or a murder or something (see Antitrust, or even E.T.) to spark their interest.

    The music was neat, very Pink Floydish. And I liked the way they did the title at the end.

    Maybe if we're lucky, crowds will see the Spielberg name and think "Oh, A.I.? That must be like E.T.! Let's go see it!" And the sad thing is I'm not trying to be funny.

  • For better or worse, the AI-enhanced [segfault.org] candidate was sent home to a state he didn't carry.

Slashdot Top Deals

1 + 1 = 3, for large values of 1.

Close