The unofficial NSC worst film you've EVER seen thread

Uncle Spielberg · Sep 17, 2014

Bold Seagull said:
That is what you would think, however apparently in reading an article about this it was actually Kubrick that developed most of the sentimentally through the film which was shaping up to be in his usual meandering style and it was Spielberg who introduced the darker vision and more exciting elements.

I actually think it's an underrated film that suffered from criticism based on Spielberg adapting a Kubrick project rather than the film itself.

edit, yes I found a quote:

Screenwriter Ian Watson has speculated, "Worldwide, A.I. was very successful (and the 4th highest earner of the year) but it didn't do quite so well in America, because the film, so I'm told, was too poetical and intellectual in general for American tastes. Plus, quite a few critics in America misunderstood the film, thinking for instance that the Giacometti-style beings in the final 20 minutes were aliens (whereas they were robots of the future who had evolved themselves from the robots in the earlier part of the film) and also thinking that the final 20 minutes were a sentimental addition by Spielberg, whereas those scenes were exactly what I wrote for Stanley and exactly what he wanted, filmed faithfully by Spielberg."

The final acts of the film are all Kubricks vision and Spielbergs direction. Ill informed people just assume Spielberg went into sentimental overdrive, good to see someone who actually does some research

Cheeky Monkey · Sep 17, 2014

A.I. is a great film imho.

Uncle Spielberg · Sep 17, 2014

Mustafa said:
Kubrick had nothing to do with "that" ending, completely Spielberg. His version & ending would have been colder, more dystopian and pessimistic - and undoubtedly more ambiguous than aliens literally explaining everything to a child.

I agree it's underrated though, but we still have every reason to be disappointed about what should have been one of the great sci-fi films of all time.

You are infact 100% wrong I am afraid

Uncle Spielberg · Sep 17, 2014

Uncle Spielberg said:
You are infact 100% wrong I am afraid

see below

Uncle Spielberg · Sep 17, 2014

Mustafa said:
Kubrick had nothing to do with "that" ending, completely Spielberg. His version & ending would have been colder, more dystopian and pessimistic - and undoubtedly more ambiguous than aliens literally explaining everything to a child.

I agree it's underrated though, but we still have every reason to be disappointed about what should have been one of the great sci-fi films of all time.

You are infact 100% wrong I am afraid
The fact you say " aliens " also means you completely misread the film as they were not aliens, they were super advanced robots developed 2000 years on from David. The fact you missed this basic point completely means I think you need to have another look at the film imo

Dick Swiveller · Sep 17, 2014

Being into retro computers, I tracked down a copy of Computer Chess which is set around a chess competition back in the later 70s. I know it was a low budget indie film but it was the most confusing, weird film I have ever seen. Something about cats, swingers and the Pentagon. Might just be me as it has 82% on Rotten Tomatoes apparently but it just weirded me out.

Uncle Spielberg · Sep 17, 2014

Mustafa said:
There is absolutely no way that Kubrick would have a tear jerking close-up of a child in any of his films. Not even in a storyboard.

for want of not labouring the point how can I put this again ? YOU ARE WRONG !

jcdenton08 · Sep 17, 2014

Also, just remembered "Mr Nanny". Soul destroying

Uncle Spielberg · Sep 17, 2014

Mustafa said:
There is absolutely no way that Kubrick would have a tear jerking close-up of a child in any of his films. Not even in a storyboard. It was Spielberg all over.

and the " Aliens " ?

Uncle Spielberg · Sep 17, 2014

Mustafa said:
Kubrick had nothing to do with "that" ending, completely Spielberg. His version & ending would have been colder, more dystopian and pessimistic - and undoubtedly more ambiguous than aliens literally explaining everything to a child.

I agree it's underrated though, but we still have every reason to be disappointed about what should have been one of the great sci-fi films of all time.

have a look http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rz7sPiOoU7A

WhingForPresident · Sep 17, 2014

darters74 said:
I agree. Worst film I've seen Will Ferrell in. Absolute tripe, not watching the sequel.

I take it you haven't seen 'Land of the Lost'? :shootself

Uncle Spielberg · Sep 17, 2014

Mustafa said:
I don't know why you think they were even part of Kubrick's vision - the entire ending was conceptualised by Spielberg, it wasn't even part of the short story the film was based on.

But even if they were, Kubrick wouldn't have had such a sentimental, facile scene. Kubrick has never done anything like that, Spielberg always does - go figure. I suspect his imagination of the "aliens" would have been more imaginative and ambiguous, with more relevance to the theme of loneliness.

They were NOT Aliens !

dingodan · Sep 17, 2014

looney said:
I loved them, 1 and 2.

Just reading the reviews on IMDB and it seems pretty popular, it was such a long time ago, maybe I was still developing a sense of humor at the time I watched it.

I might give it another chance now that I have hair on my balls, see what happens.

Thanks for the tip.

Bold Seagull · Sep 17, 2014

Mustafa said:
I don't know why you think they were even part of Kubrick's vision

For starters, one of the writers Kubrick employed has said that Spielberg filmed the ending faithfully to the script and vision Kubrick approved. Kubrick in the end supposedly felt that Spielberg was better placed to deliver this kind of material which is why he passed it over (he was still alive when he introduced Spielberg to the project). Spielberg retained Kubrick's writers and even the conceptual artists who were supervised by Kubrick for the artistic vision of the film. According to some, the film was more sentimental in Kubrick's hands than it was in Spielberg's.

You know they were evolved robots though (not aliens) - that being a major point at the end.

Nibble · Sep 17, 2014

It is hard to believe Kubrick would make a film like AI but that is why he handed it over to Spielberg. From the bits I've read about the film it was Kubrick's input that made it sentimental. Spielberg is overly sentimental but in this one it's not down to him. Although it's right up his straza.

Nibble · Sep 17, 2014

Mustafa said:
He didn't hand it to Spielberg, he died and Kubrick's son passed it on to him, regrettably. He had been planning to make it for decades, but never felt the film production technology was good enough, but was set to make it after Eyes Wide Shut.

Kubrick would never made a "sentimental" film - he may have intended to made it sad, the general theme was loneliness afterall, but never mawkish like it was.

I wasn't aware of that. Quite happy to be corrected.

Bold Seagull · Sep 17, 2014

Mustafa said:
Spielberg wrote the script, so of course he filmed the ending faithfully to it. As far as I'm aware it was only the first act that Kubrick had written, but also some storyboards and other bits from the later parts of the film, but that's all Spielberg had to work with, other than the staff like you say.

It's probably 80% a Spielberg film , if such a thing were possible to quantify.

Where are you getting this from? Brian Aldiss the original author helped adapt the short story with Kubrick along with Ian Watson who says Spielberg remained very close to Kubricks approved screenplay. You know the original story is incredibly sentimental, Kubrick's vision for it was sentimental - it is why he handed it to Spielberg.

However you seem to have a steadfast opinion that Spielberg was responsible for the sentimentality with no rational explanation for this. Quite odd really.

Bold Seagull · Sep 17, 2014

Mustafa said:
He didn't hand it to Spielberg, he died and Kubrick's son passed it on to him, regrettably. He had been planning to make it for decades, but never felt the film production technology was good enough, but was set to make it after Eyes Wide Shut.

Kubrick would never made a "sentimental" film - he may have intended to made it sad, the general theme was loneliness afterall, but never mawkish like it was.

Kubrick introduced the project to Spielberg in 1995, they spoke about it a lot prior to Kubrick's death in 1999. While Spielberg may not have actually signed the contractual rights till after.

You are quite right Kubrick had created a sentimental project - which is why he wanted to hand it to Spielberg. Spielberg didn't create the mawkish theme, it was already there.

Bold Seagull · Sep 17, 2014

Nibble said:
It is hard to believe Kubrick would make a film like AI but that is why he handed it over to Spielberg. From the bits I've read about the film it was Kubrick's input that made it sentimental. Spielberg is overly sentimental but in this one it's not down to him. Although it's right up his straza.

This is right, no need to correct yourself. Kubrick was very much alive when he introduced to Spielberg in 1995, and they supposedly spoke at length about it in the coming years before his death in 1999.

Nibble · Sep 17, 2014

According to everything I can find Kubrick handed it to Spielberg in 95 and died in 99 and worked on it together with about 4 other writers.

Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊

The unofficial NSC worst film you've EVER seen thread

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Enemy of the People

Well-known member

Well-known member

.

Well-known member

New member

strong and stable with me, or...

New member

New member

strong and stable with me, or...

strong and stable with me, or...

strong and stable with me, or...

New member

Share this page