Posted by The Bastard at 64.210.7.34 on June 13, 2002 at 11:50:39:
In Reply to: AI Thoughts for Intangible-Reality posted by Sean the not so Beloved on June 13, 2002 at 11:46:47:
: As I didn't return to this site until the new board was posted here is my response to your last post:
: Well,
: First off please re-read my first post. If you can find where I said that Kubrick HIMSELF SPOKE about AI you're a better man/woman/other than I am. From what I understand he never liked to interview, let alone before a movie was made. He was so secretive in the case of AI he would only fax directly to Speilberg, instead of mailing so no one else would be able to see what he was working on. So hear-say is the only way we are going to get any information about the subject short of contacting Kubrick's ghost. When the movie came out last year in many of the written and televised reviews, opinions from moviegoers on the street, and my personal conversations with people who had seen the movie, it was stated that most likely Speilberg had "tacked on" the happy ending. All I was trying to state was this was not the case according to those involved with the project. If you are more of an authority on Stanley Kubrick and AI in particular than Steven Speilberg and Stanley's wife then all the power to ya! What I meant by "almost an aside" required a little bit of intellect to read into. Where I come from something done as an aside implies that total devotion was not put into the effort. This is similar to an afterthought. I had not heard that Eyes Wide Shut was made to finance AI, as Spielberg and Kubrick both most likely have multi millions to their name (Speilberg more than Kubrick) personally I don't think that they would have to worry about it. I had heard that Stanely had decieded to make Eyes Wide Shut becuase, like his Napoleon movie, it was another long standing project that he had wanted to get to. As the computer technolgy was getting closer but not quite up to what he wanted for AI he decieded to tackle the Eyes Wide Shut project in between. As he devoted just about everything in his being to the movies he directed, based on my choice of words I wouldn't say that was an aside. It was close as it was not his number one choice to work on at that time.
: Personally I do believe Speiberg lived up to what he believed would have been Stanley's vision. As he was not there to help of course Speilberg would have to use his best judgement and couldn't do things exactly as Kubrick did, no one could but Stanley himself.
: In your opinon he delivered a piece of shit. No problem that's your opinon.
: As for your grammar, I'm not so much concerned with punctuation but with your ability to express your thoughts. I still have no idea what you meant by: the film standard he used. If you meant to imply that the time of shoot and amount of film used has any bearing on the quality of the film I don't see the connection. I enjoy both Eyes Wide Shut and Chasing Amy which were shot over 18 months and the summer of 1996 respectively.