Of course, but that’s because in 2003, the robot was killed and replaced by an ill-tempered, mildly-retarded Chuck Austen.
People misquote the “bunny line” as “Put. The bunny. Down.”.
And, I’m sorry to burst your bubbles, but they aren’t aliens. You can basically see microchips through them! 
Also, the “thought screens” are a giveaway, coupled with their interest in humans and their interpretations of life in the arts and sciences. What alien gives a crap, anyway?
Yeah, obviously robots, which IMO was pretty obvious within the four corners of the film.
–Cliffy
Aliens? Robots?
I remember the end of that movie quite clearly. He was down in the water, it froze, and then the screen faded to black. And then I turned off my DVD player. It was a great movie.
Yeah, seriously. After what seemed like the second ending, I started to wonder how many we’d get. It was like a bottomless mug of coffee. Or shit.
Do you mean the actors or the characters? Because all three of the above sets were married and had children on their respective TV shows.
It never even occured to me that the creatures at the end of A.I. were aliens. That would make no sense at all, and it wasn’t exactly a movie that could afford to toss away what little logic it had.
Similarly, despite Ridley Scott’s attempts at a retcon, Deckard wasn’t a replicant.
Well, he didn’t actually shoot at all. Anyone who says otherwise is just a big fat doody-head.
Sigh. Yes, the actors. Not the tv characters. Nothing on tv is “real life.”
What about Ozzie and Harriet? Huh? HUH?!
And I bet you think Donnie and Marie weren’t really lovers, either.
This isn’t exactly entertainment-related, but there have been books and movies (and a couple of infamous songs) about accused axe-murderess Lizzie Borden. Lots of folks seem not to know that Lizzie was acquitted.
Nothing? Really? Damn. Starsky and Hutch just won’t be the same, any more.
What was the significance of that?
I biography I read a long time ago claimed that’s what happened. What’s the truth?
I’ll bite. What was the first talkie?
Ooh, I got another one!
The first episode of Archie Bunker’s Place was not about Edith’s death. Edith was mostly an off-screen character, with a few token appearances, in the first season. The second-season premiere was the episode that had Archie and Stephanie working through their grief.
I can understand why people think that way, since it was such a powerful episode after a relatively weak first season. But they’re remembering it wrong.
Of course there was. AI ended with the kid at the bottom of the Ocean praying to the blue fairy until his power ran out. It’s quite sad, but much better then some sugery happy ending speilburg might have been tempted to deftly attach. Thank god he resisted that particular temptation.
This probably deserves it’s own thread, but exactly what is it with the “Deckard is a replicant” stuff? I saw Blade Runner a couple weeks back and really couldn’t see why anyone would think that.
I’m also trying to figure out why it’s considered such a great movie as well, but that’ an entirely other topic.
How you guys get “sugery happy” ending out of that desperately sad ending (the actual ending) is beyond me. Would you say the same if Kubrick had lived and made the movie he wanted to make? That is, with the exact same ending?
Signs. They were aliens.
No, the movie did not specifically mention that they were aliens. That would be because because it was incredibly fucking obvious, and did not require revelation via dialogue (which, had Shyamalan included it, may have gone: “Hey! See that thing that came out of a flying saucer? You know, the one that looks like an amalgam of every standard Hollywood conceptualization of an alien for the past 50 years? That one that’s trying to conquer the Earth, kinda like some kind of, I dunno, alien invader? Guess what: it’s an alien! See it? ALIEN!”). The movie sure as bloody hell didn’t mention that they were demons, or products of an LSD experiment gone awry, or whatever other pet theories you may have.
Although, come to think of it, it never mentioned that Gibson and co. were humans, either (“Man, I sure am a human! Yep yep! Homo sapiens, that’s me!”). In fact, I’d have to check, but I don’t think anybody ever specifically said that it was taking place on Earth (“Hey! Check it! We’re on EARTH!”). So, maybe the movie takes place on another planet, and Mel Gibson and his family are remnants of a human invasion, and the creatures are actually the original inhabitants striking back from their base on the moon to which humanity exiled them! See, on the moon, they didn’t have any knowledge of what was happening on their homeworld, so they couldn’t know that their once-dry planet had been flooded with massive quantities of water to make it more habitable for the Terran force!
(As a side note, that’s a bit sad: the hyperbolic plot twist I fabricated to show the ridiculousness of the “let’s assume the obvious is wrong because it was never mentioned otherwise” theory makes more sense than the actual plot of the movie itself).
Yeah, I never got that complaint. Mankind has gone completely extinct, the Earth has frozen over - and that’s a happy ending? I’m not saying the deneument worked, but it certainly wasn’t “sugery.”
When referring to Pink Floyd and Jethro Tull it is correct to say “I really like/dislike them” not, “Have you ever heard Pink Floyd/Jethro Tull? He rocks.”
They are bands, NOT individuals(in this context), dammit.