I never made a judgement on anyone who didn’t like the movie.
You think it sucked ass? You are correct. It did suck ass, to you.
Just like the OP asks, these are only opinions and guess what? Your opinion does not affect my reality or the reality of the movie.
I never agreed with the relativistic quackery that all art is good, just to different people. I don’t like all good art or good movies. That is irrelevant. “Do they commincate powerfully and well?” is the proper question.
But my basic point is accurate. Art can and does say a lot more than just about the future.
I wasn’t referring to you, I was referring to the person who said “It says something about you.” Whoever that was.
What truly amazes me is that I’m far too lazy to be bothered with finding out who it was. Scary.
Well, there’s nothing there I can take offense at because the statement is completely void of meaning. Any film (in fact any work of art) could be substituted for A.I. in the statement:
[list][li]As to the argument that the kid was only a robot and so they have no real feelings and you don’t care what happens to them, well, I think that tells us more about you than A.I[/li][li]As to the argument that the rookie cops were inept, but their superiors were worse and you don’t care what happens to them, well, I think that tells us more about you than Police Academy[/li][li]As to the argument that the coyote was trying only to sustain his life, yet somehow kept managing to blow up the dynamite too soon or too late, well, I think that tells us more about you than the roadrunner cartoon.*[/li]
My initial response was that this initially was a weaselly attempt on your part to disparage the people who disagreed without having to actually address their arguments (and I believe I was right), but now you’ve added all these extra dialectic materialism qualifiers, so the statement has become void of meaning.
Becuase it’s insulting to my intelligence. I can appreciate subtlety, but I object when in a movie that was marketed to adults (or at least not specifically to children) uses such clumsy crude methods to try to get an emotional response from the audience. I did have emotional reactions here and there, but quite possibly the opposite intended. For example, the Flesh Fair, in which sadistic humans destroy harmless mecha, the mechas are presented in the most sympathetic possible fashion (i.e. a bot that loks and sounds exactly like Chris Rock). When one mecha, David, manages to get the crowd’s sympathy, they instantly and unanimously turn agasint the human ringmaster. I found that scene creepy in the extreme, but not because of the Roman-colliseum atmosphere. Rather, I found it disturbing that if one is presented in a sympathetic manner, a crowd can be instantly swayed to one’s side. This may explain why a physically attractive serial killer can get fan letters proposing marriage.
Why does David feel fear, anyway? I thought the point of the emotional awakening wad to make him feel love.
Excuse me. Previously you implied that not liking the film was due to some aspect of my personality and the quality of the film was secondary. Now you suggest it may be Spielberg’s style that is objectionable, after all?
And it’s hardly worth mentioning that this film was released years after other non-kiddie Spielberg projects like Saving Private Ryan and Schindler’s List. Further, the movie was marketed as a Kubrick/Speilberg project, and Kubrick certainly didn’t have the simplistic reputation you ascribe to Spielberg.
I have no problem saying that I find it likely that if a viewer felt convinced that David’s emotions were real and the humans at the Flesh Fair were savages, and the robots were second-class citizens (i.e. feeling that they were citizens of any kind), then it’s quite likely that the viewer has made a primarily emotional rather than primarily thoughtful analysis of this particular film.
Hit ENTER too soon, damnit. The first paragraph should appear:
Well, there’s nothing there I can take offense at because the statement is completely void of meaning. Any film (in fact any work of art) could be substituted for A.I. in the statement:
[ul][li]As to the argument that the kid was only a robot and so they have no real feelings and you don’t care what happens to them, well, I think that tells us more about you than A.I[/li][li]As to the argument that the rookie cops were inept, but their superiors were worse and you don’t care what happens to them, well, I think that tells us more about you than Police Academy[/li]As to the argument that the coyote was trying only to sustain his life, yet somehow kept managing to blow up the dynamite too soon or too late, well, I think that tells us more about you than the roadrunner cartoon.[/ul]
(sigh) (sorry if this is a bit rambly)
When you are describing the plot, you are describing the film. (like your road runner example)
Why did the OP make this thread? To get other people’s opinions on a film that they had already seen and formed their own opinions. She wasn’t asking if it was worth seeing. So could the OP be interested in plot points, or being informed as to what the film is like. No, she knows already. She asked to hear our reactions. Our reactions are our own. I’m sorry if this is too esoteric for you but your reactions and my reactions come from ourselves. Therefore they tell others about ourselves and maybe, if we look at our own reactions to things they will tell us something about ourselves.
Yes, you* can * substitute any film for AI in what I’m talking about. Even the roadrunner cartoons. I know someone who doesn’t laugh at RR cartoons. She thinks they are cruel and sadistic and they make her cry.
Now Bryan, I bet you just formed an opinion about that girl. How did you do that? Did her reaction to the RR cartoon tell you something about her?
I agree that the flesh fair was a low point in the film. I always said the film was flawed. The crowd turning made no logical sense. With the attitude they had they should have been even more bent on destroying David. The part from where the motorcycles chases him down to him leaving the flesh fair is just plain bad. Yes the ending is too drawn out. And as I said the sweet and sour mix of Mr. S and Mr. K was sometimes very wrong and at some points it was great.
Spielberg works on emotional manipulation. In Saving Private Ryan, a film that I think he went for cheep emotional manipulations, for instance, the platoon rests in the church and we finally get to know them. One of the guys tells a story about pretending to be asleep when his mother came to check on him. Then he gets killed and he calls out to him as he is dying. That’s cheep.
In my opinion.
It might have been very moving to others. I don’t think they are easily manipulated boobs if they were moved by it, I’ve just seen enough war movies to see that coming a mile away.
Don’t try to tell me you’ve seen too many movies like AI. That film was undeniably different.
You complain that the film was marketed to adults. Why is that wrong? Don’t you think adults have emotions? Do people describe you as reserved or stoic? Do you describe yourself that way? Let me take a wild guess and say that you don’t think men should cry in public.
But you seem to think that if people are manipulated emotionally by a film that they are some how suckers. Emotional manipulation is even really the term I would use to describe a film. Saying “I’ll be your best friend if you give me your pudding cup” is emotional manipulation.
So a person that did feel emotion for David is an easily manipulated boob.
That is what you are saying. That is where you called me a boob, and anybody else that felt emotion for David.
That would have been me, you know, the boob.
Actually, I’d hold off until I knew how old she was. And that roadrunner was a stone-cold bastard at times. I was rooting for the coyote.
Actually what I said is that someone who didn’t feel sympathy for David wasn’t a boob, and in fact it was just a response to your original “I think that tells us more about you” comment, which I am not alone in finding to have had a touch of condescension and hostility built in.
I strongly disagree. The opinion he expressed is not a novel one in the field of art criticism, and it’s one I happen to agree with.
I assume we can agree that a work’s merit is a subjective matter, yes? There are some who will feel a strong connection to this movie (e.g. the OP), and some who will be bored or repulsed by it (many others). Can we agree that neither group is “correct”? I think we can.
Hence when we say that a movie is “good,” we’re really saying something about ourselves and our relation to the movie. It’s a quirk of the language that our statement seems to say something about the film itself.
What are we saying about ourselves? Generally something ineffable (and often something inscrutable). You say that this makes Zebra’s statement meaningless. Maybe, depending on how you want to use the word, but it doesn’t make the emotion meaningless. Just because I can’t express what I took away from your reaction to the movie doesn’t mean I took nothing meaningful.
Also, just to be as clear as I can about this, the reaction I’m talking about (and that Zebra is talking about, as well, I assume) is firmly non-judgemental. It had literally never occurred to me before reading this thread that I might think someone was a bad person because they liked or disliked a particular work of art.
shrug I like my film analyses nice and effable, myself.
Sure, me too, but if I tried to make my Bryan Ekers analysis (based on his film analysis) explicit, I think it would be necessarily inaccurate.
You were implying my boobishness, and you know it. You don’t even have the courage of your convictions.
This whole thread has skidded off the tracks with the perceived personal insults based upon one’s view of** AI**. I think when criticizing why a specific movie, book, TV show, play, album, painting, etc. is good, bad, or somewhere in-between, there should be a “Godwin”-type rule stating that whenever somebody’s argument is along the lines of “if you like/dislike this movie, you’re a douchebag!” that person has lost and the discussion should be declared over (or tossed in the Pit).
Then I consider us even in the implied insult race.
Special Kid[supTM[/sup] mistreated by a world that Just Doesn’t Understand[sup]TM[/sup].
You really think it was ‘different’?
On some reflection, a small alteration in the movie might’ve had a significant effect. Figure David’s “parents” have actually had children die on them (as opposed to simply have one in a soap-opera-like presto-chango-awako coma) upon the onset of adolescence because of some genetic defect or something. Their (natural) son David loves them very much and they love him, so they use some science-fictiony serum to stop his aging permanently. Now he’ll never stop living them. Ion fact, his emotional development, along with his physical development, has come to a screeching halt. The parents eventually die and the entirely biological David ends up wandering the world. He meets the William Hurt character who invented the serum, but now there’s not a damn thing to be done and…
On second thought, that’s too close to Star Trek’s “Miri” episode. Never mind.
I liked the movie. Not one of the best of all time, but definitely had its moment.
I actually do find the oddly strong reactions to the robot part of it to be interesting. It’s almost like a wierd sort of hatred that someone could find interest or attachment in something that isn’t specifically human, even if it has nearly all of the features of a human. Such a strange reaction.
Could you be specific? I’m not of the impression that the people who didn’t like the movie somehow “hated” David (or at least did so solely because he was a robot - the character was annoying for other reasons), but rather they disliked the heavy-handed manipulation that tried to make us “love” David and hate his enemies.
For one, there’s almost a palpable attempt to ensure that the film is made ridiculous by diminishing the protagonist (if you can call David that). It’s David or a robot; but instead we get the who gives a shit about a toaster approach. As if that alone should remove any empathy from the character. It has shades of, “He’s just a nigger! Why do we care what happens to him? Who makes a movie about that?”
Since that’s my post you are quoting so avidly, right before you called me a racist, I felt compelled to elaborate.
The character of David is not human. He isn’t even alive. He is a “thing”. It is not racist, immoral, or deviant to fail to ascribe human characteristics, rights, or anything else to an object.
Your analogy is blatantly offensive.
And btw, it’s not that I don’t get the point of the movie. It’s that choosing to anthropomorphise a machine who lives amongst, and contrasts greatly with, humans was poorly thought out and poorly executed. It is, in fact, always going to be a machine.