Äußerst aufschlussreich, wer hätte das gedacht:
"What is the most misunderstood thing about Steven Spielberg's science fiction film A.I. Artificial Intelligence?
These pictured beings are NOT aliens and the end of the film was NOT the result of Steven Spielberg's over-sentimentality affecting Stanley Kubrick's original vision of the film.
A.I. Artificial Intelligence is an adaptation of the 1969 Brian Aldiss short story Supertoys Last All Summer Long.
In the late 1970s, director Stanley Kubrick bought the rights to the story and had Aldiss write a film treatment.
He fired Aldiss from the project and hired Bob Shaw to script it. His tenure lasted just six weeks due to the hectic work schedule that Kubrick was known for. Ian Watson was then hired. He wrote a 90-page treatment.
The Adventures of Pinocchio was also a huge influence for the film in Kubrick's eyes.
In 1995, Kubrick eventually decided that he wanted Steven Spielberg to direct it, with Kubrick producing. Spielberg was shocked. He held Kubrick very high, as most did. But Kubrick was very humble and said that it's something Spielberg would be better at.
The project languished since Kubrick first attained the rights because the technology was not available. Once Spielberg's Jurassic Park showcased potential in computer graphics, he was ready to go.
Spielberg still thought that Kubrick should direct it, but remained as a close collaborator. Kubrick put it aside to direct Eyes Wide Shut, a production that went well beyond schedule due to Kubrick's meticulous style of directing.
Sadly, Kubrick passed away before that film was released. He would never get to see A.I. Artificial Intelligence come to life on the screen, by his direction or Spielberg's.
Producer Jan Harlan and Kubrick's wife Christiane approached Spielberg and asked him to take the project on.
Spielberg wanted to honor his late friend. He started writing the script based on the 90-page treatment that Watson had written.
Spielberg wrote the film and later directed it. It remains to be one the the most underrated science fiction films of all time in my eyes. I just watched it with my two boys (16 and 12), and they were entranced by it.
The most divisive element of the film is the most misunderstood part of it.
Many people didn't understand the ending. They thought the tall and slender beings that bring David back to life were aliens.
They weren't. They were Mecha that evolved over two thousand years from the point where David was created . Their particular group was studying human life — as humans were long extinct.
David was the only known surviving Mecha that had contact with human life.
Interested in his scanned memories, they learned that David wanted to become a real boy. That wasn't going to happen. They also knew that he wanted his mother to love him like a real boy. Sadly, anytime they tried to recreate a human from discovered DNA, they couldn't recreate their memories and feelings for more than a single day. As soon as they fell asleep, those elements were erased.
David's friend Teddy had saved a lock of his mother's hair. And he was gifted the opportunity to experience a single, wonderful day with his mother — until her love for him faded away.
Sentimental? Yes. Spielberg's idea that he injected into Kubrick's vision? No.
Screenwriter Ian Watson said:
"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."
Spielberg himself told film critic Joe Leyden in 2002:
"People pretend to think they know Stanley Kubrick, and think they know me, when most of them don't know either of us. And what's really funny about that is, all the parts of A.I. that people assume were Stanley's were mine. And all the parts of A.I. that people accuse me of sweetening and softening and sentimentalizing were all Stanley's. The teddy bear was Stanley's. The whole last 20 minutes of the movie was completely Stanley's. The whole first 35, 40 minutes of the film—all the stuff in the house—was word for word, from Stanley's screenplay. This was Stanley's vision...Eighty percent of the critics got it all mixed up. But I could see why. Because, obviously, I've done a lot of movies where people have cried and have been sentimental. And I've been accused of sentimentalizing hard-core material. But in fact it was Stanley who did the sweetest parts of A.I., not me. I'm the guy who did the dark center of the movie, with the Flesh Fair and everything else. That's why he wanted me to make the movie in the first place. He said, 'This is much closer to your sensibilities than my own.' While there was divisiveness when A.I. came out, I felt that I had achieved Stanley's wishes, or goals."
I thought the film was a wonderful exploration of the philosophy and ethics of creating artificial intelligence. And like the film itself matching the subjects of fact and fairytale (in the Dr. Know sequence), this film creates a masterful hybrid of science fiction (speculative science based on possible outcomes) and fairytale adventure, with a Mecha Pinocchio trying to find a way to become a real boy.
I strongly recommend that people revisit it — whether you loved it or hated it. My recent revisit was a thrill, as I picked up on so much more than I remembered... even in that last 20 minutes."
Quelle:
https://thetaoofscreenwriting.quora.com/What-is-the-most-misunderstood-thing-about-Steven-Spielberg-s-science-fiction-film-A-I-Artificial-Intelligence
