Audio Asylum Thread Printer

Get a view of an entire thread on one page

FAQ / News / Events

Films/DVD Asylum

response (includes spoilers)

198.151.13.15

[ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] [ Thread: Display Email ] [ Films/DVD Asylum ] [ FAQ ]

In Reply to: A.I. posted by Alan on July 10, 2001 at 21:24:24:

For those who have not seen the movie, read no further. Alan had some spoilers, here will be more.
I like your idea and can agree with much of it. However, I believe this idea could have been implemented in a much more satisfying manner. Specifically, again, I refer to the final half hour of the movie, which is a structural mess.
Specifically, pulled out of the air are virtually omnipotent beings, but with extreme limitations which are apparently imposed strictly for dramatic purposes. They can recreate a human, given DNA, and the bear remarkably has a strand of hair. This much I can swallow. But then, nonsensically, comes a rap about the space-time stream which means that this human only has one day to be alive. Can there be any justification for this beyond the Spielbergian desire to evoke tears? It is arbitrary and manipulative. There are so many ways that this final meeting and parting could have been arranged that would not have felt like plot manipulations pulled completely out of the air. That is how it felt to me. That is why the emotional ending fell flat for me.

Follow Ups:

Re: response (includes spoilers) - Randy Bey 22:45:12 07/11/01 (2)
yeah that part was lame. With relatively modest suspensions of disbelief the movie is plausible till they start spouting that kind of voodoo mumbo jumbo.
Could have made a more plausible scene if they dropped the DNA aspect, forgot the hair, and went for "vibrations encased in inanimate objects" angle which is plausible at least from what they have learned about stones.
Then mix in a little holographic trickery ala Superman's ability to "see" the past via distant photons, and bingo! a far more acceptable premise than the lala crap they tried to feed us.
- a further explanation - tunenut 14:36:56 07/12/01 (0)
  I do not mean to run this into the ground, I just think it is interesting and I had more thoughts.
  From the sarcastic tone of your reply, you seem to be implying that since this is sci fi/fantasy, it is all far-fetched and any quest for plot consistency is unimportant.
  I would like to draw a distinction. Typically, sci-fi/fantasy postulates a situation, which may be extremely far-fetched. In this case, it is the building of a machine capable of love. The story then explores the implications of this situation. The original situation may be totally unbelievable, such as the many switched life fantasies that are made, but if the story uses the situation intelligently, disbelief is willingly suspended.
  This is not the same as a deus ex machina ending. The classic example of this is a man, menaced by a villain. The villain is walking down the street, a safe falls from the sky and kills him, and the man lives happily ever after. This kind of thing is not dramatically consistent.
  Now in A.I., you have an almost classic deus ex machina. Beings are brought in who are not gods, but who may as well be, for their powers are god-like. At this point, anything at all can happen. Spielberg's choice is a sentimental reunion, but it really could have been anything. It could have been time travel or construction of a new world or whatever. Once you have an ending that depends on the power of godlike beings, the rules of the story are out the window.
  So it was not strictly the sentimentality I criticize- it is really the structure. Ultimately it is not satisfying.
  Compare this to the Princess and the Warrior. A flawed movie, but structurally organized with a symmetry and beauty which makes it satisfying as a whole and rewarding to consider after leaving the theater.
- I guess you liked the ending as is - tunenut 00:35:39 07/12/01 (0)
  The John Williams music welling up, the voice-over...had Kubrick made this movie, it would not have ended like this. I had checked out at this point, but 2 good hours are more than most movies offer, with ideas to boot. I just did not like the ending that's all.

This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:

You can not post to an archived thread.