More A.I. Details

By Azad May 8, 2001 11:12 AM

Steven Spielberg revealed key details of the upcoming SciFi flick A.I. to the Los Angeles Times over the weekend. The story of the movie which is set in the future, is about a world that is divided between "mecha" robots and "orga" organic creatures, such as humans, who treat the mechas like slaves, according to the newspaper report.

Although the trailers of the film suggest a Pinocchio like story, in which an artificial boy desires to become real, Spielberg told the newspaper, "Pinocchio is a catalyst for the beginning of an odyssey, a journey into the future. But it's not the movie."

The android boy (Haley Joel Osment) meets up with another "mecha" Spielberg called "his scoutmaster." And the character Joe Gigolo, played by Jude Law, is a "love mecha." Law then adds, "He's a gigolo. He has various clients, some he just talks to, some he massages. Some he presumably takes a bit further. They are able to change the way in which he seduces." Law added that his character sings and dances in the film "as part of entertainment. He's a full-service mecha."

A.I., based on the Brain Aldiss short story "Super Toys Last All Summer Long!" and a treatment by the late Stanley Kubrick, opens June 29.

| comments: 35

Reader Discussions:

Post YOUR opinion too!

RE: More A.I. Details   reply

Posted by ActorWannaBe01 (ActorWannaBe01@hotmail.com) on May 8, 2001 5:12 PM

Okay...is this some sort of...Joke?!!! Would an "idea" like this really work?...Now I think of it, with "HOLLYWOOD" It would! But SHOOT! It does sound kind of Crazy, but What were they Thinking of, with Jude Law's Character. Don't get me wrong, I am a fan of Steven Spielberg films, but is this some sort of an Overbord "Rumor"?!!!

RE: RE: More A.I. Details   reply

Posted by Jack (jack@dtheatre.com) on May 8, 2001 6:43 PM

First, it's spelt "overboard"! :)

Second, it's not a rumour "Gigolo Joe" is actualy a character in the upcoming Steven Spielberg film "A.I." based off of the short story "Supertoys Last All Summer Long" by Brian Aldiss.

Kubrick wanted to make this movie.. it has to be a good script, or at least have potential.

RE: RE: RE: More A.I. Details   reply

Posted by ActorWannaBe01 (ActorWannaBe01@hotmail.com) on May 8, 2001 7:29 PM

Okay! Well Excuse ME! JACK! People Do Make Mistakes!!! I did Notice mine seconds after I pushed OK to Send. Don't Get so Pushy JACK! You make The name JACK sound so Snotty!(figure that out if you don't know the meaning) I am NOT bagging on the Movie or anything attached to it, except for the presenting. I would not Bagg on a Movie That Steven Spielberg is involved with, I'm a Movie FREAK! If you couldn't tell from My User Name, I would Not put-down a film without seeing it for my self, I don't do that. I would have to judge it by actually seeing it on the story, plot, use of dialogue, Acting including the direction. I DO NOT PUT Down Mr. Spielberg. I am NOT even a Un-imaginative Critic. I am only a Movie Freak! An ACTORWannaBe. And don't be so critical on Me misspelling.

RE: RE: RE: More A.I. Details   reply

Posted by A random shemp (No Email) on May 8, 2001 7:53 PM

Yeah, Jack, especially considering how you mispelled "spelled" with "spelt."  What are you, second grade?  And of all the things you could complain about, too...as fo ACTORWannaBe, or whomever, calm the hell down.

RE: More A.I. Details   reply

Posted by Spark (ade@dtheatre.com) on May 8, 2001 8:05 PM

From what they're TELLING us about this movie, it sounds awful. Let's hope it isn't just a Pinocchio re-hash.

RE: RE: RE: More A.I. Details   reply

Posted by Pumpkin Boy (pumpkin_pie_studios@hotmail.com) on May 8, 2001 8:11 PM

Never a dull moment, folks!

RE: RE: RE: More A.I. Details   reply

Posted by Jack (jack@dtheatre.com) on May 8, 2001 8:42 PM

Geez! LOL, don't get so bloody defensive.

That was completely not intended to put anyone down (notice the ":)"). It was simply intended to be informational.

RE: More A.I. Details   reply

Posted by FredHater (fred_hater@hotmail.com) on May 8, 2001 8:57 PM

Lame...the movie and the trite discussion.

AI -- saw that..dont want to see it again.   reply

Posted by A random shemp (No Email) on May 8, 2001 10:32 PM

Yes, the movie does sound lame.  It reminds me of a weak version of Robin Williams 'Bicentenial Man' which handled the subject of a sentient robot in a much more thoughtful matter. Gene Roddenberry also covered the subject thoroughly with Data the sentient android in Next Generation Star Trek.

So we don't need no Stinking ET-esque Pinocchio and Gigolo Joe.  It sounds bizzare.

Hello?   reply

Posted by A random shemp (No Email) on May 8, 2001 11:17 PM

Did anyone see D.A.R.Y.L? This "A.I." movie has been done already. I saw it on space a few minutes ago...

RE: AI -- saw that..dont want to see it again.   reply

Posted by Spark (ade@dtheatre.com) on May 8, 2001 11:24 PM

I don't think Roddenberry even lived to see Next Generation. But, I think you're right with the "Bicentennial Boy" angle. Perhaps the studio is giving away bogus info to make the movie sound crap - that way we'll all be surprised when it does OK at the box office.

RE: AI -- saw that..dont want to see it again.   reply

Posted by The walking dead (robertdowneyjr@jail.com) on May 9, 2001 2:28 AM

*VOMITS* on the storyline

ST:TNG   reply

Posted by brettjs (bjslone_at_email_dot_com) on May 9, 2001 3:24 AM

Actually, Roddenberry worked closely with Rick Berman to produce the first episodes and general plot overview of Star Trek: The Next Generation.

RE: A.I.   reply

Posted by A random shemp (No Email) on May 9, 2001 6:22 AM

Give Stevie a chance, he's made some good pics.

RE: RE: RE: More A.I. Details   reply

Posted by Loath (loath@dtheatre.com) on May 9, 2001 9:19 AM

Woah, woah. Double check what you're whining about before you whine about it. "spelt" is also a correct spelling for past tense "spell". Find a dictionary or read the first entry of this.

RE: RE: RE: More A.I. Details   reply

Posted by Loath (loath@dtheatre.com) on May 9, 2001 9:21 AM

Additionally, you misspelled "misspelled" as "mispelled" so you are not one to give grammar lessons.

RE: More A.I. Details   reply

Posted by A random shemp (No Email) on May 9, 2001 9:53 AM

Hey! Can Well we all just close this Discussion?!!!!!!! It makes me feel like Up-Chucking! including this "Bull" about A.I. which the intro makes it sound like a Fluke, So please SHUT the ---- UP!!!!!!!!!!

RE: RE: More A.I. Details   reply

Posted by 100% AMERICAN (hellskitchen_@hotmail.com) on May 9, 2001 12:31 PM

you kiss your mother with that mouth?

RE: RE: RE: More A.I. Details   reply

Posted by A random shemp (No Email) on May 9, 2001 1:57 PM

Seriously...relax dude. There are other topics on digital theatre if you don't like the way one is going. Profanity has no place on this site.  :< br>
- P. Diddy

RE: RE: RE: More A.I. Details   reply

Posted by A random shemp (No Email) on May 10, 2001 6:21 PM

You all are f*cking idiots.  Who gives a sh*t about grammar?  This is suppossed to be a discussion topic about A.I.!  All of you irate, ill-tempered, idiots need a life.  every single discussion board seems to tun into something other than the original topic (e.g. Steve Buscemi stabbed in the neck=north vs. south feud).  although this is some what hypocritical, seeing as how I'm not discussing A.I., I figure it's worth it.

And I honestly don't give a sh*t if I misspelled anything, so don't bother pointing it out.

RE: RE: RE: More A.I. Details   reply

Posted by A random shemp (No Email) on May 10, 2001 6:22 PM

My bad.

RE: RE: More A.I. Details   reply

Posted by A random shemp (No Email) on May 10, 2001 6:25 PM

This is a discussion board to discuss A.I., and you want us to stop discussing it?  WTF?  You don't like it, nobody's making you come back and view it.

RE: RE: RE: More A.I. Details   reply

Posted by A random shemp (No Email) on May 10, 2001 6:41 PM

Yeah!  What, would you rather discuss something stupid like bad spelling in a fallible person's post?

Uhh, nevermind.

RE: RE: RE: More A.I. Details   reply

Posted by peacefrog (oneprimal@hotmail.com) on May 11, 2001 10:21 AM

wow, whos ill tempered now...

RE: RE: RE: More A.I. Details   reply

Posted by Loath (loath@dtheatre.com) on May 11, 2001 10:23 AM

You wrote "tun" instead of "turn". hehe ;)

RE: RE: RE: More A.I. Details   reply

Posted by peacefrog (oneprimal@hotmail.com) on May 11, 2001 10:26 AM

hehehe

RE: More A.I. Details   reply

Posted by A random shemp (No Email) on May 11, 2001 7:50 PM

If I understand Mr.UP-CHUCK correctly, I don't think he meant Closing the A.I. Discussion, maybe just the one we're having instead of it.

RE: RE: More A.I. Details   reply

Posted by The walking dead (robertdowneyjr@jail.com) on May 12, 2001 2:59 AM

quitcherb*tchin' and fageddaboutit!

A.I.   reply

Posted by Sabba (rogueseti@hotmail.com) on May 13, 2001 12:52 AM

These discussion boards can be a bit daunting at times, no?
I love the concept of A.I., in the way that it reminds me of Asimov. I just hope that it isn't crap. The website trail makes it seem like more of a murder mystery. I guess we'll all find out. I did really gag when I heard the trailer 'his love is real.', maybe it is. Still sounds hokey and lame. But did you check out the chat robot on their website? That's pretty cool.

RE: More A.I. Details   reply

Posted by A random shemp (No Email) on May 13, 2001 8:50 PM

I still find it funny that no one has commented that Speilburg is putting a GIGILO in his movie, I mean come on, aren't most of his movies Family movies? A Gigilo? Wow,I never thought I'd see the day where that wasn't automatically run out of theatres. (I'm sorry about all the typos and grammar problems, everyone in this forum seems to be an english teacher, please don't give me and F).

RE: RE: More A.I. Details   reply

Posted by A random shemp (No Email) on May 13, 2001 8:55 PM

that was me above, so, btw, yes I do realize the Gigilo is out of a book and that's why he's there, but still, a Gigilo in a Spielberg movie, might as well work in a few brothels, crack houses and chop shops, not that I would know anything about those places.

RE: RE: More A.I. Details   reply

Posted by A random shemp (No Email) on May 14, 2001 11:53 AM

Uhh, yeah, cause God knows "Saving Private Ryan," "Jurrasic Park," "Schindler's List," the Indiana Jones flicks, "Close Encounters," "Jaws" and so forth were such family movies.  (note the acid dripping sarcasm)  I mean, come on!  Most of his flicks have more death and violence than an episode of "The Soprano's!"  Don't get me wrong, I do not object to Mr. Speilberg's use of these elements in his films, seeing as how he manages to use them correctly and to serve the story.  But to say he mainly does family movies?  Hardly.

RE: RE: RE: More A.I. Details   reply

Posted by A random shemp (No Email) on May 14, 2001 11:56 AM

"Close Encounters" didn't have a lot of death and violence.

Though I wouldn't call it a family film, either.

RE: RE: RE: More A.I. Details   reply

Posted by FredHater (fred_hater@hotmail.com) on May 17, 2001 11:03 AM

Family films suck, unless its the Manson family.

RE: RE: RE: More A.I. Details   reply

Posted by peacefrog (oneprimal@hotmail.com) on May 18, 2001 5:07 AM

no fred, you suck, instead of spreading hate and discontent with every one of your 'sassy' (not) comments, why dont you SHUT THE FUK UP.. seems like everytime i see your name pop up i can plan on something stupid comeing out of your face, take your head out of your ass and use your fingers to navi somewere else...damn