Thoughts on A.I.?

As far as I'm concerned, the true ending is the kid drowning in the depths of the ocean with Teddy, begging the fairy to be made real. The alien bullshit was too much, a clunky addition that should've been scrapped. I wanted feels, dammit.

Dude, they were robots. They were what happened to his kind, to say robots ultimately won over humans… this is why they respected him, etc…

...

Never knew Ted was in this.

With his role as an Ewok in the upcoming Star Wars franchise, this makes his career far more promising than all of the cast of GoT.

I think they actually resurrected his mom, the actual person, and they could only do that for a day, which implies some kind of mystical reason as to why you can't bring a person back from death for too long.

They could probably make a copy, but to David (who destroyed a copy of himself) that probably would have been meaningless. He would want his real mom, not a copy.

If I remember correctly, the first 20 minutes was by Kubrick, but he was murdered, so Spielberg took over and did what he did to it.

the premise is all wrong

Was going to post this

Humans are replaced by robots that become super advanced

Half the movie it could have been: Instead we got the usual speilgeberg's soft, honey based lol drama.
I hate this guy

One of my favorite movies and one of the few I use to gauge someone's intelligence with, including you fucks.

I'd argue that he had an Oedipus complex. Believe me, I'd wanted to OD in Monica's puss for years now.

it's pretty much implied in the film. Rob Ager's analysis of the film yields the same results.

I think the premise was fine, but because it was shot like a typical Spielberg movie it ruined the story.

The kid is presented as someone you're meant to empathize with purely because it's a kid, but Spielberg is used to shooting sentimental movies where you just present the objection of emotional appeal without having to construct a story that makes that object appeal to your emotions (Jews during holocaust, cripples, and blacks being discriminated against).

Maybe this is partly a problem of having a child actor, but most child actors are terrible.

The movie could probably be redone with CG robots and be ten times better. Or they could have used a puppet in place of a human actor. Because a puppet or CG could have helped with making the character look more pitiable rather than stale (as it was), while also making it possible for the uncanny valley to work in your favor as the character could then look creepy at times to help remind the audience that this is a robot you're watching.

Spielberg suffered instead from the usual problem he has, he presented nice looking scenes that added nothing to the story. Showing the little boy with his bear in the middle of some big fiasco doesn't mean anything if you don't give a shit about the little robot boy.

The gigolo-bot is more of a character than the main fucking character, as he at least is shown to care about being able to live his own life. The boy is shown as being as stale as possible and talking about wanting his mommy, but it doesn't mean anything when you're just thinking of him as wanting to be returned to his owner. He's never shown just acting like a person with his own thoughts and feelings, he's only ever shown as a being the most saccharine bullshit version of a child imaginable.

Real kids can get distracted with toys or have some fleeting thoughts about whether their parents really love them, yet this robot boy goes about things with a single minded purpose of getting back to his owner/mommy which is just so fucking alien I can't care about him.

It probably doesn't help that the kid looks too old to be that fucking stupid as to believe in a fairy.

A better ending would have been something like having him learn to be like a parent for someone else the way he imagined his owner/mother was to him, to show that you could let the memory of the person you love could live on through your own actions.

But the thing is, he is a machine meant to be a child, so it's not really clear that he can parent anyone else. His existence is cruel, because his caretaker will eventually die and no longer care for him, and he can ot adapt. He's a sapient entity meant to be an idealized version of a child, a product meant to bring pleasure by providing unconditional live to whom it was programmed to love. He's no different than the gigolo character, except the needs they sate (for women, interestingly) are different.

This is why the Blue Fairy quest is so important: he is intelligent enough to realize his shortcomings, and that his machine nature will always limit him, so even a fanciful quest is better than accepting his broken existence. He wants to be a real boy so he can grow past it. It's actually not so different than the reason AM goes nuts in I Have No Mouth and I Must Scream; he is a sapient being who knows he is also programmed with limitations. AM turns to hatred and torture to cope, and David self-deludes himself with a fairy tale.

Kubrick would have been colder in his filming, and it would have worked better. By making David too much of a boy, it failed to address the issue; Spielburg's take was that they had created a boy, and they were mistreating him, not that they had created a machine to always be a boy and then treated it as an object when convenient.

...

He was also designed to imprint on one parent, so he's incapable of being anything but a child.

Humanity turns themselves into machines, then retroactively worship their ancestors for supposedly having the secret to life or something like that in the book.

Point is, he needed to have some kinda story crafted so he didn't come across as a stupid cunt.

At no point did the movie say otherwise.

they're functionally spielbergian magic aliens

it's kinda like saying 28 days later didn't have zombies in it

Yes, but all the script was made by Kubrick before being assassinated by scientologists or jews even the final part of the Fairy granting David wish was the ending Kubrick intended

Kubrick was a hack.

oh fuck off, poleddit

Oh christ, I'm sorry guys.

I set sudocuck off about Holla Forums again so he's going to shit up every thread with poleddit for a while.

>>>/suicide/

The ayy-bots were extremely technologically advanced, they could have easily made a robot far more sophisticated than the ones David ran into to the point where they couldn't tell the difference, especially considering they had her fully resurrected body to work with.

I know why they did it, for the melodrama, but it still feels forced.

wasted potential: the movie

Mom leaving David in the woods is some quality acting

...

Wouldnt the problem be that lets say you (user) have a twin but they died like yesterday. But we currently have the technology to get your memories of them to know exactly how they are. So we do it, but is this clone really your twin? No, because its only from your perspective how this clone acts, it never gained how the person thought or felt on the inside of their consistence. The clone could act very closely or even exactly like your twin but in the end it isnt them. The real one is gone and dead, so you cant really bring them back, just make close copies. But I dont think they can develop how your twin would.

Example. I am your twin, one day I got my groceries stolen from a nigger in a hoodie, but all I ever tell you is that I got my groceries stolen. So your memories will make the clone have a experience like this but me your twin, will hate niggers while the clone wont. Neither you or the clone will know this because all you have is from what I told you.

It depends on what technology we're talking about. Actual cloning would be more straight forward because it just makes a baby with the same genetics, but in sci fi where the clones come out fully grown it's assumed the brain is copied as is from adulthood. If they're brain is exactly the same they would be indistinguishable from your brother down to their experiences and quirks, at least to you. The question really comes down to consciousness and the possibility of a mind free of the body. This is similar to the teleportation machine parable, where a machine that teleportation you actually just creates an exact copy in the new location, and there is a huge debate on whether the original person was killed, or transfered to the new body. That's something science is really only looking into just now, and we may not fully understand consciousness in our lifetimes.

There was a study done on cloned dogs that I heard of on the radio, where the original was a big trick dog that did shows. The original died, so they cloned it. The clone when it was fully grown, somehow knew the tricks that the original knew. They decided to test this with subsequent dogs by separating the dogs and seeing if they knew the tricks. Not only did they know the tricks, but if one of the dogs was taught a new one, all those clones would seemingly learn it. Now, I don't know true this was, but we have a long way to go in our understanding of our brains, the nature of consciousness, and genetics.

Sci-fi writers worth anything explain the continuous consciousness with gradual transfer of simulatedly interconnected molecules or some more exotic handwave. Destructive analyzer + reconstructor teleporters are batshit insane.

The Fly remake propably had the most deranged teleporter as it didn't even directly copy the thing that was teleported, but made an approximation based on its coding. There is no way using that wasn't a direct suicide.

Androids will rule the world with sex
I`ll bet on it

I went into the movie cold, knowing there was a controversy about the ending but not exactly why. I could still tell they were future robots.

It's not on the same level as the aliens vs demons thing in Signs where characters tell you they are aliens but it's heavily implied they are really demons..

...

It would still require a transference of consciousness. If you break down the brain/heart/whatever no matter how carefully you do it, the person will die. If consciousness can be transferred no biggie, the body is the same because it's reassembled by by the teleporter, and your mind is the same because your consciousness got moved with the body. A transferable consciousness brings up a whole mess of other issues, which is why a lot of scientists try and stay as far away from it as they can. If you could move it, it means we could be functionally immortal.
It also brings up scary questions about where your consciousness is, what it is, and what happens to it when your body dies.

You didn't get it. "lol teleporting kills you" is hallmark sci-fi tidbid for the illiterate and people who don't understand that the molecules in the brains already are replaced at constant rate. Unless you assume that natural replacement kills the consciousness, which some do, maintaining the self through teleportation isn't even the biggest issue with such ridiculous technology.

I was bringing up the thing on teleportation more to talk about cloning and consciousness. The concept of whether or not a clone would be "you". There was a story that used "teleportation" thay destroyed the original as a way of discussing the problems.with concioisness and identity. Obviously any sci fi that uses teleportation won't have it kill the main character because that's dumb, and the device will have ways around it. Since most stories that use it aren't making a copy at the destination, but is actually transferring the original though sci fi means.

Sorry, I didn't mean to attack you with off-topic. I just find using teleportation to discuss the nature of consciousness extremely lazy as nobody would ever use a teleport that worked on principles that left any room for doubt.

Well, I could see it working if they just didn't give a shit, or if consciousness could be transferred. It won't really become an issue until we get 3D printers that can do organic matter, which will bring a whole mess of other issues if it's even possible at all.

Clones in general are a sort of new frontier. The only real way to tell how similar a clone would be, is if they started cloning people already. Considering how similar twins can be even raised in different environments, a clone would be functionally the same person, to other people at least.

Even with extremely advanced compensation for epigenetics, making a human clone to even look like the original would a great feat. I don't think consciousness even comes to consideration with cloning without heavy mysticism like straight up transfer of literal souls.

The Star Trek movies had a peculiar case of such, in which Spock transferred his soul/memories/life entity before he died and that was then transferred to a rapidly aged clone. Maybe the Vulcans don't give a shit about such things, but it was weird the other characters were just fine with it. Though, in the setting minds are quantifiable entities that can be transferred around with ease. It leaves a question of what exactly gave the dying speech in Spock's body at the end of Wrath of Khan.

In the case of Spock it was a pre-release retcon. Nimoy had wanted to stop being in Star Trek and only agreed to sign on if he would be killed in the movie. But he enjoyed filming on a Roddenberry-empty set, and the ending with Spock's death was fucking grim and test audiences were sobbing and such. So a decision was reached by the (((producers))) and Nimoy to resurrect the character. They had footage of Nimoy grabbing Kelley by the face in a weird way, as if to make sure he was unconscious. They had Nimoy dub "remember" over the scene and they came up with the idea he transferred his memories/soul/etc over to McCoy.

I was always disappointed that there was never more of her. She should have did done porn.

sexbots

Why so ugly?

TITS or GTFO

The only fagging going around here is because of you.

...

Haley Joel Osment here we meet again. Still virgin and salty?

Who the fuck are you talking about lmao, I'm not a virgin but I am salty in the right places.