Posted by Isis at 132.236.35.61 on July 09, 2001 at 10:54:19:
In Reply to: Malcom, Vincent,and all the other A.I. movie goers posted by Grendel__ on July 09, 2001 at 00:20:05:
: A.I. to me was no question a visual masterpiece. TRON in the year 2k1 as it was said.
I contend it's this generation's "Krush Groove", but that's just me.
: I ask this as well. To what end did Jude Law serve? What connection could there POSSIBLY be between the 2 charachters?? A sex bot and a "mecha" programmed to think he was a real boy and thus feel an undying love to his "mother". Not exactly Ralph Kramden and Ed Norton.
I think he's a pretty obvious counterpoint to the boy, a comment on the theme of sex vs. love. Jude Law is a robot programmed to service whatever needs for erotic contact humans might have. If human emotions could be reduced to simple mathematics, Jude's character would provide everything a human could desire; there'd be no need for the boy mecha. However, the purpose the boy serves is different. Jude represents fleshly pleasures, Osment's character represents more intangible spiritual joys. Decadence vs. innocence. But in both cases the characters are created for someone else's use, both show an abuse of technology for human whims.
: What was the meaning of the FLESH FAIR? Seems a bit too primitive for a society intelligent enough to have the MECHAs in the first place.
To paraphrase what Vincent said, one would think that in a society intelligent enough to create and operate interplanetary spacecraft that a video entitled "Lots and Lots of Trucks" would not be selling for $29.99, but such is the case.
: Are we supposed to believe an android has no self preservation skills as well?? To ignore Asimov's Rules of Robotics, after virtually every film of the last 40 years dealing with the idea of artificial lifeforms followed them closely, is inexcuseable.
I don't know what the Rules of Robotics is (brand me a sci-fi sinner) but Kubrick and Spielberg, think what you will of the man, are both brilliant storytellers in their own right and shouldn't feel obligated to limit their imaginative powers to someone's cinematic dogma simply because other filmmakers have done so. Anyway if you explain to me what this rule is then I can possibly give you my interpretation of why it wasn't used.