Member 27 wrote:

"If Kubrick had done the film it would have been different, but the good thing about Kubrick was his films werent predictable. He had an incredibly dynaminc style that kept each of his films fresh, so I think it is a bit silly to try and say what he would have done."

***************

No, it's not; it's easy.

Let's re-make the damn thing without Spielberg's intervention, and what's Kubrick gonna do? Object?

We're in the Directors & Writers section, we're film types or wannabes, so let's do it. Not in it's entirety, but wherever we think the film could be improved, and God knows how many there are (fer instance, the entire middle section and the ending).

If someone can provide a shooting or continuiety script, all the better, we can actually delete and add shots. Uploadable would be great, can't beat a hard copy to take a scissor to.

Anybody can participate at any particular point, say what you want deleted (scene specifics would help), add what you want:

1. Give us a rationale of why you want a scene deleted.
2. Explain what the scene/s SHOULD be (where Spielberg missed the boat, and YOU are channeling Stanley Kubrick.
3. Give us a screen treatment.
4. Give us the script.

**************

Since I'm crazy enuf to start this, here's an example:

1. In a competent state Stanley would've ditch the angel figure, forget the incest fever wish-fulfilment scene of the boy (formerly robotic but now a human boy) in bed with Mommy, transition to a more apt p.o.v. dream sequence, end in a truly Kubrick style that is tough-minded, even cynical, yet possessing moral triumph in a cold indifferent universe.

#2, 3, and 4 will be in the next posting.

Hint: Kubrick will arrange with M. Eiser to give us (the channeled Kubrick entity) the licence right to use the Disney icon, Jiminy Cricket, in our production. There will be a proviso that we (the channeled Kubrick entity) will not do anything offensive with the Jiminy Cricket character, or have him do anything that is offensive or inconsisentent with his Disney Brand.

Okay, I think that covers it, guys. Let's do it: Action

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Metacritic Games Editor,

quote:

---

Originally posted by wong828:
Member 27 wrote:

"If Kubrick had done the film it would have been different, but the good thing about Kubrick was his films werent predictable. He had an incredibly dynaminc style that kept each of his films fresh, so I think it is a bit silly to try and say what he would have done."

***************

No, it's not; it's easy.

Let's re-make the damn thing without Spielberg's intervention, and what's Kubrick gonna do? Object?

We're in the Directors & Writers section, we're film types or wannabes, so let's do it. Not in it's entirety, but wherever we think the film could be improved, and God knows how many there are (fer instance, the entire middle section and the ending).

If someone can provide a shooting or continuiety script, all the better, we can actually delete and add shots. Uploadable would be great, can't beat a hard copy to take a scissor to.

Anybody can participate at any particular point, say what you want deleted (scene specifics would help), add what you want:

1. Give us a rationale of why you want a scene deleted.
2. Explain what the scene/s SHOULD be (where Spielberg missed the boat, and YOU are channeling Stanley Kubrick.
3. Give us a screen treatment.
4. Give us the script.

**************

Since I'm crazy enuf to start this, here's an example:

1. In a competent state Stanley would've ditch the angel figure, forget the incest fever wish-fulfilment scene of the boy (formerly robotic but now a human boy) in bed with Mommy, transition to a more apt p.o.v. dream sequence, end in a truly Kubrick style that is tough-minded, even cynical, yet possessing moral triumph in a cold indifferent universe.

#2,3, 4 will be in the next posting.

Hint: Kubrick will arrange with M. Eiser to give use (the channeled Kubrick entity) the licence right to use the Disney icon, Jiminy Cricket, in our production. There will be a proviso that we (the channeled Kubrick entity) will not do anything offensive with the Jiminy Cricket character, or have him do anything that is offensive or inconsisentent with his Disney Brand.

Okay, I think that covers it,guy. Let's do it: Action

---

I really don't want to touch this with a ten-foot-pole, let alone a three-foot one, but I'm listening to "Less Than You Think" by Wilco, so I guess I'm stuck.

I still don't understand your concept of the ending. Mom is dead, and for that matter, so is the "ex-robot kid." They're both dead, "living" out the rest of their "deaths" together, which I believe is what they would have wished. How could that be incestuous? Are we only supposed to consider that there's only one way to interpret the ending? EVIDENCE, PLEASE!

To me, what's much more interesting is what William Hurt's father/inventor thinks of his offspring. Also, I wouldn't attack Spielberg too much for the middle third. What exactly do you want the non-kid to endure? True, the midsection may be sanitized to a PG-13 rating, but I thought that we were supposed to empathize with one of the only truly-innocent characters in the film. Are we supposed to be dragged along with him through some come-uppance which he never deserved? Later, Gators.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: mark f,

For purist, Brian Aldiss' "Supertoys Last All Summer Long" is on the net, and downloadable. Search with Google.

Interesting to see what Kubrick made of it - to want to make it into a movie. Clearly, his ambition was different, as was the tone.

As as side note, you should probably put a spoiler warning in the title of this thread and in relevant posts out of curtoesy for those who havent seen the film.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by wong828:
For purist, Brian Aldiss' "Supertoys Last All Summer Long" is on the net, and downloadable. Search with Google.
QUOTE]

Err....free? Or, pfft, does it cost something (AKA is it legal).