Jump to content

Talk:A.I. Artificial Intelligence/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

The name

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was to change it from Artificial Intelligence: A.I. to A.I. Artificial Intelligence.—Wildroot (talk) 23:23, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Rotten Tomatoes and Box Office Mojo refer to the film as A.I. Artificial Intelligence. The back of the region 1 DVD refers to it as A.I. Artifical Intelligence. Only IMDB refers to the film as Artificial Intelligence: A.I.. What do you guys think? Official DVD is more reliable than IMDB. I support to change the article to A.I. Artificial Intelligence.

In addition we could do something like A.I. Artificial Intelligence (also known as A.I, Artificial Intelligence or Artificial Intelligence: A.I.) is a 2001 science fiction film blah blah blah blah

I'll give this issue a week and see how it goes. Cheers.

—Wildroot (talk) 21:11, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal to A.I. Artificial Intelligence by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.
I do agree with what you are saying. However it should be noted that Spielberg did a similar touch with E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial (A.I. Artificial Intelligence).—Wildroot (talk) 00:33, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Well it has been over one week and the consensus is 2—1 (or 2.5—.5 since the user wasn't sure about his final stance). Cheers.—Wildroot (talk) 23:23, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Why edit?

I do not understand why this page gets continual re-rediting as the article was always good (in the past). The second last line in the plot - where Monica tell David she loves him and has always loved him - has been removed and the last line now doesnt make the sense it should. what are you people up to here!!!??? 122.148.173.37 (talk) 05:12, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

I edit because I add new info from the DVD special features as well as a bunch of other stuff. This page is easily 10 times better than it was a month ago. Not every single line of dialouge is vital in a plot section. Last line makes perfect sense. Quit acting so paranoid. —Wildroot (talk) 06:11, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Well this is an encyclopaedia not a club for amateur editors and experimental editing. Confine yourself to adding new material and editing old material _ONLY_ when it is lacking and therefore necessary. Also I beg to disagree as "love" (and particularly between synthetic and non-synthetic sentient life) is a central and paramount theme thoughout the plot and Monica's last words are a culmination both of the film's exploration in general and David's personal journey and its resolution in particular... Unless you can positivively refute this claim (go back to English 101 if you ever did) then if I were you I would focus on the issue at hand and re-insert the deleted sentence yourself (assuming you deleted it in the first place; and in any case I do not wish to get into an edit war with anyone anyway). Then maybe we can kiss and make up. Regards, 122.148.173.37 (talk) 09:06, 9 August 2008 (UTC) Anyone else vehemently disagree (particularly native English speakers and literary afficionados) ??? 122.148.173.37 (talk) 09:06, 9 August 2008 (UTC
I editied the sentence back in, as _concisely as i possiblely can, in line with the current shorter plot summary. 122.148.173.37 (talk) 09:17, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
It now reads very well, and correctly, but still concisely, as it should. Regards, 122.148.173.37 (talk) 09:19, 9 August 2008 (UTC)


Are you calling me an amateur editor? I have over 16 good article listings to my name. What do you have? You forgetting the whole point of an encyclopedia. You honestly think this is better than this. You do realize this article went up to GA status a couple of days thanks to me. —Wildroot (talk) 19:16, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Well I am very sorry wildroot if I offended, and congradulations, as the article just got even better! Regards, Matthew. 122.148.173.37 (talk) 22:51, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I saw the DVD features on the making of A.I. Artificial Intelligence. Steven Spielberg said the Aliens from the Movie are also the Aliens from Close Encounters of the Third Kind. Please watch the Making of the Movie from the DVD. When David and Teddy meet the Aliens they are not evolved Mechas.


fixed the spelling of "rouge" in the plot section. Duncanrmi (talk)

An image on this page may be deleted

This is an automated message regarding an image used on this page. The image File:AI Poster.jpg, found on A.I. Artificial Intelligence, has been nominated for deletion because it does not meet Wikipedia image policy. Please see the image description page for more details. If this message was sent in error (that is, the image is not up for deletion, or was left on the wrong talk page), please contact this bot's operator. STBotI (talk) 14:15, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Money

"The film was a modest financial success since it recouped more than twice the amount of its $100 million budget." Somebody needs to get real...--andreasegde (talk) 17:13, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Mid 21st century

I don't know if this is good, but I may of found a 'source' that states that the film took place in the mid 21sr century? Please check it out, thank you.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/low/entertainment/1556535.stm

(TheGreenwalker (talk) 00:07, 8 December 2009 (UTC))

Specify Which 'Williams'

In the last few paragraphs, which address awards and nominations, it should be made clear whether Robin Williams or John Williams is being referred to. As is, the name 'Williams' is used without specification of which Williams. --67.67.9.223 (talk) 07:56, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Death of David?

Overall I feel the plot summary is excellent. My only concern is with the 2-word reference to David "passing away" in the final sentence. I think David's future at the end of the movie remains deliberately unclear. The narrator refers to him as "falling asleep", which doesn't necessarily imply death. The future mechas' conversation with David refers to how special he is and how much they have to learn from him, and the way in which it is explained to him how Monica can only be brought back for a single day centers on the permanent loss that David will have to face without her. The theme of a loving mecha outliving the object of its affection is introduced early on in the film. It's a poetic, ambiguous ending...David's "everlasting moment" in "that place where dreams are born" is open to interpretation. I have removed the words "passes away", if someone objects we can discuss it further. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.10.81.54 (talk) 15:42, 27 August 2009 (UTC) Passed away would not be appropriate anyway, it implies the death of a living thing which David never was.Max Vitor (talk) 21:31, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Why is there no mention of the secret game?

There was this massive online hidden game that took weeks and thousands of people to navigate that dealt with all the backstory behind the movie, especially the events that took place to freeze Earth solid. I remember my father exploring it obsessively. I think it was refered to as Cloudchaser or who killed (someone). THere has got to be more information out there that should be documented. I'm not the guy, but someone somewhere should be able to do so. 72.243.192.113 (talk) 09:05, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

It's mentioned. Wildroot (talk) 23:42, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Brian Aldiss

Here is an interview with Brian Aldiss from The Independent, in which he discusses the genesis of the film [1]. I think this may be useful for the article. Count de Ville (talk) 16:11, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for finding this. I'll get to adding this. Wildroot (talk) 23:42, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Mid 21st century?

In this article it says that most of the movie is set in the mid 21st century. But that doesn't seem right. The whole design of the film seems like it takes place further in the future then that. At one point a robot says that "75 years ago I was time magazines mecca of the year", since the movie came out in 2001, that would put it at the very least at the end of the 21st century. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.178.195.44 (talk) 18:51, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

The article contradicts itself by dating the setting to the 21st century in the lead and the 22nd century in the following section. If someone could work out which it is and give a reference to support that, that'd be great. Colds7ream (talk) 23:57, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

But is there any source to support this claim? (TheGreenwalker (talk) 20:28, 6 August 2009 (UTC))

Regardless of the date of the main story, the epilogue takes place much further in the future (2000 plus years which should mean the 42nd century, right?) and has now been categorized as a film set in the future (the 42nd century category doesn't exist) as well as the 22nd century. Not either/or, but both are xzxczxczxczxczxczxczxcaccurate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.254.87.87 (talk) 03:35, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Alien archaeologists or future mecha?

The article seems to contradict itself. At the end if the film, is David found by extraterrestrial archaeologists, as in the plot section, or the future (evolved?) mecha, as in... later in the plot section, in the cast section, and in the critical response? Randomwolf42 (talk) 14:54, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, they're mecha according to the sources. We've had an IP repeatedly adding the "aliens" thing and that one slipped by me. I'm off to remove it now. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 16:41, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

File:Science Fiction Museum and Hall of Fame 4.JPG Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Science Fiction Museum and Hall of Fame 4.JPG, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations
What should I do?

Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.
  • If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Commons Undeletion Request

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 16:19, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Twin Towers

The article doesn't state when in 2001 the film was released. It was released in New Zealand after the 9/11 attacks, so that the Twin Towers rising majestically from the ocean in the movie were already an anachronism. Some comment on the irony would be appropriate, but it needs to be made in the context of a more specific dating of the film's release. Koro Neil (talk) 01:27, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't see how it would be relevant or why it would need to be discussed. What makes it ironic? ---The Old JacobiteThe '45 03:21, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

2001 release date

Is there any indication that Spielberg deliberately released the film in the year 2001 (being Kubrick’s cinematic annus mirabilis and all) or was it just a coincidence? 174.250.0.10 (talk) 19:32, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Mecha evolution

Why do you say that aliens at the end are evolved Mecha? What exaclty does suggest that? Could be another race from out of space ... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.114.15.69 (talk) 22:11, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Critical reception?

From the examples of reception given in the section, (and also from my general impression), I feel that "generally positive reviews" doesn't really sum up the critical reaction. It's not a film where most of the critics thought "well this is okay": the opinions seemed to be either "this is a masterpiece" or "oh my God Spielberg totally butchered Kubrick's conception". Maybe a phrase like "the film was highly divisive among critics" is more appropriate? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.27.55.220 (talk) 23:16, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

A.i. Artificial Intelligence

A.i. Artificial Intelligence should redirect here, because the head looks like a dot on an "i" -- 70.24.244.161 (talk) 19:14, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Music

this needs an additional entry for this film as only the orchestral score is referenced. At least 1 song from the film was released into the chart, and its not present on the john williams soundtrack. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.149.231.3 (talk) 00:06, 16 October 2009 (UTC)


found this in an article about Al Jourgensen:

At the specific request of director Stanley Kubrick, Jourgensen appeared with Ministry in the film A.I.: Artificial Intelligence.[3] He relayed his conversation with Kubrick in an interview:

Well, first of all, I hung up on him. I thought it was a crank call. His secretary was calling and I was like, 'Yeah, right.' Click. And then he called back personally and then talked to me, and I was just freaked out. I mean, who wouldn't be freaked out? Here's this eccentric American God living in the countryside of England, and he's calling me up in Austin, Texas, and saying he wants me to do the music for his film and he wants me to be in his film and he's famous and all that. I didn't even believe it.[3]

Ministry continued its involvement with the film project after Kubrick's death, and Jourgensen revealed that after initial tension, he and Steven Spielberg enjoyed a friendly relationship. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.52.144.63 (talk) 19:15, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Voice of Cybertronics CEO

The sentence "The Cybertronics CEO is voiced by Topie (Thuc) Nguyen." in A.I. Artificial Intelligence#Marketing is not supported by a relibale source. The Entertainment Weekly source cited at the end of the paragraph mke no mention at all of Nguyen. I also checked the closing credits of the movie, and there was no mention of anyone named Nguyen being the voice of the "Cybertronics CEO". In fact, there was no mention of a Topie (Thuc) Nguyen at all anywhere in the credits. Therefore, I have removed this sentence per WP:BLPSOURCES. The sentence may be true, but we need an independent reliable source to verify it. The sentence can be readded if such a source is found. - Marchjuly (talk) 10:02, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Extended content

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on A.I. Artificial Intelligence. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 20:03, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on A.I. Artificial Intelligence. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:37, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

“The screenplay by Spielberg was based on a screen story by Ian Watson and the 1969 short story "Super-Toys Last All Summer Long" by Brian Aldiss. ” Actually, the base story is that of Pinocchio. Mazarin07 (talk) 17:26, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Pinocchio

“The screenplay by Spielberg was based on a screen story by Ian Watson and the 1969 short story "Super-Toys Last All Summer Long" by Brian Aldiss. ” Actually, the base story is that of Pinocchio. Mazarin07 (talk) 17:28, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Plot too excessively detailed?

I'm not sure if I agree with the tag under the plot section. Having seen the movie, everything highlighted in the section is impertinent to the plot. Boomer VialHolla! We gonna ball! 06:03, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

I've attempted a trim, but you have a point. It's still a little bit longer than conventional, but "There is no universal set length for a plot summary" Ribbet32 (talk) 05:12, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
I trimmed it not too long ago myself, and I honestly think the current length is as edited as it can be without losing salient details. The plot tag is not needed. ---The Old JacobiteThe '45 18:23, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
There's been, in my experience, a long standing unwritten tradition of not bothering to tag plots that are only a little over the recommended length. This one comes out to 790 words; Meh. Even if it can be trimmed a little further (which I can't spot anything), that's not really so much over that we'd generally tag it. One of our plot obsessed editors, like myself, would normally just add it to their to do list and give it a light polish later. Millahnna (talk) 18:50, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
We need to do something about this tag edit war. I'm going to go ask for more editors at the film project to drop by and help us reach some consensus with more numbers in the pool, as it were. Millahnna (talk) 19:26, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Here, maybe this is detailed enough:

Extended content

In the late 22nd century, global warming has flooded the coastlines, wiping out coastal cities and reducing the human population. A new class of robots called Mecha emulate thoughts and emotions.

David, a prototype, resembles a human child and displays love for its human owners. He is tested with an employee, Henry Swinton, and his wife Monica. The Swintons' son, Martin, was placed in suspended animation until a cure can be found. Monica eventually warms up enough to him to activate his imprinting protocol, which irreversibly causes David to have a childlike love for her. Teddy, a robotic teddy bear, takes it upon himself to care for David's well-being. After Martin is cured and brought home, it becomes clear he does not want a sibling, and he causes issues for David. He makes David promise to cut off a lock of Monica's hair in the middle of the night. This upsets the parents, particularly Henry, who fears the scissors are a weapon.

At a pool party, one of Martin's friends unintentionally activates David's self-protection programming by poking him with a knife. David grabs Martin, but they both fall into the pool. David sinks to the bottom while still clinging to Martin. Martin is saved from drowning, but Henry persuades Monica to return David to Cybertronics, where he will be destroyed. However, Monica abandons David in the forest with Teddy to hide as an unregistered Mecha. David is captured for an anti-Mecha event where obsolete and unlicensed Mecha are destroyed in front of cheering crowds. The crowd is swayed by David's fear into believing he is human. He escapes with Gigolo Joe, a male prostitute Mecha framed for murder.

The two seek out the Blue Fairy, who David remembers from The Adventures of Pinocchio. He is convinced the Blue Fairy will transform him into a human boy, allowing Monica to love him and take him home. Joe and David enter Rouge City, where information from a holographic answer engine leads them to the top of Rockefeller Center in the ruins of Manhattan. There, David meets an identical copy of himself and, believing he is not special, destroys the copy. David meets his human creator, Professor Allen Hobby, who excitedly tells David finding him was a test. David learns he is the namesake and image of Professor Hobby's deceased son and many copies of David, along with female versions called Darlene, are already being manufactured.

Disheartened, David falls from a ledge, but Joe rescues him with their stolen amphibicopter. David tells Joe he saw the Blue Fairy underwater and wants to go down to her. The authorities capture Joe with an electromagnet, but he sets the amphibicopter on submerge. David and Teddy take it to the fairy, which turns out to be a statue at Coney Island. Teddy and David become trapped when the Wonder Wheel falls on their vehicle. Believing the Blue Fairy to be real, David asks to be turned into a real boy, repeating his wish until the ocean freezes and his internal power source drains away.

Two thousand years later, humans are extinct and Manhattan is buried under glacial ice. The now highly-advanced Mecha have evolved into an intelligent, silicon-based form. They find David and Teddy and discover they are original Mecha who knew living humans, making the pair very special. Having downloaded and comprehended his memories, the advanced Mecha use them to reconstruct the Swinton home and explain to David via an interactive image of the Blue Fairy that it is impossible to make him human. However, at David's insistence, they recreate Monica from DNA in her hair, which Teddy saved. The Mecha warn David the clone can live for a single day and the process cannot be repeated. David is reunited with Monica and spends the happiest day of his life with her and Teddy. Monica tells David she has always loved him as she drifts to sleep. David lies down next to her, closes his eyes and goes "to that place where dreams are born". Teddy climbs onto the bed and watches as David and Monica lie peacefully together.

I mostly just streamlined the vocabulary, but there were some unnecessarily detailed sentences. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:29, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Honestly, since it's just one rogue anon edit warring against consensus and not participating in discussion, I think we can let sleeping dogs lie for a while. If anyone else wishes to make this an issue, my first choice would be to restore the plot at GA status, which is sufficient and has agreeable typography. Ribbet32 (talk) 00:00, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
We may need to request temporary page protection to put an end to the anon.'s disruption. He's clearly going against consensus, hasn't read the policy he keeps quoting, and has not bothered to look at, much less respond to, this discussion. His intention is clearly to disrupt, not make a positive contribution. ---The Old JacobiteThe '45 12:43, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
In the interest of WP:AGF, I feel compelled to point out that in neurodiversity land, some people are just a little hard wired to that strict numbers interpretation of WP:FILMPLOT's guidelines. It's why we often see plot bloaters asking "how long am I allowed to make a plot" to some extent, they're missing a certain amount of nuance about what the plot section is for. That said, I think NRP's plot above would be a good compromise. He (correct me if my pronouns are wrong, please) was able to do the rephrase with fewer words thing that I know TOJ and myself frequently do just I just couldn't see the trims this time. ANd it drops it to just under the 700 word count guideline. It will likely get the IP to back off and if there are any bits that DO need expanded for clarity, it gives us a bit of wiggle room to do so. Millahnna (talk) 18:37, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

While I understand the desire to trim detail, Amsterdam, Venice, and New York City should be restored. These cities were specifically named in the brief opening narration, helping to establish the world of the film. It only adds a few words to the plot length. - Gothicfilm (talk) 01:06, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Could anybody seriously explain what was wrong with this? https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=A.I._Artificial_Intelligence&type=revision&diff=795392297&oldid=795016745 The current conclusion is drab and does not express the essence of the film ... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.181.184.13 (talk) 13:01, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Aldiss and Watson

Were Aldiss and Watson enemies in some way ? Or is the quote joking ? -- Beardo (talk) 03:29, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Orphaned references in A.I. Artificial Intelligence

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of A.I. Artificial Intelligence's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "variety":

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. Feel free to remove this comment after fixing the refs. AnomieBOT⚡ 15:27, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:A.I._Artificial_Intelligence/Archive_2&oldid=1231818369"