Loose Change - Part IV

Status
Not open for further replies.
I will continue to assume that the ending was an add by Spielburg then. If only because I have yet to see Kubrick do a happy ending, and that really seemed tacked on to give a semi-happy ending. That and the whole aliens thing out of left field.
 
mrfreeze said:
I will continue to assume that the ending was an add by Spielburg then. If only because I have yet to see Kubrick do a happy ending, and that really seemed tacked on to give a semi-happy ending. That and the whole aliens thing out of left field.
Click to expand...


:confused: What aliens?

Kubrick had never done a story anything like that, hence why he wanted Spielberg to do it - because Kubrick didn't know how to do a fairytale. Fairy tales usually have happy endings.

You are right of course, it does feel tacked on. And there's a pretty good chance it is added on. But whether Spielberg added it, or whether Kubrick did, we may never know.

-Andrew
 
gumboot said:
:confused: What aliens?

Kubrick had never done a story anything like that, hence why he wanted Spielberg to do it - because Kubrick didn't know how to do a fairytale. Fairy tales usually have happy endings.

You are right of course, it does feel tacked on. And there's a pretty good chance it is added on. But whether Spielberg added it, or whether Kubrick did, we may never know.

-Andrew
Click to expand...
I thought that Dr Strangelove had a happy ending, but the I am a misanthropic bugger.
 
brodski said:
I thought that Dr Strangelove had a happy ending, but the I am a misanthropic bugger.
Click to expand...

I think it depends how you define "happy". Under certain conditions, I'd say most of his films had happy endings.

-Andrew
 
gumboot said:
:confused: What aliens?

Kubrick had never done a story anything like that, hence why he wanted Spielberg to do it - because Kubrick didn't know how to do a fairytale. Fairy tales usually have happy endings.

You are right of course, it does feel tacked on. And there's a pretty good chance it is added on. But whether Spielberg added it, or whether Kubrick did, we may never know.

-Andrew
Click to expand...


Sorry they are "Super Robots". Although it seems that they were made using ideas for the aliens from Close Encounters that never got made. I actually thought those were aliens all this time, at least super robots aren't quite as bad.
 
mrfreeze said:
So wait, that means I can still blame Spielburg for that piece of [rule8] add on at the end that totally ruined the ending right? Either that or Kubrick had alzheimers or something that made him go crazy and tack that on right??
Click to expand...
Ruining the ending implies that the 17 hours of mind-numbing film before that was actually not all that mind-numbing. That was not the case.

I had never contemplated suicide during a Spielberg flick before A.I. And that talking fabric softener bear can go straight to hell and die.

And yes, my morning's going just fine. Why do you ask?
 
mrfreeze said:
Sorry they are "Super Robots". Although it seems that they were made using ideas for the aliens from Close Encounters that never got made. I actually thought those were aliens all this time, at least super robots aren't quite as bad.
Click to expand...

WHAT ? Super-robots are the coolest things in the universe.

Grendizer, GO!
 

Attachments

  • GrendizerDukeFleed.jpg
    GrendizerDukeFleed.jpg
    15.3 KB · Views: 189
Sword_Of_Truth said:
Oops... I missed this one by about 30 pages.

Anyway, here's the extra bit that JamesB sort of missed.

He's absolutely right about Jones laying claim to a certain type of authroity, but it's not that of the Dept. of Agriculture. After he left government service at the end of the Eisenhower administration, Ezra Taft Benson returned to full time service in the mormon church. At the time of his appointment to the presidental cabinet, he was already a member of the Quorum of The Twelve, the ruling body of the LDS church. In 1985, he became the prophet and highest mortal authority in the church.

To the average Joe, Professor Jones is making an obscure political reference. What he is really doing, is placing himself on the right hand of the right hand of God.

Not that any of you would be suprised at this, we all knew already that Jones is an arrogant schmuck.
Click to expand...

I didn't "miss" that, that was my point. I was wondering if anyone else would make the connection. Why else would someone be quoting an obscure Secretary of Agriculture? Obviously Jones put that up because of his religious beliefs.
 
To the average Joe, Professor Jones is making an obscure political reference. What he is really doing, is placing himself on the right hand of the right hand of God.

JamesB said:
I didn't "miss" that, that was my point. I was wondering if anyone else would make the connection. Why else would someone be quoting an obscure Secretary of Agriculture? Obviously Jones put that up because of his religious beliefs.
Click to expand...

OK - so what are we talking about here.

Is it about: who has control of the Scholars and its webpage? I agree that for the reasons given, it is likely that Jones has had a hand in this quote at least.

Or is it about: why did he pick that quote? Because of his religious beliefs. Or perhaps because of the perspective in which he sees what he's doing, informed by those religious beliefs. In other words, his take on the morality of what he's doing.
But aren't we dangerously close to ad hominem arguments here? "Look at the rabidly religious arrogant person Jones is... he must therefore be doing bad science".
I hope that this is not what was intended.
 
gumboot said:
I would. Easy. In fact Kubrick even acknowledge Spielberg's superior skills by begging him to do A.I. (Spielberg refused, but agreed to write the screenplay and help out).
Click to expand...
Not exactly.
Steven Spielberg said:
I thought he was out of his mind. I felt he was giving up one of the best stories that I felt he had ever told. I immediately began talking him back into directing it, but he was adamant that I do it. He said this story is closer to your sensibilities than my own. He never gave me any other reason.
Click to expand...
Also, Kubrick wanted still wanted to produce the film. He wanted to work with Spielberg.

They are different directors with different styles. The sad reality is that Spielberg just didn't have it in him to turn Kubrick's storyboards into a great film.
 
delphi_ote said:
Not exactly.

Also, Kubrick wanted still wanted to produce the film. He wanted to work with Spielberg.

They are different directors with different styles. The sad reality is that Spielberg just didn't have it in him to turn Kubrick's storyboards into a great film.
Click to expand...

Not to derail further, Delphi, but, personally, I haven't seen Kubrick turn one of his storyboards into a great film.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom