Talk:A.I. Artificial Intelligence

kubrick started the project removed "Spielberg directed it." (was mentioned twice) Erik Zachte

Please dont trim the plot. It is good the way it is.

"George buys an extremely advanced humanoid robot" -- I think not. The executives wanted to test the robot, and he was the most suitable candidate. Correct me if I'm wrong. -Zhen Lin 08:19, 6 Mar 2004 (UTC)

You are correct. Also, David meets Gigolo Joe at the robot destruction carnival, before he enters the city. I've corrected these, and while I was at it I fleshed out the plot description quite a bit, including the "12,000 years later..." ending.

Looked at in a certain light, all of David's problems can be seen as the result of poor engineering. For instance, he would not have been able to nearly drown the Swintons' boy if he had not been needlessly given strength greater than a human boy his age. Also, there was no reason for him to have an open passage from his mouth to his circuitry, allowing him to be clogged with spinach. At the least, it could have had a grate over it. It also seems to indicate bad programming that he was able to sit for perhaps hundreds of years while waiting for the blue fairy to grant his wish; some internal loop should have timed out first and told him to seek repair. Perhaps most importantly, if he had been programmed with Asimov's Three Laws of Robotics, he would not have dragged the Swintons' son into the pool in order to protect himself, because the first law (do no harm to human beings) has no precedence over the third law (keep yourself from being harmed).

However, I won't add these criticisms to the article, because I don't think they're usually a part of the discussion of the movie.&mdashAaronW 11:20, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)

"if he had been programmed with Asimov's Three Laws of Robotics"

How is that a design flaw? asimov's laws were FICTION and have no logical or actual reason to exist. This movie does not take place in asimov's universe, and the programmers of David may have determined there was no reason for him to act like an asimov robot - he was made to act like a child. A child would not neccesarily protect another human over himself. Additionally David probably did not realize he was harming his "brother." I don't understand why people think Asimov's three laws even make sense - an actual robot would be controlled by a complicated program, not 3 artifically constraining laws. Otherwise I agree that the food thing was a design flaw, and sort of agree that letting him live longer than a human was a mistake 69.244.90.248 02:57, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Actually, it was 2,000 years, not 12,000. --Earle Martin 23:25, 4 Apr 2004 (UTC)

• Now, you're certain of that? I remember it being 12,000 years, but I changed the text to relay something less distinct. And I rather enjoyed the film. Two Halves

Now that I think about it again, the movie may not explicitly state how far in the future the final section is. 2,000 years seems a little too short for a full-on ice age to set in, although it's not impossible, especially since rapid climate changes were already going on in the movie (New York City being flooded and all). I must have gotten the 12,000 years figure off of some website, but I can't find it now. Well, I guess I'll just add the movie to my NetFlix queue and check that ending again, unless someone else wants to do it first. :)

I'm extremely tempted to point out that the movie has one of the most egregious Deux ex machina endings in cinematic history. But again, that's criticism, not fact...Metamatic 14:12, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Metamatic is very much correct, but I think it's well worth pointing out in the article, not only because it's such an egregious example, but because it's obviously intentional. A significant proportion of the film is devoted to the set-up and execution of the joke.

Deus ex machina means literally, "God from the machine," a reference to a crane-like device used to lower the God figure onto the ancient Greek stage. Typically the God would only arrive to save the day when the situation for the protagonist was completely hopeless, and writers would sometimes toy with an audience by seeing exactly how hopeless the situation could be made before the God intervened.

In A. I., the protagonist becomes hopelessly trapped in a vehicle, underneath a ferris wheel, under water. There is no escape... until he is rescued by god-like machines. This is both a literal and figurative example of Deus ex machina. Sofa King Tuesday, 2007-02-27 T 01:58 UTC

At least it remains true that 2,000 years is one of the furthest time-jumps in any movie. I believe even the Star Trek timeline only goes about 1,000 years in the future.--AaronW 20:18, 14 Apr 2004 (UTC)

2001: A Space Odyssey makes a three million year jump. You can't beat that! - Cymydog Naakka 15:04, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)

The "Flesh Fair"

I hardly think that the operators of the "Flesh Fair" can be said to be "religious fanatics". They may couch what they do in religious terms of the superiority of the fleshly human also having a "soul" as opposed to the presumably souless "mechas", but they are basically 22nd century "carnies" playing to a audience much like pro wrestling's. The crowd's enjoyment of the robots' destructions may be the most disturbing and most "realistic" part of the film.

207.69.140.35 20:42, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Good point. It has since been edited to "religious anti-robot activists" which still sounds a little off, but at least that's better than "fanatics." The "carnie" analogy sounds really good. --Feitclub 22:55, Nov 17, 2004 (UTC)

Just out of curiosity, don't you think it is worth mentioning that the band Ministry played in the Flesh Fair scene?86.108.108.221 06:19, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I also never saw them as religious fanatics... They are, as someone said, a group of "carnies" mixed as with a pro wrestling style of entertainment. But I also see them as a form of Futuristic-Luddism: [1] It's easy to think of a similar social movement after the "robotic revolution", since the use of robots would generate a large amount of structural unemployment. So it is not unexpected that a lot of people would rejoice in seeing robots getting destroyed and that the ones profiting from that destruction would call themselves protectors of the "pure human race". I think they are indeed a reference to the post industrial revolution Luddist movements. - LEANDRO DISCACIATE - 12 AUG 2006

The Ending

When I saw the film it occured to me that the beings were neither aliens nor androids; they were TRANSCENDENTS of the human race and conscience which have long evolved past the use of a natural organic body. Their sentience was a product of humanity and their bodies, a product of technology. I'm surprised no one has thought of or mentioned this. Can somebody please find an official opinion based on this? This end of the movie is greatly understood and many do not understand its creativity and brilliance.

How are they not Aliens? i didnt see any reason to consider the very alien looking beings to be Androids.

Just wondering, but does it explicitly state that the entities at the end are androids? When I first saw it I thought they were aliens.

Not just the meaning of the ending is controversial but simply the fact that it exists. A lot of that stems from the fact that too many people confuse the androids at the end with aliens. If you think they are aliens then the ending feels tacked on and unnecessary, but if one recognizes them as androids then the idea that the movie is a sort of android fairy tale makes then ending far more palatable. I am just not sure how much of this would be useful for the entry. I think a mention of the alien/android confusion would be appropriate,though.--Gangster Octopus 23:26, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Hal Hickel, the Animation Supervisor for ILM, just calls the creatures at the ends "beings." It's in one of the supplementary parts of the second disc, talking about how to animate the things. I found that interesting and, perhaps, noteworthy. He doesn't call them mechas, aliens, or anything more specific than "beings." Later on in that same segment, however, there's a sketch that shows preliminary concepts of the "beings," and zooming in on the title shows the words "THE ROBOTA." All capitalized, just like that. Also, the title of that latter segment is "The Futuristic Robots & The Specialist." I think all that makes it pretty clear that the intent was that those "beings" would be mechas, even if it wasn't realized quite as plainly. Last Thylacine 06:57, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I've just seen the film for the first time, and I cannot understand why anyone would asume that the creatures at the end are aliens. There is not even the slightest hint of this, and it is patently obvious that they are meant to be descended from the robots. Indeed, the only reason why some might assume that they are aliens is because they look a bit like the classic image of an "alien". Let it be remembered, however, that it was Spielberg himself who invented that classic image of an alien, in Close Encounters. TharkunColl 23:47, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I've just seen the film too (but for the second time), and I can explain why the beings are considered as extraterrestrial creatures. First, as marked, they look like "classic aliens". Second, in the beginning it is showed how they speak with each other in non-Earth language, and only after contact with David they start speak in his language as they telepatically "downloaded" lingua experience as well (it's nonsense that robots would create their own "Esperanto"). Third, we can see that beings learn Earth's history (yep, if they were made-in-Earth robots, they wouldn't learn teir own life). There are more hints that the beings are aliens.-SomeUser 22:46, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Just because you can't understand the language, that doesn't make it a non-Earth language. ;) It could be anything, but because they are mechas, it's likely nothing more than data transferance, which is audible only so the audience will know that the mechas are "speaking" to one another. Next the mechas are learning about Earth's history for a damned good reason--they don't know it. Just as we have archeology to study the past, so do they. It's really not a stretch at all, especially when considering the supposed global freezing.

They are not aliens, nor were they meant to be. They are mechas, plain and simple.

-- Last Thylacine 21:06, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Could also be alien mechas - mechas from another star sytem?

-- quantum

Article title?

Why isn't Artificial Intelligence: AI, which imdb gives as the title of the film, and which the article says is the "actual on-screen title," rather than being a redirect here? Is there a reason? Dpbsmith (talk) 11:28, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Wizard of Oz allusions

I think there should be some mention of the allusions made to The Wizard of Oz in this movie. In particular, I'm thinking of the part where David (Dorothy) sets out to find the Blue Fairy (wizard) along with Joe and Teddy. As I recall, I think Joe even mentions something about missing his brain, just like the scarecrow. Although it's not a perfect analogy, I think it's pretty clear.

The introduction

I think the article's introduction should be changed into something more explanatory, as it doesn't really describe the actual film. I reckon the average reader is by far more interested in the film itself rather than how it came into being through Kubrick and Spielberg's exchanging of ideas. –JonasRH 07:56, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

How about adding that the movie is like a futuristic/sci-fi story of Pinocchio? Well, very similar to it since the plot is about a robot/puppet who wants to be a real human/boy. HighEnergyProtons 03:30, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Kubrick's Original Idea

Has anyone thought of adding Kubrick's original vision for AI? Such ideas/visions like wanting to build a real robot/mecha to play the main role and the very long pre-production because of this? Very interesting to those who seek it or perhaps want to read more about the film. Especially that Kubrick and Co. actually created a prototype of a robot but very premature and hardly workable(more like a mechanical puppet) I think most of this information can be found on the actual two-disc DVD, in one of the documentaries. Any takers? Or perhaps should I add it in? *gulp* It'll probably wait until the weekend so I can dig up as much information about it as I can. This also means listening to every audio commentary and hear for anything about Kubrick's version of AI like certain scenes, angles, use of music and script-wise. HighEnergyProtons 03:36, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

I recall reading that Kubrick had gone to the length of hiring a child actor and was bringing him in every few weeks to film him, apparently making a time-lapse film of the child growing up. The rumor also stated that Kubrick had bought up enough film stock so that when it came time to film the rest of the picture, the film stock would match the time-lapse. Sofa King Tuesday, 2007-02-27 T 02:32 UTC

AI's inspiration

I remember reading that Kubirck got the idea for AI from "Supertoys Last All Summer Long" by Brian Aldiss. The story was a sci-fi work from the early 70's that Kubrick read.

The story of AI borrowed much from Japanese comic and Anime Astroboy by Tetzuka which dates to the early 50's. Astroboy owes a lot to pinocchio as well. In the original Astroboy story (Tesuwan Atom in Japan) a scientists son dies in a car wreck. The emotionaly devastated scientist builds a robot boy to replace his lost son. The robot boy not being a perfect human child is abused by the father. In one scene astroboy tries to eat at the dinner table but the food is not digested, it is removed by the robot from a access door in his chest. This infuriates the father. The father later kicks Astro out of the house where he is captured by a robot circus where robots are forced to fight each other and even fired out of cannons. Later Astroboy is rescued by another scientist and the movement for robot equal rights begins.

Like I said Astroboy owes a lot to Pinocchio but there are glaring simularities between AI and Astoboy that to me prove that Asroboy deserves credit on the page. Also the title of the short story should also be included.

Thomas Howell

The Pinocchio Complex/Syndrome is a standard trope in fiction about robotics. It's so common and tired that it usually only shows up these days in populist SF (movies and TV, usually the latter). Remember people complaining about how Data was a cliche? And that was twenty years ago. The device is tired enough that AI would probably not have been made without the heavy pedigree attached. Belaboring the whole history for every invokation is counterproductive. It really deserves its own Wikipedia entry (in which Astro Boy would be mentioned of course), but the only actual explanation of it I could find anywhere was on TV tropes wiki and I don't think that would hold up as a proper source.24.165.210.213 19:20, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Second Variety, a short story by Philip K. Dick, while having a completely different plot, has a robotic boy named David who holds a teddybear.

How did David's mom die?

Did the original book give any hints to this? From the film it seems that Monica was frozen to death in a glacier, but that would be highly unlikely as the glciers wouldn't form centuries after David was trapped beneath the ferris wheel on Coney Island. So perhaps Monica did die naturally?

In the film, the future-mecha were able to clone Monica because Teddy had the lock of her hair that David cut off.

When does this movie take place?

It doesn't say anywhere in the movie that it takes place in the 22nd century. Where did you guys get that?

No answer? Well in that case I'm deleting it.

Someones put the date 2142 in the article as the date when the movie is supposed to take place. I've removed it again. There is no mention of a date anywhere in the movie and until someone tells me where they got 2142 from, I have no choice but to assume that it's false information and delete it again if someone tries to put it back in the article. 218.215.129.83 01:22, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Mecha

This article links to Mecha in several places. I'd suggest the Mecha term used in this film is not the same as the article it links to. The wikipedia article on Mecha says they "are piloted or remote-controlled limbed vehicles. They are generally, though not necessarily, bipedal." I'd suggest the links to Mecha be removed in this article. I don't think anyone could argue David is a "piloted or remote-controlled limbed vehicle." 66.17.118.195 17:23, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

"Themes" section

The "Themes" section needs to go; if others wish, it can be moved to the Talk page. It is a personal reflection of the author, inherently loaded with POV. Wikipedia guidelines state that, "Wikipedia is not a place to publish your own thoughts and analyses". I'll wait a week or so for comments before deleting. Ward3001 15:40, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Dump it. While you're at it, I suggest deleting that unsourced "Alternate Reality" section as well. Cap'n Walker 19:07, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Fair use questions

Fair use rationale for Image:Artificial Intelligence A.I. (2001).jpg

Image:Artificial Intelligence A.I. (2001).jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 05:31, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Ainyc.jpg

Image:Ainyc.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 21:04, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Artificial Intelligence A.I. (2001).jpg

Image:Artificial Intelligence A.I. (2001).jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 22:44, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Either of these images might be justified as Fair Use, but I don't think either of them contributes meaningfully to the article, and are unnecessarily spoilery as well. I say let them die. - JasonAQuest (talk) 23:03, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

In the box on the right..

Preceded by Saving Private Ryan Followed by Minority Report

I gather this is in a chronology of Spielberg films, but this is in no way made clear; from the context you would suspect it had something to do with its box office takings I guess.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.67.125.194 (talk) 02:49, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Good point. Those entries are only supposed to be used for a series. I removed the two films listed. Ward3001 (talk) 03:24, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Article

http://www.ew.com/ew/article/0,,165660,00.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wildroot (talk • contribs) 20:56, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Merge from Dr. Know (computer)

I see no reason to keep a separate article for Dr. Know (computer). The character certainly isn't more notable than, say... the movie's protagonist. - JasonAQuest (talk) 22:50, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Possible sequel?

Does anyone have a source on the rumored sequel ? Graham Wellington (talk) 03:00, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Probably (hopefully) a reference to the old news that Spielberg bought the rights to Aldiss' sequels to the original short story, which were incorporated into the original film. A.I.2: Electronic Boogaloo... would make no sense. - JasonAQuest (talk) 03:21, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Aliens/evolved Mechas

I've just seen the end of this movie again. There is no evidence that the beings at the end of the movie are anything other than aliens. The assertion that they are "evolved" mechas is patently absurd. Astronaut (talk) 23:08, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm. I've just seen it for the first time, and my impression was certainly that these were the distant descendants of the 'mechas'. Looking back more analytically, there are two reasons for this interpretation. One is the comments these characters make (through subtitles) that the mecha they have found 'knew humans'. The implication (I felt) was this is what made the 'boy' important to them: a link to their predecessors. The other is the importance to any good plot of 'economy'. Why introduce 'aliens' when it is more economical (and therefore more satisfying) to use characters who are linked, by descent, with those in the main body of the film?

I'm happy to be contradicted by anyone with more detailed knowledge of the development of the movie. But there is nothing patently absurd (I feel) about my interpretation.

Since I seem to have been reverted in pretty short order, here's what passes for evidence (in what is, after all, a piece of fiction):

http://www.visual-memory.co.uk/faq/index2.html#slot14

(do a text search for the word 'extinct').

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.152.203.47 (talk) 23:22, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

There's no clear indication one way or the other in the movie, though there are plenty of hints (e.g. Joe predicting to David that mechas would outlast the rash humans who had created them). The idea that they're advanced mechas is by no means "absurd". Frankly, the emergence of self-determining artificial intelligence is much more likely to happen in the real world than humanoid aliens coming to Earth, and especially in the context of this movie, where David has already been invented. Since it can't easily be answered from the movie alone, I've rephrased it to be ambiguous. Regardless, there's no question that they were intrigued by the realization that David and Teddy knew humans, and I've restored that bit. - JasonAQuest (talk) 23:34, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Agree. Leave it ambiguous, unless someone can find a statement from one of the writers that clarifies it. Ward3001 (talk) 23:41, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Seems I might have been mistaken. I came to this page looking for something else (I thought the version I had just seen had a longer ending than my first viewing some years ago). When I saw "advanced mecha" in this article I assumed someone was joking. It was very, very obvious to me that they were aliens so I was bold and fixed it. I've seen this type of alien before - no, not in real life :-)) - they reminded me of the tall silent aliens in that Mars movie with Gary Sinese. When 82.152 reverted me, I put it back and started tracking down evidence and was surprised to find that I was wrong. Sorry for the confusion, I'll revert my change in short order. Astronaut (talk) 23:44, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

What's the evidence? Ward3001 (talk) 23:47, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

There's none in the movie itself that I could see, but it's in the external links. Both The Kubrick FAQ's entry on A.I. and A.I. in Depth at Filmmonthly.com mention mechas at the end. That's good enough for me to admit to my mistakes. Astronaut (talk) 23:52, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

The "Plot" section of the article claims, without any ambiguity, that the creatures are mechas : "Mechas have evolved into an alien-looking humanoid form. In the process of excavating New York City from the ice, they find David and Teddy". That's biased. They should be referred to as "creatures", "beings", or "people that might be extraterrestrial or mechas" I guess, but you can't decide that they're mechas just because of a "FAQ" thing that isn't actually part of the movie. So Kubrick wanted them to be mechas, and he had a treatment written where they are mechas. Fine. But A.I. is not a Kubrick film. It was written and directed by Steven Spielberg, so I'm sorry, but unless Spielberg says "they're mechas", we can't just assume they are. They look like generic extraterrestrials. The ending was heavily criticized for the presence of extraterrestrials, so you'd think that if Spielberg had intended these creatures to be "new generation mechas", maybe at some point in an interview or on the DVD commentary, he would have said something like "Oh and by the way, I'm sorry that a lot of people thought that these creatures were aliens, because they're actually robots, I guess the movie wasn't clear enough about that". Considering he already has altered some of his films in the past, it's not absurd to think that he would have altered A.I. for the DVD edition and have the CGI creatures replaced by new ones that would look more clearly like "super evolved robots" if he didn't want these guys to be viewed as extraterrestrials. The "pro-mechas" arguments are not all that convincing. Some notes about the Kubrick project that never really happen: irrelevant, the film was written and directed by Spielberg. The fact that they're excited about finding mechas that knew humans: don't you think extraterrestrials would be equally excited about the idea of studying creatures who knew the species that ruled the planet for ages? So, they could be mechas, but that's not sure, and they could be extraterrestrials, and they most likely are. So really the "Plot" section should be changed and leave room for ambiguity instead of just claiming they're mechas. Nico, 01/29/08 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.64.202.161 (talk) 13:23, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Spielberg did settle it. In this interview with (quoted and cited in the article), Spielberg refers to them as "the Frankensteins that man has put on the planet". - JasonAQuest (talk) 15:43, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Spielberg doesn't specifically refer to the creatures that are seen at the end of the film. His answer could simply be interpreted as a reference to the fact that David and his teddybear, two "Frankensteins that man has put on the planet", have outlived their creators. If the super evolved mechas had also "been put on the planet by men" instead of being a creation/evolution of "primitive" mechas, why would they need to study the history of Earth? Wouldn't it already be implemented in their robotic memory? Nico, 01/28/2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.80.174.165 (talk) 16:17, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

(Digital memory is hardly infallible.) It requires some intellectual gymnastics to interpret "superseding" humanity as a reference to David and Teddy. To say nothing of the introduction of aliens defying Occam's razor. If there are reliable sources that actually document the notion that the creators intended them to be aliens - not hand-waving arguments - the article should be changed to reflect that. Otherwise, all of the real-world indicators of authorial intent (Kubrick's stated conception of the beings, the credit for Meryl Streep as "Blue Mecha", the simplest interpretation of Spielberg's comment and his statements that he stayed as true to Kubrick's vision as he could) should stand. - JasonAQuest (talk) 17:25, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

In this interview, Spielberg is asked a general question regarding the tone of his films, and among other films, he cites AI in his answer, explaining what the film in general is about. And I'm sorry, but to interpret that as Spielberg's Official Explanation of the Nature of the Creatures at the End of the Film seems extremely far-fetched. Much more than thinking that he's simply saying that AI is a film about the end of mankind caused by the creation of an "abomination" like robots-with-feelings. The question asked in the interview isn't specifically about AI, the answer is vague and doesn't clearly mention these creatures at all; I don't think this quote should even be mentioned in the article at all. Considering that these creatures, and the fact that lots of viewers considered them as extraterrestrials, had a big impact on the negative reception of the film by a good share of its audience, you would think that if Spielberg really wanted to make things clear once and for all, he'd come up with a clearer statement than "Oh and since we're talking about my filmography in general, I'd like to say that AI is about the dangers of the technology. Mankind is going to cause its own destruction with misused technology, as seen in the film." I understand that it's important to mention the "evolved mecha" thing as a possible explanation, but it's definitely not the "official" explanation. The movie's ending is ambiguous, the plot summary should mention the ambiguity instead of chosing what is only one of the possible explanations. Nico, 01/29/2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.80.174.165 (talk) 17:56, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Please stop presenting your own arguments; Wikipedia doesn't care what you or I think. Either cite a reference that they were not intended to be mechas, or give it a rest. I really don't care which. -JasonAQuest (talk) 18:23, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Considering that I'm presenting them in the "discussion" section, and that I'm not insulting anybody, just discussing something, I don't really see why you should answer in such an aggressive way... As for the "there is no evidence that they're not mechas, therefore they are"... er... ok... There's no evidence either that they're not the Stooges with goofy disguises... or Batman and his fellow Justice League Member under their secret "CGI aliens" undercover identity... Does it mean that they also are the Stooges and Batman? And just about anything that hasn't officially been proven false? ;-) Nico, 01/28/2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.229.171.156 (talk) 18:48, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Alternate theories about ending

As noted above, there is documented third-party evidence that the creators of the film intended the beings at the end of the film to be mechas. It is in keeping with Wikipedia policy prohibiting Original Research that we include only independently documented information, not editors' own theories (no matter how well thought out) in the article. This is not censorship; it's editorial policy for building an encyclopedia of facts, not opinions.

However, it's clear that the "aliens" interpretation was a very common one, and the fact that people interpreted it this way is relevant to the subject of the article. I've included a reference to this in the "Reception" section. Note: It is still not appropriate to add your own interpretation here, but if you find reputable third-party sources that discuss this interpretation and how it relates to the film's reception, you may add a citation that says "Such-and-such critic said...." -JasonAQuest (talk) 13:31, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Jason, it's nice and clear now. One question though: Are you sure the people mistaking the nature of the beings at the end, are the same people who have criticised the ending? The words "These individuals" suggest that is the case and, as you point out above, we need to be careful not to add Original Research.

Astronaut (talk) 06:32, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Despite the obvious sentimentality, I liked the ending of the movie, but my interpretation of it was: "Aliens arrive and excavate the buried NYC. Finding and studying David gives them the insight into human emotions which they could not get from the excavations alone." A pretty upbeat ending and consistant with the rest of the movie, in my opinion. Astronaut (talk) 06:32, 23 January 2008 (UTC)