Completely useless premise and plot line...

Ten years ago, the japanese robot dog was just a dream... Twenty years ago, having a computer on your desk that could be used as a home cinema was delirious. Thirty years ago, having a cell phone with color display and movement sensors was frankly delutional. What do you know what could be done in fifty years from now? do you have any idea about it?

The premise is to look at ourselves through the story of a robot. This is a re-telling of the Pinocchio fantasy. Of course, it is not reality. Not meant to be.

Science fiction has had allegorical intentions from the very start.

(Parachutes and minds both work when they are open)

Since you are obviously not a programmer, nor a hardware scientist, you don't know that advanced simulations of feelings exist and are possible even today via simplified models of reality. Hell, you could even speculate that by the time we reach the future, you could fully "emulate" a brain by simulating millions of cells inside a computer, which would lead to a fully artificial human with his own thoughts and emotions. The movie purposely doesn't dwell into specifics, because it's not about "how does it work", it's about the moral implications of a robot wanting to turn into a human being. I believe that a soul can be whatever you want it to be, and frankly, your not-so-subtle christian propaganda is plain stupid.

This coment is so stoopid, I dont know where to begin. Wait! I know where to begin!

1) Take yer conservorama-Religio-Repukican dogma and stick it... ANYplace but here!

2) Anyone who does not like watching moovies, reading books, or entertaining themselves in ANY way that involves THINKING and FANTASISING ought not to entertain themselves in this way. I'm sure there is a local bible study that goes over the same 12 verses over and over again out of context like you take tham or a Conservo-Religio TV evangelist that can spout crap and dogma and catma and would fit your version of entertainment. Oh Wait, you take that crap seriously, while *I* am highly entertained by it!

2.5) You ever consider that the way Chsistianity is presented nowadays, as an "Open your Mouth, here comes the Bible Cramming Stick" method that is ALWAYS used and ALWAYS makes non-believers out of people who MIGHT be believers - Is also looked upon as STUPID and REDICULOUS? Cos I am one person who sees it that way, and I actually share your FAITH. But I refuse to share your RELIGION, which has no place in actual, real life. Faith is one thing, Religion is another, unpleasant thing. But since you are spouting "God" and things of that nature, Didn't Yeshosua say something like "God can raise up Sons of Abraham from these ROCKS?" THEREFORE, if a Human were to create a Positronic Brain that could think the way a Human thinks, Why would it not have a soul- If it became self-aware? A Soul aint some MAGIC, INVISIBLE THING, it's very visible.

But that is what the entire ISSAC ASIMOV short story (on which this moovie is based) is about, it is a postulation, CAN a robot evole a soul?

Heck, even my PC has a soul, a cantankerous, nasty, and irritating soul- Every computer, over a period of time of use, starts showing signs of a "personality" and anyone who works on PCs or Macs will know this.

3) "Can you fix this piece of *beep*

First off holy bible thumper batman. You are easily stereo typed as someone who probably sits there and critisizes how superman 'shouldnt really be able to fly' as well or some other useless rant.

For starters, ITS A MOVIE. Its not a documentary or something of that 'FACTUAL' source material related. ITS FICTIONAL. If every movie/book ever conceived was purely based on ONLY 'factual reality' you'd be stuck in one HELL of a boring world.

Also you're a mega tool claiming why a robot doesnt have a 'soul'. While I would agree on the biological sense, I have to ask, who are you to really make such a judgement call? I mean are you a PH.D Melocular engineer? Or even perhaps aBiologist, or XenoBiologist? Lemme guess you dont believe thats 'real' either? My point being you're not exactly what ANYONE could refer to as a creditable expert now are you? My guess, a fat little bible thumping sci fi wanta be nerd (watching movies based purely on religious jargin...constantine anyone ...for the 115th time!) who sat there with a ? above his head during any of the terminator movies.

Ultimately pup its like this. The human general psychology is always trying to 'comform' with the general mass. In a world based purely around vanity or wealth outside opinion of one self is a constant subconscious trait in the general public. Such movies depicting uniqueness (a trait everyone wishes to hold but never truely has cept in rare cases) causes a sense of relation with the main character. Since humans also love self sympathy purely based on general genetics the idea of it 'dieing' weighs in on the emotional level to the extent people seem to empathize. Since these are general mass character-ristics its almost always garenteed such movies (especially ones which copy other successes...AI anyone)will suceed. ANd these people ARE here to make money so ...............

Get of your high horse...you aren't special.

Did you even pay attention to the movie?

1. I won't argue because it will turn into a debate on what defines being human, and religion. I personally think that sentience is what makes us unique, and although it did not explain how, Andrew was sentient.

2. Did you miss the part where he created an entire central nervous system? He could feel and perceive things just as we do, even though he created it through mechanical means. A little suspension of disbelief would do you wonders.

3. He doesn't necessarily hate who he is, but he hates how the world perceives him. after the initial changes to look like a human, i think he would have been satisfied with that if the world looked at him like he was a human.

4. This goes back to my answer of number 1.

It's called suspension of disbelief. It allows us to believe what isn't really real, and temporarily forgive novelists and movie-makers so that we can lose ourselves in fantasy. Dorothy didn't really fly over the rainbow; Harry Potter isn't really a wizard, and the wardrobe in my bedroom doesn't lead to the land of Narnia. But for just a little while, I can pretend all of those things are real.

Are you simply being difficult? If so, I highly recommend a couple of hours at the movies to relax. How about "Babe?" I mean, if pigs could fly...uh, talk.

Sorry to have to go against you here, but I feel compelled to bring up the following:

________________________________________________________________________________
1. Robots are NOT humans. This worn-out notion that somehow metal and wire put together in the shape of a person can somehow have feelings, which come solely from BEING ALIVE. If y.....
________________________________________________________________________________

Your argument is flawed, both philosophically and scientifically. Feelings do NOT come from being alive. They come from chemical reactions. You could actually recreate the exact same chemical reactions in a petrie dish -hell, even inside a garbage can-. However, there would not be any 'thing' to "feel" these feelings. To do so, one would need a sensory organ capable of interpreting said feelings (chemical reactions/ hormone release/ etc...). Enter the brain. I believe that the movie makes it clear that Andrew HAS a brain -albeit a positronic one-, and thus has the potential to feel feeling. I believe that it is also made clear in the movie, that when Andrew develops his artificial organs (organs are responsible for the release of many of these chemicals and hormones which are responsible for the feelings WE feel) that he then has the ability to feel, just as we do.

This makes perfect sense. From a scientific POV, too. The reality of it is beyond us at the moment, but the theory is 100% spot-on-the-money.

________________________________________________________________________________
2. Robots can NOT have erections or be sexually excited...
________________________________________________________________________________

Wrong again. I believe the sex-toy industry has made remarkable advances in this field. I saw a show on tv once which showed a new sex-doll (male) which was capable of ejaculating. The girl just pushes a button, and her doll blows a load -of whatever- inside (or on) her. But you were talking about hard-ons. An errection is the result of blood engorging the gland in question. Here's the trick, though: It doesn't need to be blood that engorges said penis. It can even be air/ gel/ any-bloody-liquid, as is the case in some current devices for those with genital deformation/ malformation/ severe E.D. Now I believe that the artificial penis in the movie would have been much more sophisticated than a simple penis pump (which as I say, currently exists, and can be used to allow those unable to otherwise gain/ maintain errections to now do so). We have seen -in the film- that Andrew creates an artificial nervous system, artificial organs, etc... It is not a stretch to imagine that they could create an artificial penis. Not at all, especially considering how good we are at doing that now.

____________________________________________________________________
3. The robot has a serious complex- he hates who he is and wants as much science and surgery as possible to try and be something different. And when he gets close enough, he deludes...
___________________________________________________________________

Your first sentence (in point #3) describes about 20% of the women I know, and about 10% of the men, in this world, now. Now if you were talking about Michael Jackson in point #3, I'd agree with you, but I suspect you aren't, and I think you've missed something vital here. I think you're confusing the desire to better one's self (as taught to Andrew by "Sir" early in the movie), with hating yourself and wanting to change. I don't know, maybe you have horrendously low self-esteem and are just projecting, but you've certainly missed -perhaps wilfully- an important part of this movie.

______________________________________________________________
4.This is crap, because he HAS NO SOUL and is NOT REAL. A factory can't make something out of metal and wire, and then later demand that God give it a soul...
_____________________________________________________________

Now I think I understand you better. This offends your "christian sensibilities" (everyone else, please excuse the oxymoron). You believe that the new testament is the literal word of God, and that only humans have souls. Unfortunately, however, this is a discussion I cannot have with you. I don't think you're capable of truly delving into the theological, philosophical, and theoretical realms to objectively explore what it means to be human, what it means to have a soul, what is a soul, whether a soul is given/ earned, etc....
I say this, not to insult you, but because I believe that instead of examining evidence, and deciding rationally, that you would be more likely to quote the bible. Repeatedly. Maybe I'm wrong about you, but regardless, it seems that you are letting your christian beliefs close your mind to a world of possibilities outisde of the new testament. In any case, you cannot prove that even YOU have a soul.

Moving on; The movie makes no assertion one way, or another about his soul. The court is there strictly in a legal capacity to determine if it is LEGAL for him to MARRY a human. At no point anywhere in the film does anyone demand that God gave Andrew a soul. However, as only a human can marry a human (except for some southern U.S. states, I believe...), for him to be able to marry Porsche, he had to be seen as LEGALLY human. You will notice that at no point in any of the court proceedings, does anyone mention a "soul" as everyone (except for you, it seems) knows that it can NOT be PROVEN one way or another if they even exist. Unless, of course, you count pointing to the bible and exclaiming "It's all proven in here!" as proof...

The only POSSIBLE allusion to a soul is the last line Porsche utters "I'll see you soon." It's possible that she believed in christian mythology, and that they would be together in heaven/ hell/ limbo/ whatever. But then again, it's just as possible that she believed in re-incarnation, and believed that in another life, the essential force that made her "Her" would meet once again with the essential force that made him "Him". But it doesn't matter. You know why? Because she isn't claiming his soul as fact, she's saying what she feels, what she hopes, and perhaps even what she dares to believe. That the "something" that made her unique will one day ('soon') meet up with the special "something" that made him unique. It is NOT A CLAIM.


Beyond all this, however, I think you need to bear in mind that this is A BLOODY SCIENCE FICTION MOVIE!!!! To tell you the truth, you have thus far come across as a severely retarted and very special breed of moron. I am truly hoping that this is not the case, however, and that you will be able to -one day- watch this movie, and to see it; to truly see it beyond the confines of what religion forces you to believe is true, and that you might open your mind to the possibilities of what a good science fiction movie can offer.

I'm sorry if I've offended you with this post, but all of your arguments are fatally flawed, and seem to be written out of spite, that stems from the percieved discord between the movie and your faith.

Peace out.