In many science fiction novels, the future of human beings and robots that I see is mostly the replacement of the former by the latter and the suppression and imminent rise of the former, but this movie cruelly depicts the hatred and killing of robots by human beings, which is of course Understandable, but it seems to overturn the established concept in my head: what was created by humans will likely rule over humans. In fact, I have always believed that the computer cannot defeat the human brain, just like no matter how difficult it is to play chess with the computer, it is also created by us. So humans should not wait until the day they are ruled, which means that the situation in the movie is likely to happen.
To put it coldly, although David can love, it is human freedom to love him or not, because he is just a machine, the so-called "love" is just a program, and destroying him is like throwing away garbage. But if there is such a robot around us, do we have the heart to destroy it?
When David treats Martin badly, Mom's only eyes are on her son. This book is beyond reproach, but David's eyes are too blue and too clear, which makes his mother who doesn't love him softened.
I always thought that Mom didn't love David, never did. David soothed her heart, but she only regarded him as a machine, polite and treated like a guest, making people feel that the atmosphere of the home was fake (David still misses her and the home). She has been waiting for her son to come back, and when his son comes back, David seems redundant. Maybe the mother will think in her heart: It would be better if she waited a few more days to start the program, and now David is useless.
It's not the mother's selfishness, it's human nature.
In those days, even the existence of human beings was facing great threat, who would care about those machines everywhere?
The scene of destroying the robot reminds me of the ancient Colosseum, where humans are used to being the ruler of the earth.
To my astonishment, David was convinced that what his mother told him was actually about Martin's Pinocchio, so finding the blue fairy became David's only goal.
Unfortunately, Mom kept telling David that he was unique, so when David found out he wasn't the only one, just the first, he jumped into the sea in despair.
Fortunately, at the bottom of the sea, he found the blue fairy. But, it was Pinocchio's blue fairy after all, so David was trapped in the aircraft, looking at the blue fairy forever and ever, praying forever to become a real boy, a boy like Martin Son.
If it ended like this, it might have left a stronger impression on me and made me feel that the film is complete, an interpretation of the thoughts of the dead by the living. But two thousand years later, the living people want to reproduce the original ET style, but destroy the artistic conception two thousand years ago.
It was an extremely sensational kung fu, which made the audience cry a lot, and cruelly allowed David to only get one day of happiness, and then let him lose his mother forever and face the eternal life of his robot loneliness alone.
Ironically, two thousand years later, two thousand years after David could not become a real boy, the aliens regarded him as a treasure, to know the human beings who had not had time to meet through his memory, and to help him realize his wish, As if he was the last man on earth. Yes, he is, albeit the last robot, but in the eyes of the audience, he is the last human.
Even those who doubted David's love at first would affirm without hesitation that his love was real, and so was he.
At the beginning of the film, faced with the question of "humans create feelings for robots to make robots love humans, so can humans return the same feelings", the professor's answer is: God did not ask Adam to love him when he created Adam. So, did God create Adam to love him?
I remember Joe said two sentences when he was taken away: "I am." (pause) "I was.". As if an affirmation of all robots that they exist or have ever existed. Isn't that the case with humans?
It seems that while writing, I convince myself, so far, even my own thoughts have changed a bit.
For humans, giving robots emotions is nothing but a program, but what about robots? Since he has feelings, how can he turn a blind eye? It's as if his feelings are ignored, and he must feel uncomfortable. What about David? His love was more steadfast and deeper than any real human love, but he couldn't get a response, he couldn't get the love of the only mother he loved in the world, he couldn't even get pity--but only love Just what he needs! His pain should also be deeper, and his tears should be colder. Because to himself, he is a real boy.
Although I can't write film reviews at all, if I insist on some theoretical words, then I think this film does indeed reflect the aesthetic ideology of the film. It goes without saying that utilitarianism is not utilitarian; as a science fiction work, "science" represents rationality, and "illusion" represents image; the difficult question in the film fully reflects that it is knowledge, and the tears on the audience's faces also Suffice it to say that it is emotional. (It’s all my own opinion.)
Maybe one day, the difference between humans and robots is only biological attributes, and the differences in social attributes may have been eliminated by human beings themselves, which seems to achieve a kind of equality, but human beings Must be unhappy. So be happy for now.
At least now, there is no doubt that human beings have the right to "love" and "be loved". More importantly, it's not a program, it's an instinct of ours.
http://shawxx.spaces.live.com/blog/cns!C75C78C8E80335DE!124.entry
View more about A.I. Artificial Intelligence reviews
