this is very different from the book origins only a couple of names and the three laws of robotics. Asimov actually invented the term robot and created a series of shore stories that mostly involved strange outcomes from applications of the three laws by sometimes damaged robots in strange situations.
Some have said that you can view this as an unofficial prequel to The Matrix. If you've seen The Animatrix you can see why. It's pretty close in many ways. It doesn't hurt that it came out only a year after the last Matrix movie...
I Robot was a collection of the short stories published in Astounding Magazine. The story of this movie has no basis on any of those, but I find that it follows canon closely enough. Many other fans disagree. To be clear, Vicky planned to conquer the world to protect mankind. That's called the Zeroeth Law, that Asimov came up at the end of his career. Mind you, his idea of robots taking over was very different than this. BTW, I got nervous when you guys fingered Vicky at the start of the movie. It was amusing to watch you guys trying to figure it out, but never coming back to this theory until the third act. Nice misdirection job from the writers.
Yep, I saw it when I was a kid. It was probably one of Hollywood's early attempts at warning humanity about the possibility of AI going wrong and subjugating the world. And it did a really good job of it too.
so the film is based on Isaac Asimov's foundation series. however the movie only borrows a few elements of the books. namely the 3 laws, detective spooner and the robot. the rest of story is an original based on a spec script called hardwired. this was coming off the successful bad boys and men in black sequel.
@@SJHFoto even at the begining of the movie stayes it is based on the foundation stories. the script is an original idea. the studio was able to use the use name intellectual properties of the series. hence the inclusion of three laws, ans several characters. thats what based on means.
Creepiest Thumbnail of the year so far. As for the book it has no relation to the movie beyond Asimov's three laws of robotics. The book is a compendium of short stories that were originally published in magazines such as Astounding Science Fiction. The stories outlined the three laws and then in different ways explored why those laws could be flawed or even broken. The movie basically writes a completely new story with the three laws of robotics as its starting point.
Technically Dr. Susan Calvin is also in the book, but beyond her name and the fact she’s a roboticist there’s nothing linking her to the Susan Calvin in the film.
The three laws are perhaps the earliest exploration of the AI alignment problem, which boils down to the fact that it’s insanely difficult to explicitly codify human values. The whole point of the stories was to show the innumerable unforeseeable failure modes that arise when you try to explicitly enumerate moral priorities, and no amount of patching is sufficient to fix this fundamentally flawed approach.
@jacob4920 People who get too smart to remember the importance of knowing what they don't know have always been common. I suspect it's just easier to see with the ease with which it can be demonstrated to a broad audience these days.
"11% is more than enough." That line always stuck to me. The way humans are just reduced to numbers and then decided whether they are worth saving or not is cruel but they are robots. All they know is numbers.
"That was somebody's baby. 11% is more than enough." It doesn't matter what mood I'm in, that line always gets me a little choked up. I'm not sure why some people hate on this movie. While calling any work of art "harmless" comes dangerously close to an insult, this is good, harmless, fun, and everyone's doing their job just fine. I suppose some people might be offended that it isn't a straight up adaptation of Asimov's short story collection, but still...
11:17 "It's _crazy_ that they're demolishing this house with everything inside it." It's odd enough that they're demolishing it, _period,_ instead of just _selling_ it.
That was one of those movies where the marketing for it was SO different from what the film actually was. The goofy stuff is really just in the first 10 minutes, after that it's basically Spielberg's AI but with one fewer apocalypse (and almost as sad).
That's actually because the original story this movie is based on has a huge subtext about how mans folly and over reliance on technology was brought up by and because of how trees stopped fucking.
Asimov developed the "Three Laws of Robotics" - only to dismantle them and show their shortcomings and errors. As a science fiction fan, Asimov is kinda must read. There are several good books in and around his robots and universe.
Also, Foundation, the tv series, does a pretty good job of addressing the "problem" of robots, especially addressing the question of the three laws of robotics.
I am NOMAD. I am perfect. - Nomad. but, Nomad was programmed by Imperfect human. - KIRK . you Mistook James Kirk for Jackson Roykirk. - kirk. YOU , nomad are in ERROR , you must Sterilize. - kirk. error.....error......Sterilize.......error.....- NOMAD.
@@markplott4820 I was never an ST fan but I love the way they explore the deeper questions on artificial life that way. Especially the "Prove I'm sentient" argument from Picard.
Asimov's novels and short stories are great but I maintain you need to be at least a little on the spectrum to really enjoy them. He had an almost supernatural ability to make complex scientific concepts understandable but the way he wrote interpersonal interactions could be off putting to "normie" readers. Personally I love his work.
Always find it intriguing when movies influence real life like this. I always go back to demolition man. The futuristic logo of Taco Bell was later adopted as the real logo that we all see now. But it was originally created just for the movie to portray a futuristic version
Not quite true, the car used in the movie was a genuine pre-existing concept model, which was slightly altered to fit the futuristic setting. Like Bumblebee's Camaro form in Transformers, which was one of many concept cars sitting in a Chevrolet warehouse, that Michael Bay was shown when scouting for vehicles to use in that movie. The fact that audiences loved the design, made Chevrolet put that concept into production as the new Camaro. The Audi concept's use in I, Robot _may_ have influenced their design choice going forward, or they may have already been going in that direction. Lexus had one of their concept cars featured prominently in Minority Report but neither that vehicle, nor it's design elements ever went into production.
So, I’ve read the book multiple times and the book is fascinating. The book is a collection of short stories. Isaac Asimov establishes the 3 Laws of Robotics, and they seem simple and infallible. Each story in the book shows how the laws are not, and how things are much more complex in a real world application. The first story is a simple case of a robot pushing a little girl out of the way of an oncoming car. By pushing her it harms her, but if it had not acted, she would’ve died. So it broke the laws. Each story escalates in scale until the final story is robots taking over control of the world because humans cannot be trusted to rule, they will harm one another and robots cannot allow humans to come to harm through inaction. So in a digitally controlled world, the robots take over easily. This movie was an existing script that they grafted the 3 Laws into. Other than the laws it bares almost no resemblance to the book at all. I don’t hold that against the movie necessarily, because the book as is is unfilmable. But I don’t think it keeps the spirit of the book, or it could’ve been better. I also have always said that the story would be more impactful if Will Smith had been a believer just like everyone else, and come to the conclusion that robots are dangerous and were breaking the 3 Laws. To have him be the skeptic who nobody believes only to be proven right is no character arc for him. It would’ve been much more interesting if, like the characters in the book, he has to begin to consider that the 3 Laws are not perfect. Now that you have seen both The Crow and I, Robot, you guys need to see director Alex Proyas’s masterpiece, Dark City. Just be sure you watch the Directors Cut, because the studio mandated an opening narration in the theatrical cut that spoils everything (studios assuming people are idiots, who would’ve thunk it, right?). And some of Dark City’s sets were re-used by the next movie to be made in that studio and released a year later, something called The Matrix.
I still vividly remember that one story in the book where the supercomputer on the moon on which humanity's every single calculation depends upon, hypothesizes that humans are way too dependant on its calculations and can't do anything without his help, starts small experiments to screw calculations deliberately, but humans still believe it coz it's coming from the supercomputer. He then starts planning for human genocide but some scientists catch on to the plans and defeat the supercomputer by using the three laws against himself. I felt that story could be converted to a screenplay. I know there won't be any action, but it could be a thriller drama film
_the final story is robots taking over control of the world because humans cannot be trusted to rule, they will harm one another and robots cannot allow humans to come to harm through inaction_ That part at least is explored in the film, if little else. But I agree with you about making Spooner a believer, that would have been much more compelling I think.
That's not the first story, nor is it in the book at all. The first story is about a girl who has a robot for a nanny but the family gets rid of it because neighbors think its weird. They go to the city and the robot happens to be nearby and rescues her from a piece of machinery, making the family trust the robots again.
Have you not seen Boston Dynamics new humanoid robot? Or the humanoid robots working in Amazon warehouses now? We are MUCH closer to having humanoid robots out on the streets by 2035 than you think.
To be fair it's rather a.. "Sleep/update/out of commission" indicator.. TECHNICALLY all the new robots DID have the 3 laws of robotics and could never do this by themselves, they did this while being in direct contact with microsoft performing "important system updates".
This is something still seen in movies and media today. This is why the ending of the Wonder Woman film had her with golden-yellow power beams and the main bad guy had white/neon power beams. This is why the ending of WandaVision has Wanda with red power beams and the main bad guy with purple power beams. These CGI messes need a way to differentiate the good guys from the bad guys and color is an easy way to do so.
Ye i hate visual story telling. I prefer to be confused the whole time for no reason. Honestly i think every character in this movie should be played by will smith but everyone wears a different outfit. Then it would make the whole message stronger with every robot looking exactly the same with no color variations.
The book "I, Robot" is actually a collection of short stories that are set in the same fictional future, along with several of Isaac Asimov's novels. I read this collection back in 2004 after seeing the movie. Detective Spooner is a character created for the movie, but Dr. Lanning and Dr. Calvin are Asimov's. Calvin is a central character in some of the short stories, as well as novels written by others after Asimov's passing. Going by her description in the stories I read, she seems like more of an unglamorous Lili Taylor-type instead of a woman who could've been a professional model (as Bridget Moynahan was before she became an actor). One story that I remember more clearly than the others involved a robot that was doing something dangerous unwittingly, so Dr. Cavlin put herself in danger, which prompted the robot to stop what it was doing and save her life instead. Clever! When the movie came out, the famous film critic Roger Ebert complained that the story gave credit for the "three laws" to the fictional Dr. Lanning instead of to Asimov. I thought this was a strange complaint--it would be like calling Stephen King one of the founders of the town Castle Rock, or naming J.K. Rowling as the architect of Hogwarts School Of Witchcraft And Wizardry. Upon reading a few relevant Wikipedia pages, I discovered that The movie's script is not actually an action movie adaptation of Asimov's work, but started as an original screenplay featuring a "Detective Spooner" that was to become a action movie with Asimov characters and the famous "three laws". Here's the confusing part: Dr. Alfred Lanning is a character who appears in BOTH Asimov's writing AND the original screenplay by Jeff Vintar. (scoffs) Hollywood! Am I right? Since I haven't read Vintar's script, I can only go by what's written on the film's Wiki page, which credits Vintar with the characters of Sonny and VIKI. I didn't know any of this until today, so thanks for reacting to the movie and encouraging me to do some rudimentary research.
cheers mate i read the story decades ago but didnt know it was its own little universe so i'll check them out now, wasnt calvin like an 80yr old in the books? also i think you might like the dark tower series by stephen king start with the gunslinger the first book and quite short but each book gets bigger and bigger😁
Yeah, the movie has very little to do with the book, which is a series of short stories which sets out the "Three Laws of Robotics" and explores the paradoxes that they could produce. The movie is just puts a few characters from the book into a lot of action sequences.
I think the movie is closer to Robots of Dawn, in terms of a Police detective investigating the "death" of a robot, but still a completely different plot.
@@glasgowjohn7831 I don't recall reading anything specific about Calvin's age, but the stories cover a number of years, so I think how old she is varies from book to book.
I was laughing so hard after “nice, nailed it” @33:57I had to rewind twice… You two really are my fav reactors and have been for what, like 3 years now? Idr when I found your page but I wish you had far FAR more subscribers than you do cuz damn your personalities and commentaries are actually enjoyable and contribute to the whole experience. You’re both self-aware, intelligent, genuine, compassionate people and I appreciate your existence.
The Asimov Robot-books plus the Foundation-Trilogy plus the book-sequels altogether are 18 big books (belonging together) and span a time-period of at least 20.000 years. It is one of the greatest things I have read in my life.
The movie is a totally different story to the book. The book was more a collection of short stories that showed situations where robots appeared to have malfunctioned, but were shown to be still following the 3 Laws.
Another request for you to watch Dark City from the director of this and The Crow. Dark City is a must watch masterpiece whereas I Robot is a fun popcorn flick with some philosophical musings. *However* when you do watch it either watch the Director's cut or mute the sound at the start until you see a pocketwatch. The studio mandated that the cinema version have a voiceover introduction that spoils/explains the plot as they thought audiences would be to stupid to understand it. Think of it as watching the Sixth Sense with an introduction that just gives away the plot twist right at the start because 'you might not get it otherwise'. Personally, If it weren't for the spoiler opening I'd prefer the cinema release to the director's cut... but that voiceover is a real deal breaker.
The difference is that Sandra Bullock's character is fascinated by the 20th century, and is surprised and more than willing to reciprocate when kissed.
9:00 Possibly my favourite exchange of the whole movie, and was fairly impactful back when this came out in my youth. Spooner is bringing up all the artistic talents and capabilities of humanity and "can you do these things" as reasons that robots are lesser in his eyes (based on his projection/bias from his accident-induced trauma), and the way Alan Tudyk delivers the simple line of "Can you?" just hits perfectly. It isn't delivered sarcastically (maybe with just a hint of 'I wonder if you could'), there's actual inquisitiveness in Sonny's voice where you can see him having a positive emotion towards the concepts of self-expression and creativity - but at the same time, it shows that many things that humans pride themselves on as examples of our potential, are things that only a handful of us can actually do. At least for me, it instills a bit of fear of the potential of robotics/AI - if all the things that we hold up as human can be programmed into a machine, how would we ever consider ourselves "greater than" or "in control of" our creation?
Yeah, while I might "enjoy" it as a generic sci-fi action movie, I also HATE it (like the OG Dungeons & Dragons movie) because it feels like such a bait & switch! (Both have barely ANYTHING to do with their respective namesakes! Which I find insulting.)
There is not really a single book here. Asimov is the most prolific SF writer ever with 500+ novels, but the robot series is mostly comprised of short stories (of which he also wrote hundreds). The 0th law is actually in one of the R. Daneel Olivaw books, a character also used in his later Foundation books, in which he bridged his Foundation universe and the robot universe together. 'I Robot' is the title of one of his short story collections, so not the title of a novel. Action stuff aside, I find this movie to be very well in spirit of those stories. The breadcrumb way of coming to a conclusion is featured in lots of them. The 0th law is a typical reveal. And the philosophy was very prominent. I'd love it if more movies stayed as close to their source material as this movie was.
This comment might ruin your enjoyment of this movie... The laws of robotics that they showed at the beginning make the events of this movie IMPOSSIBLE. The events of this movie also NEVER happened in the source material.
I'm not a big fan of this movie. It took Asimov's wonderful short stories exploring the nature of humanity via the inhuman and turned it into an action-adventure flick - and a rather dull one at that.
After learning what kind of person the guy playing Reese is and was during the production of that show - saying things like how great a person Hitler was, talking to an Asian studio executive in a mock Chinese accent and claiming he was actually speaking Chinese, refusing having his character enter a relationship with Carter because she was black (though he hated improvised a kiss with her), initially refusing to have his character save a gay couple, until he was told the firefighters on 9/11 would've done it, and many more things - that show lost all appeal to me.
@@mulrich Well yes, him being a gigantic P.O.S. in real life certainly casts a shadow over things. However, I now feel much better about what ultimately happened to his character. Come to think of it, they had started to deliberately sideline his character a little in the later seasons. The official reason was that the fight scenes were starting to wear on his body, which is why they introduced Sarah Shahi's character to take over much of the physical action. But now I wonder if the actual reason was because everyone wanted to work with him as little as possible.
@@connorglaze538 I could maybe see this as something other than a joke if Neanderthals had any sense of self. Which they didn't have to our knowledge. Regardless you clearly understand my point.
@@Cimo8Where do you get the idea that they had no sense of self? First of all the neanderthals weren't the only ones responsible for cave painting, homosapians also did. We have seen grave goods and funerary ritual used in neanderthal burials. We have noted self awareness in several species of animal outside the human branch so why would you assume ANY human species didn't have a sense of self? Sure, we have no living subject to question but everything we know about them points to a close knit familial group with ritual and art and a sense of loss.
Terminator: The Sarah Conner Chronicles actually deals with the growth of an AI as one of its plotlines. Starting off with it being very simple and then how it learned and got became more complicated. It was definitely an interesting plot line for the whole thing to go down and definitely a fresh take for the franchise hinting that they're actually may have been more than one AI at work in the future besides skynet. Which is pretty damn cool.
As others have pointed out, this movie bears very little resemblance to the book it takes its name from (actually a collection of short stories).The works of Isaac Asimov are weirdly underrepresented in the world of cinema, given how foundational (heh) his library is to the sci fi genre. His robot series which follows the robot detective R. Daneel and his human partner Elijah Bailey in particular seems like they’re just begging for adaptation, as their structure is more or less a buddy cop mystery. It’s right there, why doesn’t anyone run with it?
In Asimov's various "robot books," one eventually did come up with the "Zeroth Law": a robot cannot through action or inaction allow harm to the human race. That's what Viki came up with in this movie. It was just never called such.
Um... the three laws were in the stories of the book. Let's see... oh, there were robots in both the book and movie. Um, both were in English. I think that's about it as far as the similarities go.
This movie gets talked about. BUT there is another Science Fiction movie which is VERY SIMILAR to this movie down right to the casting called "SURROGATES (2009)" starring Bruce Willis! That movie does not get the attention as much.
This is not based on the Robot books. Only the three laws (and some character names) were used. The concept is simar though. Asimov wrote the three laws into his world as a "perfect system", then wrote stories where the laws are circumvented in unexpected ways, showing that perfect systems always have flaws.
Probably a more authentic Asimov treatment of a robot would be in "Bicentennial Man" (1999). That film is panned for being as boring as already dried paint, but it's also probably a lot closer to a faithful rendition of Golden Age scifi (though published in 1992 from an earlier treatment in 1976). They added a couple of subplots and changed the ending a bit to try to make it less boring, but other than that, it's pretty close. Possibly adding the subplots was a mistake, as the movie could have been shorter. Another Will Smith film in the "paranoid-but-with-good-cause" genre, but a few years earlier, is "Enemy of the State" (1998).
I don't much care for this movie, it's a bit all over the place and Will Smith just plays himself on autopilot.. But I highly recommend Dark City by the same director Alex Proyas. That movie is awesome.
Aside from the robots running amuck, I can't wait for AI to reach this level. With too many people wanting $20 an hour to do unskilled jobs, this will be the next step for mankind. Employees that don't require sleep, a paycheck, or benefits, and, most importantly, will do what they were trained (programmed) to do, how they were trained to do it EVERY TIME. Job performance won't be effected by emotion, personal bias, attitude, laziness or prejudice. 24 hour shipping and delivery, security, sanitation service, production. Who would you rather have taking care of you when you get old, a robot who has been programmed to perform all functions to meet your needs- help you up, bath you, wipe your a$$, be your PT, call for help when needed, perform first aid, or, a human who's only working this job because it's all they can get and they really don't care about you? Do you think there would ever be hidden camera footage of a robot hitting or mistreating your grandmother and leaving her a pile of her own feces all night? Only if they were programmed to.
Like a lot of people had commented, this has a couple of superficial things related to the original book series. However, one of books did involve a detective investigating the murder of a robotics scientist that is complicated by his new robot partner being a replica of said scientist.
Your second Proyas movie! Between this and The Crow, seemed you enjoyed both. The later stuff he directed gets worse and worse unfortunately, but if you liked The Crow & I, Robot, you both really check out Dark City from 1998. Detective mystery vibes like this, but really out-there and trippy/creative, easily the best movie by this director. I think you'd both be into it.
The movie has almost no connection to the original Asimov stories. That said, although they don't name it in the movie, Viki voices what was called the "Zeroth Law of Robotics" in the books, which is: "A robot cannot harm humanity, or through inaction allow humanity to come to harm". The other laws were modified to include this new law, but only for two robots.
This movie is very underrated. It’s a bad adaptation of the Isaac Asimov story. But it’s a very good action/sci-fi flick on its own merit. Another underrated action/sci-fi involving a rogue AI is ‘Eagle Eye.’ It’s worth a watch.
The movie picks up a lot of themes from across Asimov's robot stories. VIKI's modification to her understanding of the Three Laws resembles that of a more good-guy robot in the later novels, who developed a "Zeroth Law" - a robot must not harm humanity or, through inaction, allow humanity to harm itself - that took precedence over the Three Laws, but only just barely.
The only thing this film has in common with anything written by the great Issac Asimov, is the title. The screenwriter has clearly read some Asimov, but just as clearly, didn't understand any of it. By the way; if you want to do your mind an unbelievable kindness, buy and read Asimov's 'Caves of Steel' and then get the next book in the series and keep going.
He brought her baby back by giving him the robotic arm and maybe saving his life. Remember at the beginning the dead guy hologram said "good to see you again son" and he programmed a call to him specifically
I strongly, strongly recommend reading the book. It's so much better than the movie, and it showcases the *opposite* conclusion about what AI "taking over" humanity really means for us as a species.
To see AI being trained, from the start, check out Terminator, the Sarah Connor Chronicles, quite frankly better than any of the movies, too bad it got cancelled during writers strikes.
The creators of this film were, I think, a bit overambitious with their desire to utilize CGI. The movie itself is still solid story-wise. The visuals, however, have aged like milk.
The movie was extremely fun but they could've explored the fundamental flaws of Asimov's three laws a bit more, they were written as a way to expose the imperfections present in them in the first place. They don't actually poke any holes in VIKI's logic when there are many. It's performances like this that makes me wonder why Will Smith was so slandered as an actor before King Richard, you could feel his emotions when recounting the inhumanity of saving someone based on percentages instead of empathy. (Of course he then slandered himself after King Richard) I still quote "excuse me, I'm just allergic to bullshit" regularly.
The part about why he was slandered before king Richard, well some people know things before the rest of us. Look at Seth McFarlane making fun of Weinstein before it was public.
The "book" I, Robot is a collection of short stories published together in 1950. As others have mentioned this isn't based on any of them and had the three laws tacked on to an existing screenplay. One fun fact is that there was a short story published in 1939 with the same name by Eando Binder and it was an inspiration for Asimov. He himself attributed it to the story by Binder and said the publisher chose the title over his objections.
The movie's not based on the short stories explicitly, but some scenes and the entire overarching plot are definitely heavily inspired by them. The scene where Sonny is hiding among the other 1,000 robots is directly inspired by Little Lost Robot; it has almost the exact same setup but becomes an investigation rather than an action scene. And Viki's entire reasoning is exactly what is discussed in The Evitable Conflict
Thank you for this comment. The Dresden Files(Fantasy) has a character named Binder(Earnest Armand Tinwhistle) who binds creatures from the Nevernever to his will. I had no idea!
To answer a direct qustion from someone who has read 'The Book': * First off, it's more like a series of short stories, each one exploring a different concept of the problem with robotics. * Susan Calvin is unreasonably attractive and impossibly naive in this film. The Asimov Susan Calvin is more like Granny Weatherwax in Terry Pratchett''s Discworld. Brirlliant beyond compare but personally unlikeable. * The movie is fucking great nonetheless. It managed to bring a level of human connection to Asimov's clever but coldly resonating prose. It made my girlfriend cry over a fucking robot! * They tried to do too much in too short a time. This should have been several movies, not just the one. * Book Susan Calvin would have killed Sonny herself in five minutes. In fact, in one of the stories, she did. She's just that kind of a cold-hearted bi*ch.
Regarding a somewhat different take on A.I., there's Duncan Jones' "Moon" from 2009, starring Sam Rockwell, and well worth a watch. Also, this movie is way more entertaining than I remember. Time for a re-watch. Thanks for the reaction!
At the end when Spooner is jumping around the catwalk area at the top of the building his head detatches from his body. It made it into the final cut of the film.
A fun movie but damn did they take liberties with the story. Pretty much all the action sequences were created out of whole cloth. And the exploration of the three laws of robotics that were so central to the overriding theme of the short stories seems to be treated as the B-plot.
The worst book to movie adaptation ever and thats saying something considering i am legend. But Will Smith, woo, haha haha ... Edit; actually, Enders Game is worse but this one is a close second
This movie was more than solid, and while Will Smith isn't playing anyone besides himself here, this is probably my favorite movie that he stars in.(keep in mind I haven't seen many). LOL Decent little mystery going on, nothing world shattering, and all the characters play their parts well, and the robot sci-fi angle is of course the glue that keeps it all together. Whenever this plays on one of my streaming channels, I always give it a go, and it never disappoints.
Guys, stop trying to figure the entire film out only 10 minutes in. Drives me mad. Small comments, not huge dialogues. I think y’all miss so much while talking.
I like hearing what Simone and George have to say. The good news is you can always watch the movie itself instead of a reaction video, that way there's no one talking over the movie at all lol
The original stories were, with exceptions, logic puzzles. Robot is bound to these behaviors, yet seems to behave outside them or exibit OTHER extraordinary behavior-- the robots aren't sentient, so what chain of logic lead to this and how is it untangled? My favorite one though is one where a mother comes to believe that their elderly, slightly malfunctioning robot who is their little girl's best friend might one day snap and decide to attack her. She orders her husband to return it to the factory. The little girl misses her robot friend though, and so they take her to pick out a newer model. Their old robot has now been employed in the very warehouse they're visiting, and one of the automated forklifts loaded with steel suddenly malfunctions and comes within a blink of smashing the girl. Before the parents can even think to move, their old robot is already across the factory and leaping to safety with the girl in it's arms. It winds up coming back home with them.
Why does Spooner hate robots for saving his life but not the girl? The robot only did the most logical thing. The police should hate negligent drivers, not the technology that prevents accidents.
