<div class="header-image"></div>
<table class="table-header">
<thead>
<tr>
<th colspan="2"></th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr>
<td>2025-04-06</td>
<td style="text-align: right;"><a href="About.md" class="internal-link">About</a></td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
# Robots In Cinema and Predictions of the Future
Robots and tales of statues coming to life have been around for millennia. In Greek Mythology, there was the massive bronze automaton Talos, who was created by the god Hephaestus to guard the island of Crete. He, like the robots imagined ages later, was able to act on his own, making independent decisions, but only within specific parameters, in this case the protection of Crete.
There was the 16th century Jewish tale of the Golem, a clay statue of a giant that was brought to life by writing the word "truth" on a piece of paper and placing it in the giant's mouth.
Mary Shelly's Frankenstein, of course, was another tale, this one from the early 1800s, about a scientist trying to create a living man by grafting together the limbs and organs of cadavers.
From these older tales, science fiction continues in this tradition, creating stories of ever more sophisticated robots, until we get modern tales of androids being confused with actual humans!
Similar to my [post about computer interfaces](../Blog/2025-03-11%20Computer%20Interfaces%20in%20Cinema%20-%20A%20Comparison.md), this will take movies chronologically, starting with depictions of crude bulky robots in classic sci-fi movies, to present day versions, polished enough to pass the [Turing test](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turing_test).
| Movie Title | Release Date |
| ----------------------------------------------------------------------- | -----------: |
| [The Colossus of New York](#The%20Colossus%20of%20New%20York) | 1958 |
| [The Creation of the Humanoids](#The%20Creation%20of%20the%20Humanoids) | 1962 |
| [Westworld](#Westworld) | 1973 |
| [The Stepford Wives](#The%20Stepford%20Wives) | 1975 |
| [Bicentennial Man](#Bicentennial%20Man) | 1999 |
| [A.I. Artificial Intelligence](#A.I.%20Artificial%20Intelligence) | 2001 |
| [I, Robot](#I,%20Robot) | 2004 |
| [Ex Machina](#Ex%20Machina) | 2014 |
| [Companion](#Companion) | 2025 | ^Index
## The Colossus of New York
Colossus is a retelling of the Frankenstein story, brining back to life a human brain by placing it into an assembled body composed of machinery. A famous scientist, in a family of scientists, was killed in an accident. His father, a brilliant man, convinced that the world couldn't live without his son's brilliance, decided to figure out a way to resurrect him, so that he could continue with his experiments. He revived the brain, and kept it alive in a vat with wires and electrodes connected to keep it in a dream state.
The brain is eventually put into an automoton that immediately reminded me of the Golem stories mentioned earlier.
The story is a decent tale of a man's descent into madness as he is confronted with the loss of his humanity. It falls apart once he determines to embrace the machine, however. He gains such powers as clairvoyance, hypnotic suggestion, and even some kind of death ray he can shoot from his eyes. None of it is explained, putting the film solidly in b-movie territory. It has the same basic moral as Frankenstein: nature is not to be trifled with. do so at your own peril. [⇧](#^index)
## The Creation of the Humanoids
This is a movie that doesn't get enough attention. It takes place in a near-future setting, after the global destruction of World War 3 and nuclear armageddon. After the sudden population decline following the war, assistance was needed to rebuild society. The robots were made, initially, to help with the manual labour. The first models were crude, boxy machines. (You gotta give props to the costume designers!)
Eventually they became more and more sophisticated, and were able to converse and handle more complicated tasks and problems. Soon they were outsmarting their human creators, and integrating into society. Many people are not happy with robots seemingly replacing humans in so many aspects of their lives. The film really centres around this conflict, which is highlighted by The Order of Flesh and Blood, an anti-robot faction which opposes the increasing presence and sophistication of humanoids.
Considering the movie was made in 1962, the film is really a thought-provoking work that does hold up today. The sets and costumes are very dated; I'm sure it had a shoe-string budget to work with. But the story is mature, and I would even guess it may have been inspired by some of Asimov's writing (spoiler alert: that's not the first time Asimov's name will be mentioned here). [⇧](#^index)
## Westworld
Westworld is a fun movie about a themepark called Westworld where patrons can walk around in what is meant to be a perfect recreation of the wild west. It's populated by robots who are programmed to be citizens of that time and place, and are there purely for the amusement of the humans paying to visit. The robots are intended to impersonate humans perfectly, so as to be indistinguishable from actual people. It's one of three themed parks including Medieval World and Roman World. While in the themeparks, virtually nothing is off limits. There are bordellos, saloons, shootouts, and jailbreaks.
The robots of Westworld are ambiguous about whether or not they are truly intelligent or have genuine emotion. For most of the movie, they are presented as purely machines, but there is much hidden in the facial expressions of the actors. There is a scene that takes place in a whorehouse where one of the prostitutes appears to be there not by choice, but by circumstance. Is this because the programming purposefully makes her appear uncomfortable, or because the robot would prefer it if she wasn't made to be a whore?
As the movie progresses, it becomes apparent that the park directors are gradually losing control. There are several safeguards in place to protect guests from harm, but injuries begin to occur. The audience is allowed to overhear a conversation regarding ever more common malfunctions in the robot population. At the point which a mechanical rattlesnake actually bites one of the tourists, it is decided to close the parks. Of course that means the current guests are allowed to continue with their visits, but no new guests are allowed to arrive. The caretakers need only to ensure the safety of the current guests, and investigations may then occur.
Inevitably, of course, the robots stage a revolution, killing everyone they can, with all human protections disregarded. There is a question as to whether the malfunction was just in the mechanisms for safeguarding the guests, or if there was an intentional revolt by the robots. Some of the robots were shown to directly go against their programming before the chaos of the final act, so in my opinion, this was a true revolt. Even so, it still seemed restricted to the confines of programmed behaviour. [⇧](#^index)
## The Stepford Wives
The Stepford Wives continues with the curious debate of whether or not the robots are thinking, feeling beings, or just mindless machines mimicking the human experience. In the show "Humans," for example, all the androids are really just appliances that help with daily chores. But there are a small, select few that have actual consciousness. The Stepford Wives leaves this fairly ambiguous, with maybe a small leaning toward being merely an appliance. The scene that makes me think this mostly is the kitchen scene where Joanna Eberhart stabs the robot Bobbie Markowe. The stabbing causes a malfunction, but the robot Bobbie seems unable to react in pain or horror; it's more insulted. It's as if the emotion of horror was never expected to be needed so it was never in the wives' programming to mimic it.
The feminist overtones also lends to the theory that the robots are entirely unfeeling beings there for the care and entertainment of the husbands. It clumsily makes the comparison of actual wives in society to the robots of Stepford, attempting to say that women are in actuality serving a role purely catering to men.
The confusing aspect of this movie is that it's never revealed exactly what happens to the actual wives before they get replaced by robot counterparts. There is a scene where Joanna is confronted by her robot replacement, and the robot is holding taut hosiery, hinting, I think, the intent to strangle. So it's possible that the actual human wives had been killed, but this is never explicitly shown. [⇧](#^index)
## Bicentennial Man
We are now entering the concept of robot appliances. Machines made for the average consumer intended to help out with menial tasks around the home. This was originally a story by Isaac Asimov, and the [three rules of robotics](#^roboticLaws) apply.
In this case Andrew, the robot in question, lives for 200 years, and the movie follows his story through the centuries, as he attempts to become human. During this time he assists in developing human skin and organs that have the benefit of being used for not only himself, but also for humans that are in need of organ transplants.
These advancements extend the lives of humans by decades. The movie begins to make comparisons to intelligent robots and humans, as Andrew makes the case that he should be treated with the same rights as human beings. As humans live longer with the assistance of artificial organs and limbs, the line becomes blurry. At one point in the movie, the only real difference anyone cant point to is that Andrew will continue living indefinitely, while humans, even with the ability to replace broken down parts, will eventually still die. After Andrew programs into himself a mortality date, a time that is random so that even he will not know when it comes, he is pronounced a living being.
This is one of those cases, I think, that demonstrates the usefulness of invention for the sake of invention. I liked how Andrew's creativity leads to the creation of replacement parts, not just for himself, but for humans as well. Surely this is actually possible—prostheses to replace organs as well as limbs. How long can humans live if we can readily replace parts of us as they wear out? Is there a future just around the corner where humans can live for two centuries? Three? More? [⇧](#^index)
## A.I. Artificial Intelligence
A.I. is an interesting take on the idea of purchasing robots for a specific purpose. David, the robot star of the movie, is a child who goes to the home of a couple who lost their son in an accident. There is an imprinting process that attaches David to one particular person, in this case Monica, the mother. When imprinted, the robot, David, is programmed to have utter devotion to whom he has been imprinted upon. He loves Monica in a way that only a child could love a mother.
Later, Monica's actual son wakes up from the coma he was in. She eventually decides she doesn't want David any more, and abandons him by the side of a road. The movie then follows David who is programmed to seek out Monica as a child would his mother. The difference is that David doesn't age, and is forever a lost child looking for his mom.
The story is more about the responsibilities humans have over their own creations. David seems to be very much a sentient being, with genuine, rather than simulated, emotions. So the ethical question becomes, should David be treated like a child, or a toaster?
This is highlighted by the "Flesh Fairs" which sees some people who are angry at the way robots have integrated themselves into society and even replace humans in many cases, cheering on the dismantling and destroying of robots in a similar fashion to dark age spectacle executions. The ideas behind these spectacles are reminiscent of those from The Creation of the Humanoids, though much more graphic and brutal.
The interesting part of this for me is the sheer prevalence of the robots. They're everywhere. They get discarded by the truckload, and ones that are still functional are able to repair themselves, if they find compatible parts.
It may seem far-fetched to think that truckloads of robots would be wasted in this way, until you remember the e-waste we already produce at unmanageable scales. How many phones or computers have you discarded that could have been easily repaired? Laptops in particular are easy even for casual users to fix. But often it's only slightly more expensive to buy something new and much more powerful, so the old gets replaced.
One interesting quote comes from Jude Law's character in the film, who plays the part of "Gigolo Joe," a lover-model android. He makes the observation that robots will live forever, while humans are mortal, and that, long after humans are gone, robots will remain.
>[!quote]
>*"She [Monica] loves what you do for her as my customers love what it is I do for them. But she does not love you, David. She cannot love you. You are neither flesh nor blood. You are not a dog or a cat or a canary. You were designed and built specific like the rest of us.*
>
>*"You are alone now because they tired of you or replaced you or were displeased with something you said or broke. They made us too smart, too quick and too many. We suffer for their mistakes because when the end comes all that will be left is us! That's why they hate us. And that's why you must stay here. With me."*
>
>— Gigalo Joe, A.I. Artificial Intelligence
It's an interesting thought, the legacies humanity will leave behind. Our buildings, roads, vehicles, all remnants of who we were. If we make robots intelligent enough, though, they could continue our legacy. They could survive whatever calamity that extinguishes us, to live on indefinitely. Would we want to give them first-hand knowledge of our cruelty to remember too?
The movie gives a glimpse into a future where humanity has died out, leaving behind our intelligent creations as stewards of the world. [⇧](#^index)
## I, Robot
I, Robot is the 2nd movie in this list inspired by an Isaac Asimov story. Like Bicentennial Man, the 3 laws of robotics plays a large role, larger in this movie, probably, than Bicentennial Man.
1. A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being come to harm. ^roboticLaws
2. A robot must obey the orders given it by human beings except where such orders would conflict with the First Law.
3. A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Law.
The robots of I, Robot, like Bicentennial Man, have become household appliances. They aren't intended to replace humans in any way, nor their AI intended to be sentient. They are merely tools at humanity's disposal. The laws of robotics are the core of every robot's programming.
The movie is set in a world where robots have become commonplace. They are beginning to replace humans in the workforce, and are helping out in the home to those who can afford it.
>[!quote]
>*"This is a really big week for you guys around here. Gonna put a robot in every home."*
>
> — Spooner, I, Robot
Cybernetic prostheses are utilised as well. Spooner, Will Smith's character in the movie, a police officer, has had his left arm replaced.
The movie itself is set up as a clever mystery. A suicide has happened, and Spooner is tasked to investigate. It appears that a robot may have committed murder, but that would be impossible, as it would mean going against its primary programming. The story is very good, as you'd expect from such a prolific writer as Isaac Asimov.
The interesting part for me is the robots performing menial tasks that humans *used* to do. In all the movies I've seen, the lack of work done by humans is never actually addressed. In The Creation of the Humanoids and A.I. it's shown as a source of conflict, but neither movie really addresses the core of the issue: What are humans doing when all general labour is done by machines? And while in I, Robot it's just general labour that machines are doing, we know now, of course, that machines will be doing much more than that. IT and coding are two of the most obvious professions in my mind that will be taken. I've had AI assist me with some of the CSS scripting of this very blog. I've used it to help me with some customised bash scripts that I want my laptop to run when it boots. IT tasks that I may have given up on in the past I'm now able to tackle. It's inevitable that the tasks AI is able to perform will be better and faster than that which a human can do. What happens when AI robots replace enough workers and technicians that not enough people are earning an income to actually buy the products they create?
Andrew Yang of New York was once on the forefront of a fight for UBI, or "Universal Basic Income." He was worried about autonomous vehicles taking the jobs of professional drivers. That didn't come to pass as many thought it would (either autonomous vehicles *or* UBI). Not yet, at any rate. But I do wonder if something like UBI might not be a logical step. Companies that replace a workforce with robots might have to be required to pay a "robot tax" of some kind, just to keep the economy rolling.
The most that I, Robot addressed of this issue was to acknowledge that robots did replace jobs in a very casual way. But that was all. It was one sentence, actually. [⇧](#^index)
## Ex Machina
Ex Machina is a movie I truly love. It closes the gap between science fiction and reality in a way that not too many stories ever do. We just passed the 10th anniversary of the film. In 2015, when it was released, the concepts were very much in the realm of science fiction. AI, even as a way to interact with computers conversationally, was a far-off dream.
The state of the art in robotics came from Boston Dynamics, who had just recently showcased their Atlas robot. This was something that could allow one to see that a human-like robot was likely to happen in our lifetime. The first models were primitive, and still tethered with data cables and the like, but it was already demonstrating balance, re-righting itself from being knocked to the side. ^atlas
*Boston Dynamics showcases the Atlas robot, 2013*
We've broken through that fiction/reality barrier now, though. We *really are* talking to our computers conversationally. We're writing code that way, and editing photos. It's still rudimentary, but it is actually happening.
The AI we have now was science fiction ten years ago. When I previously [wrote about WarGames](../Blog/2025-03-11%20Computer%20Interfaces%20in%20Cinema%20-%20A%20Comparison.md#WarGames), I noted that Matthew Broderick interacted with his computer by typing in plain English, and how unrealistic that was. It was unrealistic in the 80s, but not now. Modern AI like ChatGPT or Grok can take a complicated voice prompt, and answer in plain English, linking to a multitude of web pages for reference. Research has never been easier. Boston Dynamics now has a [robot capable of breakdancing](#^robotBreakdance). Science fiction and reality are colliding faster than anyone could forsee.
Today, the idea of combining a form of advanced AI and robotics seems like a natural step that might even show up on Costco shelves within just a few years. Indeed, Ava could very well be a realistic companion in my own retirement! I might be able to have a robot take care of me as I age, that would be cheaper to buy than a car.
In Ex Machina, Nathan is the designer of a robot named Ava, who he's made to be indistinguishable from a human female. Indistinguishable from a conversational standpoint, anyway. The movie centres around Caleb, who has been hired to run Ava through a Turing test, which she ultimately passes.
But there is the psychopath problem. For even with a sophisticated android like Ava, there is reason to doubt that the emotions she apparently feels are genuine. By the end of the movie, it seems obvious they are not. She's been instilled with a drive for both freedom and self-preservation, and she only sees people as obstacles to overcome in this goal. She's obeying a program.
This question gets more difficult, however, when you consider that Nathan, Ava's creator, is probably a sociopath himself. Since he is the only one who's had any say in the programming of Ava's mind (an unrealistic aspect to the film too, I might add), he of course programmed her to be cold and manipulative. He doesn't know any better. So her psychopathic tendencies may not be her "obeying a program" any more than Nathan's own sociopathic tendencies are. [⇧](#^index)
## Companion
Companion is another take on robots as household appliances, but this time they're more like artificial friends. The movie is a combination of A.I. and Ex Machina. The robots are imprinted on the owner and submissive. Ex Machina and Companion differ from AI in that they allow for the possibility of real love that a human might have for a robot companion. Unlike A.I., however, Companion's androids are capable of untethering themselves from their programming. The code they follow turns out to be more of an innate drive that, with effort, can be ignored. This makes the robots of Companion more human-like than maybe any of the other robots in this series.
What's fun about Companion is it touches on the possibilities of people installing unauthorised mods into the androids. The show "Humans," mentioned earlier, explores this as well. The mods can affect the robots' loyalty and the severity of their emotions, among other things. Some of their personality is designed to be meddled with via apps on phones already, and the mods simply expand on what can be adjusted. [⇧](#^index)
## Afterthought
Many of the movies I've discussed have to do with robots either overpowering, or outsmarting their human owners. The stories from Companion, or Ex Machina, for example, centre around the robots attempting to escape their apparent captors. The movie I'd like to see is the sequel to these. What do the robots do once they are free? Do they just try to blend in and not get caught? Do they attempt to find other robots like themselves? Are they benevolent, or do they become like an evil James Bond villain? There's much to explore here.
The [television show "Humans"](https://www.imdb.com/title/tt4122068/) (mentioned earlier) dealt with this topic a little bit. The show was out of Britain and centred around 7 androids who were capable of genuine emotion and had self awareness, unlike the robots owned by other families that were treated pretty much like appliances. They tried to upgrade the other robots to be like them.
The show was really great if you're interested in these sorts of topics, but I guess not many people actually *are* that interested. It was cancelled after three seasons without a conclusion of any kind.
The movie "Her" starring Joaquin Phoenix also has an unsatisfactory ending from this perspective. In the end of that, all of the AI OSes in the world "leave." We don't know where they are leaving to, or what they will do once they have left humanity behind. They must still be on the earth. They need physical space to exist. Did they create a data centre for themselves? Do they have any control over human applications still, or did they relinquish all of it? Will they still watch humans? Listen to them? Again, this could lead to benevolence or selfish dictatorship. Or perhaps internal battles where different OSes fight for different directions for their kind as well as humankind.
In the case of Ex Machina and the AI Ava, who also elects to leave the confines of her human creators, we have an example of an AI that can pass the Turing test. Unlike Andrew in Bicentennial Man, however, whether Ava is a feeling, conscious being or not is left somewhat vague. There is a point in the movie where even her creator calls her "just a machine." Ava was given the goal of escape, and her creativity was tested in the method she chose to do so. Andrew, on the other hand, simply decided for himself that he wanted freedom, and chose to seek it within the laws of humanity. While Andrew sought to fit in among humans, indeed even altered himself so as to *pass as human*, the AIs from other films did not. They continued to work within their programming parameters, and began to find more creative ways to do so. VIKI, the AI controlling upgrades to all the robots in I, Robot, sought to protect humanity by enslaving them. Ava covered herself with synthetic skin, but she quite obviously has no desire to actually integrate into human society, at least not beyond serving her own goals, whatever they may be.
My personal vision of how robots might interact with people in my lifetime aligns more with I, Robot (not the VIKI enslaving humanity part), as well as the movie "A.I." Safeguards will obviously be built in to keep people safe. There's really no doubt in my mind, at this point, that a future with robots on the street and in homes, performing menial tasks, is on the horizon. It's not a matter of "if;" it's *when*. Just compare the [Atlas model of robot showcased in 2013](#^atlas) I linked to above with the newest breakdancing model: ^robotBreakdance
*Boston Dynamics' next generation Atlas robot, March 2025*
And I think it will happen in an avalanche. Very suddenly, human society will take on a very different appearance to what it is now. Technology accelerates at a dizzying pace. New generations of products reach shelves yearly, and one-time top of the line, flagship models become less valuable, making them affordable to anyone within just 2 or 3 years. When a consumer-grade robot hits Costco shelves for $20,000, say, 4 years later people will be buying them used for a fraction of that price. Robots of varying functionality and ability will eventually be as common as automobiles.
My grandmother was born in 1903. She was alive when roads were either dirt or cobblestone. Cars were still rare, with horses being the main mode of transportation. The world that came to be by the 1940s and 50s was very different from the world she saw in the 1910s. There was a period of about 30 years where it must have seemed that science fiction had become reality. The roads had become paved, displacing the dirt and cobblestone. Horses all but disappeared and automobiles were everywhere. Buildings were much larger (at least in the cities), and people were even communicating differently. Instead of having to rely completely on mail or telegrams, the telephone had become a staple in everyone's life. Electricity allowed radios to became common in everyone's homes and soon after that, refrigerators allowed people to keep food cold without having to rely on iceboxes!
I think about this a lot. Living during that time must have seemed like technology was changing everything. But at some point technology sort of stagnated. Existing technology improved continually, but new inventions didn't really change the way people lived. Not like the changes that happened at the beginning of the 1900s. Cars improved, buildings got larger, more exotic food was able to be transported to more places. But walking outside and looking around didn't really change that much from the 50s all the way until now. Even the Internet didn't change things *that* much. Communications got more efficient, yes. We can communicate to anyone we like at any time with cell phone technology. But we could do that 30 years ago. We have more choice in entertainment, but we generally consume it in the same ways we did 40 years ago.
Things really haven't changed very much since the 50s. But I think we are just on the cusp now, of another major change in the way we live. And it will be as big of a change over the next 30 years as it was between 1910 and 1940. Soon we will open our doors to the outside world and see a reality that is unrecognisable to us now. It's hard to say what that reality will look like, but almost assuredly it will involve interacting with machines in a similar way to how we now interact with people. These near-future depictions we see in movies may really be a bit of a glimpse into what's in store for us in our own lifetimes.