I realize that TARS was intentionally designed to resemble the monoliths from 2001: A Space Odyssey, but the design still annoys me. Surely there's better methods of locomotion for robots in the near future right? At least it was fun to watch as we are shown the different ways it can unfold and "transform" in some ways.
I liked TARS the most as a character though, I liked his role in the story and I thought he was very well voiced. I liked it that the voice sounded completely human in every way, because that kind of technology is being developed right now (soon we'll be able to chose which celebrity voice we want to read audiobooks to us, and it will flawlessly replicate it for us in real time, imagine that).
I liked TARS as a character because I loved it that there was a robot in a movie, yet the movie itself didn't really dwell on it. It's like, "Yeah there are robots in the future and they help us do stuff, no big deal..." Too much fiction in my opinion follow the trends laid down by the Hal 9000, and I loved it that TARS even made a joke about it.
I get the sense that TARS was actually creating his own humor which suggests that he actually had consciousness and self-awareness. I love it that there's a movie with a robot conscious entity that doesn't go around killing people, that is (apparently) bound by the three laws and seems to be okay with it. TARS was like a living, breathing character right there with all of the other human cast, and I want to see more robot characters like that in fiction.
here op
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0UoOhdvQYmo
He wanted to make a robot that wasn't a robot, essentially. At least, not what westerners think of when they hear "robot".
Remember that what the west thinks when they hear the word and what the east thinks are very different things.
>>11852774
>Remember that what the west thinks when they hear the word and what the east thinks are very different things.
That's interesting. Please elaborate.
>>11852799
>That's interesting. Please elaborate.
Think of western robots. I mean actually think.
For decades we had stuff that was either Dalek-ish or, more commonly, something like the robot in Lost in Space. When videogames came along, we got the Mechwarrior design. The "tank with legs" concept.
What is a mech to Japan? It's "X, but a machine".
>>11852813
>something like the robot in Lost in Space
Which I should have noted, is in itself based at least partially on Robby the Robot from Forbidden Planet.
>>11852823
wasn't it the exact same prop they used and everything?
>>11852719
You'd probably like ghost in the shell, you should check out the tv show.
>>11852829
It wasn't the exact same robot, but it had a very similar base design.
>>11852813
The Western ideal of "robot" is much less like Mechwarrior or even Transformers, as popular as the latter might be, and more something human-sized like Data from Star Trek, RoboCop, Sonny from I, Robot, Bishop from Aliens, or Daleks as mentioned. Now, if you say "giant robot" you'll get Transformers, but most people take it to mean something like a guy in a normal-sized suit spray-painted silver or an android.
>>11852861
Either way, my point stands in that the west and east have very different concepts of robot.
>>11852813
But Mechwarrior designs are Battletech designs, much of which are japanese
>>11852719
>because that kind of technology is being developed right now (soon we'll be able to chose which celebrity voice we want to read audiobooks to us, and it will flawlessly replicate it for us in real time, imagine that).
I hope pirates steal this technology to use for phone sex lines.
>>11852880
But BattleTech comes from FASA, an American company. Even when changing ownership twice, it's always been owned by an American company in some way.
Also let's face it. If you ask the average person what Mechwarrior is, they think it's this. With the guy who is giving 0 fucks
>>11852893
the average person that's heard of it, I mean.
