That most important of questions is never addressed by the movie--I was not really interested in the sci-fi mumbo-jumbo and only continued to watch the movie to find out what happens as the parents get older and older and their "child" remains as he is.
Then after they get rid of him it turns into a Disney movie--what a mess.
It was meant as an option for parents who's only other choice was not having children at all.
shareYes but that doesn't answer my question about the drawback of that option.
shareOption A: You get nothing
Option B: You get something, but it's flawed
Why would someone pick B? Gee, I dunno. Maybe it has something to do with the idiom "Well, it's better than nothing."
Is something with that great a flaw really "better than nothing?"
shareIn your opinion, no.
For others it might be OK.
There are people out there who procreate, but after the results of their parenting come to pass? Maybe shouldn't have.
Likewise with adoption.
A couple of things: the film is science fiction, at least for now.
And? The mother has big BIG problems with the concept at the beginning of the story, so, to some degree, your problem is at least partially addressed.
You cannot compare this with giving birth or adopting a human child. And the movie did not address this particular issue to any degree whatsoever. A bit of dialogue between the parents about this obvious eventual outcome should have occurred.
shareIs something with that great a flaw really "better than nothing?"Yes. share
Great reasoning Druffmaul. You could be Drumpf's supreme court nominee.
shareIt's not a complex concept that requires complicated reasoning. Something is better than nothing. Period.
shareWow. By that rule being hit on the head by a hammer is better than not being hit on the head by a hammer, or, to put it into a more realistic context, having a kid who turns out to be a serial murderer is better than having no kid. Truly a highly illogical statement which you can probably see but are just not going to admit being wrong about, unless your IQ is in the imbecile range.
shareLet's keep it reasonable. A child that doesn't age and a child that murders people aren't quite in the same ball park. Anyway, there are always exceptions that prove the rule.
EDIT: OK, I will entertain your need to have things explained to you as if you were a child-
I'm not saying it's an absolute universal rule carved in stone that "Something is Better than Nothing 100% of the Time, No Exceptions." I'm saying that in this case, a couple adopting an artificial child that doesn't age because they don't have the option to have or adopt a real child, the old chestnut "something is better than nothing" is probably sufficient reason for doing so. Not ALL couples would necessarily feel this way. It would depend on where they were emotionally. Some couples would decide it wasn't worth it. Obviously Monica and Henry decided it was. Possibly because they were emotionally fragile due to the situation with Martin, Monica in particular. Remember she had major reservations at first and Henry had to talk her into it, and his motivation was more to help Monica than for himself.
You said "Something is better than nothing. PERIOD." I'll congratulate you on making a more sophisticated argument, but still the issue is not addressed in the film, and I find this as not faithful to reality. The kid staying a kid as they get older and older, and what that would mean in real life (we can all imagine the consequences) is the big elephant in the room that is totally ignored, and conveniently dismissed when they throw him away like trash. In fact, I think it would have been a more interesting movie had they remained in the more humane mode of the first hour and followed the "family" through their life rather than go off into all the sci-fi nonsense of the last half of the film. I can accept the possibility of making an artificial kid, but so much of the latter half of the film is beyond the pale.
shareYou said "Something is better than nothing. PERIOD."
Do you have autism? Aspergers? It seems the concept of human desire and acting upon it in a moment of emotional conflict is flying RIGHT over your head. When people experience traumatizing events, they sometimes latch onto any possible immediate fix it they can possibly find. That's basically what happened. They found a crutch to get through their hard times. That's why they bought David. They didn't care about him not growing up. The point is that he is a toy, not a child. Something Henry addresses one or two times. The fact that David doesn't age is part of what makes the story engaging. A false child stuck as such, longing for something more than just being what he was made to be. That's why he was so unique. He grasped onto the human concept of aspiration. He had desire. It's all incredibly engaging if, you know, you don't suffer from a developmental brain abnormality or if you're lacking a chromosome. Donyou really need it to be spelled out for you that David doesn't grow up by someone in screen in order for you to accept that everyone in he film is aware of this? And do you really think that with the several billions of people on he planet, there aren't couples out there who are willing to adopt an artificial child in order to experience parenthood to some degree in order to experience what the law says they can't because they do not have proper licensing? David wasn't a permanent solition. He never was. $4 was a coping mechanism for a couple on their time of grieving. A lot like how some people use dogs. Human emotions are credibly complex, not every feels or thinks or acts as you would.
shareNo need to insult to try to prop up your very unconvincing argument. The movie was to be about a child android so the writers contrived the plot of the grieving parents to give some plausibility to the concept, but these parents are just like you and me in every way except, peculiarly, they have no qualms about tending a boy-toy for the rest of their lives. You saw how quickly they got rid of him--and I do mean "got rid"--once their human son was again with them. They don't act rationally toward David, only as the plot requires in order to advance David's story.
shareDude, it's a Spielberg story, so WTF did you expect? It's a manipulative tearjerker no matter whom started the project (Kubrick), it was Spielberg whom ended up doing and concluding it, so it's all his.
shareThat's exactly why Kubrick spent years trying to convince Spielberg to direct it while he himself produced, he knew it would be "too stark" if he directed it himself. They talked about the project for years, Kubrick basically used him as an advisor. Spielberg stuck to Kubrick's treatment, he knew what Kubrick wanted.
shareWhat do you mean it's never addressed? It's a big part of the themes of the movie. You probably mean why it isn't explicitly addressed. That's because the movie doesn't want to spoonfeed you but wants to make you think.
shareI remember the original Blade Runner movie scene where a lady has a robot owl as a pet. It was logical - all the advantages of a pet with none of the disadvantages (house breaking, for example). Taking the reasoning to the next level having an android as a make-believe family member makes a lot of sense. In a classic case of truth being stranger than fiction I saw a news short about Japanese ladies who had dolls and treated them as real life babies.
shareWhy do people want pets? Why do people want plants? The reasoning is the same.
share
I understand the OP's question. Indeed, my wife and I were watching it together last night and we both asked each other the same question.
Why do people want pets? Why do people want plants? The reasoning is the same.
I think it’s a very good movie but you’re right, this needed to be addressed. Having a permanent robo-kid who never grows old is not really a substitute for having a child who grows into an adult and continues the blood-line etc
shareThis board is riddled with moronic replies.
Of course the op is right on the money: that's a glaring mistake in the movie.
And being directed by an average, lesser director than Kubrick, it's never addressed.
No way "it's better than nothing" is a plausible or reasonable patch to such a gaping plot hole.
Simply the idea is sketchy and the whole premise is as deeply involving as a tamagochi: there is some artificial attachment created by these "children", but it's quite the gimmick.
The movie prefers to skip on the unavoidable implications (or it doesn't understand them) and focuses on poor Pinocchio's desire to be loved. In reality he should have faced his makers for such a faulty design, or accepted his fate as a faulty toy. Instead, we get a faulty script.
I agree that I would NEVER want a child that was totally dependent on me for love and require that forever. My two boys are now grown men and no longer need me or my wife as they did twenty years ago. That's the natural order of things. Having a sentient android built into a perpetual child with emotions is creepy to me.
But that's not to say there isn't a small percentage of people who would want such a "child' on the planet. I don't know how many "David's" the company built, but I doubt it was a thousand - statistically insignificant. I wouldn't call that a mistake or plot hole.
Hey, Ford released the Edsel thinking it would be a big demand car, and it bombed. They totally misread the market.
The mistake and plot hole is that, if your theory was the case, no theory is never addressed in the movie, with a short: "David is a limited production since it never grows (which is quite a glaring fault in an offspring, even an artificial one) - but there's a purpose for it, like ....." and explain your theory or whatever they think makes sense of this (maybe sell it to pedophiles? I don't know, I'm sure there is a purpose for anything in the world, that doesn't mean that it makes sense to write it in a story like it's "normal", especially when it's clearly NOT normal).
Just the movie paints it like robots are very common, they are used in many ways, and they are quite disposable.
In this case, a child robot, sold as a replacement for a kid, should be described how it would work without ever growing old, or it doesn't make much sense.
I'm not sure I understand your point.
Since a perpetual child is something I would never want, I don't know how to justify it. People also buy large campers and essentially drive their hotel rooms around the country, and I don't get that either.
In this case, a child robot, sold as a replacement for a kid, should be described how it would work without ever growing old, or it doesn't make much sense.
this isn't a kid. it's a robot.
share