This is a little late on your post, but I'd like to take a stab at a few of your issues. First of all, I'd like to state that you are indeed entitled to your own opinion, so what I'm saying is not that you are wrong or that your post is "stupid," only that I do think that most of these points are addressed within the movie.
1. Frank not knowing his ex-wife. I can see what you're saying about him remembering his children, but the fact that he doesn't remember his ex-wife strikes you as funny. What I think you must take into consideration is that they have been divorced for 30 years (Hunter mentions this in his first visit). Frank seems to keep going back to a certain time. He repeatedly asks Hunter how Princeton is. Hunter tells him that he graduated 15 years ago. 15 years ago, his wife was out of the picture. In the end of the movie, when he talks to Susan Sarandon and realizes that she is his ex, she says that "when she came back" he didn't remember her. That means that she moved away for some time. We don't know where or for how long. I don't think that it's implausible that that gap of time would be sufficient enough for him to forget her or at least what she looked like, given his current state. He obviously remembered that he had a wife at some point. I have dealt with people with early-stage dementia and it does stand to reason that some things would be remembered, while other things forgotten. And it doesn't happen on a scale of least to most important. What I mean is that dementia doesn't work that way. It would be a lot more convenient if it did. Sometimes it's the most important memories that are the first to go. Even if he figured it out at some point, realized that she was his ex-wife, it's possible that when he woke up the next morning, he would forget again.
2. The robot memory back-up. Perhaps in normal circumstances, the robot would back-up its memory on a regular basis, but I can't remember seeing a hard-drive or computer on site. It's difficult to back up the robot's memory without a device to back-up on. It's possible that there was a device built into the robot itself, but then the manual wiping of the memory could still have taken care of it. What I'm trying to say is that you can't just say that the robot would back-up its memory, because you have no idea what a robot in the future would do. This plot hole isn't as big as you think.
3. The robot doing illegal activity. Whether or not you buy it is your own business, but they very clearly address this issue in the movie. Frank asks the robot about doing illegal stuff and the robot replies that it was programed to look after his well-being. It knows about the laws, but is not inclined towards following them or breaking them. Its only function is to take care of Frank. The robot even asks Frank if he would like to modify the its programming to obey the law. You may not think this is plausible, but that isn't the point. The point is that they ARE honest with us about the parameters of the plot and the movie exists within those parameters. You also might want to take a look at the fundamental rules of robotics. I think you might have misread them.
4. The cops could have asked the robot and it would have been compelled to tell the truth. Yes, the COULD HAVE, but no they did not. It's not beyond the realm of all possibilities to think that they missed that option. The same way they could have kicked down the door after he ran back into the house and locked them out. Personally, I think it was a bigger issue that they bugged his house and then later searched it, without presenting any sort of court order or warrant. When they bugged his house, it was the day after the robbery, hardly enough time to come up with probable cause and to procure a warrant to tap the premises. And, the so called "probable cause" that they used to search his house was extremely thin, and I don't think it would have held up in court, but he did run from the cops, at that point, they have the right to detain him, which would include kicking in the door when he ran from them. I'm no lawyer, but I also think they would have needed to get another warrant to download the contents of the robot's memory. These are all just semantical things though. What you are saying is that the cops could have questioned the robot, but the fact is that they did not. It's simply that if you had made the movie, you would have written the story differently, but you did not. You may not like that point, but it's not a hole. At least in my opinion.
5. The bit about GPS. Even IF there was GPS in this robot (it's not fair to assume that there "certainly" was) and IF we can assume that that history would have survived the memory reboot, that merely places the robot inside of the house, not Frank. While you can logically state that if the robot was there, then so was Frank, and if Frank was there then it is logical to state that he must have stolen the diamonds, law is not based on logical assumptions. Law is based on facts and proof. Without the diamonds, or some evidence of Franks involvement in the heist, there is no way that the GPS information would have been enough to even have Frank arrested.
In my opinion, none of the points you made did anything to unravel this story. I can see why you might question a few of them, but you have to accept the answers that the movie gives. If you watch it again you will certainly find that most if not all of these issues are addressed. The film sets out the "rules" for the plot and then, its job is to exist within those rules. I think it does to such a degree that you can forget that this movie takes place in a make-believe society some time in the future and just focus on the story itself, which is both heartwarming and sad at the same time.
Ok, that's just my bit.
reply
share