Did anyone catch the premiere last night? I thought it was pretty interesting. Enough to keep me watching for a bit.
It got a very good audience the first week in the UK. I’ve seen the first two and am sticking with it.
Surprisingly good cast as well, which is always a clue. Def promising.
E3. Yep, still good.
The interesting stuff becomes more apparent. The emotional investment in robots, parallels with pets, blurry lines for males confronted by female beauty …
Looks like the question of intelligence and the potential for some ‘feelings’ is being foreshadowed.
Very much like the range of reactions from different family members, depending on age and gender.
I didn’t make it thru the first episode. It seemed more of the same old thing as far as these stories go; the only plotline that wasn’t a total cliche was Hurt’s character relying on his robot for the memories he was losing.
Anybody catch the original Swedish version? The premise of the show fascinates me and I’d like to watch it but I’d rather check out the better adaptation. For instance, I LOVED the Swedish/Danish show “The Bridge” but was lukewarm with the US series.
I was intrigued enough with the first episode that I’ll stick with it.
Besides, anything with William Hurt has me as a viewer.
I’ve liked the first three episodes. Seems like we’ve had a glut of similar shows and movies lately that seemed promising but than fizzled (the buddy cop one, Chappie, the one with Hallie Barry). But three episodes in this one still seems pretty good, so I’m optimistic.
I think my favourite part so far is that, with one exception, all of the androids seem strange and otherwordly. I think that’s more interesting than other similar shows, which just make them basically humans with robot bodies.
What’s the significance of the upside down “A” in the show’s logo?
I’ve seen the opinion expressed (on IMDb) that the upside-down A–a math or logic symbol meaning “for all”–is included to make clear that the show is science fiction. (It’s the same type of thing as was using the exponent in the name of the third Alien movie, or a One and Zero in the name of the 2002 movie S1m0ne.)
…I do plan to watch this show, but I keep wondering if the creators are paying the proper royalties to all the earlier works from which it “borrows.” The lifting of characters and situations seems rather blatant in several instances. (I don’t know if the same “borrowings” are present in the show that this one overtly remakes–the Swedish Real Humans.)
I haven’t seen the show, but the premise bothers me a little- ok, they have perfect, indistinguishable from humans robots- but the clearly inhuman and more efficient single-purpose robots that would obviously become common long before the human looking ones did are never seen, nor are the massive social changes that even a rudimentary AI existing would create shown. It seems to me that the ethical problems involved would have been hashed out long before such technology reached the means of the average person. Same problem with that movie “Her” If AIs exist, and everyone knows they exist, the questions asked would have already been debated endlessly, yet these shows act as if the questions have never come up before.
It really hurts my suspension of disbelief.
At the time of the first episode, the robots aren’t really intelligent. They’re basically souped up versions of Siri. As I said in my last post, that’s sort of why I like the show, since sci-fi tends to treat robots/computers as either having human or better intelligence or as dumb machines. The robots in Humans basically inhabit an uncanny valley space in between the two.
I’ve watched the first episode and liked it. Yes, it’s very derivative, but it was interesting enough to keep me engaged.
Though they can be trusted with unsupervised elder & child care which makes them way more advanced than Siri or anything else in the real world. **Johnny Ecks ** is right about more efficient single purpose robots though. If Anita can drive a car why can’t the car just drive itself? Or why would a corporate farm need robots that look almost exactly like people? A human appearance makes perfectr sense for domestic servants/health aids/prostitutes, no so much for industrial applications.
It makes sense if you want to encourage emotional investment in a machine.
We have a hoover in the UK called ‘Henry’, he/it has eyes. People love their Henry’s.
I like the NHS upgrade. Huge market, huge incentive to drive down costs.
Most people already have cars that can take a human shaped driver, though, so this gets rid of the need to buy an entirely new vehicle. And when it isn’t driving a car (or working on a farm or whatever) the android can easily move to other tasks, while a more specialized machine couldn’t.
Granted at least part of the reason is just story-telling efficiency. Seeing a bunch of androids emphasizes that robots have taken most such jobs without having to rely on more exposition. But I don’t think its so implausible in any case.
It’s also a lot easier on the budget. No need for CGI or models or such–just actors who’ve been instructed to behave ‘robotically.’
and wear weird contact lenses.
High recycling rate, but it’s very well done.
Small point, but no machinist or craftsman would EVER bang two hammers together.
I watched Ep1 last night and thought it was quite good. I’ll give it a try. I really like the way they created tension between certain people and the Synths. The little girl who want the Synth to read to her instead of mom because mom always rushes through the story. William Hurt doesn’t want “an upgrade” (I’m guessing there is a bit of a sexual attraction there), and look at the replacement he would get!
That’s what I assumed from the previews (& that the synth is played by Will Tudor), but after watching the first episode I think it’s more that he and his late wife were treating Odi as a ersatz son.