Yeah. Clearly instead of giving a guy a futuristic desert cop outfit who did absolutely nothing outlandish whatsoever, they spent millions upon millions of dollars creating a CGI person. I think you nailed it there.
I wasn't suggesting CGI, or that the character wasn't portrayed by someone in a suit. But
someone doesn't have to be male. A woman inside the suit could have provided the narrowness of features necessary to convey 'robot' while a man dubbed the voice in. Or, it is worth noting that fairly remarkable things can be done with simple camera tricks. Remember Gimli?
Also, what do you mean, "androids weren't wandering around Earth in that age"? First, no one said anything about androids - we said "robot". And second, we know that
sentient humaniform androids weren't anything approaching common - but that says nothing about non-sentient humaniform robots (entertainment bots, for example, which we're close to having
now), or non-sentient non-humaniform humanoid robots (which we definitely have now).
And as for your assertion that he would "be the bike" - studies have been done and will continue to be done on people's psychological reactions to artificial beings in different shapes and sizes. For a robot that assembles part of a Toyota, that isn't so important. But for a law enforcement 'bot, that could play a big role. He might be humanoid for that reason.
And finally, common sense is also usually accompanied by a little common courtesy in how one addresses people. I haven't seen anyone else who seemed to have an actual
beef with this discussion. What's yours?
