This article is within the scope of WikiProject Science Fiction, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science fiction on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
There has been lots of commentary of all sorts on this film. The Reception section is disappointingly short (instead people keep adding to the sprawling unsourced See Also section). There is potential to expand the Reception section to include a broader range of opinions, beyond film critics. Science Fiction writer and futurist Ray Kurzweil prasied the film writing a review and analysis on his website. -- 18.104.22.168 (talk) 18:43, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
The reception section is fine. I would much rather see an expansion of themes and other related topics. Viriditas (talk) 07:58, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
The box office section paraphrased "underwhelming" (direct quote) as "disappointing" (paraphrase) as it seemed less POV to me at the time. It has since been changed to a direct quote, which is fine but I thought disappointing was a fairer and more neutral choice of wording, whereas "underwhelming" seems overly harsh even it if it a direct quote. I don't appreciate accusations in edit summaries my edits were in good faith. -- 22.214.171.124 (talk) 23:46, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
The problem is, neither "underwhelming" nor "disappointing" belong anywhere in an article without a source, so if the source said underwhelming, that is what we should include. As much as it seems like they're synonyms, they technically aren't, and we can't claim a site said something it didn't. Sock (previously Corvoe) (be heard) 10:18, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
Does anyone else feel that the appropriate genre to place the film under to be "social science fiction" than merely science fiction? --126.96.36.199 (talk) 19:22, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
Nope, and you really missed out on the entire point of SF if you are actually serious, which I'm sure you aren't. The leap of faith necessary for the average audience member to appreciate what it would be like to have a relationship with an AI is much larger than you can possibly imagine. I did my own survey on a group of about 30 people. Those who could make the leap of faith loved the film and could envision this possible future. Those who could not make the leap failed to get the point of the story, and saw it as absurd. You fall into the latter half, but for different reasons. SF isn't primarily about nuts and bolts spaceships, alien battles, or time travel devices. Beyond the hardware, SF is about ideas, more specifically, the relationship between people and technology. Contrary to your line of reasoning, this film is about as hard as you can get, because you're dealing solely within the realm of the human mind and its response to a new, technological life form. In other words, this is as SF as it gets, folks. To completely miss out on this fact, to have it to go whizzing over your head merely because the nuts and bolts aspects have become transparent, tells me you just don't get SF. Viriditas (talk) 05:56, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
Note, after reviewing the RS, I have added the genre back in. As far as I can tell, the website "The Verge" is singularly responsible for spreading the meme that this is not science fiction. Not only are they wrong, but the film trade mags and critical reviews disagree. I suspect that this kind of problem tends to occur with people who think that SF primarily concerns itself with nuts and bolts spaceships, aliens, and strange, but bizarre fantasy. This is a common misconception about SF. This film explores the idea of what it would be like to have an actual relationship with an AI. This is as SF as the genre can get. "The Verge" is simply wrong on this one. Viriditas (talk) 06:21, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
Changed to "cares about her". Sock(tock talk) 16:11, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
This list needs citations for the roles
Outside of Bill Hader's role (that's just the generic name in the credits) and Soko's voice role (couldn't find a good source, removed it) I've added these. Sock(tock talk) 16:11, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
Quick note: I merged all of these sections together for now, as none were all that substantial. Sock(tock talk) 16:11, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
"Megan Ellison’s" should be "Megan Ellison's" per MOS:QUOTEMARKS
The quote "What happened in post was that we edited the movie for ages and finally realized that what Samantha and I had done together wasn't working the right way. It was a really hard realization to come to." could be paraphrased, and it's redundant given the previous quote
I'm concerned with the WP:LAYOUT of really short subsections. "Box office" and "Home media" can come before "Critical response" and "accolades". Could copies of DVD's and Blu-ray's sold perhaps be added?
In terms of DVD/Blu-ray copies, I've already added that. Expanded Box office. Merged "Home media" with the initial Release section, which is not really standard, but I think it works. Sock(tock talk) 16:11, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
A total of six reviews isn't very much for a popular movie such as this. For a good example of how much to aim for, see articles like Beauty and the Beast (1991 film).
For the Time review, "movie’s" should be "movie's" and "it’s" should be "it's" per MOS:QUOTEMARKS
I realize this has a referral link to a separate page, but this seems a bit short. The Saturn Awards are worth including here, and I'd also add some of the winners for nominations that this film lost to.
FN3: This should be removed as it doesn't talk about the script writing process (although I see FN4 supports it taking 5 months to write the script)
"Johansson ended up working every weekend for four months with Jonze constantly tweaking and rewriting her lines." That's all the source is being used to say. Sock(tock talk) 16:11, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
FN6: Is "Twitch Film" reliable? Either way, it shouldn't be italicized
I've never had problems with people considering Twitch reliable. I'd have to ask around. Fixed the italicization. Sock(tock talk) 16:11, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
FN7: "/Film" shouldn't be italicized, and I see nothing in this talking about Sony Pictures Classics or Panorama Media.