Talk:Her (film)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Good article Her (film) has been listed as one of the Media and drama good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
February 14, 2015 Good article nominee Listed
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Film (Rated GA-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.
WikiProject Science Fiction (Rated GA-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon 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.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.


If anyone starts a Marketing/Promotion section they should probably mention which is the place where Twombly works and redirects to the official website. -- (talk) 12:37, 15 February 2014 (UTC)


As-currently-written is that the plot or the whole story? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:44, 27 April 2014 (UTC)


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. -- (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. -- (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? -- (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)

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Her (film)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: SNUGGUMS (talk · contribs) 23:52, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

I'll take this. Expect comments up within a week.

OK here we go..... Snuggums (talk / edits) 23:54, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Per WP:INFOBOXREF, no need to cite things here that are already sourced within article body
  • Can't exactly say "in the near future" since the exact timerange is never established in the film
    • Removed the future portion altogether. Sock (tock talk) 16:11, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
  • "compose heartfelt, intimate letters"..... seems like POV
  • Any particular reason the voice actors aren't mentioned in the plot when other actors are? Given Scarlett Johansson's prominence in the film, I'd imagine she'd be included if Joaquin Phoenix is.
    • Removed all actors from the plot. I never see the point in including them when there's a cast section right below. Sock (tock talk) 16:11, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
  • "She insists that this does not change her love for Theodore, but rather makes it stronger" → "However, she insists that it makes her love for Theodore stronger"
  • "he still holds her dear"..... awkward phrasing
    • 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
  • This subsection is rather short, and should be expanded or merged into other sections per WP:LAYOUT
    • See comment under the "Production" header. Sock (tock talk) 16:11, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
  • No source is given for Phoenix playing ukelele
    • Couldn't find one, removed. Sock (tock talk) 16:11, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
  • 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)
Critical response
  • 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
  • "However, the film was not without its detractors"..... awkward phrasing. A better transition would be something like "In contrast" or "Conversely".
  • Regarding the "she also praised Johannson's performance" bit, I'd elaborate by describing what Stephanie Zacharek liked about her performance with a description and/or quote
  • 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.
  • "the American Film Institute included the film in its list of the top ten films of 2013"..... give the specific ranking
    • Not possible. It only ranks #1, the rest are alphabetical. Sock (tock talk) 16:11, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
  • FN2: Box Office Mojo shouldn't be italicized
  • 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.
    • Fixed, removed non-verifiable info. Sock (tock talk) 16:11, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
  • FN9: Not sure if "MovieWeb" is reliable
    • Replaced with a Collider source. Sock (tock talk) 16:11, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
  • FN11: "" should read The Guardian, and doesn't mention Cleverbot when talking about instant messaging
  • FN12: Indiewire shouldn't be italicized
  • FN13: Same as FN7
  • FN14: Should just read New York in italics
  • FN16: Doesn't say that
    • Removed the incorrect part. Sock (tock talk) 16:11, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
  • FN17: Is "Shoot Online" reliable?
    • Not sure. Opted to replace the source with another one, and add some new info as well.
  • FN18: HitFix shouldn't be italicized, and the bit "it sort of became something else" (taken from ref) doesn't say the song was necessarily "reworked" for Reflektor
  • FN19: Pitchfork Media shouldn't be italicized
  • FN20: Same as FN12
  • FN21: Doesn't mention a premiere date for this film, or even that it is the 51st New York Film Festival
    • Ref improved with the necessary information, changed "51st" to "2013". Sock (tock talk) 16:11, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
  • FN22: Publisher is Penske Media Corporation
    • Removed as unnecessary.
  • FN41: Same as FN9
    • I think it's fine for this one, seeing as this information can easily be found on Amazon and other sales sites. Sock (tock talk) 16:11, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
  • FN42: Says it sold ~ $2.2 million for Blu-ray and ~4.9 million overall video sales
    • Strange, I added that part myself and I'm certain the numbers were right at the time. Alas, I've fixed it.
  • Well-written?
  • Prose quality: Symbol question.svg Decent, but needs improvements
  • Manual of Style: Symbol question.svg Almost
  • Verifiable?
  • Reference layout: Symbol question.svg Several citations aren't properly formatted
  • Reliable sources: Symbol question.svg A couple questionable references
  • No original research: Symbol question.svg One unsourced section and some unsupported statements
  • Broad in coverage?
  • Major aspects: Symbol question.svg Needs some expansion
  • Focused: Nothing of concern
  • Neutral?: Symbol question.svg Not quite
  • Stable?: No ongoing content disputes, edit wars, or major changes
  • Illustrated, if possible, by images?
  • Appropriate licensing: Image poster has adequate FUR, and cast members photo is from Commons
  • Relevance and captioning: Looks good
  • Pass or Fail?: Good article on hold This nomination is on hold for seven days. My concerns aren't too extensive, and I feel this can be done in time. Snuggums (talk / edits) 04:45, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
@SNUGGUMS: Apologies for how long it took me to get to this, but I've had a hectic week. Hopefully I've met your requirements! Sock (tock talk) 16:11, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
You've done well, Sock. Just need to add more reviews (The current total used, 6, isn't very much) Snuggums (talk / edits) 21:24, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
@SNUGGUMS: I'm in the process of doing that right now, I somehow missed that bullet in your listing. Sock (tock talk) 21:41, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
Nothing to worry about, just ping me or post on my talk page after you finish that up. I will then do another reference spotcheck. Snuggums (talk / edits) 21:42, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
I actually went ahead and added a few reviews myself, and am now passing this article. Congrats! Snuggums (talk / edits) 23:56, 14 February 2015 (UTC)