# Talk:Her (2013 film)

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 4 March 2019 and 10 May 2019. Further details are available on the course page.  Peer reviewers: Dhruswicki.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 22:18, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

If anyone starts a Marketing/Promotion section they should probably mention BeautifulHandwrittenLetters.com which is the place where Twombly works and redirects to the official website. -- 109.76.245.190 (talk) 12:37, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

As-currently-written is that the plot or the whole story?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.1.157.67 (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.  -- 147.252.95.35 (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. -- 109.77.196.78 (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? --121.54.58.246 (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)

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)
Infobox
Per WP:INFOBOXREF, no need to cite things here that are already sourced within article body
Removed. Sock (tock talk) 16:11, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
Plot
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
Removed. Sock (tock talk) 16:11, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
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"
Good suggestion, changed. Sock (tock talk) 16:11, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
"he still holds her dear"..... awkward phrasing
Changed to "cares about her". Sock (tock talk) 16:11, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
Cast
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)
Production
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)
Development
"Megan Ellison’s" should be "Megan Ellison's" per MOS:QUOTEMARKS
Fixed. Sock (tock talk) 16:11, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
Editing
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
Fixed. Sock (tock talk) 16:11, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
Music
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)
Release
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
Fixed. Sock (tock talk) 16:11, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
"However, the film was not without its detractors"..... awkward phrasing. A better transition would be something like "In contrast" or "Conversely".
Fixed. Sock (tock talk) 16:11, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
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
Expanded. Sock (tock talk) 16:11, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
Accolades
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.
Added quite a bit. Sock (tock talk) 16:11, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
"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)
References
FN2: Box Office Mojo shouldn't be italicized
Fixed. Sock (tock talk) 16:11, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
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: "theguardian.com" should read The Guardian, and doesn't mention Cleverbot when talking about instant messaging
Fixed. Sock (tock talk) 16:11, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
FN12: Indiewire shouldn't be italicized
Fixed. Sock (tock talk) 16:11, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
FN13: Same as FN7
Fixed. Sock (tock talk) 16:11, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
FN14: Should just read New York in italics
Fixed. Sock (tock talk) 16:11, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
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
Removed that bit. Sock (tock talk) 16:11, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
FN19: Pitchfork Media shouldn't be italicized
Fixed. Sock (tock talk) 16:11, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
FN20: Same as FN12
Fixed. Sock (tock talk) 16:11, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
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.
Overall
Well-written?
Prose quality:  Decent, but needs improvements
Manual of Style:  Almost
Verifiable?
Reference layout:  Several citations aren't properly formatted
Reliable sources:  A couple questionable references
No original research:  One unsourced section and some unsupported statements
Broad in coverage?
Major aspects:  Needs some expansion
Focused:  Nothing of concern
Neutral?:  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?:  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)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on Her (film). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20151121085023/http://www.classification.gov.au/Pages/View.aspx?sid=ua7nkhEKaJxmL6el628NUQ%253d%253d&ncdctx=V%252f4gDJR0USpMew7DI7nFb49IxwLYDgb3CfCncMIQ7LSxxRE7tuZ%2blJweCnU%2biOI3%7ctitle=Her%7cpublisher=AustralianClassification to http://www.classification.gov.au/Pages/View.aspx?sid=ua7nkhEKaJxmL6el628NUQ%253d%253d&ncdctx=V%252f4gDJR0USpMew7DI7nFb49IxwLYDgb3CfCncMIQ7LSxxRE7tuZ%2blJweCnU%2biOI3%7ctitle=Her%7cpublisher=AustralianClassification
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere.  Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 11:33, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Opencooper has insisted on using "8.5 out of 10" rather than 8.5/10 for Her's average Rotten Tomatoes score. The reason I insist on a slash is that it is clearly the standard on Wikipedia; go look up any other film and you will see that the slash is used, not words. If you don't agree with that, by all means go correct all those thousands of articles. 73.109.106.183 (talk) 05:32, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Unless it's codified in a manual of style, it is not a "standard", and even then the MoS is just a recommendation. We don't just do things because other articles do them, but on their individual merit on each specific article. I feel using words is more encyclopedic rather than using a slash in this specific article. What is your reasoning for using a slash other than "because everyone else does it"? Opencooper (talk) 05:36, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
What is it about the "individual merit" of Her that separates it from the examples I gave, and thus warrants using words rather than a slash? All I'm asking for is a little consistency on this encyclopedia. 73.109.106.183 (talk) 16:33, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
Consistency is a great goal but it should also have rationale and consensus behind it, both of which are lacking here. I'm asking why you want to make this change. If Wikipedia was all about consistency, every article would have an infobox and the exact same article structure. Instead "whether to include an infobox, which infobox to include, and which parts of the infobox to use, is determined through discussion and consensus among the editors at each individual article." I'd get your point if you could show me where it was decided all ratings should use a slash or if we could agree that the slash is the better option here, but so far neither has been done. Opencooper (talk) 16:50, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
I don't necessarily have a opinion on whether words or a slash are superior, but I acknowledge that there is no universal consensus on the matter. However, I'm still curious about why you think Her in particular should use words, as opposed to the examples I gave, which all use slashes. 73.109.106.183 (talk) 17:21, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
Nothing particular to Her; I'd argue the same regardless of which article it was. However the edit was to this article and like I'm saying before, since there is no general consensus, it needs to be decided individually. To give a bad analogy, if there is no federal law regarding a matter in the USA, each state is free to make its own laws on it. (I can sympathize with wanting to address Wikipedia's inconsistencies, and please don't be dissuaded from doing that in the future for other articles, but we also have to keep in mind that a project with such a diverse group of editors and subjects will have its differences. We don't even write all our articles in the same variety of English!) You can certainly be bold and try to fix things you find issue with, and I encourage you to, It's just that here I disagreed with the changes. Opencooper (talk) 17:40, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
Touché. :) 73.109.106.183 (talk) 17:58, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
To offer an outside opinion, I never gave much thought to the slash when I came across it in various film articles. However, now that the issue has been raised, the slash appears to be more informal. For an encyclopedia, I prefer the words over the slash, especially at the ratio's first mention. --GoneIn60 (talk) 20:23, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
In that case, should we go through all the thousands of films on Wikipedia that use slashes, such as the 17 examples I gave above, to change them to words? 73.109.106.183 (talk) 20:57, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
The jurisdiction of this talk page only concerns this article. It's possible that changing the slash to words in other articles will be met with pushback at times. For that reason, it would be best for MOS:FILM to specify this recommendation moving forward, and it looks like you've already started a discussion there. My suggestion would be to wait for an outcome there before attempting mass changes across hundreds of articles. Keep in mind that while consistency is nice, it's not absolutely required, and if the MOS is updated the change will eventually propogate itself into other articles over time. A massive, manual effort to update other articles in a short period of time wouldn't be necessary. Wikipedia is always a work in progress and we're in no rush. --GoneIn60 (talk) 21:23, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Opencooper, after looking into this further, MOS:SLASH permits the use of an unspaced slash to express a ratio. I'm not aware of a guideline that discourages the slash in this situation, so I'm withdrawing my support for its removal in this article. Seems unnecessary and not likely to gain widespread consensus. --GoneIn60 (talk) 07:18, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

it's talking about the name of the ratio, not the ratio itself. Look at the example given: "the price-to-earnings ratio, or P/E ratio for short". Actual ratios are separated by a colon, like 4:3. By the way, the slash was added to the article, not removed, so consensus is needed to add it back, not vice-versa. Though I do agree that either is "not likely to gain widespread consensus", so we should at least try to form one for this article. Opencooper (talk) 11:08, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
You're right. Apparently, it's not explicitly supported now that I've carefully re-read the guideline. My first instinct is still to do away with the slash and use words, but I don't feel strongly about it either way. Consider this a "weak oppose" to the slash as used in this context. --GoneIn60 (talk) 20:01, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
For consistency I'd recommend also using 90/100 for Metacritic too, or we could use the other commonly used shorthand for out of 100. -- 109.76.150.6 (talk) 21:58, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Her (film). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.classification.gov.au/Pages/View.aspx?sid=ua7nkhEKaJxmL6el628NUQ%3D%3D&ncdctx=V%2F4gDJR0USpMew7DI7nFb49IxwLYDgb3CfCncMIQ7LSxxRE7tuZ+lJweCnU+iOI3%7Ctitle%3DHer%7Cpublisher%3DAustralianClassification
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160421153558/http://www.wga.org/content/default.aspx?id=5399 to http://www.wga.org/content/default.aspx?id=5399
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:42, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Please seek out references which specifically identity this as an allusion in the film by critics before adding this anywhere in the article, whether in the plot or a "See also". It is not appropriate to add WP:ORIGINAL RESEARCH to any Wikipedia articles. The film is deliberately vague about what is happening with the OSes at the end and even more so about "where they are going", much less why. I've had to remove several instances of OR from the plot, most of them editors' inferences about the motivations of the OSes and "the singularity", which as far as I understand would involve human consciousness merging/being upgraded, not simply a bunch of AIs anyway. So please stop forcing the article to say things which are your personal interpretations. If there are good WP:RELIABLE SOURCES for any of this (by which I mean film critics talking about it in this film, not just articles about the singularity in general, there can be a conversation as to where they should go in the article--likely not the plot. ZarhanFastfire (talk) 01:15, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Theodore explains [to Samantha] that, although he and Amy (Amy Adams) dated briefly in college, they are only good friends, and that Amy is married.

Who the firetruck is this Amy chick? — MaxEnt 13:06, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Someone with seniority here should add a section called "Spoilers".  One of those spoilers should be to "protect" against the following experience.
One of the treasures of this movie is the relationship between Samantha and Theodore - especially in the first half hour.  Ms. Johansson's voicing of Samantha is supremely talented and irresistable.  However, the sad fact is that Ms. Johansson was added to the project in post production.  This means that all the rapport between Mr. Phoenix and Ms. Johansson - between Theodore and Samantha - is a complete illusion because not one syllable of dialogue was actually voiced / heard by the other actor / and responded to (in real time) through the whole movie.  Everytime Theodore is responding to "her", he is not responding to Ms. Johannsson, but to some unknown actress who was replaced by Ms. Johansson in a role switch implemented post production (after filming, simply alone in a recording studio).  This fact damages the sweet rapport (or illusion of rapport) the movie so wonderfully attains.  
Putting this post-production fact somewhere in a hidden "this may damage the movie, are you sure you want to read it" type of section would enhance the *wiki* entry and preserve the sweetness of the film. QuixoteReborn (talk) 01:56, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

See, Wikipedia is not spoiler-free. Ever since someone put a spoiler warning on The Three Little Pigs, it was decided that spoiler warnings didn't belong on Wikipedia. LilianaUwU (talk / contributions) 01:59, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
Amazing that dumbasses read an enclopedia article and are shocked that the plot is discussed. 119.224.62.191 (talk) 09:46, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

I removed what appeared to be a random assortment of vaguely related links, i.e. a linkfarm. 
Do feel free to add back individual links, assuming you are prepared to argue for a more direct connection. CapnZapp (talk) 22:15, 4 June 2025 (UTC)