Again, I haven't seen the movie, but I did read about it long ago when it first came out: I thought one of the premises was that computer screens don't exist (or are rarely used), and people only talk to their computers (or AI assistants). To me, that makes no sense at all, because speech is a vastly less efficient form of information transfer that anything visual.
Yeah, it was fairly unrealistic. It was set in "near-future Los Angeles" and the skyline was often a prominent feature. The wardrobes and color palettes were sort of drab, 1970s, though.
Computer screens were downplayed a lot. Theodore did work at a screen to write his letters, although they were ultimately committed to real paper. "Samantha", his AI girlfriend OS, seldom appeared on a screen after her initial setup. He wore an earpiece, and he carried a little "flip box" with a camera in it, so that Samanatha could experience reality while riding in his pocket.
He essentially had full-time two-way verbal contact with Samantha. When he was lying in bed, he would converse with her, and his earpiece was always noticeable. She had no avatar, no image on-screen. (They actually recast "Samantha"'s voice in post-production.)
I think this aniconic treatment was helpful in reinforcing just how unreal Samantha was. She ends up leaving him and disappearing with all the other AIs. Yet, she never had a tangible presence to him at all.
But I believe that it was realistic enough in depicting a parasocial relationship between a fundamentally lonely guy and his "pet AI" system. Surely this sort of thing will happen all the time. It already does. Perhaps the unreal part was how he reverts to tangible human connection for the very ending of the film. Will it last for him?
shiroiushi|1 year ago
AStonesThrow|1 year ago
Computer screens were downplayed a lot. Theodore did work at a screen to write his letters, although they were ultimately committed to real paper. "Samantha", his AI girlfriend OS, seldom appeared on a screen after her initial setup. He wore an earpiece, and he carried a little "flip box" with a camera in it, so that Samanatha could experience reality while riding in his pocket.
He essentially had full-time two-way verbal contact with Samantha. When he was lying in bed, he would converse with her, and his earpiece was always noticeable. She had no avatar, no image on-screen. (They actually recast "Samantha"'s voice in post-production.)
I think this aniconic treatment was helpful in reinforcing just how unreal Samantha was. She ends up leaving him and disappearing with all the other AIs. Yet, she never had a tangible presence to him at all.
But I believe that it was realistic enough in depicting a parasocial relationship between a fundamentally lonely guy and his "pet AI" system. Surely this sort of thing will happen all the time. It already does. Perhaps the unreal part was how he reverts to tangible human connection for the very ending of the film. Will it last for him?