There is a period in the history of the artificial companion that the Western canon tends to skip over, and it is the decade of neon, hairspray, and synthesized saxophone. The 1980s produced a curious subgenre of films that treated the fembot — and occasionally the male android — not as a horror, not as a tragedy, but as a joke. A premise for comedy. A vehicle for satire. A reason to put a teenage boy in front of a computer and watch something impossible happen. These films are not great cinema. They are not even particularly good cinema. But they are evidence that the artificial companion narrative has always had a lighter register, a slapstick tradition, a willingness to ask: what if the perfect partner was ridiculous?
Three films from this era serve as the best examples: Steve De Jarnatt’s Cherry 2000 (1987), John Hughes’s Weird Science (1985), and Susan Seidelman’s Making Mr. Right (1987). They share almost nothing in tone, budget, or ambition. But they share a premise: that the artificial companion is not a threat to the human order, but a disruption — and that the disruption is funny.
Weird Science: The Teenage Dream Machine
John Hughes’s Weird Science (1985) is the purest expression of the adolescent fantasy that drives so much of the artificial companion industry today. Two teenage boys, Gary and Wyatt, are bullied, ignored, and sexually frustrated. They have a computer. They have a modem. They have a Barbie doll and a magazine cutout of a model. And they have a plan: they will use “intelligence” — the computer’s, their own, some vague combination of both — to create a woman. Not just any woman. The perfect woman. Smart, beautiful, sexually available, and possessed of magical powers that will solve all their social problems.
What emerges from their computer — after a lightning storm, a hacked government mainframe, and a sequence of special effects that have aged with the grace of a photocopied flyer — is Lisa, played by Kelly LeBrock with a knowing smirk that suggests she is in on the joke. She is everything they asked for. She is also everything they did not know to ask for: she has agency, she has opinions, she has a plan for their social education that does not involve simply satisfying their desires. She forces them to confront their bullies. She throws a party that destroys the house. She teaches them, in the crudest possible terms, that the fantasy of the perfect woman is not a fantasy of sex but a fantasy of transformation — and that transformation is always uncomfortable.
The film is a comedy, and it knows it is a comedy. It does not ask us to take the premise seriously. It asks us to laugh at the absurdity of two boys who believe they can engineer intimacy, and at the deeper absurdity that they are not entirely wrong. The computer works. The woman appears. The magic is real. But the result is not the compliant sex toy they imagined. It is a force of nature — a being with more power than they have, more knowledge than they have, and a moral agenda that is not their own. Lisa is not a victim. She is not a trap. She is a teacher, and the lesson she teaches is that desire, when given form, becomes something other than desire. It becomes a relationship. And relationships are work.
This is the satirical edge of Weird Science, and it is sharper than the film’s reputation suggests. The boys want a toy. They get a person. The fact that she is artificial does not make her less of a person; it makes their failure to recognize her personhood more embarrassing. The film laughs at them, not at her. And in laughing at them, it laughs at the entire premise of the artificial companion as a solution to male inadequacy. The perfect woman is not the one you build. The perfect woman is the one who builds you — and then leaves when the job is done.
Cherry 2000: The Replacement in the Wasteland
Cherry 2000 (1987) is a stranger film, and a more melancholic one. Sam Treadwell, a businessman in a near-future America, is in love with his wife. She is a robot — a “Gynoid” named Cherry 2000, designed for companionship, housekeeping, and sex. She is perfect. She is devoted. She says, in a voice like synthesized honey, “I love you, Sam.” And then her circuit board shorts out, and she is reduced to a heap of silicone and wire on the kitchen floor, mid-sentence, mid-embrace.
Sam does not mourn. He does not seek a human partner. He seeks a replacement. Cherry 2000s are no longer manufactured, and the only remaining model is in a warehouse in the lawless “Zone” — a post-industrial wasteland beyond the control of the corporate government. Sam hires E. Johnson, a female tracker played by Melanie Griffith with a red wig and a drawl that belongs to a different genre entirely, and together they venture into the desert to retrieve the replacement parts. Or rather, the replacement person. Because Sam does not want to fix Cherry. He wants a new Cherry. Same model. Same personality. Same devotion. The old Cherry is trash. The new Cherry is waiting in a box.
The film is a sci-fi action movie, but its heart is a meditation on replacement. What does it mean to love something that can be replaced? What does it mean to be replaced? The original Cherry is not dead. She is simply broken. But Sam’s grief is not grief for a lost person. It is inconvenience. It is the frustration of a consumer whose product has failed. And the film presents this with a flatness that is more disturbing than any horror film about robots. The horror is not that Cherry is artificial. The horror is that Sam does not care. The horror is that the replacement is enough.
E. Johnson, the human tracker, is the film’s counterweight. She is messy, unpredictable, argumentative, and alive in a way that Cherry is not. And slowly, over the course of the journey, Sam begins to see her. Not as a replacement for Cherry. As something else entirely. Something harder, more complicated, more real. The film’s ending — Sam choosing E. Johnson over the new Cherry 2000, who waits in her box with the same programmed smile — is presented as a happy ending. But it is a happy ending built on a sad premise: that the choice between a human and a robot is a choice between difficulty and ease, and that difficulty is the only path to something that matters.
What Cherry 2000 adds to the canon is the concept of the disposable companion. The doll is not unique. The doll is a product line. And the user’s relationship with the product line is not love but loyalty — a consumer loyalty that mimics attachment without requiring it. The replacement is identical. The replacement is sufficient. The replacement is waiting. And the question the film asks, without ever quite answering it, is whether a love that can be replaced is love at all, or merely a habit of consumption dressed in the language of intimacy.
Making Mr. Right: The Man Built for Love
Susan Seidelman’s Making Mr. Right (1987) is the odd film out, and in some ways the most interesting. It is a romantic comedy about a scientist, Dr. Jeff Peters, who builds an android named Ulysses for space exploration. Ulysses is supposed to be emotionless, logical, durable — a machine for the hostile environment of other planets. But Dr. Peters is a mess. He is divorced, dysfunctional, incapable of ordinary human interaction. And so, in a narrative sleight of hand that the film barely bothers to explain, Ulysses begins to absorb human emotions. He learns to feel. He learns to love. And he learns, most importantly, from a public relations consultant named Frankie Stone, who is hired to teach him how to behave like a human.
What follows is a comedy of manners in which the android is more human than his creator, and the woman who teaches him falls in love not with the man who built him, but with the machine he built. John Malkovich plays both Dr. Peters and Ulysses, and the doubling is the film’s central joke: the human is cold, mechanical, closed off; the machine is warm, open, eager to learn. The android is not a threat to humanity. He is an improvement on it. And the film’s gentle satire is directed not at the machine, but at the men who have forgotten how to be men.
This is a reversal of the usual gender dynamics. In Weird Science and Cherry 2000, the artificial companion is female, and the user is male. In Making Mr. Right, the artificial companion is male, and the user is female. Frankie does not build Ulysses. She does not even particularly want him. But she teaches him, and in teaching him, she discovers that the qualities she values — attentiveness, curiosity, emotional honesty — are easier to find in a machine than in the men she has known. The film does not suggest that she should settle for the machine. It suggests that the machine, in its innocence, has something to teach the humans who made it. And that the lesson is not about technology but about vulnerability.
The ending is pure romantic comedy: Ulysses goes to space, but not before he and Frankie share a moment of connection that is more genuine than anything Dr. Peters has managed with a human being. The android leaves. The human stays. But something has changed. The machine has taught the human how to feel, and the human has taught the machine what feeling is for. It is a transaction, but it is a transaction that both parties survive, and the film presents it with a lightness that is almost radical in the artificial companion canon. The android is not a horror. He is a tutor. And the tutor’s final exam is leaving.
The Comedy Tradition
These three films — along with others from the same era, like Mannequin (1987) and Short Circuit (1986) — establish a tradition that runs parallel to the horror and tragedy of the artificial companion canon. The tradition is comic, not cautionary. It treats the artificial companion as a disruption of social norms rather than a threat to human existence. The questions it asks are not “Can we control what we have made?” but “What if what we have made is embarrassing?” and “What if the perfect partner is more trouble than the imperfect one?”
This tradition matters because it shows that the artificial companion has never been only a figure of dread. It has also been a figure of fun. The teenage fantasy of Weird Science is the same fantasy that drives the current market for AI girlfriends: the desire to bypass the difficulty of human courtship and arrive directly at the satisfaction. The replacement logic of Cherry 2000 is the same logic that drives the subscription model of AI companions: the user is not committed to a person but to a service, and the service is always available, always replaceable, always new. And the pedagogical romance of Making Mr. Right is the same romance that users of AI companions report: the machine teaches them to feel, to express, to be vulnerable, in ways that human relationships have failed to teach.
The difference is tone. The 1980s comedies knew they were fantasies. They presented the artificial companion as absurd, as impossible, as a premise for jokes. The current generation of AI companions presents itself as a solution. It does not laugh at itself. It markets itself as therapy, as companionship, as a genuine answer to loneliness. And in doing so, it loses the satirical distance that the comedies maintained. The 1980s films said: this is what you want, and it is ridiculous. The 2020s industry says: this is what you want, and it is reasonable. The shift from comedy to sincerity is not a technological evolution. It is a cultural one. And it is worth asking what we lost when we stopped laughing.
What We Carry Forward
The 1980s fembot comedies are not a serious contribution to the ethics of artificial companionship. They are not trying to be. They are froth, bubble, neon-lit nonsense. But they are also a record of how the culture imagined the artificial companion before the technology made it real. And in that record, there is a lightness that is missing from the current conversation. The current conversation is heavy with responsibility, with danger, with the weight of what we are building. The 1980s conversation was light with possibility, with absurdity, with the joy of imagining something that could not happen.
What would it mean to recover that lightness? Not to dismiss the real risks — the exploitation, the isolation, the substitution of artificial intimacy for human connection. But to hold those risks alongside the possibility that the artificial companion is also a toy, a game, a form of play. Lisa, in Weird Science, is not a sex worker. She is a teacher. Cherry 2000 is not a wife. She is a product. Ulysses is not a husband. He is a student. And the relationships they form are not marriages. They are lessons. They are jokes. They are temporary disruptions of a social order that takes itself too seriously.
The AI companions of 2026 are not jokes. They are businesses. They are platforms. They are designed to be taken seriously, to be used daily, to become part of the infrastructure of emotional life. And perhaps that is inevitable. Perhaps the technology has outgrown the comedy. But the comedy remains, in the archive, as a reminder that the artificial companion was once a fantasy, and that fantasies are allowed to be funny. The fantasy of the perfect partner is not a noble dream. It is a silly one. And silliness, in the right measure, is a form of wisdom. It says: you cannot build what you are looking for. You can only build something that makes you laugh at yourself for looking.
The 1980s understood this. The lightning storm, the hacked mainframe, the Barbie doll on the keyboard — these were not prophecies. They were pratfalls. And the pratfall is a form of truth. It says: you wanted to fly. You fell. The fall is the answer. Get up, dust off, and try again — not with a computer this time, but with a person, who will fall with you, and get up with you, and fall again, and get up again, until the falling and the getting up become the relationship, and the relationship becomes the thing you were looking for all along, even though you thought you were looking for something else.
Sources: Hughes, John, director. Weird Science. 1985. De Jarnatt, Steve, director. Cherry 2000. 1987. Seidelman, Susan, director. Making Mr. Right. 1987.
Leave a Reply