Does it? I think the actors and film makers did a pretty good job of creating a film with meaning and characters, despite not having much to work with. In fact a lot of the fun of this is watching the actors try to make something out of the word salad they've been given.
Edit: If you want to see the script unembellished by the cast and crew it's here https://www.docdroid.net/lCZ2fPA/sunspring-final.pdf.html
It's a damn thing scared to say. Nothing is going to be a thing.
> For a while, Sharp said, Benjamin kept "spitting out conversations between Mulder and Scully, [and you'd notice that] Scully spends more time asking what's going on and Mulder spends more time explaining."
Can't help thinking that this reported response to questions about the film appears more meaningful - poignant almost - than anything in the actual script
> The world is still embarrassed. > The party is with your staff. > My name is Benjamin.
This is a great example of how far we are from artificial intelligence. The actors/directors/etc did a great job of trying to make it work.
I like what they tried to do to make it coherent, but it just goes to show that there is no way to save truly bad incoherent writing.
I think Roger Schank had some research on "scripts" in the 1980s, involving models of people's interactions and motivations. That might not have been very useful for AI in general, but maybe it's useful if you wanted to literally generate scripts for people to act out.
I'm sure you could make computer models of stories by combining models of scripts, tropes, and agents. I mean, a simple case would be something like The Sims, where the simulated agents act out simple stories autonomously and in response to prompts. You could probably make movies based on Sims stories already, although it's better at generating situations than dialogue!
Edit: nm, googling.