John's talk really blew me away, particularly as it related to production design, and how doing actual scientific research can help make the story-world of a film more believable. This got me thinking about how this could also be useful for game design, and also how research in general can help build a believable world for the game. I have been doing research on various aspects of Medieval life for the game project I am working on, and it has greatly helped the cohesiveness of my story.

Another think that John got me thinking about was that it may be beneficial to treat production design in a game with the same attention to detail as in a movie. That Future 2080 book was particularly enticing. TV writers generally work from a "bible" that has been developed for the show. Game designers put such info into a design doc, though from what I've seen, the backstory elements are seldom as complete.

I had similar thoughts. Nothing in the talk was entirely new to me --> the idea that in production, you reference a manual (bible) that makes your story and world consistent throughout whatever production you might be undertaking. Certainly, the film world needs to do this more, especially within the context of video games, which really offer an opportunity to fill the gaps that inevitably exist between the scope of the production design and what actually makes it to the theaters.

However, you could easily look at it from the other perspective -- where films are constructed out of interesting, more linear tangents in a vast, fully realized game world. Yet another example of how more complete and engaging story lines in games could have a broad impact not only within the game industry, but also throughout the rest of the entertainment world. This essentially, is what games will become, and the line between movies and games will become increasingly ambiguous.

While I had already read a lot about Underkoffler's work in MINORITY REPORT (it had my vote for a VFX Oscar nod last year--if my vote had counted), it was really quite thrilling to hear him in person talk about their decisions and how they arrived at various conclusions regarding technology.

The discussion that I found more interesting, though, concerned how we propagate the public perception of science through tools like film. I'm glad that Underkoffler, even with a hard-core science background, understands that sometimes things just have to be "film" real. This really relates to my exploration of people's perception of reality through film, and for me, especially through visual effects. Sometimes if something is completely scientifically real, people won't believe it--which begs the question, do we keep up with what they THINK is real, or do we try to force them to see/hear what is ACTUALLY real?

As far as science and cohesiveness/consistency of worlds in the cinema, I hope more creators hear the message that John Underkoffler is preaching. However, I feel the need to acknowledge that both those elements must ultimately serve the purpose of the project as a whole. John seemed sympathetic to this necessity, when issues of compromise around holography came up especially. Learn/establish the rules so that you can break them effectively when need be.

The really interesting part of the talk for me was the more prosaic

production schematic illustrated by Alex McDowell... particularly the resource sharing and archival efforts that persist throughout the process of creating a film or interactive project. In discussing creating virtual worlds with many windows into them while working with the Mobile Media project, it seems so appropriate to enable artists to share the technological frameworks built with each fictional world. Just as an interactive project based on a film should use the massive resources and artifacts created for the movie, an interactive project should encourage digital filmmakers to hook into their world and weave narratives through it. Already, the creators of "machinima" have used the systems of games, not designed to facilitate their process, to build linear stories. Imagine how cool it would be if the game engines of the next generation gave individuals filmmaking tools in addition to the mod tools that are expected.

I enjoyed John's talk, especially his work in the new design company with Alex. I thought it was a great idea to use the teams that assemble so efficinetly and quickly together for a film in other ventures. As a big believer in group projects and working together, I'd be interested to see how they define the roles of each group member when they are not working on a film, what are the changes between each and do more members take on a role that assists in many things, rather then the very definitive roles of a film crew. I also like the idea of applying all the different techniques we learned last semester towards a design of something that is not a film, and its good to be reminded of how useful the skills of working as a team in a film are.

The connundrum between what the audience knows about a subject and ways to teach it new ones is interesting, definitely an answer to why there are so many formulaic premises in television shows now, and I cannot help but apply it to interactive television and wonder if the same problem applies, is it a catch-22 between using standard methods of communicating with your television and trying to introduce new ways.

John’s lecture made me very exciting. When I was young, I was fond of discussing about future with my friends. And I always added certain reasons based on my limited knowledge into my prediction about future. When science goes to movies, they are not just artistic creation, but also a scientific research.

I’ve read a report about the effect between film and techniques. New techniques make film look cool and sound better while during the film production, a lot of new technologies are invented and eventually be used in military and public. Film is a creative industry, and inventions are mainly based on creativity. I am very surprise to see the bibles and so many different designs which are really doable coming out from the production design.

Different from art design, production design seems more like an industrial design. To make arts based on certain technique rules, production design has more content than normal artworks. John and his colleague did a lot of evocative works which completely open my eyes. They give me a chance to learn more behind the movie, which is actually not my favorite. However, after knowing their design process, my attitude to that movie has changed a lot. But why I didn’t pay too much attention to the design hidden in the movie? Is there any way to emphasize such a great works?

I have always been fascinated by the research and development that goes into everything from the pen I used to take notes during the lecture to the future that was created and presented in Minority Report. The sciences have always been a huge draw for me, and a field that I considered going into. To see this nice melding of science and entertainment was very encouraging and exciting.

I was very insightful to see the research and prototyping that goes into the creation of a world that is completely. In the end, any product, device or prop associated with this world has to be believable to keep the world intact. When something does not seem to fit, the illusion is broken and there is something preventing the viewer from being fully engaged. Every aspect of this fictional world has to be convincing enough to keep the world alive and the research that goes into that is invaluable.

Although I did not get the chance to see the “manual” that was produced for the film, I know how important they are. As Erin mentioned during the lecture, in the design world, an identity manual is essential for every logo, brand or identity that is created. The consistency that goes along with these manuals is priceless. It enables an identity/project to maintain its uniformity throughout its life. These manuals answer all of the questions that might come up and are a great resource for anyone working on a project.

Another aspect of the talk that was fascinating and enlightening was the development video for the glove interface used in the film. Watching the progression from the beginnings using sign language to the final animation was really great. I would have loved to be a fly on the wall during the brainstorming sessions behind the final interface. As Julie mentioned, collaborations and groups allow for more efficiency and increased creativity. One person can visualize an entire project without any outside information, but from past experience, it always helps to have other opinions and ideas included. All in all, this talk was very valuable and very enjoyable to watch.

I really enjoyed this lecture. It was full of interesting tidbits of info. While very well done, this World identity manual is not a new thing to me. Keeping product consistency throughout the production process is key, not matter what industry you in. Beyond production, I played D&D for years and these manuals are exactly what I would create as a Dungeon Master designing an adventure.

John’s idea of using the film production model of team assembly for other types of projects is really interesting. Another compelling notion that he put forth was the idea of using entertainment as a way to explore future technologies. To invent the future through expressive media, frankly, I think it’s been done all along. According to many artistic philosophers, artists see the future and bring it to the present, as Beethoven said “…to grow closer to the Godhead, and disseminate those divine rays among humanity.”
Thanks to John for speaking!

The talk was very interesting, I think a lot has been said about production design, "bibles", and so forth. This part perhaps my favorite part of creating a film...that is, building the world around the story. Tying it into actual science seems like a no-brainer. Looking at anything from natural history (like, say, real-life gliding tree frogs) to so-called "mundane" physics (like, say, keeping a balloon intact on a bed of thumbtacks), it seems "dull old science" is much more interesting than anything an ignorant hollywood hack can slap onto celluoid. Combine a creative force with non-fictional knowledge, and you get good stuff.

A similar phenomenon occurs in relation to history. Also called another "boring area of study", actual history has time and again blown hollywood narrative out of the water. It's just that, like science, they skip that stuff in school. The actual events in Ridley Scott's "Gladiator" were much more interesting in real life...the high hollywood spectacle was actually kinda dull in comparison. Pardon my rant.

Actually, what I wanted to talk about more was the other direction of discourse, of actual science being informed by the movies. On one level it's interesting, on another it's kinda scary. This is what I say to people who mock me for having a degree in media studies. The reason we have a countdown for rocket launches was because it was used for dramatic tension in a Fritz Lang film. If anything has changed since then, it's only been more in that direction.

The worry, of course, is that the people who decide to fund and endorse new technologies will think the real world is the one of Hollywood. I shouldn't have to convince anyone about how dangerous this is. I'm also kind of worried about what people remember from said films...people remember the eye tracking from "Minority Report", but not the consequences said technologies.

I suppose what I mean to say is that people look at a film and ask "Is that technology possible?" instead of "What does it mean when that technology exists?". I'm not saying a film should be then beginning and end of that debate...these are harder questions. Still, they're ones I think film can a better time communicating. The real issue, though, is trying to get people to listen, and then think about those issues as well.

Whew...that sounded a little more caustic than I would have liked...a rant directed at the general movie audience. I suppose I'm less worried about what is in a film and more worried about what people choose to see within a film...

Anyway, I sincerely enjoyed John's lecture, and it was good to see people worried about these same issues working in film. The artifacts he brought, like the film bible and the instructional video, were beautiful, and excellent evidence of a well thought-out world.

It is clear that John’s research lends itself to science fiction. However, it would be equally beneficial to see this level of investigation applied to a murder mystery or situational comedy; often these forms of entertainment could use a dose of authenticity. LBEs (Location Based Entertainment), Museums, and exhibits could also benefit from his insight and creative approach.

With the surge in DVD bonus content, games, and spin off properties, the “digital archive” is more important than ever. Perhaps John and his associates have redefined and expanded the Production Designer’s role in Hollywood. His project for “Destiny USA” reminded me of early concepts for EPCOT (Experimental Prototype Community Of Tomorrow).

The balance between authenticity and fantasy in entertainment is ultimately and aesthetic choice. Incorporating scientific fact can be a double-edged sword regarding suspension of disbelief. If taken too far, it could ground people in reality. Regardless, John demonstrated his genius in BOTH left and right brain thinking. His contributions to “Minority Report” raised the bar of authenticity in a motion picture. And his enthusiastic presentation was contagiously inspiring.

nothing like being the last one on the listing (well for now - that is, an hour before the next lecture).

the ideas expressed in the workflow aspects - creating bibles, understanding the background of the elements in your story arent new. its good to be reminded of them from time to time.

what i found far more interesting was using the film model to create projects in other disciplines. while we are part of the film school, we process things in a very different way then the rest of the students in the cinema programs.

it was great to hear about that model being applied outside of making films - i have a feeling it is an idea we could run with in the future as we develop.

don't worry tripp - I'm now catching up on my postings.

I really enjoyed the underlying theme of John's talk on combing the realities of science and technology with fictional narratives. However, the combing over the details feels like pulling apart taffy.

Like Todd says above, I also feel a fear of the public believing hollywood's fantastical renderings of science.

But just as I said during the seminar, science and technology aren't the only things being misrepresented in damaging ways. Hollywood blockbusters are a gigantic tool for communication, and most of the time the people using it are extremely irresponsible. but... that's hollywood, right? I would love to see the system changed, and all filmmakers become socially conscious, (and I will continue to demand it!) but all we can do now really is note that hollywood films are bubble gum, and not credit them with being capable of much more (pretty cynical, eh?).

Cynicism aside, I agree with Tripp that the notion of both industries feeding each other was also very interesting. No doubt we see the world in a different way having studied at a cinema-television school, and all industries can benefit from it. Maybe now companies developing new technologies can make informative AND entertaining press releases that will capture our imaginations before Hollywood does.

I was impressed with John's lecture in as far as I could see myself as a futurist designing a world and its technology for a feature film. Most notably were his explanations of placing products in the film in their rather futuristic aspects. A maglev Lexus that pushes other cars out of the way on the freeway, so that the cop inside can get to the station faster.

Instead of live paparazzi, the idea of paparazzi robots was funny even though it never made it to the final production. Much like a walk way that is powered by cilia, moving people along their own individual paths. If it were possible now, a very positive way to transport people and more logical than those one way moving sidewalks we see in airports.

As Stephanie pointed out, John's full explanation of the gestures used in the creation of a dataglove to be used in the sorting of precrime data was fascinating, as well as his remark that Spielberg wanted to know how a precrime police station sounds...what would the employees be talking about in the background. All of this helps the movie going public to identify with the film being shown. The manual created for this film, as Tripp pointed out, is not a new concept, but it is something that not only filmmakers produce, but the best authors as well. Kevin J. Anderson, in his writing of the Saga of Seven Suns series produced a very complete bible of all the technology and culture to be used in a futuristic, spacefaring Earth.

Futhermore, I, being a theme park junkie, cannot wait for the final arrival of Destiny USA, I highly look forward to its completion and I highly hope that it exceeds the hype about it so far. If it is just 75% of what it is in John's design papers, then it will rock!

I myself was overwhelmed at the amount of research and actual studies done outside the film. An entire book or "bible" so to speak just on what the future might be. Definitely a different approach to things than the typical hollywood, "Let's make it up as we go." formula. Pre-vis scenes such as the one involved with filming the short spot in minority report about the spider ID bots was impressive, in fact so much so that those previs sequences seem so game like that it's scarey. How often are those types of sequences used in planning for a movie but not in a video game? Something to chew on. Maybe the game industry should do more looking back to film than vice versa?