Olsson showed a rather bulky and – according to her – rather heavy piece of hardware that was a mix of geeky massive and hipster odd. Speaking about the experience, walking into the room at Google on the first day that prototypes had been mocked up, Olsson described it as a rather exciting – if not scary – experience. One of the first changes the team had to make, she said, was in the unit’s ability to adjust.

“When I joined the project, we thought we needed 50 different adjustment mechanisms, but that wouldn’t make a good user experience. So we scaled it down to this one adjustment mechanism.” – Isabelle Olsson, Google Glass Lead Industrial Designer

Olsson also showed off Glass’ ability to be taken apart and moved. There’s one piece that acts as the most basic frame and the other – the computer – that can be attached to many different bits and pieces being built today.

“We make Glass modular. In this stage, this means you’re able to remove the board from the main frame. This is pretty cool. This opens up a lot of possibilities. It opens up possibilities for not only functionality but also scalability.” – Isabelle Olsson, Google Glass Lead Industrial Designer

Glass is still at a place where this team cannot tell the public when they will be ready to sell to consumers – the same goes for the future of Glass. Noting that they wouldn’t be able to comment on the future of Glass very much at this point. This was called into question by a boisterous audience member who yelled:

Why not?!

To which the host of this chat, Senior Developer Advocate at Google for Project Glass, Timothy Jordan, replied: “because it’s Google’s policy not to comment on future unannounced products. And because I follow rules.” To which the same audience member replied, pathetically hilariously:

Ok.

This attitude reflected the thoughts and wishes of the entire audience – or at least those without the device on their temples. With more than 30 members of the audience wearing the developer “Explorer Edition” in full effect, we were in rare company without a doubt.

As Eric Mizufuka explained this week, the Moverio BT-100 is “a wearable display – smartglasses – with a shade that’s removable.” What you’re seeing with these glasses is an image that can get as large as an 80-inch display depending on what you’re using them for, and they’re able to work with apps such as the one presenting 3D device augmented reality training that Scope AR is showing off this year.

At it’s base, this device is powered by an Android control unit – it’s able to run and launch Android apps just like a smartphone would, so to speak. This product in its current form was launched over a year ago, and according to Mizufuka, the unit was and is “seen originally as more of a developer platform so developers could take the lead on creating apps that would eventually shape the device.”

Epson’s Moverio BT-100 glasses are not yet consumer market ready – they’re not yet in a place where they’re meant for the consumer market, instead concentrating on developer efforts to create “that one killer app” to start the machine that is the succssful launch of the platform.

As for how they fit into the augmented reality or “smart” glasses universe thats coming to light here in 2013, Mizufuka suggests that there’s a four-point set of categories that each unit in this new market fall into, each pair of said glasses working with two.

Binocular / Monocular
Transparent / Non-Transparent

While the Epson Moverio BT-100 unit falls into the binocular and transparent category, Occulus Rift is a binocular, non-tranparent device. Google Glass, on the other hand, is a monocular tranparent device.

Epson’s product makes its way in the market with features that are, as Mizufuka suggests, rather unique. “[Moverio BT-100] is unique in that you can see 3D, and unique in that it’s in the center of your field of view so you can overlay 3D images over real objects.” This is what the company calls Real Augmented Reality.

Mizufuka let SlashGear know that they’d be creating the final consumer units as a product that people will want to use, one that they intend to be able to be worn by everyone. “Glass is a beautiful product and it’s miniturized very well, but you still have some consumer kickback saying it’s too geeky.”

CEO and lead developer of Scope Technologies Scott Montgomerie let us know that as soon as they discovered Epson’s augmented reality glasses, they knew they had to collaborate. Their need for such a solution for their idea to overlay machine parts in 3D for users training in the industrial market seemed like a perfect fit. “Industrial Augmented Reality for machinery, overlaying 3D images over real machines seemed impracticle at first – until the idea of augmented reality glasses, like Moverio BT-100, came up.”

Mounting a camera on top of the optics they’d already had, they created the device you see demonstrated here:

Montgomerie continued: “Our strategy is in the near term to focus on these verticle market applications. I think the consumer is just getting comfortable now with wearable displays, as soon as we’re able to find that killer app in the market, we’ll be there.” Sound like the right path to take to you? Epson’s Mizufuka let it be known that the final consumer product would be both affordable and made for the mass market – and we’re hoping for more soon!

Stokdyk’s role in the creation of this movie began 2.5 years ago, working directly with the director of the film, Sam Raimi. With Raimi, Stokdyk broke down each element in the storyline piece by piece, speaking about how they’d go about creating each visual effect that would need to exist. After knocking out the script for a period, Mr. Stokdyk headed to Detroit for 7 months of filming the movie on soundstage, working after this for over a year in post-production.

As Visual Effects Supervisor, Stokdyk worked with the fabulous Sony Pictures Imageworks, a group we’ve had some rather fruitful conversations with in the past, to be sure! For those of you who have that tingling feeling you’ve heard Stokdyk’s name before, you’ll be glad to know you’re right: he’s previously worked with Sam Raimi on each of the Spider-Man movies (1, 2, and 3) as Visual Effects Supervisor as he does on the one we’re discussing today and has worked in different effects roles on such classic films as Titanic, Contact, and The Fifth Element.

According to Stokdyk, in both Oz the Great and Powerful and in the film industry in general, the way an effects-inclusive movie can distinguish itself is simple (so to speak). As Stokdyk says, “In Visual Effects nowadays, there’s basically effects work, there’s character work, there’s environmental work – and what distinguishes one show from another nowadays is it’s own unique combination of how those pieces work together and how they’re Art Directed together.”

Seems simple enough to say, right? Stokdyk continued, “[This film] has a nice blend of character animation that’s stunt and action oriented – and performance based – interacting with the real actors. We’ve also got really fantastical environmental extensions of sets. They bring into this fantastical world of Oz what we’ve shot on set.”

You’ll be seeing your fair share of fantastic effects-dependent shots and characters throughout this film which – if you did not know – is out in theaters now! Featured computer-generated characters you’ll be seeing throughout the film include:

The China Girl – this little lady is a porcelain doll that our hero Oz finds after her town is destroyed in the film. She’s voiced by Joey King and trots along with fully realistic features from top to bottom.

Finley the Flying Monkey – a cute little beast voiced by none other than your best buddy Zach Braff. This lovely beast also accompanies Oz throughout the movie and has one whole heck of a lot of fur that needed digital brushing – not to mention the rest of his fully-animated monkey body.

Both Braff and King took part in filming their parts as the monkey and he doll throughout principal photography, allowing the rest of the actors to act and respond in a much more organic way than traditional CG replacements would have allowed. Once filming was complete though, it was all up to the effects teams to bust forth with what Sony Pictures Imageworks describes as “the most technically challenging production Imageworks’ has completed to date.”

The group notes that they completed over 1,100 shots that appear in the final product, these including every single one of the GC environments and character shots. You’ll see digital doubles of each of the main characters: Oz, Glinda, Theodora, Evanora, and Knuck. You’ll see “thousands of flying baboons including three unique hero baboons.” You’ll see massive amounts of CG creatures including “attacking snapdragons, horses, various insects, butterflies, birds, flying fish, wooden horses, lion, squirrel, and river fairies”. You’ll see giant digital crowds of characters across the countryside and inside the city.

Some of the most awesome bits and pieces you should look out for while you’re experiencing this magical mix of fanaticism are:

• Glinda’s Magic Bubbles
• A shimmering wall around Glinda’s countryside and village
• Theodora’s Fire Tornado
• The Oz hologram
• Water effects galore
• Massive poppy fields
• China Town
• Emerald City – including “the main gates, boulevard, central square, back gate, back
alley, bell tower, palace, dais, vaulted corridor, Throne Room, Room of
Resplendence, balcony and bridge digital sets and huge aerials of the city”
• Fog!

And for those of you that are worried that this is another one of those films that destroys the experience of moviegoing with a heavy overdose of effects-driven shots, don’t fret! According to Stokdyk, they were certainly conscious of how easy it could have been to OD.

Stokdyk: You have a certain number of shots in any movie that are all computer generated, right? You just can’t shoot them, or there’s a prop that’s too expensive to shoot, or you shoot them in post after you’ve shot them in principal photography. We certainly had a decent chunk of those kind of shots, but after you’ve gone all CG, and done everything in the world CG, where’s the boundary? Where’s the next frontier after that?”

As Stokdyk tells us, so too must it be true! Expect the most awesome combination of art direction, live action, and CG you’ve ever seen on a film of this kind – start to finish!

Spend any time talking future tech to Nokia’s executives, and you realize there are two themes running through their predictions. First, and perhaps most familiar to most industry watchers, there’s the relentless advance of sensors and the complexity of devices, with capabilities always evolving. Nokia differs in some respects in how its management see the form-factor of those devices: rather than a single, increasingly powerful phone in your pocket, all three VPs talked about a resurgence in dedicated devices; products that, as Marco Ahtisaari described it, “do a few things really well.”

Secondly, and arguably a more contrarian stance than others in the segment, is a desire to actually reduce the attention that’s paid to smartphones and mobile devices. Ahtisaari coined the phrase “heads up” internally to describe it, though it’s become an ethos for the long-term shared by others in the design team, like Stefan Pannenbecker.

“We see sometimes couples, out in a restaurant, romantically texting each other, or broadcasting… so that type of phenomena is interesting, and in a way bugs us a little bit, because the question is how can we get the “heads up”?” the Industrial Design chief explained to us. “So we do a lot of work on all kinds of levels in order to think that scenario through: what does that mean? So we’re interested in that type of topic, how do we get people’s heads up again.”

Nokia isn’t expecting to address that question in the next few months, or even the next couple of years. As Marco Ahtisaari told us, it’s an example of the company’s longer-term planning, though as an internal culture of design it has an impact on the Lumia devices we’ll see over the coming years. “The one thing I would say is that I talk about the “heads-up” principle in the studio, it’s like a 20-year principle. Creating computing technology that’s with us that doesn’t require more attention” he said.

“And part of this pinning-to-Start [in the Windows Phone homescreen] is one example of that; things we’ve done with the glanceable, low-power mode on our devices in the past is an example of that; the NFC work we’re doing is an example of that,” Ahtisaari counted off. “You just touch the environment: the world becomes your interface, rather than having to go through twelve swipe-swipe-swipe. So that’s another component of that future, I think, and very important as we go to more distributed objects that do only a few things.”

Having got to a point where a person’s smartphone is often also their camera, their music player, their fitness tracker, and more, it might seem counter-intuitive to be considering breaking apart those components and turning again to individual gadgets. However, there’s a strong feeling within Nokia that specificity has its own advantages.

“I think there’ll be room for more and more dedicated devices that do a few things really well again” Ahtisaari predicts. “And that is slightly a contrarian view, but I think what we’ll see is increasing complexity and ability… you can either shortcut through the environment, but this means also space for dedicated devices that do a few things really well. Yes, a phone, but other functionalities too.”

Right now, all three executives are coy on what, exactly, Nokia’s portfolio of answers to these questions might look like. However, they’re more vocal on what they probably won’t be, and the approach seems less “in your face” than Glass, and more cautious than the “confident” search and prediction of Google Now.

“I’m not going to speculate [about Glass] because time will tell with regards what is the right execution with regards to this idea of “heads-up”, so I think we’ve a lot of work to do, frankly, so I’m not going to speculate about that” Pannenbecker said. “But I think, as I said, this is for me an area that we want to engage in, I mean, this topic of heads-up not this particular solution for example. As I said, there’s a whole bandwidth of opportunities, and I think we as a company need to look very deeply into these opportunities, and then commit.”

For Harlow, the question is of need: or, more accurately, the balance of plain geek appeal – as perhaps Google Glass embodies – against relevance to mass-market consumers. “I think that it’s just as true in any of these new areas that you have to solve the fundamental consumer problems, and you can’t… you innovate for the sake of innovation” the smartphones boss argued. “Usually there’s a small number of people who find them really cool, and the vast majority don’t see a reason why. That the use case is so on-the-point that they don’t see it.”

In fact, there’s a sense among all three that the Glass strategy – that is, taking what components might usually be associated with a smartphone, and making them something you can wear – is too easy a way out. Yes, there are battery challenges, and persistent wireless demands, and the need to craft an interface and interaction paradigm that suits a more hands-off usage style, but a wearable computer doesn’t necessarily address either user-need nor go far enough in liberating users from the tyranny of persistent, connected distraction.

“I think that’s why you see fitness all over the place, because clearly if people stick with it then it can help solve a problem” Harlow explains, “but that’s where I think the energy will really come from, either that they solve latent needs that consumers can’t necessarily articulate, or solve unknown problems that they have and that sensors would solve.”

While the most attention has been paid to Nokia’s evolving Windows Phone handset range, the company has also been working on matching accessories, pushing ideas like wireless charging and NFC pairing. That focus on a well-designed, integrated ecosystem looks likely to spawn a family of shared technologies, each delivering its own component part of the overall usability.

“That’s something which we’re working on, and I’m not in a position… I will not talk about specific solutions to that, but absolutely that is a challenge for us” Pannenbecker agreed. “For us as designers. Because ultimately again it comes to better problems. This is more what we think a smartphone is supposed to be [holds up phone], but I think obviously there’s other ways of doing that.”

Nokia hasn’t been afraid of riffing on those possibilities in the past with concept designs, however. Its 2009 “Mixed Reality” headset predated Google Glass, and was envisaged with its own suite of accessories and sensors: a motion-tracking wristband for navigating a wearable display, for instance, along with wireless audio. Meanwhile, the idea of paring back information in a more context-driven way has also been explored, such as the Nokia-prompted “Frame” concept device that rethought the smartphone into a window that blurred the physical and digital worlds. Arguably it’s an idea that has expressed itself in Nokia City Lens, the augmented reality app now publicly available for Windows Phone.

Just as Google Now relies on its context engine, so has Nokia Research been pushing its own predictive technologies to better focus the user-experience. We mentioned the 2009 “Linked Internet UI Concept” from Nokia Research to Marco Ahtisaari, a project which learned from social networking attention and prioritized updates and geo-location of those people it calculated the user was most interested in, and asked him where the company’s roadmap was on integrating such ideas into its software.

“Partly that’s a question of focus” he said, pointing out that Nokia needed first of all to prove itself with a successfully selling Lumia range of phones. “Like I said, the most important thing we can do now is show momentum. These are things we definitely work on.”

However, he also argued that there is risk in making mobile devices too intelligent – or portraying them as having intelligence – because you run the risk of leaving the user feeling at odds with their device, not enabled by it. “If this makes sense there’s robots and people. People versus robots” Ahtisaari said, somewhat cryptically. “We’re on the side of people, in general. What I mean by that is certain personalization you can do, goes a long way. And the other example, if you took that, would be “hello, we just reconfigured your phone, it’s got all the people here, and we set it up for you”.”

In fact, Nokia could already integrate that sort of contextual technology into its phones today; the reservation is one of how the mainstream user – not the Glass aficionado – might react to that. “We’ve all of that auto-magic today, it’s just doing it in a way that doesn’t feel creepy, or has violated what you do” he argued. “It’s striking that balance. But definitely, the two things you’ve mentioned – contextually and prediction – are important.”

It’s early days for Nokia to look too far beyond smartphones; the Lumia line-up has only just reached five Windows Phone 8 handsets, the platform itself still holds an extreme minority share, and there’s no sign of a tablet on the horizon, at least not publicly. Nonetheless, it seems we can expect something other than a set of Windows Phone goggles.

“I’m not going to speculate [about Glass] because time will tell with regards what is the right execution with regards to this idea of “heads-up”, so I think we’ve a lot of work to do, frankly, so I’m not going to speculate about that” Pannenbecker demurred. “But I think, as I said, this is for me an area that we want to engage in, I mean, this topic of heads-up not this particular solution for example. As I said, there’s a whole bandwidth of opportunities, and I think we as a company need to look very deeply into these opportunities, and then commit.”

Though the strategies may be very different, there’s one thing Nokia and Google do agree on: the name of the game is elevating users from the voracious attention-soak of the touchscreen, not finding more ways of putting it in front of them. “If they require as much attention as a smartphone, then no more human contact” Ahitsaari concluded. “That’s the perspective we have, we’re still in the people-connecting business.”

“It’s really a question, “is there a large enough audience out there?” or “are the people who have QWERTY today intending to move in this direction?” and we really don’t want to be on the wrong side of that movement” Harlow, executive vice president of Smart Devices, told us. That’s despite a clear message from some users that a physical keyboard is high on their list of priorities.

“We still continue to evaluate because we do get the request a lot, and it’s funny that there are a lot of people that absolutely want to use a physical keyboard, they like the security of that” Harlow conceded. “Even though, I think the virtual keyboard of Windows Phone is phenomenal, especially the level of autocorrect, it’s really, really good.”

Unsurprisingly, Nokia isn’t ruling out any particular device, no matter how great the abundance of caution over QWERTY today. That means the market reception to BlackBerry’s upcoming Q10, the first BlackBerry 10 device to include one of the Canadian company’s legendary thumbboards, is likely to be of particular interest to Nokia as it figures out its next steps in Windows Phone.

“It’s something that we’re constantly looking at: next form-factors, what should we do next” Harlow told us, though pointed out that even those who really do want a physical ‘board are a dying breed. “One of the things that we see is that the number of people who are using, or are interested in using, a QWERTY continues to decline.”

Pixel’s appeal on a purely hardware basis is undeniable: it’s a beautifully designed notebook, with an incredibly high resolution touchscreen and the same crisp lines that we liked from Google’s first Cr-48 Chromebook. However, its huge price puts Chrome OS up against full notebooks from Apple, Sony, and others, despite the relative limitations of the cloud-centric platform, a completely different market from earlier, highly affordable Chromebooks.

For Duarte, however, Pixel’s success won’t solely be measured by pure sales. “I think that Pixel is really exciting, because I think that Pixel shows the way that the boundaries between the different types of computing are blurring” he explained to us. “I think it’s great that the Chrome team is doing that, I think it’s great that the Chrome team is allowing Google to get into people’s lives with touchscreens on a desktop form-factor.”

That’s not a point of view shared by everybody in the industry, and in fact it puts Duarte and Google in the same camp as Microsoft and its hardware partners, rather than with Apple. Steve Jobs memorably decried the usability of touch notebooks, and Tim Cook has since made similar arguments, that reaching across a keyboard to tap at a display simply isn’t ergonomically satisfying.

Duarte disagrees, saying that despite what the MacBook makers think, users themselves are asking for a touchscreen approach. “I think that’s a real trend, that touch on laptops and on desktop form-factors is the way that people want to interact with computers” he says. “I think every screen should be a touchscreen in the future, regardless if it has a keyboard or not.”

Despite the overlap, then, between Android – which has touch at its heart – and Chrome OS – designed for more traditional form-factors – the two platforms still have a future as independent projects. According to Duarte, that will be the case for as long as it makes functional sense: the two OSes converging, perhaps, on a commonality of features as Google develops them.

“Google is excellent at diversifying, and experimenting” he told us. “And I think what Chrome OS does well – they’re getting better at, and it’s being reflected in what Android does well in succession – Chrome on Android is the best browser we’ve ever had, and we would not be at that level without the Chrome team doing the work that they do, without the Chrome OS team learning the things that they do, and learning to understand, for example, how to work on touchscreens.”

Meanwhile, what was originally a smartphone, and then a tablet, OS has been gaining more functionality to bring it in line with a desktop platform, though Duarte says that it’s still not quite there year. “Of course Android has also been evolving, and I think it’s terrific the way that we are gaining capabilities on a day-by-day basis” he said. “For example in Jelly Bean we announced multi-user support, and that opens up a range of use-cases, but ultimately, still, the two platforms meet different needs.”

That also means Android playing more readily with accessories and other devices, as it continues its trend toward being the one “OS for humanity” as Duarte himself described it. “One of the things that was great that we did in Honeycomb, was we included much better support for peripherals” the designer said. “So if you go hook up your Nexus 10 to a Bluetooth keyboard, or even a Bluetooth trackpad, you’ll find you have a much better experience with that.”

Despite the convergence that has already happened, Duarte points out however, neither Android nor Chrome OS are at the point where they satisfy the overall needs of all users. “Until we have one solution for Google that can really capture everything, it makes sense for us to continue to develop two platforms” he explained. Exactly how long that development will take is unclear, but it may take some time before Chrome OS – or a flavor of it – achieves the same market dominance as Android enjoys.

While “smart devices” may be the buzzword of the past few years, the practical implementation still leaves plenty to be desired. Individual pieces of hardware may be smarter in their own right, but that doesn’t mean they play nicely together, Duarte pointed out in frustration.

“Together we live in a very fractured operating system world. My awesome digital camera doesn’t interoperate with my laptop, doesn’t interoperate with my phone” he explained. “These things have different OSes, they work differently, the apps are different, there’s no common account knowledge between those, and that’s just broken. We should fix that.”

While common networking systems and low-power wireless are increasingly acting as the technological bridge between devices, the languages they’re each speaking is holding up real development. Duarte is confident that Android should be that common glue; in fact, he says it’s the reason he joined Google in the first place.

“I can’t wait to have Android on every device, on every screen, and on things that aren’t screens” he told us. “That’s why I came to Google; that’s why I’m excited about working on Android. Because I really see it as an operating system for humanity.”

In many ways all this is a sentiment we’ve heard before from many of the big software and networking companies, each talking about their own products and their own particular opinion of how the “internet of things” should evolve. However, Duarte argues that Android’s suitability for the job is more than just its functionality and its flexibility.

“The momentum that [Android has] got is allowing us to then really take an operating system and have it tie everything together. We should have one operating system that provides the foundation for the future of digital humanity. I truly believe that. In fact, I think it’s inevitable, because you get so much more power when everything can talk to each other, and interoperate.” The vital factor as the designer sees it is that Android is transparent in both how it communicates and in what it says. “I passionately believe that if we’re going to have that one operating system it should be an open operating system that anybody can take, anybody can modify, anybody can inspect, nobody can own.”

“Because it’s open, it means that all the innovation that we bring to it is “inspectable” by anybody” Duarte insists, perhaps the most animated we’ve seen him since talking about the interplay of Google Now and Glass. “There’s no funny-business going on; no one government, no one corporation can own it. It’s kind of like a patrimony of humanity: everything that goes in Android.”

Duarte’s role at Google has been to coax a more design-led attitude out of product development, something he himself admits that the search giant hasn’t, historically, been great at. He came to the job with good credentials, too, integral in developing webOS – pre-HP acquisition – which, for all its faults, was well regarded for its user-friendly aesthetic.

Most recently, though, Duarte has been integral in refining the Google Now experience, a process which began in an inter-disciplinary meeting back in November 2011 and culminated, in its first iteration at least, at Google I/O in July last year. For those unfamiliar, Google Now turns the “portable computer” nature of smartphones on its head, instead using a powerful contextual engine to suggest information that your Android smartphone believes will be relevant at any one time.

That could include flight details if you have travel coming up in your calendar or Gmail, driving directions to your next appointment (or public transportation guidance if you tell Google Now you’re more likely to use it), weather information, or even just a pedometer summary at the end of the month, showing how many steps you’ve taken while carrying your Android phone. However, the simple suggestions mask an altogether more important change in how Google sees its search results: with greater confidence that its top result is the one you’re probably looking for.

Asked whether Google Now is in grooming to be the new Android homescreen, Duarte told us that he feels “it has the potential to be.” In fact, it’s already the first place he usually begins his smartphone journey. “For me, Google Now is the place I go to all the time, and that’s why it was so important for us not to create a new location to bring assistance, but to go to the place where people were going to start searching the web, or searching their phone, with Google, and make that the place where these assisted cards could appear” he explained. “It’s kind of a new paradigm, and one which I think does speak to the future of this very helpful type of computer interface, as opposed to the current start screens where you have to make all the choices, it’s almost like a computer control panel in a rocket ship where there’s lots of icons you have to punch-punch-punch.”

Google Now differs from traditional search results in that, while it calls upon the same engine, it takes a more definitive stance on presenting an answer. The development team quickly decided that it would need to have a distinct visual identity, separate both from Android and Google on the web, and that the snackable data it gave would have to be pared down rather than a list of blue hyperlinks. That focus on the right answer, not the range of answers, has since been echoed in Google Glass, which shares similar interface dynamics: a small display footprint, intended for at-a-glance consumption, so that it fits into life’s routines rather than demanding full attention.

“[Project Glass] was very exciting, because the design work we did for Google Now kind of served as a really strong touchpoint for some of the design work that happened with the Glass team” Duate told us. “In fact, members of my team collaborated very closely with members of their team in doing that. And the kind of bold, typographic version of Google that is confident about giving you an answer, and confident about giving you the big picture – very different from the old Google – that’s present in Glass, and I find that really satisfying and really exciting.”

Duarte shares a similar obsession with wearables like Glass with many of us, though he told SlashGear he’s yet to try the Pebble smartwatch. But in general the wearables space, I think it’s terrific, because for as long as I remember it I’ve been excited about Android because it is the computing platform for everything” he told us, sticking perhaps a little closely to the company line. “So I’m just waiting for the screens to show up so we can put Android on them, and now we really are starting to see wearable screens, and that’s great.”

However, beyond the expansion of Android, Duarte’s interest in wearables is as a user-experience expert, and in how the growing persistence of data – contextual and otherwise – will affect the way we interact not only with our devices but in social settings. “At a greater level, this question of user’s attention and user’s immersion into technology, I think is something we as designers have a big responsibility to pay attention to” he said. “I think one of the challenges with technology is how we can use it to make our lives better, but actually to be present in the real world while we’re using it, not just sucked into the technology. And part of that is the minor cycle of distraction while you’re using one part of your phone, and the icons for other things can distract you about other parts of your phone.”

“But the challenge that I find even more exciting, is when you’re in a room with people, or when you’re out and about, how do you keep from even getting sucked into the phone, how can we be smarter about when to notify you about things, how can wearable technology allow us to notify you, or immerse you in data, in less intrusive ways?” It’s a question that has been asked on many occasions since the first Project Glass concept video was released: will wearers simply end up interacting with a persistent smartphone in their peripheral vision, losing all contact with the people around them.

As Duarte sees it, part of his responsibility to users – and that of his team at Google – is to “put you in control of when you decide to deal with that online world.” That’s not so simple as cutting out the flow of data altogether, as we usually do when we drop our phones in pockets or bags. Indeed, it’ll require an even greater bond between wearer and device, something into which design plays a hugely significant role.

Duarte actually thinks Glass is already a beautifully designed product, and disagrees with the suggestions of some that the headset needs a redesign in order to be palatable to a more general audience. Still, he concedes that there are more pressing aesthetic questions around wearables than current smartphone technology. “Whenever you bring technology into your personal space, it’s a really hard challenge” Duarte points out. “The challenge of designing phones is almost the same thing, except that for [the Glass team] it’s dialed up to 100.”

Rumors have circulated recently that the Glass team might be working with a US designer to refine the wearable hardware; Duarte wouldn’t comment on that specifically, but he did point out that the development cycle – including aesthetics – is so rapid, what may seem clunky in the first iteration will quickly be refined tomorrow.

“If you look at the devices we have today, it’s amazing how much like jewelry they are. Even four, six years ago, the phones we had – if you go back in time – they’re huge! They’re clunky, they’re plastic, they’re terrible” he told us. “Today, a product like Nexus 4, has kind of the precision and polish and feel of, like, a really beautiful Art Deco cigarette case. And yes it’s functional, but it’s also a fashion accessory. And I think all technology goes through that curve, when you first have something which looks really, y’know, technologically clunky, like the original Motorola StarTACs, and then it becomes something that there is one for everybody, that meets their personal style; just something you fall in love with.”

While Glass is a standalone product – albeit one that can tether to your 3G/4G smartphone for use outside of WiFi coverage – Duarte is confident that tomorrow’s wearables will be more distributed than converged in a single point. Asked whether he would opt for a head-mounted display, like Glass, or a smartwatch, he told us that “”I always pick both when I’m faced with a choice like that” and that we should “embrace the power of ‘and’!”

That’s down to different form-factors still having relevance, even if they only contain a few sensors, or perhaps just one. Google’s advantage in the fledgling market is one of breadth of user-base, the design exec points out, not to mention the not-inconsiderable amount in the bank. “I think the whole realm of wearables is really exciting” he said. “I think one of the cool things about Glass, and the way that Google approaches things, is that we have the scale and the opportunity to do things that are kind of outside the box, and I think there’s a huge range of ways that we can get technology on you that are not obvious.”

“Strapping technology to your wrist is something that we’ve all been used to for, what, hundreds of years now,” he emphasized, “and I think that’s actually really powerful, that’s really cool. But that’s just the beginning.” Research into context, and about delivering relevant results without distractions, are “super-exciting questions” as well as “things we’re going to be doing a lot of work on in the next few years.”

For Google Now, meanwhile, it’s still very much a work-in-progress. Duarte wouldn’t give us any specific examples of where the context engine would go next, but it’s clear that with the amount of work that has gone into Now so-far, it’s likely to play an increasingly central role in future iterations of Android. As Glass reaches the consumer market, meanwhile, later in 2013, that will likely see Now’s brand of confident predictions tested more thoroughly. Users might be less willing to accept misguided results on a mobile device versus in a desktop browser, but they’ll be even less accommodating of poor suggestions floated in their wearable display. The Glass project – and indeed Google Now – are still young, but there’s a lot about the future of Android that rests upon their reception and development.

We had a chat with two of the heads from the groups responsible for the creation of this game, Matt McMahon, Vice President, Fox Digital Entertainment, and Andrew Solmssen, Managing Director, Los Angeles, POSSIBLE – the developers of the app. It was Solmssen that let us know that the idea for the DIE HARD app initially started with POSSIBLE’s hit game The End: “With the success we had with The End, an endless runner, we decided there was an opportunity to expand in that vein. … We felt that we hit upon something that was kind of a different subgenre, an endless shooter.”

Adding to that line of thought, McMahon spoke up: “In contrast with the other endless runners you’re always running away from something. With Die Hard you’re taking the fight to the enemy – that’s classic John McClaine.” And indeed it is a sweet ride from start to finish – you’re playing as the real-deal characters from the movie and you’ve got nothing but blasts to take care of in a series of missions mixed with customization of your gear and experience.

UPDATE: An important note from Solmssen himself! “One important note: the group that created TheEndApp and the Die Hard game is Goroid http://www.goroid.net/, the game studio that is part of POSSIBLE.” Thanks!

For those of you wondering – this was, as Solmssen notes: “a Die Hard game from the beginning.” Having been reached out to by the folks at Fox who are, according to McMahon, “always looking for talent anywhere in the world,” it was The End that brought the two forces together. McMahon continued, “We came across the game POSSIBLE had, The End – we thought it was a really solid product and we simply reached out.”

This game is ready for action right this minute in the iTunes App Store as well as the Google Play app store, and will be available in the Amazon app store soon! It’s also worth noting that this game will not end when the movie is no longer in theaters – instead we’ve got a guarantee from Fox that they’ll be bringing “ongoing support” beyond the movie, and that they “look to update the game with new levels and new environments” well into the future. Grab it now!

Says Ergen: “I don’t want to kill ads. I think advertising is great. I am very aware of the multiple revenue stream in television, subscription and advertising. But I also don’t want to put my head in the sand. As an example, Hulu did a good job. You can pick an ad that is relevant to you. With the Hopper, we have technology that allows you to pick an ad relevant to you. But the broadcast industry is slow to adapt to that.”

He then went on to detail that he’s trying to show networks how they can make more money from targeted commercials by providing advertisements relevant to the subscribers, as well as less commercials overall. He used Hulu as an example, pointing out that subscribers can select the advertisement they want to see, rather than being forced to watch something they have no interest in.

This follows a lawsuit against Dish Network by multiple networks, including Fox, CBS, NBC, and ABC, with Fox stating that the feature constitutes copyright infringement as well as undermining the industry. On January 22, CBS claimed that Dish Network had deliberately hid the AutoHop feature during negotiations, something it is trying to use to get permission to file a counterclaim of fraud against the company.

In our review of the Surface Pro, we saw the battery life hovering between 4.5 and 5 hours with the display on and media streaming. Those numbers increased a bit to 6 hours when the device was used for a mix of Web surfing and media streaming. Some other users are reporting lower numbers, however, sometimes under four hours, prompting criticism.

Not surprisingly, Panay came to the Surface Pro’s defense, stating that when looked at relative to the device’s size, the Pro’s battery life is best in its class. According to him, Microsoft elected to use a smaller battery to keep the device thin, but not to the detriment of performance. The battery choice resulted in a device “thin enough to take advantage of our [Microsoft's] great Windows work for inking and give you a great inking experience,” says Panay.

He also addressed the issue of storage space, which has also been a source of complaints from some users. The larger 128GB version of the Surface Pro has 83GB of available space, while the 64GB version only has 23GB available. According to Panay, this was necessary. Those who need more space can use a microSD card for more space.

[via BGR]

With so many rival smartwatches already on the market and in the pipeline – Toshiba is showing one such concept here at CES - Migocovsky says it’s been a “perfect storm” of publicity, timing, and attention that has seen Pebble capture the imagination. Part of that is backer engagement, Migocovsky believes: the fact that Pebble is contactable by Facebook, Twitter, and other routes to anyone with a question or a suggestion.

Those suggestions have come thick and fast, though Migocovsky is wary of over-promising at this stage. The current SDK only caters for alternative watch faces – the first thing you’ll see when you glance at your wrist, given the e-paper display is permanently on (and a tap of the watch triggers the backlight) – and there’s no timescale for when third-party applications will be enabled. Still, the If This Then That integration does make for more flexibility for those willing to craft a few web-app macros.

Pebble Smartwatch demo:

Pebble doesn’t see that app limitation as a drawback, however; in fact, Migocovsky argues it’s an advantage. If the initial product isn’t good enough to be deemed worthy of a place on your wrist, you won’t wear it, he points out: if people aren’t wearing it, then developers won’t recognize it as a worthy market to code for, and the carefully-honed ecosystem will shrivel.

Pebble Smartwatch interview with Eric Migicovsky

That commitment to Kickstarter backers isn’t going anywhere, either. Not only will the 85,000 people who supported Pebble with cash up-front be the first to get their smartwatch, Migocovsky is also determined to make sure they don’t end up with an outmoded device any time soon. The “added extra” hardware features – such as the Bluetooth 4.0 capabilities, despite the fact that Pebble currently only uses Bluetooth 2.1, and the ambient light sensor – are a big part of that, and Pebble will be pushing out firmware updates every 2-3 weeks until every initially-promised feature is present and correct.

Next step, though, is batch-shipping of the first Pebble units to backers, with Migocovsky saying the factory is capable of producing 15,000 units a week when at full tilt. When the initial list is done, then they’ll turn to the reservations list that opened after the Kickstarter closed; that currently measures in the tens of thousands, Pebble says, though not quite the same number as the watch start-up saw backers.

The wearables market is certainly heating up, with a range of form-factors (on the wrist, digital eyewear like Google Glass, clip-on activity trackers, and more) being played with, and it seems 2013 may be the year it all comes to a head. Our early impressions are definitely positive – several of the SlashGear team are also Kickstarter backers – but we’ll reserve our full opinion until we can live with Pebble on our wrist for a while.

Dream says that the “entire series [of] events was planned from start to finish.” He initially mentioned a December 22 release date for the jailbreak, but released it early on the 12th because he claimed he didn’t want to wait any longer, and wanted to prove to the world that the supposed jailbreak was real. However, he actually planned to release it sooner than the 22nd all along, although he wasn’t sure what day exactly.

He says that he “would not have been able to keep the community’s attention” if he waited until the 22nd — the experiment was starting to “fall apart” and “professionals were starting to analyse everything.” Dream notes that it was then time to release the fake jailbreak on the 12th, as he felt that he “would make the most impact on [his] viewers and followers.”

Dream says that he created the social experiment “due to articles popping up on reputable jailbreak blogs and sources regarding a recent string of frauds and fakes. So many people are falling into fake jailbreak traps and getting scammed out of their money.” He says he wanted to teach a valuable lesson to users and hackers alike, that you should only follow the reputable dev team members for jailbreak updates, and that other fakers out there in the world should be warned.

“Is what I did controversial? Absolutely. But in order to make a splash in the scene you have to be drastic. As more and more followed me on Twitter, the word of my “jailbreak” started to spread around some non reputable news sources, and slowly started to trickle into more reputable news sources.”

He notes that his website received almost 700,000 unique visitors from the time his experiment started, to the time that he released the fake jailbreak. His Twitter account, which has since been deleted, got more than 20,000 followers in less than a week. Dream says that if he “can save even 10%” of those visitors and followers, he’s happy with what he did. It was a “harsh lesson for many right now, but it will be appreciated further on down the line.”

So when will a real untethered iOS 6 jailbreak arrive? According to reputable iOS hackers, don’t count on one. Stefan Esser (better known as i0n1c) says that an untethered jailbreak for iOS 6 isn’t coming anytime soon. Even if an iOS 6 untethered jailbreak was discovered, Esser believes that the hacker will hold the exploits until Apple releases the iOS 6.1 firmware update.

As the Chairman points out, Android managed to get 72-percent of the market (or 75-percent, depending on whose numbers you trust most) in the third quarter of 2012 while Apple only held on to 14-percent. The number of Android smartphones and tablets being activated daily now exceed 1.3 million, as well, an astounding number. The Google mobile operating system has been rapidly gaining power, with no end in sight.

Schmidt stated this during the long interview with Bloomberg. “This is a huge platform change; this is of the scale of 20 years ago – Microsoft versus Apple. We’re winning that war pretty clearly now … The core strategy is to make a bigger pie. We will end up with a not perfectly controlled and not perfectly managed bigger pie by virtue of open systems.”

This interview comes a day after Apple’s Guy Kawasaki explained why he completely ditched Apple in favor of Android. This wouldn’t be particularly noteworthy, except that Kawasaki was – at one point in history – one of Apple’s biggest fans and most dedicated users. “To me the great irony is that Apple’s slogan was `Think Different,’ but today if you think different you’re looking at Android.”

[via Android Community]

On last night’s Rock Center with Brian Williams, the host brought up Samsung’s TV ad and asked Tim Cook if the battle between Apple and Samsung was “thermonuclear war.” Cook subtly dodged the question by mentioning that the company “loves competition” and that “it makes us all better.” However, Cook made a quiet jab at Samsung by saying that he “wants people to invent their own stuff.”

Cook also addressed one of the main themes of the Samsung ad, where Samsung poked fun at the Apple customers and fans who were waiting in line for the next Apple product, while Samsung users were nearby showing off their Galaxy S III smartphones. Cook simply stated that the company loves its customers and that they’ll “fight to defend them with anyone.”

The entire two-part interview with Tim Cook is available now for viewing on NBC‘s website. We’ve already covered a couple of the talking points yesterday, including Apple’s plans to start manufacturing Mac computers in the US beginning next year, and that the television is something of “intense interest” for the company.

We had a chance to speak with FanVision’s VP of marketing mister Kevin Weinhoeft who was quick to tell us that the easiest way you can describe this device is to imagine you were at home watching the big race with a taste for all the data you could swallow in and around the track. You’d have to have your television, a computer, a radio, and maybe even your smartphone to get the same content you’re able to get sitting at the live event with a FanVision Controller. The first person he told this story to made the case: “you must have been in my living room last time I watched a race, that’s what I was doing exactly.”

This device has live statistics, live cameras, and replays of events on the track right after they occur. UHF connectivity makes the dedicated network at the track possible and isn’t interrupted by the massive amounts of data being blasted around with everyone else’s smartphone. Weinhoeft spoke on how the device was made also to be relatively rough and tumble, too, not fragile like a smartphone or a tablet.

“FanVision was designed to work in the elements. Whether it’s really cold weather or whether it’s really hot weather or whatever else. Now it’s not waterproof, by any stretch of the imagination, but – we’ve had a lot of races where there’s rain or moisture or whatever where of course we don’t have any issue with the device going down because it’s getting a little bit of rain on it.” – Weinhoeft

Everything you look at when you’re at a race on the FanVision device is curated by the dedicated FanVision staff at the race. FanVision works with the cameras that are on-site and the information that comes direct from the source, updating every statistic and element as it changes.

“We’re not doing any kind of production, we don’t have people with cameras that are in the pits or in the garages or anything like that. We’re taking content directly from, as an example, in Phoenix, we’re taking the SprintVision content that’s being fed to the track. So we’re not – in essence – taking ESPN’s content. And as a matter of fact, the radio broadcast for this weekend will be MRN. So if we’re at an IFC track, it’s MRN radio, and if we’re at an SMI track, then it would be PRN radio.”

Then there’s the video – from the on-track cameras to the in-car cameras, you’ll be getting more up-close-and-personal than you’ve ever been before, right on the FanVision Controller device. Weinhoeft makes it clear that the content they’ve got here is everything you’ve ever had on your television at home, the smart device in your pocket, and more – and right as it happens.

“The one thing, of course, we have is the live race. The second thing that is constant is that we have the fastest instant replay that’s in production. What does change from race to race is the in-car cameras. We do have 8 in-car cameras for a cup race and typically for nation-wide as well. So the in-car cameras can change. As an example, last week, all of the in-car cameras for Cup were chase drivers. That’s how the content can change from week to week.

One of the other things you’ll see on the device is Driver Cards. Basically all the details about the drivers. All the information on the drivers is updated in real-time as well. So lets say, as an example, maybe the driver had a crew chief change. If the driver would have a crew chief change, then that data would change inside the Driver Card.

Another thing that would change is on the Twitter Feed. We have specific Twitter feeds on the device, but as we move from track to track: this weekend it would be the @PhoenixRaceway handle. as opposed to a track from earlier in the season.”

Then there’s the digital scanner – made to let you in on the radio feeds that are blasting back and forth across the track between crew chiefs and racers. Right out in the open, there for you to catch. If you’d love to get in just about as close as you possibly can without literally being in the pits (like SlashGear’s own Vincent Nguyen will be this weekend, mind you, at the Advocare 500 Sprint Cup Series race), you’ll need to listen in to the words being spoken by the crews using your own lovely radio scanner – built right in to the FanVision Controller.

“One of the biggest features on the device is the scanner. Because it’s digital, there’s no frequencies the fans have to program in. So they just select their drivers and they go.

The thing that goes with that, too, is instant replays. So you can listen to the last conversation between the driver and the pit. So as an example, something happens on the other side of the track and the drivers’ got to go to the garage, well, you can go to that driver’s Card and you can listen to their last conversation.”

We’ll be having a look at this device when we’re live at the Advocare 500 NASCAR Sprint Cup race this Sunday as well as the following schedule of in-person events:

1. Pace Car Ride at speeds of 120+ MPH
2. Tour of NASCAR garage
3. Driver’s Meeting
4. Meet and Greet with General Motors Racing’s Chevrolet program manager for NASCAR’s top-tier Sprint Cup Series Alba Colon
5. AdvoCare 500 race (312 laps, 312 miles) Sunday, Nov. 11, 3 p.m. ET on ESPN with LIVE coverage here on SlashGear from Vincent Nguyen!

Be sure you check out the SlashGear main news feed and our Twitter as well @SlashGear to stay up-to-date on all things technologically awesome in the automotive universe! Have a peek at our brand new NASCAR tag as well to keep crusing on this particular track!

As Keselowski made clear, NASCAR is not the same sport it was back at the start – this is no bootlegging drag. Instead as Keselowski reaches for his first ever NASCAR Sprint Cup Series title (just a few points behind leader Jimmie Johnson at the moment), he’s got many tools at his disposal not just to prepare for the race, but to blast through the track on race day with the team’s pit crew closer than ever before. And with technology inside the vehicle that’s well beyond what teams had only a few years before.

SlashGear: How would you describe the way the technology you use on and off the track today affects how you drive on race day?

Brad Keselowski: If you look at NASCAR today, the perception is that there’s very little technology while in reality it’s the exact opposite. As a team we continue to push the envelope to be smarter, to be better prepared, and to communicate in better ways. That’s all part of the picture. We’re always evolving new technologies that can help us do those things.

SG: Has there been any technology or breakthrough over the past few years that has changed the way you race?

BK: Technology has definitely changed the way we race. The biggest thing is that we communicate a lot better. Communication is so important in NASCAR – between drivers, crew chiefs, crew members, etcetera. That extra bit of communication goes across several different forms of technology that make it stronger.

SG: How would you say the communication innovations of the past few years have changed the way the sport is perceived (or portrayed) by the media?

BK: I think that the key thing for our sport is that technology is constantly being integrated – there are some fascinating new technologies that we’ve implemented. But we do it all behind closed doors; which is both good and bad.

Good because we want to keep those secrets so our competitors don’t get them. Bad because the perception of the sport is that we don’t have it. It’s a very tricky line to walk.

SlashGear will be attending the AdvoCare 500 NASCAR Sprint Cup at the Phoenix International Raceway on Sunday, the 11th of November with a full schedule ahead of us (including the big race itself starting at 3PM ET!) We’ll be covering the race all day long and jumping in on the pits for up-close and personal peeks at the cars before they burn up the track for one of the most important races of the year – have a peek at our basic itinerary here:

1. Pace Car Ride at speeds of 120+ MPH
2. Tour of NASCAR garage
3. Driver’s Meeting
4. Meet and Greet with General Motors Racing’s Chevrolet program manager for NASCAR’s top-tier Sprint Cup Series Alba Colon
5. AdvoCare 500 race (312 laps, 312 miles) Sunday, Nov. 11, 3 p.m. ET on ESPN with LIVE coverage from SlashGear!

So stick with us through the weekend for all of the hot action straight from the pits! And be sure to comment with any questions you’ve got or requests you have for us and we’ll see what we can do!

The Galaxy Note II event in New York City introduced a project Futura and Samsung would present together immediately following the main keynote that headed off the night. The night ended with a Kanye West concert, but not before Futura’s crowd-sourced digital mural was crafted live as the Samsung press and special guests filtered in to the venue. Made of a vast collection of guest-created images collected from Galaxy Note II devices throughout the night, the artist made one wild amalgamation to shine on its many contributors.

Above: Futura sits amongst the fray at the Galaxy Note II event in NYC. Below: DJ Hudson Mowhawke delivers tunes at the Galaxy Note II event near a giant display showing off the finer points of the Galaxy Note series.

In the hands-on period between the keynote and the concert, Futura sat at attention yet very obviously relaxed in the center of what was essentially a mad rush for touches on the newly available devices. A darkened club atmosphere, bright lights and colorful devices, and the artist in the center of it all, wearing dark pants, sneakers, and a white t-shirt with a leopard print pocket. His demeanor was that of a wise worldly fellow mixed with the seemingly unending hunger for staying on-point with not just his own artwork, but the most interesting and fabulous tools with which to do it.

That’s where Samsung comes in.

Above: Samsung’s Galaxy Note II keynote shows the collection of creative partners they’ve got ready to speak on the features of the Note series at the event.

Futura: They’ve asked me to speak on the creative possibilities on the tablet – specifically with the S-Note function and a lot of the different stuff you can do with the device. Kind of like a paint program, but it’s quite intense. I just got my device recently and within a few days of just messing with it, without even a formal walk-through, I felt like the device was intuitive enough to figure out, and I was able to do some really cool stuff.

Also the pen, itself, is amazing. I’ve worked with tablets before, whether its… you know, other names I don’t need to mention. Those always married up like a mouse. You do what you do with it… *clicking, mouse-movement gesture* within the tablet.

This is quite different.

The intensity, the sensitivity – I was messing around with something and it looked just like I spray painted it!

SlashGear: Have you gotten to use the Note II extensively yet?

F: Ah here, actually, I’ve got it in my back pocket. We’re gonna get plug in on it pretty soon and they’re gonna project my screen on to the monitor there and just go at it.

SG: I [Chris Burns] just got it too and reviewed it for SlashGear – it’s really nice, feels really good. [see our full review of the T-Mobile Galaxy Note II right now if you do so please]

F: Yeah it’s fun – it does feel good, and sexy, yeah.

SG: Your career path has been many different places – it’s always been interesting to see you delving into working with brands. Lots of different brands – designing a bike here, or this or that there – do you see yourself continuing to do that now?

With Samsung specifically, how do you see that affecting your art career?

F: The one thing about Samsung I’m kind of excited about – obviously – is – yeah there’s a list of companies that I’ve collaborated with, put my name on their product, bla bla bla – but I’ve never been [with] a tech company. And one of the biggest tech nerds out there – ever since my advantage, I guess, of going to Asia, for the rest of the whole swarm, I was always into gadgets and stuff like that.

I spent tons of money on all the kinds of stuff. Probably had every phone, PDA, you know, that’s probably been out there – if it’s cool, I may have got my hands on it, you know, as a consumer. So finally, [I get] to work with a brand that’s got a product that I can really use.

At this point Futura hails a server that’s been circling, asking quite politely if he can have two of the spring rolls she’s been serving to the crowd. In such a laid-back environment that this man creates, we can’t resist grabbing a roll as well.

F: There we go! Thank you so much, I’m going to dip this one, *dips from the sauce presented thusly*, thank you!

So all the collaborations. You know, the bike collabo, that makes sense, I guess, you know, Nike. CK1, that was like 6 years ago – maybe not so much. But you know, Samsung though, yeah, this is awesome.

And what I was saying is – you can do some stuff on this device that you can export out. I mean, you know, what, I got an idea for a painting, or a design sketch thing. It’s like other devices can’t just do that. This could be a very interesting addition.

Above: DJ Craze – another of Samsung’s special guests – lays down a few fine musical constructs for party attendees.

SG: If you have a brand, and Samsung, they have a brand – do you feel like this is a cross brand? Your name, Futura, do you feel like that’s a brand?

F: Yes. I do. I have a – I mean I subsequently closed my shop in Japan. You know, I had a shop in Japan where I was making stuff and putting my name on it. And thus those products are from, you know, my brand. But now, no, I’m actually kind of no longer doing that. However –

Skye, grab these foodie people! *Futura once again hails a server via his partner*

Above: The crowd gets thick at the event right before the Kanye session is about to begin.

F: But yes I understand that the Futura signature was once a graffiti tag on the walls of New York subways is now a brand. And I’m cool with that actually. I mean I’m not – I’m choosing these collaborations based on, obviously, what it is, not what the pay day is.

And to some degree, it’s not like – and as I say now, I had to close my store. It’s not like my motive is to manufacture things, put my name on them, you know – I want to pursue my art career. And I recently had a show in New York about a month ago.

I’m trying to get out of that lifestyle, get back into painting.

Above: Futura poses in front of one of his works of art at his recent show: Future-Shock at Valmorbida in New York. Image via 12ozProphet.

Stick around SlashGear for our continued interview series with the top minds in many industries and of many different disciplines, each of them making use of the technology that makes our modern world great. With an artist like Futura creating greatness with a device like the Galaxy Note II as a tool, the tool’s potential shines like a beacon for all to see – and want. Expect tech companies to continue with this trend in the near future – and keep an eye on Futura as he moves into tomorrow right on the cuff with creative intent.

The story we’re seeing here with Hotel Transylvania is one with lots of monsters all having a fabulous time staying in a hotel run by Dracula. Of course Dracula has a daughter who wants to see the world, this all coming to a head when a human named Jonathan arrives at the hotel by chance – and there’s not supposed to be any humans at the hotel. Thus ensues a lovely comedy fest crowned with the top-notch visuals of Sony Pictures Animation and the music of Mark Mothersbaugh.

What we’re interested in is how Tartakovsky handled this movie with his past experience in more traditional animation in mind. How does Tartakovsky work with TV shows vs a star-studded feature for the big screen?

Genndy Tartakovsky: I think that one of the main differences is the pressure. With a TV show you work for multiple shows and when the show comes out, if one episode comes out and doesn’t perform as well as it could, the audience usually forgives you. Then the next episode is going to be better. There’s a pressure to perform, but it’s OK if you have an off episode once in a while.

With a movie, you have opening weekend and then that’s it. Everything is done for that opening weekend, and if you don’t get the characters right, and the humor and the entertainment and everything, then it fails and all that work is gone. It’ll be gone within 6-8 weeks and then that’s it.

So to think of it like you have one shot, it makes you think quite differently.

SG: You’ve had quite an expansive career when it comes to animation – how would you describe the difference between shows you’ve worked on like Dexter’s Lab or all the way back to Batman: The Animated Series back up to Star Wars: The Clone Wars and this new film Hotel Transylvania?

GT: In a way it’s hard to compare because one is CG and one is 2D. The two are very obviously different in the way we use the pencil. The one big difference for me, personally, is – when I worked on Dexter, especially – is I know how to do every different part of animation production. From the lighting to the camera work to the sound editing, mixing; I’ve done it all before.

Some things I can do better than others, obviously, but I know how to do it. So if there was something to troubleshoot, I could have an opinion about it. But then on CG, I don’t know how it works – to fix something, I have to trust my official tech supervisor Dan Kramer. All I could say is “yeah I don’t like the way that’s working,” but never say “let’s use this different lens to make it work.”

GT: I could just say “this isn’t working, let’s try a different way to try and fix it.” It was something that was very difficult for me because I’m so used to problem solving and having this push that’s a big part of being a director, in my experience. Especially on technical things – “why doesn’t this camera look right?” And then I’d figure it out. So in our production I couldn’t do any of it because I just didn’t know.

After a while I realized that I’m in good hands, and it became easier that way. In some ways it was a lot easier, in some ways it was a lot harder.

SG: You recently did a Reddit AMA post answering questions from the public – could you describe the changes in the way you’re able to communicate with viewers of your shows and now movies over this rather quickly evolving time period you’ve been working in?

GT: I remember when we started on Dexter, the internet was just sort of taking off – and we never went online to see the reactions. And now you can get thousands and thousands of reactions to a movie or TV show. I remember when we were doing [Samurai] Jack and it was taking off and after each episode we’d go and see what people thought, and on Sym-Bionic Titan it was even more intense and especially on Clone Wars. You could go to Star Wars [online] and totally see that all the fans were talking about if we messed it up or not.

What’s great for television is you get instant feedback. It’s a more specific audience that’s talking back, it’s not everybody, but you definitely get a clue, and see what people like, if your stuff is landing. It was really hard on Dexter – we would do an episode, we’d air it, I’d watch it at home, and I’d go “yeah I guess people liked it, I have no idea.”

GT: Then on Monday you’d get a rating, “oh I did a 2.2″, and that’s it. It wasn’t until I started doing comic book conventions and film conventions that I actually met some of the people who love the show and they would say how much they loved it. Then our numbers would slowly start going up, and you’d start to realize – “oh, it’s getting popular”.

It’s a really hard thing to capture, the popularity, especially when, in the beginning when Cartoon Network only had 12 million viewers. You know when Nickelodeon has a 120 or 160 or something, it’s different in such a mass. But what’s so much fun about a movie is that I can go to a theater to see if I’ve failed or succeeded instantly.

SG: What’s the difference between the built-in fanbase you had with Star Wars: Clone Wars and the audience you’ll have with Hotel Transylvania? Is there a big difference?

GT: For sure when you’re doing something that’s built-in like Star Wars, it’s all about getting it right – for yourself being a fan, and for the people who know the material and the last thing you want to do is be insincere about the material and change it so much that people hate it. Like saying “that was a huge disaster!” But here you’re presenting a new idea.

And you’re selling it for the first time, so you want to try to do something – you’re trying to sell your point of view. You want to do something that’s new and fresh and people have an experience watching. It’s a really big pet peeve of mine to – you know, I’m selling my point of view, it’s what I get hired for. And if my point of view is the same as 5 other directors, then I’m screwed. Replaceable.

But if my point of view is very unique, and strong, and people can sense it, then I’m much more successful that way. To me, that’s what the difference is.

Stay tuned for more entertainment coverage straight from the source here on SlashGear and be sure to check out Hotel Transylvania in theaters right this minute across the USA! This film has already set a new record for highest-grossing September opening weekend with a budget of $85 million and total earnings of $51.1 million – keep it growing!

Farhi and colleagues Sean M. Carroll and Alan H. Guth worked on a report by the name of “An obstacle to building a time machine” which lets it be known that the amount of mass that would have to be destroyed to make a time machine work would essentially break apart half the universe. That’s a time machine that travels along closed timelike curves – what we’re interested in is a machine that jams a single human back in a metal tube from 30 years in the future to our own present – or in the case of the LOOPER plotline, just a few decades into the future (and 30 years from then.)

UPDATE: Check our full LOOPER movie review now!

Dr. Edward Farhi : There are two forms of relativity – one’s the Special Theory of Relativity [STR] and the other is the General Theory of Relativity. Relativity tells us that the rate at which clocks run depends on the speed of the system. And when we talk about clocks, we’re talking about the actual flow of time. It’s not something that just feels like it’s going at a different rate, it’s actually going at a different rate.

One thing we know is that if you could get into a rocket in space and go close to the speed of light and return to Earth, you could arrange it so that a short period of time elapsed according to you would be a much longer period of time elapsed on the Earth. For example I could put you, Chris, on a rocket, and you would say that 6 months have passed and you’d come back to Earth and 100 years have passed on the Earth – if you had kids, you would meet your great great grandchildren.

We call that “skipping into the future.”

Farhi : It’s actually allowed by the laws of physics. That rate at which you’re clock runs depends on the speed – another example is the GPS satellite. When you’re in your car you communicate with these satellites that triangulate your location. It’s very important that you understand that the rate at which the clocks run on those satellites is important – if you didn’t take into account the fact that the clocks are running at a little different rate because they were moving, you’d be driving in the ditch.

Moving clocks run at different rates, and that allows you to skip into the future.

The other thing is that if you’ve got a strong gravitational field it’ll also affect the way clocks run. So if I took you and I lowered you into a strong gravitational field, your clock would run slower. And if you were watching out, if you were watching me on the Earth, you would see me moving quickly and I would see you moving slowly and when we came back together again, you would have aged less than I. Those are real effects, there’s no doubt about these things.

Farhi : If you took that little trip and you went into the future and you wanted to come back, that would be a little more problematic. One of the reasons we can see it would be a little more problematic is that if you could go into the future and come back, then maybe you could today just go back – and if you could go back in time, you could prevent your parents from coming together and making you. That’s paradoxical. Most physicists, I would say, because of those paradoxes, going back in time doesn’t seem too possible.

Check out our LOOPER review tonight and see the full film out in theaters this weekend across the USA! This is a film that’s made for those who love loud blasts, massive kills, and massive amounts of mystery. It’s an investigative adventure from start to finish, one you’ll not want to miss on the big screen – and specifically there too, it’s a real experience.

The story goes like this: Everest Horology Products has a real love for the Rolex line of timepieces, and because they wanted a product that did not exist, they decided to make it themselves. The Everest Band is the group’s first product, and it’s been developed over the course of 8 months, from drawing board, to prototyping, to production. The watch band that’s at the center of this whole project was created with 3D prototyping and what’s called “opti-jet” technology to make the next-generation insert inside the band a reality in this product – and Everest Bands Kickstarter is the next big step.

“3d prototyping was incredibly important in both aesthetic and fit for this rather unique project. Since the Everest band was fitting on to a Rolex, where tolerance for error is around .005 mm, it had to be perfect. The room for error was so small that with accurate models we would know if we were going down the wrong path very quickly. It allowed for us to try different designs at an incredibly low price and test both a solid and flexible concept.

The flexible “opti-jet” technology we used was intrical in determining the solid end link insert. One thing that we know will set this product apart from the rest is the fact that the insert that we used has both a molecular bond and a mechanical bond. This type of double redundancy allows to ensure that we have a permanent piece that will never fall out. The majority of other designs are one or the other – without the 3d Prototyping we would not have been able to correctly make this design happen.” – DiMartini

Above: 3D prototype test model bands appear in a basic off-white tone before they’re perfected. Once the perfect size is found, the perfect colors come next.

The insert in the band here is not just so well made that there’s no danger of it falling out, it’s darn near impossible to pull out, too! With the air friction barrier action going on here there’s a solid product, inside and out, that’s like nothing else out on the market – not in Rolex watchbands, anyway. Have a peek at a demonstration of the Everest Band here to see the final product:

DiMartini also made it clear that Kickstarter was and is instrumental in getting this project off the ground. A startup situation like this makes it so startup debt – a killer, in many cases – doesn’t need to be as much of a factor as it traditionally has been in the past. The web as a whole, too, has been a perfect battleground for Everest Horology Products to take off in and with.

“Kickstarter is our marketing tool and we are the voice. It was a perfect scenario for a company like ours. … The web has been our way of getting out the word and been our main reason we are seeing the success we have. The Forums, Facebook, twitter, etc. have been absolutely incredible for allowing us to communicate with the public. We have used it to not only market the product, but also design it. We listened to what the market wanted and what others were missing.” – DiMartini

Take a peek at the Kickstarter project page for Everest Bands right this minute to get a better idea of what this team of innovators is aiming to do for the future of timepiece bands right this minute. And stay tuned with the Everest Horology Products group for future products as well – things are looking up!

[Q] Was there a piece of future tech or aspect of the film you were particularly drawn to?

[Kate Beckinsale] I do quite fancy having a hover-car but I don’t fancy everyone having one. Because I feel like I’ve spent a bit of time on the 405, stuck. And if everybody had them, I’d be scared of crashing. But if it was just me, then, I think I’d drive quite fast. And I quite fancy the phone, but I don’t think I’d fancy having it stuck in my body.

NOTE: Total Recall features a phone-like device which essentially takes the place of the nose-based-tracker you’ll remember from the 1990 version of the movie. Expect some off-screen cringe-worthy memories of that particular bit of film.

[Q] When you work on a film like this where technology is very much a central part of the story and where you’ve got giant cameras on you all day, do you find yourself at the end of the day just pushing all of the gadgets away for a good night’s rest?

[KB] Now when you say ‘all of my technology’ I don’t know if you’ve seen my phone.

*Beckinsale holds up a small red LG flip-phone from Verizon*

[KB] That’s about the extent of it. I don’t like my iPod. I like a nice record player and a book. I’m very much about that. So all that happens to me – I used this a lot [the phone] so that’s the only reason I’d say I’ve had an influx. I’m not much interested in an iPhone.

Did you ever pick up an iPhone, it flips over! You can’t see what’s happening – It’s aways moving!

Have a peek at the rest of our coverage of Total Recall through our [Rekall portal] and hit up the timeline below to get all you need in the universe of talks with the stars and the director of the film! Also don’t miss our full review of the movie, and head out to theaters right this second to see the whole feature!

Down in Los Angeles last month SlashGear got to speak with each of the stars of the 2012 version of Total Recall as well as the director Len Wiseman. With Wiseman’s interview revealing that he loved and still loves science fiction in a big way, it seemed only natural to ask Beckinsale the same question – Are you a science fiction fan, and was sci-fi a bit part of your life growing up?

Sidenote: Wiseman is married to Beckinsale, so we had to expect SOME form of connection. No getting away from sci-fi when your husband is an die-hard fan (and a Die Hard director, puns galore), and you’re part of a movie series where you hunt down fantastic beasts on the regular (see: Underworld).

Above: Kate Beckinsale poses with co-stars Jessica Biel and Colin Farrell at the Los Angeles press junket for Total Recall where SlashGear met up with the lot of them

[Kate Beckinsale] I definitely was, I had four brothers growing up, so I was definitely exposed to those kind of movies. It’s also more of the fact, for me, that I get to play these strong female characters and this is a good genre for that. People show up for that.

[Q] Do you and Len have any favorite films you’d like to share in the science fiction genre or related genres?

[KB] When we first met I was already a huge fan of the Alien movies, and I was a huge Die Hard fan until it ate my husband for two years. But I absolutely love those. And one of my favorites has always been Dog Day Afternoon (1975), and Len loves that movie. All About Eve (1950) – so yeah, we could just sit here and put one of those in.

You’ll find that Beckinsale plays exactly the type of character that made her interested in the genre in the first place here in Total Recall – a strong female lead. But what’s different here, this time, is that she’s not the hero. In fact it’s the opposite, with her role taking the place of Sharon Stone’s 1990 appearance as the quickly-divorced wife of Schwarzenegger. Regarding her rather intense fist fights with the other main characters of Total Recall in the film, specifically with Jessica Biel, Beckinsale had a bit to say on the new generation.

[KB] These are not fights between two women that happens in some sexy way. They are quite vicious. I think it shows that women have really come a long way in this genre of movie. I know when I put my timid little nose into Underworld to see if I could do it, I was looking for references.

Above: Beckinsale also stars in the Underworld film series (2003-)

[Q] Do you feel as though you’ve perfected your craft in having been in so many action movies with Underworld et al?

[KB] Well it’s funny. Yes and no – now I have that added terror of going ‘I still feel like the person who shouldn’t be doing this, and everyone is acting around me as if I’m a bad-ass.’ And I still feel like – this still feels like a stretch.

[KB] But this is something that is incredible, and I get to do this – you know – I get wonderful teachers to help me, and it’s amazing. But it still feels like, it’s a reach for me. I still feel more comfortable in a drama, I feel like I know it a bit better there. But still, it’s good to be scared!

You’ll want to have a peek at the rest of our interview series as well as our full review of Total Recall 2012 right this minute! The movie is out in theaters now across the USA – and once you’ve seen it, be sure to head back to our Rekall portal to gain additional insight into the world of the Total Recall storyline and one whole heck of a lot more!

[Jessica Biel] If I would be playing a figment of someone’s imagination – for sure, 100% – I would still have prepared for that figment of imagination in the exact same way that I would prepare for somebody who was absolutely real. From a creative standpoint that wasn’t different – but the conversations that Len, Colin, and I had, on a daily basis, about ‘what is real, who are you, what do you remember? What do you trust? Do I even trust you?’

[JB] The thing that I asked Len all the time was, ‘how do I trust this guy? Yeah, I know how he trusts me, but how do I trust him?’ He was constantly talking me through that. Because I think that’s just as hard for her to accept as it is for Colin’s character – to accept this random person showing up in his life.

It was hard, it was hard to – sort of – walk that line of ‘are we confusing everybody? We’re confused.’ We were confused constantly – *laughs* – about what the hell, we were doing. And luckily Len figured it out. Thank god he figured it out and it’s not confusing anyone else even now.

Above: Jessica Biel poses with Bryan Cranston and Colin Farrell at the Los Angeles press junket where the interview series here on SlashGear originates

NOTE: SlashGear readers – if you’ve seen the 2012 version of Total Recall and ended up being “constantly confused” throughout, let us know! We’ve been hearing quite a few mixed reports on the subject. Does this mean that the film did it’s job just as the 1990 version did?

Also have a peek at the rest of our ever-growing collection of interview bits and pieces we collected last month before the premiere of Total Recall 2012 – out in theaters now! You can check out the Rekall portal or head to the timeline below to get our full review of the film, interview moments with each of the stars and the director Len Wiseman as well – and stick around after you’ve seen the movie too – we’ve got insights and secrets galore!

[Q] There’s been some talk of how this film, with its plotline that partially centers around themes of big corporations and class warfare. Some early critics are suggesting that the film was made to reflect things like the Occupy Movement. Is there anything to that, or is it that they are all just reading far too much into the story?

[Colin Farrell] I think you have to experience relevance and significance where you experience it and where you find it. The audience will see what they want to see. Some people will come out and hopefully enjoy two hours of action. Some people will find themselves gravitating toward the emotional dynamic the characters find themselves in, or some people will see some layer of subversion to the storytelling or some aspect of poking a finger in judgement at some elements of government or – foreign invasion on false pretenses – I mean you can go wherever you want with it really.

It’s not really the purpose of the film.

Above: Colin Farrell stands amid co-stars Jessica Biel and Kate Beckinsale at the LA press junket for Total Recall (from whens this interview segment came)

[CF] But no matter what film you’re telling, you’re representing some element of reality. You’re representing the idea of being a human being. You’re always with humans, their fears, their shortcomings, their braveries, their doubts, their loves, their abilities, their brilliance. And those things inevitably lead to physical systems, into political systems, into foreign policy, and all that kind of stuff. Crime, religion, and – so you see what you want to see, man – the purpose of the film is not to take a stand against big government. It’s an action film.

Len’s particular concern with the whole film, I think, was to have it as a narrative between the world of emotion verses the world of intellect. The idea that you can suppress or subjugate a person’s mind, and a person’s memories, and a person’s experiences – mentally, psychologically, intellectually – but that you can’t quiet them completely to the point of dormancy.

The emotional light of a person, the heart. And what the heart remembers and what the heart experiences. And even that, it’s not important if that comes across. It’s another composite, if that’s somewhere in how Quaid [the main character of the film, played by Farrell] can’t figure out anything but begins to feel his love for Melina [Jessica Biel] be awokened to the person that he was and the person that he’s becoming, then, that’s cool.

But if it’s not – its really what anyone wants to get out of it.

Stay tuned here at SlashGear in our Total Recall portal to see all the hot Rekall action as the film blows up starting this weekend. Make sure you also check the timeline below to follow our path through chats and interviews with the stars and the director of this 2012 action thriller, and see how deep this futuristic science fiction environment goes on the big screen!

[Q] Len Wiseman [director of Total Recall 2012] brought up that he’d seen Breaking Bad [see the rest of that interview here] and said, ‘I want to work with this guy.’ Is that the common thing for you now, has that show changed your image in the business from the comedy guy only?

[Bryan Cranston] Yeah, I have ridden the hard work and sweat of Vince Gilligan all the way to another level. The best thing a director can do is to identify good actors and fit them in the right parts, and if you can do that in your pre-production, once you get to production you can let them fly, and let them feel safe to be able to experiment and try things. You’ll find happy accidents.

Above: Cranson (right) taking on a very different role in the television series Breaking Bad in which he plays a chemistry teacher with terminal cancer and a meth-cooking business

[BC] For an actor what I try to teach young actors – the best thing they can learn is to identify well-written material. The writing in our industry, in a story, is the most important element, bar none. It is always about the writing first.

So what I’ve been able to do – the thing I’m good at, really, is to identify well written material. Now that doesn’t mean the product is going to end up that way. It’s a recipe – and sometimes it doesn’t work – and you’re thinking, ‘oh well, wait a minute, I had all the ingredients, how did this happen?’ That’s going to happen.

But if you start with something that has good writing, you at least have a shot. If you start with something that is not well written, you have no shot of making something good. The best actor in the world can make “C” level material “C+” level material. Maybe “B-”, that’s it.

Above: Cranston poses with co-stars Jessica Biel and Colin Farrell at the Los Angeles press junket for Total Recall

[Q] You had this in you all the time, even before Breaking Bad, but people’s perceptions of you have changed. Have you thought about that since – Drive, and this, you’re given harder-edged characters and just a straight jacket perception of what your previous roles would be?

[BC] Well, the only thing that an actor really yearns for in a career is opportunity. We don’t ask to be given roles – [if you don't] just give me a chance to get in the room, we have no shot. How I got Malcolm in the Middle – everything – what I try to teach young actors is that, ‘please know, that without a healthy dose of luck, you will not have a career.’ How do you do that? I don’t know. Just keep working, keep working hard, have faith, and this is your life!

Don’t give yourself some arbitrary number – ‘I’m going to give it a year – I’ll give it a good year’ – it’s like ‘stop now, go back to Idaho.’ You know? ‘Make some really nice potatoes. People will appreciate that.’ But it’s a joke – people, you’re either in this or you’re not in this. So that’s the first thing I say. But I was lucky to get Malcolm in the Middle. I was lucky to get Breaking Bad. And I have stories for those – but I don’t want to go in and monopolize that. But I know – the stars were aligning.

After you are able to get some level of success, like Malcolm in the Middle – seven years of doing a comedy – I got offers to do a goofy, silly, fun-loving dad. And had I taken those, I would have helped pigeon-hole myself as that guy.

You better – you better – if you’re on a hit show? You better save your money. You better, because you need to say no to those tempting offers of dollar bills to do the same thing you just did. To me it was no temptation. I just said no, I just did that. But you don’t know what’s going to happen next. I was very fortunate.

This is but one of several segments of the ongoing set of talks we had with the stars and director of Total Recall – stick around in our [Rekall portal] to see the future and past of the film as it rolls out in theaters this weekend! And of course don’t forget to check out our full movie review of Total Recall (2012) as well!

Again we’re speaking with mc10 co-founder Ben Schlatka, and for those of you looking for more information on getting in contact with the crew, you can head to their page over at mc10inc.com – and tell em SlashGear sent ya! Have a peek here at our very brief but very informative conversation below.

[Q] How do you see wearable technology fitting in with the rather mobile consumer landscape of today ?

[Ben Schlatka] There is increasingly strong market demand to measure everything about the body. And there are a number of wearable devices available that are trying to address this need. Unfortunately, most of these devices are bulky and uncomfortable to wear, and the quality of the data they provide varies widely.

MC10 is reshaping conventional rigid high-performance electronics into ultra-thin form factors that conform to the body. Imagine a kids’ fake tattoo that can sense how our bodies work: data from the heart, the brain, muscles, body temperature – even hydration levels. When a sensing technology conforms to the consumer and not the other way around, it can capture more insights for longer periods of time without discomfort or distraction.

[Q] I understand you’ve just secured an R&D contract for Wearable Electronics for the Battlefield with NSRDEC [US Army Natick Soldier Research, Development, and Engineering Center] – could you talk a little bit about that?

[S] This is an exciting project, we’re working with the NSRDEC to develop a renewable power source that extends the capabilities of soldiers in the field. The modern soldier carries lots of high-tech gear but they can’t be effective if the devices run out of power. We’re developing solar cells that are integrated directly into the fabric of helmets and rucksacks so devices can be charged and ready to use at all times. And it sure beats lugging a battery around in addition to the gear our troops already carry.

Now imagine the design freedom this technology provides. Something like your jacket can serve the same purpose. As you go about your day, your jacket is collecting energy that you can use to charge your phone or other portable electronic devices. You no longer have to search the coffee shop or airport lounge for a free outlet.

This is where the technology is heading, and it’s not too far off in the future.

[Q] How do you predict wearable technology will reach the mainstream?

[S] Wearable technologies will only go mainstream if they can be virtually invisible to the user. If your sleep monitor is bulky and keeps you from falling asleep, what good is it? If your doctor wants you to monitor your hear rate and it requires wearing an uncomfortable device, what are the odds you’ll actually comply?

Today we conform to our electronics without even thinking much about it, we’ve adapted because the pros outweigh the cons. But as electronics increasingly conforms to us, the barriers to adoption decrease.

[Q] Are there examples of mc10 that are live and out in the wild right now that you’d like to share?

[S] Nothing ‘in the wild’ until later this year, we’re developing a new device with Reebok that is expected to launch in 2012. We’ve also convened a team of accomplished athletes and experts across a variety of sports to help us shape the next generation of athletic performance monitoring.

We are also really excited about the important role our technology can play empowering people to play a more active role in staying healthy. Given the skyrocketing cost of healthcare, it’s clear we need smarter, cheaper ways to monitor health status outside of the hospital. Today, we learn about our health very occasionally and episodically; as a result, we access care in a costly setting, often when a condition has worsened to extreme levels. By providing continuous access to high-quality biofeedback at an affordable cost, MC10 is empowering people to take more ownership of their health, and to take action in real-time, accessing care only if and when it’s needed.

Also be sure to check out our full review of Total Recall (2012) and stay tuned for a collection of interviews just such as this one coming up over the course of the week – we’ve got Colin Farrell, Kate Beckinsale, Jessica Biel, and your favorite and mine: Bryan Cranston – coming up soon as well!

[Wiseman] It started with a phone call. I wasn’t aware there was a Total Recall script being put together so it was a surprise to me. Neal called me and had me come down and read it – and I went into it with quite a bit of hesitation, first off, being a film of the first film but also being a part of Die Hard as a franchise. I’d just gotten done with a previous project and I wasn’t ready to go through with this at first, I was still developing some things of my own.

So it was one of those projects that I read wanting not to like it, but I felt like I should just read it, and I’d been wanting to work with Neil for a long time, so – as I went through it it became more ‘ah man, this is actually pretty good.” And then I just got hooked. So that’s what it was initially, it was just at first trepidation, then just really loving the new take on the script – that’s how it all started for me.

From left: Brian Cranston, Jessica Biel, Colin Farrell, Kate Beckinsale, and Len Wiseman as they appeared in Los Angeles for the Total Recall junket.

[Q] Obviously you stayed away from wise-crackery which was one of the trademarks of the original movie but there were lines, you did keep actual lines – what was your take on that?

[W] Yeah we did kind of our own take on certain lines and there were certain things that – you know – it’s a tough mix to bring in things that are familiar – and the original script, it deviates so much [from the original film], especially towards the second half. This film doesn’t go to Mars, and the second and third act [of the 1990 film] are on Mars. So there were some things that I wanted to bring in that were familiar. But the lines and things that we have are just slightly skewed in a different tone.

[Q] What were some of your influences in developing the look of the film?

[W] That’s such a hard question to answer because there are so many influences in being such a fan of science fiction in general. So a lot of it – for me – I collect a lot of science fiction artwork, and always have, so if you go to my house it’s just geek out, it’s like a library of science fiction material.

And then a lot of the elements, the colony world specifically, where part of what influences or builds out this world is a melting pot of different societies. Because the world is at a point where there are only two zones that are inhabitable. So it was drawing in on a lot of that district in Brazil, there’s a lot of asian influence, and there’s a lot in terms of architecture to put those things together.

And then everything I’ve been growing up with, sci-fis, everything from Blade Runner to Aliens and Star Wars. It’s probably endless in terms of what is probably engrained in our minds and what we’ve got to draw from, ideas where you don’t exactly know what you’re influenced by. I can’t say specifically, but you’re influenced by watching movies like this and reading books and comic books and everything since I was a kid.

[Q] Can you talk about working with Kate [Beckinsale, aka Wiseman's wife] and speak on if she was always going to play the role she’s in or if she was considered for the other female lead in the film?

[W] She was never considered for the other role, I had considered her for the Lori role early on. It was just a combination of what I wanted Lori to be which was not exactly what was on the page. I just had the confidence and knew what Kate could bring to it. And then schedules changed and they pulled up her Underworld schedule.

So she took off to do Underworld which just meant that this was cancelled out and so we started a long casting process but it was just not going to happen. And then my movie got pushed. Luckily I was behind, so we got pushed back 3 weeks which created literally a 2 day window. She finished up Underworld, we put her on a plane, she came out. So there was this weird process – it was something that I was excited about, that happened, and then the schedules opened up again.

[Q] With both Underworld and Total Recall both being action movies, what did you do to push the envelope with Kate and make things different?

[W] I think it’s always different. It’s just movies in general, it’s such a wonderful business because as much as you feel like you’re crafting or fine tuning your career route, each movie is a completely different challenge, so it’s different even with those little details. Every fight sequence is different, and everything even in just the terms of the action sequences, it’s always different.

So I can really enjoy that, and she’s been in enough of these [action movies] now where it’s not starting from ground zero, where she’s just terrified to throw a punch. She’s not the same girl now. So that part gets a lot easier. So it’s always different, which is great.

[Q] The idea of class separated society is an element that’s present both in the Philip K Dick story and here in the movie, and fortuitously the Occupy Movement started after you’d envisioned this whole thing – how did that factor into this movie, with the class warfare aspect of it all?

[W] The class warfare was obviously there, it was in the script as well, and it’s a help to think about what would happen if we did have two zones that were left, and everyone had to just survive in these two areas, and what would our society do with that setup? So it’s commenting on that, and it’s the state of the world – in my mind, would that realistically unfold? So I tried to stay true to that. That was the starting point from what was actually already in the script.

[Q] Was there talk of any cameos from the original film planned or executed here in 2012?

[W] There was talk of it, I was tempted as just a fan of the original. I think of the original Total Recall as an Arnold movie. I wasn’t really aware of Philip K Dick at the time, I was 14, and I was just went to see – I want to see the Arnold film. So there was talk about it very early on, there was talk of Sharon Stone, and I don’t know if they were contacted, I’m not sure. But as we started to develop our film, I didn’t want to distract too much. So it would be a fun idea, and that fan in me really wanted to see it happen, just the storyteller [won me over]. Every time I’ve seen it happen – Lou Ferrigno shows up in the Hulk – it does take me out of it. It just seems Comic Con a little bit too much.

[Q] What elements were you insistent on keeping from the first one? Obviously like the three breasted hooker was a memorable one: were there any ideas you wanted to keep?

[W] Yeah the first thing I wanted in there, it’s absolutely one of the things I remember most about the original one, and it’s just at the core of this concept was the representative from Rekall comes back in and sets the stage. And tells Quaid that he’s actually living out a fantasy. And it’s that great core battle of fantasy vs reality. That was one of the things that I wanted to make sure that was really fleshed out, and then to push it further, was one.

Then some of the fun more superficial stuff we just wanted to put in: I had made a list, a list of about 10 things or so that I remembered from the film before I went back and watched it. And it had been about 20 years for me since I’d seen it, so I wanted to write that out before I watched it again. I thought that if those were things that had stuck with me through the years, that I would want to highlight some of those.

And they were things like – the three breasted woman was one of the top things, like I said I was 14, so that was very memorable to me. And then I just remembered Arnold pulling that big tracker out of his nose, freaking out about that, and going through the immigration booth with the heavy set red-headed lady. There were a lot of moments that I remembered. So we just wanted to put them in in a different twist. We give an homage to them but we switch em up, twist em up a bit.

[Q] Where there any things like Johnny Cab that you wanted in there or thought about but couldn’t get in there for one reason or another?

[W] Yeah there were things that – I’m trying to think of them – actually Johnny Cab was one of them, but it didn’t end up applying to us. There was also actually an element, the oxygen element that didn’t really fit in to our storyline. Obviously, we don’t go to Mars. But at one point there was a sub-plot about an oxygen level within the colony, but within this universe and on the planet it just didn’t make much sense.

[Q] Could you talk about choosing Colin Farrell, you spoke about going specifically to see an Arnold movie where comparatively Colin Farrell is a more real actor – and could you talk about that shift in dynamic?

[W] I had absolutely no intention of replacing Arnold. And there were a few things that made me want to do the movie, the first that the script took a different direction to it, and a different tone, and this was a chance to do a very different kind of Quaid. I didn’t read the short story until I went to college, so I had kind of a reverse knowledge of it.

I had seen it first as an Arnold Schwarzenegger movie, then it wasn’t until college that I read Philip K Dick’s story and I remember at the time thinking, ‘oh that’s that Arnold movie that I love when I was in high school’, and just reading the story had a very different effect on me than what I remember, just from the tone of the story. And Quaid, or Quail as he is in the story, is a bit more of an everyman.

So I wanted somebody that you could just relate to a bit more. The whole idea of that story was that it has such a strong wish fulfillment to it – of a man that wishes he could be more, then turns into a super spy, verses my recollection of what I felt when I watched the original Total Recall: we’re watching a guy who you already feel is a super spy because we’ve seen him in such a capacity. So I wanted a guy who was, I think of an everyman.

My sister-in-law says that, ‘if Colin Farrell is the every-man then I’m living in the wrong city.’ *laughter* So he’s the Hollywood everyman, I guess. So that was exciting to me, when it first came out there was so much talk about, ‘who’s gonna replace Arnold.’ And The Rock came up, all these wrestlers, all these people that I was totally unaware of.

[Q] Did they pitch these actors and ideas to you, or what?

[W] Ah no, it was all over, like, online. Speculation about who the next Arnold was going to be. And I was like, ‘alright, when I announce who the next Quaid is going to be, and not the next Arnold, maybe they’ll like it and maybe they won’t.’ But it was quite a reaction and very well received and I think it immediately helps to set a tone of what we’re trying to do.

[Q] Where there any other actors that were considered for the role?

[W] Just The Rock. Ha, no. No, he was my first choice which, I feel like a director rarely talks about if you don’t, you don’t have that conversation. Like, ‘he wasn’t my first choice but man, he worked out great.’ *laughter*

[W] I’m actually glad to not have to cover or navigate around, he was my first choice and it was great, it was a situation where, also with Kate, it just works out. Bryan Cranston, who I was watching on – I had really been sucked into Breaking Bad at the time, and I was thinking, one, I want to work with this man at some point. He’s fantastic. And then when the script came about I thought he’d be perfect, and, first choice, yeah that was really fun.

[Q] What were you considering when Colin Farrell was cast, were you thinking international appeal, his accent, what do you think about when you put that together? Because obviously the movie has to hang on this guy, is he a big enough box office star, is he a good enough every-man and appealing?

[W] To be completely honest I didn’t think of any of those things, I thought just simply that he’s a fantastic actor. And I want to take an actor and more so, if anything, my job would be to turn an actor into an action star rather than an action star into an actor. That rarely works. I want to start with just a really good actor.

And when you put his whole body of work together: we just said we’re going to create Quaid. Just as a starting point, as a springboard, there were elements of Quaid, the Quaid that I had read, the one that I had pictured: a little bit of Phonebooth, a little bit of In Bruges, a little bit of – he’s done so much. So it was really that.

It was really that I wanted to work with an actor for Quaid, I really want to push that, everything like the physicality, once this character has to turn into this super spy, you have to really believe him. But that’s more of a thing that’s just getting people into the gym and working with stunt players and all of that. I want the security of a fantastic actor.

[Q] Did Colin feel bad about fighting with Kate ever? Or did he just go for it?

[W] He didn’t tell me then, but he tells me now that it was a little bit nerve-racking just because of the fact that it’s the director’s wife. I think it would be kind of weird, I guess. I think he felt ok after she blasted him in the neck at one point. So I think then it was ok for the gloves to come off.

[Q] Could you speak on the conceptual design, the whole look of the film, and all the little gadgets (like the hand phone), and how real this film’s environment is compared to other concepts that films have presented?

[W] It was definitely a large part of the focus for me to have it all. I love science fiction more than the fantasy, and the distinction of how science fiction is based off of science. And where science could possibly go. It’s such a what-if quality where fantasy is kind of the study of a different thing, so I’ve been drawn towards that, and it’s this reality of: these things could possibly happen.

So it was very much – for instance that palm cell phone – I want to think that a think like that crazy of an idea [could be real.]

I saw something, it was a while ago, where it was in Japan and they were putting in LCD tattoos, that they were putting into the skin. Whether it ever came through or not. But the LCD tattoos that you see in the film as well as the phone systems – what they’re also doing is the car.

[W] With the car design we were talking to an engineer that you guys were really developing things in a way where that makes sense to how the world would progress, in a sense. At some point were going to have to start building up. You’re going to run out of room to build houses. And once you build up you have to design and build in a way with a transportation system that will also accommodate that. So that’s what we’ve done.

So yes, I’ve very much into what could possibly happen.

[Q] When Quaid is in the bank and opens up his safe and gets his money – did you have input as to who was on those bills?

[W] Did I have input – oh, yeah. Because one of those bills is my dad. It’s right by Obama, the next one over is my dad Loren. so it was perfect to put him right as one of the presidents. And yeah I thought, yeah, we see our presidents heads up, I thought Obama would make a bill.

[Q] Do you have any independent projects coming up?

[W] Yeah, you know, people say why did you take three years off after Die Hard – I have not taken one day off since after Die Hard. I have been actively developing projects that didn’t go through for various reasons – mainly of budget. It’s really difficult to get an original idea that’s not attached to a comic book or a book itself or some awareness that’s over a hundred million dollars.

And I love to build worlds, since I was a kid, it’s what I got into this industry to do. Three of those projects were ones that I had written, seven months here, with Tom Cruise, and folks saying ‘this is gonna happen’, and the budget doesn’t add up.

[Q] What one was that?

[W] It was a movie called Motorcade, it had Dreamworks, and he took off to do [something else] – and the funding wasn’t coming through, it was expensive, and it was an original title, and he went to do The Time of Day.

[Q] Do you have a Rekall fantasy yourself?

[W] Rekall fantasy myself, ah, god. Probably too many. I would love to travel to the future, just to file some things so there’s no guesswork.

[Q] What effect does working with your Wife onset have on your marriage – do you ever feel like you’re working together too much?

[W] No, it’s a weird thing. And there’s lots of directors that work with plenty of the same actors, over and over, many more times than I have. And actually I’ve worked with Bill Nye more times than I’ve worked with Kate, and I’m not married to Bill Nye, so that never comes up. I love to work with actors where I know what I’m going to get from them, as many others do, so it’s not something – you build as well as you would accrue, as well, you build up the people. It’s so risky, there are people you know you can trust, you know what you’re going to get from them, its why directors do it a lot of times.

But if people would say, ‘you’ve hired Bill Nye too many times’, I’d say, ‘well I don’t care.’ He’s fantastic.

Be sure to check out the rest of our Rekall-toting content in our Total Recall portal and check out the ever expanding timeline below to see what else we’ve got for the film in the way of unique or otherwise fabulously interesting Total Recall content!

We shot a few pointed questions at Dolgoff before he jumped right in on his Reddit AMA which, we’ll vouch for, is certainly going on today right here: [Ask ]. Have a peek at what we got to know about the project as it’s being developed for the consumer world as we speak.

SlashGear: What’s your ultimate goal with 3-D Vision technology?

Gene Dolgoff: I have been involved in the effort to promote 3-D to the world since the beginning of the 1960s. Now that the world is finally catching up, but is stalled when it comes to consumer 3-D at home (for TVs, computers, projectors, and handheld devices), I want to break that logjam with our revolutionary technology and move the world to the next level so that everyone can view and make 3-D anytime and anywhere they want.

SG: Will the device being released in the Fundable program you’ve got up right now require special eyewear for the user to see 3D? Or will the output completely depend on the device it’s working with?

GD: Our Instant 3-D Converter(TM) is currently designed to use special 3-D glasses. One type is for use with any TV set and the other type is for use with computers and handheld devices. We include one pair of each type of 3-D glasses with the converter (additional glasses will also be sold separately).

SG: What are the limits of the video content 3-D Vision technology can convert successfully?

GD: Our Instant 3-D Converter can convert any video content to 3-D instantly with high quality. Our inputs are composite, component, VGA, and HDMI.

SG: Why did you choose to work with Fundable rather than seeking out funding via traditional means?

GD: We have a business plan and even a draft private placement memorandum and are starting to talk to potential investors. However, that route is typically a slow route, and we want to get this technology out as quickly as possible. Crowd funding potentially provides a faster route for initial funding if your product and company meets the right criteria (which I think ours does).

I had been talking with the founders of fundable.com since before they launched their site. We all felt that, working together, we could be beneficial to each other both in raising some initial capital in a relatively short period of time, and in demonstrating consumer interest, which can be very important in influencing potential conventional investors.

SG: What are your plans for projects beyond this one? Will you continue your work towards a real Star Trek holodeck situation?

GD: We do have other consumer-oriented as well as commercial 3-D products in the pipeline, and will intend to continue to develop them into products and large markets. If we are successful enough to produce the kind of funding needed, we will continue to also pursue the development of holodeck-like products and applications.

Stay tuned as we follow this project through to full funding and beyond! Also be sure to check out the 3-D Vision Fundable project right now and toss in some cash for early access to the device!

Those of you unfamiliar with Powell’s work, you can hit up the following three links and see the videos of the projects he’s done throughout this post. Some of the products Powell uses are the Vuzix STAR 1200 AR glasses, Raspberry Pi – the fabulous miniature computer, and of course, a good ol’ fashioned ASUS Eee Pad Transformer.

• Raspberry Pi takes on Google’s Project Glass
• DIY Project Glass makes Google’s AR vision real
• Will Powell brings on AR vision real-time translation

SlashGear: Where you working with wearable technology before Google’s Project
Glass was revealed to the world?

Powell: Yes at Keytree we were working with wearable technology before the unveiling of project glass. I was working on CEO Vision a glasses based augmented reality that you could reach out and touch objects to interact or add interactive objects on top of an iPad. I have also had lots of personal projects.

SG: What is your ultimate goal in creating this set of projects with
Raspberry Pi, Vuzix 1200 Star, etc?

P: I would say that the ultimate goal is really to show what is possible. With CEO Vision at Keytree we showed that you could use a sheet of paper to interact with sales figures and masses of data using the SAP Hana database technology. Then creating my own version of project glass and now extending those ideas to cover translations as well, was just to show what is possible using off-the-shelf technology. The translation idea was to take down barriers between people.

SG: Do you believe wearable technology will replace our most common mobile tech – smartphones, laptops – in the near future?

P: Yes I do, but with an horizon of a couple of years. I think that with the desire for more content and easier simpler devices, using what we are looking at and hearing to tell our digital devices what we want to find and share is the way forward. Even now we have to get a tablet, phone or laptop out to look something up. Glasses would completely change this because they are potentially always on and are now adding full time to at least one of our fundamental senses. Also many of us already wear glasses, according to Vision Council of America, approximately 75% of U.S. adults use some sort of vision correction. About 64% of them wear eyeglasses so people are already wearing something that could be made smart. That is a huge number of potential adopters for mobile personal information delivery.

I think we still have a way to go with working out how everything will fit together and how exactly we would interact with glasses based technology. With the transition from a computer to tablets and smartphones we opened up gestured with glasses we have the potential to have body language and real life actions as interaction mechanisms. And it would be the first time that there is no keyboard. There is also the potential for specifically targeted ads that could end up with us having some parodies come true. However, I do think we will have an app store for a glasses based device in the next few years.

SG: What projects do you have coming up next?

P: I have many more ideas about what glasses based applications can be used for and am building some of them. I am creating another video around translation to show the multi lingual nature of the concept. Further to that, we are looking at what areas of everyday life could be helped with glasses based tech and the collaboration between glasses users. The translation application highlighted that glasses are even better with wide adoption because Elizabeth could not see the subtitles of what I was saying without using the TV or tablet.

Stick around as Powell’s mind continues to expand on the possibilities in augmented reality, wearable technology, and more!

It was a bit of a strange encounter with this pair of acting legends as Sheen entered the room first while Field ended up being a couple of minutes later gracing the room with her presence. As such, Sheen took the opportunity to warm the audience up, standing in front of the room aside the stage he’d soon take to do the talk with Field. He stood next to approximately 12 recording devices that’d been set in front of the chairs that would soon hold him, amongst these the highest tech digital recorders down to tape recorders and over to a couple of smart phones as well…

[Martin Sheen] Now what’s this all about? *laughter*

How many of you have seen the film? The rest of you can leave… How many of you saw the film and loved it? The rest of you can leave… How many of you have the most important question you’ve ever wanted to ask anyone your entire life? The rest of you can leave…

What are all these cell- some people have lost their cellphones en masse here!

Did you all come in for this, or did you fly in? Really? Where did you all come from?

Los Angeles, San Francisco, Idaho, Minnesota – oh Minnesota? Saint Paul? Garrison Keillor is one of my heroes. Clevland? My wife went to highschool there. They closed down the place, she couldn’t go to her reunion. Closed the joint. It was that awful shooting. She grew up on Ukeland. I was over there just last week working for Senator Brown. In Ohio. Good man.

When are they gonna stop picking on the unions over there? What is that about? You know who’s working that crowd, is… what’s that fascist’s name… Karl Rove. You know exactly – when I say fascist, you say Rove! *laughter*

Isn’t it true? Man and they reward that kind of fascism. Give me a break, Wisconsin, Walker, they can keep Walker. Somebody from Wisconsin?

*Field enters the room*

[MS] Ladies and gentlemen, Sally Field. *applause*

Martin Sheen and Sally Field pose for press photos at the NYC junket for The Amazing Spider-Man

[Sally Field] Oh my god it’s, it’s the Marty show.

[MS] I’ve warmed them all up. Those who didn’t like the show have left. They’re an eclectic crew.

[SF] Oh you already know them all? You know where they came from, where they live, how many children they have.

[MS] Sally and I have to make a commission.

[SF] I don’t know where you’re coming from with this…

[MS] Neither of us have seen the movie, so…

[SF] Oh an ADmission, yes. You said commission.

[MS] Oh, it’s show business, they know what I mean. I didn’t get the chance to see it yet, when did you guys see it? Just last night? How was it? I wasn’t invited. But I didn’t get a chance to see it, and I feel badly about that, so I cannot respond specifically to what you saw. – I know I’m in the film, I assume I’m still in it?

[SF] I don’t know, I don’t think they’d be talking to someone who weren’t in the film, you might not be in it very much?

[MS] So if there’s any specific references, you’ll have to refresh my memory, so sorry.

Spider-Man’s first appearance in Amazing Fantasy (1962)

[Q] Have either of you read a comic book or seen a movie with a Spider-Man character?

[SF] Ah no, I didn’t – I read Little Lulu. And I haven’t seen them make that into any thing yet. Little Lulu was mine, that was my girl. So I can sing that song “Little Lulu, Little Lulu” no never mind, I’m not gonna do it. But no, I just, I didn’t – I loved comic books, I was a real comic book freak when I was a kid. Except they were the girl ones. I read Archie, I read those, but my brother read all the Spider-Man.

My brother, who is a world-renowned physicist, he’s one of the finest physicists in the world, he’s almost 3 years older than I – he’s so excited about this movie that I’ve… finally I’ve arrived. I’m in this movie because my brother used to read all of those. So I was and am familiar with the movies but I never have, still, to this day [read the comics.]

Little Lulu, as read by Sally Field

[MS] Yes the same is true for me, I was a big movie fan –

[SF] You read Little Lulu? *laughter*

[MS] Ah no, but I did read Sluggo and Nancy and ah, Archie comics, but my passion for movies was always the, ah, Saturday afternoon, the Zorro or the western or sports or what have you. But no I was, as far as Spider-Man is concerned, specifically? I’m 21 years older than he is, so I missed him, totally. But I do recall the afternoon cartoon, “Spider-Man, Spider-Man, [does whatever a spider can]” and my kids would rush to the TV to see him, but that was as close as I ever got.

Sluggo and Nancy, as read by Martin Sheen – image via MyComicShop

[Q] Mister Sheen, when you’re working on a big budget Hollywood movie, do you miss being out in the jungle with a rebel director going crazy?

[MS] What ever are you referencing? *laughter*

Nah ah, I don’t know how to answer that.

[SF] Just say you don’t remember any of that.

[MS] I don’t remember any of that. You know at my age, at this time in my career, I’m lucky to be living, let alone working. So I give thanks and praise each day that I’m able to get up and walk around. And to still be able to work and to make my living doing the thing I love the most – I’m delighted. So if it’s big budget or small budget, I’m delighted to still be on the team.

[SF] And we’re delighted to have you.

[MS] Well thank you very much.

Martin Sheen on set for Apocalypse Now (1979)

[Q] At this point in both of your careers, how do you feel about putting yourselves on screen in a project for the first time? Do you feel like it’s better to see it in an intimate setting, or especially with a big blockbuster film such as this, do you prefer to see it with a big audience in a theater? And also if you could talk about behind the scenes – did Marc let you see any dailies, and did you want to see dailies?

[SF] I don’t like watching myself at all. I never liked watching myself.

[MS] I like watching you.

[SF] Awww, thank you. But I know a lot of actors, most actors have difficulty watching themselves, but now, as I’ve reached an age, it’s really hard to look at yourself – so I really may not ever see it! I shouldn’t tell you. It’s just a really selfish reason, it’s like ahgh! You know, it’s 3D, for God sakes. I wasn’t good with myself on a television screen.

[SF] So I don’t know, I grapple with it because part of me says, ‘oh Sally, come on, get over it, you want to see Andrew, you want to see Marc’s work,’ and it’s such a small, you know, such a vain little thing that – but that’s true, I admit it, it’s out there.

But also – about watching dailies: Marc didn’t have anyone watching dailies. It’s really not a good idea for actors to watch dailies, it’s an acting faux pas, ever, because the whole task of an actor is to not have any actual mental vision of yourself outside of yourself. Because then you start imitating yourself.

And that is the difficult thing even about watching a film that you’ve done, because you become aware of your own physicality in a way that isn’t good for you to have in your mind. You see actors who start out, young actors who start out and seem so free and easy and natural. Then all of a sudden, third or fourth movie down the line, they look posey, they’re all careful with what they’re doing. Like Marty, for instance. *laughter*

[MS] I was so good until I got successful. *laughter*

[SF] Yeah so sometimes, and Marty will answer this question, I’m sure he feels similar things about watching dailies. I don’t think it’s ever comfortable.

[MS] I agree that it’s a mistake, in this case it was interesting because they would run back a scene almost immediately for technical reasons. You know, you do a take, and they’ll say ‘something was in the frame’ and they’d go down and they’d have just… a row of working computers, these computer geniuses -

[SF] The technology was unbelievable.

[MS] In order to see a playback or a rush, by the way I never saw any of them and I agree with Sally It’s never a good idea for actors to continue to see themselves. The thing is you fall in love with one take, and that’s not the one that’s in the film, and so you’ve already foreclosed any hope of being satisfied.

I once heard an artist say that they did not display their own paintings in their home because they didn’t want to be influenced by themselves. It’s the same thing.

Watching myself on television, for example, I always warned the family what was coming. Like we would gather to watch a “West Wing” episode or some movie of the week, and I’d say, ‘Now this is gonna happen, and you have to feel this way about it.’ *laughter*

I could control the audience when a television came on. With movies, I prefer to go after it had opened, for good or ill, and see it with an audience to get an honest reaction.

Bakersfield, California – courtesy of Google

[MS] I remember one time I was driving someone up to Bakersfield in the middle of a hot summer day, and on the way back I –

[SF] Why?!

[MS] I had to drop them off!

[SF] Why would you do that?

[MS] Because the bus was late, and, I don’t know.

[SF] Was it someone you’d just met or

[MS] It was someone I knew very well, yes.

[SF] No no, if you’ve just met Marty, I swear to god, if he’d seen some people on the corner and that said ‘I just spent my bus money’ he’d say ‘gosh, where were you going? Look, I’ve got a couple hours, let me drive you!’ *laughter*

I swear!

[MS] Well if I’m going in the same direction. By the way if any of you people are going along PCH… anyway.

At any rate, I was coming back, I was going back to Bakersfield, and I was passing a shopping center, and they had the movies listed. “Major League” was playing. This was about two weeks after it’d – I had never seen it, and so I thought ‘ah this is nice’ and it was so hot. So I went in and it was air conditioned in the theater, and there were two other people besides me. And I watched Major League, which I loved, in the moment where Charlie [Sheen] comes in from the bullpen during the big game, they started playing “Wild Thing”, and I started to weep, and I said, “Go get ’em, kid!” And I wanted to tell the whole audience, all two of them, that that was my son coming in to pitch for the Indians.

So it’s not a good idea, you know, to get so personally involved.

[SF] It’ll cause you to act foolishly in Bakersfield.

[MS] Just – what was the question? *laughter*

[Q] Your characters really ground this story in reality, and I was just wondering about how you were almost in a different movie, like you were doing a family drama while all this action was going on elsewhere.

[MS] I think Sally will confirm that our great director, Marc Webb, wanted us to be as simple and direct and honest with each other and just enjoy each other’s company and not to play any image of the characters, who are very well known. To forget all that and make contact with each other and enjoy what we were doing and make it alive and personal. Because if it’s not personal, it’s impersonal and if it’s impersonal, who cares? We knew those relationships would ground the whole story and that was important.

So that, for my part, that’s all we focused on. And watching this young man — and I know Sally would agree — that this is a very, very special guy, Andrew Garfield, who is now launched and rightly so. But watching him work was so gratifying. He was so generous with us because he had to do some very heavy emotional work and, boy, the set was on fire when he went to those places. But then he would do an equally intense performance off-camera for our reactions. For me that was an enormous leap of generosity to his fellow actors. That really endeared him to me and Sally, too.

But yeah, we took it personal and we had a lot of fun, we were laughing a lot.

Martin Sheen, Sally Field, Andrew Garfield, and Emma Stone pose at NYC junket for The Amazing Spider-Man

[SF] We laughed a lot. And basically all my work in the film – and I don’t know how much of it is actually in the film – I too have not seen it at this point – but it was always with Andrew and Marty, that’s all that I was in the house and around that, I had one scene outside it, I don’t know if it’s still in there.

[SF] So all I knew of the movie, really, was that. We had a table read so certainly knew what was going on, but the interesting thing about we doing this Spider-Man movie is that it is more contemporary, in a sense, in that it’s a metaphor for how hard it is anytime, but especially today, to… the coming of age, you know? And the darkness that this young man carries with him and that troubled soul that he is.

[SF] It certainly is different from any of the ones before, and Mary and I knew our task is that family. That it was a 3D movie was odd because, I said before in an interview, where some of the scene that Andrew and I had together where Uncle Ben was no longer there…

[MS] I’ve gotta see this movie!

[SF] It gets very heated, it’s very troubling what’s going on. As far as we knew, we were shooting a little kitchen drama. And what was bizarre for me, because I’ve been doing this a long time, is that we were shooting a kitchen scene in a very confined atmosphere with a handheld 3D camera. And that means, first of all, that it is enormous, and that it is being held up on a bungee cord by guys up above that are helping. The hand-held camera, notoriously why it was used is so that it can move around with the actors – it’s not on a dolly, it’s not stationary.

[SF] And it moves where we go, if we decide to go this direction or we go that direction, it can go there with you. And you learn as an actor how to, sort of, work with that. But I’d never worked with a 3D camera – first of all the lens is halfway across the room, and it was bizarre… to be doing that. And there was, yes, at least a little part of me going ‘Oh sweet mother of god. This is a 3D camera this far away from my face. I am never going to see this movie as long as I live.’

[SF] It’s kind of amazing, and Andrew and I, to do the fight scenes that he had, to not lose your focus. We were maneuvering around this huge piece of equipment that this phenomenal operator is also trying to, you know, maneuver around us and… the furniture… It was technically fascinating. And in a lot of other ways, as well.

[Q] Mister Sheen, you recently came off of doing voice work for Mass Effect going straight here to The Amazing Spider-Man…

[MS] You, you gotta explain what Mass Effect is, most of em never heard of it.

[Q] Mass Effect is a Science Fiction video game series, ah, and…

[MS] Ok. I didn’t even know what it was, ha!

Martin Sheen doing voice work for Mass Effect – from the official Voice Actors Reveal video

[Q] What is it about genre entertainment, about science fiction and fantasy that appeals to you as an actor?

[MS] I’m drawn to characters, you know, if I can relate to them personally, all the better, because for an artist, any artist, if something is not personal it’s impersonal. If it’s impersonal, nobody cares. I’m challenged by playing villains which I think Mass Effect is what I’m playing. I’ve never seen it because I don’t have a computer and I’m not computer savvy. I’m very sorry. I have not seen them. I don’t have a clue what it is.

[SF] What?! What, you don’t have a computer?

[MS] Naw and there was a guy who came to fix my wife’s computer who said that I was the guy in Mass Effect and he was just over the moon. And I said, “I’m doing another one. Would you like to come?” And he ended up as an advisor for it.

[SF] And then he drove him to Bakersfield. *laughter*

Martin Sheen shares a warm moment with Andrew Garfield at the NYC junket for The Amazing Spider-Man

[MS] I’m attracted to things that appeal to me personally, whether its a villain or a hero. In this case, what attracted me to the show was, you know, frankly, was the lady next to me, she was the only one – well, Dennis Leary, I didn’t have any scenes with him but I’ve worked with him before and I’m really fond of him. And Campbell Scott [playing Peter Parker's father], I knew, these guys, and I was very fond of the lady next to me particularly, so I knew it was going to be a sweet ride.

I got to play a character that I’m a father, I’m a husband, and a grandfather so I have some familiarity with raising kids and grandkids, albeit not always successfully.

Never mind. I’ll take a rap for it.

But I think one of the things that really fascinated me about Spider-Man the character is that he is dealing with what all young people today, particularly in our society, are just absolutely fractured by, and that is peer pressure. And he’s saying, bottom line, is when you hear that voice inside that’s calling you to step up, to be your better self, it’s going to cost you. But that’s the only way you can become free and that’s the only way you can become yourself. But anything worthwhile has got to cost you. If it doesn’t, then you’re left to question its value. So he’s really saying to young people…

Peter Parker (Andrew Garfield) throttles a bully (the character Flash Thompson played by Chris Zylka) after he’s gained Spider-Man powers

[SF] I have to say, I agree with you mostly, but I think that it’s not only peer pressure. I really think it’s not only a metaphor for how difficult the world is, I mean, when you look at what’s happening to the world, and he’s using, metaphorically, these villains that come in – in some ways it offers the Peter the possibility to step up and push his own envelope and to, sort of, fight for the right thing. And to threaten your existence in doing it, in other words lose every safe place you ever thought you had to do the right thing.

And, boy oh boy, if the younger generation could have the feeling that we have to step up, and make things right, no matter how much it costs me, it would be a different world. And you see a lot of different countries, you know, lord knows, grappling with this: how do you make change? How do you make enormous change? Well, obviously, it doesn’t come easy.

And in some entertaining way, I think that’s what the metaphor is. It’s a really, really difficult world right now.

[MS] I gotta see this movie.

[SF] It’s playing in Bakersfield!

[Q] I was wondering how the project came to you both, I thought about how Webb was basically a newbie to feature films, but both of you are familiar with new directors or directors who suddenly become really huge. I wonder if that was part of the appeal? And do you seek that out to keep your careers fresh with new talent? New writers, new projects, and new challenges?

[SF] For me, I have one main big reason why I did the movie, but I loved the idea of Marc. I saw his first film which I thought was just exquisite. And I met with him and he is who he is, and I had no doubts he was going to, you know, push his envelope, and I had no doubt that it was going to be exciting, and fresh, because that’s what this film was. So that was never an issue at all, I was very eager to do that, and the cast, and the script was very good. It was dark, and really very different.

But for me the reason that I absolutely had to do it was that my first producing partner was Laura Ziskin and we produced Murphy’s Romance together. It was her first film, and my first film that I produced. She was a good friend. She is, was a spectacular hero. Really a spectacular hero. She is Spider-Man. She really is. I say is because the work that she started is really continuing the fight against cancer. She asked me to do the movie, would I come in and do it, and I said ‘absolutely’ before I read it, before I knew who was involved in it, before I met Marc, before I knew Marty was there. Because my instinct was she wasn’t going to do another one after this, so I would have done it no matter what so I am very proud to have been a part of her first film and her last film. And she was a hero.

Have a peek at the rest of our interviews from the cast and crew of The Amazing Spider-Man in the timeline below, and be sure to stay tuned as more are indeed on the way! We’ve got everyone from Andrew Garfield to Dennis Leary to Emma Stone and back again! We’ve also got Rhys Ivans – playing Curtis Connors, aka the Lizard, coming up soon, the same goes for Sony Pictures Imageworks Senior Visual Effects Supervisor Jerome Chen. Don’t miss it!

Also be sure to check the timeline at the end of this post to see each of the other interviews we collected last month (with more on the way) from the New York City press junket for the film. Don’t miss our first impressions of the movie as well – it’s a blast!

Leary poses with Rhys Ifans and Emma Stone at the NYC event.

[Dennis Leary] First of all, I have a question. You guys f*ckin bored yet? *laugter*

You just had Sally Field and Martin Sheen up here, I bet you’re really looking forward to me. Two screen legends, and then this a**hole.

I’m sure we can make this very fast.

How about that Martin Sheen. Did he mention his book? I’ll do it for him. He just wrote a book with Emilio. It’s about the father son relationship – A total dysfunctional book book about Emilio wanting to beat the sh*t out of his father on the set of Apocalypse Now. -Which by the way, I don’t know what kind of stuff you like to read, but when he told me about it today and I said, ‘I’m reading that sh*t.’ How great would that be? You know?

[Q] What’s the name of the book?

[DL] Sh*t. I’m sure if you just Google ‘Emilio Esteves punching Martin Sheen’ you’ll get it.

[Q] Hi Dennis, how are you?

[DL] Good, how are you doing?

[Q] Good. I was just wondering – after writing, acting, producing duties on “Rescue Me”, was it nice to be able to come in and do this and just focus on the acting?

[DL] It was awesome. You know that 3D cameras sometimes need to take a break, because they’re air conditioned? They’re big rigs and I just go back to my trailer, watch ‘Sports Center.’ I didn’t have to write anything or fix anything. It was awesome; it was great; it was really good.

Above: The Amazing Spider-Man viral marketing video with Leary as Captain Stacy.

[Q] You played a New York City cop and a New York City fireman, can you tell us, in real life, what experiences you’ve had with either job – how people on the job affect you? And I also wanted to get the inside story on how – you have one of the best lines in the movie with the Godzilla reference – I was wondering if you could tell us how many takes that took, whether or not that was scripted or if it was improvised?

[DL] It was improvised. Marc is like an actor’s director, and he made a small movie, I don’t know if you’ve seen it it’s called 500 Days of Summer. It’s a terrific little movie with a lot of heart. And it’s an actor’s movie – and that’s what he described this as when I first got on the phone with him. And he actually stayed true to that. That he was making a character movie that happened to cost a good jillion dollars and have a big blockbuster name. -And a July 4th release date!

[DL] But it really was like an acting movie. Even in the big action sequences. So in rehearsal and stuff, he was talking about wanting to improvise around certain things and in certain scenes and play with it. That was one of the scenes he had earmarked. And I don’t know what take it was but we filmed a number of different versions of it. It was just myself and Andrew that day with a lot of extras. And we just started playing around with it and somewhere in the middle of it Marc walked up and said ‘what about this?’

Because it feels like, I imagine that we had about 8 or 9 takes where we just played with it and some where my ideas and some where Andrew’s ideas and Marc had come up with that line. And I said, ‘let’s shoot it!’

And I don’t know what they did from there, if they tested all the takes, or if they just decided in the editing room.

[Q] Have you seen the final cut of the movie?

[DL] I haven’t seen the movie.

[Q] What are some of your best real life experiences with real-life New York City cops and New York City fire-fighters?

[DL] Too many to mention with fire-fighters, but, when I was doing a television show called “The Job” for ABC which was based on the real life of a detective, who I knew, who was my technical advisor on The Thomas Crown Affair. So the guy was clean and sober when I was working with him on the television show, but he had been a pill head and kind of a mess – and he had had a mistress while he was married, and he had both things going on which was what the show was about.

And I was standing with Lenny Clark who was an actor in that show, outside of the Steak House after we had just eaten dinner. And the detective, who was on the job, who was under cover, we both see this guy who was scouting stuff out, he had a radio thing and he started to move and he saw us and and he went ‘hey Dennis, thanks a lot, now my wife’s really pissed, she found out about my girlfriend.’ *laughter*

And I thought that summed it up.

[Q] Dennis, I wanted to know what it was like working with Emma Stone –

[DL] Horrible. It was just a nightmare. *laughter*

[Q] It’s apparent you had a really great bond with her and you got to know her so I’m wondering if you could just talk about that.

[DL] We had makeup and hair tests and all that stuff you normally do, but we had some rehearsal time, and ah… listen man, honestly speaking, I had seen her in a couple movies and I’d heard on the grapevine great things about her. And Andrew I’d seen in a couple movies and I knew Rhys’s work, but I didn’t know him – the only person I knew coming in was Martin Sheen, we’d done a movie called Monument Avenue together years ago.

But I really, you know – I thought that Rhys was just a great actor… I didn’t know what to expect from Emma, and quite frankly, they were the real deal. I mean, they were all about the work. They were able to improvise, which not everyone can do – everyone thinks they can but they can’t really do. Every actor thinks they can do comedy and that’s just not f*cking true. *laughter* And everyone thinks that they can improvise and a lot of people can’t!

She’s great at it, and so is Andrew – so the first couple of days was getting used to the idea that these couple of kids were going to steal the movie from me and Rhys. And then, I remember in the dinner scene which was the first big acting scene that we shot and one of the first things we shot on the movie. We had three days to shoot, and we were playing around, improvising and all this stuff, and ah, I still wasn’t there yet.

I was supposed to be intimidating Andrew’s character but it didn’t feel like it was working. Because he was really coming to strike right back at me. And Marc walked in after a take and he just kneeled down next to me and he said ‘hey you really gotta step it up.’ *laughter*

And I just go… ‘f*ck.’ *laughter*

I mean that’s how good they are. I don’t know if you saw Death Of A Salesman but he was really outrageously good and that’s one of the most difficult roles you can take on in the theater and he was just – he was outrageously good, so, they’re the real deal. They’re going to be around for a long time and I’m just saying really nice things about them because I’m going to ride their coattails. *laughter*

That’s what I’m hoping to do. I’m going to be really nice to them, from here on in.

[Q] I have a question about -

[DL] -Where are you?

[Q] Oh, down here.

[DL] Oh, geez. How did you get the microphone? -Oh, she hands it to you, I see. There’s not like a hundred mics! She has a mic, and she has a mic. OK, sorry. I was confused.

[Q] What’s the difference between the effects films you worked on, say, 10 years ago, compared to now? Especially in regards to 3D.

[DL] There’s a huge difference now. Even in the course of “Rescue Me” which we shot for seven years. With a lot of action sequences which involve fire which is famously, obviously, dangerous with real smoke, real flame. And there’s sometimes effects that you need to lay in under that.

We went from having to do everything completely real – fire and smoke, to make it look real – to by the end, in the first five years of the course of that show, finding that there were details that we could do, that we could do digitally, that the audience would never see the difference of. And it would save a lot of safety concerns.

But at the same time there’s a lot of stuff that Marc purposely shot in front of the cameras, to avoid CGI, in terms of the stunt work.

You know, the audience will always know that there’s been a cut, or an edit, or an effect tossed in. I remember the movie “Children of Men”, did you see that movie? There’s a couple of sequences in that movie where it’s clearly one take, and it’s really the actors, and you’re never gonna really get away from that. We all know, we know more than ever when we’re being tricked, so when you’re not being tricked, you’ll stay on the edge of your seat longer.

[Q] How about in regards to 3D? I know that the rigs that are being used are using RED cameras, and then there’s two of them set up in a rig made by 3ality Technica –

[DL] I didn’t know that.

[Q] They make a rig that’s made specifically so that 3D filming is not intrusive. So you’ve got these 3D cameras that are going all over as easy as 2D cameras – did you notice them? Was it difficult to work with them?

[DL] Yeah they’re pretty big, it was pretty difficult not to notice them. But you know, you get used to it after a while.

[Q] Could you talk about – what was your hardest thing to do physically for this movie, and also was it fun to go back to Ice Age with a movie coming out in a few weeks?

[DL] Listen man… those things… Chris Rock said something about them at the Oscars this year. They’re the greatest. You come in, you look like sh*t – I don’t like to dress up, I wear the same clothes every day, you’re lucky I’m wearing – I changed my shirt and my tie like, I basically wear the same sh*t every day and I, you know, I don’t even wear underwear, I’d be in a bathing suit, that’s what I would wear, so.

When you can walk into a room and talk to an electric stick, and pretend to be, I don’t know, some f*cking tiger or something, and they give you all this money for it? That’s the greatest job in show business. It’s an insane job. I love it. I think it’s fantastic, and I’m truly hoping that we do – I want to do Ice Age until we do the Civil War, the Johnson Administration, and Obama gets elected. We’ll have Ice Age 13 when we catch up to the current timeframe and we’re moving into the future. They’re unbelievable man, they’re great.

[Q] What about physical stuff [for Spider-Man]? Do you get scared doing any of that?

[DL] Hey man, that’s what stunt men are for. I’m not one of those actors that’ll walk around saying ‘oh I do all my own stunts’ – f*ck you. First of all there’s a lot of stuff they wont let you do, you know what I mean? Then there’s sh*t you’ll look at and say ‘yeah, I want to do that, that looks pretty cool, let me try that.’ Then there’s stuff where at my age I’m like ‘f*ck this, I’m not doing it.’ F*cking stunt double, man.

[DL] The one thing I wanted, I told Marc, ‘I’m shooting that shotgun, every time the shotgun is fired.’ There was like four days of that, man. And that was a blast. Shooting the shotgun… so I like to do all the shooting. And some of the falls, you know. Sh*t that makes you look cool, I’ll do, but once it gets a little dangerous it’s like; no. That’s where that CGI sh*t comes into play.

[Q] What originally attracted you to this film?

[DL] I’d just finished filming the last season of Rescue Me, we were still cutting and mixing music and making choices. And Marc called me, I got on the phone with him, like I said he described this small little acting movie and I was like ‘this guy’s crazy.’ I’ve done action movies before, nobody, you know, you don’t get to do any acting.

And then I just said, ah, I’ll just jump in. I mean I’m not writing or producing it so how hard is this gonna be? It took longer than I thought but my job was basically just the acting, I didn’t have to do anything else. Which was great. And then just like any film, you figure like, you just hope it comes out in the wash. You know, comes out good. But it was no pressure on me.

I’m not like a comic book guy – my friends that are like Captain Stacy fans I had to like, stop talking to them. Because that’s like, insane, the sh*t that they want you to know about the character and so forth. So I went into work and focused on the other actors and that was it. So I had it easy, on this, you know? It was really no pressure on me.

Now I just gotta make sure I’m in Amazing Spider-Man 2 and 3 and 4 – which, by the way, is not impossible. Flashbacks… I really get in Peter Parker’s head there at the end with the dialog…

I was like ‘guys, you know I can come back, right? You know I can come back in a flashback, I’m in his head.’ And they’re like ‘oh that’s true, yeah man.’

F*ck yeah. By the time we get to The Amazing Spider-Man 5 it might be called “Captain Stacy’s Story.”

[Q] While you said that you’re not really that familiar with the comics, how early on did you know about Captain Stacy’s fate – which was pretty direct from the comics?

[DL] Yeah pretty much from the get-go, yeah.

Captain Stacy as he originally appears in the pages of Spider-Man courtesy of Spider-Man Crawl Space – note his retired status.

[Q] Was that something that made you hesitant or did it make you more excited about the role, getting to be the big act 3 tragedy?

[DL] Well I’ve been around long enough to think ahead. So I’m like, ‘ahh f*ck. My guy dies.’ As an actor I’m like, ‘well I get to do a big juicy death scene.’ But I could be out on the sequels… which is where the real money is.

Because in the original Ice Age, the ape was supposed to die – at the end of the first Ice Age. So I said, ‘this isn’t going to work, you can’t kill a major character, kids bum out.’ Right? So they screened it the first time and kids bummed out. Not because it’s me, because you have to kill the mother at the beginning of the child movie, and it’s OK. But you can’t kill a major character at the end.

So I got in on that! And I had a brief conversation with Marc where I was like ‘how about if I die, and then at the end, I come back to life.’ And he’s like, ‘no you gotta die.’ And I’m like, ‘alright.’ But that’s why I gotta plant the seed for flashback city. Two and 3, you know? Gotta get in there.

[Q] When you were talking about the dinner scene before, and Marc told you to step it up, I was wondering where it went from there, how you stepped it up and intimidated Andrew in that scene?

[DL] Ah, that next take. I kind of saw his, his head move back a little bit. I’ve got it in me, I was just still playing around trying to figure it out, you know? But they’re really good, and they’re not, you know, Andrew and Emma, I don’t know how they’re so good at such a young age, I really don’t.

[DL] Rhys and I would just stand to the side and say, ‘how did these kids get this good this young?’ They’re concerned about all the right things. You know, it’s not the size of the trailer, it’s the meat of the scene. That’s what they’re concerned about, so, you know, hats off to em, man. I wasn’t anywhere near that good when I was their age. Or that mature.

[Q] Did this movie get you thinking about the limits of science, and like, pissing God off by going too far and that kind of thing?

[DL] Yeah, Lapsed Catholic. I not believe there is a god because the Red Sox won the 2004 World Series. *laughter* I also think God is a gangly Irish guy who smokes and drinks and is not the guy that most people believe in. And I flunked science and math in highschool, and I still don’t understand science. So yeah, I don’t really…

I think it could be really cool if you could get bit by a spider and then fly around. I’d f*ckin do that tomorrow. You know? But I don’t investigate that stuff morally. I don’t know anything about science but I can basically recite the entire starting lineup of the 1967 Boston Red Socks – and their batting averages. And why wasn’t that on a math test when I was in school? You know? Like Bobby Doerr‘s stats, I could have been a straight-A math student if that had was on the math test. But no!

[Q] People don’t know that you’re a doctor.

[DL] They should know that because I published a book under the name Doctor, two books under the name Doctor actually.

[Q] A lot of people don’t realize this.

[DL] Yes I am, in fact. It’s nice that it follows the science question. Just incase you didn’t know – but you probably did know because of the celebrity world of becoming a doctor, which is you don’t actually have to go back to school. You’re just famous and they give you one if you speak at the graduation – which I used to think was really bullsh*t, but now that I have a doctorate, I think it’s a really smart system. *laughter*

I actually graduated with honors from my college, it was an acting and a writing degree, and then years later they gave me a Doctor of the Fine Arts. So there you go, Bill Cosby.

Bill Cosby actually went back to school and got his real doctorate, I’m like, ‘f*ck man, he must be pissed.’ I’m Doctor Dennis Leary, he’s Doctor Cosby. You know what I mean? But it’s cool to be able to say Doctor Leary.

I just went to – my son just graduated from the school I went to, and the guy looked down his nose at me because they were putting the doctors, the doctorates in a special seating area. And we were going in there, and this guy, like a real academic looking, like real doctor, of letters, turned around and he’s like, “excuse me but this is for the doctors.” And I’m like, “yeah I’m Doctor Dennis Leary.”

And he went like this, *surprised look* like that, and then there I was sitting next to him at the graduation. With all the other f*ckin doctors. *laughter* He was pissed, man, he was not happy.

[Q] Where is this school located?

[DL] In Boston, it’s a great college. Emerson College. I went there, there’s a lot of famous people that went to school there. It’s a fantastic school for acting, writing, and now filmmaking as well. My son just graduated with a degree in filmmaking. I can’t say enough about that school. It’s where I ultimately met my wife, after I graduated, she was going to school there, and… a lot of great alumni from that school from Henry Winkler to Norman Lear back in the way old days to – you know, a lot of the Simpsons original staff writers came out of that college. David Cross, me, god – the list, Gina Gershon, Mario Cantone, ah… I’m forgetting people man, Laura Keitlinger, it’s just, it’s – Steven Wright, the comedian.

It’s a really great school.

I should be getting paid for this.

Be sure to stay tuned for our whole series of interviews being posted immediately if not soon for this fabulous film. Have a peek at the timeline below to see what we’ve already got and hit our Entertainment hub for more awesome interview and film feature action in the future. Also don’t forget to see The Amazing Spider-Man in theaters now!

Be sure to check out our first look at The Amazing Spider-Man from earlier this month as well. We’ve also got a talk coming up that will let you dive deep into the world visual effects on the film this week. For now though, head on down to Andrew Garfield’s take on the whole experience!

[Q] Hi Andrew, first off, congratulations on everything.

[Andrew Garfield] Oh thanks. On my life, hah. I do have a very blessed life, thank you.

[Q] I wonder if you could talk about the difference between doing low-tech stagecraft [such as with Death of a Salesman] and this, a huge blockbuster?

[AG] It’s not much different, actually, weirdly enough. In terms of how I approached it, my only intention was to honor the character. That goes for Biff Loman as well as Peter Parker/Spider-Man. That was everything to me. So, my approach was the same – just from my heart and guts. I got very upset and stressed out and wanted to do a good job, as is my way. And that’s kind of it. I mean, there were certain things that were challenging about both, of course.

You know, the repetition of going through trauma every night on stage is a killer and your body doesn’t know it’s not real, even if your mind does. So, your body is in a lot of pain and your heart is in a lot of pain. But it’s worth it. I will always think about that theatre experience all my life. I will hold it very, very close to me.

Garfield poses with cast members in NYC for The Amazing Spider-Man earlier this month.

[AG] And then with this movie, the technical aspects – the only thing that was kind of a challenge was that it was difficult to get into a rhythm because of the 3D cameras. The new technology was difficult for everyone involved. They take a lot of care and delicacy, so it meant that we were stopped occasionally. I love just going and going and going and keep it rolling, keep it rolling and screwing up and screwing up and screwing up, then occasionally you accidentally get something right and you won’t know how. That’s kind of how I like to work. And that’s why I loved working with David Fincher because he does so many takes. I discovered how that kind of painful exactness really suits me, so that was cool.

[Q] In this film you use the mechanical web-shooters. Did any of them actually work – did anything happen [when you activate them]?

[AG] Um… hah…. do I lie or not… um, no, it was a nice exercise in imagination, and that carjacker scene we had the ah – that was all improvised, that scene, so I had this idea that I could draw the Spidey image over the guy’s crotch, and I think at one point they had that in there and they took it out. (I thought it was kind of cool.) But no, to be able to have that imagination do whatever you want and know that they could add it in in post was kind of liberating so I could shut that door on that guy as many times as I want, I could web him in the face, I could web a long shot – It was kind of fun. But difficult, because if it was real, it would have been awesome if it was real.

[Q] I interviewed Andy Armstrong about the swinging rigs that he built and he talked about all the training you put in to actually be able to get up there and swing yourself. What was the experience like in actually using those rigs and actually being able to get up there and swing?

[AG] Thanks for the question – any mention of Andy Armstrong and my heart swells. He kind of turned into a father figure for me on this film and remains that way. He… I can’t… I will write a book about him one day. He… his team are the safest group of hands you could ever hope to meet, and passionate, supportive, loving – it’s a tribe that he has. And he was generous enough to allow me to be a part of that tribe. I got no special treatment and it was amazing for that very, very, very reason.

He’s a real person and he likes real people and we had an amazing time. He pushes me, you know, there were things I was scared about and like any good father he kind of told me: ‘Go beyond. Go beyond what you think you can do, ’cause you might surprise yourself.’ So for that reason it’s kind of a spiritually overwhelming sort of experience to work with him, and of course that combines with that sensation, that physical sensation that I wanted to do since I was 3, probably what everyone in this room has wanted to do since they were 3 years old: I got to live that for a second. I’m eternally grateful to everyone at Sony Pictures for allowing me to.

[Q] Have you received any feedback from Toby McGuire about your portrayal of the character, and if so, how did you take it?

[AG] Ah… to my knowledge he hasn’t seen the movie, but I got feedback from the casting – when I got cast he sent an email to Matt Tolmach immediately that was very, very generous, and made me feel like I could take the torch in confidence and that I had that support in him. He didn’t need to do that, it tells you something about his person. We’re all part of that family, that Spider-Man family.

[Q] How would you describe the wonderful work that Spider-Man does in regards to him being called a vigilante?

[AG] What’s cool about this movie is that he discovers… he discovers the power of what he’s created. He doesn’t create this… he doesn’t create this symbol with any kind of high-mindedness, he creates it so he can protect himself. Because he’s searching for his uncle’s killer. And I think that he is a vigilante for a period of this story, of this particular story. And I think it’s true for any teenager who goes through that amount of tragic events to have those impulses – to kick out, and rebel, and use their powers in a way that you’re not thinking responsibly. They’re not even thinking at all.

[AG] I think that whole section is Peter running away from his feelings – Peter running away from the pain, the guilt, and putting it in something physical, and sweating it out. And when he comes home to Aunt May it’s sort of very difficult to be seen in that way and to see yourself in that way. So yeah, I think there is a period where he’s acting out on those kinds of impulses, and he accidentally discovers that he’s created something bigger than him, and that can be used for good. I think it – it was important for me that he started with a heroic impulse, he, without the physical powers doing things with it.

And that was always how I felt growing up, I felt like I was a dog and I felt like I was a skinny kid and – now I’m not obviously, I’m a just like, huge bruiser. So I got over that problem. Now I just realize that being skinny is ok, you know? I always feel I should have been bigger for that reason, because if I actually told you that, I guess – although for example like everybody played rugby, and I played rugby, and I was good at it but I got concussed all the time because I was a weakling, So that’s something I would identify with for Peter, you know, he always just felt stronger on the inside than he did on the outside.

And there’s nothing better than seeing a skinny guy beat the crap out of big guys. So that was just kind of important for me.

[Q] You say in a lot of interviews how much just Spider-Man truly meant to you as a child growing up and this end result now, and [Marc Webb] has mentioned that you wrote a personal note to him that really moved him. I’m wondering if in your long history with Spider-Man you – can you tell us what it was like to meet Stan Lee for the first time and how that ranked as far as maybe like nerve-racking experiences inclusive with things like auditioning for this role which is nerve-racking enough?

[AG] Yeah, yeah, I’ve been at this for the past two years, it seems like, every day there’s been something that like has made me have to suppress shaking. So, but Stan Lee was a weird one because… he wasn’t real. He’s too iconic to be real. So it wasn’t like I was in a room with a human being, it was like I was in a room with a wax figure, you know? I was at Madame Tussauds.

It… It made no sense. I wasn’t nervous, I was just like… I was one of those annoying people who is like *makes open faced gawking expression* And he was just like… *waves hand in front of face* ‘I’m here…’ And he’s amazing, he’s everything that you think he is.

Stan Lee also appears in The Amazing Spider-Man video game as a playable character.

[Q] When did you meet him?

[AG] He came on set, so I met him in the makeup trailer once, and then he came on set again and he did this amazing cameo in the library… It was just, it was just beautiful because when you really truly understand what he’s given to us… he’s given so many kids hope, and joy, and you cannot thank enough for that. It was like being in a room with Mickey Mouse, you know, it was bizarre. So I wasn’t actually nervous, in a weird way. That was the one day I wasn’t actually nervous.

[Q] You’ve said you want to audition for every part that you want. Why is it that you feel you have to audition? Is it a challenge, and what do you get out of it?

[AG] Sometimes there are actors who reach a certain level of notoriety or visibility where they don’t need – they may get offered roles based on their monetary value or the idea that they will bring in an audience. They may not be right for the part or they may not serve the story in the way that they should. I’m not saying that I’m in that position, I’m just saying that that is something that I fear.

Like, here’s a weird analogy: if you’re in a pool hall and you’re playing pool and you have to put in 50 cents every time, you’re going to enjoy that game because you paid for it. But if you figured out a way to jimmy the thing and you can get a free game of pool out of it, you’re not going to care so much about the game.

There’s something in that about feeling like you’ve earned something as opposed to just being handed something. And luckily I haven’t experienced that. I’ve had to work for everything that I’ve been a part of, and there’s just something satisfying about it because you know that they looked at everyone and that you are the right person for that particular story at that particular moment. I guess there’s something about staying grounded and humble, and making sure that you appreciate everything you have as well.

[Q] You had one of the most memorable introductions at Comic Con [as seen in the video above]. Why did you choose to go that full confessional route? Did you feel like you needed to or were you driven to and you thought that was the right audience?

[AG] It wasn’t really thought out. I was compelled, for many reasons I think – if I analyze it. I am terrified to take on this role because it means so much to me, so I know how much it means to other people. And I think it has something to do with actors being on stage… I wanted to be on the ground. I wanted to be in the audience watching the panel. I didn’t want to be in the panel. That’s where I thought I just belonged more, so I guess I just kind of extended that idea.

I kind of wanted to do the whole speech in the mask, just out of sheer protection, you know? There is something odd about the separation between actors and the audience that I don’t really care for. That’s why I love theatre so much. That’s why I loved the great show that was here in New York called “Sleep No More”, which is all audience participation. You basically walk around and you’re immersed in the experience, and there’s no separation from the actors and the audience.

I don’t know – I’m not really answering your question. I just wanted to feel connected to the fans in a real way because I’m a fan first and foremost. It just felt like the right thing to do. It was a scary thing because who knows what would have happened. But it just felt like an opportunity to have fun as well.

[Q] What did you do to make sure you got the part of playing a teenager right – not necessarily a teenager who develops powers? Is there research that you did?

[AG] agree that the teenage element is incredibly vital to this particular superhero and this person, this character. The fact that he goes through the same stuff I went through, that’s why I love him so much. Because I thought if I was him. That’s why everyone feels like he’s him because he’s all of us. He really is.

So the teenage thing, I don’t know. I did spend time in Queens hanging out with teenagers and a lot of recording the voice and intonation and picking up phrases that I might not be aware of or a general attitude. That malaise and the awkward shyness – every aspect.

There was a great book I found for inspiration called “Teenage”, which is a book of photographs. I wouldn’t buy it because it’s too expensive, but actually the marketing department at Sony bought it for me very, very generously as a gift. I saw the price and I’m like, ‘You guys are crazy! Thank you so much.’ But it’s awesome. The energy of the photos in that is what I wanted to capture. It’s tongue on tongue.

[AG] It’s just head out the window, that need to express, that need to kick the walls down irrationally.

Which, when you combine that with being a superhero, that is kind of exciting. There’s that scene on Gwen’s bedroom floor where she’s nursing me and we have an intimate, kind of heavy moment of like she’s terrified I’m going to die and I’m terrified of what I’ve done to my mentor. At the end of that scene it’s – ‘Let’s just get out of here. We’ve got to get out of here.’

In a previous version – we shot a lot more – we have a date night where it’s expressive and free and teenage and romantic and silly. But that feeling is something that I really wanted to capture, especially in those moments between Gwen and Peter.

So, “Teenage”. Check out that book. It’s too expensive. Find someone who has it and look at the pictures. You’ll be like, ‘Oh god – I remember that feeling.’

[Q] Can you compare and contrast kissing scenes with killing scenes and doing romance as opposed to doing death-defying action on screen?

[AG] They’re all pretty scary things. Hah. Yeah, they’re all pretty scary. I actually felt more safe when I was swinging around because you have a very, very strong safe pair of hands holding you up. In the romantic scenes, I’m free-falling in a way, as they should be. They have to be spontaneous and free and terrifying, because that’s what first love is.

First love is the scariest thing to ever go through and the most exhilarating. You’ve got so much to lose. So they were actually more frightening than swinging through the buildings, in a weird way. And especially because it’s Emma, and she’s terrifying.

[Q] Could you talk about the physical transformation you had to go through, the training, and the stunt coordinating? Was there a particular moment you’re really proud of?

[AG] It’s so nice to be able to look at a movie and feel ownership. It’s a really nice thing to be able to feel that, because of Andy’s trust and his encouragement of me. There was something specific that I wanted to do with the physicality that wasn’t just a guy in a suit throwing kicks and punches and saying cheesy lines.

[AG] I wanted it to be a “Spider-Boy” in the way that if we ground this film in reality, then what happens when spider DNA is running through your bloodstream? What happens to the teenage boy who is fidgety and nervous and can’t really keep still? He discovers that he can now have patience, like a spider.

[AG] There was another scene that they cut out which was awesome, which is me and when the Chinese thing goes in the trashcan when I’m on the computer, but I was doing something with all my limbs – doing different things – and they melded two shots and I thought it was really, really cool. I was moving a lamp with my left, I was typing with my right foot, I was eating Chinese, and I was reaching for something behind me, and it didn’t get in the movie. Maybe I’ll cut my own movie on bits that I like. *laughter*

So, yeah, that was really fun.

[AG] And there was a lot of great physical stuff that made it, like for instance the scene where I get all the food out of the fridge. The kind of spatial awareness that you have in this film is like, ‘Peter doesn’t move like that. Peter doesn’t glide like that before the spider bite.’ And the way he’s moving around the space, he’s kind of walking by the wall as opposed to walking straight through the room. He’s kind of got his back to the wall.

That kind of thing is fun to play with, but then of course the training is horrible. Like the physical training changed my body because I’m a lazy guy. I’m vain, but I’m not vain enough to care about the gym. And Armando Alarcon was my trainer and he’s a fantastic trainer and a terrible person. *laughter*

I have very confused feelings about Armando. Wherever he is, he knows that. He’s hiding from me because he will be murdered one day. No, but we had a great time. I was thankful for him. He kept me on an even keel all the way through, and that combined with the whole stunt team was a pretty awesome experience.

[Q] Did you have any issues with the costume that you were aware of at all, were you wearing it out in public, anything like that?

[AG] You know, I had many issues with that costume. *laughter*

But every actor who plays a superhero is like, ‘the costume sucked.’ Like, we should just get together to talk about it because it’s so inappropriate to talk about in public. It’s like – how dare we complain? We’re the ones that get to wear it. It’s the dream.

But, it was so terrible. No – Let me just put it this way: the fantasy of wearing those costumes is really awesome. We should just enjoy that.

Catch our whole Spider-Man series of interviews as the week goes on right here on SlashGear, and don’t forget to hit our Entertainment portal for more big-ticket film action through the future as well. Finally, don’t forget to check out The Amazing Spider-Man as it hits theaters July 3rd here in the USA!

[Question] What first drew you to this role, this famous role [of Gwen Stacy]?

[Emma Stone] At first I had met Laura Ziskin really early on, just about two weeks after it was announced, [but] for Mary Jane [rather than Gwen Stacy]. And I had always wanted to play Mary Jane. Mary Jane was so great. Then a couple of months went by and he called back and he said we’d like to to audition for the part of Gwen Stacy.’ I was like ‘erm, well, I don’t know who Gwen Stacy is.’ – Because I hadn’t read the comic books growing up. So I looked into the story of Gwen and I just fell in love with Gwen’s story because it is so incredibly epic and tragic and incredible in the way that it affects Peter moving forward with Mary Jane who was another character that I love, obviously, who was enormous. So I took the opportunity to audition, and met Andrew at the audition and got to act with him for the first time. "I hadn’t read the comic books growing up. So I looked into the story of Gwen and I just fell in love with Gwen’s story because it is so incredibly epic and tragic…"

He is one of the best actors I’ve ever worked with, I instantly knew how much I could learn from him and that really, really drew me. That challenge, rising to meet him every day was something really exciting and was a huge learning and growing experience for me, so it was a combination of things.

[Q] When you read the script and first realized that she’s not just the damsel in distress – she’s a big part of saving the day in this, were you more interested in doing the part when you realized you’d be a very strong woman?

[ES] I was cast before I read the script.

[Q] Well were you happy then when you did realize that, then –

[ES] Yeah, yeah, I read the sides, and Sargin had written the sides, who is a genius, wrote Ordinary People and Paper Moon so he’s not too shabby of a writer. And she had felt that way in sides – there was a heartbreaking scene where was an exchange with them that was really sweet, the dinner table scene, that was all kind of in there when I read the sides, so I instantly knew that it was something very different. Obviously he’s such a brilliant writer – I didn’t even know it was written by him, but I was like ‘god these are well written scenes.’ I really, really liked her from those sides.

Emma Stone in the photo-call during the NYC Press Junket earlier this month with other members of the cast and crew.

[Q] Whenever someone talks about Spider-Man you hear the words ‘Iconic’ and ‘Much-Beloved’, it seems like he’s a hero that so many people idolize, especially young boys – from a female perspective, what do you think it is about Spider-Man that makes him such a beloved super-hero?

[ES] Well he’s the only teenage super-hero, which is major, because a lot of the time when people start reading comic books, you are a kid or a teenager, so he’s the most identifiable, instantly, you can relate to him. Not to mention: he’s bullied, which is huge, for a girl or a boy, I think everyone has experienced something along those lines. And the fact that he is bitten by this spider, and this kind of wish fulfillment comes true – that he’s able to fight back to the bullies that he wasn’t able to before, is symbolism for kids. "The fact that he is bitten by this spider, and this kind of wish fulfillment comes true – that he’s able to fight back to the bullies that he wasn’t able to before, is symbolism for kids."

They have so much power within them to… speak out, to stand up for themselves, to stay unique, and to stay true to who they are – as Peter does. He finds those elements within him with or without his powers. Which is what I think in this movie spurs Gwen and Peter’s first interaction which when he’s standing up for a kid that’s being bullied and takes that fall for a kid who’s being humiliated in front of a group of people. He has these heroic qualities long before he becomes an actual super-hero.

So yeah, I think that’s why it’s been so resonant and has been for 50 years and will continue to – even to having Barack Obama having him be his biggest inspiration in pop culture.

[Q] In addition to Spider-Man being so iconic, Gwen Stacy is pretty iconic herself. You said you went through and did some research on her and looked into her story. That was very apparent on-screen where everything down to her iconic thigh-highs, her look, and the feel of the character, seemed to come right off the comic book page. How much of that was your own preparation, and how much of it was stuff that you worked with Webb and the others with on?

[ES] Well costumes were done by Kym Barrett who’s fantastic – we worked together to, kind of, make sure Gwen felt like Gwen – that also made sense in the real world. And obviously I’m a lot less voluptuous than Gwen unfortunately, so, it didn’t really go to those heights. But you know, the signature headband, and the thigh-highs, and the coats; all of that was important to stay present, down to the makeup. Ve Neill was incredible and, hair and makeup we really tried to attain that as well, to keep her realistic and, you know, still keep her earthbound. I’m not, by no means a supermodel, or like an unattainable looking person, so that element of Gwen was a bit different from the comic books in some ways because she was such a beauty queen in the comics and I’m more… next door.

[ES] So that we worked on, and in terms of her as a character, it was just a hodge-podge of different versions of Gwen. I know she’s not very hippy-ish in this, and I don’t think she will ever be birthing Norman Osborn’s twins, I don’t think that’s going to be happening, or moving to London. So we tried to keep some of that moxie in there, and some of that self-assuredness, and she’s the daughter of a police chief, she’s the oldest daughter, so there’s that responsibility thing that kicks in when she thinks her father could die everyday. And I think it’s important that she took on that energy of being in charge, for her family, like she could be there should something happen. And then she unwittingly is drawn to a man who is in the same position. [She's got an] Electra complex thing going on.

[Q] Your character Gwen is a scientist / physicist, I was wondering how familiar you are in that field, does that interest you at all?

[ES] That’s a great question because I was home-schooled and wasn’t really exposed to anything like that. My aunt and uncle are both scientists that worked for Merck and they had a hand in creating a cervical cancer vaccine – so they’re both incredibly intelligent, fantastic minds, you know. I’d always been fascinated by what they did, and I myself – this is going to sound a little bit strange – but I had really, really bad acne a couple years ago, really bad, and it was during a really stressful time period so I went online and tried to find what causes this kind of thing. The course of production and how things change in your body, and medical power – and they took us to these labs, this is the first time in my life that’d I’d been really angry about not going to college because I went to these labs and I, was, fascinated.

[ES] And I knew what they were talking about, we looked at bio-photonics and what happens when cortisol fires off in your brain, and – the same thing that causes acne can also cause diabetes and they’re proving that stress is a link and I was learning about regeneration and we were injecting axel models and we were seeing how they remove their arms and studying regeneration. We looked at stem cells that they’ve wired to beat like a human heart. And they’re finding ways to do this stuff and I was fascinated! I was like ‘what do I need to do to intern?’ ‘You need to be a college graduate.’ And I was like ‘but I know what you’re talking about! I can learn’ and it made me so upset, it’s like the Peace Core, you have to be a college graduate and I was like ‘f*ck!’

It sucks – ‘I can learn, I swear!’ And so now I’ve gone on my tangent about the word “smart” which has really been bothering me for the past year – I don’t like the word “smart” anymore because what does smart mean? Does it mean you’re able to learn or does it mean that you’ve graduated college? I didn’t graduate college: doesn’t mean I’m not smart.

So I really really, I got so interested in biology. One of the most exciting parts of this process was learning about medicine and regeneration and stem cells and all of it just expanded my mind in so many ways so now I’m gonna take biology class. And now what’s amazing is you can do it at home! …Doesn’t mean I’m not smart… "One of the most exciting parts of this process was learning about medicine and regeneration and stem cells."

[Q] Dennis Leary was in here earlier and he said that at one point in filming, Marc Webb told him he’d have to step it up because you and Andrew were so good. A lot of people have been raving about your improv skills and I was just wondering what some of the improv moments were in this film? And also – do you think you could convince Andrew to do Saturday Night Live?

[ES] Pfff, you’re telling me – yeah, I can’t convince Ryan Gosling but I’m working on Andrew. I guess some of my favorite improv moments were the hallway scene… which was written, but there were a lot of moments that we got to add in the scene where we’re like asking each other out, but not.

[ES] And then there was that awful, that was just such a hammy bit, they let me go off the cuff to keep Dennis out of my room. So I, of course, when you give me an inch, it’s not good. So I was like ‘what is the one thing that would keep a dad out of his teenage daughter’s room’ – anything related to that. Anything related to hormones. I knew in an instant, from my own life experiences that you can just be like ‘sorry, its just that i…’ ‘OK alright, I’ll let you go!’ Dad’s don’t want to talk about that.

[Q] One of the iconic lines and great themes of Spider-Man is ‘with great power comes great responsibility’. Now that you’ve won the Trailblazer award, is that something you can relate to in your personal life? Responsibility with your stardom?

[ES] I don’t in any way, shape, or form think that I’m any type of a role model, or anything like that, but for whatever reason, when you’re put into a public place, you have to figure out what that purpose is in your life, why that may have happened, or what you can possibly do with something like that. And I’m not political, and I’m not going to talk about those kinds of things, and I know that that’s never going to be my job as an actor to be championing any specific cause, except for originality. That’s the one thing that I identify with as maybe my responsibility, per-say.

And I know it’s not my responsibility and I know all of that, but there’s something that came with – getting a Revlon contract, actually, and I thought – why in the world would I be approached for a beauty campaign? Because I’d always been the funny girl. And that’s not to put myself down, that was just always the way that my brain worked.

And I thought about Diane Keaton for L’Oreal and Ellen Degeneres for Cover Girl and how sometimes real beauty gets to be celebrated. Like what’s inside is what counts, and so you can still feel beautiful and you can still put makeup on but because it makes you feel good, and not for anybody else. And that was something that I was like ‘if I had an opportunity to reach people or reach young girls in a way that makes them feel like what they are is enough,’ and what those parts of their personality that set them apart and make them original, if they feel good about that, in any way, if that affects one person, then that’s a game changer. That’s something that I’m proud to be helpful in any way in – of looking real, or being a real person.

Obviously I have a stylist, that puts me in clothes like this, and I have a hair and makeup artist that’s doing things like that – so there’s all of that going on too, and I’m not eloquent right now, at all, but yeah I do feel a slight, not responsibility, but a privilege, to be able to speak to younger girls and hopefully make them feel like it’s ok to be themselves.

[Q] Why do you feel that Peter was attracted to Gwen other than, you know, she’s a beautiful blond with courage and other qualities – what’s that all about?

[ES] I think that elements of Gwen and Gwen’s family line are things that Peter didn’t necessarily have. Just a sense of stability – I know Aunt May and Uncle Ben are a very stable environment for him, but Peter has abandonment issues, I mean he was left when he was 5, so there’s something where he doesn’t feel he can be totally honest with Aunt May and Uncle Ben because they never stay on the subject, you see that when Peter comes in and Uncle Ben says ‘sorry we don’t talk about this.’ He doesn’t feel comfortable expressing the pain to them, and he sees someone steady in Gwen and someone who can understand what it’s like to lose a father on a daily basis – as you see in that bedroom scene where she doesn’t know if he’s gonna come home every day, so she feels that sense of abandonment as well and I think they find an incredible – they’re so different – but they also relate on love of learning, and things like that and I think he can see something in Gwen that becomes a confidant that he can trust."I know Aunt May and Uncle Ben are a very stable environment for him, but Peter has abandonment issues."

[Q] Piggybacking off of that question – we’ve seen you playing a highschooler in love before, in Easy A and Superbad, but this story felt different, it felt young, it felt goofy, it felt sweet – how did you approach this love story and what traits from love people in love inspired you to put into this movie?

[ES] Well in Superbad and Easy A – in any movie that I’ve done, there hasn’t been a love story like this, I mean Superbad with Seth, that’s kind of a totally different thing that’s like ‘oh he’s cute’ and in Easy A it’s like ‘oh Woodchuck Todd, he’s cute’ but they’re focused on their own story, really, in most of the movies that I’ve been a part of. This kind of swept me off my feet because she truly is really in love with him. And I think the approach was – I wanted again to feel that experience of “first love” before you know what it feels like to get your heart completely shattered, or that “life or death” love where you’re like ‘I KNOW WHAT LOVE IS’ – you know that, except where in the circumstances where it actually is life or death.

So I wanted to feel that again, I wanted to unlearn and go from the very beginning of where ‘oh my god there’s an attraction to another human being in a way that I’ve never felt that before’, that uncomfortable *ugch*, I wanted to feel that again. So it was a matter of unlearning, of really becoming 17 again and letting yourself be 17 in this moment, it’s fun! You guys should try it! It’s pretty cool! It’s pretty cool to feel that way.

[Q] How would you describe the difference between working on a film like Easy A where there’s no visual effects whatsoever and moving up to this where it’s, first, a completely different thing where it’s a blockbuster film, but it’s also a major effects film? Especially in regards to 3D?

[ES] My character wasn’t as involved in the special effects – my storyline was really very human, so it actually didn’t feel all that different other than the days where I had to swing – which was fun. Or the days on a bluescreen, which when you’re acting with another person, you can be in a cardboard box, it just tests your imagination. But in terms of shooting in 3D the only big difference was, the only thing different was that it takes a little bit longer because you need two cameras, and the camera is huge and reflective. "It’s nice to know that even when you’re shooting a movie like this that you approach the character the same way."

So it’s like acting with a mirror right next to you, which is very bizarre. If you’ve ever had a conversation with a mirror right next to you, you keep catching yourself and it’s just awful. But then you get used to it, and it’s a little bit better. But it’s nice to know that even when you’re shooting a movie like this that you approach the character the same way, and you’re trying to tell the… tell the truth, all the time, about who that person is and what they’re feeling. So it’s comforting that under any circumstance no matter what the budget that that remains the same.

THIS feels different. The PRESS feels different. This is where it really strikes you that you’re in Spider-Man.

[Q] In regards to the first trilogy and MJ, was there any pressure for you to make Gwen’s first kiss as memorable as it was with MJ in the first film? That became a very iconic moment in the film.

[ES] I know, and obviously there’s no comparison there. Of course I thought about it, because… I just did, I thought about the kiss but I, you know, just trusted them to write it, so it was just what they wrote, we just kind of went with what they wrote.

[Q] Did they purposefully make that a little nod to Indiana Jones?

[ES] I think it’s cool because Peter kind of reminds me a little bit of that mischievous Indiana Jones character, but yeah, that’s a little, a little tango move.

[Q] Marc said earlier that he cast the chemistry between Andrew and you, and you said earlier that Andrew is one of the best actors that you’ve ever worked with – how would you explain the chemistry between the two of you?

[ES] Can one explain chemistry?

[Q] I knew you were going to say that for some reason.

[ES] It’s hard because with any person in life that I’ve had chemistry with I don’t know exactly what it is, and that’s why they do chemistry tests for movies. Because even if they’re not playing a love interest, even if they’re playing parents or best friends, sometimes it either just clicks or it just doesn’t, it doesn’t matter how good the actors might be. So it really isn’t definable, it really is just what they call it. It’s something else entirely, it’s just some soul thing, I don’t know. I don’t know what it is.

[Q] Could you tell us what Marc Webb brought to this film as he wasn’t the obvious choice given his background.

[ES] I think that Marc, clearly, I mean from 500 Days of Summer, you can tell that Marc cares about love, and he cares about humanity, and that was incredibly important for this movie. He prioritized the relationships just as much as the action. And I know he had a million voices in his ear – there’s a lot of opinions all the time, and he would come in on Sundays to work on the scenes with us, and break them down and build them all the way back up until we got the same scene that was written on the page but we had analyzed it to death. He was incredibly kind and willing to work on that relationship, so from my experience, I was very grateful that he came from that background.

[Q] I was wondering if they rigged you up for that big swing or if most of that was CGI?

[ES] Which?

[Q] When he took you on, kind of that…

[ES] Oh yeah yeah yeah! Yeah, we swung. We were swingin’.

[Q] Are you afraid of heights or were you..

[ES] No, it was awesome, I really loved it, yeah. Thankfully I’m not afraid of heights, it would have been horrific, it would have been awful actually because you’re so out of control. But no, I loved it – other than the bruising – I loved it. Artists do bruise, you guys. Yikes.

Don’t forget to catch The Amazing Spider-Man starting July 3rd in the USA!

Before we continue, be sure to note that two studios that were responsible for the visual effects and animation — Tippett Studio and Iloura VFX and animation company – should also very much be applauded for their work on this movie. A high five to you all for a fabulous bear and a perfectly integrated character in general!

[Question] Ted is a movie that take a real-world set of characters and tosses in a character that isn’t technically real. Could you speak on what techniques you used to make that happen?

[Jenny Fulle] In our early meetings with Seth MacFarlane, who obviously also is the director of Ted, he actually wanted to be Ted. And he was afraid to do this, he didn’t want it to be cartoony, he wanted it to be real. He wanted it to be a real teddy bear that he could infuse his character into to bring it alive. So he knew when he was going in that he wanted to do motion capture in some fashion, some form or another in addition to doing Ted’s voice.

So what our challenge was, was with our budget and our timeframe for getting it done was – how could we get Seth and his mannerisms and his voice and all that, get that into Ted. And not break the bank and not run the schedule over. So what we ended up working with was the Xsens suit, the motion capture suit – it’s basically a situation where you can go with a suit or you can go with straps, and we opted for the straps so Seth wouldn’t have to be in a unitard all day long. And what we would do is we would set that up on set. So that while he was doing the voice, the lines back and forth with the actors, he could also be in the suit. We could be capturing his motion and we could then capture that and we could then feed that to the animators who could edit it in post.

Above: Seth MacFarlane sans the motion capture gear.

[Jenny Fulle] We really focused on motion capture from his waist up – because he has a lot of mannerisms with his hands and he rocks back and forth and moves backwards and forwards and stuff like that. What we would also do is keep a high-definition camera on his face. That way we could also capture a visual representation of what he does with his eyebrows and when his eyes go wide and that sort of thing. We would then give that to the animators so they could just manually take that look and apply it to the bear.

[Q] That’s interesting – is there then a separate camera on his face at the same time as the main camera on the set?

[JF] Yeah so, he’s the director, so he’s also on the set on the set as the director and he sits behind the camera. So we put him in a suit behind the camera and sometimes we would have an over-sized bench for him to sit on that would match [the scene being filmed.] He would have a monitor where he could see the bear in the scene, he could kinda see what was going on, he could see placement, we would have eye-line set up for Mark Wahlberg and Seth so that they could both be doing their own things. And we would have the reference camera that was a high-definition camera on Seth that was behind the motion picture camera. So we were capturing all this stuff behind the scenes as we were filming with the cinematic camera that was capturing Mark.

[Q] What literally was on-set with Mark? Was it just a stuffed bear the whole time, or what did that end up being?

[JF] We had a stuffed bear that we used for reference – we used it for reference for the actors and for our lighting. And then when we shot the actual plate for it, most times we would have this little rod thing that we made for Ted’s height that had two little eyes on it. So then as they were shooting a scene, Mark could look at the eyes and knew roughly were Ted was – then we would go in and remove that and put in the CG bear.

[Q] Which camera models are used throughout the film?

[JF] We used the Genesis for the film and on our stuff we had a Sony EX3.

[Q] The visual effects in this film appear to be centered around (or entirely contained within) the bear – did you work on anything outside of the bear in the film?

[JF] It’s not a “visual effects” sort of movie so it’s really that, really just the bear – anything the bear interacts with has to be CG, there are some fight scenes where we add a little bit here or there but for the most part it is the bear.

[Q] I understand you also worked on Ghost Rider [Spirit of Vengeance] – could you describe the difference between working on a movie like that where it has quite a few effects shots compared to this where there really isn’t a lot of effects shots.

[JF] At The Creative-Cartel what we’re really good at is getting films that are very ambitious in what they want to achieve, but their budgets are a little bit more modest. So we’re constantly forced to think outside of the box and think of new and creative ways to get things done – which is really fun. Ted was an example of that, we used the motion capture and sapped as much as we could to kind of lighten our load for what we had to do in post production.

In Ghost Rider we had to also deliver stereo. You can’t really deliver a conversion on fire when it’s close and medium shots and close and medium shots because it ends up looking flat. You can’t really convert and keep that kind of volumetric 3D look with particle stuff like fire. So on Ghost Rider that was the biggest challenge for us – how do we deal with that – and we ended up delivering a hybrid pipeline so that we shared work between our conversion vendor and our main visual effects vendor so shots weren’t constantly going back and forth so that we didn’t have any duplicative work which often happens in conversion. And we were able to do our conversion early so we could deliver the left-eye/right-eye to visual effects so they could do the stereo renders for Ghost Rider. A lot of – 50% of Ghost Rider is rendered in stereo even though it was shot in 2D.

We stay creatively and artistically agnostic in who we use so we’re able to work with different people on each show who are best suited for the type of work and for the filmmaker. Because you can have an Academy Award winning visual effects supervisor and if he doesn’t share the director’s vision or if they don’t get along in some way, it’s like oil and water and it just doesn’t work. So we steer clear of that so we can tailor and cast every show with the right people.

[Q] Comparing this project to blockbuster hits like Lord of the Rings with the CG character Gollum, were you expected to reach that level and outdo it, or are we at a point in the film world where something as impressive as that is just expected?

[JF] I think it depends on who your audience is. We still have these movies (that I’m not going to name because my friends work on them) that are geared towards kids, and you can get away with a lot more in terms of how photo-real they need to be because kids are more able to easily suspend their belief in reality. For Ted though, our audience is obviously a lot older audience, it’s an R-rated comedy, so we were always really clear in Seth’s directive that it had to be photo-real. You had to forget that you were looking at a visual effect. So you needed to – within the first five minutes of the film – buy that this teddy bear is real. And he just happens to talk and do all these things.

So I feel like – to answer your question specifically – I think it’s dependent on what the film is for what level of realism you need to achieve. I think for our film we needed to hit the top bar. If it didn’t look real all the time, the audience that’s being targeted for Ted would be distracted by the fact that the bear didn’t look real.

Catch TED in theaters across the country this weekend, and make sure you’re ready to giggle!

Michael Fassbender plays David, the robotic member of the Prometheus crew, while Noomi Rapace and Logan Marshall-Green play Shaw and Holloway, the scientist couple dead-set on exploring LV-223. Guy Pearce plays Peter Weyland, founder of Weyland-Yutani Corporation and the billionaire bankrolling the whole mission.

SPOILER WARNING: some of the cast’s comments concern specific plot points in Prometheus. If you want to save every surprise and theme until you’ve seen the movie, bookmark this and come back after you’ve been to the theater!

[Question] My question is about hypersleep. You played people waking up from this hypersleep state – which we don’t actually have. At that point in your performance, what were you doing; what was happening to you, how were you feeling, and what had you woken up from?

[Noomi Rapace] I actually did a detox, I put myself on some kind of detox thing for a week before. I was only drinking…

[Michael Fassbender] Logan’s like, “you didn’t tell me that, we were supposed to share everything!”

[Logan Marshall-Green] I ate, like, a pizza the night before.

[NR] We were just drinking different things for a week. I wanted to kind of drain my body and clean it, because I know before we went in [Fassbender's character David] has been taking care of us, and changing our diapers and washing us probably, y’know, for two years.

[MF] [Shakes head, grinning]

[NR] No? What did you do?

[MF] Oh yeah, yeah, yeah, “looked after you.”

[Guy Pearce] In a very special kind of way…

[MF] Very special!

[NR] I wanted to kind of drain my body a kind of bit, I dunno, I had this idea I was gonna look very… everything was going to sink in [gestures to face], but it didn’t really happen. But it’s hard to imagine, what it is to be sleeping for two years, but we talked about trying to… how groggy are we, how aware are we about what’s around us? And when you try different things, yelling “we’re here!”, “am I awake?” It’s kind of difficult, we tried it in different versions with Ridley [Scott].

[LMG] Yeah, Ridley said it was that… we were intaking proteins and such instantly, you’re cold, I ended up drinking a quart of milk over the course of a few minutes. And you were throwing it up, lemonade wasn’t it?

[NR] I was.

[LMG] Milk doesn’t bother you.

[NR] No, that was something really disgusting they gave me, remember – the kind of fluid?

[GP] Not milk of magnesia?

[Q] Over the course of the production there was so much secrecy around this. All the speculation happens, there are all these rumors which start getting thrown around online. I would imagine you were probably aware of some of them, probably laughing at some of them. Are there any favorites that stick out in your mind?

[MF] We were trying to create them. The ones we invented were really…

[NR] He was working really hard, to make this…

[MF] A love story! There is a love story.

[NR] Between a robot, and…

[MF] There is a love story, between the robot David and Doctor Shaw, which will be through the next installment.

[NR] The very misleading rumors! Never gonna happen!

[MF] The child’s gonna be half-child, half-robot.

[GP] Has your head been reattached? Or is it just…?

[MF] We’re not sure.

[NR] It’s based on a true story. And actually, I heard a while, “so are you Ripley’s mother?” That was one thing people were asking me, and I was like “I’m not sure.” And this thing that nobody dies in the movie! [Logan] started that.

[LMG] Yeah, I had this reporter going for a while, that nobody dies. They weren’t sure of it after that, they called back and said “I want to make sure, nobody dies?”

[NR] Really disappointed: a Ridley Scott movie and nobody dies?!

[LMG] A big first!

[Q] Michael, did you relate to Data from Star Trek, playing David?

[MF] I guess… he wasn’t one of the ones that I was thinking of when I was putting it together, but you’re the second person that asked so obviously there’s something of him in there. He was probably in and around the ether somewhere: all robots came out to play!

[GP] Some plagiarism in there.

[MF] Absolutely! Stealing left, right and center. But no, it was kind of David Bowie – The Man Who Fell To Earth – Sean Young – Blade Runner – Lawrence of Arabia of course, Peter O’Toole, and Dirk Bogarde, and Greg Louganis. That kind of combo, put all those things together and David came out of that.

[Q] Guy, obviously there was a lot of secrecy around your role. How did you find it in the build-up, the fact you had to almost detach yourself from the promotional bit, that [TED talk] viral that was out. How did you find that all, the process, rather than a normal film?

[GP] Well, it wasn’t difficult: I don’t have any problems not talking about a film. Y’know, “we need you to not say this” – great! They did throw a hood over me every time I walked from one stage to another.

[NR] You looked like something weird from Star Wars!

[GP] In case any of you guys were hanging off a fence trying to take photos or something. So I kept getting lost or going to the wrong place. But no, it was fine, really it was a quick process for me, because these guys shot for about three or four months or something altogether, and I really just came in for a couple of weeks in the middle and went “wow, what a fun ride this feels like” and then I left. And then, y’know, there were some questions back and forth between myself and the Fox marketing team going, well, what exactly are we saying, what do you not want to say? So it was just about clarifying that, I suppose. But no, no real difficulty in keeping secrets.

[MF] I love the fact that [Guy's character] Weyland’s wandering aimlessly around Pinewood lot, appearing in various films. Various films with Weyland in the back!

[GP] Exactly, I’m in Snow White, I’m in the Johnny Depp movie.

[NR] Dark Shadows, yeah, I actually saw you in that!

[GP] I am the dark shadow!

[Q] Michael, the whole lead-up where they’re showing David whiling away his time: how much of that was written into it, how much did you add to it – the bicycle, shooting baskets, certain movies…?

[MF] Yeah, that was a lot of fun. The basketball stuff was all in there, and I think that’s a nice little recognition of Alien. And the hair-dying was my idea, so that was pretty cool, I was happy to see that that got stuck in, working on my highlights and watching Lawrence of Arabia.

[GP] Lawrence of Arabia was always in, wasn’t it.

[MF] Yeah, that was always in, that was in the script, he had this thing about Lawrence. So that was it, most of it was there: the idea of him wandering around the ship, and then of course we got to see him learning the language because that’s gonna be revealed later. So pretty much all of what was there, and then it was just a matter of just fleshing out bits and pieces.

[GP] What about picking up the little speck of something?

[MF] Well that was actually… Ridley said, “I thought, y’know, it would be like a button or something, like he checks the surface of the ship for dust.” I was like, that’s interesting… of course I didn’t want to do exactly what he said, so I picked up something from the floor. [laughs] So those little things, it’s great like that. Because y’know, Ridley’s really good at just giving you a flavor of something, rather than a direction. It’s like, “I thought your character might possess this object” and you’re, like, oh wow, okay, cool, that’s interesting.

[GP] How do I incorporate that in?

[MF] Yeah, totally.

[NR] How do I do a version of what Ridley said, not what he said…

[MF] Exactly.

[Q] Noomi, you’re playing a female role in a series that has had some really memorable female roles. How do you feel about playing that kind of role?

[NR] When they told me that he wanted to work with me, just that, it took a while for me to really believe it and to realize that it’s happening. And then, when I got to read the script, and when he told me about this character, it felt like a great honor and I was terrified at the same time. But I think, as soon as you start to work, get into it, you have to kind of push away everything around you and not think about people’s expectations and what’s gone before, and that it’s Ridley Scott.

I think you just have to find your focus and find your own way of doing it, because if you’re trying to satisfy people and trying to do something that will fit in in the line of his fantastic heroines, it’s gonna be impossible to work. So I kinda had to ignore all that, and force myself into some kind of protecting bubble of work. [To Michael] And you helped me! You took care of me in the bubble!

[MF] I was the bubble!

[Q] You all have some great scenes with David in there, and I’m curious in the acting side, how do you approach this character as a robot – not as Michael, fellow-actor.

[NR] He is a robot!

[Q] The scene with Logan was really great…

[MF] That was fun, we filmed that pretty early, that was like the first week or so.

[LMG] Yeah.

[GP] The drinking speech?

[MF] Yeah.

[Q] Does it change anything, the way you interact with someone, knowing you have to interact with them as a robot?

[NR] I think the first impulse is to try to read or analyze things from an emotional level; think “what does he mean, what is really going on inside him?” And then you have to remind yourself, he’s a computer, he’s hollow – he’s not emotional, there’s not a heart in there.

[MF] Love story, love story… [Laughs]

[NR] So I think that, even for Shaw, I think there’s a point where she really hates him, and is really upset about what she thinks… I think she thinks that he has something to do with this. But then, I think she corrects herself, by reminding herself that it’s just a waste of energy because he’s a computer, it’s a hard-disk. And then in the end it’s almost like she feels sorry for him, for not having any emotions, and no soul; you’re just a robot, you’ll never understand us.

[LMG] I think also, the opposite – which I had never seen – I mean, you have trauma with robots in some of the other movies in the franchise. But we kind of talked about bigotry and racism, y’know, the inevitable synthetic life there’ll be the inevitable disdain for it. I liked that approach, I mean, I didn’t approach Holloway as a bigot or racist, but I liked this sense of “he’s beneath me”; constantly, no matter how much smarter he probably was than Holloway, or maybe even available emotionally on a synthetic level, he was still beneath him. That was fun, I don’t think we’ve seen that before.

[MF] See what happens when you think like that…

[LMG] That’s right, it affected me awfully. I’m a horrible human being! [Laughs]

[MF] That was one of the bits that freaked me most in the film, when you look in the mirror and there’s like [the tendril]

[LMG] Dammit, David!

[MF] That little worm is in your eye, it’s really well done, I love that. We were talking afterwards, you were like “It’s nothing, it’s nothing. I’m sure it will be fine.”

[LMG] I’ve had worse!

[MF] A little worm in my eye… it’s gonna be okay.

[LMG] A nasty STD, what the hell did she…?! [Laughter] Dammit David!

[Q] You’re thinking yourself into a different world, and it’s a world that’s been in a few films before – big, important films that we all know – were you approaching this film through them, or mostly through talking to Ridley, or something you’re bringing yourself?

[GP] Oh, I think talking to Ridley. I mean, we’re all obviously aware of what it is we’ve come onboard, but I think funnily enough it’s a very different perspective from the outside than from, y’know, the inner world. As soon as you start talking to Ridley – and I personally felt a little intimidated by the thought of this, not so much because of the history of the other films but because we know of Ridley’s prowess – but as soon as I started talking to him on the phone, that immediately goes out the window. You just immediately get into creative discussions about what it is you’re creating, you’re just on another job and you’re going through the steps you normally go through – I’d drive home from work occasionally and go “wow, this is really cool”, or when you first turn up on set and see those amazing sets.

But I think, also because the script and this particular film is so individual in a way. I mean, there’s obviously the connection with other films, but it really is so much more than just prequel. It delves into ideas that go far beyond what that first Alien film did, so I think it’s very easy to go “well, this now is the world of Prometheus and this is very, very particular,” And I think I can probably speak for everybody that, once you start working with Ridley, you’re reminded of what it is that you’re doing in the present. So I personally didn’t feel at all like… even though, really, Weyland is really the guy that we’ve heard about in the other films, I didn’t feel at all that I was living through those past cinematic experiences.

[NR] But also I think that the sets and, what [production designer] Arthur Max and the crew created, is just for us to step into, to have real things to work with and react from. That was incredible, because it gave so much. I remember once when Ridley came to me and was like “come on, I’m gonna show you something” and he opened the door to the room to the big head.

[GP] And it was Michael! [Laughter]

[NR] And the love story started there… the head! No, but I remember I got tears in my eyes, because it was there for real, and there’s some sort of cruel, savage beauty that they’ve created in this weird kind of, I dunno, world.

[MF] And he’s so enthusiastic, I mean Ridley’s so enthusiastic.

[NR] Oh yeah, he’s like a child.

[MF] He is like a kid. I love watching him on-set, because it’s infectious and he’s inspiring.

[NR] The small worms, he was like [gasps] “look at this, look at this, beautiful huh!” And it was, like, “yeah!”

[LMG] He also put cameras on us, so we became kinda the cameramen as well. And they built these sets – six walls – and all the fear and awe is real, of course, but I love kinda exploring the sets and using the flashlight. They’d turn the lights off on these damned things. It’s all real, they’re massive.

[GP] They’re really incredible, aren’t they. They’re so solid, they didn’t feel like sets. As I said, I came in late, so they’d all been going and I didn’t get to walk around with everyone else and experience the newness of it with everyone else. And I was going “is it dumb to ask if this is real… [feigns confidence] oh yeah, no, it’s amazing.” So it was incredible, the three-dimensional nature of those sets. It’s certainly not like when we were on Neighbours and they used to wobble when you closed the door.

[NR] And they were so big, you could really get lost.

[GP] Yeah. I mean, didn’t he extend one of those stages? Whatever the biggest stage is on Pinewood, he got them to rebuild another, y’know, end of it to make it however much bigger. So it really was quite enormous, a whole world in there.

[Q] In the Alien franchises, a lot of the actors talk about their first time seeing some of the creatures, and how the use of practical effects and costuming makes them terrifying of those things. Did you guys feel that way, about the monsters you each dealt with during the film?

[NR] Well, when I saw my baby for the first time. I was really… it was there, it was really happening. And, again, Ridley was, like, “it’s pretty, huh?” And I was, like, “yeah, it’s kinda cute.” It’s weird. Because in close-ups, you’re standing there looking at the thing, and it’s very real – it’s something quite spooky – it gets into you, I was dreaming such disturbed dreams, y’know, nightmares.

[LMG] You were very close with it.

[NR] Yeah, I was really close with that.

[GP] And it was animatronic, that thing, wasn’t it?

[NR] Yeah, it was moving!

[MF] Remember those guys, “I’ve got it’s left leg, you’ve got the right” and there’s the head as well; it was like three guys going [mimes frantically operating puppet]. Eyes blinking, and the head was going, and you’re screaming!

Don’t forget to check out our interview with Prometheus director Ridley Scott, as well as our interview with Damon Lindelof and co-writer Jon Spaihts for more on Prometheus’ challenging conception. We’ve also got a full review of Prometheus here!

Scott arguably gave the sci-fi-horror genre its flagship vehicle in the form of the first Alien film, kick-starting a box office busting Quadrilogy and coining the phrase “In space, no one can hear you scream.” Since its 1979 release the screams have come thick and fast, Prometheus seeing Scott’s much-anticipated return to science-fiction filmmaking and with a considerably increased budget – and equally huge expectations – so as to, as the blunt director said at the premiere, “make you sh*t yourselves.”

SPOILER WARNING: some of Ridley Scott and Damon Lindelof’s comments concern specific plot points in Prometheus. If you want to save every surprise and theme until you’ve seen the movie, bookmark this and come back after you’ve been to the theater!

[Question] You’re known for releasing a director’s cut. Are we going to see a Prometheus director’s cut when this comes to DVD?

[Ridley Scott] No, I think this is a good length. But that said, I think that now the fashion of actually putting out a couple of discs is here to stay, which will comfort you on all other kinds of conversation about how the movie was made. All you’ll really do is see extended scenes in the menu. Other that that I think this is a pretty good length, the dynamics are about right.

The one, the only real regret I’ve ever had over the years, funnily enough, is the cut on Kingdom of Heaven. I removed 17 minutes which I thought at the end of the day  were emotionally essential. They weren’t really part of the narrative, which was the problem, and when you’re editing, you’re editing and then suddenly the film goes off on a tangent for 17 minutes, and you’ve seen the joke several times, so the joke’s no longer funny or interesting. And it was wrong, really, to take it out, because it was all about the demise of the young king, and therefore it was also a very nice thing for Eva Green. I always regretted that. The three hour version of that was somehow more complete.

[Q] With the secrecy surrounding this, which leads to all the speculation and things like that, do you have a favorite rumor that popped up over the time that made you laugh? Now that the movie’s hitting theaters and things like that, it’s got to be kind of funny to see all these things come up online, or come up in the news, and think “that’s so far off!”

[RS] No, I mean, we anticipated that there might be… I mean, because the film was so important thirty years ago, we knew that when we started doing the movie it’s going to create some definite groundswell. And therefore you want to be secretive, because, I mean why do you want to know the play before you see the play? So that was all kind of fairly logical and pretty easy to control. Today, if I hand you a script, your name’s going to be right across every page, so if it comes out and your page is there, you’re going to get your knees whacked in the carpark.

[Damon Lindelof] That’s not a euphamism!

[RS] We don’t f*ck about. And then, you know, okay. The thing about it, I think we also were pretty professional at anticipation, and rather than putting out the usual form of advertising – because I’m deeply entrenched in advertising still – we started thinking we should be using viral TV and viral Twitter. There’s all those people Twitter, and if we put out stuff that doesn’t mention the movie, that’s going to be really interesting, and all Twitter’s going to go “what the… agghhh?!” And then suddenly some bright spark goes “wait a minute, biking! Weyland Yutani!” and then you’re off and running. So that, we anticipated stuff rather than closing it down.

[Q] I was curious about the Weyland TED talk, which was brilliant, and the only sort of un-made-up part for Guy Pearce. Is that where that came from, the idea to sort of…

[RS] We were deeply into the movie.

[DL] Yeah, we… there were a couple of things.

[RS] The dream idea, in hypersleep.

[DL] Right, so, originally in the draft there’s a scene in the movie where we see David and he’s got his headset on and he’s talking to someone, and we don’t know who it is, and he gets confronted by Vickers. There’s a scene in the script that we decided not to shoot, where we see the inside of that dream, and basically David takes a jetski out with a beautiful woman in a bikini, to a yacht, and on the yacht is Weyland. Played by Guy, without old-age make-up: this is his dream. And they have a scene together, and in that scene David says “the engineers are dead, they’re all gone, mission failure” and Weyland says “go back and try harder.” And we rewrote it so that we were going to play Weyland’s identify closed, give the audience a sense that [David] was talking to someone on the ship but not view them.

But we had already shot the scenes with Guy in the old-age make-up. So we were, like, people are going to wonder why we cast Guy Pearce to play an old man, unless we represent him as Guy Pearce. And that basically tapped into a piece of viral we had already been talking about, which is… I said it would be really cool to introduce the title of the movie – because people were asking “Prometheus, what is that?”, “how does the myth have context in the context of this movie?” So I was, like, we should write this TED talk, and then Ridley basically handed it off to Luke, his son, who is an incredible director, and we got together with TED – this guy Tom Rielly over at TED – we called him up and said “can we use your branding?” because if we can’t call it a TED talk we’ll have to call it a “FRED talk” or something, and everyone will know, it’ll cheapen it.

And they said not only can you use our branding, but we’d like to unveil it at TED, and portal it through our website. And so suddenly we realized we were onto something. And of course these things… cool viral doesn’t happen unless the director completely and totally gets it, and Ridley’s entire background is in advertising, marketing, his brain works that way. So he made the calls to Fox, Fox immediately understood it, and got on board with that and a number of other… they were, like, “what else do you have?” which a studio almost never asks you.

[RS] They usually say, “we’ve done that!” But actually you haven’t. “No. We do that!”

[DL] So Guy was game, and he did it.

[Q] Were there any other viral ones that you had made up, because we saw the one with Noomi as Shaw.

[RS] That was her screen-test. It was part of her screen-test, and then Johnny Hardstaff did the David one, and also played around and took the Noomi application for the job to an eye in the wall – not talking to Mr Weyland, she’d never meet Weyland, never be allowed to, wouldn’t even meet the secretary, it’s like a HAL eye, she’s applying to a job to the eye, which in turn is being watched by a minion, who gets a secretary, and finally get Rupert Murdoch, and finally to actually Weyland.

[DL] So yeah, it was those three pieces of viral: the David 8 ad, which Johnny Hardstaff did, and the Weyland TED talk, and then the quiet eye with Noomi. And then there was one other piece, which was going to be the transmission, that we ended up not doing. It’s in the movie.

[RS] We may use it in the US next week. They don’t open for a week.

[DL] So there’s basically… there’s a message in the movie that they’re transmitting to the engineers, with the girl playing the violin, and David and Holloway have the scene where they haven’t responded to the message. That message is another piece of viral which we may or may not release.

[RS] Did you get what the message was about? [It was a message to the engineers.] That would be a constant, from takeoff you’d be constantly replaying that, hoping that somebody’s gonna say “don’t come any further, I’m gonna to blow you out of the sky.” In there, there would be every conceivable form of mathematics equation, and anyone who is superior is going to look at that for three seconds and say “we’ve got chimpanzees on the way.” So, it’s an assessment of who’s coming, basically, it makes sense.

[Q] Is that a reference to the original Voyager probe, which obviously had Bach records, drawings, that kind of mix…?

[RS] Yeah.

[DL] Yeah, from like, in Starman.

[Q] One question about the science … The super-weapon that the engineers have been creating seems to me to be working in two different ways: you have the first way, which is what happens to Holloway, which is that he becomes mutated himself immediately. It’s that real-time altering of his genetic code. But then you’ve got what, in terms of science of the moment, seems the more credible way, which is the way that the mutations are passed down to Shaw’s “child”, this alien that she’s giving birth to. Was there meant to be that contrast between those two?

[RS] No, not necessarily. The man at the beginning, the person at the beginning, if we are created by gods or monsters – there’s no gods, it’d be singular, there’d be one god, probably, because every religion today (which creates more problems for us today in the entire global system than any other single thing, is religion, right) they’re all actually worshiping one dude, really. I don’t give a damn whether it’s, y’know, muslim or you name it: it’s theoretically, in theory, one person. I believe that we were pre-visited. I think it’s entirely ridiculous to think that four billion years, nearly four billion…?

[DL] Since the Earth was created? Yes.

[RS] Nearly four billion years. I don’t know whether it was Updike or the other guy said, a great quote, we’ve been here four billion years, what happened? Why did it take so long? Nothing’s happened ’til until about 750,000, which… 750,000 years in four billion is a blink. I don’t really believe… well, there’s two rules of thought. You’re either going to believe in the fact that we’re by entirely genetic luck, so from day one where you have atomic storms – inconceivable storms that will go on in this nucleus, in which the dirt bowl will find some reason to start growth on everything – was that created? That may have been accidental, because I think there are many of those out there.

But then the idea that, is there a higher force in the universe, comes the question: is it god, or are there superior beings out there? You stand and look at the stars at night in the galaxy out there, it’s entirely ridiculous to believe that we are it. You mean this is it? We’re sitting in this room, I’ve got this f*cking cappuccino, and up there there’s no-one else? I don’t think so!

[DL] This is referred to as the “F*cking Cappuccino” theory of astrophysics.

[RS] The astrophysics gig… I’ve had nine very high-end scientists sitting at a table, ranging from NASA astrophysicists, I don’t know what you call a serious mathematician, but a serious mathematician at a scientific level. And I’ve said, first question, “who believes in god?” And it’s a bit like looking at a bunch of nine kids and saying “who masturbates?” There’s a total silence.

[DL] Then you get arrested.

[RS] [And one guy says "I believe"] I said, so that’s bizarre, it’s a weird problem, because “I’m a believer in distilled facts to get me through my day, because I’m in science. On the side, I believe in this guy up there, standing on a cloud with a beard, who actually is my god, which is entirely mystical. So I have a split brain in intention.” And he said “Yep!”

So I said, when you meet your wall, having a bad day or a bad month: 18 months you’ve been working on an equation, you can’t get through whatever that equation is, what do you think? Are you thinking “this son of a b*tch is really clever, and I can’t break through the barrier”, do you think of god then? He said, “yeah, in simplistic terms, yes, could be.” So when you start there, that was – far as we’re concerned – the right to then start doing fiction, doing movie entertainment, to step out and say “were we created or was it god?”

And therefore there’s two questions in the film: the guy at the beginning is simply donating himself, no stranger than the Aztecs or Incas would choose some poor bugger, at the beginning saying “right, you’re it, in the year you get all the girls you want, all the food you want, blah blah, and at the end of the year we’re going to take your heart, take it out, squeeze it, and we’re going to get jolly good crops and good weather next year.” It’s no more than that, he’s into a form of donation, except his DNA is so powerful, each molecule is like a timebomb. So, we only set our standards by what we know here, which makes us essentially naive. We don’t, we can’t conceive of galloping DNA: I release that on the desk, and in a second I’ve got a cotton wool ball going black. We can’t conceive that because it’s not in your frame of experience. So you’ve got to take your brain, put it on the side, and when you enter the movie just let yourself breath.

[DL] I think another version of your question could be interpreted as “What does the black goo do?”

[RS] Three things! Cleans your teeth…

[DL] [Laughing] Exactly! And I think that one of the things that I love about Ridley’s movies, and have loved long before I worked with him – and it’s very surreal to be on the inside of – thirty-some odd years after Blade Runner we’re all still talking about whether or not Deckard is a robot. So there’s a speculative part of it, so the question becomes “what does the black goo do?” That is the question that you’re supposed to be asking coming out of this movie. The movie demonstrates what it does in certain circumstances. So, here’s what it does if it gets on worms; here’s what it does if it gets on your face; here’s what it does if someone just puts a little bit of it in your drink. So, now we see that that lots of this is headed to Earth. Now, you used the word “weapon”, you’re extrapolating that based on the theory [Prometheus captain] Janek has, because it looks like a payload to him: all these ships are loaded with this stuff, and they’re headed for Earth. The intent has to be to wipe us out, or is it to evolve us, or is it for something else?

These are all hopefully questions and points of debate – frustrating for some – but ultimately the kind of science-fiction… why the two movies that Ridley did decades ago are still being discussed, is this idea that when you walk out of the theater that you have to go into community and start to discuss “well, wait a minute, this is what I think happened,” and you’re hopefully mirroring the conversation that the characters are having in the movie, and more importantly this is why Shaw says what she says at the end of the movie. Which is, “I’m not going back to Earth and calling it a day, I need to know a little bit more about what’s happening here.”

The ultimate goal of Prometheus, usually prequels, or movies that precede the original, close down the universe – so now we know everything we needed to know about Anakin Skywaker – we wanted Prometheus to open up the universe, so it’s not a prequel at all. It has two children, one of those children grows up to be Alien, and the other child is hopefully growing up in this other direction and, god willing, will grow up into an entirely different line of films.

[RS] And by the way, that black stuff is terrific Viagra.

[DL] Toothpaste, now Viagra…!

[RS] You have a meltdown next morning!

[Q] All of this is very, very broad, but a lot of your movies have very specific scenes: in this movie, the medpod sequence, in Hannibal the brain-eating sequence. What is the importance of those scenes for you, in addition to asking all these broad questions, having something that’s so specific, and horrific?

[RS] I’m a sick f*cker. No, it’s a challenge of, say, the John Hurt scene where I read the script and it was told in no uncertain terms by Dan O’Bannon and Ron Shusett that, it’s not subtle [mimes reading a script]: “Wow, what the f*ckin’ sh*t is coming out his chest?! Holy sh*t, it’s a worm!”

So, I’m going, “that’s disgusting.” But actually it was the crossroads of information in the play which this had to be. Where’s he going to give birth from? I can think of other places, but it’s gonna be less attractive. For it to burst out of his chest was a gobsmacking, shocking experience, and my thought was always “he’s gonna split sinew, bone, and separate the ribcage into a birth.” That’s what the birth is. So when the engine, when the storyline insists – because the good engines insist – when you get moving on a track like that, you know you’re kinda onto something. You don’t want to change it.

That’s why I think dropping that stuff in earlier, [Shaw] saying “I can’t conceive”, was absolutely the right, perfect thing to do. Which then, after that – because they then relate to each other, consummate, and the following day by god she’s pregnant – once she’s pregnant, I have to see it, I have to see what that is. And because it’s extreme, galloping DNA, whatever that is that’s creating this monstrous thing growing inside of her – he says “you look three months pregnant”; in 25 minutes she now looks eight months pregnant – that’s inconceivable for us, because we don’t understand it. But I think it’s probably way up there somewhere, it’s entirely feasible. You’ve got to show it, you’ve gotta do it.

[Q] I wanted to ask about the special effects. Obviously, when you made the original film it was all models and matte paintings; things have improved dramatically since then. Could you say something about the difference between creating the two?

[RS] You know, the original Alien is still pretty bloody good. I’ll show you a huge print in IMAX right now, you’ll be shocked: the backgrounds, the universes, were a guy with a toothbrush who does that [mimes flicking the bristles], and goes “how many do you want?” And I say, “well, just do it” and he goes [flick] with the toothbrush, and splatter and speckle onto this shiny black screen, onto the artwork.

[DL] And that was for the stars.

[RS] That was it. The beginning of the movie is flat artwork; he splattered and drew in the… it’s flat! You just pan across the flat, into the universe. I’m a camera operator, I operate the whole thing – there’s one camera – I’m on the dolly now, we get wind machines, storm, sh*t, filth, okay, of course blowing straight up at me, and I’ve got a mask on and all that sh*t. And I’m looking through, and I’ve got dolly-grips behind me on two scaffold poles, which are the actual tracking lines, and he’s walking round saying “action!” and I’m saying “stop, backup, I can see the way you’re walking.” So that’s how it was all done, and when you look at it, it’s pretty good. The sets are fantastically good, and the lighting was beautiful.

In the funny kind of way it’s a lesson: in Blade Runner, those backgrounds, the cityscapes when he’s climbing around the side of the building, you can see they’re paintings but they’re really quite good. Today, you’d never even attempt to do that, you’d sample architecture and drop it in, on absolute lens and perspective so it’s absolutely seamless, there’s no join. But in those days it was hand-painted. And it’s a big lesson, because really, the most important, significant thing in all films – I don’t give a sh*t whether it’s science-fiction or a western or whatever – it’s the goddamned screenplay. Get the screenplay right, and all this technology enhances it. But when the screenplay is week… the technology is the means to the end, the screenplay is the end. And if you get that right first, the rest is relatively straightforward.

But consequently the hardest single thing to do is get it on paper, and that’s why today there are many, many more movies being made than, say, twenty years ago, and I’m just going to say it flat-out, the screenplays mostly, the stories, are pretty sh*t. And that’s why people who are coming, they yearn for better content. Now we’ve got primetime television, in England, running a Scandinavian show called The Bridge. I’ve watched nine hours of it. It’s subtitled – primetime British TV. What does that tell you? Massive audience has built up because it’s good, great characters… And it’s gradually going to shift into movies. At the moment we’re still getting away with it, but I think people are getting impatient, particularly in what I’d call the majority part of the world – which is now two-thirds of the world audience – which is everything outside of the domestic market, i.e. everything outside of the US. So it’s what the story… get the story right!

[DL] I would just add to that, very briefly, from the outside looking in, I was really impressed when I came to the set by the commitment to practical. While I was here they shot the scene in the lab where the head explodes, and they were taking off the elephantine helmet, and there’s the head in there. And I was like, wow, you’re not doing this CG? And Ridley said “no, we’re just gonna blow that f*cker up.” And I looked over and saw the 7.5 foot tall actor who basically played the engineer, over in makeup, and I said “where are his mocap dots?” “No no, that’s what we’re gonna shoot?” And I do think that there’s a tremendous temptation – there might have been some vis-effects on his eyes, and obviously we did not make the actor disintegrate down to the genetic level – but I do think that very few directors will say, like, what parts of it can we shoot practical, because anybody will come forward from vis-effects and say “we can do the entire thing for you.”

But our brains are very sophisticated, and we know the difference between what’s real and what’s fake, especially if you’re doing a level of grounded science-fiction, especially about “we came from them”, your brain will essentially say “but that’s a CG being, it doesn’t exist, it’s not real, there’s not a man in there, anywhere, even if it’s mocap.” And I think that those decisions, and the commitment to “can I make it the same way that I made it thirty years ago, just because I don’t have to any more,” I just admire it tremendously, I think it’s a huge lesson to be learned and the voracity of it bleeds through.

[Q] In that context, did you see 3D as a challenge?

[RS] It was really straightforward. The idea of 3D being useful to this kind of subject is absolute, and the fact that if I get a camera man like [cinematographer] Dariusz Wolski, and I’m pretty good at knowing what I want, visually and everything else, by the time you put the two of us together, it was pretty straightforward. We shot this in 82 days. Shooting 3D, editing 3D, and it comes out in 3D: it’s not a problem.

Problem is, you get a screen, and in the screen you have something hanging in the foreground. And you have a f*cking committee of forty people – including the leading actor – saying whether or not to show what’s there or not. I say, “I hate ‘em, get rid of them,” or “I’ll leave them, f*ck off.” And that’s it, because otherwise you have a long conversation about this. It’s bizarre! You’ve gotta know what you want.

Don’t forget to check out our interview with Damon Lindelof and co-writer Jon Spaihts for more on Prometheus’ challenging conception, as well as our full review of the new film!

Creator of the original script, Spaihts developed the initial “bridge” concept between the Alien universe and humankind – a team of explorers seeking answers to the origins of life on Earth, in a mission that drops them squarely into terror – and worked on the project since late 2009. Lindelof – who, with JJ Abrams, counts Lost to his name, along with the Star Trek reboot – was brought onto the team in mid-2010, and helped guide the screenplay away from a direct Alien prequel and toward the point where it straddles both the Xenomorph universe as audiences know it, and a new and engaging story in its own right.

[Vincent Nguyen] Congratulations on the premiere! Are you excited to have it out in the public eye finally?

[Jon Spaihts] I’ve been walking around for weeks, being careful what to say, and it’s gotten harder as the trailers come out and are getting longer and longer, so more and more information is getting into the public space, which makes it harder and harder to remember what it is I’m allowed the talk about.

[Damon Lindelof] I think I’d say the same, I’m really looking forward to talking about what it is versus what it’s gonna be for fear of again, we are, experiencing it sitting it in a movie theater and you see a trailer, and you think “ah, I saw the entire thing!” And so we want to adhere to not giving anything away, but at the same time you don’t want to feel like you’re being overly protective, or too cagey, or keeping this secret because you have something to hide.

[JS] Plus, you don’t want to patronize people, because so much information has leaked out; you try to play your little cloak & dagger game, and keep it quiet. They can get impatient with it.

[DL] So it will be a relief in that sense, that there’s still a tremendous amount of “how’s it gonna be received?”, “what’s the box office going to be?”, “are people gonna say ‘I’m glad this movie exists’ or ‘it never should’ve been made in the first place’.” All of those things create, y’know… we’re writers, we’re anxious guys.

[JS] Yeah, we want to be understood, we want to be welcomed.

[DL] Jon has been working on Prometheus for three years; I’ve been on for two. So, it’s a big influence, it’s a large part of your life.

Damon Lindelof on the Prometheus red carpet:

[Chris Davies] Obviously there’s a large amount of mythology of the universe, the Alien Quadrilogy is much-loved by science-fiction enthusiasts. It wasn’t billed as a prequel, though it was quickly described as one. How much pressure did you feel to kind of fit it in to that sort of universe?

[JS] It’s impossible to fit it completely into that universe, because that universe isn’t completely internally consistent itself. There are, online – I found out when I first embraced the project – these colossal compendia of lore about the Alien universe, that try to reconcile the minutiae of four nominal films and two spin-off films, and novelizations, computer games, graphic novels, comic books… there’s so much stuff. And a lot of it doesn’t agree with itself.

So you try to honor the lore as much as you can, with what the fans consider canonical, as much as possible: why revisit a universe you’re not going to honor? But in the end, I think it’s an impossible task to be consistent with everything, and your first task must be to tell a compelling story that stands in its own right.

[DL] Yeah, and I think that, just playing off of what Jon just said, which is better articulated than what I could articulate… I look at the original movie, Alien, as this great album that Ridley Scott made, and there are songs on this album that I’ll feel like they’re “of the Alien“, and the goal for Prometheus is to say “we have to play a couple of those hits, and where in the set are we going to play them?” Are they in the encore, do we mix them in? How many of the original songs do we play compared to new songs. But what was really important was that this new songs felt like they were new but they were in harmonic convergence with the tracks from the original. So you don’t want to stray too far afield from it, but at the same time it has to justify its own existence.

The big idea of the movie that pre-existed my involvement was right there on page one of Jon’s script, saying “We are… this movie isn’t about wandering into a haunted house, this is about seeking one out” and why would one ever want to seek out a haunted house? Let’s populate it with characters who are motivated to do precisely that. And when I read it I thought “oh, this is not at all what I expected from the Alien prequel that I’ve heard about, I wanna go see that movie”, and that was the beginning of my journey, and I felt a very compelling idea which the movie now delivers – it was a worthy story to tell.

[VN] Speaking of characters, was there any inspiration from [Star Trek's] Seven of Nine and Data? I felt there was a little bit of similarity between her role…

[DL] Hmm, we never talked about that …

[VN] … and Data, and David, I felt like…

[JS] I’ve seen it all

[VN] … they were very similar characters. And I love them both, I love the way they were similar.

[JS] It would be interesting to look at the timeline for the space-fairing android in popular culture.

[DL] It’s a good name for a college band

[JS] “Space-fairing Android”? Awesome. It would be acid jazz probably

[DL] Uh-huh

[JS] I expect you could probably draw a line from Data the android and the crew of the Enterprise, to Ash and the crew of the Nostromo; it became a trope in the Alien universe that there was an android aboard. And it wouldn’t surprise me if that inclusion – although, y’know, Robbie the Robot was aboard the Space Family Robinson’s flying saucer, so I suppose the trope goes farther back than that – the mechanical man as one member of the crew. So I think there are definitely instances of a trope that runs pretty far back into the culture of sci-fi.

[DL] One of the things that think though that was definitely already existing in, that Jon created in the character of David, and that got pushed further and further as the movie developed, was that unlike Data or Seven of Nine – and more like Ash – David was not interested in being a “real boy.” This idea that Data is sort of fascinated by humans and so desperately wants to be one and experiment, his adventures with his emotion chip. David was already looking at himself as “not too close, I hope”… there’s this moment of, like, “hey, look, I sort of look at your tired desire to seek out these questions, the answers to these questions as folly, as I’m amongst my creators and I have to be honest with you, I’m not terribly impressed.”

[JS] Exactly

[DL] And I think that that is a slightly different spin on the robot.

[VN] In some sense the robot thought he was better than them, because he felt that he could do much more than them.

[JS] Yes, and one of the things which is interesting to me – [Damon] this is your work – he always had that intellectual vanity, that sense of, that knowledge of his own superiority. And one thing emerged from the work that Damon and Ridley did after I was on, was kind of cosmetic vanity, or personal vanity that accompanied that intellectual vanity, and the line of association came along afterward, and plays on the same points.

[DL] I had a… I often change the case on my iPhone cover, and Ridley was like “Why do you keep changing that?” And I said “I don’t know, it’s the same iPhone but I like to dress it differently.” And he said “Do you think David would do that?” And I said “What do you mean?”

And he said “well, he’s a piece of technology, there are obviously thousands of models that look exactly like [David actor] Michael Fassbender, but would they mod themselves? And that was the beginning of the conversation of, like, well what if he was obsessed with Lawrence of Arabia. As opposed to, he’s a cybernetic individual who watches every single movie in the history of movies, which we’ve all seen before, there’s just one that he really liked and watches over and over and over again; he says, I’m gonna dye my hair blonde right down to the roots, because I think that’s cool. And I said, oh, okay – this is an entirely different take on that idea, so let’s run with that.

[CD] Do you think… obviously we’re still quite a long way out from artificial intelligence of that kind of level, do you think inevitably they’re going to end up resenting us as the evolutionary step that came before? Which do you think is more likely, the Data path or the David path?

[JS] I think that artificial intelligence good enough to converse with is definitely coming. What is not obvious to me – but that we tend to treat as obvious – is that when a machine gets smart enough it will begin to want things. I’m not sure they ever will begin to want things, there’s no reason that they should. We wanted things as biological organisms before we were smart; we wanted things since we were cells, it was in us first. It’s not a property of our intelligence: although we can feel like we are generating it, feel like we own our desires, but we had them before we could think. Everything has them that is alive. That’s where “want” comes from, and it doesn’t follow for me that if you make a machine smart enough it will begin to want things too. So I’m not sure that we’re going to see personalities like that.

So I think if we want our machines to want things, we’re going to have to make them want things, and it will be a very difficult process. Harder than making them talk.

[DL] A more interesting root of your question is, why would we build a robot that looked exactly like us? I mean, the fundamental idea of, we can build robots that can go to places that we can’t go, because they can withstand extreme climates or they don’t require air. But what is the benefit of having Data onboard the Enterprise? Yes, I understand that somebody needs to be onboard the bridge 24 hours a day, and because he doesn’t sleep there’s no limitation, but why does he need to look like us? Why can’t he look like Robbie the Robot, etc? There is this inherent vanity in saying “I’m going to create a being that looks exactly like me” – why? It’s weird?

[JS] They spend billions of dollars that’s identical to the fella you can hire off the street for twenty bucks an hour.

[DL] And there’s this thing called the Uncanny Valley, which I’m sure you’re familiar with, which is that thing where it’s actually displeasing to look at something that’s modeling human behavior but it’s just off. It has… it’s that Polar Express effect of the dead eyes.

[JS] Yeah

[DL] Of basically saying “this is actually a little bit disquieting, uncomfortable to look at” – and are we going to be able to build that bridge to Michael Fassbender, who looks more or less like a human, and is portrayed by a human. But my question is in twenty years will movies that are portraying cybernetic individuals be portrayed by cybernetic individuals? Wouldn’t it be interesting to watch one of these movies where it’s not Michael Fassbender, but we build Michael Fassbender to play David? What would that be like? We don’t have that technology yet, but it could be pretty cool.

[CD] It’s quite timely at the moment, with SpaceX‘s Dragon capsule going up as the first private company docking with the…

[JS] The International Space Station

[CD] Right. One of the big things all through the Alien franchise, and in Prometheus, is the idea of a private company pushing scientific exploration, but for its own agenda. What are your thoughts on that, where do you stand on this “government funded space exploration for the benefit of man” or that commercial angle to it

[JS] It’s a tricky one. If some commercial benefit to space travel can be found, that’s a much more reliable basis for space travel moving forward… we got to the moon through sheer force of will, but there was very little in it. There’s nothing to bring home, there’s no benefit economically. There was notional benefit, we benefited our superiority over the Soviet Union, we showed what man can do, we showed we could make very powerful missiles. And all of that was very important at that time, but when those, when that imperative, when that rivalry went away, the need to go back to the moon faded away, because it was an emotional need.

Jon Spaihts on the Prometheus red carpet:

Whereas geostationary orbit, and low-Earth orbit, are incredibly profitable places to be. Satellites are there, you can do really valuable things: they’ve studied the stars, they’ve studied the weather, they’ve gathered intelligence, they’ve broadcast communications. So there’s a lot of private industry throwing satellites into orbit. I hope, actually, that we… there have been interesting speculations about mining asteroids, pulling them back for nickel-iron and whatever else to make money. I hope that we find some meaningful, profitable enterprise in space, because that will keep us exploring, that will get us off the world and reaching outward. And I think the private industry is ultimately the best way for a lot of those things to arise, in the same way that it was privateering that drove the nautical expansion of Earth’s industrial civilizations, out to what they called “the unoccupied continents.”

[DL] Or just manifest destiny in general. I’m a capitalist at heart, and I do think that greed or – certainly in the case of science fiction – the desire to potentially elongate one’s life, or finding extraterrestrials, is cool, but there is this fundamental “what’s in it for me?” that drives us all in terms of motivation. I think in the idealistic time of the 1960s, it was enough to just say “what’s in it for me is the idea of, like, the unobtainable idea of landing on that thing that I looked up at there in the sky, that fifty years ago could not have been imagined, but now…”

[JS] Like conquering Everest

[DL] Yeah, “…but now technically now is within my grasp.” But for our generation, we’re so spoilt… so the idea of landing on Mars, we basically go “why? The rover landed out on Mars, I’ve seen the pictures; what are we going to do there?” Is [Total Recall's] Cohagen going to go there and, y’know, create atmosphere and mine it? That doesn’t seem particularly sexy to me. But even a movie like Avatar, in science-fiction, the whole fundamental spirit of that movie is Unobtanium, and I think that [Director James] Cameron’s desire to name it such is a wink at the obvious, in terms of saying “there’s no reason to go to Pandora and hang out with these big blue things, unless we can make money off of it.”

That’s relatable, that’s something we can understand, versus hey, y’know, The Planet of the Apes idea, which is just more like the concept of astronauts accidentally landing in a place which is a weird and alien world, under the auspices of just exploration. Exploration doesn’t really make sense to us any more. Exploration for profit does make sense.

[JS] Although the one interesting exception is that one of the great businesses that we can imagine in space right now is space tourism.

[DL] Yes.

[JS] That’s a for-profit business driven by individuals’ intense feeling of how cool it is to go there.

[DL] Just to say, y’know, I’ve been there.

[VN] Being a tech site, I would like our readers to know what are your favorite gadgets? In your regular life, aside from work.

[DL] I would say, as unoriginal as it is: iPhone, iPad, can’t live without. And my Slingbox is now my… [to Jon] Do you have one of those?

[JS] No…?

[DL] Essentially it’s a gizmo attached to your cable box or your DirectTV, and you download an app on your iPad and you can watch anything that your television has, or your DVR, as long as you have a WiFi connection. So it’s basically a portable DVR. I love it.

[JS] I want to have an exotic answer too, but I’m deeply embedded in the iPhone, iPad…

[VN] And are you excited about the new one that’s coming out?

[DL] There’s a new iPhone?

[VN] Well supposedly, they’re talking about…

[JS] They’re talking about the [iPhone] 5 a little bit.

[VN] Is that exciting to you?

[JS] It will if they show me that I can do something new. I want a new super-power. Just bigger, better, fancier is not going to be exciting. Faster is not enough, but new super-power, new sale.

[VN] We’ll take that back to Apple!

[JS] Good, please do!

[DL] You tell those bums, we’re waiting!

Make sure to check out our full review of Prometheus, and standby for more coverage of one of the biggest movie events of 2012!

Right from the start, both Ken and Jay noted that the film’s director Barry Sonnenfeld had an excellent set of sensibilities for the reality of the world they were tackling. Regardless of the next-level effects in the film, Sonnenfeld according to Ralston and Redd kept the film very down-to-earth, so to speak.

Ken Ralston (center), scouting rooftops during production of Men in Black 3 with Jay Redd on left via @ImageworksVFX

Ken: “The cool thing about working on this film with Barry is that it’s really about what the characters are doing and what “that” scene is about despite the action and everything and still, as insane as it is, is about the characters and everything and about J and K and how they relate to each other.”

As far as how Men in Black 3 was shot, you might be surprised to hear that not only was the movie captured almost entirely on film, the 3D portions were not originally captured in 3D. All 3D action you see in the film was created in post-production, while the digital sections of the film, however few there were, were caught on ARRI technology.

Jay: “This movie was shot mostly on film. We also did shoot a little on digital on the ARRI ALEXA camera at night. Most of what you see has been caught on film and then scanned.”

ARRI CSC provided the crew of Men in Black 3 with the following gear: ARRICAMs for 35MM shooting, HD-IVS video assist, and ARRI ALEXA cameras for the 2nd Unit, Lighting & Grip.

Jay: “On set we’re using a lot of different tools because we’ve got to put all these visual effects in later. We have some proprietary special technology that allows us to take 360 degree photographs of any set we’re on in a high dynamic range (HDR) format. So we gather all of this amazing detail and light information on the set so that gives us information later to help us create our digital characters or buildings, whatever we’re doing, with exactly where the lights were on the set, on the street, or on top of a building.

There’s also laser scanning of buildings and set pieces and actors, even, for us to do our digital models. We’ve got both digital versions of Will (Smith) and Josh (Brolin), and we’ve built cars and city streets, and there’s a huge amount of stuff that’s built between artists and technicians.”

Ken and Jay noted that one of the most important elements in the entire film is the balance between real and nonsense. With two Men in Black films already well received in the public’s mind, it wasn’t so much convincing viewers that the world they were seeing could be real, but making sure they understood that it’s not the same reality they might currently be living in.

Ken: “It’s a strange combination of elements – it has to feel real, but a lot of things aren’t exactly real. New York is a version of New York, it isn’t really New York. Cape Canaveral is our version of Cape Canaveral but it looks and feels like the real thing. If you’d scrutinize this stuff you’d say, ‘hey that’s wrong’ or ‘that doesn’t go there’ but it’s really about the feeling of each individual certain thing.

It’s trying to create a certain style, every movie has a certain style – the director is trying to get the movie a certain style, Barry (Sonnenfeld)’s is very ‘not real’ in fact it’s very stylized. You have to combine that with the contention of looking and feeling real even though what you might be looking at is absurd – which a lot of the movie actually is.

A lot of it has to look real but if you scrutinize it couldn’t possibly be real.”

The visual effects shot count on this film was 1214, with 650 of the visual shots being done directly by Sony Pictures Imageworks artists. The 650 shots were some of the more challenging bits of the film requiring the CG environments and creatures you’ll see in the trailer (and the film, of course, when you see it this weekend). Key sequences worked on by Sony Pictures Imageworks include a digital recreation of Shea Stadium from 1969, a massive monocycle race through Brooklyn and Queens (this including the digital doubles mentioned earlier), and a complete digital recreation of the Kennedy Space Center and the Apollo 11 rocket launch, all of this back in time in 1969.

Jay: “An analogy we used on this movie is that it’s kind of like an onion. You have an onion, and you keep peeling the layers away enough until – it still looks like an onion – but you want to peel enough layers away that it still works. We start with reality and we break as many rules as is allowed in the Men in Black world before it starts to go completely crazy.”

Ken Ralston is the Senior Visual Effects Supervisor for Men in Black 3 and has won 5 Academy Awards for his work on past films – his last feature was Alice in Wonderland which was nominated for an Oscar award last year. He also worked on such notable films as Who Framed Roger Rabbit, Star Wars: Return of the Jedi, and Back to the Future I, II, and III. Jay Redd is also a Visual Effects Supervisor for Men in Black 3 and has worked on films such as Monster House, The Haunted Mansion, and Contact. BONUS fun fact: before he joined Sony Pictures Imageworks, Jay worked with Rhythm & Hues where he was a CG supervisor for the film WaterWorld!

Stay tuned for more Men in Black 3 action as it unfolds here all week, and hit up our Entertainment portal to see all of our recent interviews and film features!

Ian Whitlock, Key Animator, in the Evil Lair with the Pirate Captain, Polly, Darwin and Bobo on the set of The Pirates! Band of Misfits

This pirate movie is made to take such past hits (made by bits of the same crew) like Chicken Run and Wallace and Gromit and move the art there to a whole new level. What you’ll find here, and when you check out the film, is that not only did the crew here take the next step in detail and scale for Pirates!, they did it keeping much of the organic look and charm of past stop-motion/claymation film hits. Whitlock spoke with us about some of the limitations that come in even here in the modern world of claymation-based films.

Whitlock: “When we started making pictures, the one thing we always struggled with was scale of the worlds and what we were limited by – the size of the building being one of them. To get a film shot you’ve got a lot amount of miniatures and a lot amount of model makers and everything. You have to get the footage in, every week, that you need. You end up making multiple sets and multiple characters to get what you need – and when you do that you end up very quickly running out of space. Especially when you want to big environments, big wide shots, it swallows up a lot of studio space. For Pirates, the visual effects to expand our world has been a real bonus for us. It’s really helped to open up the world and scale and everything.”

Whitlock helping the Pirate Captain dance up the stairs in his dream sequence on the set of The Pirates! Band of Misfits

The Pirates! Band of Misfits sculptors and animators made use of CNC machines to create masses of sculpts based on single models, this Rapid Prototyping technique allowing them new avenues for scale for the film. Even with green screen technology and the Rapid Prototyping techniques used here on The Pirates!, work for the animators and sculptors on this film ended up being quite similar to work they’ve always done. Whitlock noted especially that the technology used in Pirates! ended up coming in a bit before filming for all the people parts, then mostly after, with green screen technology tied with background effects.

Whitlock: “For us it’s pretty much the same [as in past stop-motion films]. You’re in your unit 8-10 hours a day, you’re on the set with the puppets and working away on it. You may come into situations now where there may be a bit more green screen in the background, but we still shoot with all puppets on set in some way even if the backgrounds and skies may be added later on – pretty much [otherwise] it’s really similar to the way we’ve always shot. “

The scale of Pirates! will for those viewing the film be able to be measured simply by how many individually sculpted and animated characters there are in every scene. Pirates! takes what claymation films had done before with a few characters and, with the help of modern reproduction techniques, were able to duplicate and scale up!

Whitlock: “We saw right away that we’d have a lot more characters than we’d had ever before, and also the complexity in their faces [has become more complicated] – the tiny detail in their faces has become more than say, Wallace and Gromit for example. With CNC machines we felt it would be a good way to speed things up a bit, here we’d be able to create shots with more characters by using the Rapid Prototype technique – particularly in the mouths.”

Whitlock mentioned that in all about 7,000 mouths were made for the film, with about 250 of them being just for the Pirate Captain himself. These mouths allowed production to not only go faster than it had in the past with movies like Wallace and Gromit, it was done in a way that would also allow the crew to keep the classic look and feel to the film. This look and feel of course shows up as a warm feeling in your stomach, the feel you get when you watch a claymation film you know has been animated and sculpted frame by frame by frame.

With the ability to create hundreds of different expressions that could be used and re-used, Pirates! becomes more diverse than claymation films of the past simply due to its ability to have its filmmakers work with a lot less fatigue – and now that they’ve got hundreds of faces for the Pirate Captain, for example, they could realistically use his character again for a future film. Create your own actor forever!

Whitlock: “I first worked with that technique on Coraline – doing full face replacement. Separate hair, separate mouths. It’s worked well because of the nature of clay work, we’ve been able to retain much of the reality particularly in the mouths with this Rapid Prototyping method from our traditional clay brand. We’ve been able to retain the control of it. With our method we’ve been able to retain the detail and put in some of the little imperfections and keep it a little more organic looking and like the clay we’ve normally used.”

The Pirates! Band of Misfits is out in theaters starting today, April 27th, wherever fabulous movies are being shown! You’ll be able to check it out in 2D as well as 3D for ultimate in-your-face clay scallywagging action! Note also that this is just one of our newly blossoming Entertainment hub that you’ll see blowing up over the next few weeks and months – stay tuned!