Future Cinema

Course Site for Future Cinema 1 and Future Cinema 2: Applied Theory at York University, Canada

A collection from the previous weeks:

A collection from the previous weeks:
Class 2+ 3: Jaron Lanier’s book: Dawn of Everything:
Q1: After attending Fivars Festival and reading Jaron’s book, I’m comparing the technology that he shared in the book and the current technology and noticing the difference in the technical level. What are the criteria for commercializing a certain product?
Q2: “those few who can imagine ahead can, therefore, seize the world” Moore’s Law. Is imagination the new power in our world? And how does that changes the way humans look at the purity of imagination?
Q3: P 289, Jaron writes “we believe in ourselves and each other only on faith, It’s a more pragmatic faith than traditional faith in God.” As our faith in machines is getting deeper and deeper as AI and machine learning evolve, does that indicates the decline in our faith in humans and God?
Q4: “VR is the technology that instead highlights the existence of your subjective experience. It proves you are real” P56. But isn’t our subjective experiences projected to be influenced collective narratives?
Q5: In fivars, through a group discussion director Andrew MacDonald mentioned the future possibilities of volumetric capture through non-mech programs and depth photography, with what Jaron is envisioning with sensors. Are we to witness a VR becoming an alternative reality?
Class 4: Scott Rettberg: Combinatory Cinema
Q1: While identifying creative cannibalism: Why call it that? Does he aim to highlight that deconstructing is a part of human creativity?
Q2: In the ethics of research in filmmaking, where do we draw the line between priorities of the product and the process?
Q3: How does the use of Big Data in filmmaking change our understanding of personalization in storytelling? And of collective experiences?
Q4: As researchers, how do we go about analyzing combinatory cinema and documenting the audience/makers reaction individually to these personalized videos?
Class 5: Helen Papagiannis, Augmented Human:
Q1: I found the author very positive and hopeful when talking about new technologies. However, if VR could be described as empathy machine what would we call AR?
Q2: How will AR change our definition of exclusion, oppression and separation of humanities?
Q3: There is a potential for AR to be used in our daily lives, how does that change the freeness of free time?
Q4: In a conversation about augmented human, what will happen to the term humanity and human rights concerning acquiring augmented technology?
Class 6: Scott Lucas
Q1: At the beginning of the book the writer defines immersivity as the intentionality of never leaving. What does that say about our new concept of reality and experiences?
Q2: The Players lose track of the borders of the virtual environment they are in, how does that reflect on the concept of their future preserved reality?
Q3: authenticity is a road to achieve full immersivity, how does that conclude more ridged power relationships between the performers on the sets, the guests and the creators?
Q4: In AR and VR the human element is reduced to the consumers and creators, in Immersive parks other factors like (selling people – actors and performers) are the pillar for it to work. Does that make the experience more authentic or does it require from the consumers to have more realistic expectation about their experience?
Class 7: Frankenstein AI (No reading)
Class 8: Ibister Questions: How games move us – emotion
Q1- Games create empathy: why does it take time to get to a stage of full immersiveness for us to experience the complete empathy aspect of a game?
Q2- In her book, Ibister describes that act of giving. How do we define gifts in technology without it linking to materialism?
Q3- what does imposing responsibility in gaming mean to the definition of a gamer, creator and game?
Q4- Ibister writes “We still talk about games as if they are all the same.” what does she aim to convey to game creators by drawing attention to games with a moral code?
Class 9: Anna Anthropy Rise of the Videogame Zinesters
Q1. In Possibilia, The interactivity level is limited to the arrows on the viewer’s keyboard. However the view’s role changes, they become a director in a short movie where they are controlling the scenes and shots. What level of immersivity does this interactivity introduce?
Q2: What method did the creators of Possibilia use to film the movie? And why did they go with the personal directing approach with a love/breakup story? Were they aiming to provoke curiosity in the viewer about the story of the couple to get them to become a director and interact?
Q3- Anthropy in her book refers to big companies quest to resell games to the same demographical base they always sell for. “It’s the same small group of people who are creating the same games for themselves,” she said. What does the implication of this cycle on game researchers and game scholars? How do they approach the hegemony in this group?
Q4: In her final chapter, Anthropy writes “Every new game is a voice in the darkness.” In game design, How does changing the role of games from targeting gamers to creating for the sake of art help the makers and gamers challenge the consumerism of the gaming system? And what happens to nowadays games when more diverse games become mainstream?
Class 10: Jagoda, Patrick. Network Aesthetics
Q1: ARG’s are used to Guerilla market a media product. Thus this product becomes transmedia tool and moves to a different platform. In the “Why so serious” ARG we saw how it changed batman fan base. At what point does the marketing campaign become the product itself?
Class 11: Alternate reality gaming
Q1: In the institute movie trailer, one person mentioned that for people to think of it as a game offended them. What is the line that a game usually crosses for it to become more than that? For it to take the shape of reality.
Q2: In the article “Game or Cult” the author writes “you might call it an alternate reality game, but its creator insists the term is insufficient.” when does the creator lose the right to determine the path that their own creation will take? Including how to define it and where it goes?
Q3: The article asks whether the institute is a game or cult. Can’t it be both of those things at the same time? “If we can create a new story, through real-world narrative experiences, then we are creating reality.” Why is creating a reality a goal to many creators?
Q4: “the creators had finally revealed themselves, killing the Jejune dream in the process.” How does the creator play a role in ending their creation? And can they do that? When do the creators become part of the game?

A collection from the previous weeks:

Class 2+ 3: Jaron Lanier’s book: Dawn of Everything:

Q1: After attending Fivars Festival and reading Jaron’s book, I’m comparing the technology that he shared in the book and the current technology and noticing the difference in the technical level. What are the criteria for commercializing a certain product?

Q2: “those few who can imagine ahead can, therefore, seize the world” Moore’s Law. Is imagination the new power in our world? And how does that changes the way humans look at the purity of imagination?

Q3: P 289, Jaron writes “we believe in ourselves and each other only on faith, It’s a more pragmatic faith than traditional faith in God.” As our faith in machines is getting deeper and deeper as AI and machine learning evolve, does that indicates the decline in our faith in humans and God?

Q4: “VR is the technology that instead highlights the existence of your subjective experience. It proves you are real” P56. But isn’t our subjective experiences projected to be influenced collective narratives?

Q5: In fivars, through a group discussion director Andrew MacDonald mentioned the future possibilities of volumetric capture through non-mech programs and depth photography, with what Jaron is envisioning with sensors. Are we to witness a VR becoming an alternative reality?

Class 4: Scott Rettberg: Combinatory Cinema

Q1: While identifying creative cannibalism: Why call it that? Does he aim to highlight that deconstructing is a part of human creativity?

Q2: In the ethics of research in filmmaking, where do we draw the line between priorities of the product and the process?

Q3: How does the use of Big Data in filmmaking change our understanding of personalization in storytelling? And of collective experiences?

Q4: As researchers, how do we go about analyzing combinatory cinema and documenting the audience/makers reaction individually to these personalized videos?

Class 5: Helen Papagiannis, Augmented Human:

Q1: I found the author very positive and hopeful when talking about new technologies. However, if VR could be described as empathy machine what would we call AR?

Q2: How will AR change our definition of exclusion, oppression and separation of humanities?

Q3: There is a potential for AR to be used in our daily lives, how does that change the freeness of free time?

Q4: In a conversation about augmented human, what will happen to the term humanity and human rights concerning acquiring augmented technology?

Class 6: Scott Lucas

Q1: At the beginning of the book the writer defines immersivity as the intentionality of never leaving. What does that say about our new concept of reality and experiences?

Q2: The Players lose track of the borders of the virtual environment they are in, how does that reflect on the concept of their future preserved reality?

Q3: authenticity is a road to achieve full immersivity, how does that conclude more ridged power relationships between the performers on the sets, the guests and the creators?

Q4: In AR and VR the human element is reduced to the consumers and creators, in Immersive parks other factors like (selling people – actors and performers) are the pillar for it to work. Does that make the experience more authentic or does it require from the consumers to have more realistic expectation about their experience?

Class 7: Frankenstein AI (No reading)

Class 8: Ibister Questions: How games move us – emotion

Q1- Games create empathy: why does it take time to get to a stage of full immersiveness for us to experience the complete empathy aspect of a game?

Q2- In her book, Ibister describes that act of giving. How do we define gifts in technology without it linking to materialism?

Q3- what does imposing responsibility in gaming mean to the definition of a gamer, creator and game?

Q4- Ibister writes “We still talk about games as if they are all the same.” what does she aim to convey to game creators by drawing attention to games with a moral code?

Class 9: Anna Anthropy Rise of the Videogame Zinesters

Q1. In Possibilia, The interactivity level is limited to the arrows on the viewer’s keyboard. However the view’s role changes, they become a director in a short movie where they are controlling the scenes and shots. What level of immersivity does this interactivity introduce?

Q2: What method did the creators of Possibilia use to film the movie? And why did they go with the personal directing approach with a love/breakup story? Were they aiming to provoke curiosity in the viewer about the story of the couple to get them to become a director and interact?

Q3- Anthropy in her book refers to big companies quest to resell games to the same demographical base they always sell for. “It’s the same small group of people who are creating the same games for themselves,” she said. What does the implication of this cycle on game researchers and game scholars? How do they approach the hegemony in this group?

Q4: In her final chapter, Anthropy writes “Every new game is a voice in the darkness.” In game design, How does changing the role of games from targeting gamers to creating for the sake of art help the makers and gamers challenge the consumerism of the gaming system? And what happens to nowadays games when more diverse games become mainstream?

Class 10: Jagoda, Patrick. Network Aesthetics

Q1: ARG’s are used to Guerilla market a media product. Thus this product becomes transmedia tool and moves to a different platform. In the “Why so serious” ARG we saw how it changed batman fan base. At what point does the marketing campaign become the product itself?

Class 11: Alternate reality gaming

Q1: In the institute movie trailer, one person mentioned that for people to think of it as a game offended them. What is the line that a game usually crosses for it to become more than that? For it to take the shape of reality.

Q2: In the article “Game or Cult” the author writes “you might call it an alternate reality game, but its creator insists the term is insufficient.” when does the creator lose the right to determine the path that their own creation will take? Including how to define it and where it goes?

Q3: The article asks whether the institute is a game or cult. Can’t it be both of those things at the same time? “If we can create a new story, through real-world narrative experiences, then we are creating reality.” Why is creating a reality a goal to many creators?

Q4: “the creators had finally revealed themselves, killing the Jejune dream in the process.” How does the creator play a role in ending their creation? And can they do that? When do the creators become part of the game?

Wed, November 21 2018 » Future Cinema

Login