Day 2 of Comic-Con is over and now, the Convention is really underway! Today’s ScriptPhD.com coverage has a heavy focus on television, and sci-fi television to be specific. Really, is there any other kind? We spent time in the press room with the stars and producers of SyFy Channel hits Caprica and Stargate Universe, our favorite geeky physics show Big Bang Theory and the exciting (first-time ever!) Comic-Con Discovery Channel unveiling of their new scripted series Reign of the Dinosaurs. As always we try to pay hommage to the roots of Comic-Con with coverage of the design tricks behind comics and graphic novels. Additionally, we provide pictorial documentation of the costumes and happenings of the Con, and our Day 2 Costume of the Day. Complete coverage under the “continue reading” cut.

From the Press Room: Stargate Universe

We were delighted to start our day with the cast of one of our favorite sci-fi shows on the air, Stargate Universe, to get a little peek into the cast’s geeky sides and what they think of their characters and show.

For star David Blue, playing the ship’s resident math geek Eli Wallace, this year is a completely different experience. Last year, there was so much uncertainty about the show’s acceptance and success, while this year, the cast walks into Comic-Con confident of where they are headed. He spoke of liking the idea of Eli as a hero, the show’s surrogate for the audience. Though he admits to being a geek, he was very hesitant to play the role when he heard about it, because of his previous computer nerd role on Moonlight for fear of typecasting. But Eli is not a stereotypical nerd, and experiences a lot more emotional and character growth over the course of Season 2. “I am proud to be a geek/nerd,” Blue says. “Everything from computer programming to comic books to video games.”

We were so thrilled to hear that David was a certified Grade A USDA organic geek, that we got him to proclaim so on camera for you guys:

Ming-Na, whose character Camile Wray is far more controversial and decisive on the show, was asked right off the bat what she’d do differently in real life as opposed to her character. “Well, I wouldn’t be a lesbian,” the married actress quipped. Turning more serious, she said that she wouldn’t be as level-headed and calm as her character, who is often asked to make difficult, morally ambiguous decisions based on emotional issues. The fan’s response to Camile is largely a love-hate relationship. She’s gotten great response from the gay community, something that Na appreciates, but Camile’s escape from cliches or stereotypes is something that has resonated. The morally wrenching decisions are a staple of the show (and sci-fi television in general), and will only continue into Season 2. “You may not like her decisions,” says Na, “But I like her.”

From the Press Room: Caprica

One of the most pivotal roles in the history of sci-fi television (the first Cylon) went to a girl that didn’t even really know the significance of the part. “I didn’t know what Battlestar was before I got the role,” admits Torresani, who was not a real sci-fi geek growing up. “I actually turned it down because I didn’t want to do [Caprica]. I wanted to do [Gossip Girl-type fluff]. It’s exciting now to [realize how important the role is], but it wasn’t nerve-wracking at the beginning. When I read the pilot, she was a spoiled brat, and then she gets in a robot. We didn’t know that I was going to be a Cylon. We just thought they’d use my voice and the robot’s body.” Filming the scenes as the Cylon, Torresani revealed, involves acting next to a giant green 7′ tall stick that everyone communicates with as the Cylon. She finds that the hardest part for her as an actress are scenes as the Cylon where she can’t communicate vocally, such as being lit on fire and not being able to utter a single word. “It’s really challenging. That’s something I never thought I’d have to do.”

We started our time with executive producer David Eick with a humdinger—the question we know fans would want to ask. What has been the producers’ reaction to mixed reviews and fan division of the show, most notably from the Battlestar Galactica fanbase? “We knew to expect a much greater mix [of opinions] because we knew going in that we were not going to craft it or market it as a spin-off of Battlestar,” replied Eick. Rather than containing cheeky references to BSG or inside jokes only the audience knows, Caprica is very much its own beast. He hopes fervently that as the show finds itself and its own focus, that the audience, too, would find its own way in the show. He reminded us that the early days of Battlestar were equally contentious in terms of critical and fan opinions. “The very first Comic-Con we came to for Battlestar was like George W. Bush showing up at an ACLU rally.”

In many ways, he feels more challenged by Caprica, which lacks the ticking time-clock feel of BSG. It’s a more sophisticated style of storytelling, which is based in defining the characters and the world around then, Rome before the fall. The mythology of that world is deepened as the show progresses, and how it’s harnessed by Zoey to express herself. Eick spoke of how much more graceful and elegant Caprica is visually and content-wise, with Blade Runner being a huge influence on the producers and writers. By contrast, BSG had much more of a Black Hawk Down, action feel to it.

By the way, Ron and David have a longstanding tradition of taking a drink of tequila together before either a major show launch or major seminar/Convention. In fact, David brought the bottle and we all had a little fun. Kidding. But seriously, folks, next time you think the storylines on Caprica are getting a liiiiiiiittle wacky, just remember this picture:

Ronald D. Moore, who made a rare media appearance at Comic-Con this year, largely echoed Eick’s comments. Caprica, he maintained is a serial, and (purposefully) as different from Battlestar Galactica as possible. In an even rarer move, Moore openly self-criticized himself for some of the early hiccups of the show. He admitted that it was hard to follow, that the story was indeed confusing, but that the show gained confidence as it went on. He predicted as strong of a build-up for Caprica as the eventual success of Battlestar Galactica. Another fun tidbit that Moore revealed was that the group marriage concept was tossed around for Battlestar Galactica, but just never found the story or the characters to make it happen.

We asked Ron about his thoughts on the current state of sci-fi and what he enjoys. “I’m probably not up to speed on a lot of other science fiction,” Moore said. “I almost avoid it now because I spend so much of my time in a science fiction world that I tend not to go there. It becomes almost like more work to watch other science fiction shows. In my brain, I’m inevitably thinking ‘How does that compare to us? And that’s their structure. How many characters do they have? I wonder what their CGI budget was.’ I haven’t watched a lot of other science fiction television for that reason.” Nevertheless, he maintains that it’s a thriving genre that will always be with us, despite the rise and fall of popularity. The one holy grail Moore hopes for is a broadcast network (read mainstream) sci-fi hit. He isn’t sure what the reason is that this popularity has remained so elusive, LOST notwithstanding. “Maybe it’s just us,” he mused. “Maybe it’s just us [the collective sci-fi geekdom], and there’s not this gigantic mass market for it in television in the way that there is a gigantic mass market for movies. Maybe that will never happen.”

We here at ScriptPhD.com hope otherwise.

From the Press Room: Big Bang Theory

If Ronald D. Moore is concerned about the viability of a basic network science fiction hit, at least he can take solace in Big Bang Theory, arguably the smartest, most successful, streamlined show about science and scientists in the history of television. We had such a fun time hanging out with the actors last year, that this year, with access to the full production team, we decided to get as much scoop from the show as possible.

One thing fans would be surprised to learn, and the first question we asked right off the bat, is just how geeky the team behind Big Bang Theory is. Producer/writer Lee Aaronson, a self-certified comics and graphic novel geek, used to own his own comic book store. This is where a lot of the inspiration for Sheldon (and the rest of the team’s) love of geek culture comes from. They also have a close relationship to UCLA physics professor and the show’s science advisor David Salzberg. Often, they will write a line like “Hey guys, I was just working on [insert science here]” and let him fill in the blanks. We were wondering about that, too!

Geeky enough? Not even close. Showrunner and co-creator Bill Prady is a former computer programmer. He’s far more excited about Apple founder Steve Wozniak guest starring on the show than any fame or fortune that has incurred because of it. He and

co-creator Chuck Lorre maintained that the geek culture was their most important singular focus in writing the show. As one might glean from walking the halls of Comic-Con, they maintained that all geeks/nerds/scientists are not the same. There is a lot of heterogeneity amongst them, and differing, personal passions—be they Star Trek or the mathematical concepts behind string theory. And where do they get all their geeky throwaway lines? “Oh, those are all available on the internet!” And THAT is why we love Big Bang Theory.

The actors themselves get right in the thick of the fun. Kaley Cuoco, playing perhaps the non-geekiest of the bunch in Penny, has nevertheless embraced geekdom. Her latest love? Her iPad! She and Johnny Galecki would both like to see a romance blossom between Penny and Sheldon (“Peldon,” joked Cuoco), but acknowledge that the road from platonic friendship to romantic involvement is filled with bumps and individual growth. Jim Parsons, who I shamelessly adore, started his time with us by telling me to shove it. He was, of course, talking about my tape recorder, but when I joked that I couldn’t believe Sheldon told me to shove it, his reply was: “And he’d tell you to shove it again and again!” Before telling Simon Helberg to bite him. Nice to know he stays in character so well!

We couldn’t leave a Big Bang Theory press room without getting our favorite superior elitist nerd to do something only for ScriptPhD.com fans. So here you have it, kids. From Jim Parsons, to you… a personal “Bazinga!”

Comics Design

One of THE most fascinating panels that we attended at Comic-Con so far was on the design secrets behind some of your favorite comics and book covers. A panel of some of the world’s leading designers revealed their methodologies (and sometimes failures) in the design process behind their hit pieces. An unparalleled purview into the mind of the designer, and the visual appeal that so often subliminally contributes to the success of a graphic novel, comic, or even regular book. We do, as it turns out, judge books by their covers.

We will be revealing each designer’s comments on their thought and art process, but are waiting for images from the panel to be emailed to us. So consider this a placeholder until we can finish this writeup and include it in Saturday or Sunday’s coverage. Stay tuned . . .

Graphic Novels: The Personal Touch

(From our correspondent Bryy Miller)

Some panels have mysterious names, some not so much. This one belongs in the latter category. There was no hidden meaning behind the phrase “personal touch.” This was all about the writers (Gabrielle Bell of Cecil & Jordan in New York, Howard Cruse of Stuck Rubber Baby, Vanessa Davis of Make Me A Woman, Larry Marder of Beanworld, Jilliam Tamaki of Skim, C. Tyler of You’ll Never Know, and moderator Shaenon Garrity of Skin Horse). More importantly and interestingly, it was about who they were. Some didn’t know who they were, others did, but they all knew one thing: that something inside of them needed to write.

Tamaki started off the discussion by stating perhaps the simplest answer of why she writes what she does, “I think that’s the only kind of book I wanna make.” Davis continued by adding that “anytime… it’s going to have a personal touch. Comics can soak up the people’s idiosyncrasies and sensibilities.” Marder, perhaps the odd man in the group, stated that even though his autobiography is a FANTASY, it still is an autobiography in the sense that it tells stories about his own feelings. Before anyone else could chime in, C. Tyler (arguably the oldest member of the panel) shot to life with an amazing amount of energy and playfulness. “I’ve taken autobiographies for granted.” she started “I know we’re at Comic-Con, but I hate superhero comics. When I read the first autobiographical comic, I was floored… it was disturbing and in a comic.” She went on to describe how she is fascinated with the idea of putting yourself out there, grabbing pieces of scraps from the table and showing us as if they were her life story – or even her creative process – in visual form. She would get extremely animated, and it really helped to humanize the element of the mysterious writer’s block and constant internal struggle to find how to portray your story. She ended her opening remarks with this, “the personal touch for me is I do it all by hand.”

Bell was the most reluctant to speak, but also, besides Tyler, the most visual. Not in the sense that she was very gesticulative or alive, but that she obviously was thinking very hard but having trouble in how to phrase her thoughts. “I try to cut my personal touch out,” she started, displaying the classic writer’s twitch of not looking directly at her audience “[I try to] make it universal. Professional.”

This instigated a very visceral response from Tyler, who on the spot tried to get into an earnest conversation with her fellow comic artist about what it means to be professional. Sadly, it didn’t last that long as Bell migrated back into thought. Cruse then brought up the point that, if your content is good, then mistakes in your craft are easily overlooked by a reader. The discussion (because calling it a panel at the end would just feel weird) had reached its time limit. Cruse gave some parting advice to young writers, “It will literally paralyze you to think of how many people have an idea similar to yours.” Marder stated that you have to fail in public. Garrity reminded everyone to heed that advice, as “Carol, Larry, and Howard have been in the comics since the seventies.”

Tyler let out a self-taunting gag.

Reign of the Dinosaurs

In November of 2008, the hoi polloi at Discovery Channel approached producer Erik Nelson (Grizzly Man) with a simple request: “the ultimate kick-ass dinosaur show.” They poured enormous resources, creative and fiduciary, to create a television series that will truly break ground, both for Discovery Channel and its own medium. Scripted, yet unnarrated, scientifically stunning, yet bereft of the omniscient “talking head” paleontologist, Reign of the Dinosaurs is the ultimate exercise in “show don’t tell.” Premiering in the Spring of 2011, Reign will consist of 36 self-contained episodes erected from the art up. The stories will be chronological, detailing the rise, reign, and ultimate extinction (with a twist!) of the dinosaur species. But unlike the plethora of educational shows that cover the same topic, these will be rooted in storytelling, in treating the dinosaurs not as dinosaurs, but characters with whom we share an emotional connection. Trust me, having seen the first few world-premiere clips, you will care for these creatures, and the show will both exhilarate you and break your heart.

The true key to the success of Reign of the Dinosaurs was a dedication to amassing cream of the crop talent, formerly of Disney and Pixar, which allowed them to channel superlative animation and design talents towards an ambitious format. Along with Nelson, the team (and Comic-Con panel) consisted of renowned artists Ricardo Delgado (Dark Horse’s Age of Reptiles), Tom DeRosier (Lilo and Stitch, Mulan), self-proclaimed dinosaur nerd David Krentz (Disney’s Dinosaur, John Carter of Mars), Iain McCaig (Star Wars 1, 2, and 3), Mishi McCaig (Iron Man), Pete Von Sholly (The Mask, Darkman). Along with showing the audience their two (so-far) completed “cold open” teasers that will open episodes of the show, several of the animators simulated storyboard pitches (see picture below), just like the ones they would exchange in a writers’ room for several forthcoming episodes.

Several things impressed me upon the early viewing of Reign of the Dinosaurs, aside from the stunning art direction and well thought-out design. First of all, this show is really cheeky and funny. When the writers say that they’ll give the creatures personalities, they mean it, and it’s all done through expository action rather than showy narration. An early cold open has a dinosaur, trying to soothe her babies to sleep in the wee hours of the dawn, annoyed at the incessant chirping of a smaller dinosaur deep in the forest. Finally, she marches over and does what a dinosaur would do: bites the head off of her more annoying, diminutive co-habiting pest. Literally. Secondly, the stories pack an emotional wallop. A cinema-quality sequence shown at the end, taking place post-impact of the asteroid that ultimately killed off the dinosaurs, has the post-apocalyptic feel of Cormack McCarthy’s The Road (which the illustrator said influenced him) and visual appeal of Blade Runner. The ending, a hopeful coda on the extinction of the dinosaurs as an evolutionary stepping stone for our modern birds, had me sobbing. And then giving the panel a standing ovation.

Spring of 2011 is far away in television terms, but close enough for me to say this. Be excited, folks. Be very, very excited.

From the Press Room: Reign of the Dinosaurs

Not only did we get treated to a front-row preview of Reign of the Dinosaurs, ScriptPhD.com was extraordinarily fortunate to join the Discovery creative team for an intimate roundtable discussion panel after their panel. We were able to get enormous insight into the team’s collaborative process, storytelling aims, and dedication to balancing scientific accuracy with emotional connection, all while reinventing an entire medium. Ambitious? Just slightly.

One of the first things that impressed me upon talking to the Reign of the Dinosaurs team after their panel was their sheer dedication to, almost obsession with, “getting the science right.” Mishi McCaig and Iain McCaig spoke at length about the team’s dedication to nearing the line between science and entertainment. Hugely important to the project was the involvement of renowned University of Maryland paleontologist Thomas Holz, Jr., who cross-checks and gets pitched all the storyboard ideas. The behavior depicted in the show is speculative, but based on facts. This includes the animal’s muscle movements, how they would hunt prey, how they would interact—all aided by the paleontology knowledge of illustrator Dave Krentz. Ultimately, the team wants interest in the show to launch a more widespread educational initiative, which will include a Discovery multi-media website, and other supplementary materials to the show itself. Even when stories delve into the outrageous or fun, they’re rooted in research. A clip depicting high dinosaurs hallucinating was rooted in the marula tree, whose hallucinogenic fruit animals will eat and get high off of.

Producer Erik Nelson and illustrators Tom DeRosier and Ricardo Delgado spoke at length about the collaborative process of making the show, which they described like a TV writing room, only with animators. “Everyone’s sensibilities came together in a ‘hive mind’,” said Nelson. This visionary approach was important to the team, which is essentially trying to reinvent a TV genre. The last non-narrated, no-dialogue animated show was Walt Disney’s “Silly Symphonies” back in 1938. Needless to say, we’ve come a long way since then. The team was amazed at how constructing the dinosaurs’ stories moved them, comparing their effort to “March of the Penguins,” another simple vehicle showcasing animals that was rooted in an emotional audience response. This empathy for the dinosaurs peaks with the show’s conclusion, in which the dinosaurs die out (spoiler alert!), but which is still painted in an upbeat, survivalist way, as most geologists and paleontologists agree that modern birds are the direct evolutionary ancestors of dinosaurs.

“We’re not trying to hook you as a dinosaur person,” concluded Delgado. “We’re trying to hook you as a human being.”

Two last fun tidbits from today. Last year, on Day 3 of Comic-Con, we got geeky in the press room with our friend Barry of The Ugly Couch Show. When we saw each other again this year, we thought we’d start an annual tradition. So here it is, ladies and gentlemen. Two very tired, cranky, overworked press corps members getting silly in the press room:

And last, but definitely not least, is a very worthy Day 2 Costume of the Day. These ladies hit it out of the park. Bonus points if you can tell us which comics they’re representing:

Come back tomorrow for more geeky sci-fi fun! And don’t forget to become a fan of our Facebook fan page for extra Comic-Con photos and a chance to win amazing surprise swag when we get back from San Diego.

~*ScriptPhD*~

*****************
ScriptPhD.com covers science and technology in entertainment, media and advertising. Hire our consulting company for creative content development.

Subscribe to free email notifications of new posts on our home page.

Greetings from sunny San Diego, everyone! ScriptPhD.com is in the absolute epicenter of sci-fi, comics and the illustrative arts: Comic-Con 2010. Armed with a press pass, our wonderful correspondent Brian Stempien of Lefty Films, and an industrial-sized vat of Purell, we are proud to bring you four-day coverage that spans the nexus of sci-fi, graphic arts, design, technology, film, television, and of course, the forum that started it all, comics. Day 1 coverage includes an array of panels covering the origins that drive an artist’s imagination, the future of cultural arts in a digital age, the future of space exploration with Iron Man’s Stark Industries as a model, good sci-fi, bad sci-fi, sci-fi that will change your life, and a conversation with two leading visionaries of the sci-fi genre, J.J. Abrams and Joss Whedon. ScriptPhD.com also got to chat with the stars and producers of our favorite forensics show, Dexter. Plus, we have a little secret teaser interview with a certain MythBusters star that we’ve been teasing for a good while now! As we always do at Comic-Con, we pick our Costume of the Day as part of our compete Day 1 coverage, under the “continue reading” cut.

The Spark of Imagination

What better way to begin a four-day celebration of visual imagination than a panel of distinguished artists and designers discussing the “spark” that originates imagination, how to harness concepts and ideas, and how they feel imagination informs the creative process. The panel consisted of Tony DiTerlizzi (illustrator of The Spiderwick Chronicles), Travis Knight (lead animator of Disney’s Coraline), Hellboy creator/writer Mike Mignola, Kung Fu Panda director John Stevenson, Doug TenNapel (illustrator/writer of Earthworm Jim), and moderator Geoff Boucher of the LA Times blog The Hero Complex.

Let’s be honest, creative types are weird, weird people, me being one of them. Unequivocal unanimity was reached that this very oddness, which might alienate a person from the mainstay of society, was the very fuel that drove creativity and imagination. Tony DiTerlizzi recalled being a daydreaming doodler from elementary school onward, never listening to anything his teachers or figures of authority said to him, almost inhabiting his own world. (Sound familiar, creative readers?) Travis Knight concurred, adding that spontaneity, a side benefit of idiosyncrasy, is absolutely essential to the core of imagination. Artists never really grow up; they start out as hermits hiding in basements, grow into high school kids that get shoved into lockers, and end up playing with dolls as adults. But in a way, he added, it’s wonderful and liberating to live on the fringes of society, to see things in a way that adults have forgotten how to. Hellboy creator Mike Mignola expressed amazement and awe at people wiling to be brave enough to create things for the sake of creation, even if it will never see the light of day. “Let’s face it,” Knight sighed. “There’s something wrong with us.”

Recognizing and managing productive imagination when it happens were also a popular consensus among the group. It’s really easy to come up with stuff, maintains Doug TenNapel; it’s not really a special gift or ability and we all have it to some degree. The hard part is the execution in all forms of art. There are millions of ideas that will cross through our minds that will never see the light of day not because they’re not good, but because they aren’t viable. To develop those skills of managing and presenting ideas and putting them to use so one can make a living off of them, an artist has to become an “imagination editor” that parses out the ones that matter. Thank goodness Mignola refined that skill, or Hellboy never would have seen the light of day. He’d been drawing for years at conventions and other comics gatherings, usually on-demand for fans. After endless renditions of popular figures such as Batman, the fans wanted something more original, and Mignola sketched an early, rough inception of what would become Hellboy. Later, when asked to contribute a monster to a convention comic book, he recycled the character, drawing “Hellboy” on his belt to fill a blank spot on the page. Only later, when Mignola wanted to do his own comics, would the stories and three-dimensional world grow around that original central character.

DiTerlizzi also utilizes a character as a focal point for his stories. In order to care about a world, he reminded the audience, you must first care about the character that will inhabit it. How to come up with these characters and worlds? Research, imagination, and life experience! In researching a new character for Coraline, a model, Travis Knight watched YouTube videos of runway models. His biggest regret as he walked the halls of Comic-Con was seeing so many sequels, rehashes and remakes of 1980s TV shows and recycled concepts, and such a paucity of new thinking and bold ideas. This, Knight maintained, is the driving force for the future group of designers and illustrators.

Ultimately, making movies, TV shows, and even designing is inherently a collaborative process, one that the artist must accept if they want to derive the pinnacle of their imagination. John Stevenson ended the panel by emphasizing the three key concepts of successfully harnessing imagination: collaboration and sharing (all too lacking in the modern, fearful world of design and illustration), inspiring the people you’re working with as a leader, and thanking people and showing appreciation for those that have contributed to the betterment of a project.

Be inspired. Create. Let your imaginations soar!

Iron Man and Rocket Men: Is Stark Industries an Appropriate Model for Private-Industry Space Exploration?

Iron Man was easily one of our favorite sci-fi movies from the past couple of years… and really, what was not to love? Geeky gadgets, innovative applications, and a true purview into the scientific discovery process (more on this later). More than a few mainstream publications have noted the strong ties the movie has to innovation (a couple of good ones can be found here and here). But a bigger tie-in can be argued between Tony Stark himself and the government contractors that constitute the vast majority of the space infrastructure, most notably NASA. So when we saw a Comic-Con panel devoted to exploring this very topic, we jumped at the chance to catch some of the action. Leading New Space entrepreneurs Mark Street (XCOR Aerospace) and John Hunter (Quicklaunch) joined Chris Radcliff (SD Space) and Dave Rankin (The Mars Society—San Diego chapter), with moderator Jeff Berkwits (former Amazing Stories editor) gathered to discuss what is right and wrong with NASA, and how the presence of small businesses can only help quicken the ‘space race.’

First and foremost, let’s define New Space. When we talk about Stark Industries, for example, we are talking about the most extreme example of the tech-based industry, representing the Lockheed Martins and Boeings (and to some degree NASAs) of the world—funded by the government, developing missiles, rockets, and even top-secret projects. New Space, and the small, innovative companies that are leading the forefront of its revolution, represent realistic opportunities for outer space exploration. They are Tony Stark working in his basement, on the cheap, on experiments that no one is seemingly interested in. In this case, it’s the idea of making space exploration available to ordinary people, not just military or astronauts.

The first half of the seminar consisted of a very heated argument about why more companies have not been able to take the lead in space exploration and where, exactly, NASA has stagnated so much. Mark Street pointed out the dichotomy between the entrenched business models of industry versus small companies, some of whom are already launching innovative space solutions and making a profit off of them. The established market, on the other hand, has a steady source of defined income, and no real incentive to decrease costs associated with space travel, which will take lots of investment and trial and error. Boeing isn’t building the next rocket, per se, but they are building airplanes thanks to already established rules and comfort zones. Smaller companies are ultimately able to address these problems thanks to risk-taking, failure, learning lessons, and innovating. John Hunter likened NASA to a modern March of Dimes, a philanthropic organization that was relevant back in the 60s, when it helped cure polio, but has since usurped 90% of donations for cost overhead and only 10% for actual causes that it supports. NASA’s budget of $18 billion consists of 70% “legacy” projects and 30% new innovation. What they need, he claimed, is new thinking, new risk taking. During the space war with Russia, “some of the dumbest guys I knew were looking for jobs at NASA,” Hunter maintains. “Because they knew they could study vortexes coming off of golf balls for the next twenty years.” Ouch.

To Dave Rankin, this was somewhat unfair. He invoked the sign at the X-Prize launch of Spaceship 1: “Spaceship 1: 1, NASA: 0”. To be sure, the X-Prize accomplishment was a worthy one, but NASA has been launching human beings to space stations for years, and they are still the only ones with a proven track record in the United States. Part of the problem is that because NASA is subject to political whim, it has no clear-cut focus with its identity (does it launch rockets, do basic research, innovate new technology, etc?). That lack of risk-taking at NASA is where you wind up with stagnation; it’s so big, with so many stake holders, that the sheer size lends itself to bureaucracy. The panel also brought up NASA’s two shining stars: the Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, CA, and the Hubble Space Telescope. While JPL provides some of the world’s best robotics, such as the Mars Rover, the photography coming from outer space is simply amazing. “You can’t put a dollar value on some of what NASA does. It’s who we are as human beings, but you can’t make a profit off of it. As humans, we have to keep looking into what are the places of the universe and how did we come to be here,” said Chris Radcliffe. Quipped Rankin: “Let it not be said that government does not fund the arts.”

Take a look at a video of the first commercial launch into space:

The inspiration for New Space exploration—for sticking Tony Stark into a basement—is that we need some more inspiration from space exploration than we are getting from traditional launches, and that will involve sending more people into space. Chris Radcliffe gave an example of a young engineer working at Hewlett-Packard in its early days who had the brilliant idea that computers could be more than technical devices; they could be personalized, streamlined, and made accessible to everyone. Hewlett-Packard didn’t agree, so he formed his own company and made that computer. The man? Steve Wozniak. The company? Apple. The computer? The Apple I. Like many of the companies comprising the New Space revolution, the design process in Iron Man is from top down, but the fun part is in the testing—you never quite get the process right the first time around.

Overall, the panel was very optimistic about the future of space travel and exploration, but emphasized the importance of spin-offs and small companies as a means to accomplish that. The biggest hurdles they will face is lowering prices of going to space, and overcoming the bad publicity of any first deaths that may come from the danger factor. Foreign competitors will have an even bigger role in driving our exploration. China will keep us on our toes, as they are very good at taking an idea, copying it and productionizing it. What will be the role of these companies in space exploration? Chris Radcliffe is pretty sure that space tourism will succeed, but that it will only comprise about 5% of the market. But it will be enough to drive producing vehicles and rockets and spacesuits and supplemental research off of things that will make money. The NASA CRuSR project, for example, takes existing suborbital platforms and doing science (in this case access to space for a reasonable cost) that they otherwise could not do on their own.

One of the more lighthearted moments, amidst a lot of PhD degree flaunting both from the panel and several people who asked questions, was a gentleman who prefaced his question by saying “I work in a coffee shop.” The reply from the panel: “You’re my hero!” While he respected space exploration as an ideal, he wondered whether the enormous cost of availing space to the average man might be better spent on pragmatic problems that can be solved right here and right now. Unanimously, the panel agreed that expanding human presence in space can only improve standards of living for everyone. If we wait until all our earthly problems are solved, they maintained, we’ll never do anything else.

Dave Rankin gave perhaps the best reason why New Space could be the future of exploration. “Space exploration is a forum for humanity: when we find a new space, we try to fill it.” We think Tony Stark would agree.

State of the Geek Report

From the more substantial programming of earlier in the day, we decided to devote the rest of Day 1 of Comic-Con to exploring our inner geek, with two panels looking at the best (and worst) of sci-fi in current entertainment. We started off with the “State of the Geek Report” panel, an exploration of the state of science fiction, fantasy, and horror in television and film today, and what the success of Avatar means for the future of movies. Steve Melching (The Clone Wars), Ashley E. Miller (Thor, X-Men: First Class), Steve Kriozere (Elvis Van Helsing), and Bill Hung and Todd Doogan of Digital Bits joined Geek Monthly editor and moderator Jeff Bond in discussing all things geeky in modern sci-fi.

Overall, the panel agreed that 2010 (largely carrying over from 2009) was one of the strongest years on record for sci-fi content. In some ways, we are at a peak of great sci-fi presence in pop culture and visual mediums, echoing 1982, considered by some to be the greatest year for sci-fi movies ever (Android, Blade Runner, ET, Forbidden World, The Wrath of Khan, Tron, etc). However, Bill Hunt maintained that Hollywood continues to try too hard to make every sci-fi film an “event,” and is getting excited for releases, but for all the wrong reasons. Not every film can be a blockbuster. In the past year, of the sci-fi films that got high marks from Jeff Bond, many were produced on extremely low budgets, including Moon, District 9, and the indie sci-fi film Yesterday Was a Lie. He also gave high marks to Star Trek and Avatar, which is where the panel took a big of a detour.

While Bond felt that the traditional, universal storytelling and high craft of Avatar made it a great success, Ashley Miller felt otherwise. Every dollar spent on the film was for aesthetics, and indeed, frame by frame, it is a beautiful film, including changing our expectations of what a 3D film should look like. However, as a complete work of art, it was shockingly lacking. To that, the panel brought up the point that what Cameron did with Avatar was harness 3D technology effectively, but the idea that every film now needs to be in 3D is ridiculous. Of recent releases, the brilliant Inception manages to be a challenging, engaging movie without the use of 3D technology.

Visionaries such as Christopher Nolan and James Cameron are given a lot of autonomy in their filmmaking—they are auteurists whose vision leads to the ultimate conclusion. Does sci-fi filmmaking lack for more Nolans and Camerons of the world? Autonomy, the panel decided, is earned. And not every director walking around is a Chris Nolan or James Cameron. Cameron made the original Terminator, which many feel is one of the greatest sci-fi movies of all time, on a shoestring budget. And Nolan used every penny of Inception’s mega-budget wisely. District 9 (which ScriptPhD.com loved) was shot in South Africa, with a native cast, on a very small budget. Moon, which we also liked, did all their special effects on model scale, with digital enhancements.

Ultimately, sci-fi is hurting most from studios turning everything into a “brand”: they are minimizing risk with constant remakes, but will ultimately have to swallow their tails and go towards original content at the risk of running out of material to remake. Sci-fi on television, which does not wallow in such an ignominious fate, is suffering from an embarrassment of riches. Highlights included Caprica, which invented an original, immersive futuristic world, and Stargate, which indulges in the essence of science fiction; to get the scope of wonder about other planets and life forms in the universe. (We will be joining cast and crew from both of these shows on Day 2 of Comic-Con!)

Abusing the Sci of Sci-Fi

From a discussion of the best of sci-fi, we went to what always ends up being one of our favorite Comic-Con panels, Discovery Magazine and Science and Entertainment Exchange’s “Science of Science Fiction.” Hosted by the hilarious, delightful and brilliant physicist Phil Plait (of the Bad Astronomoy blog), the panel was an equal mix of writers and scientists: Eureka creator/head writer Jaime Paglia, Battlestar Galactica and Eureka science advisor/physicist Kevin Grazier, Fringe writer Zack Stentz, and physicist/author Sean M. Carroll.

In perhaps one of the smartest ways we’ve seen yet at Comic-Con, the panel collectively provided examples of “good” and “bad” science on television and in film through clips. We’ll provide you with some of the highlights. Plait started the procession by admitting that he himself became interested in astronomy by watching Star Trek and Space:1999, and maintains that there is a lot of inspiring science in television and film, despite the bad. That said, his “worst” clip was from Armageddon, a scene Plait maintains is possibly the worst science film clip ever—Bruce Willis is supposedly on an asteroid and yet it’s raining! “Jerry Bruckheimer, you’re not in the audience are you?” He asked. “Armageddon. Worrrrrrrrrrst movie ever made!”

Paglia, bravely, picked scenes from Eureka as both his “good” and “bad” clips. The bad was a terrible attempt at an episode where nanoids have started to replicate biological organisms, while the good was an episode where Eureka made its own version of the Hadron supercollider. Quipped Stentz: “I have lived in Eureka in Northern California. Let me telll you…not filled with geniuses!”

Grazier, agreeing with Plait that Armageddon is the worst science film ever made, maintains that it has lessons of both good and bad science. In a scene showing the hypothetical impact of the impending asteroid (complete with overdramatic voiceover: “It has happened before, it will happen again!”), the shock wave of the impact is shown traveling around the Earth, which would not happen, while secondary impacts, which would happen, are omitted. The film was overly dramatic where it didn’t need to be, and yet missed out on an opportunity to show really scary science that was accurate. “It’s the only film that ever lost me in the first 30 seconds,” said Grazier. That said, the scenes showing post-asteroid tsunamis and other ramifications are so perfect, they could be a computer simulation for an asteroid impact on Earth.

Stentz, in a bit of writer’s defense, pointed out a bad scene from Fringe where the science was purposely abused in the service of an otherwise good episode. He wanted to illustrate that sometimes, you have to break the rules in order to tell the story you want to tell. Here, the writers wrote a story line where Walter’s hippocampus was “stolen” to remove his memory. To retrieve it, the team suggests implanting the memories (via the brain pieces) in the brain of someone who could interpret them. “I’m not a neurologist, but I know enough about memory to know that it doesn’t work that way. We knew that when we wrote it. We wanted the drama of a theft from someone’s brain, and how do you use them. That’s why you heard the line, ‘In theory, you shouldn’t be able to do that.’”

Carroll, ever the ambitious physicist, provided a theory, as opposed to just clips, against the philosophical backdrop of issues raised by the demands of narrative versus scientific accuracy. Take a look at the following Big Bang Theory clip of Sheldon explaining Superman and gravity:

This is the right way to think about science versus storytelling. A lot of writers are afraid of scientists because, frankly, we’re ANNOYING. We act as copy editors: “You can’t do this. You can’t do that.” But scientists are also good at telling you the consequences of existing laws, even if it ruins the romance of Superman. Science can make a story better by following this formula for conflict. On the opposite side of the spectrum, you have the mysterious “Red Matter” from this past year’s Star Trek remake. No one knew what the stuff was, how it worked, just that it was a ball, it was bad, and you had to use a hypodermic needle to handle it. It’s far more interesting if you know the rules, can explain the science, and integrate that smartly into the storyline.

A lot of times, people think science fiction means anything can happen at any time, and that’s actually science magic. The rules don’t have to be scientific rules, but good drama comes out of limitations (scientific or otherwise), characters not being able to do something and coming up with another solution for it. As a working writer in TV/film, you want people wanting clarity on one side, but on the other had, you don’t want people to feel stupid and you can’t bore them. You can introduce science and technology in a way that heightens the excitement rather than taking them back to science class. ER used a writing trick to make this happen: one line of exposition, another line of exposition (medical jargon), then an emotional line telling you what happens. Ellen Page of the recent move Inception served this purpose as the audience member—what questions would they ask of the characters in the movie. To this degree, Carroll awarded Iron Man the award for best “science” movie of recent times, not for any specific science content, but because building the suit shows the true scientific method, and that’s how it’s really done in the lab!

Our intrepid correspondent Bryy Miller also went to two very exciting panels that covered a bit more mainstream pop culture. Here is what he had to report:

Tripwire Magazine

I had a theater class in high school, and we used to say that it was the most “un-schooly” class ever. It existed within the confines of the high school, but did not feel as constricting or regulated. Sitting in with the guys from Tripwire Magazine, a joint UK-American geek culture print, evoked the same feeling. It understood that the Con existed, but the speakers (Editor-in-Chief Joel Meadows, U.S. Editor Andy Grossberg, and Staff Writer Jeff Carlisle, and guest speaker Rich Johnston [editor of Bleeding Cool News]) were so aloof and full of intelligent confidence that everything seemed to fade away. They made the audience feel like they were a part of Tripwire – Joel even mocked the obscurity of their little magazine being at Comic-Con by proclaiming “welcome to the Tron panel, everyone!”

Their little magazine, starting as nothing more than fan scribblings in 1992, slowly gained notoriety over the years until they halted for a bit in 2003 due to their current publisher financially screwing them over. They got back on the horse in 2007, and since then, have gone on to catch things in geek culture such as the coveted first set visit for the superhero film, Kick-Ass. This proved to come back to teach them a further lesson in industry magazine politics, as the article was released a full year before it was assumed that it would. Tripwire covers everything in geek culture except music and gaming, and now they have set their eyes on new media such as webcomics and webserials.

“Anyone can get in, but how do you get people’s attention?” Grossberg mused, before giving Felicia Day’s The Guild as an example. A highly successful webseries about gaming, The Guild has a frothing following that has attained such levels due to catering to an audience that already surfs the web daily, and that would most likely consist of gamers. But Grossberg has another theory, and it is much more pernicious in nature as well as much harder to digest. “You know what they expect [newspaper] editors to do?” Grossberg asks Meadows, talking about the changing roles of businessmen in the digital age. The Editor-in-Chief simply replies: “Everything”. Turning to us, Andy Grossgberg comes to the summary of the thought that he started with The Guild, and that is that old media is dying because nobody has an attention span. He then goes on to lay out all of the various people involved in the making of a print comic versus the one or ones involved in making a webcomic. Carlisle then speaks up with his input on if you want to make money as a comic creator in the age of new media, “do a webcomic … everything will be the same thing [as far as everything being digital].”

This all went over fairly well until they asked to see a show of hands concerning who knew what they were talking about. Apparently, I was the only hand that shot up. It seems that the digital divide is still there, which scared me, considering we just spent an hour talking about how fast the winds of change are blowing. The panel ended with a heated discussion over which comic adaptation is the most “meta” because after all, this is Comic-Con.

EW Visionaries: J.J. Abrams and Joss Whedon

Both J.J. Abrams (Alias, co-creator of Lost, What About Brian?, Cloverfield) and Joss Whedon (Buffy the Vampire Slayer, Firefly) are rock stars in the world of television genre writing. So it would go without saying that their combined might upon one singular panel would cause another big bang, or the birth of a unicorn, or at least get a boatload of fans churned up to Twilight-levels of excitement. That was the feeling in the enormous venue Hall H: that the world would halt for a brief hour while these two decided how to continue shaping it. Well, unfortunately, no unicorns were birthed. Fortunately, it was still a good time. Instead of the melding of ideas and thoughts, it was more of a dinner between two famous film people that enjoyed answering questions specifically asked of or about them. They would occasionally reference that the other dinner guest was eating at the sane table, but other than that, it could have been a Joss Whedon panel followed by a J.J. Abrams panel.

The moderator opened it up with a hum-dinger, asking Whedon if he was indeed officially announcing that he would be directing Marvel’s superhero team flick, The Avengers. At first, Whedon said that there was no official word yet, but then he followed that by saying the official word. This, needless to say, got a gigantic response from the unfathomably-huge, wide, and deep crowd. Abrams had nothing new, but gave a movie story none-the-less: when he was a small child, one of the crew members from The Exorcist mailed him an actual tongue from the movie. It was in no way related to what Whedon had just announced, nor was it a movie announcement, but it somehow felt like it was contributing to the larger narration of the panel. Abrams was then asked about his infamous draft of Superman Returns, in which Krypton does not explode and Lex Luthor is an alien. “It was not well received” Abrams sheepishly said, referencing the fan-storm that had swept the internet mere hours after it was put online. Abrams followed that up with talking about how he managed to team up with Steven Spielberg for Super 8, his mysterious monster move that, even though a teaser has been released, is not yet filming. “I was told that Steven Spielberg made movies when he was my age,” Abrams began “so they asked me and my friend to clean up some of his old movies…. They have in-house studios for that sort of thing, and they paid us $300, and I knew why they did not do that”. He added that the film would not be in 3D.

Whedon stated that he was fine with 3D, as long as it was done well. He was also fine with 3D as long as it was not in his upcoming horror movie, Cabin in the Woods – which it is. “I love it, it puts you in the space… [but] the movie has to work in 2D” he said. Abrams revealed that he was still on the fence regarding the issue, “everything gets dim… it seems less.”

Before a rather banal question and answer session filled with every Whedon and Abrams fanboy imaginable, Whedon took the time to talk about Dr. Horrible 2, the much talked about sequel to Dr. Horrible’s Sing Along Blog. When discussing the project, which would continue the story set forth in his webseries created during the Writer’s Strike (and has since become the second Whedon-written musical to become a staple of Comic-Con). “I missed my window,” Whedon said, on the topic of digital media “I was waiting for people to show up to the party.”

Even though the Q&A session was quite lame, and I do not like Abrams, something spectacular happened at the very end of the panel. A young lady asked if criticism is ever okay for writers, since her brother recently asked for some and then shut himself off from her when he received it. This clearly made Abrams livid, as he asked for the man’s phone number. His intentions were clear. That’s when I finally found something I liked about Abrams. I connected with him as a writer and as a human being. In the big picture, that’s what these panels are for. Not to showcase new projects or to grandstand, but to connect.

From the Press Room: DEXTER

ScriptPhD.com was extremely fortunate to join producers and stars of SHOWTIME hit Dexter on their way to their Comic-Con panel. Here’s some dirt that we picked up! (We promise to catch up with Michael C. Hall, who was literally rushed out before our very eyes, back in Los Angeles in a separate post devoted entirely to Dexter.)

The production staff at Dexter is getting a shake-up. This year, they’ve added several new producers, including Tony Goldwin (pictured), who visited Comic-Con along with the old guard to give us some insight into things we can expect from the show this season. Part of the strategy of the “new energy” is a shake-up of the show itself. The producers wanted to avoid the “one season, one adversary” formula and recalibrate the show’s content while delivering the same pleasing product to the audience. So expect a lot of differences this year with what Dexter deals with and whom he battles with (if at all).

Unlike a lot of other shows adopting the popular meme of “skipping time” for resolution, Dexter will pick up right where we left off to get all the blowback over Rita’s death. And what a lot of blowback there is! The newest change, producers tell us, is that Dexter is feeling a new emotion for the first time… guilt. It’s something he’s never felt before and quite new for him. Much of this is because he was so hopeful as the season ended that things might actually be heading towards a positive change, that he might get rid of the dark passenger, he was looking forward to a honeymoon with Rita, only to come home and find her dead and his son in a pool of blood. Dealing with that will be very difficult for him, but the producers couldn’t tease us with more. On top of all of this, people are starting to figure his tendencies out, which adds yet another layer of complexity.

ScriptPhD.com asked about the forensics of the show and how they’re keeping it fresh. Said Producer Sara Colleton: “Well, we have an expert who works with us, and they’re the tech person. You just keep up to date with what is used by police. What we don’t do is CSI-style, flashy, make-believe forensics. I don’t know how to go in your nose and down your throat and find a bullet and say “Here it is!” We really try to play by the rules in terms of how long a DNA test takes, what the limitations of top forensics are. We want those things to be real, because the conceit of the show is so unreal, that we want everything else to feel real.”

Jennifer Carpenter (Deb Morgan) was very excited about Season 5’s changes, though she admitted that for the first time, she really didn’t know what was going to happen. In the beginning of the season, Deb hopes that she and Dexter have a certain kinship, because they’ve both experienced loss, but that isn’t quite what happens. She correctly noted something I’ve noticed a lot about Deb, which is that she does a lot of talking at Dexter, and not with Dexter, which leads to his typical one-word answers. Jennifer noted that a lot of times, women in particular are guilty of “filling in the blanks” with the stories we want to hear (guilty as charged!), which affects Deb’s relationship with Dexter. She felt a little pressure of Comic-Con, with such a concentration of die-hard fans that you have to please, but pointed out that this is also the great thing about Dexter; they hate you one week and love you the next. Jennifer also hinted at growing suspicion on Deb’s part about Dexter, who experiences his grief a lot differently than her, but that the sister part of her refuses to piece it together. We asked Jennifer about the growing stripping away of Deb’s vulnerability, and how much more of that we’ll see in the upcoming season, and frankly, what she thought of it as character growth. Here’s what she had to say:

“I have to say that last year, Keith Carradine (Lundy), his line “You’re confused, and now you’re not. We’ll figure it out together.” was the first time on the show that I’ve heard someone say (to Deb) I’m going to help you. And then immediately he’s dead. That one line helped me play [the character] for seven episodes. I think about it now and I could cry my eyes out. This year, I feel like it’s about standing up straight, choosing your words, how you enter a room, she’s not editing herself, but she’s calculating. She’s working like a cop. And a little less of a potty mouth.” But not too much, she promised us!

Finally, we are thrilled to publish an interview that we have teased you about long enough. As we await the yearly MythBusters panel, always a hit here in San Diego, we had the opportunity to get some pre-Comic-Con scoop from one of our favorite MythBusters about her new hosting adventure on the Science Channel. Check it out:

Interview with MythBusters’s Kari Byron

ScriptPhD.com: Head Rush will primarily be aimed at kid-enthusiastic presentations of science. How did your interest in hosting and putting this show come together?

Kari Byron: This has been a passion project that Debbie Myers [general manager of The Science Channel], The Science Channel and I have been talking about for a while. There is a disconnect at about the age of 12 where girls stop being interested in science. And we just wanted to figure out a way to get them, and obviously all kids around that age, interested in science in a way that they could be passionate about it as well. We figured if we could create a show that was cool, not talking down to them, we could keep that interest alive.

SPhD: You have a very non-traditional science background as a sculptor and painter. How important is it to you to convey that a layperson can have a healthy curiosity and passion about science?

KB: Well I obviously came to science a little later in life, and I think that’s why I have the same excitement that you’d have when you were a kid for it. I think having no science background makes it more accessible in the way that you don’t have to be a scientist to enjoy the science.

SPhD: This programs is affiliated with President Obama’s STEM initiative. You and I chatted a bit about girl power at the Discovery Channel 25th Anniversary party. What kind of responses do you get from girls that are fans of your work on MythBusters?

KB: It’s really cool! I talk to a lot of moms and teachers as well, and I get excited [that they use], I hate to use the word role model because I feel like I don’t deserve it, but it’s nice that they have a really positive response. They like seeing someone that’s more like them.

SPhD: What small sneak peek can you give us to tease fans during Comic-Con to get them super excited about watching the show?

KB: I’m actually so interested in the material that we’re doing, that I’m just amazed at the stories. We do a bunch of experiments that give a hands-on approach to science. [Head Rush] is so different from MythBusters that I can’t even compare it. We will be using clips from all the Discovery brand shows, and a lot of MythBusters, of course, but the Head Rush segment of it is its own beast. I don’t know who or what I can reveal!

There you have it folks! Kari is so excited about her new show, she is hard pressed to reveal any secrets to spoil it. We thank her and Discovery Channel for granting ScriptPhD.com a sneak preview. Head Rush will air on The Science Channel beginning August 23, Monday-Friday 4-5 ET/PT, and Saturdays, 7-9 AM ET/PT.

Comic-Con 2010 Costume of the Day: ….and the unanimous winner is…. Calendar Man! We gave points for creativity.

For a complete album of pictures from Comic-Con (and many of the costumes that didn’t quite make the running for Costume of the Day, take a look at our our Facebook fan page (and become a fan!).

~*ScriptPhD*~

*****************
ScriptPhD.com covers science and technology in entertainment, media and advertising. Hire our consulting company for creative content development.

Subscribe to free email notifications of new posts on our home page.

It’s not often that world-renowned scientists crash in the heart of Hollywood to talk about Nobel Prize-winning physics research. But on a recent summer night, the ScriptPhD, along with a handful of lucky astronomy aficionados, was treated to a light show with a side of general relativity. At LA’s famed Laserium CyberTheatre, Yale physicist Charles Baltay, also known as the man responsible for Pluto’s demise, captivated a delighted audience with about 10 billion years of physics, starting from the Big Bang to Pluto’s demise. Continuing the physics theme was a visually stunning array of laser pyrotechnics set to the thematically appropriate tune of Pink Floyd’s “Dark Side of the Moon.” For Dr. Baltay’s lecture, entitled “Exploring the Dark Side of the Universe”, and the psychedelic imagery of the world’s most advanced laser light show, please “continue reading” under the jump.

Ivan Dryer, Pioneer of the Modern Laser Light Show

The evening’s festivities were graciously hosted and introduced by Ivan Dryer, founder of the Laserium and a Los Angeles legend in the world of entertainment technology. Mr. Dryer is generally considered to be the father of commercial laser light shows. Starting out as a filmmaker in the 1970s, Dryer transitioned movie lasers used primarily for film effects into a show at the Los Angeles Griffith Observatory under the name “Laserium”. Laserium shows went on to be played in 46 cities worldwide, and were viewed by over 20 million people, eventually gaining recognition as the longest running theatrical attraction in the history of Los Angeles. “I had no idea how popular this would be,” Dryer said. “It was supposed to be temporary and wound up as a career. As many as 20 million people have leaned back and watched the sky light up to music.” What made that experience so popular? Dryer thinks it’s something about the fundamental appeal of light: “The quality of that light triggers something in the brain, I think. It gets into the limbic system” — the central neurological structure where the passions reside — “and stirs things up. The light and the music trigger our deepest emotions.” The light and the music continue at the Laserium’s permanent new cybertheater in Hollywood. Anyone who goes from being an aspiring young astronomer to an aspiring young filmmaker gets the ScriptPhD.com seal of approval!

And speaking of astronomers, the audience was treated to a lecture by world-renowned cosmologist (and the man responsible for the astronomical demotion of Pluto), Dr. Charles Baltay. Dr. Baltay, a Higgins Professor of physics and astronomy at Yale University, was born in Hungary and raised in Bavaria shortly after World War II. After relocating to the States, Dr. Baltay received a physics PhD from Yale and taught at Columbia University. What follows is a rare lecture that makes esoteric physics and astronomy approachable and enjoyable to non-scientists and scientists alike, while deftly explaining the sophisticated cutting-edge frontier of the expanding cosmos.

Lecture: Exploring the Dark Side of the Universe with Dr. Charles Baltay

I’ll be talking about the dark side of the universe, but by this I don’t mean Washington politics or the CIA. I’ll be talking about something called cosmology.

So this is our view of the large-scale structure and evolution of the universe. The first question is the structure. At small scales, the Earth is going around the Sun, the Moon around the Earth, there’s a lot of lumpiness, but when we look at the large scale, it’s very smooth and uniform. The next question is evolution—again, lots of irregular motion at small scales, and at the large scales, it’s pretty much the same as it’s been. Many of you might recognize this picture as The Big Dipper. It’s looked the same to the Greeks, to the Arabs, since recorded history, so our view was that the Universe was really not changing. It’s forever.

The questions we ask in cosmology are: is the Universe really static or is it evolving in some way? What is the age of the Universe? Is it infinite? Is there even a meaning to the age (if it’s forever then there’s no age)? What is the future development of the universe? What is the “stuff” that the Universe is made of?

Let me start by giving you the present view of the Universe. We believe that the Universe is not static but in a state of uniform expansion as an aftermath of the big explosion. This we call the Big Bang model.

We believe that we cannot see most of the “stuff” in the Universe. The picture above of the stars and galaxies is what we call “visible matter”. It turns out that visible matter comprises 1% of the stuff out there. Most of it is dark matter and dark energy, stuff we cannot see and that we don’t know very much about. And we believe that on the largest scales, the universe is very smooth and uniform. We believe that there is such a thing as an age, the time since the Big Bang. And we believe that to be 10-20 billion years. Some people say 13.2 billion [as in photo above], which may or may not be right, but that is a theory.

We don’t know the future of the Universe. It may keep expanding forever, like a big chill, or it may recollapse. Which will happen will depend on the amount and nature of this dark matter and dark energy. Right now we really cannot predict the future until we learn more about these properties. So this is a quick summary and you can now go to sleep for the rest of the lecture. [ScriptPhD note: we highly discourage this. It gets even better!]

To fill in a few details: how do we know all of this stuff? It doesn’t come from religious books, it’s not voodoo science. It started with a guy called Edwin Hubble who invented Hubble’s law. What he noticed is that distant stars and galaxies are moving away from us. The further something is, the faster it’s pushing away. That’s Hubble’s Law in a nutshell: the recession velocity is some constant times the distance. The point here is that the further away things are, the faster they’re rushing away from us.

Now how does he know this? And the key idea here is something called the Doppler Effect. Light is a wave is a wavelength. And the wavelength determines the color. So blue is about 4,000 Angstroms, green is 5,000 and red is about 7,000 [see animated chart above.] The numbers here don’t matter. The longer the wavelengths look like red to your eye, the shorter wavelengths look bluish. We’ve all experienced the Doppler Effect. You’re on one of your beautiful freeways, if a car coming the other way blows their horn, you hear a high pitch and then as they pass it falls to a lower pitch, have you noticed this? [Note: to hear the Doppler Effect, click on the link below.]

Doppler Effect Car Horn

The higher pitch is the shorter wavelength, then they pass you and they’re moving away from you, you get a lower pitch or a longer wavelength. So if the source is approaching the observer, you get shorter wavelengths, meaning towards the blue, so it’s called the Blue Shift. If something is moving away from you, then the pitch drops, you get longer wavelengths, which are redder, so it’s called the Red Shift. This is the whole clue to this [universe moving away faster] business. Measuring the red shift tells you the velocity that’s moving away from you. But how do you measure the red shift?

This picture is called a wavelength spectrum. This is a numerical representation of the wavelength of light coming from a distant star. And you notice certain items give you certain colors, like neon is a bluish color, and sodium lights a yellowish. Each of those colors show up as a line [represented by a specific wavelength]. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to see that this top pattern is the same as that bottom pattern, but it’s displaced in wavelength [because it’s coming from a more distant star]. That’s how we measure the red shift. However much the wavelength is displaced, this tells you the red shift, which tells you the velocity. So what you do is look at a lot of distant stars in the galaxy, which is what Hubble did, measure their red shift from pictures like this, and figure out that the further away something is, the more rapidly it’s moving away.

Why does that mean an expanding universe? Suppose you go to a marathon in your city of choice and as usual you are late to things. So you arrive late and by the time you get there, you see that Sue the leader is 16 miles from the starting line. And she is running at 8 miles per hour. Joe is running at 4 miles per hour, so he only got 8 miles from the starting line. And some loser is only doing 2 miles per hour, so he only got 4 miles away. So if you all start at the same point, the faster you run, the further you get away. And that’s exactly Hubble’s Law [as relates to Universe expansion.] To put it another way: the further something is, the faster it’s running away from us. So that’s all there is to it. Very simple.

Suppose I come late to the marathon and I say to someone, “How long has this race been going on?” [the equivalent being, how old is the universe?] It doesn’t take an astronomer to say, 2 hours. If Sue is running at 8 miles per hour, she’s 16 miles from the beginning, the race has been going on 2 hours. So that’s the age of the Universe. All you have to do is measure how fast the galaxy is running away from us and how far the distance is, and you get the time. So the age of the Universe is the distance to some star divided by its velocity. But we make one big assumption here. That they’re running at a constant velocity. Suppose that Sue was really running faster, but is now getting tired.

So that brings up the next big question: is the expansion velocity of the Universe a constant or not? And you say that the answer is simple, because there is stuff in the Universe, like magnets, people, worms, stuff, gravity is attracted, so if the thing is expanding, gravitational attraction has slowed down the expansion. So we would expect the expansion of the Universe to slow down, to decelerate. And the rate of the deceleration tells you how much stuff there is. The more stuff, the more gravity, the more it slows down. But how do we measure these things? How can you measure what the velocity was in the past, say a billion years ago? If we are looking from Earth at a supernova (that’s an exploding star in the Universe), and let’s say that it was 10²² kilometers away. It takes light 3 billion years to get from the supernova to the Earth. So the light that we see today was really emitted 3 billion years ago. And the properties of that light tell us about the Universe as it was 3 billion years ago, and in particular, the red shift of that light tells you about the extension velocity of the light in the past. By looking at supernovas at different distances, you are indirectly measuring the expansion velocity of the Universe. Distance translates to time in the past, because light travels with finite velocity.

Scientists did this experiment and there was a huge surprise: the expansion velocity was smaller in the past and is bigger now. The Universe is accelerating! It has no business doing that. It cannot possibly do that [based on all the points discussed above]. All the laws of physics, and everything we know say that this cannot be. So this study came from guys at Harvard, so we didn’t believe them, but then people from Berkeley replicated the experiment and we now have to believe it. This is a strange state of affairs. All of the stuff in the Universe attracts gravity, and cannot cause it to accelerate. Scientists are not very smart and savvy, but we’re smart enough not to call the New York Times and say, “We just spent umpteen million dollars and we don’t know what the hell is going on.” So instead, we call the New York Times and say, “We discovered dark energy. What’s dark energy? We have no idea.” But dark energy is something that has to be pausing gravity. So we hypothesized dark energy is pushing the Universe apart and it’s qualitatively different from anything we think about, and it’s dark because we don’t see it. This is kind of where we are currently in this research field.

So we all recognize Albert Einstein, who came up with the Theory of General Relativity. And when you do the calculations and you put everything together, you come to this very startling conclusion: that the visible stuff in the Universe is 1%, and dark matter and dark energy are 99%. So all our physics books, the books in the Library of Congress are, but alas, 1% of the Universe. The rest [of the matter], we know almost nothing about. So the question is, how do we learn more about the age, the history and the future of the Universe? One thing we would like to do is look further back in cosmic time. The experiments we’ve done up until now have only gone back a short time, maybe 1 or 2 billion years. We would like to go back maybe 10 billion years to trace out this expansion velocity. Going back to our earlier example, I see Sue running the Boston Marathon, and I’d like to trace out her velocity from the beginning of the race. If I know that, I can reconstruct the exact age and predict the future. So going back further in time, long ago, means further away, because that is the direction the light is coming. Far away means these supernovas are very faint, so you have to go to space to look for them.

We have proposed a space mission [the SuperNova Acceleration Probe as part of the Joint Dark Energy Mission] to look for these supernovas to take us back further in time. On the other hand, you also need a sample of nearby supernovas to compare [them], and that we have to do from the ground, because they’re relatively bright since they’re close-by, but they are very rare. The ground experiments will give us the baseline supernovas and that is the Palomar Quest Survey which is underway at the Palomar Observatory not far from Los Angeles as a collaboration between our group at Yale and a group at the California Institute of Technology. The SNAP space mission [link above] is a proposal with about ten universities collaborating, and we’ll eventually have to launch one of these Delta-4 rockets in the future [view conceptualized animations of the project and space projections here].

Here is a picture of the Schmidt Telescope that we are using at Palomar and a sample of some of the types of pictures that we are getting, such as the Andromeda Galaxy. But how do we find these supernova explosions? These are exploding stars, they take about two weeks to get to their peak brightness, and they take about six weeks to fade away. So we take one picture and compare it to a picture taken a month before, and then subtract the images to determine the supernova strength [see graphic in supernova picture above]. We have one big nuisance. And that is that in some of the images, you see an object moving over, and circling between the stars. That’s not a supernova explosion, it’s something that’s moving down the solar system. So within the background of the supernova search, are there other planets within our own solar system?

Back in the 1930’s, before computers, this guy named Dr. Clyde Tombaugh looked for 30 years by eye on photographs to find Pluto. And we’ve now started finding more planets, at least six to date, some that are bigger than Pluto:

Because of these discoveries, we now believe that the solar system is probably twice as big as we used to think. So this upset people quite a lot and they said, “Either we call these guys planets, or we demote Pluto.” So that’s what happened. We have blood on our hands. Actually, what really happened is that everybody gets to be called a planet, with five inner planets, two giant planets, and four outer planets. And maybe we will find a few more [during the course of the Palomar survey]!

Question and Answer with Dr. Charles Baltay:

How often do you get lucky enough to witness a world-famous physicist answering questions and explaining high-order physics in every day layman’s terms? Not often. Following is the transcript of Dr. Baltay’s post-lecture question and answer session, during which his natural wit often shined through.

How is your work going to address dark energy and dark matter?

Charles Baltay: The approach we have now is to trace out the history of the expansion. And from that we can deduce how much dark energy there is. Of course, a more complete answer would be: take Einstein’s formulas of general relativity and… it gets complicated. But the basic idea is that the expansion history will tell you about the dark energy.

What got Pluto “declassified” when there are other planets that are much smaller?

CB: Well, declassified may not be the right word. It was reclassified as a minor planet, to make the distinction between the giant planets and the minor planets. So it’s an International Astronomical Union, and they spend their days arguing and this is what they came up with.

How do you determine the distance of the planets and supernovas you study?

CB: With great difficulty. Measuring distance is a big problem; that’s a hard thing to do. The reason I keep emphasizing supernovas—there are certain classes of supernovas that we know how bright they are intrinsically. So from the apparent brightness [of those standards] we can judge the brightness. It’s like a car headlight, if you knew how bright it was up close, then you see it from a distance, you could say the light passed off is 1/r², from the intensity deduce the brightness [and ergo the distance]. And that’s why we pick out supernovas of all the possible things we could look at.

[ScriptPhD note: You must imagine the sassy molassy British girl asking this question—it’s so much more fun!] We know that there’s these lumps of rocks circling the sun. Why does it matter what we call them and is it really a good use of grown men’s time to argue about it?

CB: Well the International Astronomical Union has to have something to argue about. It’s a disappointing thing to argue about. You’re right—there are planets, there are asteroids, there are comets. So they are all things that go around the sun. So people like to classify. Biologists say that there are plants with three leaves on the end, versus five leaves on the end, and they give them names. So that’s what people do.

Sassy Molassy: It’s kind of an old-fashioned way to go about science, isn’t it?

CB: Well, yes. I don’t particularly find it exciting, but that’s my sole resistance to energy balance, whether we have 9 or 10 planets. Who cares?

Are you familiar with Stephen Hawking’s theory that there are singularities that are infinitely large and infinitely small? [Read about the Penrose-Hawking Singularity Theorems here.] And if so, do you believe that that might be an explanation for why there is spin and not just Big Bang thrust?

CB: Well, from what I understand about those theories, none of them encompass repulsive gravity. So dark energy is really different from anything that anyone’s talked about, in that it has repulsive gravity, and that’s what pushes the universe apart. So none of those weird things that people talk about—worm holes and singularities—none of those explain dark energy. We’re looking at something really quite new.

How does dark energy compare with the other forces, like gravity or electromagnetism?

CB: If I knew I’d publish immediately! We just don’t know.

Is there some correlation between the dark energy that you’re talking about and Einstein’s Cosmological Constant which predicts an expansion of the universe based on its properties of space?

CB: Yes. You’ve been reading books, obviously. OK, so let me mention a bit of history. Einstein wrote down his equation [E = mc²] in 1916, without a cosmological constant. He realized that that’s inconsistent with a static universe. In a sense, I can’t take this jacket hanging on this chair and leave it in the air. Gravity will make it fall down. So Einstein, revolutionary as his thinking was, firmly believed that the universe is static. This was before Hubble’s constant. So he said, “How can I fix up my equation?”, he put in this extra term, he called it his cosmological constant, which canceled out the gravitational attraction, and to him it was just an extra term. Then in 1930 Hubble said, “The universe is not static,” and Einstein said, “Oh, the cosmological constant is the biggest blunder of my career.” Now, I don’t know what he meant by that, because it couldn’t be one thing. Maybe what he meant was, “Had I stuck to my guns, and said the Universe cannot be static, I could have become famous!” [laughter] So from 1930 until just a few years ago, everyone used the cosmological constant. It was something that Einstein used to catch up his theory to be consistent with the semi-state universe. But we discovered that the universe is accelerating, maybe the cosmological constant is doing it. So that’s one candidate for dark energy.

Since waves tend to travel through mediums, is dark matter the medium by which light travels through?

CB: No. But how do I know that? I don’t think it is. We don’t know what dark matter and dark energy are. So it’s just the beginning of the story.

Are the experiments you talked about the only experiments happening on dark matter and dark energy?

CB: No. There are at least three or four more experiments being planned by various other techniques. It’s sort of a hot topic. It’s now the holy grail of cosmology. So a lot of people are doing it with different things. Of course we have the best design, but…

Can dark matter exist in a black hole, do you think?

CB: I don’t know. As I said, if I knew I’d publish.

Is there a number associated with Hubble’s Constant, just like pi?

CB: There is a number. It is hotly debated but the general values are described here. It’s not a number like pi, that’s a geometrical number. It’s a number that we have to measure.

What can your space telescope see that the Hubble cannot?

CB: The answer is the following. It’s called field of view. When you pick up a pair of binoculars, sometimes it has a very narrow field of view. And sometimes a big field of view. If you’re trying to find many, many supernovas, you want a wide field of view. The Hubble has a very narrow field of view. So we have to do something better than the Hubble. I’m being very modest today.

Now that we’ve discovered another [planet in the] Zodiac, how does that work with the horoscope? If you were a Leo, are you now a Virgo? [laughter]

CB: That’s beyond my pay scale.

Lights and Lasers and Pink Floyd, Oh My!

The highlight ending of this otherworldly evening was an hour-long bravura of luminescence to the soundtrack of “Dark Side of the Moon” by Pink Floyd. For those that have never experienced a show at this magnificent hidden Hollywood gem, it is, according to People Magazine, “the closest thing to tripping out in inner space.” Check out just a slice of the experience in pictures:

Our complete photographic collection from the show can be found as an extra feature on our Facebook fan page. Please credit all photography to ScriptPhD.com.

It would probably take extraordinary measures to travel far enough to see a distant supernova or nascent planetary body, but if you should find yourself in Los Angeles (or have been living here all your life) and want an exciting, explosive audiovisual scientific excursion, go to the Laserium’s permanent home in the heart of the Hollywood Walk of Fame. Great science amidst the global capital of entertainment… it doesn’t get better than that!

~*ScriptPhD*~

*****************
ScriptPhD.com covers science and technology in entertainment, media and advertising. Hire our consulting company for creative content development.

Subscribe to free email notifications of new posts on our home page.

Greetings! Day 2 of Comic-Con was a very scaryspecial occasion: Official Star Wars Day. Yes, the personal hygiene was questionable and the light sabers were many, but the ScriptPhD soldiered on to bring you our coverage of as much science entertainment content as you can pack in one website. Today we start by putting the science in science fiction with the special 10th Anniversary Farscape reunion panel, including information about their new DVD box set release and upcoming projects. ABC’s electrifying new science-fiction serial thriller FlashForward provided a world premiere sneak peek of the first 15 minutes of the pilot and a special guest surprised the audience. Our press room coverage from Day 2 includes some phabulous physics with CBS’s Emmy-nominated Big Bang Theory, including a one-on-one interview with Emmy nominee Jim Parsons, who talked to ScriptPhD.com about his journey into science and preparation to play a science geek, and Bones, including interviews with star Emily Deschanel and showrunner Hart Hanson. We also have our daily Comic-Con Costume of the Day and the Light Saber Count Tally. Stay along for the ride with ScriptPhD.com. Click “continue reading” for more!

Farscape: 10th Anniversary Panel
Moderator: Keith R.A. DeCandidio (author of official Farscape Comic)

Panelists: Brian Henson (executive producer/director), Rockne O’Bannon (creator/writer), Ben Browder (John Crichton), and Claudia Black (Aeryn Sun)

Farscape: 10th Anniversary Panel
Moderator: Keith R.A. DeCandidio (author of official Farscape Comic)

Panelists: Brian Henson (executive producer/director), Rockne O’Bannon (creator/writer), Ben Browder (John Crichton), and Claudia Black (Aeryn Sun)

Brian Henson: Thanks for coming everyone. We are primarily here to announce our special 10th Anniversary DVDs being released thanks to the efforts of our new distribution partners. November 17th is the official release date, with lots of new material previously not available. We heard from fans that what is most missed is Farscape: Undressed, and we actually only aired it once. So it’s really nice to make it special and it will be a part of this box set.

Keith R.A. DeCandidio: In fact, you have 29 commentaries on specific episodes. So there’s lots of commentaries and documentaries, 90 minutes of deleted scenes. What about the webisodes though?

Brian Henson: The webisodes are really good creative work. Rockne has been working with Ricky Manning, and they’re going to be great but it’s a tough time to finace things. We’re working on raising money, but we are poised to go on with them as a project and Rockne has been working on the comic books in the meantime.

Rockne O’Bannon: I’ve been honing a suitable story that can be done on the web in 4-5 minute segments, and it’s been tough, because the original was ambitious even for television. We wrestle constantly with a story that we’re excited about.

Brian Henson: What we’re trying to do is approach webisode opportunities from a unique perspective, not necessarily a linear one, not interconnected, but where you get a piece of an important puzzle as you watch each one. That is the initial launch of the next big part of Farscape, and it’s very ambitious. It is the continuing story of Crichton and Aeryn and their son. And if you keep up with the comics, there are characters being introduced in those that will continue into the next chapter as well.

Rockne O’Bannon: First we started the webisodes [as follow-up material] and then the comics came along, and it’s the perfect interstitial material. Comics are definitely an important part of the equation.

Keith R.A. DeCandidio: We’ll start with some web questions first that were sent in. David Leslie asks Ben and Claudia, what was your first reaction to acting with creatures from the Henson creature shop?

Claudia Black: Well, to be honest, we didn’t know what we were getting into. The Henson involvement was exciting. I’ve always been a big fan of muppets, great production value, and I find them interesting.

Ben Browder: I didn’t know what they were going to do. My first audition was at Henson’s old offices, surrounded by Kermit. I just wanted to be with the frog. I didn’t realize it was going to be Rigel.

Brian Henson: Rock and I had been working on this together for four years before production actually started. And there was lots of work involved. The show is very innovative, a sci-fi tone with a new energy, lots naughtier, and pushes the limits beyond what people had previously done on television. When Ben and Claudia joined, we only had drawings of different episode ideas. In a lot of ways, it was psychotically ambitious to have new ideas for each episode [in terms of expense and sustainability]. Rigel and Pilot were the first two puppets built in London, the rest were built in Australia. I was personally always impressed with the Farscape cast. Because they must take it very seriously in order for the idea to work. The characters must be sincere and believe in the world, but with Farscape, because we have a lighter tone, very comedic, particularly with the creatures, you need to treat them with respect. And Ben and Claudia in particular, were taking them seriously and yet having fun with it at the same time!

Rockne O’Bannon: I remember in the early days, it took a few episodes to get comfortable, and once you could touch Rigel, it helped you make the whole thing that much more real.

Ben Browder: And the puppeteers themselves were okay with it. You didn’t WANT to touch Rigel, but you did want to hit him. I remember the first episode I hit him, Season 1, episode 6. And I asked the puppeteer for permission, which he gave, but we didn’t tell the director of the episode, so we filmed the scene and I nail Rigel in the back of the head, he goes down and before they called cut, we hear this “Oh my Goooooooood! Not the puppet!!!!!!” We realized that the puppet cost $1 million to make. I thought I was going to lose my job. You realize the appeal of the puppets pretty quickly when my children walked into the room with me, and engaged in a 30 minute conversation with the puppets. They never realized that Johnny was even there.

Claudia Black: And every year I made the bet that because [the Farscape plan] was so ambitious, we weren’t getting picked up, and every year I was wrong. They were able to create these really emotional scenes with rubber, to get these emotional reactions out of puppets.

Brian Henson: With rubber, leather and latex! No wonder we’re at Comic-Con!

Fan question: What’s your favorite line from anything in the show?

Rockne O’Bannon: Picking a single line is tough. But I am really proud of [the swear word] Frell. I was waiting in the airport at Salt Lake City on my way to Thanksgiving, and writing the scene for episode 9, and needed a curse word. So for me it was the invention of the word Frell.

Claudia Black: Same here! I thought it was a sticker. Every other episode we were like, “Can we use Frell? Can we invent more unique swear words?!”

Ben Browder: My favorite line. “CAN I GET A HELL YEAH?!”

Audience: Hell yeah!

Claudia Black: “Can you help me find a place to seize your soul?” They wanted me to test that character, and I did the line spontaneously when we taped, and watching the reaction on Ben’s face, it was the first time you’ve ever corpsed on set. It was so fantastic!

Brian Henson: For me, it’s like an ocean. How do you pick your favorite drop of water? There was so much Farscape! My favorite part was the romance between Crichton and Aeryn. That relationship and the performances that these guys did was what moved me the deepest. Which is weird because I’m the creature guy. And when Aeryn smacks Rigel’s head was such a surprising moment and always makes me laugh!

Claudia Black: I remember doing a lot of the B stories with Rigel early on and I remember telling Ben, “Hey! You’ve got to get your hands on Rigel, it makes a big difference.” I didn’t realize he was going to be real, and here he comes with an entourage of six people at any given time. So dealing with him and his entourage and pretending that they weren’t there was a challenge.

Brian Henson: What you don’t see is that when there’s a Rigel scene, underneath him is a group of three people, and a rolling chair. So to get to Rigel, you have to make a plan, otherwise you’ll step on people’s faces and fingers. But it is funny. If you were to just zoom out 10 millimiters [they would be there onscreen].

Keith R.A. DeCandidio: Online question from Jonathan Schwest from LA: What was your most formative experience on Farscape, that made you feel like THIS is the reason I took this job?

Claudia Black: Watching that video [retrospective at the beginning of the panel] was it. I cried. I can’t believe what we managed to achieve. I think you had to film it overseas, where the tax incentives were, which means working with Australian crews, which are cheaper. [laughter] But originally, the plan was to block shoot multiple episodes at a time.

Brian Henson: Yes, the original plan was to have an ensemble cast and make simultaneous episodes, but we realized the driving relationship was Chricton and Aeryn.

Claudia Black: I turned around and said to Ben one day, “This is a love story.”

Rockne O’Bannon: For me the feeling really hit home when we were doing the Peacekeeper Wars, the fnal mini-series, when we were doing the birth sequence in the water. I thought, wow, it’s a gunfight, all our characters are gonna die, Aeryn’s having a baby, and Chricton is going to be delivering it, and they’re gonna get married and it’s gonna be…. funny! That’s when I realized, “Wow look at what we’ve done. After four years, it was just the Farscape way. We’ve gotten to a place and a show where we’re really stretching the limits of what we can do.”

Claudia Black: I was grateful for that water birth scene a few years later, when I birthed my first baby, because I did have it in water, and it wasn’t nearly as painful as for Aeryn. I remember thinking, “Huh. I’m tougher than Aeryn.” [laughter]

Ben Browder: My formative moment? My paycheck! First paycheck, I looked at it, and thought, “Ohhhhh the rent! Baby’s gonna eat today!” Why did I take that job, I don’t know. No, all kidding aside, it was near the end of Season 1, it occurred in stages. The first time I worked with Rowan Woods, episode 9 season 1, was a turning point for the series and what we were capable of. And then the two-parter where we introduced Scorpius. All those developments through Season 1, we were able to fail gloriously and succeed in surprising ways. It didn’t happen in a flash, but if you look back at more than one clip, you get very overwhelmed. It’s ten years! It’s still beautiful and well-crafted today!

Rockne O’Bannon: What’s amazing is that the clip reel was of material we’d made only in the first season, and just looking at the scale of what we accomplished just in one season, tribute to all the artists, Aussies who embraced it and threw themselves at it. My formative moment was starting development with Brian in 1993, and looking at shopping it to a network and looking for a network deal. And we both looked at each other like, “How do we do this?” We had four scripts, but the pilot itself was overwhelming.

Brian Henson: Sci-Fi (now SyFy) was terrific. It was their first show that they picked up as an original series, and that was a big risk for them. I know people are upset with them for eventually canceling us, but it was a big deal to even run us for 4 seasons.

Fan question: Would you ever consider a sequel or a spin-off?

Brian Henson: We’ve thought about it, but we’re most excited about continuing the story as is. The Farscape universe is a very rich one, very well developed. We’re excited about launching the next chapter. We’ve discussed a lot of different options, but now we’re most excited about the next chapter. “Puppet Up” is this puppet show that’s rated X, that we do in secret at the Avalon Theatre in Hollywood, to train the puppeteers. We were thinking about a “Puppet Up” mix with Farscape!

Very special fan presentation: Hi, I’m Craig Glendave from the Guiness Book of World Records. This is a book full of psychotically ambitious people. I have one preview copy of our upcoming book for you and your certificate. This is for “Most Visual Effects in a TV Series”. You have seven days to do one episodes, with 40-50 visual effects per show. In one season, you gusy do a motion picture’s worth of effects. Welcome to the Guiness Book!

Keith R.A. DeCandidio: Another web question. If you had a chance to go back in time, what would you change and why?

Claudia Black: Personally, I’d redo the first six episodes, because it was like a teething or a birthing process for me, because everyone was helping me shape the character, and for me, the seminal moment was when I took ownership of the show and I felt like I owned Aeryn. Up until then, I didn’t have a comfort level with Aeryn. I hit my stride by episode seven.

Rockne Obannon: For me, it was in the pilot, seeing the first few shots, and in comes the footage of Ben and he’s wearing like a jet fighter helmet. And we are like, “OK that’s not an astronaut helmet” so we would like to put on something different on him, but it reminded us to write great dialogue for him because he might be hidden by the helmet.

Ben Browder: I wouldn’t change a thing. I’m not smart enough to know what thread to pull, because of what could unravel. Because all the things we did badly, we got better the second time. Like the terrible beards! That was my own beard, by the way, for you online haters saying that it was the worst fake beard you’d ever seen.

Keith R.A. DeCandidio: Any final comments?

Brian Henson: Thank you for coming. You, the fans, are the reason we continued, and kept us alive. We’re still dedicated to Farscape and keeping it going. You guys have been so supportive for really unusual shows, and that keeps television going!

Ben Browder: So we’re all going for drinks afterwards…. Brian is buying, tell your friends!

[ScriptPhD note: I have never watched Farscape. Yes, I am hanging my head in shame, and yes I realize it’s a staple of science fiction television. But though I covered this panel because their material is so appropriate to our site, I must say, the clips and the energy exuded by the panel, clearly conveying their chemistry and camaraderie, made me an instant fan. I plan on going through the box set immediately. Maybe this will help me get over losing Battlestar Galactica]

From one great moment of science fiction past, we moved to the science fiction future, with ABC’s exciting new fall series Flash Forward. Comic-Con featured the first public footage of the first two acts of the pilot and the introduction of a very special cast member.

Flash Forward
Panelists: Brannon Braga (24), Marc Guggenheim (Eli Stone), David Goyer (Batman Begins), Joseph Fiennes (Shakespeare in Love), John Cho (Star Trek), Courtney B. Vance (Law & Order) and Christine Woods (In Plain Sight).

The panel began with an introduction and world premiere of first two acts by executive producers and writers. As a note, ScriptPhD.com is going to be covering and reviewing the entire pilot as part of our fall television preview. Think of this as a tease! But in the meantime, we have a transcript of the panel discussion featuring cast and writers.

Marc Guggenheim: Well, the concept for our show is based on a book entitled Flashforward by Robert J. Sawyer, and I remember my wife came to me and said this would make a great movie, but we subsequently moved into a house, and buried in the boxes a long time after, I found a copy of the paperback and started exploring it again. Then I talked to my friend Brannon. The big thing in the book is that the conscious shift is 21 years in the future, but we chose six months as more interesting. By the end of Season 1 we will have caught up with all the flash forwards. And I know what you’re going to ask. Do we have a plan for after Season 1? We do.

Moderator: And the story is building up to a big date, April 29th.

Marc Guggenheim: Yes, and this event is so big that this will be split up into two days.

Brannon Braga: What you didn’t see yet, is that every man, woman and child has a vision of the futuer six months from now. That’s 6.8 billion potential stories that you can tell! Great syndication package! Because of that, we saw great potential for stories but also something that’s universal.

Courtney B. Vance: I’d like to go all over the world. [laughter]

Marc Guggenheim: That will look like a green screen to you, Courtney. In all reality, we will be going all over the world during the show. Every person is a potential character, and every type of story will be told in the series: funny, sad, romantic, tragic.

David S. Goyer: Every episode will have at least one flash forward that is procedural mingled with our ongoing characters’ flash forwards.

Moderator: There are lots of mysteries embedded going forward. Moving forward, what are the episodes driven by? What’s the right balance of drama and human?

Brannon Braga: Well, Joseph Fiennes’s character has seen some things in his future that drives the investigation [as to why the blackout happened]. That is the overarching story of the series. But we’re also interested in the human drama element. What imprisons people by their visions going forward?

David S. Goyer: If you want the muscular procedural, there is that aspect through Joseph’s character from all these clues he’s dug up six months from now. Every image has already been figured out and they appear briefly on that board that you see flashes of with pieces of the puzzle, if you want to pause your TiVos. Part of it is that we started writing the first half of this, and then second half after WGA strike had eded fourteen months later. So that pause in between gave us time for lots of planning. But there is also tons of human drama involved in the show. If you knew everythng about your life would be different six months from now, would you do everything differently?

Marc Guggenheim: It’s another opportunity to elicit character, which is our mantra in the writers’ room. Even the guns and pyrotechnics are ultimately tied into character drama. Our show’s tone is as wide as its scope.

Moderator: You talked about LOST and it being a big inspiration for you. How did that play a role?

David S. Goyer: Nothing will be the new LOST, but our show ended up at ABC. We wrote a spec script and there were multiple bidders and I was friends with Damon [Lindeloff, writer on Lost], and the bottom line is that LOST was a genre-breaking show: daring, challenging. We figured that if ABC was that courageous with them, they’ll be courageous with us. And we pitched them a fairly excessive plan. We know the shot Season 1 ends on, we know how the season and series ends and they said, “Holy shit!” Literally, that’s what they said. The basic plan is that in order to tell the story we need as little as three seasons, and it could go out to…

Courtney B. Vance: Raw hide… 21 seasons!

David S. Goyer: We had a big plan and we didn’t know if it would work out.

Moderator: This is your first time on TV Joseph. Why did you want to do this?

Joseph Fiennes: I actually came to LA for a meetig on another project, and on the way to the airport I got a phone call and a script [for Flash Forward]. I knew of David’s work, but read the script and thought I had to do it. It was a combination of brilliance and smooth talking that landed me here. It’s been an extraordinary change of events going to TV, but I must say through the scripts and the process behind the series, I think that it’s so much more exciting in many areas than film. Film can be generic and structured, three act arc. You sort of predict what you’re going to get. Here there’s a different shape that is possibly like Raw Hide, going on forever.

David S. Goyer: There’s a cute story from the pilot of Joseph taking out this gun. And we showed him how to shoot a gun, since when we see him in the movies, he is usually on a horse in pantaloons. In the middle of it he did this ridiculous James Bond action role, and he threw that in because he was so excited.

Moderator: John, how’s your summer been?

[audience cheers]

John Cho: Summer’s been good. Had a film called Star Trek, and it feels so good. We went all over the world, it was a real privilege to travel with all those people. I didn’t get to meet everyone while we were filming, so it was a good chance for everyone to get to know each other

Moderator: How challenging is it to bring this to life? When all you have is a flash of the characters’ future and the writers give you little to work with.

Courtney B. Vance: I find it liberating to be in a series that is flashing 21 years in the future, I get residual checks for 21 years. I get the chance to work with these guys as youths and we will grow old together. I look forward to seeing my children go to college. In all seriousness, it’s a great group of people. I have been trying to hook up with another series for a while since Law and Order, so I was exhausted from that trek. My manager told me to go in on Saturday to see the writers of this new show. So I went in and met with them, and it was a life-changing meeting. I’m pleased and proud to be a part of this 21 year saga.

Christine Woods: This is my first series so that’s exciting. But it’s fun to go to work and have it be reactionary. You don’t know what’s going to happen, and sometimes they give you clues, but I think it’s cool to not know what’s next with less to think about.

David S. Goyer: I have a funny story about Christine. She has these three tattoos on her arm, and she auditioned and we loved her but couldn’t ever remember her name. So when we went to cast, I was like, “I want three circles. Where is three circles?” She became Three Circles for a month.

Christine Woods: I actully got more work after the tattoos because people remembered me.

Moderator: Lightning round. David, next Batman fim.

David S. Goyer: We’re still trying to think of the lamest Batman character. We’re BatMusing.

Marc Guggenheim: Green Lantern is happening, we’re filming in Australia. So look for it in January.

Brannon Braga: Loved the new Star Trek movie. And yes, I think we’ll absolutely see another reincarnation of Star Trek on TV again.

Marc Guggenheim: What you guys don’t know is that after Kal Penn joined the White House, John had a choice between doing this show and joining a non-profit for Sarah Palin.

John Cho: Yes, we would have been providing guns for every underprivileged child. [laughter]

Fan question: Some characters don’t have a flash forward.

David S. Goyer: We will be bringing that into the storyline.

Fan question: David, you work a lot in features, are you going to stay invovled with this show?

David S. Goyer: I co-wrote episodes 2 and 3. You know, in the past, I’ve flirted a lot noncommitally with TV, but I love this project so much that I signed a contract for the first season no matter what.

Fan: Has Robert J. Sawyer been involved?

David S. Goyer: He saw the pilot, he loved it, and he’s our science advisor on the show.

Brannon Braga: we planned the show with him before we even started writing, because certain things are different from the novel. But if you see his blog, he’s totally cool with it. We’re starting a new fan resource for the show: www.redpandaresources.com

Fan question: What caused the global blackout?

Marc Guggenheim: Rush Limbaugh farted. It’s a big ass, think about it. We know, we know, we knew before we started the show, but we’re not gonna say.

David S. Goyer: A master plan is important if you’re going to do a heavily serialized show that catches up to a certain date. The audience smells a rat if they think you’re making it up as you go along. We were able to get ABC to hire our writing staff well before we shot [to begin planning everything out], but if you are going to be true to the fans, you have to know where you’re going. Thus, we are able to lay in a lot of easter eggs, and aha moments that connect to seasons later on, well beyond even Season 1.

Fan: You imply that even though people know what their future is, they can’t change it because you’ve planned it out.

David S. Goyer: Part of the fun of the show is subverting expectations. A lot of people think we’re treading water until April 29th, but there’s a lot of game changers that happen early on. So… just watch the show.

After showing some rather funny clips of Sonya Walder (Penny Widmore of LOST) in her Comic-Con costume had she been here, the producers introduced the worst-kept secret in Hollywood… Flash Forward cast member Dominic Monaghan, whose mysterious appearance seemed to be as brief and mysterious as his character. [He did get a standing ovation from the audience, though.]

Dominic Monaghan: My character’s name is Simon and that’s all I know. I don’t know

if I’ll be on LOST again. I’m not really sure if anyone ever dies on that show.

David S. Goyer: We’d planned Dom’s involvement even before we started the pilot and he’s a game changer character that fucks things up a lot.

Fan qestion: Christine, what does your tattoo mean?

Christine Woods: It’s nothing too secret. Just a combination of femininity, presence, it’s my own little power symbol.

ScriptPhD note: ScriptPhD.com spent time in the press room with the cast and production talent of Big Bang Theory and Bones and we were thrilled to be able to ask the actors and writers about the science in both shows.

From the Press Room: The Big Bang Theory

Kaley Cuoco (Penny)

Press question: Did you have to talk to anyone about researching to play the role of Penny for background iformation?

Kaley Cuoco: Originally I was a little nervous that it was going to be blonde next door to two goofballs, which we’ve seen before. But if you’ve seen the show, it’s so not like that at all. Penny, like myself, likes these guys very much and actually wants to be friends with them more than they want to be friends with her. I think they were the mean ones at first. They wanted nothing to do with her. She just annoyed them. So I just love these guys in life and it shows on the show. We love each other.

Futon Critic: Do you feel like you’ve picked up any geekier habits from watching the show and learning about things you’ve never thought about before?

KC: No I refuse to pick up on any of those things. I still want to live my life, OK? I don’t live in the Big Bang Theory, I don’t know anything about physics, and I’m never going to learn anything about physics.

ScriptPhD: I overheard you talking about nerds during your video interview. Do they come up to you on the street and appreciate you and vice versa. What’s your interaction like with them?

KC: I don’t know if they’ve always been geeks and I don’t look at it like that, people seem every age, every looking person, every style of person seems to come out to me. They love the show. They’re just genuine about the show. I really feel like people love the show, love it, love it, or have never seen it. So the fans that come up know everything about it, they want to know more about Penny, they kind of think Penny is real. They’re like, “So what would Penny do tomorrow?” and I’m like, “I don’t know, I don’t have a script in front of me!” They kind of really believe and I don’t really want to take that away from them, but at the same time it’s sweet.

ScriptPhD: How did you get the role? Just curious.

KC: Because I’m awesome! Actually, I auditioned two years ago, didn’t get it. Auditioned again, went to network, didn’t get it. Chuck [the showrunner] told me I was not the girl for the show. And then a year later he rewrote the whole thing and called me and said, “I’m sorry will you come back?” And I was like, “No, I’m busy now.” He sent me the script, and he did rewrite the whole thing and I came in two days later and got the job. It was all an incredible timing thing for me. It wasn’t meant to be a couple of years ago, I don’t think it would have worked the way it works now.

Press question: Do you prefer the comedy to drama?

KC: Yes! I can’t be serious for two seconds. And I love the audience interaction, I love to laugh, I love to make people laugh, I love to be contorted and do silly things. My favorite episode for me personally was when I got to look like a disaster! It’s just been great. They’ve written some great stuff for me, I’m really happy.

Press question: When do you guys start shooting again?

KC: Two weeks from now. Not yet.

ScriptPhD: Are you excited for the Emmys?

KC: I am! I’m so excited for Jim, I’m thrilled for him.

ScriptPhD: Because it’s a lot of validation for the show in a way. Tell me about that. You’re veering into the mainstream, people are watching, you’re getting nominated for Emmys. What’s that been like for you guys?

KC: You know, it’s been a total steady climb. I mean we started out where reviews were bad, people thought the show was recycled, they’d seen it before, they’d done this, done that. They’ve really turned. They love it! And it’s so nice because we’ve worked really hard and our writing has gotten better and better and better. I think our second season was better than our first and that’s rare, so I’m hoping for a really great third season.

How do you feel that this casts light on nerds and your character likes. What type of world is this creating?

KC: It’s called television. Truthfully, I think it has opened the door for everybody. These are people that we don’t know. I mean, these brilliant, brilliant people are very few in the world, and I think it’s amazing that we’re casting a light on them. They’re not nerds. You’re only calling them nerds because they’re smarter than you and you’re jealous.

SPhD: Absolutely! The Fringe writers were just talking about that at their panel yesterday. That their responsibility is just to portray them living their everyday lives. And you do more for science by saying, “Hey these are regular dudes. They go home, they have love interests…”

KC: Yeah, they have a life and they’re briliant and way smarter than any of us.

SPhD: They’re not untouchable.

KC: That’s exactly right. Because I think they are almost more untouchable than the hot girl next door that they think they’re never going to speak to. They’re brilliant and have a lot to give to the world. Little socially awkward, but we can fix that!

Press question: Is there any level of improv to the show?

KC: You know, I have to be honest, the only reason that it seems like there is is because the writing is so good. When a show can seem like it’s just happening, it’s the writing. Everything is happening in the writers’ room. Oh the Emmy nominee over there! Emmy nominee at Table 2.

ScriptPhD: Let’s get some Cristal Champagne please!

KC: Ugh! Pop the champagne. His head is just huge!

SPhD: And if he wins, girlfriend, you’d better just watch out.

KC: I don’t even want to be on the show. [laughter] It really happened overnight. He doesn’t even call me by name anymore.

SPhD: How’s your camaraderie on the set?

KC: Horrible, I hate all of them. [laughter] Now that Jim has this Emmy nomination. He asked for a room outside of the stage so he doesn’t have to talk to these kiddie actors.

SPhD: With green M&M’s

KC: Yes! He doesn’t want to interact with us minions. [laughter] But truthfully, what is sad, is if you look at my iPhone, my Top 5 are the entire cast and that kind of says it all. I don’t talk to anyone else, I don’t know anybody else, I don’t have a life. I just speak to Jim and Simon and Johnny. It’s insane. Oh and Kunal. Sometimes.

SPhD: Or as my one friend in DC calls him, The Hot Indian Guy.

KC: Please don’t tell him that. Because I can’t handle two of them! I won’t deal with the big heads. I mean this Emmy nomination has taken over everything.

SPhD: It was really sweet of CBS to stick with you guys.

KC: Oh my god! You know we did eight episodes Season 1 before the writers’ strike. Eight. And I don’t know how we got back. It was incredible. It says a lot about people watching it, and CBS of course. We’re very lucky.

SPhD: Have you learned some science on the show? Any science?

KC: No. No. People hope I’m going to say yes, but I never do. I’m not going to lie, because then you’re going to say “What did you learn?” and I have nothing to say to you. I’m an actor! What do I care? I don’t need to study the physics. It’s all fake.

Press question: Do you play any games on set?

KC: We do play would you rather? Oh you wouldn’t love it on our set! We ask some narly questions. Would you rather, 20 questions, Jim is always Spock. And now he’s going to be “Who am I: Emmy nominee.” Stop me anytime.

Jim Parsons (Sheldon Cooper)

Press question: Can you talk about the Emmy nomination and what that means for you?

Jim Parsons: It’s not personally important. I will not deny that it is extremely flattering and extremely sweet. That’s the one ting I keep thinking about. It’s like people had to mark my name on the ballot. And that’s where it becomes unfathomable. It’s like somebody sat there at home and said, “I’ll mark Jim Parsons” and that’s like I can’t imagine that happening in a weird way. I don’t mean that self-deprecatingly either, it’s just one of those things that is hard to imagine. It’s only important though in what it aids to keeping the show on the air. Last year, after the first season, we had to pick episodes to submit. It was different this year, but anyway. We were submitting episodes and I asked Chuck Lorre if he had any suggestions and he did and he talked to me, but he said, “Remember throughout this process, there are a lot of people with statues at home who don’t have jobs.” And it’s such a valid point. So that’s what I mean. It’s only important if it brings more viewers to the show. That being said, would I throw an Emmy back in somebody’s face? No, I will run home with it, I will put it on the mantel, whatever it takes. I’ll stab your eyes out with her sharp little wings. Whatever you want.

Press Question: Jim, our website covers science in entertainment so I wanted to ask you a bit about the character you portray. Take me back to when you first got the role and you were like, “OK I’m gonna play this totally geeky physics guy.” First of all, how did you prepare, and secondly, what has been the evolution of this character in terms of what you bring from your craft to really give him a voice and the journey you’ve traveled?

JP: I hear you. When I heard we were picked up, I started watching anything I could. I always had a subscription to the New York Times, I admit I haven’t always paid attention to the Science Times on Tuesdays. I immediately started doing that. I bought a book—it’s called “Physics 101”. This is something the Smithsonian Puts out. I thought, “Well, that sounds smart to get. Why not?” I began watching NOVA. “Tune in to the NOVA! Why not?!” It does not take long, and I’ve said this before but I mean it sincerely, it does not take much research into science of any sort to realize what a specialized brain it takes to really wrap around that. And it did lead me to some dead ends as well. I didn’t get very far into the “Physics 101” book. We talked about Newton, and even there, just—gone! But what it did do for me, and Chuck and Bill talked about this from Day 1, they may be nerds, they may be geeks, but that’s not what we’re talking about necessarily. The biggest thing we’re talking about is that they’re geniuses. So that’s preparatory work. As we’ve gone along, it’s really hard to determine where changes have come into play and who brought what. What came first—the chicken or the egg? I don’t know half the time, you know? I don’t ever literally suggest something: “It might be good if Sheldon did….” But I haven’t done that. And I don’t know what they’ve taken from me, just observing me. Sheldon’s from Texas. I’m sure that came from the fact that I can have a bit of a Southern drawl at times. Especially in rehearsal. But their writing is so fleshed out and there’s so much in there that the only thing that I brought is to tell that story. So whatever I have to do to tell that story—use those words to tell that story, that’s all I feel like I do every week. And with their scripts, it’s been enough to keep that going.

From the Press Room: Bones

Press question: Can you talk about your reaction to the fans’ reaction to the finale?

Hart Hanson: Well the first response, I guess, came on the internet. I always get in trouble when I talk about this stuff. Because the second response were the ratings. They were very good and went up on the half hour. So that’s the real response. And then I do check in to see what fans think. I would say the first blizzard of response was negative, and then there was a lashback of positive response and then I left and let them argue throughout.

Emily Deschanel: Honestly, I just hear about these things so I don’t—I hear from Hart about the reaction. And I think it was somewhat anticipated on a certain level. I mean, I don’t know the exact percentages of how many people hated it, how many people loved it, but we knew that some people would be upset. It was a very different episode. And we were also talking about them getting together and it wasn’t in the real world. But at the same time, our hands are tied. If we get them together in the real world, it’s a tricky thing. They’re not really ready. But we want to give the audience something. You want to see the characters together as a couple and this gives the people an idea of how it would be, even though it’s not really them and it’s in a different world, but it’s from one of their brains or both of their brains, so it’s something. It’s giving a taste.

Hart Hanson: Yeah, here’s a taste of what it would look like for these two to be together. It looked kind of nice! I was thinking, this is a good spin-off. This nice world, it would be nice.

ED: My Grandma was upset. She was like, “I didn’t know they were changing the show and now you own a performance place.” She was confused by the end scene, it was another world, and that we don’t own a performance place.

HH: We are always delighted that there’s a response. Any response is better than no response.

ED: And the strength of the response rather than the direction of it, positive or negative, which is important. They’re obviously passionate about it either way, and that’s what really matters.

HH: It’s great that you guys built an audience that cares so deeply about what happens.

Press question: How much was it a placebo effect that you guys were trying to put in? You’re like OK, you’ve wanted this, you’ve been talking about this for so long, here you can have it, now we can move on.

HH: A bit. I think the first idea was to really make something for our stone fans, who love the show and have been with it a lot. I’ve been told by research that we have an extremely faithful audience. They follow us all over the place. And a good internet presence. All those things that indicate that there’s a strong, opinionated audience. And so my initial idea was to say thank you to them. Here’s something for you: it was full of inside jokes, full of inside references, full of echoes, and insights I hope. And we’re going to carry some of the things that we learned in that alternate world into the real world. It was kind of a bridge thing. So I would say, part of it was a, “Let’s see what it would be like to have Brennan and Booth be in love, be a really strong couple.” One of the debates was whether we had their marriage in trouble in the alternate reality, and we thought that was a bad idea. Let’s see what they look like as a solid, married couple, what everyone wants them to be. And this is what it would look like. So just a glimpse of that.

ED: And you get to see all the other characters that we love or that I love, I don’t know how you guys feel. But some of the squints, the grad students and different characters that come in and out of the show. You seen them in a different light and come in in a different way. And that’s kind of fun for the audience. So there’s so many things going on in the episode besides just us getting together. But that seems to be the thing that people are really opinionated about.

Press question: are you surprised that that would be the thing that bothers people?

ED: I shouldn’t be surprised at all. But you know, people say they want us to get together, but then at the panel today, it almost seemed like more people wanted us not to get together. Maybe people enjoy being angry that we’re not together. I feel like they want them to get together, but they don’t want us to give it to them.

HH: Emily said a brilliant thing. Will Keck, who was our moderator at the panel, asked the audience to clap if they wanted them to get together, and clap if they didn’t. It sounded like the latter group was a little bit louder. It was pretty close. And Emily said, “I think some people voted twice.” And I thought that that made total sense. We’re all like that.

ED: You can be conflicted about it and I think everyone is. This was a way of doing something without it being final. And that’s the kind of dance that we have to do every year.

Press question: So have you made up your mind about where it’s going to go or are you still confused about it?

HH: I do know, I’m not going to tell you. I do know if and when it happens, where it might happen in the season. But, I’ve said this many times, I’m not weaseling. A series is a very organic thing, and I’ve found with Bones, you kind of let the series point in the right direction. We have a very good company of actors, writers, producers, directors and it has its own force to it. And for me to just say, OK, here’s what we’re going to do, is not a good idea. But I know. Can I say it’s penciled in?

ED: He’s very good at adapting. I’m not so good at adapting, but he can do it. There will be different elements that we have to change for an episode, maybe an actor isn’t available or a location, or something has to change. He just writes it and changes it, and just goes with the flow. I’m just so impressed with it. He’s able to just go with it—there’s no grumbling, he just does it.

Press question: Is there anything that surprises you guys when you’re writing or creating the show?

ED: That’s a good question. I’ve been surprised several times. I always get excited by reading the episodes. I like to read the next episode as soon as I can. I get so excited to see what’s going to happen, because I feel I’m on a show where I’m always surprised by what’s going to happen and how my character behaves or reacts. And yet, it always makes sense for the character. I remember being surprised in the circus episode last year by how Brennan gets all carried away by the performance and gets excited to do the performance. I just loved that element, but I’d never predict that for her, to love performing for everyone and the attention from the crowd. Brennan is not someone who gets carried away often, and so to experience that, that was a wonderful surprise for me, and I loved playing that.

HH: Well, that’s a good example of, I was in the editing room, and it was supposed to be Brennan and Booth are joining the circus to come in and wave to the crowd and Emily made me laugh so hard I farted. [laughter] Somehow you had decided that when she was doing her grand gestures to the audience and telling Booth that he should work harder to make the audience like him, she was a little bit clumsy. A little stumble in there, and the actors surprise me constantly. Constantly.

ScriptPhD: This is for both of you, actually. Can you talk about Kathy Reichs’s role in shaping the writing and the science content with her background? And Emily, how much she’s helped you shape the character of Temperance?

HH: Kathy reads every script. She is a very busy novelist and an actual forensic anthropologist. So we don’t always get notes from her, but well over half the scripts, I’ll get notes from her or talk to her on the phone. It’s important to her, and I think it’s crucial to our series, that the science be—I don’t want to say a percentage—but way more accurate than not accurate. Kathy was very concerned, not to besmirch any other forensics show, but that we be more accurate than the other forensic show.

ED: Not to be named.

Press: Just give us their initials. [laughter]

HH: Kesee. Kesee. And, we might have cheated more if we didn’t have Kathy looking over our shoulders. So she keeps us honest in that way. And she is a character, kind of a force. I enjoy talking to her. I don’t know how much you [Emily] have spoken to her since the last couple of seasons.

ED: Well, most of the time I’ve spent with her was in the beginning, because she was there for the pilot, and I got to pick her brain and talk to her about herself and her life and forensic anthropology and different things. And that’s where I got most of it. I think it’s confusing for most people because my character was named after the character in the books, but really we have the rights to her and her life. So my character is supposed to be her, but very loosely based, because my character also writes novels, and is a forensic anthropologist. But from the beginning, we’ve said, this character is loosely based on Kathy, but it’s not exactly Kathy. It’s something we’ve all created. Kathy and Hart and me and all of us working together. But we have a forensic consultant on the show, always there, and being scientifically accurate is very important to us. Sometimes, we make things look fancier than they are, sometimes we compress time, we try to keep everything else as accurate as possible. But that’s basically how much she’s involved right now. It’s hard, because sometimes she’s in Montreal, working as a forensic anthropologist, sometimes North Carolina, and she writes a book a year.

HH: We’re trying to get her to write a script and she always comes up with ideas like, “I think we should go to the pyramids.” It’s like, Kathy. Or she’d be like, “I want to write the cross over with House.” That’s her latest one. It’s like, “Oh Kathy, that’s not going to happen this year.” Because she writes novels she can do whatever she wants, and she doesn’t understand why we can’t go to the moon.

Press: Emily, where do you want the show to go [on location]?

ED: Ahhh, there’s so many places, we’ve talked about a lot of different places.

HH: We came very close this year. The finalists were Monte Carlo, Spain, Madrid and Buenos Aires. We came very close to going to those places.

ED: I’m not complaining about any of those places.

HH: Now, the economy has changed. There’s no money.

ED: We’ve never been to DC! That’s what is amazing to me. They’ve sent other people to do the externals, and second unit photography for the backgrounds and stuff. And there’s even been a double of me walking in DC. I remember a family friend who lives there called me and said, “You’ve come to DC and you didn’t come visit!” And I’m like “I haven’t been to DC since I was a really small child.” And I’ve actually been meaning to go and check out the Smithsonian, but my time off has just been crazy! Anyway, we made it to London, and that’s exciting for me.

Our Day 2 Comic-Con Costume of the Day was a no-brainer, hands down. The instant winner:

However, if you disagree, you can find all of the costumes we chose from, and complete Day 2 picture roundup, on Facebook page. And last, but not least, we were counting light sabers all day from dedicated Star Wars fans, and our final tally came out to: 75. A paltry sum against such dedicated masses with whom the Force was, this I know. But apparently this year, Comic-Con contained all of their Star Wars activities and celebrations to one room. Sadly, I wasn’t in the place to be…

See you later tonight for Day 3 coverage of Comic-Con!