WARNER BROTHERS INC.
Moderator: Wally Pfister
April 15, 2014
2:00 p.m. ET
Operator: Good afternoon. My name is (Lashanda) and I will be your
conference operator today.
At this time, I
would like to welcome everyone to the Transcendence College Call with Director Wally
Pfister.
I would now like
to open today’s call for any questions you may have. To ask a question, please press star one on
your telephone keypad.
And your first
question comes from the line of Dan O’Connor.
Dan O’Connor: Hi. So, how did your career as a cinematographer
influenced your directorial debut?
Wally Pfister: Well, I think what – what you’ll find in
life is that everything you do kind of contributes to what you do later
on. So everything that I did as a
cinematographer even going back to before I shot feature films when I was a
news cameramen, the documentaries.
All of that – all
of that experience makes easier when you get on the set as a director for the
first time and one of the great – great things that I got out of all those
years working on big budget features as a cinematographer was have a little
intimidation in getting on the set for the first time as a director.
You know, you are
a little more used to the craziness of a movie set so that’s one of the probably
a thousand things that prepared me being a cinematographer.
Dan O’Connor: Thank you.
Wally Pfister: You’re welcome.
Operator: Your next question comes from the
line of Evonne Warren.
Evonne Warren: My question was (inaudible) to artificial
intelligence theme many times in the past couple of decades in films like
(Gothica), artificial intelligence in Robocop.
So what sets Transcendence apart from the rest?
Wally Pfister: Well, it’s an excellent question. I think partially what sets Transcendence
apart is that it’s not strictly speaking in artificial intelligence. The original project that they are working on
the film is in artificial intelligence, but I think I can say without any
spoilers that it’s actually, you know, a human mind that gets uploaded.
So we are talking
about an actual human consciousness living in this machine rather than
something completely artificial. So that
makes it a little slightly different and I think that also sets off the
emotional journal.
Because we are
talking about, you know, most of the – throughout most of the movie, the idea
is to question whether in fact this machine that sent in if it contains the
actual soul of this particular person.
That person being (Johnny) of course.
Evonne Warren: Thank you.
Wally Pfister: You’re welcome.
Operator: Your next question comes from the
line of Meredith Carey.
Meredith Carey: Hi. I
was wondering with the open ending of the movie, what you hope viewers kind of
discuss or internalize?
Wally Pfister: There are a lot of things I would like
people to be thinking about and discussing as the movie concludes. But I think – I think most of it is sort of
this notion that, you know, if we are going to be relying on technology or are
dependent on technology, it’s good to know whose hands it’s in.
And clearly if we
are talking about a benevolent character then we would hope that good things
are going to be done with the technology and this could be used for the
betterment of mankind. And then also
there’s the cautionary note of as to if it were in different hands.
You know, if it’s
anything with this kind of power did land in, you know, the hands of somebody
more malevolent than what those dangers can be.
And it’s also sort of obviously a little bit of a wink at, you know, the
fact that it’s not bad idea to turn off these devices every now and again, and
embrace nature.
Meredith Carey: Great, thank you.
Wally Pfister: You’re welcome.
Operator: Your next question comes from the
line of Robert Gabe.
Robert Gabe: Hi.
I know Jack Paglen wrote the script, but how much research did you put
on to things like nanotechnology in preparation for the film?
Wally Pfister: I did an enormous amount of
research. Jack wrote the original
screenplay and then I continued writing drafts consequently. I went to – I went on a little trip. I went on my own little college tour in early
spring of 2012.
I went to visit
MIT and talk to professors in the field of nanotechnology and in neurobiologies
and robotics, and even in the media lab to look at some of their projections
and get ideas for what was the state of the art in terms of projections and
holograms and that sort of thing.
And then I also
visited Stanford and spoke to professors there and then did the same thing at Berkeley
They were so
helpful. They became the kind of full
time consultants on the film and were involved in sort of every stage of
vetting the science and the medical applications in the film. So I felt pretty confident by the time we
started filming that I had a pretty clear idea as to what was really possible
and where we are kind of bending it a sense.
Robert Gabe: Cool.
Thank you.
Wally Pfister: You’re welcome.
Operator: Your next question comes from the
line of Jennifer Calhoun.
Wally Pfister: Hi, Jennifer.
Jennifer Calhoun: Hi. If
this sentient machine were real and an option for everyday people, do you think
a lot of people would do it and what would it do to the society?
Wally Pfister: Well, it’s a good question. That’s more my own opinion, but I think that –
look, my feeling is if this were – if you were able to upload your own mind,
I’m not exactly sure what you would do with the duplicate of your mind except
consider the possibilities of immortality.
If it were some
sort of commercial application that you could log into, I would be very wary of
it and skeptical that they are going to be trying to extract information from
us. That they would be asking too many
personal questions and requiring too many uploads – I mean, continued upgrades
of our software and that it would be more of a commercial application and would
cost us a lot of money to keep going in it.
So I don’t
know. It’s anybody’s guess what would
happen. I don’t really have a desire to
upload my brains.
Jennifer Calhoun: Thank you.
Wally Pfister: You’re welcome.
Operator: Your next question comes from the
line of Jeremy Layton.
Jeremy Layton: Hi.
Wally Pfister: Hi.
Jeremy Layton: You’ve been a lifelong cinematographer,
have you always have the goal of transitioning to directing or it’s kind of a
new thing for you?
Wally Pfister: I think I always had the goal, you know,
of wanting to direct something myself.
But you know, as I started to get more successful as a cinematographer,
I started thinking about it more and, you know, you want to try – try different
things in life.
And so I think
it’s finally been knocking on my door for a few years and finally it was time
to try it out.
Jeremy Layton: All right, cool, thank you.
Wally Pfister: You’re welcome.
Operator: Your next question comes from the
line of Brendan Sample.
Brendan Sample: Hi, Wally.
It’s great to be talking to you today.
My question is, what was the biggest challenge for you in your
directorial debut?
Wally Pfister: Well, you know, you run into a lot of
challenges. It’s very challenging just
to get a movie made these days and particularly a larger budget movie and then
a science fiction film, and then a high concept science fiction film.
So there are a lot
of hurdles in trying to put it together.
But you know, the challenge obviously as a cinematographer turned
director, are in those areas that, you know, are brand new to you. And for me, the greatest challenge was also
one of the most enlightening, wonderful, fun things, which was in directing
actors and delving in the performance for the first time.
I really found it
extraordinarily fun, but there were challenges because you are suddenly playing
the role of psychologist for the first time.
Whereas when as a cinematographer, which really just about telling
stories with images. Now you need to get
that in performance. So a challenge but
a really, really enjoyable challenge.
Brendan Sample: Thank you so much.
Wally Pfister: You’re welcome.
Operator: Your next question comes from the
line of Yandli Gonzalez.
Wally Pfister: Hi.
Yandli Gonzalez: Hi.
Obviously, sci-fi films must differ at some point from scientific
reality. How far does Transcendence stray
from what currently being researched of artificial intelligence?
Wally Pfister: Well, I think – you know, it’s in terms
of stray stretching, you know, how and where we are going with it, it’s pretty –
you know, this is fiction and it is important for everybody to remember the fi
in sci-fi.
You know, this is
obviously designed as entertainment and so in terms of where we push the
limits. Obviously you cannot upload a
human brain with the current technology now.
Where most of the
sciences right now is in mapping the human brain and there are several projects
around the world where they are slowly and meticulously working on mapping of a
human brain, which is basically logging in the synapses and the communication
between neurons.
So that’s our real
stretch is being able to take, you know, a human mind and upload it in the
computer and successfully. So that sort
of what drives the science fiction in this film to begin with.
Beyond that, of
course, the nanotechnology is our own creation.
It is based on sort of speculation and what might be plausible in the
future. And that’s what, you know, the
two main professors that were my consultants are comfortable with saying is
that most of what we deal within the films is that this time plausible.
So you know – and
could potentially happen in the future.
Beyond that, you know, it’s, as I said, it’s fiction.
Yandli Gonzalez: Thank you.
Wally Pfister: You’re welcome.
Operator: Your next question comes from the
line of Madie Scott.
Wally Pfister: Hi, Madie.
Madie Scott: Hi.
I know you mentioned earlier that – sorry, that Transcendence standout
from other artificial intelligence movies, but that just made me curious. You mentioned the emotional progression
that’s possible through technology and it’s just, you know, obviously reminds
me of the movie “Her.” How is it similar
or different to that?
Wally Pfister: Well, it’s interesting because when I
saw “Her,” I’d already completed our film and you know, I felt relieved that
there are two very different movies, but I was a huge fan of “Her.”
I’d really, really
enjoyed it and so that explored, you know, a powerful, emotional
connection. What it said to me was that
this is stuff we are all thinking about right now, you know.
Madie Scott: Yes.
Wally Pfister: As we talk to Siri, as we listen to our
GPSs, we – you know, communicate through social network, and we are being asked
questions by machines in social network, where did you go to school, you know,
who are friends? Do you want – do you
want more friends?
So we are
communicating with artificial intelligence on a regular basis. So I know one journalist called, you know,
our film the dark side of “Her,” which I think is kind of funny. But yes, I mean, two films are very different
as I said, but I think a slight touch on something pretty phenomenal and it’s
also beautifully executed.
Madie Scott: Great, thank you.
Wally Pfister: You’re welcome.
Operator: Your next question comes from the
line of Linda Smith.
Wally Pfister: Hi.
Linda Smith: Hi.
So I guess, since it’s your directorial debut and there were, I mean, an
astounding amount of top-billed actors, I mean, Johnny Depp, Morgan Friedman, I
mean, household names basically, what was it like to have them under your helm
in your very first movie?
Wally Pfister: It’s mind blowing. Really, you know, I feel incredibly fortunate
to be lucky enough among outing as a director to have the likes of these
incredible actors. And honestly, you know,
this isn’t just bullshit. They were all
a joy to work with.
Obviously I’ve
known Morgan for 10 years and Cillian for 10 years. You know, we’ve all done three “Batman”
pictures together and was very comfortable working with them. But Johnny is just a joy to work with and he
is a really smart guy.
And so – and then,
Paul Bettany is a lot of fun as is Rebecca.
Bettany has a great sense of humor.
So there is a really nice calm levity on the set that I think made a
comfortable environment for all of us.
So as I said to
have this kind of talent, you know, back in behalf first effort was pretty
phenomenal. I feel very privileged.
Linda Smith: OK, great. Thank you so much.
Wally Pfister: You’re welcome.
Operator: Your next question comes from the
line of Jacob Kennard.
Wally Pfister: Hi, Jacob.
Jacob Kennard: Yes.
Hi, Wally. How are you?
Wally Pfister: I’m great. Thank you.
Jacob Kennard: Good.
So my question is what do you think is the most important thing that
you’ve learned from working with other great directors like Christopher Nolan
as you approach your first directorial effort?
Wally Pfister: You know, you’ve learned a little bit
from everybody and really, one of the great things about Chris Nolan is his
discipline on the set and you know, to observe somebody who really considers
every minute of your set time to be precious.
You know, if your
call time is 7 o’clock and you are there are 5 of 7 you’re late. And it’s a very important lesson and
discipline to learn in terms of your set experience and having spent, you know,
14 years around Chris where he doesn’t waste a second of his time and he takes
everything very, very seriously.
And has a great
appreciation for the fact that it’s somebody else’s money and he is responsible
for it, he takes on that responsibility, that’s one of the great lessons I’ve
learned working with Chris.
Jacob Kennard: Great.
Thanks, Wally.
Wally Pfister: You’re welcome.
Operator: Your next question comes from the
line of Mohamed Hassan.
Wally Pfister: Hi, Mohamed.
Mohamed Hassan: Hi, Wally.
I just wanted to ask. I
understand that you worked with film a lot in your other endeavors especially
with Christopher Nolan and I wanted to know, you know, why you enjoy working
with films so much?
Wally Pfister: Well, I’m – honestly, Mohamed, I’m
waiting for digital technology to catch up.
We don’t have – we only in digital – you know, technology, we only have,
you know, 4K cameras, maybe there is a 5K camera coming out soon.
But anomorphic
35-millimeter film is between 8 and 10K is the rate you have to scan it out to
get the resolution out of the film. So
it’s obviously much higher resolution.
It’s better contrast, better color saturation.
So it may seemed nitpicky
to some because of the digital cameras looked pretty good on a big screen, but
the film looks better and I think that, you know, a lot of the beauty of
photography in the subtleties and in the nuances.
And if you want
more detail in the shadow and more detail in the highlights, and an overall,
you know, richer look, film is still the superior medium. So it’s that’s important to you, great. If it’s not, you know, then digital is fine.
And by the way,
digital is getting there. You know, bit
by bit, incrementally, we see improvements, but until it’s equal or better than
film, I don’t see any reason to give up film as long as it’s available.
Mohamed Hassan: OK, thank you so much.
Wally Pfister: You’re welcome.
Operator: Your next question comes from the
line of Jordan Smith.
Jordan Smith: Hi.
I’m just wondering why you chose to work on this particular film and how
you got involved with this particular project of Transcendence?
Wally Pfister: Well – how I got involved was through my
agent sent a screenplay over and my agent also represented Jack Paglen and she
said I’ve really think to have a look at this.
Just came across my desk and I think it’s pretty fascinating.
And what attracted
me to it was really I thought it was very original and even though it dealt
with, you know, artificial intelligence, which has somebody mentioned earlier,
you know, not a completely original subject matter –
Jordan Smith: Right.
Wally Pfister: –
I thought it was a very original screenplay.
And I really love sort of what Jack had created with these characters
and sort of emotional journey and –
Jordan Smith: OK.
Wally Pfister: –
it felt different to me.
Jordan Smith: OK, thank you.
Wally Pfister: You’re welcome.
Operator: Your next question comes from the
line of Sidney Cunningham.
Wally Pfister: Hi.
Sidney Cunningham: Hi.
Seen in the movie obviously is not settled because it’s the plot that –
touched on it before earlier, but there is a lot of statements being made about
technology, its possibilities, its dangers.
What would you I suppose say is the statement that was being attempted
to be made in the film, if there was one?
Wally Pfister: Well, I would say there is no statement
being made by the director and that’s what sort of important to me in this, is
people look for statements, people also look for good guys and bad guys and
they are no defines, you know, good guys and bad guys in this film.
I suppose (Rip)
could be considered the bad guys, but at the same time I think we can relate to
some of their frustration. Certainly
they go to, you know, great levels that we don’t agree with.
In terms of any
statement, I think that it’s really the characters who make the statements and
I think that what we see from the character of Evelyn is that her hope is that
technology will be used for the betterment of mankind.
And certainly the
statement from Will is that everything that he wants to do, everything that he
tries to do is for her and it’s because of his love for her. And if there is any slight thing that the
filmmaker is saying in the end is this notion that there are reasons to use
technology, you know, to aid some of the problems that we’ve inflicted, you
know, environmentally and that’s basically taking Evelyn’s line.
But as I said, I
like to – I want to make film where the characters are making statements rather
than the filmmakers.
Sidney Cunningham: Right, OK.
Thank you so much.
Wally Pfister: You’re welcome.
Operator: Your next question comes from the
line of Kartik Chainani.
Wally Pfister: Hi.
Kartik Chainani: Hi, Wally.
I was just wondering since this is your first time directing a movie and
you are still get the opportunity to work with Christopher Nolan, I was just
wondering what it was like for you to step up cinematographer role and take
that director’s seat and hire somebody else to take over the job that you spent
for so many years.
Wally Pfister: Yes, it was – it was a lot of fun is the
answer to that. You know, stepping up to
the director’s seat. I really enjoyed
having, you know, a lot more tool as a storyteller. You know, obviously, the cinematographer,
it’s – you are telling stories with the images alone and without, you know,
composition, no lighting, camera movements, and everything related to
photography.
And as a director,
of course, you have many more tools to exercise and you know, most importantly
the story and the character development and dealing, you know, with performance
with the actors, which is the most fun.
And in addition to
that, you are exploring the other elements as a cinematographer, you are less
involve in production design, visual effects, even sound and sound design and
editorial. What was enlightening to me
is this how much you – the director is involved in sound design and the
picture.
We spent, you
know, months just working on the final sound and mix and music for the
movie. So those are all wonderful new
tools that you don’t experience as a cinematographer that I got to play with as
a director.
Kartik Chainani: All right, thank you.
Wally Pfister: You’re welcome.
Operator: Your next question comes from the
line of Preston Barta.
Wally Pfister: Hi.
Wally Pfister: Great.
How are you?
Wally Pfister: A college course of what?
Wally Pfister: I see.
That’s interesting. Well,
honestly, I’m probably best suited to teach a course on cinematography. I think if you are going to teach, you better
do what you know best. I’m still in the –
you know, it’s my first outing as a director.
So I wouldn’t be so presumptuous to teach directing. So the simple answer is I’ll probably teach
cinematography.
Wally Pfister: You’re welcome.
Operator: Your next question comes from the
line of Dan O’Connor.
Wally Pfister: Hi, Dan.
Dan O’Connor: It’s Dan again. Hi.
Wally Pfister: Hi.
Dan O’Connor: I’m just wondering what the casting process
was like on this film and what do you think all the actors brought to their
characters?
Wally Pfister: Well, casting process was really
fantastic because as I said I was very fortunate that I was able to get these
great actors. I also had a great casting
director, John Papsidera and he was really helpful and brought
people like (Cliff Collins) to the mix and help guide me towards (Kate Marra).
So you know, you
rely on a lot of great folks around you, but in terms of getting these other
actors. I was very, very fortunate to be
able to get Johnny and then as I said my previous relationship with Morgan, Cillian
and Rebecca came to play in terms of casting them. So it’s really a dream cast.
Dan O’Connor: Thank you.
Wally Pfister: You’re welcome.
Operator: Your next question comes from the
line of Kaitlyn Ferrell.
Wally Pfister: Hi.
Kaitlyn Ferrell: Hi.
So I knew you feel strongly toward the use of film. So what about the story of Transcendence and
the use of technology is specifically personal for you?
Wally Pfister: I think there is probably a little bit
of that in there. You know, it’s kind of
hard to avoid the fact that film is the organic and the more sort of
traditional technology. It’s been with
us for 100 years and you know, technology represents, you know, the digital I
supposed.
The reality as I
said is that film is still just higher image quality so that’s the real reason
I use film. But I don’t – I guess, I
have, you know, a love hate relationship with technology in general and I love
my computer, my cell phone and my iPad.
But at the same
time, I’m not that crazy about giving out personal information on social medial
sites and I also get a little annoyed when my phone makes me upgrade to the new
software quite frequently rather than just letting me use it as a telephone.
So you know, it’s
kind of – I guess, in general, I have a love hate relationship with
technology. I’d like to see technology
reach the level in image capture that film is and look forward to a time when
digital mediums are as simple and as effective as film right now.
Kaitlyn Ferrell: Thank you.
Wally Pfister: You’re welcome.
Operator: Your next question comes from the
line of Conrad Foreman.
Wally Pfister: Hi.
Conrad Foreman: Nice to speak with you.
Wally Pfister: Nice to speak with you too.
Conrad Foreman: Thank you.
Well, you’ve already touched on your relationship with Christopher Nolan
and what you’ve learned from him, but I was wondering throughout your
professional relationship, which has lasted for so long. Why you enjoyed working with him and why he
enjoyed to continue working with you?
Wally Pfister: Well, you know, Chris and I worked
together for a long time and clearly for a reason we both had a great respect
for each other and had a good working relationship, you know, and I think we
did some fantastic work together.
So you know, it’s
tricky to find people that you work with well in this business and when you do,
you kind of hang on and create a partnership that you hope is going to benefit each
other.
Conrad Foreman: Good.
Thank you.
Wally Pfister: You’re welcome.
Operator: And your final question comes
from the line of Leah Hanson.
Wally Pfister: Hi, Leah.
Leah Hanson: Hi there, sir. How are you?
Wally Pfister: Good.
How are you?
Leah Hanson: I’m great. Thank you.
We talked a lot about how, you know, your first directorial debut is a
great experience. I’m just wondering if
there were any moments when you experience didn’t match your expectations. If there were any disappointments?
Wally Pfister: Well, there always are. You know, you are always kind of up and down
in this – in this experience. What
happens is a little bit of both. There
are – I can’t think of a specific thing, but there are definitely mornings
where things aren’t going as you would hope and as you planned.
And it seems no
matter how much you plan, something happens, you know, just to throw that plan
and to alter the course of this.
Sometimes this happens for the better.
Sometimes, something that you think is not working out actually turns
out to be a better thing later on.
So it’s hard for
me to remember a specific, but it is certainly a journey of ups and downs. And the film really is a bizarre organic
beast that evolves. It’s one thing when
it’s on the script and then it involves into something else as you are filming
it.
And then it
involves into something else in the editing room. At least that’s how it works for me. I’m sure some people plan every single frame,
execute it that way and it works for them.
But for me it really is something that you have to watch it grow and
nurture it and guide it and take it to fruition. So I hope that answers your question.
Leah Hanson: It did.
Yes, thank you so much. I
appreciate it.
Wally Pfister: You’re welcome. Those are great questions, by the way,
guys. Thank you very much.
Operator: And I thank you, Wally Pfister
for joining in today’s call and I thank all of you for joining today’s
conference call. This concludes today’s
call. You may now disconnect.
Wally Pfister: Thank you very much, guys. Take care.
Bye.
END
No comments:
Post a Comment