Welcome to this week's discussion point. It's a small mixed-bag of subjects, all things I have been thinking about over the past fortnight or so.
I've been shifting my research from story construction and myth to science. This is mainly because I wanted to see the plausibility of my inciting incident. This research has led me to a TV series, and a book, both by Carl Sagan.
The book contained a quote which inspired me to revisit the notion of religion,. I wondered what a future religion based on science, and one based on quashing scientific knowledge might be like. It also made me question what struggle I would think worth telling. This inevitably stems from my own personal bias, and a speak a bit on that.
Story gets a revisit too. I've been writing both the pilot, as well as incidents which lead up to the story. But some incidents cannot be revealed until certain points in the series. I talk a little bit about the relationship between inciting incident and climax. It took me a little while to get this right. I feel as tho searching for a lesser story - that of Marcus searching for his daughter - was beginning to feel like a cheap substitute for the bigger picture. Ultimately, we want to know how and why the moon was destroyed. By putting the destruction up front, this sets up the ultimate climactic scene in the audiences mind where we know the moon may be restored, and the world saved.
Here on the blog, I wish to share a few designs I have been "signing off" on. The first are the Mason Corp uniforms. Here is the chart of minor variation, but with the ones I was leaning towards highlighted:
 |
| From Public Album |
From left to right: a high-rank director uniform; David Winfield's uniform; a spare; Marcus Blair's Miner uniform.
 |
| From Public Album |
I've been working on the Winfield character some more. I want him to look clean cut; I imagine he will be blonde. He will have an approachable look, like someone who could very well be "the public face" of a product or company:
 |
| From Public Album |
 |
| From Public Album |
 |
| From Public Album |
I have begun to model this character, but you won't see that for a couple of weeks.
Speaking of the WIP videos: I have been getting a few comments on the Vimeo pages in regards to the videos in which I document the modeling process. If you would prefer to see a bit more of this, please leave a comment on this post, or email me at: flawedprefect@gmail.com. I will be glad to comply.
Finally, a couple of shout-outs to Shilo McClean of the Sydney ACM SIGGRAPH for inviting me to speak on the subject of "The Working Artist". (Where it mentions "industry artists" - that's me!)
Next week, stay tuned for a special Brainstorming session with Marcello. We speak more on world building and begin to put flesh on the bare bones of the pilot. I will be releasing some more concept art (some even by 'Cello himself) on the blog.
Subscribe to iTunes Feed
3 comments:
Hey Paul, great episode! I found your quote and comment at the start interesting. I come from a very Christian background and I still hold to many of the Christian beliefs. I think your comment about current religions making a god smaller than he could be to be slightly unfair. In fact, most Christians will point to science (DNA as an example) and ask how something as complex as that could simply evolve from random chance.
Aside from that, great episode and keep up the great work. I really get a good kick of motivation from listening to your thought process.
Hey James, thanks for commenting, and thanks for listening.
If you find the quote unfair, you're entitled to your opinion - I won't say you are wrong, and applaud you for being a person of faith, when I cannot be.
However, I make no apology for agreeing with Sagan: the history of science is riddled with examples where evidence discovered by free thinkers has shook the foundations of doctrine, and religious institutions have retaliated because it interferes with their understanding of how God works.
Galileo is but one example that the Catholic Church is still attempting to live down; Darwin is an example fundamentalists are currently trying to vilify.
To point to a complex thing and deduce: "there MUST have been a designer, nature could not have possibly made this on its own" is only testimony of ones own failure to understand the power of nature, and unwillingness to observe further than the superficial. It does not infer a creator's (ie: God's) existence in any way.
Religion and science have always dealt with different matters. It wasn't always like this, but today, religion deals with matters of ethics, morals, right and wrong - all matters of the human mind and heart.
Science is a method of observation in which we can learn about the natural universe, and how it works.
It has recently become a realm which has revealed our place in the universe. The implications this may have on the way we have previously thought of such things is what drives the debate which involves religion.
Folks such as Creationists, or Intelligent Design proponents (those who infer a creator because they cannot see how something as complex as life could come about by natural means) debase science by cherry-picking cases that back up their claims, and spinning it to merely prove that the Christian bible is the inerrant Word of God.
Why is this? Perhaps they believe there can be no morals without a divine law-giver, and if that ultimate giver of law is proven false, then all morals will cease to be also.
But they are doing a disservice to both religion and science in an attempt to keep their "Little God" alive: a God who will send you to Heaven only if you accept Jesus as the way, and to Hell if you do not. Therefore: Buddhists, Hindus, Shamans, Wiccans, Atheists, Agnostics, Humanists, Jews, Pagans, Muslims are all going to Hell. The ENTIRE UNIVERSE was, therefore, created for Mankind, and everything in it for the purposes of testing Man to see if he will choose Jesus over all else. That is a Little God who creates and plays with toys. That is NOT an almighty creator.
This is ultimately, who Sagan refers to.
This is, however, the view of the smallest - yet loudest, most controversial - voice in the room. The voice which fills the public domain because science is not nearly popular enough to do so. This is a danger. It skews public opinion and gives rise to thinking which is wrong. Not only inaccurate, but also damaging.
There are people - and they constitute the OVERWHELMING majority of religious people - who see no problem with incorporating science into their world view. They will constitute those who see a grander designer; someone who may have come up with the idea of the cosmos, and then let whatever miracles happened happen. These are folks who do look up and say "this is better than we first imagined! It inspires me to look out and see a larger world. If there is a creator, that creator must truly be great."
Look up writer Ken R. Miller - a biologist who has written several 9th grade text books, and who is extremely good at reconciling his religion with his work.
As you have attested: Religion is obviously a matter which grabs attention (it is a rare week when I get a comment, but I talk religion and I get one as soon as it gets published. Go figure). Perhaps it is a theme that may interested a larger audience.
Books you might find interesting:
Ken R. Miller: Darwin's God
Ken R. Miller: Just a Theory
Joseph Campbell: The Many Masks of God
Look them up on Amazon, or in a local library. Google Ken R. Miller.
I apologize for the small essay, but I have welcomed the discussion.
Hey Paul,
Only just noticed your reply. I still hold to my statement, most Christians I know will point to certain versus from the bible and say that "God is too big to understand." Of course, as you say, they will then go and pretend they know all the answers to all the questions and that they are the only ones with the answers. But at least in theory, they are not limiting the God they believe in. In theory.
But I don't view that as being a fault of religion or exclusive to religion. I could point to countless examples in history where humans have been unwilling to give up ideas, unwilling to change, and unwilling to open their mind to other ideas. I view that as simple human nature and not a fault of religion. I've noticed that humans are very proud creatures.
I'll have to look into those books you suggested. I know I loved Campbell's "The Hero with a Thousand Faces."
Post a Comment