Literary Master: Starting with Refusing to Be a Child Star

Chapter 149 All Fellow Travelers Are Benefactors

"Would you like to attend a technology showcase?"

A science-themed film festival was held in December at a newly built arts center in Beijing. The three-day event brought together domestic and international films and project concepts related to science and technology from the past five years.

The exhibitors are top performers from several mainstream domestic production companies, special effects studios, and university digital media labs, as well as some independent creators.

Luo Jinnian received the invitation the day before. The inviting party was one of the exhibition organizers, a technology development company that had a short-term collaboration with Early Spring Culture. The invitation indicated that Luo Jinnian's role as a participant was "creator representative".

The exhibition area was divided into three main sections:

The screening room plays recent science fiction short films and behind-the-scenes footage on a loop; the exhibition hall displays concept designs and dynamic demonstrations of some new projects; there are also two public discussions on the themes of "Science Fiction Films and Future Society" and "How Technology Influences Narrative".

Luo Jinnian walked around the exhibition hall, pausing briefly at the concept designs of some projects without taking notes. One project showcased a film production workflow based on real-time rendering technology. Test footage was playing on the demo screen, with picture quality approaching that of a finished film, but at a much lower cost than traditional filming. He stood at that booth for nearly ten minutes, during which time he overheard a conversation between a group of technicians discussing the applicability of this workflow to specific types of scenes.

The discussion was scheduled for the next day. Luo Jinnian attended one of the sessions, which focused on "How Technology Influences Narrative." The attendees included several directors, producers, technology experts, and university scholars. Speakers were arranged in order of seating, each speaking for approximately eight to ten minutes. Luo Jinnian was second to last. His presentation was brief, primarily focusing on the relationship between technology and narrative, without delving into details of specific projects or mentioning any individuals or companies by name.

He stated, "Technology is a tool, but it can conversely limit the possibilities of narrative. Once a technology is widely adopted, the narrative modes it excels at often become the default option, while other modes of expression are gradually marginalized. Maintaining a clear boundary between tool and purpose requires creators to make more proactive adjustments in their technology choices. The main basis for these adjustments should be the needs of the work itself, rather than whether the technology is convenient enough."

This statement was included in the exhibition's transcript and subsequently excerpted and posted on several platforms and industry exchange groups. Later that day, discussions erupted on social media. One post, with a particularly eye-catching title, roughly translated as: A science fiction creator's remarks at a science fiction film festival implied a problem with the current industry's production direction and subtly linked the "technology-first" approach to a decline in the quality of works. That post garnered significant attention and shares within hours of its release. In the comments section, some believed the statement was an accurate assessment of the current state of the industry, while others felt the speaker was overly idealistic and avoided addressing the practical issues of the technology popularization phase.

Luo Jinnian neither forwarded the post nor liked any related content.

The day after the exhibition ended, he posted a new update on his personal account.

The post was a short text message without any images: "My next science fiction project is in development. Once completed, it will be open for internal review. Discussions about the relationship between technology and narrative can continue at that time, allowing for comparison with live footage."

Following the post, the comments section saw a flurry of discussion, focusing on how the next science fiction work would address the questions raised in the previous statement. Neither side showed any sign of backing down, and the rift in the discussion was deepening. Luo Jinnian made no further response after the post, continuing to push forward with the project and ensuring all work proceeded as planned. The lines and nodes converging from different directions onto the same blueprint would be his best way of responding to all the controversies.

The discussion continued into the second week after the exhibition ended, but the focus had gradually narrowed from the general "relationship between technology and narrative" to more specific levels. Several articles on industry self-media juxtaposed Luo Jinnian's speech with the currently developing "2001: A Space Odyssey" project, arguing that there was a direct connection between the two and using this as the basis for the discussion. One article had a rather direct title, essentially saying, "The person who spoke at the exhibition is responding to current technological discussions with a 60-year-old science fiction novel." The article analyzed the relationship between the stability of "2001's" narrative structure and the adaptation of special effects technology. This article garnered considerable attention within the industry.

Luo Jinnian did not respond to the article. However, he noticed that the collaboration efficiency among project stakeholders improved during that period.

After receiving his revised storyboard, the visual effects team completed a new pre-visualization test within the agreed time and submitted an updated demo video, focusing on improving the synchronization between the flow direction of the wall textures and the camera movement in the stargate passage scene.

In the updated version, the original directional deviation has been largely eliminated, and there is a noticeable improvement in the overall rhythm matching compared to previous versions.

Test data shows that the compositional matching between the corrected frame and the original storyboard is significantly improved.

Luo Jinnian archived that demo video into the project files without adding any notes.

The director of photography has also provided feedback on the latest developments.

The lighting test of the space station module model has been completed. A set of calibration shots were taken, and the brightness attenuation at different distances was calibrated using a light source with a uniform color temperature.

The conclusion drawn from this data is that when lighting is applied within the model, the brightness exhibits a predictable decrease with each increase in distance, and the decrease pattern differs slightly from the predetermined value. After reviewing the data, Luo Jinnian confirmed its usability and notified that the test results had been incorporated into the photography plan reference.

Meanwhile, online discussions have taken a new turn.

Some have analyzed Luo Jinnian's full speech at the exhibition alongside his mention of his "next science fiction work" in his social media posts, suggesting that he was using the act of creating a work to validate his arguments. Some find this approach convincing, while others argue that simply preparing a work does not equate to successful validation.

A more concrete turning point occurred in mid-January. A media outlet published a report on the production progress of *2001: A Space Odyssey*, based on publicly available information from the project team, mentioning that the pre-visualization phase had completed preliminary demonstrations and verifications of key scenes. The report concluded with a brief summary from a technical evaluation document: "During the project's progress, some technical solutions underwent multiple rounds of comparison and adjustment during the testing phase. The adjustments in some directions were minor and fall within the normal scope of collaborative work."

Following the report's publication, some commentators interpreted it as an indirect confirmation of Luo Jinnian's previous statements—that his "response through his work" was progressing in a visible way. Others argued that the report itself did not prove a direct correlation between the project's technical choices and his remarks. Both viewpoints had their supporters, and the discussion reached a new peak in the days following the report's release.

Luo Jinnian did not respond to the report. The project is still progressing as planned, and each submission brings it closer to the final goal. His position has already been expressed by showing the existing production records and actual results, and no further explanation is needed to supplement the content already included in the project documents.

Meanwhile, some foreign media outlets have also begun to pay attention to this adaptation, not only because of the status of the original *2001: A Space Odyssey* in the field of science fiction literature, but also because it employs a production method that combines high-precision physical models with real-time rendering, a relatively rare choice in the current industry. Several reports have provided preliminary analysis of the project's production model as an independent case study, citing previously released technical test footage from the special effects team as a reference. These reports gained considerable attention after being published on overseas platforms, further expanding the scope of discussion regarding the project's technical approach.

Despite the attention from various angles, the project team maintained its established work rhythm. All technical discussions were conducted via email and the project management platform, with a clear decision-making process and complete communication records.

Luo Jinnian was very satisfied with this professional team. If the only cost was a high amount of money, it would not be a price to pay but a barrier—an economic barrier.

If competitors are unwilling to do this and instead think of using a superficial approach to drive out good products with bad ones, then those competitors are indeed benefactors.