Jaron is still way out there isn't he? The movie is full of people enjoying technology; I don't see what he's really complaining about. As to his credits, well that's an issue your bring up up front. If you accept a job that pays crap or lacks benefits you want then you've only got yourself to blame.

Salon recently featured an interview with 2 of the movie's futurists/conceptual consultants, Harald Belker and John Underkoffler.

i hated this movie it seemed unnecessarily gross, dark and unpleasant. the concept was boring - i'm sick of psychic powers in scifi - there's no such thing, give it a rest already. i left the theater with a headache.

even the robots sucked. well the car building robots were cool.

my $0.02

Some odd bits of irony from the article:

1. Lanier goes on about how cool and important interactivity is... in a _magazine_ _interview_. IWe can only comment and respond indirectly.

2. He says "I also seem to have influenced the script, by suggesting the idea that criminals might gouge out eyeballs to fool iris-scan identity-matching machines (though in fact such machines can already tell if an eye is alive or not)." Boy, is he an optimist (or pessimist, depending how you feel about biometrics). I recently read a number of reports about successful spoofs of biometric identification, including peering through a hole in a picture of someone else's iris, thereby presenting a live pupil and an authorized iris at the same time. After all, all you need to do is present an acceptable signal to whatever sensors the machine uses; the machine can't tell how the signal gets to the sensors.

When I first saw Minority Report, I figured that Spielberg found someone, or someones, really bright to imagine a consistent future for him. I had no clue until yesterday that it was Lanier and Stewart Brand and a bunch of GBN guys.