Don't
Get
the
Wrong
Idea

When Interfaces Break the Spell

On-screen interfaces fail in film for the same reason bad props do: they aren’t designed to be scrutinized.

Most movie apps are static, over-designed, or oddly sluggish. They rely on dense text, implausible layouts, or “cool” animations that don’t match how real software behaves. They may look fine in isolation, but once a camera lingers — or a character actually interacts with them — the illusion collapses.

Viewers are extremely good at detecting this kind of fakery. Even non-designers can feel when something is off. The response isn’t analytical; it’s visceral. Attention breaks and the story loses momentum.

An example of a poorly designed cinematic UI from the film, Hackers

In both films we've released (both written and directed by Jennifer Wolfe and shot by director of photography, Maggie Kirkland), the apps weren’t background details. They were narrative devices. Characters made decisions through them. Tension depended on them. If the interfaces failed to feel real, the story failed with them.

The challenge was to design interfaces that worked on three levels at once:

• As believable, realistic, internally consistent apps
• As tools actors can use effortlessly under pressure
• As visual elements that read instantly and understandably inside a composed shot

Because I was also deeply involved in editing and sound design, I was thinking constantly about how the viewer would experience these moments, not just how the interfaces looked in isolation.

An interface that responded too quickly felt fake. One that responded too slowly felt broken. Color and hierarchy were essential considerations for instant comprehension. Small delays, micro-animations, and loading states became emotional tools, not just UI conventions.

This framing shaped everything that followed. These weren’t apps designed for onboarding flows or usability testing. They were designed to support storytelling without calling undue attention to themselves.

A well-designed film UI from one of our films

Reality, under a microscope

I built the apps as high-fidelity Figma prototypes using Smart Animate, timed transitions, and invisible navigation and reset triggers. For example, in scenes with texting, tapping anywhere on a keyboard advanced the on-screen text so it looked realistic but was hard to screw up. Delays and animations simulated “typing on the other end.” Maps could be panned realistically. Ride-share routes animated smoothly.

Actors could focus entirely on their performance. The director could trust that the screens would behave predictably. And production never stalled waiting for a device to be “set back up.”

This constraint — never slow down the set — became a UX principle in its own right.

A screenshot of the dating app in You Will See Us

Every interface was designed twice:

• Once as a believable app
• Again as a compositional element inside the shot

For the dating app in You Will See Us, I leaned into saturated pinks and reds. It fit the emotional tone of the app — but more importantly, it popped visually, even when the phone was several feet from the camera.

For the rideshare app, I avoided the familiar “tech blue” entirely. Routes and accents were red. Red reads instantly. It also subtly signaled danger — and sat intentionally against a cool, blue-heavy color grade in the film.

In Happy Ending, the gallery and messaging apps were designed to disappear just enough. They felt familiar, frictionless, and boring in the best way — which allowed the audience to focus on what the content meant, not how the interface worked. In these cases the content was the only thing that mattered, and so it was essential that the rest receded visually without looking fake.

---

Hidden reset zones allowed instant recovery between takes. Overlapping tap targets prevented missed inputs. Motion reinforced state changes without requiring focused attention. Nothing depended on precision, memory, or perfect timing on the part of the actor.

These details weren’t about realism for its own sake. They were about protecting the performance. An actor worrying about whether a screen would behave correctly is an actor pulled out of the scene.

Because I was also editing the films, I could see exactly how small interaction choices affected pacing. A delayed response could heighten tension — or accidentally drain it. An animation that lingered too long could compete with a line of dialogue. Every micro-decision had downstream consequences.

The goal was simple: make the interfaces trustworthy enough that everyone could forget about them.

That’s a familiar UX principle in an unfamiliar context: when stakes are high, the system’s job is to absorb uncertainty — quietly, reliably, and without asking for attention.