Showing posts with label sci-fi. Show all posts
Showing posts with label sci-fi. Show all posts

Sunday, April 14, 2013

Sci Fi Circuit: The Magic of World Building, April 12, 2013

What does it take to make a sci fi world real?

 

As a science fiction fan, I love to be transported into new and fantastical worlds. As a sci fi screenwriter, I’m fascinated by understanding what it takes to make that happen, and happen well?

It’s not just a pretty gadget

Part of the appeal as fans, I think, is that just like in James Bond movies, we sci-fi geeks love to see new and clever ideas and how they work. It seems to be something of a thing, to have at least one super cool new piece of technology per sci fi film, like the hand-embedded phones in the re-release of Total Recall (2012).

But clearly a little fancy new technology isn’t the only thing it takes to make a futuristic world seem real.

What else is it?

The kind of world-building I deeply admire is what I’ve seen Joss Whedon doing with his sci fi masterpiece series Firefly and even with The Avengers. The world-building is all part of the background. It makes sense. We get it. When it comes to our attention, it’s part of the story but doesn’t overwhelm it. Everything serves a purpose. He does a masterful job of showing and not telling.

And that IS an issue with sci fi.

As Carson Reeves puts it in his excellent book Scriptshadow Secrets, “Science fiction is a memory hog.” 

He goes on to say, “You know that WHIRRRRR noise your laptop makes when Firefox starts sucking up your memory? That’s the exact same effect sci-fi has on a screenplay. 20-25% of your screenplay will be dedicated to exposition when you write sci-fi. This is due to all the rules and backstory and futuristic shit that needs to be explained… 

So make sure if you’re tackling this genre, you’re willing to put in the extra effort to minimize and hide all that exposition…”

So how do we build convincing and beautiful worlds while reining in the exposition?

First let’s start with the science, context, and backstory. To answer this question, I dragged out my early version of  The Writer’s Digest Guide to Science Fiction & Fantasy by Orson Scott Card for a look at the ingredients that go into building a world.

Setting the rules

Card lists first coming up with the “rules” for space travel, time travel, and magic.

For instance, pretty much at the outset of Star Wars and Star Trek we see that lightspeed and warp speed work in these universes. Even though the technology for traveling faster than the speed of light is currently seen as highly unlikely if not impossible in the scientific world (classified by Michio Kaku in Physics of the Impossible as a “class II impossibility”, meaning that it “sits on the very edge of our current understanding of the physical world”), we take it as a given that we can whip across the universe at enormous speeds without any time dilation effect.

In other universes, however, like those depicted in Aliens and Prometheus, cryo travel is required to traverse any kind of long distance, the impact of which is clearly seen when Ripley in Aliens asks, “How long was I out there?” and the answer, “Fifty-seven years,” produces a real shock for her character.

Similarly we must convey the rules of time travel — and as the writers of these tales, we get to decide on the rules.

For instance, think of the various ways time travel plays out in movies like The Butterfly Effect, the Back To The Future trilogy, and Déjà Vu. In each of these, we quickly learn the time travel rules for the particular story, such as, do people travel back through time into their own minds? Can they observe their earlier selves from the outside? Affect the past and alter the future? Or does time remain elastic and resilient, regardless of the changes we might try to make?

And even though we usually think of “magic” relative to fantasy stories, many of the sci fi worlds we see encompass some kind of magic, whether with technology or something like the Force in Star Wars.

Regardless of whether it’s magic or science, from the outset, we have to know the rules.

Detailing the past

We also need to understanding the past, including for example how a particular alien race has evolved to appear the way it has, and how it communicates — at least as the writers of the script. I love how Card describes understanding the backstory for a particular town with a mob led by a demogogic preacher and deeply understanding the kind of people that follow him. 

He says, “Now, maybe you won’t even use an incident like that in the story. But you know it, and because it’s in there in the history of that town, the people in that mob are no longer strangers to you, no longer puppets to make go through the actions you want them to perform. They’ve come alive, they have souls — and your story will be richer and more truthful because of it.” (Emphasis added.)

In my own work and reading on this subject, even while I am at times tempted to throw up my hands and say, “It doesn’t matter, I don’t care about that!” I find that my work deepens the more care I put into thinking about the world and story behind what we’re seeing.

Understanding language

Joss Whedon’s brilliance shines when it comes to language, which is the next of Card’s world building items. Ever the erudite communicator, not only has Whedon thought through a likely political and cultural evolution for the future of the human race in Firefly, he has extrapolated slang words like “ruttin’” and “gorram” along with the notion that characters will swear in Chinese. Along with subtle Asian cues in clothing, lettering, and set design, we quickly grok that China’s culture has become an integral part of these new worlds.

There’s nothing like a good delivery of language, whether we’re talking Aliens or Much Ado About Nothing to get us well-immersed in the tone and spirit of a particular world.

Designing scenery

According to Card, designing the scenery “… is the part that most people think of when they talk about world creation: coming up with a star system and a planet and an alien landscape.”

Carolyn See writes convincingly about the importance of “geography, time, and space” in her Making A Literary Life. Although I’ve been tempted to ignore such specifics along these lines at times since I’m writing “in the future,” I can see the validity of her point that we can become boring when we try for “universal” by neglecting the details.

I’m again reminded of the beauty of the ship “Serenity” in Firefly, and the careful thought that went into creating it, down to the flowers painted on the dining area walls. If we’re paying attention, we surmise they were added by one of the characters on the ship.

But here’s a question I wonder about: How much of this happens on the set, and how much happens in the writing stage?

As I contemplated that question, I remembered hearing Jane Espenson talk about writing the episode “Shindig” for Firefly. She described coming up with the idea for transportable door knobs that function as futuristic hotel room keys. And guess what? It’s in the script. So the writer does and can play a role at this level too.

And what about exposition?

Carson Reeves suggests that most sci fi projects need some kind of backstory introduction to help avoid overly expository dialogue. He points out the well-known use of the title card in the Star Wars franchise, but also references voice-overs in Avatar (and the video journaling did an admirable job there too, in my opinion), and the documentary-style footage in District 9.

I love this point from Michael A. Banks from his chapter, “Science Fiction: Hard Science and Hard Conflict” from How To Write Tales of Horror, Fantasy, & Science Fiction (from Writer’s Digest) about the degree of attention one must give to the science behind the fiction: 

“More detail is necessary, because you are frequently showing the reader things that don’t exist. 

You’ll have to depend on intuition to tell you just how far you can go without being a bore. … If the science is to be part of the conflict, you’ll have to take it quite a bit further. Because conflict is so closely tied to characterization, motivation, and the overall success of plot, you will have to give the science behind a conflict as much attention as you would any of the other basic story elements.”

He also says, “The ground rules are simple: Don’t tell the reader everything you know, and don’t dump the information you do use on the reader all at once. … Use only detail that adds necessary color, moves the plot, or helps the reader understand events, characters, or background.

I know that as I’m writing, I’m constantly asking myself, how can I convey this more concisely? How can I show it? How can we feel it? Can I make it tighter or clearer? If it means my reader “gets” my story more clearly, it’ll be worth the effort.

Lest we forget

Last, here’s a point I think is worth remembering, again from Orson Scott Card, about the value and importance of sci fi in our own world today: “Indeed, one of the greatest values of speculative fiction is that creating a strange imaginary world is often the best way to help readers see the real world through fresh eyes and notice things that would otherwise remain unnoticed.”
Related Articles:
Tools to Help:
Be Sociable, Share!

Monday, January 23, 2012

Free Fiction Sci-fi Romance Short Story: Frictionless Sheets by Neale Sourna

Frictionless Sheets

Intergalactic Deep Space sometime in the Future

Straczynski's bloody, damnable "frictionless sheets." He'd had them freight teleported to us and we'd used them right away. Let's just say the exciting IDEA of "frictionless sheets" is an intriguing one, the actuality of using them, however, not so much a good idea.

Maybe only "half"-frictionless, you intrepid inventors out there?

It was a bad idea because we still have the basic physics of our universe. That a head banged against a resistant wall or headboard will have a reciprocal reaction, as Sir Isaac Newton pointed out so long ago—an equal and opposite force—and, once again, I and my partner, without any tangible drag holding us in safe place, rocketed off our nuptial bunk with its slick, new sheets.

Into the far bulkhead, in an unseemly tangle of bruised arms, legs, and one dented, twisted male appendage. The latter of which is deeply cherished by us both, and upon which a sweet kiss on its "boo-boo" would not make it better. It made it all...http://www.weddingnight.com/stories/frictionless-sheets.html

Saturday, March 12, 2011

Donnie Darko_Yeah!!! S. Darko_Fuck No.

Just rewatched the original Donnie Darko, not the Director's or the release with extra title explanations. Always excellent, profound, emotional.

The so-called sequel IS NOT. It is a clarion call for never letting your ownership rights to your best characters get away or abused, just like your live children.

It's not an homage; it doesn't respect the previous work as the makers have said elsewhere.

What it is is that someone had a new Red One camera (nice imaging in the film) and Fox or someone supplied some cash to get on the back of cult beloved Richard Kelly's creation Donnie (teen comedy, angst, thriller, mystery, family drama, psychological, sci-fi, and horror) combined all its subgenres perfectly, with affection, humor, and intelligence.

While the S.D. is a lesson in bad writing, bad direction, and bad producing; although they successfully made a film, but, however, made it incomprehensible and illogical and even nonsensical.

They clearly have not seen Donnie, or saw it and comprehended NOTHING; just looked at stills and pulled images, and then jumbled up motivations and established conventions.

You guys really didn't understand the water spirit spears, did you? Admit it, I know you didn't. Was he in alpha state wakefulness or full dream walking with eyes open? If you can't answer this question--and you can't--then you shouldn't have made this crap.

It makes no sense in any dimension, has no soul, and is only to be seen if you are a writer, director, producer or just someone wants to see how to take great images, some money, and then ENTIRELY MISS ALL THE POINTS and make something SO BAD IT HURTS.

The s. Darko group didn't get it. They didn't understand...

Seeing the TRUTH and completely understanding it, while all around you do not?

Do you understand SACRIFICE? Donnie's sacrifice?

And SAVING THE WORLD with the pain of your own love? Clearly NOT.

Wednesday, December 02, 2009

J.C. Hutchins at Tor.com: Why the best sci-fi TV and movies don’t *feel* like sci-fi

Why the best sci-fi TV and movies don’t *feel* like sci-fi

Last week, I suggested that sci-f/fantasy readers and authors could benefit from reading genres other than SFF. I contended that the quality of SFF stories can improve from exposure to mainstream genres, reduce the barrier of entry for newcomers to SFF, and create an even larger community of fans.

Today, I’d like to illustrate this by geeking out on some movies and TV shows that inject high doses of SFF elements into their stories, yet proved to be completely accessible to mainstream audiences. Some of these stories aren’t usually classified as sci-fi by norms, which is awfully cool: it shows us that SFF need not alienate audiences with a high barrier of entry, and that the surly “us vs. the world” underdog/junkyard dog attitude a vocal few SFF audiences and authors have need not exist.

I’ll then follow up with why I think these SFF-in-sheep’s-clothing stories are so successful, and what we fans (and writers) can learn from them.

  • Back to the Future: A time-traveling DeLorean. Often found in the comedy section.

  • Groundhog Day: A loop in the space-time continuum. Comedy.

  • Somewhere In Time: Accessible time travel. Drama.

  • The Truman Show: Super surveillance, for a society of one. Comedy/drama.

  • Who Framed Roger Rabbit?: Toons in the real world. Comedy.

  • The Road Warrior: Post apocalypse. Far more often considered action than SF.

  • E.T.: Often considered a “family” movie, but sci-fi all the way.

  • The Time Traveler’s Wife: SF packaged as romance.

  • Jurassic Park: Cloned dinosaurs. Nearly always found in the action section.

  • The Abyss: Aliens in the ocean. Typically associated with action.

  • Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind: Mindwipe technology. Found in comedy/drama.

  • Galaxy Quest: Funny SF movie. Found in comedy.

  • Cocoon: Biological rejuvenation thanks to alien pods. Drama.

  • King Kong: Giant ape terrorizes Manhattan. Action.

  • Iron Man, Batman Begins, X-Men, Superman: Most often found in action.

  • Contact: Sagan’s SF masterpiece, often found in drama.

  • Quantum Leap: Time-jumping. Often classified as comedy/drama.

  • Third Rock from the Sun: Brilliant show about incognito aliens. Comedy.

  • The Six Million Dollar Man: They rebuilt him. They had the technology. Action.

  • The Boys from Brazil: Hitler clones. Drama.

  • Short Circuit: Sentient robot. Comedy.

  • Ghost: Victim’s soul sticks around to solve his own murder. Drama.

  • The Matrix: We all live in a computer simulation. Action.

  • Innerspace: Submarine inside a dude’s bloodstream. Comedy.

  • Bill & Ted’s Excellent Adventure: Time travel. Comedy.

  • Gremlins: Muppets gone bad. Comedy.

  • Honey, I Shrunk the Kids: The title says it all. Comedy/family.

  • Deja Vu: Space-time paradoxes. Drama.

  • Sliding Doors: Parallel universes. Drama.

I’m certain there are dozens more (which you can share in this post’s comments). So why were these movies and TV shows so successful at attracting non-SFF fans—especially when the beating heart of each of these stories is a skyscraper-sized SFF conceit? Nearly all of them take place in present day, which helps: the storytellers don’t have to send much time building a brand-new world.

But I believe it’s far more than that. Examine wildly successful properties that are known as SFF, yet attract millions of mainstream viewers—Star Wars, The Lord of the Rings, Alien and Aliens and The X-Files. These stories sport the same successful characteristics as the list above.

Yet they rarely let the SFF elements eclipse the story or characters. They give enough information about those fantastical elements to deliver understanding and relevance for the audience, but not so much as to alienate them. They focus on characters. Their protagonists—even if they were born on other planets—are immediately grokable thanks to their very “human” behaviors and characteristics. Audiences want to emotionally identify with characters, and whenever possible, the world in which they occupy.

I believe these are the most successful traits of great SFF (and stories, period): nigh-universal appeal. To be clear: I’m not criticizing fans or writers who love to deep geek in their fiction—one of my favorite novels, Vernor Vinge’s A Deepness In the Sky, is hyper-granular in its worldbuilding and geekery. There is absolutely a place for this content, and a thriving subculture exists that will support it.

But I do believe that these movies and TV shows (and more—sound off in the comments!) can provide priceless inspiration for SFF storytellers, and opportunities to grow our community well past the SFF section of our book- and video stores. If storytellers and evangelistic SFF fans can accomplish that, then we all win. MORE, including comments at http://www.tor.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=blog&id=58311


J.C. Hutchins is the author of the sci-fi thriller novel 7th Son: Descent. Originally released as free serialized audiobooks, his 7th Son trilogy is the most popular podcast novel series in history. J.C.’s work has been featured in The New York Times, The Washington Post and on NPR’s Weekend Edition.

ReddIt Stumble Upon del.icio.us Digg It Send via Mail