the beginning of writing sci-fi makes you a theorist because you start by asking yourself a lot of questions mostly centering around "is this plausible or just ridiculous"?
i begin by asking, what does a human need to survive? food, air, and oxygen. how does he get that in space?
then i go into how do they get into space? how do they get further into space? what is it like? what are the dangers? the world and the technicalities are built before the story such that i have a great stage with nice props, but no plot
another caution. i tend to over rationalize things. everything has to have an explanation and it can make the story dull. i recently looked at some sci-fi futuristic city art and it was inspiring. looked like people didn't have a city plan or technicalities and they weren't needed. they just imagined and whether or not it could be explained, it didn't need to be. it looked very cool and i wanted to believe in it, regardless. a good lesson...ultimately, i should be having fun
continuity can be a hard thing to keep in check. for instance, like the superman comics, movies, shows. it doesn't take much of an observation to realize superman is waaaay overpowered from the start. he should be able to overcome any obstacle with sheer speed alone- aside from the fact that he could kick a hole through your chest and ten others that look just like you in the blink of an atom. could little old lex luther be that much of a problem to a man that made the world spin backwards by flying around it? to put that in scope, that's like me turning a car upside down, hitting the petal, and trying to make the wheel spin in the other direction by waving my arm around it really fast, but much harder. these days, people question the logic in movies a lot. if your work isn't logical, expect to be blogged about in the least.
You need to be logged in to comment