|
Post by steppedonwolf on May 27, 2010 22:53:56 GMT
Del and Rodney show us the way: Sorry about the advert on the right. f*cking YouTube.
|
|
|
Post by ian on Jun 4, 2010 21:58:22 GMT
I've being giving some serious thought to having a go writing a a straight forward monster type story for my next project. It will be interesting (For me anyway) To see how I manage writing a non-supernatural novel.
|
|
|
Post by steppedonwolf on Jun 4, 2010 22:36:20 GMT
Will this be a nature-gets revenge type story (ants, scorpions, rats, etc) - or a giant-monster on-the-loose type tale (Godzilla, King Dong, etc)?
The awkward thing about monster stories is finding the rationalisation for their existence. Easy in the early days - radiation, genetic modification, and so forth. Now it's harder. What to do to make this fresh and unique?
Volcanic ash could always be an answer...
|
|
|
Post by Calenture on Jun 6, 2010 19:14:56 GMT
Will this be a nature-gets revenge type story (ants, scorpions, rats, etc) - or a giant-monster on-the-loose type tale (Godzilla, King Dong, etc)? The awkward thing about monster stories is finding the rationalisation for their existence. Easy in the early days - radiation, genetic modification, and so forth. Now it's harder. What to do to make this fresh and unique? Volcanic ash could always be an answer... You've definitely put your finger on something there, and most writers will be wincing, because it's a sore spot. I think 'unique' is impossible. Really everything's been done long ago. But whether it can seem 'fresh' depends on the writer. I started thinking about favourite monsters. Why did the first King Kong (1933) work, and also the latest one (2005) - whereas almost every big monkey film between those two has been crap. I think it's because the scriptwriters for the original and the Pete Jackson remake concentrated on giving the actors decent lines and developing their characters and relationships. I think if you have believable people in the story, then the monster usually takes its usual place as an obstacle or threat to be overcome or escaped from. Believe in the people and the monsters become convincing. One of my past favourites was the shape-shifting thing in Van Vogt's Voyage of the Space Beagle. There's a passage in the book where it takes the shape of the floor near a drinks dispensing machine, then rises up and kills a thirsty victim. If the scene seems familiar, it's because you saw it in a Terminator movie. Ain't nothing new...
|
|
|
Post by steppedonwolf on Jun 6, 2010 22:50:02 GMT
Will this be a nature-gets revenge type story (ants, scorpions, rats, etc) - or a giant-monster on-the-loose type tale (Godzilla, King Dong, etc)? The awkward thing about monster stories is finding the rationalisation for their existence. Easy in the early days - radiation, genetic modification, and so forth. Now it's harder. What to do to make this fresh and unique? Volcanic ash could always be an answer... You've definitely put your finger on something there, and most writers will be wincing, because it's a sore spot. I think 'unique' is impossible. Really everything's been done long ago. But whether it can seem 'fresh' depends on the writer. I started thinking about favourite monsters. Why did the first King Kong (1933) work, and also the latest one (2005) - whereas almost every big monkey film between those two has been crap. I think it's because the scriptwriters for the original and the Pete Jackson remake concentrated on giving the actors decent lines and developing their characters and relationships. I think if you have believable people in the story, then the monster usually takes its usual place as an obstacle or threat to be overcome or escaped from. Believe in the people and the monsters become convincing. One of my past favourites was the shape-shifting thing in Van Vogt's Voyage of the Space Beagle. There's a passage in the book where it takes the shape of the floor near a drinks dispensing machine, then rises up and kills a thirsty victim. If the scene seems familiar, it's because you saw it in a Terminator movie. Ain't nothing new... Nice comments, Calenture! ;D I fully agree with your comment about the characters. I've found that good horror fiction has some of the best characterisation, because writers know that the key to making the unbelieveable believeable is to ground it in as much reality as they can - and quality characterisation plays an important role in that.
|
|
|
Post by shaun on Jun 7, 2010 8:48:45 GMT
Del and Rodney show us the way: Genius ;D
|
|
|
Post by rakie on Jun 8, 2010 10:38:36 GMT
i'd say, don't worry about a plausible explanation. George Romero never bothered with them, so why should we? ;D
as for originality, i'm still waiting for a killer manatee story...
|
|
|
Post by ian on Jun 8, 2010 11:03:33 GMT
Well, an idea that's been swimming around in the back of my head is a newly discovered animal that's a cross between a tribble (Star Trek) and a kitten. Everybody wants one, very cute, very playful... and then they reach maturity.
Still all the above but they release a pheromone that causes people and animals around them to go mad.
|
|
|
Post by Dreadlocksmile on Jun 13, 2010 8:45:46 GMT
...Everybody wants one, very cute, very playful... and then they reach maturity.
|
|
|
Post by steppedonwolf on Jun 13, 2010 9:05:41 GMT
...Everybody wants one, very cute, very playful... and then they reach maturity. Could be a film in this...
|
|