(The death march is over: the manuscript will be in my editor’s inbox on Monday morning. So I’ve got time to blog again ...)
One of the questions that every SF author gets asked sooner or later is “where do you get your ideas?” For better or worse, I seem to get a double dose of it; ideas are my particular speciality, or so it said in the last fortune cookie I opened. So I thought I’d give the game away by explaining just where they come from.
Unlike Roger Zelazny I don’t leave a glass of milk and a plate of cookies out by the door; unlike Harlan Ellison I don’t use a mail order supplier in Poughkeepsie. (Or is it the other way around?) I don’t invent invent neat new ideas at all. Instead, I trip over them—because they’re lying around in heaps. The trick is to pick several up at the same time and smush them together until some of them stick to each other—creating something new and interesting.
Generating ideas isn’t some mystical talent that you have to be born with: it’s a skill you can develop. The first step is to throw your net far and wide, and see what comes back to you. I spend a couple of hours every day skimming news sources (most of them on the web, this century): everything from the daily newspapers and New Scientist to The Register by way of places like Hacker News and Slashdot and BoingBoing and then to more recondite islands in the sea of blogspace.
But grabbing tidbits from the zeitgeist is only the first step. The second step is to try to fit them together in new and interesting patterns. This is free-form brainstorming, and it’s something I tend to do at the pub, when I’m not busy drinking beer. Pubs are, disturbingly, where I hatch most of my best idea-sculptures: possibly it’s something to do with the disinhibiting effects of alcohol, or maybe it’s just having company to yack at.
Here’s a random idea for a novel that occurred to me last Wednesday at 10pm. (I’m not going to use it; feel free to borrow it!) We have, over the past couple of decades, seen something of a boom in computer-generated imagery in film. CGI has made a vast difference to special effects in recent movies and TV shows; it’s now good enough that it is in principle possible to use CGI-animated characters as protagonists. Back a few years ago, it’s what made the armies of Orcs possible in the Lord of the Rings movies. Today, it’s good enough that Arnold Schwartzenegger is going to be starring in more Terminator movies—without leaving the governor’s office. Video motion capture (in which a computer image recognition system captures and digitizes the body movements of a living model) and re-skinning of a CGI rendered avatar make it possible to map the likeness of an actor onto the motions of a nobody. You don’t even have to be alive to star in a film these days, as Richard Burton knows.
Now, let’s consider the economics of movie-making. In a front-line Hollywood blockbuster today, the fees commanded by the stars can easily be the biggest single line item in the budget, eating up 30-50% of the cost of the movie. Special effects are relatively cheap, at 20-30%. Wouldn’t it be nice to roll up the cost of the stars into a line item under CGI? Not so fast: these days, most stars (or their agents) take a lively interest in the intellectual property implications of their likeness. But dead stars ... must compete against other dead stars. Not only is it possible to take a long-dead actor like Richard Burton and re-animate him: this is going to have implications for what the living can charge.
Where’s the novel in this mish-mash of ideas about movie-making and the economics of technology?
Well, there are several angles you can play. For example:
The classic whodunnit: A star has died under suspicious circumstances. The detective must investigate—[insert your chosen protagonist here]—and discovers the truth: they were murdered by a studio exec because—[insert your motive relating to the cost of using a CGI body double here].
The Sterlingesque near-future cautionary tale: The tech to animate dead skins has run to completion. The studio/star system has broken, because it’s possible to have Lillian Gish, Bruce Lee, and Harrison Ford all starring in your rock-bottom Machinima production (clapped together in eight methamphetamine-fuelled weeks by a crew of punks using Playstation 4s running the bastard offspring of MovieStorm). Our protag is confused and goes on a bildungsroman through the sour underbelly of post-copyright-collapse Bollywood.
The creepy literary romance: in which our protagonist, whose life bears unhealthy parallels to a postmodernist amped-up 21st century of H. P. Lovecraft, falls in loves with a dead 1980s film star and starts making movies in which a Mabuse-like villain with his own face kills her time after time. (The whackiness? Oh, that’s just what ensues when some young punk steals his mobile phone, which is recovered by the police, who assume they’ve got a killer on their hands.)
Ideas! Ten a penny! New ideas, one slightly careless owner, get ’em cheap while they’re fresh!
Ideas, hah. The real challenge in this line of work is being able to weed the productive ones from the chaff, to decide which you’re going to spend the next six to nine months turning into something that people will pay for.
Remember: ideas are the easy bit. The rest, as the man said, is perspiration.
Wednesday April 29, 2009 03:29pm EDT
Wednesday April 29, 2009 03:46pm EDT
Note: her plot does not approach any of yours above, and is quite readable if only for the section on the poor sap working on behalf of the studios to censor undesirable behavior (drinking, smoking) out of old movies.
Wednesday April 29, 2009 05:05pm EDT
Wednesday April 29, 2009 06:19pm EDT
VIEW ALL BY · Wednesday April 29, 2009 06:58pm EDT
VIEW ALL BY · Wednesday April 29, 2009 07:30pm EDT
Wednesday April 29, 2009 07:46pm EDT
Wednesday April 29, 2009 09:57pm EDT
Your third scenario is an almost exact match for the plot of an episode of _Ghost in the Shell: Stand Alone Complex_. (Except that the duplicates were androids instead of CGI.)
Thursday April 30, 2009 05:17am EDT
Thursday April 30, 2009 06:54am EDT
Thursday April 30, 2009 08:55am EDT
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victor_Pelevin
If one can grok Russian, Pelevin's works are highly recommended.
I do hear that the English translation of Generation P is abysmal.
VIEW ALL BY · Thursday April 30, 2009 09:06am EDT
Thursday April 30, 2009 09:21am EDT
I can imagine that tech being used, but I wonder if it will lead to no new stars-- I hope there's more to catching people's attention than a celebrity face. Acting involves the whole body.
Another possibility is that you'll need a team to make a star-- one person for the appearance (who might only be recorded once), one (or several) for the visible acting, one for the voice, and specific programmers to tie together and amplify the visible team.
VIEW ALL BY · Thursday April 30, 2009 09:24am EDT
I was once told (in Creative Writing class, no less) that all writers are thieves... kleptomaniacs, really... and that the real trick is to take these ideas and mold them so your readers don't recognize them... make them fresh, make them your own.
So true. :)
Thursday April 30, 2009 09:30am EDT
Reading, listening to music and conversation, and just looking around or thinking generate ideas constantly. They come from anywhere, any time. The hard part is deciding on what to roll with. The harder part? Sticking with just one idea long enough to see a project through to completion.
Thursday April 30, 2009 10:20am EDT
Actresses are digitally scanned then sign contracts guaranteeing them paychecks for life while their CG doubles do the actual acting.
Then, of course, the actresses start mysteriously dying...
Don't worry, Albert Finney will get to the bottom of it.
Thursday April 30, 2009 10:25am EDT
I hear that the idea is the easy part. The hard part is the writing.
Thursday April 30, 2009 10:29am EDT
Mind
Thursday April 30, 2009 11:17am EDT
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0082677/
Thursday April 30, 2009 11:26am EDT
This could be the premise for a wicked good hard sci-fi whodunnit!
(The mystery would be revealed by deducing that the murderer would have to have been capable of perfect Bayesian reasoning, thus revealing the one suspect who is not made up of quarks to be guilty.)
Now if I could only figure out what he meant by that quip.
VIEW ALL BY · Thursday April 30, 2009 02:10pm EDT
VIEW ALL BY · Thursday April 30, 2009 04:10pm EDT
Thursday April 30, 2009 05:12pm EDT
The ones I remember (and blog) are either ridiculous or reprehensible: like rebranding the London Fire Brigade or kissing pigs to save Mankind from the aporkalypse. Fun, but it'll never pay any bills.
As for your idea about CGI'd actors... What about facial expression, body language, intonation? All the things that generate empathy and project emotion? It could be a while before good actors are replaced.
A while, but not forever: and it is clear that the technology has already surpassed Arnold Schwarzenegger's expressive repertoire.
Stunt doubles are toast.
Porn might be the first entire genre to get hit - there's only a limited number of emotions to portray and the dialogue never really mattered.
So here's an idea, a straight trade back to the author of Saturn's Children: consider the possibility that we decode body language *totally*. Imagine the CGI porn starlet whose subliminal signalling has been maxed-out to the carefully-plotted edge of 'creepy valley' so that it (she!) is still credibly human but far, far more of a turn-on and a visual viagra than any real-life human woman ever could be... And it's all below the conscious levels of the viewer's mind, far more subtle than improbable silicon boobs, and cheaper than the fluffers on a 'live' porn shoot.
It's be fun to write, although you might go through a lot of Kleenex. For the weepy bits, tragedy and character-development.
VIEW ALL BY · Friday May 01, 2009 10:35am EDT · amended on Friday May 01, 2009 10:35am EDT
Congrats on getting through your slog.
Btw if someone does borrow that novel idea, when will you want it back?
Friday May 01, 2009 12:53pm EDT
Director has a brainstorm - continuously track the glamorous life of a star. But live stars want some private time, and don't want someone else living their life. So he uses dead actors and doubles - decides to do it with one of the famous dead James Bond actors. Hit show. But he has to keep pushing the envelope - adding dramatic situations - people want to see Bond doing Bond things, fighting bad guys.
What could go wrong does - one of the body actors becomes convinced he IS Bond, starting to see villains and plots where the director hasn't set them up. He's canned - but soon his replacement develops the same problem. Crisis! Until the 3rd replacement, just starting to go over the edge, thwarts a real life mugger. Brainstorm #2 - the director will pit his Bond against real world villains - it's not paranoia if they really are out to get you. But what if his Bond gets killed? Soon he's got a stable of "Bonds" warming up, "getting in character", ready to slide in to replace The Bond. The production becomes a smash success - and the CIA takes notice. CIA-Hollywood merger follows.
Which is all just background for a slice of the real story...
Friday May 01, 2009 02:22pm EDT
Friday May 01, 2009 10:53pm EDT
Saturday May 02, 2009 07:14am EDT
Sunday May 03, 2009 07:50am EDT
Sunday May 03, 2009 10:53pm EDT
VIEW ALL BY · Tuesday May 05, 2009 10:43pm EDT
Ethan
Tuesday June 09, 2009 09:50am EDT
Norman Spinrad, "Little Heroes" for scenario #2.
Thursday June 11, 2009 01:40pm EDT
I think what might really destroy movie-stardom would be if, as Nancy @13 said, you needed a team to produce a starring role. Then you'd end up just dividing the stardom too many ways.
But maybe you would end up having acting specialists - different actors could do each scene, a romance specialist for the romantic ones, etc. Imagine being the person who specialized in angry roles, doing nothing but angry scenes day after day, role after role.
Nile H @23, your comment reminds me a bit of the Ted Chiang story "Liking What You See".
VIEW ALL BY · Sunday June 21, 2009 09:41pm EDT
Or David Carradine starring in his own snuff film, posthumously.