Screenwriting : Realism in technology and storytelling by Eric Charran

Hi, Eric Charran. I’m a Stage 32 Lounge Moderator. I wanted to let you know I moved your post from the Acting Lounge to the Screenwriting Lounge since it fits better here. Let me know if you have any questions.

I like to use real-life things and make up things for my scripts, especially Fantasy and Sci-Fi scripts. And I make sure these things tie into the logic of the stories.

Thank you for moving the post to the screenwriting lounge. I appreciate your guidance and agree it fits better there. I look forward to engaging with the community.

You're welcome, Eric Charran. Great. The next Community Open House will be January 28th. It's free to sign up. You can find out more in this blog: www.stage32.com/blog/whether-youre-new-or-a-longtime-member-the-stage-32...

Hi Eric Charran , I write horror stories with underwater vampires so realism is stretched at best. In my stories I keep everything realistic and current in regards to setting, environment, common and current tools and technology used in that environment. In my mind, I want the audience to relate to the character's environment completely so introduction of the monster is believable. Your story sounds very interesting and with current concerns with AI, the realism should be right where you need it.

What you said about realism and wonder connects to a pattern I keep seeing across creativity. There is a simple idea in circle packing: once you define the space, the number of possible arrangements becomes fixed. Possibility feels infinite in imagination, but the moment you set boundaries, the real structure appears. And the more I look at different creative fields, the more this same structure repeats.

Take dance. People think it is infinite, but the raw movement base is actually very limited. The body has a fixed architecture; joints only rotate within certain angles, gravity constantly shapes every action, and balance, strength, and flexibility all create hard limits. The illusion of endless possibility comes from how movements are arranged through timing, rhythm, spacing, intention, emotional framing, transitions, lighting, or even how a camera observes the same gesture. A single movement can feel powerful, awkward, unsettling, or beautiful depending entirely on perception. The movement does not change; the perception loop around it does.

Music has the same structure. It is not the edges of the hearing range that limit things. It is that inside that range, only a very small portion of frequency and rhythmic combinations actually feel meaningful to the human brain. Most vibrations do not form harmony, emotional resonance, or structure. The mathematically possible combinations are enormous, yet the musically meaningful region inside them is tiny. And inside that region, the emotionally peak points are even rarer, those moments where a song strikes in a way that feels almost impossible to replicate.

So the pattern becomes clear: a finite base expands into a huge combination space, but the truly meaningful region inside that space is extremely small. And perception keeps shifting how we experience the same point in that region. The world stays the same; the internal lens changes.

The way I think about it is simple. Let P be everything humans can perceive, and let Q be the small subset inside P that we call great work. Each iconic creation is just one point in Q. But once one of those points is discovered, people cluster around it with similar beats, similar moves, similar story structures, similar aesthetics. That clustering creates the illusion that creativity is repetitive or that the field is full, when the truth is that most of Q has not been touched at all.

For me, realism and wonder are not opposites. Realism respects the boundaries of the base. Wonder lives in the vast structured space above it, the part most people never think to explore.

It depends on the audience.

Realism is something you lean into when the target audience demands it. It adds value.

You lean away from it when it compromises entertainment value, and the audience won't mind.

Thank you CJ for sharing this thoughtful perspective. The analogies to dance and music capture how structure can still allow limitless combinations. I feel the same when I am writing and developing projects like Fallen Angel. By grounding the technology in real research and human behaviour you create a base that allows imagination to soar. Your idea that realism and wonder are partners rather than opposites resonates with me.

John, I appreciate your commitment to grounding your settings and tools in reality even when your premise is fantastical. That attention to detail helps readers connect with the world so the extraordinary elements feel believable. Thank you for your encouragement about Fallen Angel. It is reassuring to know that realism in storytelling resonates across genres.

Believability depends on how the world, and its characters are set up. Properly set up, if you believe in it, the audience will too. BUT it's more the old chestnut of 'suspension of disbelief' in the audience. Science should be grounded in science, but technology has a wide scope of invention. If Douglas Adams can get away with the technology of an 'Infinite Improbability drive', there's lots of scope.

Eric Charran I absolutely agree. As writers we have to use our imagination to flesh out some speculative technologies but basing them on things we recognize in our current day has always made it easier for me to suspend my own disbelief. Something like Her springs to mind for multiple reasons. Samantha's initial setup, for the most part, is like the setup on, say, an iPhone or a voice recognition software. Theodore speaks to it hesitantly the way any new user might. That small detail helped me to instantly identify with the protagonist and more readily accept the story as it unfolded because I identify with it. On the other hand, when Theodore plays his augmented reality game, the casual cursing from the cute little alien character pulled me out of the film because I've never experienced anything like that while playing a video game. Instinctually, it made me begin to question what I was seeing and I needed a little time to get back into it.

Andres, thank you for sharing your perspective and for bringing up Her. I agree that grounding speculative tech in familiar interfaces helps audiences connect with the story. It is those small, recognizable details that make it easier to suspend disbelief. In my experience with Fallen Angel I found that basing AI characters on current trends allowed me to explore bigger questions without losing readers. Your example of the augmented reality game is a good reminder that even minor inconsistencies can pull us out of a narrative. I appreciate your insights.

Research uncovers so many gems that that lend authenticity. The best moments are when you find those "no one could have made this up" moments that feel very human but also completely counterintuitive!

I am not capable of writing anything that isn't based in realism. It may be because I am not a dreamer but a project manager (see my answer to a post from Lauren Hackney) and my ideas are generated by what I personally experience and then blown up to an absurd level. I have been a stand up comedy fan since middle school and comedy resonated with me so much because there is a visible underlying truth (for someone, not necessarily everyone) to the stand up that I personally hold in high esteem.

Ewan, I feel the same way. When you find those counterintuitive real stories, they shape the entire scene. In Fallen Angel I keep notes on those findings and treat them as story anchors so the world stays honest even when the stakes escalate.

Darrell, that project manager perspective is valuable. Realism often comes from the daily experience and then the escalation you described. Comedy is a great example, because the truth sits right under the exaggeration. Thank you for adding your approach, and I would love to hear how you choose which details to keep.