If you read my books, especially the Star Trek books and the Quest for Tomorrow books, you'll see in them the core theme of the basic humanistic questions that Star Trek asked.
You don't make a film because the audience is ready for it. You make a film because you have questions that are in your gut.
The most extraordinary thing about trying to piece together the missing links in the evolutionary story is that when you do find a missing link and put it in the story, you suddenly need all these other missing links to connect to the new discovery. The gaps and questions actually increase - it's extraordinary.
I do find that I tend to write about big questions. Why are we here? What are we doing? How do we relate to each other?
If you never ask yourself any questions about the meaning of a passage, you cannot expect the book to give you any insight you do not already possess.
Obviously there are questions when anyone comes up to the Premier League about whether they can cope.
When I was outed by Perez Hilton as bisexual, I suddenly started being asked personal questions, which was really difficult.
New questions can produce new scientific leaps. They can tiddlywink new flips of insight and understanding. Big ones. Paradigm shifts.
If someone is making a very expensive purchase decision, they typically have a lot of questions about the fit and about what to wear the item with. In some cases, they'll ask for additional images or want to contact the designer.
Science does not limit itself merely to what is currently verifiable. But it is interested in questions that are potentially verifiable (or, rather, falsifiable).
Theory not only formulates what we know but also tells us what we want to know, that is, the questions to which an answer is needed.
I don't give a whole lot of thought or credence to questions about what comes on next, what goes on next.