• 83 results
  • 1
  • 2
Posted by RazzaTazz (9647 posts) - - Show Bio
One of the hallmarks in terms of Marvel versus DC has always been an attempt to have harder science fiction as opposed to softer (meaning that its science fiction is more based on fact.)  DC characters rarely use anything resembling real science.  With the exception of Batman, many of whose inventions in comics were followed not long after with a replication in real life, DC has traditionally taken a scientific concept and without really understanding it used it as the basis for one of its characters.  In fact ironically one of the most intelligent of DC scientists, Ray Palmer, has harnessed the powers of White Dwarf matter which make absolutely no sense.  In terms of Marvel though, science is explained in a more realistic way.  To be fair there is no scientific way to explain a character like Cyclops for instance, with the ability to fire energy from his eyes, but even with this leap in science, the character is still tied to at least some science (the mutation is caused by evolution, the visor is based on electromagnetism).  And while there are some characters in Marvel that fall into the typical implausible origins (like with any power granting radiation - radiation mostly just kills living things) there are some who are based primarily off of science - Reed Richards, Hank Pym or Amadeus Cho.  The most famous of these (at least in terms of science) is undoubtedly Tony Stark, who uses science more in terms of its application to technology (that is to say he is an engineer).  Is DC trying to edge its way in on this with the new 52 though?  The new Mister Terrific series is quite similar to Invincible Iron Man in tone and content, and really in character behaviour.  Mister Terrific has always been portrayed as a genius inventor, but now that he has his own series, it seems to be focusing on just how smart he is (much like in Iron Man) as well as making the occasional quip about the stuff which he doesn't know.  Captain Atom is is similar but not as similar, similar for attempting to rely on harder physics to explain the character, courtesy of Doctor Megala, while also offering the same powerhouse levels of superheroics that Tony Stark does.  Overall it seems as though the characters are being written almost to compete with the dominance of Iron Man in the science sub-genre of comics which Marvel seems to have an almost monopoly on.  For Dc who has always relied more heavily on more powerful characters and less ties to science it will be interesting to see if it works.  
Moderator
#1 Posted by super_psycho (2792 posts) - - Show Bio

@RazzaTazz: as you said radiation kills living things and hulk got his powers from gamma radiation. :D how is marvel better than DC in science?

#2 Posted by RazzaTazz (9647 posts) - - Show Bio
@super_psycho: they are generally better, at least with the Hulk they gave some explanation later (like that he already had an advanced healing system of something did he not?), it was kind of a funny moment in Flashpoint for instance when Barry Allen tried to replicate the lightning that gave him his powers and nearly burned himself to death.  
Moderator
#3 Posted by Mega_spidey01 (3078 posts) - - Show Bio
@super_psycho said:

@RazzaTazz: as you said radiation kills living things and hulk got his powers from gamma radiation. :D how is marvel better than DC in science?

i hope the mister Terrific series get better. they could always try to explain science based off of more real world science. like on the show alphas for example. 
#4 Edited by Jonny_Anonymous (33629 posts) - - Show Bio

I remember the scientific explanation for Cyclops's power was that when he opens his eyes it opens a gateway to a universe of complete energy and thats what comes shooting out.

#5 Posted by super_psycho (2792 posts) - - Show Bio

@RazzaTazz said:

@super_psycho: they are generally better, at least with the Hulk they gave some explanation later (like that he already had an advanced healing system of something did he not?), it was kind of a funny moment in Flashpoint for instance when Barry Allen tried to replicate the lightning that gave him his powers and nearly burned himself to death.

same can be said for hulk when he was bombarded with gamma bombs. his healing factor didn't help him, did it?

#6 Posted by RazzaTazz (9647 posts) - - Show Bio
@super_psycho: You got me, I am not arguing specific points though just overall Marvel goes for a harder approach with science.  Of course some things at Marvel are completely soft science, like riding a surfboard through a star
Moderator
#7 Posted by DEGRAAF (7887 posts) - - Show Bio

@super_psycho said:

@RazzaTazz said:

@super_psycho: they are generally better, at least with the Hulk they gave some explanation later (like that he already had an advanced healing system of something did he not?), it was kind of a funny moment in Flashpoint for instance when Barry Allen tried to replicate the lightning that gave him his powers and nearly burned himself to death.

same can be said for hulk when he was bombarded with gamma bombs. his healing factor didn't help him, did it?

idk about the gamma bombs but during a recent arc (cant remember the name) Bruce absorbs all the gamma and cosmic radiation being reconfigured in to a machine that was created to make new Hulks. Instead of killing him it made him stronger than ever before

#8 Posted by Jnr6Lil (7708 posts) - - Show Bio

Marvel already outdoes Marvel in Science and Technology

#9 Posted by AtPhantom (14521 posts) - - Show Bio

Are you freaking kidding me??? Marvel was never any more realistic than DC in terms of science. Marvel is more realistic in the sense that its characters generally work more down to Earth and acknowledge the world around them. Marvel's science and technology have always been as balls-out insane as anything DC ever came up with.

#10 Posted by Gambit1024 (9890 posts) - - Show Bio

@spiderbat87 said:

I remember the scientific explanation for Cyclops's power was that when he opens his eyes it opens a gateway to a universe of complete energy and thats what comes shooting out.

Interesting. I heard that Cyke absorbs solar energy and converts it into a concussive energy he shoots out of his eyes

#11 Posted by SexualLobster (995 posts) - - Show Bio

@super_psycho: He kinda said that that's one of Marvel's 'goofs' did he not? :/

#12 Posted by super_psycho (2792 posts) - - Show Bio

@SexualLobster: who?

#13 Posted by SexualLobster (995 posts) - - Show Bio

@spiderbat87: Uh.. as far as I know Scott's powers are derived from solar energy, and the reason he can't control when the blasts occur is do to head trauma as a child.

Maybe you're thinking of some alternate reality version of him.

#14 Posted by SexualLobster (995 posts) - - Show Bio

@super_psycho: The guy that made the thread.

'And while there are some characters in Marvel that fall into the typical implausible origins (like with any power granting radiation - radiation mostly just kills living things) there are some who are based primarily off of science'

#15 Posted by Jonny_Anonymous (33629 posts) - - Show Bio
@SexualLobster said:

@spiderbat87: Uh.. as far as I know Scott's powers are derived from solar energy, and the reason he can't control when the blasts occur is do to head trauma as a child.

Maybe you're thinking of some alternate reality version of him.

Maybe but I think it makes more sense, turning solar energy in to a concussive force with no heat makes no sense. 
#16 Posted by Deadcool (6811 posts) - - Show Bio

There is no such thing as "science" in comics, Marvel explain what the hell in going on with the superpowers and all the crap, but still no actual science, just science-based, they usee scientific cocepts to make their comics more interesting, but they are nothing like the real science, that is why I like the comics, such stuff doesn't happens in the real life, and it would never do, because such stuff is crap...

Science in comicbooks... is crap...
#17 Posted by SC (13148 posts) - - Show Bio
@super_psycho:  Genetically Bruce Banner was lucky I believe was the explanation. Sort of like you'll hear instances of a person's secondary negative health effect, that would have killed them if it was the primary, temporarily neutralizing a primary health effect. Radiation kills, but radiation also mutates, plus if radiation always actually killed everyone, fast, we'd all be dead. Least that is how I remember it. I think one story also suggested he had been building up a resistance as well. I think emphasis was on the this would killed 99% of all other people who would have been in his place deal. Which is some soft science. 
 
 
 
I agree with this blog. Marvel to me has always outdid DC in science, not in some generically generalized way, like some might suggest, but because more Marvel writers generally seemed to note and wish for that angle more substantially - of course, I can see how some might interpret that to think that this is a claim that Marvel is more scientifically accurate or realistic, when its actually much more about making something sound more plausible as far as being grounded in science, or leaving it up to more mysterious or fantastical means. Though in the last decade and maybe longer, just the cross section in writers and fact so many sort of work for both companies and you have characters, books, and themes, starting to be competitive with each other and carve their own niches, I think this has equalized a bit more and will continue to do so. 
Moderator
#18 Posted by RazzaTazz (9647 posts) - - Show Bio
@Deadcool: I never said it was accurate, I said it was a lot more towards being hard science than DC was.  Of course it is not possible. 
Moderator
#19 Posted by Gambit1024 (9890 posts) - - Show Bio

@Deadcool: Best pic ever.

#20 Posted by AtPhantom (14521 posts) - - Show Bio

@RazzaTazz said:

@Deadcool: I never said it was accurate, I said it was a lot more towards being hard science than DC was. Of course it is not possible.

Half-assed explanations do not harder science make. DC has "explained" the powers of their heroes as much as Marvel. Sometimes better, sometimes worse, but it always comes down to the same in the end.

#21 Posted by Deadcool (6811 posts) - - Show Bio

@RazzaTazz said:

@Deadcool: I never said it was accurate, I said it was a lot more towards being hard science than DC was. Of course it is not possible.

I understand your point, DC seems more unrealistic than Marvel, but both still unrealistic, using Science terms or not, there is NO science on them...

#22 Posted by RazzaTazz (9647 posts) - - Show Bio
@Deadcool: Agreed but also regardless of real science or not, Marvel has a lot more scientists.  Even Doctor Strange is an actual MD and thus a sort of scientist.  Not as many prominent scientists at DC
Moderator
#23 Posted by super_psycho (2792 posts) - - Show Bio

@SexualLobster said:

@super_psycho: The guy that made the thread.

'And while there are some characters in Marvel that fall into the typical implausible origins (like with any power granting radiation - radiation mostly just kills living things) there are some who are based primarily off of science'

razzatazz is woman.

#24 Posted by Deadcool (6811 posts) - - Show Bio

@Gambit1024 said:

@Deadcool: Best pic ever.

LOL thanks

#25 Posted by super_psycho (2792 posts) - - Show Bio

@SC said:

@super_psycho: Genetically Bruce Banner was lucky I believe was the explanation. Sort of like you'll hear instances of a person's secondary negative health effect, that would have killed them if it was the primary, temporarily neutralizing a primary health effect. Radiation kills, but radiation also mutates, plus if radiation always actually killed everyone, fast, we'd all be dead. Least that is how I remember it. I think one story also suggested he had been building up a resistance as well. I think emphasis was on the this would killed 99% of all other people who would have been in his place deal. Which is some soft science. I agree with this blog. Marvel to me has always outdid DC in science, not in some generically generalized way, like some might suggest, but because more Marvel writers generally seemed to note and wish for that angle more substantially - of course, I can see how some might interpret that to think that this is a claim that Marvel is more scientifically accurate or realistic, when its actually much more about making something sound more plausible as far as being grounded in science, or leaving it up to more mysterious or fantastical means. Though in the last decade and maybe longer, just the cross section in writers and fact so many sort of work for both companies and you have characters, books, and themes, starting to be competitive with each other and carve their own niches, I think this has equalized a bit more and will continue to do so.

that doesn't make marvel better than DC in science

#26 Posted by Deadcool (6811 posts) - - Show Bio

@RazzaTazz said:

@Deadcool: Agreed but also regardless of real science or not, Marvel has a lot more scientists. Even Doctor Strange is an actual MD and thus a sort of scientist. Not as many prominent scientists at DC

That is different, and yeah, marvel's heart in his Scientists, they are more important in the universe than DC's Scientists would ever be...

Just look at this Scientific formula...
#27 Posted by SC (13148 posts) - - Show Bio
@Deadcool:  Science is inherent, science is relative, if you can't find science in comics, you might not be reading the right books, or you might be trying to apply the term too unscientifically.  
 
Tis a shame I think, when very scientifically minded and scientifically educated writers who actually spend effort appealing to readers who appreciate such things works are dismissed. They can be dismissed by opinion and preference, but in the same way I could dismiss emotional content in comics being non existent because its not "real" 
Moderator
#28 Posted by SC (13148 posts) - - Show Bio
@super_psycho:  Who said it did? Better sounds like a personal preference, to ignore the objective differences on the other hand, well that sounds like ignorance of both creative writing and accuracy.  
 
Why do people (generally) seem to assume this is a competition between two comic companies when its more of an observation and something that creatively, writers and editors of both companies have talked about a great deal as far as to how they try to appeal to its customers? Both on a larger and more individual scale?  
 
Do you get what I am saying? Personally, I am not here for which is better. *smile* 
Moderator
#29 Posted by super_psycho (2792 posts) - - Show Bio

@SC: the title of this thread is something like that "better".

#30 Edited by Deadcool (6811 posts) - - Show Bio

@SC said:

@Deadcool: Science is inherent, science is relative, if you can't find science in comics, you might not be reading the right books, or you might be trying to apply the term too unscientifically. Tis a shame I think, when very scientifically minded and scientifically educated writers who actually spend effort appealing to readers who appreciate such things works are dismissed. They can be dismissed by opinion and preference, but in the same way I could dismiss emotional content in comics being non existent because its not "real"

Warren Ellis and Jonathan Hickman are good using science, I can see scientific elements in some comics that would make any scientists to be proud, but still, the science is not applied correctly, and is not real at all, Marvel uses more science than DC but they always fail is some rules that the end degrade the science used in the comic to fantasy...

E=MC²

#31 Posted by SC (13148 posts) - - Show Bio
@super_psycho said:

@SC: the title of this thread is something like that "better".

  
No, not really I do not think, unless your projecting that. Which is fair, but consider the alternatives?   
 
@Deadcool said:

Warren Ellis and Jonathan Hickman are good using science, I can see scientific elements in some comics that would make any scientists to be proud, but still, the science is not applied correctly, and is not real at all, Marvel uses more science than DC but they always fail is some rules that the end degrade the science used in the comic to fantasy...

 
Applying science (use creatively). You almost speak of science as if its some digital setting? Off and on? Science is often applied incorrectly in real life as well, are you saying therefore it doesn't exist in real life? Then your last point is a broad statement which I agree with, and I am still not sure when anybody actually said that Marvel as a Universe is as scientifically reliable and accurate as real life, its just a matter of discretion as to how far you wish to notice when and how its applied. Just seems like a disservice to the writers who know more about science than 90% of the fans, and still choose to apply it when they can in meaningful ways that increase the reading experience for the readers that recognize it, instead of dismissing it entirely on the flawed basis that some writers just write what they think sounds cool or right? Sort of cover my point I am trying to make? 
Moderator
#32 Posted by The Mighty Monarch (2257 posts) - - Show Bio

Can you explain the purpose of all the freaking random numbers in Captain Atom #1? They seemed scientific, but were never explained or acknowledged or anything.

#33 Posted by RazzaTazz (9647 posts) - - Show Bio
@The Mighty Monarch: No idea, I figured it was counting time, maybe a half life?
Moderator
#34 Posted by The Mighty Monarch (2257 posts) - - Show Bio
@RazzaTazz: Except it was never consistent. It went up and down.
#35 Posted by Deadcool (6811 posts) - - Show Bio

@SC said:

Applying science (use creatively). You almost speak of science as if its some digital setting? Off and on? Science is often applied incorrectly in real life as well, are you saying therefore it doesn't exist in real life?

Sorry I didn't understood, what did you meant with this? That people don't know about science?

Then your last point is a broad statement which I agree with, and I am still not sure when anybody actually said that Marvel as a Universe is as scientifically reliable and accurate as real life, its just a matter of discretion as to how far you wish to notice when and how its applied. Just seems like a disservice to the writers who know more about science than 90% of the fans, and still choose to apply it when they can in meaningful ways that increase the reading experience for the readers that recognize it, instead of dismissing it entirely on the flawed basis that some writers just write what they think sounds cool or right? Sort of cover my point I am trying to make?

Yes, Indeed, from that point of view, you are right some writers leave you fascinated with all the things they use in a comicbook, and when you realize that some of that stuff is real and possible, is really rewarding, you feel also amazed with the story you just read, so yeah, I am agree...

#36 Posted by SC (13148 posts) - - Show Bio
@Deadcool:  More that science can be inaccurate because humans are flawed, and most scientists I know are humans, and make errors. If we were to deconstruct the elements that compose of science, observation, measurement, investigation, explanations, results, so on, you get the picture, well how we apply those components can be as flawed in real life, because its a matter of degrees and relativity, and I mean, we are looking for hard objective info, accuracy and all that, and we do get that often to some degree, but science is always improving, and thus how science is implemented in fiction, can always improve as well (its usually behind the curve, with most writers) but it ties into my second point where we both agree with each other. *nods* *smile*
Moderator
#37 Posted by StarKiller809 (1238 posts) - - Show Bio

DC Comics can outdo Marvel.
 
However this is extremely bias. I like DC 40 times for then Marvel.

#38 Posted by Deadcool (6811 posts) - - Show Bio

@SC: Oh yeah, that is also something that I find awesome in comicbook scientist, they rarely do mistakes...

The real science takes years to improve an idea, even what we thought we know, in a couple of years could become obsolete, in a couple of years, the things we knew about the universe could be about to change, maybe we could have a new atomic model, who knows?! In comics you need just one scientist and a couple of minutes to discover something, which to the humanity takes ages of evolution in thinking, the comicbook scientist are far superior, lol...

#39 Posted by RazzaTazz (9647 posts) - - Show Bio
@Deadcool: That is like that sort of not so serious rule with particle physics, that once they think they have it figured 99%, the remaining 1% changes everything
Moderator
#40 Edited by Deadcool (6811 posts) - - Show Bio

@RazzaTazz: Science is just the way we give a meaning to all around us, the real answer is really difficult to figure, from my point of view, such thing as "an absolute answer" is something that we would be never able to reach, because is what we know about the universe around us is just our interpretation, our point of view, for me we have never reached the real truth about the things, for me we have just seen the tip of the iceberg, if the scientist are right and the universe is infinite, then there is just an infinity of things that we ignore about the universe, we don`t even know how does the matter around us work and we try to know what the dark matter is, just like Socrates said: "I know that I know nothing", the more you wonder more you realize how little you know...

#41 Posted by RazzaTazz (9647 posts) - - Show Bio
@Deadcool: Oh yes,  I am a student of science  ...  its a nice explanation though
Moderator
#42 Posted by Deadcool (6811 posts) - - Show Bio

@RazzaTazz: Thanks

#43 Posted by Timandm (3374 posts) - - Show Bio

@RazzaTazz: Well... Speaking as a scientist (and yes I am a scientist. My Ph.D is in Bioengineering but I also have degrees in Chemistry and Electronics) I do believe Marvel does a MUCH MUCH better job with science than D.C. does...

Yes, MANY of the things in comics, in both the D.C. and Marvel universe, are well outside the realm of possibility or at least our understanding of how it would be possible, BUT Marvel does a much better job using the laws of physics (as we currently understand them) in explaining how things in the Marvel Universe works...

#44 Posted by Blurred View (363 posts) - - Show Bio

DC doesn't really have the hard scifi-minded writers to pull this off, sadly. J.T. Krul and Eric Wallace's strengths don't really seem to be in scifi. If DC could've stolen Warren Ellis or Jonathan Hickman from Marvel for this stuff, then it would be something. Mr. Terrific by Warren Ellis? Holy crap. But I can't really think of any DC writers who are particularly skilled at hard science fiction.

#45 Posted by Gambit1024 (9890 posts) - - Show Bio

@Deadcool: Nevermind. That's the best picture ever.

#46 Edited by Timandm (3374 posts) - - Show Bio

@SexualLobster said:

@spiderbat87: Uh.. as far as I know Scott's powers are derived from solar energy, and the reason he can't control when the blasts occur is do to head trauma as a child.

Maybe you're thinking of some alternate reality version of him.

Actually, that's accurate. That WAS the explanation for decades... Scott received a head injury when he and his brother Alex landed after leaping from the plane their parents were captured in... So, it was said (for decades) Scott's inability to control his blast was due to that injury. However, in recent years the explanation has been changed. It's now believed that his inability to control the blast is psychological... He was able to control it for a short while while he and the X-Men were off on the Break World adventure.

@super_psycho said:

@RazzaTazz: as you said radiation kills living things and hulk got his powers from gamma radiation. :D how is marvel better than DC in science?

Radiation kills so it couldn't cause a mutation? The earth itself is CONSTANTLY generating radiation. The reason we are able to do radiometric dating is that certain elements found on earth have isotopes that spontaneously decompose... Carbon dating is the most familiar type of such dating. The neutrons in Carbon 14 spontaneously decay and emit radiation, as the Carbon is converted into Carbon 12...

In point of fact, it's the fact that much of the earth emits radiation that convinced most scientists that the earth is actually billions of years old... The Old Earth theory as opposed to the New Earth theory which was popularly supported by Kelvin himself (the man who developed the Kelvin temperature scale which begins at absolute zero.

In addition, we are exposed to solar radiation every single day... I hope... Unless one lives in the dark... Radiation does NOT always kill. Sometimes, its healthy; it's VERY healthy... So, how could it cause a mutation? Easy. It's a form of energy that can directly alter the sequence of one's DNA; it can cause what we call a Point Mutation... It's theoretically possible... Is it likely? NOOOOOOOOOOOO... Is it possible? Absolutely.

#47 Posted by Deadcool (6811 posts) - - Show Bio

@Gambit1024 said:

@Deadcool: Nevermind. That's the best picture ever.

And now?

RICHAAARDS!!!
#48 Posted by Gambit1024 (9890 posts) - - Show Bio

@Deadcool said:

@Gambit1024 said:

@Deadcool: Nevermind. That's the best picture ever.

And now?

RICHAAARDS!!!

...How many more do you have?

:D

#49 Posted by Deadcool (6811 posts) - - Show Bio

@Gambit1024 said:

...How many more do you have?

:D

Just F@&/NG a lot...

You can visit my Random/FanArt/Expresion gallery if you look for more:

Cosmic Stuff
#50 Posted by entropy_aegis (15338 posts) - - Show Bio

@Blurred View said:

DC doesn't really have the hard scifi-minded writers to pull this off, sadly. J.T. Krul and Eric Wallace's strengths don't really seem to be in scifi. If DC could've stolen Warren Ellis or Jonathan Hickman from Marvel for this stuff, then it would be something. Mr. Terrific by Warren Ellis? Holy crap. But I can't really think of any DC writers who are particularly skilled at hard science fiction.

I don't know about Krul but Wallace can pull it off.Morrison comes to mind as well,he's the one who created the Worlogog,Genesis box,Cosmic armour etc.