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.) Â DC characters rarely use anything resembling real science. Â 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. Â 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. Â In terms of Marvel though, science is explained in a more realistic way. Â 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). Â 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. Â 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). Â Is DC trying to edge its way in on this with the new 52 though? Â The new Mister Terrific series is quite similar to Invincible Iron Man in tone and content, and really in character behaviour. Â 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. Â 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. Â 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. Â 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. Â
83 Comments
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...
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...
YOU SIR, YOU ARE AWESOME!
Well, I've been telling the world that for years, but no one has believed me... LOL!
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...
YOU SIR, YOU ARE AWESOME!
 Quoted for the scientific accurateness.   Timandm forgot to mention his Ph.D in owning in Battles threads and degrees Taking The Mickey and Pointing out Funny Stuff About X-Characters which are as impressive really *smile*
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.
Can Wallace? I didn't read most of his Titans run, so I'm not that familiar with him as a writer. I just know he sure didn't show it in the first issue of Mr. Terrific. There was a lot of generic scifi in that. As for Morrison... I don't know. I guess he can. I've seen it sometimes. He just typically doesn't do hard scifi. I'm more used to him doing the opposite and going off in the radical, high concept direction.
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.
Can Wallace? I didn't read most of his Titans run, so I'm not that familiar with him as a writer. I just know he sure didn't show it in the first issue of Mr. Terrific. There was a lot of generic scifi in that. As for Morrison... I don't know. I guess he can. I've seen it sometimes. He just typically doesn't do hard scifi. I'm more used to him doing the opposite and going off in the radical, high concept direction.
Wallace did use Dr Sivana very impressively in his Titans run.
Can Wallace? I didn't read most of his Titans run, so I'm not that familiar with him as a writer. I just know he sure didn't show it in the first issue of Mr. Terrific. There was a lot of generic scifi in that. As for Morrison... I don't know. I guess he can. I've seen it sometimes. He just typically doesn't do hard scifi. I'm more used to him doing the opposite and going off in the radical, high concept direction.
Wallace did use Dr Sivana very impressively in his Titans run.
I guess that gives me some hope for the book then. I think it got off to a good start. I just wasn't impressed by the scifi aspect of it. Maybe Wallace was just occupied with getting the main character set up first. I hope he ups his game from here on out then. I'd like to see the book last, and it's going to need some good scifi to do that.
@SC: aaactually, the writers didn't just give Bruce Banner some ultimate destiny which allowed him to survive the gamma bomb(or any crap like that). It was his father, Brian Banner, atomic physicist extraodinaire who had pretty much messed up his own genetics with his years of researching. So, when dear old Rebecca Banner convinced him to sire a child, the birth itself of Bruce was.. unusual.
Sorry about the quality of the picture, it's from one of my comics :P
@MisterParker: Â Thank you! Much obliged. Knew it was something to do with genetics, just not sure which writer established. Oh quality is fine *smile*
Can Wallace? I didn't read most of his Titans run, so I'm not that familiar with him as a writer. I just know he sure didn't show it in the first issue of Mr. Terrific. There was a lot of generic scifi in that. As for Morrison... I don't know. I guess he can. I've seen it sometimes. He just typically doesn't do hard scifi. I'm more used to him doing the opposite and going off in the radical, high concept direction.
Wallace did use Dr Sivana very impressively in his Titans run.
I guess that gives me some hope for the book then. I think it got off to a good start. I just wasn't impressed by the scifi aspect of it. Maybe Wallace was just occupied with getting the main character set up first. I hope he ups his game from here on out then. I'd like to see the book last, and it's going to need some good scifi to do that.
it just occurred to me how what I said might have sounded.. What I meant was, I've been telling people for years that "I'm awesome" but they don't believe me... it was my feeble attempt at humor.. :-) My children are becoming increasingly difficult to convince... What's up with that?
@SC said:
@Deadcool said:
@Timandm said:
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...
YOU SIR, YOU ARE AWESOME!
Quoted for the scientific accurateness. Timandm forgot to mention his Ph.D in owning in Battles threads and degrees Taking The Mickey and Pointing out Funny Stuff About X-Characters which are as impressive really *smile*
SC was the one to bestow said doctorate on me. SC is really the Yoda of the comic world... The one who understands the true quantum and meta-physical dynamics of the comic universe...
@MisterParker: That's good info! What issue was that from?
it just occurred to me how what I said might have sounded.. What I meant was, I've been telling people for years that "I'm awesome" but they don't believe me... it was my feeble attempt at humor.. :-) My children are becoming increasingly difficult to convince... What's up with that?
Well you have already shown the knownlege to prove what you say you are, and your Avatar is a molecule, lol...
@Deadcool: Yeah, the avatar was supposed to be a molecule made of Glucose, Caffeine, and Testosterone... The three things that got me through Grad School... But I drew it while sleepy and put testosterone twice... But it's close enough for now... LOL!.
I think Marvel has for most of the time at least pushed the issue harder, but it didn't seem that DC was even actually trying to with the exception of a few books they decided should need heavy science, though all in all I stick by the old motto: A character and their world are only as intelligent as the writer behind them.
"Hard" science fiction is usually a much maligned genre by anyone with decent literary tastes. I too hold the view that most so-called hard science fiction is mostly naff, though I do hve a sof spot for some of it. I find authors like Arthur. C. Clarke to be incredibly overrated, but unfortunately he's the person that most aspiring SF writers want to emulate. When it comes to SF, I'd rather read M. John Harrison, Iain M. Bainks, or Ursula K. Guin, than Greg Bear, even if their science is less "sciencier". I'm in the science field myself by the way (Biotech, genetics) , so I'm definitely not anti-science or anything. I just think the "fiction" should be more important than the science. I just feel that too many people think higher quality works are those that more scientifically accurate. Generally hard science fiction is that which focuses more on explaining dry theories, than actually writing good characters. In that manner just having accurate science doesn't make you "hard SF", but SF that uses "hard science", which doesn't have the negativity by people outside serious physics geeks. Authors that make their science seem plausible and still write compelling characters are to be lauded, but that doesn't necessarily make their work better fiction. I've always had the view that if you wasn't to write a scientific thesis in your fiction, instead of actual fiction, why not just write speculative science fact?
To quote an actual literature snob from the greatsfandf site: "Hard" (and "Mundane") science fiction is, instead, focussed not on the fiction but on the science. It is an awful, cockamamie idea of what science fiction, or speculative fiction in general, is all about. It reflects what I have elsewhere called a "Gus's Garage in Outer Space" mentality: it assumes that our interest in reading science fiction is absorbing the author's brilliantly clever ideas of gadgetry and its near future. Boys and girls, ladies and gentlemen, if I want real science, I'll get it from real scientists writing honest science fact, not speculations wrapped in as thin a fictive gauze veil as that of the Gus's Garage stories. If I want genuine speculation on the wonders of the universe, Brian Greene and Michio Kaku and Lee Smolin and Paul Davies and a small army of others have produced stacks of eminently readable and thoroughly fascinating books."
"In short, science fiction is fiction enabled by science, not science presented in a fictive dressing gown."
Bottom line, being "harder SF" isn't necessarily better, and in fact most of the time it's worse.
Anyway, Marvel may have a much larger science fiction feel than D.C., but in the end neither world really qualifies as hard science fiction or even simply science fiction or that matter (hard science fiction will not have regular planet hopping). They're fantasy universes, really. And personally, I hope they remain that way. As long as they're consistent with their rules (e.g. if easy teleportation exists, then it shouldn't be absent in a future situation where it would seem to be an obvious thing to use), that's all that should matter really.
"Hard" science fiction is usually a much maligned genre by anyone with decent literary tastes. I too hold the view that most so-called hard science fiction is mostly naff, though I do hve a sof spot for some of it. I find authors like Arthur. C. Clarke to be incredibly overrated, but unfortunately he's the person that most aspiring SF writers want to emulate. When it comes to SF, I'd rather read M. John Harrison, Iain M. Bainks, or Ursula K. Guin, than Greg Bear, even if their science is less "sciencier". I'm in the science field myself by the way (Biotech, genetics) , so I'm definitely not anti-science or anything. I just think the "fiction" should be more important than the science. I just feel that too many people think higher quality works are those that more scientifically accurate. Generally hard science fiction is that which focuses more on explaining dry theories, than actually writing good characters. In that manner just having accurate science doesn't make you "hard SF", but SF that uses "hard science", which doesn't have the negativity by people outside serious physics geeks. Authors that make their science seem plausible and still write compelling characters are to be lauded, but that doesn't necessarily make their work better fiction. I've always had the view that if you wasn't to write a scientific thesis in your fiction, instead of actual fiction, why not just write speculative science fact?
To quote an actual literature snob from the greatsfandf site: "Hard" (and "Mundane") science fiction is, instead, focussed not on the fiction but on the science. It is an awful, cockamamie idea of what science fiction, or speculative fiction in general, is all about. It reflects what I have elsewhere called a "Gus's Garage in Outer Space" mentality: it assumes that our interest in reading science fiction is absorbing the author's brilliantly clever ideas of gadgetry and its near future. Boys and girls, ladies and gentlemen, if I want real science, I'll get it from real scientists writing honest science fact, not speculations wrapped in as thin a fictive gauze veil as that of the Gus's Garage stories. If I want genuine speculation on the wonders of the universe, Brian Greene and Michio Kaku and Lee Smolin and Paul Davies and a small army of others have produced stacks of eminently readable and thoroughly fascinating books."
"In short, science fiction is fiction enabled by science, not science presented in a fictive dressing gown."
Bottom line, being "harder SF" isn't necessarily better, and in fact most of the time it's worse.
Anyway, Marvel may have a much larger science fiction feel than D.C., but in the end neither world really qualifies as hard science fiction or even simply science fiction or that matter (hard science fiction will not have regular planet hopping). They're fantasy universes, really. And personally, I hope they remain that way. As long as they're consistent with their rules (e.g. if easy teleportation exists, then it shouldn't be absent in a future situation where it would seem to be an obvious thing to use), that's all that should matter really.
@Jnr6Lil: I think it's fairly obvious. Fiction being based more on cold hard science isn't necessarily better. Give me my FTL travel, psychics, and time travel. So, even if Marvel are more science based than DC, I see no problem with it, and no reason for DC to change their policy on the matter.
I like writers like Ellis and Hickman, but then, they doesn't really write hard sci-fi much in their superhero stories, either. They do use actual science fiction concepts though, which is why their works are interesting. I think DC could use a few books based more science fiction based on actual science, but not "harder" science fiction. If not, it doesn't matter (I still prefer DC's works over Marvel's in the end).
Oh, and that "hard" science fiction (taking it to mean fiction that focuses more on the science itself than how the characters are effected by the science, instead of works with actual literary merit that just happen to use hard science) mostly sucks is also what I'm getting at. The best science fiction is where writers explore how people are affected by their ideas, not where people are merely plot devices to explain their "brilliant ideas". There are a lot of people who only read hard SF, and even they know it's not of real literary merit (usually they scoff at actual character development). Comics barely qualify as literature as it is (and a lot of them aren't anywhere near the standard), so having even less focus on characters is not the way to go.
@Jnr6Lil: I think it's fairly obvious. Fiction being based more on cold hard science isn't necessarily better. Give me my FTL travel, psychics, and time travel. So, even if Marvel are more science based than DC, I see no problem with it, and no reason for DC to change their policy on the matter.
I like writers like Ellis and Hickman, but then, they doesn't really write hard sci-fi much in their superhero stories, either. They do use actual science fiction concepts though, which is why their works are interesting. I think DC could use a few books based more science fiction based on actual science, but not "harder" science fiction. If not, it doesn't matter (I still prefer DC's works over Marvel's in the end).
Oh, and that "hard" science fiction (taking it to mean fiction that focuses more on the science itself than how the characters are effected by the science, instead of works with actual literary merit that just happen to use hard science) mostly sucks is also what I'm getting at. The best science fiction is where writers explore how people are affected by their ideas, not where people are merely plot devices to explain their "brilliant ideas". There are a lot of people who only read hard SF, and even they know it's not of real literary merit (usually they scoff at actual character development). Comics barely qualify as literature as it is (and a lot of them aren't anywhere near the standard), so having even less focus on characters is not the way to go.
Well I won't say Marvel is based on science but they're more creative with it. I mean creating the Thor clone really helped Civil War.
@Jnr6Lil: I think it's fairly obvious. Fiction being based more on cold hard science isn't necessarily better. Give me my FTL travel, psychics, and time travel. So, even if Marvel are more science based than DC, I see no problem with it, and no reason for DC to change their policy on the matter.
I like writers like Ellis and Hickman, but then, they doesn't really write hard sci-fi much in their superhero stories, either. They do use actual science fiction concepts though, which is why their works are interesting. I think DC could use a few books based more science fiction based on actual science, but not "harder" science fiction. If not, it doesn't matter (I still prefer DC's works over Marvel's in the end).
Oh, and that "hard" science fiction (taking it to mean fiction that focuses more on the science itself than how the characters are effected by the science, instead of works with actual literary merit that just happen to use hard science) mostly sucks is also what I'm getting at. The best science fiction is where writers explore how people are affected by their ideas, not where people are merely plot devices to explain their "brilliant ideas". There are a lot of people who only read hard SF, and even they know it's not of real literary merit (usually they scoff at actual character development). Comics barely qualify as literature as it is (and a lot of them aren't anywhere near the standard), so having even less focus on characters is not the way to go.
Well I won't say Marvel is based on science but they're more creative with it. I mean creating the Thor clone really helped Civil War.
@Jnr6Lil: I think it's fairly obvious. Fiction being based more on cold hard science isn't necessarily better. Give me my FTL travel, psychics, and time travel. So, even if Marvel are more science based than DC, I see no problem with it, and no reason for DC to change their policy on the matter.
I like writers like Ellis and Hickman, but then, they doesn't really write hard sci-fi much in their superhero stories, either. They do use actual science fiction concepts though, which is why their works are interesting. I think DC could use a few books based more science fiction based on actual science, but not "harder" science fiction. If not, it doesn't matter (I still prefer DC's works over Marvel's in the end).
Oh, and that "hard" science fiction (taking it to mean fiction that focuses more on the science itself than how the characters are effected by the science, instead of works with actual literary merit that just happen to use hard science) mostly sucks is also what I'm getting at. The best science fiction is where writers explore how people are affected by their ideas, not where people are merely plot devices to explain their "brilliant ideas". There are a lot of people who only read hard SF, and even they know it's not of real literary merit (usually they scoff at actual character development). Comics barely qualify as literature as it is (and a lot of them aren't anywhere near the standard), so having even less focus on characters is not the way to go.
Well I won't say Marvel is based on science but they're more creative with it. I mean creating the Thor clone really helped Civil War.
I don't think it has anything to do with true sciene fiction, Just a matter of making science blend good with a story. You;re making this more technical then it is.
i wouldn't call Marvel more scientifically realistic than Dc..it just grounds more of it's heroes in science, if you want realism than the following would have happened  -Bruce Banner would have died from that high of a dose of gamma radiation -the Fantastic four would have died when attacked by the cosmic storm -Peter Parker would have either gotten really sick from that spider bite, no super powers -the super soldier serum would have burned itself out of Steve Roger's system after a few daysÂ
i wouldn't call Marvel more scientifically realistic than Dc..it just grounds more of it's heroes in science, if you want realism than the following would have happened  -Bruce Banner would have died from that high of a dose of gamma radiation -the Fantastic four would have died when attacked by the cosmic storm -Peter Parker would have either gotten really sick from that spider bite, no super powers -the super soldier serum would have burned itself out of Steve Roger's system after a few daysÂ
 You appear to go from talking about realism in a relative sense to a more absolute sense. ("more scientifically realistic" vs "if you want realism") two different things.   I am not sure your examples aren't really examples of what is realism, but likeliness. As in they are realistic likelihoods/probabilities, but by the same token, Bruce Banner actually had a scientifically reasoned (as opposed to accurate) advantage as to why he actually didn't die, in a similar way that, sort of like the relationship between skin color and some types of cancer. Genetics and then there was an attempted objective reason for that as well, and so on. So this complies with what you might call grounding correct? Except if the intent is to justify and provide basis for scientific accuracy (IE grounding heroes in science, grounding stories in science, then what might one call that relative to less intent and depiction of those things?)   Not that I disagree or agree with your point/s. Just an observation of sorts *smile*
Marvels science is to ridculous for me. I hope dc doesnt try become like marvel in the science department. I hate reed , doom, stark and dr. Strange
So.. Are you saying you don't want science in your comics?
@The Stegman: Why?
Keep in mind that a comic being grounded in the sciences as we understand them in reality, doesn't mean they can't be stretched with imagination..
-Bruce Banner would have died from that high of a dose of gamma radiation
High doses of radiation do not always kill... Even when they do, they often lead to changes in the body first. Actually, a bigger problem with accepting the Hulk scientifically, is the lack of explanation for where his extra body mass comes from when he changes...
-the Fantastic four would have died when attacked by the cosmic storm
No... Cosmic rays don't have to kill. They're a form of radiation and we humans are exposed to radiation every day... The explanation for their survival is that there was something unique about their DNA... So, why not?
-Peter Parker would have either gotten really sick from that spider bite, no super powers
HEY! SHUT YOUR FILTHY LYING MOUTH ABOUT PETER PARKER!!! LOL!!! Just kidding... That was the fan-boy in my coming out... Okay.. I've suppressed him...
So... Regarding Mr. Parker... There's really not much reason for him to get sick unless the spider injected him with poison. And actually, the radioactive spider explanation doesn't work... At the time Spider-Man was written we didn't understand radiation or biology as well as we do now... Spider-Man (it the explanation is scientific) would have to have been injected with something similar to a retrovirus which would take the spider's DNA and incorporate it into Parker's genome. Far fetched, but based in science..
-the super soldier serum would have burned itself out of Steve Roger's system after a few days
Not if it acted like an enzyme... A biological catalyst that speeds up chemical reactions without being used up in the reaction... It would be there forever...
What if the serum had something like "Memory cells" which are white blood cells that remember a specific antigen and sort of live forever (for all practical purposes)...
Imagine that the serum actually contained white blood cells that would not be rejected by the human body it was injected into... This cell can divide forever... and produce more of itself... repeatedly... forever... No running out.
Marvels science is to ridculous for me. I hope dc doesnt try become like marvel in the science department. I hate reed , doom, stark and dr. Strange
So.. Are you saying you don't want science in your comics?
@The Stegman: Why?
Keep in mind that a comic being grounded in the sciences as we understand them in reality, doesn't mean they can't be stretched with imagination..
-Bruce Banner would have died from that high of a dose of gamma radiation
High doses of radiation do not always kill... Even when they do, they often lead to changes in the body first. Actually, a bigger problem with accepting the Hulk scientifically, is the lack of explanation for where his extra body mass comes from when he changes...
-the Fantastic four would have died when attacked by the cosmic storm
No... Cosmic rays don't have to kill. They're a form of radiation and we humans are exposed to radiation every day... The explanation for their survival is that there was something unique about their DNA... So, why not?
-Peter Parker would have either gotten really sick from that spider bite, no super powers
HEY! SHUT YOUR FILTHY LYING MOUTH ABOUT PETER PARKER!!! LOL!!! Just kidding... That was the fan-boy in my coming out... Okay.. I've suppressed him...
So... Regarding Mr. Parker... There's really not much reason for him to get sick unless the spider injected him with poison. And actually, the radioactive spider explanation doesn't work... At the time Spider-Man was written we didn't understand radiation or biology as well as we do now... Spider-Man (it the explanation is scientific) would have to have been injected with something similar to a retrovirus which would take the spider's DNA and incorporate it into Parker's genome. Far fetched, but based in science..
-the super soldier serum would have burned itself out of Steve Roger's system after a few days
Not if it acted like an enzyme... A biological catalyst that speeds up chemical reactions without being used up in the reaction... It would be there forever...
What if the serum had something like "Memory cells" which are white blood cells that remember a specific antigen and sort of live forever (for all practical purposes)...
Imagine that the serum actually contained white blood cells that would not be rejected by the human body it was injected into... This cell can divide forever... and produce more of itself... repeatedly... forever... No running out.
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...
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...
Its real!!!!!
Well.....
I'm a scientist... I have degrees in electronics, chemistry, and a PhD in Bioengineering... Science is pretty much my life.... I think there's quite a bit of science in comics... is it accurate or real? No, not all of it. Of course not... But it's FOUNDED in good science, and then they push it...
The point here is that Marvel does a better job of grounding a lot of their universe in real world science.... And, speaking as a scientist, I think they do a pretty good job of it...
83 Comments