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.
83 Comments
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...
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...
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.
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 days
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*
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 days
@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.
Yup. DC should be more creative with their science heroes instead of sticking with some of the old clichés. The accuracy of the science doesn't really matter though. I think Paul Cornell could help DC with that. Dr. Who is hardly "hard" science fiction, but it is very creative. Plus from what I've seen, he is familiar with a lot of actual science fiction authors and is pretty well known in the SF fandom.
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.
@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.
Yup. DC should be more creative with their science heroes instead of sticking with some of the old clichés. The accuracy of the science doesn't really matter though. I think Paul Cornell could help DC with that. Dr. Who is hardly "hard" science fiction, but it is very creative. Plus from what I've seen, he is familiar with a lot of actual science fiction authors and is pretty well known in the SF fandom.
@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.
"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.
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.
@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!.
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...
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?
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
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.
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.
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.
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*
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...
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.
@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.
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.
@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...
@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...
@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
@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...
@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*
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...
83 Comments