Fanboys are a curious species. They accept everything, regardless of whether it is illogical or implausible. That's fine, why shouldn´t you enjoy your comics? But this is not about fantasy, but stories which claim that they have a scientific foundation, also known as science fiction. In this genre, almost everything is possible, everything that the popular science has to offer nowadays. However, when it comes to explanations, then one only hear: "This is a comic" or "The Kryptonians have advanced technologies." The same happens when you have amendments to make the science fiction elements more believable. Then it says: "You can not combine logic and realism with the fictional comic world, that makes no sense." Some fanboys were even upset that the Man of Steel was not wearing red underpants. Is it nostalgia or rejection of modernism? My topic can´t have more than 60 characters, so I formulate my whole question here:

Why do fanboys prefer suspension of disbelief when it could be more realistic?

What is your opinion?

Because.................... It's more fun that way?

So it's more fun to believe in something that does not work, than to believe in the same thing that works?

.....This is really about Superman's rocketship and the wormhole, isn't it?

First of all, why do you have to label then "fanboys"? I'm pretty sure a vast majority of the comic fan community prefers the suspension of disbelief for the purpose of...who wants to read about real life? That doesn't constitute the term fanboy, which you're using as a derogatory term. Comics are there to get away from that. If you want to read about real life physics, go read a news paper or a Steven Hawking book.

@veshark: That thread was funny because the so called more realistic ideas were no more real then the suspension of disbelief ideas.

I guess it's selective realism.

Yes, but one could also refer to other things: his super powers or his suit/cape.

@zardu: Dude get over it. Its a comic. if you're going to complain about superman going to earth. then you should complain about Bruce Banner getting powers from a gamma bomb or peter parker getting powers from a radioactive spider. We all know that in real life you would get cancer, but we accept it because its fiction. If you cant accept that then maybe you shouldn't read comics then. It seems like the majority of the movie going audience can accept it as well. So, you are in the minority on this

Well, not necessarily believe, but yeah like that, I read comics to get away the overall normality of life, yeah sometimes they use true facts, and hypothetically possible feats (The Flash comics, anyone?), but knowing that something I saw might be possible won't really take much effect on me than seeing someone do the impossible or break the laws of physics, it's a comic, you're not supposed to think too much of it........ unless it's written by someone like an Alan Moore, or a Grant Morrison, and maybe a Warren Ellis (I still haven't read any of his works so I'm not sure) comics are there for fun, they're not underthinking it, you're just overthinking it.

Misunderstanding. I meant a more comprehensible fictional comic world. Why should the unreal things not be explainable? And as for the term fanboy: fanboys are hardcore comic fans who do not accept changes. It was not meant as a disparagement. One could also call them hardcore nostalgics.

I believe that if any planet with inteligent life forms should at least have better tecnology than Earth, Earth had middle ages whom myth and religion rule over science. And most science discoveries and inventions pretty much started 1500-1700. Plus dont forget that Magic have a important role in DC and magic usally doesnt follow science rules, but still magic always a price in the end. Plus since DC Earth, alliens come to visit and live on Earth, so it is logical that Earth´s science and tecnology to evolve as well. I think that comics books should be half logic and half "nonsense", it always should have balance of concepts. Nostalgia is worst enemy to any product, people always complain about any change. The "red underpants" always look a bit stupid to me, for the Man of Steel, it looks like he was hurry to change to his costume and put his underpants outiside but never had enough time to change back.

Oh for crying out loud.

Yes, I'm complaining about Hulk and Spider Man ... and I have ideas on how to explain the whole thing. One can explain everything, without losing sight of fiction. The Superheroes remain as they are, only the circumstances that led to them, change. Where is the problem? The comic book writers doing this for 75 years.

it doesn't really need to be explained, because DC and Marvel are making millions of these unrealistic ideas every year. Movie audiences are ok with it, comic fans are ok with it. You are the only one who i've heard complain about this.

DC and Marvel do not make changes because they enjoy it, but because the fans and they realize that something is too exaggerated illogical. Superman could carry huge buildings while flying. Then it was noticed that the houses would collapse. Then they invented the tactile telekinesis. Superman Wiki says:

"Tactile Telekinesis An attempt was made to explain Superman's ability to fly with large objects through the introduction of tactile telekinesis. Objects that Superman touched were enveloped by an invisible telekinetic field that allowed him to move them with the force of his will. The ability also explained Superman's ability to fly." (http://superman.wikia.com/wiki/Superman's_Powers_and_Abilities)

So I'm not the only one who complains.

Escapism is important to us,that's why.i actually feel really bad who can't find away to "see more than what's right in front of them".

Byrne thought up the idea,and it stuck for long enough for Kesel and grummett to create my boy superboy,but the idea didn't last much longer than that.there are like a billion super strong characters in comics,who are grabbing building,cars people,and not killing or destroying them on contact,it's just comic book physics.batman jumping around from roof top to roof top,getting shot,beat up every night is also explained by this,because he would be dead in real life,on the first night.

Imagination and still having dreams are two good things,I don't need to be locked down to a scientific explanation for things,that would put me right back into reality,where I don't need to be every second of the day.

Green lantern has a ring from a lil blue spaceman,that works on his thoughts,flash can run because of a extra dimensional energy source,and it just so happens to keep him and others safe from those high speeds,superboy has tactile telekinesis,to do everything.

In a comic the outside world's rules don't apply,we have control of them here,we decide if this is plausible or not,we decide if something is scientific enough here.we like having that power,and we don't need someone trying to take it away from us,just because they can't wrap their heads around having dreams or a imagination.

"A child knows that real crabs on the beach do not sing and talk like the cartoon crabs in The Little Mermaid. A child can accept all kinds of weird-looking creatures and bizarre occurrences in a story because the child understands that stories have different rules that allow for pretty much anything to happen.

Adults, on the other hand, struggle desperately with fiction, demanding constantly that it conform with the rules of everyday life. Adults foolishly demand to know how Superman can fly, or how Batman can possibly run a multibillion-dollar business empire during the day and fight crime at night, when the answer is obvious even to the smallest child: because it’s not real."

Credit Grant Morrison, Supergods

If you want an explanation on what your reading, what you read wasn't wrong, you're just reading things wrong.

@zardu: Fanboy is a relative term... It can be argued that you're a fanboy... The reality is, you don't have to be trapped by what is unlikely, or impossible when reading about fiction... That's the point of fiction, unlimited possibilities.

Generalizing much? Not all fans are like that.

Therefore I separate fanboys from comic book fans. As one can read in my text, it's all about the fans who reject everything.

Why do I have to be a fanboy because I don't think too much on things in fiction?

As long as whatever happens is consistent with the work's internal logic I'm cool with it.

This is hilarious.

In this text it´s about children and fairy tales. Children believe in elves, wizards and mythical creatures. That's O.K., but it has nothing to do with Superman and science fiction. This text misses the real topic.

If that what I read is illogical, implausible and totally ridiculous, it is not my fault. The sentence should read as follows:

"When you read something that not even children would believe, then read something better."

Credit Marco Smud, Childish fairy tale science in comics

Wow you misread the first paragraph thinking it's something that justifies kids believing something they watch, and totally ignored the second paragraph, let me underline that for you. Your sentence has even littler to do with Superman, on deeper thought, why is this even in the Superman forum!?

I ask you, if somehow, everything is comics can be explained logically following the rules of the real world.................... How would that change anything? Yeah Superman uses Tactile Telekinesis so that he can carry huge structure without them breaking apart, WHO CARES?

Would I really think something as small as that would somehow enhance the story? Are we really that dim that we need to have everything explained to us? Do we need a freaking textbox saying that "The Flash can break the laws of physics due to the speedforce allowing him to do so because, BLAH, BLAH, BLAH" every time someone does something seemingly impossible in a book or a comic?

Also referring to the quotes, yeah sure, If I explain to my niece the fundamental laws of physics or some sciencey stuff while she's reading a book so that it can inform her that what she's reading MIGHT be possible through certain circumstances, would she even care?

That´s the point: Superman comics are not logical, not even the internal logic. One example:

In the book — Action Comics Superman #14, titled "Star Light, Star Bright", Neil deGrasse Tyson, an American astrophysicist and science communicator, gets a cameo. He claims that Krypton is 27.1 light years away and orbits a red dwarf.

"But red dwarfs are also fairly unimpressive as suns go. They're small, only about 1/10 to 1/3 the size of our sun. And they're dim. Really dim. They put out less than 1% of the light that our sun does. Unless Krypton's orbit hugs its sun awfully tight, water on Krypton's surface would freeze." http://comicfacts.blogspot.com/2005/03/kryptonian-astrophysics-101.html

Yes, it would change anything. At a certain age, children can not understand much, so it would probably make no sense to explain anything. But when they begin to understand, then they ask questions. And when they realize that in the comics is shown alot of nonsense, then they can no longer identify with their superheroes or take them seriously. Since we are no longer children, we try to make everything somehow believable. That is the reason why the comic book writers constantly make changes, and that for 75 years. Who cares? The comic book authors and readers.

There's nothing wrong with arguing for what you like.

A lot of the negativity that surrounds so-called fanboys, also has to do with internet trolling. People that provoke ridiculous debates deserve as much negativity

You don't even know what internal logic is.

@decoyelite: and ppl like him never will,but he will point out how things don't work the way they are supposed to in the real world to he is blue in the face.ppl like him should not be comic fans,they miss the point of them in the first place.

There's a difference between something being "fictional" and "unrealistic".

"Fiction" is something that has not happened in the real world but it CAN happen or sometimes it really CAN'T happen. Fiction has the option of being realistic OR unrealistic OR both in different instances.

"Unrealistic" means it does not in any way portray what would happen in real life under any circumstances.

We don't see living beings with the power of living H-bombs but that does not mean the possibility is gone. Just because something has not yet happened to us does not mean that it CAN'T happen.

No one has vaporized the earth yet. Does that mean it can't happen? Of course not.

(Will say I only read the topic title & the first sentence).

I agree with the notion in general. The "takes away the fun" thing is always brought up (as a reason to not examine the comics on a deeper level)- but I've NEVER lost any fun in reading a good story just because I questioned some of the science/mechanics (or whatever). Those 2 feelings are not mutually exclusive. I think it's more that people so vehemently against it don't have a math/science (/logic) background. (And that's not an insult, it's just reality). It kind of baffles me though, because comics incorporate a lot of real-world scientific concepts & terminology, yet some people can't even see that we should hold the writers to consistently applying them (even if they weren't sound in the first use).

I wouldn't use the term "fan-boy" (as to who feels that way) though, because I'd say the majority of CV feels this way. Maybe not so harshly voicing it - but at least being apathetic & not participating. It's a shame because I have a lot of ideas/questions that I would like to get "think tanks" going on**, but it usually just ends up in no responses, or sometimes even harsh backlash (complete with poorly-constructed arguments & near-ignoring all the points I'd made).

**And what really gets me - when I (or others...but I seem to be the top "let's incorporate science/logic!" guy) am not bashing the stories (like "it's dumb because it's not possible this way!"), only being enthusiastic about exploring a "more real-world explanation of the amazing things we see" & people still react harshly. (Maybe I shouldn't be surprised because it is the internet, but it's still disheartening. Indicative of a world where we're satisfied with not expanding our knowledge).

That has been retconned - tactile telekinesis is no longer a part of Superman's power set - at least not at the moment.

I have to admit man - this is coming of as trolling - you've started the same basic thread in a matter of days. Get over it.

In the words of Grant Morrison...

Fiction. Definition: An imaginative creation or a pretense that does not represent actuality but has been invented.

Its fiction. By definition its not real. If you don't like fiction, then I suggest you stop reading/watching it. But just because there are those of us who do enjoy it, doesn't make us fanboys.

Presumptuous idiotic thread. Hahaha....

@wishiwassuperman: HA! Is that really what he said? I remember that pic before but its said something diferent

But i like this one better!

@lifeofvibe: honestly I'm not sure but I like this version of the quote best. Sums it up nicely...

@wishiwassuperman said:

@zardu said:

@eternal19 said:

@zardu said:

@eternal19 said:

@zardu: Dude get over it. Its a comic. if you're going to complain about superman going to earth. then you should complain about Bruce Banner getting powers from a gamma bomb or peter parker getting powers from a radioactive spider. We all know that in real life you would get cancer, but we accept it because its fiction. If you cant accept that then maybe you shouldn't read comics then. It seems like the majority of the movie going audience can accept it as well. So, you are in the minority on this

Yes, I'm complaining about Hulk and Spider Man ... and I have ideas on how to explain the whole thing. One can explain everything, without losing sight of fiction. The Superheroes remain as they are, only the circumstances that led to them, change. Where is the problem? The comic book writers doing this for 75 years.

it doesn't really need to be explained, because DC and Marvel are making millions of these unrealistic ideas every year. Movie audiences are ok with it, comic fans are ok with it. You are the only one who i've heard complain about this.

DC and Marvel do not make changes because they enjoy it, but because the fans and they realize that something is too exaggerated illogical. Superman could carry huge buildings while flying. Then it was noticed that the houses would collapse. Then they invented the tactile telekinesis. Superman Wiki says:

"Tactile Telekinesis An attempt was made to explain Superman's ability to fly with large objects through the introduction of tactile telekinesis. Objects that Superman touched were enveloped by an invisible telekinetic field that allowed him to move them with the force of his will. The ability also explained Superman's ability to fly." (http://superman.wikia.com/wiki/Superman's_Powers_and_Abilities)

So I'm not the only one who complains.

That has been retconned - tactile telekinesis is no longer a part of Superman's power set - at least not at the moment.

I have to admit man - this is coming of as trolling - you've started the same basic thread in a matter of days. Get over it.

In the words of Grant Morrison...

LMAO!

Man, I laughed till tears started to roll. Dude, the horse is dead. Stop beating it.

So Zardu and lightsout both start threads at the same time,on the same board,about just about the same thing,and to top it of insult everyone who they think is below them in IQ just because they like "made up stuff" hmm???

It was never claimed that red dwarfs in the DC universe are different than in reality. Most things in the Superman comis based on modern science. But even the invented things do not work and are contradictory.

Thank you for this statement.

The strange thing about the topic is that if the comic book authors provide scientific explanations for everything (and that for 75 years), no one complains. But if we have only one idea, then we are idiots.

@zardu: I wish there was a separate forum for "scientific discussion" or like some club so I can find other users who feel this way. Otherwise my GL topic is going to keep falling & falling down the GD forum, lol.

Because hard science fiction bores the shit out of me in most cases.

Besides, as Spacebattles has taught me, you can get all sorts of fun by using the scientific method to work out how things work in even the softest of science fiction (or fantasy).

Because it is fiction. If I wanted to read about reality I'd grab a newspaper. If I wanted to watch some total realistic story, I'd watch a documentary. I do love documentaries but when I want fiction, I want it over the top. Why? Why not? It's not like I can find it anywhere else.

( +)

@lightsout: If Superman's logic is in danger, fanboys provide scientific explanation as well. Some examples:

My thread, "Is it time to reinvent Superman?":

My thread, "Problems with Superman´s journey toEarth":

There is a YouTube video with the title: Physics of Superheroes 3 - Superman's Blooper. In this video Dr. James Kakalios talks about Superman's incredible feats of strength that violate the laws of physics. Superman wears large buildings while he flies. Here are a few comments:

So if we have an idea, we are idiots. But that does not seem to apply to the fanboys and above all not to the comic book authors. They have a kind of special permit :-)

@zardu: do you not understand it's not the fact that you are trying to talk about real world physics that is making everyone on here pissed off at you,it's the fact that you have a condescending attitude toward us,and our love of the crazy shit in comics.if you would understand that,maybe you would get along with everyone here,think about it smart guy.

1. The majority of comic book fans don´t want scientific or logical elements. This was their own statement. I love the crazy shit too, as long as it is comprehensible and believable within its fictional logic.
2. I don´t have a condescending attitude toward you. The only thing that bothers me is the unwillingness to objective discussion of many comic fans, as in your case: instead of making a factual argument for or against my views, you insinuate me a condescending attitude.

@zardu: Bull malarkey. There's a few inconsistencies here and there but that has to do more with varying writers than suspension of disbelief.

@zardu: actually go back and re read many of your posts,they are littered with sly lil jabs at others who don't give a shit about logic,fictional or not.

Now saying that,superman is one of a million other super strong comic characters who issue to issue grab stuff and lift it with no problem,when in reality they would destroy it,or it would fall apart from its own stress.comics are a world where doing these things happen,and no one bats a eye to it.

Writers are going to confront these issues differently,like Snyder had superman stress over saving lives in a building that was falling over,and knowing he couldn't just grab it,while in another writers book he would have just grabbed the building.its not always consistent,but it is storytelling,made up stories to entertain,so we are ok with it for that reason.