Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

What do you prefer to see in comics, magical themes and characters, or more Sci Fi based genres ?

I hate magic, In most cases magic is depicted as a bullshit unjustifiable power, which might as well be called the power of Deus Ex- Machina. And its why most of the more respected writers tend to stay away from magical characters. If we are honest, most fights (involving magical characters) amount to nothing more than you're typical Dragon Ball Z energy blasts.

There are though exceptions to this, Morisson usually puts a more cosmic edge on magic, i.e. depicting it as an interesting violation of the laws of physics and reality. If you want to know what Im talking about, read seven soldiers or the Invisibles.

Sci-fi 100%

I am a huge science geek so, I love all the sci-fi movie/television/comic.
Hell the Sci-fi channel is like my all time favorite. Where else do I get to watch Quantum Leap reruns (live 5 in a row at that)?

Originally posted by Doctor S.T.D.
I hate magic, In most cases magic is depicted as a bullshit unjustifiable power, which might as well be called the power of Deus Ex- Machina.
Agreed. "Magic" often strikes me as left-over childhood wish-fulfillment.

There are though exceptions to this, Morisson usually puts a more cosmic edge on magic, i.e. depicting it as an interesting violation of the laws of physics and reality.
The issue is one of rules. Tolken (in the novel genre) also does a good job with magic because rules are established ahead of time; there is no pulling a rabbit out of a hat when rabbits and hats were never mentioned prior.

But in comics, AFAIK, magic is not treated this way. This is why someone like Strange can say abracadabra (or whatever) and topple someone like Galactus.

SciFi all the way.

Originally posted by Entity
Sci-fi 100%

I am a huge science geek so, I love all the sci-fi movie/television/comic.
Hell the Sci-fi channel is like my all time favorite. Where else do I get to watch Quantum Leap reruns (live 5 in a row at that)?

Nice one Brova !


What comics do u usually read, cos i can recommend some quite obscure stuff that, filled with pseudoscience.

Originally posted by Entity
Sci-fi 100%

I am a huge science geek so, I love all the sci-fi movie/television/comic.
Hell the Sci-fi channel is like my all time favorite. Where else do I get to watch Quantum Leap reruns (live 5 in a row at that)?

Amen Brother.

Fantasy can be alright, but Elves and stuff pretty much suck to lightsabers, phasers and Data!

Originally posted by Mindship
Agreed. "Magic" often strikes me as left-over childhood wish-fulfillment.


The issue is one of rules. Tolken (in the novel genre) also does a good job with magic because rules are established ahead of time; there is no pulling a rabbit out of a hat when rabbits and hats were never mentioned prior.

But in comics, AFAIK, magic is not treated this way. This is why someone like Strange can say abracadabra (or whatever) and topple someone like Galactus.

SciFi all the way.

I knew you be one of sci-fi leading supporters Monsieur Mindsip. Have you read any Planetary yet, after our conversation in the summer ?

Fantasy can be better, in it's own way to some fans.
With Elves, Orcs and Dragons, this appeals to the younger fan. The concept of magic is quite childish, but also fun and can be taken very seriously. (LOTR, Final Fantasy.)

While Sci-Fi takes stuff seriously and reaches out to problems and values. E.G. Star Trek, it deals with alot of stuff. Slavery once and lot's of other stuff.

Sci-Fi is the more serious in all aspects. Dealing with the Scientific point of view, which is much more serious.

Originally posted by Doctor S.T.D.
Have you read any Planetary yet?
No. But then, I haven't done Any comic reading at all since the summer (well, except Supergirl: Power and the final installment of Ultimate Galactus).

Depends on the writer and plot for instance the magic in LOTR is awful but the magic in Conan is excellent.

The Sci Fi in say Andromeda is awful, the Sci Fi in a Stephen Baxter or Iain Banks story is excellent.

Swings and roundabouts.

Originally posted by Kallark-Kent
Fantasy can be better, in it's own way to some fans.
With Elves, Orcs and Dragons, this appeals to the younger fan. The concept of magic is quite childish, but also fun and can be taken very seriously. (LOTR, Final Fantasy.)

While Sci-Fi takes stuff seriously and reaches out to problems and values. E.G. Star Trek, it deals with alot of stuff. Slavery once and lot's of other stuff.

Sci-Fi is the more serious in all aspects. Dealing with the Scientific point of view, which is much more serious.

This is exactly how I feel about Sci-fi.
We get resonable explanations rather than the lame fantasy and mystic elf types.

Has anyone else seen Clerks 2?
I love the seen where Randale does his impression of the Lord Of the Rings movies.

Originally posted by Entity
This is exactly how I feel about Sci-fi.
We get resonable explanations rather than the lame fantasy and mystic elf types.

Has anyone else seen Clerks 2?
I love the seen where Randale does his impression of the Lord Of the Rings movies.

I haven't saw it, I might have to watch Clerks.

Yep, Androids and Robots usually have x10 the depth of an Elf with a ring. Or W/E the **** Frodo is.

Originally posted by Entity
This is exactly how I feel about Sci-fi.
We get resonable explanations rather than the lame fantasy and mystic elf types.

Has anyone else seen Clerks 2?
I love the seen where Randale does his impression of the Lord Of the Rings movies.

Sci Fi rarely gives explanations based in Science unless the writer is someone of the quality of Clarke, Banks or Baxter. Even Frank Herbert often preffered mysticism just look at Dune.

Ocasionally a film actually dares to have diluted science like Gattaca in it. With comics though the science is generally awful, but then so is the mysticism.

Neither I prefer the shoot em up fights or h2h like in Captain America

Originally posted by willRules
Neither I prefer the shoot em up fights or h2h like in Captain America

I'd actually take that comment further, all and or any of them if it's a good story.

By Crom!

I love the world of magic, supernatural and mysticism.
With Sci-fi it's always blah, blah, blah and a few minutes of actions.

I've always preferred sci-fi. What was once science fiction 150 years ago is now science fact.

Originally posted by Badabing
I've always preferred sci-fi. What was once science fiction 150 years ago is now science fact.

Not really, I don't see many giant canons aimed at the moon.

Originally posted by By Crom!
Not really, I don't see many giant canons aimed at the moon.


Flight, rockets, landing on the Moon, missions to Mars, thinking machines, robots and exploring the depths of the ocean were all written as fiction in the 1800's and early 1900's. But, I'm sure you knew what I meant.




You somehow seem familiar friend.

Originally posted by Badabing
Flight, rockets, landing on the Moon, missions to Mars, thinking machines, robots and exploring the depths of the ocean were all written as fiction in the 1800's and early 1900's. But, I'm sure you knew what I meant.




You somehow seem familiar friend.

Please show me rockets to the moon, we had a balloon and a canon, no rocket I can think of. Robots? Maybe, but I can't think of any really famous examples until Asimov in the 40's and 50's. If by exploring the Ocean depths you mean 2000 leagues, it was more of an adventure book.
Sci Fi, even Verne and Wells rarely really guessed right, and are mainly adventures or Romances, interestingly Wells was studying Biology at Imperial for a while. The shape of things to come is interesting and some good guesses are made. Even later writers like Stapleton are really only writing adventures. Huxley etc start to become more prophetic.
Orwell and Huxly though were more interested in Sociology.
Asimov, Clarke etc really started to get it right.

I seem familiar

really?

By Crom

Originally posted by By Crom!
Please show me rockets to the moon, we had a balloon and a canon, no rocket I can think of. Robots? Maybe, but I can't think of any really famous examples until Asimov in the 40's and 50's. If by exploring the Ocean depths you mean 2000 leagues, it was more of an adventure book.
Sci Fi, even Verne and Wells rarely really guessed right, and are mainly adventures or Romances, interestingly Wells was studying Biology at Imperial for a while. The shape of things to come is interesting and some good guesses are made. Even later writers like Stapleton are really only writing adventures. Huxley etc start to become more prophetic.
Orwell and Huxly though were more interested in Sociology.
Asimov, Clarke etc really started to get it right.

I seem familiar

really?

By Crom
I'm sorry that you don't see the similarities between firing a cannon in From the Earth to the Moon as to firing a rocket. The Skylark of Space, which is about interstellar travel, was written in the 1910's and published in the 1920's. Also, the Island of Doctor Moreau flirted with genetic manipulation. Da Vinci built models of flying machines in the 1400's and 1500's. Verne and Wells led a revolution in sci-fi which is still relevant today. The 1800's to the early 1900's was the onset of what was to become sci-fi. The fact remains that ideas expressed in science fiction from the 1800's and early 1900's are science fact now. Space travel, flight, computers, robots, ocean exploration, genetic manipulation, etc are now science fact.

Sci-fi OWNS magic crap! IMO
Atleast in the story and interest quality

The writers i like doing magic and mysticism are, Moore, Brusiek, Morisson (Who puts a sci-fi edge on it, just look at the Invisible and the seven soldiers) and best of all Gaiman. Ellis has always been best with sci-fi elements in comics, all you have to do is read his most recent Iron man series, or the New Universal book.

Originally posted by Badabing
I've always preferred sci-fi. What was once science fiction 150 years ago is now science fact.

Originally posted by Badabing
I'm sorry that you don't see the similarities between firing a cannon in From the Earth to the Moon as to firing a rocket. The Skylark of Space, which is about interstellar travel, was written in the 1910's and published in the 1920's. Also, the Island of Doctor Moreau flirted with genetic manipulation. Da Vinci built models of flying machines in the 1400's and 1500's. Verne and Wells led a revolution in sci-fi which is still relevant today. The 1800's to the early 1900's was the onset of what was to become sci-fi. The fact remains that ideas expressed in science fiction from the 1800's and early 1900's are science fact now. Space travel, flight, computers, robots, ocean exploration, genetic manipulation, etc are now science fact.

Moreau flirted with the concept of the Chimera, Wells had no knowledge of Mendel and the unit for passing on characteristics. Watson, Crick, Wilkins and Franklin was 50 years hence. Moreau was really about undefined Science. 1910 is not 150 years ago, in fact none of the examples you have cited are. Da vinci had pedal powered flying machines. Wells etc. was the start of Sci Fi, yes. Was it relevant? yes, was it prophetic? Only in the most general terms, and most sci fi today isn't for every Clarke predicting the Geostationary Sat? Whilst it was actually being developed? You have a million space operas predicting nothing.

By Crom!

Originally posted by By Crom!
You have a million space operas predicting nothing.

By Crom!

There are exceptions too that, Im sure future space travel will be in accordance with 2001, well probably anyway.

Originally posted by Doctor S.T.D.
There are exceptions too that, Im sure future space travel will be in accordance with 2001, well probably anyway.

I think that Machines are more likely to do the travelling for us. I have a problem with Cryogenics called Ice Cream Brain Syndrome.

Originally posted by By Crom!
I think that Machines are more likely to do the travelling for us. I have a problem with Cryogenics called Ice Cream Brain Syndrome.

I've heard it will probably done with bio-nano hybrids, referred to as Astro chickens. they'll be tiny therefore easy to accelerate, but able to carry loads of info and maybe capable of 'replicating'.

Originally posted by Doctor S.T.D.
I've heard it will probably done with bio-nano hybrids, referred to as Astro chickens. they'll be tiny therefore easy to accelerate, but able to carry loads of info and maybe capable of 'replicating'.

Indeed and perhaps capable of seeding.........and collectivism............sum being greater than parts etc, a bit like a colony of termites.

By Crom! you do seem familliar.................




................Whirlysplatt?

Originally posted by willRules
By Crom! you do seem familliar.................




................Whirlysplatt?

Please don't spam the thread .....

Originally posted by By Crom!
Moreau flirted with the concept of the Chimera, Wells had no knowledge of Mendel and the unit for passing on characteristics. Watson, Crick, Wilkins and Franklin was 50 years hence. Moreau was really about undefined Science. 1910 is not 150 years ago, in fact none of the examples you have cited are. Da vinci had pedal powered flying machines. Wells etc. was the start of Sci Fi, yes. Was it relevant? yes, was it prophetic? Only in the most general terms, and most sci fi today isn't for every Clarke predicting the Geostationary Sat? Whilst it was actually being developed? You have a million space operas predicting nothing.

By Crom!
I'm speaking of generalizations. The 150 years is when authors started added "science" to their fiction due to competition for new ideas. Again, the 150 years when about when the sci-fi started. I've also made numerous references to the late 1800's and early 1900's. It seems that I'm either not making myself clear or you just like arguing semantics. Just because you don't see the relevancy in older sci-fi works does not mean they don't exist. There have been numerous documentaries and books about how early sci-fi works have impacted modern science. Space operas predicted nothing? Check out the sci-fi movies of the 40's and 50's. Heck, watch the original Star Trek TV series. Many of the gadgets they used are in play today. Cell phones (communicators), lap and desk top computers, video phones, entire libraries on one disc, etc. Everybody gets something different from the classics all the way up to today's cutting edge sci-fi. I just see more correlations than you. Anyway, this is off topic and I don't want to spam up the thread more.

Originally posted by willRules
By Crom! you do seem familliar.................
...............Whirlysplatt?

I keep hearing about him. I don't believe he could have been as intelligent as me by Crom!

Originally posted by Badabing
I'm speaking of generalizations. The 150 years is when authors started added "science" to their fiction due to competition for new ideas. Again, the 150 years when about when the sci-fi started. I've also made numerous references to the late 1800's and early 1900's. It seems that I'm either not making myself clear or you just like arguing semantics. Just because you don't see the relevancy in older sci-fi works does not mean they don't exist. There have been numerous documentaries and books about how early sci-fi works have impacted modern science. Space operas predicted nothing? Check out the sci-fi movies of the 40's and 50's. Heck, watch the original Star Trek TV series. Many of the gadgets they used are in play today. Cell phones (communicators), lap and desk top computers, video phones, entire libraries on one disc, etc. Everybody gets something different from the classics all the way up to today's cutting edge sci-fi. I just see more correlations than you. Anyway, this is off topic and I don't want to spam up the thread more.

Interestingly most of the space operas people see as prophetic merely popularise ideas from more obscure sources. Star Trek's biggest claim to fame is the first black/white kiss on telly. As for non invasive medical technology, tricorders being like MRI's the idea for the tricorder is taken from an Asimov idea as is the communicator.

It's cool though, space operas popularise the prophetic. It's not really off topic either, as the thread offers competition between the two.



By Crom!

Originally posted by By Crom!
I keep hearing about him. I don't believe he could have been as intelligent as me by Crom!



Interestingly most of the space operas people see as prophetic merely popularise ideas from more obscure sources. Star Trek's biggest claim to fame is the first black/white kiss on telly. As for non invasive medical technology, tricorders being like MRI's the idea for the tricorder is taken from an Asimov idea as is the communicator.

It's cool though, space operas popularise the prophetic. It's not really off topic either, as the thread offers competition between the two.



By Crom!
I didn't know the the Kirk/Uhura kiss was the first interracial kiss showed on American TV until a few years ago.

I have always liked sci-fi better than magic/mystic. The magic/mystic stories I enjoy have Religious tones such as Constantine and Hellboy or Vampire/Werewolf stories. Crom, what do like like best about sci-fi?

Serious lack of cyberpunk in western comics.

As long as the story is enjoyable, I don't really care that much whether it's magic or science.

For example, John Ostrander's Spectre was one of my all-time favorites, despite the fact that Spectre is a magical-based character.

Originally posted by Black Adam
Serious lack of cyberpunk in western comics.

Oh? Try out Wasteland- if you're a fan of the Fallout game series, or if you're actually interested in cyberpunk Westerns, you'd love it.

And people are acting like "science" isn't just as much of a deus ex machina as "magic" is in comics.

Originally posted by Erik-Lensherr
As long as the story is enjoyable, I don't really care that much whether it's magic or science.

For example, John Ostrander's Spectre was one of my all-time favorites, despite the fact that Spectre is a magical-based character. This man brings a good point, one that I whole-heartedly agree with. Science-Fiction or Magic, in the end it all boils down to story and plot devices. Science-Fiction, when written horribly, is no different than badly written Magic/Mysticism. They are interchangeable in that regard.

Strictly speaking, I personally prefer a mixture of sci-fi and magical elements and themes. Far more interesting than one isolated from the other, though I do get tired of scientific explanations for what was once supernatural (e.g., the virus-explanations for vampires in the Blade and Underworld films).

They're both good, in different ways.

Like how when it's magic, we don't have to explain it... ermmhappy

This can be equally applied to a number of techno-babble terms used in sci-fi with only loose connections to real world physics. See the ever popular usage of 'cosmic energy' as the power source for any number of characters as one minor example.

Or "sentient nanotechnology." Or "unstable particles." Or "chronal ripples." I mean, they're words we understand and have some relation to, unlike, say, the Hoary Hosts of Hoggoth, but it's not like they're really all that much more scientific than the Wand of Watoomb.

I like them all as long as they don't have an enormous cheese factor.
For Example 300 is a great movie, while The Stuff was cheese.