Magic and Mysticism vs Sci Fi (Which do u prefer ?)

Started by Doctor S.T.D.3 pages

Magic and Mysticism vs Sci Fi (Which do u prefer ?)

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)?

Re: Magic and Mysticism vs Sci Fi (Which do u prefer ?)

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!

Re: Re: Magic and Mysticism vs Sci Fi (Which do u prefer ?)

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.

Re: Re: Re: Magic and Mysticism vs Sci Fi (Which do u prefer ?)

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.