Science Doesn't Belong in Comic Books? (And other story telling mediums)

Being the Hulk fan I am, I often lurk around the Incredible Hulk message boards and such. Because of this I have spent the last little while thinking way too much about "zero gravity". The discussion comes about from Hulk #5 obviously and just how the Red Hulk was able to wield Mjolnir. But the question I've been asking myself is "does science belong in comic books?" Should we care whether the Flash could truly run up a building? (I recommend "The Physics of Superheroes" by James Kakalios for the answer to that question and many others, some of which I might mention here) Should we wonder whether the Atom would be able to breath after shrinking down? About the only answer I can come up with is "That's entirely up to the individual reader."

What a cop out huh? But really, who am I to say what readers should be looking for in comic books? So it's entirely up to you. As for me, I have my own take on it. I like talking about these things, I tend to have a weird facination with this sort of triva. So does this mean I look at every comic looking for instances that heroes defy science? Obviously not. I think I'd go insane to try that even for a month. But that doesn't mean I won't take a second look at things just out of curiousity. Now does this mean I'll be critical of a book (or tv show or movie or whatever) that doesn't match? That depends.

On one hand, if it's clear the science isn't important to the story then I just chalk it up to random trivia. It doesn't effect my view of the story so I'm able to look beyond it. I'd put stuff like the original Star Wars trilogy and Firefly/Serenity into this category. Lucas and Whedon didn't want to be bogged down by the science of it all so they chose to keep it out. Whedon even had Captain Reynolds break down one situation as something like "Without this ship don't go?" while holding up ... something. Whedon clearly didn't want to get bogged down in the specifics of it all. So I can appreciate a good conversation of things they may have gotten wrong but it won't change my appreciation of the movies/tv shows/comics.

On the other hand, you have the writers who choose to use science. You more likely to see this in something like Star Trek (the Next Generation and such). With this sort of thing the writers often introduce something scientific as part of the show. They use science to explain why something is impossible or how they get around a difficult situation. And this is where things differ for me from the first scenario. If you are going to introduce a solution to a problem or situation based on science then you should work on getting your facts straight. Now obviously there are some things they'll never be able to explain and I understand that. And sometimes you just have to believe someone along the way invented a doohicky device that solves a problem we currently don't know how to solve but if they get basic stuff wrong then I do get disappointed. That hits me as being a bit lazy, using a solution to your story that we already know is incorrect.

So what is the Hulk example for me? I'd put it in the latter. Loeb wanted to come up with some way for the Red Hulk to wield Mjolnir and he decided to have him do it in space. After all, Iron Man has done it. And it gets explained as "zero gravity" or as Quesada saying "once in space, void of gravity". But then it becomes a problem because they are clearly not understanding that there is gravity in space. At this point they appear to be using their own misconceptions to explain something and yes, I will be critical of that because they are making it a point of the story. If they had have left it at pseudoscience or up to the interpretation of the readers then fine. But if I see them say something wrong, I want to call them on it.

Now I can understand why a lot of people don't like this approach. They just want to sit back and enjoy their comics without putting so much thought into it. They just want to take it as fact that the Red Hulk can do this because of "0 gravity" and because, let's face it, he did it. And that's fine. I might be a little disappointed that these people don't have the same curiousity to understand how things work that I do but really, when is a very basic understanding of space travel going to help me in life? But I really can't change who I am. So for me, yes, science belongs in comic books but I'm not going to lose sleep over it.

Oh who am I kidding, I probably will lose sleep wondering if it's possible for the Flash to jump up and touch a ceiling fast enough that people won't notice or some other useless trivia. :)

Weekly Comic Reviews for July 16th, 2008

Only two books this week, Mice Templar #5 and Spike: After the Fall #1.

Mice Templar #5 -- I think this series has a great story and some great art but for some reason, I find it missing the mark for me. I think there are a few issues I have when reading it. One is that I'm having a hard time keeping things straight. Perhaps this is due to the gaps between issues, I forget what was happening previously. Or perhaps it's the character designs, I still find it hard to identify who's who at times. They show a group of mice and I have no idea who they are or if I should even know them. And perhaps it's the ever shifting story which is good but in combination to the above makes me start to wonder "wait, who's the good guy now?" I know this can be a good thing but right now I'm just feeling more and more lost. Now a lot of this probably just has to do with me and my own issues, so it might be a great book for you. For me, I may be better off waiting for the story to finish (with the next issue) and read it all at once. I still think this series is good and definitely worth checking out, I just don't know if I'll be picking it up after next issue. I may wait to see if there are TPBs forthcoming.

Spike: After the Fall #1 -- Considering I haven't been the biggest fan of the Angel series, I didn't have high hopes for this one. I found the art a little better here, some of that may be due to the series centering on Spike and Ilyria/Fred (fewer characters to keep track of and such). But I still don't like the flow of the book. Too choppy and hard to follow with narrative telling us that should be shown. There were a few bright spots in the dialogue with Spike but one thing I didn't really like was having him narrate. I don't know, I kinda like not knowing what Spike is thinking and trying to infer from his body language and such. So far, I didn't find all that much to the story that I didn't already know but I guess that's good for people who aren't reading the Angel series (though I highly doubt there are many people picking this up who aren't already reading Angel). I'm still a little curious about the Ilyria/Fred thing and that's my main reason for picking up this series. I hope I'm not disappointed. As for recommending this book, I'm on the fence. I may have to wait and see how it plays out and recommend (or not) the TPB.

So that's it for the monthlies. I started reading Volume 10 of Fables and I'm really glad I read the 1001 Nights of Snowfall just prior to this. I think this one might be a tough book for me to get through as a fan of a particular character. But I won't spoil anything (and I hope nobody decides to spoil it for me with bad comments).

And one last thing, I won a sketch of the Araknid Kid by Josh Alves. I rock! Okay, all I did was sign up for his newsletter so I don't really rock but it's a cool sketch so I'm happy. And remember to vote for the Zuda Invitational.

Here there be Skrulls

Despite the fact that I'll be passing on Secret Invasion I just have to be impressed by the fun that Marvel is having with their promotional material. Their latest photos of Skrulls at the Marvel office put it over for me. So I had to come up with my own list of the top 10 Skrull suspects:
10. Michael Jordan -- C'mon, the guy could fly!

9. Gary Oldman -- I swear this guy shape shifts for every movie he's in. He's not even trying to hide it. And I've also had my eye on Christian Bale ever since watching the Machinist.

8. Shannon Tweed -- Who, other than a Skrull, could look that hot at fif... I mean forty-one. ;) Plus, her sticking with Gene Simmons this long has to be some sort of alien plot that makes use of his money and influence with the KISS army.

7. Sean Combs -- His constant name changing is him compensating for not being allowed to change his appearance.

6. Tinkerbell (Paris Hilton's dog) -- I'm convinced that he's the brains behind her "success".

5. Wayne Gretzky -- Another case of in-human abilities.

4. Ric Flair -- Fifty-nine years old and still working in the wrestling scene? Gotta be a Skrull.

3. Angelina Jolie -- Just look at her.

2. Elvis Presley -- He ain't dead, he just took another form.

1. Jon Stewart -- What better way to infiltrate us than to have us ridicule our leaders and laugh off serious political issues. Plus, the story can end with a Stephen Colbert/Jon Stewart face off because we know Colbert ain't no Skrull.

And to answer the question on a lot of people's minds, no, Tom Cruise is not a Skrull. Though I would put him at the top my list of Skrull sympathizers.