lightsout

@sog7dc: I would argue that's looking at it way too simplistically & that I'm against anyone being 'against' curiosity/asking questions, that GM is being an example of what I said earlier about people feeling that their own enjoyment will be threatened (they're not forcing YOU to think about those things - if they enjoy it, what's your issue?) but I won't go any further into that.

I don't have an issue with people not caring to think that way themselves, but I definitely have one when people "get persecuted" for doing so. Not that anyone got to that level in this thread (the discussion just got me on that subject), but it definitely happens here on CV. (I mean, people come into topics about the science & throw down that GM quote or the other quotes I mentioned before. I think, why bother coming into that thread if you know that topic's not your cup of tea?? You're only wasting your own time (but, I get that people who do that are "just those kind of people", who have to make their presence & opinion known, whether or not it was asked for - and they don't change, especially because of the ease of posting an internet comment (that is, they wouldn't physically go to a club that discusses the science of comics just to troll)).

@deaditegonzo: We'll have to disagree because I think it's fun (to analyze), that for me it even makes it more enjoyable. (There obviously aren't "actual" explanations, but just to theorize to provide more in depth answers than the extremely vague ones the books provide). And not to imply you are one of these people, but I think the people who "aggressively" fight against talking (in depth) about the potential science, do so because they're afraid if people do so it'll "take their fun away" (Which is silly, it's like how homophobic people talk as if gay people will "turn them gay"....it says more about themselves than the other people).

I think it's because of some of what you listed (like red vs yellow sun - the writers brought in "science", not us), it should be okay to discuss** the scientific possibilities. (Like, I could theorize "Well, UV radiation makes up a much larger % of the output of a red star than a 'yellow' star, so perhaps it's UV vs lack of UV that's doing something").

**And you may say "why wouldn't it be okay to just talk about it?", but numerous times I've encountered people here (regular posters, not trolls) who are straight-up belligerent regarding talking-science (ie: "It's just a comic! You can't talk about that! It's pointless!" type stuff). Not only is that stupid because they're wasting their time - they should just not bother with a thread they don't agree with (it'd be like going to a thread for fans of ____ just to make arguments why that character isn't cool) - but as I said before, I'd argue the writers themselves created the jumping off point. I know it's not everyone's cup of tea, but it really seems to be a witch-burning situation around here when you want to talk about all of that.

@jaken7: I do! And I can also bum people out now if the topic of Batman comes up! haha.

@jaken7 Thanks!

@dagmar_merrillaaahhh, I didn't know it touched on that type of topic - I'll have to check it out!

@dagmar_merrill: Oh yea? What's the title? I've only heard of Supergods.

@jaken7: Not to detail your thread, but could you elaborate (or link to something that would) on Kane & Finger? (I'd be interested in boning up on the history of comics).

I too would like some schoolin' from an informed party. I don't think I've heard that strong of an accusation, but definitely that Kirby's gotten shafted on his fair share of the credit (if only b/c Stan is a very gregarious & in a situation like that the quite person will get ignored).

I would say that's apples to oranges. That means the film was a commercial success. A film can be a commercial success without being a "quality" (great piece of art, etc etc) film.

The thing is, that didn't become the status-quo, and that's part of what the "issue" is (that there wasn't consistency). Not that that's unexpected, because like I mentioned in my original reply to the OP, because guys (& sometimes girls) with no science background are writing about things with a high-science-overlap to an audience that generally does't have a science background. (I'd venture to guess that a higher portion of the detractors of this feat have one, like myself). (And I don't mean to say the physical possibility of the feat (when referring to what those with scientific backgrounds have issue with), but rather a background in science fostering critical thinking & logic-application).

IDC that he doesn't, but I am surprised. He was created only 2 years after Stan stopped writing (though, I wouldn't know how heavily featured he was at the time of his creation), and that must mean Stan took his ear that far away from the industry that he didn't hear even a mention or description of Ultron.

In my comment I was actually implying that the supporters were 'disgruntled' and vocal in other topics (ganging up on people who didn't like it, even). And being fair - according to the poll. ... this poll is hardly 100% reflective of everyone's opinion**. (If I'm splitting hairs, a ~60/40 split isn't a strong majority (it only seems as such because of the low-stakes. If it was a 60/40 split on "this guy deserves the death penalty", that shouldn't be enough to give him it, haha). Just as not everyone puts the effort into make a comment (in addition to voting), not everyone puts the effort into voting. (All polls are inherently bias in that they're only reflective of people who actually participate (and choosing to is usually reflective of having a more "vocal/loud" opinion)).

**And I would say that this isn't purely an opinion. Something like "what's your favorite color?" would be a pure opinion poll - it's entirely subjective (personal taste, etc). With something like this, you can bring in examples & logic to create arguments - after enough of this you can often reach a conclusion (ie: an answer that has some objectivity). Just like with movies, on the surface it may seem like it's "only your opinion", but there are steps/mechanics involved in story-telling in the medium of video & you can analyse a picture & judge whether it was a quality film (-- opposed to the entertainment you get from the film, which is entirely subjective). (And just to mention, just because "the majority" supports something, doesn't mean that's correct).