Science of Superheroes

[PhantomGM2602]

I've just checked out a book called THE SCIENCE OF SUPERHEROES It's got a lot of scientific explanations about how superpowered origins might [or might not ]work in the real world. it disects origins of all your fave comic heroes

such as SpiderMan, Batman,The Hulk,The Flash,the Atom.

Yes they even disected Carl Barks' Duck universe[Donald Duck,Uncle Scrooge,etc].

While I applaud thier efforts to break down the comic book universe, They've not given me any evidence of what their science says about superpowers or the evidence of comic book science and devices in that universe.

If by any chance you see this book in a bookstore or a library,check it out, it might give you a laugh or couple of groans.

[levi]

Who was the Author, if you recall?

[Edsel]

Would this happen to be the book in question?

 

The Science of Superheros

 

Also since this is the first time I've put a link in a page, did it work?

[AtomicGladiator]

Originally posted by Edsel

Would this happen to be the book in question?

 

The Science of Superheros

 

Also since this is the first time I've put a link in a page, did it work?

 

Link works!

[Redmenace]

The title is a bit misleading. I thought Dean Koontz's preface where he reveals how he never felt any fondness for super hero comic books was a bad omen.

 

If you are interested, I've tried to keep up with the genre and here are some personal oppininons.

 

Science of the X-Men, A great deal like the aformentioned Science of Superheroes, dry and not always informative. The Wolverine chapter, detailing how his physical mutations, regen and hyper senses might work, was pretty good.

 

Science of Superman, One of the better ones perhaps becouse supes covers so many powers. still not all that useful for a "How could any of this actually work" kind of a book.

 

My favorite by far is the Official Handbook of the Marvel Universe-deluxe edition. While the science writer had to really stretch sometimes, , it really tries to make utterly impossible abilities quasi plausible. The Iron Man section is particularly clever.

 

Finally, there was a website that covered this topic in bits and pieces. It would have an online article about how spiders walk up vertical surfaces that tied in with spiderman etc. I got the feeling that it was a compliment to a BBC tv show but that be my imagination.

[PhantomGM2602]

THANK YOU VERY MUCH!

 

You may have hit the nails on the head with this book.

there was one thing worng with it: IT DID"NT COVER THE WOMEN HEROES!!! Let's face it they did not have room for superheroines like Wonder Women,Batgirl,Catwoman and countless others. They also didn't cover DareDevil,Captain America,The Human Fly, or DarkHawk for that matter.

And they should at least try to explain the conditions of cosmic rays to us in terms of what happened to the Fantastic Four. What do you think? I like to know what's your opinion?

[Redmenace]

Re: THANK YOU VERY MUCH!

 

Originally posted by PhantomGM6101

You may have hit the nails on the head with this book.

there was one thing worng with it: IT DID"NT COVER THE WOMEN HEROES!!! Let's face it they did not have room for superheroines like Wonder Women,Batgirl,Catwoman and countless others. They also didn't cover DareDevil,Captain America,The Human Fly, or DarkHawk for that matter.

And they should at least try to explain the conditions of cosmic rays to us in terms of what happened to the Fantastic Four. What do you think? I like to know what's your opinion?

 

 

What can I say? You are right about the female heroes not getting much coverage, literary or costume wise. The Marvel handbook does the best job of covering nearly everyone, male, female and other.

 

With as many super hero movies as are coming out we might see more books on the subject.

 

My oppinion on the whole sub genre of science books is that, I know these things violate physics but it doesn't take much skill to show that they are impossible. Give the assignment to a science fiction writer who has a grounding in science but is also used to coming up with rationale for how non existant things might work.

 

Melinda Snodgrass and George R.R. Martin, who came up with the workings of the Wildcards or Larry Nivin, whose Man of Steel, Women of Kleenex kind of got the ball rolling in the first place could make for an interesting read.

 

It isn't a super hero science book specifically, but there is a trade paperback book called "The Holographic Universe" which is about how Psi phenomena might be real if the Universe is constructed in a very different way than we think it is. It is a good enough scientific arguement for a rpg background but then I can't reccomend to any GM that they let the real world get in the way of a good game session.

[TheEmerged]

Re: Re: THANK YOU VERY MUCH!

 

Originally posted by Redmenace

What can I say? You are right about the female heroes not getting much coverage, literary or costume wise.

 

Heh.

 

On the subject of the Official Marvel Handbook -- I can't remember the name right now and I don't feel like digging through the boxes, but the title is similar to "Reed Richard's Guide to the Marvel Universe" and was a product for the SAGA-based Marvel Superheroes Adventure Game (MSAG). It included several psuedo-scientific explanations for superpowers -- although it dropped the ball regarding a certain urban legend (I assure you, a duck's quack really does echo).

[Redmenace]

I haven't been around uncooked ducks very often so I'm taking you at your word. It's those damn bumblebees, flaunting their contempt for our physics, that gets to me.

[Chuckg]

Actually, it's an urban legend that any scientists said that bumblebees couldn't fly.

 

It got started when some aerodynamical engineers, for their own amusement, did the math and "proved" that if a bumblebee were a fixed-wing aircraft, it couldn't fly.

 

Of course, a bumblebee is not a fixed-wing aircraft... it's an insect. It flaps its wings. They knew this. They were simply doing a thought exercise 'cause, well, engineers get bored sometimes.

 

However, the story got garbled in translation, as often happens when aerodynamics engineers try to explain things to laypeople, and the fine distinction about 'fixed-wing' vs. 'ornithopter' got lost in the telling, and shazoom, instant urban legend.

[BoneDaddy]

Another treasured anecdote, crushed like a bug. Thanks Chuckg, I am a wiser man, if not happier (And Army, by the way - '91-'94).

[Redmenace]

My favorite along these lines has always been the "people only use 10% of their brains" chestnut. I suppose if it was true it could make russian roulette a less extreme sport.

[PhantomGM2602]

Ye Gods!

 

Can't we get back on the subject people?

What about alien races? or super devices?

or how about the infamous 'unstable molecues' for the supersuits? How are they supposed to explain them?

Simple Answer: They Can't or Won't!

[Prometheus]

A while back Discovery Channel aired a show called KAPOW: the Science of Superheroes (or at least something very close to that). To my recollection, it only aired a handful of times, but it was fairly good.

 

Most of the explanations were actually analytical demonstrations of powers- a web-like cable lifts 6 cars, a frog is levitated with magnets- rather than an actual reconstruction of the power- spinning a web, flying through magnetic force. Personally I thought the reverse engineering of the Hulk was pretty creative. How do you turn a person green??

 

Check out the series More Than Human as well, also from the Discovery Channel. The show looks at people who are able to perform unusual or seemingly superhuman feats, or who have somehow survived an otherwise lethal situation, and looks at it scientifically. With a little extrapolation, you can take some of their explanations and match it to some heroes.

[Lupus]

I hated the Official Handbooks to the Marvel Universe. Its sciency explanations used too much /bad/ real science and not enough comic book science. Two things: superheroes don't require real-world explansions, and comic book science can simply work differently. Too much real-world stuff in comics saps the style.

 

For instance: Havok shooting plasma blasts and blowing things up is cool. Havok projecting heat waves to heat the air until it turns into plasma, and stuff blowing up from heat difference... well, then he's a heat projector, not a plasma thrower, and that's not nearly as cool.

 

A much better explanation comes from the Marvel SAGA game - that 'superhero plasma' in the marvel universe is a very low, basic yet still powerful manifestation of cosmic energy. Thus, it surpasses what we currently understand about physics.

 

Also works if you allow more leeway to explanations involving psionics and various other things like that. The Hulk, for instance - where does his extra mass come from? the answer: it comes from his rage. His mind takes over matter and increases his mass. I don't like all of the OHOTMU's 'extra-dimensional mass' explanations. Why can't superheroes simply bulk up by turning internal energy into external bulk?

 

And the 100-ton strength limitation was ludicrous - totally blown out of the water by the comics themselves.

 

From what I hear from one of the contributors, there were severe editorial constraints to the sciency things, wanting things too grounded in the 'real world.'

 

Comics are comics, and superheroes are SUPER! They don't have to live in the real world.

[Southern Cross]

Actually,the reason that superheroes don't "Bulk Up" as you suggest is that their MASS wouldn't increase in proportion to their increased volume.The Hulk would end up like Bouncing Boy from the LSH.

Besides while "other dimensions" exist according to string theory,it seems highly unlikely that they have the properties in real life that they have in comic books.

[Andrew_A]

Science of Superheroes

 

I bought the book, read the exact scientific reason for why Superman couldn't possibly exist, and then realised that I'd wasted my money. Do I really need a science book to tell me what every ten-year-old already knows?

 

I was hoping for a book that would give me an idea of what aspects of superheroes could reasonably exist or what they would be like if they did exist. Instead I got an in-depth explanation of why the Fantastic Four are impossible. Stupid.

 

For an idea of how to build superheroes using modified science check out Wild Cards volume 1.

 

Way better.

[PhantomGM2602]

Re: Science of Superheroes

 

Better yet Try the latest Wild Cards novel,Dueces Wild It may bring some light to the Wild Cards world sinces the events of the Black Trump trilogy.

Have You also read the Science of Superman yet? If not check it out and compare it with the previous book.

[loraxxx]

Re: Science of Superheroes

 

I've just checked out a book called THE SCIENCE OF SUPERHEROES

If by any chance you see this book in a bookstore or a library,check it out, it might give you a laugh or couple of groans.

 

saw the special on THE DISCOVERY CHANNEL--was not impressed....

[Arthur]

Re: Science of Superheroes

 

[quote=Andrew_A

For an idea of how to build superheroes using modified science check out Wild Cards volume 1.

 

 

Maybe. I am a HUGE fan of the Wild Cards series. It's my favorite set of stories. At first, I was really impressed with that "everything is psi-based" explanation.

 

Now I'm not so sure it's all that much of an improvement.

 

All they really did was use the same rubber-science buzzword for all powers. It doesn't really link to anything in the real world (Dr. Rhine notwithstanding).

 

Think of it this way: if you took the word "psi" and replaced it with the word "witchcraft" or "balonium", would it really make any difference in terms of a real-world explanation? Introducing one fictional concept to explain many fictional concepts doesn't really accomplish much, now does it?

 

However, as I said, I LOVED the Wild Cards books. Still do. If I could stay in one place long enough to justify a fiction collection again, it would be on top of my list.

[PhantomGM2602]

Re: Science of Superheroes

 

I've also read about the Hulk and their explanation is totally short of ludicris. According to their thoeries there is only one way that a man can imitate the Hulks transformations and that is with steriods and something called GFP or something,never even once examining the effects of adrenilin .

to qoute directly from this chapter:'Gamma rays are like light a form of electromagnetic radiation. Gamma rays are emitted by radioactive substances like Cesium137,cobalt60 and Uranium235. along with alpha and beta rays,gamma rays are emttied when a nuclear explosion takes place."

"Hard radiation doesn't transform living cells.Nor does it cause certain glands to overreact and mutate human bodies. Hard radiation in large doses does one thing and it does that well: it kills. The Hulk just doesn't make sense according to his origin story. Niether do the Fantastic 4. Marvel's earliest heroes just are'nt possible and they never were."

according to this the only way Bruce Banner can hulk out would to take a 'super steroid' and a chemical call GFP. Any ideas on what a character that would create? or the dangers of what drug use can do?

Opinions every one[read Chapter three]

[AngryBug]

Re: Science of Superheroes

 

I hated the Official Handbooks to the Marvel Universe. Its...

100-ton strength limitation was ludicrous - totally blown out of the water by the comics themselves....

QUOTE]

 

Well, actually, it wasn't a limitation. "Class 100" strength specifically referred to being able to "lift (press) in excess of 100 tons". They never defined an upper limit to how much Class 100 characters could lift, like they did with anyone who could lift less than or equal to 100 tons. Basically, it just meant, "Strength Level: Really ****ing Strong".

 

As far as books about scientific explanations of superpowers go, I see several ways to look at it; you can use real world science to show why they can't work (the Atom can't breathe if his lungs are too small to take in oxygen molecules, if you're exposed to radiation you'll get a painful blood disease and die, etc...), you can use pseudoscience to at least make it sound plausible (a la TOHOTMU DE), or you can use real world science to explore theories of what might be possible (check out The Physics of Star Trek by Lawrence M. Krauss for an example of this approach). I always think it's more fun to look at what is possible, rather than what isn't.

 

Anyway, we know it's possible because the Superheroes can do it. I'm reminded of the episode of Futurama where Professor Farnsworth clones himself, and the young clone runs around explaining how the Professor's Smell-O-Scope and FTL Starship are impossible , ignoring the fact that, well, there they are.

 

What? Superheroes aren't what? Aren't real?

Are you sure?

..................................................................

 

I'm going to go lie down now.