Ever start loving a band you just discovered, only to find, to your horror, that your parents also like that band? The music is the same, but your outlook suddenly changes.
That's how I feel right now about CIVIL WAR.
Rugal, no offense, but why do you still come here? Nobody here likes you. This forum's discussions often don't lean towards your interests. I stay the hell away from Kyle Rayner and Keith Giffen fansites, what are you doing here, anyway?
Rugal, I can't remember for certain who made that quote, but it sounds like something nightwing would say.
I think an aspect of "suspension of disbelief" is not asking too many questions.
To read a comic I can appreciate that Superman comes from a planet with a less intense sun and higher gravity, so on our world he can lift up a double decker bus. If I start to look too closely at this comic book phenomenon, and ask too many questions, it will quickly fall apart.
Likewise with the first Spider-Man comic, in which a highly gifted science student (Parker) creates the web fluid and web shooters. (If this seems remarkable, I was always much more impressed that he created his spidey suit with a needle and thread!!) Start asking too many technical questions (like when Sue talks about the digestion in your example) and you quickly get into a bind of having to explain more and more until you have removed all the fun from the subject! You also create unnecessary traps for future writers of the character. This is why I never liked those encyclopedia-type comics Marvel brought out (and I'm sure DC would have had the equivalent) where they would have an entry for a character which explained in the most minute technical and pseudo-scientific manner how the powers and/or equipment of that character worked.
I disagree with everything you just said.
I am deeply, deeply suspicious of anyone that says "just go with the flow, it's suspension of disbelief, it's just a story" etc, etc. because usually this position indicates a request for tolerance for bad or poorly thought out ideas.
An idea should get better the MORE you think about it, not less, because it is proof that the writer thought it through. A good idea is airtight and nitpick-proof.
If something is a good idea, it should not be "destroyed" by asking a basic question.
An example would be the Flash's non-superspeed enemies that derive their powers from gadgetry. Why is it enemies that have guns or otherwise derive their powers from gadgetry are credible threats to the Flash, who can snap said weapon out of their hands in an eyeblink?
Well, let me qualify everything I just said:
Superhero comics are like science fiction in the sense that they are dependent on the occasional fantasy element, what Arthur C. Clarke famously called a "magic wand." It requires a leap of faith to accept some things, including very basic things about the superhero genre, like powers, costumes, codenames, and so forth. But we can accept these things because we are told this is how things in a superhero world work.
How does it compromise enjoyment of a story if the effects and permutations of a character are worked out by a writer that respects the intelligence of an audience? The best period of the Flash's recent history has been one where serious questions about what it would be like to be superfast were asked and answered: under Baron and later, Messner-Loebs, the Flash was given a superfast metabolism and required to eat enormous quantities of food, he exhausted after prolonged uses of his superspeed, and he destroyed non-treated clothing, especially footwear by the shear of high speeds. And best of all, they gave the Flash superspeed enemies.
The more they explained, the more limits they actually placed on future inventiveness.
Since when does a level-headed and reasonable call for consistency equate to "placing limits?" If it is established that Chameleon Boy cannot grow to a size greater than 25 feet tall, ignoring such a clearly established limitation is BAD WRITING, because it draws us out of the reality the story is creating.
Suspension of disbelef is BASED on consistency. Just because something is a fantasy element does not mean it can come and go at the convenience of the writer.
This isn't just about the fanboy love of fun minutiae (though little things, like the fact that Sabretooth, like all cats, is color-blind, or Hawkeye wears a hearing-aid, improve one's enjoyment of comics because there's so much THERE there). This is about doing what a good writer has a responsibility to do: treat the world as if it was real. This goes from consistent characterization to even the little things.
Likewise with the Star Trek magazines that come out which obsessively explain how the transporter works. Why would anyone want to know? I think Kirk explained it best in one of the episodes, along the lines of, The transporter converts the molecules of your body to energy, transmits it, then converts the energy back into molecules at the destination and reassembles them into you! Now, any further attempts to explain will ruin "suspension of disbelief" and make you sound like a twit!
How does it ruin suspension of disbelief if someone thought something as small and petty as a transporter deserved an explanation, and they gave one in depth?
And those schematic things are way cool; I have one of a phaser on my wall, and whomever came up with it deserves my undying love.
It is pointless to analyse to death why Lois can't see that Clark is Superman.
How is it pointless if it can yield satisfactory answers that do credit to the strengths of both characters? A relationship this fundamental to Superman deserves an explanation. The idea that Superman is a great actor and Clark Kent's personality is an honest extension of his own, for instance, gives the most satisfying answer because it doesn't insult Lois's intelligence.
Dilber MC Theme by HarzeM