Nightscrawlers

Well, it's precisely the mix of science (however improbable) and fantasy that makes science fiction so appealing to me.

Then you'd definitely like the work of Robert Heinlein, Isaac Asimov, and related authors. They were the masters who actually knew what they were talking about in regards to science. However, we're drifting , so I'm going to stop now.

Not completely off topic. The question "Would Kurt be able to stand up straight?" is another way of saying "How scientifically possible are the XMen?"

I like those authors you listed Northstar. I think it's just the way my brain works, but there has to be a sort of tacit agreement between author and audience that "this is fake, but we're going to go with it anyway" and then I'm happy. It's only when it starts to sound too sincere that I get antsy about it.

This is why I like space ships in Star Wars, but get annoyed with the Starship Enterprise. In Star Wars the Milennium Falcon just worked somehow. Even when it was broken and they were fixing it, they didn't bother to explain any of it. (For instance: "Bring me the Hydrospanner!" The water wrench? Huh? What is that? Oh hey, who cares: R2D2 already fixed it and all tools fell on Han's head. Ha ha ha....)

I almost really liked Star Trek the Next Generation, but then they would go down to engineering and talk about di-lithium crystals and vibrational graviton fieldspace for fifteen minutes and I'd be like "Who cares! Just make it go!"

I'm not saying it's for everyone. It's just my weird deal with fictional science. And I'm equal opportunity because it goes for all the other fictional movie stuff too. Like after Star Wars Episode I came out all these people wanted to find out where they could learn "Jedi Combat" and it was like "Hello! It was a movie! There is no Jedi Combat outside of the movie choreography!" There's nothing wrong with being inspired, but use it to go learn kendo or fencing or something else that's real.

So what I'm saying is that I'm a stick in the mud.

-e

And yes, I love Asimov, and I do enjoy a bit of Heinlein, even if I am aware that Lazarus Long and Jubal Harshaw are his own personal Marty Stus. But I think a little knowledge of how something works (not quite as far as fifteen minutes of explanation) can lend to believability.

I object to your description of Lazarus Long and Dr. Harshaw, but that's a discussion for another day.

I indeed think that there should be moderation in scientific explanation, Saint Kurt. Explanation that shows that it's plausible and the author knows his stuff is fine. A ten-page diatribe on quantum physics is ridiculous and unnecessary. Heinlein sometimes cut close to overexplanation, but he always indicated it where he did and he underestimated his audience. The explanation does help.

this is a facinating topic! i tried all of the links, but none of them seemed to work. i managed to find a pic of a baby with a tail, which was gross. But Kurts tial is AWESOME

Man, we love getting off-topic, don't we? Of course Jurt can stand up stand up straight! His spine is like rubber, with his contortionist feats and stuff. He can be in whatever position he wants!!

In general, mutation and evoloution (sp?) have always facinated me and I think that is part of the appeal of X-Men to me.

I agree with Saint Kurt that explanations somtimes are not necessary. Although it is fun to come up with answers to impossible situations simply because it flexes the ol' brain.