pinecone Posted January 12, 2017 Report Share Posted January 12, 2017 [not sure what happened to the end of my last post there] As a fan, I completely agree. Urban fantasy is one of my favorite genres, and that's a central principle in most UF. Unfortunately, most of the explanations writers make up for why magic is different from science don't stand up to even a casual I'm-a-history-major understanding of how science actually works. I'm happy to suspend my disbelief while I'm inside the movie/book/whatever. But also I recognize that it makes about as much sense as "mutant superpower." And I'm still waiting for some writer to come up with a distinction between science and magic that actually makes a lick of sense. Well, you see to do Magic...you've gotta join the Union, I'm from MU 274, glad to meet yah. But Science? They let Anybody do it! massey, bigdamnhero and rjcurrie 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt the Bruins Posted January 12, 2017 Report Share Posted January 12, 2017 I thought Doctor Strange did an admirable job of making magic versatile in the MCU while also making its use by a given sorcerer small enough scale that it won't overshadow the Avengers and all the other superheroes. Strange couldn't have waved his hands and made the Project Insight helicarriers or Sokovia disappear, but he can do things like astral projection and defensive shielding that aren't in the other heroes' power sets. bigdamnhero and Lord Liaden 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zslane Posted January 12, 2017 Report Share Posted January 12, 2017 "Explaining" magic isn't necessary to storytelling as a general rule, particularly if your genre is medieval fantasy. But the MCU presents itself as "the modern world with the addition of superpowers", where you are expected to understand that everything in the MCU works exactly as it does in the real world until you are shown something that violates (our current understanding of) our universe's physical laws. When nearly every character reacts with disdain to the suggestion that "magic" is real, the viewer is naturally led to believe that the MCU has no such construct within the fabric of its own fictive reality. In a sense, a narrative contract is formed between storyteller (Marvel) and viewer. So when a storyline comes along that is going to violate that contract, a lot of supporting "explanation" is necessary, otherwise you leave audiences wondering if they should actually accept the new contract or wait for a trusted character to reframe things in terms of the old one (i.e., "it's not really magic, just quantum shenanigans we don't have a complete model of yet"). The practical difference comes down to whether or not Tony Stark could duplicate the effect (not mimic, but duplicate) of the so-called magic with his tech. If the answer is yes, then I submit there is no "magic" in the MCU (as most audiences would accept the notion). Christopher R Taylor 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Christopher R Taylor Posted January 12, 2017 Report Share Posted January 12, 2017 The glowstick martial arts and rune shields, Tony could duplicate yeah. He might be able to get the weird dimensional shifting stuff, maybe. The portals, I would suggest not, and the time warping stuff absolutely no way. So as the film went on it became less and less "maybe this is just weird science" which was good. In the comics, there's basically nothing Dr Strange cannot do. Nothing. But he's been the sorcerer supreme since the 60s, so yeah lots of training and experience and study. And in his case, retrofitting him to be more modern is stupid; the Ancient One was literally thousands of years old. Age doesn't have to happen to a sorcerer. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zslane Posted January 12, 2017 Report Share Posted January 12, 2017 The portals, I would suggest not... Except that science and technology were used to open the portal to Hive's planet (Daisy's only contribution was maintaining the right resonant frequency to provide more control over the portal, something we can easily imagine being handled by a Stark gadget in a storyline that didn't have to give an Inhuman main cast member something relevant to do). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bazza Posted January 13, 2017 Author Report Share Posted January 13, 2017 Captain Marvel Comic Character Makes Brie Larson Movie Reference http://screenrant.com/captain-marvel-comic-brie-larson-room/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zslane Posted January 13, 2017 Report Share Posted January 13, 2017 More grist for the Dinklage-as-MODOK theory: http://screenrant.com/peter-dinklage-avengers-infinity-war-modok/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bazza Posted January 13, 2017 Author Report Share Posted January 13, 2017 Bazza - Yesterday I started out to writing a detailed response, but it quickly got unbearably long even by my standards. Believe it or not, this is the short version... It's been a long while since I did any serious study on the philosophy of science, but my understanding is Cartesian notions of the subjectivity of experience were largely discarded ages ago by practicing scientists. The whole point of the scientific method is based on the assumption that much of reality is objective, testable, and therefore predictable. Scientists may argue about to what extent science can be applied to things that can't be observed (ie scientific realism pro & con), but I don't believe there's any argument over whether or not it can be applied to the observable - otherwise there wouldn't be much point of doing science at all. Indeed, the whole point of rigorous scientific testing is to remove the subjectivity of the observer as much as possible. I'll grant that none of us can really know how another person perceives the world. But if I perceive that this flashlight produces light that allows me to see, and I hand that flashlight to you, odds are you will act as if it is also producing light and allowing you to see. Which strongly implies that whatever differences in perception exist between us are minimal enough to not be relevant most of the time. Which puts ideas about the subjectivity of experience firmly into the category of "unfalsifiable, and therefore not useful." As Laplace said to Napoleon, "Sire, I have no need of that hypothesis." So if you want to define "magic" as really being about meaning and essences and whatnot, that's fine. We could have an interesting philosophical discussion about that. But the minute Dr. Strange opens a teleportation portal to the Himalayas, he has made observable changes to the physical world, and that effect is therefore able to be measured & tested in order to understand the processes involved and formulate theories that (hopefully) allow us to make useful predictions that if I do X it will have Y effect. Ie - science. Started to write a long winded response, but I'll try to keep this short. If you feel like it, we can continue via private message. The more i research the history of science and the philosophy of science, the more it feels like travel down the rabbit hole ro Wonderland. I am by no means an expert and there is lots of books and other literature I've love to read. This year I hope to make some headway. Reply: 1) I'm beginning to find out that some tenants of Cartesian notions are no longer in vogue, so I accept your point here. I am still finding that the split of reality is still clinged to by science. 2) I accept that this statement "the scientific method is based on the assumption that much of reality is objective, testable, and therefore predictable". However as I understand it, science is wedded to a certain worldview developed in large part from the Enlightenment & Age of Reason epochs. 3) "scientific realism pro & cons". I read this article on Scientific Realism and Antirealism (http://www.iep.utm.edu/sci-real/) last year. General thoughts on it is that scientific realism/antirealism are necessary due to Cartesian ontology, and the abandonment of classical metaphysics. Your flashlight is a good example. 4) Last paragraph. Can see your argument. However if the process used by Dr Strange involves elements that are non-physical/non-material then science cannot completely understand this process from 'go to whoa'. Science's theories will be incomplete, which would make replicating this process difficult/impossible, as part of the 'jigsaw' pieces are missing. Science's wedding itself to the physical world is a limitation here. 5) "So if you want to define "magic" as really being about meaning and essences and whatnot ". It isn't my definition of 'magic'. It is the limitation imposed on science that is discarded these investigations and treated them as spurious. The label "magic" (as extra-science phenomena") only makes sense from a scientific perspective. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Liaden Posted January 13, 2017 Report Share Posted January 13, 2017 I made this point on the thread discussing the Dr. Strange movie: Science holds that the laws of nature exist independent of anyone who studies them. Understanding and belief are irrelevant to utilizing the forces defined and the tools created by science. Anyone could learn and employ the appropriate "formulas." Magic holds that individual mental and spiritual qualities -- strength of will, breadth of perception, depth of enlightenment -- are crucial to mastering its powers. The magician is imposing his desires on reality. Many of the forces of nature are themselves sentient entities, and have to be dealt with on that level, not just as unintelligent phenomena. Burrito Boy and massey 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Twilight Posted January 13, 2017 Report Share Posted January 13, 2017 Captain Marvel Comic Character Makes Brie Larson Movie Reference http://screenrant.com/captain-marvel-comic-brie-larson-room/ Why is Captain Marvel declaring Tommy Wisseau a supervillain? O_o Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zslane Posted January 13, 2017 Report Share Posted January 13, 2017 The most interesting take on this that I can recall from the world of RPGs is Mage: the Ascension in which "reality" is made up of a meta-substance that takes on a particular (static) form in any given universe based on the beliefs of its sentient inhabitants. The fabric of reality, which includes the laws that govern it, changes over time as people's beliefs change. A "wizard" is merely someone who is able to alter the current shape of reality's fabric to accomplish feats that would otherwise be impossible. This works by placing a layer of meta-reality on top of the normal perceived reality, sort of the way you have the game mechanics for a campaign setting, which the characters are constrained to, and then the mechanics of the real world the players inhabit, which provide for the ability to alter the game's mechanics, and therefore the reality of the campaign world. This is a neat idea, but I am fairly certain the MCU does not follow such a fictive paradigm. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bazza Posted January 13, 2017 Author Report Share Posted January 13, 2017 Why is Captain Marvel declaring Tommy Wisseau a supervillain? O_o Because it is an inside-joke as Brie Larsen is to play Carol Danvers in the live action movie. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bigdamnhero Posted January 14, 2017 Report Share Posted January 14, 2017 I'm really enjoying the discussion on the nature of magic vs science, but rather than continue to derail this thread I figured I'd start a new one. See you there (if you're interested). Lord Liaden 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Old Man Posted February 3, 2017 Report Share Posted February 3, 2017 Runaways show on Hulu has been cast pinecone 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Old Man Posted February 3, 2017 Report Share Posted February 3, 2017 ABC Cloak and Dagger show has been cast Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bigdamnhero Posted February 3, 2017 Report Share Posted February 3, 2017 Heh, I was just coming here to post those. I haven't heard of any of the actors in question, but damn if they don't look the parts, especially the Runaways. And so far it doesn't sound like they're making a lot of arbitrary changes to the characters, which is a positive sign. I'm kinda lukewarm about Cloak & Dagger - I hope it's good, but I have no real emotional attachment to the characters - but I have high hopes for Runaways. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bazza Posted February 3, 2017 Author Report Share Posted February 3, 2017 I'm the opposite have high hopes for C&D and lukewarm on Runaways. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Christopher R Taylor Posted February 3, 2017 Report Share Posted February 3, 2017 I envisioned Cloak and Dagger a bit older, but they were supposed to be street kids when they were grabbed and get their powers, so I guess it works. No idea how good either one is, as I haven't seen them in anything. I really like Cloak and Dagger's story and character so I hope they do the kids justice. I know nothing about Runaways and nothing in the description makes me want to see it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bigdamnhero Posted February 3, 2017 Report Share Posted February 3, 2017 Ironically my favorite C&D appearance was in Runaways, where they showed up to play ex-teen mentors for a couple issues. "Your secret origin is...drugs? You guys are the worst role models ever!" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Starlord Posted February 3, 2017 Report Share Posted February 3, 2017 I dunno, Captain America is a pretty good role model.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Shadow Posted February 5, 2017 Report Share Posted February 5, 2017 Guardians of the Galaxy 2 super bowl spot's up. pinecone and Hermit 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Starlord Posted February 7, 2017 Report Share Posted February 7, 2017 Iron Fist! March 17 Joe Walsh, aylwin13, slikmar and 3 others 6 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Christopher R Taylor Posted February 7, 2017 Report Share Posted February 7, 2017 Wow, I really wish they hadn't done the "Rich kid leaves and suddenly reappears to run his company" story. Again. This is getting to be more of a cliche than The Chosen One. It is good to see Mantis though. I wonder how they're going to depict her fighting skills because she is insanely capable. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hermit Posted February 7, 2017 Report Share Posted February 7, 2017 Iron Fist! March 17 I like it, not crazy about the beard, but i like it. I do have to agree with Christopher Taylor that "Rich boy returns to take company" back IS in danger of being the new version of 'farm boy has great destiny ' though Doc Shadow 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slikmar Posted February 7, 2017 Report Share Posted February 7, 2017 Love the link to the Hand and the crossover with the Asian lady from Daredevil. Problem with complaining about Rich Kid thing is that is the current background of Danny. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.