bigdamnhero

Exactly. Most of the big scientific ideas - relativity, evolution, quantum mechanics, even things like gravity or heliocentrism - "broke the rules" in their day. Einstein's probably the most obvious example, since just about every thing he postulated contradicted Newtonian physics in one way or another. But most Nobels are awarded to people who break the rules in some way, resulting in a need to update/modify said rules.
 
Again, science isn't a body of knowledge. It's a methodology of observing the world, testing what works, and then drawing conclusions that allow you to make useful predictions. Demonstrate under controlled circumstances that you can channel interdimensional energies or alter time by wiggling your fingers just so and concentrating real hard? Time to update the rules! That's why you see scientists get so excited when they find something they can't explain - it means they have a chance to update the rules to make them less incomplete/incorrect.

But, that would just mean our understanding of the rules is incorrect or incomplete.

On a completely practical level, I think you're right. If it seems like magic to our pop culture sensibilties, then that's what we tend to call it, precise definitions be damned.
 
I guess in a sense it's like a Champions campaign where something is magic simply by virtue of having "magic" written down as its special effect. After all, I'm sure no GM has ever run into the issue of having to more clearly define the scope/limits of magic in their campaign, right?

Yes but "arcane" just means "mysterious or secret, understood by only a few." In other words it says nothing at all about how the manipulation of reality works, just how widely understood it is.
 
And "extra-scientific" is another one of those meaningless phrases that really means "we don't understand how it works and we can't replicate it." Science is just a methodology for observing and testing how things work: if you test it under controlled conditions and get consistent results, then congratulations it's scientific, even if we don't (yet) understand why. (If you can't get consistent results, well, see above quote re alternative medicine...)
 
My point is that in any universe where magic actually exists, the distinction between magic and science quickly becomes a subjective one that mainly boils down to "looks like something a wizard would do" vs "acts like something technological." And from a narrative perspective I'm fine with that, but best not to over-think it IMO.
 
Yeah, a lot of stuff on the edge seems to almost border on postmodernist nonsense to me. But then, I'm a history major.

Witnessing (or producing) a phenomenon that seems like magic is not the same as witnessing (or producing) a phenomenon that is magic. Just because a mirage seems like a body of water doesn't actually make it one.
 
The manner in which Galactus can turn a living being into one of his heralds doesn't "make sense" to anyone on Earth, but it is not regarded as magic by Marvel (nor by Galactus himself). Even Reed Richards would simply invoke handwavium and say that Galactus is "using the power cosmic" to alter the molecular structure of things; but will say nothing at all as to how that actually works. Reed doesn't know (because, well, the writers don't know), he only knows that it happens and that it is (somehow) an accessible mechanism of "the cosmos".
 
It is quite likely that there is no such thing as magic in the MCU, and that everything that can and does happen is a fundamental cosmic process/mechanism accessible to anyone who knows how. In that case, things only ever seem like magic (in that Clarke-ian way), but nothing ever actually is. On the other hand, if there truly are forces or processes that can be accessed (maybe from other realities) that defy understanding, even by beings such as the Living Tribunal, then maybe there really is magic in the MCU.

You can blame the news media for at least some of that.   Anything remotely technical is going to get mangled in translation to English by a journalist* on a deadline.  Science, aviation, IT, military, medical studies, firearms, all routinely misreported.
 
 
* And even these are an endangered species compared to bloggers or random bloviators on the Internet.

"Through the mystic arts we harness energy and shape reality." That's enough explanation for me.

Yeah, to some extent the word magic is just shorthand for "we don't understand how it works." Reminds me of Tim Minchin's quote about alternative medicine: "By definition, alternative medicine has either not been proved to work or been proved not to work. Do you know what they call alternative medicine that's been proved to work? Medicine."
 
But that's in our world...
 
Other differences between (fictional) magic and (fictional) science, some of which are more meaningful/useful than others:
Anyone can use science (or at least gadgets created by it); only certain people are born with innate magical talent (in some worlds) Science uses commonly-accessible forces (whatever that means); magic taps into extradimensional forces that can't normally be accessed. Science uses natural forces with/against one another' magic uses one's individual will to bend natural forces. Magic is ancient; science is modern. Science is consistently replicable; magic is unpredictable. (Tho a lot of super-tech seems to violate this principle...) Science involves math and equations; magic involves learning ancient texts, speaking obscure phrases, and wiggling your fingers just so. Pick one from Column A, two from Column B...

Finally finished Season 2. I mostly enjoyed Season 1, but this was much improved - more tightly written, better character dynamics, more interesting McGuffins, etc.

Context would just spoil it:
 
"What are the implications of the tent?"

Little Boy Pariah NOT going to sleep.

'Magic' merely seems to be - the knowledge and skill to manipulate cosmic energy beyond the understanding of the universe's normal population.  Doesn't need to be any more complicated than that.

In my view, Thor was merely restating Clarke's Law as it pertains to Asgardian science and technology.
 
In order for the Marvel movies to confirm or deny the existance of "magic", we must first agree on what Marvel even means by that word (as far as the MCU is concerned). Is there a working definition we can irrefutably point to?

Hi, my handle is Storyarama, and it came from a time where I was doing Storytelling as a hobby.
 
My first time playing was with AD&D 1st ed. I was actually headed to summer camp when I heard some of the kids on the bus talking about what spells they were taking, and I just had to find out what that meant. That was the week of summer camp that changed the whole direction of my life.
 
My first time GMing was a couple weeks later after camp, when I put together a dungeon and had a buddy run a party of characters through it. Apparently, giants and first level characters do not mix well. TPK. Oooops. Learned some important lessons though.
 
Currently running: Champions 5th ed., Fantasy Hero for 5th ed., AD&D 3.5
 
Currently playing: Champions 5th ed., AD&D 3.5, Star Wars D20

Captain America: Civil War
 
While good, it makes me lament the fact that they have never had The Avengers fight a team of supervillains like that.  It's always an army of anonymous aliens or robots.

How did you come up with your 'handle' (forum name)?
                   It's just my name! 

What was the first tabletop RPG you played?
                   Dr. Who 

What was the first tabletop RPG you GMed?
                   Champions 

What are you currently playing/GMing?
                   Champions and some other games, all using Hero System 

Yeah, Season 1 was fun, but the writing was a little spotty at times. I'm only 2 episodes in to Season 2, and so far I would agree they seem to have worked a few kinks out.
 
Although [pet peeve alert] can I say how incredibly tired I am of seeing futuristic maximum security "inescapable" prisons with worse security protocols than any small rural county lockup today? I mean okay, over-reliant on technology, sure. But have literally no copies of Corrections For Dummies survived into the future?

Long time lurker, first time poster
 
How did you come up with your 'handle' (forum name)? A few years ago there was a Cincinnati Bengal (football) named Chad Johnson who changed his name to Ocho Cinco (his # was 85, makes sense right?). I thought that was bombastic, but figured I could do better and changed mine to Ocho Infinito. Years rolled by and I shortened it because there "could be only one"....uh...Ocho.
What was the first tabletop RPG you played? D&D late seventies
What was the first tabletop RPG you GMed? D&D late seventies
What are you currently playing/GMing? Just wrapped playing a Western Hero (4th Ed)
Playing 5th Ed D&D
Gearing up to run either a Star Wars Hero (6th Ed) or D&D 5th Ed

I have an aversion to threads like this, due to another forum i post on (for 14 years!) where threads/posts like this don't go down well at all.
 
But here goes.
 
How did you come up with your 'handle' (forum name)?
Ema nymton is 'not my name' in reverse. Something I learnt from a computer game i played years ago
 
What was the first tabletop RPG you played?
WFRP 1st ed
 
 
What was the first tabletop RPG you GMed?
WFRP 1st ed i was about 13, it did not go well.
 
What are you currently playing/GMing?
Nothing really. But hero is just fun to play around with.

I've rewatched The Incredibles, it's still the best Fantastic Four movie evah  

The only part of Injustice I'd actually like to see is a buddy road movie starring Green Arrow and Harley Quinn.

Lynda Carter was 24 when she first put on the tiara, 6 years younger than Gadot in BvS. Of all the things we can blame DC/Warner for - and they are Legion - "too young" doesn't seem like a valid one.
 
Honestly I don't even thing we can compare the two. Lynda Carter was the definitive Silver Age Wonder Woman, much like Christopher Reeves was the definitive Silver Age Superman. It was the 70s; that was all we were allowed. Lynda's biggest strength was her ability to keep a straight face amidst all the campy silliness and always take the character seriously even when the writers didn't. Certainly Gadot is more athletic, now that women are actually allowed to have muscle tone outside of martial arts movies. And it goes without saying the stunt/fight choreography is going to be way better now even without allowing for movie-vs-TV budgets. But I don't really feel like we've seen enough of Gadot to say based on her minimal screen time in BvS. I liked her in BvS, but let's face it she also looked better just in comparison to everyone else in that awful festering turd of a movie. And yeah the WW trailer looks good, but trailers lie. Ask me again in June and I'll have an actual opinion.
 
I suspect which version you prefer will come down to Silver Age vs Iron/Modern Age more than anything to do with the actresses themselves.

Which is about as close as you'll ever get to Batman admitting it.

I never saw it, but from the movies I'm imagining Cap's response as "I could do this all day."

I would too.
 
I think a remake of the Passion of the Christ with a non-caucasian female lead would be the most boycotted movie in history.  I can easily imagine every major incendiary movement finding something to scream about.  It would be glorious.