zslane

Yeah, it's not going to resonate with everyone, no matter how great it is.
 
There are plenty of shows that lots of people rave about that I simply can't get into: Breaking Bad, The Office, The Walking Dead, Arrested Development, Mad Men, just to name a few.
 
It just means we are each particular and discerning in our own way.

Yeah, I guess it is. Sorry, nerf herders!

Animated Batman seems to do well regardless of the medium (feature film or television). Why can't DC realize the same would be true for live-action Batman?
 
(Answer: because DC is governed by witless nerfherders.)

"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).

I wish I could "like" this post at least 1000 times. But our current science doesn't allow it. I think I need some magic pls...

Exactly. Science rejects ideas like shakras and faith healing and astral projection because - in our world - they have been tested and have repeatedly failed. There is no evidence for them. But in a world where they did work there would be evidence to that effect, and the knowledge base of what science considers possible would have to be broadened accordingly.
 
Take that scene were the Ancient One pushes Strange's astral form out of his body. Assuming that's something that can be done fairly consistently and half as easily as it's portrayed, that would be trivially easy to prove under controlled circumstances: I push your astral form out, your astral form peeks into the next room, reads something not visible to or known by anyone in the testing room, you come back and report what you read. Repeat enough times to get consistent data, publish, get some other groups of researchers to duplicate your results, and wait for the Nobel Committee to call. The fact that it's outside what science currently considers possible misses the point that science is continuously expanding what it considers possible in light of new evidence.
 
And the notion that magic sees a wider world than science seems almost quaint in the face of ideas like quantum mechanics and many-worlds theory.
 
Don't get me wrong; I loved Dr. Strange, and I loved that scene. But their portrayal of 'the limitations of science" is based on an Art and Film Major's misunderstanding of (and clear disdain for) what science actually is. In a world where magic actually works with any degree of regularity above random chance, that distinction would rapidly become meaningless.
 
Apologies for the derail...

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?

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.

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?

The current tv Flash costume isn't bad, but for someone who runs at supersonic speeds, it needs to eliminate all of its overlapping materials and obvious seams. It needs to look more like a speedskater's suit; in other words, the traditional superhero spandex. In the case of the Flash, a thin, seamless bodysuit actually makes sense for the character, and isn't just a genre-based aesthetic choice. But Hollywood can't stand to make that choice even when it makes sense from a "realism" point of view.
 
One of the things I like about Supergirl is that she and Superman have very traditional costumes. And the producers have found a way to make it work, which proves that it can work. All it takes is the right creative vision and a little creative courage.

Especially since comic book "superhero" physique proportions are nearly impossible to find in the real world, particularly if you are also looking for acting talent and directability. Every casting choice is a compromise of one kind or another. Besides, we nerds need something to complain about no matter what, right?

Understood.
 
I'm only saying that when I hear the term "cosmic being," I don't think "has cosmic-level powers," but rather "lives out among the stars" (and has cosmic-level powers). I feel that "being cosmic" ought to mean more than just the ability to re-arrange matter (or reality).

Especially since comic book "superhero" physique proportions are nearly impossible to find in the real world, particularly if you are also looking for acting talent and directability. Every casting choice is a compromise of one kind or another. Besides, we nerds need something to complain about no matter what, right?

I think it's not just cup size but hips as well. It's all part and parcel of that robust, earthy goddess notion of womanhood. When you look at early press photos of Lynda Carter in the Wonder Woman costume, her limbs are just as long and thin as Gadot's. But she has ample hips and chest to give her something of an hourglass figure. Contrast with Gadot who is a string bean with nice muscle tone. To men who like their women curvy, Gadot looks to them like she still has some physical maturing to do, even if that isn't actually the case.
 
Don't get me wrong, I think Gadot is an amazing specimen of a woman myself, but I've been to plenty of places around the world where the men--usually older men--share Bazza's point of view rather than mine.

I think it's not just cup size but hips as well. It's all part and parcel of that robust, earthy goddess notion of womanhood. When you look at early press photos of Lynda Carter in the Wonder Woman costume, her limbs are just as long and thin as Gadot's. But she has ample hips and chest to give her something of an hourglass figure. Contrast with Gadot who is a string bean with nice muscle tone. To men who like their women curvy, Gadot looks to them like she still has some physical maturing to do, even if that isn't actually the case.
 
Don't get me wrong, I think Gadot is an amazing specimen of a woman myself, but I've been to plenty of places around the world where the men--usually older men--share Bazza's point of view rather than mine.

Our leading actors and actresses have been skewing younger and younger with every passing year. It is the way of things.
 
It seems to me, Bazza, that your problem isn't really with Gal Gadot per se, but with DC's decision to make Wonder Woman younger in appearance and general demeanor than in the comics (or past depictions). You want a mature matriarch of justice rather than a young gazelle of justice. Well, I wanted a mature, earthy Queen Ororo in the X-Men movies, but I didn't get that either. We all have to live with disappointment now and then, eh?

Gal Gadot is the Wonder Woman for the video-game-driven, kick-ass female action star era we are entering into rather than the wholesome, all-American beauty queen era we left behind four decades ago.
 
I was a tween when Lynda Carter was doing her thing on tv, and I appreciate it for what it was, but even I prefer Gal Gadot's version today.

Some stories are just too big to squeeze into two hours and still do them justice. I put The Lord of the Rings into that category. Does every single scene from the book have to be on film? No, of course not, but for a literary work like that, there's more to enjoy than just the plot. There is the environment itself, the cultures that inhabit it, and the long history that shaped it. Forming connective narrative tissue between these elements take a deft hand and considerable screen time. I am one of many fans who feel that the extended editions of the three films are actually an improvement over the theatrical releases. Unlike, say, the extended version of Apocalypse Now or Amadeus which did not really benefit from the restoration of scenes (mercifully) deleted from the theatrical release.
 
So sometimes making a cinematic experience shorter is better, and sometimes making it longer is better. It all depends on the story being told and the skill of the writer(s) in charge of bringing it to life on film. But when it comes to directors writing their own films, especially when they have the power to sidestep editorial oversight, brevity should probably be the prevailing guiding principle.

I don't necessarily need a more inclusive, fun-loving movie, I just want them to stop picking the gloomiest and darkest stories imaginable and I just want the characters to act like the characters.  I want Superman to be Superman, not the Sentry.  I want Batman to be Batman, not the Punisher.  I want Lex Luthor to be Lex Luthor, not the Joker....
 
 
I also want to Doomsday to be Doomsday...not a cave troll from LOTR.

I feel we can extend this observation to all sci-fi/fantasy on television. As are a number of other cruch tropes: body/mind-swapping and clones/duplicates posing as the original characters being the other two that immediately come to (my) mind.

I've been pleased by it too, though I sort of feel it has dragged on for a little too long now. I agree that it shouldn't be something the characters address in one episode and then just move on. But by the same token, I don't feel it needs to be a major plot element for 3+ episodes either. It can fade into the background of Alex's life, at least in terms of what is shown of her life on-screen, while still being a part of her character's development. It's like how we don't need to see Kara training Mon-El episode after episode; we get it, he is being trained, and most of that can happen off-camera in between the margins of each episode's plot. The show has a lot to cover in a small amount of time, and they are throwing an awful lot of screen/screenplay time at this one issue, and it feels a little forced at this point, at least to me.

I don't think DC will permit a Bat-anything to appear on television (except in animated form).

What do you do?
"I have a bow and trick arrows and lots of fighting ability."
"Ditto."
"I'm a martial artist."
"I'm a thug with a flame gun."
"I have supersuit and can shrink to miniscule size."
"I'm half of the flying fire guy."
"I'm superstrong. And superfast. And invulnerable. And I can fly. And see thru walls. And shoot lasers from my eyes. Or freeze things with my breath."
"You're the GM's girlfriend, right?"

Directors aren't hired to decide how the plot for an episode unfolds, even in its details. If Supergirl needs to lose a battle, the writers will decide how. The directors merely put those plot elements into frame and helps the actors convey the appropriate emotional content through their performance. For instance, deciding that Supergirl could not knock out all the guards was in the hands of the writer(s) of that episode, not the director's. Or deciding that Cadmus had a device that could perfectly absorb Supergirl's "solar flare" heat vision release, without giving a moment's thought to the consequences of that technological development, was in the hands of the writer(s) and the show runner, not any directors.
 
When an actor gives a flawed performance, or a complex action scene becomes a visual mess, you blame the director. When the events of the story unfold in a way that is stupid, you blame the writers.

I think that's one common excuse given, but it doesn't explain why the writing for a show like The West Wing is so uniformly excellent while the writing for most superhero shows isn't. Both are hour-long dramas with the same season lengths and production deadlines.