Alright, let's come to an agreement about the issue of magic in the MCU. We can all agree it's only an issue of terminology, correct?
While crazy sci-fi techno-babble and mystic mumbo-jumbo amount to the same "can do literally anything" and magic can be considered a science because you can study the cause/effect, you need to keep in mind this is an adaptation and what's really bothering people is the change of terms from the source material. It may see superficial to you but why can't we have gods and enchanted hammers? The sci-fi shit in Asgard or possibly even Dr. Strange isn't an issue as it's in the comics too, it's the manner they talk about them.
>>80494659
>it's only an issue of terminology,
Yes
>We can all agree
No
>>80494686
No in the sense everyone will still argue about this or no in the sense of what I'm talking about is flat out wrong?
This thread is going to end as a mess
It's meant to just be called the Power Cosmic
>>80495680
What do you mean? Thor isn't connected at all to Galactus and neither is Dr. Strange.
>>80494659
>We can all agree it's only an issue of terminology, correct?
Lokis "magical" illusions flickered like common holograms, and jane was able to perfectly explain how an asgardian "magic" bed worked using modern day tech and science. So apparently no.
>>80495791
How does that contradict what he said?
Magic and sci-fi tech are exactly the same thing with different names.
>>80494659
Are you arguing that magic is basically just highly advanced tehnology or that its the same from a writing perspective because it's impossible to explain either way? The former is boring if it covers all magic, and the latter is true.
>>80497657
I mean from a writing stand point I understand they are essentially the same thing and magic could technically fall under being a "science" as you can study how it works in-universe. It just doesn't excuse how the MCU goes about it.
>>80497819
To clarify, what I meant with "how the MCU goes about it", I mean insisting that magic isn't a thing and how it's all sci-fi tech and aliens exclusively. Is there really a reason to do that?
>>80494659
>correct?
Fuck off, autist.
When you guys tell me how Thor's hammer scientifically determines whether an individual it hasn't been specifically programmed for is "worthy" or not (and that it's a spectrum rather than a binary yes/no) rather than a magical effect then maybe I'll accept that there's no real magic in MCU.
>>80498224
Yeah, that's kind of the point. I get where the "magic=science" guys are coming from, I just think it's a bullshit excuse.
What i want is a scene where Doc Strange meets The Avengers and they are all like 'MAGIC IS REAL!?' and doc is all 'You are suprised at hat yet you have a God with a magical hammer on your team' and then Hawkeye to be all 'Oh Thor is not a god he's just an alien from a technologicaly advanced species' and then Doc Strange to just look at Thor and cock an eyebrow as if to say 'bro wtf!?' and then Thor to kinda just gesture 'shh let them think what they want'
>>80498313
Won't happen.
"Your ancestors called it magic. You call it science. Where I come from, they are both one and the same."
>>80498350
Which can still be interpreted as both.
Why does it matter?
Why give a shit? How superpowers are explained is the lamest part of capes.
They do cool shit, just roll with it.
>>80497895
That's only the Thor movies and they suck ass.
>>80499094
There's hints the Dr. Strange movie will do that too in a way. Why can't we just use magic lingo too even if it basically amounts to the same "does whatever the writer wants" field?
>>80499173
I haven't seen those hints
>>80494728
Everyone will always argue about it because they're dumb
Why would I rush to undermine fantasy with such mundane comparisons? Why would I want to make stuff like blood pacts, astral projection and energy-boosting realms more dull by making direct comparisons to research grants, TMS fuckery or N-th dimentional power surges? I'm not so vain that I'd clutch to Clarke's third law in an attempt to feel more savvy than I really am.
