If you really want to split hairs, any kind of magic could be explained as some kind of science. Even if it's "magic particles"...something is still going on that has some kind of explanation.

So when you have something like Thor's hammer that won't let someone who is "unworthy" pick it up, that might as well be magic. Even if scientifically it's using "magic particles" to keep itself stuck to the ground.

The "one and the same" comment to me just means that what was once viewed as magic is later on explained scientifically.

Like my earlier example of smartphones. They are science, but go back a hundred years and people would think they were magic. (It also reminds me of a episode of Buffy the Vampire Slayer where Buffy thought she was a 19th century woman and she saw a car and thought it was a demon.)

Another example, our ancient ancestors thought the sun and lightning were magic. They invented stories about gods controlling them (Apollo pulling the sun across the sky and Zeus throwing lightning bolts). Nowadays we know they aren't magic, but can be explained scientifically.

So that's what the "one and the same" comment means. When you don't have the scientific knowledge to explain something, it is just viewed as magic.

Which is fine, because like Paul_SD said they don't need to go on and give a technical explanation beyond that. And Strange can do something similar. It's magic just because it's unexplained, and that works well. I don't think it makes it any less "magic" or mystic arts.

I hope the first 30 minutes of the movie is dedicated to explaining the science behind the magic.

MY Sorcerer Supreme is Dr. Fate.

However, I'm a huge Cumberbatch fan so I like this casting.

Around 1:25 ish


<iframe width="560" height="315" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/gIBrY_hQAI4" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Then you end up with Episode I midichlorian bullshit.


They're the same from a certain point of view. Like I mentioned before, our ancestors could not explain things like the sun scientifically, so they said it was magic.

Good point, midichlorians would be a great way to link the MCU with Star Wars, now that they're both under Disney.

But from Thor's explanation, "WHERE I'M FROM... they are one and the same". Meaning in his realm, they understand and can explain BOTH. Sure here on Earth Magic and Science are a big mystery to the majority of humans. But not on Asgard....

I think it was just badly phrased. If you can explain magic, it's not really magic.

Really? I don't buy that but ok...

A wizard shoots a fireball out of his hands. He can't explain how he does it. He just does it. It's magic. If it could be explained how he does it, then it's not really magic anymore.

Ancient people couldn't explain lightning. It was magic. They invented stories like Zeus to try and explain it. Today we can explain lightning in a scientific way, and it is therefore no longer magic.

Mysticism especially how Strange is can just be explained as that. Mysticism. Harnessing energies from blah blah blah. From what Feige has said, it does seem like this will be classic mysticism here. Dunno if Feige said this as an intro for those in the unknown or not but Feige told Strange's origin, the usual comic one. Would be neat to see that origin come to light if they did it.

I can't really explain how my computer works. I know how to build one, but I don't really understand the whole 1s and 0s thing.

SOMETHING is creating the fire from your wizard's hands.

Bad comparison.

Just because YOU don't understand computers doesn't make them magic. I'm not a computer person either, so I don't know all the techno mumbo jumbo. That doesn't mean it is magic. Computer people can explain it scientifically. Computers are not magic.

Nobody, not even a wizard, could explain in a logical scientific way WHY he is able to shoot a fireball from his hands. He could say HOW (he does it by saying some spell words) but he couldn't explain WHY it happens. Therefore, it is magic.

Can be explained = not magic
Cannot be explained = magic

FWIW, you probably already know that Clarke's Third Law stipulates: "any technology sufficiently advanced is indistinguishable from magic"It is certainly a matter of definition.

Your distinction works best in a setting where there is a general understanding of (the concept and scope of) science and scientific development. And where there is no pesky magic

However, as we are looking at fictional creations, there are novels that go some way to describing a science of magic. In the worlds created by such authors I imagine that your distinction is less likely to apply.

Hints about doctor strange plot?



http://www.cinemablend.com/m/new/Doc...lot-68018.html

Nice piece of art. I'd love that as a poster. Never read that one.

In the original run of Valiant Comics in the early 90s Jim Shooter and the other writers and editors made a point that there was no magic in the Valiant Universe, and characters who did use magic, such Master D'arque, were tapping into "dark energy" that was left over from a black hole that destroyed Solar's original Earth.

I could Marvel doing something similar for magic in the MCU.

I'd rather they just say "it's magic". If you try to over-explain it, you'll end up writing yourself into a corner.

I think he may encompass a lot of those traits, but he doesn't look the part and his natural charisma would overtake the character. You wouldn't see Strange as much as Cumberbatch. That's why I didn't like him in Star Trek ID. I think if they didn't make him Khan, it would have been much better. Besides Ricardo Montalbán so encapsulated that role, it was hard to imagine anyone else doing it.

I guess we'll see. To me the comic characters have to be bigger than the stars and this might be one case where they wouldn't be.

I don't think Strange works at all unless it is mystic. You could try to give it an explanation but that's the thing about Strange. His powers aren't supposed to be some wonderfully structured thing. I GET what they did w/ Thor. I don't think they needed it but whatever. Nobody really cared about it anyway when it came to him cuz we just assume he has powers and whatever at the end of the day and it seems audiences went w/ it. Marvel has nothing to fear now in terms of how to fit a power set structure like this now. They've kind of got a brand that people will accept into whatever door they'll open to them now. Especially w/ Guardians of the Galaxy out of the way now. They've risked it and they succeeded. People understand that the MCU has much more wild stuff now. So it's kind of no holds barred as to what they can do now.

The next risk projects, I guess Ant-Man is one too, are Black Panther and Ms. Marvel.

One is a minority hero. And the other a female. Those interest me a lot more to see what is done to maintain who the characters are but to also to get the masses to follow them w/ it.

I think he could easily match up to look like Dr. Strange. On STID, I'd blame more for the script's depiction of him than Cumberbatch.

Cumberbatch officially announced as Dr. Strange

http://marvel.com/news/movies/23754/...doctor_strange

Wow....we didn't see that one coming...