Page 37 of 59 FirstFirst ... 2733343536373839404147 ... LastLast
Results 541 to 555 of 872
  1. #541
    Astonishing Member Albert1981's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2020
    Posts
    2,403

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by GenericUsername View Post
    I'm sure she'll learn about her magic from what they know of it in the film. I'm expecting the Darkhold to be the missing book of Kamar-taj. And hopefully they get into the lore of the Vishanti and how the book of the Vishanti counters the Darkhold. But I doubt they go into Chthon, Wundagore Mountain and all those details. Unless it's a very brief telling to Wanda from someone else. Maybe as an aside to getting into the Vishanti lore.

    Wanda's powers didn't have a whole lot of variation in their presentation in comics. So what they would see for reference is it going from not showing anything early on to her tossing hex spheres. Kurt Busiek described them as chaos grenades. They really over-exaggerated her powers because there were limits on them in comics.

    They went full tilt, when she could not warp reality at will. She had to be tapping into a power strong enough to do that, and only did that a few times in her 57 years. And even that is a modern take. Her children were basically her physical constructs and in comics weren't created with her powers alone.

    So there isn't too much criticism I can give about them not mixing things up. She mostly points at things and things happen.

    Quesada would believe he doesn't have to explain it. I'm not surprised by that.
    Thank you once again for explaining to me what Wanda's powers are. I think I understand her magic a little bit better now. So basically Wanda and Agatha are the female magical equivalents of Mariano Rivera and Pedro Martínez. Got it.

  2. #542
    Astonishing Member Albert1981's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2020
    Posts
    2,403

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DigiCom View Post
    I continually find it amusing & frustrating that folks look to the comics for both explanations for things & for things to explain in the MCU.

    (Case in point... MCU!Jane doesn't have cancer. She MIGHT, but as of yet that hasn't been revealed. Nor has there been ANY mention of the Vishanti.)
    It's funny that you mention that. On other threads I've made it abundantly clear that I LOVE it when the movies and shows deviate from the comic books. That's what makes the onscreen stuff more interesting and fun in my opinion. I actually LOVED the Mandarin and Fietro twists. I loved it even more when fanboys absolutely lost their minds when their shitty fan fiction didn't come to pass. I'm sorta hoping that the performers who are allegedly gonna appear in Spider-Man 3 are just a bunch of random nobodies. The nerdrage will be hilarious. The only reason why I think the cancer storyline will happen is because I don't think they would have brought Jane Foster back if it wasn't included. I could be wrong though.
    Last edited by Albert1981; 04-13-2021 at 02:36 PM.

  3. #543
    Incredible Member Eto's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2018
    Posts
    725

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Clea View Post
    You have to wait a couple years' worth of stories to find out what happened to Dormammu and Eternity. They show up again in Doctor Strange starting with #172 in 1968.

    As for why they didn't show Strange getting his head encased in that helmet...He was unconscious and woke up with it on, so I think they didn't show his opponent putting it on him to give a sort of visual jolt to the reader and to Strange. The reader sees it at the same time that Strange himself becomes aware of it.

    You must be heading into the stories with Kaluu and Umar. I love the character of Umar. She's utterly evil and completely insane.
    Thanks Clea.
    Digicom and you are really helpful.
    I ask a lot I know.....
    I have read all issues up to and including #150.

    Sad...to see Ditko left, his art was head and shoulders above this artist.

    Great new characters, I like the connection between Kaluu and the Ancient One in their younger days.
    Umar has appeared in #150 as well, but I know nothing about her thus far other than the fact that she's Dormammu's sister.
    I did scratch my head though, thinking okay cool but she doesn't look even remotely like her brother.
    Guess I'll find out in the subsequent issues.

  4. #544
    Astonishing Member Albert1981's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2020
    Posts
    2,403

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Clea View Post
    The MCU is a shiny, streamlined, simplified version of storylines from the comics. The stories in the films are similar enough to source stories in the comics that I think it's natural for the film-first fans to expect to find all of their answers in the comics. Unfortunately, they won't find all their answers in the comics. The films are an alt-universe version of the comics. They look the same, and kinda sorta have the same plots, but they're not the same.

    So far as magic is concerned, the comics have explained how magic works. Marvel has produced 'rules' and guidelines. Whether their writers abide by those rules is a different question. In the films, the Ancient One pretty much summarized magic to Strange as tapping into the energy of other mystical dimensions and shaping that energy according to the will of the magic user. Sorcerers need to study and practice, be mindful, and use magic to serve others, not yourself. We saw magic users draw power from a deity-like being (Dormammu), so the movies showed that magic can also be derived from other beings as well as from the raw magical energies in other dimensions. IMO, it was a sufficient introduction and explanation for Strange's magic. Maybe they'll expand on it, maybe not. Doesn't matter. For storytelling purposes, that's enough of an explanation for future MCU stories about Strange.

    As for Wanda, in the comics she's been through constant changes depending on who was writing her and when. She's a mutant. No, she's a witch. No, she's a Nexus Being! She's bad, she's good. She's a mass murderer. No she's not! She's crazy, she's sane. She uses chaos magic. There's no such thing as chaos magic! Oops, yes there is! Chaos magic is just like any other type of mystical energy. No, it's linked to the evil being Chthon so it's bad! No, it's not! Poor Wanda has been through the wringer in the comics. The MCU simplified it all down to this: She had hex powers that gave her the ability to manipulate people's minds and the physical world. She didn't understand where those powers came from. Her abilities got amplified by exposure to an Infinity Stone, so then she could manipulate reality on an even larger scale and did things that sometimes had bad, unintended consequences. She is prone to reacting emotionally. She had a breakdown. A knowledgeable witch came along who was educated enough in magic to see that Wanda was unknowingly using chaos magic. That witch tried to steal Wanda's powers but got her ass kicked, and Wanda took the book of dark magic that explains her powers and left to go study on her own. It's very possible that this is going to be the only explanation for Wanda's magic in the movies that the MCU will provide. I think it's sufficient to serve as the foundation for future MCU stories about Wanda.
    That's a really REALLY easy to understand and follow explanation wen it comes to how the MCU is dealing with Strange's and Wanda's magic in their movies and shows. It makes absolute and total sense to me. You certainly have an amazing knack for distilling and describing magic in a way that even folks who aren't familiar with it can understand (people such as myself). Thank you so much for sharing these words with us. One thing, I think the movies will have to address is how Billy and Tommy came to exist. Wanda created Vision by executing an extremely challenging yoga pose. Billy and Tommy came into the world via Wanda's you know what.

  5. #545

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Eto View Post
    Thanks Clea.
    Digicom and you are really helpful.
    I ask a lot I know.....
    I have read all issues up to and including #150.

    Sad...to see Ditko left, his art was head and shoulders above this artist.

    Great new characters, I like the connection between Kaluu and the Ancient One in their younger days.
    Umar has appeared in #150 as well, but I know nothing about her thus far other than the fact that she's Dormammu's sister.
    I did scratch my head though, thinking okay cool but she doesn't look even remotely like her brother.
    Guess I'll find out in the subsequent issues.
    Yeah, she's got her own deal. But it all makes sense eventually.

  6. #546
    Dark Dimension Clea's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    526

    Default

    Here's a pretty b&w Doctor Strange image on the cover of the US release of Al Stewart's 1973 album, Past, Present, and Future. He used a cropped image from this on the single, 'Nostradamus.' The cover art was by by Hipgnosis and George Hardie.

    Live Faust, Die Jung.

  7. #547
    Astonishing Member Albert1981's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2020
    Posts
    2,403

    Default

    https://www.writersdigest.com/write-...-magic-systems

    https://www.writersdigest.com/write-...-unique-system

    Wow, there's a LOT of talented writers out there explaining how magic can be used effectively in fiction. I think Strange's appearances in the MCU have adopted some of the themes in the articles listed above.

  8. #548
    Astonishing Member Albert1981's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2020
    Posts
    2,403

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Clea View Post
    Here's a pretty b&w Doctor Strange image on the cover of the US release of Al Stewart's 1973 album, Past, Present, and Future. He used a cropped image from this on the single, 'Nostradamus.' The cover art was by by Hipgnosis and George Hardie.

    LOVE Al Stewart's music! Year of the Cat has gotta be one of the greatest pop songs ever! I had no idea Stephen had a connection to him. Thanks for posting!!!

  9. #549

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Albert1981 View Post
    https://www.writersdigest.com/write-...-magic-systems

    https://www.writersdigest.com/write-...-unique-system

    Wow, there's a LOT of talented writers out there explaining how magic can be used effectively in fiction. I think Strange's appearances in the MCU have adopted some of the themes in the articles listed above.
    She means well, but I find her examples weak, and she cares more about "the source of magic" than I think is warranted.

    (She's also wrong about the magic in LOTR, to an extent, but that's not relevant)

  10. #550
    Astonishing Member Albert1981's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2020
    Posts
    2,403

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DigiCom View Post
    She means well, but I find her examples weak, and she cares more about "the source of magic" than I think is warranted.

    (She's also wrong about the magic in LOTR, to an extent, but that's not relevant)
    Yeah, I can see what you mean. But like yours and Clea's, her description of how magic can be deployed in literature was remarkably easy to follow. At least it was to me. The source of magic thing was interesting to me because for the LONGEST time, I just thought a lot of magic users were "born" with their abilities. Now I understand that's actually rarely the case. The way she articulated how magic systems could work was pretty enlightening to me. Every time magic is central to the plot, my curiosity in fantasy stories goes WAY up (as opposed to it being used as a means to an end, which I also like if it's done creatively). And that's why I'm excited about Strange 2. Because I think and hope that magic IS central to the plot of that movie. I would feel the movie would be more engaging that way.

  11. #551
    Astonishing Member Albert1981's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2020
    Posts
    2,403

    Default

    Too much magic: The problem with writing fantasy

    By Alec Worley

    Been thinking about this today while working on a pitch for a fantasy project and going over my accumulated work notes…

    Fantasy (and the more fantastical breeds of sci-fi) is a hazardous genre for writers. Fantasy deals in magic, which can manifest itself in countless forms, from the secondary worlds of Oz, Wonderland and Middle-earth, to flying nannies, goblin kings and gold-hoarding dragons. Magic is about miracles, mysterious forces or inexplicable events that cannot be ascribed to the laws of reason, nature or science. Magic in fantasy stories isn’t so much about escapism; it’s about redefining the real world to better understand and overcome its challenges. Like language, like story itself, magic is protean and can articulate anything the writer has in mind. Magic is kind of a big deal. The problem is magic is anathema to drama.

    Drama obeys the scientific principles of Newton’s third law: “To every action there is always opposed an equal reaction.” In Breaking Bad, Walt does something, causing his antagonist to do something in response, which affects another character, causing them to act, which causes another reaction, and so on. Thus character is plot and plot is character. Cause and effect; action and reaction. However, magic in fantasy, whether sprouting wings to effect a getaway or pulling a Basilisk-killing sword out of a hat, is essentially effect without discernible cause.

    It’s hard to sustain dramatic tension within a story if the reader knows that anything can happen for no apparent reason. Sloppy writers can kill an entire story the moment they resolve any dramatic situation with the wave of a magic wand (or perhaps a sonic screwdriver).

    Different fantasy stories handle this problem in different ways. Surrealist stories eschew drama, so they’re allowed to go nuts. Fairy tales tend to project a dreamlike air in which the magic is part of the fabric of the world, although good fairy tales usually establish a strong sense of cause-and-effect ‘dream logic’. Earthbound fantasies like It’s A Wonderful Life tend to isolate their supernatural elements with specific rules, while heroic and epic fantasies must carefully rationalise the magic-infused worlds in which they take place.

    One way of tackling ‘the magic problem’ in a fantasy story is by ensuring there’s only one miracle in play at a time. The brilliant Disney fairy tale Tangled is a great example of this. The movie features only one story-affecting bit of magic: Rapunzel’s hair. Compare this to the Harry Potter movies, which present a hurricane of magic items, clauses and wotnot of which the viewer is expected to keep track as the story unfolds. For me, this is why most of the Potter movies completely fail as drama (although they get by just fine on charm and inventiveness). But back to Tangled. Notice how Rapunzel’s magic ability is not only incredibly simple to understand (her hair can heal when she sings and loses its power when it’s cut), it also helps drive the story, as the other characters fight for control over her magic locks or the heroine puts them to unexpected use herself (as in that scene with the flooding cave).

    Stories playing more than one miracle at a time is what the late screenwriting guru Blake Snyder called ‘double mumbo-jumbo’. “A little goes a long way as far as ideas are concerned,” he wrote, and he’s absolutely right. Never overproduce a good idea by adding another one on top of it. Simple is almost always better, and this is especially true when dealing with fantasy stories. To use Snyder’s example, the earthbound fantasy movie 13 Going On 30 involves both a bodyswap and a timeslip and thus struggles to find room for two sets of comedy routines.

    If you’re introducing a magic artefact that does one particular thing (a belt that grants super-strength, say), beware making that artefact do something else as well halfway through the story. Don’t change the rules of magic just to fix a story problem. Establish the rules of cause and effect early on then stick to them.

    I’ve always felt that epic fantasies like Lord Of The Rings and Game Of Thrones are the single toughest nut to crack in terms of storytelling. Getting to know the ins and outs of your fantasy world and making them easily relatable to an audience is a Herculean task. There are so many extra balls to juggle when you use magic to turn the plot. Writing a story set in the ordinary world puts a welcome limit on the number of threads that can evolve, whereas fantasy employs all these extra threads that must be defined and orchestrated in order to work.

    I’ve rambled enough now. So, I’ll end on this great quote from Game of Thrones author George RR Martin (interviewed in SFX magazine, 2012): “Too much magic can ruin a fantasy. Magic is a very powerful ingredient and it unbalances everything. You can’t put in a lot of magic and then still have a medieval setting or the same social structure. The existence of magic would radically deform any society or culture in major, major ways. If you look at the history of the real Middle Ages, magic was very present. Of course it didn’t really work but they didn’t know that. They believed in witches and killed and burned many witches and wizards. They believed in alchemy and angels and demons. There were also doubters so I try to replicate that. When magic works, it works a little uncertainly and it’s not something everyone can work. I don’t like the idea of a magic system, which some fantasists use. If magic is systematic, then it’s not magic and more of a fake science. Magic is the supernatural and it’s beyond nature. It’s dangerous, uncontrollable and unpredictable, which is the flavour I try to deal with. Really my models were the great fantasists like Tolkien. There’s a very magical feel to Middle-earth but there’s very little on-stage magic. Gandalf never tries to solve the problem by whipping up a potion or a spell. When he’s attacked he doesn’t throw lightning bolts from his fingernails, but picks up a sword like everyone else.”

  12. #552
    Astonishing Member Albert1981's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2020
    Posts
    2,403

    Default

    Maybe Strange 2 wouldn't need magical systems if the use of magic is relatively rare and restrained.

  13. #553

    Default

    Movies rarely have time to explain a "magic system", because they only have 2-3 hours to introduce the cast & setting and handle the plot. Even the Harry Potter films spent fairly little time in the classroom, and that series had 8 films to explain things.

    The only exception is movies like The Sorcerer's Apprentice, where learning a particular intricacy to the magic is key to defeating the Big Bad™. But stories like that are pretty rare.

  14. #554

    Default

    Which is why books are always a must for going deeper into lore if the person wants to. I plan on buying Doctor Strange: The Book of the Vishanti this fall.
    Love is for souls, not bodies.

  15. #555

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Albert1981 View Post
    That's a really REALLY easy to understand and follow explanation wen it comes to how the MCU is dealing with Strange's and Wanda's magic in their movies and shows. It makes absolute and total sense to me. You certainly have an amazing knack for distilling and describing magic in a way that even folks who aren't familiar with it can understand (people such as myself). Thank you so much for sharing these words with us. One thing, I think the movies will have to address is how Billy and Tommy came to exist. Wanda created Vision by executing an extremely challenging yoga pose. Billy and Tommy came into the world via Wanda's you know what.
    Wanda's chaos magic is basically like the life force, because that was the story they borrowed from. It's just simply reality warping. There isn't much to understand about it. It has no real world application to be compared to. It's not a spell. It's a power. It's like Franklin Richards creating a pocket universe in his closet. Wanda's magic was explained as being divine and not needing study nor a covenant. It's a power from the beginning of the universe, the big bang.
    Love is for souls, not bodies.

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •