Comments on: The Mighty THOR

By: Bill

Bill — Sat, 21 May 2011 17:06:59 +0000

Obvious troll is obvious. Jussayin

By: Thor Pays Tribute to Arthur C. Clarke’s Rule About Magic and Technology | Science Not Fiction | Sinting Link

Wed, 18 May 2011 15:37:40 +0000

[...] advanced technology and actual magic? Sean Carroll, who did some science advising for the film, clears the idea up a bit: Kevin Feige, president of production at Marvel Studios, is a huge proponent of [...]

By: Thor Points | Cosmic Variance | Discover Magazine

Thor Points | Cosmic Variance | Discover Magazine — Mon, 16 May 2011 15:37:19 +0000

[...] the science? I was pretty happy with how it turned out. It was made clear that all of the super-ness was [...]

By: God of Thunder

God of Thunder — Wed, 11 May 2011 17:54:31 +0000

The movie was not bad but it was not great either. For a supposedly all powerful God-like Hero, Thor doesn’t feel nor look that powerful in the movie.

By: Dennis

Dennis — Tue, 10 May 2011 20:41:38 +0000

“The negative expectation of finding another awful Hollywood scientist heightened my positive response to Natalie Portman’s scientist. If you helped to be responsible for that Sean, I say props are in order:-)”

Sean,

Now I’m curious. Do you or do you not take credit for Natalie Portman?

By: viggen

viggen — Tue, 10 May 2011 19:33:36 +0000

I thought Natalie Portman did a credible job as a scientist. I went into the movie expecting her astrophysicist to be Denise Richards from “The World is not Enough” and I was pleasantly surprised. Of course, I was appalled by Denise Richards as a scientist –considering she might well have been playing a scientologist and not known the difference. The negative expectation of finding another awful Hollywood scientist heightened my positive response to Natalie Portman’s scientist. If you helped to be responsible for that Sean, I say props are in order:-)

By: Citizen Alan

Citizen Alan — Tue, 10 May 2011 18:10:15 +0000

Actually, DaveG, I’d almost agree with that second statement. “Magic” is simply a short hand term for something which appears completely inexplicable under commonly understood scientific laws. Technology so advanced it is centuries ahead of contemporary understanding is, by that definition, indistinguishable from magic. “Doctor Who” is a great example of a character who ostensibly uses science but whose knowledge is millions of years ahead of our own and whose actions might as well be the product of magic as super-science. Hell, he uses his screwdriver the same way Harry Potter uses a wand.

By: DaveG

DaveG — Tue, 10 May 2011 16:56:01 +0000

“any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic”

I cringe a little when I hear that, because it’s circular. Showing more commitment to the concept, one might say “Anything we don’t understand is magic.” What an epic pissing contest that would bring! The first thing that comes to mind is, what is a thought, and how does it make us contract our muscles?

By: Thor Pays Tribute to Arthur C. Clarke’s Rule About Magic and Technology | Science Not Fiction | Discover Magazine

Mon, 09 May 2011 18:55:31 +0000

By: Jackson

Jackson — Sun, 08 May 2011 19:33:43 +0000

Hey Sean, I saw Thor Friday and thought it was awesome. I’m glad I read this post before I watched the movie so I kept my eyes open for the new take on magic, I thought it was really well done and loved the Arthur C. Clarke take on the ‘magic’ of the Norse Gods. I’m not sure how it will work for Dr. Strange, but it was really interesting and probably made the film more accessible to a wider audience (how many fantasy movies besides Lord of the Rings actually do well at the box office).

One thing though, Natalie Portman’s character seemed a little too ditsy to be a scientist and over the course of the movie it seemed like she did ever stereotypical love interest mistake that you see in movies. Oh and any word if any of more marvel’s non-male superheroes will be appearing in the avengers or will it just be Black Widow?

By: diogenes

diogenes — Sun, 08 May 2011 13:39:05 +0000

Saw Thor yesterday (5 people in theater) and really liked it. Much better than the last Iron Man. Saw it in 2d as the 3d version is, by all accounts, just a ripoff and an excuse to charge more. Thought it was quite free of science related silliness and obvious mistakes, which made it much easier to suspend disbelief. Wasn’t perfect in that respect but infinitely better than Source Code, for example. Don’t know how much of that was due to the consultants (who have shown they’re quite capable of fecking up explanations to movies like Source Code ) or the fact that Kenneth Branagh is a really smart, talented director.

By: Rick

Rick — Sun, 08 May 2011 12:45:30 +0000

Tyler,

“What MOTIVATES you so?”

Don’t know what motivates Sean, but if it was me, a good deal of motivation would come from reading rants like yours and just deciding it was important to continue to try and correctly explain the world so that more people don’t become so angry, lost and confused.

By: Tyler

Tyler — Sun, 08 May 2011 12:13:17 +0000

^ Brain incapable of dealing with Criticism or Questions of philosophical nature and agendas…resorts to name calling on “Science Blog”…..

By: Charris

Charris — Sun, 08 May 2011 03:50:44 +0000

^Troll

By: Tyler

Tyler — Sun, 08 May 2011 03:21:15 +0000

That ANSWERS IT! I went to see the film today with my son and per the aforementioned parts from your article above (Arthur C Clarke Quote..tacky) I began immediately wondering who was ruining my fun watching this movie by injecting “Scientism” and “Atheistic Scientific Materialism” into a film about “Norse Mythology”, “Comic Book Characters I.E Fiction” and it didn’t take me long to discover who. Why it was YOU Sean! The question now is “Why”? What MOTIVATES you so?

To my mind, it would only take the most Militant Atheist to angle on how to get his philosophy into a “Comic Book Film”. And congratulations you DID it! Sean your a great Evangelist for Atheism and a Dogmatic Naturalist, Materialist, Reductionist and apparently proud moral relativist (I must give you props there in your refutation to Harris)…….so WE GET IT…in your world… “Matter is all there is…and you MUST be right about it..you do have a PHD in Physics which allows you to make expert qualifying. statements about anything Metaphysical or Philosophical in nature”….. I’m sure a great many University Philosophy Departments would disagree with your Naturalism is all there is assertions..but they probably should be dismissed anyways right? and besides that is a different topic altogether…

Anyways…..BUT REALLLYY…bringing your “Dogmatic Naturalism” to world of COMIC BOOKS AND NORSE MYTHOLOGY? Are you a Scientist or a Foaming Mouthed Full Time Atheist Activist? Why bring your “Materialist Dogma” to the world of “Comic Books”? Why? Are you that determined to get to any media source what-so-ever to “Get the all important Message Out..that in your naturalistic worldview life has no objective moral value, no purpose and no meaning”?

Ridiculous…

In the meantime I will keep an eye on “The Science and Entertainment Exchange” there are some militant obnoxious Evangelical Atheists with Agendas sitting in that circle and I was wondering where the stupid writers in Hollywood are getting these little nuggets of “Plot Twists”.

By: rrs0426

rrs0426 — Sat, 07 May 2011 16:26:34 +0000

I don’t understand why the producers felt the need to deviate from the comic book in the respect that Thor and the Aesir are indeed “gods” and they use actual “magic”. It’s a freakin’ movie, fer crissakes, why does it have to try and come up with some scientifically-related explanation for those things? Seems like clumsy retconning to me. They’re already in a universe in which gamma rays can cause someone to gain insane mass out of nowhere, where a kid can get bit by a”genetically altered” spider and shoot webs out of sphincters in his wrists, in which a guy can hurtle into the earth at hundreds of miles an hour in “armor” and yet be completely immune to the pulverizing effects of extreme inertia, so how is “magic” any more hard to believe? With all this preposterous “science” already on display, I’d more readily rather believe in “magic” as an explanation for super powers, I should say.

By: Jim Kakalios

Jim Kakalios — Fri, 06 May 2011 04:46:28 +0000

Cool article Sean. Very jealous of your having read the Avengers script.

I’m still waiting by my phone for a call from the Ant-Man crew!

Won’t get to see Thor till Saturday – but will see it with my daughter, who is just back from college, studying to be a scientist herself! When she saw the end of Iron Man 2, and saw the brief shot of the hammer in New Mexico (Land of Enchantment) she exclaimed: “They’re making a Thor movie?!”

Yes, she is a geek, like her father before her.

Papa popped a button with pride, he did.

By: Low Math, Meekly Interacting

Low Math, Meekly Interacting — Fri, 06 May 2011 04:43:03 +0000

I somehow missed out on Thor completely growing up. Figured the Silver Surfer was as weird as it got. I stand corrected.

By: spyder

spyder — Fri, 06 May 2011 01:09:19 +0000

I am not expecting to be wowed by Thor, the movie. Like much comic history, the art of the books was inspiring to imagination in ways that can’t really be replicated in film. I will always enjoy the art of Kirby, Ditko, Sekowsky, Buscema, et al.

It will be interesting to see how the scientists handle the transformation of Doctor Strange from the Master of the Black Arts, then Master of the Mystic Arts, to the Sorcerer Supreme.

By: Alan Kellogg

Alan Kellogg — Thu, 05 May 2011 23:38:47 +0000

Low Math, @#12

In the Marvel universe Thor is a god. A small “g” god, but a god.

It’s not the real world, but an alternate one where magic works, radiation causes strange mutations, and deities drop in for a pint and to lay down a wager or two before the game starts on the flatscreen in the corner.

As for Clark’s Third Law, keep this in mind; Any sufficiently advanced magic is indistinguishable from technology