03-30-2016, 10:09 AM
(This post was last modified: 03-30-2016, 10:13 AM by Hexenadler.)
(03-30-2016, 09:36 AM)droid327 Wrote: But the writers explained that all as magic, which makes it ok since magic exists in Grimm. But they deliberately did not call lycanthropia magic. They didn't even simply ignore the specifics of how it works. They could have done either and it wouldn't have affected the story.
But they didn't. They deliberately chose to give it a scientific explanation, and then contradicted that explanation. That was their mistake here.
The problem isn't the fact that it could be magic, because you're right, that would make it no less believable than all the other magic. The problem is they deliberately said it's NOT magic, so they set a totally different set of rules for it, that they subsequently ignored.
Bingo. If a writer plays fast-and-loose with his own rules, it creates the storytelling equivalent of a train wreck, where anything can be made up on the fly and nothing sticks. That's not to say magic itself should be used as a means of excusing lazy plots and characters; Joe Quesada's infamous "It's magic, we don't have to explain it" quote is proof enough of that.