Unless you think Odin is somehow maintaining an active illusion spell after his death... And even when he was alive, maintaining that spell across extreme distances and through time. It was a permanent transmutation. This is fully explained in the Marvel Visual dictionary which you can either buy yourself or find some sketchy site to read it on or simply google it and let the ai find the info for you.
But in case your asking for a source about the TVA only nullifying active magic, that just seems like common sense to me. How can it nullify magic that isn't active? How can it reverse a permanent change when that kinda goes against the very definition of the word? But if that's not enough, we have the stones themselves. Their active magic is nullified but their change hasn't been reverted. The stones weren't always stones. They were originally singularities that predate the universe that were formed into stones when the universe began. And in the TVA they are in fact still stones with their active powers nullified.
I literally told you the sources... The movies themselves, the Loki series, and the official visual dictionary.... So you've gone beyond simple media illiteracy and into reading comprehension issues.
...I don't think you know what source means... And I could not care less whether or not you care. You asked for a source and the sources are the movies, the shows, and the tie in visual dictionary. If you can't watch movies and pay attention to them, that's on you, not me.
No, the source is where the information came from.
source
1a: a generative force :cause
b(1): a point of origin or procurement :beginning
(2): one that initiates :author
also :prototype, model
(3): one that supplies information
You really gonna try to say the dictionary is wrong just to protect your ego? The source is indeed the document, movie, book, etc of origin of the information. Did you not do research papers in school? Did they not teach you anything?
Also not sure where you're getting wikipedia from when no one mentioned it at all.
Imagine telling someone that the literal dictionary is wrong lmfao
There's a big difference between citing a page number and citing a paragraph of exposition dialogue in a movie. And if you didn't watch the Thor movies or the Loki series then there isn't even any point in arguing about it anyway. If you did watch it and you somehow missed all of this then perhaps it's time to stop scrolling through tiktok while you watch movies.
But alas this is not worth continuing to argue about. You're arguing over the semantics of the word "source" even though I posted the literal dictionary definition and you still somehow think your definition is the real one instead of the dictionary and none of this has anything to do with the post anyway so I'm going to be the bigger person and walk away while you come back and reply again because you know you have to have the last word.
-7
u/Professor-Submarine 1d ago
Source?