5087 réponses à ce sujet

[KitaSaturnyne]

@jbauck

For some reason, whenever I think of the Catalyst, I think of it as the moment the Reapers went from these really awesome, unknowable killing machines into servants. And that sucks. The first word that usually comes to mind when I describe the Reapers at that point is "junkyard dogs", but I have the feeling that this description is inaccurate. Thoughts?

As for opening the box, gosh do I want to. But, I'm one of those people who's all about "preparing for the worst while hoping for the best". While I'm hoping for the thematic reconnect, I'm thinking it won't happen, but I'm also beginning to wonder if it's forgivable if other criteria are met. If we get to say goodbye to our friends, if we get to see everyone go home just fine. (Even if, by way of some miracle, the mass relays are NOT destroyed)

Perhaps there's more gray area here than I first realized.

EDIT: Aw, hell. Well, as a bit of a tribute to Sam Rivers, let's go with this one.

Modifié par KitaSaturnyne, 23 juin 2012 - 10:18 .

[Sable Phoenix]

I should clarify that I realize the actual conflict of the three games is that of free will/self determination/right to exist vs. determinism/enslavement/extinction. I agree that the conflict doesn't change dramatically if we replace giant technorganic space squids with fully organic space Naz!s.  However, given that particular coincidence of the Reapers' nature, the ending, by presenting and embracing the wrong conflict, flips the existing conflict upside down, resulting in an advocation of the wrong message and severe cognitive dissonance.

Modifié par Sable Phoenix, 23 juin 2012 - 10:50 .

[Code_R]

KitaSaturnyne wrote...

@jbauck

For some reason, whenever I think of the Catalyst, I think of it as the moment the Reapers went from these really awesome, unknowable killing machines into servants. And that sucks. The first word that usually comes to mind when I describe the Reapers at that point is "junkyard dogs", but I have the feeling that this description is inaccurate. Thoughts?

As for opening the box, gosh do I want to. But, I'm one of those people who's all about "preparing for the worst while hoping for the best". While I'm hoping for the thematic reconnect, I'm thinking it won't happen, but I'm also beginning to wonder if it's forgivable if other criteria are met. If we get to say goodbye to our friends, if we get to see everyone go home just fine. (Even if, by way of some miracle, the mass relays are NOT destroyed)

Agreed on the Reapers, the ultimate unknown, undefeated, sinister.... are just robot slaves. Barely even their own species any more.

I think it would be impossible to reconcile the ending with the series themes by extending the final cinematics. Needs scrapping for that to be the case, too many problems exist.

[jbauck]

@KitaSaturnyne

Hmm ... the point at which the Reapers stopped being really awesome, unknowable killing machines? That's majorly the Catalyst. They lost some of their mystique with the human reaper in ME2. I'm pretty sure it was the derp-y 3rd eye and the "wait, why doesn't it look like a cuttlefish ...?" thing. I can see "junkyard dogs", but I can also see why you're not entirely happy with it.

But it's kind of like a monster movie where it's really scary when you just get glimpses of the thing, and see people pulled of their feet and off-screen, then blood splatter everywhere ... and then the goofy-looking rubber suit is revealed and ... it's just kind of laughable. It's their ideology and murky motivations that make the Reapers terrifying, so clearing that up is like ... seeing that dumb rubber suit. Maybe ... no, I don't have anything better than "junkyard dogs" ... or maybe just "henchmen" works. They certainly don't feel like they're their own entity anymore, but servants of a greater evil.

You know you're going to open the box ... Think of it this way: the box has BioWare's Final Answer. Isn't it kind of exciting? Will it be cake? Will it be a jack-in-the-box-like middle-finger spring up and poking you in the eye? Seriously, though, I understand your ambivalence. Personally, I'd love a thematic reconnect, and that would save ME for me entirely, but I am not expecting it. Providing "closure" and epilogue would be ... adequate.

And I dug your Sam Rivers story - it had a nice redemptive (is this a word? sometimes I don't know if I'm inventing my own language) ending, and I actually pictured it in my head as a short film starring Bruce Willis.

Sable Phoenix wrote...
I should clarify that I realize the actual conflict of the three games is that of free will/self determination/right to exist vs. determinism/enslavement/extinction. It's just that the ending, by presenting and embracing the wrong conflict, flips the existing conflict upside down, resulting in an advocation of the wrong message and severe cognitive dissonance.

Yes, yes! ... I think I just confuzzled (okay, I'm sure I made that one up) myself by focusing on your description of the literal conflict (synths + orgs vs. hybrids). I do agree that Shepard is arguably the antagonist (isn't an antagonist just the protagonist of the same story from a different point of view? ), Synthesis is more awful the more you think about it, and will offer up the idea that the ending of ME3 should come with a warning label "Caution: Use of this product may result in nausea, dizziness, feelings of loss and depression, and severe cognitive dissonance."

[Erixxxx]

edisnooM wrote...

@Erixxxx

But Casey Hudson has also said that this is the end, and that anything else they do would be prequels etc. Of course subject to the whims of EA. I'm not really sure how they can do ME4 given the different ending choices.

The end of the trilogy and the end of Shepard's story.

But if you can find me a source where he specifically states that the Mass Effect universe ends with ME3, I'd be overjoyed to see it.

[delta_vee]

Ah, serendipity. Just caught someone's retweet of a Chris Nolan quote:

A trilogy you’ve got a beginning, a middle & end. It’s like an extended version of a film. A 4th film then is just episodic - Chris Nolan

[delta_vee]

@jbauck

"Henchmen" is the internal term Bioware used for our squadmates. There's a certain poetic symmetry in your use of the term to describe the Reapers.

Also, I agree in full about your warning label.

[KitaSaturnyne]

@Code_R

Agreed. Simply extending the scenes will just make it seem like a longer run to the end of the tunnel.

@jbauck

Totally agreed about the Reapers. Harbinger and even Sovereign are just immediately transformed from these massive, menacing, murderous machines into some kid's Transformers toys.

And of course I'm going to view the EC as soon as I possibly can. I'm just cautious about going into it with an unbalanced sense of hope vs. pessimism.

Thanks for your compliments on Sam Rivers. Much appreciated.

Modifié par KitaSaturnyne, 23 juin 2012 - 11:35 .

[drayfish]

Lots of good discussion to catch up on. Forgive me for dipping back aways...
 
 
@edisnooM:
 
Yes, I have wondered about that 'Keep your save games' comment also; and the accompanying  'If you knew what we had coming up' vagaries. Presumably those statements now fall in the category of an advertisement for upcoming DLC (or some distant nod to a Mass Effect 4), but that does seem a little misleading. Perhaps they were just a product of the somewhat misjudged scramble to respond to the fans critical blowback, but they became fuel for some misplaced hope nonetheless.
 
(...Although, on the subject of misleading comments, why at the end of last month did Chris Priestly ask what people thought of Indoctination Theory on the Hold the Line forum? What was the point of that if (infuriatingly) nothing is to be done about it either way? Was there ever any result to that inquiry, because it seemed at the time that he didn't like what he was hearing, or how he was hearing it.)
 
In any case, personally, I'm not sure I see what the point of any DLC that occurs before the ending is. I can pretty comfortably say that at present I have no interest in the slightest in extra content that acts as a lead up to the current endings, with no capacity to influence or change them. Even the Retake Omega scenario, which I'm fairly certain is in the works, has no appeal if it is all in service of the ominous conclusion that awaits after its completion.
 
I will, however, play DLC if it involves this:
 

edisnooM wrote...
                                    
Oh and maybe an extra minute of Buzz Aldrin fighting the replicant that took his form and kidnapped that child.

That I'd pay to see.
 
 
@ Sable Phoenix: you know, as I read your post it suddenly occurred to me that I am in precisely the same position as you: I will be away from home for this week, and likewise will not get the opportunity to play the EC out (and watch Tess die again ...yay) until the weekend. Looks like this thread is going to be my window into the experience too – which is fine, I guess. There's a wealth of opinions I respect in here, so it will help me brace for the ultimate impact. 
 
 
 
@ KitaSaturnyne: Great post about the EC. I particularly liked:
 

KitaSaturnyne wrote...
 
And not only do we learn the Reapers' motivations, which turns them from super powerful killer machines into some ghost child's personal maids, we're forced into making three choices that, at their core, require Shepard to be able to justify an action that's just as, if not more, reprehensible than what the Reapers were already doing to us.

@ jbauk: Just wanted to add to the commendation: great blog; very comprehensive. And also, Indy never looked in the box. I hope it doesn't turn out that I should have been strong like Indy... 
 

(Oh, and I forgot to mention, delta_vee, I'll surely try to follow the conversation anywhere is goes...)

(And @BigglesFlysAgain: did AchesofDoom's post get changed? Can that happen? I noticed that strange shift too...)

Modifié par drayfish, 24 juin 2012 - 12:09 .

[KitaSaturnyne]

@drayfish

Thank you for your compliments. I agree on the Buzz Aldrin replicant front as well.

Another thing I thought of that bothers me is that it's not just the Catalyst asking us to believe that what the Reapers are doing is philanthropy, it's the damned development team themselves. The very architects of the narrative are asking us to believe that we're being destroyed in an effort to preserve us. Not only is that the queen mother of contradictions, especially in terms of the story itself, but it's unspeakably horrific. And then all we're allowed to do is outdo their horrific deed with one of our own.

And if we choose Synthesis, we're just basically saying "I totally agree with you Reapers, but I want to do it this way instead."

Talk about a slap in the face.

[BigglesFlysAgain]

@Drayfish

Hmmm the only way they could get me to buy pre ending DLC is if they had a subplot highlighting the defense of earth, probably set in the United Kingdom (since the reapers seem to be concentrating there, I presume because New York, LA, and Paris were all booked for filming, so London was their fourth choice)

Perhaps the Walmington-on-Sea branch of the alliance military? I don't think the reapers like it up em'

[frypan]

@Kita- not sure of the junkyard dogs reference, I could only google the band. I assume that means they are just goons?

@jbauck

I enjoyed your blog very much for its observations and well structured argument. I find it interesting that no matter how much I read or write on the topic, somebody always surprises me with new insights that point out yet more problems with the catalyst, those few lines of dialogue and the three choices.

This is interesting, as we had many complaints about how the game ended, many based on the characters, shepherd’s death, the Normandy and relays. So many of these will be addressed in the revised ending that you would think the situation could be resolved on a range of issues.

It probably will, but one major issue that cannot be addressed by fixing those is the damage to the relationship with Bioware and the feelings of a personal affront, no matter how irrational these may be. This is due to the constraints they placed on themselves with the EC, and the continuation of the catalyst.

See, the catalyst, for me at least, is the one personification in the endgame that I came to loathe on an almost personal level. This is the same for many other fans, as nicknames such as star-jar and the like show. This entity has become a focal point for our ire and its continued existence will also be a continuation of such emotions. This goes beyond the thematic issues with its inclusion and into less rational, personal animosity with the character itself.

Also, in the absence of discussion with the devs, I think our anger has become focussed on this one character as a representation of the lack of dialogue and some personal affronts. It therefore stands alongside people like Colin Moriarty who garnered a lot of personal animosity for their arrogance and dismissal of our reaction. While the EC is the proverbial olive branch, the catalyst is the one stinking olive hanging off it that has become symbolic of a soured relationship.

This is an issue that is difficult to resolve. Many of the other problems with the ending are absences of content, which are now being addressed through additional scenes. The catalyst however, is a continued presence that has become symbolic of more than the thematic discontinuity, and will be a difficult one to bear for some of us. It is a personalised antagonist for us and working past it will be the challenge.

One way past this is for Bioware to come out of the bunker and discuss the matter a bit more openly, now that most folks will (hopefully) be open to discussion. The character is a thematic travesty, but it can be diminished to the role of a flawed tool. By engaging in open discussion about it, distaste for it on such a level could be diminished.

It still stands as emblematic of the thematic problem. However with better PR Bioware can reduce it’s impact as a focal point for people’s ire. Those of us most annoyed by the little trog also have the most issues with the thematic dissonance of the end, so its time for Bioware to open dialogue or at least talk more about the ending as part of releasing the EC.

In this case, PR has to involve more than just “here’s free stuff” as there is a still something offensive in the package. I fear however that whoever runs PR is still sticking to a program aimed not at core fans but the general marketplace, and we won’t see the kind of discussion we need. As a result the EC, for all its good work on plot holes and the like, may not overcome that personal disjunction with the hardcore fans.

As an aside, I look at how folks on this thread, in spite of passionate differences, have managed to engage in continued dialogue. Its entirely possible to get there through some real, not PR manufactured, communication. Both sides gotta talk and show some love, even if that involves fighting through and beyond their entrenched positions.

[BigglesFlysAgain]

frypan wrote...


As an aside, I look at how folks on this thread, in spite of passionate differences, have managed to engage in continued dialogue. Its entirely possible to get there through some real, not PR manufactured, communication. Both sides gotta talk and show some love, even if that involves fighting through and beyond their entrenched positions.

Hmmm, I will remain skeptical about such a development, I just think to them the idea of discussion would suggest there is a problem to discuss in the first place, the only format I think would work would be some sort of large written Q and A, but again I see no reason why they would not just pick easy questions or give non answers

I would like to be proved wrong but really think the only hope of ever really finding out whats going on in the their heads is a senior bioware employee leaving within the next 18 months (and being willing to talk), but none of us would probably care by then.

Modifié par BigglesFlysAgain, 24 juin 2012 - 12:56 .

[KitaSaturnyne]

@frypan

More sort of on the "goon" front. When it comes to the Catalyst scene, I actually start picturing a dog living in some guy's junkyard, charging, barking and growling to ward off intruders. The reason it's not a great image, even though I keep going back to that simile, is that the Reapers aren't just keeping trespassers off their land, they're actively going out and killing us, then calling it a good deed. So they're not really junkyard dogs, but for some reason, my brain immediately went to that imagery.

I stated earlier what I thought Shepard was "saying" (his intent, really) when choosing Synthesis ("I agree with the Reapers, but let's try this instead"), but I couldn't think of anything comparable to the other endings. Anyone's thoughts on this would be welcome.

Modifié par KitaSaturnyne, 24 juin 2012 - 01:10 .

[frypan]

@KIta

Thanks, its still an apt image though, as they are diminished as villains in our eyes.

@BigglesFlysAgain

I might just be all fluffy about the value of conversation. Many people dont subscribe to such thoughts though. Maybe the devs should get the folks who wrote the paragon dialogue choices to talk? Those folks certainly knew how to resolve conflict through meaningful and empathic dialogue.

Uh oh, I can see a page turn coming up and I have nothing in mind to make this a worthy post (presses submit with eyes closed)

EDIT Phew! Edit 2 Actually I'm miles off, false alarm.

Modifié par frypan, 24 juin 2012 - 01:15 .

[KitaSaturnyne]

@frypan

I forgot to mention that I love your words about the Catalyst, and wanted to add something of my own to it.

The Catalyst has indeed become the icon of the ending's thematic and overall failure. In fact, I remember drayfish pointing out that Shorty McStarPants was just that, but I didn't know how at the time. It's only been in recent days that I've realized how true it is.

The thing about the damnable Star Child is that it's an antagonist to me. No, I don't mean Mass Effect or its universe. In fact, as far as the Mass Effect narrative goes, it's not much of a bad guy. I mean to me, personally. Me, the guy playing the game. Because of how badly its scene disconnects with the themes laid forth by the trilogy preceding it, this entity single-handedly destroys the story I've loved up to that point, and it's therefore MY enemy. It's not even Shepard's, who is my personal avatar into this narrative, but MINE.

It'd be extremely easy to say that such a circumstance speaks to a very high meta-textual value as far as the Catalyst's character is concerned, ie that the character of the Catalyst is some kind of artistic success. But that's not where I'm coming from. What I mean is that this thing dismantles the story so jarringly that it's become the very indication of failure, not just by being associated with a terrrible ending, but through its deed. And it's just furthered by the fact that Mass Effect has never been a narrative that has ever covered ground on a meta level, and has never shown the desire to do so. The decision to do it in the final seconds is just another of the pile of things that causes this thematic disconnect.

We players don't just hate the Catalyst. We hate it because the Catalyst slighted us, it betrayed us. It didn't even touch Shepard. It just kicked down our sand castle, laughed in our faces and went on about its day like nothing happened.

[Hawk227]

So, the EC is upon us and I find myself filled mostly with apathy. Which is kind of surprising, actually. I knew ambivalence would set in, particularly if "summer" turned out to mean August, but they got it done by the end of the first week of summer.

I think I'll end up playing it, if only out of curiosity, but I have zero expectations that I will be satisfied by it. The language of the announcement has been rather disheartening, they seem to have stuck to their guns about clarity and closure, and "artistic integrity". As several have said, it sounds like they failed to engage in the criticism, and subsequently failed to diagnose the problem. I, for one, didn't want clarity and closure. I wanted an ending that was thematically appropriate. One that didn't change the conflict and the antagonist at the last second. I wanted an ending that didn't violate the preceding 100 hours of narrative. If the ending remains organics vs. synthetics, now pick a color, the ending cannot be salvaged with additional exposition and cinematics. They're addressing the tire while the engine is on fire.

The "revelation" that they aren't going to confirm or deny IT makes me think they were always going for that Inception ending. Is it real or isn't it? Only you can decide. By adding the twist that the Reapers were serving a purpose, and combining it with the Inception ambiguity they were going for a "profound" ending that in reality was superficial and cliched. They tried to be Christopher Nolan, and ended up as M. Night Shyamaln (Last Airbender version at that). Anyway, not feeling too optimistic about it.

@JBauck

Great blog. I agree with literally everything. It's like you're in my head (I even say confuzzled sometimes, but don't go spreading that around).

@Kita

I agree wholeheartedly about the Reapers as Maids/Junkyard dogs. That was one of my biggest beefs with the ending. They could have stuck with the Reaperduction explanation they set up in ME2, and it all would have still made sense. Or they could have explained none of it! But instead they neutered them.

@Drayfish

I agree about pre-ending DLC. Unless the EC is way better than I expect, I'm done with the ME universe. Well, unless they make GTA: Omega, then I'll think about it.

@Delta_vee

Sign me up! If we had been discussing Prometheus's failures or why the Cylons have religion (I just started BSG, and seriously, why do Cylons have religion?) I'd be around a lot more. If we can keep ME interesting for this long, being able to branch out could be awesome.

[jbauck]

@frypan and @KitaSaturnyne - great breakdown of the player's relationship to the Catalyst. I now realize that part of my ability to pick Destroy (and ... genocide!? Really, BioWare!?) is that darn Catalyst.

I've been thinking that I would love an "eff you, Catalyst" option added in the EC, even if that means the Reapers win and >everyone< dies. Not just the Geth and EDI. Everyone. I'll do it, if the option is there. Why? Because as the co-author of >my< Shepard's story (so ... much ... headcanon ...) the Catalyst just makes me want to Torch the Franchise and Run.

@delta_vee ... I didn't know about the internal use of "henchmen", but I do like the parallel ... the Reapers are downgraded to being the Catalyst's supporting characters. Urgh.

But what I like about "junkyard dogs" is ... well, if you watch American television, you have probably gotten the sense that the vast majority of people running junkyards with guard dogs are irrationally paranoid wild-eyed lunatics with shotguns (I'm sure there are perfectly sane, reasonable people who run junkyards ... just ... not on tv) who will sic the dogs on you at the slightest provocation. Like, say, being in their line of sight. I think the Catalyst parallel writes itself.

And drayfish, frypan, and Hawk227 - thank you for the kind words about my blog.

Also, I will not be strong like Indy. I will be willfully ignorant of the consequences like Pandora. Hmm ... this box is ticking ... someone must have sent me a watch!

Hawk227 wrote...
<snipping things, read, nodding in agreement ...>
GTA: Omega

Modifié par jbauck, 24 juin 2012 - 02:08 .

[KitaSaturnyne]

@jbauck

There seems to be much more of a parallel between the Reapers and junkyard dogs than I initially thought. Thank you for that. And while I haven't complimented you personally, I do have your blog post as well as frypan to credit for my recent diatribes vis-a-vis the Catalyst.

I hope we can all enjoy our neat new watches together!

PS - Should I be picturing someone pointing a space gun at their own face whenever they say "Head canon"?

[jbauck]

Heh ... in the vein of a "hand cannon" ... perhaps a "Head Canon" is a gun mounted on the head? Like one of those beer hats, only with bullets?

[Jorji Costava]

Been out for the past week; I've been super-busy with a couple family events, and now that I've got a little time, I'm very pleased to see this thread still going strong.

@delta_vee

Count me in at awtr.ca. That sounds like a fantastic idea.

@Hawk227

Glad to see you're getting into BSG; I enjoyed it a great deal. Just don't take the "They have a plan" thing too seriously. They really don't.

@jbauck

Excellent blog! Let me just add one thought to it: What makes the ending go from asinine to revolting, for me, is the fact that the rest of the game (and ME2) makes such an effort to make us sympathize with its principal synthetic characters, Legion and EDI. It's because of this that ME3 has no hope to sustain the synthetics vs. organics theme as its main conflict. I always liken it to having Star Trek: TNG end in the following way:

Q: You know, Commander Data seems like a nice guy, but really, he and the rest of the synthetic beings in the galaxy are actually going to eventually wipe out all organic life. The previous solution to this problem was to have all advanced organics be assimilated by the Borg collective. But now that you're in this place you never would have gotten to if I hadn't brought you here, we need a new solution.

Picard: Wow! Those are interesting facts to have discovered. This sounds like a really serious problem. What do you propose we do about it?

Q: Well, I've got three great solutions just for you . . . They all involve your highly probable death. Want to check them out?

Picard: Sure, sign me up!

Essentially, I think the catalyst's assertion that synthetic/organic conflict is inevitable is where you lose the game, even before those three choices. It's no different from Critical Mission Failure in my eyes. The goal of the game is to unify the galaxy in a common cause. The infamous ten minutes tell you that you haven't done this, not really, and you never can. The inevitability of conflict means that your goal of unification simply can't be achieved. When Wrex says, "You united a galaxy, and that's a victory right there," it turns out he's just plain wrong, because star kid says so. The appearance of unity is a temporary illusion covering over hostilities that we're supposed to believe will lead to a war more destructive than that with the Reapers.

Like others here, I have extremely low hopes for the EC. Let me echo Kita Saturnyne and frypan's sentiments about the Catalyst. I think I will end up preferring some of the fan-edits of the ending on Youtube, that do nothing but remove the catalyst, to the EC.

One thing that could mitigate the damage would be to have an option to argue with the catalyst about his assertions regarding synthetic/organic conflict, even if it has no practical effect at all. Because we can't dispute the catalyst's assertions, we're given the impression that they must be right. For surely, if they were something that could be challenged, Shepard would challenge them. If we can argue, this at least creates a conceptual space where it's easier to see the synthetic/organic theme as the ravings of a madman rather than as the deliverances of an all-knowing being. Would this save the ending? Certainly not, as we still have those three horrible choices to deal with. But I think it would help make it slightly less bad.

[KitaSaturnyne]

jbauck wrote...

Heh ... in the vein of a "hand cannon" ... perhaps a "Head Canon" is a gun mounted on the head? Like one of those beer hats, only with bullets?

Great Deus Ex reference, whether you meant it or not.

[Hawk227]

osbornep wrote...

One thing that could mitigate the damage would be to have an option to argue with the catalyst about his assertions regarding synthetic/organic conflict, even if it has no practical effect at all. Because we can't dispute the catalyst's assertions, we're given the impression that they must be right. For surely, if they were something that could be challenged, Shepard would challenge them. If we can argue, this at least creates a conceptual space where it's easier to see the synthetic/organic theme as the ravings of a madman rather than as the deliverances of an all-knowing being. Would this save the ending? Certainly not, as we still have those three horrible choices to deal with. But I think it would help make it slightly less bad.

I think there is one way to keep the Catalyst, and still pretty much fix the endings, and that is to reveal the Catalyst as being a raving madman who is unequivocally wrong. I think what made IT so appealing was not that it spackled over plot holes, was a metatextual player trolling, or promised more gameplay, but that it de-legitimized the Catalyst. It was a way of making sense out of that scene and all its thematic incongruities. No wonder these choices are so dark and sadistic. No wonder they remind me of TIM and Saren. No wonder the Catalyst is trying to convince us that EDI and Legion were the problem this whole time. The Catalyst is Harbinger, and this is all a trick!

Now, I no longer think that we're getting anything close to this, but I think that's further proof that Bioware never did understand the problem in the first place. It wasn't about little blue babies or cutscenes of Rachni blasting Ravagers, it was about the freaking Catalyst and those three asinine choices.

[Kathleen321]

Made Nightwing wrote...

sporeian wrote...

I wanna go to your college...NOW!

And now would be an excellent time for me to advertise Campion College in Toongabbie, NSW, Australia.  A Liberal Arts Degree for Thinkers and Leaders! We also have Chess Club, Fencing Club, Boxing Club and Latin Club.

God I wish I could move to Australia. I'm an English major but I hate all my classes. I wish I had at least one professor like this at my university.

[drayfish]

I most assuredly agree with the hatred of the Catalyst. Hence my own petulant name-calling. Much as both frypan and KitaSaturnyne have described, he has become the symbol of every thematic and meta-textual frustration I have with the text as it currently stands. 

Indeed, I think overall he is a perfect representation for why the deus ex machina as a technique has had such a vile reputation throughout history. Not only is it lazy and unjustified, but it insults the audience's intelligence at the same time. 

As I'm pretty sure I've mentioned earlier, in Greek theatre the term came from a God swinging onto stage to change the course of events. The assumption was that the audience would buy this kind of shameless narrative incompetence because it is a holy figure that they revere who is performing the act: hey, it's Athena! You can't argue with Athena! Sure, what she's doing makes no sense, and undoes everything that's been going on up to this point, but she's, like, Athena! Check her out!

Here we have Oliver Twist 2.0, less godly, more circuity, but similarly patronising down to us as he 'rescues' civilisation from a problem that (counter intuitively) both doesn't exist, and that he is directly responsible for. Yay for egregious irony!
 
Indeed, by emerging from the mysterious Crucible he is even presented as the product of an enormous, multigenerational project that we are too stupid to ourselves understand: Liara shakes her head in wonder at it; Hackett leave it up to the egg-heads to figure out; even the Racchni can't seem to sing it into some kind of context. 

At every step of Starby's creation and presentation we are made to feel small and incompetent, and that's a sensation that works when you are painting a villain, someone you can't wait to eventually kick the crap out of, but when it's the new 'hero' showing up it becomes tortured and insulting. 

No wonder we want to blow the little bastard to hell.
 
 
@ Hawk227: Wow. M. Night Shyamalan burn. I am most certainly not saying you're wrong, but ouch. And I always wondered if words really could sting like a fist.

Modifié par drayfish, 24 juin 2012 - 04:33 .