88 réponses à ce sujet

[prosthetic soul]

Deus Ex Machina

 

The content of this page was created by users. It has not been screened or verified by IMDb staff.

That's its name in the official credits too.  I own the blu ray. 

 

Nice try though. 

[Vazgen]

That's its name in the official credits too.  I own the blu ray. 

 

Nice try though. 

Why so passive aggressive? I merely pointed out that not everything on IMDB is rock-solid. No need to get all excited.

[prosthetic soul]

Why so passive aggressive? I merely pointed out that not everything on IMDB is rock-solid. No need to get all excited.

That's not me being passive-aggressive.   Not by a long shot.  I just thought you were insinuating that its name was not actually DEM.  Which therefore proves it is indeed a DEM.   Which thereby provided solid foundation to MY argument that the Catalyst is a DEM. 

[Ithurael]

To be Fair Chronoid, I have doubts about the glow-kid being a DEM.

 

After looking at what a DEM requires mechanically I did not see the strongest correlation between the god-kid and the actual DEM.

 

I can see how one could think this though. The plot does resolve itself after the starkid sequence, but not by the starkid himself and only after the new solutions had been provided. Now, why it had to only be those three solutions (or one or two)...idk honestly. I mean, if the solution doesn't work then why continue with that solution? I dunno honestly. He controls the reapers, he could just fly them into the sun, stop the fight, or fly off. Who knows. But, from what I observed, it was only after the crucible docked that starkid was given new options to resolve it's issue and thus we had a way to resolve our issue and thus the issue was resolved.

 

The ending had a lot of failings, a DEM - as I have observed - was not one that i could observe and replicate.

[Vazgen]

That's not me being passive-aggressive.   Not by a long shot.  I just thought you were insinuating that its name was not actually DEM.  Which therefore proves it is indeed a DEM.   Which thereby provided solid foundation to MY argument that the Catalyst is a DEM. 

So you jumped to conclusions about me being passively aggressive and responded in kind? If so, OK, no harm was done. I'd simply ask to refrain from forming premature opinions in the future.

 

Regarding the actual topic - Deus Ex Machina in Matrix Revolutions. Deus Ex Machina literally means "god from the machine" which is, what I think, the authors going for with the character's name. I don't think they named the character after a plot device. In fact, from machine perspective, Neo is a deus ex machina (in the plot device sense) since its his power and sudden appearance in the city of the machines that make it possible to deal with Smith -  a seemingly unsolvable problem is suddenly and abruptly resolved by the contrived and unexpected intervention of some new event, character, ability or object. 

 

So no, I don't think that the character named Deus Ex Machina in Matrix Revolutions can act as a basis for the argument that the Catalyst in Mass Effect is a plot device called "deus ex machina". Simply, because I don't think that the main machine in Matrix Revolutions fits the definition of that particular plot device.

[prosthetic soul]

So you jumped to conclusions about me being passively aggressive and responded in kind? If so, OK, no harm was done. I'd simply ask to refrain from forming premature opinions in the future.

 

Regarding the actual topic - Deus Ex Machina in Matrix Revolutions. Deus Ex Machina literally means "god from the machine" which is, what I think, the authors going for with the character's name. I don't think they named the character after a plot device. In fact, from machine perspective, Neo is a deus ex machina (in the plot device sense) since its his power and sudden appearance in the city of the machines that make it possible to deal with Smith -  a seemingly unsolvable problem is suddenly and abruptly resolved by the contrived and unexpected intervention of some new event, character, ability or object. 

 

So no, I don't think that the character named Deus Ex Machina in Matrix Revolutions can act as a basis for the argument that the Catalyst in Mass Effect is a plot device called "deus ex machina". Simply, because I don't think that the main machine in Matrix Revolutions fits the definition of that particular plot device.

Um, no.  I didn't jump to any conclusions.  You basically implied my source was faulty.  And again, I must reiterate, that was not me being passive aggressive.  STOP. SAYING. I was being passive-aggressive.  Because I was doing no such thing.  And for the love of God, the god machine at the end of Matrix Revolutions is literally CALLED DEUS EX MACHINA AND YOU ARE STILL DOUBTING THAT IT IS A DEM. 

 

Can you people just admit you're wrong?  Can you ever concede a point?  Ever?  All it takes is a little humility. 

[prosthetic soul]

To be Fair Chronoid, I have doubts about the glow-kid being a DEM.

 

After looking at what a DEM requires mechanically I did not see the strongest correlation between the god-kid and the actual DEM.

 

I can see how one could think this though. The plot does resolve itself after the starkid sequence, but not by the starkid himself and only after the new solutions had been provided. Now, why it had to only be those three solutions (or one or two)...idk honestly. I mean, if the solution doesn't work then why continue with that solution? I dunno honestly. He controls the reapers, he could just fly them into the sun, stop the fight, or fly off. Who knows. But, from what I observed, it was only after the crucible docked that starkid was given new options to resolve it's issue and thus we had a way to resolve our issue and thus the issue was resolved.

 

The ending had a lot of failings, a DEM - as I have observed - was not one that i could observe and replicate.

 

I believe Starbrat's mere existence is a DEM.  We had no prior knowledge of Starbrat throughout the entirety of the trilogy.  Then, out of nowhere, he quite literally reaches down and carries Shepard up on floating elevator thing.   That is textbook DEM in play people.  

 

Let's look at the actual definition of a DEM shall we? 

 

Wiktionary defines DEM as a contrived plot solution.  With this definition, you may think that the starbrat is not a DEM.  But TV tropes ultimately concedes that Starbrat's lifting up Shepard to the Crucible platform is a "way the classical Greeks used the trope."  I do concede that TV tropes also says that the ending's DEM status overall is "played with" but ultimately averted.  Ergo, I believe there's truth to both sides of this debate. 

[Vazgen]

Um, no.  I didn't jump to any conclusions.  You basically implied my source was faulty.  And again, I must reiterate, that was not me being passive aggressive.  STOP. SAYING. I was being passive-aggressive.  Because I was doing no such thing.  And for the love of God, the god machine at the end of Matrix Revolutions is literally CALLED DEUS EX MACHINA AND YOU ARE STILL DOUBTING THAT IT IS A DEM. 

 

Can you people just admit you're wrong?  Can you ever concede a point?  Ever?  All it takes is a little humility. 

I linked the character page to illustrate that it is basically empty. There is no biography or something to illustrate why the name was chosen. No information about it in the article. I also cited a line there to illustrate that IMDB articles are not always rock-solid, implying that more information can be found elsewhere. How did you get from these two lines that I "implied" (<- jumping to conclusions) that your source is faulty is beyond me. Especially since it takes a simple Google Search to confirm the source.

 

Basically yes. Here is what happens. There is a character named "Deus Ex Machina" in the movie. You say that because of that, the character is a plot device - deus ex machina. The character, however, does not fit the known definition of the aforementioned plot device, the fact that you seem to disregard. 

 

And judging from your signature, one can infer that you're still mad and can't have a calm conversation about this topic. Your comments seem to confirm this and I have no patience for this. Take care.

[prosthetic soul]

I linked the character page to illustrate that it is basically empty. There is no biography or something to illustrate why the name was chosen. No information about it in the article. I also cited a line there to illustrate that IMDB articles are not always rock-solid, implying that more information can be found elsewhere. How did you get from these two lines that I "implied" (<- jumping to conclusions) that your source is faulty is beyond me. Especially since it takes a simple Google Search to confirm the source.

 

Basically yes. Here is what happens. There is a character named "Deus Ex Machina" in the movie. You say that because of that, the character is a plot device - deus ex machina. The character, however, does not fit the known definition of the aforementioned plot device, the fact that you seem to disregard. 

 

And judging from your signature, one can infer that you're still mad and can't have a calm conversation about this topic. Your comments seem to confirm this and I have no patience for this. Take care.

So....that wasn't me jumping to conclusions at all!  You were in fact stating that my source was faulty!  First you jump down my throat for supposedly "jumping to conclusions" then you here you are assuming I am frothing at the mouth at the computer? Those in glass houses shouldn't throw stones. 

[Vazgen]

You are taking things out of context. Notice that you bolded only half the sentence.

 

I'm not assuming that you're "frothing at the mouth at the computer" but your comments indicate that. Notice the excessive capitalization, exclamation marks, sentences like "Can you people just admit you're wrong?  Can you ever concede a point?  Ever?  All it takes is a little humility."

Based on those indicators I thought that you're just too passionate about the topic and therefore can't have an objective discussion about it. Your reply to Ithruael proves me wrong, of which I'm glad.

 

Nice gif, BTW. Where's that from?

[prosthetic soul]

You are taking things out of context. Notice that you bolded only half the sentence.

 

I'm not assuming that you're "frothing at the mouth at the computer" but your comments indicate that. Notice the excessive capitalization, exclamation marks, sentences like "Can you people just admit you're wrong?  Can you ever concede a point?  Ever?  All it takes is a little humility."

Based on those indicators I thought that you're just too passionate about the topic and therefore can't have an objective discussion about it. Your reply to Ithruael proves me wrong, of which I'm glad.

 

Nice gif, BTW. Where's that from?

No.  If I were to take the sentence out of context, I would use it in a completely a different way in a completely different debate.  This has context because you clearly state, in the first half of that sentence, that the information may not be rock solid.  You explicitly state that.  Which means I don't have to deduce anything.  You flat out said my source was faulty. Which confirmed my hunch was right.

 

Exclamation marks just indicate exclamation.  Not someone shouting at their screen IRL.   And....yeah you're...still assuming, even if you're using armchair detective work based on your own self-ordained logic on what constitutes a mad person communicating over the internet. 

 

The gif is from a Gecko Geico commercial. Good to see you can admit you were wrong in this instance.  Doesn't that feel better?  I concede debates and arguments all the time, both in real life and on the internet. It shows you're humble.  Nothing wrong with it. 

[Ithurael]

I believe Starbrat's mere existence is a DEM.  We had no prior knowledge of Starbrat throughout the entirety of the trilogy.  Then, out of nowhere, he quite literally reaches down and carries Shepard up on floating elevator thing.   That is textbook DEM in play people.  

 

 

To the underlined, yes this is out of nowhere at first. But then we get the exposition of why.

 

Tis true it could have carried shep up at any time, but it was only after the crucible is docked to provide those new solutions that the godkid directly intervenes - since it literally can't make the new solutions provided to it happen.

 

 

Let's look at the actual definition of a DEM shall we? 

 

Wiktionary defines DEM as a contrived plot solution.  With this definition, you may think that the starbrat is not a DEM.  But TV tropes ultimately concedes that Starbrat's lifting up Shepard to the Crucible platform is a "way the classical Greeks used the trope."  I do concede that TV tropes also says that the ending's DEM status overall is "played with" but ultimately averted.  Ergo, I believe there's truth to both sides of this debate. 

 

The operant definition of a DEM is:

"an unexpected power or event saving a seemingly hopeless situation, especially as a contrived plot device in a play or novel."

https://www.google.c...=utf-8&oe=utf-8

 

Now, at first I will say, it is unexpected. I had no idea why shep was being raised into the air, or why it was happening. I thought it was going to end at the Anderson scene and then cut to denouement then credits.

 

Then, in the godkids chamber, we get the exposition (both in EC and in Vanilla) as to why he did what he did (raising shep up).

 

He then allows us to choose the solution to the central conflict. In this, it is not a DEM because he - himself - does not suddenly stop anything. The catalyst literally tells you he brought you here because he could not make the color-coded explosions happen.

 

If the catalyst was a true DEM, it would have just been shepard and anderson on the citadel, que TIM fight, then que starkid to appear and then the reapers fall down/go away. If you want more examples of DEMs look at Euripides plays. That guy abused it... One such example is: "In Alcestis, the eponymous heroine agrees to give up her own life in order to spare the life of her husband, Admetus. At the end, Heracles shows up and seizes Alcestis from Death, restoring her to life and to Admetus."

 

You see, the "deus" here is Heracles and he randomly shows up, solves the issue, and then peaces out. The catalyst, we at least get an explanation as to why it did what it did.

 

Basically, if the godkid resolved the issue itself or stopped the reapers itself (with no explanation or why that is in-universe) then it is a DEM.

 

And, while the kid is contrived - he is so in another way.

[prosthetic soul]

To the underlined, yes this is out of nowhere at first. But then we get the exposition of why.

 

Tis true it could have carried shep up at any time, but it was only after the crucible is docked to provide those new solutions that the godkid directly intervenes - since it literally can't make the new solutions provided to it happen.

 

 

 

The operant definition of a DEM is:

"an unexpected power or event saving a seemingly hopeless situation, especially as a contrived plot device in a play or novel."

https://www.google.c...=utf-8&oe=utf-8

 

Now, at first I will say, it is unexpected. I had no idea why shep was being raised into the air, or why it was happening. I thought it was going to end at the Anderson scene and then cut to denouement then credits.

 

Then, in the godkids chamber, we get the exposition (both in EC and in Vanilla) as to why he did what he did (raising shep up).

 

He then allows us to choose the solution to the central conflict. In this, it is not a DEM because he - himself - does not suddenly stop anything. The catalyst literally tells you he brought you here because he could not make the color-coded explosions happen.

 

If the catalyst was a true DEM, it would have just been shepard and anderson on the citadel, que TIM fight, then que starkid to appear and then the reapers fall down/go away. If you want more examples of DEMs look at Euripides plays. That guy abused it... One such example is: "In Alcestis, the eponymous heroine agrees to give up her own life in order to spare the life of her husband, Admetus. At the end, Heracles shows up and seizes Alcestis from Death, restoring her to life and to Admetus."

 

You see, the "deus" here is Heracles and he randomly shows up, solves the issue, and then peaces out. The catalyst, we at least get an explanation as to why it did what it did.

 

Basically, if the godkid resolved the issue itself or stopped the reapers itself (with no explanation or why that is in-universe) then it is a DEM.

 

And, while the kid is contrived - he is so in another way.

Hmm....those are all...very good points. 

[Tim van Beek]

To the underlined, yes this is out of nowhere at first. But then we get the exposition of why.

 

Tis true it could have carried shep up at any time, but it was only after the crucible is docked to provide those new solutions that the godkid directly intervenes - since it literally can't make the new solutions provided to it happen.

 

 

 

The operant definition of a DEM is:

"an unexpected power or event saving a seemingly hopeless situation, especially as a contrived plot device in a play or novel."

https://www.google.c...=utf-8&oe=utf-8

 

Now, at first I will say, it is unexpected. I had no idea why shep was being raised into the air, or why it was happening. I thought it was going to end at the Anderson scene and then cut to denouement then credits.

 

Then, in the godkids chamber, we get the exposition (both in EC and in Vanilla) as to why he did what he did (raising shep up).

 

He then allows us to choose the solution to the central conflict. In this, it is not a DEM because he - himself - does not suddenly stop anything. The catalyst literally tells you he brought you here because he could not make the color-coded explosions happen.

 

If the catalyst was a true DEM, it would have just been shepard and anderson on the citadel, que TIM fight, then que starkid to appear and then the reapers fall down/go away. If you want more examples of DEMs look at Euripides plays. That guy abused it... One such example is: "In Alcestis, the eponymous heroine agrees to give up her own life in order to spare the life of her husband, Admetus. At the end, Heracles shows up and seizes Alcestis from Death, restoring her to life and to Admetus."

 

You see, the "deus" here is Heracles and he randomly shows up, solves the issue, and then peaces out. The catalyst, we at least get an explanation as to why it did what it did.

 

Basically, if the godkid resolved the issue itself or stopped the reapers itself (with no explanation or why that is in-universe) then it is a DEM.

 

And, while the kid is contrived - he is so in another way.

Sarcastically: We can clean up world literature of DEMs with only two changes to each story that has one:

 

1. Add some explanation of why the DEM appears. That one is already in Alcestis, Heracles is a friend and he comes to visit.

1.1 Maybe one should foreshadow the explanation somewhat, so in Alcestis, some character should say "Heracles will come to visit" in act 1.

2. The DEM itself does not solve the problem, he/she only creates the solution that some other character then uses. In Alcestis, let Heracles ambush and defeat death, but Admetus performs the final blow and has to reach out to Alcestis to pull her from the dead himself. 

 

That's easy   .

 

People will still say "that is cheating!". But now we can answer "yes, totally cheating! Writing is not easy, man! But it is not a DEM!". Still, maybe we should do something about that.

 

Okay, we add some techno babble to make the solution appear complex and transcendental. Heracles has a biotic bound to death because he is a half god. The love of Alcestis has warped the space-time-continuum and created a closed timelike worldline, in which Alcestis is bound (wow, and there we thought she was dead!). So while she goes in circles, Heracles can use his strength to create a counter singularity (wow, did not know he can to that!) and pull her out, but not alone, he needs the help of Admetus (need to keep that in mind, lest we turn him into a DEM).

 

Now people will say "nah, that's still cheating, and now you added a contrived explanation that does not even make sense".

 

No problem, just tell them they are too stupid to appreciate the sophistication   .

 

(Maybe someone will even point out that it is bad writing to introduce new characters in the last act, whether or not they are a DEM. I'm looking at you, Major Coats!)