Stop calling it Deus Ex Machina

[Joseph Harrison]

snip

That's not an ad hominem, we'll chalk this up to another phrase whose meaning you don't know.

snip

A gradeschool English teacher isn't an expert on the English language, believe it or fucking not. You've already admitted that this isn't the "official" definition, which means the definition your English teacher gave you is wrong.

Someone's feeling sassy today.

It is exactly an ad hominem, he isn't adding to the conversation at all and all he is doing is insulting me by implying that by entire argument is just appealing to a false authority (it isn't by the way). He doesn't offer any argument over whether or not the Crucible is DEM or not and he's just being condescending. Plus I'm pretty sure that twelfth grade isn't grade school. And just because something isn't the official definition doesn't mean its incorrect.

 

[Nihlus2]

Your definition is a bit wrongly imposed as well in all honesty. But then again, I haven't heard people call The Crucible a Deus Ex Machina.

But... since we are talking about Mass Effect, I do believe there is a certain God Child that may or may not have been shoved in there out of the blue (mentioned once in a single line by the Prothean AI barely 2 missions prior to (less than an hour in gametime). That undermines most of ME1 lore, retcons and turns around most of the plot surrounding a lot of stuff, contradicting and outright making the very universe fight back at it.

Now that, ladies and gentleman, is in fact both -literaly- and terminology-wise a "Deus Ex Machina" (God of Machines *cough*).

 

[Beautiful End]

To me, Deus Ex Machina is just an ending that came out of nowhere and resolves everything. Simple as that.

For example, to me, Avatar: The Last Airbender pulled one when Aang learned to take away someone's bending at the very last minute. It was something that was never mentioned or hinted at, it wasn't really explained how he got it (Except "AVATAR STUFF"), as far as we knew, no other Avatar had used it before and it was just a perfect solution to the Fire Lord problem. At least the Lion Turtle thing was hinted at twice throughout the show. It's still kinda out there but alright.

So yea, ME3 pulled a Deus Ex Machina for the reasons listed by everyone else. Not gonna get into that because that's not the point of the topic.

Also, I pronounce it Deh-Oos whenever possible, but believe it or not, people just don't understand me. For example, if I say something like "Hey, Deh-Oos Ex is a really good game!", people just look at me with a confused look on their face until I say it wrong. Then they get it.

Captcha: "Coors. Describe this brand with any word". Subtle beer ad. That's cute. Wonder what word kids used.

 

[Treblaine]

It's still useful because even saying "contrived" isn't enough as most stories by their vary nature are contrived, Deus Ex Machina is an exceptional level of contrivance at a critical point.

Most languages - English no less - are influenced significantly by other languages. And Latin was the language of the catholic church for

Greeks were studied as they were the seat of democracy which was the major political force in England and later Britain after the English Civil War. And it's eminently suitable to use a Greek term to describe what was most noted as happening in Greek plays.

It's like Coup D'Etat, that is just the term that is used in english, even if it does come from French.

It is a matter of preference to be sure, but there is a reason that we do not use the Gaelic or Norse terms for many things, languages that have had as much influence on english as Greek and Latin. Or, for that matter, English terms. The reality is that Greece and Rome were seen as the seat of learning for so long by the British, that they adadpted terms from the language arbitrarity. The point that Orwell makes is that this has had residual influence on the culture, causing it to value Latin and Greek terms more highly, and that this is often used as camouflage (a French word, I know) to cover over flaws in reasoning and argument.

It is true that most of the lingo conscerning writing and poetry is greek: deus ex machina, in medias res, even words like Iam and Dipthong. Similarly, most of the lingo conscerning music is German or French, but there is really no reason I see to use most of these terms outside of an acedemic discussion. And I think you will agree that the vast majority of the uses of the phrase are far from acedemic.

But this IS an academic discussion.

Sure, it's not university level, but it aspires to be as thorough as possible in the analysis of this. Postgraduates do not have a monopoly on deep and intelligent discussions.

Saying there is one language for one and another language for another, now that is Orwellian territory.

These terms are useful, let them use them.

 

[KoudelkaMorgan]

My example of Deus Ex Machina would be how the Sword of Truth series of books resolved at the end of the Chainfire trilogy. I'm aware that there is a new book or something, and I haven't had a chance to pick it up yet.

Spoiler

But basically they resolved the problem of most of the world being pretty fanatically for rape and murder and against magic, by Richard having some kind of eureka moment on how to use the boxes of Orden. Those things that were a serious issue on the first book and more or less ignored for the remaining 9 or so books. He just stabs the boxes with the Sword of Truth he's been carrying since practically chapter one, becomes a god temperarily, and creates a new world for all the people that don't have/hate magic. They all get raptured away to Earth 2, and problem solved.

If that's not a complete fucking cop out way to resolve a plot that hadn't actually gone anywhere interesting since book 4 and get the author out of the otherwise completely unwinnable corner he backed his characters into then I don't know what is. Its a lot like in The Lord of the Rings, where most of the world is allied WITH Sauron. Umber, and pretty much everyone that isn't an Elf, Dwarf, Ent, Eagle, from Gondor/Rohan, or one of the few Hobbits from the Shire that ever knew anything was going on, was allied with Sauron.

So basically 90% of all sentient life was on team evil. And it all comes to an end when the ring is destroyed in Orodruin. "Oh I guess even though we greatly outnumber the good guys, and they already used their trump card in taking down Barad-Dur we better all run away and let them rebuild Gondor." If anything, with Sauron defeated, they might actually stand a chance of having a decent share of the spoils/not get roflstompped by him once they outlived their usefulness.

The difference being that we the reader knew all along that the ring could be used to defeat Sauron, and save the world. It was the entire plot, and the Eagles show up in the nick of time to save our brave heros. It is an acceptable ending.

In Sword of Truth, its not until literally the last chapter or two that the solution to everything is almost literally pulled out of Richard's ass. He may as well have found a magic lamp while digging a shithole and a genie poofs in to wish away the Imperial Order and all the Truly Ungifted. Jagang could have choked on a cherry pit like Zorg almost did in the Fifth Element for all the thought that went into his end. In the end you are left with the cliche "A wizard did it" as the justification on the abrupt and anticlimactic ending.

 

[teh_gunslinger]

A deus ex machina is tool used by playwrights to summarise plots to the audience and make connections that they might not have seen, in short to 'cheat' a way out of a complex plot. Gandalf plays a deus ex machina when he comes back to Gimli, Aragorn and Legolas in The Two Towers and fills them in on just about everything.

An example of a deus ex machina in gaming? Uh, I can't think of one right now, it'd be someone who comes along and suddenly explains everything that is happening in one go. I suppose it might be possible in a game being told as a long flashback with narration from someone in the future, because that someone would be able to tell you what was going on, but I don't think anyone ever gives up everything and glues it all together...

Weird.

That's certainly not what a deus ex machina is. Gandalf returning from the dead may be, but I don't actually think it is. Deus ex machina has nothing to do with exposition.

An example from gaming is the last 5 min of Mass Effect 3. Bioware wrote themselves into a corner and could not resolve the plot. Thus they pull the star kid out from absolutely nowhere, he has no connection to the rest of the plot and he hand waves it all away with magic. It's one of the most literal uses of deus ex machina (it's an actual god from the machine) and a very clumsy one to boot.

Euripides was very fond of using this technique and was even poked fun of by Aristophanes for doing so in a great number of his plays. There's nothing inherently wrong with doing it, but you have to be a good playwright to do it.

You do realize that the star child was foreshadowed several times throughout the game right?

How so?

 

[elvor0]

A deus ex machina is tool used by playwrights to summarise plots to the audience and make connections that they might not have seen, in short to 'cheat' a way out of a complex plot. Gandalf plays a deus ex machina when he comes back to Gimli, Aragorn and Legolas in The Two Towers and fills them in on just about everything.

An example of a deus ex machina in gaming? Uh, I can't think of one right now, it'd be someone who comes along and suddenly explains everything that is happening in one go. I suppose it might be possible in a game being told as a long flashback with narration from someone in the future, because that someone would be able to tell you what was going on, but I don't think anyone ever gives up everything and glues it all together...

Weird.

Perhaps Metal Gear Solid 2? Right before the final battle, the events of the entire preceding game is explained by the now-revealed Patriot AI, GW.

That's not DEM at all. It couldn't be further from a DEM. The entire quote you posted is wrong in it's definition of DEM. The GW AI is merely explaining everything to you, it's both a reveal in the sense that it turns out to be an AI and exposition/reveal in what it tells you about the story thus far.

DEM is when something appears out of nowhere with no explanation and just fixes everything. For example: No way warrior can win this fight, then all of a sudden a lightning bolt comes down and strikes the enemy killing him stone dead. Nothing is said about why this happens, and no one questions it in the story. The story or obstacle has been resolved by a literal act of god.

"Canon" cannot refer to fictional occurences. Please stop using it to make yourself sound like someone who cannot tell the difference between fiction and reality.

Yes it can. It has been used for many a years now to in the context of fictional writings, mainly because fictional writings require their own internal consistency. If someone died earlier in the series, and then a later work contradicts that, the canon is inconsistent. In your own words, stop trying to make yourself seem more intelligent. You want to start insisting that it's inapplicable for fictional work at this point, then you're just being obtuse. It's used to distinguish what officially exists within that universe, otherwise fan fiction starts becoming part of the universe. Its use dates back to Arthur Conan Doyal in regards to Sherlock Holmes in a 1911 essay by Ronald Knox to state that works by authors other than Doyal about Holmes would not be considered "Canon". Actually making that essay before Orwells "time" (that is to say he was like 8 at the time).

People are not using these words in some vein attempt to seem more intelligent, they are using them, because they are the applicable words, Deus Ex Machina is a thing, thus we refer to it as such, yes it's latin, but we use lots of latin words. You however are obviously trying to seem more intelligent by attempting to belittle anyone using aforementioned words, despite their use being perfectly acceptable. If you can't understand the usage of canon in certain context, maybe you're the one having difficulty telling the difference between fiction and reality.

 

[Athinira]

In simple terms, a deus ex machina is any resolution to a conflict which hasn't been properly set up beforehand. You could argue that in Star Wars Episode VI, the Death Star having a really convenient weak spot was a deus ex machina. The reason why this weak spot exists is never explained to the audience or even mentioned ever again.

That's incorrect. Star Wars Ep. VI mere makes the assumption that people know or believe that nuclear (fusion or fission) reactors can explode. It doesn't necessarily have to be true, but if people believe it based on past experiences, associations or fiction, then it can work just fine as a plot device. Even back when Star Wars was written, people feared nuclear technology (even though this was before Chernobyl), primarily because of the WW2 bombings of Japan that made them associate it with something dangerous.

I was only 8 or 9 years old when i watched the Star Wars Trilogy for the first time, but even i understood the idea of a reactor back then, and what the reasonable expectation was when they said they were gonna hit it with photon torpedoes )

 

[James Joseph Emerald]

I was only 8 or 9 years old when i watched the Star Wars Trilogy for the first time, but even i understood the idea of a reactor back then, and what the reasonable expectation was when they said they were gonna hit it with photon torpedoes )

It's debatable sure, but it's not just the fact that reactors can cause big explosions that is the deus ex machina. There's several really convenient oversights that resulted in the Death Star blowing up:

[ol]
[li] The reactor is designed in such a way that once hit by a single missile, causes a chain reaction that can destroy a space station the size of a moon;[/li]
[li] There are no failsafes put in place to contain the explosion or isolate/shield sections of the Death Star that are vital to its operation;[/li]
[li] There is at least one ventilation shaft which inexplicably leads straight to the most volatile part of the reactor core;[/li]
[li] This shaft is completely unprotected, and nobody thinks to seal it up, even when preparing for a rebel siege.[/li]
[/ol]

If any of those four points occurred to the Galactic Empire at any time, they could easily fix it and the good guys would lose in the first film.
The only way it would make sense is if the Death Star was established as being poorly designed beforehand, but instead we're told that it's this magnificent doom fortress.

 

[Athinira]

I was only 8 or 9 years old when i watched the Star Wars Trilogy for the first time, but even i understood the idea of a reactor back then, and what the reasonable expectation was when they said they were gonna hit it with photon torpedoes )

It's debatable sure, but it's not just the fact that reactors can cause big explosions that is the deus ex machina. There's several really convenient oversights that resulted in the Death Star blowing up:

[ol]
[li] The reactor is designed in such a way that once hit by a single missile, causes a chain reaction that can destroy a space station the size of a moon;[/li]
[li] There are no failsafes put in place to contain the explosion or isolate/shield sections of the Death Star that are vital to its operation;[/li]
[li] There is at least one ventilation shaft which inexplicably leads straight to the most volatile part of the reactor core;[/li]
[li] This shaft is completely unprotected, and nobody thinks to seal it up, even when preparing for a rebel siege.[/li]
[/ol]

If any of those four points occurred to the Galactic Empire at any time, they could easily fix it and the good guys would lose in the first film.
The only way it would make sense is if the Death Star was established as being poorly designed beforehand, but instead we're told that it's this magnificent doom fortress.

That still doesn't fit the description of a Deus Ex Machine in any way. Of course the Death Star has a weakness. It has to, otherwise there is no way for the alliance to win. This is the very basic of good-guy-vs-small-guy storytelling - the big guy has to have a weakness, otherwise the small guy can never win.

You make a lot of assumptions in your post. You assume that it's even possible to create the reactor in such a way in the Star Wars universe that it can be prevented from exploding if under assault. This isn't the first or last time that a reactor has exploded in the universe, so that probably means that you can't design it in such a way, or shield off an explosion of that power. If anything, looking at how things work in the real world you can't design proper failsafes here either to prevent attacks on the cooling system of a nuclear reactor. Just look at the disaster in Japan.

Also a lot of the stuff is explained in the movie about that. They explain in Ep. 4 that the Empire never suspected an attack on the death star with small fightercraft, and in Ep. 6 where the Emperor never believed that the Rebels would succeed in taking down the energy shield. Engineering oversights like the ventilation shaft isn't unplausible either - just like in the real world, the first time you build something, there is going to be a lot of things you can do to that the the designers never envisioned, and will have to patch later (typically AFTER it has been exploited. The ventilation shaft weakness was intended to be removed on the second death star, if it had ever been fully completed before the rebels blew it up).

That's how security works. You build something. Someone exploits it. You patch it in the next version you build.

This is no more a Deus Ex Machina than Superman being weak to Kryptonite is. You don't quite seem to grasp the concept just like many others fail to do so.

 

[Shocksplicer]

-Makes thread accusing people of not knowing what a Deus Ex Machina is.
-Gives incorrect definition of Deus Ex Machina.
-Gives supposed "example" of a mistaken Deus Ex Machina, which nobody has ever accused of being a Deus Ex Machina in the first place.

Hmm...

 

[solemnwar]

Many people's criticize Mass Effect 3 by saying that the Crucible is Deus Ex Machina when simply that isn't that case. The Crucible is foreshadowed in Lair of the Shadow Broker.

Then why didnt Vigil told us about it in ME1? "Hey listen up because there is no enough time in this cycle, we have this super weapon from previous cycles that the worked on and we prepared everything for you to finish it up before the Reapers come"

Why forget their best asset for war for future cycles? why wouldnt Vigil or ANY other beacon know about it.

From what I understand, Ilos was completely cut off from the rest of the Protheans and they had no idea WTF was going on with other things. That's actual the prothean empire in a nutshell, really, since in THAT cycle, the reapers were able to successfully go through the Citadel and fuck up EVERYTHING. The entire empire was in shambles, it's quite possible that different areas had no clue what was going on.


Although it was probably because Bioware hadn't written that bit yet. I've heard from some people that they scrapped their original ending for the series and wrote a new one.

 

[AngelOfBlueRoses]

snip

That's not an ad hominem, we'll chalk this up to another phrase whose meaning you don't know.

snip

A gradeschool English teacher isn't an expert on the English language, believe it or fucking not. You've already admitted that this isn't the "official" definition, which means the definition your English teacher gave you is wrong.

Someone's feeling sassy today.

It is exactly an ad hominem, he isn't adding to the conversation at all and all he is doing is insulting me by implying that by entire argument is just appealing to a false authority (it isn't by the way). He doesn't offer any argument over whether or not the Crucible is DEM or not and he's just being condescending. Plus I'm pretty sure that twelfth grade isn't grade school. And just because something isn't the official definition doesn't mean its incorrect.

The entire point here, though, is the fact that you're working on a different definition than us, one you readily admit is not the official definition. Therefore, we cannot have a proper debate, and we can't have from the start, because you came here insisting upon using a definition that only you and the people your teacher have taught possibly use.

You are essentially playing Calvin Ball with us with your rule change-ups, but aren't telling us beforehand.

 

[James Joseph Emerald]

It's debatable sure, but it's not just the fact that reactors can cause big explosions that is the deus ex machina. There's several really convenient oversights that resulted in the Death Star blowing up:

[ol]
[li] The reactor is designed in such a way that once hit by a single missile, causes a chain reaction that can destroy a space station the size of a moon;[/li]
[li] There are no failsafes put in place to contain the explosion or isolate/shield sections of the Death Star that are vital to its operation;[/li]
[li] There is at least one ventilation shaft which inexplicably leads straight to the most volatile part of the reactor core;[/li]
[li] This shaft is completely unprotected, and nobody thinks to seal it up, even when preparing for a rebel siege.[/li]
[/ol]

If any of those four points occurred to the Galactic Empire at any time, they could easily fix it and the good guys would lose in the first film.
The only way it would make sense is if the Death Star was established as being poorly designed beforehand, but instead we're told that it's this magnificent doom fortress.

That's how security works. You build something. Someone exploits it. You patch it in the next version you build.

This is no more a Deus Ex Machina than Superman being weak to Kryptonite is. You don't quite seem to grasp the concept just like many others fail to do so.

Actually, I think you're the one misunderstanding what a deus ex machina is. The plausibility of the conveniently contrived weakspot is irrelevant (though I maintain that such a fatal security flaw is a bit implausible in the first place) . What makes it a DEM is the fact that this weakspot appears right when the heroes need it, without any foreshadowing or prior establishment in the narrative.

It is as if the Gods (i.e. the writers) just bore a huge gaping hole through the bad guy's armour at the last minute, in order for the good guys to win in the end. A fairly straightforward example of a deus ex machina.

 

[Scow2]

On the subject of Deus Ex Machina... a classical example would be the bacteria-induced death in H.G. Well's War of the Worlds.

Deus Ex Machina is usually a contrived ending that appears out of nowhere to force a "Happy Ending" when the "Actual Ending" is made VERY MUCH apparent. H.G. Wells tried to mask it behind scientific answers... but given that one of the major themes of War of the Worlds was a parallel to European colonial expansionism, it's obvious who ACTUALLY won the war (Hint: The Dutch, Spanish, and English didn't die off from disease in the Congo or Americas - if anything it was the other way around.)

As it applies to Mass Effect 3... the Kid and Synthesis sequence was a straight-up Ass Pull. However, the "Destroy" and "Command" options were both heavily alluded to.

Actually, now that I think of it, it was deliberately something that came out of Left Field, and something that was SAID to come out of left field from the very first game, when Sovereign introduced himself. The reapers themselves said "You have no clue what we're about, and we're not going to tell you."

The crucible of ME3 was NOT a Deus Ex Machina. It was the Plot-macguffin. It's introduced right in the very beginning of the game, shortly after the bad guys. The ONLY way to think it's a 'Deus Ex Machina" is if you think the First game is the biggest part of the Mass Effect story, which it's not. It's merely the prologue. Which is what this argument seems to be coming down to - undue emphasis on the first Mass Effect game.

 

[Athinira]

Actually, I think you're the one misunderstanding what a deus ex machina is. The plausibility of the conveniently contrived weakspot is irrelevant (though I maintain that such a fatal security flaw is a bit implausible in the first place) . What makes it a DEM is the fact that this weakspot appears right when the heroes need it, without any foreshadowing or prior establishment in the narrative.

...except for the fact that the entire plot of the film right from the beginning where Princess Leia tries to escape is that they stole the plans (although it is initially not revealed to be for the death star. In her message to Obi-Wan, Leia desribe the plans as "information vital to the survival of the rebellion"), and that it is vital that they get the plans to the rebels. It's established right at the beginning, and is the basis of the entire film. Initially they are instructed to get the information to Alderaan, but after the planet is destroyed they take it to Yavin 4 instead.

Either you completely forgot about this part, or you still don't get what a Deus Ex Machine is. There is PLENTY of foreshadowing for this, and it's not pulled out of the ass right at the end.