Stop calling it Deus Ex Machina

[James Joseph Emerald]

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.

Alright, I'll give it to you. I was very young when I saw the original Star Wars trilogy, and even though I watched it like fifty times (as kids do) I guess that must have gone over my head. So you're right, if the Death Star's weak point (however implausible) was established beforehand, it's not a deus ex machina.

 

[Terminal Blue]

The crucible of ME3 was NOT a Deus Ex Machina. It was the Plot-macguffin.

Just to be hideously over-technical, I don't think it's the McGuffin because what it does is actually essential to the plot, and a McGuffin is an object whose only function is to provide motivation.

For example, let's say I write a story about some people trying to break into a vault and steal a diamond. Is it important that what is in the vault is a diamond? No. It could be a priceless artwork, or a pile of money, or an experimental microchip and the plot would remain largely intact because the story isn't about the diamond. It's about how the characters break into the vault. The diamond is just there to make them want to do it.

Now, if the characters breaking into the vault was just part of the story, and in fact they needed the diamond to build the lens of a laser to fight aliens or something, then the diamond is no longer a McGuffin because it does more than provide motivation. It always needed to be a diamond, or at least something you could build a laser out of.

The goal of Mass Effect 3's narrative was not to find the catalyst, but to stop the Reapers. The catalyst was established very quickly as essential to stopping the reapers. While I totally agree that it wasn't a Deus Ex Machina, I also don't think it was the McGuffin. It was just a plain old boring plot device, as far as I'm concerned.

I also think, in addition to what you said, it was pretty heavily foreshadowed by implication from the very first game, simply from the fact that the enemies are a massive fleet of kilometer-long giant robot space squid who require an entire fleet of conventional ships to bring down just one of them. As I say every time this comes up, it was always going to be a plot device. It was always going to be a virus, or a superweapon, or Shepard overwhelming the Reapers with the power of his/her love for Garrus. It was never going to be "Shepard shoots his/her gun and the reapers all die", anyone who thought it was wasn't paying attention.

 

[Athinira]

Alright, I'll give it to you. I was very young when I saw the original Star Wars trilogy, and even though I watched it like fifty times (as kids do) I guess that must have gone over my head. So you're right, if the Death Star's weak point (however implausible) was established beforehand, it's not a deus ex machina.

Huh? I'm surprised you haven't rewatched it as an adult. Watching something after growing up gives you an entirely new perspective on things. You really should!

 

[Brotha Desmond]

The kid was mentioned in a codex entry in the first game.
Two I think we SHOULD stop using Deus ex machina and ise the appropriate term: MacGuffin.

 

[Vegosiux]

All I'll say is, to me a Deus Ex Machina is not an object or character, but an action. So the Crucible and the kid may be whatever the hell they want to be, but what the kid does is a Deus Ex Machina.

I will also admit to often misusing the word "MacGuffin", because I like using it.

 

[Eclectic Dreck]

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, isn't easy to build and you find out about the Crucible a the starting of Mass Effect 3. A Deus Ex Machina would be if at the end of Mass Effect 3 you discovered that the Reapers were deathly allergic to cream cheese and you used that to defeat them. It wouldn't make sense unless in Mass Effect 1 this dairy related weakness was hinted at.

It is a Deus Ex Machina. The Crucible is a Mcguffin - a thing that drives the plot but it is not, itself, important. It's like the briefcase in Ronin - the contents are so unimportant to the plot that it is never revealed. However, the conflict is eventually brought to a close and a seemingly unsolvable problem is solved only when Shepard encounters the Catalyst - that's the Deus Ex Machina. That the Catalyst has also, quite literally, played god for millions of years is just icing on the cake.

I mean, given that a Deus Ex Machina is simply an unexpected power that provides a resolution to a seemingly hopeless situation, and given that there was no indication that the Catalyst would literally be the power behind the Reapers, and given that it provides a resolution to a seemingly hopeless situation (The fleet is outmatched, the Crucible doesn't seem to actually do anything, and the only person left on the station is badly wounded), the only conclusion one can draw is that it must be a Deus Ex Machina.

I mean, it meets the requirements set forth by the definition. And it is literally a machine god. It works twice.

 

[TheIronRuler]

Imagine if there was another Deus Ex sequel called Deus Ex: Machina.

Then you'd be pretty fucked, ey?

I think naming a game "God From" was pretty fucked in the first place...

But, as far as ME3 goes, the Harby-kid fits the DEM definition to the l-e-t-t-e-r.

.
It was supposed to be a reference God from the Machine... talking about the way machines had evolved and how humans can now play as god with this technology.

Then again, JC Denton was first thought out to be Jesus Christ Denton.

I'm not fucking with you. True story.

 

[Conner42]

I'm not sure how much you guys can argue, but TV Tropes does a pretty good job at explaining it.

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/DeusExMachina

 

[James Joseph Emerald]

Huh? I'm surprised you haven't rewatched it as an adult. Watching something after growing up gives you an entirely new perspective on things. You really should!

I actually keep meaning to, but it's one of those things where there always seems to be a better use of my time.
Especially because I kind of want to do all 6 episodes at once, but it's a big undertaking.
Also, I'm kind of worried it will overwrite all my fond childhood memories with cynical adult nit-picking.

 

[Caffeine_Bombed]

If I remember my Classics lessons correctly the term refers to a literal machine, usually a type of crane or trap door, that was used to bring a god or god-like character onto the stage unexpectedly etc...
I don't think this is the case in most modern media so...yeah.
(And yes, I'm being pedantic!)