TCTTS said:

---

No matter our varying opinions of either show, when you take a step back, it really is pretty crazy that two shows, airing simultaneously on two separate cable networks, are each grappling with an all-knowing A.I. that can look into the past and future based on algorithms, and that the characters of each show are trying to break free of the path that their A.I. creations have set for them.

---

And crazier that neither is actually the best potential-multiverse shows due to continue this year!

What's the other potential-multiverse show?

Proposition Joe said:

---

TCTTS said:

---

No matter our varying opinions of either show, when you take a step back, it really is pretty crazy that two shows, airing simultaneously on two separate cable networks, are each grappling with an all-knowing A.I. that can look into the past and future based on algorithms, and that the characters of each show are trying to break free of the path that their A.I. creations have set for them.

---

And crazier that neither is actually the best potential-multiverse shows due to continue this year!

---

TCTTS said:

---

What's the other potential-multiverse show?

---

TCTTS said:

---

What's the other potential-multiverse show?

---

Dark

Arguably the best show on Netflix in 2018 and 2019.

Ah, gotcha. Will finally dive back in one of these days. I didn't like the pilot, but everyone swears by the rest of the show, so I need to give it another shot.

Proposition Joe said:

---

TCTTS said:

---

What's the other potential-multiverse show?

---

Dark

Arguably the best show on Netflix in 2018 and 2019.

---

I can't wait for the new season. Def one of the best shows going. Not for everyone tho as it demands 100% of your attention and doesn't have giant action pieces.

TCTTS said:

---

What's the other potential-multiverse show?

---

Also Star Trek: Discovery

TCTTS said:

---

Ah, gotcha. Will finally dive back in one of these days. I didn't like the pilot, but everyone swears by the rest of the show, so I need to give it another shot.

---

Oh yeah. Dark is amazing.

Not even over yet but I KNOW TCTTS is going to HATE this

Ha, oh, man. I was planning on watching tomorrow, but keep forgetting it debuts Wednesday nights. May have to fire it up here soon...

Dumb. Hated the finale.

BenFiasco14 said:

---

Dumb. Hated the finale.

---

Same

Garland certainly gets points for sheer audacity, and the finale at least looked stunning... but maaaaan, that was some straight up nonsense. Just pure, saccharine, techno babble.

The irony of Lily saying to Forrest, "Show me, don't tell me," was so thick I was certain Garland was somehow in on the joke at that point. But to have him then double down yet again on never once showing us why Lily is so special - instead having characters merely repeat the sentiment over and over, to the point of literally anointing her a messiah for no reason whatsoever (other than the story needed her to be) - was the cherry on top, and the perfect example of why this thing lost so much steam in the second half.

On one hand, I appreciated someone finally explaining how determinism works in the show's universe. Forrest noting that even though he felt like he was saying/doing everything for the first time, he knew he ultimately wasn't in control of what he was saying/doing - was a nice explanation I could have used a few episodes ago (even if it makes absolutely no sense). But to then completely undo that just a few minutes later, by having Girl Wonder make a "choice" to break the unbreakable laws of all existence, simply because she's "strong" - was just about one of the most eye-roll-inducing things I've ever seen.

Again, I appreciate what Garland was trying to do, and he definitely succeeded at times, but that ending was up there with the Mr. Robot finale earlier this year in terms of mind numbing, mumbo jumbo nothingness.

Tight little series. Strong beginning, a little meandering in the middle, and great last two episodes. Can't wait to see what Alex Garland does next.

Great ending. Prolly woulda been a better movie but the concept was awesomely illustrated. The multiverse theory played out on screen was hella cool.

M.C. Swag said:

---

Great ending. Prolly woulda been a better movie but the concept was awesomely illustrated. The multiverse theory played out on screen was hella cool.

---

I enjoyed this Alex Garland interview that Rolling Stone put out the other day:

https://www.rollingstone.com/tv/tv-features/devs-creator-alex-garland-interview-980235/

Quote:

---

Was there ever a version of this idea in your head that was a feature film, or was it always this miniseries?

It was always a TV show. If I set myself the task of "I'm now going to re-edit it as a two-hour movie," I can tell you, flat out, I wouldn't be able to do it. I'm sure there's some editor who would stick his or her hand up and say, "I know how to do it," but it was always conceived as a TV show. Personally, I can't imagine how to do it as film.

---

Haha nice, im sure he believes that but there was some fat here that could have been cut or sped along,

M.C. Swag said:

---

Lol I don't understand how you can call this show Mumbo jumbo non sense but be balls deep in that high budget soap opera of Westworld.

Was the lead actor who played lily, a strong one? No, I think Garland whiffed on that casting choice. But I also think your misinterpretation of the philosophical aspect of the science is what's holding you back from enjoying it. The concept was complex but far from mumbo jumbo.

Lily was nothing special, it's all a red herring. She changed nothing. Stewart always caused the elevator crash. Katie always re purposed the simulation machine (that's why it always stopped working).

This show's argument was beautifully done. It left the debate completely open. Is the universe deterministic? It sure as hell seems like it despite trying to convey the illusion of choice (multiverse).

---

My problem with Lily wasn't only that she was terribly cast, it was that she was terribly written. As I've noted multiple times, "show don't tell" is basically the core tenet of screenwriting. Yet everything about Lily was told to us, and told to her, without her actually doing/earning any of it. All of the "she's so strong," "she's so unique," "she's the messiah" talk was absurd. Every bit of it was lip service. Lily's actions (or lack there of) didn't earn any of these sentiments, in any way, shape, or form. And none of it is excused because it was all ultimately a red herring. You want to do that conceit right? Do it like it "the one" in The Matrix - how they build up Neo's character through telling (Morpheus & co going on and one about "the one") - but also showing (via all of Neo's abilities) - only to then pull the rug out from everyone in the second movie, when "the one" conceit is exposed as a red herring. I'm not saying that Lily needed to go all Neo, but she needed to do something - anything - to earn he praise the characters continued to heap upon her, even if everyone was wrong in the end. Heck, even Pete the homeless spy, who didn't have the advantage of foresight that the Devs team had, fell victim to telling Lily how brave/amazing she was, without us ever seeing him see her be especially brave/strong/unique/etc. It was bad writing all around. To the point of Lily being one of the worst lead characters I've seen in years, and the performance had only a fraction to do with that. (Comparatively, say what you will about Westworld, but at least they show their characters do the things that earn them their respective reputations.)

As for the determinism stuff, we can argue 'til we're blue in the face, but IMO, what it all resulted in - the paradise/redo conceit - I not only found to be cheesy/saccharine as hell, but also frustrating on a thematic/moral level. If it worked for you, great. But it didn't work for me, at all. In fact, it really bugged me that Forest got his happy ending. Garland says of Forest, "What he is forced to accept in the end is that there will be versions of him that can experience [the death of his wife and daughter], but also versions that will not experience that. So he has a more poignant end result than the one he was looking for." That's all fine and good, but achieving his happy ending at the cost of so much death, violence, and heartbreak - even if was all ultimately reset or only one of many worlds - was bullsh*t. He was a broken man who couldn't learn to live with pain, so he broke a lot of other people in an effort to erase his pain. In that sense, narratively speaking, Forest being rewarded for his efforts felt cruel and cheap to me. (And if you want to argue that he had no control over his actions because of "determinism," then I'd argue that, in this instance, that brand of determinism makes for sh*ty storytelling.) Thematically/character-wise, the greater lesson learned, IMO, should have been to live with that pain and move on despite it, like everyone else who has ever lived and lost has had to do. The understanding that there's a version of himself out there experiencing a happy ending would have been so much better than "our" Forest actually getting that happy ending.

Overall, again, the show looked beautiful, grappled with ideas that I appreciated, and I love that Garland not only swung for the fences, but was allowed to do so in such a strange/cool way. I just felt that he missed the mark in a couple of key areas, to the point of nearly ruining a lot of what I did like about the first half of the show.

Granted, I'll give you a couple of those, but they still didn't add up to the level of praise bestowed upon her, IMO. Or, rather, those instances weren't "sold" enough, if that makes sense. I hear you, and agree to an extent, I just thought it all could have been executed so much more effectively.

Disagree that Lily's acting killed the show. She wasn't good and didn't show a ton of range, but there was no reason for her character to do so.

Completely agree that -- based on what we saw -- there shouldn't have been much praise heaped on her. She went through tradegy(ies), but she at no time really displayed anything that showed her to be unique. I even feel they tried to kind of start going down that road with the flashback to her playing Go with her family and showing "how her mind works", but that they ended up abandoning it.

As for the determinism aspect... I thought it was fine. Time travel and/or alternate realities is incredibly difficult to pull off with any kind of TV/movie that dives into the theories and possibilities of it. The shows that have been successful with it have mainly done so because that isn't really the core part of the show so it can be glossed over (e.g. a Rick and Morty where there being multiple Rick's and Multiple Morty's and how they would really impact each other isn't really dived into save for whatever episode where Morty has to bury Morty... Another example, Back to the Future series). The concept itself is difficult to wrap one's mind around, so putting it into media and explaining it in a way that isn't boring as hell is even doubly so.

Even a movie like Primer which contains (supposedly) very realistic technical jargon gets bogged down in it to the point where the viewer doesn't fully understand it but instead just trusts what they are being told.

It's why I'm excited about the final season of Dark but also somewhat trepid -- the first two seasons were done extremely well, but it's really, really tough to stick the landing in any theoretical sci-fi.

TCTTS said:

---

My problem with Lily wasn't only that she was terribly cast, it was that she was terribly written. As I've noted multiple times, "show don't tell" is basically the core tenet of screenwriting. Yet everything about Lily was told to us, and told to her, without her actually doing/earning any of it. All of the "she's so strong," "she's so unique," "she's the messiah" talk was absurd. Every bit of it was lip service. Lily's actions (or lack there of) didn't earn any of these sentiments, in any way, shape, or form. And none of it is excused because it was all ultimately a red herring. You want to do that conceit right? Do it like it "the one" in The Matrix - how they build up Neo's character through telling (Morpheus & co going on and one about "the one") - but also showing (via all of Neo's abilities) - only to then pull the rug out from everyone in the second movie, when "the one" conceit is exposed as a red herring. I'm not saying that Lily needed to go all Neo, but she needed to do something - anything - to earn he praise the characters continued to heap upon her, even if everyone was wrong in the end. Heck, even Pete the homeless spy, who didn't have the advantage of foresight that the Devs team had, fell victim to telling Lily how brave/amazing she was, without us ever seeing him see her be especially brave/strong/unique/etc. It was bad writing all around. To the point of Lily being one of the worst lead characters I've seen in years, and the performance had only a fraction to do with that. (Comparatively, say what you will about Westworld, but at least they show their characters do the things that earn them their respective reputations.)

---

As for Lily (the character and portrayal) I agree, it was not the strong suit of the show. I honestly wish they would have cut out any of the 'she's brave/unique/special' dialogue. It would have changed nothing but removed this exact critique of "show don't tell." Lily should not have been in any way conveyed as a prophetical HERO. This show was about prophecy but there were no heroes.

But I feel you're being too harsh and paying too much focus to Lily, because honestly, Alex Garland did a helluva of job showing in these 8 episodes. Maybe he left some to be desired with Lily, but he nailed Forest. His performance was nails, his emotional baggage felt real, and the way Garland was able to portray complex theories of quantum physics was awesome.

Quote:

---

As for the determinism stuff, we can argue 'til we're blue in the face, but IMO, what it all resulted in - the paradise/redo conceit - I not only found to be cheesy/saccharine as hell, but also frustrating on a thematic/moral level. If it worked for you, great. But it didn't work for me, at all. In fact, it really bugged me that Forest got his happy ending.

---

To be clear, Forest did NOT get his happy ending. His happy ending would be proving out his determinist model and recreating 1 world (paradise) with his exact family. In this ending, that didn't happen.The Forest we saw got a variation of his family back, but there are infinite forest's living in a version of hell (life without his family and the knowledge he can't escape it). Now, did any form of Forest "deserve" paradise? No, he was obviously a ruthless evil person, but the ending is beautifully complex and unique.

Quote:

---

Garland says of Forest, "What he is forced to accept in the end is that there will be versions of him that can experience [the death of his wife and daughter], but also versions that will not experience that. So he has a more poignant end result than the one he was looking for." That's all fine and good, but achieving his happy ending at the cost of so much death, violence, and heartbreak - even if was all ultimately reset or only one of many worlds - was bullsh*t. He was a broken man who couldn't learn to live with pain, so he broke a lot of other people in an effort to erase his pain. In that sense, narratively speaking, Forest being rewarded for his efforts felt cruel and cheap to me. (And if you want to argue that he had no control over his actions because of "determinism," then I'd argue that, in this instance, that brand of determinism makes for sh*ty storytelling.) Thematically/character-wise, the greater lesson learned, IMO, should have been to live with that pain and move on despite it, like everyone else who has ever lived and lost has had to do. The understanding that there's a version of himself out there experiencing a happy ending would have been so much better than "our" Forest actually getting that happy ending.

---

What makes you think that lesson wasn't delivered? And, I don't understand....so you're saying you wish Garland showed a version of Forest in his hell rather than in his paradise? Despite nothing else actually changing? Like, are there other shows/stories you like where the bad guy wins? If so, how are those not "bull****" (in your words) but this is?

Lol I'm nervous about Dark too. It's one of my all time favorite shows but idk how they're gonna pull off time travel + multi verse in 1 season.

I have the weirdest boner right now

Offerman knocked it out of the park, and I agree that Garland did a great job with the character in general (until the end)...

Quote:

---

To be clear, Forest did NOT get his happy ending. His happy ending would be proving out his determinist model and recreating 1 world (paradise) with his exact family. In this ending, that didn't happen.The Forest we saw got a variation of his family back, but there are infinite forest's living in a version of hell (life without his family and the knowledge he can't escape it). Now, did any form of Forest "deserve" paradise? No, he was obviously a ruthless evil person, but the ending is beautifully complex and unique.

---

... but this is splitting hairs when it comes to my overall point. Yes, Forest had to "settle" for a variation of his family, but getting even a variation of them back meant that he didn't have to live without them. He couldn't cope with the loss, caused a sh*t ton of suffering in an effort to reverse that loss, and still *basically* got his way in the end. He suffered no meaningful repercussions for his actions, and he didn't have to learn to live with grief or move on without his family. Having to "settle" for a version of his family that's 99.9999999999% like the family he lost isn't some big sacrifice, lesson, or character arc. It's a cheap, undeserved ending, one that didn't see Forest truly grow as a character in any way that mattered.

Quote:

---

What makes you think that lesson wasn't delivered? And, I don't understand....so you're saying you wish Garland showed a version of Forest in his hell rather than in his paradise? Despite nothing else actually changing? Like, are there other shows/stories you like where the bad guy wins? If so, how are those not "bull****" (in your words) but this is?

---

I know the lesson wasn't learned because I didn't see it learned or exemplified through Forest's actions. Quite the opposite, actually. And I'm confused by your "bad guy" statement. Are you saying Forest is the bad guy? Because I really didn't see him as the antagonist, per se. In my eyes, he was merely a character who wanted something, desperately so.

Either way, the entire point of storytelling is to depict a change in your character(s) (or, on the rare occasion that you don't, you strive to cause a change in your audience, even if via the smallest of realizations). And you depict that change not just by a character learning a lesson, but acting on the lesson learned. Even a "good" character who wants to save the world at the outset of a story should be markedly different in the end than he or she was in the beginning. That character still has to learn something, and that lesson learned has to be exemplified via his or her actions. Garland clearly set out to accomplish a change in Forest, I just felt that he chose the wrong one, and it was a minuscule "change" at that. If Forest did indeed learn a lesson that we didn't see him learn, he might as well not have learned it at all, narratively speaking. In the end, I didn't wish hell upon Forest, I just wish he learned a better, more meaningful lesson.

Thats what you want out of a story - not the definition of storytelling.

Talk to any great screenwriter, or pick up any book about screenwriting, and they'll all say the same thing...

Story is about a change of state.

This isn't something I "want." It's literally the core philosophy/purpose of screenwriting; to either show change in the characters/status quo or to elicit a "change" in the audience (ideally, of course, you want both).

Thesis. Antithesis. Synthesis.

Even Garland himself says that Forest had an arc (i.e. Forest is meant to change)...

Quote:

---

Was Forest's original plan always to project himself into the machine at the end?

It's always his plan, because this is how he gets to actually be with his daughter again, rather than just watch his daughter. The thing that changes for Forest is that he has adhered to a view of quantum mechanics that does not include many worlds. There's just one world, which means he can recreate his daughter exactly as she was, and rejoin his life exactly as it was without the car crash happening. What he is forced to accept in the end is that there will be versions of him that can experience that, but also versions that will not experience that. So he has a more poignant end result than the one he was looking for.

---

The purpose of the story was, indeed, to change both Forest and Lily (and Katie as well, to an extent). I'm simply saying that I didn't like the particular arc/change that Garland chose for Forest, because it moved Forest like two degrees from who he started out as, as opposed to the greater, more poignant change I would have liked to have seen. And yes, that particular detail of the change is what *I* want, but I feel that my reasoning is fairly sound. Despite putting a handful of people through pure hell, Forest still got what he wanted. That, and he didn't learn to live with or overcome grief. Instead, he cheated the system, so to speak, left a number of dead bodies in his wake (even if ultimately "undone" in another world), and saw no repercussions for his actions. He still got his family back. There's a smugness, for lack of a better word, to that situation that just didn't sit right with me.

Personally, I would have rather seen Forest's change/realization manifest in one of two ways...

1) The realization that what's gone is gone; that no matter how hard we try, or how bad we want them back, we can't resurrect those who we have loved and lost. Thus, the only way to be happy again is to move forward, and learn to live with grief, until it becomes something else.

- or -

2) The realization that you can't have it all; that if there is, indeed, a way to bring your loved ones back, it will come at a great cost; that you will have to sacrifice something else to achieve it.

Otherwise, what's the point? Instead, Forest's big hurdle is simply accepting that some versions of himself won't lose his family while other versions of himself will? All the while *he* gets *his* family back? What about that is satisfying from a character development perspective? It just fell flat for me. IMO, it would have been far more poignant and satisfying for "our" Forest to come to that same conclusion but NOT get his family back in the end; to be content with the fact that at least some version of himself out there is happy, and that maybe he can achieve that happiness too one day, but without cheating the system this time and causing so much pain to others in the process.

I dunno, just feels like you are upset that Forest got what he wanted and didn't have to give up that much in order to get it.

I can see why that wouldn't sit well with many viewers. That doesn't necessarily make it a bad story though -- simply one that people aren't necessarily punished for doing bad things.

Forest now has to live with know what he did in his dimension partially caused his wife and daughter to die. He doesn't get to escape that responsibility with determinism (what he wanted), he has to live with simulations of his wife and daughter. The viewer can theorize that in the future there will be some emotional fallout from that. A guy like Forest can only delude himself so long before his mind cannot be content with these simulated family members and he enters a hell of his own (living with a wife and child that view the world they are in as 100% real with him knowing they are not really *his* wife and child and the world isn't actually real).

It's a concept that's touched upon in a lot of somewhat recent media. Mal from Inception comes to mind -- she breaks mentally because she convinces herself her real world isn't really the real world... It also plays well in Fringe with Walter and his "son" that he essentially kidnapped from his alternate dimension family. If Dimension X family loses a young child but steals that child from Dimension Y family, can you live with that burden?

Ultimately I think Forest's happiness and smugness will be short-lived.

Proposition Joe said:

---

I dunno, just feels like you are upset that Forest got what he wanted and didn't have to give up that much in order to get it.

I can see why that wouldn't sit well with many viewers. That doesn't necessarily make it a bad story though -- simply one that people aren't necessarily punished for doing bad things.

---

I'm not upset that Forest got what he wanted and didn't have to give up that much in order to get it. It's less of an emotional reaction to Forest himself. I'm "upset" that Garland took me on an eight-hour journey with a character whose "change" in the end was treated as some grand revelation, when, in truth, the character hardly changed at all. For me, it's less about a character being "punished" and more about Garland treating Forest's change as some kind of next-level enlightenment, when it really wasn't. Forest is just cool with the math now, essentially, and that doesn't really do it for me on an emotional level, or line up with the way that revelation was "celebrated," for lack of a better word. Yes, I'm not a fan of Forest being rewarded for his harmful actions, but ultimately, my negative reaction is in regards to the narrative/story structure choices.

Quote:

---

Forest now has to live with know what he did in his dimension partially caused his wife and daughter to die. He doesn't get to escape that responsibility with determinism (what he wanted), he has to live with simulations of his wife and daughter. The viewer can theorize that in the future there will be some emotional fallout from that. A guy like Forest can only delude himself so long before his mind cannot be content with these simulated family members and he enters a hell of his own (living with a wife and child that view the world they are in as 100% real with him knowing they are not really *his* wife and child and the world isn't actually real).

It's a concept that's touched upon in a lot of somewhat recent media. Mal from Inception comes to mind -- she breaks mentally because she convinces herself her real world isn't really the real world... It also plays well in Fringe with Walter and his "son" that he essentially kidnapped from his alternate dimension family. If Dimension X family loses a young child but steals that child from Dimension Y family, can you live with that burden?

Ultimately I think Forest's happiness and smugness will be short-lived.

---

Ok, but that's a bit like one of the Star Wars sequels asking me to read a book to understand a plot point in the movie. Again, either show me this in the show itself - or - heavily hint that that's what to come. But this in-the-dark guess work of "Maybe one day Forest will [X]" is the definition of bad writing.

TCTTS said:

---

Offerman knocked it out of the park, and I agree that Garland did a great job with the character in general (until the end)...

Quote:

---

To be clear, Forest did NOT get his happy ending. His happy ending would be proving out his determinist model and recreating 1 world (paradise) with his exact family. In this ending, that didn't happen.The Forest we saw got a variation of his family back, but there are infinite forest's living in a version of hell (life without his family and the knowledge he can't escape it). Now, did any form of Forest "deserve" paradise? No, he was obviously a ruthless evil person, but the ending is beautifully complex and unique.

---

... but this is splitting hairs when it comes to my overall point. Yes, Forest had to "settle" for a variation of his family, but getting even a variation of them back meant that he didn't have to live without them. He couldn't cope with the loss, caused a sh*t ton of suffering in an effort to reverse that loss, and still *basically* got his way in the end. He suffered no meaningful repercussions for his actions, and he didn't have to learn to live with grief or move on without his family. Having to "settle" for a version of his family that's 99.9999999999% like the family he lost isn't some big sacrifice, lesson, or character arc. It's a cheap, undeserved ending, one that didn't see Forest truly grow as a character in any way that mattered.

Quote:

---

What makes you think that lesson wasn't delivered? And, I don't understand....so you're saying you wish Garland showed a version of Forest in his hell rather than in his paradise? Despite nothing else actually changing? Like, are there other shows/stories you like where the bad guy wins? If so, how are those not "bull****" (in your words) but this is?

---

I know the lesson wasn't learned because I didn't see it learned or exemplified through Forest's actions. Quite the opposite, actually. And I'm confused by your "bad guy" statement. Are you saying Forest is the bad guy? Because I really didn't see him as the antagonist, per se. In my eyes, he was merely a character who wanted something, desperately so.

Either way, the entire point of storytelling is to depict a change in your character(s) (or, on the rare occasion that you don't, you strive to cause a change in your audience, even if via the smallest of realizations). And you depict that change not just by a character learning a lesson, but acting on the lesson learned. Even a "good" character who wants to save the world at the outset of a story should be markedly different in the end than he or she was in the beginning. That character still has to learn something, and that lesson learned has to be exemplified via his or her actions. Garland clearly set out to accomplish a change in Forest, I just felt that he chose the wrong one, and it was a minuscule "change" at that. If Forest did indeed learn a lesson that we didn't see him learn, he might as well not have learned it at all, narratively speaking. In the end, I didn't wish hell upon Forest, I just wish he learned a better, more meaningful lesson.

---

1. Lol yes, Forest was most definitely a sympathetic villain, but he was a villain. He killed people. He allowed others to be killed. I don't think it's even a debate.

2. Despite your myopic rule of what every story is or should be about (which is just insane to me that you'd only appreciate a specific message and nothing else) how in the world did this not make YOU (the viewer) alter your perception or realization of anything?

3. Since you decided to get hung up on the definition of "bad guy", you never answered my question so i'll revise it: Is there a single story you like where justice is not dispensed (the "bad guy" wins)? Cuz you seem super rigid on this concept that a satisfying ending would only entail Forest getting "punished" (which to me feels like you're conflating with growth. You seem to think growth or change only comes in the form of "justice").

4. Forest did change. He witnessed Lily "defy" the prediction. He learned that in order to get the chance to have his family back, he'd have to accept that it was his choices that led to their death. That's about as fundamental of a lesson as i can think of.

Lastly, Stewart definitely experienced growth and dispensed lessons of his own. Forest claims Devs is a scientific tool created to study the past, like quantum archeology. And Stewart, having a genuine passion for history helps Devs accomplish their goal. But slowly Stewart realizes the Devs project isn't about discovery or curiosity, it's about one mans dangerous obsession with resurrecting his daughter.

Forest isn't motivated by curiosity to learn about the past and Stewart must realise the whole Devs project isn't a selfless act of historical exploration. It's a selfish quest for calculated control of the past, present, and future. The man who created an entire universe in a box isn't even interested in it's profound capacity for enlightenment. He's interested in its utility for resurrecting his deceased daughter. Stewart's biggest issue with Forest is his indifference to culture and history which doesn't fit well given the nature of the machines ability to study historical culture. Stewart isn't mad that Forest doesn't know anything about these things, he's upset that Forest isn't even curious about them. Forest won't even guess the name of the poet that Stewart recited. And the fact that Forest doesn't know isn't the issue, the issue is that he doesn't care. I believe Stewart killed Forest because of this realization (which you crave).

I already addressed a chunk of this in my follow up posts. Also, you're starting to come across as more offended by me than I am of Garland's efforts. For the record, I have no issue with what you, personally, did or didn't respond to. As I've said, if it all worked for you, great. But your tone is starting to veer into snippy, like you're personally offended by my reasoning. I enjoy the discussion, and will argue my points passionately, but in doing so, I'm trying to show that my issues are with the show, not with those who "oppose" me. There's a difference, and I'd appreciate it if you tried to make that distinction as well.

As for your "bad guy" question, I don't know how to answer that. Because for me, there are two types of bad guys in storytelling. There are the truly evil bad guys, who are nothing more than an obstacle for the hero to overcome, and then there are the more nuanced "bad guys," whose motivations you can understand and sometimes even sympathize with. I definitely saw Forest as the latter. He didn't want unlimited power or to murder millions or anything like that. He simply wanted his family back, which anyone can relate to. I disagreed with the means he took to achieve his goal, but I still found him to be sympathetic, which is why it's hard for me to outright label him as a "bad guy." It's not as simple as that in my mind.

Either way, again, I don't NEED justice or punishment. You talk of growth, which is the same as the "change" I've been referring to in terms of a traditional character arc. Whatever you want to call it, I simply wanted more of it for Forest. Whether that meant payment for his sins or not. In my additional posts, I felt I was pretty clear on this, and why the change you refer to wasn't enough for me.

Finally, I'm in complete agreement with everything you're saying about Stewart. 100%. But you're phrasing and bolding implies that I was in denial of that aspect or something, when Stewart's name hasn't been brought up once yet during this discussion.

A few things I'm having trouble understanding...

How is Forest "alive" in the simulation? Forest and Lily are dead. Their consciousness is over. I don't understand how this machine which is supposed to simulate the past and present is somehow able to put someone who just died's legitimate consciousness into it like an episode of Black Mirror.


Determinism is a pretty heady concept, one that admittedly I am having trouble with wrapping my brain around. I can accept the concept that everything is predetermined (I don't agree with it, but I enjoy the principle and philosophy behind it), however in this scenario, where they have successfully created a machine that shows the past and future... I don't understand how it's supposed to be shocking that Lily (or anyone) can change the said future.

If I didnt have access to the future, I can buy this theory (again, I don't agree with it, but I get there is science behind it). However, the moment you show me my future and get as specific as: "These are the exact words and actions you're going to say" - if I know them, then I can change them. Lily throwing the gun away, isn't some crazy reveal to me. Of course she can throw the gun away or say different words.


I'm sure it can be argued against and again, its where I'm having trouble with the idea... but as always, I love Garland putting these high-level concepts to film and doing so in such a beautiful way. Not his best, and some flaws which have been talked about on here to death. But overall another strong entry in his resume.


Also, he has now done - Deus and Ex Machina... coincidence? Just a private joke

Sex Panther said:

---

A few things I'm having trouble understanding...

How is Forest "alive" in the simulation? Forest and Lily are dead. Their consciousness is over. I don't understand how this machine which is supposed to simulate the past and present is somehow able to put someone who just died's legitimate consciousness into it like an episode of Black Mirror.


Determinism is a pretty heady concept, one that admittedly I am having trouble with wrapping my brain around. I can accept the concept that everything is predetermined (I don't agree with it, but I enjoy the principle and philosophy behind it), however in this scenario, where they have successfully created a machine that shows the past and future... I don't understand how it's supposed to be shocking that Lily (or anyone) can change the said future.

If I didnt have access to the future, I can buy this theory (again, I don't agree with it, but I get there is science behind it). However, the moment you show me my future and get as specific as: "These are the exact words and actions you're going to say" - if I know them, then I can change them. Lily throwing the gun away, isn't some crazy reveal to me. Of course she can throw the gun away or say different words.


I'm sure it can be argued against and again, its where I'm having trouble with the idea... but as always, I love Garland putting these high-level concepts to film and doing so in such a beautiful way. Not his best, and some flaws which have been talked about on here to death. But overall another strong entry in his resume.


Also, he has now done - Deus and Ex Machina... coincidence? Just a private joke

---

My issues exactly, which I've expressed, though I've been told multiple times that it was basically over my head or that I just didn't understand.

As for the Dues / Ex Machina thing, Garland has a pretty cool answer...

Quote:

---

When did the idea occur to you that the true title, Deus, would make this a pairing with Ex Machina?

You've already made the Chekhov's Gun allusion. Another theatrical one is deus ex machina. I had it in my head that there was a companion piece to Ex Machina. If Ex Machina is about a man who is trying to act as if he's God via technology and science, I thought there's a companion story, which is about people not trying to act as if they're God, but trying to create God. So this was the deus bit of the deus ex machina. Right from the beginning, that was the thought process. I knew that it might land like a bit of an "a-ha" reveal, which is kind of why Forest, when he does say it, he slightly throws it away and says it's a private joke because on some level, that's really all it is. It's like the big statue; it half made me laugh or smile, but it was built into the intention of the piece.

---

https://www.rollingstone.com/tv/tv-features/devs-creator-alex-garland-interview-980235/