Ex Deus Machina (907)

[illuminarok]

I was saying the whole time that they should just beam the building into space - well after they found out which building it was. I was like... I wonder if they have enough power to beam the whole building... nah they must have tried that already or they can't or they would have, because it is so obvious. And then they did and I was like, man... that would have been my first choice.

[illuminarok]

Uh... no. A "Deus Ex Machina" is when a problem is resolved by someone other than the protagonist.

For instance, in "Lord of the Flies," the story is resolved because a ship comes in to rescue them. This is a "Deus Ex Machina," even though the presense of ships was already foreshadowed in the stories, because the characters themselves do no overcome the problems on the Island.

In the case of this episode, it's not a "Deus Ex Machina," because the characters activate the transporters on their own. One case that WOULD be a "Deus Ex Machina" would be the asteroid episode. After they fix the asteroid problem, the team is stranded in an inoperative space ship. Fortunately, the Tok'ra conveniently show up, and grant them assistance. In this example, the characters do not go back to earth on their own, but simply wait for help to come to them.

So what you're saying here is that in order for this to be a Deus Ex Machina the Asgard has to show up out of the blue and beam up the building out of nowhere for no apparent reason. Gotcha.

[IMForeman]

Uh... no. A "Deus Ex Machina" is when a problem is resolved by someone other than the protagonist.

No, it's not. A Deus Ex Machina is when the plot is resolved by some incredibly contrived, and completely unestablished plot device that just drops out of nowhere. If for instance, they painted themselves into a corner with this plot, and then at the last second, the Furlings showed up, hit the building with a beam that rendered the Naquadah inert... that would have been a Deus Ex Machina. If Sam had said "I know, we'll use the finklegruber!" Then grabs a device we've never seen before, and shoots the building with a blue light that vaporizes the detonator, that too would be a Deus ex Machina, even though Sam is the one who did it. The very definition of Deus Ex Machina is a quick fix out of a hopeless situation using something that was never established in the text, it has nothing to do with the protaganist not solving it.

-IMF

EDIT: And no, the Tok'ra showing up in "Fail Safe" was also not a Deus ex Machina, as their arrival was requested early in the episode, and the plot was resolved without their aid. Now, what Sam did in that episode kind of was a Deus ex Machina. The whole plot was them getting to the asteroid, dealing with a meteor shower, then planting a bomb and beating it before they ran out of time. Instead, that plan fails and they essentially push a magic button that resolves the whole thing.

[Schrodinger82]

Weird... Thats what this episode was. I mean the whole Jaffa thing on Earth seemed really stupid and made the Jaffa look stupid. I mean they were trying to do this coverly without the Tauri knowing so they send fully alienly armoured Jaffa (forhead showing and all) with STAFF WEAPONS to take out Baal. Wouldn't the more logical choice of been Tauri clothing with hats and zats instead and keeping their cargo ships cloaked?!

That was sort of the point, this is completely new territory for them. Do you think that the Earth based teams look any more covert when they go investigating off world?

In a related note, do the Jaffa really have any technology of their own, or do they just take whatever the Gou'ald use?

[Schrodinger82]

No, it's not. A Deus Ex Machina is when the plot is resolved by some incredibly contrived, and completely unestablished plot device that just drops out of nowhere.

If that's the case, then even classical Deus Ex Machina wouldn't be Deus Ex Machina. After all, how often did playwrights in Greek culture introduce "unestablished Gods" in their stories? Pretty much never. The audience is not only aware of the mythology involved coming into the production, but the characters will often evoke pleas to the Gods throughout the story. For instance, "Hypolytus" ends in a Deus Ex Machina when Artemis shows up, even though Artemis is heavily mentioned throughout the story.

Obviously, your definition is flawed.

For instance, if I write a greek tragedy where one of the characters says "praise Zeus," and then in the end Zeus steps in and kills all the bad guys through no effort on the heroes part, then I'm sure that most people would agree that "Yes, it is still a deus ex machina." Your definition, however, would not.

If for instance, they painted themselves into a corner with this plot, and then at the last second, the Furlings showed up, hit the building with a beam that rendered the Naquadah inert... that would have been a Deus Ex Machina.

Yes it would, regardless of whether or not the Furlings were actually mentioned.

If Sam had said "I know, we'll use the finklegruber!" Then grabs a device we've never seen before, and shoots the building with a blue light that vaporizes the detonator, that too would be a Deus ex Machina, even though Sam is the one who did it.

Plot hole, yes. Deus Ex, no.

Really, though, it depends on a number of circumstances, such as why Carter didn't use the device earlier.

The very definition of Deus Ex Machina is a quick fix out of a hopeless situation using something that was never established in the text, it has nothing to do with the protaganist not solving it.

Really?

The "very definition," you say?

And where, pray tell, are you pulling this "very definition" from?

[IMForeman]

If that's the case, then even Deus Ex Machina wouldn't be Deus Ex Machina. After all, how often did playwrights in Greek culture introduce "unestablished Gods" in their stories? Pretty much never. The audience is not only aware of the mythology involved coming into the production, but the characters will often evoke pleas to the Gods throughout the story.
Obviously, your definition is flawed.
Yes it would, regardless of whether or not the Furlings were actually mentioned.
Plot hole, yes. Deus Ex, no.
Really, though, it depends on a number of circumstances, such as why Carter didn't use the device earlier.
Really?
The "very definition," you say?
And where, pray tell, are you pulling this "very definition" from?

Well, here's a handy one, right here.... and funnily enough, it agrees with my take on it.

Deus ex machina (plural dei ex machinis) is Latin for "god from the machine" and is a calque from the Greek "από μηχανής θεός", (pronounced "apo mekhanes theos"). It originated with Greek and Roman theater, when a mechane would lower a god or gods onstage to resolve a hopeless situation. Thus, "god comes from the machine". The phrase deus ex machina has been extended to refer to any resolution to a story which does not pay due regard to the story's internal logic and is so unlikely it challenges suspension of disbelief, and presumably allows the author to end it in the way he or she wanted. In short, a deus ex machina is a quick fix in a story.

It doesn't say a word about whether the main character does it or not. It's all about resolving a plot with a quick contrivance that had nothing to do with the central plot.

Let's see another one :

Main Entry: de·us ex ma·chi·na
Pronunciation: 'dA-&s-"eks-'mä-ki-n&, -'ma-, -"nä; -m&-'shE-n&
Function: noun
Etymology: New Latin, a god from a machine, translation of Greek theos ek mEchanEs
1 : a god introduced by means of a crane in ancient Greek and Roman drama to decide the final outcome
2 : a person or thing (as in fiction or drama) that appears or is introduced suddenly and unexpectedly and provides a contrived solution to an apparently insoluble difficulty

Again, my definition seems to be the more apposite. Again, the main character is not mentioned in regard to resolution.

Another :

deus ex ma·chi·na Audio pronunciation of "deus ex machina" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (ks mäk-n, -nä, mk-n)
n.

1. In Greek and Roman drama, a god lowered by stage machinery to resolve a plot or extricate the protagonist from a difficult situation.
2. An unexpected, artificial, or improbable character, device, or event introduced suddenly in a work of fiction or drama to resolve a situation or untangle a plot.
3. A person or event that provides a sudden and unexpected solution to a difficulty.

That one also fits my definition better, but does lend a little bit of validation to yours.

Does that do the trick for you, or shall I find more?

-IMF

[Schrodinger82]

EDIT: And no, the Tok'ra showing up in "Fail Safe" was also not a Deus ex Machina, as their arrival was requested early in the episode, and the plot was resolved without their aid.

TEAL'C: Perhaps the Tok'ra could be of assistance.

HAMMOND: Unfortunately they've been on the run since the Goa'uld attacked their base at Revanna. We've already sent a message asking for their help but so far there hasn't been any reply.

So what, precisely, prevented them from coming earlier? Or even replying, for that matter. Obviously, something was interfering with their communications that served as an obstacle. Since we have no idea of what cleared up that obstacle, and since the characters didn't solve that obstacle on their own, it is therefore a Deus Ex.

Again, Lord of the Flies is a classical example. Most literary theorist will cite it as an example of Deus Ex, even though they make frequent references to trying to signal ships earlier in the book.

Now, what Sam did in that episode kind of was a Deus ex Machina. The whole plot was them getting to the asteroid, dealing with a meteor shower, then planting a bomb and beating it before they ran out of time. Instead, that plan fails and they essentially push a magic button that resolves the whole thing.

No, Sam solved that problem through deductive reasoning.

In fact, this is a rather classical example of it. For instance, in a movie, a character is kidnapped, drugged, and wakes as prisoner on a deserted Island. After a harrowing story where he fights off the bad guys, he now has to figure out a way to get off the Island. After much searching, he finally finds a boat, and begins to set sail. Now, is this a Deus Ex Machina?

Maybe so -- until you realize that if that boat hadn't been there, then they probably wouldn't have been on that Island in the first place. Hence, it's not only logical to have a way off the Island, but expected. The solution is therefore implied through the problem itself.

In this case, Carter looked at the asteroid and said, "If the Asteroid isn't native to this solar system, then how did it get she?" She then concluded that it had to be carried via a hyperspace window. If a hyperspace window can be used to present the problem, then a hyperspace can be used to present the solution. The solution is implied within the problem.

As for the "magic button," we already know that the ship is capable of opening a hyperdrive. That's how the ship got to Earth in the first place, and being that it's a "cargo ship" and all, it would be pretty useless without one. So how exactly is it a deus ex? The solution to the problem was already their. The resolution was the fact that Carter had to piece it all together first.

So, yeah. Wrong on both counts.

[fair_nymph]

I found this ep to be one of the better eps of the season, so far. It was a pleasant surprise, and I found myself enjoying it much more than most S9 eps.

Likes:

No mention of the Orii -- yes! The Orii bore me to death. They just seem so cheesy and fake and also don't really have any obvious motives for their evil behaviour. And the 'hallowed are the Orii' chant I find so banal, I want to knock myself unconscious every time I hear it. I think the Orii are a good concept but the way that they have manifested and been developed is severely flawed, which is a real shame IMO.

Ba'al return pleased me greatly. He's by far my favourite Goa'uld and one of my favourite characters on the show overall. And he's so darn sexy! *drools* He's also just an incredible actor IMO and plays a bad guy so vividly. My thought about the blonde woman and him (if she isn't hosting the original Ba'al symbiote which is a good theory) -- is that her reasoning for helping him out is so that she can have wild fun with all the extremely hot Ba'al clones. It would be reason enough for me!

I'm not a hardcore shipper but I was pretty gleeful over Sam's 'not exactly' -- even though it IS absolutely ambiguous, I choose to interpret as meaning she is dating Jack. I do hope they follow up on this though, one way or the other, I mean it's been SO DRAGGED OUT, can we just have some sort of FINALITY, no matter what it is? *sigh*

I liked how the storyline was linked back to the Trust -- I'd sort of forgotten about that but it was good to see it addressed again.

I also appreciate the female Jaffa -- I think she's one of the best female Jaffa we've seen, in terms of not being skimpily dressed and having a solid character. I hope we see more of her. I'm not fully sure what her deal is yet, but it will be interesting to find out where exactly her loyalties lie.

Dislikes:

Gerak. He really bothers me, although he bothered me less in this episode than he usually does. The way he talks sounds just so affected to my ears, and makes it seem like the actor isn't doing a very good job. Maybe it's also just that I find his character rather lacking in depth and dimension. Or maybe it's just that I am SO BORED of the Jaffa storyline and would be ecstatic if we never heard about the Jaffa ever again. I simply don't care; there's so much else I'd rather see.

Who exactly is commanding SG-1? It's really annoying me that TPTB are not being clear on this matter. If it's not Sam, they're going to have a hell of a time justifying it to the viewers. She is so much more deserving of the command position than Mitchell. I have to say I will interpret it as serious sexism, either on the SGC/air force's part and/or TPTB's part. I suppose it is a VAGUELY possible that Sam was offered the position but turned it down because she didn't want to command -- except that I don't think Sam would turn it down. She's always been so ambitious.

Questions:

Sort of off topic, but what ever happened to Istha?

Would the Ba'al clones REALLY get along? Ba'al doesn't seem like the type who likes to share power, even with carbon copies of himself. And I would think each clone would be out for himself, and gladly stab another clone in the back to further his own cause.

I'm presuming the Ba'al clones were made in the way that Anna was made in the ep 'Resurrection' -- so there isn't actually a discrete symbiote inside the clones that can jump out of the body -- symbiote and body are integrated and mixed and can't be separated. Or at least that was the impression I had from 'Resurrection'. But I wonder how this 'fusing' that occurs during cloning affects the voice and eye-glowing abilities?

Regarding the building being beamed up...I always thought that with beaming up to the ship, you could only beam into the ship. I.e that if you wanted to beam someone/something up, you'd have to beam it into the ship first before you could beam it elsewhere -- i.e. you can't just beam a person from one spot to another without going through the ship. Obviously, the building wouldn't fit. Plothole, or am I missing something?

[IMForeman]

[i]Lotta jabbering snipped...

So, yeah. Wrong on both counts.

I'm gonna ignore the snide attitude. I really don't feel like getting into it.

Parte the firste: The Tok'ra showing up is not a Deus Ex Machina because the central plot to Fail Safe, ie "stopping the asteroid from hitting the Earth" was resolved without their help. If SG-1 did all they could to stop the Asteroid, and failed, then at the last second Jalen of the Tok'ra showed up and stopped it, that can be considered a Deus Ex Machina, though a somewhat weakened one due to their having been referenced earlier in the story. The Tok'ra not responding was not the central issue, and SG-1 didn't have to do anything to resolve it. The Tok'ra are well known for being mercurial and unreliable. As it was, SG-1 stopped the asteroid without the help of the Tok'ra, and the Tok'ra only showed to provide a capstone at the end.

Parte the seconde: The Naquadah nature of asteroid, and it's hyperspace tow were only established moments before Sam came up with the brilliant plan to save the day. It served to not only stymie the actual resolution they had been building throughout the episode, but also allowed for a resolution that Sam really plucked from thin air. It's arguably a Deus Ex Machina. It's arguably not. I'll tell you what. I'll concede you this one. It's totally debatable on this point. The Tok'ra... nope, won't yield that one.

-IMF

[Schrodinger82]

Well, here's a handy one, right here.... and funnily enough, it agrees with my take on it.

It doesn't say a word about whether the main character does it or not. It's all about resolving a plot with a quick contrivance that had nothing to do with the central plot.

And last I checked, the "central plot" revolves around the actions of the main character. That's sort of what makes them the "main characters" to begin with. Do you know of any "central plots" that DON'T resolve around the main characters?

I'm also looking for the part asserting your main claim, which was "The very definition of Deus Ex Machina is a quick fix out of a hopeless situation using something that was never established in the text."

For instance, if a hero ends the story by pushing the villain out of a tall building, then it fits both criteria. It is a quick fix, and it relies on something that was never established in the text. But I seriously doubt that anyone would claim that it was a "deus ex machina."

Not to mention the fact that your definition of Deus Ex Machina would omit the very source material from which the phrase derive.

Let's see another one :

Again, my definition seems to be the more apposite.

Again, your definition would omit most classical examples of it.

Again, the main character is not mentioned in regard to resolution.

Really? Let's look closer, shall we?

"1: a god introduced by means of a crane in ancient Greek and Roman drama to decide the final outcome"

Question: Is the God a main character, or is the God separate of the main character?

Because if the God is separate of the main character, then yes, this definition would imply that a Deus Ex machina is when problem is not solved by a main character, but rather by someone else (e.g., god).

If the God IS the main character, then it still would not be a deus ex machina. Why? Becuase the problem still being solved by a main character! For instance, the "Homeric Hymm to Demeter" is a story that places an actual God at the center of the story. Of course, it's still not considered a Deus Ex Machina, because the main character Demeter manages to find her own resolution, rather than assigning it to someone else. "Oh God, You Devil," is likewise not a a "Deus Ex Machina," even though the problem is solved by George Burns playing God. Why? Because God is not an outside force in this story, but rather, the main character.

"2: a person or thing (as in fiction or drama) that appears or is introduced suddenly and unexpectedly and provides a contrived solution to an apparently insoluble difficulty"

So, just out of character, exactly how often are the "main characters" introduced suddenly and unexpectantly at the very end?

Another :

That one also fits my definition better, but does lend a little bit of validation to yours.

"1. In Greek and Roman drama, a god lowered by stage machinery to resolve a plot or extricate the protagonist from a difficult situation."

That's pretty much my definition exactly. Someone outside of the protagonist solves the protagonist's problem.

"2. An unexpected, artificial, or improbable character, device, or event introduced suddenly in a work of fiction or drama to resolve a situation or untangle a plot."

Key phrase there, "to resolve a situation or untangle a plot." In other words, someone else outside of the main character solves the problem.

3. A person or event that provides a sudden and unexpected solution to a difficulty.

Again, pretty much exactly what I said.

Does that do the trick for you, or shall I find more?

Looks like you'll have to if you want to continue with this line of argument.

It should be noted, BTW, that most of the examples in the wikipedia article are rendered invalid by your definition, but not my own. For instance:

In Stephen King's novel The Stand, a minor character who has gone insane in the desert returns to Las Vegas with an atomic bomb, which is set off by an electrical charge taking the shape of a hand and destroying the city. The characters in Boulder believe the charge to have been the "Hand of God." Many of King's novels have a deus ex machina ending. In the Peter Straub/Stephen King novel The Talisman, one of the characters is said to be driving a deus ex machina.

Many comic book characters can be seen as walking dei ex machinis. Wolverine is viewed by many fans of the X-Men comics as such. His mutant powers include an incredibly fast healing ability (making him nearly invincible), enhanced senses, and a skeleton of adamantium, a fictional indestructible metal. Lifeguard, also from the X-Men, is widely considered by her detractors to be the ultimate deus ex. Her mutant ability is to manifest any necessary ability to save lives, which makes her a quick fix for the writers if any characters are stuck in a tight spot. Perhaps the most famous superhero to be labelled a deus ex is Superman himself, as his writers had a tendency to inflate his powers over the years to constantly trump his previous successes. Kryptonite, Superman's only weakness, then became a sort of reverse deus ex machina, which would be called in whenever the writer wanted to explore a conflict which he didn't want Superman to resolve in one punch.

In Isaac Asimov's I, Robot it is used as a part of the description of the relationship between humans and robots.

The character of Puck ends William Shakespeare's "A Midsummer Night's Dream" with a decidedly deus ex machina flair.

Stephen King's Dark Tower series is loaded with DEMs, but they are accepted as it is said that Ka, or Fate, has manipulated events and placed them in the protagonists' path, at one point in the final book a note from King himself to one of his characters is included to save the lives of Roland and Suzannah.

etc., etc., etc.

[IMForeman]

Yadda... yadda... and yadda

Whatever, man. If you want to be a jerk about it. Like I said, I don't want to get into it. It must hurt, reaching like that, but whatever. Believe what you want to believe. I've said what I think, and you're just not worth more time. I'm gonna go talk to a slightly more stimulating conversationalist.

-IMF
"Hello, wall."

[Schrodinger82]

Parte the firste: The Tok'ra showing up is not a Deus Ex Machina because the central plot to Fail Safe, ie "stopping the asteroid from hitting the Earth" was resolved without their help.

"In Greek and Roman drama, a god lowered by stage machinery to resolve a plot or extricate the protagonist from a difficult situation?"

Now, was being stranded with no way to get back to earth and only a few hours worth of air a difficult situation? Yes or no?

If SG-1 did all they could to stop the Asteroid, and failed, then at the last second Jalen of the Tok'ra showed up and stopped it, that can be considered a Deus Ex Machina, though a somewhat weakened one due to their having been referenced earlier in the story. The Tok'ra not responding was not the central issue, and SG-1 didn't have to do anything to resolve it.

Yes, which is EXACTLY WHY IT QUALIFIES as a Deus Ex. Because the problem was resolved for them.

The Tok'ra are well known for being mercurial and unreliable.

Which I guess would make them what wikipedia would call a "walking dei ex machinis"

Parte the seconde: The Naquadah nature of asteroid, and it's hyperspace tow were only established moments before Sam came up with the brilliant plan to save the day.

Yes, because up until then, she assumed that the asteroid was a "natural disaster." In fact, EVERYONE assumed it was a natural disaster, which is why the Asgard weren't allowed to help them.

Upon closer inspection, she discovered that gravity was greater than expected, which resulted in further investigation, which lead to the realization that the asteroid was not natural. Once she realized that the asteroid wasn't natural, she realized that Gou'ald technology must have been used to create the problem, and therefore it could be used to solve it.

Again, it's deductive reasoning.

I mean, by your logic, every mystery show ever created is a Deus Ex Machina, because the hero doesn't come up with a solution as to who the killer is until the very end.

It's arguably a Deus Ex Machina. It's arguably not. I'll tell you what. I'll concede you this one. It's totally debatable on this point. The Tok'ra... nope, won't yield that one.

Too bad, because the very definitions you provided disagree with you on this one.

[Sir Ruff]

Also who noticed Teal'c's great line

Spoiler:

plot a course for the far side of the moon

And the way he said it. That sounded so 50's sci fi. Got to love that

[the dancer of spaz]

Also who noticed Teal'c's great line

Spoiler:

plot a course for the far side of the moon

And the way he said it. That sounded so 50's sci fi. Got to love that

Yes! I cracked up and absolutely NO ONE in the room with me knew why. I just thought that that must've been such a funny line to write and say.

[Nessva]

For the first time this season I actually liked SG1 better than Atlantis. Which was a nice feeling. For some reason I found a lot of it funny and sat there giggling - like in the Jaffa fight in the offices. Wish something like that would have livend up some of the jobs I've had this year!!! I liked seeing Ba'al again, but that's just becuase the Ori irritate me. I think this episode was the closest we have had so far to it being like the 'old' SG1, a nice action episode with all the team in it. And I was inrigued by Sam saying she wasn't exactly single again...