They’ve just opened the Arc of Covenant. You expect God to come down and sort everything out
Seriously, this one made sence to me, not even having read any of the bible. I’m not sure why.
War of the Worlds
It was very unsatisfying at the time, but it was about the only ending that would (1) keep humanity alive but (2) show that we had had no chance, and could easily be destroyed.
I use this one as a quintessential deus ex machine, but it does sort of make sense, if you don’t want humanity to solve anything themselves.
It does make sense. In the Bible, God once showed Himself to Moses, but He didn’t show His face because seeing the face of God would have killed Moses.
Still, Raiders of the Lost Ark is a quintessential Deus Ex Machina, since it literally does involve God stepping in to eliminate the bad guys.
Spielberg is generally reckoned the king of deus ex machina. I think that’s a bit unfair in some cases, although I’ve not seen AI. Private Ryan is the most blatant; the Jurassic Park movies both end pretty randomly but you can’t really expect anything else. ET, Close Encounters and Taken all depend on aliens showing up and saving the day, but that’s hardly unexpected within the plot.
Okay, yes, there’s lots of you that’ll pile on and say, no, it was established at the very beginning of the movie that there was a car wreck, and it just so happens that it’s close to John’s hospital, and it just so happens that his son needs a new heart (??? I think that’s the organ), and it just so happens that the young lady in the car wreck was killed and that she’s the exact type and tissue match to his son, and it just so happens that the computer makes the match and gets the information to the hospital in the nick of time just before John kills himself to save his son.
Although it was set up right at the beginning of the movie, it still sucked. The young woman’s death was a convenient way for the filmmaker to avoid making a really powerful and interesting statement, instead going for the predictable and sappy hollywood happy ending. I kept yelling at the screen, “Have some courage, man! Make John go through with it!” Nope. He didn’t even have the message get there too late, which also would’ve been interesting. Ick.
I did indeed mean the whole third act. I cannot believe Kubrik or Aldis would have come up with this. Having said that, I haven’t done any research - was it in the original book?
The movie makes a hell of a lot more sense if you think of those beings at the end as advanced mecha. And as much as it seems a Speilberg invention, I think that they have that Kubrickian touch (think of the ending to 2001).
Snickers: I think it’s obvious in John Q that the car wreck is a match, and the woman who dies is going to be the donor for John’s son. Otherwise there’s no reason to show the car wreck scenes. The screenwriter probably realized that no one would believe “Hey, a woman died in a car wreck a couple hours ago and it happens that she’s a match for your son’s heart – should we operate now and let someone who’s been on the list for six months die because he doesn’t have a well-armed parent to take hostages for them?”… so the car-wreck scenes had to be added, however artificially, to explain how a matching heart arrives at just the right instant.
I agree that the ending of that movie is entirely improbable and unrealistic… and the tirade against health insurance reminded me of Steven Seagal’s anti-Big Oil rant at the end of On Deadly Ground. In Real Life, it wouldn’t matter that John was a nice guy, that he didn’t kill anyone, that his gun wasn’t loaded, or that he was doing it for his son. In all likelihood, he would have gone to jail for 20 or 30 years, if he hadn’t been shot (the most likely scenario, I think).
Incidentally, the hospital in John Q is Toronto General Hospital, which has since undergone extensive renovation. I happened to walk through the area when production was underway. It’s actually the only time that I’ve actually seen a movie that was shot in Toronto, and I’ve seen literally dozens of production crews filming various things here.
Spielberg, all the way. I don’t even know how you could ask.
In fairness, he may have done it at the studio’s request for a happy ending; the film is complete without the last act. OTOH, Spielberg also seems to demand happy endings, so possibly not.
Spielberg’s such a giant in the movie world, that I doubt ANY studio would demand or even suggest a change to his script. Well, maybe Dreamworks might.
Nope. You see the detectives at various points in the film. They actually start out on the trail of the knights when one of them (Bevedere, I think?) randomly kills a guy who’s doing a documentary on the story of Arthur and his knights. That in itself is pretty odd, but it’s not DEM, since it was touched upon earlier.
If memory serves, the previously unknown and unmentioned escape pod (discovered by Gypsy in a crate of Hamdingers) that allowed Joel to escape from the Satellite of Love was named the “Deus Ex Machine”.
They say that the Utility Belt became such a joke, that the writers of the comic now keep an itemized list of the stuff Batman keeps in his belt, to keep a lid on the belt-of-infinite-holding phenomenon. Any oddball items must be properly set up within the story (ie, Batman must be able to foresee a need for such an object)
Also, I have to opine that the ending of Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets was indeed a Deus Ex Machina. There was never any indication that the Sorting Hat held a weapon, or anything else for that matter.
Nope- the bad guys eliminate the bad guys. Their own greed and stupidity cause them to open the Arc even after being warned. Basically the box is one big booby trap. There is no active intervention. Further, the dangers and shear power of the Arc are well established by the end of the movie. So no DEX there.
The Stand is still the cleanest example provided. King literally uses the hand of God (after the big two pretty much acted through proxies the entire 800+ page book). Also the cites to the absurdist humor of Monty Python or Mel Brooks does not seem right. The interventions were meant to be humorous or even mocking of the DEX convention.
In Len Deighton’s short story, “Brent’s Deus Ex Machina”, a British bomber pilot (Brent) is suffering badly from nerves. The squadron shrink thinks he’s a coward, and explains to Brent that he (Brent) wants a deus ex machina, but that this is real life and it just doesn’t happen. Brent then christens his bomber “Deus ex machina”, to spite the shrink. When asked by the rest of the squadron the meaning of the name, he replies that his bomber is “an unlikely device for ending things”. This gets him accepted as the squadron wag, and helps him recover his courage.
Where was the DEM in AI?