Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="pezagent" data-source="post: 1290390" data-attributes="member: 15568">Fine, we'll play by dictionary. Can you explain how the eagles are unexpected, artificial, improbable, or how they were introduced suddenly when they were introduced in the first film? Can you explain what part of the plot they are resolving?Let's try this one:Were the eagles unexpected? How else would you suggest Frodo and Sam get off the mountain? Like nobody here saw this coming? Please. Was it a sudden solution? Did Frodo and Sam not accept their fate and did not enough time pass before the eagles appeared--with Gandalf? Did not enough time pass before one could actually realize that the eagles were an obvious choice to appear to save them from their fate, not the plot itself?(If one can't see this term is erroneous by now I'm not sure there's any hope... <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f61b.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":p" title="Stick out tongue    :p"  data-smilie="7"data-shortname=":p" /> )And to get deep into it, Frodo and Sam have reached their end--they actually think they're going to die. They have accepted their fate. If they were actually looking for a way off Mt. Doom I might actually agree that it was contrived and ill-suited--almost convenient, but as they have accepted their fate it is yet another mark that the story has ended. Was there not enough character development and "bonding" thoughout the film to suggest Gandalf would come up with a solution to find them and bring them to safety?Please.Again, because one cannot suspend disbelief and accept the eagles as is does not give one justification to point out literary fallacy.People seem to enjoy pointing out the dictionary to defend their POV, however, in this case I find this to be trite. To quote Lisa Simpson: "Yes, I'm going to marry a carrot." How about quoting an established literary critic or professor on the matter? A dictionary defines terms within the context they are meant to exist within--what I mean is, I agree with the definition, however I think people are taking it too far out of context. If we like, Webster's offers a more precise and acceptable definition:1 : a god introduced by means of a crane in ancient Greek and Roman drama to decide the final outcome2 : 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 difficultyOnce again, how the hell would you get Frodo and Sam off the mountain? If you didn't expect this outcome, what did you expect? This is a perfectly acceptable solution to their problem--and again, as they had accepted their fate, they didn't even have a problem to begin with. Only the viewer, the self-serving audience, wishes them to survive. This, in itself, should be enough to let one know that deus ex machina is not at work here.This is the point I'm trying to get across, a point that's being passed over for the sake of sentiment. Which is not all bad--it means the narrative did it's job and allowed the audience to be more concerned with the characters than the actual plot. Which, considering the plot, was most likely Tolkien's intention. Perhaps this definition might help those in need of mental assistance:I liked this definition because it includes the word clumsy, which is how one should recognize it. Clumsy. The author doesn't know what to do, so an act of God, some divine intervention, steps in and relieves the hero of any redeemable action. That is deus ex machina. Not some misunderstood or inconsistent or subjective bit of narrative, be it cinematic or literary. The thing about deus ex machina is that you'll know it when you see it--it's obvious, blatant--and there wouldn't be a debate over it. If you want to see dues ex machina in action, rent a copy of Magnolia. The only film I know of to date that takes the concept literally and uses it on purpose. For those who haven't seen the movie I won't reveal what happens.And as I seem to have exhausted this conversation for the sake of argument, to those who still disbelieve, I can only say this: bite me./johnny <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />PS. I have a pet theory that the defense of deus ex machina comes from it's improper use presented in the DMG. I was very annoyed a few weeks ago when I purchased a copy and saw it used  in the Adventures section. Used in this manner I believe it's become more of a shibboleth to gamers who now seem to use it frivolously.</blockquote>

Verification