That's cool, and I like that answer... Can't wait to see what Garland does next.

Sex Panther said:

---

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.

---

But she can't if determinism exists.

They touched upon that with her saying "ok cool, I just won't go to Devs"... Yet she ends up at Devs. Determinism in itself is a difficult concept to wrap one's head around -- it becomes doubly so when you throw in a device that can actually project the future.

But that's the concept one has to accept.

But ultimately it turns out determinism didn't exist, and she could throw the gun away.

Proposition Joe said:

---

Sex Panther said:

---

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.

---

But she can't if determinism exists.

They touched upon that with her saying "ok cool, I just won't go to Devs"... Yet she ends up at Devs. Determinism in itself is a difficult concept to wrap one's head around -- it becomes doubly so when you throw in a device that can actually project the future.

But that's the concept one has to accept.

But ultimately it turns out determinism didn't exist, and she could throw the gun away.

---

M.C. Swag seems to believe the exact opposite of this. He admits that it's left open-ended, but he still seems to believe that the universe of the show *is* deterministic, while you're saying it's not. I agree that it's cool that Garland executed the finale in such a way as to allow both interpretations, but that's also why I wouldn't go speaking in absolutes when it comes the science/logic of the show.

I'm not great at interpreting much of the stuff, but I took her throwing the gun as proof determinism (as defined in the show) did not exist.

Yes, both Lily and Forest still fell to their deaths, but determinism as it's defined in the show is down to the exact action and exact word. So while the eventual outcome was still the same, the fact that events leading up to that outcome changed means either determinism did not exist or the machine did not work.

I'm with you. Take it up with M.C Swag, if I'm reading his interpretation right.

Fair enough.

Just reading the back and forth here makes me appreciate the show even more. I was on pins and needles as they were walking towards the elevator, wondering if anybody was going to be able to change anything.

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.

---

Here's what you're missing. We SEE that Forest gets his family, but we don't see all the other iterations where he doesn't. He does mention it though. But I don't think we're supposed to think he learned a lesson. I see him as a far more symbolic character than one who's supposed to grow. He didn't grow, but he's also the rich and powerful character who thought he was basically a messiah.

TCTTS said:

---

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.

---

He DOES NOT get what he wanted. Having to understand that he made a choice and that this choice has infinite implications and branches is not at all what he wanted. Why? Because there is a deeper understanding that while what we see is happy, what we don't see is not. It's actually the inverse of show me don't tell me, which I can understand if you don't like, but I think the show was pretty innovative with how they tackled showing the multiverse outcomes in several scenes.

I can't argue with you if you feel that fell flat, but for me it was a really amazing way to talk about a really interesting physics/philosophical concept. Its the ultimate gray instead of black and white.

I acknowledged that the Forest we see is only one of many, and understand that there are other iterations who didn't get his family back in the end. I mentioned that and I get that. But the one we see is still "our" Forest - the one we followed across eight episodes, who has the memories of the events of those episodes, and I wanted that one to have more of an arc.

I guess my bigger problem is the multiverse as depicted on screen/in storytelling in general, as a conceit. If literally everything can and does happen, then nothing might as well have happened. Storytelling itself is rendered somewhat moot by the very concept. I find the concept of the multiverse fascinating scientifically, but not narratively, and that's basically what it boils down to.

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

---

Your first comment is one that I always think about when it comes to the idea of transferring one's self or copying oneself into a computer. its brought up in black mirror, shows like altered carbon, and even Star Trek (teleporter). I tend to think that you can't copy someone into a computer and its still them. Because what if you make another copy? They aren't in two places at once, you just have two copies but neither are the original.

I loved this show. Garland is amazing as a director and I hope he does more like this. There are 100% flaws, but its still amazing.

As a fan of Westword, I wish it was half as good as shows like this and Watchmen.

TCTTS said:

---

I acknowledged that the Forest we see is only one of many, and understand that there are other iterations who didn't get his family back in the end. I mentioned that and I get that. But the one we see is still "our" Forest - the one we followed across eight episodes, who has the memories of the events of those episodes, and I wanted that one to have more of an arc.

I guess my bigger problem is the multiverse as depicted on screen/in storytelling in general, as a conceit. If literally everything can and does happen, then nothing might as well have happened. Storytelling itself is rendered somewhat moot by the very concept. I find the concept of the multiverse fascinating scientifically, but not narratively, and that's basically what it boils down to.

---

It sure does render storytelling a bit moot in the classical way we think about it. If everything than can possibly happen does happen, well then it demands a rethinking of how we view, well, everything. I don't see that as a fault, but YMMV. I think this show did a better job of showing that than anything that has ever come before it.

Eh, I've spoken to that and disagree. You're technically right, I just didn't find that choice satisfying from a character arc standpoint.

TCTTS said:

---

Eh, I've spoken to that and disagree. You're technically right, I just didn't find that choice satisfying from a character arc standpoint.

---

I mean thats fair. I honestly can't imagine recommending this show to many people despite how much I loved it. I guess that's one reason I loved it even more. I felt like this was so damn out there and niche I was so happy someone I love as much as Garland made it. Honestly, felt like it was almost made just for me. (Like I know that isn't the case but you know what I mean)

I'm with you there. And I don't mean to sh*t on it as much as I have. I love Garland, and I love that this show was somehow allowed to exist. Huge chunks of it were really, really cool, and really, really well done, and I absolutely appreciate that there's a voice like Garland's out there tackling something so niche and weird and badass. I basically just didn't like the main character, and didn't like the very last choice made for Forest. Otherwise, I liked more than I disliked about the show, and am absolutely still looking forward to whatever Garland does next.

Quote:

---

Honestly, felt like it was almost made just for me.

---

Pretty much how I feel when recommending this to others (or deciding not to).

i keep saying i don't like sci fi but i'm 2 for 2 for loving something garland has done in devs and ex machina.

any recommendations for stuff that is close to this?

Great show, lead wasn't very good and the director just wanted to see her walk around in a tshirt and panties.

Which was fine.

Ending was corny but made sense.

ruddyduck said:

---

i keep saying i don't like sci fi but i'm 2 for 2 for loving something garland has done in devs and ex machina.

any recommendations for stuff that is close to this?

---

Annilihation is also by him. Plus Natalie Portman is in it.

ruddyduck said:

---

i keep saying i don't like sci fi but i'm 2 for 2 for loving something garland has done in devs and ex machina.

any recommendations for stuff that is close to this?

---

Annihilation is one of the weirdest movies you will ever watch, and I have no clue what happens in it, but I also absolutely love it and was completely mesmerized the whole time.

Finally got around to watching this. I really liked 99% but felt the ending left a lot to be desired. It makes little sense to me why literally no one else had the ability to go against "determinism" even when presented with the choices and outcomes.

I thought back to Arrival a lot when watching this. Different concept and intended subject matter but I felt like Arrival provides a much better setup for a discussion on free will.

Fenrir said:

---

I thought back to Arrival a lot when watching this. Different concept and intended subject matter but I felt like Arrival provides a much better setup for a discussion on free will.

---

Agreed. I think when Charlie Sheen realized what the alien's plans were with the greenhouse gases that he had to then make a choi... oh, nevermind.

Finally watched this and read through (ok skimmed) this thread. Pretty upset at myself for waiting so long because this was right up my alley.

Seems like most points have already been made in this thread, but the biggest negative I can add about this show is that I've always wanted to really invest my time in writing science fiction, but, I mean, I'll never get this good so what's the point. Is this show determining my future? Thanks Garland.