From writer/director Alex Garland (Ex Machina, Annihilation), the first two episodes of FX's Devs debuted on Hulu today. I just finished the first episode and it's damn good. VERY Ex Machina in tone/vibe, with an incredibly gripping mystery at the heart of the show. I'll check out the second episode tonight and then each of the next six episodes debut weekly, on Thursdays, for the next six weeks.

With Disney buying Fox, and taking control of Hulu, Devs also marks the first FX series to debut exclusively on Hulu that won't be broadcast on the FX network itself, with more series to follow the same format/roll out. Not to mention, as of this week, FX's entire library has also been moved to Hulu. So, as someone who never had a Hulu account before last month, between Devs, the new High Fidelity series, FX's library, and everything else Hulu/FX has in the pipeline, I am very much a subscriber now...

Just saw the email from Hulu. Was mildly interested at first but didn't catch that the ex machina director was involved. Definitely want to watch now.

All in. Just finished episode two and this show is super weird/cryptic/awesome. Hoping more people join in because this looks to be a great one to discuss.

TCTTS said:

---

All in. Just finished episode two and this show is super weird/cryptic/awesome. Hoping more people join in because this looks to be a great one to discuss.

---

Me too. I really enjoyed Ex Machina because of the visuals and the story telling. Alex Garland is like techie M. Knight Shyamalan.

I have no idea where the story is going to end up at this point, which is great.

Some SPOILERS but trying to be vague.










Trying to figure out how the guy proving determinism at least 10 seconds out and how it ties into the image of Jesus and Amaya that offerman saw?

Offerman said he wasn't a fan of multiverses but can't help but wonder if some variation of it plays into the determinism computer they are building and even the video of the boyfriend and the fire.















End spoilers

Just like they can "predict" the future with the quantum tech, I think they can also "see" the past with it as well. In the same way the tech uses determinism going forward, I think it can go backward as well. I think it's basically providing a way for Offerman's character to simply observe his daughter in the past, in the most rudimentary way possible. My guess is that his ultimate goal is to somehow be able to "rebuild" or "reconstruct" the past in total - like he was saying - and maybe even interact with it? I could be completely off, though.

Btw, after this weekend I think we can lose the spoiler tags.

Saxsoon said:

---

Always in for Garland

---

Btw, the android in this gif is also the lead in Devs.

TCTTS said:

---

Just like they can "predict" the future with the quantum tech, I think they can also "see" the past with it as well. In the same way the tech uses determinism going forward, I think it can go backward as well. I think it's basically providing a way for Offerman's character to simply observe his daughter in the past, in the most rudimentary way possible. My guess is that his ultimate goal is to somehow be able to "rebuild" or "reconstruct" the past in total - like he was saying - and maybe even interact with it? I could be completely off, though.

---

This reminds me of a series of books I read last year

https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/18964929

Even the whole thing about a qbit for every particle was a similar constraint through other technobabble in the book.

Wow, that's pretty interesting.

TCTTS said:

---

Wow, that's pretty interesting.

---

I don't think it is a riff on it by any means, but what you referenced does seem like a possibility with the two images shown and his obsessive nature of his daughter.

To be clear a qbit Wasn't a constraint in the book, it was something like the quantity of a special carbon allowed it to spread the modeling capabilities exponentially outwards

Saxsoon said:

---

TCTTS said:

---

Just like they can "predict" the future with the quantum tech, I think they can also "see" the past with it as well. In the same way the tech uses determinism going forward, I think it can go backward as well. I think it's basically providing a way for Offerman's character to simply observe his daughter in the past, in the most rudimentary way possible. My guess is that his ultimate goal is to somehow be able to "rebuild" or "reconstruct" the past in total - like he was saying - and maybe even interact with it? I could be completely off, though.

---

This reminds me of a series of books I read last year

https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/18964929

Even the whole thing about a qbit for every particle was a similar constraint through other technobabble in the book.

---

That idea comes from the actual idea of determinism and what it would take to use that determinism to make predictions. So it comes from the real theoretical discussions about quantum determinism.

If the universe is deterministic, you might have to be able to simulate the interactions between all of the particles in the universe in order determine what is going to happen in the future (and by extension to roll the simulation backwards.)

Still technobabble, but it's not something that Sci fi authors made up.

Damn, this show is fantastic so far. Alex Garland is a must watch for me on anything he does, and he continues to deliver.

New favorite show for sure

I am listed that I found this show after the first week. Now I have to wait to find out what happens. I am in love with this thing. Alternate universe me that went to MIT instead of A&M would fit perfectly into this world.

Saxsoon said:

---

Some SPOILERS but trying to be vague.










Trying to figure out how the guy proving determinism at least 10 seconds out and how it ties into the image of Jesus and Amaya that offerman saw?

Offerman said he wasn't a fan of multiverses but can't help but wonder if some variation of it plays into the determinism computer they are building and even the video of the boyfriend and the fire.















End spoilers

---

If the universe is deterministic, then that means that everything follows a specific set of rules to come up with completely predictable results. If you have complete knowledge of the algorithm and the state of the deterministic system, you can run the process forwards or backwards and get the exact results. As these guys get closer and closer to the true algorithm, their predictions can go further out, both ways.

It's a machine that tells you the truth.

My favorite line of the show so far, "A number that seems meaningless to represent as a number."

Also, it makes me happy when people get computer security stuff correct, and they did.

Yeah, I'm content to watch most shows week-to-week, even and especially the ones I love, but I really wish I could binge the heck out of this one.

Oooooh man this is gewd.

Anyone else notice how during episode 1 when Sergei asked Katie, "Is this theoretical? Has it been tested?"

And Katie gives him this knowing look as she says "Yes"....basically saying "It's being tested right now with you."

Episode 3 beginning with straight up nightmare fuel. Love it.

No one else watched episode 3?

https://uproxx.com/tv/nick-offerman-interview-devs/

I'm caught up. Great show!

So it's just five episodes? So **** should be hitting the fan really quick next episode?

It will be 8 episodes.

I watched, just didn't think there was a ton to discuss in that episode. No big deal though, still my most anticipated show of the week as of now along with Better Call Saul (still haven't started Westworld)


One thing I will say is I love the soundtrack/score. I don't know what that fluttering instrument that always chimes in is, but it's really haunting

Same. Good episode, but not a lot of discussion-worthy material. Still can't wait for Thursday, though.

TCTTS said:

---

Same. Good episode, but not a lot of discussion-worthy material. Still can't wait for Thursday, though.

---

You know, they release it on Wednesday nights, actually.

GreasenUSA said:

---

It will be 8 episodes.

---

Awesome! On Hulu it shows 5 episodes (Listing the next two not available)

Glad there will be more. It moves too slow (in a good way) for it to wrap up in just two more episodes. There is going to be a at least one more major plot development reveal taking the show in a different direction.

So we started Devs over the weekend and...yeah, freakin' loving it (shocker).

Finished ep 2 last night and it was great, hopefully #3 tonight. The only thing I'm having a bit of a hard time with is that Lily seems to be a kind of awful person, she's tough to root for.

GreasenUSA said:

---

TCTTS said:

---

Same. Good episode, but not a lot of discussion-worthy material. Still can't wait for Thursday, though.

---

You know, they release it on Wednesday nights, actually.

---

So what time do episodes actually drop on Wednesday nights? Everything I can find says they don't officially drop until 3 AM ET, in the middle of the night tonight (technically Thursday), but I notice your reaction to the opening scene of episode three last Wednesday was before that (just after midnight ET).

11pm CST.

I believe the 3am time was for the premiere.

Awesome. Thanks.

Just finished episode two. Is this as good as it seems?

Honestly, episodes three and four haven't been as good as the first two... but they're still really damn good. More than anything, I think Lily is just starting to wear on me a bit. Her part is simply not being played by a great actress, and her character is getting a little tired. I love this story, I love this world, and I love the way it looks, but I wish it was told from maybe a slightly different perspective. It's tough when we, the audience, are so far ahead of the main character in terms of what's going on.

Lily as a character is also just...unlikeable. Yes, she's in a terrible situation, but there's also not much redeeming about her outside of being the victim of these circumstances. She seems like kind of an awful person.

A really great actress might be able to pull more out of the role, but she'd still be fighting the character IMO.