Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Howard A Treesong wrote:Oh yes of course, the ending of the "Day of the Triffids" 1960s film in which very late in the day it turns out that sea water kills them, and thus the world was saved! Unlike the book then, where the Triffids take over the world.

Sounds almost like signs

Polonius wrote:The appearance of air support, no matter how unlikely, still wouldn't be deus ex machina. Not unless the air support was always available but was unusued.

The characters in Saving Private Ryn held off long enough for air support to arrive, which makes their actions meaningful and heroic. If they had buggered out, the air support wouldn't help hold the bridge.

Mal's war wound in Serenity isn't even close to Deus Ex Machina. It's a fine example of Checkov's Gun, to be sure. But it's no more DEM than any other unlikley event that allows a hero to prevail.

The worst example of DEM in a movie is in the Wizard of Oz. Dorothy arrives, and Glinda tells her to go the Wizard, who sends her to kill the Wicked Witch of the West, who welches on his promise. Who shows up to tell Dorothy how to get home? Glinda! Who could have sent her home in the first reel. She even says it: "you had the power all along."

That, my friend, is Deus Ex Machina.

Totally agree with Private Ryan. It's a classic "Hold the bridge" storyline where the protagonists have to hold a bridge just long enough for reinforcements to arrive. I think what a lot of people are really pissed off about was it appears a P51 slags them with 50 cal guns. To all of those who are really upset with the 51 what if the movie ended this way instead.

Tom Hanks shoots the tiger with his 45, and then there is a big boom but the tiger doesn't blow up as a Sherman Tank's round bounces off it's front armor. 4 Sherman tanks go to engage the tiger, 3 of them get blown to hell because they were a real pos tank, and the 4th maneuvers to get a rear shot on the tiger blowing it up. It's more historically accurate, at least 2 minutes longer, and less dramatic of an entry than the P51 coming out of the sky. It's a dramatic entry, not a deus ex machina. Like Han Solo shooting down Darth Vader in episode 4.

Totally agree that MAL's world was Checkov's Gun. The writers began to hint on it at the introduction of River and the reavers, and the connection would have been slowly introduced slowly over multiple seasons. Firefly fans are just pissed off that like many other really good TV series firefly was canceled in it's 1st season.

Howard A Treesong wrote:

Polonius wrote:Mal's war wound in Serenity isn't even close to Deus Ex Machina. It's a fine example of Checkov's Gun, to be sure. But it's no more DEM than any other unlikley event that allows a hero to prevail.

According to TV Tropes though it's *never* mentioned prior to the reveal. It's only Chekhov's gun if it was set up earlier to be used later. Seeing as this gun wasn't hung on the wall earlier on it is just pulled out of nowhere for the 'reveal'.

Ooops I thought it was.

Except that we know that he is a veteran and that he had been wounded. While we aren't notified of every scar it doesn't just happen out of nowhere. Most people tend to not go around randomly listing their of war wounds and it isn't always necessary to write a scene just to tell us about that one specific thing. It isn't Checkov's Gun but it isn't from so far out of left field to qualify for DEM either as it has a reasonable explanation and grows organically out of the story.

Well in Saving Private Ryan they didn't call in the air strike at all, in fact I don't believe they had a working radio at that part of the movie.

Air support doesn't just fly around in random areas, its called in so its really improbable in that case.

halonachos wrote:Well in Saving Private Ryan they didn't call in the air strike at all, in fact I don't believe they had a working radio at that part of the movie.

Air support doesn't just fly around in random areas, its called in so its really improbable in that case.

Yea, but once again it's someone upset about the historical accuracy rather than the DEM aspect. At that point in the story an air strike is no more or less a DEM than 4 Sherman tanks engaging the single Tiger.

Look, the entire end of saving private Ryan, while entertaining, is ludicrous, but i expect these things. I can say, ok, these SS soldiers are acting very silly not following standard grenadier tactics. Maybe it's possible the weren't following standard procedure for x reason, whatever. The scene was exciting and full of action, it didn't pull me out of the movie, bad guys always fight poorly. So my problem isn't with wandering air support, hell they could have been called in by the rescuers that show up a few minutes later. I don't even have a problem with a aircraft taking out a Tiger. The problem is that it's a P-51, it just couldn't happen. They could have shown a P-47, tempest, typhoon or mosquito firing rockets and I probably would have been fine.

What takes me out of movies is when something I know is absolutely impossible. When that tiger blew up, I didn't get it. Did Tom hanks miracle shoot it with his pistol some how? Makes as much sense to me as a P-51 blowing it up, I mean it just couldn't happen. I felt lost and let down. Surely there was a better way to kill the Tiger. Have the explosives go off and have the tiger fall through the bridge, or have Ryban throw a Molotov inside the top hatch and go all Rambo (it appears they don't lock those in this movie), anything, but don't have a Tiger get blown up by machine guns, I just saw the thing get pelted by Germans with a 20mm antiaircraft gun just to get the paratroopers off. If your own guys are willing to shoot 20mm AA rounds at you because they know that it will only scratch a tigers paint how does a P-51 armed with .50 cal machine guns do it! It just took me out of the whole thing right at the point where the movie really wants to engage you.

Andrew1975 wrote:Look, the entire end of saving private Ryan, while entertaining, is ludicrous, but i expect these things. I can say, ok, these SS soldiers are acting very silly not following standard grenadier tactics. Maybe it's possible the weren't following standard procedure for x reason, whatever. The scene was exciting and full of action, it didn't pull me out of the movie, bad guys always fight poorly. So my problem isn't with wandering air support, hell they could have been called in by the rescuers that show up a few minutes later. I don't even have a problem with a aircraft taking out a Tiger. The problem is that it's a P-51, it just couldn't happen. They could have shown a P-47, tempest, typhoon or mosquito firing rockets and I probably would have been fine.

What takes me out of movies is when something I know is absolutely impossible. When that tiger blew up, I didn't get it. Did Tom hanks miracle shoot it with his pistol some how? Makes as much sense to me as a P-51 blowing it up, I mean it just couldn't happen. I felt lost and let down. Surely there was a better way to kill the Tiger. Have the explosives go off and have the tiger fall through the bridge, or have someone throw a Molotov inside the top hatch (it appears they don't lock those in this movie), anything, but don't have a Tiger get blown up by machine guns, I just saw the thing get pelted by Germans with a 20mm antiaircraft gun just to get the paratroopers off. If your own guys are willing to shoot 20mm AA rounds at you because they know that it will only scratch a tigers paint how does a P-51 armed with .50 cal machine guns do it! It just took me out of the whole thing right at the point where the movie really wants to engage you.

It's called "I don't know how WW2 tactics work so I'll have them do something to help out the heroes in my movie!".

Any novel with Space Marines in it, I mean, those guys are walking Deus Ex Machinas!

Amaya wrote:

Andrew1975 wrote:Look, the entire end of saving private Ryan, while entertaining, is ludicrous, but i expect these things. I can say, ok, these SS soldiers are acting very silly not following standard grenadier tactics. Maybe it's possible the weren't following standard procedure for x reason, whatever. The scene was exciting and full of action, it didn't pull me out of the movie, bad guys always fight poorly. So my problem isn't with wandering air support, hell they could have been called in by the rescuers that show up a few minutes later. I don't even have a problem with a aircraft taking out a Tiger. The problem is that it's a P-51, it just couldn't happen. They could have shown a P-47, tempest, typhoon or mosquito firing rockets and I probably would have been fine.

What takes me out of movies is when something I know is absolutely impossible. When that tiger blew up, I didn't get it. Did Tom hanks miracle shoot it with his pistol some how? Makes as much sense to me as a P-51 blowing it up, I mean it just couldn't happen. I felt lost and let down. Surely there was a better way to kill the Tiger. Have the explosives go off and have the tiger fall through the bridge, or have someone throw a Molotov inside the top hatch (it appears they don't lock those in this movie), anything, but don't have a Tiger get blown up by machine guns, I just saw the thing get pelted by Germans with a 20mm antiaircraft gun just to get the paratroopers off. If your own guys are willing to shoot 20mm AA rounds at you because they know that it will only scratch a tigers paint how does a P-51 armed with .50 cal machine guns do it! It just took me out of the whole thing right at the point where the movie really wants to engage you.

It's called "I don't know how WW2 tactics work so I'll have them do something to help out the heroes in my movie!".

That's the thing. They had so many historians and tacticians involved with the writing process. Dale Dye surely knows a P-51 is not taking out a Tiger. Spielberg ignored it because it was more dramatic and liked it that way. He chose a P-51 because it is iconic, many people who know nothing about planes recognize P-51s. He's been in love with them since empire of the sun. I'm sure many people said "that's impossible", Spielberg probably replied "that's movies, no one will know or care!" For most people he is probably right, but I was completely confused because I was looking around for what killed that tiger. That was the thing, I know how indestructible tigers were, I wanted to see what clever way he was gonna rescue them. Most people were probably thinking "oh no German tanks" and I was thinking "2 Tigers????? oh they are F-ed!"

Andrew1975 wrote:

Amaya wrote:

Andrew1975 wrote:Look, the entire end of saving private Ryan, while entertaining, is ludicrous, but i expect these things. I can say, ok, these SS soldiers are acting very silly not following standard grenadier tactics. Maybe it's possible the weren't following standard procedure for x reason, whatever. The scene was exciting and full of action, it didn't pull me out of the movie, bad guys always fight poorly. So my problem isn't with wandering air support, hell they could have been called in by the rescuers that show up a few minutes later. I don't even have a problem with a aircraft taking out a Tiger. The problem is that it's a P-51, it just couldn't happen. They could have shown a P-47, tempest, typhoon or mosquito firing rockets and I probably would have been fine.

What takes me out of movies is when something I know is absolutely impossible. When that tiger blew up, I didn't get it. Did Tom hanks miracle shoot it with his pistol some how? Makes as much sense to me as a P-51 blowing it up, I mean it just couldn't happen. I felt lost and let down. Surely there was a better way to kill the Tiger. Have the explosives go off and have the tiger fall through the bridge, or have someone throw a Molotov inside the top hatch (it appears they don't lock those in this movie), anything, but don't have a Tiger get blown up by machine guns, I just saw the thing get pelted by Germans with a 20mm antiaircraft gun just to get the paratroopers off. If your own guys are willing to shoot 20mm AA rounds at you because they know that it will only scratch a tigers paint how does a P-51 armed with .50 cal machine guns do it! It just took me out of the whole thing right at the point where the movie really wants to engage you.

It's called "I don't know how WW2 tactics work so I'll have them do something to help out the heroes in my movie!".

That's the thing. They had so many historians and tacticians involved with the writing process. Dale Dye surely knows a P-51 is not taking out a Tiger. Spielberg ignored it because it was more dramatic and liked it that way. He chose a P-51 because it is iconic, many people who know nothing about planes recognize P-51s. He's been in love with them since empire of the sun. I'm sure many people said "that's impossible", Spielberg probably replied "that's movies, no one will know or care!" For most people he is probably right, but I was completely confused because I was looking around for what killed that tiger. That was the thing, I know how indestructible tigers were, I wanted to see what clever way he was gonna rescue them. Most people were probably thinking "oh no German tanks" and I was thinking "2 Tigers????? oh they are F-ed!"

And if they had 4 Sherman tanks engage the 1 tiger resulting in 3 Sherman tanks blowing up before the last one could get a rear shot on the Tiger it would have been a horrible film when it comes to box office revenue. Joe 6 pack would think it's lame, and not knowing anything of WW2 tanks Joe 6 pack would think the tiger tank was being unrealistically hyped because ignorant Joe's 6 pack's common sense tells him America has always made the best tank. Both Spielberg and Lucas completely sold out a long time ago, it was just a lot less noticeable 15 years ago than it is now.

i don't know, that was the only real part of the movie that let me down. I'm picky about weird things though.
Take for example



I don't mind he is surfing on a bullet. But why does a flying bullet still have the case on it?

That makes it unbelievable to me.

I know its strange.

schadenfreude wrote:

halonachos wrote:Well in Saving Private Ryan they didn't call in the air strike at all, in fact I don't believe they had a working radio at that part of the movie.

Air support doesn't just fly around in random areas, its called in so its really improbable in that case.

Yea, but once again it's someone upset about the historical accuracy rather than the DEM aspect. At that point in the story an air strike is no more or less a DEM than 4 Sherman tanks engaging the single Tiger.

websters wrote:Definition of DEUS EX MACHINA
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

A: They were getting their butts kicked by germans with armored support.
B: They were pushed back to the bridge.
C: Tom Hanks realizes that they are losing so he decides to try to blow up the bridge with previously set charges.
D: Tom Hanks is shot while trying to blow the bridge.
E: They failed to blow the bridge and with the germans advancing the bridge will be taken and Private Ryan will be killed. Overall he failed.
F: P-51 comes to save the day and the germans run away.

I would like to point out that the P-51s do have d-day markings on their undersides at least.

I still dont' see how air support arriving is contrived. It's not completely explained on screen, but it's not ridiculous.

The one thing is that this bridge was just some random bridge in the European countryside. If the bridge was incredibly important there would've been more than just one squad to defend it. In this case there was only one squad defending it.

Planes are never just in the air waiting for something to happen, they are always given orders to destroy certain targets. Train tracks were the biggest target shortly after P-51s were used in protecting bombers.

The fact that these planes appeared would have to mean that someone there had called in the air support, but the fact is they didn't have a radio and couldn't call in any. Not to mention that this was shortly after D-Day so the nearest air base would've been in England somewhere IIRC.

If you don't believe us, maybe you'll believe the BBC.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/A781355

P-51 in Saving Private Ryan isn't Deus Ex Machina. The tiger tank isn't even the major obstacle in the plot. Finding Ryan is, and Tom Hanks (and company) did that on their own. The P-51 was just a unrealistic ending used for dramatic effect.

Being unrealistic != Deus Ex Machina

That's just movie makers being movie makers.

That's the thing. They had so many historians and tacticians involved with the writing process.

So do most movies set in a historical setting. Even 300 had historical advisors. If you want historical accuracy, big budget movies are something you should never watch. Look on the bright side. At least there wasn't a scene where Tom Hanks all alone fought off the entire german army with his infinite ammo machine gun while standing up on a rock screaming "Wolverines!"

Right, so it's unlikely. But i don't feel like it's contrived. The idea that "something" could arrive and help out with the one enemy asset they couldn't deal with organically makes sense.

Lord of Hats raises a good point: if allied air support is unrealistic, than so is a tiger tank assaulting a relatively minor village/bridge. A bad DEM cheapens the actions of the heroes by showing that they weren't necessary, or even helpful. In Ryan, the heroes still found Ryan and accomplished their goal. The tank was just a "well, we have the money, let's have a bigger fight" decision.

My understanding is that the P-51 is a stand in for a real tank killer aircraft that simply wasn't available as a prop.

Nobody complains that the first scene is unrealistic when the first wave of infantry take the beach.

It would make sense if the bridge was strategically important.

The planes would've needed to fly around an hour's time to get to the bridge. If they had called for support when they first saw the tanks, it wouldn't of had arrived and Ryan would be dead. Also chances are that he would've been denied support in the first place because it was a PR mission.

As far as finding Ryan being the obstacle, it was only part of the obstacle. It was their mission to find Ryan and to get him home alive. They found him, but Ryan wasn't going to leave until his job was done so the new challenge became defending the bridge so they could take Ryan home. The options they had were to defend the bridge or to blow the bridge.

They were pushed back to the bridge so they had to blow it. Unfortunately Tom Hanks was shot on the bridge before he could detonate the charges so he had failed to blow the bridge.

If the germans crossed they would've reached all of the GI's, including Ryan, and killed them all which means he would've failed to bring Ryan home.

A P-51 flew in and blew up the tank which caused the germans to retreat and pulled victory from the hands of defeat(and the death of Ryan).




Automatically Appended Next Post:

George Spiggott wrote:My understanding is that the P-51 is a stand in for a real tank killer aircraft that simply wasn't available as a prop.

Nobody complains that the first scene is unrealistic when the first wave of infantry take the beach.

That was just the first wave? Dang, maybe they shortened the arrival times of the waves so they all arrived at once?

I dont' think anybody is saying that the scene is horribly realistic. the point is, none of it is realistic. If something is important enough for a freaking Tiger Tank, than maybe having a plane check in isn't totally out of line.

The problem is, calling it a DEM means that you're calling the resolution of the film a cheat. And I think that's stretching it. They found Ryan. They held off the infantry. They did everything they could against the tiger. There is a difference between having a newcomer solve the core problem and having a ridiculously overpowered new threat by dealt with by a ridiculous newcomer.

It's a question of unnecessarily raising the stakes. Eliminating that whole bit from the movie might make it stronger, but I still don't see having the plane come in as a cheat.

Polonius wrote:
Lord of Hats raises a good point: if allied air support is unrealistic, than so is a tiger tank assaulting a relatively minor village/bridge. A bad DEM cheapens the actions of the heroes by showing that they weren't necessary, or even helpful. In Ryan, the heroes still found Ryan and accomplished their goal. The tank was just a "well, we have the money, let's have a bigger fight" decision.

Actually, there were a lot of mechanized units near Normandy seeing as though they were preparing for the invasion at another location. Also a lot of tanks were held in reserve(that was actually due to a conspiracy against Hitler though, the commander wanted to use those units to fight the SS whou would help Hitler) so the presence of tanks isn't that surprising that far into Europe.

Now the aircraft presence is weird because there were no vital targets next to the town(they favored railroads and supply convoys) and had no reason to be there.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Polonius wrote:
Lord of Hats raises a good point: if allied air support is unrealistic, than so is a tiger tank assaulting a relatively minor village/bridge. A bad DEM cheapens the actions of the heroes by showing that they weren't necessary, or even helpful. In Ryan, the heroes still found Ryan and accomplished their goal. The tank was just a "well, we have the money, let's have a bigger fight" decision.

Actually, there were a lot of mechanized units near Normandy seeing as though they were preparing for the invasion at another location. Also a lot of tanks were held in reserve(that was actually due to a conspiracy against Hitler though, the commander wanted to use those units to fight the SS whou would help Hitler) so the presence of tanks isn't that surprising that far into Europe.

Now the aircraft presence is weird because there were no vital targets next to the town(they favored railroads and supply convoys) and had no reason to be there. The tanks could've been on their way to the beach.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
They also didn't hold off the germans, they failed miserably and Ryan was going to die along with all of the others.

Ok, so having an airplane (that can fly several hundred miles an hour) appear over a village during the largest air assault in history is implausible. Having an elite tank appear at a minor village, because they were in theater, is not?

I get your overall point, man, I just think you're glossing over the fact that I'm sure there were tanks in the area. why were they sent with limited support into that village?

I also haven't seen the movie in a decade, but according to wikipedia there were more aircraft and advancing armored units after the Tiger blew up. So instead of Dues Ex Machina, it's more of The Cavalry Arrives.

You are confusing historical inaccuracy (or stupidity take your pick it) with a Deus Ex Machina. Within the realm of the film, it is not an absurd and sudden resolution for a plane to destroy a tank, saving the hero(s) in the nick of time (That sort of thing is actually a little cliche for a war film). Deus Ex Machina is a plot device, not a matter of historical realism. They are two separate issues that shouldn't be combined into the same thing.

EDIT: I missed it earlier but I wouldn't call the water thing in Signs a Deus Ex Machina, as it is mentioned earlier in the movie that the aliens don't like water. The little girl leaving massive amounts of water around and the boy having asthma however are text book Chekhov's gun. They're actually central to the movies theme (that everything that happens has a reason for happening) which, while a crappy movie when you really think about it, the film does get its themes across quite well (if through absurdity).

Okay I did some research as to why the germans wanted the bridge.

The bridge was located in a town called Ramelle which is located on a river(obviously). This bridge would allow the germans to reach the port of Cherbourg which was something the allies wanted.

The germans attacked with two tigers, two anti-tanks, and an assortment of SS infantry. This was based off of an actual attack on the bridge.

The film was also criticized for not portraying a typical german attack as the germans would've destroyed the church tower well before entering the town.

As far as the presence of aircraft, P-51s had a cruising speed of about 282 mph. They would need to be rearmed, refueled, and of course told to go to the town to begin with seeing as though they most likely would've been busier near the coast of France defending the troops landing and convoys bringing supplies. That's why I would say the presence of the P-51s is unrealistic.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
@Lord of hats;

Just about any site I go to says that its a Deus Ex Machina because it follows the webster's dictionary definition to a tee.

I think some of you are falling into the trap that you know too much about the subject.

Once your expertise in a subject grows large enough, you can recognize all those problems in entertainment since writers aren't as knowledgeable as you are (or at least aren't creative enough to use 100% accurate problems in their storytelling). Being able to identify the type of tank, type of aircraft, weaponry on said aircraft, etc, means that you simply know too much and recognize the flaws in the storytelling. For the rest of us, we simply see "Plane flew in and blew up a tank" which seems totally reasonable.

I'd suggest you either start drinking heavily so you kill enough brain cells to be able to sit back and enjoy the pretty colors on the screen, or accept the fact that you're going to be able to find major flaws in every WW2 film you watch.

Howard A Treesong wrote:How did the bomb land so far *ahead* of the plane? The Tiger explodes and it takes a good second or so for the plane to appear from the smoke above the destroyed tank. Do bombs now speed up to land ahead of aircraft when dropped? Surely the plane should at least be over the tank when it explodes or even have passed over Tom Hanks. :p

Addition of velocities is all i can think off... and i don't have an in depth knowledge of bombs of WW2

FITZZ wrote:

Morathi's Darkest Sin wrote:Isn't there one in Princess Bride, the Man in Black mentioning he's immune to the poison after defeating the guy via said poison?

Not sure that that would be applicable,since it was more of an after the fact "reveal" that the man in black had built up a resistance to Iocane powder.
A resistance??...Inconceivable!!

I was thinking that the end of The Wizard of Oz fits the criteria,since A) Dorothy had the Ruby slippers ,and thus the means to go home,through out her entire journey through OZ ,and B) It was all a "dream".

FITZZ wrote: I was thinking that the end of The Wizard of Oz fits the criteria,since A) Dorothy had the Ruby slippers ,and thus the means to go home,through out her entire journey through OZ ,and B) It was all a "dream".

Wizard of Oz is a great example! Dorothy spends the entire film trying to find a way to get home. She's sent on task after task only to find out that she's been working with a bunch of frauds. When all seems hopeless for her, a magic lady appears and says "You could have gone home at any time, you just wouldn't have believed me before now."

Part of the problem with the Wizard of Oz is that they cut down on the number of witches. In the original story, the good witch from the start of the movie and the end were separate characters, so there wasn't a moment of 'c'mon, couldn't you have told me about the slippers the FIRST time we met?'