Talk:Deus ex machina/Archive 1

Archive 1

Pronunciation

Would it be appropriate to throw in a pronunciation guide, seeing as how this is a phrase, not a word, and it's not even in English? Something like DAY-oos ex MAH-kee-nuh instead of DOOS ex muh-SHEEN-uh. Sadly, I've actually heard someone use the latter pronunciation. :( --Dante Alighieri 08:09 18 Jul 2003 (UTC)

I really dislike not having the translation IN THE FIRST LINE. If one is the least bit latin-literate, you get the concept immediately, with it there. 216.14.73.97 15:03, 3 March 2007 (UTC)Randall

I, for one, think it could use it. —Frecklefoot 18:43 25 Jul 2003 (UTC)

From what I know of Latin and considering Portuguese as my first language (which is way close to Latin), I'd like to propose the definitive pronunciation as being "DAYooz ehx MAH-kna". The reading of "machina" follows closely the Portuguese "máquina", from what I heard a lot of times. The letter i is only slightly pronounced; can be more pronunciated, but is more "swallowed" than explicitly spoken. One could easily spell "máquina" as "makna" in Portuguese, for that reason. (Anonymous, Brazil, June18 2006)

The Wikipedia standard is to use IPA for pronunciation guides. I can't be much help, though, as I don't know IPA, and it doesn't display in this browser. I also think the proposed pronunciation is "original research", sorry: there is no need to guess, dictionaries give the pronunciation when this phrase is used by an English speaker. In fact, my dictionary gives two! Broadly speaking, they start "MAK" and "MASH". Notinasnaid 07:43, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Hello , I'm italian plus I studied latin for 5 years , pronouncing it and translating dozens of poems passages... oh and I'm graduated in phonology as well. Pronounciation is beyond any doubt or debate DAI(like in dEck)-oos ex(note that this e is the same as deus) MAH(most open mouth A, british still do this vocal, americans rarely do, possibly still in cAstle or french chAteaux ) -kean(short but deeply pronounced like in chEAt)-ah 84.220.221.174 03:07, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Dude, there are several varieties of Latin -- classical, ecclesiastical, vulgar -- which have sub-varieties -- all with different pronunciations.

That explains everything except how the initial syllable is pronounced (you must have made an assumption there): is it "da"-short "a" as in "father", short "a" as in "battle", or long "a" as in "day"? I think it's the latter, right?

And by the way, we ('Merkins) pronounce the "a" in "castle" kind of flat and nasally, not at all like those refined Brits (I'm being snarky here): more like the "a" in "man" (which the Brits somehow pronounce even more nasally than we do). +ILike2BeAnonymous 05:14, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I think a pronunciation guide would be appropriate here, to replace "Deh-oose ex ma-kee-nah", with the "Deh" as is in "destiny", the "oose" as in "moose", "ma" as in "Mars", "kee" as in "key" and "nah" as in "father"." This, I think, is quite inappropriate to the article. Personally, I pronounce it 'Day-ose ex ma-key-na' Nonagonal Spider 18:52, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Is it initial Syllable of DEUS or MACHINA you're referring to ? the first is the E of TREK,DESK,PECK and so on (NO diphthong heard, aka two sounds) I had already most clearly pointed that out... for the A in machina, the tongue is low and back close to the velum, mouth completely open.. possibly americans have it in LUCK.Gylfi 04:31, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

The line "(pronounced in Ancient Greek [a po' mɛ:kʰa'nɛ:s tʰe'os]). " should be removed. It is impossible to know if that is how it was pronounced, and a simple phonetic spelling should be provided after the greek words.

The paragraph "The pronunciation of the phrase may be a problem in English...." doesn't make sense to me. What's the problem? As I understand it, the problem is that most people don't know how to pronounce it. But all of the phonemes are pronounceable by a typical English speaker, right? The exposition is highly speculative and borders on OR.

The whole pronunciation discussion can be cut down to: "The pronunciation of the phrase could be rendered phonetically by "Deh-oose ex ma-kee-nah", with the "Deh" as is in "destiny", the "oose" as in "moose", "ma" as in "Mars", "kee" as in "key" and "nah" as in "banana" and the stress on the first syllable of both "deus" and "machina"." Clconway 13:42, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

A co-worker of mine (who claims to be an "expert in Latin" swears up and down that the "S" in deus is silent. So it's "Day-oo Ex Ma-kee-nah"! I didn't want to call him out on it, but I can't see anything in this entry that would support his version. Is the "S" ever silent in Latin?? --70.167.58.6 (talk) 19:58, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I've only ever heard it as though it were a completely English term(when used in English, of course). Maybe it's best to indicate the pronunciation listed is the Latin one and leave it up to the reader to decide if Anglicizing it is appropriate. BioTube (talk) 23:33, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Divine intervention

Why does "Divine intervention" get sent to this page? JWSchmidt 16:35, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Presumably because whoever set up the redirect wasn't really thinking about it. Fixed now. --Paul A 07:53, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)

When understanding the meaning of the phrase, I first thought of "Divine intervention"; I assume that is why it was directed here. Ronnie Nov. 1 2006

Plural

Can someone confirm the plural here? There's dei ex machinis in the article, while I'd be inclined to go for dei ex machina. I guess the issue is "gods from [outside] the machine" against "gods from [outside] the machines". I don't even know whether we need a Latinist or just someone with a few ounces of common sense. Or should we use dei ex machinis for a group of them from many stories, while dei ex machina is (should it ever happen) one story contains more than one instance? (Just thinking out loud now.)

I'm sticking with ...machinis for the time being, but I'd like to know. And then we've got something both consistent and (hopefully) correct. Wooster 22:38, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Since machina, ae is declinatio seconda, the plural should be dei ex machina for "gods from the machine" and dei ex machinis for "gods from the machines", since the e,ex requires ablativum; that depends if you want to translate also the word machine or not. Federico Pistono 12:13, 2005 July 30 (UTC)

Yes... my question was really about English grammar, not Latin. In English, would we say "the plots of these books end with gods from outside the machine" or "the plots of these books end with gods from outside the machines"? Wooster 17:12, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

I think it would be preferrably to change the wording in these cases so that such a plural can be avoided ("instances of [deus ex machina] technique", or whatever would fit the context). Using Latin plurals in English texts, in cases where the Latin plural isn't widely used, feels quite forced and unnecessary.

Although I'm obviously not in favour of any Latin plural, my personal preference lies with dei ex machina, since you wouldn't use a different machina for each deus. (Google results disagree, though: [1] [2].) Making a difference between dei ex machinis in several different stories and dei ex machina in the same story is far too elaborate for my taste. EldKatt (Talk) 18:52, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Split article

I think that since the list of examples is getting so numerous, it should be moved into a list article. They should also be categorised into plots that are considered deus ex machinis; and other things that are not, such as episodes called "deus ex machina". I also think that those examples that people disagree on should not be deleted, but moved to a 'disputed' group if they must. --ColdFeet 11:19, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Just move the (annoyingly long) list of examples to this Talk Page and have people vote on them, setting a maximum number of examples for each type before the voting begins. Simple solution.

- P.MacUidhir (t) (c) 21:09, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

I don't particularly think that the examples need to be split out to a seperate article, the article isn't really that long and would be rather short without it. I also don't agree that there should be a maximum number of examples, it will just lead to arguments about which example is better. Any disputed examples should be discussed on the this talk page as some have already been. However, I do agree that the distinction should be made between things called "deus ex machina" and examples in plot so I'll have a look at that now, any other volunteers? -- Lochaber 13:18, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Translation

you need to add somehting that tells the reader what it means in english, damm fools of editors. thanQ

Done. Hyacinth 18:57, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism

It would appear that this article was vandalized, the text replaced with "Poop poop poop. . ." I do not know how to restore it, but thought I should say something. -gar (Wikipedia fan) 27 Oct 2005; 22:48 UTC

I figured out how to restore the last good draft. Yeah! My first edit on Wikipedia! - gar (Wikipedia fan) 27 Oct. 2005; 22:58 UTC

Good work, kid. Don't get cocky. -Han Solo

the Poop guy has some interest in this page once agian poop has been found on this page Weaponbb7 01:52, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Is this supposed to be an article or a list?

I have a pet peeve about entries like this one where there's an unnecessarily long list of examples of something rather than an actual article about it. My intention is to remove a good 90% of the examples here (including any questionable ones such as those discussed on this page). I'm not sure how much I can add to the article, but to my mind, clearing the deadwood would be an "addition by subtraction" situation; perhaps if the article was pruned in actual length to the stub in really is, it would encourage some positive stuff to be added. Thoughts? Matt Deres 04:30, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the example list is too long; it adds nothing to the appreciation of the subject. However, I have seen the effect of trying to prune or add "notable" to the subtitles; the article becomes a hit and run target for everyone who just studied the topic in class (cf Dystopia before List of dystopian films was created). The list is now just silly. I tried to add a tiny bit more structure: I think it's important to distinguish bad writing from intentional comedy. On the other hand, creating articles that are lists is just a cop out to avoid applying quality control; once created I don't suppose they are revisited by those who worked on the main body of the original article. Notinasnaid 17:18, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

I have started pruning the lists. In the first cull, I tried removing blatant mis-ID's, generalizations, and the obscure stuff. Since the purpose is to illustrate the concept, I think the best examples are ones people are already familiar with rather than anything non-mainstream (unless it's a particularly good example, of course :-). I will cut more out unless someone beats me to it. Matt Deres 21:46, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Personally I think that the list should just be split out into a seperate article just leaving a couple of major examples in the main article. -- Lochaber 00:51, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. If we can illustrate the point with a handful of examples from different kinds of literature, what exactly is the gain of adding a list? A dozen examples illustrate the point; a hundred examples would cloud it again. Matt Deres 11:25, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Well the point of the list would be list examples, not illustrate a point. If it's a seperate article I don't really see how it can cloud the original Deus ex machina article, if anything it will serve to stop people from adding confusing examples to the article. -- Lochaber 14:33, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Breaking the list out to another lets people add their favorite example into it, but we can add some well expanded and described (and hopefully well-known) examples to this article. As it is now, this page is more "List of Deus ex machina examples" than "Deus ex machina". If people want to see more examples, they would be able to click on the related article link to look at them. The demiurge 05:48, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

While I disagree about the idea that a long list of examples is bad (I actually think they can be quite handy in reinforcing concepts), I agree that this list needs to be trimmed, but mostly because alot of them are not D-E-Ms. For example, in Jurassic Park 3, Dr. Grant calls his friend to get him the army during the course of the movie. In Metal Gear Solid, Foxdie is a main plot point. Both of these examples, and many others, sound simply like lifelines.

Another thought... one way to police a short list would be to insist that (a) the item mentioned must be in Wikipedia and (b) the Wikipedia article must actually use the "deus ex machina" phrase. That would then require consensus among people who know the subject that it really was. I used to use something similar to this to prune the ever-growing list in dystopia before it was split out. Notinasnaid 22:42, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Okay, it's been a few weeks and I think we need to get moving. I think making a separate list page is the wrong thing to do (you're moving the problem away rather than cleaning it up), but I'll stand aside if that's the group consensus. If no move is done within the next few days, I will re-start my plan to hack down the list into some kind of manageability. One other note - if someone does move the list, please consider trimming it anyway; there are still poor examples in there that serve no good purpose. Matt Deres 13:40, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. Making a separate list page is moving the problem away rather than cleaning it up, but it does move the problem to a page most people will only see if they're specifically looking for it. And if you don't move it away, people will still add their own favorite example of the device to this page even after you (or anyone) cleans it up. That said, good luck. The demiurge 22:56, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Don't forget the rule that everything in Wikipedia has to have a source. I can already see, as Wikipedia matures, more and more articles being gone over to require sources and exclude what has no source. Perhaps now is the time to insist on sources for everything in the list (or my alternative rule that it has to refer to a Wikipedia article that uses deus ex machina directly, moving the burden of sources to another article). If this rule were applied, and consistently used to vet new entries, the list would collapse to managable proportions. It will have to be done eventually, so maybe now is the time. Notinasnaid 13:37, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

I like both your suggestions. Getting sources for something like this might be tough, but it's probably worthwhile. At the very least, it would be a kind of back-up to defend inclusion - "I'm not saying LOTR has a DEM, I'm only reporting that so-and-so says there is." To my mind, that more closely follows general policy here of no original research, etc. IMO, your standards would be reasonable for creating a list page, with the very best of those included here. I think that satisfies everybody's who's chimed in their opinions on this. How about we work on sourcing stuff on this page and when we get a dozen or so, we move them to a list-page, remove the unsourced stuff (but append it on the list's talk page as a to-do kind of thing) and start discussing which examples we want to keep here? Matt Deres 17:45, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, I did it. I hope it helps. The demiurge 23:09, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Definition of machina

While of course machina can mean machine, the correct translation here is crane, since that's what the classical dramatists used to lower down their gods. You can see that in http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?va=deus+ex+machina and http://catholic.archives.nd.edu/cgi-bin/lookup.pl?stem=machin&ending=a The demiurge 12:26, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't know the classical language concerned, but something seems wrong overall because Wikipedia defined machina only as a crane. They should agree, I think. Also, the very word "machine" I think would mean something different to a modern audience to an ancient Greek audience, so crane may well be a better translation. Notinasnaid 13:26, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but then I think there is an abuse of the word "literally" at the beginning of the article. A literal translation and a colloquial translation are not the same thing and the difference should be specified. I just don't think it's an honest use of the word "literally" KristoferM 03:23, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Why don't we just take out this recent addition, and leave the apparently uncontroversial "linguistic considerations" in place? Any objections? Notinasnaid 09:16, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps something along the lines of "literally meaning 'god from the machine' (colloquially 'god from the crane')"? I'm happy w/ that compromise.KristoferM 04:04, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

From what I can see, 'crane' is the better translation, even though most people who give the translation say 'machine'. The important fact is what the phrase actually refers to, which is the lowering of actors by a crane mechanism to the stage. The demiurge 14:20, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Again, no objections to the use of the 'crane' part. My objection is primarily to the use of the word 'literal'. Dictionary.com says, LITERAL - 6: (of a translation) corresponding word for word with the original. A LITERAL translation is word for word. "God from the crane" is not, and will never be, a LITERAL translation. The word 'machina' means 'machine'. Thus the opening statement of the article is false. 'Crane' doesn't fly by this definition. Is there a way we could include both without using terribly awkward wording? KristoferM 19:44, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

I just removed it and added a bit to the linguistic section. We might as well keep the linguistic stuff in the linguistic section where we can explain it more fully. That was my purpose in making the section in the first place, but user 4.226.255.175 put it back, perhaps without reading the full article. The demiurge 22:32, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

I think that's a lovely way to handle it.  ;) KristoferM 20:42, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

I was thinking about the proper translation of this whole definition to Portuguese and came up with simple words that could be used in English as well. First, I think both the figures of "God" and "machina" should be more particularly explored. "God" would mean "a figure of omnipotence, that is able to cause a sudden miracle". That's the main reason for using the word "deus" (which is God in Portuguese too). The word "machina" should be understood in its broader sense: the whole mechanism, the established system that constitutes the plot. By introducing a "God" (as described) in that mechanism (ditto), we have a deus ex machina. Then, there's the figure of the cavalry, as we would use it in Portuguese: "... and then (out of the blue) the cavalry came to the rescue". Also, as mentioned before, the word "miracle" should be more associated to the whole concept - because the characters often use an actual miracle, also in its broader sense. (Anonymous, Brazil, June17 2006)

Use of DEM in the Social Sciences Literature

deus ex machina is seen regularly in the fields of economics and political science in a variety of contexts. This article currently seems to be rather exclusively about DEM's use in literature, film and video games. While all three provide examples of DEM, a Wikipedia article should cover the broader uses within the social sciences as well. N2e 14:24, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

The term refers only to works of fiction --80.41.55.104 18:04, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

translated correctly?

Maybe I'm wrong, but "God from the machine" doesn't make much sense to me. Latin phrases are not always translated into English with the words in the exact order, so maybe this is wrong. I think "Machine from God" sounds better and fits better with the definition. Any thoughts?

I'm pretty sure this is correct. Machina can be the ablative case, and thus the object for ex, but deus has to be the base form of that word. "Machine from god" would be something like Machina ex deo. The demiurge 16:05, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I should point that *probably* "ex" is the same as in "external", which means, in this case, "external influence". The translation would be, in a less literal intent, "an external God acting on the machine". Both "deus" and "machina" are unflexed forms (or better, forms that are flexed in its original substantive meaning), so "ex" only means direction - again, the figure of an unexplained God acting to alter that "machine", or the current state of things as we know them. (Anonymous, Brazil, June17 2006).

machina is in general use now, but it really shoud be machinā (with a macron over the a). That signifies the ablative case. Dictionary.com backs me up on this (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/deus%20ex%20machina). The translation is "a god comes from the machine", because it refered to a god being lowered into a play by a crane device and fixing all the problems in the play. The demiurge 15:43, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

My concern is with the way in which the term "machina" has been rendered in Greek. My Greek grammar book says that "machina" (device or plan)is a feminine type 1a noun. Therefore, the spelling for the singular form of the noun in the nominative case should be, μηχανη not μηχανης (sorry, I don't know how to get an accent over the eta). --Art Moss 19:21, 16 July 2006 (UTC) Any comments? Did I miss something?

"Deus ex machina is a Latin phrase that is used to describe an unexpected, artificial, or improbable character, device, or event introduced" I think you meant to say expected. Deus Ex Machina refers to a plotline you can see coming from a mile away.

Incorrect. The Deus ex machina is almost always, by its nature unexpected. Now, if you've watched enough Greek plays or really bad movies, YOU might see it coming from a mile away, but the general audience shouldn't. (example: Shawn of the dead) Another point for the main question: Deus ex machina is correctly translated "God(s) from the machine," this is not refering to a supernatural divine toaster or somthing, but rather the way a god was introduced back in Greek plays, with some mechanical crane-like device from above. One question: I just saw "the lost boys" (198? vampire movie) and I can't figure out wether or not that is strictly a deus ex machina. Any ideas? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.49.4.141 (talk) 13:53, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

I would have to disagree with that. Deus ex machina refers to a plot resolution by a device unrelated to previous plot elements (eg an act of god), hence making the resolution unexpected. It is only through overuse that some examples of deus ex machina, such as a protagonist waking from a dream, have become cliche. Unless i am completely mistaken, there seems to be some confusion about the tranlation. This is how i took the phrase: Deus Ex - (loosly) meaning god from outside of, and Machina - referring to the plot prior to the resolution, giving the general meaning "god (or act of) from outside of previously established plot elements". Feel free to correct me on this issue. 220.233.195.181 15:16, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

"Machina" (μηχανή) does not refer to a plot device, but to an actual crane-like machine. Other than that, you are correct.77.49.205.228 08:51, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

The Greek means literaly from mechanical god--Slogankid 17:22, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

No it doesn't. I am a native greek speaker and I would translate it as "God from the machine" or "God from a machine", as mentioned in the article. "Μηχανή" is not even an adjective, it's a noun, so it's not "mechanical". The adjective is "μηχανικός". (Sorry for not using polytonic.)77.49.205.228 08:51, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Unclear

Is it accurate to sum up the meaning as anything significant to a story suddenly being introduced? I have a number of novels I am working on (still just aspiring), and each has a BigIdea type deal that is hidden from the characters and the reader that will, when revealed, drastically change the course of a story. Does that fit the bill of deus ex machina? --63.64.30.2 18:21, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

No. It's something introduced with no set-up that resolves the plot. --Nalvage 21:42, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

disambig?

Why is there a link to a disambig page which doesn't exist? 219.77.98.166 03:46, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Deus ex machina is also a Machinae supremacy song

Homer's Odyssey

I'm wondering about perhaps offering an example of when deus ex machina comes in to The Odyssey. Mentioning that as an example is fine, but I'm still unclear about what exactly it is. Perhaps either mention a specific example or drop the reference? I leave it to you. Thanks Susiebowers 21:54, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

At the very end of the story, some guys are really angry at Ulysses, attack him, and he is going to have to kill them. But Minerva stops the battle using her godly powers. http://etext.library.adelaide.edu.au/mirror/classics.mit.edu/Homer/odyssey.24.xxiv.html The demiurge 15:12, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Ok. Thanks. Susiebowers 00:33, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for this information demiurge. Is it possible for a literary buff or scholar to include this or another example in the main article? From memory, there are multiple examples through Homer's Odyssey, but mentioning the work without any specific references to examples of DEM is plain frustrating for many readers Whyso 11:47, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

List of examples

Considering that the list is likely to be deleted I've copied it to Talk:Deus ex machina/List of deus ex machina examples. Now we don't need ALL of them of course, so a few of them should be added (I'd recommend no more than 20.) It should be a short list. Let's wait for the AFD to finish first though so it's not duplicate content. --WikiSlasher 01:30, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

the remaining examples from 'Monty python and the holy grail' are not examples of deus ex machina. They are for comedy purposes. --80.41.55.104 17:59, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Would you say the same about the 'Spaceballs the Movie' from 'Spaceballs the Movie'. This scene where they watch a completed version of a movie before it is released is a great example of a Deus Ex Machina IMHO. Or is it excluded because it's comedy? --82.3.250.148 12:33, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

---

The AFD has finished with a result of no consensus to delete and a second one has finished with a result of delete. If anyone wants to add examples to the article they'll have to cite a source following WP:V and WP:RS. --WikiSlasher 07:03, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Divine Comedy

Hi, I just thought i'd say i'm not sure about Dante's Divine Comedy being given as a a 'contemporary example'! I'm not sure about editing pages so I thought I'd just leave this here. Muskaheaney 18:48, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, it is 1700 years after Euripides. 16:16, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

And by no means is it certain that the person descrribed by Dante is the Archangel Michael. I changed that. Ellsworth 22:17, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

James Bond reference

The current version of the article contains this example: "James Bond using a gadget that just so happens to be perfectly suited to the needs of the situation". I don't think that qualifies as Deus ex machina, or if so then only marginally -- anyway, I don't think it makes a good example. The reason is that the viewer is more often than not introduced to said gadgets previously, sometimes even extensively. Therefore they are already inherent to the plot. Of course, the observation that JB tends to carry very specific gadgets which always end up being used precisely for the purpose they were designed for is quite pertinent -- but while that makes for poor writing, I don't think it illustrates the Deus ex machina concept well. --Gutza ^{T T+} 12:10, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Well if James Bond were given a thingamajig which has the property of "being-able-to-do-everything", and if he would later on use it to get out of some situation, I would call that deus ex machina. I think the aforementioned example qualifies, but granted it's not very definitive. --BiT 15:49, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

I think that if a gadget or part of a gadget hasn't been shown or mentioned before he uses it to get out of trouble, it is a Deus ex Machina. One example would be the watch that functions as a circular saw in "Live and Let Die": they hadn't mentioned it until then, even when he was showing how it was magnetic. --Toby Clark 16;45, 22 May 2008. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.48.242.193 (talk) 06:47, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

a better example would be the Adam West era Batman producing something like shark repellent from his utility belt. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.11.203.154 (talk) 01:12, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

If Batman, when faced with sharks, pulls shark repellent out of his utility belt, without that shark repellent having been mentioned previously, it's deus ex machina. However, if they introduce the shark repellent at the beginning of the episode, and his new addition just happens to be exactly what he needs that day, then it is technically not deus ex machina.--RLent (talk) 18:07, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, Bond is not a good example. The writing creates very fortuitous uses for the inventions Bond gets, but because they're introduced before Bond has to use them, it's not a Deus ex machina.

"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".

--Loodog (talk) 15:24, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Good Example

Wouldn't a good example of this be the ending of Lord of the Flys when the military or whatever find the boys, they apear randomly, without notice, and are a quick fix to a long lasting problem...being stuck on the island. It is a bit of a "twist" also.24.0.220.96 04:56, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it would be a good example, since, when being stranded on an island, a rescue party coming to save you fits with the internal logic of the story. Deus Ex Machina probably needs to realistically come out of nowhere, not out of where it would be expected. I also take issue with the article's current usage of Saving Private Ryan's intervention of the tank that is about to kill Tom Hanks' character... In a warfare situation, anything can happen... Das Boot's ending is not Deus Ex, neither is this...

My rules for what I consider Deus Ex Machina are: Either A) External, unforeseeable and UNLIKELY intervention that drives the plot. or B) Intervention that defies belief and has large impact on the plot (things are a little too convenient. or even C) Technobabble or Mystical solutions to otherwise unsolvable challenges in the plot line WHEREIN those technical or mystical solutions have no prior implied or demonstrated precedent (ergo, it is alright to use a ritual to defeat the evil sorceror if we are informed that it is possible in advance, and, if we notice that the big bad space aliens don't ever live near water, then water might be their weakness, logically).

Even in War of the Worlds, the use of natural pathogens to kill off the alien menace shouldn't really be considered deus ex. It's certainly believable to me that an alien world might harbor something that would kill us off, so, no suspension of disbelief there.

The James Bond thing mentioned above? Totally Deus Ex Machina in many cases(B), as well as the Adam West Batman Shark Repellant(C). —Preceding unsigned comment added by JudgeX (talk • contribs) 18:44, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

LOTF is not a DEM. The characters had spent the entire book trying to attract the attention of a ship with a signal fire. The fact that this works in the end is the very OPPOSITE of a Deus ex machina.--Loodog (talk) 15:25, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Three Revert Rule: Final Fantasy example

Looking in the recent history, I have noticed that this particular example below has been removed three times (possibly more, only went back a few reverts):

In the game, Final Fantasy X, when a weapon is customized specially for one of the characters, Rikku, with four different type advantages, it is labeled the Deus ex Machina, taking the literal meaning of "god out of a machine".

Not being familiar with the game, I cannot say whether or not it is a good example. However, as this does keep getting put back in and taken out, rather than risk people being suspended through the Three Revert Rule, I propose we have a quick discussion here and come to a consensus of opinion. That way, if the majority vote is to keep it off, the text could be removed without fear for your login. Similarly, should the example be classed as good enough for the article, the text could be edited and referenced to satisfy even the strictest of editors present here. StephenBuxton 14:00, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

If that is all that the character is supporting their argument with, it is highly unlikely that the literary definition of deus ex machina is being met. After all, I think a true gamer in a true situation would be very upset that the gameplay had been taken out of their hands, even if it let them beat the game. WP:BE BOLD, and if the contributor wants to explain him or herself, this is the forum to do so. MMetro (talk) 14:11, 20 November 2007 (UTC)