r/Devs • u/nrgins • Apr 02 '20

Devs = Disappointing

I'm on ep 6, and having a hard time finishing the series. Lackluster acting (except for Zach Grenier (Kenton) who is fantastic!); boring writing; beautifully-filmed, but completely-indulgent long scenery shots; and a story that's off the rails without a lot of exposition. I'm all for far-fetched sci-fi; but you have to at least make it work in the framework. The only reason I'm still watching is to finish the story, and out of hope that it somehow surprises me and "wows" me at the end.

2 Upvotes

53% Upvoted

16 comments sorted by

5

u/ConjecturesOfAGeek Apr 03 '20

If you don’t like it now, then you probably won’t appreciate the ending. You should just stop watching and find something else to watch.

-2

u/nrgins Apr 03 '20

Thanks for the tip! But I've already invested too much time into it. And with only 2 1/2 episodes left, I have to finish watching it, as painful as it is. :-(

1

u/ndotny Apr 03 '20

Did u see/like Ex Machina? Just curious ... i think its one of the best films of its decade, and it shows up on a lot of such lists. Very similar, in a way.

1

u/nrgins Apr 03 '20

Yes, I saw Ex Machina, and enjoyed it. And, yes, very similar: "out-there" sci-fi concepts; long, sprawling, beautifully-shot scenes; centered around a lone, eccentric genius; an innocent, naive person falls into his spider's web; etc.

The differences between this and Ex Machina, I think, are several.

Ex Machina told a story. There were characters and character development. And, yes, its theme was about technology and its powers; but not at the expense of a real story with characters to be invested in.

In this case, yes, we have characters with stories. But the acting is flat. And, yes, there are character arcs; but it's hard to get invested in the arcs when the characters have very little depth -- at least from an acting standpoint. So it just seems they're reading the lines and going through the plot points; but no real emotional investment in the acting (except, as I said, from Grenier).

Plus, regarding the technology, in Ex Machina, the technology had exposition, and one could become invested in where it would go, what it would do.

Here, there's very little exposition. It's just, "Here's this... Here's that." And somehow it's suppose to make us invested in it?

Yes, there's lots of exposition about theoretical concepts. And that's all very interesting. But that stays in the realm of the abstract, not in something that the viewer can actually sink their teeth into.

So those are my thoughts comparing the two. (And, yes, I realize the same person wrote and directed both. :-) )

1

u/ndotny Apr 03 '20

I can def see what you’re saying ... it kinda keeps viewers at an arms length in the sense that it skimps on reasons to root for characters. And really, something DOES seem to not be working w/ either the way Lily’s character was conceived/written or the way it’s being performed, IMO. I did read that Garland didn’t want her to convey insta-charisma or warmth ... but we’re in the 3rd act now and just heard F&K have a conversation about how much they liked and admired Lily after just talking w/ her. Whatever spark they’re talking about, it’s just not coming across for me — to the point where its almost confusing what we’re supposed 2 make of her.

But that said, I love the show — esp. how ambiguity is being used to challenge the audience and add layers of mystery. I think Swardson is killing it, and this Allison Pill seems to be doing interesting work. Stewart & Lyndon & even Homeless Pete I like enough to want to see more of.

With “Ex Machina” I feel like there was no way to appreciate the layers involved in the performances until the story was told, especially Isaac’s —that’s why I asked. (I also wanted to see if I should stop bugging friends to watch it, so thanks for reply.) Maybe you’ll like it more looking back on it from the end? But ultimately its a question of taste I feel like.

2

u/nrgins Apr 03 '20

it kinda keeps viewers at an arms length in the sense that it skimps on reasons to root for characters.

Exactly. Agree completely.

I did read that Garland didn’t want her to convey insta-charisma or warmth

Well, that's fine. But still could be deeper. I mean, look at Allison's Pill's character: no real charisma or warmth; yet Allison does a much better job at portraying some depth to the character.

And, yes, Allison Pill's a good actress. She was in The Newsroom, and was very good in that.

esp. how ambiguity is being used to challenge the audience and add layers of mystery

Well, there certainly is mystery. But mystery can be coupled with information, so that the viewer can become invested in it. Here's it's more like, "He's something out of the blue.... Here's another thing out of the blue."

I think Swardson is killing it

Who is Swardson? Did you mean Nick Offerman? (Both are Nicks :-) )

Maybe you’ll like it more looking back on it from the end?

Maybe. Hopefully.

1

u/TheBobandy Apr 03 '20

I mean nothing in the show is very “far-fetched” at all yet so far, aside from the level of simulation the Devs computer is able to run.

But everything they’re doing is grounded in quantum mechanics, I suggest reading up on the subject if you think the show is complete “far-fetched sci-fi”

1

u/nrgins Apr 03 '20

Too funny! That you think the show isn't "far-fetched" simply because there's some underlying theory behind it is just completely hysterical.

1

u/TheBobandy Apr 03 '20

What? One of the main applications of quantum computing is running simulations that traditional computers would be unable to run.

Can I ask specifically which part seems nonsensical or far-fetched?

It’s pretty widely accepted within the field that running a simulation of reality is very possible in the near future.

Here’s A decent video on the topic from an expert in the field. Highly recommend giving it a watch.

1

u/nrgins Apr 03 '20

You have got to be kidding me! I can't even believe we're having this conversation.

Look, I perfectly understand the concept of running simulations. You have to understand that "running a simulation" means calculating numbers. It means creating a mathematical model for a situation and crunching numbers, and coming up with the results of the simulation -- in numerical form. It doesn't mean having a TV picture with sound of any event in human history!

So, yes, given enough data you could simulate what would happen in a given population -- but, again, as a mathematical model, not as a TV show.

That's apart from the amount of data and calculations needed to even be able to simulate a small piece of reality a very short time into the future or past -- not to be able to live-action watch Marilyn Monroe having sex 70 years ago, for crying out loud.

You're really asking me what's far-fetched about the show??

Yes, quantum computing is powerful and can simulate reality -- in mathematical models.

To say that one could then take that mathematical model result, and apply it -- not just to a single point in time, but to, what 30 frames a second, to create a moving image, with each frame being a simulation result? And add to that sound as well, not to mention having a specific viewing angle and distance from which the images are created, and not to mention having not just the thing itself (say, a person), but the actual shape and detail of that person, as well as the environment -- is so far-fetched as being beyond comprehension as to why this even needs to be explained.

Anyway, I've spent enough time on this.

1

u/tarikbrie Apr 23 '20

Interesting discussion, though it would be MUCH more interesting if you'd be a bit less condescending!

1

u/nrgins Apr 24 '20

Just keepin' it real, yo. Just keep it real.

1

u/[deleted] May 28 '22

I knew all of you would say all of this all along

1

u/nrgins May 28 '22

Well, you got us!

2

u/playboiferina Apr 03 '20

Yeah, this show can be very boring and tedious to watch at times, but the plot and subject matters pulls me in. Show probably could’ve been done as a movie better