Anyone watch this? It’s from Alex Garland who wrote Ex Machina among many others Watched the first hour of the premiere, pretty interesting. Could be good but had received mix reviews. Nick Offerman is playing the eccentric potentially bad guy
I only had time to watch the first episode and it was really really good. Cant wait to watch the second this weekend.
You know you're in the golden age of television when a show like this practically goes unnoticed. Just binged three episodes, and... holy fuck, this is great television. Show is unique in every way possible. And so damn smart. Twists at every turn. Cinematography and music production are mesmerizing. So far, this is a 10 out of 10.
Last night's ep confused me a little bit. All these flashbacks are showing the multiverse where things are just a little bit different, giving a different outcome. But Forest fired the dev chick last week for using the multiverse to get that clear audio. Forerst whole thing is to prove predetermination, so he can absolve himself of guilt. So if they're successful in bringing people/animals back to life, they'll continue on w their predetermined path as if their death wouldn't have mattered? I feel that's either really spot on, or Im just completely lost lol.
Yeah that episode was tough to follow and I was thinking they need some additional dialogue to clarify. I imagine that'll be cleared up in the coming episodes. I love the show so far but they don't really give the really deep, complex ideas of the show much time to breathe. I feel like I'm sorting out the complexity of what they're talking about but they don't really give me much time before they move forward in the plot. Ultimately, I don't want them to dumb down the show, I don't think they need to, maybe just help the audience a bit more with pacing.
I hope the big event is Lilly somehow resurects the daughter, but instead of bring the daughter back to life, she puts life into the creepy statue of her. Then the statue goes and ravages SF like the Stay-Puff Marshmallow man
I get the they can see forward and backwards in the timeline. But still want to know how that relates to resurrecting dead rats/people.
Clearly the show's bottle episode. Devs ain't for everyone and I understand why many would be turned off by it, but I think the show is outstanding and is setting up to be one of my all-time favorites. I've always enjoyed topics on the outer fringe of metaphysics, quantum mechanics, cosmology, and whatever reality is -- with a little bit of spirituality thrown in. Of course, quantum mechanics is all outer fringe despite being universally accepted. - spoken as someone who has watched Contact at least 20 times. Probably 30+.
On episode three. Really like it. I don’t listen to rap so I had no idea who he is. I told my kids and they were like little dicky is huge. Went and played some of his songs and they are hysterical.
Watched The Platform last night and then rolled right on into Devs. Was a weird headspace going from that movie (no spoilers) to the beginning of the universe + the scene with them watching themselves a second into the future. I am really enjoying this show. Excited to see how it ends next week.
Lol. Is there even a Dave thread? I mean there should be. Episode three was one of the funniest things I have ever seen.
https://www.theringer.com/tv/2020/4/10/21216149/devs-hulu-quantum-physics-philosophy-alex-garland long article about the quantum computing aspect and the major philosophical points of the show through e7
I am caught up. I absolutely love this show. The plot is actually quite simple considering how complex the topic is. I like how they didn't make it over the top science at the expense of good character development and story telling. I am really hoping they stick the landing. My guess is Gata comes through :)
I had no idea they were doing only one season until a week or two ago. I feel confident the ending will be great. The best part of doing only one season is they knew exactly how it would end when they wrote it.
Just finished. Great season/story overall. I really enjoyed it. It probably could have been done in a movie but would have fallen short of all of the development. From a philosophical standpoint, I get the point of determinism, but I feel that as soon as you introduce knowledge of an outcome all bets are off, because you can choose to break it. I guess then the question then is whether you really knew it or not.
Good read with Garland: https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.ro...vs-creator-alex-garland-interview-980235/amp/
I did not pick up on this. The series’ title graphic morphs a bit, turning Devs into the project’s actual name, Deus — and thus making the entire story feel like a companion piece to Garland’s directorial debut, the 2014 film Ex Machina.
This passage helped sort out a lot of what I was thinking yesterday, but basically knowing something makes you Deus ex Machina and allows you to change it. 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. So even though he believes in determinism, Forest was going to be able to craft a version of reality that was exactly the same except for the car crash, and go there? That’s exactly right. In effect, what he’d be able to do is rejoin that timeline, but not make the phone call to his wife and not, therefore, be the cause of the car crash. And then he’d be able to experience the unfolding of his life exactly as if the thing never happened. And within that state, it would be a world of equal status to the world that you and I are talking in right now. The problem is that the world is not the simple, deterministic world he wants it to be. So he has to accept a different version.
I had no idea of this... You cast a female actor, Cailee Spaeny, to play Lyndon, who’s referred to by others with male pronouns. What was that character’s gender meant to be? Lyndon’s a boy. It was a process, really. It began by starting to look for a boy, and just feeling that something wasn’t right. It was as much to do with physiology as anything. Above a certain age, there’s all these things that happen to boys that have to do with shoulders and the structure of their face, and having to do with things like shaving. There was a particular quality of youth that I was hunting for, and it just occurred to me at a certain point, “What if I cast a young woman to play this boy?” I discussed that with the casting director, Carmen Cuba, and she said, “You should meet this actress, Cailee Spaeny.” And as she walked through the door, I thought, “Yeah, that’s him. That’s Lyndon.” I never saw anyone else for the role. The search stopped.
Living in a simulation, where youre the only one of 2 people who know it's a simulation seems like a type of purgatory
I would agree until you consider the only thing you know is how you got there, what should have happened, and that only the two of you know. I think one of his points regarding deterministic theory is that if you believe in it that is exactly what you are going through anyway. That's why my head hurts every time I try to consider if it could be true. I think at a certain point they settle in and just enjoy and experience the new simulation. He got what he wanted and she got what she wanted.
the funny thing about this is I heard them say "Dave's" instead of deus and had to go back because I knew I heard it wrong