|
 Is anyone watching the Hulu miniseries Devs, created by Alex Garland (Ex Machina, Annihilation) and starring Sonoya Mizuno as a San Francisco techbro and Nick Offerman as a San Francisco techbro? Here's an article about it.  Sonoya plays Lily Chan, a programmer who works at Amaya, a tech company run by Offerman's character Forest. Various things occur. We're 2 episodes into the 8 episode run right now and the main theme seems to be centered around free will and determinism. There's also a lot of stuff about loss, loneliness, and isolation. And... Russians...  I don't know if I like it yet, but now that The Good Place is over I need something to fill the "TV about philosophy" hole in my heart so I'm going to keep watching. So far the show hasn't really delved deeply into the themes but I think it's safe to say that stuff will come sooner or later. There are some rather pretty shots and some great use of music to set the mood. Stephen McKinley Henderson plays a cantakerous older techbro and that is fun.  Already the show seems to deeply misunderstand compatibilism, which means it would fail an intro to philosophy course about free will, but I might not be giving it enough credit, since after all it has just been characters talking, and it's not clear whether we're meant to think they have any understanding of what is going on.
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2020 06:35
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 23, 2024 19:55 |
|
|
enjoyed the first episodes, will watch more.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2020 09:03
|
|
|
Agreed, really enjoyed the first two episodes. And the crypto talk isn't completely stupid as is usually the case.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2020 12:22
|
|
|
I'm glad someone made this thread because now I don't have to. This show is certainly intriguing so far. Could be very good, or could completely fall apart in the second half. No way to know yet!
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2020 12:26
|
|
|
i'm kinda taking a glance from a distance at this and waiting to see if other people say it's good. the trailer both piqued my interest and made it seem likely that it's a bunch of bullshit with its 'what is behind the mystery door' 'EVERYTHING' talk, because that usually turns out to be a bunch of crap especially when they lead with that and i didn't really pick up on anything else going on, but it's just a trailer.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2020 12:42
|
|
|
large_gourd posted:the trailer both piqued my interest and made it seem likely that it's a bunch of bullshit with its 'what is behind the mystery door' 'EVERYTHING' talk, because that usually turns out to be a bunch of crap especially when they lead with that and i didn't really pick up on anything else going on, but it's just a trailer. They basically explain in episode two what the big secret project is, so they're not dragging that out to keep you watching.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2020 13:02
|
|
|
large_gourd posted:i'm kinda taking a glance from a distance at this and waiting to see if other people say it's good. the trailer both piqued my interest and made it seem likely that it's a bunch of bullshit with its 'what is behind the mystery door' 'EVERYTHING' talk, because that usually turns out to be a bunch of crap especially when they lead with that and i didn't really pick up on anything else going on, but it's just a trailer.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2020 14:20
|
|
|
This is a cool show. Gorgeous and creepy. I'm surprised at how much they're showing - I thought it would be more of a mystery re: the disappearance, and I didn't think we'd actually get inside Devs already (if we ever did).
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2020 05:36
|
|
|
The first two episodes are fantastic. First time in a long time I've actually been surprised by a movie or TV show. Great cinematography. I love Garland's languid style, which lingers without being over the top like Refn. It's definitely the kind of show that could devolve into a confusing mess of nonsense by the end and I'm really hoping that doesn't happen. But since it's Alex Garland and not Alex Kurtzman or JJ Abrams, maybe it won't.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2020 05:55
|
|
|
One thing I'm enjoying about this show is how it portrays the really odd class interactions seen in SF right now.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2020 07:05
|
|
|
I've yet to see Alex Garland jump the shark, so I'm not going to predict it's gonna happen until proven otherwise. I wonder if he's directing on all of them? I was surprised to see he did both of the episodes. I was expecting it to feel a bit cheaper/lesser than Ex machina or Annihilation with it being a TV show but I couldn't have been more wrong. Absolutely loved the first two episodes.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2020 07:17
|
|
|
Yep, Garland directed all eight episodes. Should be good. I enjoyed the first two so far. It's funny, at first I was kind of disappointed (?) to know what was going on so early, but I blame Abrams style Mystery Box bullshit for training me to expect that.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2020 12:54
|
|
|
Not gonna lie I feel like I only have a vague understanding of what they are working on. Basically being able to witness everything that happens through all of time? History and future?
veni veni veni fucked around with this message at 19:31 on Mar 10, 2020 |
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2020 14:43
|
|
|
Not just that but grappling with the reality of a deterministic universe where they can see the future, maybe even their own future actions and understand that they are unable to change the outcome. The machine seems to give visual projections such as when they witnessed the crucifixion of Jesus. Nothing indicated about what constraints there are outside of vague murmurings of not managing a fully accurate simulation when pushing certain boundaries (time?) SCheeseman fucked around with this message at 16:05 on Mar 10, 2020 |
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2020 16:01
|
|
|
The thing I am most curious about is how they can, or if they will explain that the future is pre determined in a satisfying way. Seems impossible imo. E: I should probably spoiler these posts lol.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2020 19:29
|
|
|
veni veni veni posted:Not gonna lie I feel like I only have a vague understanding of what they are working on. Basically being able to witness everything that happens through all of time? History and future? Remember Sergei's presentation from the first episode? It appears that the Devs machine can simulate and predict what anyone is going to do/has done. If anyone finds the free will stuff interesting Ted Chiang has a short story ("What's Expected of Us") on the subject in his latest book of short stories, Exhalation.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2020 19:33
|
|
|
Yup totally thought of that story when watching. One of my favorites from that collection. This is one of the few shows I wish they had dropped in one batch so I could just watch the whole drat thing now.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2020 20:49
|
|
|
veni veni veni posted:The thing I am most curious about is how they can, or if they will explain that the future is pre determined in a satisfying way. Seems impossible imo. I don't think there's much to explain, the idea that the universe is deterministic is one of the less fantastical things in the show. The premise I think is more about the effects of the certainty of that knowledge on the human psyche. It's depicted as an invert of a religious realization, a sort of ultimate nihilism.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2020 00:02
|
|
|
Since they were saying stuff like "it doesn't matter if you smoke" I suspect that they have already used the machine to look into the future and see some sort of disaster. So the actual intent of the project will be to break determinism and manage to change things in the future, and maybe also the past (Ron Swanson will definitely try to bring his daughter back to life).
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2020 14:47
|
|
|
Comrade Fakename posted:Since they were saying stuff like "it doesn't matter if you smoke" I suspect that they have already used the machine to look into the future and see some sort of disaster. So the actual intent of the project will be to break determinism and manage to change things in the future, and maybe also the past (Ron Swanson will definitely try to bring his daughter back to life). I took it more to mean that it doesn't matter because what will happen will happen. If free will doesn't exist then your existence doesn't have.. I dunno, meaning? Dying of lung cancer is simply a perceived effect of what is actually just atoms bouncing around the universe, and those atoms will keep bouncing after your illusion of awareness ends. The focus on the past events makes me think the show is more about changing or simulating the past to bring back the daughter but you could be right on the change the future concept.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2020 17:15
|
|
|
When I saw the scene with the quantum crucifixion in order to wrap my head around the wacky mix of science and religion I couldn’t help but think back to the thing in Contact where the first message they get from aliens is encoded in a Hitler speech. They randomly tuned the thing to the filming of The Last Temptation of Christ or Life of Brian maybe? But otoh I guess they “know” it was 2000 years old so the show does presuppose three people being crucified together has some kind of great significance that we the audience should see it first on the big screen rather than something more easily verifiable like the Kennedy assassination? Not trying to dance around it honestly but it’s a big elephant and it just seems unlikely that this is a show where everyone is on the same page, ah yes Jesus of Nazareth this thing does work! 
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2020 21:07
|
|
|
BaldDwarfOnPCP posted:When I saw the scene with the quantum crucifixion in order to wrap my head around the wacky mix of science and religion I couldn’t help but think back to the thing in Contact where the first message they get from aliens is encoded in a Hitler speech. If you're trying to simulate a scene from 2000 years ago, I'm having a hard time thinking of something more immediately recognizable to the average audience member. I don't think the religious aspect is any more meaningful than that. What else does your average Joe know about 2000 years ago? Even something like Caesar crossing the Rubicon would just be blurry dudes walking through a river.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2020 21:33
|
|
|
PopetasticPerson posted:If you're trying to simulate a scene from 2000 years ago, I'm having a hard time thinking of something more immediately recognizable to the average audience member. I don't think the religious aspect is any more meaningful than that. What else does your average Joe know about 2000 years ago? Even something like Caesar crossing the Rubicon would just be blurry dudes walking through a river. I guess I was thinking something along the lines of “I work in silicon valley and want proof of my quantum computer’s ability to look very far back in time so what I’ll do is set it to 0 BCE oh idk Rome-ish and then get an image of three guys on crosses just as I, a jaded computer scientist would have expected. The real problem though is this is blurry and I wanted to contest Popular Mechanic’s vision of homely Jesus.” I get what you mean about it being a visual shorthand though and am probably thinking way to hard about something that will doubtless be explained.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2020 22:30
|
|
|
Zachack posted:I took it more to mean that it doesn't matter because what will happen will happen. If free will doesn't exist then your existence doesn't have.. I dunno, meaning? Dying of lung cancer is simply a perceived effect of what is actually just atoms bouncing around the universe, and those atoms will keep bouncing after your illusion of awareness ends. BaldDwarfOnPCP posted:When I saw the scene with the quantum crucifixion in order to wrap my head around the wacky mix of science and religion I couldn’t help but think back to the thing in Contact where the first message they get from aliens is encoded in a Hitler speech.
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2020 13:03
|
|
|
veni veni veni posted:The thing I am most curious about is how they can, or if they will explain that the future is pre determined in a satisfying way. Seems impossible imo. From what I've gathered, they're saying the future is predetermined because all the variables are already set. They know what choices you're going to make because they've mapped your life and thousands of similar lives and can make a 99.91% accurate guess because they've run the numbers. Same as Sergei's team and the nematode.
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2020 15:40
|
|
|
Tiggum posted:It's not so much that determinism eliminates meaning, it's just that if you know that the future is already written then there's no point worrying about whether or not you're going to die of lung cancer; either you will or you won't and there's nothing you can do about it so you may as well smoke. I think the lack of point in worrying ties into the nihilism of predestination, and Ron's internal clash between knowing that the murder was inevitable but also feeling bad because he was conditioned to. And the crucifixion scene was supposed to be Jesus, there were three crosses. I guess in Devs universe it could be Jessus the Clumsy's crucifixion but visually it's definitely supposed to be commonly interpreted.
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2020 17:44
|
|
|
Episode 3 chat: Kind of funny, I thought that the scene where the security guy turns around and sees Lilly on the ledge was a plot hole because how could her friend miss her walking past the window?
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2020 00:41
|
|
|
muscles like this! posted:Episode 3 chat:
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2020 01:34
|
|
|
The impression I was getting is that they are using AI to predict the state of every atom in the known universe at any point in time so as to view what happened and when. so a photo a zombie unicorn loving your grandmother could theoretically be generated by their computer, and every variation of that scene from every possible angle with every variable possible. the implications of a computer that could apply such a theory to history and view basically the state of every atom in the known universe at some point in time is pretty scary - on one hand it would mean you could solve literally any crime ever, but it would also mean the end of privacy. it seems they are then extrapolating that out to attempting to predict the future? I was initially feeling like the scene in the security office was really poorly acted until i realised she was actually acting that she was acting. then it made sense. shows good.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2020 01:44
|
|
|
Between the discussion last episode of how it would take machine larger than the universe to perfectly model the universe (and Katie's rather flippant dismissal of that) and Forest's red eyed obsession with determinism, I wonder if his advanced tech has revealed to him that the universe they live in now is, in fact, a simulation run by a larger, more complex reality. Probably not but could be an interesting juke.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2020 03:03
|
|
|
I love the song choice of Age of Aquarius. Really tied together the relatively ancient bay area boomer consensual hallucination with Lily Chan and her thoroughly modern problems. I couldn't help but think of the youtuber Vihart and her fibonacci videos, going mad listening to numbers stations or w/e.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2020 04:11
|
|
|
Laserface posted:I was initially feeling like the scene in the security office was really poorly acted until i realised she was actually acting that she was acting. then it made sense. I was initially concerned they were playing the "Lily has a history of psychotic breakdowns" thing straight, maybe into some involuntary institutionalization plot-line, and disappointed with how trusting Lily was of her supervisor (given that she's been portrayed as pretty sharp and I really wanted the protagonist to not be an idiot), and annoyed at her friend's betrayal of her... so it was a nice to see the twist mid-episode. I'm liking this show.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2020 09:23
|
|
|
Laserface posted:it seems they are then extrapolating that out to attempting to predict the future?
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2020 12:14
|
|
|
Tiggum posted:They're explicitly not doing that. That was one of the rules: no looking at the future and no invading privacy. Although that might be a potential goal, it seems like Forest is more (or exclusively) interested in revisiting the past - and perhaps changing it? Or possibly just working out a way to "beat" determinism; to get off the rails. Forest seems utterly resigned to his fate, every word that comes out of his mouth is said with a bored resignation. There's no hope there, the technology and scientific theory that once gave him hope has instead utterly ripped every last bit of it away from him. When he said that alternate universes weren't real to Sergie he wasn't trying to throw him off track, he already knew he was going to kill him. He said it because he knows and believes it. Maybe there will be a mcguffin and they'll quantum singularity themselves into an alternate timeline or something equally dumb, but I don't think that's what this show is shooting for.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2020 12:28
|
|
|
I really, really like this show. A good blend of Garland's tendencies so far and it's a perfect fit for FX's more artsy streak. Agreed that I really didn't like what they were doing with Lily's character in episode 3 but the wife and I laughed with relief when the reveal happened. Episode saved. Also, thread title: Devs: That's transcendentally weird, Lily.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2020 16:22
|
|
|
I dig this show a lot and that “pop” near the end of ep 2  The intro to Ep3 was cool as helllll. It’s a show I don’t watch on my monitor or ipad instead waiting to watch on my proper tv too, it looks great. Especially the machine.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2020 19:09
|
|
|
priznat posted:I dig this show a lot and that “pop” near the end of ep 2 Heck yes. I’m never going to rewatch Monroe on Miller but I enjoyed watching it and imagining the nerds who put that together.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2020 19:29
|
|
|
Really not loving the weekly schedule on this. Wish I had more willpower. I'd just wait and binge the rest. Realistically I'll just keep watching it and be annoyed I can't watch the next episode yet.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2020 09:36
|
|
|
Definition of broadcast television for 200 Wacky
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2020 19:28
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 23, 2024 19:55 |
|
|
show's good. sonoya mizuno was the best part of maniac, so i'm excited to see what she does in this. i'm getting the sense that nick offerman is trying to create a 'golden path', a la dune. devs' thesis on determinism seems to be that if you forecast backwards to unpack and analyse all the various causes of past events, you can create a model that predicts future ones. which is of course wrong, but it's a fun idea so whatever.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2020 07:46
|
|
