Sacrifice of the Angels Ending A Deus Ex Machina?

[Pavonis]

How should it have been resolved? A treknobabble miracle?

[Christopher]

The idea that the resolution is somehow separate from the nature of the crisis is misunderstanding how TV episodes are assembled. What happens is that the writing staff "breaks" the story -- plots out an outline of the entire episode, or in this case the entire 6-part arc -- as a group, working out the whole story from beginning to end, before anything actually goes to script. The idea that the "wrote themselves into a corner" is based on the assumption that they started writing before they knew where they were going, but that's not how it works. They would've settled on this outcome to the arc fairly early in the process, and then it would've been a matter of building up to that desired outcome. If they'd wanted a different climax, then the story leading up to it would've been different.

[MacLeod]

The resolution also meant holding DSN and therefore the wormhole was a moot point for the Dominion. With the wormhole essentially closed to dominion ships, was it worth expending valubale military resources holding DSN. As one of the primiary reasons to hold it was to control the wormhole.

Their lines had also collpased in the battle and several hundred Federation/Klingon ships where on route to DSN. They didn't have a force strong enough there to hold out against that many ships. SO they retreated back to Dominion space.

[Ian Keldon]

AllStarEntprise wrote:

---

While I do enjoy the theme SFDebris brought up about the Founders being false gods and the Prophets being the true gods. There is something diminishing about the Federations victory because it's basically "Fuck the Dominion we have GOD on our side".

I disagree, the Federation still had to fight hard to win the battle (and ultimately the War). The Prophets only acted within their own sphere (the Celestial Temple).

If they had reached out into the regular universe and started destroying Dominion left, right, and center, then THAT would have diminished the Federation victory.

[Dream]

AllStarEntprise wrote:

---

While I do enjoy the theme SFDebris brought up about the Founders being false gods and the Prophets being the true gods. There is something diminishing about the Federations victory because it's basically "Fuck the Dominion we have GOD on our side".

They weren't gods, they were wormhole aliens.

[Ian Keldon]

Zombie Redshirt wrote:

---

Well if the "majority" of Trek fans think the Prophets and Bajoran story arcs are "very annoying" "ridiculous" and should be "forgotten" they haven't mentioned it to me. Seems to me this silent majority is just you with an ax to grind against a particular plot element.

Precisely so. A large number of Trek fans are ardent secularists, if not outright atheists. Nothing sets off either group worse than positive portrayals of faith and faith-based behavior.

[TheGodBen]

Ian Keldon wrote:

---

Precisely so. A large number of Trek fans are ardent secularists, if not outright atheists. Nothing sets off either group worse than positive portrayals of faith and faith-based behavior.

You should probably endeavour to understand what you're talking about before you speak on this subject again.

[Dream]

Ian Keldon wrote:

---

Precisely so. A large number of Trek fans are ardent secularists, if not outright atheists. Nothing sets off either group worse than positive portrayals of faith and faith-based behavior.

I liked how the DS9 writers attempted to show both the positive and negative sides of religion with the people that followed the Prophets and the Pah-wraiths.

Too bad they turned the Pah-Wraiths and Dukat into comic book villains at the end.

[iguana_tonante]

Ian Keldon wrote:

---

Precisely so. A large number of Trek fans are ardent secularists, if not outright atheists. Nothing sets off either group worse than positive portrayals of faith and faith-based behavior.

[AllStarEntprise]

Ian Keldon wrote:

---

I disagree, the Federation still had to fight hard to win the battle (and ultimately the War). The Prophets only acted within their own sphere (the Celestial Temple).

If they had reached out into the regular universe and started destroying Dominion left, right, and center, then THAT would have diminished the Federation victory.

I was referring to the battle and victory in 'Sacrifice of the Angels', not the final conclusion in 'What you Leave Behind'. Had the 2,800 ships come through the wormhole that would've ended the Dominion conflict a lot sooner with a Dominion victory.

Dream wrote:

---

They weren't gods, they were wormhole aliens.

I posted this earlier but here it is again. By Sisko's admission during his conversation with the Prophets, the Prophets had sent the Bajorans, Orbs, Emissarys, and "encouraged" the Bajorans to create a religion based around the Prophets.

1. Encouraging a race of people to worship you and create a religion about you.
2. Creating supernatural artifacts. The 10 Orbs and sending them to the people who worship you
3. Anointing average people to be your Emissary's

Most 'gods' in fiction have similar foundations as the Prophets do. What comes to mind at present is the goddess Hylia from The Legend Of Zelda, and the Judeo-Christian-Muslim god.

I would say that the Prophets don't have creationist powers but in a way they did genesis Sisko in to existence out of the necessity that Benjamin Sisko NEEDED to exist for their purposes.

If there is any other criteria that you think disqualifies the Prophets from being classified as gods Dream I would like to hear your rebuttal.

[MacLeod]

Just because someone worships someone as a god does not mean they are in fact gods.

"Who mourns for Adonis?" a TOS episode told how a race of superior beings set themselves up as god on Earth thousndas of years until they left when Humanity moved on from thinking they were gods. The Bajoran's just haven't reached their point in regards to the wormhole aliens.

[Christopher]

But whether they're gods has nothing to do with whether they're a deus ex machina, because that term is not meant literally.

[iguana_tonante]

Tell that to Ian Keldon. Given his reasoning, now I guess he's going to argue Star Trek fans don't like a deus ex machina becase they are atheist.

[AllStarEntprise]

MacLeod wrote:

---

Just because someone worships someone as a god does not mean they are in fact gods.

"Who mourns for Adonis?" a TOS episode told how a race of superior beings set themselves up as god on Earth thousndas of years until they left when Humanity moved on from thinking they were gods. The Bajoran's just haven't reached their point in regards to the wormhole aliens.

I've provided evidence that is generally used to classify a persons or groups of people as deities. Look at the Ancient Greek, Ancient Egyptian, Shinto, Hindu, Judeo-Chrisitian-Muslim and gods used in various media books, games and movies. Not all of them fit the same criteria but there is universally a sense of beyondness/mystical/celestial power about them that they use to any number of ends.

Please define and or list details of criteria you believe classifies a god character.



With the Prophets nothing they ever did was seen or displayed as being scientific. It was always mystical. Deus Ex Machina being a greek term should extend to divine intervention since gods would be used to settle the plot of a dispute in greek plays and writings

Take the Founders for example. They created the Vorta and the Jem'hadar and programmed them to view the Founders as infallible beings. Weyoun and the Jem'Hadar in the episode 'Rocks and Shoals' prove that the Founders don't need to win their loyalty or devotion; they've had it since their creation.

Take a look at Superman and Thor. Both are arguably the same in terms or powers and abilities but in their respective universes Thor is viewed and considered a god while Superman is just an alien. Thor's powers and feats are neck deep in the supernatural. His powers and magic are explained and displayed as such. When he ascends to the throne of Asgard he gains his father's powers. Odin whose life force flows through and sustains the harmony of Asgard becomes Thor's and thereby Thor is life force and sovereign of Asgard. Thor is perceived as a god for such reasons

Superman is technical. Coming from an advanced alien race he generally builds machines for varying reasons, he can explore space, create artificial environments and solar fusion devices to create and sustain a pocket version of Earth in his Fortress of Solitude. Has access to time travel, via Time Bubbles and a view screen in to the future so he may see future events. With his scientific advancements and physical gifts he can cure famines, droughts and diseases. If people on Earth decided to worship Superman as a god it's wouldn't be without reason or merit.

There is the distinction. One could say Thor and his fellow Asgardians are an advanced alien race, and that their magic is technology that we don't understand, but we'd have to reclassify what we except as magic and mysticism. Without anything to compare Asgardian magic to it would be pointless. Superman is super science and technobable. It's easy for the audience to assimilate and recognize Superman as being scfi science. The Prophets making an entire Dominion fleet vanish could have been an adavnced form of a transporter/disintergrater, or it could've been them vaporizing them with their phenomenal cosmic power. We don't know because the show doesn't tell us. All we know is that the Prophets are displayed as supernatural beings whom a race of people view as gods and have a religion based on them. I remind you that the Prophets encouraged the Bajorans to start that religion and worship them.

[CmndrSela_333]

I was going to vote no but before I voted I realized I had to look up the meaning of Dues Ex Machina since I didn't know it. After I read the definition below, especially the bold, italicized, underlined parts, I voted yes. If you read just the bold, italicized, underlined parts, they describe the ending to a T.
Deus Ex Machina definition according to Google: An unexpected power or event saving a hopeless situation, esp. as a plot device in a play or novel.

Personally, I think the end of the definition should read: in a play, a novel, a movie or a tv show.