this post was submitted on 24 Sep 2023
117 points (96.1% liked)

Ask Lemmy

26903 readers
2544 users here now

A Fediverse community for open-ended, thought provoking questions

Please don't post about US Politics. If you need to do this, try [email protected]


Rules: (interactive)


1) Be nice and; have funDoxxing, trolling, sealioning, racism, and toxicity are not welcomed in AskLemmy. Remember what your mother said: if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all. In addition, the site-wide Lemmy.world terms of service also apply here. Please familiarize yourself with them


2) All posts must end with a '?'This is sort of like Jeopardy. Please phrase all post titles in the form of a proper question ending with ?


3) No spamPlease do not flood the community with nonsense. Actual suspected spammers will be banned on site. No astroturfing.


4) NSFW is okay, within reasonJust remember to tag posts with either a content warning or a [NSFW] tag. Overtly sexual posts are not allowed, please direct them to either [email protected] or [email protected]. NSFW comments should be restricted to posts tagged [NSFW].


5) This is not a support community.
It is not a place for 'how do I?', type questions. If you have any questions regarding the site itself or would like to report a community, please direct them to Lemmy.world Support or email [email protected]. For other questions check our partnered communities list, or use the search function.


Reminder: The terms of service apply here too.

Partnered Communities:

Tech Support

No Stupid Questions

You Should Know

Reddit

Jokes

Ask Ouija


Logo design credit goes to: tubbadu


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

Every week there's a new monster (MOTW) where all the evidence for outsiders disappears, or there's the mythology where the government is covering it up.

I'm a huge skeptic in almost everything, but if I saw what she saw, I would clearly believe. That's plenty of evidence for me, and I'm an actual scientist (well PhD engineer. I definitely did real science in school though)

The shit's clearly real in their universe.

(Sorry, just been watching the first season of the x-files for the past few weeks)

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 47 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (8 children)

The trouble is, we, the viewers, get a god's eye view of the action. We see that the monsters are real, and experience every magical moment of proof. Scully is a scientist plucked from our world and placed in Mulder's world of mystery. In our world, magic does not exist.

We experience weird and unexplained things all the time, and every single time there is a rational, scientific explanation for the evidence. UAPs actually are weather balloons and experimental aircraft. Mexican alien mummies are just plaster cast hoaxes. The guys who had a dead bigfoot in a cooler were lying for attention. Scully, in our world, would be correct every week, and we have a lot more Mulders than we care to think about.

Scully is a scientist. She does not dismiss that there are things we don't know. She dismisses the fantastical explanations presented without evidence, and we see week after week that Mulder doesn't have evidence. In the show, there are shadowy forces deliberately destroying evidence and disposing of bodies to keep secrets, always just outside Dana's peripheral vision. From our seats in front of the TV, we can see them, but she doesn't.

So when she sees something she cannot explain, she assumes that it is consistent with everything else she knows, everything we know in the real world. Fantastical experiences have natural, mundane explanations, even if we can't see them. Coincidence, hallucination, imagination, pareidolia, smoke and mirrors, misdirection, and hoaxes. If you see a magician pulls a rabbit from a hat, you may never know how he did it, but you don't assume martians created a wormhole in the hat and wear bunny costumes. That's what Mulder sounds like to Scully at first. It just so happens, in this show, that Mulder is dead on balls accurate.

load more comments (8 replies)
[–] [email protected] 44 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Iirc it becomes progressively more obvious to her. Character development and audience relatability

[–] [email protected] 17 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

It does not. She is stalwart in her skepticism.

I'll grant your recollection a bit of leeway because when she's part of the action, she does believe. That was true from the very beginning though.

She just writes it off at the end and continues to be skeptical about every new weird thing. After a few monsters, I would start believing whatever Mulder thought.

He's not always right because he always jumps to aliens, but if she came to realize that monsters are real in her universe, she'd be a much better scientist.

Edit: I'm glad this got the support it needed. This response was pretty far down voted for a while. I know Internet forums can (and hopefully should) never be the arbiters of our understanding of truth, but positive communication is very important IMO.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 1 year ago (1 children)

By season 8 she's so convinced she's essentially Mulder. She has times where she's more or less convinced until then, but it's a trajectory towards believing until she does. It just takes her a really long time.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Then, the next episode, she doesn't believe.

Every. Single. Time.

[–] [email protected] 37 points 1 year ago (1 children)

literally sees a man go invisible and then gets choked by invisible man

"There's got to be a rational explanation!"

"Yeah, Scully, and I think the rational explanation is that he really can go fucking invisible!"

[–] [email protected] 9 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

True. True. (90s reference).

I don't remember that episode of the x-files. It fits with the theme, but it's also the plot of the classic invisible man.

Any way, you've made some positive contributions to this discussion. I appreciate it.

[–] [email protected] 31 points 1 year ago (1 children)

There's something to be said about the whole "wanting to believe" thing for Mulder. While Scully may be rational and skeptical, there may also be a part of her that "doesn't want to believe" something outlandish.

If so, both Mulder's and Scully's gut instincts are technically irrational (because it doesn't make sense to "want to" believe something or not), but hers has a lifetime of reinforcement that is hard to break, even for an otherwise rational person.

[–] [email protected] 15 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

I like the want to believe vs not want to believe interpretation. Extremely good point.

This is a way more interesting answer than I expected. Respect.

[–] [email protected] 29 points 1 year ago (2 children)

just been watching the first season of the x-files for the past few weeks

Oh boy do you have some fun coming up.

I see most of X-Files filmed from Mulder's POV. There are some filmed from Scully's POV and you understand why she doesn't believe Mulders theories.

S3A:E12 is a good one from Scully's POV

[–] [email protected] 18 points 1 year ago

Maybe I should have said rewatch.

I watched this growing up (in the before times, when if you missed an episode, you never saw it), and have rewatched it twice since the streaming era.

Anyway, definitely a good show.

[–] [email protected] 10 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

What about, like, the "COPS" parody episode where Scully, completely separated from Mulder, sees another doctor she is performing an autopsy with start manifesting symptoms a deadly disease mere moments after mentioning it and scaring her (the supernatural thing was making your fears come true)? He didn't see it, even though I would say that episode was clearly from Mulder's point of view (and IIRC, Duchovney was the director on that one, as he did with a lot of the more humorous episodes) if not from the POV of the cameraman following them around (again, cops parody; it was filmed like an episode of cops). Did he just make shit up?

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 year ago

I misread cameraman as Cartman and it was a funny visual! 🤣

[–] [email protected] 28 points 1 year ago

There's a fan theory (that became my headcanon as soon as I heard it) that the episodes we see are the minority of their cases that are actually supernatural. Most of their cases have mundane explanations so Scully is always skeptical because she's usually right.

[–] [email protected] 17 points 1 year ago (3 children)

Just because you had aliens last week doesn't mean that you can have Bigfoot this week. Blurry photos and poorly substantiated ravings don't become good evidence of things until you get a lot more genre savvy.

And just because the thing you have matches Bigfoot on points one, five, and six doesn't necessarily mean it's going to be like Bigfoot on points two through four. Especially if there's not a unifying theory of Bigfootness behind them and they're just a list of aforesaid poorly substantiated ravings.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] [email protected] 15 points 1 year ago (1 children)

The easiest answer is that the plot and themes required it. The same way horror movie victims do stupid things like splitting up or checking on noises in a dark basement. It's necessary to advance the plot or maintain the status quo of the character relationships. Mulder needed a foil to his eagerness to embrace aliens and conspiracies as the explanation.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Right, but honestly, she's the star. Mulder is the foil. (I mean. I'm sure any literary scholar would agree with you, but I empathize with her more. I suppose that's why I asked this question)

In any case, the current top post suggests that a lot of people don't actually remember her character continuing to be skeptical at the beginning of every episode.

[–] [email protected] 12 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I think you are right : in this universe and since her character is described as rational, because of all the evidence she should come to believe.

Now of course, from a scenarist's perspective, for the plot, it is necessary to have someone at the center which is forever skeptical and one who wants to believe.

[–] [email protected] 10 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Yeah. I suppose that goes along with the general theme as well. Just like the unresolved sexual tension and fabulous chemistry between Mulder and Scully.

Anyway. This is just a TV tropes kind of question. I wasn't expecting any sort of complex analysis. I just wanted to post about the x-files on a Sunday afternoon now that I'm done with all that I needed to accomplish.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Vince Gilligan also met Bryan Cranston on this episode. It's a good one btw.

They would later collaborate on a small time show.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Oh. And the stock radio chatter that is in every episode and sim city.

I'm showing my age.

Edit: found it 28 seconds in or so.

Edit 2: I'm watching the eve 6 one. They use it multiple times there.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Has the series aged well? I haven’t seen it yet, but wondered whether I would like it.

[–] [email protected] 11 points 1 year ago (2 children)

If you were a 10 yo boy sci-fi geek when it started, it ages very well.

[–] [email protected] 11 points 1 year ago

Or girl. I knew more girls who loved the show than I did boys.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 year ago (1 children)

My sci-fi love came later. During the X-Filed age I rather watched Buffy.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I never watched Buffy. I think my wife did though. I'll see if she wants to rewatch.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Currently in season 3 on my Buffy rewatched. Has aged okay, but there’s also a lot of nostalgia at play.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 year ago

I just asked my wife if she wanted to rewatch. She said no, but she is trying to take a nap and our son is bugging her.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Same, always wanted to watch, not sure if it's worth it nowadays.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Do you remember the 90s? Do you like sci fi?

Anyway, give it a shot. It's dated, but there's also nostalgia in it (for me at least).

Edit: the first season (even to the pilot) is good. It changes, but if you like the first few episodes, you'll like the series.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Yes to both, though I've noticed many of the shows are only watchable because of nostalgia or by following a curated list of important episodes.

Stargate with all the filler episodes in the first seasons is horrible, but actually a great show to binge if you skip them.

Smallville is very boring in the first few seasons when you watch more than one episode.

Buffy is way too sexist for my tastes nowadays. And so on.

But yeah, I'll give it a try to see if I like it.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Buffy is fairly sexist by modern standards, but it was revolutionary for its time to "allow" a hero to be a girl iirc. Similarly Star Trek the OG series put women and minorities behind the ubiquitous white male lead characters - not only Kirk but also his two chief supports Spock and Bones/McCoy. There is a very interesting story behind the actress who portrayed Uhura wanting to not take the job, but being advised by top black leaders to go ahead, bc it was more good than bad to help normalize a black woman being on the screen, even if not fully equal but... closer to that nonetheless. Buffy being a ditzy California gurl was nowhere near enough to achieve equality on its own - and yet Willow and Faith may have helped more, plus Buffy herself as the show went on - but it may have been an important step forward nonetheless (ignoring for the moment whatever was going on behind the scenes at the time).

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago (2 children)

The OG series? Seriously? Star Trek the original gangster series? It's been called TOS since TNG started.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)
[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago

I won't down vote you, but I won't allow it.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

One of its chief lessons: f#ck conformity, dare to be different:-P.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 1 year ago

I'll allow it. Especially because I think I'm introducing something interesting to someone younger than me.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

There's pretty good in-universe explanations that are probably more in line with what you wanted out of an answer but also, it's clear that it is because it is her role both literally within the FBI, but also for writing purposes, to be a foil to Fox Mulder.

It actually worked really well in the early episodes. A classic duality, characters of opposing extremes brought together. Dana continually see things that challenge her rationality and she has to grapple with that while maintaining what she sees as a duty to remain grounded and offer the possibility of the explainable amidst the seemingly inexplicable. The apparent erosion of this level-headed front in the face of the extraordinary and supernatural week after week was initially a point of interest and development in the show.

The problem is that this established the dynamic between Fox and Dana and it was that, that made the show great so they had to keep it up but as there seemed to be no over-arching multi season arc planned they had to keep this going long after it still made any sense. This is especially evident when you see that attempts were made to carry on whole season long arcs while at the same time keeping the Monster of the Week episodes in between story episodes, so Dana would, in one week acknowledge her own direct personal experience and go all-in on taking down the conspiracy and seeing them aliens, and in another week somehow be totally skeptical of Fox's latest crazy supernatural crime solving theory as if it were the first season all over again.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Where are you watching these episodes at? I think I watched the first episode on some streaming service a long time ago, and never got around to watching the rest.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)
[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Do they include the inbred redneck episode?

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago

Oh yeah... that's a pretty gross one.

load more comments
view more: next ›