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)
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.
deleted by creator
This is a whole bunch of word salad. (= “this is verbose nonsense”)
It’s just four paragraphs, and their content is rather clear. TL;DR:
- Scully works from the PoV of a RL scientist
- Scully has a fraction of the info that viewers do, and that fraction does not include things that would contradict a sceptic explanation
- As such there’s no reason for Scully to change her worldview to accept aliens and other weirdness
I’m glad that you and the other guy are smart enough to know these things, but x-files is not real.
We do not live in the x-files universe. That is a fundamental point of this conversation.
but x-files is not real. // We do not live in the x-files universe.
No shit Sherlock. And his point still stands because Scully is showing the same sort of rationalism that you’d expect from a person in real life, given her background.
And I’m also highlighting that, contrariwise to what you said, his comment is not some “word salad”.
Fair enough. Just know one thing. The unconscious mind seems to be not just incredibly powerful, but reality-defying to the point that myself and my dad have gotten information related to events we would not experience until years later in dreams, and in general lucid dreams are often stranger than fiction.
You don’t have to believe anything, I’m just pointing out oneirology (study of dreams, and in an actual scientific manner rather than something shady like astrology) is both a real field of study and like trying to catalogue all the different ways lightning can be put in a jar; frustratingly resistant to the scientific method.
And that’s just in anthopological and psychological fields, what about the bottom of the ocean or the depths of space? It’s unlikely there’s anything truly alien or magic on other worlds or in deep ocean water but so is the presence of life at all. In short, we might also be living in a world which isn’t as realistic as we’ve been led to believe reality is.
The thing is, what we’ve dubbed “realistic” is things that are consistent with previous observation, and our best models of reality. We’ve so far never once, let alone frequently, seen incontrovertible proof of life from Extra Terrestrial origin, we never see real life vampires and when people die they tend to stay dead and eventually rot rather than becoming ghosts. Because of that, we consider phenomena that mostly follows this trend to be “realistic” or rather just, real.
Sometimes there’s things that were simply not observed or not accounted for in our models before, but we’ll experience them in a way that is frequent enough or resistant enough to being explained through existing models, that we have to update our understanding of reality. After that future experiences with phenomena that are explainable through the lens of our experiences and latest models of reality become the new “realistic”. From that, we can’t really live in an “unrealistic” universe because realistic is just whatever is “real” and when we find something provably new, it becomes the new “real”. If vampires started popping up all over the place or even just one was discovered and provably had different biology from human beings that enabled the ability to live eternally or suck blood through specially adapted teeth, then ultimately that would just become normal. Until they do though, it’s in general best to reckon using our collective experience and understanding of reality which mostly precludes vampires or premonitions as possibilities.
Fair enough. I meant that there’s two "realistic"s out there. There’s what’s scientifically proven, and there’s what pop-culture has led us to believe; they overlap but the latter is significantly less required to tell the truth.
How childlike are teenagers? More than you think thanks to Dawson Casting. Why do Aluminum Christmas Trees exist in the Peanuts universe? Because that was an actual ugly fad back in the 1960s. Why do cars always explode when they crash in movies? Because it looks cool and reminds people that the Ford Pinto was a death trap and so could their Tesla be.
Pop-Culture is art, not science, but most of us (myself included) take it for granted that what is and isn’t fictional is easy to spot because real people sit on chairs but only action movie heroes can survive jumping out a plate glass window to escape an explosion. Sadly, fake news exists because fiction has never been 100% clear on what is fake in movies and books, and since 2016 neither is reality for some odd reason (Life imitates art, go figure).
If every Aluminum Christmas Tree was just a wry commentary on the commercialization of a Christian holiday, World War One would never have happened. If the poles for traffic lights weren’t designed to shear off and fall to the ground if a car drives into them, there would be a lot more road fatalities, yet people deride Grand Theft Auto, American Truck Simulator, Crossout and other games with drivable vehicles and destructible environments for unrealistic traffic lights that you can push over by driving into.
Science, as accurate as it is due to only trusting the verified and being willing to de-verify whatever turns out to be misinformed, is not the default coding language of our brain; We are usually very emotionally-motivated, so people believe in everything from a flat earth conspiracy to “science is my one true god because my parents abused me and were constantly going on about Jesus and sinners to cover up that they were bad people, therefore all religions must be evil” to “capitalism is inherently good because I saw my neighbours dragged into the night to never be heard from again by the Soviet secret police” (for the record, I hate both systems but monarchy and anarchy don’t appeal to me one bit either so… eh).
So yeah, tl;dr, take it from a fiction writer that people will often believe anything that speaks to them, and therefore our definitions of “realistic” were quite different.
I really did mean “realistic-looking, but not reality” as much as you meant “scientific consensus”, and I get why that’s easy to confuse… sometimes I just forget when posting on social media that most people don’t have a good memory or the desire to memorize things from fiction as disparate as Aboriginee mythology, Hypnopspace Outlaw, the Backrooms, Paprika and Inception, all well enough to remember every single one of them (and many others) involves dream magic/super-tech of some sort. My apologies for forgetting you probably don’t write fiction for a living.
That was really all quite interesting this was not where I thought you were going with your comment that I replied to at all. I think actually the down votes might speak to a similar confusion.
Iirc it becomes progressively more obvious to her. Character development and audience relatability
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.
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.
Then, the next episode, she doesn’t believe.
Every. Single. Time.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
deleted by creator
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.
deleted by creator
I’m not angry. I’m trying to get inside Scully’s head.
Scully was legit abducted by aliens in her universe and met up with a whole room of people who had similar alien artifacts removed from them.
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.
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.
Vince Gilligan also met Bryan Cranston on this episode. It’s a good one btw.
They would later collaborate on a small time show.
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.
Has the series aged well? I haven’t seen it yet, but wondered whether I would like it.
If you were a 10 yo boy sci-fi geek when it started, it ages very well.
Or girl. I knew more girls who loved the show than I did boys.
My sci-fi love came later. During the X-Filed age I rather watched Buffy.
I never watched Buffy. I think my wife did though. I’ll see if she wants to rewatch.
Currently in season 3 on my Buffy rewatched. Has aged okay, but there’s also a lot of nostalgia at play.
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.
Same, always wanted to watch, not sure if it’s worth it nowadays.
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.
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.
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).
The OG series? Seriously? Star Trek the original gangster series? It’s been called TOS since TNG started.
One of its chief lessons: f#ck conformity, dare to be different:-P.
I’ll allow it. Especially because I think I’m introducing something interesting to someone younger than me.
The OG Series
I won’t down vote you, but I won’t allow it.
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.
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.
Currently on Hulu.
Do they include the inbred redneck episode?
Oh yeah… that’s a pretty gross one.
