MovieChat Forums > American Gods (2017) Discussion > So what’s the basic message here?

So what’s the basic message here?

posted 8 years ago by MinaVladimir (4086)
29 replies | jump to latest

Are we supposed to be convinced that old superstitions are preferable to the new worship of technology?

I would agree that worshiping these old gods was/is more fulfilling on a personal level, since you get something out of the whole thing (personal gratification, sense of purpose, a connection to something greater than you, etc.), and the focus on technology and media is pretty much empty distraction, that brings you only momentary satisfaction (usually). But I don’t see how one is that much better than the other, especially in view of the way the various gods are presented here (vain, capricious, murderous, manipulative). And in both cases, there is dependence on outside influences, and not much on control over personal actions and their results.

Is it that the Old Gods present a symbiotic/reciprocal relationship, as opposed to the one sidedness of technology? Even then, I’m not convinced that “Stick to the old ways, because the new ones aren’t that great” is a good proposition.

So, am I missing something? Am I not getting something? What are your thought on this?

[–] beauq81 (1142) 8 years ago

The main point is that we create our own gods based on what we need. Hence the many Jesuses in the last episode.

[–] MinaVladimir (4086) 8 years ago

Well, yes. But I think it has to go deeper than that.

I'm under the impression that the main conflict is between the old gods we created and the new ones that popped up in the era of media and technology. So there's a clash of the old needs and the new ones. Right?

That leads me to ask, is the show suggesting that killing in the name of Odin and getting swallowed by Bilquis' vagina in a ancient sex orgy is better, than killing in the name of Guns and getting swallowed by Bilquis' vagina via app (Same sh*t, different a**hole, if you pardon my French.)? Or that a Goddess laying waste to the land to show off her cool power, is that much better than whatever the Techno Gods are doing? Or am I completely missing the point here?

[–] beauq81 (1142) 8 years ago

No, you're not. But, this being only the first season of possibly 3 or 4, I think any deeper meaning will come in time, else - why watch? Or, if you can't wait that long, read the book.

[–] MinaVladimir (4086) 8 years ago

Why watch? To see the themes and meaning set up in season one develop? But any deeper meaning should still be present in a first season IMO.

[–] beauq81 (1142) 8 years ago

Of course deeper meaning is present. We are discussing it. :) That's what's great about shows like this.

[–] R_Kane (15828) 6 years ago

The series is seriously diverging from the story in the novel, so there are no Cliffs Notes for this. It’s increasingly looking like a waste of time as we near the end of a meandering and disjointed second season.

[–] beauq81 (1142) 6 years ago

I haven't read the book, yet, so I can't say. The first season didn't make much sense until it all rounded up in the end, so my guess is it will be like that in this one, too. It does get hard to watch at times, but it keeps me interested.

[–] R_Kane (15828) 6 years ago

It only “rounded up” because of Christine Chenowith’s performance as Easter, and she’s gone, baby, gone, el jumped shippedo, gone, in her very contempt for this manurestorm.

[–] krl97a (5619) 8 years ago

I haven't read the book, but watching interviews it's clear that both the tv show's creators are pretentious morons, so there may not be a coherent, well thought out deeper message. More like a grab bag of disjointed "insights" that aren't really that insightful.

[–] exatera (3966) 8 years ago

For a show you are ostensibly not interested in, you sure devote a lot of time and attention to it.

[–] krl97a (5619) 8 years ago

I'm interested in society, the media landscape, and the ideas involved in shows like this.

[–] MinaVladimir (4086) 8 years ago

If any one would be pretentious, it'd be the book author, no? The show's creators are pretty much stuck with what's in the book. But since I haven't read it either, I can't comment further on that one.

[–] krl97a (5619) 8 years ago

I don't know, tv show adaptations diverge greatly from books all the time. From the interviews it sounds like at least some of the stuff in the series is original, unless they were even trying to take credit they didn't deserve.

[–] naDaht (1087) 8 years ago

The points and messages are much the same. Now go read the novel.

[–] krl97a (5619) 8 years ago

I figure that's probably the case, that the author isn't much if any better than these tv douchebags, which is why I have no plans to read the book.

[–] naDaht (1087) 8 years ago

Your loss.

[–] krl97a (5619) 8 years ago

How so? You just said the points and messages are pretty much the same as the series, which I gave a chance to and am deeply unimpressed with.

[–] naDaht (1087) 8 years ago

I see you're not an intellectual person so maybe it isn't a loss. The thing is a that it's a great read.

[–] krl97a (5619) 8 years ago

If you weren't a moron you might have spent some of your posts here answering the op's question instead of unconvincingly pimping the book with lame one liners. But you are.

[–] R_Kane (15828) 8 years ago

"Intellectual" is not the same as "intelligent," dickwipe. "An intellectual" has been defined as "someone to whom ideas are more important than people." It's an attitude, not necessarily an achievement. To respond to my valued and admired OP's question, the narrative's tension is between Abraham Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs (Old Gods, what we need to survive and thrive [air, water, food, belongingness and love, self-actualization]) and self-indulgence and trivia (New Gods [corporations, media and digital masturbation]).I favor the Old. I also want to stay alive.

It's Nature versus, well, let's not call it Industrialization, let's call it Artifice. It's about actually being in the world and living it, warts and all, versus the hundreds of Living Dead cell phone zombies with their attention focused on their cyber come-rags whom I encounter every day.

[–] krl97a (5619) 8 years ago

I didn't say it was, moron. I didn't use the word "intellectual". Instead of trying to take a shot at me and misfiring you should have just replied to the op since he's the one asking the question. Though since most of your commentary basically just repeated the premise of his question you might want to further develop your answer (e.g. explore "thrive").

[–] MinaVladimir (4086) 8 years ago

I'm a "she" actually :P

[–] MinaVladimir (4086) 8 years ago

Well, when you put it like that it makes it clearer :)

I guess it's the personification of these needs through the various Gods that I can't fully get behind (and maybe the worshiping aspect as well a little bit), since I don't see any of them as positive figures. But I suppose they don't have to be. I just can't get past the surface level of the literal battle between Old and New.

Also, I suppose personal beliefs come into play, since I'm not in either camp, when it comes to how you get your self-actualization in relation to the quasi-religious themes of the show and the digital "revolution" (if they are that, and if that's the correct wording).

Or just maybe I'm talking out of my ass here lol.

[–] Frogarama (12942) 8 years ago

I only read the book, but I didn't find any message. Well written, but I didn't think about it for another minute after finishing it.

[–] MinaVladimir (4086) 8 years ago

Honestly, I was struggling with it on the show as well. That's why I asked the question. Because whatever it is, it seems like it's not really thought out.

I thought that reading the book might clarify at least that, but I seems like it's not going to...

[–] Frogarama (12942) 8 years ago

Yeah, the book is quite gimmicky, but it has some interesting and some nice moments. I will give it this, though -- It got me interested in trying mead, which I really like.

[–] GrowingFamily (271) 7 years ago

I felt that the book was a commentary on America. The old gods were from other countries brought to this new country. They were the only thing we knew. The new gods are an American creation. The new country made new gods. All the gods have pros and cons, but the new ones are purely American, created and used by all different people from everywhere.

[–] not_a_virus.exe (1267) 7 years ago

The old gods were much more fulfilling when just just compare the cohesive unity among Muslims, compared to us (traditionally European Christians or Americans/Canadians/Australians of European descent). Muslims are far more fertile now than we are. We're having less children than we used to. We don't pray or worship, or live our lives according to scripture nearly as much as we used to, and our religion is fading into the background of our daily lives. Many of us (myself included) don't even believe in our god anymore. But we've underestimated just how essential that one single religion that united us all is to maintaining the order of our traditions, liberties, and cultures. It protected us from invaders. Everyone was united to serve their god and protect their land. They recognized their enemy. Now we don't. If there's another terror attack, we all brush it off because it's getting in the way of our Netflix. We don't have kids anymore because it's getting in the way of our Facebook.

[–] McQualude (4231) 7 years ago

I think a significant portion of the message was in the final episode. The Old Gods had real power. Sure technology diverts people's attention, the media can sway people's emotions, the WWW records our lives; but Odin can strike you dead. Ostara can starve the world to death. No one cares about the internet or television when they are starving to death, or lightening bolts are landing all around them. But I don't think the old gods are the point at all, they are only there for contrast. I think the real point is that the new gods only have as much power as we believe them to have.