Westworld (Season 1)

[Dukefrukem]

Oh shit.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IuS5huqOND4

[Skitch]

Hell to the yes. Only concern is I wish it was a movie instead of show, but we'll see.

[Morris Schæffer]

Super thrilled!!!!

[Henry Gale]

These trailers have been so stunning that I'm worried that at this point it can only disappoint.

Which is just my way of trying to lower my extremely high anticipation and expectations to be excited all over again when it's (hopefully) excellent.

[Gittes]

I've only seen a few quick glimpses of this show via commercials — trying to avoid spoilers — so I don't know much about it besides the writers, the cast, and some superficial awareness of the source material. I haven't been a fan of what I've seen of Jonathan Nolan's work, but perhaps he'll be surprise me now that he's not collaborating with his brother. Michelle McLaren will be directing an episode, apparently. That's good news.

This is an interesting discussion from a recent interview (http://www.esquire.com/entertainment/tv/news/a49073/westworld-interview-jonathan-nolan-lisa-joy/):



I think this show connects so well to our moral choices in a realm where they wouldn't have any real-world consequences. Do you think our modern or current version of Westworld would be how we treat other people online or in video game?

Nolan: That's a great observation.

Joy: It really is. No one's actually pointed that out before, but I think it's really true. We thought about it mostly with gaming, but ... the way in which technology works now is it allows a barrier between people [discussing a subject] and the subject of what's being discussed. And I think that within that you can start to feel an otherness with the person that you're dealing with, and that leads to all sorts of bad behavior.

Nolan: There's this long observed phenomenon that killing in war time is easier the more distant you are from your target. And the more automated we can make killing people, the easier it is for people to do it, right? I mean, that's long been a function of warfare; it's a well-understood phenomenon within that world. We've taken that logic and applied it to our social interactions online. It's no wonder why Twitter becomes a fucking heaping mass of wretchedness. There's a real question Twitter's actively struggling with right now in terms of: How do we prevent this from sliding into being a cesspool in which people behave in ways that they would never behave in person?

It is kind of a fascinating, dehumanizing world that we're stepping ever more rapidly into. But I think all of us are kind of saying, "Wait a fucking second," you know? How do we retain some level of civilization and humanity? How do we hold onto some of that in a world that is becoming ever more confusing when it comes to our interactions with people? We've been able to take on board all of these innovations and adapt very rapidly to them. But you still fundamentally have some human attributes that don't work very well in the world that we've created, you know? Which is part of the reason why new technologies and social media should be wonderful things and are often not, because we're all broken.

[Ezee E]

Can't wait.

[number8]

Didn't expect this to be the same continuity as the movie! Unless those are just Easter eggs.

[Ezee E]

Loved the first episode. Usually I don't like shows right off the bat. Last time that happened was... Sopranos?

[Dukefrukem]

I haven't seen the movie, should I?

[Irish]

I liked this because it touched on ideas I find interesting, but ...

- The original movie labored to explain its premise, to the point of repetitiveness. The show doesn't explain much. I wonder how that played to someone who hasn't seen the movie and didn't watch every promo HBO released. Did it make sense?

- I liked Ed Harris' character because he represents something often forgotten in set-ups like this: The PK or griefer, the guest who comes to the park and says, "fuck it, ima kill everybody." I mean, the movie never went near this idea. It played to the fantasy that everything was allowable, while assuming every player will roleplay their part correctly. Like, no guest at Westworld creeps around in a ninja costume and sets fire to all the buildings for the hell of it. Nobody decides to pay the money and become a saloon whore for a week, taking on all comers, robot or human.

- I think this premise, at least so far, makes the same fundamental mistake that bad interpretations of Blade Runner do--robot versus robot isn't dramatically interesting. And the robots of Westworld are more limited. They don't even have a complete model of their world. They're just past being Abe Lincoln in the Hall of Presidents or the Country Bear Jamboree. They're far enough from human to be creepy by not close enough to be relatable.

- Every scene was meta, meta, meta. The show screams its premise with every shot. And each time they cut away to the control rooms and labs, it undercut any stakes in the park. They went for an hour and what was the story here? I hope the rest of the episodes aren't so formless.

- The movie very briefly addressed the idea that the guests can't tell the difference between the robots and other guests. I'm waiting for the show to do something similar. What happens when a guess assaults or kills another guest, because they thought they were fighting a robot?

- My fear is that this'll be another show that jerks around the audience by constantly teasing some end result that can never actually happen. In this case, a robot uprising.

[Ezee E]

I haven't seen the movie, should I?

I don't think it's required. But it's a good movie, so worth watching in that respect.

[Ezee E]

I liked this because it touched on ideas I find interesting, but ...

- The original movie labored to explain its premise, to the point of repetitiveness. The show doesn't explain much. I wonder how that played to someone who hasn't seen the movie and didn't watch every promo HBO released. Did it make sense?

It's pretty damn hard to explain to someone who never heard of the movie. Western Sci-Fi Amusement Park as a genre is repelling. Their loss.

- I liked Ed Harris' character because he represents something often forgotten in set-ups like this: The PK or griefer, the guest who comes to the park and says, "fuck it, ima kill everybody." I mean, the movie never went near this idea. It played to the fantasy that everything was allowable, while assuming every player will roleplay their part correctly. Like, no guest at Westworld creeps around in a ninja costume and sets fire to all the buildings for the hell of it. Nobody decides to pay the money and become a saloon whore for a week, taking on all comers, robot or human.

Definitely like it too. Has he actually been in the park for 30 years? Comes and goes frequently? I have lots of questions on his character, and still think that he might be an escaped android all said and done.

- I think this premise, at least so far, makes the same fundamental mistake that bad interpretations of Blade Runner do--robot versus robot isn't dramatically interesting. And the robots of Westworld are more limited. They don't even have a complete model of their world. They're just past being Abe Lincoln in the Hall of Presidents or the Country Bear Jamboree. They're far enough from human to be creepy by not close enough to be relatable.

It feels like it has more in common with Ex Machina to me. I thought Evan Rachel Wood and the father did a tremendous job at being interesting enough to get some emotion from me, only to go right back to robot. The father scene with Anthony Hopkins was probably the best scene of the entire show to me. Pretty chilling.

- Every scene was meta, meta, meta. The show screams its premise with every shot. And each time they cut away to the control rooms and labs, it undercut any stakes in the park. They went for an hour and what was the story here? I hope the rest of the episodes aren't so formless.

It's Jonathan Nolan. Of course! This is a pilot episode, and if it's like the other good TV shows, it might not really hit a stride to move forward until episode three or four, I figure.

- The movie very briefly addressed the idea that the guests can't tell the difference between the robots and other guests. I'm waiting for the show to do something similar. What happens when a guess assaults or kills another guest, because they thought they were fighting a robot?

Shoot, there's lots of questions on the "visit" process that I have myself. What can you do/cannot do? Like you said, how do you know who is fake or not? Shouldn't there be more than ten guests around at the time?

- My fear is that this'll be another show that jerks around the audience by constantly teasing some end result that can never actually happen. In this case, a robot uprising.

Of course it'll do the teases. Abrams is involved. Robot Uprising will be discussed all season I'm sure.

By the way, my biggest question is why keep the defective androids all in one terrifying room? That was freaky.

[number8]

Talk about meta: apparently the writers refer to the park management characters as "the showrunner level."

[number8]

There's definitely more than ten guests. The writer dude said they couldn't pull hosts out at once because there were something like "1400" active scenarios in play. My favorite throwaway detail is when the family with the kid said they're crossing into the "adult" side of Westworld. I love the idea that there are Peckinpah sections and Bonanza sections of the park.

Personally, I'm really interested to see how the show would explore racism.

[Spinal]

I think Irish's breakdown is pretty spot-on. I also wondered how the players avoid shooting each other, although I imagine they'll cover that eventually.

The only thing I would add is that this show sorely needs a sense of humor. Everything was so deadly serious and the show felt stilted because of it. I'd like to see the actors relax into the characters a little bit more, as opposed to everything being slavishly in service of communicating the premise. It feels that they are in danger of falling into the trap of exploring artificial life and forgetting what actual humanity looks like.

Still, I'll be watching more.

[Gittes]

I wonder how that played to someone who hasn't seen the movie and didn't watch every promo HBO released. Did it make sense? Well, that's me — I haven't seen the movie, saw only snippets of commercials, and read only one interview answer. It was pretty clear. I was able to predict that James Marsden was a robot before the reveal, but I guess that was fairly obvious. I didn't realize this was basically an amusement park for the id, though. I had heard it was "Jurassic Park but with robots," so I thought it was about witnessing the spectacle of advanced AI. That quote I shared earlier talks about how technology facilitates, or provides an avenue for, odious behaviour but I didn't think that this was actually going to be the express purpose of the place.

Technically, I guess the idea is that it allows people to play a live-action RPG, but everyone seems to be aware that many attendees aren't going there to simply fulfill the anodyne parts of the scripted experiences. Also, opportunities for illicit behaviour are deliberately woven into the narratives being provided by management. So, it seems like the people running the park don't really care about guests deviating from the script. One can either be a "griefer," as you put it, or find a criminal outlet within the actual stories. Either way, it's that outlet that they're knowingly selling — at least to one (sizeable?) section of their clientele, anyway.


My fear is that this'll be another show that jerks around the audience by constantly teasing some end result that can never actually happen. In this case, a robot uprising.

I got the opposite sense, but it's a distinct possibility that I'll be wrong. I actually expect the show to deliver on this eventually. It will probably take a few seasons, but I think we're going to see the scales tipped significantly and the show will undergo some kind of paradigm shift and begin to feel like something else. Hopkins' line about humanity being finished, and Wood swatting the fly, lays down a very clear foundation. That struck me as legitimate foreshadowing, rather than a deceptive promise that will have to be deferred. At the very least, I expect the management and the park itself to be totally undone at some point, and, after that, the paradigm shift will involve the robots seamlessly integrating themselves into society. If that's how things play out, I expect the drama will focus on competing ideologies between the robots who want to blend in and those whose thirst for vengeance isn't quenched. On the surface, this sounds kind of cliche, but I'm assuming there will be lots of interesting wrinkles and complexities thrown in.


They don't even have a complete model of their world. They're just past being Abe Lincoln in the Hall of Presidents or the Country Bear Jamboree. They're far enough from human to be creepy by not close enough to be relatable.

I think it's clear that this will change pretty dramatically as the show unfolds. The reverie update is one notch in that direction, and that will provide a lot of opportunities for making the robots seem more sophisticated and thoughtful. That first sign of rebellion at the very end is a miniature example of the way the development will play out — incremental steps toward autonomy and agency, etc.

[number8]

I also wondered how the players avoid shooting each other, although I imagine they'll cover that eventually.

In the movie the guests aren't given real six-shooters. They're high-tech weapons with temperature detectors that make them only work on inanimate objects. But this was always an incredibly flimsy explanation that I don't think Crichton ever thought completely through. He never explained how guests are supposed to not get hurt when they get into drunken saloon brawls, or how the swords work in Medieval World, or why they would possibly give the robots real guns that can harm guests. It really didn't make any sense. The part where Marsten could shoot Ed Harris but not wound him raised some questions, but it was already more base-covering than the movie ever did.

[Gittes]

Anyway, I mostly like the premiere and I can see the potential. I mean, I wasn't fond of every single decision in the whole hour, but, for the most part, it did strike me as being a really finessed, carefully presented episode. I rather liked the sense of just being dropped into the park, figuring things out, getting a sense of the dynamic between the characters, teases of the bigger picture, etc.

One of the exceptions to that finesse is the way the editing was a little awkward near the beginning of the episode. There were shots that felt like they needed to breathe for a moment or two more, but they ended up cutting away much quicker than I expected. Also, some of those sweeping, extreme long shots of the surrounding vista felt off somehow — something about the sudden reaches for geographical scope and wonder came across as kind of inorganic and half-baked.

The part of the story involving Wood's father being perplexed by that photograph was just tremendous, though. Wood's programmed response — "that doesn't look like anything to me" — was haunting. Evan Rachel Wood knocked that line out of the...park. That whole exchange was enveloped in these really eerie and tragic vibes, and that was amplified further when you see that he stayed up all night studying this picture, and actually managed to arrive at this troubling, insane revelation about his own existence. It was certainly one of the most unsettling and well-executed moments in the episode.

[Irish]

It's Jonathan Nolan. Of course! This is a pilot episode, and if it's like the other good TV shows, it might not really hit a stride to move forward until episode three or four, I figure.

I liked all your points, but this one struck me -- even something like Nolan's Person of Interest started out as a fairly grounded procedural, though. It was The Equalizer with a techno twist. They didn't layer in the super-freaky AI-to-human convergence stuff until they were a few seasons in (50+ eps).


The only thing I would add is that this show sorely needs a sense of humor.

This is one of my biggest pet peeves with almost all prestige cable dramas. Even under dire circumstance (like The Walking Dead), people would develop a certain gallows humor and crack jokes. But nobody ever does on these shows. Maybe the producers are afraid that if anybody in the audience laughs, they'll take the premises less seriously.


I actually expect the show to deliver on this eventually. It will probably take a few seasons, but I think we're going to see the scales tipped significantly and the show will undergo some kind of paradigm shift and begin to feel like something else.

They can't, because the show would effectively be over at that point. I'd expect a tease to lead to resolution in a feature film, but TV is a more narratively conservative medium. If they tease out a big plot point and actually resolve it, the audience might leave (or at least that's the fear).

I can't think of too many shows that survived huge paradigm shifts half way through their runs.


I think it's clear that this will change pretty dramatically as the show unfolds. The reverie update is one notch in that direction, and that will provide a lot of opportunities for making the robots seem more sophisticated and thoughtful.

But why would the audience stick around and wait for them to become autonomous? I wanna care about the character now, not 5 or 10 episodes from now.

The weakness of the pilot, to me, was that it put all its faith in the premise and not in characters or story. That's a huge red flag.


The part of the story involving Wood's father being perplexed by that photograph was just tremendous, though. Wood's programmed response — "that doesn't look like anything to me" — was haunting.

I liked that exchange too, but it's also part of what I meant about models. The Wood character doesn't have a mental model that allows her to speculate about anything in her world. She's working off a script and only mimics human responses. "That doesn't look like anything to me" sounds like a natural language processing version of "syntax error" or "command not found." She's like a 3-D version Alexa or Siri, unable to react extemporaneously.

I guess that's okay for a concept in a short story but it sure doesn't make for a very compelling character, or even a hook for a series.

[Irish]

Oh, one more fear: That they will pull some Battlestar Galactica bullshit and one or more "people" in the control center and labs (like Jeffrey Wright) will turn out to be androids.

[number8]

People seem to be programmed (heh) by science-fiction to expect that once robots become self-aware, the natural course of action for them would be to revolt by violent means. But the more interesting outcome--and I really, really get the sense that this is where the show is going to go, based on Dolores' lie in the pilot and the emphasis on aligning our empathy with the hosts rather than the guests--is for them to hide their awareness out of self-preservation, and instead learning to build a real life for themselves within the given parameters of the park. It's certainly a more sustainable way to go for longform drama.

[Irish]

Somebody on Wired commented that robots in scifi movies are almost always represented in two ways: killer monsters or oppressed underclass. If they audience expects that, they've been trained to expect it. (This is part of the reason why I find AI based stories so dull, and also that most of them freely riff on ideas that PKD explored 50 years ago).

Neither the movie or the show (so far) addresses the fact that everybody in the park, robot and human, must be constantly monitored in order for the park to function at all, and how that might change guest behavior. (The movie's fantasy appeal is that it's sex tourism with cosplay).

So I dunno how the robots would build any sort of life in that environment. That idea is, more or less, the first series of Humans. I dunno how many people in the US saw that (I think it's on Netflix now), but the producers at HBO must certainly be aware of it. I also dunno how they go down that route with coming off super trite, and without, presumably, representing the human world more fully. A robot society is only meaningful in the ways it contrasts against human society.

[Spinal]

Oh, one more fear: That they will pull some Battlestar Galactica bullshit and one or more "people" in the control center and labs (like Jeffrey Wright) will turn out to be androids.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v696/joel_harmon/td020914_zpsgp6nbus1.gif

[Gittes]

People seem to be programmed (heh) by science-fiction to expect that once robots become self-aware, the natural course of action for them would be to revolt by violent means. But the more interesting outcome--and I really, really get the sense that this is where the show is going to go, based on Dolores' lie in the pilot and the emphasis on aligning our empathy with the hosts rather than the guests--is for them to hide their awareness out of self-preservation, and instead learning to build a real life for themselves within the given parameters of the park. It's certainly a more sustainable way to go for longform drama.

I understand how that could be more sustainable, but the show seems to be activating the idea of an impending revolt in a really conspicuous way. The prospect of a reprisal, violent or otherwise, is being underlined in red ink again and again. I think a slow gestation of sorts is in the cards, but I'm not sure that the longterm goal will be to eke out some kind of existence within the confines of a world where they are continuously subject to all kinds of horrors (and now, thanks to the update, they will be made to consciously relive and recall all of this). If they hang back for a while, I think the principal reason will be to gather allies, detect weaknesses, make plans, and more closely understand their dilemma (and, perhaps, have their sympathies confused by learning more about their captors/tormentors/creators). I do think retributive justice is the endgame, even if this may not necessarily take outright violent forms.



They can't, because the show would effectively be over at that point. I'd expect a tease to lead to resolution in a feature film, but TV is a more narratively conservative medium. If they tease out a big plot point and actually resolve it, the audience might leave (or at least that's the fear).

Admittedly, it seems a bit early to even define the paradigm from which the writers might deviate, or to lay claim to a sure sense of the identity of the show…but, as long as these established characters are at the centre, and the tension between robots and humans endures, I don't see why the series couldn't sustain some radical shifts (particularly if we're talking about developments in the penultimate or final season).

The robot uprising could manifest in at least two ways (we may see one or the other, or both). The destruction of the park and some kind of comeuppance for key figures in the upper echelon of the organization seems inevitable. Something on a much larger scale is also possible. Although, this would require some interesting creative maneuvering and, probably, time jumps. In that case, the show would reverse the balance: humans would be outnumbered by AI and certain figures from both sides would continue to elicit our interest and sympathy, albeit in different ways. I'm partly persuaded by this idea because of something I came across in an interview — something about the writers being interested in really changing things up from season to season.



I can't think of too many shows that survived huge paradigm shifts half way through their runs.

Fair point. I'm having a hard time thinking of an extreme example beyond Reboot, the CGI-animated television show from the 90s. Mad Men experienced something of a paradigm shift after S3, but I don't think you would necessarily consider it to be a "huge" one.



But why would the audience stick around and wait for them to become autonomous? I wanna care about the character now, not 5 or 10 episodes from now.

I care about them already. Besides, now that the reverie update has been put in place, it seems that the robots can make rather huge leaps toward autonomy as a result of certain catalysts. The photograph brought us very quickly to that confrontation between Ford and Dolores' father, whose expressed pain and scorn was, as the characters point out, far more than a bit of minor improvisational excess.

Side-note: I wonder if that photograph was deliberately planted, and, beyond the reverie update, what kind of actions are being done to facilitate these advancements.



The weakness of the pilot, to me, was that it put all its faith in the premise and not in characters or story. That's a huge red flag.

I don't think this claim is borne out by characters like Ford, Dolores, and Dolores' father. The script provides key moments for us to consider the particular interest of these characters, and, in each case, the performances are adding other dimensions. Hopkins is doing that vaguely narcotized, morosely pensive thing that he excels at, but it's working well. He speaks volumes without saying much in that scene with the outmoded robot — the self-loathing going on there is interesting. IMDb tells me that Louis Herthum is the guy playing Peter Abernathy, Dolores's father, and he brought a convincing mixture of confusion and fury to his performance. See below for my thoughts on Wood's performance.



I liked that exchange too, but it's also part of what I meant about models. The Wood character doesn't have a mental model that allows her to speculate about anything in her world. She's working off a script and only mimics human responses. "That doesn't look like anything to me" sounds like a natural language processing version of "syntax error" or "command not found." She's like a 3-D version Alexa or Siri, unable to react extemporaneously.

The disquiet and magic of that scene lies in Wood's delivery. It's not just Siri-esque automatism. She carefully peppers in just the right amount of unease and doubt — it's subtle, but it's there — when she reiterates that line. I think we see a similar patina of discomfort when she walks away from the family earlier in the episode, after the little boy asks her if she is "one of them." She calibrates her performance just right so that we can understand that the reverie update is allowing her to interrogate her existence in new ways. In the case of Wood and a few others, there's richness in the dissonance between the programmed behaviour and the human spontaneity that the actors are folding into the performances.

[number8]

I admit that one hook that grabbed me is the way the robots aren't immediately shown as possessing what we (and sci-fi tropes) understand to be artificial intelligence. I like that we see how they're stuck in a Groundhog Day loop spouting rigorously scripted lines verbatim, and I like how the writer character explicitly says that he prefers the Uncanny Valley to true AI. Existential self-examination that happens to intentional sentience is a well explored territory, but I like that this is starting with the idea that the genesis of sentience is borne out of the improvisational reactions between scripted behavior. It leans more "video game" than "smart devices," which provides a richer analogy to be mined in the exploration of what living a life is, versus what thinking you're alive is.

[Irish]

The robot uprising could manifest in at least two ways (we may see one or the other, or both). The destruction of the park and some kind of comeuppance for key figures in the upper echelon of the organization seems inevitable. Something on a much larger scale is also possible. Although, this would require some interesting creative maneuvering and, probably, time jumps. In that case, the show would reverse the balance: humans would be outnumbered by AI and certain figures from both sides would continue to elicit our interest and sympathy, albeit in different ways. I'm partly persuaded by this idea because of something I came across in an interview — something about the writers being interested in really changing things up from season to season.

Well, writers always say stuff like that in interviews. It makes the show sound more interesting. I'd take stuff like that with a grain of salt, though, especially in this instance. These are the same people who went deep into production on a show that cost $6-10 million per episode and shut down midway to finish their scripts.

I don't think it will play out because, again, conservative medium. If you deviate too far from what the audience expects they will abandon you.

If you resolve a central plot point, they still might abandon you.

Cf: Moonlighting, Twin Peaks, Battlestar Galactica (both versions), Lost, The Killing, etc.


I don't think this claim is borne out by characters like Ford, Dolores, and Dolores' father. The script provides key moments for us to consider the particular interest of these characters, and, in each case, the performances are adding other dimensions.

Well, it helps that the actors are actually human. ;)

I found them to be playing toward the premise and not toward character. They aren't much in the way of characters (outside very broad Western tropes) because the pilot doesn't provide any greater context for them.

While premise is good, a good premise isn't the same thing as a good story.


It's not just Siri-esque automatism.

In the context of the show, that's the character though. She's limited by her script. She can only respond to things her creators thought of. It's a clever illusion of humanity, cf: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/apple/11709991/The-best-of-Siri-11-funny-responses-from-the-iPhones-virtual-assistant.html

[Gittes]

I found them to be playing toward the premise

I sort of see where you're coming from here, but your earlier point about them putting no faith whatsoever in character doesn't quite square with a lot of what I found compelling about the premiere, particularly with regards to the three characters I mentioned. The premise is interesting, but they were careful to situate it vis-a-vis some vividly presented characters and relationships. Given the context of a single hour, I think they achieved a fair bit: they successfully elicited sympathy for the robots, and made a strong claim that the characterizations will gain new layers in the weeks to come.



They aren't much in the way of characters (outside very broad Western tropes) because the pilot doesn't provide any greater context for them.

I think some of your points — and some of my own, of course — are a bit hasty given that we're talking about the first episode. There's some solid groundwork being laid out here. I mean, some might dismiss the scripted relations between the robots that we were shown, but I suspect all of that is going to matter a great deal in future episodes. Dolores' bond with her father and her affection for Teddy (Marsden) are obviously just written scenarios. But this data will continue to inform these characters in more meaningful ways as their autonomy and self-awareness increases. Her father seemed to recognize that his familial bonds were manufactured, but it's irrelevant — those bonds are now more keenly felt by him than ever before. This is not just because of a presumed accumulation of memories — they've spent lots of time together, fulfilling predetermined roles — but also because their proximity to one another means that they've recognized, and are now starting to remember, each other's pain (i.e., the emphasis on Teddy's eye as Dolores is dragged away by Ed Harris' character).

So, I imagine we'll be seeing all of these forced narrative connections become bona fide bonds. I agree that more is needed to increase the complexity and dimensions of the characters, but this is the pilot, and I do think the work toward richer characterizations has already begun.



She's limited by her script.

What I'm saying is that the show seems to be designed so that we need to attend to the difference between script and spontaneity. In the case of Dolores, we see this in the nonverbal signs, which suggest more than scripted dithering. So, I don't understand drawing a comparison between Siri's scripted responses and Dolores' glints of discomfort — I don't think the latter is necessarily the same as the former. The subtle unease doesn't maintain the intended illusion (i.e., the scripted behaviour); it's an example of that illusion going off the rails and veering toward some nascent form of self-awareness. In other words, those moments that I mentioned seem to be something other than just well-designed mimesis. The episode emphasizes the new update and its various ramifications for a reason, and all of this ought to inform our understanding of why certain aspects of Dolores' body language are significant.

We're already seeing more than straightforward ventriloquism — there's wiggle room for something like actual self expression amidst the assigned behaviour. In the case of the fly swatting, we see an even more more pronounced defiance of the script.

[transmogrifier]

I haven't seen the movie, should I?

Just watched it last night for the first time. It is eminently skippable. It takes an interesting premise and basically goes nowhere with it; it halfway begins building a world (with a lot of half-arsed explanations that don't really make sense) and then just jettisons everything for a one-on-one chase through random sets.

[Ezee E]

Ha. On the Westworld site, you can chat with a host.

I found out that if you gamble in Sweetwater, whatever you win, you can use throughout. Gonna need that money if it's $40k a day!

The Man in Black won't be revealed, but sneak that he is a "VIP."

No "outside weapons" are allowed.

ASK THE HOST WHERE IT WAS BORN.

https://www.discoverwestworld.com/

ALSO, type TEST in the top right.

[Peng]

There is an article (https://editorial.rottentomatoes.com/article/11-rules-of-westworld-hbos-killer-robot-theme-park-series/) in rottentomatoes about 11 rules in Westworld, assembled from interviews with showrunners and actors, and one of them is about the bullets used will feel like a sting to the guests, and blow the hosts away. Pretty good, informative, spoiler-free article that clarify some things.

[Winston*]

The only thing I would add is that this show sorely needs a sense of humor. Everything was so deadly serious and the show felt stilted because of it. I'd like to see the actors relax into the characters a little bit more, as opposed to everything being slavishly in service of communicating the premise. It feels that they are in danger of falling into the trap of exploring artificial life and forgetting what actual humanity looks like.


Definitely agree with this. Found its humourlessness especially noticeable because I've been re-watching Deadwood lately, which has multiple laugh out loud moments per episode. In this I couldn't even see an attempt at a joke.

The premise of the show strikes me as absurd in about 15 different ways. But I'm willing to give the writers the benefit of the doubt that they have considered the parameters of the world they've created at least as much as I have after watching one episode four beers in on a Tuesday night. Interested to see what the world's like outside of the simulation.

[Winston*]

Talk about meta: apparently the writers refer to the park management characters as "the showrunner level."

The show seems to be heavily influenced by Cabin in the Woods.

[number8]

I agree that I'd love to see more humor, but I disagree that there was no attempt at all. I think they were just overly dry, and also isolated. The entire scene with Rodrigo Santoro's bandit character was clearly meant to be very tongue-in-cheek. When he picks up Thandie Newton and moves her out of the way of the falling safe, that's damn near slapstick. I also chuckled when the wife of the guy who shot the bandit got really excited over the Hosts' death twitches, and when the bad guy Host blowing kisses gets his face blown off. Those are jokes.

What it does need is some levity in the characters themselves when they're trotting out the exposition.

[Ezee E]

There's also the joke about the monologue not happening. Maybe next time.

[Winston*]

You're right. It didn't make me laugh, but that end to the shootout is a comedic beat.

The arrogant writer character seems like an obvious choice to inject some humour into the thing, but the actor plays it pretty straight. We'll see.

[Winston*]

One thing that bothered me was the rape of Evan Rachel Wood at the beginning of the show. Like they couldn't wait 10 minutes to have it happen to their female protagonist?

Deadwood went through three seasons of gritty westernery and I can't remember once instance, though haven't seen the later seasons in a while.

[Ezee E]

One thing that bothered me was the rape of Evan Rachel Wood at the beginning of the show. Like they couldn't wait 10 minutes to have it happen to their female protagonist?

Deadwood went through three seasons of gritty westernery and I can't remember once instance, though haven't seen the later seasons in a while.

Maybe no rape, because all the women were basically prostitutes or gimps in Deadwood?

[Winston*]

If you include extras I suppose. Only one of the prominent female characters was a prostitute in Deadwood and she's not by season 2 of I remember right.

[number8]

I talked about that a little bit at the end of this piece (http://www.artboiled.com/2016/the-liars-paradox-as-a-turing-test-in-westworld/) i wrote yesterday. I found that what set it apart from the usual use of that trope is that because it occurs so early, it's shock value being used as a statement, rather than emotional manipulation (as is the case with having it happen to a well-established character).

[Gittes]

That reminded me of something that crossed my mind during the premiere. It's interesting how the Reverie update is demonstrated to us by having the robots run their fingers against their lips. That's an apt gesture to choose not just because it conveys rumination, but also because, cinematically, it's already closely associated with the idea of imitation. In Breathless, Belmondo's character, Michel, does the same thing (https://noirwhale.files.wordpress.com/2012/05/film-noir-breathless-jean-paul-belmondo-via-filmcigarettes-tumblr.gif?w=500&h=375). In that case, he's consciously mimicking Bogart in The Maltese Falcon. As has been noted and argued by others, its effects are paradoxical in Godard's film: it's an imitation of a fictional character by a fictional character, but also a signpost directing us to Belmondo's performance and the fact that what we're seeing is artifice made by alert, conscious, improvisational minds.

I'm just starting to unpack this thought now, so who knows if there's anything like insight actually here, but...

Michel and the robots are obviously all fictional characters, but the added wrinkle in Westworld is that the robots are considered fictional even within the narrative itself (so, the fictitiousness is twofold). This distinction is important, but we can still detect an intriguing connection between the two examples. Like Belmondo/Michel, we see the robots reaching beyond the parameters of their fictitious existence, and out into an external reality (they must be mimicking something they've seen — it's osmosis). In Breathless, the fourth wall is broken and an actual audience recognizes it, whereas in Westworld, the wall is broken within the narrative world itself. So, it's sort of like the guests and the staff are in the position of an audience in 1960 witnessing an illusion that refuses to be just an illusion.

The French New Wave was all about movies self-reflexively shattering the immersive illusion of fiction in this way. Those movies acknowledged the audience, the real world within which the audience is encompassed, and the fact of their own fictitiousness. So, Westworld's quotation of this particular gesture is apt because the writers are dealing with similar ideas. It suggests an analogy — the notion that the robots are enacting their own kind of French New Wave-esque transgression. The contexts are different, but the resulting messages are not entirely dissimilar: "I am more than just a character; this is all a big ruse and I know it; I see you."

[number8]

Nice.

[Irish]

Pseudo random remarks:

- Because prostitutes can't be raped?

- Have we swung so far to the left that any representation of sexual assault is objectionable, in any context? I wonder. The crix at TCA made a big deal out of that scene and when I saw it I was left scratching my head. (Is there a threshold that must be met, across networks, before before we object? If so, I'm pretty sure Game of Thrones passed it earlier this year.)

- It isn't just that the event happens early in the character's appearance. The show cuts away from real violence and that abstracts it away. They made a conscious choice to soften the impact.

- I don't think you can claim that brushing your lips with your fingers conveys rumination based on one film. Further, only a single female robot is depicted as making this gesture. (My understanding was that the reveries were specific to individual hosts.) In the real world, brushing your lips can also mean something different depending on the gender of the person performing that action. If you're gonna parse its meaning, you gotta go all the way.

- I dunno if you can break the fourth wall if all parties involved--character and audience--aren't aware that wall is being broken. The robots in Westworld are only aware of their scripts. The humans are ignorant of the robots' potential for growth. This will probably change, and when it does it still won't be all that meaningful unless the in-show narratives are made to be meaningful. Either way, I don't see how that impacts the audience directly. (This is aside from the fact that the entire idea of characters being aware they are characters is a very, very old--to the point where I'd say it isn't particularly interesting in an of itself.)

- I'm no subject matter expert on the New Wave, but it always struck me as British kitchen sink mixed with American genre and given a decidedly French spin. I don't think movies like 400 Blows or Shoot the Piano Player or Claire's Knee shatter any illusion between the audience and the medium, for instance. I also think if you're gonna approach it based on something like Breathless, you gotta nod toward Godard's very impish sense of humor.

- I read a handful of comments about how Westworld has the potential to be a comment on how we watch movies, or entertainment in general. But I think that's ancillary to the show's purpose. It's more a side effect of the material, not a conscious, driven choice on the part of the showrunners. (I like J Nolan, but I don't believe him capable of that kind of sophistication.)

[Winston*]

I talked about that a little bit at the end of this piece (http://www.artboiled.com/2016/the-liars-paradox-as-a-turing-test-in-westworld/) i wrote yesterday. I found that what set it apart from the usual use of that trope is that because it occurs so early, it's shock value being used as a statement, rather than emotional manipulation (as is the case with having it happen to a well-established character).

I think this is well written. But I don't feel that is a weighty enough theme to justify as you say "crudely trafficking in that tired trope for dramatic purposes". If a show is seriously looking at it as subject in and of itself, I don't inherently have a problem with it.

Also, personally, if I'm sitting down after work to watch a show about cowboy robots I just don't particularly want to watch a woman dragged by her hair into a barn to be raped.

[Gittes]

Note: After Irish and I conclude this particular discussion, I promise to take a break from this thread and thereby avoid the risk of (further?) annoying others by filling these pages with too many of my walls of text. ;) And, actually, I'll also go ahead and hide my post via spoiler tags because I just scrolled through it and I can see how that could be irksome. I've also included a more concise summation for those who care but don't have the time for this long-winded stuff. For greater detail and the addressing of other points, feel free to check the spoiler section.



I don't think you can claim that brushing your lips with your fingers conveys rumination based on one film.

I wasn't linking the gesture with rumination because of one film. The well-known use of the gesture in Breathless conjures up certain ideas, and I was trying to link those to Westworld, but that doesn't mean that Godard's film is my basis for thinking that the gesture, as seen in Westworld, connotes rumination. That claim is partly based on my own socially reinforced reading of that kind of thing (I'm pretty sure I've also seen it function in a similar way elsewhere in film and TV). That doesn't mean I automatically read fingers to lips as rumination every time — context matters — but, for me, it's one of the associations.

At any rate, my claim is also based on the fact that the show explicitly says that the gesture coincides with them accessing residual data that wasn't fully overwritten. It's symptomatic of that process of internal recollection. So, the link between a kind of rumination and the gesture is made by the show itself, and in no uncertain terms. "The old gestures were just generic movements," Bernard (Jeffrey Wright) explains. "These are tied to specific memories." What we're seeing is an outward demonstration of remembering — hence the name: "Reverie."



Further, only a single female robot is depicted as making this gesture. (My understanding was that the reveries were specific to individual hosts.) In the real world, brushing your lips can also mean something different depending on the gender of the person performing that action. If you're gonna parse its meaning, you gotta go all the way.

I believe we're told that all updated robots are exhibiting these signs, even if we only see one doing so onscreen. No? In the episode, it's referred to as being part of "a whole new class of gestures." So, perhaps the specific gesture changes from robot to robot, but the mnemonic link remains. And I don't see why the first instance of this particular ruminative tendency that we're given — the representative example — isn't worthy of the kind of analysis I shared in my post.

Gestures can indeed mean different things. I explained why I leaned toward one interpretation over the other. I also thought there were enough imbrications here to specifically pursue the New Wave connection. So, I tried to trace a link between this instance of rumination and the famous moment in the history of cinema that it recalls.

One more thing, I've since realized that the update and the accompanying gestures were all deliberately engineered by Ford (so my "osmosis" remark was wrong), but he still opened up a can of worms. The outward look of the gestures may have been designed, but the inner process of recollection and identity-formation is where the unpredictability lies. So, the gesture is the first sign of trouble.



I dunno if you can break the fourth wall if all parties involved--character and audience--aren't aware that wall is being broken.

My post could probably be fine-tuned a bit so as to address this. Although, I don't understand why you're assuming the audience wouldn't be aware of something that I observed (and which others might as well?). But we can quibble about the awareness of the characters...

For starters, Bernard does refer to these new gestures as being a part of "the tiny things that make them seem real." So, you're right — for him, it's initially business as usual. It's new, but it's still designed fiction, and he thinks of it as reinforcing said fiction, rather than breaking it through something like real agency. The import of the transgression — maybe even its status as a transgression — may be unrecognized by the characters at first. But the gesture is still a potent sign of the whole process of these things becoming more sophisticated and nearing sentience.

Moreover, as audience members interpreting the whole picture, we can recognize that the gesture is actually much more than "business as usual" (and the final moment in the episode, among other things, cinches this reading). Even the characters eventually seem to get closer to this connection. Lee says the following: "There should never have been an update in the first place. Ford and Bernard keep making the things more lifelike. But does anyone truly want that?" His point there is that people want absorbing fiction that still plays by the rules, not something that violates those rules in some strange way. Initially, Bernard's tendency in the pilot is to diminish some of the fluctuations in robot behaviour, and his downplaying remarks become increasingly unpersuasive. Later on, he admits to Ford that the update has produced some "mistakes," which suggests, at the very least, a burgeoning understanding of the actual implications of those gestures. As the robot behaviour becomes more unruly, Bernard eventually says they are dealing with something "miles beyond a glitch." This all starts with the reverie update, and the gesture which is its visual emblem.

But, sure, you're correct that the gesture alone is not quite an example of a fourth wall being fully detonated and the characters then immediately experiencing a huge revelation. The show just started and I imagine they want to wait a little while for that. But I don't agree with you that it's unproductive to talk about fourth wall breaking if there's no immediate diegetic awareness of said rupture (I know I emphasized such diegetic awareness in my post, and yeah, my post could be more fine-tuned). The gesture is a sign of an ongoing process of self-actualization that gets amplified later on in the same episode and will surely be further amplified later. So, let's call it a cracking of the fourth wall, if you will. It's significant, but the full-on detonation will come later in the series. The gesture does not constitute the endgame of complete self-actualization, but it's one of the first discernible signs of that eventuality.

Even though it is just a sign of this impending transformation, I think the link I tried to draw in my post still works: the nascent disruption of a fundamentally passive, one-way, playing-by-the-rules kind of illusion in Westworld recalls, through the connective tissue of a well-chosen gesture, another (extra-textual) project of disruption.



This will probably change, and when it does it still won't be all that meaningful unless the in-show narratives are made to be meaningful.

The journey toward sentience has been conspicuously marked as something this show is very much interested in, so why wouldn't the formative signs of that change matter? And why would an early allusion to fourth-wall breaking in French New Wave cinema be meaningless? It's only one brushstroke in the larger context of this thing, but it's a kind of economical way of engaging with an established cinematic vocabulary, and shading in narrative meaning in a creative way. Whether it was intended or not doesn't particularly matter to me, as texts tend to crackle in ways that exceed authorial intention, and the resonance is there.



This is aside from the fact that the entire idea of characters being aware they are characters is a very, very old--to the point where I'd say it isn't particularly interesting in an of itself.

It may not be a new idea, but the acquisition and negotiation of that awareness seems to be a part of the show's project. I find it compelling. You can summarily disregard it as antiquated in one line, as you just did, or you can realize that the mobilization of this idea across multiple seasons will likely involve more than just the idea "in and of itself."



I don't think movies like 400 Blows or Shoot the Piano Player or Claire's Knee shatter any illusion between the audience and the medium, for instance.

There may be specific exceptions to the self-reflexive tendency (I haven't seen the other two films, but The 400 Blows' oft-discussed direct address ending — surely one of the most famous examples of fourth wall breaking in cinema — contests the idea that it is one of those exceptions). At any rate, that tendency still seems to be one of the most salient features of a lot of the scholarship and criticism focusing on the French New Wave (and films like Breathless). Self-reflexivity is a key aspect of the movement.


I also think if you're gonna approach it based on something like Breathless, you gotta nod toward Godard's very impish sense of humor.
Why? I said the contexts were different, and I'm not sure why noting the humour is essential to an analogy that refers to specific aspects of the French New Wave — its narrative and aesthetic disruptions, its self-reflexivity, etc. I mean, Godard's artistic choices amounted to more than amusing larks (by saying that, I'm not trying to diminish the humour as something not worth considering!). Even if we regard some of the disruptions as being motivated by an "impish sense of humour," they're still disruptions. His work is partly why there's this association of novelty and defiance and rule-breaking with the French New Wave. The analogy I was drawing was between the New Wave's propensity for self-reflexivty and its disruption of an established spectatorial mode. Breathless contains one of the key examples of that sort of thing and this emerges as a kind of intriguing echo in Westworld…thereby activating certain intersecting ideas.



I read a handful of comments about how Westworld has the potential to be a comment on how we watch movies, or entertainment in general. But I think that's ancillary to the show's purpose. It's more a side effect of the material, not a conscious, driven choice on the part of the showrunners. (I like J Nolan, but I don't believe him capable of that kind of sophistication.)

I've never really liked anything by Nolan until now — it was one of the reasons I expected to dislike the show (there's still time for that) — and I think your point here is dubious. There is indeed potential for that sort of commentary. It's already evident. That may turn out to be one of the show's assets, regardless of whether or not this becomes the purpose of the show (from which, again, we've seen only one episode).

Long story...less long:
1) The gesture that we see in Westworld is linked to rumination by the show itself. I thought the gesture was intriguing and I think it has a kind of intertextual resonance, so I hazarded an attempt at working out my ideas about it (in the hope of illuminating an interesting detail from the pilot).
2) It's true that this gesture may not constitute major fourth wall breaking in and of itself, but it's linked to the Reverie update and, therefore, to the disruptive endgame of self-actualization. Given its representative and formative role, I think it's fair to draw associations between the gesture and the disruptions in the intended illusions of the Westworld park (those already seen in this episode and those to come — I'm assuming the Reverie update will continue to serve as an important catalyst).
3) The gesture signals a discernible crack in the wall, then, but not an all-out, immediately recognizable rupture. I overstated the diegetic awareness of this cracking by the characters. It might have been better to talk about the gesture/update as a kind of starting point, which means it will be in some way associated with the bigger breaks to come (which will surely unfold over many episodes or seasons). The update and the gestures were actually deliberately engineered by Ford (so my "osmosis" remark was wrong), but he has opened up a can of worms. It's the first sign of trouble.
4) One more thing about the characters' awareness of this gesture as a sign of a transgression, or a burgeoning transgression. Throughout the episode, the staff are shown to gain a greater, but not yet full, understanding of the implications of the update (and, again, the show finds a legible emblem for the update — and a starting point for the trouble it engenders — via the gesture and the thinking it entails).
5) The analogy I'm trying to develop here is about storytelling rules (as the robots' personalities are works of fiction) being disrupted through stuff like greater self-awareness and other violations (i.e., dollops of something more "real" and legitimately unpredictable). Westworld patrons and staff want convincing illusions, but they want those illusions to play by certain rules. Given this, and that gestural similarity, I detected a link between the robots' "violations" and the disruptive gambits of the French New Wave.

[Irish]

Gonna tap out, but I enjoyed reading your thoughts, Gittes.

[number8]

The big hoopla about it at TCA was about the frequency of HBO using the trope, because the critics were screened the first episodes of Westworld and The Night Of back to back, and they both kicked off that way. They pressed the network president about why HBO uses it so prominently, and he was caught off guard by those questions, as if it didn't even occur to him that his network's two new shiny dramas are doing it. The piling he received was fair game.

[Gittes]

Gonna tap out, but I enjoyed reading your thoughts, Gittes.

This is kind of a hilarious outcome, given the amount of stamina and effort expended for that post, lol. No worries, though. I typed way too much, even with my meagre attempt at providing a concise version, so I can understand not having the time or energy or whatever. Burrowing into stuff like this is irresistible sometimes, and there's the bonus of it providing a good distraction from the doldrums of certain days. I just thought my ideas might be worth defending/exploring, and that a few of your points seemed inapplicable, or at least suspect — the quibble about "rumination," your apparent downplaying of the French New Wave's self-reflexive tendencies, etc. As always, it was nice to have the opportunity to think through something a little bit more and clarify my thoughts. Thanks, then, for thoughtfully engaging with my ideas at all, as it did encourage me to fine-tune my point and address some of the awkwardness of the analogy.

Anyway, as per my earlier comment, I'm going to make a concerted effort to pare down my verbose contributions (for a little while). I'm really not trying to overwhelm by sheer word count, but I'm worried that might be the unintended result. I'm also concerned about the degree to which I may be annoying others and/or eliciting many an eye-roll.

Looking forward to the next episode and what others will have to say.

[Ezee E]

Pseudo random remarks:

- Because prostitutes can't be raped?

I guess I could've expanded on this more.

I'd have to reference it again, but the prostitutes in Deadwood were basically slaves, objects, and had been doing it from childhood. Outside of Trixie (?), there weren't any that were explored. Prostitution scenes were mostly off-camera, or Al monologuing. It was kind of a Stockholm Syndrome? I'm sure if it was explored, it could've been like a certain episode of The Sopranos where they focused on a prostitute that was killed, and the true nature of the mafia that used her. It was critically acclaimed, and also one of the most hated episodes of the series.

And now that I've typed that, there is an episode where this happens. The second season, Walcott goes on a murderous rampage, taking a few out at one of the bordellos (?), only for a few others to be snuck out at the very end.

[Watashi]

Loved the pilot. It reminded me of the good ole' days of LOST when each week is full of new questions and theories. This is lost in binge-watching. I'd rather wait a week and let the episode digest rather than gorge myself on it all at once.

It's so good to have Ed Harris back in a prominent role. His face was made to be under a cowboy hat.

[Irish]

HBO has released Episode 2 on all of its platforms, including HBO Now, HBO GO and HBO On Demand. If you're an HBO subscriber, the episode is available right now to stream.

http://www.indiewire.com/2016/10/westworld-episode-2-streaming-online-watch-1201734464/

[Gittes]

Episode 2 is out? Alright, Irish. I'm getting into my stance — come at me.

http://i.imgur.com/F0fJJ1ll.jpg

Kidding.

[Ezee E]

I'll just wait until Sunday. I don't want to have to wait 10 days for episode 3!

[Ezee E]

I'll just wait until Sunday. I don't want to have to wait 10 days for episode 3!

I watched.

I'll wait until tomorrow to share my thoughts.

[Henry Gale]

Watched 'em both in back to back days.

Very, very good. The world-building is beautifully hazy and dreamy, both in its visuals and ideas. The cast is stellar, even if I'll admittedly be calling them by the real names of their actors for a little while (which is a luxury of such a largely well-known cast). And most importantly, it doesn't quite feel like anything that's ever been done. The comparisons you guys have given it to Lost, Cabin in the Woods, and various HBO series of the past are apt to my instant love of it, as those are a few of my favourite things.

All in all, it actually managed to be worth the 3+ year wait. So if it really took them all this time to arrive at these sort of episodes (I mean, the pilot, or its original incarnation, was shot in 2014), then I'm really glad they didn't rush it.

[Henry Gale]

Damn, just looking at the upcoming writers and directors for this season is like a modern drama's Fantasy Team:

Ed Brubaker
Michelle MacLaren
Neil Marshall
Dominic Mitchell
Vincenzo Natali
Frederick E.O. Toye

..and half the episodes' talent aren't even announced yet!

[Ezee E]

MacLaren and Neil Marshall are pretty cool to see.

Jonathan Nolan directing the final episode.

[Henry Gale]

Jonathan Nolan directing the final episode.

I actually thought he did a really good job with the first one. He definitely stayed in the lane of the sort of tone, shot selections and editing rhythms that his brother has grown firmly into over the years, but the sweeping western vistas mixed with the steely, creepy sci-fi side of things ‒and the independent colour palettes and textures he brought to both ‒ was an elating hybrid that is fully his own, even compared to most television out there. It might be a writer's medium, but as a first-time director, he crafted a very unique template for the series.

[Ezee E]

So we asked about some theme park specifics, and we were given that and then some more. I'm really liking how almost any scene could be analyzed and dissected. The fitting room scene being one that specifically stands out to me, as it almost seems like it's one big test of the visitor, more than anything. I really like how he goes through the door and somehow is on a moving train.

[Irish]

Gonna wait one more episode (1/3 first season) before calling it ...

... in the meantime, surprised this episode (1) repeated so much information from the pilot and (2) more or less ditched Dolores

[Ezee E]

Gonna wait one more episode (1/3 first season) before calling it ...

... in the meantime, surprised this episode (1) repeated so much information from the pilot and (2) more or less ditched Dolores

How you mean? Many HBO shows usually don't focus on some of their main characters for a couple episodes?

[Irish]

How you mean? Many HBO shows usually don't focus on some of their main characters for a couple episodes?

After nearly 2 hours of screen time, the show doesn't have a recognizable protagonist.

Even on other HBO shows with ensemble casts and multiple storylines, one character serves as narrative focus: Tony Soprano, Carrie Bradshaw, Jimmy McNulty, Sookie Stackhouse, etc.

But on Westworld, it's not clear who that person is, or even might be. Last week, they set up Dolores to assume that role. This week, she was barely in the episode.

[Ezee E]

After nearly 2 hours of screen time, the show doesn't have a recognizable protagonist.

Even on other HBO shows with ensemble casts and multiple storylines, one character serves as narrative focus: Tony Soprano, Carrie Bradshaw, Jimmy McNulty, Sookie Stackhouse, etc.

But on Westworld, it's not clear who that person is, or even might be. Last week, they set up Dolores to assume that role. This week, she was barely in the episode.

Who would Game of Thrones' protagonist be?

And McNulty was definitely missing from several episodes too. Can't recall for the first season though.

[Irish]

Who would Game of Thrones' protagonist be?

For the first season, it was Ned. Afterwards, obviously, different characters filled that role for different amounts of time.


And McNulty was definitely missing from several episodes too. Can't recall for the first season though.

The character doesn't have to be in every episode. They're just the narrative focus, the person the audience is meant to identify with. Usually, they'll be involved in major storylines and most of the other characters will connect through them. (Eg: Ross on Friends, or Jerry on Seinfeld.)

The only mainstream show I could think of that didn't do this was Simon's thing about New Orleans post-Katrina. That was really diffuse, with no one character or storyline seemingly more important than any other.

With Westworld, they set up Evan Rachel Wood in the pilot, ditched her in the second episode, then introduced 2 more major characters and gave Jeffrey Wright a subplot. And nobody really connects to anyone else--there's no character bridge between the lab and the park, for instance. So I dunno what's going on there.

[Henry Gale]

Yeah, I thought it felt like a very deliberate choice to make Dolores, her father, and.. (here I just revert to the actors' names) Marsden's character the main focuses of the first episode, and then flip things more heavily towards the opposite side of things this week with their antagonist Ed Harris, a guest with Jimmi Simpson, and a different host storyline with Thandie Newton, along with Jeffrey Wright and Hopkins behind the scenes.

Things will obviously revolve and coalesce over time.


The character doesn't have to be in every episode. They're just the narrative focus, the person the audience is meant to identify with. Usually, they'll be involved in major storylines and most of the other characters will connect through them. (Eg: Ross on Friends, or Jerry on Seinfeld.)

This is the very first time I have ever considered Ross to be the central character of Friends and I'm not really sure how.

[number8]

Clue: The finale is centered around him trying to get Rachel back (and importantly, not the other way around).

[Henry Gale]

Clue: The finale is centered around him trying to get Rachel back (and importantly, not the other way around).

Not to mention the group basically exists because he's Monica's brother and Chandler's best friend, and Joey and Phoebe are only in their lives because they're roommates.

I feel like this is just something that's throwing me the way it is because it's a show that's simply been around for almost my whole life, and I never looked at it as anything other than an ensemble where the cast is listed alphabetically and gets just about equal screen-time.

[Irish]

Friends also starts with Ross. The first episode is about his divorce and his crush on Rachel.

[Ezee E]

Well, the show DOES start and end with Dolores, with the final scene really being the key moment with the recurring themes of the hosts being defenseless, destroyed at will, and even experiencing some sort of nightmare as a result of everything.

Heck, Dolores has a big scene with Jeffrey Wright in the middle of it.

So she's not even ditched at all.

[Irish]

Well, the show DOES start and end with Dolores, with the final scene really being the key moment with the recurring themes of the hosts being defenseless, destroyed at will, and even experiencing some sort of nightmare as a result of everything.

Heck, Dolores has a big scene with Jeffrey Wright in the middle of it.

So she's not even ditched at all.

Huh? The second episode ends with Hopkins and Wright in the desert.

Wood only has one dialogue scene during the entire hour, and it's an exchange that repeats material from the pilot. The focus she had switches to Newton in the second episode.

[Ezee E]

Her words to Newton sets off her whole story, and her final scene is basically the cliffhanger, whether or not it's the final scene of the show.

The purpose of a protagonist doesn't really interest me anyway, so I'll move on to something else in this thread.

[Irish]

The purpose of a protagonist doesn't really interest me anyway, so I'll move on to something else in this thread.

I was only trying to answer the questions you asked...


Well, the show DOES start and end with Dolores...

...her final scene is basically the cliffhanger, whether or not it's the final scene of the show.

... because sometimes it's difficult to understand you.

[transmogrifier]

I would argue that discussing whether someone is a recognizable protagonist or not is less important than explaining (a) why you think it matters that a show have a recognizable main protagonist and (b) why it is important that a show be more like Friends.

[Irish]

(a) because every story has a protagonist, especially in a medium that's as mainstream as television

(b) this so obviously wasn't the argument I was making that I can't really respond to it

[transmogrifier]

(a) because every story has a protagonist, especially in a medium that's as mainstream as television

(b) this so obviously wasn't the argument I was making that I can't really respond to it

(a) Doesn't mean that every story needs a main protagonist. My second favorite movie of all time, Short Cuts, has no main protagonist, and it does just fine. Sure, argue how this particular show (Westworld) needs a main protagonist for the way it is set up, and that makes sense (I haven't seen it, so have no opinion on that). But just to say "Every other show has one, so this needs one too" is a weak argument.

(b) Ross was the worst character on Friends, by a distance. The best seasons of the The Wire (3 and 4) coincided with McNulty being sidelined from the main narrative, and the weakest (5) with McNulty being forced back into main role doing the same shit he was doing in Season 1 and 2. So I'm not sure how asking for Westworld to have a main protagonist and then using these examples helps your case.

[Irish]

(a) "I haven't seen it, so have no opinion on that" --- lol, good try tho

(b) still not having anything to do with the argument I was making

[transmogrifier]

(a) "I haven't seen it, so have no opinion on that" --- lol, good try tho

(b) still not having anything to do with the argument I was making

You ever wonder why you seem to get into petty arguments on the internet? I would suggest you re-read your post here.

[Winston*]

(b) Ross was the worst character on Friends, by a distance. The best seasons of the The Wire (3 and 4) coincided with McNulty being sidelined from the main narrative, and the weakest (5) with McNulty being forced back into main role doing the same shit he was doing in Season 1 and 2. So I'm not sure how asking for Westworld to have a main protagonist and then using these examples helps your case.
In the same vein I don't think Homicide: Life on the Streets had an identifiable protagonist.

[Irish]

You ever wonder why you seem to get into petty arguments on the internet? I would suggest you re-read your post here.

More I'm wondering why you're attempting to troll me. I mean, think about what you just did. You haven't seen this show, but you still felt free to offer plenty of opinions as to why I'm wrong about it. What was the point?

[transmogrifier]

It's true that it's not really paranoia if they are truly out to get you. But in this case, it is just paranoia and you really need to get over yourself.

Here is what you said:


After nearly 2 hours of screen time, the show doesn't have a recognizable protagonist.

Even on other HBO shows with ensemble casts and multiple storylines, one character serves as narrative focus: Tony Soprano, Carrie Bradshaw, Jimmy McNulty, Sookie Stackhouse, etc.

But on Westworld, it's not clear who that person is, or even might be. Last week, they set up Dolores to assume that role. This week, she was barely in the episode.

and


The character doesn't have to be in every episode. They're just the narrative focus, the person the audience is meant to identify with. Usually, they'll be involved in major storylines and most of the other characters will connect through them. (Eg: Ross on Friends, or Jerry on Seinfeld.)

The only mainstream show I could think of that didn't do this was Simon's thing about New Orleans post-Katrina. That was really diffuse, with no one character or storyline seemingly more important than any other.

With Westworld, they set up Evan Rachel Wood in the pilot, ditched her in the second episode, then introduced 2 more major characters and gave Jeffrey Wright a subplot. And nobody really connects to anyone else--there's no character bridge between the lab and the park, for instance. So I dunno what's going on there.

Then you and Ezee have a extended back-and-forth on whether Delores is the protagonist. And then I said:


I would argue that discussing whether someone is a recognizable protagonist or not is less important than explaining (a) why you think it matters that a show have a recognizable main protagonist and (b) why it is important that a show be more like Friends.

So I guess I must be trolling Ezee as well, right? No, wait.... it's all about you.

You offer up the lack of a main protagonist as a criticism in itself. The only thing approaching a reason for why Westworld needs one is your " [protagonists are] the person the audience is meant to identify with." You are speaking generally here. You give examples of the trend in general. So when I reply generally (see the bolded parts of my quote), you suddenly try to twist it into yet another unprovoked attack on you by pretending that I was talking about Westworld specifically, despite having not seen it.

It's pretty basic conversation 101, distinguishing generalities from specific cases. But you are so determined to make disagreement with certain people on here a personal battle of eternal hatred or something that you quickly resort, unprovoked, to snarky bullshit and then wonder why you always get drawn into arguments.

I don't have any of these types of talks with anyone else here. Why is that? Your answer is "transmogrifier just wants to troll me because he's an arsehole." That is one possible option, granted. But I suggest you think about other possible explanations; they may help you more in the future.

[Irish]

So I guess I must be trolling Ezee as well, right? No, wait.... it's all about you.

You directly addressed arguments I made, not Ezee. So it's narcissistic to assume those comments were directed my way? Uh, okay.

This is a Westworld thread. I was making a criticism of Westworld. I gave examples of both HBO and network shows with large ensemble casts to provide context for that argument. We could extend that argument outwards, dig into it, and talk about the details, but that's a different discussion.

You haven't seen the show. Going into a thread of a show you haven't seen and arguing with people is obnoxious. This should be obvious. I don't understand why you're surprised anyone would have a curt reaction to your behavior.

Edited to add: Also, I think you can take me to task for giving you the brush off in a way that's not so personal. I was short without being mean. You, not so much. I hope you can see the difference.

[Winston*]

I think Irish may have a valid point in there about the lack of an identifiable lead or leads might make it difficult to emotionally invest in the show long-term. It's still at the world building stage though, so I think it's too early to make that call. I bet it focuses itself towards the end of the season.

To say all stories have protagonists is a weird assertion though. The novel I'm currently reading doesn't have a protagonist.

[transmogrifier]

You directly addressed arguments I made, not Ezee. So it's narcissistic to assume those comments were directed my way? Uh, okay.

This is a Westworld thread. I was making a criticism of Westworld. I gave examples of both HBO and network shows with large ensemble casts to provide context for that argument. We could extend that argument outwards, dig into it, and talk about the details, but that's a different discussion.

You haven't seen the show. Going into a thread of a show you haven't seen and arguing with people is obnoxious. This should be obvious. I don't understand why you're surprised anyone would have a curt reaction to your behavior.

Edited to add: Also, I think you can take me to task for giving you the brush off in a way that's not so personal. I was short without being mean. You, not so much. I hope you can see the difference.

Discussing generalities is not the same as the discussing a specific show. It doesn't matter what show name is at the top of the thread. If you can't see that, I can't help you. I'll just add this to the list of Things That Seem to Piss Off Irish For No Particular Reason. It's a long list.

[transmogrifier]

I think Irish may have a valid point in there about the lack of an identifiable lead or leads might make it difficult to emotionally invest in the show long-term. It's still at the world building stage though, so I think it's too early to make that call. I bet it focuses itself towards the end of the season.


Could be. Depends on the show, I think, and what it is trying to do. It also depends if you are referring to the quest for ratings (in which I think it is obvious that most shows need an identifiable lead to get a foothold in a wide demographic) or personal reaction (I've already mentioned I preferred The Wire when the main protagonist was sidelined, for example). I just don't think not having a lead protagonist in itself is necessarily a bad thing from a personal enjoyment point of view.

[Irish]

If you can't see that, I can't help you.

I wasn't really attempting to talk in generalities, but to respond to Ezee's assertion about HBO shows and their protagonists. And then provide examples of what I meant.

Since you can't understand any of the context around this, not having seen the show, I can't help you either.


I'll just add this to the list of Things That Seem to Piss Off Irish For No Particular Reason. It's a long list.

You ever wonder why you seem to get into petty arguments on the internet?

Your baseless, smug tone right here? This is why.

[transmogrifier]

You ever wonder why you seem to get into petty arguments on the internet?

Your baseless, smug tone right here? This is why.

Thing is, I don't get into petty arguments on the internet. I get into petty arguments with you. That's it.

How about you?

[Winston*]

The Wire's an interesting case. You could maybe argue that the various institutions have a character as a focal point on a season to season basis.

Maybe similar for Game of Thrones. Though I would maybe argue that rather than having a specifically defined protagonist, the long-term success of that show might be more to do with the viewer having the ability to decide which character(s) to root for, which keeps them invested during all the boring bits.

[Irish]

I think Irish may have a valid point in there about the lack of an identifiable lead or leads might make it difficult to emotionally invest in the show long-term. It's still at the world building stage though, so I think it's too early to make that call. I bet it focuses itself towards the end of the season.

I thought it was weird that they burned 2 full hours of screen time--the length of a feature film--and didn't get around to establishing any of the characters more firmly. The first season only has 10 episodes so this level of fussy world building seems like overkill to me.

My big curiosity now is whether the third episode does the same thing as the first two, or actually moves the show forward.


To say all stories have protagonists is a weird assertion though. The novel I'm currently reading doesn't have a protagonist.

Fair point, but man that's a huge discussion (different mediums have different strengths and different requirements, etc etc).

What's the novel you're reading?

[Irish]

How about you?

I've been big enough to admit it when I've been obnoxious.

How about you?

[Winston*]

I thought it was weird that they burned 2 full hours of screen time--the length of a feature film--and didn't get around to establishing any of the characters more firmly. The first season only has 10 episodes so this level of fussy world building seems like overkill to me.

My big curiosity now is whether the third episode does the same thing as the first two, or actually moves the show forward.



Fair point, but man that's a huge discussion (different mediums have different strengths and different requirements, etc etc).

What's the novel you're reading?

A Brief History of Seven Killings.

[Irish]

A Brief History of Seven Killings.

Cool. I was curious about that one when he won the Booker Prize for it. Be interested in your reaction in one of the literature threads when you're done with it.

[Winston*]

Cool. I was curious about that one when he won the Booker Prize for it. Be interested in your reaction in one of the literature threads when you're done with it.

It's very good, but pretty difficult. Lots of stream of consciousness patois.

[transmogrifier]

The Wire's an interesting case. You could maybe argue that the various institutions have a character as a focal point on a season to season basis.


This is true, I guess, though 4 is by far the most diffuse in that respect. I prefer a range of compelling characters bouncing off each other or overlapping than one dedicated protagonist. Justified became more interesting when it opened up to include more serialized side stories, although Raylan was never not the lead.

[number8]

In the same vein I don't think Homicide: Life on the Streets had an identifiable protagonist.

That's interesting. You really don't think it's Bayliss? They even follow the standard rookie cop on his first case narrative conceit.

[Winston*]

That's interesting. You really don't think it's Bayliss? They even follow the standard rookie cop on his first case narrative conceit.

It's been a long time since I've seen it, but I feel like it spread out pretty soon after that to be more an ensemble thing. I know Bayliss is about the sixth character I would think of if I was listing characters from that show.

Just remembered the plot line where Bayliss was in a relationship with a woman who liked to have sex in a coffin. Oof. Bad.

[number8]

I think it's somewhat common for entry point protagonists to fade into the background, because the whole point is that the other parts of the ensemble are all more interesting on the outset, so once their purpose of facilitating introductions is fulfilled, their character tends to diffuse. See: Paul Walker in the Fast & Furious series.

[Ezee E]

Rewatched the episode today. The acting by every host has impressed me so much more than any other AI character. For example, Maeve and the changes in personality (aggressiveness, emotional acuity) has made it so much more watchable. This includes the dressing room lady, the young child, the man with the eye badge....

[Henry Gale]

This includes the dressing room lady, the young child, the man with the eye badge....

This was supposed to be a younger version of Hopkins that he made of himself, right? I know it's not explicitly said, but that was my first assumption and it only seemed to fit more with each scene.

[Ezee E]

This was supposed to be a younger version of Hopkins that he made of himself, right? I know it's not explicitly said, but that was my first assumption and it only seemed to fit more with each scene.

I don't know if it's for sure. I've seen a few threads on reddit that make it pretty convincing. With that, how creepy. I'm not sure I really understand the purpose of that idea.

The young child I was referring to was the one that told the Man in Black where the entrance was.

[Ezee E]

I took the quiz online to "visit Westworld." Some interesting questions, but especially this one:

You were in a car accident and unfortunately there is nothing left in the wreckage. Luckily you planned ahead and had your entire anatomy measured and mapped, and all of your memories logged and saved. An exact replica is constructed from all this information – is this you?

[transmogrifier]

I've been big enough to admit it when I've been obnoxious.

How about you?

Sure, when I'm obnoxious, I'll be sure to let you know.

[Milky Joe]

I'd have to reference it again, but the prostitutes in Deadwood were basically slaves, objects, and had been doing it from childhood. Outside of Trixie (?), there weren't any that were explored..

You can't forget Joanie Stubbs! Joanie and Trixie's differing experiences as prostitutes, including the relationships to their respective pimps and the way they work their way out of that position, is very well explored by the show.

Westworld ain't no fuckin' Deadwood but it is pretty cool.

[Watashi]

Westworld is a completely different show than Deadwood and has had two episodes so far. Outside of the setting, I don't know why we are comparing the two.

[Spinal]

Westworld is a completely different show than Deadwood and has had two episodes so far. Outside of the setting, I don't know why we are comparing the two.

Yeah, it seems that would be a really bad point of comparison since Deadwood is intended to be a gritty, warts-and-all Western, while Westworld's environment is a futuristic amusement park.

[Watashi]

This show is definitely filling in my LOST void from many years back. It's going to be bumpy no doubt, but I love the teases, heavy biblical metaphors, and endless watercooler theories. There's already people saying William is Ed Harris's Man in Black.

How expensive is this show? The budget has to be bigger than Game of Thrones, right?

[Winston*]

Yeah, it seems that would be a really bad point of comparison since Deadwood is intended to be a gritty, warts-and-all Western, while Westworld's environment is a futuristic amusement park.

That was my point. The future theme park one is much quicker to go to the sexual assault well than the one actually set in the old west.

[Spinal]

Sometimes I post useless observations. Thanks for your time.

[Ezee E]

This show is definitely filling in my LOST void from many years back. It's going to be bumpy no doubt, but I love the teases, heavy biblical metaphors, and endless watercooler theories. There's already people saying William is Ed Harris's Man in Black.

How expensive is this show? The budget has to be bigger than Game of Thrones, right?

I really hope (and also don't see it) that William is the Man In Black in an earlier timeline. I don't see any reason why the show would have to show prior history. Plus, the two don't look alike AT ALL.

But yeah, that's part of why I'm liking the show so much as well.

[Ezee E]

Sometimes I post useless observations. Thanks for your time.

ONE PASS. BUt that's final!

[Watashi]

I really hope (and also don't see it) that William is the Man In Black in an earlier timeline. I don't see any reason why the show would have to show prior history. Plus, the two don't look alike AT ALL.

But yeah, that's part of why I'm liking the show so much as well.

Ed Harris said in an interview that his character has a backstory and would be shown in and out of the park.

[Ezee E]

Ed Harris said in an interview that his character has a backstory and would be shown in and out of the park.

Doh. Well, I'll hope there's a good reasoning behind it if that ends up being the case.

[Spinal]

The reveal is that Ed Harris's movies all take place in the same universe and he is actually a wealthy role-playing tourist in all of them.

[Winston*]

The reveal is that Ed Harris's movies all take place in the same universe and he is actually a wealthy role-playing tourist in all of them.

Radioworld was suprisingly unprofitable.

http://www.gstatic.com/tv/thumb/dvdboxart/32089/p32089_d_v8_aa.jpg

[Winston*]

Man, the Ed Harris-verse is going to amuse me for the rest of the day.

[Irish]

Vulture listed a bunch of fan theories: http://www.vulture.com/2016/10/westworld-fan-theories-so-far.html

The first one is "The Man in Black is William."


This theory rests on the idea that we’re watching multiple timelines in the second episode of Westworld, but don't realize it because the hosts look the same 30 years ago as they do today.

It doesn't match up, though.

About a third of the way into the second episode, the camera shows lab techs observing the Man in Black from a tablet. Somebody asks the security chief dude (Luke Hemsworth) about him, and Hemsworth replies, "That gentlemen gets whatever he wants." (This is, IIRC, the only time Harris' scenes are intercut with scenes from outside the park.)

So Hemsworth and the Ed Harris would have to be in the same timeline, right? Except Hemsworth already had scenes with Jeffrey Wright and Sidse Babett Knudsen, who are both human and presumably living in the present.

For the theory to hold, any explanation would be silly or senseless. (Everybody on the show is a robot except for Jimmi Simpson! Everything from the corporate side takes place 30 years into the future!) I could see jerking the audience a bit for fun, but not when it creates zero suspense and contains limited dramatic payoff.

[Spinal]

Man, the Ed Harris-verse is going to amuse me for the rest of the day.

I'm thinking I could probably get some beta test of Pollockworld up and running in my backyard by the end of the month.

[number8]

Westworld itself is actually part of The Truman Show.

[Watashi]

I mean, we're only two episodes in. Two episodes into LOST people were jumping on the Purgatory bandwagon and guessing what the Smoke Monster was.

[Gittes]

About a third of the way into the second episode, the camera shows lab techs observing the Man in Black from a tablet. Somebody asks the security chief dude (Luke Hemsworth) about him, and Hemsworth replies, "That gentlemen gets whatever he wants." (This is, IIRC, the only time Harris' scenes are intercut with scenes from outside the park.)

So Hemsworth and the Ed Harris would have to be in the same timeline, right? Except Hemsworth already had scenes with Jeffrey Wright and Sidse Babett Knudsen, who are both human and presumably living in the present.

For the theory to hold, any explanation would be silly or senseless. (Everybody on the show is a robot except for Jimmi Simpson! Everything from the corporate side takes place 30 years into the future!) I could see jerking the audience a bit for fun, but not when it creates zero suspense and contains limited dramatic payoff.

I've been trying not to interject into the discussion for a bit so as to give other voices a chance, but I'm curious about this point, and no one else has asked. How does any of this disprove the idea that William, who is played by Jimmi Simpson, is actually the Man in Black in a flashback? Did Bernard (Wright) or Theresa (Knudsen) or Ashley (Hemsworth) interact with William in any way? I'm not being dismissively skeptical here. I'm actually wondering if I missed something?

Anyway, the thing that makes this theory dubious to me is this: if it's true, certain narrative details have endured from William's first entry into Westworld right up until he becomes the Man in Black. The emphasis on Dolores' errant can, for instance, and the specific staging at the beginning of the "in-game" scenario — all of this is present at both points of the story. This seems like the kind of stuff that would have been overwritten over the years, given the returning customers.

[Irish]

How does any of this disprove the idea that William, who is played by Jimmi Simpson, is actually the Man in Black in a flashback?

It doesn't. It only demonstrates that the Man in Black's timeline is the same as everybody else's.

But the end of the episode uses traditional film grammar to imply that Simpson is in the present day. There's a crosscut between Hopkin's big monologue during the corporate story conference and Simpson interacting with Dolores in the street. Hopkin's delivery is used as an audio bridge between the shots, and his words are a thematic callback to a moment earlier in the episode.

That type of edit means that events are happening simultaneously, or, depending on point of view, that the two characters are related in some way. (If the cut represents a flashback, it's the memory of the person speaking.)

If Simpson exists only in the past, and he's not connected to Hopkins, that edit doesn't play fair with the audience. I can't see the producer subverting technique for a cheap narrative trick.

[Peng]

If I remember correctly, the whole season costs $100 millions, with the first episode alone $25 millions.

[Gittes]

It doesn't. It only demonstrates that the Man in Black's timeline is the same as everybody else's.

Sure, yeah, but…that has nothing to do with the theory? I thought your post was about that (because you quoted the theory, said it doesn't match up, and then went on to talk about Hemsworth observing Ed Harris, which doesn't disprove the theory in any way). I'm basically with you, though. I'm skeptical of the theory, but for different reasons.



That type of edit means that events are happening simultaneously, or, depending on point of view, that the two characters are related in some way. (If the cut represents a flashback, it's the memory of the person speaking.)

I'll try to be less wall of text-y here, but pithiness will probably elude me. I mean, most of what you said is certainly what you'd find in an entry-level film studies textbook, so it's hard to quibble with those individual points (although, one could make a pedantic distinction and suggest that what we're seeing in Westworld is a kind of covert parallel editing, which does not entail simultaneity).

However, to state the obvious, those aren't inflexible rules that invariably account for every instance of crosscutting. Examples that demonstrate flexibility: Soviet Montage stuff like October, Stephen Daldry's The Hours, Saw II, the bit involving the two houses in Silence of the Lambs, etc. I can't recall specific examples, but I'm sure there are especially radical instances in some of Apichatpong Weerasethakul's movies. There's another instance from a TV show, but it's a huge spoiler, so I'll refrain from noting it.

It's OK — great, actually — to allow filmmakers a little leverage to operate outside of strict aesthetic conventions. It's not a matter of "unfairness" if they're trying to encourage the viewer to independently consider Harris and Simpson before disclosing that their characters are one and the same (this could generate interesting results, in terms of sympathy and understanding, which would otherwise have been obviated if they revealed the connection right away).


If Simpson exists only in the past, and he's not connected to Hopkins, that edit doesn't play fair with the audience.

Well, given that simultaneity and specific memories are in no way the necessary result of crosscutting, I'd say this isn't true. The connection with Hopkins does exist, though, but it's abstract at this point, and that's fine. That thematic link is the one of the few unequivocal connections between the two sides that we are given. If it turns out that we're seeing two different time periods, I don't understand why any of this would be unfair. The salient takeaway from that scene is that Hopkins' words find an intriguing exemplar in William. Rather than simply show us this first meeting between Dolores and William, and rely solely on Simpson and Wood's body language to convey their interest in each other, they chose to accentuate this through Ford's dialogue. These two sides complement each other.

This allows for a more dynamic expression of the ideas at hand: Fords' words add poignant shading to the nascent affection between Dolores and Williams, while also creating a link between William and Ford's starry-eyed conception of an ideal Westworld customer. This latter connection would certainly become more interesting if it's used to underline how Ford's aspirations must necessarily abut against humanity's unseemly propensities. Indeed, many of the customers seem to be visiting the park for the "garish" thrills that elicited Hopkins' contempt, and there'd be an obvious level of tragedy to finding out that his ideal customer — the person that embodies his more romantic notion of the park — ends up turning into the pathetic character that we see in Ed Harris.

[Irish]

Sure, yeah, but…that has nothing to do with the theory?

Because there's two ways to look at it. One is that Ed Harris is 30 years in the future. The other is that Jimmi Simpson is 30 years in the past. Originally, I only sought to explain that Harris shares the same timeline as the human characters in the corporate office.


Well, given that simultaneity and memory are in no way the necessary result of crosscutting, I'd say this isn't true.

Usually crosscutting implies concurrent action. I don't know how else to argue that, because it's easily verifiable with a couple of Google searches.

We're not talking small films, arthouse films, experimental films, or foreign films. We're talking mainstream American television, which tends to be as creatively conservative as you can get.


the bit involving the two houses in Silence of the Lambs, etc.

Here is that scene. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ts1x6uADFtM)

Demme fools the audience into thinking both shots happen in the same space because he cuts from the inside of one house to the outside of another. But there's never any doubt that they happen at the same time.

Unlike the Westworld example, there's also no audio bridge between them. I mentioned the bridge because they're usually employed to hide brusque edits or underline specific connections between scenes.

[Gittes]

Because there's two ways to look at it. One is that Ed Harris is 30 years in the future. The other is that Jimmi Simpson is 30 years in the past. Originally, I only sought to explain that Harris shares the same timeline as the human characters in the corporate office.

I'm sorry, but I have no clue what you're talking about. Am I missing something? How are there two ways to look at it when the theory you claimed to be addressing does not involve assuming the Man in Black doesn't exist in the present along with the characters in the corporate office? The MiB's existence in the present is a necessary prerequisite to this theory, is it not? Your observation supports the theory, or at least doesn't contradict it.



Usually crosscutting implies concurrent action. I don't know how else to argue that, because it's easily verifiable with a couple of Google searches.

I already accepted that these are some of the established functions for cross-cutting. With this comment, it seems like you glided over the details of my point by referring to a general truth. That response is the issue in miniature. I'm talking about exceptions and the wiggle room for deviations and different uses.

What we know for certain is that the connective tissue in the scene in question is thematic. Let's wait for other evidence before claiming that the theory is absolutely wrong, or that the cross-cutting absolutely conveys "this" rather than "that."


We're talking mainstream American television

Would it really be that radical a move for many popular shows, let alone something that is beyond the sensibilities of an HBO drama? Come on. One of HBO's most popular shows concluded in a manner that now figures as one of the most well-known instances of repudiated convention. Either way, the cross-cutting that we see in the second episode of Westworld isn't an unequivocal signal of temporal synchronicity. You're forgetting something that has been closely considered by others (probably most lucidly by Bordwell): watching anything involves a shifting array of assumptions and expectations, which we constantly reevaluate as we're given new information. Nothing may come of this theory, but, at this point, I can understand why others think it's logical (especially given the careful — and, perhaps, suspicious — deployment of William in the second episode).

Comments about how certain things are necessarily beyond the purview of a popular show should be tempered. On a related note, NBC recently debuted This Is Us, whose first episode — spoilers — involves some notable temporal shenanigans. I have only read about it, so no clue if there's cross-cutting (there's certainly unmarked shifts between multiple scenes that some might assume exist in the same time period; it's later revealed that this is not the case).

Unpredictable creative maneuvers can and do crop up in popular television. See: Louie, various aspects of Lost, much of Atlanta so far, the reverse chronology found in the Seinfeld episode, "The Betrayal," Buffy's musical episode, The Simpsons' "22 Short Films About Springfield," etc.


which tends to be as creatively conservative as you can get.

See my points above.

I see no compelling reason to dismiss the prospect of different styles as something that is outside the realm of possibility. There are other ways to think about this that doesn't involve a flattened conception of American television as "creatively conservative."

People have noted the discrepancy between the Westworld logo in the scenes with William (http://i.imgur.com/yiEu3pM.png) and those that we've seen elsewhere (http://i.imgur.com/3CB35tv.png) — they're suggesting this is groundwork being laid for the eventual revelation. We'll see. If the writers are trying to enact that kind of experiment, then I highly doubt they wouldn't think of using cross-cutting in an unconventional way. If people do read it as a temporal sign, the writers' bases are covered because that's never made explicit. Plus, it helps to disguise the impending reveal. The principal thing, at this point, is that the cross-cutting allowed them to juxtapose Ford's words with Dolores and William's first meeting.



Here is that scene.

Can't watch it (I'm not a fan of linking to scenes from movies that have been uploaded by random people on YouTube in unsanctioned ways). As for your point, that's all clear. I never argued that this example involves temporal discontinuity. I was trying to demonstrate formal flexibility — there, Demme and Craig McKay use crosscutting toward deceptive and unique ends. In some of the other examples, like The Hours, temporal simultaneity isn't a factor at all. I'm trying to demonstrate wiggle room.



Unlike the Westworld example, there's also no audio bridge between them. I mentioned the bridge because they're usually employed to hide brusque edits or underline specific connections between scenes.

Sound bridges can be used to link scenes that are temporally distinct. The sound bridge facilitates a connection in this case, yes — so far, we have an association of ideas rather than a guaranteed temporal link.

[Irish]

Comments about how certain things are necessarily beyond the purview of a popular show should be tempered.

Unpredictable creative maneuvers can and do crop up in popular television. See: Louie, various aspects of Lost, much of Atlanta so far, the reverse chronology found in the Seinfeld episode, "The Betrayal," Buffy's musical episode, The Simpsons' "22 Short Films About Springfield," etc.

Those are all good examples, but they're more narratively experimental than formally experimental.

A few of them were absolutely hated by their audiences. They're also all recent. With the exception of Atlanta, every one of them occurred on a show that had already well established its characters, scenarios, and settings. They didn't start fooling around in the second episode. (The only program I can think of that did was Twin Peaks, but it did it gently.)

This is a ~60 year old medium that's often dumbed down because it is desperate to get the widest possible audience. All the time and every time. It doesn't often allow for experimentation or formal exercises. There is no Godard in television, no Brakhage. There isn't even an Antonioni or Malick. The commercial demands don't allow it.

Your argument seems to revolve around the ideas that (1) we don't have enough information to know for sure and (2) it's within the realm of all possibility that Westworld is doing something wildly creative.

Sure, I guess? That's true. But I think it's also unlikely, for the reason I've mentioned.

[Gittes]

So, no comment on what you were talking about w/r/t your Ed Harris observation? I wasn't feigning confusion. I'm actually curious about what you meant; it's still not clear to me.


For the theory to hold, any explanation would be silly or senseless. (Everybody on the show is a robot except for Jimmi Simpson! Everything from the corporate side takes place 30 years into the future!) I could see jerking the audience a bit for fun, but not when it creates zero suspense and contains limited dramatic payoff.^^ That doesn't make sense, either.


Those are all good examples, but they're more narratively experimental than formally experimental.

It doesn't often allow for experimentation or formal exercises.

All of those involve formal deviation to some degree. Narrative is inflected by, and doled out via, form.

Everything in the Buffy episode, for instance, necessarily required new set-ups and fluctuations in the style of direction. Lost used crosscutting in a deceptive way in one of its most lauded episodes. The Sopranos' infamous ending was a bold formal maneuver, and now seems to be routinely celebrated as such, despite the pronounced divisiveness it elicited at first. One of Seinfeld's boldest strategies was a second season episode ("The Chinese Restaurant") which helped to change the way people think about forward momentum and the usual alternation of settings and locales in television. Consider Community's various experiments. Roseanne also went to some interesting places, to say the least. There's lots of stuff about Mr. Robot's first season — let alone its second — that's not exactly by-the-numbers storytelling. There's the "Who Done It" episode of Dallas and the whole "Who shot J.R.?" mystery which it concluded. Also, Louie cast Amy Landecker as Louie's mother in two episodes, and then cast her as a completely different, love interest character: both of these show up in the first season. Reboot detonated so much of its familiar basis in the third season. Then you have the many ways in which shows like The Twilight Zone and Columbo and Hillstreet Blues and 24 and Curb Your Enthusiasm (https://twitter.com/emilynussbaum/status/236598021377388544) and Girls and Veep and Mad Men felt bracing and relatively novel from the get-go (this applies to some of the aforementioned shows, too, of course — like Seinfeld). Unpredictability and change is part of the equation (with TTZ, that's mostly a hunch, as I've only seen a handful of episodes, and I haven't seen Columbo, but I'm mentioning it because of what I've read about it — ditto for Hillstreet Blues).

I realize I'm stretching beyond strictly formal parameters in some of the above cases, but that's because you can make a larger claim about deviation and possibility in television (which includes and exceeds formal strategies).

An unusual use of crosscutting in an HBO drama is not as unlikely as you're trying to claim — it wouldn't even necessarily be that radical. Also, your insistence on reading cross-cutting in only one way is odd, given that there's a precedent for the unusual (and, sometimes, deceptive) juxtaposition of different periods. I already addressed this but you seem to either skip over or downplay the bits that contradict your argument.


A few of them were absolutely hated by their audiences.

OK.



They're also all recent.

OK.


With the exception of Atlanta, every one of them occurred on a show that had already well established its characters, scenarios, and settings. They didn't start fooling around in the second episode. (The only program I can think of that did was Twin Peaks, but it did it gently.)

The show still being in a formative moment of self-definition lends credence to this idea; it does not really contest it. Then you have the many examples of deviated conventions that I already noted, but which, of course, you're eager to downplay by saying stuff like "the audience didn't like some of those!" All of the stuff I mentioned is beloved by many.

As for the point about doing so "gently," I haven't seen Twin Peaks, but I wonder if that matches other perspectives. I think some temporal trickery in an HBO show would not precipitate some kind of spectatorial crisis because it actually wouldn't be that radical, relative to other televisual transgressions...

Pithy summary of my point: The scenario suggested by the theory is borne out by details in the episode — like the conspicuous way William's scenes are demarcated — and by a precedent in American television, which is more protean than you seem to want to admit. The crosscutting thing is not as farfetched or decidedly unlikely as you seem to be forcefully asserting.

We don't even know what this show is yet (in an extensive, many-episodes-in sort of way) but you're eager to declaim from on high about what it most certainly is or, at the very least, ought to be. Since this thread started, it has often felt like you came into this wanting to hate it. And I'm not sure if you're confusing detached, reductive bits of cynicism as "hot take" insights.



All the time and every time.

I'm sorry, but: facile.



There is no Godard in television, no Brakhage. There isn't even an Antonioni or Malick. The commercial demands don't allow it.

This...has no real bearing on what we're discussing: a deceptive or misleading bit of cross-cutting. It's not "unfair," either (to return to your original claim). Besides, audiences are more resilient than you're giving them credit for. Again, you seem to be reaching toward less persuasive or relevant points, perhaps due to an overzealous allegiance to your argument.



Your argument seems to revolve around the ideas that (1) we don't have enough information to know for sure and (2) it's within the realm of all possibility that Westworld is doing something wildly creative.

I'm arguing against an overemphatic notion that this is especially unlikely. You seem to side-step details or downplay them in unpersuasive ways ("those shows ranging from the 90s throughout the 2000s are recent examples!"...and Westworld isn't recent?) when they don't fit perfectly into what strikes me as being, at least partly, a wafer-thin assessment of televised storytelling. I offered specific details from the episode itself, referred to an array of other formal and narrative deviations, and used these and other points to resist your narrow conception of aesthetic and narrative possibility in American television. You're irritated by me or my arguments, that much seems clear, but the reluctance to extend an actual olive branch of understanding about any of this makes for a tiresome discussion.

I sometimes wonder if you're so eager to adopt the fiduciary, profit-minded perspective of a studio head that you find yourself reflexively launching into these dreary, negative, "inside baseball" hot takes. Like, I honestly would be fascinated to see you discuss a Malick movie in terms of the sensory experience and the formlessness of the thing — not saying you couldn't do it, of course, but seeing that from you would be like a breath of fresh air. Some of your oft-repeated views can feel stifling.



But I think it's also unlikely, for the reason I've mentioned.

Is this the part where I say that I think we're not dealing with the kind of unlikeliness that you forcefully noted, for the reasons that I mentioned? Setting aside your aversion to the very idea that weird cross-cutting might come up in an HBO show, your earlier basis for mistrusting the theory ("everyone would have to be a robot!") doesn't even appear to make sense.

Some of your comments can appear close-minded and prescriptive. Take, for instance, your earlier remarks about the protagonist in episode 2 — that, to me, suggests anxious wonderings about what will work for audiences, as if you're at a shareholders meeting at Time Warner and you're coldly reviewing HBO's upcoming slate.

The idea of complaining that Westworld reduces the screen time for its ostensible protagonist in the second episode (which, by the way, ignores the fact that she is singlehandedly the catalyst for a great deal of the developments and action in said episode) left me feeling like this:

https://img.buzzfeed.com/buzzfeed-static/static/enhanced/webdr01/2013/4/1/18/enhanced-buzz-2468-1364854719-7.jpg

[Ezee E]

What's Atlanta even about?

[Gittes]

I doubt anyone will have the time to read through that last post, which is understandable, but, in case anyone is interested, I consulted this book (http://nyupress.org/books/9780814769607/) and a few other places (http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2012/07/30/tune-in-next-week) to jog my memory while trying to brainstorm about other shows that defied convention — beyond Buffy and Curb and Louie and a few others I remembered.

The book is by Jason Mittell and it's called Complex TV: The Poetics of Contemporary Television Storytelling. Here's a ready-to-be-flattened-and-dismissed sample (p. 49-50):


In contemporary complex television, such variations in storytelling strategies are more commonplace and signalled with much more subtlety or delay; these series are constructed without fear of temporary confusion for viewers. Fantasy sequences abound without clear demarcations or signals, as The Sopranos, Six Feet Under, Buffy, and Battlestar Galactica all present visions of events that oscillate between character subjectivity and diegetic reality, playing with the ambiguous boundary to offer character depth, suspense, and comedic effect. Complex narration often breaks the fourth wall, whether through visually represented direct address (Malcom in the Middle, The Bernie Mac Show, The Office) or more ambiguous voice-over that blurs the line between diegetic and nondiegetic (Scrubs, Veronica Mars, Arrested Development, Desperate Housewives), calling attention to its own breaking of convention. Lost, Jack and Bobby, Boomtown, and How I Met Your Mother offer analepses in nearly every episode with a few orienting signals, while Alias and The West Wing frequently begin episodes with a teaser at the climax of the story, then turn back the clock to explain the confusing situation with which the episode began […] These strategies may be similar to formal dimensions of art cinema, but they manifest themselves in expressly popular contexts for mass audiences—we may be temporarily confused by moments of Lost or Alias, but these programs ask us to trust in the payoff [and] that we will eventually arrive at a moment of complex but coherent comprehension.

(PS: I'm legitimately sorry that I couldn't reduce my last post into a more breezy, point form format. I seem to recall there were more of these kinds of longer posts/discussions on here before, but I'm sensing that my tendency toward lengthiness is actually kind of out of place on this forum, but that's fine — not a quality distinction, by the way).


What's Atlanta even about?

See here (http://matchcut.artboiled.com/showthread.php?6508-Atlanta-Donald-Glover-(FX)), here (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlanta_(TV_series)), and here (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoaHZM9Hy30). Also: check it out; it's very good.

[Irish]

Some of your comments can appear close-minded and prescriptive. Take, for instance, your earlier remarks about the protagonist in episode 2 — that, to me, suggests anxious wonderings about what will work for audiences, as if you're at a shareholders meeting at Time Warner and you're coldly reviewing HBO's upcoming slate.

Ha. Sure. Okay.

Listen, I'm done for now but I'd like to thank you for the exchange. It was interesting.

[Gittes]

Ha. Sure. Okay.

…? I'm not sure if this is just another cranky dismissal — I've seen you use that bit of business before exiting out of arguments with others, so I'm legitimately not certain — or something like humility and self-deprecation. I mean, your takes on things can seem close-minded and prescriptive at times. If I recall correctly, it crops up during your take on It Follows, Under the Skin, Damsels In Distress, and now here: "Reduced screen time for the protagonist in episode 2! Uh oh." I mean…come on.

I also don't think I've ever seen you deviate from your first opinion, which is partly why some your of your posts have irritated me as of late, been a source of enervation, etc. I'm not even the first person to bring up some of these points with you, but you're still responding to me as if all of this is a is a fringe opinion of mine.


Listen, I'm done for now but I'd like to thank you for the exchange. It was interesting.

And I'm not sure to what degree this is yet another "before I backpedal out of here, here's a thinly-veiled, backhanded thing," but…if it's sincere, alright. I enjoyed discussing this topic, but I'm not going to pretend that the nuance-flattening effect of "the crosscutting is definitely this" and "American television is a creatively conservative medium" didn't just…irritate, mostly. Hence my tone and certain aspects in my argument, which I trust you won't take personally.

And if Irish isn't going to do it, can someone explain to me how the Man in Black showing up on Ashley's tablet pertains to the "William is the MiB" theory at all, much less discredits it?

[Ezee E]

And if Irish isn't going to do it, can someone explain to me how the Man in Black showing up on Ashley's tablet pertains to the "William is the MiB" theory at all, much less discredits it?

I don't know how the tablet does any of that. I think there's something about the types of logos used and lack of Teddy/Maeve in William's scenes that are supporting the idea.

[Irish]

"before I backpedal out of here, here's a thinly-veiled, backhanded thing,"

Yeah. That's the second time you've done that. It's weird. Questioning a sentiment offered at face value, I mean.

I wasn't backpedaling so much as trying to end the conversation on a pleasant note. You didn't pick up on the hints I dropped in my last two posts, so I opted to be more direct.


I'm not going to pretend that the nuance-flattening effect of "the crosscutting is definitely this" and "American television is a creatively conservative medium" didn't just…irritate, mostly.

That's alright. Look on the bright side. You've still got Mingus Furt and The Poetry of Good TV to keep you company. Go NYU!


Hence my tone and certain aspects in my argument, which I trust you won't take personally.

Ha. Sure. Okay.

Listen...

[Gittes]

Yeah. That's the second time you've done that. It's weird. Questioning a sentiment offered at face value, I mean.

I find it hard to tell with you, but maybe that's informed by a few of your blow-ups in the past, as well as my own misapprehension of your tone. When you nastily respond to others in other contexts, it can lead people to suspect you're doing the same with them. Like, for instance, whatever this embarrassing thing is that you're up to in the next quote…



That's alright. Look on the bright side. You've still got Mingus Furt and The Poetry of Good TV to keep you company. Go NYU!

Oh, brother. I'm not sure what you think you're gaining via this desperate bid at condescension, but…you clearly haven't read the book and perhaps you didn't even read the excerpt. Yet you see that it's contrary to your argument, and so the only recourse you can think of is trying to affect discerning sensibilities and deferring to dubious ideas of inherent academic stigma? And trashing someone, sight unseen — or unread. Nonsense.



Listen...

I've said "this makes no sense" to you too many times today, but…this makes no sense. Launching into your own brand of smug performance art, where no one gets the joke except you, isn't clever as a rejoinder or as anything else. It's just obnoxious.

[Irish]

I've said "this makes no sense" to you too many times today, but…this makes no sense.

I was ribbing you to lighten the mood (hence the winking smiley at the top of the post).

I apologize. Won't happen again.

[Gittes]

I was ribbing you to lighten the mood (hence the winking smiley at the top of the post).

I'll hazard a variation on a patented Irish-esque response: "Sure. Whatever." Spare me the iffy claim to just making an innocuous, placating gesture when you're actually leaving unambiguous provocations in the very same post. Given that, the deflection via an emoticon is silly (it could just as easily be read as mockery or feigned nonchalance, rather than any sincere effort to lighten the mood). Even your closing remarks take complex things and pare them way down.

At any rate, if you don't want to discuss something with me, then just stop. Please don't give me this stuff about dropping hints in the form of...what, more notes of tedious disagreement (while also selectively ignoring legitimate challenges to your posts, even if these are presented to you via repeated and earnest queries)? It was a mistake to indulge my irritation and engage you at all, but that can happen when you're in a foul mood and you encounter irksome posts. Sorry for the excesses and indelicacies of my posts, which I won't try to brush under the rug — or under the emoticon, as it were — and which I am clearly having trouble resisting even now.

[transmogrifier]

Taken to PM

[Gittes]

Thanks for exercising tact by opting to switch to a PM, but it's OK. I already saw your post and I'm fine with addressing it here:

It's not beyond me, but, outside of academic contexts and the like, where I must abide by length requirements, I do tend to let my long-windedness go unfettered. I find that reducing my sprawling text into something more concise can be rather difficult at times. It's also a really rewarding process, though, so I always appreciate those constraints. I've seen my work improve dramatically whenever I'm asked to stay within a certain number of pages. I just need to do a better job of imposing those limits on myself even when I'm writing in other contexts. I agree about the value of concision.

Anyway, thanks for the advice. It's certainly one of the aspects of my writing that I feel self-conscious about. I do hope to improve in this respect in the future.

[Mara]

I just watched the first two episodes this weekend but everyone in here is cranky.

I found it polished and lovely, though it's in no hurry to explain itself entirely, and given the level of expertise on display I'm willing to give it some rope.

[Ezee E]

-Good to see that the William/Man In Black theory can be put to rest. I am up for the idea that this takes place on Mars.

-Yeah, even knowing that you can't get hurt (seriously hurt), coming across the corpses at the tree, and attacked at night by the masked men could be traumatizing no matter how invincible you are. Interesting that they can't be shot and killed by the hosts.

-The stray was kind of weak and seemed obvious what would happen throughout. Best part was seeing his partners in a loop because they didn't have someone to chop wood for them.

-The Dolores gunshot part was also kind of obvious, but I guess that had to be essential to progress on to what's about to happen next.

-I don't quite get what Bernard is intending to do with Delores, even with his history. Any ideas here? The scenes are always interesting, but I don't get why.

-Hopefully there's something a little more interesting to William's friend than simply whoring around and bashing William's ideas. He clearly is waiting for something new to happen...

-CGI Hopkins. Impressive.

[Winston*]

So

After this episode and the reveal of his backstory it'd be too obvious if Jeffrey Wright turned out to be a robot, right?

[Winston*]

I think I'll also rescind my criticism of the opening of the first episode based on this one.

[Irish]

All interesting points, Ezee.


-The stray was kind of weak and seemed obvious what would happen throughout. Best part was seeing his partners in a loop because they didn't have someone to chop wood for them.

I liked the bit with the loop too. That was both funny and interesting. It also points to what I meant earlier about these AIs not having a complete model of their world. Eg: If it's possible not to give them even the concept of picking up and axe or chopping wood, then it's theoretically possible to limit their potential for violence at all. So why is Security Dude paranoid about giving them weapons?

It was fun to spend time with 2 human characters we haven't seen much of. (Although I was suprised that, after the whole problem with a photograph causing issues with the rancher, two employees would risk entering the park in modern dress and with modern equipment.)

My only disappointment was that the stray ended up being some rando, not a robot we already know. Like, okay there's a fair amount of build up and you're giving me another character I don't give a shit about.


-The Dolores gunshot part was also kind of obvious, but I guess that had to be essential to progress on to what's about to happen next.

I liked how this played out, at least dramatically. But on some level the show contradicts itself. Hopkins says the robots are not conscious and they have a limited model of what's around them, but Dolores now exhibits a human like general intelligence by learning to fire a gun.


-I don't quite get what Bernard is intending to do with Delores, even with his history. Any ideas here? The scenes are always interesting, but I don't get why.

I think he's trying to push her to evolve without coming out and saying, "Uh, lady, you're a robot and this is my lab."


So

After this episode and the reveal of his backstory it'd be too obvious if Jeffrey Wright turned out to be a robot, right?

After the Alice in Wonderland bit & the "Arnold" exposition dump, I'm thinking nothing is too obvious for this show.

Edited to add: All and all, I thought this was an improvement over the last two episodes, with some serious points of interest.

[Irish]

Also, my face during the final 2 minutes:



https://33.media.tumblr.com/0797307aa6261d0f7d5ae19c82557e 58/tumblr_ms6qi7WsHU1r8rx5xo3_250 .gif

[Ezee E]

How savage it would be of Hopkins if Bernard was a robot.

The security guy may be the smartest one in the show by proactively having a gun in case the androids malfunction.

[Winston*]

After the Alice in Wonderland bit & the "Arnold" exposition dump, I'm thinking nothing is too obvious for this show.


But like the Jeffrey Wright son thing, that Arnold bit was in a the context of an episode explicitly about shoehorned-in back story, so it's hard to tell how clever they're being about it.


I feel like this show is kind of a critical trap. Just going to wait until the end of the season to see how it all plays out.

[number8]

http://delosincorporated.com/images/intra/ww_web_guesthack_delores_v03_h e.gif

[Ezee E]

http://delosincorporated.com/images/intra/ww_web_guesthack_delores_v03_h e.gif

That's awesome. Almost want to see that for every character.

[number8]

I really like the new girl character. She seems to be the only guest we've seen so far who would play the way I would play. Not taking the whole thing so damn seriously like William is, or walk around acting the jaded dick like his buddy, or whine and bail like the other minor guests we've seen. She's actually getting into the roleplay aspect and just "yes, and-ing" wherever the game takes her.

[Winston*]

Someone on twitter raised this amusing question: what are the bathroom facilities like in Westworld? Are these rich customers paying $40,000 to shit in long-drops and behind bushes, or are there modern bathroom facilities behind the scenes that they use?

[Ezee E]

I really like the new girl character. She seems to be the only guest we've seen so far who would play the way I would play. Not taking the whole thing so damn seriously like William is, or walk around acting the jaded dick like his buddy, or whine and bail like the other minor guests we've seen. She's actually getting into the roleplay aspect and just "yes, and-ing" wherever the game takes her.

You know, I never thought about how William is taking this Westworld park WAY too seriously until this post. lol.

[Peng]

I liked how this played out, at least dramatically. But on some level the show contradicts itself. Hopkins says the robots are not conscious and they have a limited model of what's around them, but Dolores now exhibits a human like general intelligence by learning to fire a gun.


But isn't that the arc of her character this episode, summed up by Bernard's conversation with her? Evolution. Straying off in little tangents that shouldn't be possible because of "limited model" throughout the episode (begging her boyfriend to run off from recognizing what "Some day" actually means, wanting to learn to fire a gun, remembering past of the Man in Black, etc.) before she full-out glitched at the end completely.

[number8]

Yeah, that's kind of the point. It's a blunter extension of the fly moment from the pilot. She's doing things she should not be able to, and Bernard is the only one who knows.

[Dukefrukem]

Caught up. I'm not buying the idea that anyone in headquarters is a robot.

Neil Marshall's episode was fantastic.

[Irish]

This show would be more interesting if they never included any scenes from outside the park. (And let the guests explore the game.)

[Ezee E]

https://i.redditmedia.com/qlVtr2lsH9Zr7Q-buWdbVkWGqJIJZtzt7_k_k2QIpww.p ng?w=1024&

This look....

[Peng]

Really love both Evan Rachel Wood and Thandie Newton in these roles. The former navigates between layers and layers of consciousness so well, and the latter's awakening is so thrilling to watch.

[Mara]

I really like the new girl character. She seems to be the only guest we've seen so far who would play the way I would play. Not taking the whole thing so damn seriously like William is, or walk around acting the jaded dick like his buddy, or whine and bail like the other minor guests we've seen. She's actually getting into the roleplay aspect and just "yes, and-ing" wherever the game takes her.

I've been thinking a lot about this comment and I'm starting to tally up the various ways that guests choose to experience the park (and how it caters itself to all of them.) The awful tourist couple from early on are treating it like Disney Land-- show up, ride the rides, get souvenirs. The gunslinger girl (whom I am disappointed we didn't check in with this week) is committing to a sandbox video game format-- she has given herself a persona and goals, and is immersing herself in an adventure that she is having an emotional reaction to.

William, on the other hand, is playing the game slantwise because he is treating the park as a new life. He's not hurried and he's not necessarily looking to accomplish anything. He is behaving as a newcomer to a new world. If it was possible to marry Delores, take over the ranch, and become a cowboy, I think he would do it.

Logan, William's friend, is treating the park like a video game but an old-school one where achievement is all that matters. He is the player who skips over all the exposition scenes because they don't interest him. He's the type of person who doesn't understand why you would go trick-or-treating when you could just go out and buy a bag of candy.

The man in black-- I am not sure what he is doing. Conquering? Dismantling? I feel like his goal is to be the Anthony Hopkins character-- the God.

So far I think I am finding Maeve the most compelling (playing the Echo role.)

[Ezee E]

I've been thinking a lot about this comment and I'm starting to tally up the various ways that guests choose to experience the park (and how it caters itself to all of them.) The awful tourist couple from early on are treating it like Disney Land-- show up, ride the rides, get souvenirs. The gunslinger girl (whom I am disappointed we didn't check in with this week) is committing to a sandbox video game format-- she has given herself a persona and goals, and is immersing herself in an adventure that she is having an emotional reaction to.

William, on the other hand, is playing the game slantwise because he is treating the park as a new life. He's not hurried and he's not necessarily looking to accomplish anything. He is behaving as a newcomer to a new world. If it was possible to marry Delores, take over the ranch, and become a cowboy, I think he would do it.

Logan, William's friend, is treating the park like a video game but an old-school one where achievement is all that matters. He is the player who skips over all the exposition scenes because they don't interest him. He's the type of person who doesn't understand why you would go trick-or-treating when you could just go out and buy a bag of candy.

The man in black-- I am not sure what he is doing. Conquering? Dismantling? I feel like his goal is to be the Anthony Hopkins character-- the God.

So far I think I am finding Maeve the most compelling (playing the Echo role.)

I like how Maeve and Delores are both having different approaches while they are waking up.

I was initially not very impressed by Maeve's character, but her scenes last night, especially in the safe room, were fascinating to watch because she's still utilizing her Western character as well. I figure she's the one that goes ballistic soon enough, rather than Delores, who just wants to escape it all.

Delores is having to "be her character" while also plan her escape at the same time. The interaction with the other hosts verses William, and then the interaction with William/Logan as they were fighting was clever. It was almost painful to watch the end of yesterday's episode, not knowing if she'd be "killed" or not.

Logan finding his "Easter Egg" finally showed what he had been waiting for. To me, it seems like he's gotten everything out of Westworld that he could possibly want at this point. If he makes it out of this round, I can't really see him going back again.

[Watashi]

If the show is going with the Paradise Lost angle, then MiB is Arnold and his "death" in the park was his fall of grace to becoming a new man.

[number8]

I know Maeve's arc was the significant one this episode, but the scene with Ford and Cullen at the restaurant is actually the one resonating the most for me. Not sure why. I found it compelling and chilling, maybe because it's the only one that baffled me. The other developments were things I expected already.

[number8]

Also, holy shit, they had to shut down the gunfight because a family with kids were coming to town? They do this all the time? Park guest coordination sounds like a nightmare job.

[Ezee E]

I know Maeve's arc was the significant one this episode, but the scene with Ford and Cullen at the restaurant is actually the one resonating the most for me. Not sure why. I found it compelling and chilling, maybe because it's the only one that baffled me. The other developments were things I expected already.

I liked that scene a lot too. I'm starting to see why they casted Hopkins in the role now.

I think Thandie Newton just elevated her scene way past what was written for her.

[Ezee E]

Also, holy shit, they had to shut down the gunfight because a family with kids were coming to town? They do this all the time? Park guest coordination sounds like a nightmare job.

Ohhhhh... I saw the scene but my dog was biting a squeaky toy and I missed the line of dialog with why they were rushing the gunfight. lol.

One more note, I dug how they were able to figure out how to handle the "spacemen" possibly showing up in hosts' dreams.

[number8]

Logan, William's friend, is treating the park like a video game but an old-school one where achievement is all that matters. He is the player who skips over all the exposition scenes because they don't interest him. He's the type of person who doesn't understand why you would go trick-or-treating when you could just go out and buy a bag of candy.

I read this hilarious description of him:


He's that guy who shows up for raids but laughs at anyone who knows the lore behind each boss.

Logan: "This hat looks like shit."
William: "Isn't that modeled after the one Billy the Kid wore?"
Logan: "lol nerd."

[Dukefrukem]

So did we get some new clues on the timeline this week? Seeing Ed Harris with Lawrence then seeing Lawrence again a few scenes later?

I'm getting a sense that Arnold has planted a "game" inside the park, that sets all of the hosts free. Ed Harris is trying to find it.

[Ezee E]

So did we get some new clues on the timeline this week? Seeing Ed Harris with Lawrence then seeing Lawrence again a few scenes later?

I'm getting a sense that Arnold has planted a "game" inside the park, that sets all of the hosts free. Ed Harris is trying to find it.

Not convinced that there's two timelines still. William's storyline would be really weird if it was in the past and one of the hosts wanted to be free, and there's the story of "Arnold" from long ago. Just think that the park had ample enough time to reset Lawrence.

I AM wondering if Frost is a god host that may have been involved in killing Arnold though. Love how the other hosts will quickly defend him in the matter of a second. If anyone is a host that we don't know is a host, I'm going with him.

Wonder if Pariah used to be Rome World? The architecture, colors, and some of the uniforms seem to indicate so...

[Dukefrukem]

Have they mentioned Rome World at all? Or Medieval World?

[Ezee E]

Have they mentioned Rome World at all? Or Medieval World?

Not at all. I don't think they necessarily "exist" in this version, but that's as close as it gets I suppose.

[Dukefrukem]

I was wondering if we would be able to buy these. Now you can.

http://www.stereogum.com/1908815/stream-the-full-westworld-versions-of-radiohead-soundgarden-the-cure-songs/music/

[Spinal]

I was wondering if we would be able to buy these. Now you can.

http://www.stereogum.com/1908815/stream-the-full-westworld-versions-of-radiohead-soundgarden-the-cure-songs/music/

That's funny. I thought that sounded like NIN's "Something I Can Never Have". But then I was like, why would they use that song?

[Henry Gale]

At this point I'm firmly in the two timelines theory camp. Having Hopkins and his unconfirmed young boy counterpart both interact with Ed Harris, especially speaking about the maze right when Delores was discovering it. He's gotta be old Jimmi Simpson.

And I mean really, we're given a premise with a nondescript real-world time at any given moment that allows a cast of ageless machines to largely navigate us through a mysterious story. I'd be super disappointed if it wasn't taking advantage of such an upending.

[Ezee E]

At this point I'm firmly in the two timelines theory camp. Having Hopkins and his unconfirmed young boy counterpart both interact with Ed Harris, especially speaking about the maze right when Delores was discovering it. He's gotta be old Jimmi Simpson.

And I mean really, we're given a premise with a nondescript real-world time at any given moment that allows a cast of ageless machines to largely navigate us through a mysterious story. I'd be super disappointed if it wasn't taking advantage of such an upending.

There's a scene where the Security guy approves of the cigars to explode, and also to have Delores brought back to the settlement. So unless the security guy is a host, it's one timezone.

Also, Bernard talks to Delores about the maze, which began her journey to look for it. Meanwhile, he has conversations with Hopkins, who has also talked with the Man In Black.

[Irish]

My issue with every fan theory I've seen: They don't lend the show anything thematically or narratively.

Westworld is so obsessed with its themes that characters spout them directly. It's much less interested in story, or even plot.

It doesn't make sense that the MiB and William are the same guy, because that makes the show into Breaking Bad: Futureworld Edition and the show hasn't ever leaned in that direction.

[Spinal]

I really hope this show does not open up a time travel element on top of everything else. It's already having a hard enough time providing us with lived-in characters that pursue objectives that provide some sort of emotional investment. I don't need another layer to keep track of. I need more reasons why these people are worth caring about.

[Dukefrukem]

There's a scene where the Security guy approves of the cigars to explode, and also to have Delores brought back to the settlement. So unless the security guy is a host, it's one timezone.

Also, Bernard talks to Delores about the maze, which began her journey to look for it. Meanwhile, he has conversations with Hopkins, who has also talked with the Man In Black.

What about the theory that everyone is a host except for the guests?

[Henry Gale]

There's a scene where the Security guy approves of the cigars to explode, and also to have Delores brought back to the settlement. So unless the security guy is a host, it's one timezone.

Going with the theory, wouldn't that have been in the latter timeline? Which we'd be in with all of the scenes with the creators.


Also, Bernard talks to Delores about the maze, which began her journey to look for it. Meanwhile, he has conversations with Hopkins, who has also talked with the Man In Black.

I think we're being led to assume that with the information they've given us, but in my mind we're seeing two stories: The initial discovery of the Arnold voice in Delores' head (the stuff towards the ending of the present episode when she's seeing herself) and seeing the image of the maze for the first time on the coffin, and the other story, the "present" (the Ed Harris, Jeffrey Wright, Anthony Hopkins time), once she's begun to trust the voice/programming and allowing it guide her.

We only see her speaking to the voice directly when she's on her own, having just finished her meeting with Hopkins. "He doesn't know. I didn't tell him anything" -- that feels like a significantly calmer and more calculated being than the one so afraid and confused in Orgy Town.

[Henry Gale]

There's a scene where the Security guy approves of the cigars to explode, and also to have Delores brought back to the settlement. So unless the security guy is a host, it's one timezone.

Going with the theory, wouldn't that have been in the latter timeline? Which we'd be in with all of the scenes with the creators.


Also, Bernard talks to Delores about the maze, which began her journey to look for it. Meanwhile, he has conversations with Hopkins, who has also talked with the Man In Black.

I think we're being led to assume that with the information they've given us, but in my mind we're seeing two stories: The initial discovery of the Arnold voice in Dolores' head (the stuff towards the ending of the present episode when she's seeing herself) and seeing the image of the maze for the first time on the coffin, and the other story, the "present" (the Ed Harris, Jeffrey Wright, Anthony Hopkins time), once she's begun to trust the voice/programming and allowing it guide her.

This week, we only see her speaking to the voice directly when she's on her own, having just finished her meeting with Hopkins. "He doesn't know. I didn't tell him anything" -- that feels like a significantly calmer and more calculated being than the one so afraid and confused in Orgy Town.

[Irish]

What about the theory that everyone is a host except for the guests?

So it's a show about smart robots encouraging dumb robots to be smart?


We only see her speaking to the voice directly when she's on her own, having just finished her meeting with Hopkins. "He doesn't know. I didn't tell him anything" -- that feels like a significantly calmer and more calculated being than the one so afraid and confused in Orgy Town.

For this to work out -- barring unforeseen plot details -- it would mean Dolores spent ~30 years working her loop despite being sentient/ half-sentient. Why would she do that?

[Winston*]

I really hope this show does not open up a time travel element on top of everything else. It's already having a hard enough time providing us with lived-in characters that pursue objectives that provide some sort of emotional investment. I don't need another layer to keep track of. I need more reasons why these people are worth caring about.

Me too. Time travel sucks.

[Henry Gale]

For this to work out -- barring unforeseen plot details -- it would mean Dolores spent ~30 years working her loop despite being sentient/ half-sentient. Why would she do that?

Since writing my post I did stumble upon some theorizing about this, that her perpetually awful loop is something of a punishment for her potentially being a part of attempting to destroy Westworld those "35 years ago" that was discussed with Harris and Hopkins in this episode, but that they felt they could wipe / significantly re-write her programming from doing anything like it ever again. Clearly not the case.

[Ezee E]

Since writing my post I did stumble upon some theorizing about this, that her perpetually awful loop is something of a punishment for her potentially being a part of attempting to destroy Westworld those "35 years ago" that was discussed with Harris and Hopkins in this episode, but that they felt they could wipe / significantly re-write her programming from doing anything like it ever again. Clearly not the case.

I'm confused with that theory. If that thought is correct, she hasn't done anything right? All her breakdown is in the past with William?

Oh... That's with the idea that her conversations with Arnold and Bernard are in the future.

Oi, this theory is harder to keep up with then what's actually happening, lol.

[Irish]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JPkkltGOdlU

This is one breath away from rando "truther" videos

[Dukefrukem]

That was some really weak "hard evidence". Was expecting something I didn't already notice.

[Ezee E]

That was some really weak "hard evidence". Was expecting something I didn't already notice.

Another one is that what she runs away from the barn, and into William/Logan, she has a flashback to the Man In Black pulling her into the barn mere moments before. There's no explanation of why else she would be running.

[Irish]

Dumbest theory to date: Jeffrey Wright is a clone/ robot version of Arnold

http://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/2016/10/westworld-season-1-episode-5-recap-contrapasso-timeline-theory-lawrence-bernard-is-arnold-clone-robot

[Spinal]

Me too. Time travel sucks.

Plus, I don't want to get into that bootstrap argument with you guys again.

[Dukefrukem]

Guys, they're all dead.

[Ezee E]

Guys, they're all dead.

How sad the show will be if it ends on a note like that or that they're all hosts, lol.

[Spinal]

I'm disappointed that my Ed Harris-shared universe theory hasn't picked up more momentum.

[Ezee E]

I'm disappointed that my Ed Harris-shared universe theory hasn't picked up more momentum.

Perhaps a youtube video with references will make things easier.

[Dukefrukem]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zQmIexVF06M

[Peng]

Best ep since the pilot, thanks to some big plot movements but especially to Thandie Newton. So good.

[Dukefrukem]

Agreed. ANd we can finally lay all these multiple timelines to rest along with the multiple logos and junk.

[Ezee E]

Lots of logistical things that I have problems with on this.

-Why is there still power to the subbasement levels? (Sweet Yul cameo though)
-How is the medic NEVER questioned or even looked at funny for escorting a host through multiple floors?
-Changing a host's attributes seems WAY too easy.

With that, I like that there's some advancement going on with other characters besides Dolores and the Man in Black now. Hopefully Elsie isn't a corpse next episode though.

[Irish]

Why. Why would you make these creative decisions. Why why why.

- It's hard enough to combine genres effectively, like sci fi and westerns, so why would you layer office intrigue and backroom politics on top of that? Is anybody watching this show with some great anticipation of what the board of directors will do? Does anybody care about inter-departmental rivalries between "QA" and "Design"? Even if the show wanted to include that material -- God knows why -- it totally failed to establish any stakes around it.

- Ed Harris' and Anthony Hopkins' storylines (if they can be called that) are almost entirely static. I kinda admire the show's ability to change up details for no purpose. They switch the action, some of the minor players, bits of dialogue .. but narratively, each episode keeps repeating the same information over and over.

- This show has a terrible habit of constantly (1) introducing new characters or (2) bringing back a character who hasn't been on for 1-3 episodes or (3) both. Which means half the people we saw last week disappear for the entire hour. This would bother me less if several characters weren't so narratively redundant (eg: Maive and Dolores).

- Did I read this wrong, or did this show just reveal a bunch of plot details that totally violated the themes it spent 4-5 hours building up? It turned from half-assed reveries about AI into a shitty techno thriller. So it's not actually about the birth of a new, artificial consciousness. It's about a bunch of dudes running around the desert fucking around with their appliances.

I can see why HBO shut this down in the middle of production. It's a huge mess.

[[ETM]]

Short answer? No.

[Spinal]

These people just need to take a weekend and have a big staff retreat somewhere in the real world. They clearly have a lot of personal and process-oriented issues to work out. Go rent out a Dave and Buster's or something.

[Spinal]

Why. Why would you make these creative decisions. Why why why.

- It's hard enough to combine genres effectively, like sci fi and westerns, so why would you layer office intrigue and backroom politics on top of that? Is anybody watching this show with some great anticipation of what the board of directors will do? Does anybody care about inter-departmental rivalries between "QA" and "Design"? Even if the show wanted to include that material -- God knows why -- it totally failed to establish any stakes around it.

I agree with a lot of what you say, but especially this. The scenes with the egotistical writer are stunningly bad. That character is just a mess. And it cracks me up when Bernard and Theresa talk about their affair. Nobody cares! You have absolutely zero chemistry.

Still watching. Still hoping it will get better. But if it were a network show without casual nudity and nifty special effects, I most likely would not be.

[Ezee E]

That is a good point. If you were half-watching, you wouldn't even know what's going on between Theresa and Bernard.

Can't wait for that writer to go. I like the new board member that arrived. She seems to have a different personality than everyone else.

[[ETM]]

You cannot "half-watch" Westworld. It's just not that kind of show at all.

[Irish]

I cannot believe HBO spent a $100 million on a glass and chrome soap opera.

[Peng]

Jesus, Anthony Hopkins is just so chilling in this episode, right from that chuckle after their fake demonstration.

[number8]

Honestly, I find the corporate espionage/board room drama stuff to be more compelling than whatever the fuck Ed Harris is doing. This show has definitely not been living up to the promise of the pilot, and I find it to be largely the fault of the mystery box storytelling. 7 episodes and they've given me no concrete reason why I should care about the maze, or Ford's new Wyatt narrative, beyond cursory curiosity. With LOST, the mystery box stuff is integrated into the fact that the characters are constantly in serious danger, so even the red herringesque stuff like the Hatch has urgency to it. Not the case here. The main draw should be, as the pilot established, the existential and philosophical stuff, but that seems to be taking a back seat. They're lucky all the actors are terrific at selling the circular narrative.

[Ezee E]

Yeah, the Bernard/Ford storyline have definitely taken the front seat at this point. Maeve's is still very interesting, but I feel like it'll end up like Ex Machina. I feel like she's going to awaken the room of put down hosts for something pretty terrifying. Dolores/William is almost the worst at this point.

But loved that Bernard/Farm House scene. "What door?" matched with that weird cut of Hopkins appearing out of nowhere makes things a whole lot better.

[Ezee E]

Season Two is official. HBO must've wanted to see reactions to yesterday's twist, I guess?

[Dukefrukem]

We are getting into Lost territory making Bernard a host. All the dreams and discussions about him losing his son... and even the episode leading off with a dream sequence in the hospital... all a manufactured lie that does nothing to propel the character, but exists just to deceive the audience. Fuck that.

[number8]

Season Two is official. HBO must've wanted to see reactions to yesterday's twist, I guess?

Nah, they renewed other shows yesterday, too. I think they're just waiting for concrete figures before jumping ahead this time, because of Vinyl. And it's looking good.


“Westworld” has regularly been the No.-3-highest-rated scripted TV show in cable, drawing nearly three million viewers each week. HBO said on Monday that after adding up additional metrics like DVR, HBO Go and HBO Now views, the show is averaging 11.7 million viewers per episode, a figure they said is higher than “Game of Thrones” and “True Detective” at similar points in their freshman seasons.

[number8]

Also, I thought the implication wasn't that Bernard was always a host but that he was murdered and replaced at some point. As in, his wife and dead son actually exist.

EDIT: Nevermind, that doesn't seem to be the case. (http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/live-feed/westworld-bernard-twist-explained-946507)

[number8]

We are getting into Lost territory making Bernard a host. All the dreams and discussions about him losing his son... and even the episode leading off with a dream sequence in the hospital... all a manufactured lie that does nothing to propel the character, but exists just to deceive the audience. Fuck that.

Funny, because I think the intention is the opposite. The way the episode opens with the overhead shot of him in bed, the voiceover, and the flashback-dream, is the opposite of deceiving the audience. It's actually flat out telling you, because it's the same way we've seen Dolores and Maeve open episodes previously.

[Ezee E]

Funny, because I think the intention is the opposite. The way the episode opens with the overhead shot of him in bed, the voiceover, and the flashback-dream, is the opposite of deceiving the audience. It's actually flat out telling you, because it's the same way we've seen Dolores and Maeve open episodes previously.

That's how I saw it too. Plus, there's TONS of evidence throughout that indicated Bernard's been a host this entire time.

Still goes in with the overall theme of the show.

I did lose faith in Lost after Season 2 though, and never returned until the finale.

[Dukefrukem]

Funny, because I think the intention is the opposite. The way the episode opens with the overhead shot of him in bed, the voiceover, and the flashback-dream, is the opposite of deceiving the audience. It's actually flat out telling you, because it's the same way we've seen Dolores and Maeve open episodes previously.

That's a stretch.

http://images.buddytv.com/btv_2_500319377_1_590_-1_0_/lost--easter-eggs-fo.jpg
http://images2.wikia.nocookie.net/lostpedia/images/f/ff/1x01_FirstScene.jpg

[Dukefrukem]

That's how I saw it too. Plus, there's TONS of evidence throughout that indicated Bernard's been a host this entire time.


????????

[number8]

They did the "Bernard can't see a door" thing in the previous episode.

[Dukefrukem]

They did the "Bernard can't see a door" thing in the previous episode.

You mean when he met with Ford at the cabin the first time? Or this past episode?

[number8]

You mean when he met with Ford at the cabin the first time? Or this past episode?

Episode 6, when he discovered the cabin with the family. Ford appeared out of thin air to rescue him. We see in episode 7 that there's a door there. He's just programmed to not notice it.

[Dukefrukem]

Yeh? I took that as the reveal that he was a host. It was pretty obvious at that point. That's not enough lead time that makes up for the last six episodes. Ford goes out of his way to say that Bernard has been loyal for a long time. So I doubt he was killed and replaced with a host sometime before episode 1 and episode 7. *queue lame flash back episode*

[number8]

I'm actually not sure what we're arguing here or if we even are, so I'm just gonna point out another thing:

http://i.imgur.com/o8xcZIH.jpg

The framing of the photo is awkward, possibly because there is a missing person in the right side of the photo that Bernard couldn't see.

[Dukefrukem]

My argument is the Bernard host reveal was super poorly setup, and what we knew of him from the start of the series was not sufficient for it to be anything but a Losty fake reveal.

If you're saying the above photo is enough to satisfy this build, I'm going to disagree adamantly. But it would be nice if this was confirmed.

[Lazlo]

There's also the way Ford talks about Bernard's son in an earlier episode. It's something like, "I know you're having a hard time processing the death of your son Charlie." On it's own, it's a ham-fisted way of laying out Bernard's emotional state for the audience. If Bernard's a host, it's a slightly camouflaged voice command that trigger's something within Bernard in order to keep him from asking too many questions.

[Dukefrukem]

There's also the way Ford talks about Bernard's son in an earlier episode. It's something like, "I know you're having a hard time processing the death of your son Charlie." On it's own, it's a ham-fisted way of laying out Bernard's emotional state for the audience. If Bernard's a host, it's a slightly camouflaged voice command that trigger's something within Bernard in order to keep him from asking too many questions.

See that's the thing now... any dialog can be used as a crutch for whether or not the show decides to make someone a host ... it's so punitive and lazy unless you can somehow prove to me that was the plan the entire time.

At the end of season 7 of Westworld, we are going to find out that Ford is a host created by Arnold.

[Dukefrukem]

If you can't tell guys, I have been severely scared by Lost.

[number8]

it's so punitive and lazy unless you can somehow prove to me that was the plan the entire time.

Not sure how that would help. If it's unconvincing to you in the narrative itself, it's irrelevant whether or not it was the writers' plan all along (which they said it was in the interview link I posted).

[Dukefrukem]

Not sure how that would help. If it's unconvincing to you in the narrative itself, it's irrelevant whether or not it was the writers' plan all along (which they said it was in the interview link I posted).

I suppose I'm just trying to avoid the "devastation reveal". It's much more impressive to me to execute on plan, rather than introducing a plot element that can be so ambiguously analyzed where the audience trying to follow along for several seasons, only to have some kind of deus ex machina ending. Following along is the fun part. Not having it eventually conclude.

[number8]

Nolan seems to agree with you.


It's very exciting when people correctly guess where the narrative is going, because you've done your job. I'm very much a believer that you have to on some level play fair with the audience. I do this for a living, so there are many movies over the years that I've guessed the ending to, and thoroughly enjoyed anyway. Lisa and I both watch and adore Mr. Robot. It's a good global example. I love Reddit. I've been reading Reddit. I don't do social media, and Reddit is sort of the non-social version of social media. I've been reading that website for the better part of a decade. But for shows I like, I don't tend to go to the subreddit while the series is ongoing, because I don't want it spoiled. The thing about theorizing is that occasionally, you're going to be right. The distinction between a theory and a spoiler becomes moot if someone guesses correctly. With a sufficient number of guesses and with an organizing mechanism like Reddit, where good guesses can get more karma, people are going to deduce things that are correct about the show — and they're going to deduce things that aren't correct. But you do have the ability to spoil it for yourself. For myself, I stayed away from the Mr. Robot subreddit, because I didn't want to know. I want to experience the show fresh. That said, [Mr. Robot creator] Sam Esmail very carefully and beautifully lays in and plays fair with the audience. He lays in the clues you'll need, not because you need to solve a puzzle, but because that show reflects the reality of the character. That character has a tenuous grip on reality. Our show is very similar.

[[ETM]]

Why are we using spoiler tags in the show's thread?

[Dukefrukem]

I dunno, I keep getting yelled at so I'm playing it safe.

[number8]

Meh, it's good practice, since we don't segment by episode.

[[ETM]]

I'm just trying to post from Tapatalk and formating is a bit of a pain on the phone. :)

On topic: what about Bernard's wife, played by Gina Torres? They spoke through video chat, IRRC.

[Irish]

... it's so punitive and lazy unless you can somehow prove to me that was the plan the entire time.

Me, right after the first episode:


Oh, one more fear: That they will pull some Battlestar Galactica bullshit and one or more "people" in the control center and labs (like Jeffrey Wright) will turn out to be androids.

:D

It was their plan all along. But it doesn't matter because Bernard is so underwritten that he's barely registers.

We watched this dude over the course of seven hours and not only did we learn almost nothing about him, he never expressed a desire for anything. (This is also an issue for every other major character.) That's a big flaw, because all drama comes from want. Bernard has never wanted anything, never had goals, and never created conflict.

I burst out laughing at the reveal. First because was staged like a bad Frankenstein movie, like a high-gloss exploitation film, a slasher set in Saks 5th avenue ("No! No, Bernard! Noooooooooo!" *squish*). Second because it really doesn't change anything for anyone, and they played it off like it was meaningful and shocking. Third because even within the context of this fictional universe, Bernard being a secret robot is completely implausible. Fourth because they actually made the dumbest and most obvious move they could have made.

Edit: I thought at first a lack of context around the world and its characters was a creative choice, and purposeful. Now I just think it's bad writing.

[Dukefrukem]

I'm not sure how I missed that post Irish, but yes, that's exactly how I felt. Exactly.

Maybe because I watch this on Mondays or Wednesdays on my DVR, and tried to skip through the posts right after the episode aired.

[Ezee E]

;563101']I'm just trying to post from Tapatalk and formating is a bit of a pain on the phone. :)

On topic: what about Bernard's wife, played by Gina Torres? They spoke through video chat, IRRC.

For all we know, she could still be very real, and could think she's talking to her husband. How's that for chilling?

[Spinal]

Reacting to last week's episode, as I haven't watched last night's yet.

Irish has it right. This show is getting by on actors and gloss at this point. Good lord, haven't we seen the scene where Maeve wakes up and threatens the low-level employees three times now? At least they killed off one of the dullest characters. I also liked what number8 said. WHAT DO THESE CHARACTERS WANT? What are their desires beyond their job functions at the park? We got a little bit from William in this episode, but it was completely vague. He wants to be himself. Great! I have no idea who you are! Might as well finish the first season at this point, I guess. But I'm pretty disappointed.

[number8]

Maeve is a conundrum in that Thandie Newton is the most compelling actor to watch on the show but her story might be the worst. It's been several episodes of her basically sitting around downloading a software update, and there's been no scene containing any emotional weight since she first figured out what she is.

[Ezee E]

Maeve is a conundrum in that Thandie Newton is the most compelling actor to watch on the show but her story might be the worst. It's been several episodes of her basically sitting around downloading a software update, and there's been no scene containing any emotional weight since she first figured out what she is.

On top of that, there's so much disbelief I have with the two techs that it really is making her scenes eyeroll worthy. And with the cut that happened last night, I'm hoping that finishes up right away. I think it will with Bernard entering the piece. I think we could've done without many of those repeat scenes, knowing that she was waiting for an opportunity... But it is what it is.

Pretty sure her and Bernard wake up the room of dead hosts as part of finishing up the season.

Really wish William and Dolores would stop talking philosophy each scene too.

With that, I write these frustrations, but still am intrigued each episode. Weird.

[Irish]

I am currently obsessed with Chapo Trap House (https://thetrap.fm/), so when I started watching the last episode of Westworld, I was like, "Oh no, fuck it ... I just can't." And turned it off.

Meanwhile I'll wait for some kid writing at MTV News to unpack the currently weirder racial politics the show has revealed:

- Of the two black leads, both are robots and neither one has any particular agency of their own.

- There's an inherent strange dynamic between a middle aged black dude working for a rich old white man. That gets reversed, and more fucked up, when the audience realizes the rich old man specifically built a black dude to be his robot sidekick in the Old West.

[Peng]

Black male nudity is depicted pretty badly one time in a past ep, but the above racial reading really seems reaching, especially considering the most powerful player opposite Hopkins right now is Tessa Thompson, who both has agency and is very savvy.

[Irish]

Thompson has been in a handful of scenes in 2 or 3 episodes, out of 8. I don't get "very savvy" from her. I get "walking exposition" and "plot device." (tbh, I forgot about her because, like most of the characters, she barely registers when she's not delivering lines.)

The Bernard thing is, I think, fucked. You may not. *shrug*

In a show like Westworld, which constantly preens its many meanings and mumbles its bullshit subtext every 5 seconds, it's tough not to raise an eyebrow at what they've revealed.

I think the Bernard-Ford dynamic is indicative of a certain type of Hollywood blindness, where they cast a role and don't think through all the implications (cf: Tilda in Doctor Strange).

And it means something, even if you and the creators don't think it does.

[[ETM]]

God, Irish, you do have the incredible talent of taking the fun out of anything.

[Peng]

I typed that forgetting you haven't seen the last episode yet, because that's where I got "savvy" from. And I expect many good writers to unpack racial imbalances/undertones when it's worth noting or egregious (such as that tone-deaf instance of black male nudity), not when they don't like the show (which quite a few critics I follow kind of do now, incidentally). *shrug*

[Irish]

;563376']God, Irish, you do have the incredible talent of taking the fun out of anything.

;558393']You have way too much time on your hands.

;556253']Irish is being extra irishy.

;549821']Irish Guarantee of Quality!™

;521174']Thanks for that report from the Opposite World, Irish.

So. Why do you do stuff like this, do you think?

Because I've asked you to cut the shit before, and you haven't. Usually, I go out of my way to avoid your inane, performative nonsense. I find you obnoxious and dim, and your sensibilities low and juvenile. Posts like the ones I've quoted are the reason why. I don't seek you out. I don't casually deride your opinions. I avoid you as much as I can, because you've sniped at me for years.

Are you just seeking any kind of reaction? Well, you got one.

Is that all you wanted?

[[ETM]]

Aw, man, I'm not singling you out out of any malice, I have no beef with you or your opinions - I think they're in large part what still makes MC engaging - but... the fact that it wasn't too much of a trouble to go back and compile my replies like that is precisely what I was talking about. You're relentlessly intense about everything in the same way and when it gets overwhelming, I can't resist jabbing you.

I mean, I wish I knew you in person because I seriously can't imagine what you're like IRL based on your posting. :D

I guess I'm just saying - chill, man. It's cool.

[[ETM]]

Also, you don't have me figured out either, based on that post. That's why I'll gloss over the insults. I know I lately only post on a whim, and spend way more time reading what you guys are writing, and when one does that it can be taken in a wrong way. I'll try and be more constructive but I've found lately that I've been lacking both time and patience to do so. Hopefully, things will change.

[Dukefrukem]

I'm 1.5 episodes away from bailing.

[Ezee E]

Interesting observation there Irish with the casting. I don't find it insulting in the least, just another theme of the show.

It looks like next week that Maeve is going to use Bernard to revive the dead hosts to revolt too. I have no idea where that will lead, considering all hosts have that explosive device in their spine if they get too far away.

I have to say that there's definitely multiple timelines at this point, and that William is probably the Man In Black, but just looks nothing like him at all. Funny how his story went from most interesting to most annoying, trying so hard to be philosophical. Dolores has had NOTHING to do the last few episodes except cry.

[number8]

One thing that occurred to me in the pilot when I saw the group of Asian guests, that I didn't really expect them to fully explore but wanted to at least cursory acknowledge somewhere (they have not), is that Westworld seems to have, simultaneously, expunges itself out of the racism, sexism, and homophobia of the old west in order to not offend the modern guests who are there to have a good time, while still keeping some of the racial-based tropes of western myths such as using savage Natives and Mexican bandits as the archetypal villains.

I feel like spending time talking about navigating that line would be more interesting than multiple rich white men walking around going, "I need to discover who I aaaaaaam."

[Ezee E]

One thing that occurred to me in the pilot when I saw the group of Asian guests, that I didn't really expect them to fully explore but wanted to at least cursory acknowledge somewhere (they have not), is that Westworld seems to have, simultaneously, expunges itself out of the racism, sexism, and homophobia of the old west in order to not offend the modern guests who are there to have a good time, while still keeping some of the racial-based tropes of western myths such as using savage Natives and Mexican bandits as the archetypal villains.

I feel like spending time talking about navigating that line would be more interesting than multiple rich white men walking around going, "I need to discover who I aaaaaaam."

Well, everyone that's there is definitely rich. No matter who.. But yeah, self discovery in an amusement park, lol.

[Spinal]

I'm confused as to how Maeve doesn't have agency. Isn't that the whole point of her story? (Flawed though it might be.) That she is taking control of her situation.

[Milky Joe]

I'm confused as to how Maeve doesn't have agency. Isn't that the whole point of her story? (Flawed though it might be.) That she is taking control of her situation.

that you have to explain such a thing is... troubling.

[transmogrifier]

Usually, I go out of my way to avoid your inane, performative nonsense. I find you obnoxious and dim, and your sensibilities low and juvenile.

That's our Irish.

[Russ]

Irish knows that I used to fight with him all the time, too. And I will still call him out when warranted (and conversely, he will do the same to me when I deserve it).

But, imo, Irish has proven his worth and value to this community, many times over. Yeah he may have his eccentricities, but who doesn't? Long ago, I stopped needling him, 'cause I know he doesn't like it.

It didn't require much effort on my part. I consider Irish one of the good ones, the same as I feel about pretty much everyone else here.


EDIT: And now I'm finally at 4000 posts. Jeebus Christ.

[Ezee E]

Well done. That episode kind of answered a lot of the things I didn't like going on... except the dumb repair lab guys, but they weren't even there, so even better.