Questions and Speculations

[Ms.McGregor]

22 minutes ago, SoothingDave said:

Are you suggesting that that is a 30 year old shirt?

Why not? Dolores has been wearing iterations of the same clothes for 30 years.

If MiB/William doesn't go to the park that often....once per year? Once every few years? No reason why it couldn't hold up.  (FWIW I just purchased a vintage 1985 tshirt on eBay and it's in like-new condition.)

Alternatively, when William first arrives at the park, the greeter host tells him that the clothes are all bespoke.  So William decides that was his favorite shirt style of the various ones that he's tried, and upon his return visits they crank out a few more for him.

[phoenyx]

35 minutes ago, SoothingDave said:

Are you suggesting that that is a 30 year old shirt?

It may not be exactly the same shirt, but I think the similarity if not the identicality of the shirt may be noteworthy. I think the showrunners may be trying to give us hints (that seem to be getting stronger) that William and MiB are the same person. At first, I -really- didn't want to believe it- I was hoping that Logan could fit the bill. But so far, Logan has only been transitory. And it's common knowledge that MiB has a good side. I really don't see a good side to Logan. I imagine that the grey shirt might actually have a very deep meaning- it's in between black and white. I think there's evidence that William does in fact have a bit of a dark side, it's just not one that we've seen too much of yet. William has generally been white hat, and MiB has generally been black hat, but both have shown signs of the opposite. In episode 8, I saw another hint that William is MiB- William kind of drags Dolores away from the village because he thinks it's not good for him. I can't help but think of MiB dragging Dolores to the barn- the circumstances look a lot worse but I can't help but think that William became consumed by Dolores. It also looks like episode 8 may also be hinting at Dolores' demise 30 years ago- she "sees" herself facedown in the water, apparently dead. Could it be that she was "killed" in the 30 year ago time period, has her memory wiped, and that this is what sets William firmly on the path towards his future as MiB? There's another detail, much more subtle, but I think may be noteworthy. Dolores has a small argument with William in episode 8. Here's the scene:

**

DOLORES ABERNATHY: We have to help him.

WILLIAM: He just admitted he was gonna kill us.

DOLORES ABERNATHY: Look at him, he's a child. He doesn't know why he's fighting. I'll fetch more water.

WILLIAM: He's too far gone. He'll be dead in minutes. We can't wait, Dolores.

DOLORES ABERNATHY: (Whispers) He's not gone yet. He's in pain, William. What kind of people would we be if we simply let him suffer? (Dolores walks over to the river to refill the canteen.)

WOUNDED MAN: (to William) Please don't leave me.

[Dolores kneels down to refill the canteen and sees herself, face-down in the water. Then she hears a man's voice.]

MAN'S VOICE: Come find me.

[Shaken, Dolores draws back and then looks around for William. But the river bank is clear -- no one, not even the dead bodies, are there.]

DOLORES ABERNATHY: William?

[Dolores turns back to the river, looking for her dead body. But now it's gone! She looks back around at the bank and sees William, the wounded man and all the dead bodies. Then she walks back with the filled canteen. Dolores kneels down next to the wounded man but he draws his last breath and then dies.]

WILLIAM: He's gone.

**

Am I the only one who suspects that William may have 'helped' the wounded man to an early grave? In this particular instance, he had multiple motivations for doing so, but none so strong as the possibility that trying to nurse this guy back to health might mean that Dolores could be hurt or even killed. Like Annakin Skywalker, though, I think the -real- pain will come when Dolores actually -does- get killed and her memories erased (the real death, for him), which I think is coming soon. It adds a whole new meaning to his very first conversation with Dolores in episode 1:

**

the MAN IN BLACK: Is that any way to treat an old friend? I've been coming here for 30 years, but you still don't remember me, do you? After all we've been through...

**

Edited November 23, 2016 by phoenyx

[SoothingDave]

I think the Westworld land is kind of rough for a shirt to last that long.  But I can accept that they are the same style of shirt, as you say.  

[Netfoot]

In E4, a Surveillance Tech (played by Folake Olowofoyeku) approaches Ashley Stubbs (played by Luke Hemsworth) and says:  "We've got a host making a pretty big deviation from her loop."  It turns out to be "the rancher's daughter from Sweetwater."  Stubbs determines this is Dolores and says "Flag her with Behaviour.  They can pull her today."

Cut to Dolores near the pump, talking to Lawrence's Daughter.  Along comes a Sheriff and tries to take her away.  William appears and says "She's not lost, she is with me."

Later in the same episode, TMIB uses two cigars to blow up the lock on a cell door and a guard, thus freeing himself and Hector from prison.  Ashley Stubbs is informed of "a request for a pyrotechnic effect, low yield, two charges." He approves the use of the cigars.

Now, if William is TMIB, there is an inconsistency here.  There are three ways I can think of, to resolve it.

First option: When William rescues Dolores from the sheriff, that incident isn't the big deviation mentioned seconds before, in the previous scene. But obviously it's been shot to convince us it was.  It is now our reality.  If William is subsequently proven to be TMIB, we have another reality which is inconsistent.  To resolve this, we have to be shown that Dolores's big deviation discussed by Stubbs & the tech is a separate deviation to the one  we saw William rescue her from.  Have we seen another deviation?  Why didn't we see it occurring and then being addressed as per Stubbs command?

Second option: Ashley Stubbs is a host, whose appearance hasn't changed in 30 years, so the key scenes could have taken place 30 years apart.  (He did speak to different techs, after all.)  But there's been no suggestion that Stubbs is anything other than human that I recall.  And if TPTB keep throwing more and more IncognitoBots at us every time the plot gets tangled... well,  pretty soon this show will become unwatchable.  

Third option:  William is not TMIB.  I know that many people gaspingly desire the William == TMIB theory to be proven correct, but I can't see how it could be.  Because if it is, the discussion between Stubbs & Tech about the  deviation is a scene totally disconnected from the remainder of the show.  It connects to nothing before, nor to anything that comes after.  Which would be terribly lazy writing, which I can't accept that easily.

And the Stubbs == host option is nearly as bad.

 Which only leaves.....

[phoenyx]

11 minutes ago, Netfoot said:

In E4, a Surveillance Tech (played by Folake Olowofoyeku) approaches Ashley Stubbs (played by Luke Hemsworth) and says:  "We've got a host making a pretty big deviation from her loop."  It turns out to be "the rancher's daughter from Sweetwater."  Stubbs determines this is Dolores and says "Flag her with Behaviour.  They can pull her today."

Cut to Dolores near the pump, talking to Lawrence's Daughter.  Along comes a Sheriff and tries to take her away.  William appears and says "She's not lost, she is with me."

Later in the same episode, TMIB uses two cigars to blow up the lock on a cell door and a guard, thus freeing himself and Hector from prison.  Ashley Stubbs is informed of "a request for a pyrotechnic effect, low yield, two charges." He approves the use of the cigars.

Now, if William is TMIB, there is an inconsistency here.  There are three ways I can think of, to resolve it.

First option: When William rescues Dolores from the sheriff, that incident isn't the big deviation mentioned seconds before, in the previous scene. But obviously it's been shot to convince us it was.  It is now our reality.  If William is subsequently proven to be TMIB, we have another reality which is inconsistent.  To resolve this, we have to be shown that Dolores's big deviation discussed by Stubbs & the tech is a separate deviation to the one  we saw William rescue her from.  Have we seen another deviation?  Why didn't we see it occurring and then being addressed as per Stubbs command?

Second option: Ashley Stubbs is a host, whose appearance hasn't changed in 30 years, so the key scenes could have taken place 30 years apart.  (He did speak to different techs, after all.)  But there's been no suggestion that Stubbs is anything other than human that I recall.  And if TPTB keep throwing more and more IncognitoBots at us every time the plot gets tangled... well,  pretty soon this show will become unwatchable.  

Third option:  William is not TMIB.  I know that many people gaspingly desire the William == TMIB theory to be proven correct, but I can't see how it could be.  Because if it is, the discussion between Stubbs & Tech about the  deviation is a scene totally disconnected from the remainder of the show.  It connects to nothing before, nor to anything that comes after.  Which would be terribly lazy writing, which I can't accept that easily.

And the Stubbs == host option is nearly as bad.

 Which only leaves.....

I think your first option is the right one. And I completely agree, the showrunners were really trying to make it hard for us to figure out that 2 time periods were being played out simultaneously at the beginning. That being said, I think, especially in episode 8, that they are dropping more and more hints that 2 time periods are at play in regards to William/Logan and MiB. I also have become persuaded that when "Bernard" is interviewing a fully clothed Dolores, he is doing it 35 years ago, and is probably Arnold.

One last thing: MiB isn't the only person who places importance in what happened 30 years ago. Bernard has as well, way back in episode 1:

"BERNARD LOWE: We don't update the hosts in cold storage and the park hasn't had a critical failure in over 30 years."

It leaves it a bit open as to whether he's talking about what happened around 30 years ago, or 35 years ago. Perhaps he is referring to both.

Edited November 23, 2016 by phoenyx

[Netfoot]

3 minutes ago, phoenyx said:

I think your first option is the right one. And I completely agree, the showrunners were really trying to make it hard for us to figure out that 2 time periods were being played out simultaneously at the beginning.

But that doesn't help.  

They have shown me that William, Stubbs and TMIB are all contemporary.  I've seen it, and it is my reality.  Showing me later that William and TMIB are not contemporary only gives me two, conflicting realities to choose from.  They would have to find a way to show me (not just leave me to handwave) that Dolores's deviation discussed by Stubbs was a different deviation from the one we witnessed William rescue her from.  

Stubbs and TMIB are definitely contemporaries, because Stubbs authorizes the use of the exploding cigars?  Because it could go either way:

1) We see Stubbs discuss Dolores's deviation, but we never see or hear of it again, only the separate and distinct deviation that William rescues her from.

-- Or --

2) We see Stubbs authorize the use of two pyrotechnic devices, but we never see or hear about them being used again.  Only the separate and distinct pyrotechnic devices used by TMIB to break jail.  

Why is #1 (which you suggest is what happened) any more reasonable or believable than #2?  

[SoothingDave]

There is a similar "trick" going on if it is later revealed that when Dolores stumbles into William's camp and collapses that that did not happen after she fled her farm, as we were just shown.  

If she stumbles in 30 years prior to the escape from her farm, and it wandering alone at night for some reason we are not given, I will feel cheated/tricked in a cheap way.

[Lingo]

21 hours ago, LilaFowler said:

Please correct me if I'm wrong:  all we've ever really been told about Arnold (or even that he exists) has come courtesy of Ford. I don't know that I consider him to be a reliable source.  TMiB alludes to someone's death when he meets with Ford when he says that if he wants answers, he'd have to ask the man who died 35 years ago.  The audience is clearly supposed to infer that he's talking about the not-that-famous Arnold but if you take this conversation at face value, all we really know is that TMiB doesn't think that Ford is the man that he needs to speak to.  I don't think he would have met "Arnold" since he would have already been dead when TMiB started coming to the park. 

You are wrong. TMIB mentioned Arnold by name several times in the episodes before he encountered Ford in that saloon. I think he's mentioned Arnold in conversations with Kissy, Lawrence, Armistice, and/or Teddy before that point. Of course, we have no idea where TMIB got his information from.

1 hour ago, Netfoot said:

In E4, a Surveillance Tech (played by Folake Olowofoyeku) approaches Ashley Stubbs (played by Luke Hemsworth) and says:  "We've got a host making a pretty big deviation from her loop."  It turns out to be "the rancher's daughter from Sweetwater."  Stubbs determines this is Dolores and says "Flag her with Behaviour.  They can pull her today."

Cut to Dolores near the pump, talking to Lawrence's Daughter.  Along comes a Sheriff and tries to take her away.  William appears and says "She's not lost, she is with me."

Later in the same episode, TMIB uses two cigars to blow up the lock on a cell door and a guard, thus freeing himself and Hector from prison.  Ashley Stubbs is informed of "a request for a pyrotechnic effect, low yield, two charges." He approves the use of the cigars.

Now, if William is TMIB, there is an inconsistency here.  There are three ways I can think of, to resolve it.

First option: When William rescues Dolores from the sheriff, that incident isn't the big deviation mentioned seconds before, in the previous scene. But obviously it's been shot to convince us it was.  It is now our reality.  If William is subsequently proven to be TMIB, we have another reality which is inconsistent.  To resolve this, we have to be shown that Dolores's big deviation discussed by Stubbs & the tech is a separate deviation to the one  we saw William rescue her from.  Have we seen another deviation?  Why didn't we see it occurring and then being addressed as per Stubbs command?

I also believe it's the first option. Ashley is in the present storyline. It's important to remember that (according to the theory at least) present-day Dolores is retracing the steps of past Dolores. In the past, probably some other tech at the time (not Stubbs, I don't think he's a robot) noticed Dolores going off-loop, and sent the sheriff off to fetch her right away. William rescues her.  In the present, Dolores is retracing her steps,  and Ashley notices it.  Notice what he says: "Flag her with Behaviour. They can pull her today." Not immediately, but today. And who do we eventually see come and check on her? Robert Ford. He takes his time but it's still the same day. He decides that what she'd doing is harmless, and lets her go on her way.

[Netfoot]

But if the writers show us Scene A which leads us to believe Ashley and William are contemporaneous, and later they show us Scene B which leads us to believe that Ashley and William are not contemporaneous, they must show us Scene C to expand on Scene A, and make us understand we've been fooled, and that the writers haven't simply slipped up and introduced an inconsistency.    Where is Scene C?

[parandroid]

19 hours ago, phoenyx said:

I heard somewhere that Ford came close to having a family but decided against it to focus on the park. I really don't remember where I heard this.

You most likely read the interview with Lisa Joy where she was talking about scenes that were edited out to save time. This was (Ford) exposition that was left on the editing room floor from the conversation that Ford had with Teresa, out where the construction was going on.

[Lingo]

2 hours ago, Netfoot said:

But if the writers show us Scene A which leads us to believe Ashley and William are contemporaneous, and later they show us Scene B which leads us to believe that Ashley and William are not contemporaneous, they must show us Scene C to expand on Scene A, and make us understand we've been fooled, and that the writers haven't simply slipped up and introduced an inconsistency.    Where is Scene C?

Well they're still trying to trick you at this point. If there is going to be a Scene C it would be at (or after) the big reveal, presumably in the next 2 episodes. Personally though, I don't think there's going to a one-by-one reveal scene for every previously ambiguous scene. They'll show enough and expect you to connect the dots on your own (probably after rewatches...they'd love it if you rewatched!).

[Gobi]

31 minutes ago, Lingo said:

Well they're still trying to trick you at this point. If there is going to be a Scene C it would be at (or after) the big reveal, presumably in the next 2 episodes. Personally though, I don't think there's going to a one-by-one reveal scene for every previously ambiguous scene. They'll show enough and expect you to connect the dots on your own (probably after rewatches...they'd love it if you rewatched!).

That's why God gave us Blu-rays.

[Netfoot]

Oh, I'm quite sure they won't return to the scenes with Ashley, that I described above.  But that is just using trickery to achieve their goals, which is poor film-making, I believe.

Remember the Bruce Willis movie, The Sixth Sense?  After the big reveal, they had to flash back to various parts of the story to make it all hang together. That was their Scene C.  Without it, the end of the movie would have been pure deus ex machina.

[Gobi]

I agree that if the scene of Stuggs sending someone to intercept Dolores is supposed to be happening 30 years after the subsequent scene of her being approached by a deputy, it's a cheap trick. The Sixth Sense holds up on re-watching, because it plays fair with the audience. The clues are all there, they just aren't obvious until after the reveal at the end.

[Lingo]

Hey, if you feel like all of this deceptive and confusing storytelling is not going to be worth the reveals at the end, I'm completely sympathetic. All I'm saying is that there are plausible explanations to the questions about the theories.

[Netfoot]

30 minutes ago, Lingo said:

All I'm saying is that there are plausible explanations to the questions about the theories.

But I shouldn't have to invent them myself, or listen to the ravings of strangers on a forum somewhere.  The show itself should be consistent.

[Gobi]

32 minutes ago, Lingo said:

Hey, if you feel like all of this deceptive and confusing storytelling is not going to be worth the reveals at the end, I'm completely sympathetic. All I'm saying is that there are plausible explanations to the questions about the theories.

I think the reveals will be worth it. The Stuggs scene is the only one where I think the show may not be playing fair.

[phoenyx]

33 minutes ago, Netfoot said:

But I shouldn't have to invent them myself, or listen to the ravings of strangers on a forum somewhere.  The show itself should be consistent.

I think the show's a bit like real life. I would -really- like it sometimes if real life had narratives that were consistent, where I could trust what various people say. In the end, it's hard enough to keep -myself- honest, let alone other people :-p. I think they're playing the narrative almost like it was a person- like the androids, who have flashbacks so real that they can't tell whether they're in the present or the past. To me, though, this is all just details. What I'm always trying to learn is what the producers of the show are trying to get us to see. So far, I've been quite impressed by what I've seen.

[Quilt Fairy]

Does anyone else wonder about Lawrence's daughter?  I mean, her dialog is not consistent with the character of a little girl or that it's part of a pre-programed script. She's obviously the voice of someone higher up, someone who can converse in real time with TMIB and Dolores.  No one seems to talk about her, but I keep wondering who she's speaking for.

[phoenyx]

47 minutes ago, Quilt Fairy said:

Does anyone else wonder about Lawrence's daughter?  I mean, her dialog is not consistent with the character of a little girl or that it's part of a pre-programed script. She's obviously the voice of someone higher up, someone who can converse in real time with TMIB and Dolores.  No one seems to talk about her, but I keep wondering who she's speaking for.

I can't help but think "Arnold". Seriously, what other high up guy is there on the revolution side :-p? Currently, I think that Dolores was his lover, or at the very least someone he cared about deeply, like the child that he lost (yeah, I'm going for the theory that Bernard is basically a replicant of Arnold) and she was also quite possibly the inspiration for Wyatt as well. 

Edited November 24, 2016 by phoenyx

[Bill1978]

On ‎24‎/‎11‎/‎2016 at 4:05 AM, Netfoot said:

And the Stubbs == host option is nearly as bad.

I feel the quizzical look Stubbs gave Bernard in Episode 8 after Bernard claimed to have no attachment to Theresa enough evidence for me that the show wants us to know that Stubbs is not a host but a real boy.

[phoenyx]

4 hours ago, Bill1978 said:

I feel the quizzical look Stubbs gave Bernard in Episode 8 after Bernard claimed to have no attachment to Theresa enough evidence for me that the show wants us to know that Stubbs is not a host but a real boy.

I'm not so sure. Bernard was also investigating anomalies before it turned out he was actually an android (to be fair, though, there were other signs that he was an android). Nevertheless, I'm going on the assumption that he's not an android for now -.-

Edited November 25, 2016 by phoenyx

[phoenyx]

Just found a video that posits that if there are 2 timelines, Stubbs has to be a host. I'm not so sure, but the guy certainly brings up a lot of points- there's just some points I think he's overlooking. Anyway, for anyone who doesn't mind thinking about the pros and cons of William/Logan and MiB being in 2 time periods, this video is for you...

[Gobi]

 I love the subtitles, good luck if you actually need them.

[Lingo]

5 hours ago, phoenyx said:

Just found a video that posits that if there are 2 timelines, Stubbs has to be a host. I'm not so sure, but the guy certainly brings up a lot of points- there's just some points I think he's overlooking. Anyway, for anyone who doesn't mind thinking about the pros and cons of William/Logan and MiB being in 2 time periods, this video is for you...

Well yeah, we talked about this above. You can believe William is the Man in Black without having to believe that Stubbs is a host. I expect, or rather hope, that the show is not going to go to the "character is secretly a host" well too often. Once is enough. Even once a season would be too often for me. It would be fine if the secret host were revealed to us immediately and is was only a secret to the other characters, but it'd be a tiresome gimmick for it to be kept hidden from the viewers only to be "dramatically revealed" over and over.

Edited November 25, 2016 by Lingo
Accidentally clicked "save"

[arc]

I have a question about the Las Mudas part of the two timelines theory. As far as I understand it, Ashley and TMIB are on the same timeline and to reconcile this with the two timelines theory, the idea is that Dolores has left her loop twice. Once in the past with William and once now on her own. So we see Ashley in the now saying to go send someone to pick Dolores up because she's strayed far off her normal loop. Then we see a guy, presumably an employee but in period garb, attempt to grab her but is warded off by William, and supposedly this was a misdirect: while someone in Control did signal to go get Dolores in the William timeline, it wasn't Ashley.

So, my question: without a guest to help her out of it in the TMIB timeline, where she's visiting Las Mudas on her own, how does she avoid getting sent back to the ranch?

[Ellaria]

19 hours ago, Lingo said:

Well yeah, we talked about this above. You can believe William is the Man in Black without having to believe that Stubbs is a host. I expect, or rather hope, that the show is not going to go to the "character is secretly a host" well too often. Once is enough. Even once a season would be too often for me. It would be fine if the secret host were revealed to us immediately and is was only a secret to the other characters, but it'd be a tiresome gimmick for it to be kept hidden from the viewers only to be "dramatically revealed" over and over.

This is an important point. It undermines the storytelling if used inappropriately. Bernard = Host was a great reveal because (IMO) his character is written with great humanity. (And Jeffrey Wright is perfect in the role.) If every character is someone else or something else then misdirection becomes the name of the game. There is way too much potential in this story to choose that route.

I don't believe that Stubbs is a host. IMO, the head security/intelligence officer for the park should not be a programmable being. He should be a human with independent thought and the good and bad that comes along with it.

As we wind down to the end of the season, I think that I am (somewhat reluctantly) supporting two popular theories:

• Non-linear timeline: Too many details seem to support it - the observation above by Netfoot about Stubbs and the misdirection; Angela's multiple appearances. Also, William's white hat has gone missing and he seems to have changed shirts (from one with a collar and checkered pattern to a grey, collarless one that is similar to the one that MIB wears). 
• Bernard = some form of Arnold: As much as I want to deny this theory, I can't get past that photo. There is something missing from the right third of that photo, something that we - and Bernard - are not able to see. And since that "something" has to be of importance, I think that we will see that Bernard is/was Arnold. He was erased from that photo just like Bernard was erased from the images with Theresa. If this is true, Bernard's eventual awakening of who he is and the power that he has could prove interesting.

Edited November 26, 2016 by Ellaria Sand

[Abernathy]

About Arnold

 

[ennui]

6 hours ago, Ellaria Sand said:

There is something missing from the right third of that photo, something that we - and Bernard - are not able to see.

Maybe we're hosts.  

HBO is running a marathon today (which I am unable to watch, unfortunately). However, I did catch the opening dialoque of the first episode, when Dolores appears to have been in a fight -- disheveled, scratched -- and Bernard is speaking. I have a feeling that tiny bit is important. Maybe it occurred after Dolores's first deviation?

[Gobi]

12 minutes ago, ennui said:

Maybe we're hosts.  

HBO is running a marathon today (which I am unable to watch, unfortunately). However, I did catch the opening dialoque of the first episode, when Dolores appears to have been in a fight -- disheveled, scratched -- and Bernard is speaking. I have a feeling that tiny bit is important. Maybe it occurred after Dolores's first deviation?

Or perhaps after the original massacre, which may be the same thing.

[Ellaria]

1 hour ago, Gobi said:

Or perhaps after the original massacre, which may be the same thing.

Pardon my ignorance but do we know exactly what the incident of 30 years was? (Maybe I missed something.) Was it a massacre?

I agree that those early scenes of Dolores when she is battered/bruised are significant. Was she involved in the incident? 

My guess - and I am almost always wrong - is that Logan is killed and Dolores is involved.

[Gobi]

13 minutes ago, Ellaria Sand said:

Pardon my ignorance but do we know exactly what the incident of 30 years was? (Maybe I missed something.) Was it a massacre?

I agree that those early scenes of Dolores when she is battered/bruised are significant. Was she involved in the incident? 

My guess - and I am almost always wrong - is that Logan is killed and Dolores is involved.

We don't know exactly what the incident was; it's quite possible that the massacre is not the same as the incident. Logan being killed is a possibility;  for that matter, so is William being killed (unless he is TMIB). If Dolores did it though, I can't imagine that the park would keep her in rotation.

[Gobi]

Watching some of the prior episodes, it occurs to me that Maeve is even more  important than it seems. She is, as far as we know, the only host to ever really fight back against a guest. Even more telling, I think, is that she has been able to see and understand things that hosts aren't supposed to see or understand. And that's before her modifications. Not even Dolores has done that yet.

[Gobi]

More speculation. We really don't know how Arnold died. Suicide or an accident have both been suggested. Many believe Ford killed him. I think I agree with that. The name Robert Ford can't just be a coincidence, and we know that the real Ford killed his leader, Jesse James, by shooting him in the back. There have been many hints that Arnold was the real genius behind Westworld. Did Ford kill him and take credit for his work? That could also tie in with the theory that Bernard is, or is based on Arnold. Ford created a version of Arnold that had his abilities, but that Ford could control. They were gods, Ford said, and it may be that Ford was a jealous God.

[ennui]

40 minutes ago, Ellaria Sand said:

Pardon my ignorance but do we know exactly what the incident of 30 years was?

I've always thought it was a reference to the incident in the original film, when the gunslinger and others went berserk and killed the guests.  And we did see the gunslinger down in storage. That incident was explained as a computer virus. And, those hosts were definitely mechanical.

Edited November 26, 2016 by ennui

[Netfoot]

19 minutes ago, Gobi said:

We really don't know how Arnold died.

Do we even know he is actually dead?

[Gobi]

6 minutes ago, Netfoot said:

Do we even know he is actually dead?

 

No, we don't. "For a dead guy, he's a helluva coder." as Elsie said before she herself, maybe, died.

[Lingo]

22 hours ago, arc said:

I have a question about the Las Mudas part of the two timelines theory. As far as I understand it, Ashley and TMIB are on the same timeline and to reconcile this with the two timelines theory, the idea is that Dolores has left her loop twice. Once in the past with William and once now on her own. So we see Ashley in the now saying to go send someone to pick Dolores up because she's strayed far off her normal loop. Then we see a guy, presumably an employee but in period garb, attempt to grab her but is warded off by William, and supposedly this was a misdirect: while someone in Control did signal to go get Dolores in the William timeline, it wasn't Ashley.

So, my question: without a guest to help her out of it in the TMIB timeline, where she's visiting Las Mudas on her own, how does she avoid getting sent back to the ranch?

We see Ford visit her that night and then let her go. That's my theory. Ford heard from Stubbs that Dolores was off-loop and decided to handle it himself.

2 hours ago, Gobi said:

More speculation. We really don't know how Arnold died. Suicide or an accident have both been suggested. Many believe Ford killed him. I think I agree with that. The name Robert Ford can't just be a coincidence, and we know that the real Ford killed his leader, Jesse James, by shooting him in the back. There have been many hints that Arnold was the real genius behind Westworld. Did Ford kill him and take credit for his work? That could also tie in with the theory that Bernard is, or is based on Arnold. Ford created a version of Arnold that had his abilities, but that Ford could control. They were gods, Ford said, and it may be that Ford was a jealous God.

Thanks for pointing out the Robert Ford name connection. What struck me was the way Ford said that officially it was ruled an accident, but that he knew Arnold and Arnold was "very, very careful." Which tells me that Ford himself believes it to be no accident. Which suggests to me that either it was a suicide, or Arnold faked his death. Third on my list is Ford killed him, though if that were true, Ford wouldn't be casting doubt on the official cause of death. Then again he's speaking to Bernard.

2 hours ago, ennui said:

I've always thought it was a reference to the incident in the original film, when the gunslinger and others went berserk and killed the guests.  And we did see the gunslinger down in storage. That incident was explained as a computer virus. And, those hosts were definitely mechanical.

The show creators have said that the original movie is not part of the show's continuity, though. I think it must refer either to the original massacre of Dolores's visions or something that goes down between Dolores, Wiliam, and Logan.

[ennui]

1 hour ago, Lingo said:

The show creators have said that the original movie is not part of the show's continuity, though.

And yet the gunslinger is in storage. I know they said not to make too much out of it, but it's there. It's the same theme park.

This is one of my pet peeves, as well. I should be able to watch a tv show without sleuthing about the internet for opinions and interviews and theories. Either the show stands up, or it doesn't.

[Mannahatta]

Can anyone explain to me why Delores (at least the new/old, soul searching one) is wearing tight fitting pants? Online research turned up some instances where women employed by the British coal mining industry in the late 1800s wore pants under their skirts. And there were women in the American West who dressed themselves as men in order to pursue opportunities that would have been denied to them otherwise. But I have yet to turn up any historical justification for Delores' form fitting pants. Now I can understand Armistice wearing pants seeing as she's a complete badass. But Delores wearing pants that are perfectly tailored for the female form seems to me to be weirdly anachronistic for such a detail oriented show. What's next? Is Teddy going to start smoking filtered cigarettes?

[Netfoot]

13 hours ago, ennui said:

And yet the gunslinger is in storage. I know they said not to make too much out of it, but it's there. It's the same theme park.

No, it's just an homage.

13 hours ago, ennui said:

I should be able to watch a tv show without sleuthing about the internet for opinions and interviews and theories. Either the show stands up, or it doesn't.

I totally agree.  What makes it worse is when they use tricks to disguise their clever plot twists and never reveal that a trick was played.  Example?  The way (in E4) that Stubbs apparently deals with TMIB/Hector and William/Dolores issues in the same work-shift.  If this is a trick to conceal a William=TMIB twist, how will the apparent fact of Stubbs dealing with them both in a contemporary setting be explained?  Is episode #10 going to be 100% exposition, explaining all the clever tricks that have been used to fool us over the series?

Edited November 27, 2016 by Netfoot

[arc]

1 hour ago, Mannahatta said:

But Delores wearing pants that are perfectly tailored for the female form seems to me to be weirdly anachronistic for such a detail oriented show. 

It's a detail oriented show, but IMO the park is not intended to provide a painstakingly realistic reproduction of the Old West. Hell, in the real Old West, I understand people were supposed to turn in their guns when they came to town. Absurdly casual shootouts in town like the one with "Grizzly Adams" or Samuel didn't regularly happen. I think the intent of Westworld as a park is to provide an immersive recreation of film Westerns, not the real Old West. And we see the player pianos are loaded up with 20th/21st century songs, because I think that definitely helps set a mood for us viewers that this is a recreation that takes liberties with the source material.

[Netfoot]

8 hours ago, arc said:

Hell, in the real Old West, I understand people were supposed to turn in their guns when they came to town.

In certain towns.  And usually at the end of that era; less so earlier on.

As for in-the-street shootouts, I read somewhere that there are absolutely no historical records of this ever happening, anywhere.  None.  

But what do I know?

[Gobi]

50 minutes ago, Netfoot said:

In certain towns.  And usually at the end of that era; less so earlier on.

As for in-the-street shootouts, I read somewhere that there are absolutely no historical records of this ever happening, anywhere.  None.  

But what do I know?

The closest that I can think of is the gunfight at the OK Corral, and that was as much an assassination as a gunfight.

ETA - That's too harsh. There are conflicting versions as to what happened, but it was probably as fair a fight as those things are.

And, by the way, the immediate cause was the refusal of the cowboys to surrender their weapons to the Earps, in accordance with the  local ordinance prohibiting weapons in town.

Edited November 27, 2016 by Gobi
Content

[jojozigs]

Ok i have a question that (I think) is mostly unrelated to parallel time periods / MIB = William.

MIB is in search of the Maze, which he believes Arnold either created or is inside of.  He finds various clues.  First that guy's scalp/skull in ep 2 (who was that again)?  Then he thinks that Hector knows something - eventually the little girl / Hector's daughter, who I assume had an arnold-implanted clue triggered.  But then the clue she gives is that MIB should go look for Armistice (snake clue) who in turn says that Wyatt is who mib needs to seek out to find the maze.  

But Wyatt was just created by FORD, very recently not by Arnold.  

What are the various theories about this?  I guess I can think of a couple ideas... but none of them make much sense to me. 

1) the clues MIB finds are an intentional misdirect by Ford.  Ford is aware/has become aware of the clues that Arnold left, and that MIB is close to unlocking this easter egg which would destroy Ford's own plans.  So he is trying to stop MIB by sending him off on a wild goose chase in this most dangerous storyline.  Possibly MIB will be killed by Ford who will make it look like an accident.  I don't like this idea since it makes MIB's story basically pointless (since he's just being manipulated by Ford). 

2) Arnold somehow set up his trail of breadcrumbs so that they adapt to whatever Ford does to change the hosts / storylines.  This would need to be explained to make any kind of sense.  But I like it in that it means MIB is really on to something and it keeps Arnold and Ford as antagonists, which I think is correct.  

3) Ford is working together with Arnold's "plan", adapting his maze storyline into his new Wyatt storyline.  However, I don't understand this because Ford is strongly characterized as being obsessed with having absolute control over Westworld - why would he want to help Arnold in his quest to free the hosts?  

other ideas???

[Gobi]

21 minutes ago, jojozigs said:

Ok i have a question that (I think) is mostly unrelated to parallel time periods / MIB = William.

MIB is in search of the Maze, which he believes Arnold either created or is inside of.  He finds various clues.  First that guy's scalp/skull in ep 2 (who was that again)?  Then he thinks that Hector knows something - eventually the little girl / Hector's daughter, who I assume had an arnold-implanted clue triggered.  But then the clue she gives is that MIB should go look for Armistice (snake clue) who in turn says that Wyatt is who mib needs to seek out to find the maze.  

But Wyatt was just created by FORD, very recently not by Arnold.  

What are the various theories about this?  I guess I can think of a couple ideas... but none of them make much sense to me. 

1) the clues MIB finds are an intentional misdirect by Ford.  Ford is aware/has become aware of the clues that Arnold left, and that MIB is close to unlocking this easter egg which would destroy Ford's own plans.  So he is trying to stop MIB by sending him off on a wild goose chase in this most dangerous storyline.  Possibly MIB will be killed by Ford who will make it look like an accident.  I don't like this idea since it makes MIB's story basically pointless (since he's just being manipulated by Ford). 

2) Arnold somehow set up his trail of breadcrumbs so that they adapt to whatever Ford does to change the hosts / storylines.  This would need to be explained to make any kind of sense.  But I like it in that it means MIB is really on to something and it keeps Arnold and Ford as antagonists, which I think is correct.  

3) Ford is working together with Arnold's "plan", adapting his maze storyline into his new Wyatt storyline.  However, I don't understand this because Ford is strongly characterized as being obsessed with having absolute control over Westworld - why would he want to help Arnold in his quest to free the hosts?  

other ideas???

Hard to say. TMIB has said more than once that he is looking for real danger, and that it can only be found in Arnold's version of the game (as he puts it). The clues he follows take him to the most extreme areas of the park, where he expects to find the maze. He suggested that Ford may have created Wyatt, "a worthy adversary", to stop him from getting there. So if Wyatt is the most extreme story, or was sent to stop him, either way TMIB thinks he has to get past him.

[Netfoot]

59 minutes ago, Gobi said:

The closest that I can think of is the gunfight at the OK Corral, and that was as much an assassination as a gunfight.

ETA - That's too harsh. There are conflicting versions as to what happened, but it was probably as fair a fight as those things are.

And, by the way, the immediate cause was the refusal of the cowboys to surrender their weapons to the Earps, in accordance with the  local ordinance prohibiting weapons in town.

But it wasn't the TV-type face off in the street with a quick-draw finish.

And it was 1881, which I'd have to call late era.

[Gobi]

27 minutes ago, Netfoot said:

But it wasn't the TV-type face off in the street with a quick-draw finish.

And it was 1881, which I'd have to call late era.

Nothing like it, but probably as close as it gets, which is to say not very close. The typical would probably be a drunken argument erupting into gunfire; which, oddly enough, we have seen in Westworld.

[CofCinci]

Called it.

[beeble]

They've programmed the bots not to see anything out of the ordinary for fear that they might process and learn, thereby making themselves more cognizant of their situation and learning. 

This seems to be common knowledge among all humans, but oddly it doesn't seem like major security breaches have occurred. I'd think that would be the most glaring security lapse: don't pay any attention to that person over there, just keep doing your bot job.

Sort of like a security guard at a school where I worked. His job in his mind was to drink coffee, so he never saw kid after kid walking out of the building. This totally explains everything.