S01.E04: Dissonance Theory

[okerry]

2 hours ago, ennui said:

ERW had it written into her contract.  (I jest.)

There is at least one scene of Dolores talking to Ford down in the underground, and she is sitting naked just like all the other hosts. Don't remember which episode it was - sorry - 

[ennui]

11 minutes ago, okerry said:

There is at least one scene of Dolores talking to Ford down in the underground, and she is sitting naked just like all the other hosts. Don't remember which episode it was - sorry - 

The premiere episode.

I haven't seen any mention of the nudity contracts for extras. 

http://deadline.com/2015/09/westworld-extras-must-agree-to-genital-to-genital-touching-1201560056/

Edited October 26, 2016 by ennui

[arc]

22 minutes ago, okerry said:

There is at least one scene of Dolores talking to Ford down in the underground, and she is sitting naked just like all the other hosts. Don't remember which episode it was - sorry - 

Also

Spoiler

next episode, as seen in the previews.

[phoenyx]

12 hours ago, Uncle JUICE said:

Sorry, I wrote engineer as sort of a catch all term for park employee. I would think it's more likely that sherriff was part of Third Hemsworth's department. 

Why? I feel that it makes more sense that it's a robot, though I can't pin down why I feel that way. I think I came to that conclusion based on the way his grasping on to Dolores after she refused to go back to Sweetwater willingly seemed awkwardly mechanical- like he'd -tried- to do the script, and it hadn't worked, so he resorted to plan b, just brute force, no finesse about it. Once a guest spoke, he reverted to "guest knows best" type deal. 

5 hours ago, arc said:

Also

  Hide contents

next episode, as seen in the previews.

Had to check the preview just to see it- she has such a nice body ;-). The preview also had some more information on the maze, added that to the maze thread I made...

[phoenyx]

6 hours ago, ennui said:

The premiere episode.

I haven't seen any mention of the nudity contracts for extras. 

http://deadline.com/2015/09/westworld-extras-must-agree-to-genital-to-genital-touching-1201560056/

I've seen that story before. In the very article you link to is HBO's response to the claim:

HBO Denies Racy ‘Westworld’ Casting Notice Came From Them, Vows To Rectify It

Edited October 27, 2016 by phoenyx

[phoenyx]

6 hours ago, Avaleigh said:

I considered whether or not Theresa is a robot but does it make sense for a robot to have fuzzy memories? I feel like a robot would remember that they'd sat in that same chair or not. She's unsure and that didn't seem like an answer I would expect a robot to give. She says something like 'I think it was that one...or maybe that one when she's looking around trying to remember.' It isn't until the conversation goes on that she thinks about what kind of man Ford is and realizes that it is the same table and chair she once sat at years ago. There's also the fact that Ford is treating her as though she's a potential threat who might go against him. If she's a robot then why would he have that concern that he can't control her? 

At the same time, I'm already leaning towards Bernard being a robot and I feel like if Bernard is one then Theresa is either in on it and knows this or she's a robot too because how else would she not have caught on since she's been in a sexual relationship with him for what appears to be a fair amount of time? I feel like there are basic things a person would notice after awhile. 

Wow, Bernard never has to shave and his nails are always perfect. He doesn't seem to eat or sweat or get sleepy, etc. I feel like there are all sorts of ways it would quickly become apparent that this wasn't a human especially if a person is aware that they're in close proximity to so many human like hosts. 

Good point about how Ford sees Theresa as a threat but doesn't see Bernard as one. That does indeed seem like Bernard is more likely to be the robot, but then, as you point out, if he is, it suggests that Theresa might know that. The irony for me is that whether or not Bernard is a robot, he seems to be a threat to Ford's plans, especially after looking at the preview of Episode 5. I think Ford's weakness is he has too much faith in his ability to control the robots. To quote a line that's been said a few times in the film, "These violent delights have violent ends". As supporting evidence, I know that Thandie Newton (the actress who plays Maeve) has said that the robots will do what they are taught to do- teach them kindness and they'll be kind, teach them violence and they'll be violent. This already seems to have been born out to some extent. Also, I read that Evan Rachel Wood (Dolores) has said that in this world, it may be that the robots are better then the humans, and I certainly think in some cases she may be right (her character's above all :-)). 

[Izeinwinter]

On 24/10/2016 at 7:07 PM, ACW said:

*Unless* the supervisor (who's also the head of Security, at least in the present?) is an android, and thus doesn't age.  Others have already suggested he might be an android, based on the previous episode.  Would making an android your chief of security be a terrible idea?  Probably; but as with the similar theory about Bernard, above, I could see Ford doing it.

Is all this pointlessly complex?  Not if temporarily misleading the viewer is, in fact, the point.

That's the main thing I don't like about it , the level of misdirection is getting a bit heavy handed if it's true - Tough, the head of security doesn't have to be ageless. If William is the MiB, that means Dolores went off-script and ran off twice. Once in the present of the show, and once at t-30 The control room would respond the same way to both incidents. 

[arc]

3 hours ago, phoenyx said:

Good point about how Ford sees Theresa as a threat but doesn't see Bernard as one. 

Theresa heads up QA, Sizemore leads Narrative, and Bernard is head (?) of Behavior. Or in the analogues to videogame development (which is my day job, hence why I like drawing parallels), that's respectively QA, narrative game design, and something between game mechanics design and AI programming*. And in that sense, it's wild that QA has so much power in the running of the park. In most game dev studios, one of the development departments (art, programming, or design) is the most powerful and QA is entirely reactive. Even their veto power can be overridden.

* videogame AI isn't real AI, but in the business we call it that. <shrug>

That said, of the four department leads we've seen so far (counting security, I guess), it makes sense that Theresa would be sent to talk to Ford about delaying his next update. Bernard is his protege and defers to him, Ashley Stubbs doesn't really feel like a lead, and clearly Ford doesn't respect Sizemore at all.

[phoenyx]

42 minutes ago, arc said:

Theresa heads up QA, Sizemore leads Narrative, and Bernard is head (?) of Behavior. Or in the analogues to videogame development (which is my day job, hence why I like drawing parallels), that's respectively QA, narrative game design, and something between game mechanics design and AI programming*. And in that sense, it's wild that QA has so much power in the running of the park. In most game dev studios, one of the development departments (art, programming, or design) is the most powerful and QA is entirely reactive. Even their veto power can be overridden.

* videogame AI isn't real AI, but in the business we call it that. <shrug>

That said, of the four department leads we've seen so far (counting security, I guess), it makes sense that Theresa would be sent to talk to Ford about delaying his next update. Bernard is his protege and defers to him, Ashley Stubbs doesn't really feel like a lead, and clearly Ford doesn't respect Sizemore at all.

Makes me feel that most video game companies have it all wrong. What could possibly be more important then making sure that the quality of the game is good -.-? By the way, that's not just a rhetorical question, I'm interested in knowing if you agree or whether you actually think the way video game companies are right now is better, and why. I'm also interested in knowing if you work for a well known video game firm, but that's something you may not want to share publicly, if at all :-p. Also, I agree with you regarding the department leads- of all of them, Theresa seemed to be the only one willing to challenge the boss publicly (in a very real sense, Bernard seems to be doing so privately, with all his private chats with Dolores, not to mention his actually -recommending- the maze to Dolores). I'm interested to see what she does now that she realizes that her boss is not interested in the type of criticism she's offering.

Edited October 27, 2016 by phoenyx

[phoenyx]

1 hour ago, Izeinwinter said:

That's the main thing I don't like about it , the level of misdirection is getting a bit heavy handed if it's true - Tough, the head of security doesn't have to be ageless. If William is the MiB, that means Dolores went off-script and ran off twice. Once in the present of the show, and once at t-30 The control room would respond the same way to both incidents. 

I don't mind any misdirection, so long as when we get the real answers, it all makes sense. Complaints of shows that have done a lot of plot twists, such as Lost, are that the answers, when they finally came, seemed to not really fit the story. -That- I definitely don't want to see happening. That being said, for me, nothing can ruin these first 4 episodes for me- I like them so much that they can stand alone.

Edited October 27, 2016 by phoenyx

[Gobi]

Theresa can stand up to Ford because he's not her boss - she works for corporate (Delos), the corporation that owns Westworld. She's in an entirely different chain of command.

[arc]

1 hour ago, phoenyx said:

Makes me feel that most video game companies have it all wrong. What could possibly be more important then making sure that the quality of the game is good -.-? 

Well, QA in the software world is about finding bugs so development can fix them. Larger issues of "quality" like overall design (is "Odyssey on Red River" a good idea, for example) are usually not considered by QA at all in my experience.

17 minutes ago, Gobi said:

Theresa can stand up to Ford because he's not her boss - she works for corporate (Delos), the corporation that owns Westworld. She's in an entirely different chain of command.

Hmm. Maybe. Probably, but early in the pilot when they're investigating the anomaly on sub-level 83, Bernard volunteers to go "in case it's one of [his]". Theresa says something like "they're only yours until they break. Then they're mine." That kind of implies she works for park QA.

BTW, not related to previous discussion, I have a little rant about various recaps and such remarking about Ford's "trouble with the neighbors" comment. He was being sarcastic! That's how I took it and that's before I looked at the updated map. The agave plantation -- which is where he was building out what he needed for his new storyline -- is still quite far from the north and south borders of the map, with the sea to the west. And Las Mudas (Lawrence's home town) is as far from the plantation as it is from Sweetwater, so the plantation is just not near anything. Smeesh.

Edited October 27, 2016 by arc

[phoenyx]

45 minutes ago, arc said:

Well, QA in the software world is about finding bugs so development can fix them. Larger issues of "quality" like overall design (is "Odyssey on Red River" a good idea, for example) are usually not considered by QA at all in my experience.

Hmm. Maybe. Probably, but early in the pilot when they're investigating the anomaly on sub-level 83, Bernard volunteers to go "in case it's one of [his]". Theresa says something like "they're only yours until they break. Then they're mine." That kind of implies she works for park QA.

BTW, not related to previous discussion, I have a little rant about various recaps and such remarking about Ford's "trouble with the neighbors" comment. He was being sarcastic! That's how I took it and that's before I looked at the updated map. The agave plantation -- which is where he was building out what he needed for his new storyline -- is still quite far from the north and south borders of the map, with the sea to the west. And Las Mudas (Lawrence's home town) is as far from the plantation as it is from Sweetwater, so the plantation is just not near anything. Smeesh.

Thanks for the explanation on QA in the real world. I'm wondering if it's a bit different in Westworld though (the overall design perhaps), because I think she's definitely doing something that's very needed- taking Ford to task for what's been going on recently. As to Theresa's role, you may well be right in that she works for park QA, but the way that Ford interacted with her strongly suggests to me that Ford, atleast, is taking her action of questioning something he's doing very seriously, suggesting that he is actually afraid of -her- to some extent (otherwise, why the whole display?). I think it's clear that he spooked her with what he did though. Also, after finally being able to look at the map (Tor Browser is my new friend :-)), I completely agree with your assessment that Ford was being sarcastic with his "trouble with the neighbours" remark. 

[Dobian]

"Odyssey on Red River" and the other quest lines in Westworld are really no different than quest lines in today's RPGs, like Fallout, Witcher, Skyrim, Mass Effect, etc.  You have single quests or interconnected quests with specific characters, waypoints, decision points, outcomes.  What QA does is test all the possible paths through that quest...different dialogue choices, what happens if you kill certain characters, sneak into a place or go in with guns blazing.  A live action park like Westworld has additional complications though, in that your quest could be disrupted by another guest or unforeseen events (e.g., someone decides to hold up the bank and kills your quest guide in the process).  Westworld is a lot more dynamic than a video game where it's a closed system and everything is controlled.

Edited October 27, 2016 by Dobian

[dmc]

On 10/25/2016 at 6:21 PM, blackwing said:

So.... Evan Rachel Wood was naked in the first episode but has been clothed ever since.  Was that scene just so they could put it in the previews to entice viewers?  On the contrary, James Marsden was clothed in the first episode but has been naked or shirtless in every episode since.  Hmmm..... 

I find it interesting that those guests who joined Wyatt's party and were the savage killers didn't actually kill Teddy.  It looked to me like all of them had axes and they went to town on him.  How did he not die?  Instead, he was strung up in a tree, and it really didn't look like he had many cuts on him at all.

Also, I have no idea how many "game" days had passed, but it was at least a day or two since he was attacked.  Wouldn't Control have noticed if he wasn't moving?  They were able to tell when that one Walking Dead host had gone off on its own and then located it stuck by a rockslide in a crevasse.  Why wouldn't they have noticed that Teddy wasn't moving or hadn't returned to Sweetwater? 

trying to get women viewers I guess LOL

[Izeinwinter]

Teddy being strung up is not a mishap, it's part of his new story. He went - with a guest, to see Wyatt. He's strung up there so that said guest can rescue him when she returns with more firepower. He'll probably die poignantly at that point, but only after telling her the direction of Wyatt's camp. 

[ennui]

Thanks for the clarification on the rumor, phoenyx. Although, I was picturing an orgy down in storage.  :)

9 hours ago, arc said:

BTW, not related to previous discussion, I have a little rant about various recaps and such remarking about Ford's "trouble with the neighbors" comment. He was being sarcastic!

I agree, and am surprised that some took it literally. Also, when the earth grader was moving toward the house, I thought it was important that Ford said he was not the sentimental type. I guess the hacienda is toast?

[DarkRaichu]

2 hours ago, Dobian said:

Westworld is a lot more dynamic than a video game where it's a closed system and everything is controlled.

Which is why they need Control room to adjusts the flow of the story as needed.  When a guide type character like Meave is shot, she would be revived quite quickly.  In video games, this is the equivalent to killing important NPC only to have him/her back when players leave the area then come back later.

Back to the show, Maeve was most likely shot and revived in a very short amount of time. Her touch-up was rushed and the blood stain on her corset was fresh.  Not to mention leaving the bullet in her abdomen, I guess nobody learned a lesson from her MRSA infection last episode. 

Also, since she was the "centerpiece" of the saloon, she was probably shot and brought back several times a day.  Some of her memory wipes could be incomplete (due to time constraints), which explained her flashbacks

[Gobi]

I agree that the hacienda is toast. Indeed, it appears that Ford is engaged in a massive rebuild of at least  part of the park.

Edited October 27, 2016 by Gobi
Spelling

[DarkRaichu]

1 hour ago, ennui said:

Also, when the earth grader was moving toward the house, I thought it was important that Ford said he was not the sentimental type. I guess the hacienda is toast?

He was also making a point since the board was afraid his new project would be retroactive.  He was not afraid to remove an old structure to build something new.  If Theresa sat at the hacienda when she was young, then that building must have been there for at least 25 years

[ennui]

I loved Bernard's linens in his bedroom. Pendleton Woolen Mills, if I'm not mistaken. Also, I noticed that Theresa was smiling, when she normally looks so stern. I thought her dress looked like Pendleton, as well. 

[Ottis]

Quote

I don't think the androids think they're human OR robot. They just are. They follow their narrative. They DO, however, see the guests as "different" from themselves. Delores always refers to them as "newcomers" and talks about them as if they're separate from her and the other hosts. So the argument on whether they should or shouldn't be programmed to believe they're human or not appears to be moot.

Well, it's moot, anyway. Whether the robots were programmed to know they are robots and humans are different, or they just follow their narrative and never think one way or another about what they are, it's changing because now some of them are indeed starting to think about these things. Doesn't matter much was *was.* I don't think it even matters *why,* really, unless one simply like a complete narrative. All that matters now is what the robots are becoming, and how that changes the relationship (and implicit morality) between robots, AI and humans. My guess is, we will learn we all suck.

[Gobi]

We got another clue, maybe, as to where Westworld is. It's in the scene where Delores looks up at the moon, which then dissolves into an overhead light. Looked like our moon (I'm no astronomer). That seems to rule out the other planet/our moon possibility. Could still be in a huge underground facility or under a dome (or both). That would explain the always pleasant weather - climate control. Or the moon she saw is not ours, or is an illusion.

[ennui]

3 hours ago, Gobi said:

That would explain the always pleasant weather - climate control. Or the moon she saw is not ours, or is an illusion.

I can't remember where I saw it, but someone suggested that Ed Harris has returned to The Truman Show.  

[Netfoot]

4 hours ago, Ottis said:

My guess is, we will learn we all suck.

No matter how they develop physically or mentally, my guess is that legally the robots will continue to be nothing more than machines for a couple of decades.  Assuming they let us live that long.

[DarkRaichu]

3 hours ago, Gobi said:

We got another clue, maybe, as to where Westworld is. It's in the scene where Delores looks up at the moon, which then dissolves into an overhead light. Looked like our moon (I'm no astronomer). That seems to rule out the other planet/our moon possibility. Could still be in a huge underground facility or under a dome (or both). That would explain the always pleasant weather - climate control. Or the moon she saw is not ours, or is an illusion.

If it is already a controlled environment, might as well control how the moon look too :P  

I think it is a fake sky just because we never see stars in the night sky

[numbnut]

6 hours ago, ennui said:

Also, when the earth grader was moving toward the house, I thought it was important that Ford said he was not the sentimental type. I guess the hacienda is toast?

Yup. His comment can also tie in with him murdering his partner Arnold, if you buy that theory.

Edited October 28, 2016 by numbnut

[phoenyx]

11 hours ago, ennui said:

I loved Bernard's linens in his bedroom. Pendleton Woolen Mills, if I'm not mistaken. Also, I noticed that Theresa was smiling, when she normally looks so stern. I thought her dress looked like Pendleton, as well. 

Nothing like some romance in one's life to get smiles methinks ;-). 

Edited October 28, 2016 by phoenyx

[Goatherd]

I don't think we've seen anything yet that contradicts the theory of two different timelines.

I went back through previous episodes, and saw a place where the editing makes us think one thing was happening, but there's another possibility. When they decide to pull Maeve, they say to "re-task Clementine -- she's done the job before." Soon after, we see William in Sweetwater, and Clementine is out in front of the Saloon. So we can assume that this is in the same time-line, and Clementine has been re-tasked to take Maeve's place. OR -- this could be long ago, back during that time when Clementine had done the job before, and Maeve was off in some other role / storyline.

The same time of misdirection-through-editing could be happening when Dolores is in Lawrence's hometown. We see the control room folks discussing her being off her loop (present day). And we're meant to assume that the next scene (where the sheriff tries to get her to go back home) is the result of that. But it could well be from a different time when she was off her loop (in the past, where William/Logan are). 

I'm not convinced of the William = MIB theory, but I do suspect that there are some timeline oddities going on.

But maybe I'm missing something. For those of you saying the two-timeline theory is shot, what is making you say that?

[phoenyx]

1 hour ago, Goatherd said:

I don't think we've seen anything yet that contradicts the theory of two different timelines.

I went back through previous episodes, and saw a place where the editing makes us think one thing was happening, but there's another possibility. When they decide to pull Maeve, they say to "re-task Clementine -- she's done the job before." Soon after, we see William in Sweetwater, and Clementine is out in front of the Saloon. So we can assume that this is in the same time-line, and Clementine has been re-tasked to take Maeve's place. OR -- this could be long ago, back during that time when Clementine had done the job before, and Maeve was off in some other role / storyline.

The same time of misdirection-through-editing could be happening when Dolores is in Lawrence's hometown. We see the control room folks discussing her being off her loop (present day). And we're meant to assume that the next scene (where the sheriff tries to get her to go back home) is the result of that. But it could well be from a different time when she was off her loop (in the past, where William/Logan are). 

I'm not convinced of the William = MIB theory, but I do suspect that there are some timeline oddities going on.

But maybe I'm missing something. For those of you saying the two-timeline theory is shot, what is making you say that?

Well, I'm not one who's saying that theory is shot. Your idea sounds intriguing. I do believe Contrapasso (Episode 5) may make a lot of things clearer though. Can't wait to see it :-). 

[phoenyx]

8 hours ago, numbnut said:

Yup. His comment can also tie in with him murdering his partner Arnold, if you buy that theory.

I don't know what to believe in the case of Arnold's death. But I'm thinking of 3 things that were said, one by MiB and the other 2 by Ford.

1- This is what MiB said this episode:

**You ever heard of a man named Arnold? You could say he was the original settler of these parts. He created a world where you could do anything you want, except one thing... you can't die. Which means no matter how real this world seems, it's still just a game. But then Arnold went and broke his own rule. He died right here in the park. Except I believe he had one story left to tell. A story with real stakes, real violence. You could say I'm here to honor his legacy.**

It seems MiB is suggesting that Arnold decided to disable the safety protocols against harming humans. It would, ofcourse, be nice to know how MiB came to this conclusion. Even if Arnold did disable the safety protcols of the androids, though, it doesn't necessarily mean that an android killed him, it just adds one more possibility.

2- Here is what Ford said to Bernard in "The Stray" (Episode 3):

**Bernard Lowe: But ... some of them are remembering -- accessing fragments of Arnold's code. If I may ask, what happened to him?

Dr. Robert Ford: Well, he died ... here in the park. His personal life was marked by tragedy. He put all his hopes into his work. His search for consciousness ... consumed him totally -- barely spoke to anyone ... except the hosts. In his alienation, he saw something in them. He saw something that ... wasn't there. We called it an accident, but um ... I knew Arnold and he was very ... very careful.**

This suggests that Ford had nothing to do with his death.

3- The last one is once again from Ford, speaking with Theresa in this episode. Perhaps it explains how Arnold may have become careless:

**
Dr. Robert Ford:  In here, we were gods. And you were merely our guests.

Theresa: And how did that work out for Arnold?

Dr. Robert Ford: Sadly, he lost his perspective. He went mad.

**

Edited October 28, 2016 by phoenyx

[kokapetl]

This show's human characters are far too prone to doing things for inscrutable reasons and speaking in vague evasive ways. So much passive aggressive tap dancing around the subject (I assume).

Euro Boss Lady seems as if she's the sort of corporate stereotype who knows about the evil plan, has remorse about it, and will be killed off at an early point. 

[phoenyx]

27 minutes ago, Kokapetl said:

This show's human characters are far too prone to doing things for inscrutable reasons and speaking in vague evasive ways. So much passive aggressive tap dancing around the subject (I assume).

Euro Boss Lady seems as if she's the sort of corporate stereotype who knows about the evil plan, has remorse about it, and will be killed off at an early point. 

I'm not so sure that there is an over arching evil plan. I think things started off innocently enough. This is how Ford describes the beginning in The Stray (Episode 3):

**

Dr. Robert Ford: Those early years were glorious. No guests, no board meetings, just pure creation. Our hosts began to pass the Turing test after the first year. But that wasn't enough for Arnold. He--he wasn't interested in the appearance of intellect or wit. He wanted the real thing. He wanted to create consciousness. He imagined it as a pyramid. (Ford turns to the chalkboard and draws a pyramid with four horizontal divisions and labels them from bottom to top.) See? Memory ... improvisation ... self-interest -- 

Bernard Lowe: And at the top?

Dr. Robert Ford: Never got there. But he had a notion of what it might be. He based it on a theory of consciousness called the Bicameral Mind.

Bernard Lowe: The idea that primitive man believed his thoughts to be the voice of the gods. I thought it was debunked.

Dr. Robert Ford: As a theory for understanding the human mind, perhaps, but not as a blueprint for building an artificial one. See, Arnold built a version of that cognition in which the hosts heard their programming as an inner monologue ... with the hopes that in time, their own voice would take over. It was a way to bootstrap consciousness. (Ford sits down behind his desk.) But Arnold hadn't considered two things. One, that in this place, the last thing you want the hosts to be is conscious, and two, the other group who considered their thoughts to be the voices of the gods.

Bernard Lowe (soft laugh): Lunatics.

Dr. Robert Ford: Indeed. (Another scene from "those early years" flashes -- Armistice is seated, talking to a technician. Her hair is disheveled. She has deep scratches on her face and upper torso just below the neck. She stops talking and looks directly into the camera.) We abandoned the approach. The only vestiges that remain are the voice commands we use to control them. (Ford stands back up.) But, for all his brilliance, I don't think Arnold understood what this place was going to be. You see, the guests enjoy power. They cannot indulge it in the outside world, so they come here. As for the hosts -- the least we can do is ... make them forget.

Bernard Lowe: But ... some of them are remembering -- accessing fragments of Arnold's code. If I may ask, what happened to him?

Dr. Robert Ford: Well, he died ... here in the park. His personal life was marked by tragedy. He put all his hopes into his work. His search for consciousness ... consumed him totally -- barely spoke to anyone ... except the hosts. In his alienation, he saw something in them. He saw something that ... wasn't there. We called it an accident, but um ... I knew Arnold and he was very ... very careful.

**

Here's my take on the above dialogue: things -started- with the best of intentions but something very dark happened, and I think it's clear that Ford believes that Arnold's quest to bring consciousness to the androids was the primary mistake that was made. Personally, I don't think that was the problem at all. Rather, I think the primary mistake was in the way the androids were treated by the guests. I think that in this, Ford may be showing that he has a bit of guilt about this. As he put it: "The least we can do is... make them forget". The fact that he says "the least we can do" strongly suggests that he knows he could do a lot more than that. He could insist that the androids be treated with a minimum level of respect, for starters. But that, ofcourse, could interfere with the profits derived from the park. Here, in my view, is the primary problem- any being that is conscious or atleast headed that way would want to be respected and that's definitely not something the androids are getting much of.

Edited October 28, 2016 by phoenyx

[Milburn Stone]

4 hours ago, Goatherd said:

I don't think we've seen anything yet that contradicts the theory of two different timelines.

I went back through previous episodes, and saw a place where the editing makes us think one thing was happening, but there's another possibility. When they decide to pull Maeve, they say to "re-task Clementine -- she's done the job before." Soon after, we see William in Sweetwater, and Clementine is out in front of the Saloon. So we can assume that this is in the same time-line, and Clementine has been re-tasked to take Maeve's place. OR -- this could be long ago, back during that time when Clementine had done the job before, and Maeve was off in some other role / storyline.

One thing that (ingeniously) makes the timeline ambiguous is that Westworld (the theme park) is by definition a "period piece." Costuming, hairstyles, etc., will never change, because Westworld is a permanent "1870." So the "real world" in the underground bunker and elsewhere can be 2045, 2085, or 3005--there's no way for us to tell visually from Westworld itself. The timeline(s) in the show can be anything.

[izabella]

5 hours ago, Goatherd said:

But maybe I'm missing something. For those of you saying the two-timeline theory is shot, what is making you say that?

William and Logan are interacting with modern-day, starting to be sentient robots (Dolores at the campsite with William) rather than the jankier earlier version jerky-motion robots, like the robot dude that Ford was chatting with a few episodes ago.

[Netfoot]

5 hours ago, Goatherd said:

I do suspect that there are some timeline oddities going on.

I have no reason to think so at all.  It's like watching an episode of Bones and assuming that half the scenes with Booth took place the year before.  With nothing to make that reasonable.      

When the bots glitch/flashback we can clearly see there is a difference -- jerky, blurry imagery, and so forth.  So far, that's as close to multiple timelines I've seen.  I can see no reason or benefit in assuming that every scene is supposed to represent a different timeline to every other scene.  Certainly not to the degree that I start concluding that all the humans are secretly bots as well, to make the timeline theory work!

5 hours ago, Goatherd said:

I don't think we've seen anything yet that contradicts the theory of two different timelines.

I've seen nothing to suggest that it isn't simply one timeline, as it purports to be.  But if there is more than one timeline, there is nothing to suggest that there aren't dozens or hundreds of timelines.  What a way to confuse your viewers, and make the entire show incomprehensible!

[numbnut]

4 hours ago, phoenyx said:

2- Here is what Ford said to Bernard in "The Stray" (Episode 3):

**Bernard Lowe: But ... some of them are remembering -- accessing fragments of Arnold's code. If I may ask, what happened to him?

Dr. Robert Ford: Well, he died ... here in the park. His personal life was marked by tragedy. He put all his hopes into his work. His search for consciousness ... consumed him totally -- barely spoke to anyone ... except the hosts. In his alienation, he saw something in them. He saw something that ... wasn't there. We called it an accident, but um ... I knew Arnold and he was very ... very careful.**

This suggests that Ford had nothing to do with his death.

3- The last one is once again from Ford, speaking with Theresa in this episode. Perhaps it explains how Arnold may have become careless:

**
Dr. Robert Ford:  In here, we were gods. And you were merely our guests.

Theresa: And how did that work out for Arnold?

Dr. Robert Ford: Sadly, he lost his perspective. He went mad.

These conversations don't prove that Ford is innocent of murder if he's lying or not telling the whole "complicated" truth.

[Goatherd]

Quote

 I have no reason to think so at all.

Yeah, I admit that makes sense too. But I do have one reason:  Nolan. Fool me once (I'm lookin' at you, Memento)...

And just to clarify, for those referencing the long-ago, hurky-jerky robots, that's why I'm proposing something different from the "30 years in the past, William = MiB" theory. The "previous timeline" could be in a more-recent past. And in that case, as Milburn Stone said, the design of the park itself would make it hard for us to tell a difference of, say, ten years.

 

On a different note, I've noticed a couple of things that the Man in Black has said that seem quite prophetic, or at least deeply knowing. When he was dancing with Lawrence's wife: "I like the basic emotions...when you're suffering, that's when you're most real." And which host is closest to gaining consciousness? Dolores...whose name means "sorrow." I know my earlier "A/B/C" naming theory was crackpot, but I am convinced that the hosts are not named randomly. Poor Dolores was built and designed to suffer, perhaps as a gateway to becoming 'real.'

[izabella]

Seems like most of the hosts were programmed to suffer and/or "die" - that's mostly what they do, at the hands of each other and the guests.  What does Teddy's name mean?  And Maeve's?

[Goatherd]

If "Teddy" is short for "Theodore," then the meaning is "gift from god." Maeve, who works in a bar, means "intoxicating."

[DarkRaichu]

46 minutes ago, Goatherd said:

And just to clarify, for those referencing the long-ago, hurky-jerky robots, that's why I'm proposing something different from the "30 years in the past, William = MiB" theory. The "previous timeline" could be in a more-recent past. And in that case, as Milburn Stone said, the design of the park itself would make it hard for us to tell a difference of, say, ten years.

BUT MiB said he had been visiting the park for 30 years.  So if William = MiB then William scenes have to take place 30 years before MiB's scenes

Edited October 28, 2016 by DarkRaichu

[numbnut]

32 minutes ago, Goatherd said:

Quote

 I have no reason to think so at all.

Yeah, I admit that makes sense too. But I do have one reason:  Nolan. Fool me once (I'm lookin' at you, Memento)...

Exactly. With Nolan and JJ Abrams in charge, I'll be surprised if there aren't timeline shenanigans. I'm still SMH over "Felicity" jumping the shark with time travel. Hopefully there will just be different timelines and no time travel.

Edited October 28, 2016 by numbnut

[phoenyx]

59 minutes ago, Goatherd said:

If "Teddy" is short for "Theodore," then the meaning is "gift from god." Maeve, who works in a bar, means "intoxicating."

Nice work Goatherd :-). I decided to check out the meanings on wikipedia. There's not much more to add in the case of Theodore: **It comes from the Greek name Θεόδωρος (Theodōros) meaning "god-given" (from the Greek words θεός, (theos) "god" and δώρον (dōron) "gift").[1]**

But when it came to Maeve, I really think there is :-). I'm combining 2 articles on Maeve for this:

Maeve is a first name of Irish origin. In Irish Gaelic, the name "Medbh" or "Méadhbh" means "she who intoxicates" or 'intoxicating' and has strong links to mead, an ancient honey wine typically consumed during a marriage ceremony. It is rooted in the Irish legend of Queen Maeve or Medb, one of the main protagonists of the early Irish legend Táin Bó Cúailnge. It is also associated with the fairy queen Queen Mab of Irish and English legend. Other spellings include: Meave, Moibh, Meadhbh, and Mabh. The name is generally associated with strength or beauty.

Sources:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theodore_(name)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maeve

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maeve_(Irish_name)

[marcee]

"We called it an accident, but um ... I knew Arnold and he was very ... very careful."

So perhaps Arnold's "death" was something Arnold did on purpose. Maybe he's the ghost in the machine?

Maybe he somehow uploaded his consciousness into the network so he could control or speak with the androids directly? Maybe he can put himself into any host at any time? Maybe he's the voice in every host's mind. Maybe it's simply taken him 30 years to figure out how to function inside the network.

Maybe not.

[ennui]

9 hours ago, Goatherd said:

When they decide to pull Maeve, they say to "re-task Clementine -- she's done the job before." Soon after, we see William in Sweetwater, and Clementine is out in front of the Saloon. So we can assume that this is in the same time-line, and Clementine has been re-tasked to take Maeve's place.

I think the scene where they re-tasked Clementine was simply to show us that they could. We are still in the early stages with illustrations and back story.

Does anyone else think Clementine looks like Barry Manilow? She's very attractive, but I see Barry.

I've never thought that William = MiB. I think they are two separate characters, and hope to see them together in a scene soon.

Edited October 28, 2016 by ennui

[Uncle JUICE]

9 minutes ago, ennui said:

 

Does anyone else think Clementine looks like Barry Manilow? She's very attractive, but I see Barry.

I see only Nick Kroll. 

[Milburn Stone]

14 minutes ago, ennui said:

I've never thought that William = MiB. I think they are two separate characters, and hope to see them together in a scene soon.

I'm not sure that will convince anybody. :)

[Goatherd]

What if Logan is the MiB? Then the time difference is less than 30 years. I don't know if we know how long ago Logan first came to the park.

[izabella]

I'm thinking Logan is the guy from "corporate" that Ford alluded to when he told Therese that corporate had already sent someone.   Logan is there NOW with William, William is there NOW with starting-to-be-sentient Dolores, so how can Logan also be MIB when MIB is also interacting with starting-to-be-sentient Dolores?

I swear, this board confuses me more than the show.

[Gobi]

25 minutes ago, Goatherd said:

What if Logan is the MiB? Then the time difference is less than 30 years. I don't know if we know how long ago Logan first came to the park.

IF the William/Logan story is taking place in the past, then I think Logan is a much better fit for TMIB. If I recall, in the first episode TMIB described his first visit to fellow train passengers, saying that he was all good, prospecting, etc. On his second visit, he went all evil and kept coming back for more. This is William's first visit, and doesn't match that description. This isn't Logan's first visit and  I think he's a much better match. Too obvious, maybe?