S01.E04: Dissonance Theory

[numbnut]

1 hour ago, Gobi said:

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?

In the pilot, a random passenger on the train mentioned going "full evil" without his family. That wasn't the MiB. Did the MiB say that too at some point?

[arc]

7 minutes ago, numbnut said:

In the pilot, a random passenger on the train mentioned going "full evil" without his family. That wasn't the MiB. Did the MiB say that too at some point?

Agreed, I don't think we've ever seen TMIB on the train.

[Gobi]

1 hour ago, numbnut said:

In the pilot, a random passenger on the train mentioned going "full evil" without his family. That wasn't the MiB. Did the MiB say that too at some point?

Going by memory, I thought it was TMIB; my on demand is on the blink, so I couldn't check. I could well be wrong. On the other hand, Logan is already a seemingly high up in a family business that can afford to send him and William to WW. Again, a better  match for TMIB.

[ennui]

2 hours ago, numbnut said:

In the pilot, a random passenger on the train mentioned going "full evil" without his family. That wasn't the MiB. Did the MiB say that too at some point?

It's hardly an unusual sentiment. "Whoo hoo, no wife and kids, now I can have some fun!"  

[arc]

1 hour ago, ennui said:

It's hardly an unusual sentiment. "Whoo hoo, no wife and kids, now I can have some fun!"  

tangentially, this sentiment is the premise for some really sad Hyatt Regency ads I hear a lot on streaming music: basically, the guy's home life suuuuuuuuuucks so hard he's happy to be in a hotel room away from his spouse or family. It's very depressing and probably unintentionally so.

[Sunnydayman]

Delores was shot and bleeding at the end of episode 3 but she doesn't appear to hurt when we see her next in episode 4.  If so that is another indicator of two timelines being shown simultaneously.  I don't see Logan waiting from the to repair Delores so he can resume a storyline he isn't interested in.  

[arc]

When she stumbled into William and Logan's camp, she actually wasn't shot. There's more discussion about it in the ep 3 thread.

[Sunnydayman]

56 minutes ago, arc said:

When she stumbled into William and Logan's camp, she actually wasn't shot. There's more discussion about it in the ep 3 thread.

Thanks.  I will go back to that thread.  I rewatched ep 3 for reference.

[paramitch]

Ack, I wrote a whole big reply with lots of fabulous quotes, because you people are awesome, and then after a tiny mushroom cloud, poof. No more post.

So in the words of Inigo Montoya, "Let me sum up." 

I thought this was another beautiful episode -- nuanced and delicate, unexpectedly beautiful and chilling in equal measures. Evan Rachel Wood has always been good, but the work she's doing here is just fantastic. She understands the way the camera works and her choices are so tiny, subtle and delicate -- yet palpable -- that I'm riveted by everything she does as Dolores here. Just superb work (and that's amid a really talented cast).

And Ford is revealed in this episode, I feel (and absolutely) to be a black hat. He seemed to be sympathetic to the robots in the beginning, but his callousness over the past two episodes shows a limited mind, to an extent -- he is brilliant but cannot conceive of these beings he loves yet controls like a god -- to be capable of sentience. I loved his shocking coldness in the dinner scene. I definitely think he is the Big Bad of the series. How do you fight a god who can lift a finger and control your existence? How could Dolores or Maeve possibly oppose him? I also feel (check out the hat choices) that Bernard will be his primary opposition (with Dolores). 

So -- yes, I'm so far absolutely in love with the show, especially as a fervent and dedicated RPG gamer in real life who has found gaming to be every bit as engaging, beautiful and challenging as a good book or film (or more). I especially love the way gaming language sneaks into the show -- easter eggs, loot, upgrades, black/white hats (basically, paragon/renegade choices), etc.

The only thing that gives me pause about "Westworld" right now is, in fact, my love of gaming: the fear that it's gonna distill down to humans = bad and robots = good. I don't think they'll go that simplistic with it, but it is a concern of mine. For instance, Logan and William worry me because it seems so obvious that William will go bad, and (guessing) Logan may discover that the shadings of humanity to the robots makes his previous choices pretty reprehensible, etc. (This theory has even more weight considering that both actors -- both lovely, and favorites of mine -- have been cast against type.)

So what worries me the most so far is the show's assumption -- backed up by Ford semi-verbatim-- that 90% of gamers/Westworld visitors are only interested in being black hats and going flat-out evil. And I'm sorry, I just think that's vastly oversimplified, and in fact, it's not backed up by most RPG statistics, and that's in an environment in which NO ONE IS JUDGING THEM. In a Westworld environment, a kind of real-life RPG in which every move people make is being noted and recorded, I just can't take seriously the idea that almost everyone just wants to pay $40k per day to rape and murder.

Because my own experience with gaming is the opposite -- that in fact most people tend to go more heroic ("paragon" if you're a Bioware gamer, versus "renegade"/dark), that they tend to play a more idealized version of themselves. They are in fact playing "who they want to be." Yes, people tend to go a bit darker on replays, but even so, I think that tends to mean they go snarkier and more complex, but they're still not raping, murdering and pillaging. They're more wiseass, but they're still saving bystanders.

For myself, there are some levels of darkness -- yes, even as a writer, and even knowing that it's totally permissible and fictional -- that I would never be remotely interested in exploring. And I wish the show reflected that. I know many other gamers who feel the same way. The world is awful enough. I want to be transported. I want to see people at their best. My character at her best and most awesome. Etc. There are plenty of genuinely interesting and fascinating storylines to Westworld that would not involve sexual assault, mindless violence, etc. For instance, there are plenty of gamers who would play the actual relationship storylines from RPG games in a heartbeat -- they range from "fall in love with a Disney Prince/Princess type" to "have adventures and fabulous casual sex" and everything in between. While the sex stuff in WW still makes me cringe, I have to think there'd be a market, however, for plenty of pseudorelationship storylines (just look at how popular fan-fiction is, for instance). My only complaint about WW in that case would be that there would need to be multiple versions of, for instance, Dolores and Teddy, because they would be among the most popular "relationship story" choices.

For this reason, I've been both repulsed and fascinated by the videos showing the alternate universes of games I've played, because they are unthinkable to me. I will never forget seeing the alternate dark outcomes for the "Mass Effect" series -- they're almost unimaginable to me -- seeing Shepard turned villain, who killed and coldly used crewmates. Or in "Dragon Age," seeing protagonists or Inquisitors who abused, abandoned, betrayed and even killed their companions. The footage mind-boggles me -- it's really upsetting. And yep, people do go there. But I don't think MOST people do.

So that's where I am on the show. I want to see characters on Westworld who wear the white hats not because they're uptight or boring, but because they simply want a real escape. They want love, not rape. They want heroism, not nihilism. I really do think this is a thing -- and something Westworld would serve. So I hope the show doesn't simply take the easy way out and show us an unrepentantly bad human population and a sad victimized robot population. It's not realistic. It's not the way gaming or gamers tend to work. 

But so far I love most of what I'm seeing and my fingers are crossed that we'll continue to get real complexity in the characters and motivations on both sides -- human and robot.

Edited October 29, 2016 by paramitch
missing text

[dr pepper]

As long as were doing names:

"Clementine" means "kindness" or "Mercy"

[okerry]

6 hours ago, paramitch said:

Ack, I wrote a whole big reply with lots of fabulous quotes, because you people are awesome, and then after a tiny mushroom cloud, poof. No more post.

So in the words of Inigo Montoya, "Let me sum up." 

I thought this was another beautiful episode -- nuanced and delicate, unexpectedly beautiful and chilling in equal measures. Evan Rachel Wood has always been good, but the work she's doing here is just fantastic. She understands the way the camera works and her choices are so tiny, subtle and delicate -- yet palpable -- that I'm riveted by everything she does as Dolores here. Just superb work (and that's amid a really talented cast).

And Ford is revealed in this episode, I feel (and absolutely) to be a black hat. He seemed to be sympathetic to the robots in the beginning, but his callousness over the past two episodes shows a limited mind, to an extent -- he is brilliant but cannot conceive of these beings he loves yet controls like a god -- to be capable of sentience. I loved his shocking coldness in the dinner scene. I definitely think he is the Big Bad of the series. How do you fight a god who can lift a finger and control your existence? How could Dolores or Maeve possibly oppose him? I also feel (check out the hat choices) that Bernard will be his primary opposition (with Dolores). 

So -- yes, I'm so far absolutely in love with the show, especially as a fervent and dedicated RPG gamer in real life who has found gaming to be every bit as engaging, beautiful and challenging as a good book or film (or more). I especially love the way gaming language sneaks into the show -- easter eggs, loot, upgrades, black/white hats (basically, paragon/renegade choices), etc.

The only thing that gives me pause about "Westworld" right now is, in fact, my love of gaming: the fear that it's gonna distill down to humans = bad and robots = good. I don't think they'll go that simplistic with it, but it is a concern of mine. For instance, Logan and William worry me because it seems so obvious that William will go bad, and (guessing) Logan may discover that the shadings of humanity to the robots makes his previous choices pretty reprehensible, etc. (This theory has even more weight considering that both actors -- both lovely, and favorites of mine -- have been cast against type.)

So what worries me the most so far is the show's assumption -- backed up by Ford semi-verbatim-- that 90% of gamers/Westworld visitors are only interested in being black hats and going flat-out evil. And I'm sorry, I just think that's vastly oversimplified, and in fact, it's not backed up by most RPG statistics, and that's in an environment in which NO ONE IS JUDGING THEM. In a Westworld environment, a kind of real-life RPG in which every move people make is being noted and recorded, I just can't take seriously the idea that almost everyone just wants to pay $40k per day to rape and murder.

Because my own experience with gaming is the opposite -- that in fact most people tend to go more heroic ("paragon" if you're a Bioware gamer, versus "renegade"/dark), that they tend to play a more idealized version of themselves. They are in fact playing "who they want to be." Yes, people tend to go a bit darker on replays, but even so, I think that tends to mean they go snarkier and more complex, but they're still not raping, murdering and pillaging. They're more wiseass, but they're still saving bystanders.

For myself, there are some levels of darkness -- yes, even as a writer, and even knowing that it's totally permissible and fictional -- that I would never be remotely interested in exploring. And I wish the show reflected that. I know many other gamers who feel the same way. The world is awful enough. I want to be transported. I want to see people at their best. My character at her best and most awesome. Etc. There are plenty of genuinely interesting and fascinating storylines to Westworld that would not involve sexual assault, mindless violence, etc. For instance, there are plenty of gamers who would play the actual relationship storylines from RPG games in a heartbeat -- they range from "fall in love with a Disney Prince/Princess type" to "have adventures and fabulous casual sex" and everything in between. While the sex stuff in WW still makes me cringe, I have to think there'd be a market, however, for plenty of pseudorelationship storylines (just look at how popular fan-fiction is, for instance). My only complaint about WW in that case would be that there would need to be multiple versions of, for instance, Dolores and Teddy, because they would be among the most popular "relationship story" choices.

For this reason, I've been both repulsed and fascinated by the videos showing the alternate universes of games I've played, because they are unthinkable to me. I will never forget seeing the alternate dark outcomes for the "Mass Effect" series -- they're almost unimaginable to me -- seeing Shepard turned villain, who killed and coldly used crewmates. Or in "Dragon Age," seeing protagonists or Inquisitors who abused, abandoned, betrayed and even killed their companions. The footage mind-boggles me -- it's really upsetting. And yep, people do go there. But I don't think MOST people do.

So that's where I am on the show. I want to see characters on Westworld who wear the white hats not because they're uptight or boring, but because they simply want a real escape. They want love, not rape. They want heroism, not nihilism. I really do think this is a thing -- and something Westworld would serve. So I hope the show doesn't simply take the easy way out and show us an unrepentantly bad human population and a sad victimized robot population. It's not realistic. It's not the way gaming or gamers tend to work. 

But so far I love most of what I'm seeing and my fingers are crossed that we'll continue to get real complexity in the characters and motivations on both sides -- human and robot.

Loved this post. I feel the same way. I'm a writer, too - mostly genre romance, of all things - and I was struck by one of Ford's lines: It was something like, "People are drawn to what they want most and experience the least."

I'm with you when you say that *most* people going to a WW-type park would want romantic, heroic, and escapist adventures. It's exactly as you say: The world is bad enough as it is. We don't need to pay upwards of 40K a day to know that - and if you're willing to pay that much to torture and murder "hosts" who are indistinguishable from humans, so you can *feel* like you're torturing and murdering humans, I hope the psych ward people are waiting at the exit to take you to another "park" where you can talk to some nice doctors and think about some things.

I don't doubt that there's a market for a WW park the way we've seen it - but most would die to see a live-action Harry Potter or Star Wars or Star Trek universe and live there for a week instead. And I could see a tremendous market of people who would beg to have a host built who was just like their lost love or their dead spouse or child. 

I'm still watching, though, in part for the great TV and in part for discussions like this. Thanks again for a great post.

[Jack Shaftoe]

Quote

And I'm sorry, I just think that's vastly oversimplified, and in fact, it's not backed up by most RPG statistics, and that's in an environment in which NO ONE IS JUDGING THEM. In a Westworld environment, a kind of real-life RPG in which every move people make is being noted and recorded, I just can't take seriously the idea that almost everyone just wants to pay $40k per day to rape and murder.

I think it's very implausible that nobody has yet raised the issue of the guests' privacy but on the other hand I don't think the RPGs we have today are a fully fair comparison. In most RPGs you have rather limited options for being truly evil. Even in infamous games like Grand Theft Auto (not really an RPG but with plenty of RPG elements), the missions from the main campaigns usually target other criminals. One can kill people for the lulz but usually not as a part of the scripted story. You mention Mass Effect - one can't really become a villain in it, the renegade choices are usually about being a jerk or a ruthless but still mostly good guy, not an actual villain, and you can't progress until you complete certain missions which are usually about saving innocent people, For obvious reasons there is practically no game where your character can rape someone, etc.

But yes, I don't see why most of the Westworld customers would play black hats - especially since the hosts can't really defend themselves from humans, so there is no sense of overcoming a challenge and the whole thing could easily become boring and repetitive. For everyone who would want to rape Dolores there should be someone else who would want to win her heart - even if he knows that this would be scripted too. So far the writers are giving me the impression that they have fallen into the "darker and edgier means more depth" trap, hence the preponderance of black hat guests.

Come to think of it, if you are a white hat guest, seeing other guests torture, rape and kill the hosts could really ruin the whole experience. This is something the show really needs to address, IMO. I mean, even you don't care about the hosts' suffering in general, you are going to be pissed if someone decides to ruin your quest by shooting an important NPC for no reason.

Edited October 29, 2016 by Jack Shaftoe

[Gobi]

Perhaps this belongs in the speculation thread, but here goes. There's been a lot of discussion in the threads about whether the hosts (in particular Delores and Maeve, but also Abernathy and Walter) are becoming sentient. What if they have always been sentient, but the constant erasing of their memories has prevented them from fully using their sentience? As if they were being given a lobotomy every night. What if the flashbacks of Delores and Maeve are not the onset of sentience, but the beginning of an ability to override the memory wipes? We saw Maeve take herself out of sleep mode, and Delores using past memories to avoid being raped and killed. What does that portend? Inquiring  minds want to know.

[Gobi]

5 minutes ago, Jack Shaftoe said:

 

Come to think of it, if you are a white hat guest, seeing other guests torture, rape and kill the hosts could really ruin the whole experience. This is something the show really needs to address, IMO. I mean, even you don't care about the hosts' suffering in general, you are going to be pissed if someone decides to ruin your quest by shooting an important NPC for no reason.

We've had glimpses of that with William and Logan, particularly when William threatened to kill their prisoner if Logan killed Delores. I agree that it's an avenue well worth exploring in the show.

Edited October 29, 2016 by Gobi
Spelling

[Cherpumple]

6 hours ago, paramitch said:

So what worries me the most so far is the show's assumption -- backed up by Ford semi-verbatim-- that 90% of gamers/Westworld visitors are only interested in being black hats and going flat-out evil.

This bothers me too, for most of the reasons you stated. It would be more interesting to me to learn that Westworld was originally opened as a general old-west immersion experience, but gradually devolved into the sex/murder fantasy camp we're seeing today. Maybe guests eventually stopped attending the square dances and wanting to learn how to pan for gold or lasso a steer, so those activities were phased out in favor of the shoot-em-up adventures and a saloon girl on every corner. Someone (Ford?) said that the typical guest feels powerless in their real life, so they come to WW to exert power over others. I think it would be interesting to explore the psychology and motivation of the guests a little more.

The most interesting things to me about this show are the complex issues of morality and sentience, and the human/robot power dynamics that fans have been talking about since the first episode. I think there are a lot of rich avenues to explore here, and would be very disappointed if the show chose to focus on gimmicky misdirects and "gotcha" moments instead. In the latter category, I would put the "all the employees except X are robots", "multiple timelines", and "character X is really character Y in disguise" theories. Finding out that one of the employees is a robot would be interesting, but having many or all of them be robots would rob the story of its more interesting social and ethical issues.

While I don't subscribe to the "multiple timelines" idea, I do agree that the overall progression of time is unclear. This definitely has a "Groundhog Day" feel to it, and now with the robots accessing random memories and going off-loop, it's even more unclear how much time is passing. For instance, it appeared to me that Maeve just started to have flashbacks about the maintenance men, as in within a day or two of William and Logan's arrival, and yet she had a whole stack of drawings under the floorboards. And since she looked shocked to see them there, I assume that means they were done during previous loops. Also, since Dolores has kept the memory of her parents dying, have they been de-activated for the moment, or did their loop start up again as normal? 

Add me to the long list of people who are confused about the logistics and maintenance of the park. From what I can tell, the employees are underneath WW and can pop up at several access points quite quickly. Regarding the whole question of whether or not Dolores is actually taken away from WW to have her secrets talks with Bernard, I think she is. It doesn't bother me that William might notice that she's gone for a while- the guests are waking up each day to find that the carnage and damage from the previous day are neatly swept away, so I don't think a short absence of one the hosts would phase them. I won't even get into the whole question of how the guns actually work, but it definitely seems needlessly expensive and inefficient to have the robots get shot full of holes everyday, when the "bullets" could just as easily be jolts of electricity or something else that wouldn't cause actual damage. And what the heck are the robots made of? They are biological enough to bleed and contract MRSA, but synthetic enough to be fixed/healed in a matter of hours with no lingering scars or pain? And is the "blood" real and actually pumping through a circulatory system, or is it just an inert layer under the skin added to make the injuries more realistic? And the MRSA incident got me thinking: are the hosts capable of contracting and passing on STDs? Even if they aren't affected themselves, it would wreak havoc on the guests. And finally, are the hosts programmed to maintain their own basic grooming and hygiene, and maybe laundry, or is that all done by the employees? This show is giving me flashbacks to a show I watched several years ago about a Real Doll factory, and how they have to do routine maintenance and repair on dolls that have been.... erm..... "worn out" by their owners. I can only imagine the kind of cleaning the saloon girls get!

[okerry]

I think Maeve contracted MRSA as a result of the bullet being left inside her, not from a guest - at least, not directly.

[Cherpumple]

I think so too, but what does that say about her ability to contract other infections from other sources, like the guests?

[Gobi]

17 minutes ago, Cherpumple said:

I think so too, but what does that say about her ability to contract other infections from other sources, like the guests?

I think the hosts contracting STDs from guests and vice versa is a very real possibility. I suppose that since, according to Ford, all diseases can now be cured, it's not a serious problem anymore.

[phoenyx]

9 hours ago, paramitch said:

Ack, I wrote a whole big reply with lots of fabulous quotes, because you people are awesome, and then after a tiny mushroom cloud, poof. No more post.

So in the words of Inigo Montoya, "Let me sum up." 

I thought this was another beautiful episode -- nuanced and delicate, unexpectedly beautiful and chilling in equal measures. Evan Rachel Wood has always been good, but the work she's doing here is just fantastic. She understands the way the camera works and her choices are so tiny, subtle and delicate -- yet palpable -- that I'm riveted by everything she does as Dolores here.

Me too :-). I actually hadn't even seen Evan Rachel Wood before, so she was a pretty big surprise for me.

[phoenyx]

17 hours ago, paramitch said:

And Ford is revealed in this episode, I feel (and absolutely) to be a black hat. He seemed to be sympathetic to the robots in the beginning, but his callousness over the past two episodes shows a limited mind, to an extent -- he is brilliant but cannot conceive of these beings he loves yet controls like a god -- to be capable of sentience. I loved his shocking coldness in the dinner scene. I definitely think he is the Big Bad of the series.

I'm not so sure about that. I think a part of him has definitely turned to the dark side, but I think it's good to try to guess at why- I think 2 factors are probably in play- monetary (in the form of the "money men" he talked about this episode) and quite possibly grief over his lost partner, who I suspect was killed by an android. Speaking of money, am I the only one who has begun to see a -lot- of similarities between the "guests" and the 1% and corporate culture, especially if considering things metaphorically? Not sure if anyone has seen the canadian documentary "The Corporation", but if you look at a lot of large corporations, they'd fit right in as Westworld black hats. So if guests are essentially corporations, what does that make the androids? The rest of us :-p. Now, there is one thing I'd also like to say about this- so far, we do have -1- guest that does seem to have some decency- William, which would be in keeping with the fact that not all large corporations and 1%ers are terrible (though I wonder if it could be said that most are). I'd say that right now he's a bit of a gray hat- he's protested what his friend has done, but he still doesn't really seem to be taking the androids as seriously as I think he should. I think he's beginning to change in regards to Dolores, though. The fact that he was willing to kill Logan's black hat adventure ticket android in order to avert Logan killing Dolores speaks to that in my mind, but right after that he was back to smiling, which I found irritating.

One last thing- I've seen no evidence that Nolan and his wife had this in mind at all. That being said, I still think that this series may have been influenced by the recent rise of the rich at the expense of everyone else, even if they're not aware of it.

I personally think that all of my recent favourite shows could be read in some way to reflect this corporate elite oligarchy, from Game of Thrones (the rich families) to much lesser known sci fi tv series such as Dark Matter and Continuum (it's pretty obvious in those last 2). 

Anyway, here's a trailer to The Corporation for anyone who'd like to take a look at what I'm trying to convey on that:

Edited October 30, 2016 by phoenyx

[Goatherd]

Great topic, paramitch! I agree with you in large part, but I'll add two things I've noticed as a gamer (World of Warcraft):

1. I think of myself as a "white hat" kind of player, and yet sometimes I notice I've been sent on quests to "cull the herd" (mindlessly slaughter 50 animals) or "collect gemstones" (which I can find on the bodies of "pirates" or "demon lords" or some other identifier that justifies large-scale killing). In games that are geared around fighting abilities, most quests come down to using those abilities, whether in self-defense or to right some historical wrong.

2. Some gamers, especially those who prefer PvP,  get great delight out of stalking and killing other players, and sometimes purposely disrupting the gameplay of others (e.g. killing the bartender NPC who is needed for a quest). I don't find that behavior all that different from what we're seeing from Westworld guests.

I also note that Westworld is geared to drawing visitors into this behavior, as seen with William. He didn't think he wanted to engage in a gunfight, until one was staged in such a way that "innocent" people were getting hurt, and he was perfectly positioned to be the reluctant hero. 

In other words, whether you see yourself as a hero or a villain, a well-designed game can easily convince you to use that gun they issued you.

[Netfoot]

15 hours ago, paramitch said:

So I hope the show doesn't simply take the easy way out and show us an unrepentantly bad human population and a sad victimized robot population.

I suspect that this show is going in the direction of Human vs. Robot with the robots portrayed as liberating themselves from the oppressive humans.  For this to work, the humans must first be shown to be oppressive!  

[numbnut]

1 hour ago, Netfoot said:

16 hours ago, paramitch said:

So I hope the show doesn't simply take the easy way out and show us an unrepentantly bad human population and a sad victimized robot population.

I suspect that this show is going in the direction of Human vs. Robot with the robots portrayed as liberating themselves from the oppressive humans.  For this to work, the humans must first be shown to be oppressive!  

The MiB mentioned more than once that he could set robots free, and he is acting as a liberator of sorts -- the robots go beyond their programming when they recall the pain caused by the MiB (Dolores can shoot a gun; Maeve can wake herself up from sleep mode), which he says makes them more "real." Since the show is using religious themes, I wonder if the MiB will be revealed as the robots' savior in his battle against the evil Ford.

[ennui]

6 minutes ago, numbnut said:

I wonder if the MiB will be revealed as the robots' savior in his battle against the evil Ford.

Spartacus, maybe. 

Edited October 30, 2016 by ennui

[dr pepper]

BTW, there have been a few games that were totally "black hat". Right at the dawn of computer gaming there was Custer's Revenge, in which you control Custer as he tries to avoid bullets, arrows, and cacti on the way to raping an indian tied to a tree.

Later there was a game where you play the person in charge of a death camp. Your goal is to kill enough jews to get a medal from Hitler.

More recently there was a japanese game of randomly raping women in public, where apparently once you've got a victim, you can go back and repeatedly attack her in her own home.

I'm sure a little googling will find more games like that.

[Netfoot]

8 minutes ago, dr pepper said:

I'm sure a little googling will find more games like that.

Wow.  I've played a game or two, but I've (thankfully) never come across these.  

Truth is, there are any number of distasteful (to me, and I hope others) things people do IRL that are neither illegal nor immoral.  

[phoenyx]

59 minutes ago, Netfoot said:

Wow.  I've played a game or two, but I've (thankfully) never come across these.  

Truth is, there are any number of distasteful (to me, and I hope others) things people do IRL that are neither illegal nor immoral.  

Who determines what is immoral and what isn't?

[paramitch]

12 hours ago, okerry said:

I was struck by one of Ford's lines: It was something like, "People are drawn to what they want most and experience the least."

I'm with you when you say that *most* people going to a WW-type park would want romantic, heroic, and escapist adventures. It's exactly as you say: The world is bad enough as it is. We don't need to pay upwards of 40K a day to know that - and if you're willing to pay that much to torture and murder "hosts" who are indistinguishable from humans, so you can *feel* like you're torturing and murdering humans, I hope the psych ward people are waiting at the exit to take you to another "park" where you can talk to some nice doctors and think about some things.

I don't doubt that there's a market for a WW park the way we've seen it - but most would die to see a live-action Harry Potter or Star Wars or Star Trek universe and live there for a week instead. And I could see a tremendous market of people who would beg to have a host built who was just like their lost love or their dead spouse or child. 

That's a wonderful line that I definitely think says everything about many if not most gamers -- it's certainly applicable here in Westworld. And it's the most interesting option to me, frankly, storywise. But I know the show has been planned for as many as five seasons, so that gives me hope -- there's certainly room for a lot of complexity in what Westworld's guests might be seeking in the park -- and in what it chooses to offer.

11 hours ago, Jack Shaftoe said:

I think it's very implausible that nobody has yet raised the issue of the guests' privacy but on the other hand I don't think the RPGs we have today are a fully fair comparison. In most RPGs you have rather limited options for being truly evil. Even in infamous games like Grand Theft Auto (not really an RPG but with plenty of RPG elements), the missions from the main campaigns usually target other criminals. One can kill people for the lulz but usually not as a part of the scripted story. You mention Mass Effect - one can't really become a villain in it, the renegade choices are usually about being a jerk or a ruthless but still mostly good guy, not an actual villain, and you can't progress until you complete certain missions which are usually about saving innocent people, For obvious reasons there is practically no game where your character can rape someone, etc.

But yes, I don't see why most of the Westworld customers would play black hats - especially since the hosts can't really defend themselves from humans, so there is no sense of overcoming a challenge and the whole thing could easily become boring and repetitive. For everyone who would want to rape Dolores there should be someone else who would want to win her heart - even if he knows that this would be scripted too. So far the writers are giving me the impression that they have fallen into the "darker and edgier means more depth" trap, hence the preponderance of black hat guests.

Come to think of it, if you are a white hat guest, seeing other guests torture, rape and kill the hosts could really ruin the whole experience. This is something the show really needs to address, IMO. I mean, even you don't care about the hosts' suffering in general, you are going to be pissed if someone decides to ruin your quest by shooting an important NPC for no reason.

I dunno, those who really want to can play Shepard as being pretty cruel and irredeemable, betraying and killing several crewmates at many crucial points in the game. And it's definitely possible to play DAI with an Inquisitor who's pretty full-on villainous, to the point that companions abandon them because they're just awful people.

I do agree that there are RPG elements to many, many games that might not be fully considered RPG games (and I'd definitely agree in the case of Grand Theft Auto, etc.). And even when a game isn't RPG, I still find myself playing a character whose choices somehow need to matter to me.

Also, great points on why Westworld's presentation is rather tricky to maintain for multiple guest-approaches and storylines. I know the town keeps being spoken of as the safest and most humdrum location (and that stories get darker the farther guests get from that location), but how many times have we already seen the streets shot to pieces, or horrifying massacres at the saloon? 

I think that's one thing the show still needs to show us believably -- where the white hats go, what experiences they're actually having, etc. But I'm willing to wait, and I do hope and think the showrunners are capable of showing us that kind of complexity at some point.

11 hours ago, Cherpumple said:

This bothers me too, for most of the reasons you stated. It would be more interesting to me to learn that Westworld was originally opened as a general old-west immersion experience, but gradually devolved into the sex/murder fantasy camp we're seeing today. Maybe guests eventually stopped attending the square dances and wanting to learn how to pan for gold or lasso a steer, so those activities were phased out in favor of the shoot-em-up adventures and a saloon girl on every corner. Someone (Ford?) said that the typical guest feels powerless in their real life, so they come to WW to exert power over others. I think it would be interesting to explore the psychology and motivation of the guests a little more.

The most interesting things to me about this show are the complex issues of morality and sentience, and the human/robot power dynamics that fans have been talking about since the first episode. I think there are a lot of rich avenues to explore here, and would be very disappointed if the show chose to focus on gimmicky misdirects and "gotcha" moments instead. In the latter category, I would put the "all the employees except X are robots", "multiple timelines", and "character X is really character Y in disguise" theories. Finding out that one of the employees is a robot would be interesting, but having many or all of them be robots would rob the story of its more interesting social and ethical issues.

(snipped for space) I won't even get into the whole question of how the guns actually work, but it definitely seems needlessly expensive and inefficient to have the robots get shot full of holes everyday, when the "bullets" could just as easily be jolts of electricity or something else that wouldn't cause actual damage. And what the heck are the robots made of? They are biological enough to bleed and contract MRSA, but synthetic enough to be fixed/healed in a matter of hours with no lingering scars or pain? And is the "blood" real and actually pumping through a circulatory system, or is it just an inert layer under the skin added to make the injuries more realistic? And the MRSA incident got me thinking: are the hosts capable of contracting and passing on STDs? Even if they aren't affected themselves, it would wreak havoc on the guests. 

I'm very interested in these issues as well. And I do actually like that there appear to be some real organic qualities to the hosts -- not just in their aspects, but in their physiologies, and we did see some of that hinted at in the pilot episode (which is why the robots who were shut away both smelled bad and visibly looked drawn, sick and hollow-eyed). I don't even want to think about the poor saloon sex workers and their maintenance either! ;-)

I do agree that actually maiming, hacking and shooting the hosts seems inefficient and costly, but then the huge sums of money the guests are paying for these illusions probably cover that pretty easily, and it does seem that in this unidentified future in which all diseases are now curable, that fixing these robotic flesh wounds seems to be a pretty quick, easy process for the park scientists.

What's upsetting, however, is that the robots do seem to feel pain -- Maeve certainly seemed to, for instance. Which just makes Ford's decisions that much more confounding and interesting to me. What is the purpose of a robot who feels pain and emotion, if not, indeed, to bring the creature into true sentience? It seems transparent that Ford has actively worked toward this, even as, on the other hand, he seems incapable of acknowledging that as a real possibility (the robots are certainly still "things" to him).

8 hours ago, phoenyx said:

I'm not so sure about that. I think a part of him has definitely turned to the dark side, but I think it's good to try to guess at why- I think 2 factors are probably in play- monetary (in the form of the "money men" he talked about this episode) and quite possibly grief over his lost partner, who I suspect was killed by an android.

Speaking of money, am I the only one who has begun to see a -lot- of similarities between the "guests" and the 1% and corporate culture, especially if considering things metaphorically? Not sure if anyone has seen the canadian documentary "The Corporation", but if you look at a lot of large corporations, they'd fit right in as Westworld black hats. So if guests are essentially corporations, what does that make the androids? The rest of us :-p. 

True, there certainly seem to be layers to Ford -- I find him fascinating, and Hopkins brings a rather interesting combination of coldness and warmth to him. For instance, the momentarily sweet scene with the little boy in the previous episode, juxtaposed against his occasional startling moments of cold control with the robots (as when he admonished the park worker who covered the robot's nakedness, or when he demonstrated his power at dinner). One minute he seems to be playing with them, almost affectionately -- the next, he's more like a child burning ants with a lens, to see what happens next.

And I definitely think the strains of wealthy arrogance or entitlement we've seen in certain characters (like Logan, for instance) are deliberate character notes by the writers.

3 hours ago, Goatherd said:

Great topic, paramitch! I agree with you in large part, but I'll add two things I've noticed as a gamer (World of Warcraft):

1. I think of myself as a "white hat" kind of player, and yet sometimes I notice I've been sent on quests to "cull the herd" (mindlessly slaughter 50 animals) or "collect gemstones" (which I can find on the bodies of "pirates" or "demon lords" or some other identifier that justifies large-scale killing). In games that are geared around fighting abilities, most quests come down to using those abilities, whether in self-defense or to right some historical wrong.

2. Some gamers, especially those who prefer PvP,  get great delight out of stalking and killing other players, and sometimes purposely disrupting the gameplay of others (e.g. killing the bartender NPC who is needed for a quest). I don't find that behavior all that different from what we're seeing from Westworld guests.

I also note that Westworld is geared to drawing visitors into this behavior, as seen with William. He didn't think he wanted to engage in a gunfight, until one was staged in such a way that "innocent" people were getting hurt, and he was perfectly positioned to be the reluctant hero. 

In other words, whether you see yourself as a hero or a villain, a well-designed game can easily convince you to use that gun they issued you.

I've done a little WoW, but my MMORPG of choice is actually LOTRO, going back almost a decade now. I've also done some PvP and monster-play over the years, and it's fun for me in limited amounts, but never as satisfying as the hero-play for me.

I do hate the grinding types of quests you describe (which was why I laughed out loud at the Westworld episode in which Logan was, like, "NO DO NOT TALK TO THAT NPC, IT'S A STUPID FETCH QUEST! AGHGHGH!"). 

I think you make a great point about the ways in which guests might be convinced, after all, to use those guns (and even on occasion, in darker circumstances than they imagine), but I still think most guests would pursue more adventurous storylines versus flat-out evil ones.

3 hours ago, Netfoot said:

I suspect that this show is going in the direction of Human vs. Robot with the robots portrayed as liberating themselves from the oppressive humans.  For this to work, the humans must first be shown to be oppressive!  

Oh, I agree, although so far, I do really like that there are some fairly likable humans. I love Bernard so far (and it's such a treat to see the utterly brilliant Jeffrey Wright on this show -- I've adored him forever), and I like Elsie a lot, as well as Theresa. I guardedly like William, but we'll see how he progresses.

1 hour ago, numbnut said:

The MiB mentioned more than once that he could set robots free, and he is acting as a liberator of sorts -- the robots go beyond their programming when they recall the pain caused by the MiB (Dolores can shoot a gun; Maeve can wake herself up from sleep mode), which he says makes them more "real." Since the show is using religious themes, I wonder if the MiB will be revealed as the robots' savior in his battle against the evil Ford.

I'm so interested in where this might go. I love the fact that the MiB may in fact be more complex than the cruel sadist he at first seemed to be. Even if I still think there's something seriously disturbing about the idea that he's been pseudo-raping and murdering for 30 years to get his kicks.

1 hour ago, dr pepper said:

BTW, there have been a few games that were totally "black hat". Right at the dawn of computer gaming there was Custer's Revenge, in which you control Custer as he tries to avoid bullets, arrows, and cacti on the way to raping an indian tied to a tree.

Later there was a game where you play the person in charge of a death camp. Your goal is to kill enough jews to get a medal from Hitler.

More recently there was a japanese game of randomly raping women in public, where apparently once you've got a victim, you can go back and repeatedly attack her in her own home.

I'm sure a little googling will find more games like that.

This is absolutely horrifying. I just... I can't even.

Edited October 30, 2016 by paramitch
ack, typos

[phoenyx]

1 hour ago, numbnut said:

The MiB mentioned more than once that he could set robots free, and he is acting as a liberator of sorts -- the robots go beyond their programming when they recall the pain caused by the MiB (Dolores can shoot a gun; Maeve can wake herself up from sleep mode), which he says makes them more "real." Since the show is using religious themes, I wonder if the MiB will be revealed as the robots' savior in his battle against the evil Ford.

Based on the preview of Episode 5, I think the prize for Robot saviour is going to picked up by Dolores. That being said, MiB may well be able to take credit for speeding up the androids' awakening.

[phoenyx]

12 hours ago, okerry said:

I'm a writer, too - mostly genre romance, of all things - and I was struck by one of Ford's lines: It was something like, "People are drawn to what they want most and experience the least."

I agree it was a great line, but it wasn't said by Ford. It was said by Bernard at the beginning of Episode 3. He was engaged in one of his secret conversations with Dolores, and had asked her to read a passage from Alice in Wonderland. Here's the snippet:

**

Dolores Abernathy: "Dear, dear, how queer everything is today. And yesterday, things went on just as usual. I wonder if I've been changed in the night."

Bernard Lowe: Does that passage make you think of anything?

Dolores Abernathy: It's like the other books we've read.

Bernard Lowe: How so?

Dolores Abernathy: It's about change. Seems to be a common theme.

Bernard Lowe: I guess ... people like to read about the things that they want the most and experience the least.

**

Now I'm wondering what other books they've read. Bernard sure sneaks in a -lot- of secret time in with Dolores -.-...

Edited October 30, 2016 by phoenyx

[phoenyx]

25 minutes ago, paramitch said:

True, there certainly seem to be layers to Ford -- I find him fascinating, and Hopkins brings a rather interesting combination of coldness and warmth to him. For instance, the momentarily sweet scene with the little boy in the previous episode, juxtaposed against his occasional startling moments of cold control with the robots (as when he admonished the park worker who covered the robot's nakedness, or when he demonstrated his power at dinner). One minute he seems to be playing with them, almost affectionately -- the next, he's more like a child burning ants with a lens, to see what happens next.

And I definitely think the strains of wealthy arrogance or entitlement we've seen in certain characters (like Logan, for instance) are deliberate character notes by the writers.

Good point regarding Ford's interaction with the child. Despite what Ford's said about always seeing things "very clearly", I think the truth is that he's got a split personality. In one of them, he's a benevolent God, looking after his flock. In the other, he's a God that is alternately cold and wrathful. Also, after you mentioning Logan's behaviour, I think you're right. MiB acts the same way a lot of the time too- I think he's been so obsessed with the quest for finding the maze that he hasn't really paid attention to the destruction that he has frequently left in his wake. 

[numbnut]

57 minutes ago, phoenyx said:

2 hours ago, numbnut said:

The MiB mentioned more than once that he could set robots free, and he is acting as a liberator of sorts -- the robots go beyond their programming when they recall the pain caused by the MiB (Dolores can shoot a gun; Maeve can wake herself up from sleep mode), which he says makes them more "real." Since the show is using religious themes, I wonder if the MiB will be revealed as the robots' savior in his battle against the evil Ford.

Based on the preview of Episode 5, I think the prize for Robot saviour is going to picked up by Dolores. That being said, MiB may well be able to take credit for speeding up the androids' awakening.

I avoided the preview but don't doubt there will be a robot savior (Abernathy made that clear in the pilot and may be a leader at some point). I was just responding to the question of whether it will be robots versus humans with no crossover during the revolution.

Edited October 30, 2016 by numbnut

[gatopretoNYC]

5 hours ago, phoenyx said:

Now I'm wondering what other books they've read. Bernard sure sneaks in a -lot- of secret time in with Dolores -.-...

And she retains her memories of all their secret talks...

[Gobi]

18 hours ago, okerry said:

Loved this post. I feel the same way. I'm a writer, too - mostly genre romance, of all things - and I was struck by one of Ford's lines: It was something like, "People are drawn to what they want most and experience the least."

I'm with you when you say that *most* people going to a WW-type park would want romantic, heroic, and escapist adventures. It's exactly as you say: The world is bad enough as it is. We don't need to pay upwards of 40K a day to know that - and if you're willing to pay that much to torture and murder "hosts" who are indistinguishable from humans, so you can *feel* like you're torturing and murdering humans, I hope the psych ward people are waiting at the exit to take you to another "park" where you can talk to some nice doctors and think about son  things.

 The effect of Westworld on guests is something I would like to see explored more. I don't expect an episode about  the PTSD counseling center  of course. I think it has been alluded to in the show.

Throughout history, armies have tolerated, or even encouraged, the use of alcohol (and other drugs) by soldiers to help them cope with what they've seen and done. I don't think it's a coincidence that we've some guests doing a lot of drinking at Westworld. As William said to Logan, "All you've done since you got here is drink and fuck." Getting ready for what's to come? Then there was the drunken guest who shot Maeve and Clemintine, as well as another who shot Teddy. The Clint Eastwood movie, "Unforgiven", was largely about the effects of violence on both victims an  perpetrators. In it, his character mentioned several times that he was drunk when he did most of his violent acts.

[phoenyx]

6 hours ago, numbnut said:

I avoided the preview...

Alright, I guess I'll save what I learn from previews for the "heart of westworld" thread :-). 

[phoenyx]

2 hours ago, gatopretoNYC said:

And she retains her memories of all their secret talks...

...except for the ones that he (or someone else) asks her to erase, unless she has learned how to lie. I forget who brought it up (it may not even have been someone in this forum), but some people are suspecting that the androids may have learned how to lie. Apparently, someone said that the androids may not just be able to pass the turing test, but -pretend- that they can't to avoid being dumbed down. Jonathan Nolan responded something to the effect of "Have we got a show for you!" There is one bit where Dolores says something to her "father" that suggests that she may already have learned how to lie. It's in Episode 1:

***

[Abernathy ranch. Peter Abernathy leans against the corral as he watches the cowboys herd some cattle into the enclosure and close the gate. He glances down and notices the corner of something sticking up out of the ground. He brushes away the loose dirt and unearths what looks like a photo, which he just stares at.

Later, at the Abernathy home. It's growing dark as Dolores leads her horse up to the house. She walks up to the porch, carrying the supplies she bought at the store and finds her father sitting in his chair, staring at a photo.]

Dolores Abernathy: You waiting up for me, Daddy? I told you I'd be home before dark.

Peter Abernathy: I found this in the field today. (He shows her a photo of a young woman taken against a backdrop of a bustling metropolitan city, including lit billboards and modern automobile traffic-- New York perhaps?)

Dolores Abernathy: Doesn't look like anything to me.

Peter Abernathy: But where is she? Have you ever seen anything like this place?

Dolores Abernathy: Doesn't look like anything to me. I'm gonna help Mama put supper on.

***

Did it -really- not look like anything to Dolores? Or was she just pretending that it "didn't look like anything" and then excusing herself from Peter's presence to avoid getting into a discussion that she may have known or suspected could be monitored?

 

Returning to the subject of erased interactions with Bernard, I believe Bernard has only once asked Dolores to erase an interaction, in Episode 2. Here's their conversation:

***
Bernard: Bring yourself back online.

Dolores: Hello.

Bernard: Do you remember our last conversation, Dolores?

Dolores: Yes, of course.

Bernard: And you haven't told anyone about our little talks?

Dolores: You told me not to.

Bernard: Step into analysis, please. How many interactions have you participated in since we last talked?

Dolores: 138 encounters including this one.

Bernard: And has anyone altered or updated your core heuristics in that time?

Dolores: No.

Bernard: Resuming. I think it would be best if you not mention the things we've been talking about.

Dolores: Have I done something wrong?

Bernard: No, but there's something different about you ... about the way you think. I find it fascinating, but ... others may not see it that way.

Dolores: Have you done something wrong?

Bernard: Turn off your event log, please. Erase this interaction. Confirm.

Dolores: Yes.

Bernard: You should be getting back, Dolores ... before someone misses you.

***

Edited October 30, 2016 by phoenyx

[Netfoot]

28 minutes ago, phoenyx said:

Did it -really- not look like anything to Dolores?

Given that it was used twice, the phrase "Doesn't look like anything to me" would seem to be an in-built response to anything that doesn't fit in the Westworld milieu.  (Guest whips out a sneaked-in cellphone and says, "Whaddya think?"  Host:  "Doesn't look like anything to me," and ignores it.)  So, perhaps it isn't Delores lying about it that is significant (if she is) but it is Abernathy failing to ignore it that is significant.

[phoenyx]

11 minutes ago, Netfoot said:

Given that it was used twice, the phrase "Doesn't look like anything to me" would seem to be an in-built response to anything that doesn't fit in the Westworld milieu.  (Guest whips out a sneaked-in cellphone and says, "Whaddya think?"  Host:  "Doesn't look like anything to me," and ignores it.)  So, perhaps it isn't Delores lying about it that is significant (if she is) but it is Abernathy failing to ignore it that is significant.

Mm, you make a good point- I think it would make a lot of sense that androids are programmed to ignore things that don't make sense to their worldview, and I think there's certainly been evidence of this. But I still wonder if perhaps Dolores is pretending to know less than she actually does. If you think about it, Bernard is actually -encouraging- Dolores to hold secrets, vis a vis asking her not to tell anyone about his secret conversations with her, conversations that she may -not- be losing to wipes; perhaps Bernard is having these conversations stored in a secret part of her memory, one that the techies are unaware of.

Another thing- assuming you are right, and androids should automatically dismiss things that don't fit into their worldview, why is it that Peter didn't dismiss it? 

Edited October 30, 2016 by phoenyx

[Netfoot]

2 minutes ago, phoenyx said:

If you think about it, Bernard is actually -encouraging- Dolores to hold secrets, vis a vis asking her not to tell anyone about his secret conversations with her, conversations that she may -not- be losing to wipes...

Which I why I said earlier (somewhere) that I believe Bernard may be the actual Big-bad.  It's like he's deliberately trying to undermine the status quo, albeit in a subtle way.  I can't think of any other reason for his conversations with Delores.  At the end of which, he doesn't tell her to forget it, he tells her to keep it secret!

[Gobi]

8 minutes ago, phoenyx said:

Mm, you make a good point- I think it would make a lot of sense that androids are programmed to ignore things that don't make sense to their worldview, and I think there's certainly been evidence of this. But I still wonder if perhaps Dolores is pretending to know less than she actually does. If you think about it, Bernard is actually -encouraging- Dolores to hold secrets, vis a vis asking her not to tell anyone about his secret conversations with her, conversations that she may -not- be losing to wipes; perhaps Bernard is having these conversations stored in a secret part of her memory, one that the techies are unaware of.

Another thing- assuming you are right, and androids should automatically dismiss things that don't fit into their worldview, why is it that Peter didn't dismiss it? 

I also wonder whether Delores is able to lie. The moment for me was when at one of recent talks with Bernard, he asked her "And you will stay in your loop?". Delores took a long pause before saying "Yes." The pause and the look on her face raised the idea for me.

[phoenyx]

14 minutes ago, Netfoot said:

Which I why I said earlier (somewhere) that I believe Bernard may be the actual Big-bad.  It's like he's deliberately trying to undermine the status quo, albeit in a subtle way.  I can't think of any other reason for his conversations with Delores.  At the end of which, he doesn't tell her to forget it, he tells her to keep it secret!

I strongly disagree. I think Bernard is one of the kindest of all of the staff at Westworld. He has expressed subtle grief when having to retire androids due to malfunction and I think he made it clear why he wants Dolores to keep their conversations secret:

**

Bernard: Resuming. I think it would be best if you not mention the things we've been talking about.

Dolores: Have I done something wrong?

Bernard: No, but there's something different about you ... about the way you think. I find it fascinating, but ... others may not see it that way.

**

 

I also believe that Ford is beginning to suspect that Bernard is getting too attached to the hosts. Here's a bit of a conversation he has with Bernard in Episode 3:

**

Ford: Good. Oh, Bernard? Just don't forget ... the hosts are not real. They're not conscious. You mustn't make ... Arnold's mistake.

Bernard: (soft, puzzled laugh) Why would I?

Ford: Well, forgive me, but I know that the death of your son Charlie ... still weighs heavily on you. (Bernard nods and leaves Ford's office.)

**

 

I think Ford is implying that after the death of Bernard's son, Bernard has begun to see the androids as his children. I think most would agree that the bond a parent feels for a child is one of if not the strongest bond a person can feel.

Edited October 30, 2016 by phoenyx

[phoenyx]

37 minutes ago, Gobi said:

I also wonder whether Delores is able to lie. The moment for me was when at one of recent talks with Bernard, he asked her "And you will stay in your loop?". Delores took a long pause before saying "Yes." The pause and the look on her face raised the idea for me.

I decided to look through the transcript to see it. I find that whole interaction to be quite interesting. It is also in Episode 3, after Dolores secret interaction with him that included the Alice in Wonderland book reading:

**

Unknown location. It looks like a basement with a glass-enclosed room. Dolores is sitting inside the room in the dark. Bernard walks down the concrete stairs and turns the lights on. It's the same place Bernard met with Dolores when he gave her the book.]

Bernard: Bring yourself back online. I need your help, Dolores. I need to decide what to do with you. I think I made a mistake. I was just fascinated. I was being selfish, but I think ... it-- it would be better if I restored you to the way you were before.

Dolores: Is there something wrong with me?

Bernard: No. But ... this place you live in, it's a terrible place for you.

Dolores: Well, some people choose to see the ugliness in this world --

Bernard: Stop! Lose all scripted responses -- improvisation only.

Dolores: All right. Are you saying I'm changed?

Bernard: Imagine ... there are two versions of yourself -- one that feels these things and asks these questions, and one that's safe. Which would you rather be?

Dolores: I'm sorry. I'm trying, but I still don't understand.

Bernard: No, of course not.

Dolores: There aren't two versions of me. There's only one. And I think when I discover who I am -- I'll be free.

Bernard: Analysis. What prompted that response?

Dolores: I don't know. Have I done something wrong? Made a mistake?

Bernard: Evolution ... forged the entirety of sentient life on this planet using only one tool ... the mistake. It appears you're in good company. Did I ever tell you about the time I taught Charlie to swim? For hours, he clung to my arms while practicing his kicks. He was too scared to let go and I was too scared to let him. But I had to. That's what parents do.

Dolores: Do you still want to change me back?

BernardE: No, Dolores. Let's see where this path leads. And you won't tell anyone about our conversations?

Dolores: No.

BernardE: And you'll stay on your loop?

Dolores: Yes.

Bernard: Good. You should be getting back, Dolores, before someone misses you.
**

 

I'm not sure that Dolores was lying when she said "Yes." I think it's more that she was considering what her response should be before responding. I highly suspect that Dolores can read intonations of voice for hidden meanings- I suspect Dolores figured out that the response Bernard was looking for was "yes", so she gave it to him. But the fact that she had to consider it suggests that she was growing dissatisfied with her loop, and this dissatisfaction came to a climax at the end of Episode 3 and Episode 4 where she not only fled her loop but made it adamantly clear that she didn't want to go back to it. Ofcourse, this is the first time that we know of that her memory hasn't been wiped after the traumatizing events that happen at her family ranch, so even without the growing dissatisfaction, it's easily understandable why she wouldn't want to go back.

There's also another thing in the above conversation where I -highly- suspect she may have been lying, or at the very least deceiving not only Bernard, but herself. It's this part of the dialogue:

**

Dolores: There aren't two versions of me. There's only one. And I think when I discover who I am -- I'll be free.

Bernard: Analysis. What prompted that response?

Dolores: I don't know. Have I done something wrong? Made a mistake?

Bernard: Evolution ... forged the entirety of sentient life on this planet using only one tool ... the mistake. It appears you're in good company. Did I ever tell you about the time I taught Charlie to swim? For hours, he clung to my arms while practicing his kicks. He was too scared to let go and I was too scared to let him. But I had to. That's what parents do.

**

Does she -really- not know what prompted that response? Like a child caught doing something that a parent may not be approving of, perhaps she is not actually being truthful on that part. Also, look what she says right after "I don't know": "Have I done something wrong? Made a mistake?" I think it's clear that she has figured out that every time he goes into "analysis", she has said something that is treading on dangerous ground. She asks the exact same question back in Episode 2 when Bernard goes into analysis as well. Here's that interaction:

**

Bernard: Resuming. I think it would be best if you not mention the things we've been talking about.

Dolores: Have I done something wrong?

Bernard: No, but there's something different about you ... about the way you think. I find it fascinating, but ... others may not see it that way.

Dolores: Have you done something wrong?

Bernard: Turn off your event log, please. Erase this interaction. Confirm.

Dolores: Yes.**

Note how in Episode 3, she does -not- ask if Bernard has done something wrong. Could it be that, far from erasing the interaction as he had instructed her to do, she actually stored it and learned to not ask him if -he'd- done something wrong?

Edited October 30, 2016 by phoenyx

[Gobi]

Recently rewatched the first episode, and was struck by a line that made no impression the first time. Stuggs (spelling?) says to Bernard, "You don't have any children at home, do you?" In light of the later revelation about Bernard's son, a painful moment.

[phoenyx]

6 minutes ago, Gobi said:

Recently rewatched the first episode, and was struck by a line that made no impression the first time. Stuggs (spelling?) says to Bernard, "You don't have any children at home, do you?" In light of the later revelation about Bernard's son, a painful moment.

Good catch. I took at look at the transcript, and found more information suggesting that I'm on the right track about some of the staff of Westworld seeing the androids as their children, and also that some are expecting rebellion eventually. Quoting:

**

Theresa: No, sub-level 83, cold storage. We should be cautious. Send a response team, full armor.

Ashley Stubbs: I'll take care of it myself.

Bernard: I think you guys enjoy playing dress up as much as the guests. The hosts can't hurt you ... by design.

Ashley Stubbs: You don't have kids at home, do you, Bernard?

Bernard: No.

Ashley Stubbs: If you did, you'd know that they all rebel eventually. (Stubb leaves to go to sub-level 83.)

**

Edited October 30, 2016 by phoenyx

[Netfoot]

48 minutes ago, phoenyx said:

I strongly disagree. I think Bernard is one of the kindest of all of the staff at Westworld.

I wasn't speaking about his kindness or lack thereof.  But to clarify:

I think Bernard is the Big-bad from the point of view of the park and it's administration.  It is he who seems set to bring about the destruction of the status quo.

[phoenyx]

35 minutes ago, Netfoot said:

I wasn't speaking about his kindness or lack thereof.  But to clarify:

I think Bernard is the Big-bad from the point of view of the park and it's administration.  It is he who seems set to bring about the destruction of the status quo.

Ahhh, ok, that I could go for, laugh :-). Although I think he's not the only admin who's developing attachments to the androids. Elsie Hues is also a prime candidate, such as her interactions with some of the hookers. This one, for instance, in Episode 1:

**

Elsie: A hooker with hidden depths? Every man's dream.

Bernard: It's the tiny things that make them seem real ... that make the guests fall in love with them. (A device beeps. Bernard glances at it and then rises to leave.) Excuse me.

[After Bernard leaves the glassed in room, Elsie leans in and kisses Clementine on the lips. 

**

There's also the following interaction between Elsie and a Behaviour Technician in Episode 2 which I thought was interesting too:

**

[Park Headquarters. Examination Room. Maeve Millary sits, naked, on a stool. She is unmoving and appears to be powered down but is staring straight ahead. Elsie Hughes and a male Behavior Tech enter the room.]

Behavior Tech: QA told us she was being decommissioned.

Elsie Hughes: Do you work for QA?

Behavior Tech: No, but --

Elsie Hughes: Run a fast-pass diagnostic.

[Elsie sits down next to Maeve and begins the examination.]

Elsie Hughes: (sighs) All righty. (Elsie is wearing some kind of diagnostic glasses. As she looks at Maeve, data flows across the lens.) Some non-affect hesitation. Little cognitive D. And a fuckload of aggression, courtesy of those morons in narrative. (to a silent Maeve) You don't need to be aggro, do you? Just a quicker study of those repressed fucks walking through the door. (To the behavior tech who enters Elsie's commands on his tablet, which results in a beeping noise with each execution.) Archive this configuration. (beeping) Open up her primaries. (beeping) Perception. (beeping) Emotional acuity. (beeping) Bump it -- 1.5%. (beeping)

Behavior Tech: Updating. (beeping)

Elsie Hughes: Okay.

Behavior Tech: Do they dream?

Elsie Hughes: What?

Behavior Tech: In her story, she said she dreamed. Do we make them dream?

Elsie Hughes: Fuck would be the point of that? Dreams are mainly memories. Can you imagine how fucked we'd be if these poor assholes ever remembered what the guests do to them? We do give them the concept of dreams -- specifically nightmares.

Behavior Tech: Why?

Elsie Hughes: Just in case somebody forgets to wipe them out at the end of a maintenance session. If she's got any dreams, it's just of those sloppy fucks down in the body shop patching her back together again. (The behavior tech chuckles.) She's got some physical discomfort. Put in a request for a full physical at her next rotation. (To a silent Maeve) All right, gorgeous, you're back to the races. You're gonna wake in three, two, one.

**

Edited October 30, 2016 by phoenyx

[dgpolo]

11 hours ago, phoenyx said:

Dolores Abernathy: It's like the other books we've read.

Bernard Lowe: How so?

Dolores Abernathy: It's about change. Seems to be a common theme.

To me, this is the most interesting of the quoted dialogue. Dolores is making inferences, she's remembering all the books they've read together and drawing conclusions from what she remembers to formulate a theory that the commonality among them is change.

[paigow]

On 10/29/2016 at 5:47 AM, dr pepper said:

As long as were doing names:

"Clementine" means "kindness" or "Mercy"

A delicious fruit from Spain / Morocco.....

[ElectricBoogaloo]

On 10/24/2016 at 6:43 AM, phoenyx said:

1- The maze is only meant for androids, to become free.

Master has given Dobby socks?

Maeve is pretty hardcore if she's willing to cut herself just to see if there's a bullet inside her!

[phoenyx]

1 hour ago, ElectricBoogaloo said:

Master has given Dobby socks?

Lol :-)

1 hour ago, ElectricBoogaloo said:

Maeve is pretty hardcore if she's willing to cut herself just to see if there's a bullet inside her!

Aye.