S01.E04: Dissonance Theory

[okerry]

6 hours ago, ElectricBoogaloo said:

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!

I thought of Dobby, too, what with the hosts not be allowed clothes when down below. Forced nakedness has long been a symbol of slavery, with clothes representing freedom.

[blackrose602]

On 10/29/2016 at 5:28 AM, 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.

Thank you for this. I just binge watched the show, from what is likely a fairly rare perspective. I'm a director currently in development on an interactive theater experience that happens to be set in a historical period. Obviously mine uses actors rather than androids, and there is no rape or murder. And it lasts for 2 hours, not 2 weeks. But still, the way this show portrays players is frankly frightening, not to mention depressing. And it makes me extremely glad that we're erring on the side of extreme caution in how we present race relations, gender dynamics and all of the other complications that arise when people are invited to play in a historical world. Our actors are quite human, and I want to do everything I can to protect them from players who want to indulge their based instincts, or even just get caught up in the world we are creating.

But your post gives me hope that the majority of players will respect the game, play within the structure and storylines we give them, and have a good time. That said, I did play black hat on the last night of the last interactive experience that was here, and we have some rich content for those players as well. It just keeps things within reasonable bounds.

[LucyHoneychrrch]

  On 10/30/2016 at 7:48 AM, 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?

I don't think Delores can lie, at least not at this point. I took her pause after Bernard asked her to stay on-loop as recognition of how absolutely brutal her storyline is, and the dichotomy of the way Bernard speaks to her versus this unending rape fantasy she's forced to live.
Bernard asks her to stay on-loop, and the pause is... maybe a little incredulous, a bit resentful. She's allowed to have these conversations, allowed to continue on this path of self-discovery; but not allowed to break out of what is essentially an unending nightmare.

[LeGrandElephant]

I think the guns must work just like the holodeck on star trek. If you toss something to someone they can catch it like a solid object but if you throw something dangerous at someone it goes right through them like a hologram. People can't get hurt in the holodeck, except in the frequent instances when the safety protocols fail to allow for a dramatic plot point. 

That is, I don't think the holodeck or the guns in this show make any logical sense - they are all plot-driven suspension of disbelief. Whether or not they ever explain how the guns' safety protocols work, I fully expect them to fail at some point for a dramatic plot point. 

In the first episode, we were speculating that the guns don't actually send out a projectile, but maybe some kind of infrared beam and then the robots are programmed to spew out blood as if they were shot. But since then, its become clear that there are actual bullets hitting robots and scenery, and no explanation of how they hit guests with a harmless bruise. I doubt they'll ever be able to give an explanation that makes sense, so they probably just won't ever give one. 

The thing about whether or not hosts are allowed to swat at / kill flies also seems kind of silly - you can easily brush a fly off of you without killing it. In fact its harder to kill one with a swat than not, since flies have pretty good reflexes. 

But, I am enjoying the show. I just think a few of these things are more like magic than technology that follows clear rules. I'll be impressed if they come up with a consistent explanation for how the guns and safety protocols work, but I'll still mostly enjoy the show if they don't. 

Edited March 9, 2017 by LeGrandElephant