S01.E05: Contrapasso

[phoenyx]

2 minutes ago, Netfoot said:

Continuity glitch.  Next!

You know, I think there's one thing we actually all agree on- in a way there are definitely 2 timelines- there is the present, and there is the past, as represented in all of the flashbacks. I think the most important thing, however, is what the flashbacks reveal about the present storyline.

[Cherpumple]

1 hour ago, SoothingDave said:

And why would he need to cut a host's scalp off to learn a clue about a maze, if he knew about the maze 30 years ago?

Just because Dolores may have told him about the existence of a maze 30 years ago, doesn't mean that he knew (or remembered) exactly what it looked like or where to find it. Their maze adventure could've been interrupted at any time. We just don't have enough information yet to know when the MiB learned about the maze. Also, I don't think the MiB's memories of Dolores or Lawrence, or anyone else for that matter, support the two timeline theory or are referencing William and Logan's storyline. The MiB has made it clear that in the past 30 years he's become familiar with all the storylines and interacted with several/most of the characters many many times. To me, his journey has been like the movie Groundhog Day- sometimes he's nice, sometimes he's nasty, and over the years he's tried all sorts of permutations to learn the secrets of the park. Ford picked up on his sense of urgency this time, I suppose we're now seeing his final attempt, when he has already learned (through lots of trial and error) where most of the pieces of the puzzle are. Who knows how many people he's scalped over the years to find the map?

11 minutes ago, Netfoot said:

Rather than someone disproving the multiple timeline theory, how about a proponent of that theory proving it?

Yes, please! At the risk of sounding stupid, I must admit that this idea would never have occurred to me in a million years if I hadn't started looking at these goshdarn forums. I'm genuinely curious as to what prompted this idea so quickly, and how many people thought of it independently, just from their own observations while viewing. As I noted several posts above, the logo thing puzzled me too, and I don't think it's an accident or mistake, but it's not enough to convince me.

[morgankobi]

5 minutes ago, okerry said:

Good catch, though I'm still not convinced that it means two timelines. If you Google "Disney corporate logo" you'll get a whole bunch that are similar, but with minor differences depending on what park it's for, which corporate department, etc. It could be nothing more than that: The logo at the main entrance, where Bill & Ted arrive, is for guests, while the one at the meeting later on is a corporate identifier for whatever department this is.

OH.My.Jeebus. How did I not see that before?!?!?

Bill S. Preston and "Ted" Theodore Logan!

My new favorite thing about this show :)

[SoothingDave]

1 minute ago, morgankobi said:

OH.My.Jeebus. How did I not see that before?!?!?

Bill S. Preston and "Ted" Theodore Logan!

My new favorite thing about this show :)

Bill S. Preston, Esq.

Is "Logan" really the character's last name?

[DarkRaichu]

16 minutes ago, morgankobi said:

If what we have seen up until now is used, the "glitch" at the end when the train car seems empty is the version that is the memory. Every flash of the "past" for Dolores before has been quick/short. To believe that from when she meets William at night in the woods up until the train car was shown as empty is a continuous, long memory instead of the present, (as opposed to the short flash we get of Dolores alone) would require us to disregard what they have shown so far with no reason to. It would be lazy writing, to me.

Actually, I thought that was a very creative choice and/or misdirection on the part of producer and/or director of the series to flip Dolores' glitches between ep 2 and 5

[morgankobi]

4 minutes ago, SoothingDave said:

Bill S. Preston, Esq.

Is "Logan" really the character's last name?

Crap. Sorry, Bill.

No, I think Logan is his first name, but still!

[DarkRaichu]

9 minutes ago, Netfoot said:

Continuity glitch.  Next!

Lol.  Too bad we do not have signature or tagline here on the forum, otherwise that definitely would be mine :D

[okerry]

9 minutes ago, morgankobi said:

Crap. Sorry, Bill.

No, I think Logan is his first name, but still!

Either way - Bill & Ted's real names are William S. Preston and Theodore Logan. 

Though the WW characters are actually modeled after the two played by Richard Benjamin and James Brolin (I think) in the 1973 movie. I'm wondering how many folks here have seen the original - it's much simpler than this show, of course, but still plenty of connections and would be of interest to anyone who likes this.

[Cherpumple]

27 minutes ago, morgankobi said:

OH.My.Jeebus. How did I not see that before?!?!?

Bill S. Preston and "Ted" Theodore Logan!

My new favorite thing about this show :)

PLEASE have them make some comment about how much they love riding their Wyld Stallyns! That would make my week!

[SoothingDave]

15 minutes ago, Cherpumple said:

PLEASE have them make some comment about how much they love riding their Wyld Stallyns! That would make my week!

Or say "something is afoot at the Circle K."

[Dobian]

When Ford was interviewing Dolores with her big hair strategically covering her, I couldn't help but think of Darryl Hannah in Splash.

 

[Ronin Jackson]

I was listening to a podcast where they mentioned Logan and William referencing the Arnold's death 30 years ago in the park in a conversation. I vaguely remember that but  wasn't keying in on it because I'm not really into the multiple timeline theory, but that should put a fork in the theory, shouldn't it?

[Cherpumple]

I rewatched that scene last night, and while the tone of the conversation is that they are referencing something that happened a while ago (Logan's details about Arnold and the start of the park are foggy), there's no specific mention of exactly how long ago it was.

[DarkRaichu]

1 hour ago, Ronin Jackson said:

I was listening to a podcast where they mentioned Logan and William referencing the Arnold's death 30 years ago in the park in a conversation. I vaguely remember that but  wasn't keying in on it because I'm not really into the multiple timeline theory, but that should put a fork in the theory, shouldn't it?

Logan said a few important things (based on the findings of his team of lawyers)
1. The park started with a partnership
2. One of the partner killed himself just before the park was opened
3. There was not even a picture of this partner

 

Based on those, the park had been opened for at least 34 years by the time Ford interviewed Dolores in ep5

 

 

Also, those indirectly fueled a theory I posted on 1st page:

On 10/30/2016 at 11:42 PM, DarkRaichu said:

2. What if Ford was the first robot that Arnold created?  Arnold gave Ford "conscience", yet what Ford wanted was rule and order.  Perhaps order was what Arnold originally wanted the park to be.  Arnold changed his mind and fell in love with his creation (ie went mad), so Ford had to kill him to keep the mission "pure".  Thus the tragedy of a robot that think he was human and human who was killed by his "perfect" creation.

 

The one caveat was the picture.  Ford showed a picture of younger him and a man to Bernard in ep2.  Either Ford showed a doctored picture or Logan's lawyers were not very thorough... You decide :P

Edited November 2, 2016 by DarkRaichu
clarification

[Goatherd]

2 hours ago, Netfoot said:

Rather than someone disproving the multiple timeline theory, how about a proponent of that theory proving it?

To me, the very unprovability is what makes this intriguing (and fun!). When I first read the two-timeline theory I thought it was ridiculous, and so I watched back through the episodes in an attempt to prove it wrong. What amazed me was that I couldn't! We never see William with known cast changes (Maeve, Bartender, Abernathy), or sharing a scene with any guests who also share scenes with MiB. The things William encounters (storyline opportunities, Wanted posters) are different enough to be potential clues, but not enough to prove anything.

Both theories have things they have to explain away, whether through "continuity glitch" or "clever misleading editing."

So even though Ford warned me not to, I attempt to apply Occam's razor. Do I think it's more likely the show creators made mistakes (logo) and re-used sets (William's entrance vs. cold storage)? Or do I think it's more likely that Nolan is a clever and crafty guy who messes with timelines and audience perception by implying causality that's never stated outright? I really don't know, but I love that this show has me questioning it enough to re-watch scenes in slow-mo!

phoenyx makes a great point -- we know we're at least seeing more than one clear, simple timeline, with all the flashes and memories (whether real or implanted). I'm curious what the "one timeline" people think happened when Dolores ran away, if that only happened once. Did she see or not-see the girl at the well? In other places, when she "double-sees" something (e.g. two different faces on her father's dead body, or she gets shot/not-shot), we take it to mean that scene has happened to her multiple times. But those who believe she's run away only once must think it's different here -- right? She only visits that well one time? If so, why does she linger and stare at it in the same way she stares at things when she's remembering seeing them previously?

(I'm really not trying to be argumentative. The one thing I believe strongly is that the show creators intend for us to be asking questions and feeling uncertain. I think it's not at all an accident that we can't really prove any of these theories...yet.)

[DarkRaichu]

5 minutes ago, Goatherd said:

Or do I think it's more likely that Nolan is a clever and crafty guy who messes with timelines and audience perception by implying causality that's never stated outright?

All I know is Nolan was crafty enough to use flashbacks in his previous series (Person of Interest) to create engaging backstories and motivations for his main characters.  YMMV ;)

[arc]

22 minutes ago, DarkRaichu said:

Logan said a few important things (based on the findings of his team of lawyers)
1. The park started with a partnership
2. One of the partner killed himself just before the park was opened
3. There was not even a picture of this partner

Based on those, the park had been opened for at least 34 years by the time Ford interviewed Dolores in ep5

I agree with points 1-3, but even as a single-timeliner, none of those establish that Logan and William (and this is William's first visit) are visiting 34 years before the park opened. The writers were cagey in Logan's dialogue, expositing the hell out of what he knew about the Arnold situation yet leaving the precise number of years unclear, while being clear with it in other threads.

[Gobi]

Relying on Logan is questionable. I believe that he qualified what he said, such as "I think he committed suicide" and "I hear they're hemorrhaging money". I'm going to watch again to check on that. If so, Logan has heard rumors and such, but has no direct  or precise knowledge about Westworld.

[DarkRaichu]

8 minutes ago, arc said:

I agree with points 1-3, but even as a single-timeliner, none of those establish that Logan and William (and this is William's first visit) are visiting 34 years before the park opened. The writers were cagey in Logan's dialogue, expositing the hell out of what he knew about the Arnold situation yet leaving the precise number of years unclear, while being clear with it in other threads.

No, I simply clarified what Ronin Jackson might be referring to.  To me, the definitive conclusion was the park has been operational for about 34 years (Assuming, of course, what Logan meant by "just before" was less than or equal to 7 months + whatever days from the timing of Arnold's death per Dolores) 

Also, Logan and William definitely visited the park after it had been opened for a while.  Whether the visit was 30 years ago or today that was up to which theory you subscribe to.

Edited November 2, 2016 by DarkRaichu

[Dobian]

My guess is that the dead partner (Arnold) is actually the human Ford, and Ford as we know him on the show is the android Arnold created.  It would explain Ford's condescending superiority to robots.  He thinks of himself as human and their master, but their existence is a reminder to him of what he is.  I think Ford from the show might have murdered human Ford (Arnold).

Edited November 2, 2016 by Dobian

[izabella]

We saw young Anthony Hopkins flashback, so Ford does age, which seems definitive that he is not a robot.

[Dobian]

1 minute ago, izabella said:

We saw young Anthony Hopkins flashback, so Ford does age, which seems definitive that he is not a robot.

The appearance of these robots can be changed.  You can just change the skin to produce aging.  It's not out of the question that Ford altered his appearance over the years.

[izabella]

8 minutes ago, Dobian said:

The appearance of these robots can be changed.  You can just change the skin to produce aging.  It's not out of the question that Ford altered his appearance over the years.

That's a bridge too far for me to cross just to make it fit a theory that's not supported otherwise.  He has also aged in terms of weight, so unless he's fattening himself up, too, I'm not buying it.  YMMV.

Edited November 2, 2016 by izabella

[Ottis]

Quote

There was a scene with Ford and Bernard where Ford mentioned how the hosts kept talking to each other, even when no guests were around.  So they do it, and the people running the park, or at least Ford, can tell they are doing it

Yes, I agree they do it, and those who run the park can see it, what I am asking is, why? Whatever the total numbers are of hosts/guests, we can see from the episodes so far that rarely do there seem to be many guests in the same place (the transport train excepted, and maybe a handful of flashpoints like the orgy).

Meanwhile, there are hosts spread out everywhere, in places where maybe only one guest is (or none). There must be many occasions when no guest arrives for quite a while. When that happens, why should the hosts expend energy/resources doing *anything*? Especially conversations among themselves that have no relevance to programmed androids. The most that would make sense would be for them to repeat phrases in their programming, or "freeze" perhaps. If a guest then comes close, it would be easy enough to start up again to preserve the illusion.

The only reason I can see for this TV show to show us hosts talking among themselves, with no guests present, is to humanize them for the viewers, which in turn supports the overall message and conflict of the TV series. It just seems contrived IMO.

Edited November 2, 2016 by Ottis

[Goatherd]

6 minutes ago, izabella said:

He has also aged in terms of weight, so unless he's fattening himself up, too, I'm not buying it.

Lol. The least profitable venture attempted with this technology yet -- "Make yourself look older and fatter!" No wonder the park is losing money.

But in all seriousness, I do wonder if Ford is telling us the whole story. I strongly believe both Ford and Arnold are/were humans. I also don't see any evidence that they'd figured out a way to "upload their consciousness" into an android. 

But is there some chance that Ford "switched places" with his dead partner? Could this be Arnold, and Ford is the one that died? So far I haven't seen any reason for this -- it's not like we've heard of some awful legacy that Arnold needed to escape by pretending to be Ford. My only reason for even a tiny suspicion is that there must be some (plot-based) reason for this "not even a picture" lack of historical evidence of Arnold.

[SoothingDave]

43 minutes ago, Goatherd said:

To me, the very unprovability is what makes this intriguing (and fun!). When I first read the two-timeline theory I thought it was ridiculous, and so I watched back through the episodes in an attempt to prove it wrong. What amazed me was that I couldn't! We never see William with known cast changes (Maeve, Bartender, Abernathy), or sharing a scene with any guests who also share scenes with MiB. The things William encounters (storyline opportunities, Wanted posters) are different enough to be potential clues, but not enough to prove anything.

Both theories have things they have to explain away, whether through "continuity glitch" or "clever misleading editing."

So even though Ford warned me not to, I attempt to apply Occam's razor. Do I think it's more likely the show creators made mistakes (logo) and re-used sets (William's entrance vs. cold storage)? Or do I think it's more likely that Nolan is a clever and crafty guy who messes with timelines and audience perception by implying causality that's never stated outright? I really don't know, but I love that this show has me questioning it enough to re-watch scenes in slow-mo!

phoenyx makes a great point -- we know we're at least seeing more than one clear, simple timeline, with all the flashes and memories (whether real or implanted). I'm curious what the "one timeline" people think happened when Dolores ran away, if that only happened once. Did she see or not-see the girl at the well? In other places, when she "double-sees" something (e.g. two different faces on her father's dead body, or she gets shot/not-shot), we take it to mean that scene has happened to her multiple times. But those who believe she's run away only once must think it's different here -- right? She only visits that well one time? If so, why does she linger and stare at it in the same way she stares at things when she's remembering seeing them previously?

(I'm really not trying to be argumentative. The one thing I believe strongly is that the show creators intend for us to be asking questions and feeling uncertain. I think it's not at all an accident that we can't really prove any of these theories...yet.)

I believe Delores and the others have run through their loops multiple times and that is what her "flashbacks" represent.  Different outcomes form different iterations.  

You can say the same about MiB, who is obviously playing like a video game.  He knows what is going to happen and, for example, how many bullets he will need, because he's come this way before.  He is even impatient with the idea of riding with the gang to free Hector and wants to use his pyrotechnic privileges to move along faster.

But I don't see why I'm supposed to believe William grows up to become MiB or that these events are decades apart.  

I'm open to being wrong, but I doubt it right now.

[ennui]

3 minutes ago, Ottis said:

Whatever the total numbers are of hosts/guests, we can see from the episodes so far that rarely do there seem to be many guests in the same place (the transport train excepted, and maybe a handful of flashpoints like the orgy).

I think that was a guest at the farmhouse. Logan tried to shoot him but his gun wouldn't fire. And then he took the other gun and called it an upgrade. 

The androids and guests are indistinguishable, so we really have no idea.

[Gobi]

5 minutes ago, Goatherd said:

Lol. The least profitable venture attempted with this technology yet -- "Make yourself look older and fatter!" No wonder the park is losing money.

But in all seriousness, I do wonder if Ford is telling us the whole story. I strongly believe both Ford and Arnold are/were humans. I also don't see any evidence that they'd figured out a way to "upload their consciousness" into an android. 

But is there some chance that Ford "switched places" with his dead partner? Could this be Arnold, and Ford is the one that died? So far I haven't seen any reason for this -- it's not like we've heard of some awful legacy that Arnold needed to escape by pretending to be Ford. My only reason for even a tiny suspicion is that there must be some (plot-based) reason for this "not even a picture" lack of historical evidence of Arnold.

Just brainstorming here, but suppose Arnold was killed by a host and, in fact, is the only person ever to die (or at least to be killed) in Westworld? That would  explain the suicide story and the reason to erase all mention of  him.

Edited November 2, 2016 by Gobi

[Cherpumple]

7 minutes ago, Ottis said:

Meanwhile, there are hosts spread out everywhere, in places where maybe only one guest is (or none). There must be many occasions when no guest arrives for quite a while. When that happens, why should the hosts expend energy/resources doing *anything*?

Bernard (I think) explained that the point of having the hosts talk to each other when guests aren't around is that it improves their human qualities and keeps them from getting rusty in terms of their mannerisms and speech patterns. They have some ability to improvise, so this doesn't seem too implausible to me. Anyway, that is the explicit reason given in the show, but YMMV as to how logical it is.

[Dobian]

42 minutes ago, Goatherd said:

Lol. The least profitable venture attempted with this technology yet -- "Make yourself look older and fatter!" No wonder the park is losing money.

But in all seriousness, I do wonder if Ford is telling us the whole story. I strongly believe both Ford and Arnold are/were humans. I also don't see any evidence that they'd figured out a way to "upload their consciousness" into an android. 

But is there some chance that Ford "switched places" with his dead partner? Could this be Arnold, and Ford is the one that died? So far I haven't seen any reason for this -- it's not like we've heard of some awful legacy that Arnold needed to escape by pretending to be Ford. My only reason for even a tiny suspicion is that there must be some (plot-based) reason for this "not even a picture" lack of historical evidence of Arnold.

Well, the ability to age an android or upload consciousness isn't really that far-fetched on a show that is already establishing that robots are both sentient and self-aware, and where robots can be physically mutilated both cosmetically and internally by gunfire, etc., and be repaired and rolled back out in 24 hours.  Really, shows of this sort have pushed the envelope on the believability scale much more than this (see Lost).  If current Ford is really an android, it doesn't necessarily mean he has Arnold's conscience, and I would say that he doesn't.  He's only physically impersonating Arnold but has his own mind and his own agenda and objectives.  Which is why he might have murdered Arnold in the first place.  But it's all just speculation.

Edit: If this Ford-as-Robot theory holds any water, I should amend what I said to say that he's not impersonating Arnold, he's just being Ford.  But I would speculate that no one ever saw Arnold, who was the real creator of this park, and Ford was just his creation to handle the hands-on building and maintenance of the park.  Maybe he did create Ford in his own image, like God.  I think it's going to be a long time before the mystery of Ford and Arnold gets resolved.

Edited November 2, 2016 by Dobian

[Goatherd]

Okay, so I do have *one* reason to wonder if Ford = Arnold in some way. When I heard this dialog, I heard a different meaning:

Ford (to Dolores): Do you remember the man I used to be? But I'm sure you remember him. Arnold."

The reading of this line depends entirely on the meaning of "him." Did Ford use "him" to refer again to "the man I used to be"? Or was he adding a new person to his question to Dolores? 

When I heard that, I thought "omg he just confessed to being Arnold!!" Then I turned on captions, where they had italicized "him," and I realized the other possible reading of that line. I think Anthony Hopkins used just enough emphasis on the word to make it possible he's shifting to a new topic (Arnold), but not enough to make me certain he's not still talking about himself (the man I used to be).

[Goatherd]

For those still curious about the two logos, I recommend the YouTube video "Westworld's multiple timeline theory." This points out that the "old" logo appears in flashbacks when Ford describes the early days of the park and in the "no longer in use" cold storage area, as well as during William's arrival. The "new" logo appears in Sizemore's presentation, and also on level 25 (when Ford is about to take an elevator up to the surface).

[feverfew]

2 hours ago, Goatherd said:

phoenyx makes a great point -- we know we're at least seeing more than one clear, simple timeline, with all the flashes and memories (whether real or implanted). I'm curious what the "one timeline" people think happened when Dolores ran away, if that only happened once. Did she see or not-see the girl at the well? In other places, when she "double-sees" something (e.g. two different faces on her father's dead body, or she gets shot/not-shot), we take it to mean that scene has happened to her multiple times. But those who believe she's run away only once must think it's different here -- right? She only visits that well one time? If so, why does she linger and stare at it in the same way she stares at things when she's remembering seeing them previously?

I do believe there's two timelines in the sense that the well, the church and the dead bodies in the street are memories - but they are memories from when Arnold died. Once there was an uprising where Dolores quite obviously played a big part; she might or she might not have deviated from her loop back then, but it was on Arnold's (Voice of God) prompting. Her glitching/memories is the ghost of Arnold (ghost in the machine? Heh.) rattling around in her brain. In this scenario William and the MIB are contemporary, but we get - through Dolores' memories - flashes of the past. I think.

The girl at the well; the things she tells Dolores - those are manifestations of what Arnold is trying to tell/show her.

59 minutes ago, Gobi said:

Just brainstorming here, but suppose Arnold was killed by a host and, in fact, is the only person ever to die (or at least to be killed) in Westworld? That would  explain the suicide story and the reason to erase all mention of  him.

And it goes well with the MIB saying that Arnold was the only one to figure out how to die (episode 1). Who do you think killed him? Himself, through robot-suicide? Dolores? Random host? Ford? (I'm partial to that since we know he can control the robots through mere hand gestures and it would sort of tie in with the whole Cain and Abel-Paradise-scheme: Once there were two brothers...)

[numbnut]

Quote

1 hour ago, Gobi said:

Just brainstorming here, but suppose Arnold was killed by a host and, in fact, is the only person ever to die (or at least to be killed) in Westworld? That would  explain the suicide story and the reason to erase all mention of  him.

Quote

And it goes well with the MIB saying that Arnold was the only one to figure out how to die (episode 1). Who do you think killed him? Himself, through robot-suicide? Dolores? Random host? Ford? (I'm partial to that since we know he can control the robots through mere hand gestures and it would sort of tie in with the whole Cain and Abel-Paradise-scheme: Once there were two brothers...)

It nags me when the MiB says Arnold broke the rules by dying because it's not impossible for humans to die in the park accidentally or by suicide. (A park rule about not getting murdered would make more sense.) Was Arnold never human? Did Ford cocreate the park with an AI partner named Arnold? Is that why there are no pictures for lawyers to find? Did Ford try to kill an AI Arnold before Arnold could rally his fellow robots? The maze looks like a man in the center of a brain, so has Arnold been hiding in the brain of each robot? Sorry if someone already asked and answered this on another thread. I'm just thinking out loud.

Edited November 2, 2016 by numbnut

[arc]

We the viewers saw the photo of Arnold and Ford that Bernard saw. Presumably Logan meant there were no publicly available photos.

[numbnut]

4 minutes ago, arc said:

We the viewers saw the photo of Arnold and Ford that Bernard saw. Presumably Logan meant there were no publicly available photos.

I'm wondering if the photo was of Ford and a robot named Arnold.

[Gobi]

9 minutes ago, numbnut said:

It nags me when the MiB says Arnold broke the rules by dying because it's not impossible for humans to die in the park accidentally or by suicide. (A park rule about not getting murdered would make more sense.) Was Arnold never human? Did Ford cocreate the park with an AI partner named Arnold? Is that why there are no pictures for lawyers to find? Did Ford try to kill an AI Arnold before Arnold could rally his fellow robots? The maze looks like a man in the center of a brain, so has Arnold been hiding in the brain of each robot? Sorry if someone already asked and answered this on another thread. I'm just thinking out loud.

I think that what TMIB meant was that a guest couldn't die at the hands of a host.

[Quilt Fairy]

4 hours ago, DarkRaichu said:

The one caveat was the picture.  Ford showed a picture of younger him and a man to Bernard in ep2.  Either Ford showed a doctored picture or Logan's lawyers were not very thorough... You decide :P

When Ford was interviewing Delores he made a very interesting statement. She asked if they were old friends, and he said no, not friends, but then he asked "Do you remember the man I was?" Within the context of this show, that could mean many different things, up to the idea that he actually was a different man.

[numbnut]

44 minutes ago, Gobi said:

55 minutes ago, numbnut said:

It nags me when the MiB says Arnold broke the rules by dying because it's not impossible for humans to die in the park accidentally or by suicide. (A park rule about not getting murdered would make more sense.) Was Arnold never human? Did Ford cocreate the park with an AI partner named Arnold? Is that why there are no pictures for lawyers to find? Did Ford try to kill an AI Arnold before Arnold could rally his fellow robots? The maze looks like a man in the center of a brain, so has Arnold been hiding in the brain of each robot? Sorry if someone already asked and answered this on another thread. I'm just thinking out loud.

I think that what TMIB meant was that a guest couldn't die at the hands of a host.

Thanks for clarifying, though I'm still intrigued by the Arnold is AI idea.

[Gobi]

14 minutes ago, numbnut said:

Thanks for clarifying, though I'm still intrigued by the Arnold is AI idea.

The hosts are still talking to and, maybe, listening to Arnold, so it's quite possible that he survived somehow in their programming.

[dmc]

Ok I watched it again and the MIB will says to the guy he's been dragging around that not a man in the world would talk to me the way you do at least not anymore...I guess he is William...and this is call back to his fight with Logan.  I missed this the first and second time around.  

Edited November 2, 2016 by dmc

[Cherpumple]

4 hours ago, Goatherd said:

For those still curious about the two logos, I recommend the YouTube video "Westworld's multiple timeline theory." This points out that the "old" logo appears in flashbacks when Ford describes the early days of the park and in the "no longer in use" cold storage area, as well as during William's arrival. The "new" logo appears in Sizemore's presentation, and also on level 25 (when Ford is about to take an elevator up to the surface).

Gah, you're right! The "old" logo appears on the lab coats of the original engineers. There's no way this is an accident or mistake by the production team, especially since this logo is shown so prominently during William's arrival. It might as well have a giant red arrow pointing to it. The video also mentioned that the font on the label of the can of milk that Dolores drops is different in the scene with William than in the scene with the MiB. However, the difference here is REALLY subtle and I doubt anyone could catch it during a normal viewing (you would need to pause or do a screen capture). I still don't like this theory, but I can't logically argue against the logo thing. As for the milk labels, that actually annoys me because if I need a magnifying glass and a constant finger on the pause button to determine which part of the timeline I'm watching, that's going to get annoying very quickly. That is NOT an enjoyable way to watch TV.

[Goatherd]

The "old" logo also appears on the wall of William's dressing room. The truly crazy thing about this is that there's a promotional still of William and the host in his dressing room...and the NEW logo is on that same wall.

As a crackpot theorist, I'm guessing they didn't want to make that hint too obvious by releasing it before the episode aired. 

[arc]

16 minutes ago, Cherpumple said:

As for the milk labels, that actually annoys me because if I need a magnifying glass and a constant finger on the pause button to determine which part of the timeline I'm watching, that's going to get annoying very quickly. That is NOT an enjoyable way to watch TV.

That's gotta be a continuity error.

Also also, and I know I already asked this in a different episode thread, why would a rancher family with a herd of cows be buying condensed milk?

[Cherpumple]

Now you're asking the real questions!

[Gobi]

2 minutes ago, arc said:

That's gotta be a continuity error.

Also also, and I know I already asked this in a different episode thread, why would a rancher family with a herd of cows be buying condensed milk?

They have steers for meat, not dairy cows. They aren't set up to process milk and  milk products.

[Goatherd]

3 minutes ago, arc said:

Also also, and I know I already asked this in a different episode thread, why would a rancher family with a herd of cows be buying condensed milk?

LOL!!! 

Though my favorite part of that can is that it's "Maiden Brand" -- perfect for our dear sweet Dolores.

[ennui]

18 minutes ago, arc said:

Also also, and I know I already asked this in a different episode thread, why would a rancher family with a herd of cows be buying condensed milk?

Maybe the developers haven't figured out how to build android cows that give milk. Maybe Dolores was going to make caramel sauce (boil the can for three hours).

[arc]

16 minutes ago, Gobi said:

They have steers for meat, not dairy cows. They aren't set up to process milk and  milk products.

I'm a simple city boy. =) I honestly assumed ranchers had both kinds of cows.

[okerry]

10 minutes ago, arc said:

I'm a simple city boy. =) I honestly assumed ranchers had both kinds of cows.

Nope - with few exceptions, beef and dairy are two entirely different kinds of cows, and the Abernathy ranch had beef cattle. And in any case - they're robot animals, anyway, and the can of condensed milk (often used for cooking and baking in that time period) is just a prop!