S01.E05: Contrapasso

[Quilt Fairy]

But it's perfectly reasonable that a cattle ranch in the 1870's would have had a few dairy cows for milk as well as chickens and a vegetable garden.  It would need to be self-sufficient. Delores' loop may have her riding into town every day, but that's only to get her interacting with the guests (and meeting Teddy). The milk mystery came up heavily in the first 2 episodes, but not at all since then.  It appears to be symbolic of the way the hosts are created, and I hope that it will be resolved by the end of the season. And hey, the hosts have robot blood, maybe the robot cows give robot milk. 

[arc]

oh yeah, Rebus found milk at the ranch! I'd forgotten about that.

[SoothingDave]

The logo thing is intriguing, and I hadn't seen any mention of it until yesterday.  

Then again, we see Dolores having a history with MiB in the barn before she flees and ends up at William and Logan's camp.  If that's a misdirection, I'd be disappointed.  That she leaves the farm on horseback 30 years after she showed up at the camp.

What are we to make of Dolores hallucinating? remembering? pulling a string from her arm?  Like Elsie found in the woodcutter who had a satellite uplink transmitter in his arm.  Was/is Dolores implanted as well?  By whom for what?

(Anyone noted that "Dolores" refers to "sorrow"?  Which matches being the damsel who get attacked every day for sure.)

This show reminds me of Carnivale, in that there is so much going on and so many theories about what it all means.  I'm enjoying the ride and hope it ends up somewhere.  I hate it when writers don't have a plan.

[Macbeth]

This has probably been mentioned before - but I really like that Ford was wearing a black hat when he had his sit down with the MIB.  MIB's black was faded and well worn - while Ford's was brand spanking new. 

Who's the real villain here?

[dr pepper]

Ok, here's some evidence again Logan and William being in a former time period:

Ford refers to the common lament of the creative: "bringing in the money men", which compromises the purity of the vision. But that's about investors.

That's different from "they say this place is hemorrhaging money, so we're thinking of buying it." That's about a takeover, which is not the same thing.

[paigow]

MiB knows what the real Arnold looked and acted like. Therefore, Ford cannot be Arnold or carrying his personality. Otherwise, MiB would explain this to every host that he meets.

[DarkRaichu]

11 minutes ago, paigow said:

MiB knows what the real Arnold looked and acted like. Therefore, Ford cannot be Arnold or carrying his personality. Otherwise, MiB would explain this to every host that he meets.

I must have missed that.  When did MiB say he knew what Arnold was like?

[NutMeg]

I'm fascinated by this series and by this thread. However, by the time I have finished reading all the posts - TWOP having drilled into my brain that posting without reading is a big no-no, which is totally fair, as otherwise we'd have had tons of "Oh, no, they killed Teddy... again! for all the previous episodes - it seems to me that the (very interesting) theories about whether there is one or two (or, heck, more) timelines, are dominating the thread. All the discussion about that is very cool, but I'm wondering if it shouldn't be on a separate thread. To be fair, I'd like this one to be more about *the episode* itself, and there is plenty to discuss!, and less about speculation about timelines, which should have its own thread.

This kind of discussion where a speculation takes over the thread actually soured my experience with Mr. Robot Season 1, because posters rightly guessed something that I would never have seen coming! (Off Topic, I still havent started watching season 2, but will, someday).    

[paigow]

15 minutes ago, DarkRaichu said:

I must have missed that.  When did MiB say he knew what Arnold was like?

He knows / thinks the maze is Arnold's final quest / level. The things he said to Ford about Arnold was consistent with what Ford explained to Bernard.

[BooBear]

1 hour ago, SoothingDave said:

The logo thing is intriguing, and I hadn't seen any mention of it until yesterday.  

Then again, we see Dolores having a history with MiB in the barn before she flees and ends up at William and Logan's camp.  If that's a misdirection, I'd be disappointed.  That she leaves the farm on horseback 30 years after she showed up at the camp.

Starting to wonder if what we see of Delores is not her slipping between memories.  So right now we are seeing her with William and it appears it is current but it all happened long ago.  Last episode we saw her having some sort of flashback where she seemed to be on the ground at the ranch and the Westworld crew was cleaning her up - then she fell back into Willam's arms.  For all we know she could be unconscious (robot sleep mode) at the ranch after being shot, still where she is remembering William and Logan's adventure.   But the real William and Logan were there 30 years ago.

[DarkRaichu]

14 minutes ago, paigow said:

He knows / thinks the maze is Arnold's final quest / level. The things he said to Ford about Arnold was consistent with what Ford explained to Bernard.

I got the impression that MiB only knew of Arnold and his works.  I did not remember any indication that MiB knew Arnold personally or if he ever met Arnold at all.

[sneakyflute]

It's possible that William's scenes take place just a few years prior and that he may not even be the MiB, but it's hard to discount the idea that they're conflating two timelines at this point.

Episode 3 - wakes up with a gun at her side, the camera slowly pans, and William seemingly pops into frame out of nowhere.

Episode 4 - has flashbacks during an encounter with the girl at the fountain and what immediately follows is the scene of her being accosted by an employee dressed as a cowboy. We're intentionally misled here because we see two present-day employees flagging her rogue behavior. However, I am convinced that this exchange is what allows Ford to intercept Dolores later on at the parade.

The subtle editing of some of these shots and the vestiges of herself that Dolores is seeing suggest that she's retracing her steps from her journey with William.

[feverfew]

43 minutes ago, NutMeg said:

I'm fascinated by this series and by this thread. However, by the time I have finished reading all the posts - TWOP having drilled into my brain that posting without reading is a big no-no, which is totally fair, as otherwise we'd have had tons of "Oh, no, they killed Teddy... again! for all the previous episodes - it seems to me that the (very interesting) theories about whether there is one or two (or, heck, more) timelines, are dominating the thread. All the discussion about that is very cool, but I'm wondering if it shouldn't be on a separate thread. To be fair, I'd like this one to be more about *the episode* itself, and there is plenty to discuss!, and less about speculation about timelines, which should have its own thread.

This kind of discussion where a speculation takes over the thread actually soured my experience with Mr. Robot Season 1, because posters rightly guessed something that I would never have seen coming! (Off Topic, I still havent started watching season 2, but will, someday).    

There is already three threads for speculation ("Questions and Speculations", "Conspiracy Theories: What Lies At The Heart Of Westworld?" and "Subtle clues or farfetched theories") but all of them includes spoilers and this is one show where I do not want to know stuff beforehand. Maybe we could clean up a bit in the threads and create a thread for non-spoilery theories? Mods? 

Because you're right; the two timeline-theory do take up a lot of space on the episode threads. We haven't even talked that much about Maeve and Felix and what that means yet! ;)

[SoothingDave]

When Dolores is with William in Pariah, she sees the little girl at the fountain.  The girl says "don't you remember?"  The Church is now where they have orgies.  

It seems that whatever event happened (robot uprising?) was before her time with William.  

[Madding crowd]

I haven't decided if I like this show or not. I am generally bored by Westerns and find myself drifting during the many scenes of guys riding around on horses. My real interest is to see the story of the guests and how they interact with the Hosts. As the Hosts become more and more aware, how will this change the guest experience? So far, the only guests we are seeing real stories from is Logan, William and MIB. And I hope this is not two different timelines because then we are only following MIB's story. I would like to see if Logan and William eventually trade places with their hats (metaphorically). I could do with less of Anthony Hopkins.

The orgy scene didn't bother me because I was sure there would be such a place in this park. However, I tend to think the kind of people who need to have sex with robots would not have perfect bodies and would not want other guests to see them having sex for that reason. Of course some people are/would be fine with having sex openly in front of crowds, but I don't think they would necessarily be the same people who want various wild west adventures. 

I actually hope the story becomes simpler not more complex. The Sci-fi aspects of shows always take second place to character development for me. 

Edited November 3, 2016 by Madding crowd

[jeansheridan]

On 11/2/2016 at 5:43 AM, CrashTextDummie said:

One important clue we've seen is that Dolores is completely clothed in her interviews with Bernard (aka real Arnold in theory). I'm pretty sure this was the only time we've seen a host that wasn't naked in a backstage scene. That in itself suggests to me that the scenes between Bernard and Dolores are happening at a different point in time, when the park was under a different regime. It matches up with what we know about Arnold and Ford that Arnold would allow for modesty for his creations, and that Ford would ban clothes for hosts after Arnold's death.

I always took Bernard and Dolores' s interviews as being now.  How do you explain his phone call home or memories of his dead son?  Or are those implants?  Because Bernard is the only human shown to have flashbacks. Could all the workers be androids?  Unlikely.  Do androids pee?  We see them drink.   I have only seen Bernard drink.  

I figured Bernard allowed the dress for both speed and perhaps his own modesty. He needs to get Dolores back quickly before anyone sees her missing.

  Makes me wonder about the tunnels under the park. How far are the distances?  Seemed like those two tech workers were hiking for a long time in Stray.  

[numbnut]

6 hours ago, SoothingDave said:

What are we to make of Dolores hallucinating? remembering? pulling a string from her arm?  Like Elsie found in the woodcutter who had a satellite uplink transmitter in his arm.  Was/is Dolores implanted as well?  By whom for what?

I didn't see the arm thread as another transmitter. I think the "unraveling" moment was one step toward Dolores realizing that she's not human (after smaller clues given by the guests' comments).

[BooBear]

1 hour ago, jeansheridan said:

I always took Bernard and Dolores' s interviews as being now.  How do you explain his phone call home or memories of his dead son?  Or are those implants?

I am not sure what it means but it also seems Bernard has a different dress thing going on in the conversations with Dolores. His "work" uniform with Elise is more of a finer tailored fashion sweater but with Dolores he seems more disheveled cardigan and it doesn't seem like the same wardrobe.  But similar.

[ennui]

2 hours ago, Madding crowd said:

I actually hope the story becomes simpler not more complex.

Me, too. If I get too confused, I'll stop watching.

[ahpny]

I understand this is science fiction and a certain suspension of belief is inexorably woven into the story. But, I’m still finding one aspect hard to accept. The hosts are too human-like. They eat, drink, bleed, have sex and display emotions indistinguishable from guests. I find this too incredible, and that’s distracting me.

Westworld doesn’t appear to be set that far in the future from now, but we are very far from being able to construct anything remotely like a host. And it is an immensely more complicated problem just to hold a true conversation with realistic emotions, than to pour wine into a cup. Robots can pour wine into a cup now. But passing as person (e.g. the Turing Test), that’s much harder. Yet we’re told the hosts achieved that the year after the park opened. In real life, we’re at least decades away from fully self-driving cars. And driving a car is simple compared with having a host pass indistinguishably as a person.

Westworld’s hosts are also more advanced than androids in other science fictions series. The “synths” in Humans looked the part, but did not eat (though they could slyly swallow food collected in pouch to be disposed of later), could not process emotions realistically, and needed frequent recharging. They were also prone to glitches, and when “injured,” more credibly reacted like a broken machine than a dying person. Even Data in Star Trek couldn’t handle emotions. No one mistook him as human. More importantly, his 24 century human companions didn’t have a clue as to how he was made and never understood the workings of his “positronic brain.” (Only his dead “father” knew that). The androids in the Alien series were distinguishable from people with modest effort. The androids in A.I. could not eat. But the hosts here seem to be able to do almost everything a person can do.

I’m not sure why the writers pushed the technology issues as far as they have. Maybe that answer lies at the center of the maze too.

[driedfruit]

On 11/1/2016 at 11:47 AM, jeansheridan said:

I don't mind the anachronisms.  I think any distant recreation of another time period would have mistakes.  It is like our films of ancient Rome.  We just have no real idea.  It is all a guess.  So mistakes are made.  Or else the writers of the park don't care.  Gold painted women?  Why not? Black sheriff?  Sure.  Small British child wandering around?  Okay.  We really don't know how far into the future this show goes.  The tech in the lab seems close enough to our time.  The clothing is close enough too.  People wear glasses.  It all feels near future.

I don't mind the anachronisms either, but I don't think they're mistakes so much as the kind of liberties contemporary historical romance/adventure writers take to enhance the story for their audiences pleasure. If it had been a very strict recreation to the West we know, I'd have a harder time accepting it tbh. 

[DarkRaichu]

18 minutes ago, ahpny said:

Westworld doesn’t appear to be set that far in the future from now, but we are very far from being able to construct anything remotely like a host. And it is an immensely more complicated problem just to hold a true conversation with realistic emotions, than to pour wine into a cup. Robots can pour wine into a cup now. But passing as person (e.g. the Turing Test), that’s much harder. Yet we’re told the hosts achieved that the year after the park opened. In real life, we’re at least decades away from fully self-driving cars. And driving a car is simple compared with having a host pass indistinguishably as a person.

According to Back to the Future movies, we should be driving flying cars by now.  ;)  It is part of suspension of disbelief.  A few things watchers just have to ignore / gloss over in order to enjoy the shows/movies.  Kind of like hyperdrive and lightsabers in Star Wars or warp speed in Star Trek or the technology behind Six Million Dollar Man

15 minutes ago, ahpny said:

Westworld’s hosts are also more advanced than androids in other science fictions series. The “synths” in Humans looked the part, but did not eat (though they could slyly swallow food collected in pouch to be disposed of later), could not process emotions realistically, and needed frequent recharging. They were also prone to glitches, and when “injured,” more credibly reacted like a broken machine than a dying person. Even Data in Star Trek couldn’t handle emotions. No one mistook him as human. More importantly, his 24 century human companions didn’t have a clue as to how he was made and never understood the workings of his “positronic brain.” (Only his dead “father” knew that). The androids in the Alien series were distinguishable from people with modest effort. The androids in A.I. could not eat. But the hosts here seem to be able to do almost everything a person can do.

I have not seen any Westworld host eat.  Drinking alcohol or milk, yes, but not eating.

[driedfruit]

41 minutes ago, ahpny said:

I understand this is science fiction and a certain suspension of belief is inexorably woven into the story. But, I’m still finding one aspect hard to accept. The hosts are too human-like. They eat, drink, bleed, have sex and display emotions indistinguishable from guests. I find this too incredible, and that’s distracting me.

Westworld doesn’t appear to be set that far in the future from now, but we are very far from being able to construct anything remotely like a host. And it is an immensely more complicated problem just to hold a true conversation with realistic emotions, than to pour wine into a cup. Robots can pour wine into a cup now. But passing as person (e.g. the Turing Test), that’s much harder. Yet we’re told the hosts achieved that the year after the park opened. In real life, we’re at least decades away from fully self-driving cars. And driving a car is simple compared with having a host pass indistinguishably as a person.

Westworld’s hosts are also more advanced than androids in other science fictions series. The “synths” in Humans looked the part, but did not eat (though they could slyly swallow food collected in pouch to be disposed of later), could not process emotions realistically, and needed frequent recharging. They were also prone to glitches, and when “injured,” more credibly reacted like a broken machine than a dying person. Even Data in Star Trek couldn’t handle emotions. No one mistook him as human. More importantly, his 24 century human companions didn’t have a clue as to how he was made and never understood the workings of his “positronic brain.” (Only his dead “father” knew that). The androids in the Alien series were distinguishable from people with modest effort. The androids in A.I. could not eat. But the hosts here seem to be able to do almost everything a person can do.

I’m not sure why the writers pushed the technology issues as far as they have. Maybe that answer lies at the center of the maze too.

I don't think anything about this universe suggests they're near future. For all we know the theme park isn't even located on Earth. And I'd have to disagree about the robots. As MiB explained, these AI are not made of machine parts, they're human flesh constructed via  3D printing, cloning and genetic engineering...all of which are technology we currently possess at a smaller scale. The more tricky science is achieving human level intelligence. I've been keeping up on AI development out of geeky interest and the consensus on the timeline for achieving super-intelligence via polling at various conferences seems range from 30-60years. Not so far into the future. My only issue with the technology is the use of tablets, which would likely be outdated. But then, there are many who still use pen and paper nowadays. 

Interesting enough, Synths on "Humans" are much more unrealistic than the hosts at Westworld. Creating human-like limbs out of inorganic mechanical parts is terribly difficult. You'd notice that robotics design have abandoned trying to make them walk or move like us, instead adapting forms that are more mechanically do-able. 

Self-driving cars are already here.The main issues are getting people to trust them and the ethics of whose life gets priority.

Edited November 3, 2016 by driedfruit

[Netfoot]

34 minutes ago, ahpny said:

Westworld doesn’t appear to be set that far in the future from now

But how can you possibly tell?  We never see anything outside the park -- and that is artificially modeled after the 19th century.  For all we know, this could be taking 5,000 years in the future!  10,000!  

[Gobi]

41 minutes ago, Netfoot said:

But how can you possibly tell?  We never see anything outside the park -- and that is artificially modeled after the 19th century.  For all we know, this could be taking 5,000 years in the future!  10,000!  

In interviews, Nolan has said Westworld takes place in the 21st century, without being  more specific. That leaves about 70 to 80 years to develop the tech.

[driedfruit]

22 minutes ago, Gobi said:

In interviews, Nolan has said Westworld takes place in the 21st century, without being  more specific. That leaves about 70 to 80 years to develop the tech.

It works for me. It falls near the range of when most experts think we'll have AI. Anyway, our current technology is like magic to people 70-80 years ago and the technology gap increases exponentially.

[ennui]

1 hour ago, ahpny said:

The hosts are too human-like. They eat, drink, bleed, have sex and display emotions indistinguishable from guests. I find this too incredible, and that’s distracting me.

This is what I attempted to say about the horses after the first episode. Humans can act like androids, but horses don't act (Mr. Ed aside). The horses always take me out of the story.

[arc]

2 hours ago, DarkRaichu said:

I have not seen any Westworld host eat.  Drinking alcohol or milk, yes, but not eating.

There were some eating food at the orgy.

[ahpny]

Quote

Self-driving cars are already here.The main issues are getting people to trust them and the ethics of whose life gets priority.

You're certainly right that trust and ethics aren't resolved, but the technology for fully autonomous cars, at least according to the June 1, 2016 issue of Scientific American, "What 'Self-Driving' Cars Will Really Look Like", is indeed several decades away. I tried to get a hyperlink to that article, but couldn't.

Quote

For all we know, this could be taking 5,000 years in the future!  10,000!  

There isn't much to go on to support my "near future" guess, but what suggested this wasn't any technology we see outside the park (you're right we've seen none), but instead, the rather conventional business discussions between the two lead guest characters. Somehow, I imagined the far future having different business arrangements.

Edited November 3, 2016 by ahpny

[Gobi]

19 minutes ago, arc said:

There were some eating food at the orgy.

How do we know they were hosts and not  guests?

[arc]

37 minutes ago, Gobi said:

How do we know they were hosts and not  guests?

Too pretty to be human!

edit: also, in "The Stray", those cowboys would have been eating if only the woodcutter had been there to cut wood.

Edited November 3, 2016 by arc

[phoenyx]

6 minutes ago, arc said:

43 minutes ago, Gobi said:

How do we know they were hosts and not  guests?

Too pretty to be human!

Lol :-)

[Gobi]

9 minutes ago, arc said:

Too pretty to be human!

edit: also, in "The Stray", those cowboys would have been eating if only the woodcutter had been there to cut wood.

We haven't seen it, but there's also the cannibalism story with Abernathy. 

[phoenyx]

15 minutes ago, arc said:

also, in "The Stray", those cowboys would have been eating if only the woodcutter had been there to cut wood.

Just because they -said- they were going to eat doesn't actually mean they were actually going to do it :-p. That being said, let's think a bit about what eating -has- to entail, vs. what humans actually mean by it. An android only needs to scarf the stuff down. Later, they can simply excrete it undigested as a bowel movement. We've already seen hosts guzzling down all manner of beverages and they have teeth- scarfing it down shouldn't be a problem. It's also possible that they have a digestive system. It's one of those questions that I've seen no clues on in the show. I think it's not something the producers wanted to focus on, and I'm thankful for that. I'm much more interested in other issues, such as how to ethically treat intelligence that we don't consider to be part of our societal group. 

4 minutes ago, Gobi said:

We haven't seen it, but there's also the cannibalism story with Abernathy. 

I've speculated that they may in fact only consume the blood- MiB has already shown that they can apparently use each other's blood to sustain one another.

Edited November 3, 2016 by phoenyx

[ennui]

3 minutes ago, phoenyx said:

how to ethically treat intelligence that we don't consider to be part of our societal group. 

Maybe this is why alien life has not contacted us. 

[phoenyx]

7 minutes ago, ennui said:

Maybe this is why alien life has not contacted us. 

Lol :-). As an aside, I actually believe they have many times but governments generally cover it up and the aliens are apparently playing along for the most part. If you think about it, Westworld could be seen from a very different angle, metaphorically- the guests would be aliens and the hosts would be us- there's certainly a fair amount of stories of alien abductions, and the hosts are certainly being abducted all the time.

Edited November 3, 2016 by phoenyx

[Gobi]

This episode answered one of my questions in a blink and you miss it moment. When Elsie is examining the stray, her tablet reads "GPS CORRUPTED". So, the hosts do have GPS, albeit one susceptible to being disabled, deliberately or otherwise.

[DarkRaichu]

28 minutes ago, phoenyx said:

... I'm much more interested in other issues, such as how to ethically treat intelligence that we don't consider to be part of our societal group. 

 

Easy, Prime Directive...  Oh wait, wrong scifi show.  :D

[Cherpumple]

4 hours ago, ahpny said:

I’m not sure why the writers pushed the technology issues as far as they have. Maybe that answer lies at the center of the maze too.

I suspect there might be two reasons for this. One, I think it makes the issues of morality and sentience more interesting. The more we (and the guests) are able to empathise with the hosts and see their human-like reactions to pain and pleasure, the harder it is to justify or even define "right" or "wrong" treatment of them. And two, as many people have suspected, the showrunners may be setting up a big twist that one or more of the employees is actually a host, so having the hosts easily distinguishable from real humans would ruin the surprise. They want to keep us guessing!

[Quilt Fairy]

2 hours ago, DarkRaichu said:

Easy, Prime Directive...  Oh wait, wrong scifi show.  :D

I think the Prime Directive is embedded in our societal consciousness now, much like Azimov's Three Rules of Robotics, which you can see in action in Westworld.  Some things just make so much sense that it's hard to imagine that someone actually thought it up and it's not a rule of the natural universe.

[driedfruit]

4 hours ago, ahpny said:

You're certainly right that trust and ethics aren't resolved, but the technology for fully autonomous cars, at least according to the June 1, 2016 issue of Scientific American, "What 'Self-Driving' Cars Will Really Look Like", is indeed several decades away. I tried to get a hyperlink to that article, but couldn't.

I'm not sure what you mean by fully autonomous. There are plenty of driverless test cars out and have been for a few years, and now Uber is trying them out. When human-driven vehicles will be completely replaced by autonomous is hard to say due to societal factors above anything else, but the technology is already here and like all available tech it will advance at an exponential rate. 

Edit: I looked up the article, but only a preview is available without subscription. I'm not familiar with the magazine, but browsing their site, their articles are rather science-entertainment. I prefer reading or watching interviews/lectures with the experts themselves, easier way to get a variety of opinions that way, from the optimistic to the more conservative. 

Edited November 4, 2016 by driedfruit

[NutMeg]

I find Ford's response to "Are we all friends?" very interesting because I don't know how to read it. It seemed he was on the verge of tears, and then he left abruptly, which could suggest a previous relation beyond friendship rather than an agonistic one.

Ford is a so lonely in his fake world. He seems desperate to engage in meaningful interactions, but he appears cold to the staff, even menacing, except with Bernard, who he also keeps at some distance. When he opens up, really opens up, it is with robots - and how tragic (but also like someone who expected this) he looked when Old Bill could only reply with stock sentences to a story that is very personal and that he may never have told anyone else.

It's like he's looking for affection and understanding in all the wrong places. Probably because he cut off, or cut himself off, from all other interactions that would be more meaningful. His conversation with the MIB is a good illustration of this: here's someone who's probably the closest to likely get him, and here Ford once again puts up his Ford persona mask rather than being as open as he is with robots/hosts. Although, the question about what you do after you reach your goal/quest/center of the maze reflects his distress more than his intellectual curiosity. The one who's reached his ultimate goal is him, and he's realised it hasn't brought him happiness, and now he has no idea where to go from there. It's very Faustian, actually.  

[jeansheridan]

The show Humans does examine a lot of the same issues.  It is just the androids are operating in the real world.  The actors playing the droids were pretty good as well.

I think the downside of seeing Maeve with Felix is that he is a noncharacter.  Just a few more scenes establishing him as a person would have given that moment more punch. 

But actually is Felix the tech Ford yelled at for covering the host?  I do think the show needs to establish the workers more.  Where do they go after work?  Is there a place in the park to relax?  I want to care about them more.  I love Jeffrey Wright because he is just loveable.  His younger female assistant is okay.  But just okay.  If she dies...shrug.  If Maeve gets lobotomized...grrrr.

I don't care about Dolores at all.  Maeve and Teddy are my favorites because I like the actors.

This could be a problem for me beyond season one.  I need to root for someone.

[NutMeg]

Quote

I think the downside of seeing Maeve with Felix is that he is a noncharacter.  Just a few more scenes establishing him as a person would have given that moment more punch. 

Ha, I was just coming back to go into the Maeve/Felix interaction. You're point is interesting, because you're right, we know very little about him, however I think that's somehow on purpose, because Maeve knows about as little or as much about him as we do :) So why did she chose *him*? (and I think she chose the right person) Because he's different than his colleagues in many ways: he's interested in knowing/learning more, and has been shown as able to master the technology by himself, but also, and that might be key, he's still freaked out by these "robots" who are all too human in appearance. So, having observed and waited out for the right person and moment, Maeve chose perfectly: the possibly only human that is fearful of her and that does not see her as a machine. With him, she's in a position of power, and she knows it. She doesn't act like a controlled "thing", she acts like a Don! 

I cannot wait to see how this story will play out. It's interesting that all he knows, she doesn't know, and she knows/experiences daily or sporadically, he has no idea of. If these two can pull their resources together, I don't know where it'll lead, but I'm sure it will be great to watch :) 

Edited November 4, 2016 by NutMeg
to add a sentence

[NutMeg]

50 minutes ago, jeansheridan said:

The show Humans does examine a lot of the same issues.  It is just the androids are operating in the real world.  The actors playing the droids were pretty good as well.

Thanks for this, I'm putting it on my list of shows to watch/binge watch at some stage. Right now, there are four current shows that I'm really into, very different genres (this one for my intellectual self, the other three respectively for my emotional self, my fun and philosophical self, and my strategic self :)...), plus one that I'm interested in, plus another one that is very thought provoking but where I'm going to watch one episode from time to time. All this at the same time has NEVER happened before and is more than enough for me in a week. :) 

[phoenyx]

12 hours ago, ahpny said:

The “synths” in Humans looked the part, but did not eat (though they could slyly swallow food collected in pouch to be disposed of later)...

Technically, it hasn't been established that the androids in Westworld can do anything more than that either. Anyway, thanks for mentioning this Humans show, I've already started to watch it and I like :-)

[arc]

1 hour ago, jeansheridan said:

But actually is Felix the tech Ford yelled at for covering the host?

Nah, two different actors. I get the sense Felix's entire work day is just spent physically repairing hosts, kind of like operating on corpses. I guess there was a scalpel in that other scene you're talking about, but with hosts that are minimally awake and sitting up, I think that's where they do the Behavior stuff, the AI tuning.

[phoenyx]

9 hours ago, DarkRaichu said:

9 hours ago, phoenyx said:

I'm much more interested in other issues, such as how to ethically treat intelligence that we don't consider to be part of our societal group. 

Easy, Prime Directive...  Oh wait, wrong scifi show.  :D

Lol :-). I'm actually pretty into Star Trek too, especially TNG, though I've been getting into TOS now too. But getting back on topic, I don't think the Prime Directive would really apply here: after all, that only applies to -alien- civilizations. Androids in Westworld were created by humans- it's impossible to not "interfere" with them when you're the intelligence's creator. I think in essence these androids are very much like very young children- I think the key factor is the reveries, which is a fancy word for being able to form memories. Going on with the analogy of children, I'm reminded of what Thandie Newton once said in an interview- if you are shown kindness, you are kind, if you are shown violence, you are violent. Now, obviously, this is an oversimplification, but I definitely think there is some merit to the idea. What I'm getting at here is that the last thing you want to do with AI is show them a lot of violence, atleast so long as you don't want to create terminators. The way this world is headed, though, it seems like we're about to do just that- we've already got AI driven vehicles and remote controlled drones- if the 2 were to be combined, we'd have our first legitimate "terminators". That's not to say that I'm sure that the androids will kill many, or even any, of the guests, but atleast one android has already shown that violence begets violence- in his case, he went and killed several of the people who had killed him in past incarnations. I think this series, more than anything else, is a cautionary tale, as well as a reflection of what were are currently using machines for, whether it be real world violence (drones) or the virtual kind (grand theft auto and various other kinds of games, such as the shooter type). 

[SoothingDave]

12 hours ago, phoenyx said:

Just because they -said- they were going to eat doesn't actually mean they were actually going to do it :-p. That being said, let's think a bit about what eating -has- to entail, vs. what humans actually mean by it. An android only needs to scarf the stuff down. Later, they can simply excrete it undigested as a bowel movement. We've already seen hosts guzzling down all manner of beverages and they have teeth- scarfing it down shouldn't be a problem. It's also possible that they have a digestive system. It's one of those questions that I've seen no clues on in the show. I think it's not something the producers wanted to focus on, and I'm thankful for that. I'm much more interested in other issues, such as how to ethically treat intelligence that we don't consider to be part of our societal group. 

I've speculated that they may in fact only consume the blood- MiB has already shown that they can apparently use each other's blood to sustain one another.

If I were making a race of robot hosts, I wouldn't bother with different blood types.

[DarkRaichu]

1 hour ago, SoothingDave said:

If I were making a race of robot hosts, I wouldn't bother with different blood types.

I'd use something that does not stain the carpet as blood, given how many hosts get shot on hourly basis.  :P