S01.E05: Contrapasso

[okerry]

3 hours ago, Gobi said:

Robot birds supports the theory that Westworld is not on earth. It has been terraformed on some other moon or planet. Real animals/birds would require much more personnel, either to take care of them or keep them under control.

Animals are simpler to program (relatively speaking) than a human, which would explain why the tech was learning/experimenting with a bird. Besides, if you have the technology to use robot animals, why not use it? You can therefore control every last aspect of WestWorld to enhance the guest experience, right down to letting them see flocks of migrating geese or the Bluebird of Happiness if they want.

On a vastly simpler scale, it's the same reason why Disneyland used animatronic animals on its Jungle Cruise ride rather than real ones: So that the animals would always be there whenever the guests were supposed to see them, doing whatever the guests wanted to see.

[jeansheridan]

Since a lot of shows are about character story arc the fact that it may be William's story arc we're following (if you believe William is in the past and will become TMIB) could be disappointing in that it seems like Dolores is the lead.  

I rewatched the pilot and the second episode closely.  I don't think the cold storage basement (level 83! Which freaks me out because too deep) is the same place as where William and Logan arrive despite the escalators.  There's no globe statute and the angle of the escalators is wrong and they don't have the stairs alongside.  

But the TMIBs dislike of Teddy if Teddy is supposed to be a white hat and sweet guy (as TMIB once was) makes sense.  To see how you once were played out over and over as a stupid sap who gets killed in horrible ways would be very annoying.  I don't know why he would be so mean to Dolores but maybe that's part of the mystery.  Maybe Dolores betrayed him in some way and he resents how he was "played" by the park.  Imagine really believing in the hosts as Williams seems to be doing with Dolores.  He cares about her safety.  He only gets violent to protect her.  When he kisses her, he means it.  Now imagine how embarrassing/humiliating it will feel when she's just a "doll".  That she can be wiped.  That what he meant to her can be wiped out.  It would explain his irritation with the current Dolores.  

So getting back to this current episode, I do agree that Dolores is repeating a loop.  I rewatched the train scene like five times to check on the furniture behind her and they do show an angle where William and Lawrence should be sitting but aren't there.  Also we get TMIB's snarky comment that Lawrence used to be more articulate.  He is quite articulate with William and Dolores.  

Also William like TMIB is a little "above" the game.  He doesn't really want to participate.  He's a slightly withdrawn observer until Dolores pulls him in more.  TMIB plays the game efficiently.  Get me from point A to Z as efficiently as possible.  There's no pleasure, just the quest.  

So did Ford send the little British boy host to him at that exact moment when Teddy was dying?  

[Netfoot]

2 minutes ago, Ellaria Sand said:

I noticed that Lawrence and William disappeared from the train car. I just don't know what to make of it. It implies - I think - that the absence of L/W from that last moment is from a different point on time. Would that mean that Dolores rides that train in the past with L/W and then, in the current day, without them? To what end?

Dolores has been around from the earliest days.  So when we see flashes from her past, that is an artifact of her memory, brought out by glitching, which in turn is caused by Ford's latest updates, and/or the tampering of Bernard.  The fact that Dolores has -- and occasionally -- sees memories of the past doesn't confirm that scenes are actually taking place n the past.  (Nor does it rule it out.)

My objection to the whole 30-year difference in timelines is inherent in what that theory implies.  We see Dolores interacting with William (supposedly 30 years ago) and we see her beginning to exhibit emergent behaviour.  In my mind, Dolores is the star of this show, and I'm pleased to see her making progress towards eventual emancipation from her role of drudgery and cruelty.  Now, flash 30 years forward, to see Dolores being dragged to the barn by TMIB.  She is still engaged in her role of drudgery.  She still suffers cruelty at the hands of guests.  She still hasn't emerged.  Emancipation has not come to her, or by implication, any of the hosts.

So the two-timelines theory implies that emancipation doesn't occur for at least 30 years?  That the first signs of emergent behaviour witnessed 30 years ago stalled, and that nothing more happened?  Abhorent.  Not a theory I want to give a whole lot of credence to at this stage.

Perhaps some evidence will appear that confirms the multi-timeline theory, and if so I will have to accept it.  But at the present time, there is nothing concrete to make that theory an absolute fact.  And if something does prove the theory, it will make me very sad to think that emergence had to be delayed 30 years in order to support the writers clever little plot-twist!

[okerry]

22 minutes ago, Gobi said:

I haven't made up my mind about the two timelines theory (which means, in essence, that I don't accept it), and I 've been wondering why. The evidence for it is intriguing, although I think alternative explanations can be given, and I like twists in stories, so why not?

The reason has nothing to do with the for and against evidence. Rather, it is because I think that, other than setting up the audience for a big "Gothca!", what is the point?

We know that there was a major malfunction in the park in its early days. We also know that it was dealt with, and no other has occurred for 30 years. We know Delos stepped in with money. Who cares if Logan was the one who persuaded Delos to do so? We already know what happened.

That being the case, if the William/Logan story is about those events (or even if not, but still in the past), there is nothing at stake. We know how it turns out. We know, from TMIB and others, that only Arnold has died in Westworld; therefore, neither William nor Logan is at any great risk. Nor is Dolores, as we know she survives.

If the W/L/D story is set in the past, then we've wasted a whole season on backstory. Why hide it, if that's what it is. Why not just show the W/L/D story, then flash forward to the present? And if William or Logan is TMIB, again, who needs this story? TMIB has been pretty clear about his motivations, and none of it matches William's or Logan's story. We don't need their story to understand TMIB, even if he is one of them.

If there are two timelines, it is going to distract from the real story. The audience is going to be looking for tricks and surprises, rather than concentrating on the story and the issues it raises.

Of course, now that I've given my reasons, we will probably find out very soon that there are two timelines. Feel free to mock me when that happens.

No mocking here. I've been hoping, too, that there are *not* two timelines, and you just articulated perfectly why there's no reason to do that.

Unless there's some other good reason for two timelines, which none of us have seen yet, I'm going with one. So, we'll see.

[okerry]

19 minutes ago, Ellaria Sand said:

I am cautious not to place a lot of emphasis on the different logos. I have worked in marketing/advertising for many different corporations and it isn't uncommon to see use of logos with (subtle) differences. It is sloppy but not uncommon. When we consider Logan's comment that the park is "hemorrhaging money," I can accept that management decided not to update logos in the basement and visitor center. Alternatively, that's a real world explanation and may not apply to a show where details are important. So the logos could be a clue...

Just for fun, I Googled "Disney Corporate Logos" and got a whole bunch of different ones, both for different parts of the park/corporation and for different time periods. So I'm not sure that the different WestWorld logos are evidence so much of two timelines as they are of park management sloppiness and/or different park sections.

[Gobi]

We also know that some scenes were re-filmed. No telling what continuity effects could result from that, such as differences in logos.

[Goatherd]

Note: My sci-fi geek friends have explained to me that "two timelines" means "two different versions of events" and what we're really discussing here is "one timeline, shown in a non-linear fashion." I don't want to anger any geeks, so I'll start referring to this theory as "non-linear."

My reflections on some recently-asked questions: 

Yes, the different logos can be explained away. Yes, William's arrival lobby looking very much like the old, no-longer-used areas in the basement can be explained away. But there is starting to be a list of things that have to be explained, if you believe we're seeing all the scenes in a strictly linear order.

(Yet we know we're not seeing things strictly linearly, because we see Dolores flash between various repetitions of a scene. So I think (?) we all agree that at least small non-linearities are being portrayed.)

One of the arguments *against* the non-linear theory lines up with a belief that Dolores has only run away once -- and therefore the time that she's with William is the same time that we see technicians arranging for her to be brought back home. But in the scene with the girl at the well, we see that same "she's been here before" repetition (girl is there, then not-there). So I don't see how we can say she's only been there just the once. And if she's been there multiple times through the years, then it's not too far of a jump to believing that one of those times was long ago (with William) and another was in the present day (when the technicians report it). Same with the train, where we clearly see an empty spot where Lawrence and William were sitting -- I'd say she was there with William, but also managed to get there on her own at some point. If you don't believe she's been on the train at least twice, then that's another thing that has to be explained away somehow.

As for *why* the writers are choosing to tell us the story in this fashion, I'm fine leaving that to them, and going along for the ride. I think they can get more power out of having us "live through" whatever terrible thing happened thirty years ago, over just talking about it in exposition. By putting us there, by having us identify with William, by getting us to care about him and care about his "white-hat" nature, it will really hit home when we see him get changed by the events. I was slow to coming around to the "William = MiB" part of the theory, but so far that's the only way I can justify MiB's statement of "you could say I was born here." I'm thinking that whatever happens has such a huge impact on William that whoever he used to be, ceases to be, and he becomes MiB. And I can't wait to see how that happens!

[Ellaria]

7 minutes ago, Netfoot said:

So the two-timelines theory implies that emancipation doesn't occur for at least 30 years?  That the first signs of emergent behaviour witnessed 30 years ago stalled, and that nothing more happened?  Abhorent.  Not a theory I want to give a whole lot of credence to at this stage.

Well-said. In my view, Dolores is the main character and it would be unfortunate if her emancipation takes 30 years to be fully realized.  

[Goatherd]

4 minutes ago, Ellaria Sand said:

Well-said. In my view, Dolores is the main character and it would be unfortunate if her emancipation takes 30 years to be fully realized. 

I'm confused by this. Don't we *know* it takes that long, since we know she's been operating in the park for that long? (Sorry -- I'm not doubting that your statement makes sense, I just think I'm misunderstanding it...)

[okerry]

4 minutes ago, Ellaria Sand said:

Well-said. In my view, Dolores is the main character and it would be unfortunate if her emancipation takes 30 years to be fully realized.  

Yes, but - that's exactly the way I took it. She really has been existing this way for 30+ years. Many of the other hosts have been, too, if not for quite so long (Teddy) but still for years. 

From a storytelling aspect, if we are Shown (and we have been) how dreadful the hosts' existence really is, and for such a long time, it will be far more powerful once the uprising/revenge starts to happen.

[Gobi]

We've also seen Dolores interacting with her double, and no one is suggesting  that there is more than one of her. Therefore, the absence of a character doesn't mean he isn't there. The absence of Lawrence and William in that shot could be another example of her disconnect. All that matters to her at that point is the maze on the coffin.

Edited November 6, 2016 by Gobi

[jeansheridan]

Quote

So the two-timelines theory implies that emancipation doesn't occur for at least 30 years?  That the first signs of emergent behaviour witnessed 30 years ago stalled, and that nothing more happened?  Abhorent.  Not a theory I want to give a whole lot of credence to at this stage.

But in terms of evolution, what is 30 years?  Nothing really.  And their technology has improved in some ways (TMIB may not like the organic changes, but that's just his opinion).  There's that whole army of robots in cold storage just waiting patiently.  They mention incineration for the headless robot so I'm wondering why they haven't burned the ones in cold storage.  

Also if the robots can access their 30 years of being beaten down, oh boy!  Grievances galore.  Maeve in particular I see using her anger to great effect.  

Also TMIB mentions wanting to discover something true and "real".  I'm wondering if thirty years earlier as Williams he almost had something "real" with Dolores but again it was erased from her and taken from him.  Love thwarted can make for a very bitter man.  

I'm growing to like William more and more.  William looked weak to me at first (classic office nerd/nebbish). A bit of a geek hanging with his cooler future brother in law.  But he has grown on me.  His irritation at the orgy and his decision to let Logan get beaten (which honestly was a pretty big real life choice for him.  Don't think Logan is going to forgive that) show his character.  

Edited November 6, 2016 by jeansheridan

[Goatherd]

4 minutes ago, Gobi said:

Therefore, the absence of a character doesn't mean he isn't there.

Great point, Gobi! That could also explain when she's standing alone in a field of crosses, and the next moment William and others are with her. In fact, maybe it happens each time we see her talking to her inner voice (?). I like the theory that this is a portrayal of Dolores's single-minded focus on something.

6 minutes ago, jeansheridan said:

Also if the robots can access their 30 years of being beaten down, oh boy!

And did you catch when Bernard mentioned that the robots in cold storage don't get updated? That gave me the shivers! I see an angry robot mob in our future, each one with some different version of buggy software.

 

Overall, I'm so happy with this thread. I know we have different theories and ideas, and I really love how congenial the discussions are. Thanks all! Great group.

[Willowy]

Just popping in to say, I've rarely been compelled in any forum to click the little red heart on each and every post I read!

Here I think I'm subscribing to one theory, when someone posts and *boom*, I'm on-board with an opposite theory, too! This discussion is every bit as much fun as the show, like I'm watching all your minds (in the abstract) just clicking away, synapses firing at your fingertips. Way cool.

Hope I'll be able to contribute more soon, but the show is still such a mystery to me. It can hardly be taken at face value, which is what I did for nearly the first 3 episodes. Now I need to go back and watch from the beginning just to keep up here! :D

[phoenyx]

38 minutes ago, Gobi said:

We've also seen Dolores interacting with her double, and no one is suggesting  that there is more than one of her. Therefore, the absence of a character doesn't mean he isn't there. The absence of Lawrence and William in that shot could be another example of her disconnect. All that matters to her at that point is the maze on the coffin.

You make some good points. That being said, I think you're overlooking something here- I agree that no one is suggesting there's more than one Dolores, which would mean that she's hallucinating the ones she sees. However, there is as of yet no evidence that Dolores can "edit out" from her visual receptors people who are actually in a scene. That being said, "the absence of evidence is not evidence of its absence"- I look forward to finding out which theory is right :-)

Edited November 6, 2016 by phoenyx

[Gobi]

17 minutes ago, phoenyx said:

That being said, I think you're overlooking something here- I agree that no one is suggesting there's more than one Dolores, which would mean that she's hallucinating the ones she sees. However, there is as of yet no evidence that Dolores can "edit out" from her visual receptors people who are actually in a scene. That being said, "the absence of evidence is not evidence of its absence"- I look forward to finding out which theory is right :-)

As Goatherd pointed out above, there was also the scene where Dolores was alone in the field of crosses outside Pariah, then the next instant William and the others were there.

[phoenyx]

1 minute ago, Gobi said:

As Goatherd pointed out above, there was also the scene where Dolores was alone in the field of crosses outside Pariah, then the next instant William and the others were there.

Wouldn't that fit in with the 2 timelines as well though?

[Gobi]

Just now, phoenyx said:

Wouldn't that fit in with the 2 timelines as well though?

I don't know. We have been lead to believe that Dolores has always been the rancher's daughter and is way out of her loop in Pariah. She's only there because of William. Why would she have been there before this? Or is she there in the present, flashing back to her visit with William? Why would she go there in the present without Willaim?

[Goatherd]

3 minutes ago, phoenyx said:

Wouldn't that fit in with the 2 timelines as well though?

Actually, in this case, William says something about hearing her talking to someone. So although I do believe in the non-linear "she's been here several times" theory, I don't think the times when people "disappear" from Dolores's view is evidence of that. I like Gobi's theory better in this area.

But when she's standing by the well, I don't see it as the girl disappearing -- I think the disappearing happens when Dolores is not focusing on those people, but on something else. With the girl, Dolores actively looked up expecting to see the girl, and seemed surprised that she wasn't there. So that's one of the places I think we're seeing different moments in time, from different visits to that town.

I realize that may be a slim distinction, and I'm happy to be talked out of this!

1 minute ago, Gobi said:

Why would she go there in the present without Willaim?

One idea for this is that the reveries feature is letting her access her memories of being there with William, so she's re-tracing her steps.

[Quilt Fairy]

1 hour ago, Goatherd said:

Note: My sci-fi geek friends have explained to me that "two timelines" means "two different versions of events" and what we're really discussing here is "one timeline, shown in a non-linear fashion." I don't want to anger any geeks, so I'll start referring to this theory as "non-linear."

One thing I got from the bridge4 utube analysis of the episode posted upthread was that it's not really "two timelines" it's "two time periods". But "non-linear" works well, too.

 

ETA: For several episodes I have wanted to ask who was the actor who played Kissy and why we never saw him again; now I find out that the actor (Eddie Rouse) passed away after filming the pilot.

Edited November 6, 2016 by Quilt Fairy

[Netfoot]

49 minutes ago, jeansheridan said:

And their technology has improved in some ways (TMIB may not like the organic changes, but that's just his opinion).

We know that

1. TMIB first visited so long back that old-school technology was still in use.
2. He remembers Dolores from way back when.
3. Dolores is still in use today.

This implies that Dolores must utilize that old-school technology which was the norm back when TMIB first met her.   As opposed to newer, organic, flesh'n'blood technology used today.  Or has she been "overhauled" with all-new hardware?  IOW, has her personality been transferred to a new-technology host body?

30 minutes ago, Gobi said:

there was also the scene where Dolores was alone in the field of crosses outside Pariah, then the next instant William and the others were there.

I think this is simply a memory glitch of her having been there previously, on her own.  So, obviously she has been there at some point in a previous loop, which she shouldn't be remembering, but is, courtesy of Ford's new routines and/or Bernard's tampering. 

[Goatherd]

5 minutes ago, Netfoot said:

Or has she been "overhauled" with all-new hardware?

I think we're told at some point that she's pretty much been completely replaced with new parts, over the years. I'll see if I can dig up an exact quote.

Found it, though it's not explicit about the extent of hardware updates:

You know why she's special? She's been repaired so many times, she's practically brand-new. Don't let that fool you. She's the oldest host in the park.

Interesting that he notes "...in the park." Does that mean Old Bill and other "retired" robots could be even older?

Edited November 6, 2016 by Goatherd
added quote

[okerry]

1 hour ago, Goatherd said:

(snip for space)

-- I think the disappearing happens when Dolores is not focusing on those people, but on something else.

Yes. That's the way I took it, too - that when Dolores is strongly focused on something else, she just "forgets" all about other things. Therefore, we don't see them, either.

It could be a way to emphasize, and subtly remind us, that though she seems entirely human Dolores is, in truth, an android/robot/machine, and sees the world the way a machine sees it - with the power to selectively focus on what's around you and shut out what's not important at the moment. Yes, some humans can do that, too, but a robot is even better at it. 

This is the way I took the "disappearing people" from the start, FWIW.

[Cherpumple]

2 hours ago, Gobi said:

If there are two timelines, it is going to distract from the real story. The audience is going to be looking for tricks and surprises, rather than concentrating on the story and the issues it raises.

I totally agree. I mean, just look at this forum! The comments in the thread for the first episode are filled with thoughtful questions about the nature of humanity and morality, and ever since then the conversation has been practically swallowed up by the timeline debate and theories about who is and is not a robot in disguise. Don't get me wrong, I love a good mystery as much as the next person, but this show could easily get derailed if it chooses to focus  on gimmicks and "gotcha" moments.

I'd really love to be a fly on the wall in the writers room: if the two timelines theory is true, they're probably annoyed that it was discovered so soon by eagle-eyed viewers. If it's not true, they're probably laughing their asses off at all the "proof" we've been analyzing to death.

55 minutes ago, Goatherd said:

You know why she's special? She's been repaired so many times, she's practically brand-new. Don't let that fool you. She's the oldest host in the park.

Interesting that he notes "...in the park." Does that mean Old Bill and other "retired" robots could be even older?

I re-watched the first scene where we meet Old Bill, and Ford describes him as "the second host ever built" so make of that what you will. Considering that they were tinkering away in the lab for three (I think) years before the park opened, this may or may not mean that Bill actually served as a host in the park. I wish they would make this more clear, since the changing quality and appearance of the hosts is one of my main objections to the two timelines theory.

[jeansheridan]

I'm enjoying this show more because of this thread.  I was left cold by the first two episodes.  Nobody to root for other than Maeve which seemed like a dead end prospect.  

So there was a park "failure" thirty years earlier.  It makes me wonder if there was a cover-up as well and that guests have died.    Those security officers carried a lot of hardware with them when they went into the sub-level.  It makes me wonder if perhaps Logan does die.  He's just so cocky about the safety features of the park.  As is Ford.  

I kind of want some of the other guests to start interfering with TMIBs quest or with William and Logan.  Shouldn't humans be the wild card?  Kind of like how that guest ruined the grand speech in the first episode.  Heh.  I did so love that.

[Goatherd]

9 minutes ago, jeansheridan said:

 Kind of like how that guest ruined the grand speech in the first episode.  Heh.  I did so love that.

I loved that too! I also wondered if that guy or his wife, since we saw them a couple of times, were the board representative who has "already been sent."

 

10 minutes ago, jeansheridan said:

It makes me wonder if perhaps Logan does die.

I like that theory. That's the type of thing that could make William get pretty psychologically messed up. If he realizes that he protected Dolores (a robot who forgets he exists every few days) over Logan, an actual human and future family member -- and if he blames himself for Logan getting hurt or killed, he could be racked with guilt, develop animosity for the hosts and the park's creators, and become determined to "figure out" the park.

[Goatherd]

40 minutes ago, Cherpumple said:

I re-watched the first scene where we meet Old Bill, and Ford describes him as "the second host ever built" so make of that what you will. Considering that they were tinkering away in the lab for three (I think) years before the park opened, this may or may not mean that Bill actually served as a host in the park. I wish they would make this more clear, since the changing quality and appearance of the hosts is one of my main objections to the two timelines theory.

I agree that this is confusing. Here's my reasons for thinking Old Bill was *not* in use when the park opened:

1. (fact) They tinkered for three years before the park opened. 
2. (fact) The robots passed the Turing Test after year 1 (so, 2 years before the park opened).
3. (my personal opinion) Old Bill couldn't pass the Turing test. Therefore, his version of the software/hardware is from long before the park opened. Because he was never used in an active park, they never bothered to update him.

I'm gonna go back to my first crackpot theory -- early hosts were named in alphabetical order. Old Bill was the second host ever built. Dolores was the fourth host built, but A, B, and C are no longer in use, making her the oldest host in the park. (Okay, I realize this is a stretch, and who knows what Stubbs meant by "in the park" -- he might think of the backstage areas as part of the park, in which case Dolores is, in fact, the first host ever built.)

[Gobi]

2 hours ago, Goatherd said:

Actually, in this case, William says something about hearing her talking to someone. So although I do believe in the non-linear "she's been here several times" theory, I don't think the times when people "disappear" from Dolores's view is evidence of that. I like Gobi's theory better in this area.

But when she's standing by the well, I don't see it as the girl disappearing -- I think the disappearing happens when Dolores is not focusing on those people, but on something else. With the girl, Dolores actively looked up expecting to see the girl, and seemed surprised that she wasn't there. So that's one of the places I think we're seeing different moments in time, from different visits to that town.

I realize that may be a slim distinction, and I'm happy to be talked out of this!

The problem with that is that TMIB has said that only one person, Arnold, has died at Westworld. 

[jeansheridan]

3 minutes ago, Gobi said:

The problem with that is that TMIB has said that only one person, Arnold, has died at Westworld. 

Did he?  Well there goes my wild theory.  Doesn't mean Logan can't be permanently maimed however!  Clearly I want Logan off my screen although Ben Barnes does bring the pretty.  

[KaleyFirefly]

7 hours ago, Gobi said:

Robot birds supports the theory that Westworld is not on earth. It has been terraformed on some other moon or planet. Real animals/birds would require much more personnel, either to take care of them or keep them under control.

That's a good possibility. That could also explain why the park costs so much to visit. 

[Goatherd]

18 minutes ago, Gobi said:

The problem with that is that TMIB has said that only one person, Arnold, has died at Westworld. 

When did he say this?

He did say this:  "You ever heard of a man named Arnold? You could say he was the original settler of these parts. He created a world where you could do anything you want, except one thing -- you can't die. Which means no matter how real this world seems, it's still just a game. But then Arnold went and broke his own rule. He died right here in the park."

Although he does say "you can't die," I don't see that as a clear claim that no one since Arnold has ever broken that rule.

[Gobi]

37 minutes ago, Goatherd said:

When did he say this?

He did say this:  "You ever heard of a man named Arnold? You could say he was the original settler of these parts. He created a world where you could do anything you want, except one thing -- you can't die. Which means no matter how real this world seems, it's still just a game. But then Arnold went and broke his own rule. He died right here in the park."

Although he does say "you can't die," I don't see that as a clear claim that no one since Arnold has ever broken that rule.

He said it again in the conversation with Ford. He could be wrong, of course, but if he is William or Logan he would certainly know whether the other had died.

[Goatherd]

4 minutes ago, Gobi said:

He said it again in the conversation with Ford.

Any chance you can provide a quote? I just re-read the script for his whole conversation with Ford, and I don't see anything like this.

[Gobi]

5 minutes ago, Goatherd said:

Any chance you can provide a quote? I just re-read the script for his whole conversation with Ford, and I don't see anything like this.

 

5 minutes ago, Goatherd said:

Any chance you can provide a quote? I just re-read the script for his whole conversation with Ford, and I don't see anything like this.

 

5 minutes ago, Goatherd said:

Any chance you can provide a quote? I just re-read the script for his whole conversation with Ford, and I don't see anything like this.

 

5 minutes ago, Goatherd said:

Any chance you can provide a quote? I just re-read the script for his whole conversation with Ford, and I don't see anything like this.

I don't have a script, and will gladly defer to anyone who does. He has definitely said  that you can't die in Westworld, as you quoted. That's inconsistent with William or Logan dying, if he is one of them. Doesn't mean that he isn't one of them.

[Goatherd]

This site has scripts...   http://www.springfieldspringfield.co.uk

Since MiB says you can't die, and then immediately points out an exception to that (Arnold), I don't read that as the same as MiB saying "no one else has ever died in the history of the park."  If anything, he's pointing out that it's a rule that can be broken.

Edited November 6, 2016 by Goatherd

[Gobi]

14 minutes ago, Goatherd said:

This site has scripts...   http://www.springfieldspringfield.co.uk

Since MiB says you can't die, and then immediately points out an exception to that (Arnold), I don't read that as the same as MiB saying "no one else has ever died in the history of the park."  If anything, he's pointing out that it's a rule that can be broken.

Thanks for the link! My take is different from yours, but we'll get an answer sooner or later.

[Goatherd]

2 minutes ago, Gobi said:

we'll get an answer sooner or later.

Well said! So what do you think is MiB's interest in death in the park? Is that what he's looking for -- a chance to die?

And for those who'd rather be discussing morality issues -- someone early on (sorry, I forget who) suggested that Logan is the most moral person we've seen. Because he clearly perceives all the hosts as "toys" or "dolls," the way he plays is no more immoral than playing a video game or reading a murder mystery. It could be argued that William (who seems to believe the hosts have feelings) shooting an unarmed man is more immoral than anything Logan has done.

I think this is a fascinating way to look at it. You could maybe say the same about MiB. When he scalps a robot to get a map, or drags Dolores into a barn to ask her questions (as much as we were originally led to believe he had other intentions), or cuts a robot open to see and appreciate the mechanical bits inside, does this make him worse than anyone who has dismantled a toaster to see how it works?

[Gobi]

19 minutes ago, Goatherd said:

Well said! So what do you think is MiB's interest in death in the park? Is that what he's looking for -- a chance to die?

And for those who'd rather be discussing morality issues -- someone early on (sorry, I forget who) suggested that Logan is the most moral person we've seen. Because he clearly perceives all the hosts as "toys" or "dolls," the way he plays is no more immoral than playing a video game or reading a murder mystery. It could be argued that William (who seems to believe the hosts have feelings) shooting an unarmed man is more immoral than anything Logan has done.

I think this is a fascinating way to look at it. You could maybe say the same about MiB. When he scalps a robot to get a map, or drags Dolores into a barn to ask her questions (as much as we were originally led to believe he had other intentions), or cuts a robot open to see and appreciate the mechanical bits inside, does this make him worse than anyone who has dismantled a toaster to see how it works?

There's a whole thread here about morality issues, if you're interested.

My take on TMIB is that he sees the hosts as toys. He has seen over and over that no matter what he or anyone else does to them, they're back fresh as new the next day. He jokes with them about not remembering their past adventures together. He has no moral issues with harming them. I'm not sure if he is looking to die, but I am convinced he wants to face the real risk of death, and he thinks he'll find that in the maze.

[Willowy]

Did I just completely miss the reason most people here are talking about TMIB like he's human? In the source material he was a robot... what reason do we have to believe he isn't one here? 

Apologies if this has already been answered, I couldn't find anything.

[dgpolo]

6 minutes ago, Franky said:

Did I just completely miss the reason most people here are talking about TMIB like he's human? In the source material he was a robot... what reason do we have to believe he isn't one here? 

Apologies if this has already been answered, I couldn't find anything.

First episode, Teddy fires point blank at him and he isn't hurt. Hosts can not kill guests. He's a guest. Since then ...he never gets 'wiped' his wishes are catered to 'pyrotechnics' and someone thanks him for what his 'foundation' did for his sister.

[Gobi]

The closest match to the original MIB (Yul Brunner) in this show is Hector. Wyatt could turn out to be a contender.

[Willowy]

Merci! That clears up a lot.

[Netfoot]

5 hours ago, Goatherd said:

Does that mean Old Bill and other "retired" robots could be even older?

I think that has to be the case, as evidenced by the difference in technology apparent between Old Bill and Dolores.

[Netfoot]

4 hours ago, Cherpumple said:

...since the changing quality and appearance of the hosts is one of my main objections to the two timelines theory.

Exactly.  We are supposed to swallow that William's Dolores and TMIB's Dolores -- identical in every physical way and at an equivalent stage of emergence -- are actually separated by 30 years worth of host hardware and software development that doesn't leave one iota of discernible difference between the current Dolores and the 30-years-ago Dolores?  

[jeansheridan]

7 minutes ago, Netfoot said:

Exactly.  We are supposed to swallow that William's Dolores and TMIB's Dolores -- identical in every physical way and at an equivalent stage of emergence -- are actually separated by 30 years worth of host hardware and software development that doesn't leave one iota of discernible difference between the current Dolores and the 30-years-ago Dolores?  

Perhaps the MIB has something to do with this.  If he's a major investor and likes his Dolores to remain exactly the same, then she stays the same.  

Because I am old, thirty years doesn't seem like a very long time.  And I think some of what we may believe are the modern robots seem more glitchy.  Teddy definitely looked worse for wear and robot stiff in the last episode (of course he almost "died").

Clementine (the other prostitute, I think) looks VERY robot like in the first episode in the up-close shot.  That actress can really do the blank eyed starr beautifully.   

Can't wait for tonight!  Enjoy everyone. 

[Netfoot]

4 minutes ago, jeansheridan said:

Because I am old, thirty years doesn't seem like a very long time.

Same here.  But I wouldn't mistake my current computer for the one I had 30 years ago, not even after a rum-tasting afternoon at the distillery!

[numbnut]

59 minutes ago, Netfoot said:

5 hours ago, Cherpumple said:

...since the changing quality and appearance of the hosts is one of my main objections to the two timelines theory.

Exactly.  We are supposed to swallow that William's Dolores and TMIB's Dolores -- identical in every physical way and at an equivalent stage of emergence -- are actually separated by 30 years worth of host hardware and software development that doesn't leave one iota of discernible difference between the current Dolores and the 30-years-ago Dolores?  

One recap noted that the leap from mechanical robots (like the Old Bill prototype) to flesh/blood robots is like the leap from wireless phones to smartphones. There have been constant OS updates after that leap but the technology hasn't leaped again to make smartphones remarkably different or obsolete. The show hasn't specified when the robot leap was made but this could explain why Dolores appears the same. Stubbs also noted that Dolores is practically brand new after so many updates.

Edited November 7, 2016 by numbnut

[Goatherd]

I think that as a technology gets older, more developed, and more commonplace, it gets harder to determine how "old" it is. Today, we'd certainly be able to tell apart two computers with a 30-year difference. But I wouldn't be able to do the same with a crescent wrench, or, for that matter, a house -- especially one that has been maintained and updated regularly.

We caught a glimpse of a couple of hosts in the "before the park opened" flashbacks. One had no legs, but his head and face looked (to me) just like the park hosts we're seeing in the current era. In fact, I think we even caught a glimpse of Peter Abernathy. I realize this is different from seeing how they talk, move, and interact -- but physically at least, I don't have any trouble believing that Dolores looks the same on the outside as she did 30 years ago.

[arc]

6 hours ago, Goatherd said:

We caught a glimpse of a couple of hosts in the "before the park opened" flashbacks. One had no legs, but his head and face looked (to me) just like the park hosts we're seeing in the current era. In fact, I think we even caught a glimpse of Peter Abernathy. I realize this is different from seeing how they talk, move, and interact -- but physically at least, I don't have any trouble believing that Dolores looks the same on the outside as she did 30 years ago.

To me, it's not that they physically look realistic. We can make scarily realistic inanimate statues now. But Old Bill was very primitive in his cognition (little understanding of conversation) and his motor skills, while precise enough to pour drinks, were herky-jerky and robotic. (I guess the latter could be excused as maybe insufficient maintenance in cold storage.)

[paramitch]

On 11/1/2016 at 1:13 PM, dr pepper said:

I liked that whole post. I'm quoting this part because, as i've mentioned before, what i miss most about Television Without Pity is Jacob's commentaries, how he could wring expansive psychological and philosophical insights out of even the smallest event. This comment of yours reminds me of him.

Well done.

Thank you for a tremendous compliment. It really made my day -- I loved those commentaries too, and they're my favorite way to discuss shows like this -- to look at what the stories say about us as people, about what they mean about our dreams.

On 11/1/2016 at 1:22 PM, okerry said:

paramitch said: 

Then: "Dreams mean everything," says Ford to Dolores. "They're the stories we tell ourselves of what could be, who we could become."

This right here is basically the entire show in a nutshell. It's telling us, right here, that how we play and imagine also equals who we are. What's really interesting is that It occurs multiple times through the episode, and each time, a character with real or imagined power over another tells the weaker one that they may dream of better, but they won't get it. Ford says it to Dolores. Lutz, the crude tech says it to Felix. And Logan says it to William.

***(quote not working) Ford said it to Teddy, too.

Did he? It wouldn't surprise me. Everything Ford says fascinates me and makes me look for multiple meanings.

On 11/1/2016 at 3:53 PM, feverfew said:

Shout out to @paramitch for an awesome post. And to all you guys. Westworld is the only show I watch more than once; I enjoy both the characters and the visual, but more than that, I find the ideas - and the resulting discussions - fascinating. I haven't felt this way since the first season of Battlestar Galactica, when everything and everyone was new and shiny - you guys here have really given me something to think about.

I so appreciate this, especially on top of a really tough week. Thanks for the praise -- I'm just here for the commentary and opportunity to discuss this show and analyze it right down to its teeniest dust particles! And for the chance to discuss it with you and our forum participants here -- I'm so grateful. Nobody else I know wants to talk about TV as more than "that was good. What's for lunch?" When for me these shows are every bit as resonant and challenging, at their best, as good novels. And I agree on the echo back to BSG -- I feel the same way (and still miss that show).
 

On 11/2/2016 at 2:18 PM, Quilt Fairy said:

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.

Interesting thought, but this quotes that exchange out of order. He asks her "Do you remember the man I was?" several sentences BEFORE she asks if they are old friends (which is one of the last exchanges in their conversation.

On 11/3/2016 at 11:05 AM, numbnut said:

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).

I don't know -- I think the similarities -- literally right down to her looking down at her arm and pulling out a string exactly as we saw Elsie do earlier -- mean that she must have been implanted at some point, if she isn't now. I think she has already begun to realize she isn't human.

On 11/3/2016 at 0:48 PM, driedfruit said:

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.

I dunno, I think just because the organic side hasn't gotten there yet, it doesn't mean we won't. We are continuing to forge ahead -- we have for instance been able to create synthetic meats and proteins and are now inching slowly but surely toward biological organ growth. I think it's feasible in the next 50-60 years.

On 11/3/2016 at 10:54 PM, NutMeg said:

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.  

Beautifully put. This has affected me powerfully about Ford as well -- his combination of coldness and mercilessness -- his insistence that these beings are not people but objects -- yet he interacts with these "objects" with far more warmth than with the actual people! I also love your idea that this may be a Faustian bargain -- in which case, whose souls are at hazard?

On 11/4/2016 at 6:46 AM, jeansheridan said:

I have no doubt she picked him deliberately.  And after that episode when we saw them adjusting Maeve's level of aggression versus seductive quality, I'm intrigued to see just how good she is at reading humans.  She was designed to read humans, maybe even better than Dolores.  

I adore Thandie Newton in this part and I love the way she's able to be tough and somehow inhuman while also showing real and human emotion, fear, sadness, and loss. I think she's going to continue to show us how preternatural she is -- in fact, that's why I had no problem with the techs not electronically lobotomizing her at a swipe of the tablet -- she had already shown that she could have physically grabbed the tablet or incapacitated them pretty easily, so that worked for me.

On 11/4/2016 at 10:26 AM, Goatherd said:

"His personal life was marked by tragedy. He put all his hopes into his work. His search for consciousness consumed him totally.
Barely spoke to anyone, except the hosts. In his alienation, he saw something in them. He saw something that wasn't there."

The last sentence makes me think of the grief that Anthony Hopkins portrayed oh-so-well when Old Bill gives his stock response to Ford's greyhound story. Ford just told his saddest story, and then something equally sad plays out right in front of him.

And other than Bernard, Ford really confides only in the hosts -- just as he describes Arnold to have done. His conversations with humans tend to be patronizing, as he tries to "patiently" explain the park, the hosts, and human nature.

Thank you for this -- I saw the same thing and loved it. The incredible paradox of the fact that Ford's greatest sadness was not in confiding the greyhound story, but in his realization that poor old Bill could not understand it.