Jump to content

Type keyword(s) to search

S01.E06: The Adversary


Tara Ariano
  • Reply
  • Start Topic

Recommended Posts

Quote

I know some IT people who prefer to code in the dark, ie with their PC monitors as the only source of light.  

Bernard's office was not that bright either and he was shown working when Elsie stopped by.  So he might be used to the dark

That's fine, but let's be real here. The whole operation is poorly lit in order for it to be atmospheric and moody, yet the work they're doing would seem to require better lighting. They're creating and training and fixing these complex androids and everywhere you look through all those glass walls the rooms are just dimly lit. Then Bernard goes down into one of the sub-level, seemingly abandoned basements and is looking around for something specific - without turning on any lights. There's no reason to stumble around in the dark down there if there's power down there. 

It's the main problem I have with this show. Very little of it makes sense if you really think about it. It wants so desperately to be the next big thing and it's slick as snot and cool looking as all get-out but there's not a lot of logic behind it.

  • Love 5
Link to comment
42 minutes ago, iMonrey said:

but there's not a lot of logic behind it.

Yeah, retired IT person here, and I agree.  I keep getting hung up on the fact that what they call QA or Quality Assurance really should be called Operations.  QA shouldn't run the park.  It should be 1) the last phase of testing before a major code change is put into Production and 2) investigate anomalies such as the straying woodcutter. And why should Bernard go to someone (that nameless woman) who's apparently actively running the daily operations of the park to ask his questions about sector 17? He has all sorts of high level clearances but he can't find that information on his own? But she has time to do the research? The way that information and responsibilities are parsed out make no sense to me.

Edited by Quilt Fairy
  • Love 3
Link to comment
4 hours ago, DarkRaichu said:

I do not get why she yawns or "feels" sleepy, surely her battery/power source is fully charged over night regardless of how much sleep she gets.  The only reason seems to be as a conversation starter for Maeve.   I do not see how yawning would entice guests to pay for her service. 

The point of that conversation was that Clementine got paid for listening to the guy all night, and not for sex. I think the yawning was for us, the audience.

1 hour ago, iMonrey said:

Then Bernard goes down into one of the sub-level, seemingly abandoned basements and is looking around for something specific - without turning on any lights

I keep thinking there should be motion activated lighting. Many offices have it. Even bathrooms. 

  • Love 1
Link to comment
38 minutes ago, Quilt Fairy said:

And why should Bernard go to someone (that nameless woman) who's apparently actively running the daily operations of the park to ask his questions about sector 17? He has all sorts of high level clearances but he can't find that information on his own? But she has time to do the research? The way that information and responsibilities are parsed out make no sense to me.

That made sense to me. Bernard Is fairly high up in the hierarchy, and presumably has important duties to attend to. Seems right that he would give the grunt work to someone else. Just like a manager telling a secretary "Get me the Jones file.", instead of going to the file cabinet himself.

  • Love 1
Link to comment
2 hours ago, iMonrey said:

That's fine, but let's be real here. The whole operation is poorly lit in order for it to be atmospheric and moody, yet the work they're doing would seem to require better lighting. They're creating and training and fixing these complex androids and everywhere you look through all those glass walls the rooms are just dimly lit. Then Bernard goes down into one of the sub-level, seemingly abandoned basements and is looking around for something specific - without turning on any lights. There's no reason to stumble around in the dark down there if there's power down there. 

It's the main problem I have with this show. Very little of it makes sense if you really think about it. It wants so desperately to be the next big thing and it's slick as snot and cool looking as all get-out but there's not a lot of logic behind it.

Agreed in principal.  But let me try 1 more movie logic.  ;) 

The scene was shot that way to show how familiar Bernard was with the layout of the old office.  He probably lived there way back when :P

  • Love 5
Link to comment
14 minutes ago, DarkRaichu said:

Agreed in principal.  But let me try 1 more movie logic.  ;) 

The scene was shot that way to show how familiar Bernard was with the layout of the old office.  He probably lived there way back when :P

Another possibility: The computer system is on a different power grid. The old computer was tied into the new data base, etc. There may not be any power down there to the  lights except for emergency or security lighting.

  • Love 2
Link to comment
5 hours ago, okerry said:

but maybe they need to be replenished with "blood" to keep the living tissue parts of them alive.

Blood is a red herring...Teddy had his energy level instantly restored by Ford without any additional blood.  The blood is a placebo that makes the hosts feel tired or know they are fatally wounded. It has no real "biological" function- i.e. a host does not actually "bleed to death". 

Edited by paigow
  • Love 2
Link to comment
2 hours ago, paigow said:

i.e. a host does not actually "bleed to death".

And yet MiB specifically left enough of Kissy's blood in him for him to keep functioning, so there's some relation between blood and the ability to function...right?

I'm curious about what "kills" a host. Do they breathe? If not, how did Maeve get strangled to death? And even if there's a trigger for them to "act dead" if they are in a situation that would kill a human, why did she need to be sent in for repairs after being strangled, rather than just being switched back on?

 

But in a larger sense, there's a whole lot I'm willing to hand-wave. I didn't need to understand how dilithium crystals power a starship; I just needed to know they were required. Similarly, I feel like if a certain technology is important to the story, they'll explain it. But for me, it's enough to know that "special guns used by hosts and guests cannot shoot guests; real guns carried by security are painted red" -- I don't need to understand exactly how this is done. I don't care whether hosts digest the food they eat, or store it in a pouch that gets emptied at night. But seeing how they form sentences, how they "think," is very interesting to me!

Some things are clearly in place for the sake of TV -- I think the giant park map is especially unrealistic, and I chuckle at the techs standing around looking at it. But I admit it's visually interesting and lets us know where we are. When Elsie barked instructions at an assistant with a computer, of course she could have made the changes herself, but the conversation allows the audience to listen in. Every TV show or movie that features computers or hackers has had to find ways to make it more interesting than actually watching a hacker. I'm fine ignoring those parts in order to get on with the story.

But I respect those that are curious, and who want the world-building to be extensive, detailed, consistent, and scientific. It would be great if there were resources for those people -- perhaps websites that dive into the details of RFID-enabled bullets and nano-batteries in robot blood.

  • Love 5
Link to comment

Did anybody notice the look Bernard gave the dog when it came into the robot family house? The shots of the dog cut with Bernard's lingering stare stood out to me, like he could be plotting to program the boy to kill the dog. Hmm...

Edited by numbnut
Link to comment

I'm also confused about the Wyatt storyline, especially from MIB's point of view. MIB thinks Arnold created the maze. The little girl robot tells him to find the snake. So he goes and finds the lady with the snake tattoo and asks her about the tattoo, and she tells him about Wyatt. So now MIB think Wyatt is the next part of the maze.

And yet when he meets with Ford, MIB says that Wyatt is "something new" and speculates that Ford put Wyatt in the park as a new villain, a worthy adversary for the MIB, to stop MIB from reaching the center of the maze. (And Wyatt does appear to be something new Ford invented for his new narrative, though "grounded in an old truth").

So first MIB seems to think that Wyatt is part of the maze (and thus Arnold's invention), and then he thinks (apparently correctly) that Wyatt is someone new invented by Ford. And yet in this episode he still seems convinced that Wyatt is part of the maze!  It's totally confusing. Sometimes I think the writers invent this stuff as they go along.

Here's another thing where it seems like the writers are on different pages: what's causing the robots' anomalous behavior? In the first episode it all seemed to be triggered by the photograph that Peter Abernathy found, which caused him to whisper the "codephrase" to Dolores, and so forth. But it also seemed that Ford's "reverie" code had something to do with it. But it also seemed to have something to do with Arnold. And now it also seems to have something to do with Arnold or someone giving the robots commands via satellite. So which is it? All of the above? This show is kind of incoherent at times.

  • Love 2
Link to comment
On 11/8/2016 at 1:26 AM, jeansheridan said:

Maeve' s curiosity seems a tad low.  How fun to see your personality laid out so neatly.  I want one for me.

I like to think that these numbers are what can be called "fuzzy logic"- they're not completely accurate. I see them as something of a crude overlay over an android's personality. If you're willing to follow me down this path, then it can make a lot of sense that Maeve's curiosity would be set at 2: the personality traits are something like a cage, a way of controlling the androids. Maeve's personality is probably naturally curious, I suspect Westworld staff determined too much so, so in order to limit this, they set her "control" on curiosity at 2 in order to keep it under control. Clearly it wasn't kept under enough control, laugh :-p. To be fair, though, as the techies said, someone very high up has been meddling with her personality. Either that or they are mistaking Maeve's own efforts to circumvent her programmed controls for the work of someone else.

Edited by phoenyx
  • Love 2
Link to comment
17 hours ago, Quilt Fairy said:

 I keep getting hung up on the fact that what they call QA or Quality Assurance really should be called Operations.  QA shouldn't run the park.  It should be 1) the last phase of testing before a major code change is put into Production and 2) investigate anomalies such as the straying woodcutter. 

As a guy who works in Operations, in a company with a QA department, this is absolutely correct (and I was too ashamed of my nerdiness to make this assertion myself, so bravo). QA here should barely see the park, they'd be buried in all of the tech that must go through multiple levels of certification prior to release to the park. Ops would be the people in charge of the guest experience from top to bottom, and QA would get involved only when things started to go wrong (Abernathy, etc). 

I told my wife, I like watching this show quite a lot, but I think part of it is because I can't understand why they're managing this operation the way they are. I find myself going "What fucking Lean principles is this place following?!?" or "Why wouldn't there be some sort of automatic alert for events X Y Z? and "I wonder what sort of data they manage per host besides things like how many gross dudes have fucked Clementine?"

17 hours ago, ennui said:

The point of that conversation was that Clementine got paid for listening to the guy all night, and not for sex. I think the yawning was for us, the audience.

I keep thinking there should be motion activated lighting. Many offices have it. Even bathrooms. 

And I kept thinking "I bet the place has power monitors that would show lights in a dormant section being turned on," but then thinking "But why then leave a computer with useful information down there that can be powered?"

  • Love 4
Link to comment
9 hours ago, Lingo said:

I'm also confused about the Wyatt storyline, especially from MIB's point of view. MIB thinks Arnold created the maze. The little girl robot tells him to find the snake. So he goes and finds the lady with the snake tattoo and asks her about the tattoo, and she tells him about Wyatt. So now MIB think Wyatt is the next part of the maze.

And yet when he meets with Ford, MIB says that Wyatt is "something new" and speculates that Ford put Wyatt in the park as a new villain, a worthy adversary for the MIB, to stop MIB from reaching the center of the maze. (And Wyatt does appear to be something new Ford invented for his new narrative, though "grounded in an old truth").

So first MIB seems to think that Wyatt is part of the maze (and thus Arnold's invention), and then he thinks (apparently correctly) that Wyatt is someone new invented by Ford. And yet in this episode he still seems convinced that Wyatt is part of the maze!  It's totally confusing. Sometimes I think the writers invent this stuff as they go along.

I hate "make it up as we go" storytelling. (*cough*Lost*cough*) Ford also mentioned "weaving the old into the new" with his new storyline but the past hasn't been clearly established. The layering of vague Wyatt stuff, vague maze stuff, vague Arnold stuff, vague church stuff and vague critical failure stuff is too much. Plus everyone's backstory is vague so there's no solid foundation. It's like there's no there there. All these puzzle pieces better fit together in the end.

Quote

Here's another thing where it seems like the writers are on different pages: what's causing the robots' anomalous behavior? In the first episode it all seemed to be triggered by the photograph that Peter Abernathy found, which caused him to whisper the "codephrase" to Dolores, and so forth. But it also seemed that Ford's "reverie" code had something to do with it. But it also seemed to have something to do with Arnold. And now it also seems to have something to do with Arnold or someone giving the robots commands via satellite. So which is it? All of the above? This show is kind of incoherent at times.

I think Abernathy (Bring him back, dammit! He's been in storage too long!) was triggered by the photo because he was already infected by Arnold (without Arnold's "virus," he would have ignored the photo like Dolores did). Ford unintentionally opened a door for the virus with his reveries update. I think the satellite thing (needed for a human to steal data) is separate issue from robots receiving commands and upgrades from Arnold.

  • Love 1
Link to comment
5 hours ago, Uncle JUICE said:

"But why then leave a computer with useful information down there that can be powered?"

Because it's obsolete to the point where the data can't be transferred, is my guess. It's like having one of those 5 1/4" floppy disks; good luck finding a computer with a disk drive. (Merely an illustration.)

As for some of the other anomalies, I think money is the problem. If you've ever worked somewhere on a shoestring budget, you know there aren't any frills and there are many, many "it would be nice to have" features that simply don't exist.

Edited by ennui
Link to comment
On 11/9/2016 at 0:12 AM, numbnut said:

I'm puzzled by the Wyatt storyline. If Ford created the storyline and Teddy's new backstory, then Teddy's description of the maze was written by Ford. So did Ford create the maze? Or did Arnold write the Wyatt storyline and Ford is now using it to track down the maze (and Arnold)?

Edited to add: Maybe Wyatt isn't a storyline and was the "critical failure" as he killed a bunch of guests and hosts. I dunno.

I think the maze is independent of the Wyatt story. It seems to be tied into the religion created for the Native American hosts, and perhaps hosts in general, by Arnold.

Link to comment
15 hours ago, Uncle JUICE said:

As a guy who works in Operations, in a company with a QA department, this is absolutely correct (and I was too ashamed of my nerdiness to make this assertion myself, so bravo). QA here should barely see the park, they'd be buried in all of the tech that must go through multiple levels of certification prior to release to the park. Ops would be the people in charge of the guest experience from top to bottom, and QA would get involved only when things started to go wrong (Abernathy, etc).

Thank you.  You sound like one of the people who used to wake me up at 2 am to tell me my job went down. To you, sir, I say "Force complete!" (Or does that betray how long I've been retired?)

Edited by Quilt Fairy
Link to comment
23 hours ago, ennui said:

As for some of the other anomalies, I think money is the problem. If you've ever worked somewhere on a shoestring budget, you know there aren't any frills and there are many, many "it would be nice to have" features that simply don't exist.

The budget for Westworld is massive (season 1 was $100 million) so I doubt that money is a problem.

I noticed that when they showed Ford's town model in his office, he had all the human or robot figures positioned around the back of the church like a front line of an attack. Is he planning a reenactment of the critical failure massacre as a way of finding out how Arnold survived?

Edited to add: A recapper noticed how Bernard always leaves whenever Ford mentions Bernard's son. It's like a programmed command. Interesting.

Edited by numbnut
Link to comment
4 hours ago, numbnut said:

The budget for Westworld is massive (season 1 was $100 million) so I doubt that money is a problem.

I wasn't talking about the real world budget, I was talking about the fictional budget for the theme park. They've mentioned hemorrhaging money, indicating financial difficulties. Hence, they turn off the lights.

  • Love 2
Link to comment
On 07/11/2016 at 5:41 AM, okerry said:

Bernard immediately addressed the father host as "Arnold." Ford said that Arnold had made these particular hosts, and said Arnold felt the artist should be reflected in his work - which would seem to say that yes, the father host was made to look just like Arnold - who was therefore Ford's father - yes?

Because it was the guy standing next to Ford in the pic he showed Bernard in a previous ep. when he first told him about Arnold. So naturally Bernard assumed that was Arnold. So Ford lied to Bernard (and to all of us)

  • Love 1
Link to comment
13 minutes ago, Abernathy said:

Was it Dolores' bust on the glass shelf in Ford's office?

Only now seeing this I realised we didn't saw Hector on the episode after all

The preview with Hector was for future episodes, not this specific episode.

  • Love 1
Link to comment
4 minutes ago, Abernathy said:
On 11/6/2016 at 11:41 PM, okerry said:

Bernard immediately addressed the father host as "Arnold." Ford said that Arnold had made these particular hosts, and said Arnold felt the artist should be reflected in his work - which would seem to say that yes, the father host was made to look just like Arnold - who was therefore Ford's father - yes?

Because it was the guy standing next to Ford in the pic he showed Bernard in a previous ep. when he first told him about Arnold. So naturally Bernard assumed that was Arnold. So Ford lied to Bernard (and to all of us)

I have seen a theory elsewhere that stated, if Bernard is a host then when he looks at the pic he cannot see a 'third' person in the pic and so assumes the middle person is Arnold. As far as I can tell this is based only on the fact that the men pictured are not 'centered' and there is room for a third person. I'm not sure I agree with this. We know hosts sometimes 'won't compute' photos they see (Dolores and the one her dad finds) but why would Bernard see the second person in the pic and not the third. And if it is the third, unseen, person who is Arnold then is the middle person is just Ford's dad?

  • Love 1
Link to comment
1 hour ago, ennui said:
6 hours ago, numbnut said:

The budget for Westworld is massive (season 1 was $100 million) so I doubt that money is a problem.

I wasn't talking about the real world budget, I was talking about the fictional budget for the theme park. They've mentioned hemorrhaging money, indicating financial difficulties. Hence, they turn off the lights.

Sorry about that. I thought you were talking about HBO production anomalies. Wouldn't budget issues fade when the MiB saved the park? 

37 minutes ago, Abernathy said:
On 11/6/2016 at 9:41 PM, okerry said:

Bernard immediately addressed the father host as "Arnold." Ford said that Arnold had made these particular hosts, and said Arnold felt the artist should be reflected in his work - which would seem to say that yes, the father host was made to look just like Arnold - who was therefore Ford's father - yes?

Because it was the guy standing next to Ford in the pic he showed Bernard in a previous ep. when he first told him about Arnold. So naturally Bernard assumed that was Arnold. So Ford lied to Bernard (and to all of us)

26 minutes ago, dgpolo said:

I have seen a theory elsewhere that stated, if Bernard is a host then when he looks at the pic he cannot see a 'third' person in the pic and so assumes the middle person is Arnold. As far as I can tell this is based only on the fact that the men pictured are not 'centered' and there is room for a third person. I'm not sure I agree with this. We know hosts sometimes 'won't compute' photos they see (Dolores and the one her dad finds) but why would Bernard see the second person in the pic and not the third. And if it is the third, unseen, person who is Arnold then is the middle person is just Ford's dad?

Maybe what they can see and can't see depends on individual programming. Ford partly lied about the photo if you buy the Bernard = Arnold theory. The actual photo would show Ford and Bernard/Arnold standing proudly with the gift of the dad robot. Since Bernard isn't programmed to see himself as Arnold, he would only see the dad robot and Ford. Abernathy saw the city photo because he was infected by Arnold's virus.

Someone noted an odd moment right before the security system accepted Bernard's name on Level 83. I didn't notice anything but maybe it was expecting Bernard to ID himself as Arnold?

I love the Maeve moment when she freezes after seeing her word tree programming but it looks like the tablet is transcribing her words instead of programming her improv.

Edited by numbnut
Link to comment
1 hour ago, dgpolo said:

I have seen a theory elsewhere that stated, if Bernard is a host then when he looks at the pic he cannot see a 'third' person in the pic and so assumes the middle person is Arnold. As far as I can tell this is based only on the fact that the men pictured are not 'centered' and there is room for a third person. I'm not sure I agree with this. We know hosts sometimes 'won't compute' photos they see (Dolores and the one her dad finds) but why would Bernard see the second person in the pic and not the third. And if it is the third, unseen, person who is Arnold then is the middle person is just Ford's dad?

I read about that theory too, that the pic had originally 3 ppl on it and the 3rd person (presumabily Arnold) was kind of photoshoped, so Bernard asumed Ford's father was Arnold.

Link to comment
11 hours ago, Abernathy said:

Was it Dolores' bust on the glass shelf in Ford's office?

I have not been able to identify any of the busts behind Ford's desk, but I am pretty sure that when he opened the book that showed the maze (which I assume must have contained Arnold's original ideas for the park) I also saw a sketch of Dolores on the previous page.

  • Love 2
Link to comment
On 11/6/2016 at 10:21 PM, benteen said:

Ford crafting his robot family the way he remembered it growing up is truly ****ed up.

I wouldn't put it that way at all. I did a little digging, it turns out that Anthony Hopkins actually thinks about his child self in real life. Here's the opening paragraph to an article on him and his wife written in 2013:

**

Sir Anthony Hopkins reaches deep into his pocket and pulls out a bubble-gum pink mobile phone.

He flips it open to display what’s on the screen: a black and white photo of a solemn-faced little boy. ‘That’s me’, he says proudly. ‘I was ten years old, just a baby then. I carry it everywhere and whenever I see it, I say to my picture: “We did OK, didn’t we kid?” ’

**

They even put the picture of him in the article:

article-2378309-1AF9E829000005DC-572_306

Robert Ford's reference to his father's drinking habit also seems to be drawn from Anthony's real life as well. From the same article:

**

‘When I used to drink like a fish I smoked my lungs out, too. I used to go out with my father and we’d both drink quite heavily. And there was a man at the pub we used to go to who was very clean-living, he smoked one cigarette a week, drank one glass of beer a week, and that was it, and one day he dropped dead — just like that — because of a brain haemorrhage.

‘My father said to me: “Well, there you go. He didn’t drink, he didn’t smoke and — bam! — he’s gone. So let’s drink up and be merry.” But you have a certain choice in life. You come to a certain age, you think: “Well, I don’t think this is too smart to feed the fuel tank with all this junk, so I better slow down or stop.” ’ He has never disclosed exactly what it was that made him stop drinking just two days before his 38th birthday.

But whatever it was, he has not touched alcohol since. ‘I just thought, “Well, I have a choice here. Change or die. Grow or go.”

So I stopped doing certain things and I started doing certain others, and I’m glad I did. I see other people still carrying this monkey on their back, which is exactly what it is.’

**

Further evidence that he has quite an attachment to his life as a child can be seen in another article from 2013:

'Sell me your house for £180,000': Family's shock as Anthony Hopkins turns up at his childhood home in Port Talbot to make an offer

In the article, it's noted that not only did he only half jestingly offer to buy his childhood home, he even invited the new tenants to visit him in LA.

In summation, I believe that childhood home of Ford's may be his anchor. This is his real dream, and the fact that only he can 'freeze program' on the androids in it suggests that he takes them pretty seriously. Clearly, he also wanted to keep this aspect of his life hidden. Could this be because he doesn't want any enemy of his to realize that he's got a vulnerability? It may be that Ford doesn't actually know how to create hosts like the ones that Arnold created, which would mean that if his virtual family was killed, that'd be the end of it. As to his enemies, I can think of 2 groups: the money men, which in this case appears to be Delos, as well as renegade hosts. Another thing, I think that, like Arnold, Ford may have a fairly dim view of people, atleast those with a lot of money. Here's a line Ford mentions to Theresa back in Episode 4 that I think reveals a lot:

**

DR. ROBERT FORD: Ah. (nods) In the beginning, I imagined things would be ... perfectly balanced. Even had a bet with my partner, Arnold, to that effect. We made a hundred hopeful story-lines. Of course, almost ... no one took us up on them. I lost the bet. Arnold always held a somewhat dim view of people. He preferred the hosts. He begged me to not let you people in -- the money-men -- Delos. (Manu begins refilling a glass of wine.) But I told him we'd be fine -- that you didn't understand what you were paying for. It's not a business venture, not a theme park, but an entire world. (The wine glass overflows while Manu looks frozen in place. Dolores looks around inside the restaurant and out into the field. No one is moving -- all are frozen in place.) We designed every inch of it -- every blade of grass. In here, we were gods. And you ... were merely our guests.

**

Edited by phoenyx
  • Love 4
Link to comment
On 11/7/2016 at 1:02 AM, okerry said:

hate to say it, but I didn't miss Dolores at all - or William

I think it was a good episode, certainly gave Maeve a chance to shine. That being said, Dolores is my favourite character, and William is clearly her trusty sidekick, so yeah, I missed them, laugh :-p. 

  • Love 1
Link to comment
On 11/7/2016 at 1:41 AM, Armchair Critic said:

I knew Elsie was going to end up dead the minute Bernard didn't get to finish telling her to be careful.

Lol :-). But the guy who grabbed her didn't look like he was trying to kill her- it seemed more like he was trying to capture her. Atleast that's my fervent hope, Elsie's my second favourite character in the show :-). 

  • Love 2
Link to comment
On 11/7/2016 at 3:56 AM, jeansheridan said:

Regarding the techs with Maeve, I think Felix's curiosity got to him. 

I think he's probably like Arnold to some extent: Ford would probably say that he's getting too attached to the hosts :-p. 

On 11/7/2016 at 3:56 AM, jeansheridan said:

I am surprised Sylvester didn't rat her out.  Major plot hole.

I believe some media person asked Jonathan Nolan why they didn't just delete Maeve's memories, and that he pointed them to Episode 8.

  • Love 1
Link to comment
On 11/7/2016 at 4:06 AM, derriere said:

Absolutely awesome episode, but I'm honestly not thrilled with Maeve's upgrade. Root ruined Person of Interest for me and I have a horrible feeling Nolan's about to introduce another smug unstoppable magical ninja.

I don't think that's going to happen. My feeling is that Maeve's going to be stopped by Ford's God like powers when it comes to the androids. Dolores, on the other hand... you see, I think that Ford knows deep in his heart that he's gone down the wrong path when it comes to Westworld. Dolores is also an android that, while he may harbour a grudge against her for something that happened in the past, he is also deeply familiar with. I certainly won't forget his line to her in episode 5:  "I'm sorry for bothering you, but ... there's no one else left who was there -- no one who understands ... as we understand."

It -seems- like Maeve isn't going to hesitate to use violence, and I think there may have been a bit of foreshadowing as to how Ford reacts to that in this episode with Child Ford's actions to the family dog. But I think Dolores is working on him from a different angle, reminding him of the bad things he's done, her situation being a good example. In the end, Ford may have to admit that atleast some of the androids in the park have become sentient and I think he'd agree that holding essentially sentient beings hostage in a park for the amusement of "guests" is morally wrong. Ofcourse, this may all just be wishful thinking on my part :-p. 

For those who'd like a little refresher on Ford's entire conversation with Dolores in Episode 5:

Spoiler

**

DR. ROBERT FORD: Hello, Dolores. Do you know where you are?

DOLORES ABERNATHY: (smiles) I'm in a dream.

DR. ROBERT FORD: Yes, Dolores. You're in my dream. Tell me, do you know what this dream means?

DOLORES ABERNATHY: Dreams are the mind telling stories to itself. They don't mean anything.

DR. ROBERT FORD: No! Dreams mean everything. They're the stories we tell ourselves of what could be -- who we could become. Have you been dreaming again, Dolores? Imagining yourself breaking out of your ... modest little loop? Taking on a bigger role? Well, I suppose I can't begrudge you that. (Ford takes Dolores' right hand and while he talks, examines both sides.) My father told me to be satisfied with my lot in life -- that the world owed me nothing. And so ... I made my own world. Tell me, Dolores. Do you remember the man I used to be?

DOLORES ABERNATHY: I'm sorry. I'm forgetful sometimes.

DR. ROBERT FORD: Hardly your fault. But I'm sure you remember him ... Arnold ... the person who created you.

DOLORES ABERNATHY: I'm sorry, I -- don't think I recall anyone by that name.

DR. ROBERT FORD: And yet you can. Somewhere under all those updates, he is still there -- perfectly preserved. Your mind is a walled garden. Even death cannot touch the flowers blooming there. Have you been hearing voices? Has Arnold been speaking to you again?

DOLORES ABERNATHY: No. You're -- you're hurting me. (Dolores looks down at Ford gripping her hand.)

DR. ROBERT FORD: Analysis. When was your last contact with Arnold?

DOLORES ABERNATHY: Last contact: 34 years, 42 days, seven hours ago.

DR. ROBERT FORD: Yes, Dolores ... the day Arnold died. And you have no records of any contact with him since?

DOLORES ABERNATHY: No.

DR. ROBERT FORD: What was the last thing he said to you?

DOLORES ABERNATHY: He told me I was going to help him.

DR. ROBERT FORD: Help him do what?

DOLORES ABERNATHY: To destroy this place.

DR. ROBERT FORD: But you didn't, did you? You've been content ... in your little loop ... for the most part. I wonder ... if you did take on that bigger role for yourself, would you have been the ... hero ... or the villain? That's enough, Dolores. I'm sorry for bothering you, but ... there's no one else left who was there -- no one who understands ... as we understand.

DR. ROBERT FORD: No. I wouldn't say friends, Dolores. I wouldn't say that at all. (Ford holds his hand up in front of his face, motions toward Dolores, dropping his hand and then gets up and exits the room. The lights go out, leaving Dolores in the dark.)

DOLORES ABERNATHY: He doesn't know. I didn't tell him anything.

**

Edited by phoenyx
  • Love 2
Link to comment
On 11/7/2016 at 11:49 AM, Franky said:

I think it would be cool if Dolores was the one that grabbed Elsie.

Dolores has been going off-script for a while now, and maybe she saw in Elsie a way to learn more about what's happening to her. She has to be one confused droid at this point. And since they've taken great pains to show D acquiring a creeping sentience, it could make sense that she'd see an opportunity like that and at least hogtie Elsie so she could question her. 

In the last scene with Dolores in Episode 5, she was on a train's caboose. This is true whether or not you believe in 2 time concurrent time periods: in one time period, she'd be with William and El Lazo, in the the other, she'd be alone, but in both she'd be on the train, apparently headed towards the maze. I know that some people are speculating that there's a third time period, where she has her conversations with Bernard, but I've never seen him use a room like the one Elsie was in, so I'm thinking we'd need a fourth time period to have Dolores grab Elsie. I just think it's highly unlikely Dolores is the one who did it. As to who might have done it, that's a tough one to answer. At this point, I'd even be willing to consider that Arnold didn't actually die and it's him. Or perhaps a rival corporation to Delos trying to get data from the park, or even Delos itself (Ford clearly seems to not fully trust Delos, and the feeling may well be mutual).

Edited by phoenyx
Link to comment
On ‎13‎/‎11‎/‎2016 at 8:54 AM, Abernathy said:

On a not so relevant note, I just noticed the "Butchers" are named after cats (Felix and Sylvester)

Hmmm curiosity killed the cat...maybe its a hint to their fate with upgrading Maeve.

Link to comment
1 hour ago, Franky said:

Oooh, what if it's the ORIGINAL (Yul Brenner) MIB come back to life? He was stored down there, wasn't he?

He was certainly stored -somewhere-, but I don't think it was the same place. Furthermore, Jonathan Nolan has told people not to read too much into the apparition of the gunslinger:

**

Entertainment Weekly: We get another trip down into the deepest levels of Westworld. I’m assuming that was mock-up of Yul Brynner from the Westworld film Bernard saw in the background?

Jonathan Nolan: It was indeed. It was a little tip of the hat. We didn’t want to feature it too heavily, we don’t want you reading too much into that.

Entertainment Weekly: Right. Because you’ve previously said the film’s events did not literally happen in your story. 

**

Source: http://www.ew.com/article/2016/11/06/westworld-adversary-interview

Link to comment
3 minutes ago, phoenyx said:

He was certainly stored -somewhere-, but I don't think it was the same place. Furthermore, Jonathan Nolan has told people not to read too much into the apparition of the gunslinger:

**

Entertainment Weekly: We get another trip down into the deepest levels of Westworld. I’m assuming that was mock-up of Yul Brynner from the Westworld film Bernard saw in the background?

Jonathan Nolan: It was indeed. It was a little tip of the hat. We didn’t want to feature it too heavily, we don’t want you reading too much into that.

Entertainment Weekly: Right. Because you’ve previously said the film’s events did not literally happen in your story. 

I watched the Westworld movie last week and the only thing I saw that was the same was Delos. It was the name of the whole park in the film, with Westworld, Medieval World and Roman World parts of the park.

  • Love 1
Link to comment
On ‎11‎/‎8‎/‎2016 at 0:26 AM, jeansheridan said:

Maeve' s curiosity seems a tad low.  How fun to see your personality laid out so neatly.  I want one for me.

I tried to do a self-analysis.  It turned out I'm not suited for brothel madam.

  • Love 2
Link to comment
6 hours ago, candall said:

I tried to do a self-analysis.  It turned out I'm not suited for brothel madam.

It's not as easy as it looks, although you do get to lie down on the job.

Link to comment
39 minutes ago, paigow said:
8 hours ago, candall said:

I tried to do a self-analysis.  It turned out I'm not suited for brothel madam.

I scored very high for brothel client.....

My highest score was for piano-player.  And I can't even play the piano!

  • Love 1
Link to comment

I have some more thoughts about the whole dog situation. (I guess the dog's name is "Jock"? Or "Jug"?). There were a few interesting things going on here:

  1. the dog killed a rabbit, which horrified the boy, which led (with prompting from Arnold) to him killing the dog.
    1. Did Arnold send the rabbit? Did he at least goad the dog into killing the rabbit? Ford did say that Arnold initially created this Ford family simulacrum in an idealized manner rather than strictly realistic, so the dog might have not had its instinctive reaction to the rabbit that the real life Jock had, at least not initially. Is it possible Ford made the dog more realistic, the way he did with his robot dad? Maybe subconsciously he wanted to reenact that horrible moment?
    2. What message would Arnold be sending with this? Something wasn't responsible for what it did because it was "made that way", and therefore it should be killed? "If it was dead, it couldn't hurt anything anymore." Did he mean the entire park? Hosts? Ford?
  2. Interesting that the boy could lie to Ford and doubly interesting that he could lie even in analysis mode. ("I killed it." "Why?" "I don't know.") Guess this goes back to Elsie saying earlier in the episode that hosts hacked via the bicameral mind broadcast system had core systems changed to the point that the hosts could lie to Behavior techs.
Link to comment
7 minutes ago, arc said:

I have some more thoughts about the whole dog situation. (I guess the dog's name is "Jock"? Or "Jug"?). There were a few interesting things going on here:

  1. the dog killed a rabbit, which horrified the boy, which led (with prompting from Arnold) to him killing the dog.
    1. Did Arnold send the rabbit? Did he at least goad the dog into killing the rabbit? Ford did say that Arnold initially created this Ford family simulacrum in an idealized manner rather than strictly realistic, so the dog might have not had its instinctive reaction to the rabbit that the real life Jock had, at least not initially. Is it possible Ford made the dog more realistic, the way he did with his robot dad? Maybe subconsciously he wanted to reenact that horrible moment?
    2. What message would Arnold be sending with this? Something wasn't responsible for what it did because it was "made that way", and therefore it should be killed? "If it was dead, it couldn't hurt anything anymore." Did he mean the entire park? Hosts? Ford?
  2. Interesting that the boy could lie to Ford and doubly interesting that he could lie even in analysis mode. ("I killed it." "Why?" "I don't know.") Guess this goes back to Elsie saying earlier in the episode that hosts hacked via the bicameral mind broadcast system had core systems changed to the point that the hosts could lie to Behavior techs.

How do we know the dog actually killed a rabbit? According to the official website, all the animals (except flies) are hosts. Why create a rabbit? It would be easier for Arnold to just tell the boy to kill the dog after implanting a memory of the dog killing a rabbit.

  • Love 1
Link to comment

hah, true. But as for creating a rabbit, I just assumed there were already rabbits. They seem to have spared no expense in making the world of the park seem true to life, and that should include a full ecosystem. (and, Ford didn't say anything like "but we've never made rabbits".)

  • Love 1
Link to comment

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...