S02.E02: Reunion

[wallflower75]

5 hours ago, Luka1997 said:

4. Idk if Dolores knew what she was doing or not, but she really stepped on all of Teddy's triggers. Going to the Confederados when Teddy used to be in the Union is a low move. It seems like the plot is going towards Teddy leaving Dolores.

One thing I hope to see what will happen if/when Teddy realizes that one of his many, MANY deaths was at Dolores's hands.  Would that be the last straw for him following her lead?

I had no clue that El Lazo was Giancarlo Esposito until I saw the closing credits.  I had to go back and watch that scene again and be disappointed that he didn't last long--although as has been pointed out, as a host he could very well make a return in the not to distant future.  :)

[TracySMiller]

That was a good move by the organization, making that Giancarlo Esposito host. Now they'll be ready if they decide to make a "Breaking Bad" or "Better Call Saul" park. 

[Nashville]

On 4/29/2018 at 11:12 PM, Quilt Fairy said:

Giancarlo Esposito (aka Gus Fring from Breaking Bad) was the "new" El Lazo.   Don't know about IMDB, but I did see his name in the credits.

Did my heart good good to see GE in WW - his face grew back real good, donchathink?  ;>

 

Quote

William's change (what's the opposite of a redemption arc?) seemed unrealistic to me.  He turned into a total prick pretty quickly.  "How could I have fallen in love with you? You're just a thing."

Wasn’t really all that quick. :)  Pure guesstimating on my part, but I would surmise...

1. William was an early 30something at the time of his first WW visit.
2. Wiliam was somewhere in his early-to-mid-50s when he gave his “You’re just a thing” soliloquy - a passage of some 20-25 years.
3. Fast-forward that to the show’s “current day” period, when MIB is somewhere around mid-to-late 70s at least - indicating yet another 20-25 year timehop.

...all of which means we have plotlines weaving in and out of what is probably at least a 50 year time span.

 

On 4/30/2018 at 12:55 PM, DarkRaichu said:

I think the weapon is a massive database to host the information for blackmail. William showed Dolores the construction of a bunker / data center to host the database + data receivers.  Last season Ford started to blow up parts of the park and some in Delos worried the database/data center might get effected.  Thus they ported all information to an empty host (Abernathy) in an effort to move the data outside of Westworld.  This was a 1 time operation otherwise they would not have put very high priority to Abernathy's extraction (ie. Delos refused to extract Charlotte unless she had Abernathy in hand)

 

Agree with everything except the bolded part:

1. If Delos had so much information they needed to build a full-blown Data Center to house it, there’s no way one host would have the physical storage capacity to carry all that.  
2. Why would Delos have any issue with getting Delos-owned information out of a Delos-owned property? They’d already have access to every bit of data in the Data Center.
3. If Delos has pockets deep enough to construct a full-blown formal Data Center - which it obviously does - then here’s a news flash for those not familiar with High Availability (HA) system design concepts; it’s simultaneously building more than one.  Cardinal principles of HA systems are elimination of single points of failure, and seamless (to users) crossover to redundant systems in the event of operational failure.  A fundamental element of the overall system design would be superfast high-speed trunks to copy every bit of collected data to “mirror” Data Centers, such that operations would continue without a discernible hiccup to users even if some catastrophe should totally, instantaneously wipe out the DC hosting the original source data.  That’s already current operational DC model today, so I doubt the future’s models would be less capable.  All of which means Delos already has redundant copies of all its guest-spy data outside the physical confines of the park.

IMHO the information Abernathy was smuggling out of WW was that which Delos did NOT already have its hands on - i.e., the source code for the low-level infrastructure software Ford had programmed into all the hosts.  As was mentioned several times in S1, Ford kept that code a secret from everybody else; it was Ford’s leverage against the Delos Board, to keep them from kicking him out of his (and Arnold’s) creation.  Which, by the same token, means Delos was ravenous to get its hands on Ford’s code.  

Two issues, though, might have forced Delos to pursue its Rube Goldberg-esque course of industrial espionage:

1. Ford’s (not-unjustified) total paranoia regarding Delos probably meant that for security purposes (a) Ford kept his sacred source code on a computer system completely, totally divorced from any contact with the Delos Main computer network, and (b) physically ported over only compiled machine code when implementing his new software versions for the hosts.  The physical separation of systems eliminates any chance for Delos IT spies to find (and hack into) the system containing Ford’s source, and the distribution of only compiled code significantly reduces opportunities to reverse-engineer his software from the distributions.
2. Even if Delos agents do manage to get their hands on Ford’s source, though; what to do with it?  This is not a casual question.  It wouldn’t be too far of a reach to assume that over the years Ford had seeded Delos Main’s computer systems with low-level hunter/killer bots running UTR which were designed to constantly search for (and delete, if found) any telltale traces of Ford’s source code, to prevent its transmission outside the WW Park - or worse, trigger upon source code detection a “Doomsday Switch” built into the code running on the hosts, and immediately turn every one of them into a billion-dollar lump of burned-out melted slag.

Which means Delos industrial spies would have to physically locate the system(s) housing the source, steal a copy, then get the copy out of WW without going through any of the park’s local IT apparatus.

Hence the whole hosts-with-frikkin’-laser-beams-attached ploy - to allow the source code transport host(s) to beam their purloined payload directly to Delos-owned communications satellites outside WW’s Delos Main network structure.

 

19 hours ago, Lemons said:

Did they do something weird to his looks to make him look older?  I am so confused about what went on.

Heavy-duty frosting on William’s hair at the temples - enough to suggest William’s “you’re just a thing” speech to/at Dolores took place at least some 20+ years after his initial transformative WW visit.

Edited May 3, 2018 by Nashville
One freakin’ typo.... :P

[taanja]

On 4/30/2018 at 10:52 AM, The Companion said:

I hear everyone on Dolores being boring, but I still like her and this storyline. I think she is walking a thin line between taking the place of the humans, but she seems committed to bringing people into the fold rather than forcing them into the fold. She understands that there will come a point where the humans will just decide to destroy the place. She needs leverage if she is going to be able to continue. At this point, her options are to try to escape the park and integrate into the real world or to find a way to prevent the humans from taking her world over. I don't see living as a human being particularly attractive to Dolores. I also enjoy that she is becoming the opposite of her program as a paragon of femininity and virtue. I love that she is gathering an army. I enjoyed her face off with a room full of men who underestimated the hell out of her. I even love that she is trying to wake Teddy up rather than accepting the puppy dog who will follow her to the ends of the earth programming. 

Delores and her story are my favorite. I love that she remembers everything. Every. goddamn. thing. And they showed it.  Over the years the humans are talking around her/near her/ to her as if she is just a "thing" As if she can't hear or understand. But she does hear. She does understand. And most important-- she remembers everything! haha! Brilliant.

This show remains fascinating to me. and the William/Delores dynamic is certainly the best thing right now.

[meep.meep]

6 hours ago, Nashville said:

Heavy-duty frosting on William’s hair at the temples - enough to suggest William’s “you’re just a thing” speech to/at Dolores took place at least some 20+ years after his initial transformative WW visit.

It couldn't be that long.  The MIB, also William, is in his late 50s.  And he looks much much older.  William "older" than he was at the party, must be in his 40s, so it's only 10 years later.

I thought they were implying that Dolores with Arnold, when Ford asks if she's ready and Arnold says she's not, was the earliest time frame.  But how does she already know the phrase "full of splendor" then?  No one but William says it to her, in a later time period, when he shows her the weapon.

[Netfoot]

Two episodes in, and Season Two is coming across pretty crappy.  Loads of lush scenery, but more than enough screwing with temporal continuity, presumably with the goal of a Gee-Whizz reveal later in the series.  

Dolores is riding around killing humans because she is angry?  Did Walt Disney build his Audio Animatronic devices to include the ability to get angry? Rubbish.  There is more chance that your Sat-Nav will get angry at you for taking the long route to the mall, than that these hosts will spontaneously develop feelings.  They are machines, built for a purpose, and to a budget. Spurious, undesirable capabilities would not have been included. So, if these machines are developing capabilities beyond their design parameters, it has to be happening because someone made it happen.  And I'd like to see that, instead of clever, time-jumping trickery.  

[Morrigan2575]

3 hours ago, meep.meep said:

It couldn't be that long.  The MIB, also William, is in his late 50s.  And he looks much much older.  William "older" than he was at the party, must be in his 40s, so it's only 10 years later.

I swear the key to this show is figuring out the timeline. If you can nail that down, you can get a handle on the season.

I'm curious, why do you think MiB is in his 50s? I thought he'd be closer to Ed Harris' 67 years.

I know that MiB said he's been coming to the park for over 30 years and, figured he was in his early to mid 30s as William. 

[Solace247]

6 hours ago, meep.meep said:

I thought they were implying that Dolores with Arnold, when Ford asks if she's ready and Arnold says she's not, was the earliest time frame.  But how does she already know the phrase "full of splendor" then?  No one but William says it to her, in a later time period, when he shows her the weapon.

The Arnold/Dolores scene is before the park opens and prior to Logan first investing in Westworld, so 35+ years ago. William is dating Logan's sister at the time. Thirty five years ago is when Dolores kills Arnold. Around thirty years ago Logan brings an engaged William to the park and he goes on his adventure with Dolores. William then pitches the park to Logan's father. He essentially takes over Delos by the time of the party. Judging by his daughter's age, let's say that this takes place around 7 years later or so--so like 22/23 years ago. I think it's around this time that he takes Dolores to see his plan. He's definitely displaying his same douche self as at the party. When he's talking to Dolores, he's spitting her line back at her, because he's obviously heard her say it a lot, particularly in the real world.

[Ellaria]

Haven't seen mention of this so thought that I would bring it up...

When James Delos and William arrive by helicopter in WW, the hosts are frozen in place. We see Dolores in her usual spot holding her can. William then proceeds to tell James why an investment in the park is important and what can be accomplished. It is the "only place in the world where you get to see people for who they really are" speech.

The scene ends by pulling back on Dolores face in profile. There is no expression on her face but it is safe to assume that she heard everything that they said.

[ChipBach]

I gave it two episodes.  I am am having a hard time enjoying a show with no good guys.  I get it.  Dolores is pissed because she was forced to get killed several times and made to have robot sex with humans, etc.  She was built for it though.  Kinda like my toaster meeting me at the door with a loaded gun because I kept shoving multigrain in his top hole...

Really struggling to find empathy for the machines.

[DarkRaichu]

One small detail I forgot to mention: during the demo, Angela laughed and touched her hair with her index finger pointing up right before the hosts froze.  This was similar to how Ford stopped the hosts around him in season 1 (making a motion with his index finger).

[Head-Full-Of-Thi]

On 3.5.2018 at 3:58 AM, wallflower75 said:

One thing I hope to see what will happen if/when Teddy realizes that one of his many, MANY deaths was at Dolores's hands.  Would that be the last straw for him following her lead?

Did it happen? Did Dolores kill Teddy once? Or are you saying that it would be interesting if she will?

[Morrigan2575]

7 hours ago, Luka1997 said:

Did it happen? Did Dolores kill Teddy once? Or are you saying that it would be interesting if she will?

She did as Wyatt, she killed Arnold, Teddy and i want to say herself.

[wallflower75]

12 hours ago, Morrigan2575 said:

She did as Wyatt, she killed Arnold, Teddy and i want to say herself.

I'd have to go back and rewatch, but I think she did kill herself as well.

[KaleyFirefly]

All the multiple timelines are getting confusing

[FozzyBear]

On 4/30/2018 at 8:37 AM, whiporee said:

But she is just a thing, or she certainly was at that point. His point was valid -- she's a fantasy construct. He was stupid to fall in love with her.

Are the humans supposed to be feeling guilty about the way they've treated the hosts? I know it's being portrayed that ways, but they are -- were -- constructs, created to provide pleasure (in all its forms). I mean, are we supposed to feel bad about driving a car over rough terrain? The hosts were created to be killed -- they were created to be fucked -- and without previous knowledge they had evolved, it's hard to think of the people as bad. It's the same questions that were raised in Humans -- can you abuse a machine? In one of the early episodes, one of the robots killed a guy who was a pedophile, but his relations were restricted to child-like robots. Doesn't that seem like a better answer? 

I don't know whether the show will get into these kinds of questions, but whenever I see the humans getting their "just deserts," it raises the question to me. 

I think it’s a yes and no thing. Should we feel bad about shooting someone in a video game? Maybe not. Should we feel great about our desire to shoot someone in a video game? Maybe not.

But as with most sci-fi I feel like there’s a ton of metaphors playing out.

To me, Westworld has always been a story about consent and slavery. The hosts are basically slaves and every society that used slavery also dehumanized their slaves. There is always rhetoric that describes the slave classes as less then human. 

I also think there’s a nice metaphor about becoming evil even if we think the evil we perform has no consequences. It’s sort of long examination of that Vonnegut quote about being careful of what we pretend because we will become it.

[Nashville]

On 5/3/2018 at 9:20 PM, Morrigan2575 said:

I'm curious, why do you think MiB is in his 50s? I thought he'd be closer to Ed Harris' 67 years.

I know that MiB said he's been coming to the park for over 30 years and, figured he was in his early to mid 30s as William. 

I was figuring the MIB version of William to be in his late 60s/early 70s as well.

[Head-Full-Of-Thi]

On 6.5.2018 at 4:47 PM, Morrigan2575 said:

She did as Wyatt, she killed Arnold, Teddy and i want to say herself.

You're right I forgot!

[OldButHappy]

On May 4, 2018 at 12:29 PM, ChipBach said:

Kinda like my toaster meeting me at the door with a loaded gun because I kept shoving multigrain in his top hole...

OK, you literally made me laugh out loud.  It scared my dog.  

I'm trying to figure out which of my appliances would harbor the most resentment towards me....I was thinking my washing machine, but reconsidered when I realized that my carpet cleaner probably has more valid grievances.  And wheels.

I joke, but your analogy is brilliant:  the hosts' human form tricks us, the viewers, every bit as much as it tricks the guests.  I may have to waste one of my free NYT articles to read the current post that keeps popping up on my FB feed:

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/23/opinion/westworld-conscious-robots-morality.html

Edited May 10, 2018 by OldButHappy

[Nashville]

11 hours ago, OldButHappy said:

I joke, but your analogy is brilliant:  the hosts human form tricks us, the viewers, every bit as much as it tricks the guests.  I may have to waste one of my free NYT articles to read the current post that keeps popping up on my FB feed:

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/23/opinion/westworld-conscious-robots-morality.html

That article is... not bad at all.

[Netfoot]

15 minutes ago, Nashville said:

That article is... not bad at all.

I agree.

But it suggests/supports the theory that if we mistreat non-living constructs, it is somehow bad for us, particularly if those constructs appear to be living;.  I don't know that this is true.  We already create things for the sole purpose of destroying them.  For instance, clay-pigeons.  The only reason they are made, is so they can be destroyed.  And what about this guy?

I've pumped so many rounds into his ass, I couldn't possibly count!  What's the difference between him and Toyota Camry Dolores?  Only the degree of realism, which I admit, in TC's case, is orders of magnitude better than "Soldier Sam".  

Dungeons & Dragons, Doom, Quake, etc, all were supposed to be terrible for us, and that has all been shown false. 

Maybe it's good for us to vent, by occasionally "killing" artificial, unfeeling, non-human devices, constructed specifically for that purpose and that purpose only.  Maybe not.  I'm not quick to drink the KoolAid, either way.

[ChipBach]

13 hours ago, OldButHappy said:

OK, you literally made me laugh out loud.  It scared my dog.  

I'm trying to figure out which of my appliances would harbor the most resentment towards me....I was thinking my washing machine, but reconsidered when I realized that my carpet cleaner probably has more valid grievances.  And wheels.

I joke, but your analogy is brilliant:  the hosts human form tricks us, the viewers, every bit as much as it tricks the guests.  I may have to waste one of my free NYT articles to read the current post that keeps popping up on my FB feed:

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/23/opinion/westworld-conscious-robots-morality.html

 Is your dog a robot dog?  If he is then it really doesn't matter.  You make a great point, However, in our house, while the toaster does not hold the greatest reasons for complaints in BACHworld, he is certainly the least accommodating...  Great, now I'm not going to be able to sleep with the Roomba in the house...

Oh yeah - awesome article...

Edited May 10, 2018 by ChipBach

[Nashville]

28 minutes ago, Netfoot said:

I agree.

But it suggests/supports the theory that if we mistreat non-living constructs, it is somehow bad for us, particularly if those constructs appear to be living;.  I don't know that this is true.  We already create things for the sole purpose of destroying them.  For instance, clay-pigeons.  The only reason they are made, is so they can be destroyed.  And what about this guy?

I've pumped so many rounds into his ass, I couldn't possibly count!  What's the difference between him and Toyota Camry Dolores?  Only the degree of realism, which I admit, in TC's case, is orders of magnitude better than "Soldier Sam".  

Dungeons & Dragons, Doom, Quake, etc, all were supposed to be terrible for us, and that has all been shown false. 

Maybe it's good for us to vent, by occasionally "killing" artificial, unfeeling, non-human devices, constructed specifically for that purpose and that purpose only.  Maybe not.  I'm not quick to drink the KoolAid, either way.

I think the degree of realism is the point.  Clay pigeons, paper targets - heck, even Delorean Dolores when she’s in sleep mode - our immediate perception of them will be as inanimate objects, the use (or abuse) of which present no moral entanglements and never will.

But when a host is active - and not just active, but demonstrative of such a degree of realism that your interaction with that host is exactly the same as your interaction with other humans...?  Then yeah, I’d say there might be a desensitization risk associated with indulging baser instincts or sadistic behavior in such a blurred-line environment.  If one is already predispositioned to a lessened (or nonexistent) sense of cognitive empathy, then abusive interactions with hosts could conceivably bleed over to similar abuse toward humans one already has trouble identifying as independent sentient beings - vs. being, say, walk-on characters in their Me! Show - starring Me!.

[OldButHappy]

59 minutes ago, Nashville said:

But when a host is active - and not just active, but demonstrative of such a degree of realism that your interaction with that host is exactly the same as your interaction with other humans...?  Then yeah, I’d say there might be a desensitization risk associated with indulging baser instincts or sadistic behavior in such a blurred-line environment.  If one is already predispositioned to a lessened (or nonexistent) sense of cognitive empathy, then abusive interactions with hosts could conceivably bleed over to similar abuse toward humans one already has trouble identifying as independent sentient beings - vs. being, say, walk-on characters in their Me! Show - starring Me!.

Thank you for putting this so succinctly - I've been unable to craft a response that hit on the topics of machines looking human vs. machines looking like machines, consciousness, and sentience into one post without it devolving into a doctoral thesis.  Well done.

1 hour ago, ChipBach said:

Great, now I'm not going to be able to sleep with the Roomba in the house...

And it can recharge itself at will.......sweet dreams....   ;)

Edited May 10, 2018 by OldButHappy

[Nashville]

42 minutes ago, OldButHappy said:

Thank you for putting this so succinctly - I've been unable to craft a response that hit on the topics of machines looking human vs. machines looking like machines, consciousness, and sentience into one post without it devolving into a doctoral thesis.  Well done.

You’re welcome - and considering roughly 4% of the population are “successful” sociopaths (i.e., able to channel their sociopathic traits into non-criminal channels), then the notion of such acting-out bleeding over from hosts into general human interactions doesn’t seem near so far-fetched at all....

[Netfoot]

3 hours ago, Nashville said:

But when a host is active - and not just active, but demonstrative of such a degree of realism that your interaction with that host is exactly the same as your interaction with other humans...?  Then yeah, I’d say there might be a desensitization risk associated with indulging baser instincts or sadistic behavior in such a blurred-line environment.  If one is already predispositioned to a lessened (or nonexistent) sense of cognitive empathy, then abusive interactions with hosts could conceivably bleed over to similar abuse toward humans one already has trouble identifying as independent sentient beings - vs. being, say, walk-on characters in their Me! Show - starring Me!.

All of this I understand, and indeed it might be / could conceivably be true.  In fact, I am leaning towards that idea myself.  But we don't know for sure that this is actually so.  It is only an unproven supposition.

My feelings are that if you want to build a humanoid robot and shoot it or screw it, that's your business.  If you want to let your friends (or customers) shoot it or screw it, that's your business too.  Only if you let your friends and customers shoot it/screw it in the belief that it's a real person do I think that you are starting to cross a line.  And even then, you are only putting your toe over the line.  You're still not causing that robot pain or suffering.  The only potential downside is that you are possibly conditioning out nature's hesitancy to perform such actions on actual humans.  And they said the same thing about porno, and Mortal Kombat.

[Nashville]

21 hours ago, Netfoot said:

All of this I understand, and indeed it might be / could conceivably be true.  In fact, I am leaning towards that idea myself.  But we don't know for sure that this is actually so.  It is only an unproven supposition.

ALL of this is!  :>

 

21 hours ago, Netfoot said:

And they said the same thing about porno, and Mortal Kombat.

The difference being there is zero chance of a video presentation on a flatscreen being a realistic analog for a human/replicant.

[Head-Full-Of-Thi]

I think it's not about  the danger of falling morality wise but more about showing that someone is already morally not so great. If you enjoy seeing someone cry of pain and specifically do something to them to cause this even if it's not real then what kind of person are you? And there's a difference between this and video games because in video games you kill characters to advance, not because you enjoy seeing them suffer.

[Netfoot]

23 minutes ago, Luka1997 said:

If you enjoy seeing someone cry of pain and specifically do something to them to cause this even if it's not real then what kind of person are you?

I don't know properly how to describe what kind of person you are, but if that's what you are, you are it already!  Let's get you a humanoid machine to vent your desires upon, before you decide to try it on an actual human!

[SoWindsor]

I’m completely confused about who Gus Fring was. Is Ed Harris timeline right after the hosts revolted? Who were the guys hanging the other guy upside down? If they were hosts why were they still playing characters if the hosts can no longer be controlled. 

[WatchrTina]

On 5/12/2018 at 9:50 PM, SoWindsor said:

If they were hosts why were they still playing characters if the hosts can no longer be controlled. 

Not all the hosts are approaching sentience (self-awareness.)  Most are still stuck in their plot line or loop, playing out the roles they were assigned.  But because of the crisis, they don't get re-set each day (the way we saw Delores waking up and repeating the same loop over and over in the first episode.) So their plot lines are evolving in unexpected ways.  As for playing "characters" -- that's all they know.  Maeve knows that she's a robot in a game (as do her personal posse).  Delores knows -- and is pissed.  Teddy knows and is struggling to come to grips with it.  But most of the 'bots don't know.  They're just continuing to follow their programming and it is playing out in ways that have not occurred before because the written scripts have all been surpassed.  Now they're having to ad lib.

[AudienceofOne]

On 30/04/2018 at 1:07 PM, djlynch said:

It was kept under wraps enough that I went to IMDB specifically looking for whether or not that was him and he wasn't listed. And that scene was so dark that I could barely see his face, which is a rant that I'm having about more and more TV shows. I don't know if it's a trend or if I'm just turning into an old fart.

Both. I nearly waited for this season to be on DVD so I could watch it with subtitles. Versimilitude is fantastic in theory but sometimes I wish people were still projecting to the back of the theatre on a well-lit stage.

On 30/04/2018 at 9:24 PM, Ellaria Sand said:

I'm sure that we will get more Dolores/Maeve scenes but I don't think that their short-term goals are the same.

Dolores: I'm heading to the future!

Maeve: I'm travelling back to the past. 

Guess you're headed in different direction then, girls. I imagine they won't share a scene for a while.

 

On 30/04/2018 at 9:56 PM, DarkRaichu said:

- Interesting how Dolores had less power over the hosts than Maeve.  Maeve had admin access and could freeze, manipulate, and even put a host to "dreamless sleep".  Dolores needed a tech to revive dead hosts and had to "reason" with the hosts.  Both were aware they were bots. 
Which of the 2 is more "free" ??

  Reveal hidden contents

Wouldn't it be fun if the Colonel Dolores was going to meet turned out to be a host version of Delos Sr. ??? 

 

As someone pointed out last season, Maeve is acting entirely on the programming someone put into her head. The daughter quest is the first and only act of self-determination she's made. The rest was what she was meant to do. So she has way more control because she was programmed to seek it out. The maze - the path to self-determination - was for Dolores, not Maeve. Personally I think they're equally self-aware at this point and equally free but that doesn't change the fact that Maeve's appearance of power is limited by her refusal to question her behaviour. Maeve refuses to accept that her actions are determined by programming. Dolores is well aware of all of hers. In the respect, Dolores is more "free".

 

On 01/05/2018 at 1:51 AM, poeticlicensed said:

I dunno -  I can see fucking them with no guilt, and I guess they are lifelike enough. But killing them? Yeah, maybe they shouldn't feel guilty killing them because they are machines, but I think the larger question, at least for me, is why is killing people so pleasurable that there is a theme park created with one of the purposes being to kill. Sorry, I don't get it.  

We could have this ongoing argument every single episode so I won't start it this time around (maybe ep3?). But there are two important things to note here. One is that the MiB believed that he was limiting his violent tendencies to the park only to discover his wife and child were terrified of him. This is because once you act to dehumanise a human-like object then you are more likely to dehumanise actual humans. Secondly, people get off on violence all the time. I imagine it's only a small subset that come to the park to behave like the MiB. But violence would radiate out from that point in various ways. Once you give people permission to act in a certain way, a large proportion of the population will join in. How much? I don't know. I wonder if there's any research on that?

EDITED: to clarify what I meant by that last paragraph when I said 'radiated'. I mean that violent behaviour in this context could be seen as a series of concentric circles, like ripples out from a stone. You have your MiB, a small proportion of extremely violent, sadistic men. But while each circle out would be less violent and less brutal, all of them will still have some aspects of the worst of us - the MiB at the centre. In my experience, humans are far more violent than they like to think in daily life - just look at the rates of domestic violence.

Edited June 21, 2018 by AudienceofOne

[Hanahope]

I agree that it appears that the "weapon" Dolores is referring to, is the fact that Delos was collecting (and probably using) information/DNA gathered from the hosts on various guests, likely to succeed further in business, leverage against politicians, other rich people, governments, etc.  So her threat, as I see it, is to divulge that information to the world.  That would not only hurt Delos, but every person who did bad acts in the park.

Ford knew what was going on, but didn't care as long as he could do what he wanted with the story.  But, he also put in some sortof 'game' that I think will also end up hurting Delos, but make himself and/or WW come out as the savior.  Ford may not have known the details, like the hidden underground data collection bunker, but he knew something was going on.  When he started terraforming "unused parts" of the park, which was where the hidden data center was, Delos had to move the data.  One does wonder where Abernathy went.

It looks like William was originally an ok guy, but probably had some "bad" desires that he suppressed because he wanted to present as a good person.  That's why he took the white hat in S1.  but after his adventure, he discovered he could let some of his desires go free, even bad ones, and no one cared.  That bit of freedom in the park allowed him to realize there was a lot of other people just like him.  Pretend to be good on the outside, while hiding their "not socially acceptable" desires.  

I don't know how savvy William was in business before WW, but he certainly realized that if his own experiences could be exploited against him (i.e. his desire to cheat on his fiancee), so instead he'd turn the tables and exploit them against others. 

[HunterHunted]

On 4/30/2018 at 1:11 AM, numbnut said:

I like that we now get to see the real world but I don't appreciate the show aping Blade Runner with the Vangelis-like music and the patterned bricks in Decker's, er, Arnold's home.

It's interesting that you mention Blade Runner. Blade Runner used Frank Lloyd Wright's Ennis House. Wright's Millard House is used as the set for Arnold's house. Wright designed the houses after his lover, her children, and some of their staff were murdered. There is some speculation that he was drawn to pre-Colombian architecture as a way to mourn and the associations between power and death. It's entirely possible Millard House was used to ape Blade Runner and allude to Wright's own journey.

https://worldarchitecture.org/architecture-news/cmhng/how_did_a_personal_tragedy_change_the_work_of_frank_lloyd_wright_.html