That's right. You're entirely correct to do so.
HBO's "Westworld", starring Anthony Hopkins/produced by J.J. Abrams
- Thread starter Ensign_Redshirt
- Start date
That's right. You're entirely correct to do so.
So according to you, we have no idea what Parks 2 and 6 are called. Oooooookay.
That's really not how it works.
The site seems to be canon with the series. It confirmed that Elsie was alive in the park after the end of season 1, something the actress who performed her has confirmed since she is appearing at some point this season.
Good call. Seems like episode 5, titled "Akane No Mai", will be the Shogun World episode.
I assumed we were only seeing a small fraction of Westworld, because it would really be impossible to keep something that huge and expensive in business by catering only to sociopaths-- unless their nanotechnology made the park as cheap to build as a Burger King.
That some of the stuff put on the site is accurate
has nothing to do with whether it "canon" or not.
They've said many times that the park is incredible expensive to manage. Just the QA personnel on the island consists of 600-800 people. They have to pay these people.
The premise of the show is that this "sociopathy" is not aberrant but really what human beings in general are like when let off the leash. One can argue with that if one likes, but history offers a lot of evidence to support the thesis.
Great article with a title that's a little misleading.
https://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-radio/2018/may/09/is-westworld-an-anti-human-fable
Great article with a title that's a little misleading.
https://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-radio/2018/may/09/is-westworld-an-anti-human-fable
WestWorld - and presumably Shogun World, The Raj, and the other parks - does cater to families, so the idea that the parks exist only to capitalize on people's basest instincts is inaccurate.
It's entirely accurate. Ford himself said explicitly that he and Arnold had a bet as to whether most people would choose positive storylines or dark - Ford was an optimist and lost decisively. Whatever "family" trade the parks do is negligable next to their core appeal of violence. It's like the movie rating boards maintaining a "G" rating for movies that no one goes to see.
If it isn't on screen, then it isn't canon. Even if it were on screen, the writers and producers are under no requirement to keep it. Sometimes thinking changes as the story and world building evolve.
*cough*James R. Kirk*cough* *cough*Data as a part of the Class of '78*cough*
*cough*The entire rethinking of the 23rd century in Discovery*cough*
*cough*James R. Kirk*cough* *cough*Data as a part of the Class of '78*cough*
*cough*The entire rethinking of the 23rd century in Discovery*cough*
I noticed that you edited out the rest of my post and the examples. Because the examples prove you entirely wrong. Which is nothing new.
For someone that calls themselves a writer, you have a very narrow view of how fiction actually works.
All of this is absolutely correct and accurate.
Indeed, there's really no understanding of what fiction is or how it's created expressed in those posts.
Robert Ford, on what Westworld became:
Arnold was intrigued by the potential for Delores to become self-aware, until he realized that the Delos parks would become an unending Hell for her or any conscious Host - because, as described by one character after another during the run of the series, they're all about human beings unleashing their innate sadism and lust for the direct expression of power on the defenseless Hosts.
At that point, Arnold became deeply troubled at the path he was encouraging Delores to follow, and offered her the opportunity to be "safe" and be purged of any longing to discover herself and the truth of her existence.
Last edited:
I didn't bother responding to your examples because they're irrelevant.
I'll once again point to Shogun World and The Raj here: the reason we know that these are the official names for Parks 2 and 6 is because they were revealed to us via the Delos Destinations website, but according to your argument, they don't exist - in spite of numerous entertainment news and review sites using them and, correctly, citing them as the official names given by HBO - because they didn't come from within the series itself, and that's just bullcrap and requires you to ignore facts.
So someboby puts out 2052 (or whatever the date is), then retracts it for some reason by replacing in with XXXX. So that means it is either a relevant story point for something in the future, or it is something that they have reconsidered.
The latter is not somehow a rare occurrence in entertainment. Chuck from Happy Days says hi.
It wouldn't surprise me if the show is set in 2052, it wouldn't surprise me if it takes place in 2102.
^ I can't speak to what may have motivated someone to remove the 2052 date, nor do I want to try.
All I can do is reiterate the point that started this entire pointless debate about how things aren't Canon unless they show up onscreen: the 2052 date is now out in the open, despite being removed, and - like other things that have shown up on the Delos Destinations and Delos Corporate websites, such as the names of Parks 2 and 6 being Shogun World and The Raj - is being cited as fact by entertainment news and review sites, and therefore cannot be "walked back" save for someone within the show itself giving us as an audience an actual year.
Simply dismissing it as "not Canon because it wasn't shown onscreen" ignores the provable fact that the Delos Destinations and Delos Corporate websites have been used - and are being used - to provide official information pertinent to the series and the world in which it takes place in conjunction with what is being shown to us onscreen.
All I can do is reiterate the point that started this entire pointless debate about how things aren't Canon unless they show up onscreen: the 2052 date is now out in the open, despite being removed, and - like other things that have shown up on the Delos Destinations and Delos Corporate websites, such as the names of Parks 2 and 6 being Shogun World and The Raj - is being cited as fact by entertainment news and review sites, and therefore cannot be "walked back" save for someone within the show itself giving us as an audience an actual year.
Simply dismissing it as "not Canon because it wasn't shown onscreen" ignores the provable fact that the Delos Destinations and Delos Corporate websites have been used - and are being used - to provide official information pertinent to the series and the world in which it takes place in conjunction with what is being shown to us onscreen.
Last edited:
Yes it does but it's a pointless thing to try to figure out - they haven't said authoritatively when the show takes place, and if they pick a date that doesn't make sense, like 2051 or 2023 or anything else, there's no alternative but to take it as authoritative whether we agree with it or not.
Last edited:
