The film, compared to the series, is now just little more than a curiosity, but with a couple of memorable scenes.
HBO's "Westworld", starring Anthony Hopkins/produced by J.J. Abrams
- Thread starter Ensign_Redshirt
- Start date
Agreed and I say that as a huge fan of Crichton's work.
Crichton had an idea once - what if the science guys came up with a nifty idea that then went horribly wrong and bunches of people died? - which wasn't really original but it launched his writing career in a big way.
Then he had his second idea - what if the money guys took a nifty idea that the science guys came up with, and made an amusement park out of it? Then, bunches of people die - and that built his fortune.
Then he had his second idea - what if the money guys took a nifty idea that the science guys came up with, and made an amusement park out of it? Then, bunches of people die - and that built his fortune.
The complex Maeve is in at the end of Season 1 is the WestWorld 'arrivals and departures' area; it's not a separate location at all.
I lost a lot of respect for him after I had read State of Fear. He elevated Climate Change denial to an art form.
Just to be clear, in the aforenamed book the only people who believed in the Climate Change were stupid, naive or murderous fanatic terrorists. Who didn't believe in it were the wise and the intelligent ones. But to avoid any misunderstanding, the author in the book made repetitively clear that the whole thing was just a hoax.
I'll have to take your word for it since that book is the only one I never read because the plot never interested me and I had no inkling of that aspect.
I just put this bit from the Wikipedia page about the book.
Criticism from scientific community[edit]
This novel received criticism from climate scientists,[24][25][26] science journalists[27][28] and environmental groups[29][30] for inaccuracies and misleading information. Sixteen of 18 US climate scientists interviewed by Knight Ridder said the author was bending scientific data and distorting research.[25]
Several scientists whose research had been referenced in the novel stated that Crichton had distorted it in the novel. Peter Doran, leading author of the Nature paper,[31] wrote in the New York Times: "our results have been misused as 'evidence' against global warming by Michael Crichton in his novel 'State of Fear'".[26]
Myles Allen, Head of the Climate Dynamics Group, Department of Physics, University of Oxford, wrote in Nature in 2005:
The American Geophysical Union, consisting of over 50,000 members from over 135 countries, states in their newspaper Eos in 2006, "We have seen from encounters with the public how the political use of State of Fear has changed public perception of scientists, especially researchers in global warming, toward suspicion and hostility."[32]
James E. Hansen, former head of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies at the time, wrote that Crichton "doesn't seem to have the foggiest notion about the science that he writes about."[4] Jeffrey Masters, chief meteorologist for Weather Underground, writes: "Crichton presents an error-filled and distorted version of the Global Warming science, favoring views of the handful of contrarians that attack the consensus science of the IPCC."[33]
The Union of Concerned Scientists devote a section of their website to what they describe as misconceptions readers may take away from the book.[30]
A damn shame and a bit surprising considering how many of his novels are deeply engrained with thorough scientific research.
Yep. Unfortunately this gave to the deniers some kind of credibility, considering that until this point Crichton had been considered a serious author.
Well, he was a widely-read author of popular fiction - never a "serious author." He wrote science-fictiony suspense potboilers, with one eye on the movie market almost from the beginning. Might as well call Tom Clancy or Harold Robbins a serious author.
And State Of Fear was not a sudden revelation of his extreme politics and retrograde social views. Check out Disclosure.
If you think it's weird how Season 2 moved away from the western themes, then Season 3 is really freak you out.
Honestly, as the show goes on the western aspect become less and less important as the real themes and concepts behind the show become more and more apparent. The western stuff was pretty much just a way set things up for the real story, which started towards the end of Season 1 and really set off in Season 2.
Yeah, I've seen bits and pieces of Season 3. I don't have a problem with the idea of moving away from the western theme itself, or from the park. When done right it enhances the story and broadens the concept. Like Mad Max being pretty much Deathwish, then the sequel turning into a full-blown post-apocalyptic story. For WW as a show, it also seems like a natural and logical progression. But in the case of Shogun World, it seems like it was more like an added gimmick to give us a brief Kurosawa detour. It doesn't even make sense. How the guns work in Westworld is stretching it, but how can they have real swords in Shogun World?
Expected some comments on the latest episode but everyone seems speechless.
It was kind of intense. The car blowup at the end caught me by surprise.
The scene with multiple William dudes was cool. Especially cool was seeing young William again, and the MiB.
I am still not quite clear on the Holodeck thing that Maeve and late Hector were on. I have to rewatch previous episodes, is it a creation of Serac? Is the War World actually another park or just part of the Holodec?
2 more episodes to go.
It was kind of intense. The car blowup at the end caught me by surprise.
The scene with multiple William dudes was cool. Especially cool was seeing young William again, and the MiB.
I am still not quite clear on the Holodeck thing that Maeve and late Hector were on. I have to rewatch previous episodes, is it a creation of Serac? Is the War World actually another park or just part of the Holodec?
2 more episodes to go.
Last edited:
The moment Charlotte/Dolores said she would keep them safe, I knew that car was going to explode. I hate being right. They're dead because she cared for them and went to protect them, unlike the real Charlotte. Undoubtedly that's going to weigh heavily on Charlotte/Dolores. I'm curious to see if the show decides Host have powerful regenerative properties or if Charlotte/Dolores will remain in her burned up appearance for the next two episodes. Also, I'm betting I'm right about my earlier prediction that at least one of the other Doloreses would turn against Dolores herself.
And then we have Maeve. She's always had an axe to grind but now she's really pissed after Charlotte/Dolores killed Hector. Question is will she focus her fury on just Charlotte/Dolores or all of the Doloreses, especially if Charlotte/Dolores does go against Dolores.
As I said before, I wasn't sure what they were going to do with William after he was locked up in the mental hospital but now it's clearer. I really enjoyed the scenes with him being forced to confront the multiple versions of himself (along with James Delos). Any excuse to have more Jimmi Simpson is always welcomed.
And then we have Maeve. She's always had an axe to grind but now she's really pissed after Charlotte/Dolores killed Hector. Question is will she focus her fury on just Charlotte/Dolores or all of the Doloreses, especially if Charlotte/Dolores does go against Dolores.
As I said before, I wasn't sure what they were going to do with William after he was locked up in the mental hospital but now it's clearer. I really enjoyed the scenes with him being forced to confront the multiple versions of himself (along with James Delos). Any excuse to have more Jimmi Simpson is always welcomed.
Yeaaaahhh...so did I.
I felt REALLY bad for fake Charlotte. How freaking horrible! 
