HBO's "Westworld", starring Anthony Hopkins/produced by J.J. Abrams
- Thread starter Ensign_Redshirt
- Start date
Finally watched the first 2 episodes and like it a lot. This is going to be a great filler during the long wait for next season of Game of Thrones.
Loved the music by Ramin Djawadi. Not as great as his GoT score but very beautiful and haunting.
Many scenes of Mulva, I mean Dolores, waking up. I guess that is an indication that hosts have a Groundhog Day existence. But what is it with scenes of a fly on someone's face. In case of Dolores it showed she has learned to kill a living thing after saying she hadn't.
Loved the music by Ramin Djawadi. Not as great as his GoT score but very beautiful and haunting.
Many scenes of Mulva, I mean Dolores, waking up. I guess that is an indication that hosts have a Groundhog Day existence. But what is it with scenes of a fly on someone's face. In case of Dolores it showed she has learned to kill a living thing after saying she hadn't.
Last edited:
The previous page triggered my work's websense for sex.
The notion that William is the man in black is intriguing, but the notion that Hosts were that advanced 30 years ago doesn't hold much water given what we saw of Ford's conversation with old Bill, and the flashback of the dancers we saw in ep 3, it would also suggest that either Delores has been in the same loop for 30 years which seemed contradicted by the notion that the hosts are rotated between storylines, or else she was moved out of that storyline then back in again.
The WW signs is an intriguing anomaly, but as for the subway differences are we not just seeing the same set lit differently to imply two different parts of the Delos back office?
As for this week I agree with what someone said about needing a bit more focus on some characters rather than trying to follow every story strand, though at least Ed Harris was missing this week. I'm presuming the Winchester toting woman is a guest rather than a Host, and yes that does seem to suggest women can have a good time at WW too, although it should be noted that their idea of a woman's good time seemed to be undistinguishable from a man's; have lots and gun battles and score with a whore.
Couple of points:
The WW signs is an intriguing anomaly, but as for the subway differences are we not just seeing the same set lit differently to imply two different parts of the Delos back office?
As for this week I agree with what someone said about needing a bit more focus on some characters rather than trying to follow every story strand, though at least Ed Harris was missing this week. I'm presuming the Winchester toting woman is a guest rather than a Host, and yes that does seem to suggest women can have a good time at WW too, although it should be noted that their idea of a woman's good time seemed to be undistinguishable from a man's; have lots and gun battles and score with a whore.
Couple of points:
the scene were Delores shoots the guy would have had more impact if we'd seen her cock the gun first, as it was shot it looked ineffective because she seemed to be struggling to just pull the trigger, which would have been pointless without cocking the hammer first.
When Teddy shot the scary savages late on they seemed unaffected. Is this Ford's new storyline, guests getting to play scary cultists?
Could Ed Harris be Arnold?
cgi Anthony Hopkins was freaky!
Loved Luke Hemsworth's quip about it being part of his back story!
I see some people have suggested that Bernard is a Host, and that his dead son is a new back story Ford has uploaded. Not sure this works for me, and even if it was there was nothing gained from his conversation with Gina Torres except to fool the viewers which is a cheap trick if true.
When Teddy shot the scary savages late on they seemed unaffected. Is this Ford's new storyline, guests getting to play scary cultists?
Could Ed Harris be Arnold?
cgi Anthony Hopkins was freaky!
Loved Luke Hemsworth's quip about it being part of his back story!
I see some people have suggested that Bernard is a Host, and that his dead son is a new back story Ford has uploaded. Not sure this works for me, and even if it was there was nothing gained from his conversation with Gina Torres except to fool the viewers which is a cheap trick if true.
Teddy's partner in The Stray, Marti, is a "guest", and I'd like to see more of her.
I still think people are reading way too much into some things and expecting twists where none are necessary, which strikes me as strange given that there's more than enough to unpack with the stuff we've been shown taken at face value, such as Delores being modeled after Alice in Wonderland as rendered by Walt Disney's animators (blonde hair, blue dress), the fact that we've heard or seen Bernard talk to her in each of the 3 episodes so far (and that it was his voice that told her to "kill him" when she was able to pull the trigger and shoot Rebus), or Ford being far less attached to the "hosts" than we were initially led to believe and the implication that he migh've had something to do with Arnold's as-yet-unexplained death.
I still think people are reading way too much into some things and expecting twists where none are necessary, which strikes me as strange given that there's more than enough to unpack with the stuff we've been shown taken at face value, such as Delores being modeled after Alice in Wonderland as rendered by Walt Disney's animators (blonde hair, blue dress), the fact that we've heard or seen Bernard talk to her in each of the 3 episodes so far (and that it was his voice that told her to "kill him" when she was able to pull the trigger and shoot Rebus), or Ford being far less attached to the "hosts" than we were initially led to believe and the implication that he migh've had something to do with Arnold's as-yet-unexplained death.
Oh, nice catch. I heard the voice and just thought it was the Man in Black, but reviewing that scene, you're right: It's Bernard.
I'm glad someone else noticed, too. This stood out like a sore thumb which made me question everything I thought I understood about Ford and his goals concerning A.I. sentience.
While I hear what you are saying, I think you're overlooking a big fact of life. Yes, what you are saying is true - we have been ingrained by TV, movies and games over the decades to accept vastly immoral actions as normal when it comes to entertainment. However, there are many people out there who feel the current games currently on the market are extremely violent and immoral. Some of these people have felt this way for decades. Movies didn't used to be rated at all until enough people felt their morality was being trampled on and they influenced the MPAA to start a rating system. Television shows and video games likewise never used to be rated until enough people felt the entertainment was stepping past a level of morality and needed to be rated. Every year a new group of people are saying "enough" and they stop watching shows or they reach their own limit of moral comfort.
It's not outrageous or silly or shocking that people would question the morality of Westworld where people are encouraged to live out their darkest fantasies. The fact that these people even have such dark fantasies might be enough to repulse some people. Everyone has their own level of moral limits that affect all walks of life, including their choices of entertainment and their fantasies.
I hate shoot 'em up games specifically because of the graphic violence portrayed yet I play strategy games such as the Civilization series where the violence is largely tokenised and abstracted, even though the "death toll" per game is likely far greater. Perhaps I adopt the ethics of politicians, who claim to abhor violence within society yet condone it for the purposes of promoting a wider national agenda provided that proxies (spies/soldiers/drones...) do the dirty deeds. Perhaps I need to examine whether my entertainment choices are morally acceptable if they appear to condone violence in any form.
You do realise that "condone" and "depict" are not synonyms, yes?
To me, trying to deny it's existence and role altogether in media would be delusional at best. Wilful ignorance at worst, which is just condoning via sophistry. Violence is a part of our world and has been since before we were even human enough to be aware of it.
The implied subject of the verb "condone" was "politicians" not "games" so the verb "depict" is not appropriate. I agree that games and other entertainments only depict simulated violence but perhaps they desensitise us to it and we should be aware of this effect.
If we have free will, we can choose to eliminate all forms of violence by man, including violence against the animals that we slaughter for food. We do not have to settle for the world as we find it.
(By the way, "it's" should be "its", which is the possessive form of "it".)
Watching fictional violence only desensitises people to fictional violence. If you don't understand the distinction, then you've never witnesses real violence. No amount of fake blood and foam latex or silicone prosthetics can prepare you for that.
You don't eliminate something by pretending it doesn't exist. To suggest otherwise is despicably irresponsible.
Congratulations on spotting a typo! Here, have a banana.
You might have missed the last paragraph of what you were quoting...
Or you could just decide to be like most, sane people and realize that there's a difference between entertainment, imagination, and reality. (And I'm sorry, even Gandhi fantasized about killing a brother at least a few times in his life. That's just normal.)
Who the hell said that? He said you can choose to eliminate it, not ignore it.
And congratulations for arguing against points that I didn't make. We don't eliminate or reduce violence by pretending it doesn't exist, we have to strive to make this so. I believe fictional violence can desensitise some vulnerable people to real violence and even make them more likely to be violent, although I agree most of us would consider ourselves immune and studies appear to confirm that is the case (see, for example http://christopherjferguson.com/desensitization.pdf).
Anyway, our five minutes of pointlessness is over. Have a Kumquat on me -- oops, sorry, I'm fresh out.
I'm starting to wonder if MiB was either some friend of Arnold's or actually *is* Arnold.
And it's starting to seem to me that his reason for brutalizing the hosts isn't sadism but an application of his theory about strong emotions making the hosts the most human. He's creating situations similar to their storylines and creating extremely painful memories for them, so in the next loop they may remember in a similar situation and break the script. He tortured Dolores so she would do exactly what she did.
No specifics were given about Arnold's death, but it was seem genre appropriate and consistent with the information we currently have if he were to attempt to transfer himself into a robot mind. I don't know where that story thread is going but it's certainly setting some big reveal up.
Evidence seems to suggest that depictions of fictional violence don't affect the majority of people but may affect people who are already prone to violent outbursts.
And it's starting to seem to me that his reason for brutalizing the hosts isn't sadism but an application of his theory about strong emotions making the hosts the most human. He's creating situations similar to their storylines and creating extremely painful memories for them, so in the next loop they may remember in a similar situation and break the script. He tortured Dolores so she would do exactly what she did.
No specifics were given about Arnold's death, but it was seem genre appropriate and consistent with the information we currently have if he were to attempt to transfer himself into a robot mind. I don't know where that story thread is going but it's certainly setting some big reveal up.
Evidence seems to suggest that depictions of fictional violence don't affect the majority of people but may affect people who are already prone to violent outbursts.
Last edited:
I've been avoiding "Arnold is the Man in Black" theory because it feels like the obvious line to draw to connect the two characters. Assuming what Ford told Bernard is true, it doesn't seem likely the two are the same, but it's entirely possibly he's not telling the whole truth. Your explanation is a bit on the extreme side, but I could see it working.
On the other hand, it may just be another case of extreme LOST-esque theories along with William is the Man in Black and Bernard is a host.
I'm inclined to believe the opposite - fictional violence giving people a release, a way to let off steam. And thus make them LESS likely to be violent IRL.
But would you pay 40.000 $ per day for that?
The guests we've seen are all quite young too. They must be super successful.
As for the drinking and sex thing it's the same, you can have that much cheaper and the persons are real. I found the bed scene with William's friend rather hillarious. They hinted some bisexuality there, where the male robot was caressing the arm of the male guest. How depraved! Surely you cannot have that in the real world.
Some studies don't agree.
Desensitization and resensitization to violence against women: Effects of exposure to sexually violent films on judgments of domestic violence victims.
You can’t blow off steam with video games, either.
Obviously, no one is saying that playing violent video games makes you some kind of psychopath. But neither it is correct saying that they are a sane and therapeutic safety valve. No sane therapist will say to someone who suffers from anxiety and episodes of repressed anger to find something or someone (even fictional) to shoot or beat so s/he can "let off her/his steam".
I'm sure that you can have that and for the right amount of money they let you dress them as cowboys or Wild West prostitutes
Last edited:
It may be a stretch to say Arnold is MiB, but if he's not, the breadcrumbs he's following were probably left by Arnold and he may have been present when whatever happened to him went down.
Like, Arnold may have been disgusted about the direction of the park and left sabotage buttons around which awaken hosts, and 'The Maze' may lead to those buttons.
Like, Arnold may have been disgusted about the direction of the park and left sabotage buttons around which awaken hosts, and 'The Maze' may lead to those buttons.
