Unless they are in different timelines...
HBO's "Westworld", starring Anthony Hopkins/produced by J.J. Abrams
- Thread starter Ensign_Redshirt
- Start date
I’ll be annoyed if the different timeline notion bears fruit, if only because they’ve made so many mistakes (not least that Hosts 30 years ago wouldn’t look like Delores, they’d look/act like Bill.)
I think the two Lawrence’s comes down to three explanations. 1. Two timelines. 2. A replacement was needed because the original Lawrence was off with MiB. 3. They have multiple Hosts who look alike because they can’t be arsed to create hundreds of unique Hosts. Personally I’d go with 2 as the most logical solution.
No idea what’s going on with Maeve, guessing she’s been going through multiple loops and retaining memories of the men in hazmat suits. That she knew Felix’s name suggests, I’m guessing, that she’s been conscious on some level whilst in the underground and has picked up a lot of information.
Two points re Rachel Evan Wood, one she’s a really good actress, playing damsel and strong woman equally well, two she looks really good as a cowgirl!
Great scene between Harris and Hopkins. I really hope Marsters gets to break out of Teddy’s loop the way Delores and Maeve have though. The orgy seemed quite Dante’esque, which I’m guessing was the point. Does seem rather odd though. You’d imagine there were other guests there. I realise the park is huge, with multiple parts no one ever sees, and I realise people are paying $40,000 a day, but keeping somewhere like Pariah running day and night with no guests there would be a hell of a waste of money (unless it was utterly dormant until William and Logan turned up?)
However ‘safe’ WW is you must have to sign a waiver, and the risk must still be there for a guest to be accidentally killed, or even intentionally knifed by another guest (who thinks they’re a Host)
I don’t think they’ve given any idea of how many guests the park has at any one time-even factoring in the extortionate cost (which may not be that huge factoring in future inflation) they must have to have a regular turnover of substantial numbers.
All in all a hugely enjoyable episode though, so many questions and I hope we get some answers by season’s end.
I think the two Lawrence’s comes down to three explanations. 1. Two timelines. 2. A replacement was needed because the original Lawrence was off with MiB. 3. They have multiple Hosts who look alike because they can’t be arsed to create hundreds of unique Hosts. Personally I’d go with 2 as the most logical solution.
No idea what’s going on with Maeve, guessing she’s been going through multiple loops and retaining memories of the men in hazmat suits. That she knew Felix’s name suggests, I’m guessing, that she’s been conscious on some level whilst in the underground and has picked up a lot of information.
Two points re Rachel Evan Wood, one she’s a really good actress, playing damsel and strong woman equally well, two she looks really good as a cowgirl!
Great scene between Harris and Hopkins. I really hope Marsters gets to break out of Teddy’s loop the way Delores and Maeve have though. The orgy seemed quite Dante’esque, which I’m guessing was the point. Does seem rather odd though. You’d imagine there were other guests there. I realise the park is huge, with multiple parts no one ever sees, and I realise people are paying $40,000 a day, but keeping somewhere like Pariah running day and night with no guests there would be a hell of a waste of money (unless it was utterly dormant until William and Logan turned up?)
However ‘safe’ WW is you must have to sign a waiver, and the risk must still be there for a guest to be accidentally killed, or even intentionally knifed by another guest (who thinks they’re a Host)
I don’t think they’ve given any idea of how many guests the park has at any one time-even factoring in the extortionate cost (which may not be that huge factoring in future inflation) they must have to have a regular turnover of substantial numbers.
All in all a hugely enjoyable episode though, so many questions and I hope we get some answers by season’s end.
I also hope we aren't witnessing two different timelines. I think it ruins just a bit of the mystery of both plotlines. Sure the idea of William transforming from a white hat into a black hat sounds intriguing. Instead, I would like to a see a confrontation between William and the Man In Black(hat). The idea that their backgrounds are similar but that they have made different choices is more intriguing. Their choices could make them excellent adversaries.
Also, I think guests do die on a regular basis in the Westworld. The Man In Black tried to kill Ford (or at least he was testing a theory) and he threatened two other guests when they asked him about his real-life persona. People must die by accident in Westworld. It stands to reason maybe homicide is simply swept under the rug.
Also, I think guests do die on a regular basis in the Westworld. The Man In Black tried to kill Ford (or at least he was testing a theory) and he threatened two other guests when they asked him about his real-life persona. People must die by accident in Westworld. It stands to reason maybe homicide is simply swept under the rug.
Last edited:
I figured Dolores' conversations were flashbacks that provide context to her current behavior.
Also I thought they just repaired Lawrence really fast after MiB ditched him.
Also I thought they just repaired Lawrence really fast after MiB ditched him.
It's pretty painfully obvious that there's at least two different timelines being shown concurrently.
Actually, it's pretty painfully obvious that there AREN'T two timelines being shown concurrently, for the reasons that I outlined earlier.
Nah. You may believe otherwise, and you may believe it fervently, but it is pretty clear now that there are at least two timelines being shown concurrently; there's far and away more evidence that there is than there isn't. Especially since in the post you're referencing, even you admit that there isn't any rational explanation for Lawrence. (Nevermind everything else you've ignored/haven't addressed.)
If it was only a single timeline rather than multiple ones, you wouldn't have any trouble demonstrating that. There wouldn't be any of the gross inconsistencies, the logos would be the same, one subway wouldn't be bright and shiny and new and the other run down, people wouldn't be in multiple places at once, and so on and so forth.
Last edited:
What didn't I address?
Also, if you think you're so right about this, refute the evidence I laid out point-by-point instead of just saying that I'm wrong and don't know what I'm talking about... starting with why all of the hosts that Logan and William interact with don't look like "Old Bill", how/why we clearly heard OLD Robert Ford's voice when Dolores was extracted from Pariah, and how Dolores is even able to make the choices she's made since ending up in Logan and William's company.
<sneaks in> Behind horribly on this one. Episode 2. Hopefully Discovery will be as well thought out as this, although I do see the need to tighten it up a bit. Love what's unfolding. The willingness to show nudity along with the gore is heartening. A nice adult genre piece. Look forward to catching up, albeit confusedly.... 
<sneaks out>
<sneaks out>
Tons. Here's just a few.
1. Why the logo for Westworld was drastically different for William than it is in the current time frame.
2. Why the subway that William arrived in was shiny and bright and new, while the other time we've seen it was run down and all but abandoned.
3. How Lawrence can be dead and badly damaged but instantly up and running Pariah in an ongoing storyline that's clearly been running for more than a couple of hours, not to mention miles and miles from where he died. (And don't even try to say they have multiple copies of the same host; they've made it clear they don't do that, else they could have simply replaced Delores' dad with another host that looked exactly like him. Hell, they wouldn't even need to repair the badly damaged ones at all given how apparently cheap they are, as evidenced by the floors and floors of storerooms with defunct models.)
4. Why we haven't seen William with --anyone-- from the current time frame other than some of the hosts.
5. Why haven't we been given a name for the Man in Black, despite him clearly being someone people recognize and know from the real world; there's absolutely no other reason to keep his name a secret other than we already know what it is. (It's William, by the way.)
Oh and to refute one of your big "zinger" points; we haven't seen inside any of the hosts in William's time. All we've seen is that they (or at least some of them) bleed when damaged. In fact, that was a key point that the Man in Black said in that episode; in the past he opened one up to see what they looked like on the inside. I have no doubt we'll see William doing exact that in whichever episode they finally reveal them to be one in the same.
Last edited:
Why do you think this matters? Yes, designs change over time, but there's no guarantee that every single instance of the WestWorld logo would be updated to fit changes in said design
We've seen an area that LOOKS like it could be the "subway" entrance to the park, but you're drawing conclusions based on your "pet theory" that don't actually fit the facts that we've been told.
I already admitted that I can't explain this one, but that doesn't invalidate any of the other things I mentioned that the show and showrunners have presented/said that refutes the notion of multiple timelines.
Both of these things are you "putting the cart before the horse" and making assumptions/drawing conclusions that fit your personal "pet theory", even though they run entirely counter to things that we've been shown/told by both the show itself and the showrunners, and even though they ignore a lot of the things that I previously outlined concerning the way that the series' narrative is being established.
As I outlined previously, we've seen two different versions of the Hosts: "Old Bill" (who is an animatronic construct, and who acts and behaves as such, with jerky movements and canned dialogue repsonses) and the "current", more human-seeming Hosts (who look and behave like humans and actually bleed). If the Logan/William storyline were taking place in the past the way that you're claiming, each and every single Host we see would look and behave like "Old Bill, and the very fact that they don't kills the notion that we're dealing with two different timelines on its face.
You also didn't bother to address the fact that we hear OLD Robert Ford's voice when Dolores is extracted from Pariah, or the fact that Dolores is even with Logan and William in the first place and able to behave as she is (behavior that can only be a direct result of her being "awakened" in The Original by the "these violent delights have violent ends" trigger phrase), or the fact that, in her conversation with Ford, which directly follows the scene where he extracts her from Pariah, she's exhibiting behaviors that, again, can only be a direct result of her having been "awakened" in The Original).
Between your making assumptions that don't necessarily mean anything, choosing to ignore stuff that doesn't fit your personal pet theory, and not bothering to address legitimate things that run contrary to said theory, you're not instilling much confidence in the notion that you're right.
There are some good arguments for William being MiB but if that were the case I think it'd be poor writing. Seems hacky to suggest that William's personality would evolve into MiB's, or at least it'd need a perfectly executed justification. It has to be more than 'Passive guy learned to be assertive.'
Also when Ford talked to MiB didn't he refer to Dolores going off loop?
Was Lawrence that damaged? He was drained of blood and had a slice in his neck.
And if this were true wouldn't all the 'new programming' stuff have to happen in the past too? And didn't Dolores remember MiB's torture before escaping her rape scene and meeting up with William?
I just think the writers are taking liberties with simultaneity so they can cross cut thematically linked scenes.
Also when Ford talked to MiB didn't he refer to Dolores going off loop?
Was Lawrence that damaged? He was drained of blood and had a slice in his neck.
And if this were true wouldn't all the 'new programming' stuff have to happen in the past too? And didn't Dolores remember MiB's torture before escaping her rape scene and meeting up with William?
I just think the writers are taking liberties with simultaneity so they can cross cut thematically linked scenes.
Do we know that Old Bill was an actual park host or was he a proof of concept prototype?
Translation: "I'm ignoring evidence because I don't have an explanation."
Translation: "I'm ignoring evidence because I don't have an explanation."
Translation: "I'm ignoring evidence because I don't have an explanation."
Wash, rinse, repeat.
Nope. None whatsoever. We've also seen no other examples of out-of-service hosts looking that raw. (In fact, and I have no real evidence to support this theory, but I'm thinking that might actually be what became of Arnold. After all, they've repeatedly stated that there hasn't even been so much of a picture of him, and Ford is fucked up enough to have done something really... well... fucked up like turning him into a host somehow. It's a huge stretch, I know, but Bill is reaaaaally creepy compared to all the other hosts we've seen. Even old ones that have been there since the beginning like, you know, Delores.)
We were explicitly told that the Hosts used to be animatronic/less human-seeming (both by Ford himself and by the Man in Black).
And before I get accused of "ignoring evidence" again, an older logo and a an area that looks like it could be an abandoned subway entrance to the park aren't evidence of anything without external interpretations being applied to them and therefore don't mean much.
I do want to refute the notion that we've only seen Logan and William interact with Hosts by stating that there were other "guests" at Pariah, as per showrunners Lisa Joy and Jonathan Nolan.
And before I get accused of "ignoring evidence" again, an older logo and a an area that looks like it could be an abandoned subway entrance to the park aren't evidence of anything without external interpretations being applied to them and therefore don't mean much.
I do want to refute the notion that we've only seen Logan and William interact with Hosts by stating that there were other "guests" at Pariah, as per showrunners Lisa Joy and Jonathan Nolan.
How do you explain that Dolores remembered MiB raping her before escaping her rape and running into William?
Those were two different timelines. Her breaking down and having those flashbacks was in the present timeline. When she grabbed her horse and ran off, the next time we see her is in the past when she first meets William, which was part of the narrative she was flashing back to.
There's also the train scene.
@JirinPanthosa Don't listen to this "multiple timelines" garbage. It's total bunk based on a number of previously-outlined factors, as well as comments from the showrunners catalogued by Entertainment Weekly's James Hibbard.
And be sure not to forget that J.J. Abrams said Khan was definitely not in Into Darkness, and he clearly wasn't! Always believe what the showrunners have to say. They have no motives for trying to obfuscate the story when it's prematurely unveiled. <thumbs up!>
Jonathan Nolan and Lisa Joy Nolan are not J.J. Abrams.
Plus, @Christopher had the perfect response to this kind of thinking:
"As a rule, though, there's such a thing as the presumption of innocence. If you expect someone to be honest and they turn out to be lying, that's their fault. But if you assume they're lying and they actually aren't, then you're the one in the wrong. So giving others the benefit of the doubt is a basic part of just generally not being a jerk. If you're going to accuse someone of lying, it should be based on evidence, and "Well, some other person with a similar job lied once" is not evidence by any rational standard."
Plus, @Christopher had the perfect response to this kind of thinking:
"As a rule, though, there's such a thing as the presumption of innocence. If you expect someone to be honest and they turn out to be lying, that's their fault. But if you assume they're lying and they actually aren't, then you're the one in the wrong. So giving others the benefit of the doubt is a basic part of just generally not being a jerk. If you're going to accuse someone of lying, it should be based on evidence, and "Well, some other person with a similar job lied once" is not evidence by any rational standard."
