# "Westworld" [HBO]



## Delroy E Walleye (Jun 9, 2012)

Intrigued. 

Much to figure out, here. I haven't read or heard anything about this series other than seeing a couple of promos. (Of course I remember the movies from the 70s.)

I'm sure much more knowledge is out there. But I think I can make a few educated guesses based on the first ep as to where they might take things.

Suffice to say I found it entertaining.

I'll look forward to more in-depth commentary from Huuge (or anyone else that wants to comment).

Gotta like "Black Hole Sun" on the player piano.


----------



## MysteryMan (May 17, 2010)

Looking forward to watching my recording of last night's pilot.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

Need to watch my DVR version as well... Initially I had no interest... already watching too much TV... but started to hear/read some good things about it that made me put it on the DVR to take a look.


----------



## MysteryMan (May 17, 2010)

Viewed the pilot last night. Intriguing with heavy emphisis on mankind's lust for violence and debauchery.


----------



## RunnerFL (Jan 5, 2006)

Loved the book and the Yul Brynner movie so I'm recording the HBO show. Will start watching after I have 4 or 5 episodes.


----------



## Huuge Hefner (Aug 16, 2016)

Delroy E Walleye said:


> Intrigued.
> 
> ...I'll look forward to more in-depth commentary from Huuge (or anyone else that wants to comment).
> 
> Gotta like "Black Hole Sun" on the player piano.


Intriguing might be the word that sums this up.

Also intriguing was the symphony version of 'Paint It Black' during the massacre. Rights to this stuff are not cheap, and one wonders why they went there. 'Paint It Black' has a wonderful soulful melody, and it works here, other than recognizing it sort of takes you out of the fantasy a little bit, so I am puzzled why they would do that. Not a complaint, I can't find anything here to complain about.

But I think we are looking at multiple Emmys here, for sure. This thing is as well-produced as any show ever, and the title sequence is as beautiful as I have ever seen. The art direction is without parallel.

And the cast is pretty great. Everyone is interesting, and intriguing.

The pilot held my interest, and unless they run out of gas I think I'm all in here. Never seen GOT, and I considered _Boardwalk Empire_ to be more like _Bored-walk Empire_, but this looks like the best thing HBO has had since _The Sopranos._

It will be interesting to see where this goes. Right now they have the advantage programs like this have early on in that there is a lot of mystery stimulating a lot of viewer curiosity. That will not last, once they start to reveal things, but I feel confident that they have much more in store for us than mystery.

They did a credit to the actor Eddie Rouse (1954-2014) who played 'Kissy'. Sorry about that, but he died in 2014. How long had the pilot been on the shelf? I know this thing has a history of having a difficult birth, and they delayed releasing it partway through production so the writers could catch up, which I think is a great idea, but that's an awful long time between pilot and series.

But, five stars. I was very impressed.


----------



## Huuge Hefner (Aug 16, 2016)

RunnerFL said:


> Loved the book and the Yul Brynner movie so I'm recording the HBO show. Will start watching after I have 4 or 5 episodes.


Why wait? 10 eps are in the can. HBO never pulls anything mid-run, and never even changes the time slot.

OK, maybe to binge? I'd rather savor. Let each ep marinate in my mind a little before the next one. It's like 'tantric TV', even if you aren't Sting.

Still mad at my ex for getting into an argument with me and making us miss the movie when it came out. Like a hundred years ago.


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

And it's HBO. No need to worry about recording it even if you don't want to watch it now since it's always available for on demand.


----------



## phrelin (Jan 18, 2007)

Huuge Hefner said:


> Still mad at my ex for getting into an argument with me and making us miss the movie when it came out. Like a hundred years ago.


No reason to stay mad. You can stream the 1973 movie in HD at Amazon for $3.99, the first theatrical feature written and directed by Michael Crichton.

It starred Yul Brynner as an android and Richard Benjamin and James Brolin as guests. Nominated for Hugo, Nebula and Saturn awards, it was the first feature film to use digital image processing to pixellate photography to simulate an android point of view. At the time it was cool. It's also available as a DVD from Netflix.

IMHO the best recent review of the movie is this one in which were told:



> ...Re-watching the movie in 2016, Westworld feels less dated than it should. It's a movie from the '70s about a future with robots, like there should be a lot more suspension of disbelief required. Setting the parks in the past somehow eliminates a lot of those problems. West World isn't meant to be a perfect historical replica of the past, but an immersive theme park-so the way it matches Hollywood's firmly established faux Old West works perfectly. Even the parts with the people running the park aren't too dated, save for the giant computers. And the fake commercial it starts with is brilliant, because it really sets up expectations the actual story is going to destroy.
> 
> ...It's a pretty grim view, but one that's really well executed on a tiny budget. I can't tell you if it resonates more now than it did in the '70s, since I was negative years old then, but the theme of a business leaping into commercialized technology before thinking through the implications? Yeah, that still works.


----------



## trainman (Jan 9, 2008)

Huuge Hefner said:


> Also intriguing was the symphony version of 'Paint It Black' during the massacre. Rights to this stuff are not cheap, and one wonders why they went there. 'Paint It Black' has a wonderful soulful melody, and it works here, other than recognizing it sort of takes you out of the fantasy a little bit, so I am puzzled why they would do that. Not a complaint, I can't find anything here to complain about.


There was a player-piano version of "Black Hole Sun" heard at one point as well. Kind of reinforced the idea that this was an anachronistic theme-park version of the Old West. (Kind of along the lines of this video, in which, in the 2010s, a 1950s song is sung in an 1890s-themed area of a theme park.)


----------



## Huuge Hefner (Aug 16, 2016)

I have to watch this again, even though I have scores of eps backed up of other great shows I want to get to.

This thing is so brilliant, the more I think about it. And as fantastic as it is, they seem to have suspended all disbelief. 3D printing the hosts? Genius. It's both beautiful and horrific all at once.

It's kind of a cross between_ Ex Machina_ and _Jurrasic Park_, which I guess makes sense, since Michael Chricton penned that as well as WW. It's a lot like _Jurrasic Park_ with cowboy robots instead of dinosaurs, but it looks like it will go a lot deeper than that ever did, four sequels later. If MC were still with us, I think he'd be proud.

People are complaining about a rape scene, which they did not see nor hear. It happened off screen. Lighten up.

Anthony Hopkins, in his creepiest yet most relatable role since _Silence of the Lambs_, addressed the anachronicity pretty brilliantly, in speaking about Gertrude Stein. Best writing since Rust Cole in _True Detective_.

They also made a clever statement about swearing too much. The dramatacist tech who is bellyaching uses the F word about every 3 words in his tirade, and it just gets more amusing the longer he goes on how as smart as this guy is supposed to be, that he doesn't realize that using the F word nineteen times in four paragraphs isn't completely undermining his own points that he is trying to make.

In a story full of confusion like this, those little nuances, or 'reveries' as Dr Ford refers to them, are what make these characters interesting.


----------



## RunnerFL (Jan 5, 2006)

Huuge Hefner said:


> Why wait? 10 eps are in the can. HBO never pulls anything mid-run, and never even changes the time slot.
> 
> OK, maybe to binge? I'd rather savor. Let each ep marinate in my mind a little before the next one. It's like 'tantric TV', even if you aren't Sting.
> 
> Still mad at my ex for getting into an argument with me and making us miss the movie when it came out. Like a hundred years ago.


10 may be in the can but 10 haven't aired yet... I'd prefer to binge at least 3 episodes.


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

Huuge Hefner said:


> The pilot held my interest, and unless they run out of gas I think I'm all in here. Never seen GOT, and I considered _Boardwalk Empire_ to be more like _Bored-walk Empire_, but this looks like the best thing HBO has had since _The Sopranos._


I'm just finishing up a binge of _Boardwalk Empire_ and I did find it difficult to get thru the first season. I wouldn't call it "boring", just difficult to get thru because of the usual first season of getting every character introduced and the time frame setup. Once I started the second season the series really took off (I had watched the whole series when it came out and did the binge just for kicks) and each season has improved upon the last. Sooo, "boring" it's not. I think.

We are also finishing _Hell On Wheels_ in another binge. My wife had never seen the series and we both found the first season to be kinda draggy. Then it really took off. This seems to be common in long series, they really need that setup cushion.

Rich


----------



## Delroy E Walleye (Jun 9, 2012)

Just saw a promo for a _60 minutes_ segment about machines that "think for themselves" with a brief clip of a really creepy android-type thing in it.

Suffice to say, machines like that are really gonna *need* those "reveries" for us (me at least) to get past that creepiness factor.

"Uncanny valley" times 1000.


----------



## Huuge Hefner (Aug 16, 2016)

Rich said:


> I'm just finishing up a binge of _Boardwalk Empire_ and I did find it difficult to get thru the first season. I wouldn't call it "boring", just difficult to get thru because of the usual first season of getting every character introduced and the time frame setup. Once I started the second season the series really took off (I had watched the whole series when it came out and did the binge just for kicks) and each season has improved upon the last. Sooo, "boring" it's not. I think.
> 
> We are also finishing _Hell On Wheels_ in another binge. My wife had never seen the series and we both found the first season to be kinda draggy. Then it really took off. This seems to be common in long series, they really need that setup cushion.
> 
> Rich


I do not disagree, but to me bored-walk was an exception. I made it through the setup, midway into the second season before I came to my senses.

Back OT, the second ep is not as dazzling as the first.


----------



## Delroy E Walleye (Jun 9, 2012)

Huuge Hefner said:


> I do not disagree, but to me bored-walk was an exception. I made it through the setup, midway into the second season before I came to my senses.
> 
> Back OT, *the second ep is not as dazzling as the first.*


Agreed.

And that stupid "comedy" bit with the knuckle-headed "surgeons." Would a place like that really trifle with having their hosts walking around with deadly MRSA?? (or did I get that bit wrong?..)

Series is leaving me with many more questions than answers, and I'm not sure I have the patience required to ride it out. I'll probably give it a few more eps before deciding whether to pull the plug.


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

Shows like this will always have lots of questions. And more every time one gets answered.


----------



## Huuge Hefner (Aug 16, 2016)

I feel like I'm in. If it doesn't go down hill, at least.

And I can't get over how beautiful the set decoration, art dec, and opening credits are. It's as good as any show I can think of, in that regard.

You think where they might have gone, with a future where they spy on everything that they've created, and the first thing you think is rooms full of flatscreens, like _Minority Report._ But no, no rooms full of flatscreens. This is a future where technology is so advanced that it solved one of the biggest problems technology has, which is it is omnipresent and can't get out of its own way.

in 2003, MR was prescient, and impressive. But this blows the doors off. The ideas they are showing us about how invisible the tech is are really brilliant.


----------



## Huuge Hefner (Aug 16, 2016)

Now to fan theory.

There are some interesting 'conspiracy' theories on Reddit. One of the most intriguing is that Billy (or is it William?) is also the Man in Black, in an earlier timeline, which if true means we just saw his origin story. The 'evidence' is that the timelines are separate in that nothing happens or is referred to in one and then the other, and that there is a different, perhaps older, WW logo in the Billy timeline. The two characters do not appear together, supporting the 'Donald and Adolph are never seen ever together in the same place. Hmmmm' theory. I sort of hope this is correct.

There are also some other theories, such as the steeple being the highest point of the original WW that was buried in the desert, and that the little boy is a host created by Ford from an archetype of himself, based on the theories that hosts are based on real personalities, as was uncovered in _Futureworld_.

And there might be a clue. In that scene, the little boy and Ford are dressed precisely the same. White shirt, suit vest and matching dark trousers, no tie.

Further, Hector Ecaton (a brilliant performance) may be the host reincarnation of Logan. They sort of seem like the same person, and have the same evil nature, and even look quite alike. Since Delos owns rights to all DNA captured from 'guests', that might be possible.


----------



## Huuge Hefner (Aug 16, 2016)

OK, and I might have figured out one of those mysteries, with a conspiracy theory of my own.

I just learned that ep 2 was really shot as part of a 2-hour (2:15) pilot, and then that was 'reimagined' into two shorter episodes.

If I am the producers, and I am HBO, I want to front-load that first 'pilot' and get social media humming in our favor, so i would, without disturbing the organic flow, take all of the best sequences from the 2+ hours, shoehorn them into the 'pilot' ep, and try to take the rest and make something coherent out of what was left over to make the second ep.

And it would be easy to do as the scenes are all 'slice of life' scenes without a strong serialization of events. This would be the functional equivalent of exactly what the opposite approach was when they took Godfather I and Godfather II apart and re-edited them into the Godfather 'Teleplay', for TV, which recounted the events in strictly serial fashion (and makes for a credible first viewing for neophytes).

If true, it would explain why the climax scene (Delores slapping the fly dead) did not lead to character progression of her character in ep 2. That was supposed to happen at the 2-hour mark, in the original envisioning. Well, that is my theory, anyway.

It would also explain a lot more, even supporting some of the theories I mentioned earlier. So maybe the reason ep 2 was 'not as dazzling' as I characterized it not to be, was because it was basically the leftovers used for cleanup. It was the bottom of the batting order of good ideas and compelling scenes.

I sort of hope that is true, because doing that may have crippled ep 2 slightly, at the expense of the 'pilot'. Which could mean that eps 3 and forward will have their own brilliance not crippled by late-comers with their Final Cut Pro or Avid Symphony workstations (burn in hell, Avid) meddling with the vision.


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

I have a hard time believing that people who try shows on HBO won't be fine watching a full 2 hour premiere and require a one hour premiere to keep from possibly tuning out. Very odd...


----------



## Huuge Hefner (Aug 16, 2016)

I have no problem believing it. And apparently neither does Casey Bloys or anyone else at HBO.

I'm an outlier, but I know I would have been more on the fence at sampling WW if it had been a 2:15 pilot. I don't watch movies at all, probably because of the time commitment. I get antsy after sitting there for 40-50 minutes and want to get up and write another song or work on my books. I feel guilty because I'm sitting there like a lump and not on the stepper, so I use hand weights while I watch, which does really nothing for me except make me feel less guilty about being a couch potato.

And while if I were a producer or writer on WW I would be miffed that HBO says 'do a 2-hour pilot' and then moves the goalpost and 'reimagines' that into two eps, shuffling the scenes around, I understand the value of doing that. But it is not so much a head-scratcher why the breech birth of this show meant the mother was in labor for over two years, _after_ the pilot was shot. That's how crazy the business is when a hundred mil is invested, I guess.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

I can go either way. I like long season/series premieres and season/series finales as well... but short ones are okay too. Quality over quantity!

BUT... I hate when goalposts are moved. I don't like when networks shuffle around episodes and show them out of their intended order... or disassembling an episode and splitting it up and rearranging the narrative. I think this sort of thing should be negotiated up front and then left alone once the "go" order is given and they are filming things.

We've seen more than one series mucked up by having episodes shown out of order or tinkered with by "suits" after the fact.


----------



## Huuge Hefner (Aug 16, 2016)

_Cough_! Firefly _Ahem_!

I think in this case the goal posts were moved before we as viewers ever got the rules of the game, and hopefully that was in the interests of making it better for us rather than making it better for HBO. After all, it would be hard for HBO to bring us the brilliance of season two and three if they don't hook us with the pilot in season one.

That is probably always the honorable intent; it just often works out badly.

What it really boils down to is how smart and clever the meddling manipulators are. Are they going to make it better? Or just eff everything up. And certainly in the case of WW, part of what makes me doubtful is how troubled the birth of this series was. historically speaking, the more troubled the birth has been for a show, the more likely it will not be good and will get cancelled early. It should have been negotiated up front. It wasn't. That is the world of media as it exists.

The worry I have here is that now that I am 'recently engaged' to something I want to turn out great, will it?

A published novelist friend of mine says you have to have a premise/setup (Act I), an adventure (Act II), and a payoff (Act III). And they all have to be good, and the payoff has to be better than the reader ever expected. Name one great book or great movie that didn't do that. And typically, the writer/creator, has the payoff all mapped out before he/she even begins. What good is a mystery novel with a weak mystery payoff?

The problem with serialized TV is we may never get a payoff. You can sell a premise and get green-lighted without that. That is a huge problem, and a common one. _The Sopranos_ is arguably the best show ever, yet many were unhappy with the payoff, feeling there was not really one at all.

But luckily, the payoff isn't everything. The journey is sometime worth it, even if the payoff isn't great. _Lost_ comes to mind. I honestly think those guys had no idea where they were going after ep 2 when the show was sold. But they got there, wherever they were going, in style. Every ep was an adventure, and was entertaining, even if you missed the week before and had no idea where the story might be going. Folks not exactly happy with that 'payoff', either, but it was still a top-shelf show.

So that is how I am looking at WW. Enjoy the journey, because i suspect the payoff is not even really well-formed in the writers' minds quite yet. And of course this problem is aggravated by the fact that TV series are open-ended. No one really knows if there will be a full season, a season two, a season five, a season fourteen. So much so, that it quite obscenely has almost become the paradigm. 'Sell us on a good premise, and worry about the payoff when you get there'. That is a huge problem, and a characteristic flaw in series television.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

That's why I argue, generally speaking for a process by which networks buy a show for a season or half-season or whatever... with the up-front commitment that they will not cancel the show mid-season. Buy 20 episodes, you will run them all. IF ratings suffer or you don't like the show once you see it, then you simply don't renew after season 1. Meanwhile, the showrunners only know for sure they have season 1... so they should craft a story that is compelling and reasonably complete by the end of season 1. It's fine to sow seeds and leave the door open to season 2 in case ratings go well and the network wants to renew... but don't assume you will get a season 2 and leave viewers hanging.

There is a way for both sides to make compelling program that is both open-ended AND doesn't leave viewers hanging. I can handle a network canceling a show I don't like, but I can't handle when they decide to not run the episodes after a while OR they post them online only OR they binge drop them randomly some night when I can't watch or record them all because of conflicts. Buy the show, run the show!

Also, I wish the network would stay out of monkeying with the show. They had the chance to provide input before they bought the show. Presumably you buy the pitch from the showrunners and fund a pilot... then you like the pilot enough to go to series with it... at that point, you've decided that you like what they brought to the table... so let them keep serving you what you bought. Stop asking the chef to change the recipe! IF you didn't like it, you should have went to another restaurant before committing to multiple dinners there.

I need to watch Westworld though, so I can stop speaking in general terms. I have it on the DVR but haven't found the time to sit and watch yet.


----------



## Huuge Hefner (Aug 16, 2016)

There are two sinister forces opposing your pipe dream.

1. Monetization. Or less politely, greed. They want to squeeze every penny from you, and quality, or what you really want, always takes a back seat. And they are just as interested in you taking out your wallet willingly as they are in lifting it when you aren't looking.

2. Meddling. That is not a mental disorder found in the DSM-5, but it should be. People feel that they have to justify their own existence by meddling with everything they can get their boney little fingers into. TV is no exception. Neither is tech, and neither are recipes or offerings at a restaurant.

The problem is the non-destructive nature of things like tech and TV and recipes. If something gets literally written in stone, if someone designs a building and completes it, or an end table, or records a song, that's it. It is no longer non-destructive to make changes. At some point you gotta paint it and ship it.

But the ability to update tech remotely over the internet essentially let loose the meddlers. Not the best example, just the most dramatic. In TV, everything is non-destructive until you air it, meaning if there are meddlers, and there are always going to be, just like there are ZIka mosquitos, plenty of meddlers, and things will suffer meddling until they air or are posted on Netflix. Once something has a virus it always has a virus, which is why TV is like herpes.

Also, it is not practical to wait until the upfronts to know whether you should start thinking about writing season two.

Still, that's a great pipe dream. The most important thing that happened to series TV in the last decade is not streaming, it is the HBO effect. They started the model of the 10-ep season, no meddling suits (ironically now meddling BIGTIME with WW), and open-ended running times. And that has fostered closed arcs, short seasons, not panicking and pulling an expensive great show like _Lone Star _after one episode (four others never aired), and not expecting to drain writers and actors creatively by forcing 22 eps in 39 weeks, over and over and over again.

Creativity is not something that you can just turn on the faucet for, and the clinkers in 22-ep seasons illustrate that markedly. A few years ago TV went through a fallow period because of all of this, with your JJ Abrams's and Vince Gilligan's and countless actors wishing to go to movies instead. But because things have changed, the quality center has moved back to TV.

No longer is there such a great pressure to ramp up the energy just before a commercial break, or as the president of Netflix might say, "What the heck is that?" No longer does a show have to fit squarely into a 42-minute box, which means we were either deprived of great scenes or were forced to endure filler, because* the only reason content is even there in the first place is to separate the commercial breaks from one another.*

(Well, maybe some of this is still a pipe dream, things are changing in linear TV, but slowly, glacially). I've been watching linear TV for decades, to the point where when the commercial comes, I already know and have my finger on the skip button before 'Flo from Progressive' even gets one stupid word out. (I do stick around for 'Lilly' in those phone service commercials. If they want me to watch the commercials, just put 'Lilly' in every single one of them)

David Duchovny would eat his gun before doing another 22-ep season. He even bailed out of doing that on top. But 6 eps? Sure! Let's do it! Let's play two!


----------



## armophob (Nov 13, 2006)

I am all in on this one.
Dissect as you will. But It is great tv.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

I'm not sure why it has to be a pipe dream. Networks want to make money, production companies want to make money... every step along the way involves people wanting to make money. IF networks aren't confident in a show for a full season (whether it is 6, 10, 13, or 22 episodes) then they shouldn't go beyond that pilot. They pay for the pilot, they like it or not... that's the end unless they are ready to pay for a whole season order and air that whole season.

Meanwhile, I don't expect the writers to do nothing... Actors have contracts either year-to-year, or for multiple seasons already... IF the production company likes their show, they can pay writers to work on season 2 scripts until they feel the show isn't going to get one. So writers should be crafting season 1 that is ordered and (in my scenario) guaranteed such that it completes a story arc AND leaves the door open for more stories that they are already planning. IF you can get a network to buy multiple seasons in one shot (I doubt it, but you never know) THEN you can go all out and plan cliffhangers and stuff between seasons... but you can't do that IF you don't feel certain you're going to complete the story.

Imagine if books came out like this... Stephen King tried it... "The Green Mile" came out in 6 chapters... but he was Stephen "F" King so he and you knew it was going to get finished and would sell. But someone else? Are you going to buy chapter one of a book when you don't know if any other chapters will come out? I wouldn't. That's what is happening to viewers in serialized TV... too many times being burned, so many ignore shows until either they hear it has been renewed OR they find out it isn't going to end on a cliffhanger.

Networks would get more people to try new shows, I wager, IF you knew going in that it was definitely going to be a complete story arc airing that wouldn't leave you hanging IF ratings soured along the way.


----------



## Huuge Hefner (Aug 16, 2016)

You are correct about much of this. I appreciate your unjaded view. I am way too cynical, but probably also way too realistic. If the entertainment industry thought like you, maybe this could be the way things are.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

Possible mucking with Westworld aside... I think HBO and SHO are more likely to use my model of doing things than commercial-TV... since, for HBO for example, it isn't directly about ratings. They aren't selling commercial spots, so the show doesn't have to "win the night" or make back revenue in that way... HBO makes their money directly (or through the cable/satellite middle-man) from subscribers who are paying per month for whatever content HBO sees fit. HBO surely looks at ratings to see what is popular and what isn't... but the ratings themselves for any individual show don't make or break the network, so I suspect the leash can be longer.

I bet HBO isn't as likely to pull a show mid-season and stop airing it for low ratings. I also bet the are where you have the best chance at convincing them to buy 2+ seasons off your pilot so you could craft a longer term story.


----------



## Huuge Hefner (Aug 16, 2016)

I don't think they've ever done that. When you are trying to fill 24 hours on 8 channels, you need content. And when the DVD industry usurps and disrupts your 'movie playback' business and you need to have original content to not get lost in the shuffle, well...I don't even need to complete that sentence, so I wo....


----------



## RunnerFL (Jan 5, 2006)

Finally started watching now that 4 episodes have aired. I'm digging the show, as I thought I would.


----------



## Huuge Hefner (Aug 16, 2016)

You may be heartened to find that the 5th episode is actually the best so far, including the pilot part one.

This also supports what Evan Rachel Wood (do they get any cuter?) has been saying to the media, which is that her mind was completely blown by the later episodes, that through the first four she thought she had an idea where things might be and was jazzed to be on a great show, but then she later discovered how much greater it was than she ever even imagined.

I have no earthly idea what is going on here. It is rare for a show to have so much mystery and so many veiled and shrouded plot points and still be so captivating. But I could not care less what is going on here. The numerous 'theories' are just people doing what people are 'programmed' to do, just like the narratives given to the hosts, which is to try to make order out of chaos. It's what we all do our entire lives.

Plenty of chaos to keep the internet mavens occupied. This is like _LOST_ on steroids. in _LOST_, we had no idea what was going on, either, although the day-to-day seemed a little more 'normal' and believable than WW, smoke monsters aside. And then we learn that none of it was real at all, which is probably why so many felt gypped by the ending. Oh. Spoiler alert.

But we learned from _LOST_ that the journey is what is important, and not the destination. So it was completely enjoyable even if it was not real. I expect, and predict, that they have learned from the mistakes of _LOST_. That was a show that had no idea where it was even headed. The writers were laying track in front of a bullet train trying to keep up.

WW has a full 5-year plan already on paper, and had most of that before the pilot was even shot, two years ago. So I predict, and expect, a much better payoff. And again, I could care less, because the journey there, even if we have tons of unanswered questions, is just so much damned fun that it doesn't even matter.

When the full story arc got a little fuzzy for them, after production started (yes, even a 5-year plan needs to be malleable) what did they do? They stopped production until they could sort it out, at great expense, to keep from painting themselves into a corner. That's HBO. What would ABC have done if JJ and Lindelof had gone to the suits and asked for such a break? Kept cracking the whip. That's ABC. And that probably happened. _True Detective_, also one of the best ever, also with genius writing, had 8 episodes mapped out, and then an empty tank. Maybe HBO has learned some lessons, also. We can only hope.

I mean, the theories are fun, too, or I would not have introduced that in this thread. Just don't let them distract you from the real fun. Are there two Deloreses? Maybe. I see how that theory has gained credence. But I don't care, and I also expect that two Deloreses would only be the tip of an iceberg much larger than that simple theory (I wish I had two Deloreses, but, Ahem!). And what Delores sees and experiences falls under the 'unreliable narrator' category, because she has visions, hears voices, and is completely out of her little android mind.

The hinted at motivations of Bernard, Dr. Ford, and all the others are really cleverly introduced, and in no way feel like the hack-based melodramatic tropes shoehorned into wannabes like _Timeless_, _Frequency_, and half a dozen other terrible shows this fall (I'm looking at you, Kiefer). Actually, I find the scenes in the tech area and between the staff to be more interesting than any of the scenes in the park proper.

And it was shot in Utah. Maybe that explains the unprecedentedly beautiful scenery, but maybe it doesn't. I have never seen pictures of Utah that looked anything like this. This show makes you question everything, especially the concepts of reality, to the point where it would not surprise me if the entire thing was CGI at this point.

As long as I'm predicting, if this show stays this good, it will go down in history as one of the best ever. Hope I didn't jinx them.


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

I stopped after the second episode, for the moment. I am going to wait till December and watch the next 8 in a row. I get the feeling it might be even better that way. I really like it so far.


----------



## Huuge Hefner (Aug 16, 2016)

That's a cool approach.

But for me, the story stays with me after I've watched it. I contemplate the events occasionally for the next couple days, and it makes it better.

Only a rare few shows can do this, so spacing them out once a week actually works. The ideas are so deep; they are not just like simple events, the questions raised are quite a lot to think about. Important stuff about humanity, and greed, and behavior, that resonate with real questions in real life.

I don't think of this show as science fiction, although I guess it is. But whatever it is, it has the same moral metaphors that the best science fiction has.


----------



## armophob (Nov 13, 2006)

inkahauts said:


> I stopped after the second episode, for the moment. I am going to wait till December and watch the next 8 in a row. I get the feeling it might be even better that way. I really like it so far.


I think you are right and i feel like I am muddling it with other shows at the same time.

I can't not watch it every week, but I think I am making a big mistake and losing something by not binge watching it.


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

Nothing wrong with rewatching it in December to ya know. 

I just get the feeling there is a lot of nuance that may show better by seeing it binge style.


----------



## RunnerFL (Jan 5, 2006)

inkahauts said:


> I stopped after the second episode, for the moment. I am going to wait till December and watch the next 8 in a row. I get the feeling it might be even better that way. I really like it so far.


Yeah, now that I've watched 4 I may wait for more to build up. I've gotten to used to being able to binge watch good shows. 1 at a time now kills me. lol


----------



## RunnerFL (Jan 5, 2006)

inkahauts said:


> Nothing wrong with rewatching it in December to ya know.
> 
> I just get the feeling there is a lot of nuance that may show better by seeing it binge style.


The same can be said for a lot of shows. It's not a matter of forgetting what happens from week to week it's the fact that you see patterns/events you may not notice when you watch as they air.


----------



## MysteryMan (May 17, 2010)

For those of us who enjoy this series it's been renewed for a 10 episode 2nd season.


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

Oh, good. We're gonna binge on it very soon!

Rich


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

I'm just now starting this... watched the first two episodes, will be watching #3 shortly. Kind of early to figure out just where this is going. They are teasing a lot of different things all at once, which is good if they get to have many years as they hope/plan for on HBO to flesh (so to speak) everything out.


----------



## the2130 (Dec 18, 2014)

Great show. I've watched all 8 episodes. Ratings have been great as well.


----------



## Virginian (Jun 14, 2006)

Westworld Star Evan Rachel Wood Describes Being Raped Twice in Emotional Notehttp://news.google.com/news/url?sr=...st=1&at=dt0&eid=/m/011c6zcc&ise=false&insrc=6

http://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_factor/2016/11/29/westworld_star_evan_rachel_wood_describes_being_raped_twice_in_an_emotional.html


----------



## Huuge Hefner (Aug 16, 2016)

For those that want to binge, HBO is going to run a marathon, I believe on next Sunday, which is the day the season finale airs.

This may be the best show I have seen in some time, but I detect a quality drop in eps 8 and 9. It has become more of a puzzle box show, and even more confusing than before. I am doubting whether they can execute the finale in a way that will be satisfying.

But oh, I will still be there. It is still way ahead of most shows.

Evan's revelation makes me very sad. I just want to reach out and hug her now. I hope there is justice somewhere for her attackers, and I hope she can find peace. She seems like a very nice woman.


----------



## the2130 (Dec 18, 2014)

I read Season 2 isn't likely before 2018.


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

I just got thru with the whole season. I found the first nine episodes pretty hard to watch, my wife gave up during episode 4, seemed like they had no idea where they were going. Episode 10 was very good, I thought. I realize the first few episodes were setting up the rest of the series, but nine episodes? And someone thought _Boardwalk Empire_ was boring? I really struggled with the first nine, almost gave up. I just got thru binging on the _Sopranos _for the fourth or fifth time, I've never found that boring. Does this show deserve a Best TV Drama Golden Globes award? I don't think so. If some more of the first nine were as good as #10 I'd say awards were deserved.

Rich


----------



## Delroy E Walleye (Jun 9, 2012)

Thought it might be fun to bump this thread, now that the second season is out.

Post #46 has come to pass.

My journey with this series has become an interesting one (for me, at least).

Apparently I was one of those that had stopped after the second ep. (and I'm still not sure why).

At some point (over a year ago) I discovered the 1973 movie was airing on TCM and had the foresight to record it.

Well, flash forward another year and I saw the second season was starting up so I decided to start recording again, as well as adding back the first two eps that had been deleted as they were re-aired before the season premiere.

I re-watched the first ep, figured it was worth catching up on and started dumping the rest into my high-speed playback system for later viewing.

Wouldn'tcha know it, within a short time I spotted the 1st season UHD collector's tin in a discount store, decided I'd rather view it that way and (impulsively) sprung for it. Now I've got a "vested interest."

I recalled having the movie recorded and made the decision to watch that first before embarking on my UHD _WW_ excursion.

Suffice to say, I'm glad for that decision. I think the series presumes familiarity with the story, but I hadn't seen the movie in decades, and (surprisingly) found it thoroughly enjoyable. It was fun seeing the "prototypes" of some of the series' characters.

I think I've a different perspective, now and am liking _WW_ apparently more than before. It's not just having seen the movie, but repeated viewing of the first couple eps.

(Of course UHD isn't "hurting" it for me, either. When the lighting is just right I'd swear I can see the individual grains of makeup powder on ERW's face!)

I also had fun re-reading this thread and now looking forward to the rest of season one and (hopefully) season two.


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

Delroy E Walleye said:


> Thought it might be fun to bump this thread, now that the second season is out.
> 
> Post #46 has come to pass.
> 
> ...


Probably for the same reason that I almost gave up on it...it kinda sucked. All the episodes were confusing and just kinda sucky...then the last episode exploded on me. And explained everything. I was then able to go back, watch the whole thing over again and actually understand what was going on. It's a wonderful series and I hope it's a lot easier to understand this season. I won't watch until I can binge on the whole second season.

Rich


----------



## phrelin (Jan 18, 2007)

I like this show, but it is probably because it is about the lack of any ethical and moral debate in the context of corporate created and owned technology.

In this week's _New Yorker_ magazine there is a timely article How Frightened Should We Be of A.I.? It reviews the full breadth of the AI and robot literature and film as well as the ongoing scientific discussion.

Oddly, as with so many of these explorations of the subject it doesn't mention Lieutenant Commander Data from "Star Trek: The Next Generation" which puzzle's me as he was in all of the 176 episodes plus later pieces. As noted in the linked Wikipedia entry [show creator] Gene Roddenberry told [actor] Brent Spiner that over the course of the series, Data was to become "more and more like a human until the end of the show, when he would be very close, but still not quite there. That was the idea and that's the way that the writers took it."

The thing is, Commander Data was a synthetic humanoid life form with artificial intelligence used by humans for their own purposes albeit with humane behavior. But the show did not let us forget that for their own purposes, directly and also indirectly through corporations and governments, humans use other humans.

The core of the movie "Westworld" from the beginning was about corporate use of humanoid robots equipped with some level of AI for "entertainment purposes", in a manner and for purposes we would not allow humans to be used by corporations at least up through the end of the third quarter of the 20th Century. The fact is that the movie was written in August 1972 in a moral context shaped by WWII and the Holocaust.

The difference today is that the TV series is aired in a very differently shaped moral context that began evolving in the late 1970's along with technology. What we view as a technological age began simultaneously with a reopening in the late 1970's of the debate over "greed is good" which reached a peak following the release of the 1987 movie _Wall Street_. While their are books on the immorality of greed, consider reading the article _Greed Is Good: A 300-Year History of a Dangerous Idea -"Not long ago, the pursuit of commercial self-interest was largely reviled. How did we come to accept it?"_

So far this season HBO's "Westworld" seems to be exploring conceptually the ideas of trust within family and tribal attachments versus the commitment to less clear concepts of a larger group. But the struggle is going on in AI not designed to deal with it.

And the show continues to offer the viewer an agonizing struggle to maintain clarity on the idea that a humanoid robot with some AI is creation by humans not by God or nature; and, therefore, we should apply the same ethical and moral rules that apply to an Amazon Echo - Alexa notwithstanding - or an iPhone - Siri notwithstanding. They are all disposable "machines."

And at least for me who began working with computers in the second quarter of the 20th Century (1951-1975), the show's character Lee Sizemore, who ran the Narrative Department at WestWorld until the revolt, seems like the logical extension into the 21st Century of the struggling engineers described in the non-fiction the Pulitzer Prize winning book _The Soul of a New Machine_ by Tracy Kidder. Those engineers struggled with corporate goals that defined the team's goal is to "put a bag on the side of the Eclipse" - in other words, to turn out an inferior product in order to have it completed more quickly solely to generate instant short-term profits.


----------



## Delroy E Walleye (Jun 9, 2012)

Gee, I just realized how much I've missed the discussions in this forum. Thanks, guys.

A further (and lengthy) note about this series and UHD (since my last post here):

I'm starting to think much of it is looking more like "upconverted 2K" (which Warner have been accused of with some of their "superhero" movies).

I was noticing more and more how "filmy" it was looking, and sure enough watching supplemental material finding out it actually _was_ *filmed* with motion picture cameras. (They wanted the look of an _old_ Western, and they certainly got it.)

While some scenes seem to benefit from HDR, I've found it also shows up inconsistencies of color differences, lighting, continuity, etc.

Worst of all for me is focus (an obvious and ongoing problem with film), some of it being crystal-clear and other of it looking smudgy.

Bottom line I don't think there is a clear benefit of "4K Ultra" here. (Supposedly there's an Atmos sound track, if that's worth anything.)

While the above will not further detract me from the otherwise immersive experience, I don't think others would be missing all that much with their 1080p "streamers" while putting up with a little "haloing."


----------

