Westworld (HBO)

[Hugor Hill]

34 minutes ago, Realtor Rod said:

Great show, but when I saw the first fly I thought Hillary was a robot as one landed on her face at the debate.

hahaha!

[Beluga Whale]

I watched the second episode and I think it's definitely an improvement on the first. There's a good amount of mystery behind what's going on and I think the slower development will lead to a strong payoff later on.

 

On 10/10/2016 at 0:29 PM, riffraff said:

 

ed Harris character is cheesy too. His script is over done and clichéd - too many weak one line quips for every action.  Borderline Arnould Schwarzenegger.

Agreed. Although I am interested about who his character actually is, his scenes are kinda weak. 

 

I'm confused about the guns though. How are they suddenly ineffective when shot at a human?

Also does anyone know how many Westworlds are taking place at once? There must be a fair amount so the guests don't interfere with each other right?

[Hugor Hill]

16 minutes ago, Beluga Whale said:

I watched the second episode and I think it's definitely an improvement on the first. There's a good amount of mystery behind what's going on and I think the slower development will lead to a strong payoff later on.

 

Agreed. Although I am interested about who his character actually is, his scenes are kinda weak. 

 

I'm confused about the guns though. How are they suddenly ineffective when shot at a human?

Also does anyone know how many Westworlds are taking place at one? There must be a fair amount so the guests don't interfere with each other right?

Like World of Warcraft and other MMORPG's there must be numerous servers.

 

 

[g_bassi13]

I keep waiting for Anthony Hopkins to tell me he "spared no expense."

[g_bassi13]

On the whole, I've enjoyed the 2 episodes thus far quite a bit. The first one more than the second.

 

It's kind of funny how easy it is to get lost in the world of the show, considering it's a story about people who pay money to get lost in a world.

 

I can dig the par where it seems like the show is heading towards analysing the essence of humanity and morality, as the movie before it did.

 

Where the show is losing me is in the "mystery" of it all that it's trying to present. It's so vague. And not in a cool, not giving anything away, kind of vague. But one that lacks any meaning thus far. It's not like they've been reluctant to lend hints about its mystery, it's that they're reluctant to even begin to touch on what it is, or why I should care about it.

 

Ed Harris' character going around and doing what he has been doing is by far the worst part of either episode so far. 2 hours in it has been more meaningless than anything so far. It'll obviously lead somewhere, as will the rest of whatever mystery, but 2 episodes in they haven't done a thing with any of it.

 

 

I think the things it has done well, it has done very well though. It dragged during the parts I was touching on, but outside of that I can't wait for the third episode.

[GLASSJAW]

Finally saw episode 2, thought it was great. Significantly better than the first, and overall more than enough to bring me back next week.

 

I think Ed Harris' character has the weakest scenes for the most part, but I am also completely interested in his character's aim. It's almost like he's looking for endgame content, or easter eggs within the system or something? I don't know. I thought that scene where he appeared in (the black woman's) "dream" sequence was extremely well done. That whole segment was great. However, the music and "action" in his scenes completely lack tension.

 

I agree with you, @g_bassi13 , that the mystery is extremely vague - but something about this episode absolutely did hook me, and I know I'm going to be thinking about it until next week. Unlike Game of Thrones, which has such a narrow, linear narrative which blips of unexpected carnage, this seems like a far more wide-open world with far mores possibilities--potentially plot driven, as opposed to GoT's character driven. Of course this could all be wrong, just the feeling I'm getting so far.

 

 

[g_bassi13]

3 hours ago, GLASSJAW said:

Finally saw episode 2, thought it was great. Significantly better than the first, and overall more than enough to bring me back next week.

 

I think Ed Harris' character has the weakest scenes for the most part, but I am also completely interested in his character's aim. It's almost like he's looking for endgame content, or easter eggs within the system or something? I don't know. I thought that scene where he appeared in (the black woman's) "dream" sequence was extremely well done. That whole segment was great. However, the music and "action" in his scenes completely lack tension.

 

I agree with you, @g_bassi13 , that the mystery is extremely vague - but something about this episode absolutely did hook me, and I know I'm going to be thinking about it until next week. Unlike Game of Thrones, which has such a narrow, linear narrative which blips of unexpected carnage, this seems like a far more wide-open world with far mores possibilities--potentially plot driven, as opposed to GoT's character driven. Of course this could all be wrong, just the feeling I'm getting so far.

 

 

 

For me, it feels like I need to know a bit of something about something before I can care about it. Feels as if the show is venturing a few steps ahead of itself. Only thing they've really established is that there's a few people, and couple of robots, who are completely hiding something.

 

Shades of season 2 of True Detective in that respect. Hopefully it doesn't actually trend anywhere remotely in that direction. That was a story that got me to stop caring very quickly. Though Westworld already has so much going for it already than that ever even began to have.

 

Hopefully they get beyond the "who", and into the "what" "why" and "how" in some manner. Any kind of tipping of the hand, red herring or not.

 

edit: Was thinking about it, and with regards to Season 2 of True Detective, I didn't even know the "who." Still don't. Even after all 8 episodes, and them explaining it to me. Maybe I should save that analogy for really bad cases, lol.

[g_bassi13]

That episode I really liked. Felt purposeful. Intentions were clearer. 

 

I do like the use of Jimmi Simpson's character as a conduit for the viewer as a guest in the park. And I like his path for now, as generic and morally upright as it is. Besides the weekly featured "guests" that are getting these one off appearances (like the chick who got in way over her head with the cult thing this episode), having someone form a less temporary and more steady connection with in that role works. Makes you feel like you're experiencing the park in some way, in a continuous manner.

[KFBR392]

 

[Hugor Hill]

1 hour ago, KFBR392 said:

 

  Reveal hidden contents

 

 

 

 

 

Would it be chilling to think that:

 

Spoiler

Ed Harris is actually the same guy like 40 years later. We haven't actually seen this dude and his a**hole friend together with the game designers (like Hopkins and his colleagues...) or Harris himself.
I don't think so because I don't think the game has been around this long, has it? But it is chilling to imagine this theory.

 

 

 

 

[Rush17]

this looks emazing. cant wait for the first season to be finished.  I refuse to start a show until a season is complete.  I like to binge lol. waste of my time otherwise. 

[GLASSJAW]

9 hours ago, Rush17 said:

this looks emazing. cant wait for the first season to be finished.  I refuse to start a show until a season is complete.  I like to binge lol. waste of my time otherwise. 

huh? waste of your time?

[GLASSJAW]

i thought that episode was a tiny bit slow, but it added some much-needed depth. 

 

On October 16, 2016 at 7:27 PM, g_bassi13 said:

That episode I really liked. Felt purposeful. Intentions were clearer. 

 

I do like the use of Jimmi Simpson's character as a conduit for the viewer as a guest in the park. And I like his path for now, as generic and morally upright as it is. Besides the weekly featured "guests" that are getting these one off appearances (like the chick who got in way over her head with the cult thing this episode), having someone form a less temporary and more steady connection with in that role works. Makes you feel like you're experiencing the park in some way, in a continuous manner.

something I find interesting about Jimmi's story is that his friend is so annoying and obnoxious, a borderline cliche character sketch of a person audiences hate. he's gotta die - the question becomes when/how. 

 

one thing i do find interesting, too, is how i find myself "caring" to some extent about the robot people, even though i know they aren't really... you know, sympathetic. or are they?! ;o. like, at times i don't even know who i should be rooting for? are audiences meant to want Dolores to escape rape, to kill, to gain consciousness, etc.? It seems like it, because the people who visit the park are so deplorable, like the exaggerated example of Jimmi juxtaposition with his friend, the Man in Black, etc. 

 

but i also wonder if consciousness would also just make them deplorable too.

 

i loved the scene where Hopkins was discussing the pyramid of consciousness and how the scripted narrative, to the park characters, was like a voice of god. TRIPPY, MAAAAN

 

[Mimerez]

Anyone notice the Lucas Peterson cameo?

[Rush17]

1 hour ago, GLASSJAW said:

huh? waste of your time?

Yeah.  It takes time to get invested in a show. if I watch a show week to week it takes a while to get reinvested in the show. Then its like a form of torture because you want the story to have some sort of conclusion.  If the story or chapter isn't at least complete I don't want to be sucked into having to wait for it lol.  My time is too precious to worry about whens the next episode or whats going to happen in the next episode lol.  This show looks too good. I'd rather binge it in a few days and really immerse myself in the world of westworld.  :D

[GLASSJAW]

56 minutes ago, Rush17 said:

Yeah.  It takes time to get invested in a show. if I watch a show week to week it takes a while to get reinvested in the show. Then its like a form of torture because you want the story to have some sort of conclusion.  If the story or chapter isn't at least complete I don't want to be sucked into having to wait for it lol.  My time is too precious to worry about whens the next episode or whats going to happen in the next episode lol.  This show looks too good. I'd rather binge it in a few days and really immerse myself in the world of westworld.  :D

binge-watching is the exact opposite of immersion, in my opinion, but to each their own. i find it far more "immersive" to watch a bit each week, read about it, talk about it, think about it, etc. then see what happens. far more exciting that way. but i can see why some people don't like that stuff and prefer instant gratification 

[falcon45ca]

On 10/11/2016 at 7:07 PM, g_bassi13 said:

I keep waiting for Anthony Hopkins to tell me he "spared no expense."

Hmmm, are you sure you don't mean this guy, who played John Hammond in "Jurassic Park", which is where that quote is from?

 

 

Cuz' that's Richard Attenborough. Anthony Hopkins is like, this totally different person.

[Beluga Whale]

6 hours ago, GLASSJAW said:

binge-watching is the exact opposite of immersion, in my opinion, but to each their own. i find it far more "immersive" to watch a bit each week, read about it, talk about it, think about it, etc. then see what happens. far more exciting that way. but i can see why some people don't like that stuff and prefer instant gratification 

Exactly. I like having a week to actually digest the episode. When I binge watch it all just becomes a blur afterwards.

[g_bassi13]

8 hours ago, falcon45ca said:

Hmmm, are you sure you don't mean this guy, who played John Hammond in "Jurassic Park", which is where that quote is from?

 

 

Cuz' that's Richard Attenborough. Anthony Hopkins is like, this totally different person.

 

I'm aware, that was the joke. I've seen that movie probably around 30 times or so. I find myself attaching it to things whether or not there was supposed to be an allusion to it.

 

In this case though, the allusion is very obviously intentional. And it's not because they look alike, lol.

 

Forgetting that they are both characters from adaptations of Michael Crichton's works about futuristic theme parks, where they play god's to create "life" that maybe should not exist, for the amusement of guests who could otherwise not experience something that was lost to time.... They have similar character traits. Both seem very genuine in their admiration of the beauty of their creations, and what that life means. Both put forth that there's nothing that could go wrong at their parks, but Westworld's hints that it's just a facade

[g_bassi13]

14 hours ago, GLASSJAW said:

i thought that episode was a tiny bit slow, but it added some much-needed depth. 

 

something I find interesting about Jimmi's story is that his friend is so annoying and obnoxious, a borderline cliche character sketch of a person audiences hate. he's gotta die - the question becomes when/how. 

 

one thing i do find interesting, too, is how i find myself "caring" to some extent about the robot people, even though i know they aren't really... you know, sympathetic. or are they?! ;o. like, at times i don't even know who i should be rooting for? are audiences meant to want Dolores to escape rape, to kill, to gain consciousness, etc.? It seems like it, because the people who visit the park are so deplorable, like the exaggerated example of Jimmi juxtaposition with his friend, the Man in Black, etc. 

 

but i also wonder if consciousness would also just make them deplorable too.

 

i loved the scene where Hopkins was discussing the pyramid of consciousness and how the scripted narrative, to the park characters, was like a voice of god. TRIPPY, MAAAAN

 

Like I said last week, they've been hitting the "humanistic" questions of the show very well. Like are you feeling sorry for them because of the almost sort of burgeoning consciousness of those robots, or is it because they look and act exactly like humans.

 

Or is because all that's being done to them is a reflection of our human nature, or whatever. Sound cheesy, but it's interesting.

 

Watching people all be good, or be be all bad, is boring. You need to juxtapose both on top of each other for either to mean anything. If you're giving people free reign to do whatever they want with minimal consequence, it's nice to see someone just want to be a genuine guy, even if it's on the path to finding out he's not really that genuine guy.