Register a SA Forums Account here!
JOINING THE SA FORUMS WILL REMOVE THIS BIG AD, THE ANNOYING UNDERLINED ADS, AND STUPID INTERSTITIAL ADS!!!

You can: log in, read the tech support FAQ, or request your lost password. This dumb message (and those ads) will appear on every screen until you register! Get rid of this crap by registering your own SA Forums Account and joining roughly 150,000 Goons, for the one-time price of $9.95! We charge money because it costs us money per month for bills, and since we don't believe in showing ads to our users, we try to make the money back through forum registrations.
 
  • Locked thread
Bloody Hedgehog
Dec 12, 2003

💥💥🤯💥💥
Gotta nuke something

El Jeffe posted:

By the way, what was up with that Indian exodus going through Sweetwater? A Trail of Tears narrative, or maybe related to Ford's thing?

Had to load up the party bus for those guests lookin' to get a little Pocahontas poontang.

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

Crash74
May 11, 2009

A Strange Aeon posted:

Ben is actually an escaped polar bear, posing as a human.

Unlikely because Polar Bears do not know how to speak.
Also it does not make any sense.

:lost:

mastajake
Oct 3, 2005

My blade is unBENDING!

What is this two timeline theory? Anyone have a link to read up on it?

Bloody Hedgehog
Dec 12, 2003

💥💥🤯💥💥
Gotta nuke something

mastajake posted:

What is this two timeline theory? Anyone have a link to read up on it?

A detailed explanation.

VendaGoat
Nov 1, 2005

R-Type posted:

Fifth Season: BreastWorld.

HBO's got a certain unbreakable mojo.

Why is there no homer simpson drool emote?

El Jeffe
Dec 24, 2009


:lol::lol:

A Strange Aeon
Mar 26, 2010

You are now a slimy little toad
The Great Twist

mastajake posted:

What is this two timeline theory? Anyone have a link to read up on it?

Ben is actually an escaped polar bear, posing as a human.

Unlikely because Polar Bears do not know how to speak.
Also it does not make any sense.

The Dave
Sep 9, 2003

It's simply just William's scenes are from the past compared to scenes with Teddy or MiB. Some people want to go as far as William is the MiB 30 years ago.

The only supporting evidence is the Westworld logo when William is there being the logo used in the young Hopkins scene. As well as Maeve and Teddy never being around in William's scenes. For the most part the scenes are cut where this is possible, but last week with Dolores running away and what we believe is modern day security tracking her, this is debunked, unless the show runners are doing some silly misdirection.

Astroman
Apr 8, 2001


Lycus posted:

I like how the laborers at the work site are the hosts made for Odyssey on Red River in their original costumes.

Reminded me a lot of the various "Doral" Cylons on BSG doing landscaping on the conquered Colonial world wearing suits. :allears:


Also I think I have definitive proof that there are NOT multiple timelines. The security guy, Ashley is the key:


When Dolores goes on walkabout and hooks up with Logan and William, the guys in the control room tell Ashley "hey, one of the hosts has left her loop, should we get her?" And he says to send in someone to get her and check her out (which is stopped once WIlliam says "she's with me.)

Ashley interacts with Bernard's assistant Elsie, going to get the Head Bash guy. She (and I'm pretty sure Ashley), all have scenes with Bernard, Theresa, and I think even Ford. I'm pretty sure Ashley and Elsie are there for the Big New Storyline scene with Ford, Bernard and Theresa. All of them are the same age in every scene.

Unless literally everybody but Ford is a Robot, this is all happening at the same time.

Sorry to burst your bubble, timeline :tinfoil: ers

VendaGoat
Nov 1, 2005

The Dave posted:

It's simply just William's scenes are from the past compared to scenes with Teddy or MiB. Some people want to go as far as William is the MiB 30 years ago.

The only supporting evidence is the Westworld logo when William is there being the logo used in the young Hopkins scene. As well as Maeve and Teddy never being around in William's scenes. For the most part the scenes are cut where this is possible, but last week with Dolores running away and what we believe is modern day security tracking her, this is debunked, unless the show runners are doing some silly misdirection.

Or the Hemsworth character is also a Host.

The Dave
Sep 9, 2003

VendaGoat posted:

Or the Hemsworth character is also a Host.

Timeliner spotted.

Lack of Gravitas
Oct 11, 2012

Grimey Drawer
Next episode: Ford says to Stubbs "You know, you remind me a lot of your father when he worked here at the park" :tinfoil:

VendaGoat
Nov 1, 2005

The Dave posted:

Timeliner spotted.

I am open to the possibility. It's a fun bit to postulate upon, while I wait for the next episode that disproves it.

It makes for really loving fun television.

Paulocaust
Jan 29, 2008

by FactsAreUseless
MiB is the board representative

Bernard Lowe is Arnold Weber

William timeline is 30 years ago


You're welcome for the hot take

The Dave
Sep 9, 2003

Yeah I honestly don't think it's impossible but it's not anything I'm passionate about.

VendaGoat
Nov 1, 2005

The Dave posted:

Yeah I honestly don't think it's impossible but it's not anything I'm passionate about.

:hfive: Hey, you like the show, I like the show. If we don't want it canceled we are the right amount of people watching it. :)

Caufman
May 7, 2007
While it's very neat that "Bernard Lowe" is an anagram of "Arnold Weber", I don't remember hearing that Arnold's last name is Weber.

He might be Arnold Bewer for all we know.

King Vidiot
Feb 17, 2007

You think you can take me at Satan's Hollow? Go 'head on!

El Jeffe posted:

By the way, what was up with that Indian exodus going through Sweetwater? A Trail of Tears narrative, or maybe related to Ford's thing?

What I was wondering was if Ford intentionally made the tribe's totems look like the clean-up crew so that any hosts (like Maeve) that may have had recurring nightmares of waking up while being repaired will attach a deeper meaning to it and will be distracted from what's really going on.

In fact I wonder if his intention was to make the hosts more self-aware and then put in "safe guards" that he thinks will keep them corralled and under control while also giving them more agency.

Paulocaust
Jan 29, 2008

by FactsAreUseless

Astroman posted:

Reminded me a lot of the various "Doral" Cylons on BSG doing landscaping on the conquered Colonial world wearing suits. :allears:


Also I think I have definitive proof that there are NOT multiple timelines. The security guy, Ashley is the key:


When Dolores goes on walkabout and hooks up with Logan and William, the guys in the control room tell Ashley "hey, one of the hosts has left her loop, should we get her?" And he says to send in someone to get her and check her out (which is stopped once WIlliam says "she's with me.)

Ashley interacts with Bernard's assistant Elsie, going to get the Head Bash guy. She (and I'm pretty sure Ashley), all have scenes with Bernard, Theresa, and I think even Ford. I'm pretty sure Ashley and Elsie are there for the Big New Storyline scene with Ford, Bernard and Theresa. All of them are the same age in every scene.

Unless literally everybody but Ford is a Robot, this is all happening at the same time.

Sorry to burst your bubble, timeline :tinfoil: ers

I don't know why this has to be explained a million times but no. This doesn't disprove it. It actually fuels the timeline theory fire. He asks if she has a guest with her and the answer is "unclear". The reason why (in current day) they are tracking her, is because she's looking for the maze at the suggestion of Bernard. She's also concurrently showed (but it takes 30 years prior) following the same path (a theme with the show) with William. The timelines have been blending into each other for two episodes now. This is why she sees the little girl, but the little girl disappears when something from her current timeline triggers it. (Host looking for her/William intervening.)

I know I say with certainty but I am not. I'm speaking from a theoretical perspective.

Astroman
Apr 8, 2001


Well Dolores herself is a big stickling point. We know that the hosts are used and reused for different storylines. Because of recurring guests, they have to have change up storylines often. The odds that Dolores would have had the exact same storyline and loop for 30 years are low. 5, 10 years maybe. But 30? Same story with the milk can dropping, Teddy, her father, etc? Granted, she's a low level "intro" character in Easytown, but any long term MMO often changes it's new player intro/tutorial every year or 2.

VendaGoat
Nov 1, 2005

Astroman posted:

Well Dolores herself is a big stickling point. We know that the hosts are used and reused for different storylines. Because of recurring guests, they have to have change up storylines often. The odds that Dolores would have had the exact same storyline and loop for 30 years are low. 5, 10 years maybe. But 30? Same story with the milk can dropping, Teddy, her father, etc? Granted, she's a low level "intro" character in Easytown, but any long term MMO often changes it's new player intro/tutorial every year or 2.

There is plenty of doubt, That's the entire fun of this series. You are watching to have your questions answered. It's loving wonderful television.

I may have to increase my stake. :v:

Scudworth
Jan 1, 2005

When life gives you lemons, you clone those lemons, and make super lemons.

Dinosaur Gum

King Vidiot posted:

I mean they call that one guy "Remus" but he's clearly Trevor from GTA, so is Westworld a virtual reality and is it in the same continuity as GTA V?

Lawrence is Cesar from GTA: SA

:tinfoil:




Durzel posted:

I guess it's possible the show could be asking us to forgive and root for a rapist, but it seems more likely that the episode 1 rape scene was a bait and switch, doesn't it?

I had been wondering if this show would pose these kinds of difficult moral quandaries for people who don't play violent sandbox-style video games and the answer would appear to be "yes".

El Jeffe
Dec 24, 2009

King Vidiot posted:

What I was wondering was if Ford intentionally made the tribe's totems look like the clean-up crew so that any hosts (like Maeve) that may have had recurring nightmares of waking up while being repaired will attach a deeper meaning to it and will be distracted from what's really going on.

In fact I wonder if his intention was to make the hosts more self-aware and then put in "safe guards" that he thinks will keep them corralled and under control while also giving them more agency.

Wow, that didn't occur to me. He wants to develop sentient AI, but doesn't want to ruin it by igniting a violent robot uprising. Very interesting.

VendaGoat
Nov 1, 2005
Oh BTW for the people who love the intro and its foreshadowing.

The fact that it's something creating a thing to play the piano that eventually has played the piano long enough that the piano can now play itself, is a narrative.

Your great grand parents taught your grand parents enough that they were able to play their children, who became your parents and played you, till you were able to play your children and so on and so loving forth.

It's a rolling narrative. It's, loving, wonderful, television.

Eiba
Jul 26, 2007


Paulocaust posted:

I don't know why this has to be explained a million times but no.
Speaking of things that have probably been explained a million times, but how does Dolores having a flashback to the Man in Black raping her fit in all this? It was shot like that gave her the courage to overcome her programming and shoot. Which is how her rogue adventures started.

VendaGoat
Nov 1, 2005

Eiba posted:

Speaking of things that have probably been explained a million times, but how does Dolores having a flashback to the Man in Black raping her fit in all this? It was shot like that gave her the courage to overcome her programming and shoot. Which is how her rogue adventures started.

There is an ambiguity, predicated on the fact that we were never actually shown it happening. This is put into a dichotomy with the child that the man in black also put into a horrible loving position. Predicated by what he said about, roughly, "we are our most real, when we are in crisis.".

He could have just threatened Dolores until her programming failed, like the kid, and gave up the information that he wanted.

He may never have raped her at all.

VendaGoat fucked around with this message at 04:58 on Oct 26, 2016

pik_d
Feb 24, 2006

follow the white dove





TRP Post of the Month October 2021

Paulocaust posted:

I don't know why this has to be explained a million times but no. This doesn't disprove it. It actually fuels the timeline theory fire. He asks if she has a guest with her and the answer is "unclear". The reason why (in current day) they are tracking her, is because she's looking for the maze at the suggestion of Bernard. She's also concurrently showed (but it takes 30 years prior) following the same path (a theme with the show) with William. The timelines have been blending into each other for two episodes now. This is why she sees the little girl, but the little girl disappears when something from her current timeline triggers it. (Host looking for her/William intervening.)

I know I say with certainty but I am not. I'm speaking from a theoretical perspective.

It really doesn't. You're only arguing that he's a host because it fits your narrative. Others are saying he's human because it fits theirs. Neither side is strengthened in the end. This would be the same as people saying "The different logos only strengthens the one-timeline theory, because Disney has multiple logos", which would be an equally misguided thing to say.

How many timelines would there have to be for this to make sense? The time with the little girl clearly happened before the time William took her there. If William is in a time before the MiB, that's three timelines we're seeing parts of.

Clearly Dolores (and Meave, with her drawings) have experienced the same events before, but how long before? Meave's papers aren't that old looking, so she's fairly new to this at least. Definitely not 30 years.

The one thing I learned when watching Person of Interest, is that you don't know what Johnathan Nolan is going to do next, you just don't. For the record, I'm on the fence about this. I'm totally willing to accept either outcome being true, but I'm not going to jump to champion one prematurely because of different logos or certain characters missing in a few scenes.

VendaGoat
Nov 1, 2005
Just because I am able to communicate this.

I'd like to gently caress the blazes out of Armistice, I have no rational explanation as to a motive.

VendaGoat fucked around with this message at 05:10 on Oct 26, 2016

tadashi
Feb 20, 2006

VendaGoat posted:

Just because I am able to communicate this.

I'd like to gently caress the blazes out of Armistice, I have no rational explanation as to a motive.

She is a very beautiful person that the show designers have worked very hard to rough up.

VendaGoat
Nov 1, 2005

tadashi posted:

She is a very beautiful person that the show designers have worked very hard to rough up.

So you are saying she is a very beautiful person that has experienced hardships over the course of her life/work within West World?

I want to gently caress the programming out of her.

Paulocaust
Jan 29, 2008

by FactsAreUseless
In before goons get mad at a man wanting to have sex with a woman

VendaGoat
Nov 1, 2005

VendaGoat posted:

So you are saying she is a very beautiful person that has experienced hardships over the course of her life/work within West World?

I want to gently caress the programming out of her.

And after a quick loving google search.

This is a trope.

VendaGoat
Nov 1, 2005
God loving damnit, what is reality? AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH! :psyduck:

El Jeffe
Dec 24, 2009

:yikes:

Eiba
Jul 26, 2007


VendaGoat posted:

There is an ambiguity, predicated on the fact that we were never actually shown it happening. This is put into a dichotomy with the child that the man in black also put into a horrible loving position. Predicated by what he said about, roughly, "we are our most real, when we are in crisis.".

He could have just threatened Dolores until her programming failed, like the kid, and gave up the information that he wanted.

He may never have raped her at all.
Okay, it doesn't really matter if he rapes her or not. She flashes back to it at a critical moment, and she seems to react to it in the "present" narrative where she shoots the other guy, so it wouldn't make sense as a flash forward.

How can she remember The Man in Black and then meet up with William?

The Saddest Rhino
Apr 29, 2009

Put it all together.
Solve the world.
One conversation at a time.



at least the arguments here don't claim like in the Mr Robot thread that if an alternate universe portal machine is not the ultimate reveal, then it's bad writing

VendaGoat
Nov 1, 2005

Eiba posted:

Okay, it doesn't really matter if he rapes her or not. She flashes back to it at a critical moment, and she seems to react to it in the "present" narrative where she shoots the other guy, so it wouldn't make sense as a flash forward.

How can she remember The Man in Black and then meet up with William?

She is effectively immortal and we do not know which timeline, if any, proceeds the other.

It may vary well be that the MiB proceeds the William timeline and we are simply loving the order of things up.

Grem
Mar 29, 2004

It's how her species communicates

I don't really care about the timeline poo poo I just want to see Teddy become sentient and punch holes in every single guest and employee at Delos.

The Saddest Rhino
Apr 29, 2009

Put it all together.
Solve the world.
One conversation at a time.



i hope teddy becomes the black hat to dolores's white hat and they fight like neo vs smith

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

El Jeffe
Dec 24, 2009

The Saddest Rhino posted:

i hope teddy becomes the black hat to dolores's white hat and they fight like neo vs smith

KEEP SUMMER SAFE DOLORES IN WESTWORLD

  • Locked thread