Westworld (Season 3) Catch-All - Spoilers Ahoy!

Hobbes2099 wrote:

BadKen, would you recommend newcomers to watch the movie?

I was interested in seeing it for some background and context, but I'm now deciding against it because I'd rather not be spoiled and I tend not to enjoy decades-old movies that don't age well.

I pretty much agree with what tuffalobuffalo said, but it depends on how much tolerance you have for 60's and 70's era sci-fi movies. Crichton came up with some amazing story concepts, but the execution of some of the earlier ones was unfortunate. If you can get past the "original Star Trek"-y cheese in Westworld, the good moments are worth it. And it definietly makes the current series look amazing in comparison.

If you do watch it, be prepared for a major tonal difference, too.

Kind of makes you wonder how it will feel looking back at current media 40 years from now.

I watched the original a while back, the wiki is probably enough back story for most.

Nevin73 wrote:

Wow, Christian Bale looks like the spitting image of James Brolin at that age.

...I can't unsee that.

Interesting how Ford dressed up when he goes into the word, whereas Lowe is wearing a baseball cap. Ford's interaction with the boy was interesting - I felt he was modeled after Ford himself as a boy.

Aristophan wrote:

Ford's interaction with the boy was interesting - I felt he was modeled after Ford himself as a boy.

That's not creepy at all.

I'm enjoying the show! I also liked this article by Jason Concepion: Who Would Actually Go To Westworld?

NSFW-ish text, but no problematic images. It speculates on how much Westworld seems to diverge from recent trends in consumer and VR entertainment.

Episode 3 was interesting, but felt a tad uneven. I felt that my perception of Ford based on the first two episodes was completely off base. I had him pegged as wanting to see the hosts gain consciousness. To see him get upset at someone who was treating the hosts as human was startling. It's as thought they are going out of their way to paint him and Bernard as opposite sides of the discussion. The whole Arnold bit seemed out of left field. I'll have to go back to see if the host in the video actually used his name in the first episode. I did enjoy Stubbs and Elsie's encounter with the rogue host. That didn't end the way I expected it to. Teddy's backstory (via Ford) sets up what I think may be representative of the plot as a whole (Ford did say there was a kernal of truth to the story).

A few observations:
Dolores looks a bit like Alice from Alice in Wonderland, which is also the book Bernard makes her read from.

Wyatt (from Teddy's backstory) supposedly wandered off, heard voices and came back changed. There is a line in the show that the Bicameral approach to consciousness created a scenario in that the instructions the Hosts hear could be interpreted as the voice of god.

The rogue host is acting mighty like Wyatt's followers, not feeling pain and able to withstand some brutal punishment.

Next week promises to be interesting.

As of last night's episode I'm more convinced than ever that

Spoiler:

the hosts and the employees are robots. The guests I don't know yet. But Anthony Hopkins is a human and the man in black is probably a robot.

I did manage to watch it last night. I really enjoyed it, although, there was a lot of setup in this one. I'm guessing a few knowledge drops are going to happen in episode 4 because reviewers were given 4 episodes ahead of time.

At this point, there are a lot of ways things could go, so I'm content to sit back and wait for the episodes to happen rather than speculate much further. I'm really, really having fun with this show.

Last episode prompted some discussions on the bicameral mind, which is so interesting.

Thirteenth wrote:

Last episode prompted some discussions on the bicameral mind, which is so interesting.

Wow, that is really fascinating. TIme to track down some further reading.

I really liked the episode. Seemed like they were intentionally trying to keep the viewer off balance, similar to what the hosts must be feeling as they have these glitches. Really like the gun in the haystack scene. So much went down in those few seconds.

JC wrote:

Really like the gun in the haystack scene. So much went down in those few seconds.

I liked when they flashed back to the man in black. I wonder if he actually just ends up having a conversation with her and further unlocks her brain rather than harming her.

I feel that the title "The Stray" not only refers to the wandering host, but also Dolores herself. We are seeing more evidence that she is straying from her programming, and Bernard is even encouraging it. I was inspired by reading this recap on Vulture.

That's a nice double meaning to that episode title. Hadn't thought about that. I listened to the Decrypted podcast today about episode 3. They had a few interesting points to make but I don't think I missed anything particularly crazy in episode 3. That article about the bicameral mind theory is probably the most interesting writeup regarding episode 3.

The one thing they brought up in the podcast was the theory that Bernard is an android. There are a few compelling reasons they bring up, and I'll leave it at that. I think it's more likely that Bernard is an android than, say, the man in black, but we'll see.

Personal opinions: Neither the employees nor the Man in Black are androids. I'm taking those at face value. I think the series has plenty to explore without either of those being the case.

Came across this interesting bit about the Man in Black's gun, which explained a few unusual quirks I noticed about it:

Question for folks who have watched The Stray.

Spoiler:

When the ambush goes down, one of the guests flees with a deputy. A short while later, we see that deputy ride into town alone.

So... did I miss something, or should we assume that guest was killed? If so, is there a chance the deputy killed him? Wyatt's bandits seemed pretty localized, from what we saw.

So the gunslinger's name is Teddy, yes?
First off, it's awesome how bad ass they make him with the revolver.
Second, during the ambush,

Spoiler:

The hooded attackers have to be guests right? They were shot point blank by Teddy and didn't even flinch.

Also, that 360 turn when he just sprayed bullets at all his attackers, had they actually been hosts and dropped like flies, it would have looked bad ass.

Hobbes2099 wrote:

So the gunslinger's name is Teddy, yes?
First off, it's awesome how bad ass they make him with the revolver.
Second, during the ambush,

Spoiler:

The hooded attackers have to be guests right? They were shot point blank by Teddy and didn't even flinch.

Also, that 360 turn when he just sprayed bullets at all his attackers, had they actually been hosts and dropped like flies, it would have looked bad ass.

Yeah

Spoiler:

Those are "supposed" to be guests.

Can I just point out how great the CGI version of Anthony Hopkins from 30 years prior looked? Right up there with younger Hank Pym in Ant-Man.

tuffalobuffalo wrote:

Yeah

Spoiler:

Those are "supposed" to be guests.

Spoiler:

Did the host that drank milk that was pouring out of his abdomen wound eventually die from that wound? I can't recall. If not, we've seen hosts malfunction to the point their death routines are not kicking in when they're getting shot.

Rat Boy wrote:

Can I just point out how great the CGI version of Anthony Hopkins from 30 years prior looked? Right up there with younger Hank Pym in Ant-Man.

Yeah, that was really impressive. Looked better than young Tony Stark in Civil War - that effect was a little off. They even had a plot rationale why it might be a little off, because it was just Tony reliving his memory with the device he created.

Hobbes2099 wrote:

So the gunslinger's name is Teddy, yes?
First off, it's awesome how bad ass they make him with the revolver.
Second, during the ambush,

Spoiler:

The hooded attackers have to be guests right? They were shot point blank by Teddy and didn't even flinch.

Also, that 360 turn when he just sprayed bullets at all his attackers, had they actually been hosts and dropped like flies, it would have looked bad ass.

Guests and Hosts being shot

Spoiler:

We see what happens when 100% known to be host is shot and a 100% known to be guest is shot. In each case both were effected. The hosts were visually damage and all except the crazy one reacted to the shots. The guest that was shot was only bruised but he clearly felt and reacted to being shot.

The hooded attackers don't react to being shot the same way as known guests or hosts so we can't be sure what they are. It could even be a mix of hosts and guests instead of either or.

Baron Of Hell wrote:
Hobbes2099 wrote:

So the gunslinger's name is Teddy, yes?
First off, it's awesome how bad ass they make him with the revolver.
Second, during the ambush,

Spoiler:

The hooded attackers have to be guests right? They were shot point blank by Teddy and didn't even flinch.

Also, that 360 turn when he just sprayed bullets at all his attackers, had they actually been hosts and dropped like flies, it would have looked bad ass.

Guests and Hosts being shot

Spoiler:

We see what happens when 100% known to be host is shot and a 100% known to be guest is shot. In each case both were effected. The hosts were visually damage and all except the crazy one reacted to the shots. The guest that was shot was only bruised but he clearly felt and reacted to being shot.

The hooded attackers don't react to being shot the same way as known guests or hosts so we can't be sure what they are. It could even be a mix of hosts and guests instead of either or.

Excellent point! I hadn't thought of that piece. hmmmm....

Baron Of Hell wrote:

Guests and Hosts being shot

The Man in Black has been shot many times before, so knows the sting is coming. The new guest got caught by surprise and reacted apropos.

If you know the sting is coming or you're crazed to the point you don't care, you can also not react like the Man in Black.

So George R.R. Martin has an idea for a Game of Thrones/Westworld crossover. In short, what if there was a Game of Thrones-themed park adjacent to Westworld. What could possibly go wrong with that?

Rat Boy wrote:

So George R.R. Martin has an idea for a Game of Thrones/Westworld crossover. In short, what if there was a Game of Thrones-themed park adjacent to Westworld. What could possibly go wrong with that?

Hodor.

Rat Boy wrote:

So George R.R. Martin has an idea for a Game of Thrones/Westworld crossover. In short, what if there was a Game of Thrones-themed park adjacent to Westworld. What could possibly go wrong with that?

Nothing could possibli go wrong.

Didn't see this one answered.

Dimmerswitch wrote:

Question for folks who have watched The Stray.

Spoiler:

When the ambush goes down, one of the guests flees with a deputy. A short while later, we see that deputy ride into town alone.

So... did I miss something, or should we assume that guest was killed? If so, is there a chance the deputy killed him? Wyatt's bandits seemed pretty localized, from what we saw.

I assumed that the guest simply went his own way once they got back to safety.

Thanks Grump - I only noticed it on a second viewing, and assumed it was intentional, but you're right that Occam's razor points to the guest teaching safety offscreen.