• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Westworld - Live in Your World, Play in Ours - Sundays on HBO

Right, so every single character and location
If the father was stagnant for so long, why not everyone else? It seems that building new locations isn't a common occurrence in the park. A ride in Disney will last for 20, 30, 40 years, so why wouldn't they keep favorite hosts and locations around for years here?
 

ZOONAMI

Junior Member
Yeah for mib = william Delores has to have been on the same loop for at least 20+ years given age difference between Harris and william, but that isn't impossible.

Could be some guests really like Delores and ask the park to keep her the same so when they come back she won't be a different personality playing a different role.

Mib himself may have made that request and he seems very vip.

Abernathy ranch is also on the park map. Its kind of a fixture of the park, and so it wouldn't be all that odd if Delores is part of that fixture. They haven't really shown this yet but I imagine families and visitors come to the ranch during the day to visit animals, etc. Seems like they intentionally keep Delores away from the ranch during the day, maybe to limit potential suitors a bit, a lot of dudes who visit the ranch during the day might not know Delores "lives" there, so in a sense she's kind of an Easter egg. Its like the ranch in red dead.
 

KingKong

Member
If the father was stagnant for so long, why not everyone else? It seems that building new locations isn't a common occurrence in the park. A ride in Disney will last for 20, 30, 40 years, so why wouldn't they keep favorite hosts and locations around for years here?

Because we're not talking about one storyline or one or two hosts, we're talking about every host and every location looking exactly the same. And Disney rides are constantly refreshed and updated
 
Because we're not talking about one storyline or one or two hosts, we're talking about every host and every location looking exactly the same. And Disney rides are constantly refreshed and updated

We haven't seen every host in William's scenes. Maeve has been notably absent.

The town also had different "quests" when they got off the train.
 

Flo_Evans

Member
30 years ago might be relatively short if they've cured all diseases and can extend lifetimes

That original host could be 100 years old.

I don't think the park is much more than 30 years old. We see young Ford in his flashback building the 1st crude bots, He looks to be in his late 30's. He looks about 60-70 now.

Ford seems pretty dedicated to advancing the hosts, constantly improving them. There is no way they have been at basically the same tech level for 30 years.

Timeline theory should of been dead in episode three, buried in 4... but we keep going. MiB is eventually going to meet William and still some people will not accept it lol.
 
I don't think the park is much more than 30 years old. We see young Ford in his flashback building the 1st crude bots, He looks to be in his late 30's. He looks about 60-70 now.

Ford seems pretty dedicated to advancing the hosts, constantly improving them. There is no way they have been at basically the same tech level for 30 years.

Timeline theory should of been dead in episode three, buried in 4... but we keep going. MiB is eventually going to meet William and still some people will not accept it lol.
Yes, but if they can cure diseases and extend life, then our perspective of the timespan between young and old doesn't apply to Westworld's future.

Maybe
 
- SlashFilm's weekly content roundup (most of these have already been posted in the thread)
- Collider interview with Jimmi Simpson
- Ratings down slightly this week as TWD started up again
According to L+SD data posted by Showbuzz, Sunday’s “Westworld” drew a 0.69 adults 18-49 rating and 1.70 million total viewers.

The numbers trail the 0.92 rating and 2.10 million total viewer sum garnered by last week’s episode.
Those should perk back up as they look at the L+3 and L+7 numbers.
 

ZOONAMI

Junior Member
I don't think the park is much more than 30 years old. We see young Ford in his flashback building the 1st crude bots, He looks to be in his late 30's. He looks about 60-70 now.

Ford seems pretty dedicated to advancing the hosts, constantly improving them. There is no way they have been at basically the same tech level for 30 years.

Timeline theory should of been dead in episode three, buried in 4... but we keep going. MiB is eventually going to meet William and still some people will not accept it lol.

This is a good point.

If william = mib you would think the hosts in the flashbacks would be noticeably less realistic. They aren't.
 
- MoviePilot: Cinematographer Paul Cameron Talks 'Westworld' And Shooting On Film
MP: In the past you've talked about how much you love shooting on film, so what was it about Westworld that made you feel that it was so important to film the show using that medium?

PC: The point of view of filmmakers like Jonathan Nolan and myself is that you really need to figure out what the right medium is for every project. With the shift to video and digital capture, the assumption is that film would suddenly go away, but I don’t think that was ever the design of the new paradigm. I don't want to shoot film or digital for everything, just because I like one or the other — it really comes down to the medium and the craft.

There were very specific reasons why I shot Collateral digitally, and the intention of shooting Collateral digitally wasn’t to start a digital capture revolution — it was the right medium for that film. I was able to get a crazy, acidic, metallic, tactile movie for Collateral that I couldn’t get after all of my testings on film. To shoot something like Westworld on film, it’s the same choice. It’s a project that has a number of day exteriors, and film is just so much better at day exteriors and dealing with contrast in general. Regardless of how many Ks and color bits and whatever, when you’re sitting in color correction with a DI and you’re coloring somebody’s face against the landscape and you’ve got 3.4K and above image next to the film, you’re always going to like film better in the color correction — there’s just no question.

Right now is really an important time because a lot of people are talking about how film’s almost written off completely because of the lack of laboratories and support, but it’s still one of the foremost creative choices that people have to make. Fortunately, film is still very much alive and I know Kodak is making a very big push to come back, and I really hope for the sake of all filmmakers and all audiences that filmmakers can continue to have the choice and that somehow we’ll look back on this decade and see that there was a big push to keep it alive — that a lot of people went back and decided to shoot as much film as they could. Let's hope that ends up being the history.

MP: Having decided that you wanted to shoot on film and that you wanted to achieve a cinematic look, what were some of the specific references that you used when you were preparing to film Westworld? Did you look at the original film at all?

PC: Talking about the visual references that we used, you can’t help but think about films like 2001: A Space Odyssey and Blade Runner and Aliens. You can’t help but think of the best ones. I didn’t actively use the original Westworld as a visual reference, though.

The beauty of that film is the simplicity of it. For us, it was more about what is this Westworld park now, and the script specifically provided this future kind of timelessness. If you look at it, you can’t really determine if it’s 2016 or 2026 or 2056, we don’t know. It’s timeless. The content really spoke, and we wanted the park to feel a bit upscale. It wanted to be a clean Western. It’s got not only a new coat of paint but also a new feeling, with light fixtures and with things aged down slightly, but the general thing was to keep that Western park kind of fresh, and an awareness of this reality that these people are spending a lot a lot of money to go there.

When these people check into their rooms they’re not sleeping on cots that are beds with 500-count bed sheets. So the exterior image needed to have that classic real thing, and with the interior, we didn’t want to make it look too dark and deep. We tried to keep it a little bit eerie and looking like standard operations with fluorescent and blue-green light juxtaposed in the red control room with the red plexi walls. We wanted to have a futuristic edge.
 

ZOONAMI

Junior Member
Yes, but if they can cure diseases and extend life, then our perspective of the timespan between young and old doesn't apply to Westworld's future.

Maybe

Lol I suppose. They never said anything about aging but I guess you could make the assumption they have ways to slow the visual effects of aging (that are more than what we have now of just hiding it with shitty looking plastic surgery).

So yeah AH was 40 or so in the flashback scene and in current timeline he's like 100+ lol.

Given the synth tech they have though they probably do have very advanced cosmetic surgery. I'm not sure if Ford seems like the type to do that though.

Literally all of the humans might have a fuck ton of work done on them in westworlds future. Can't make any assumptions about someone's actual age I guess.

Like theoretically Meredith Could be older than Ford but just hasn't been at the park very long...
 

caliph95

Member
Didn't they the start the park 30 years ago. That could misinterpretation with no incidents for 30 years and the MIB mentioning he has been here 30 years. But yeah you would expect hosts and Dolores to act more robotic than what they do. Especially since their continuously develop the AI and 30 years is a long time even with aging slow down.
 

PolishQ

Member
Yeah, if you're making a show and you're going to do multiple timelines, you make it clear from the beginning. You don't save the crucial fact that some scenes are in the past and some are in the future (with incredibly subtle means of distinguishing them) for a big reveal, and you definitely don't save that reveal for halfway into the season. MAYBE at the end of the first episode.

You CAN make it a mystery whether Timeline A comes before or after Timeline B (as in "Memento" or LOST's first Flash-forward episode).

You CAN make it unclear how the events of one timeline are relevant to the events of the other ("Cloud Atlas" and Stephen King's "It" come to mind) or surprise the audience by revealing they've seen the same character in both timelines at different ages ("12 Monkeys", "Looper").

But all of those depend on the audience KNOWING the simple fact that two or more timelines are in play.

"Secret" multiple timelines would only serve to confuse the audience. We could be spending a lot more time discussing what the show is actually showing us, rather than trying to outsmart the showrunners and predict the Big Twist.
 

ZOONAMI

Junior Member
Hemsworth Sr might actually be older than everyone but just embraced the synth game before most other humans.

If there is anyone who's basically a host, but isn't completely (human brain robot body), I'd say it's him.
 
Yeah, if you're making a show and you're going to do multiple timelines, you make it clear from the beginning. You don't save the crucial fact that some scenes are in the past and some are in the future (with incredibly subtle means of distinguishing them) for a big reveal, and you definitely don't save that reveal for halfway into the season. MAYBE at the end of the first episode.
Who said? Movies like Fight Club and Sixth Sense do it with "character is a ghost/imaginary", and then the story takes on a new meaning in hindsight.
 

PolishQ

Member
Who said? Movies like Fight Club and Sixth Sense do it with "character is a ghost/imaginary", and then the story takes on a new meaning in hindsight.

Sure, and those are akin to the examples of reasonable reveals that I gave in my post.

The William = MiB theory would be like if The Sixth Sense had ended by revealing that Bruce Willis was a ghost in scenes 2, 6, 13, 15 and 22, and alive in the others. It's needlessly complicated.
 

MoeDabs

Member
Ford could easily be older than Hopkins due to the already stated medical advances. Westworld being older than 30 years also makes more sense when you consider they went from fake-ish looking robots to 3D printed human replicas.

Sure, and those are akin to the examples of reasonable reveals that I gave in my post.

The William = MiB theory would be like if The Sixth Sense had ended by revealing that Bruce Willis was a ghost in scenes 2, 6, 13, 15 and 22, and alive in the others. It's needlessly complicated.

Not really. Since conveniently editing scenes together to trick viewers is entirely different than just changing things on a whim.
 

Flo_Evans

Member
Ford could easily be older than Hopkins due to the already stated medical advances. Westworld being older than 30 years also makes more sense when you consider they went from fake-ish looking robots to 3D printed human replicas.

That seems about right to me...

Do you remember computers 30 years ago?

rSfflUh.jpg


We have fakish looking robots today... in 30 years westworld will probably be reality.
 

MoeDabs

Member
That seems about right to me...

Do you remember computers 30 years ago?

rSfflUh.jpg


We have fakish looking robots today... in 30 years westworld will probably be reality.

Sure.But computers getting faster and smaller isn't quite the same as going from mechanical robots to biological replicas that pass as the real thing.

And no in 30 years west world won't be a reality. You don't honestly even believe that.

Especially since we are in the future so technology probably advanced even faster.

I have no idea what year but Nolan has said sometime in the 21st Century.
 

Flo_Evans

Member
Sure.But computers getting faster and smaller isn't quite the same as going from mechanical robots to biological replicas that pass as the real thing.

And no in 30 years west world won't be a reality. You don't honestly even believe that.



I have no idea what year but Nolan has said sometime in the 21st Century.

Sure I do. You think 3d printing and AI is going to stop advancing? I mean there may not be a theme park where you can rape and kill AI bots but we are clearly going to make them.

We are already very close to growing replacement organs for ourselves.
 

duckroll

Member
In 30 years Westworld won't be a reality because the concept itself is fantasy. It's not something that a company would invest the required R&D into to make happen because it doesn't make a lot of business sense. It's a scifi fantasy.

:)
 

MoeDabs

Member
Sure I do. You think 3d printing and AI is going to stop advancing? I mean there may not be a theme park where you can rape and kill AI bots but we are clearly going to make them.

We are already very close to growing replacement organs for ourselves.
I'm comfortable saying we won't reach west world levels of it in 30 years. You obviously are much more optimistic about 3D printed humans who are indistinguishable from the real thing. I hope you are right tho, sounds cool.
 

caliph95

Member
Sure.But computers getting faster and smaller isn't quite the same as going from mechanical robots to biological replicas that pass as the real thing.

And no in 30 years west world won't be a reality. You don't honestly even believe that.



I have no idea what year but Nolan has said sometime in the 21st Century.

It still means sometime between whatever till sometime in the 2090s.
 

MoeDabs

Member
In 30 years Westworld won't be a reality because the concept itself is fantasy. It's not something that a company would invest the required R&D into to make happen because it doesn't make a lot of business sense. It's a scifi fantasy.

:)

Correct. My point was robots to 3D printed humans seems like a huge jump for only 30 years at a theme park based on what the show has shown us so far. Plus them being coy about dates in the show only confuses things more.

It still means sometime between whatever till sometime in the 2090s.

I know. Hence why I said I didn't know what year.
And while duckroll pointed out that due to sci fi/fantasy reasons we could actually be back in the 1920s and tech progressed differently, I think it's probably between now and 2099.
 

PolishQ

Member
Not really. Since conveniently editing scenes together to trick viewers is entirely different than just changing things on a whim.

What would be the point of tricking viewers to this extent?

Even "Memento", which Jonathan Nolan was involved with, uses B&W for one timeline and color for another -- precisely because there are no other ways for the viewer to keep the timelines straight. Both timelines involve the same character wearing the same clothes in a lot of the same locations - potentially confusing, but the filmmakers help the audience keep everything straight by clearly delineating the two timelines.

BUT (and this is key), they DON'T tell the audience which timeline is before the other. They set this up as a mystery, let the audience try to figure it out, and then stage a big reveal at the end of the movie.

Westworld, as framed by the William = MiB theory, similarly (allegedly) contains multiple timelines featuring a character (Dolores) who looks exactly the same no matter which timeline she appears in, wears the same clothes, and visits the same locations (which also look the same).

WHY would the showrunners...

a) make the viewer go to extreme extents to distinguish one timeline from another, and

b) further muddle the issue by having a character seemingly step out of one timeline and into another?
 

SIMPSON: I didn’t know Evan. Of course, I knew her work from Thirteen, but I don’t see a lot of stuff. Right away, I was confronted with this young woman, who’s so passionate about the craft that she’s so good at, and it was so clear that she was so ready for this really difficult opportunity, portraying one of the hardest characters I’ve seen on TV. It’s almost like she was born to play this part. She was so excited, the whole time, and that was just such a pleasure to watch. When the #1 on the call sheet is so into it, that just sets the tone for everybody. And then, to be on a set with Ed Harris, he’s just one of those actors that young actors look up to. You’re like, “That’s a guy who does it right.” He’s always great. He doesn’t go Hollywood or weird with his choice or his behavior, and he’s just as nice as possible. And then, he’s doing work that you’ve never quite seen him do. The darkness is so deep and penetrating, and he just kills it. And I’m in a different part of the park than Mr. Hopkins, so I didn’t really work with him, but to see him at ADR, I’m like, “There’s Anthony Hopkins. He’s on the same show as me.” I had to just stop and lather my gratitude for being near him and on a show that he’s on. He’s just so sweet, and he’s as happy as the rest of us are. It’s just a whole bunch of grateful people. It’s really cool.

And then, to be on a set with Ed Harris, he’s just one of those actors that young actors look up to. You’re like, “That’s a guy who does it right.” He’s always great. He doesn’t go Hollywood or weird with his choice or his behavior, and he’s just as nice as possible. And then, he’s doing work that you’ve never quite seen him do. The darkness is so deep and penetrating, and he just kills it.

And then, to be on a set with Ed Harris

Whoa... I mean, I guess they do film all the scenes in the same place. So it doesn't mean they're interacting.. but...

And he specifically mentions not working with Anthony Hopkins, but only seeing him at ADR. He doesn't say he didn't shoot with MiB...
 

duckroll

Member
WHY would the showrunners...

a) make the viewer go to extreme extents to distinguish one timeline from another, and

b) further muddle the issue by having a character seemingly step out of one timeline and into another?

Hypothetically, if it were true, then...

a) The viewer isn't meant to distinguish. It would be a trick meant to put the audience in Dolores' place, being unable to differentiate the past from the present, and seeing reality and memory mixed into one because she has no actual concept of time.

b) Because A.
 

caliph95

Member
What would be the point of tricking viewers to this extent?

Even "Memento", which Jonathan Nolan was involved with, uses B&W for one timeline and color for another -- precisely because there are no other ways for the viewer to keep the timelines straight. Both timelines involve the same character wearing the same clothes in a lot of the same locations - potentially confusing, but the filmmakers help the audience keep everything straight by clearly delineating the two timelines.

BUT (and this is key), they DON'T tell the audience which timeline is before the other. They set this up as a mystery, let the audience try to figure it out, and then stage a big reveal at the end of the movie.

Westworld, as framed by the William = MiB theory, similarly (allegedly) contains multiple timelines featuring a character (Dolores) who looks exactly the same no matter which timeline she appears in, wears the same clothes, and visits the same locations (which also look the same).

WHY would the showrunners...

a) make the viewer go to extreme extents to distinguish one timeline from another, and

b) further muddle the issue by having a character seemingly step out of one timeline and into another?

Besides a gotcha twist would there be a reason for multiple timelines. Not saying it is impossible though it is unlikely why trick the audience this way.
 
WHY would the showrunners...

a) make the viewer go to extreme extents to distinguish one timeline from another, and

b) further muddle the issue by having a character seemingly step out of one timeline and into another?
Because you aren't meant to yet. Much like Goodnight Mommy, The Sixth Sense, or Fight Club. It's in the reveal that you realize and then what you've seen takes on new meaning. But while you're watching as it happens, you're merely observing

Only crazy fans like us would pick up on subtle details that usually only would make sense in the aftermath of a reveal
 

PolishQ

Member
Hypothetically, if it were true, then...

a) The viewer isn't meant to distinguish. It would be a trick meant to put the audience in Dolores' place, being unable to differentiate the past from the present, and seeing reality and memory mixed into one because she has no actual concept of time.

b) Because A.

I would accept this if the show was told solely from Dolores' perspective.
 

99Luffy

Banned
loved the first two episode, but don't care about any of the sub plots, getting bored by episode 4.
Same here. If the second season is just a continuation of the first season I wont be watching. Im hoping they wrap everything up and this is a true detective type deal..
 

jett

D-Member
The timeline people continue to be out of their minds. I suppose they never considered it weird that the park would look the same and have the exact same characters and storylines for 30 years, when we've already seen what the original characters looked like with the Ford basement scene

Yes indeed.
 

ultron87

Member
Because you aren't meant to yet. Much like Goodnight Mommy, The Sixth Sense, or Fight Club. It's in the reveal that you realize and then what you've seen takes on new meaning. But while you're watching as it happens, you're merely observing

Only crazy fans like us would pick up on subtle details that usually only would make sense in the aftermath of a reveal

In Fight Club or The Sixth Sense you hear the twist and it applies to the whole movie and without a lot of thought immediately makes sense. Every time you see Bruce Willis in the story he is dead and it all falls into place immediately without a ton of effort from the audience.

If Westworld does the past/present timeline twist things become incredibly confusing regarding Dolores. You'd have to go look at every scene with her to try and figure out which timeline it is in. This time she's meeting Teddy, so that could be either... but wait, he got pulled into a chase for Wyatt so it must be the present. Then do that for every scene. I feel like it is far too complicated to be a satisfying twist. And explaining it would also be pretty tough to make compelling, since you'd have some exposition to say to the audience, well Dolores has been near sentient once before and we stopped it but Bernards been messing with her programming in the present so it is happening again and oh yeah the guy in the black hat is named William!
 

PolishQ

Member
In Fight Club or The Sixth Sense you hear the twist and it applies to the whole movie and with a lot thought immediately makes sense. Every time you see Bruce Willis in the story he is dead and it all falls into place immediately without a ton of effort from the audience.

If Westworld does the past/present timeline twist things become incredibly confusing regarding Dolores. You'd have to go look at every scene with her to try and figure out which timeline it is in. This time she's meeting Teddy, so that could be either... but wait, he got pulled into a chase for Wyatt so it must be the present. Then do that for every scene. I feel like it is far too complicated to be a satisfying twist. And explaining it would also be pretty tough to make compelling, since you'd have some exposition to say to the audience, well Dolores has been near sentient once before and we stopped it but Bernards been messing with her programming in the present so it is happening again and oh yeah the guy in the black hat is named William!

Precisely my point. There are plenty of big reveals they could do on the show that could change meaning in hindsight ("character A is a robot!" "they're ALL robots!" "the hosts are HUMAN CLONES and the GUESTS are robots!") but the above would be self-defeating.
 

Neoweee

Member
WHY would the showrunners...

a) make the viewer go to extreme extents to distinguish one timeline from another, and

b) further muddle the issue by having a character seemingly step out of one timeline and into another?

There is no further muddling on B, because you already know that Dolores (and Maeve) is having difficulty distinguishing the past from the present. It's been a major plot point for at least the last three episodes.

The question is whether they'd push that plot point and go with the fairly obvious twist.

With regards to A, it feels like there kind of is. The scenes with William in Sweetwater feel lighter and more exposed than the other scenes in the town.

It's probably not happening, but there's still a bunch of things that seem wildly conspicuous. Three episodes in and the only named NPCs and questlines William has interacted with are Dolores and Clementine (our of, like 12 or more hosts that we've met), and the logos, and the "We don't know if she's with anybody" line, and that they've spent four episodes not saying MiB's name. How long are they going to go without giving him a name?
 

Angry Grimace

Two cannibals are eating a clown. One turns to the other and says "does something taste funny to you?"
My biggest problem with the timeline theory is that its not one of those twists where other scenes and clues click into place with the twist. It's one of those ones where lots of scenes start falling apart and making no sense.
 

royalan

Member
There is no further muddling on B, because you already know that Dolores (and Maeve) is having difficulty distinguishing the past from the present. It's been a major plot point for at least the last three episodes.

The question is whether they'd push that plot point and go with the fairly obvious twist.

With regards to A, it feels like there kind of is. The scenes with William in Sweetwater feel lighter and more exposed than the other scenes in the town.

It's probably not happening, but there's still a bunch of things that seem wildly conspicuous. Three episodes in and the only named NPCs and questlines William has interacted with are Dolores and Clementine (our of, like 12 or more hosts that we've met), and the logos, and the "We don't know if she's with anybody" line, and that they've spent four episodes not saying MiB's name. How long are they going to go without giving him a name?

I don't think Delores and Maeve's conflict is that they're having trouble distinguishing past and present. It's deeper and more existential than that. They're experiencing cracks in their reality -- Delores through becoming aware of her loop, and Maeve through literally becoming cognizant of the real world. That's different than a simple past/present kerfuffle.

Yeah, sign me up for Team "Multiple timelines would be incredibly convoluted at this point and I'd likely drop the series if that's what's happening."
 

Sullichin

Member
I don't get why people think William's storyline is a flashback. Did I miss something?
Delores is all fucked up when she's with William, she's searching for her freedom. How can it be in a flashback?
 
- Brief clip of Evan Rachel Wood on Fallon last night

EDIT: Oh, this includes a very short clip from Ep 5, so please spoiler tag discussion as necessary.

I am not a believer of the flashback theory, but in this interview, Even Rachel Wood says she's the oldest host and there's some twists and turns "there". Implies the age of her character and thus the timeline could be a twist?

Also when Fallon said they don't know who are hosts and who are humans, she agrees with him instead of correcting him? Maybe hidden "human" hosts ie Bernard?

I personally think a twist with the timeline would be more interesting, as the straight story is slightly disappointing and would be more dull in comparison. Still obsessed with the show either way!
 

Angry Grimace

Two cannibals are eating a clown. One turns to the other and says "does something taste funny to you?"
I don't get why people think William's storyline is a flashback. Did I miss something?
Delores is all fucked up when she's with William, she's searching for her freedom. How can it be in a flashback?

Because they haven't specifically shown any of the other characters to directly interact with William, so the theory stays alive.

The problem of course, is that you could handwave anything inconsistent at any point in this series by saying "well maybe that character was a robot in that scene and in the other inconsistent scene they were a human," or vice versa.
 
Top Bottom