this is the worst thread/show ratio i've seen here

Some very cool articles about the show:

http://moviepilot.com/p/things-you-m...de-one/4111664


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/...b024a52d2f685c

We've already touched on some of the things mentioned, but lots of new stuff, too. How awesome is it that HBO already has the entire arc of the series planned out over 5 seasons?!

I'm pretty stoked for this show, bc I missed Lost on the first go around and binge watched the whole show the few months before the finale, so I never got to experience the whole weekly "wtf is happening??!" phenomenon, and I think that this show actually has the potential to surpass it since it's not bogged down by the confines of network television; not so much swearing, nudity and that bs, but artistically, although Lost was fun, it never felt like the incredibly high quality of other shows considered to be GOATs.

My best guess at this point is that the MiB was originally a host but somehow became a human and has now returned as a guest. He obviously was also intimately involved with whatever the debacle was 30 years prior.

First article is great. Can't believe I didn't think about the milk that way.

The theory in the 2nd article that the employees are hosts is pretty dumb for lots of reasons. For example Bernard asks Teresa if he can record her eyebrow moving so he can add it to the program. And if they were working with hosts they wouldn't make them bitches.

On re-watch the voiceover of the opening scenes seems more significant than a simple descriptive setup - Bernard is asking Dolores what if what she believes is a lie and she was just the plaything of the newcomers, basically describing the truth to her.

Seems oddly unnecessary, and potentially dangerous since the hosts clearly have retention of a sort. I think either he himself is suspect, or suspects Ford of intentionally trying to trigger awareness/sentience (through code insertion in his updates). Either way Bernard vs. Ford seems likely.

Also FWIW if anything Bernard says a couple things to her dad before he walks into storage that appears to have more significance than just a simple command to go put yourself away.

Actually I think if one of the humans (Theresa was suggested) is really a host it would most likely be a plant meant for some sort of covert purposes, and making her bitchy would be good as a disguise.

Ah, that makes sense. Yeah, of course.

Bernard is flipping the hosts?

Just watched it again, a few more thoughts. - Haven't seen it mentioned, but the thing the dad whispers to Delores, "these violent delights have violent ends." is from Romeo & Juliet, spoken by the friar. - I'm thinking that the way the new hosts are positioned when being created in that milky circle thing is a shout out to Da Vinci's Vetruvian Man, which has within it a ton of use of how the phi ratio and sacred geometry is found within the human body, which many feel lends credence to the notion of evidence of intelligent design within our biology, God's fingerprint if you will, within all things in our universe. - Ok, so this might be one of those things one needs to overlook to not be too nitty about the reality of this show BUT... I'd have to imagine that in the 30+ year history of Westworld, there had to have been instances of guests trying to reach out to the hosts and explain to them what Westworld is. I know that for me personally, the temptation would be too strong, especially if I was a regulag and had developed what to me would start to feel like genuine relationships with some of the hosts, even romantically. There would have to have been blatant attempts to connect like this, much moreso than the kid's offhanded remark to the horse. Frankly, as cool as the reveal of Marsden being a host was, part of me was disappointed in the killed potential of a guest/host relationship and to see those implications played out a la "Her". Of course, with five seasons on the way (hopefully) we'll probaby see that at some point.

It doesn't matter if they try to explain the hosts what they are. They are either programmed to completely ignore that or they just bug and stop working. Dolores was asked if she was real by the little boy and she just seemed not to understand or even compute the question. She didn't even question herself about that later in this particular ep. Exhibit 2 is her father with the picture. He didn't understand it so he just stopped working (technically made him access his old setup)

The plot seems obviously headed in the direction of at least some hosts attaining the capability of full memory and in some cases developing real 2-way relationships with guests or workers.

They're actually programmed to memory dump anything they're not programmed to do (this is essentially an extension of a major basic plot point of Nolan's other TV show, Person of Interest, which was also focused on AI and the problems that can come for that AI knowing too much). The problem is that not everything is getting wiped, and that's starting to cause problems. Couple that with a guy who's obsessed with the hosts becoming as real as possible and appearing to be trying to give them the ability to have a "free will", and things can get problematic. That's not even mentioning that the hosts have been recycled over and over, which can create super problematic memories they're not supposed to have as different characters.

I think Double Down is on to something above. Hopkins pretty much thinks he's God, the lab is trying to become "gods", and it could become a show where the message is you don't screw with nature (the underlying theme also in Crichton's Jurassic Park).

It was implied Dolores has the capability of lying to the controllers and presumably also guests, so it's quite possible she IS computing/understanding the question now and giving manipulative innocent responses (Ex Machina style). And if not now you have to think she will be doing just that in the future plot.

Talulah Riley aka Mrs Musk is unbelievably beautiful

Edit: No Suprises by Radiohead played in the saloon

The little boy was talking to the horse, not Delores.

The interesting thing is that Delores wasn't necessarily lying about her inability to hurt something. When she kills the fly at the end, it was not really a conscious gesture, more of a reflex. This could be displaying some truly "human" behavior, because I think most people would honestly answer that they themselves aren't capable of hurting another, but wouldn't think twice about swatting a fly.

The fly killing was arguably the single most important plot point of the first episode, so I don't think that theory holds. They showed multiple times that the host didn't react to a fly, and then one actually melts down because it probably wanted to react to it, but a reaction was against its programming. In this case, a red truck is a red truck. The fly killing is meant to hammer home that these machines are about to become a major problem (in addition to the major problems they've already started to become prior to that). Flies are the gateway drug to murder.

But I think his point is that it came after she answers the question. So she could have not realized she could hurt a living thing until instincts took over and she swatted the fly.

I think you've nailed DD's point accurately, but think you're missing the creator's intention. If you have her kill the fly before she says it, there's no dramatic impact (that's the reason for the fly being killed after), but there would be a HUGE story impact. I'm not saying the creation is lying, I'm saying the creation has changed. It will take time know whether the creation gains any awareness of what it's doing, but it certainly had none then, in my opinion. The reflex idea DD speaks of has been programmed out of the creation, it's important to not forget that. Its most important programming is not hurting/killing any real thing.

For all we know she could already have full memory and free will of a sort - and just be playing dumb and lying when questioned, biding her time plotting or accumulation info for some future purpose. Particularly a possibility since A. it was emphasized that she is the oldest host, and B. she is asked if she would ever lie (odd if not to set up the plot point that she might be lying).

There was nothing shown that would contradict this possibility.

I'm not sure if I'm missing your point or if your point is just that killing the fly indicates that she has changed and now will hurt a living thing. I think everyone understands that part.

FWIW, I believe she was conflicted about her answer in the interview. Maybe not as simple as lie vs truth, but confused and gave the answer she knew to be the safest while she considers these new feelings some more.

Have you seen Ep2 yet?

My point is that you can't know yet what she's thinking. We also don't know the context of her killing the fly. Is that before or after the conversation? It makes a pretty huge difference. I essentially think it's nitting up or trying to create meaning behind a great shot that I think literally was just supposed to mean "oh s**t".

DD is ascribing it potentially to reflex, but I'm saying that reflex has been programmed out of them. If the reflex is now possible, there's a big problem (similar to the Sheriff melt down). His body seemed like it wanted to kill the fly, but his programming wouldn't let him (potentially the opposite of how it went for her). I'm not trying to say that she didn't reflexively kill the fly, but that she shouldn't have been able to. She would likely have no awareness of what she did or that she even did it, either. They're not "formed" enough to understand that kind of action. It just happened, but shouldn't have been able to.

I'm sure that post totally cleared up my meaning...lol. Because I sure don't know what point I'm trying to make anymore.

Right. And that's all we can say for sure for now. Maybe we're saying the same thing? Her swatting of it definitely seemed very unconscious on her part fwiw. Btw I retract what I said in a previous post. Just watched it again and the little kid was definitely addressing her and not the horse.