HBO's Westworld- Enter the maze [spoilers]

[karaddin]

1 hour ago, red snow said:

I think it's worth pointing out that we don't know if MiB raped Delores. It was framed that way but it may simply have been his way of pointing out how the "barn scene" often goes. eg he warned her how to handle the host who did try to rape her. It gets very complicated when the host who was going to rape her is only doing so because he's programmed. I guess that would be the fault of the programmers/creators of the park?

 

1 hour ago, Ariadne23 said:

"I didn't pay all this money 'cause I want it easy. I want you to fight." And he backhanded her before that.

1st ep, around 14:20

Having said that, with later context, he's testing the parameters of the game, making the hosts display the "simple emotions" to see their best work. 

Firstly there is this ^^ which is going beyond simply playing a role and acting in a manner very consistent with someone who is fine with raping hosts, and has done so in the past. Combine that with another of his conversations with Delores where he apologised that 'he wouldn't be able to make it tonight' there is very strong indications that he has done it, and a lot more than once, even if he didn't on the night shown in the show. Perhaps we will have subsequent revelations to show this isn't the case and I will change my assessment of him if so, but at this point the show wants us to believe he did and the comments I was responding to seemed to be changing their mind on him with this behaviour still taken as given. Perhaps they were actually saying "I don't believe he did that, given these other indications of him being a good person" in which case....I'd still say the good in one place doesn't preclude the bad in another.

Re: Being our best selves in the park - probably not, but there is a limit to how bad I can play even in current games so I doubt I could be too terrible with convincingly human characters. None of the female characters that appeal to me are villains like Hector though, so I'm not sure I've got a decent comparison to that point Armistice is pretty sure, but the others all do it for me more. ERW is very different to how she looks as herself, but the crush on her is not exactly small.

Speaking of - wonder what happened to the girl who was with Teddy last week that we weren't sure if she was a guest or a host. The one that got a discount in the brothel. Her disappearing suggests host surely? But everything else seemed to suggest guest, so I'm confused.

Re: AndrewJ's question above regarding rape and murder - when it comes to depicting it in a game it comes down to the nature of the crime itself, not the abstract morality of it. Shooting people in heated moments etc is brutal and nasty, and we've seen some horrid violence against hosts already on this front (Logen stabbing the guys hand) but its generally not a particularly personal experience. Raping someone is. Someone playing a game which was actually doing serial killer style murder? Stalking the person, causing them terror and snuffing their life out while savouring the kill? That person is creeping me the fuck out just as much as someone who wants to play a rape simulator. I'm sure there have been guests that do this in Westworld, but it hasn't been depicted so far and the violence/murder has been solidly rooted in dehumanisation of the hosts which is another point of difference. To want to rape you need to be buying into seeing them as human, at least to the extent that vile misogynists in the real world still see women as human - just not on the same tier as men, because you're getting off on the power and the violation. That doesn't work without some level of buying into the illusion, which is the complete opposite of Logen's violence. The hand stabbing was essentially "this pixel is annoying me, shut it up".

[AndrewJ]

How would you compare this to S&M activities between consenting adults, Karaddin? Where a couple has safe words established and willingly engages in somewhat extreme activities. So if the person's partner says "please stop", they don't stop - but if they say "oranges" they do stop. Consent was given in both cases - for the MiB, it was when he signed whatever forms before entering the park.

Is a person who enjoys S&M activities more likely or less likely to commit violent crimes? I certainly do not know the answer to that question and would not care to venture an opinion. I'm not about to condemn anyone and everyone who indulges in S&M.

Do we draw the conclusion that somebody who acts out a nasty fantasy is a nasty person? I don't know the answer to that question.

[Arch-MaesterPhilip]

Didn't the deputy take the woman with Teddy back to Sweetwater? I'm almost certain she was a guest.  

[PetyrPunkinhead]

I just caught up with the latest episode and this continues to be one of the best shot/directed series I've seen. Anthony Hopkins' Ford may turn out to be one of the most dangerous characters in TV. The man literally controls an army of robots, which was shown in elegant perfection in that lunch scene. I like the journey of discovery Maeve is own more so than Dolores. Maybe because Maeve is figuring it out on her own (well, as far as we know) while Dolores keeps getting all this help from Bernard. And also Thandie Newton is hotness cubed.

[karaddin]

36 minutes ago, AndrewJ said:

How would you compare this to S&M activities between consenting adults, Karaddin? Where a couple has safe words established and willingly engages in somewhat extreme activities. So if the person's partner says "please stop", they don't stop - but if they say "oranges" they do stop. Consent was given in both cases - for the MiB, it was when he signed whatever forms before entering the park.

Is a person who enjoys S&M activities more likely or less likely to commit violent crimes? I certainly do not know the answer to that question and would not care to venture an opinion. I'm not about to condemn anyone and everyone who indulges in S&M.

Do we draw the conclusion that somebody who acts out a nasty fantasy is a nasty person? I don't know the answer to that question.

Because that is roleplay with another consenting person, and while you're submerging that awareness in the moment of the roleplay its still layered across the experience. You know there is another person gaining pleasure from this activity as well. By moving the fantasy from engaging with another person in that fashion to a host like this you are negating that entirely, its no longer about a shared experience and entirely about living that dark fantasy to the fullest extent possible. And there are degrees within BDSM, I'm sure there are plenty of dominants that I'd feel very uncomfortable with. Please note I'm making no claims around legality, it's a personal moral judgement. And I'm happy to judge those that cross lines, ignore boundaries and exploit their submissives within BDSM which is not unknown and I'd say is much more likely to happen when they are unconcerned with the submissives enjoyment of the experience.

[Ariadne23]

5 hours ago, RumHam said:

Hm, he may have but I don't recall it. Thanks for checking.

Very end of ep. 2, Bernard is saying the board might be pissed to not have a new story. Ford says "They shall have one, something I've been working on for some time. Something quite original." 

Guess I interpreted that to mean that everything was new, but I don't know why.

Beyond that, how original can it be when it's "a fiction rooted in truth?"

[AndrewJ]

49 minutes ago, karaddin said:

Because that is roleplay with another consenting person, and while you're submerging that awareness in the moment of the roleplay its still layered across the experience. You know there is another person gaining pleasure from this activity as well. By moving the fantasy from engaging with another person in that fashion to a host like this you are negating that entirely, its no longer about a shared experience and entirely about living that dark fantasy to the fullest extent possible. And there are degrees within BDSM, I'm sure there are plenty of dominants that I'd feel very uncomfortable with. Please note I'm making no claims around legality, it's a personal moral judgement. And I'm happy to judge those that cross lines, ignore boundaries and exploit their submissives within BDSM which is not unknown and I'd say is much more likely to happen when they are unconcerned with the submissives enjoyment of the experience.

I'm not sure I really see the distinction, personally. In both cases, you have somebody deriving pleasure from dark, fantasy roleplay, where consent has previously been given. Do we judge a person simply due to the fact that they obtain pleasure from such dark roleplay?

For what it's worth, though, I'm not trying to convince you that you are wrong. And I'm not sure my opinion varies too much from yours. As I said upfront, my initial reaction was that the MiB is a vile piece of scum that needs to die. And I'm not saying my opinion has now changed - I just know I shouldn't be trusting initial reactions in a show like this. These sorts of shows are interesting because they examine such issues. So I haven't drawn any firm conclusions with regards to the MiB. I'm happy to wait and see where the story leads. These issues make for interesting conversation and I've raised a few questions - but haven't really drawn any conclusions myself.

 

[Baitac]

1 hour ago, AndrewJ said:

How would you compare this to S&M activities between consenting adults, Karaddin? Where a couple has safe words established and willingly engages in somewhat extreme activities. So if the person's partner says "please stop", they don't stop - but if they say "oranges" they do stop. Consent was given in both cases - for the MiB, it was when he signed whatever forms before entering the park.

Is a person who enjoys S&M activities more likely or less likely to commit violent crimes? I certainly do not know the answer to that question and would not care to venture an opinion. I'm not about to condemn anyone and everyone who indulges in S&M.

Do we draw the conclusion that somebody who acts out a nasty fantasy is a nasty person? I don't know the answer to that question.

You are right. There is no consent for the hosts. What we have been addressing is the fact that the MiB's intent is to act as a rapist to Dolores. He drags her by her hair to the barn, talks to her in a pejorative, disgusting way about "remembering him,"closes the door behind him, whips out a huge knife, and tells her it's time to get reacquainted. This, in my mind, does not make him a good person, even if his foundation (tax deduction) helps others. The law may not consider him to be a rapist, but I do.

[Starkess]

13 minutes ago, Baitac said:

You are right. There is no consent for the hosts. What we have been addressing is the fact that the MiB's intent is to act as a rapist to Dolores. He drags her by her hair to the barn, talks to her in a pejorative, disgusting way about "remembering him,"closes the door behind him, whips out a huge knife, and tells her it's time to get reacquainted. This, in my mind, does not make him a good person, even if his foundation (tax deduction) helps others. The law may not consider him to be a rapist, but I do.

But how is consent even a concept for hosts? Does your toaster consent to being used? I think the show has positioned us to see the hosts in a sympathetic light, but to the people within this world these are just machines/video games. Very pretty and realistic, but with no sentience. We as an audience have seen the potential cracks there, but that's a perspective that isn't available to most of these people. It's not like they were deposited there--they grew up with this technology and its incremental development. From their perspective, I don't see how you can distinguish it from playing out a dark fantasy.

[Baitac]

6 minutes ago, Starkess said:

But how is consent even a concept for hosts? Does your toaster consent to being used? I think the show has positioned us to see the hosts in a sympathetic light, but to the people within this world these are just machines/video games. Very pretty and realistic, but with no sentience. We as an audience have seen the potential cracks there, but that's a perspective that isn't available to most of these people. It's not like they were deposited there--they grew up with this technology and its incremental development. From their perspective, I don't see how you can distinguish it from playing out a dark fantasy.

Like I said, consent isn't an issue with the hosts and yes, he is acting out a dark fantasy. I see this behavior as disgusting. He is acting as a rapist and torturer. I'm not willing to minimize it because "it doesn't count."

[Ariadne23]

Re: MiB being a blackhat rapist murderer, etc.

I think the barn scene is where he picked up the first clue. He pulled out the knife just like he does with Kissy later. Then he goes from Dolores, to Maeve's saloon, to Kissy outside the saloon, and then scalps him on the cliffs. Must've gotten some clue to do that earlier from somewhere up the chain, likely starting with Dolores. She is the oldest host in the park.

Anyway, I'm not trying to make the MiB a good guy. He's nuts. He plans to never leave the park, whatever that means. But I think the showrunners/writers might have been using a superficial straightforward-black-hat identity to throw the audience off the trail of what he's really doing there.

Plus, for various reasons, I'm starting to agree with the idea that William is a young MiB.

Anyway, on moral turpitude, the really sick fucks are in the narrative department. Rebus suggested Walter commit necrophilia with Dolores's mother's corpse.

[red snow]

6 hours ago, Darzin said:

I think the jail is a good idea, as it prevents chaos in the town. Playing black hat in town should carry some risks and the threat of jail will stop people murdering everyone in sweetwater and keep it more civilized. Of course outside of the town you can kill and loot all you want, but that affects other guests less. As for the guys participating in the heist they spend a night in jail and then get a fun story of a hooker breaking them out by bringing a key hidden in their breakfast.

Most games tend to punish the player if they go "evil" too usually with lots of police/soldiers turning up to overwhelm you. There probably needs to be some response for it to feel "real". eg Logen probably should have been thrown out for stabbing that guy's hand but it may be that he's established himself as not to be messed with in that restaurant/town.

Like you say - if they turn their imprisonment into an overall fun experience they may not mind too much. The jails were probably pretty comfy for them and pre-prepared for them.

[Ariadne23]

2 hours ago, red snow said:

Logen probably should have been thrown out for stabbing that guy's hand but it may be that he's established himself as not to be messed with in that restaurant/town.

They were probably still figuring that stuff out 30 years ago.

[dbunting]

I don't know if there are right and wrong answers to the morality of the park. There are so many points of view that are right and at the same time wrong. How many people go to a zoo and enjoy it? Did the animals give their consent to be ripped away from their homes and families and put on display for your amusement? 

How many people played cops and robbers, cowboys and Indians? Someone was the good guy and someone was the bad guy. Just because you are the bad guy in a game (which this is) doesn't mean you are a bad guy in real life.

Personally I know I couldn't do the rape thing in the game no doubt. I would end up being like William actually more like Logan except not a dick about it, and I would be protecting a host female. I would do the black hat thing, robbing and shoot outs but that's where it would end for me.

That said, if I came across Armistace bathing at the river I am sure as hell checking her out! She'd probably kill me but hey it'd be fun! I guess that's where my pervyness ends. Voyeuristic but non violent?

 

[Jaxom 1974]

Hmmmm...perhaps the MIB is the board member already on site and that's why he gets whatever he wants, not because he's been coming there for 30 years...

[red snow]

1 hour ago, Ariadne23 said:

They were probably still figuring that stuff out 30 years ago.

touche

18 minutes ago, dbunting said:

I don't know if there are right and wrong answers to the morality of the park. There are so many points of view that are right and at the same time wrong. How many people go to a zoo and enjoy it? Did the animals give their consent to be ripped away from their homes and families and put on display for your amusement? 

How many people played cops and robbers, cowboys and Indians? Someone was the good guy and someone was the bad guy. Just because you are the bad guy in a game (which this is) doesn't mean you are a bad guy in real life.

 

 

Interesting ideas in your first point. It could mean there is a spectrum of society that doesn't approve of Westworld and not only do they not go there but maybe they try and shut it down as well. I can imagine infiltrators getting into the park trying to find proof of sentience/awareness of the hosts so they could shut it down.

Your second point is a good one too. Physical violence/killing seems to be a strong part of western culture from a very early age - particularly in boys. Sexual violence on the other hand is not which might be another reason why we as viewers find the latter more appalling. And likewise the same with the guests.

There must also be a lot of non-disclosure type things with the park regarding filming/commenting on people's activities in the game. The dark players probably wouldn't want everyone knowing how they play the game!

So far William is feeling the most like an "everyman" playing the game. For me any game where the characters are developed makes me protective of them. In Telltales' "walking dead" I was constantly trying to keep everyone happy and avoid sticking my neck out.

[Arch-MaesterPhilip]

What happens in Westworld stays in Westworld.  

[Ariadne23]

4 hours ago, Jaxom 1974 said:

Hmmmm...perhaps the MIB is the board member already on site and that's why he gets whatever he wants, not because he's been coming there for 30 years...

Would fit with the William is the MiB theory. When William and Logan are there, the family company (possibly Delos?) has a stake in Westworld that Logan thinks they should bump. William is involved with the company, but not enthusiastically. By the time the MiB is there, 30 years later, it makes sense that the character would be on Delos's board, and also that he'd be involved in charity foundation work on the side.

But hard to think Ashley would know about it and Theresa would not. OTOH, Ashley might not know why MiB gets whatever he wants.

[Arch-MaesterPhilip]

Maybe he is just the observer for the board. 

[Jaxom 1974]

39 minutes ago, Ariadne23 said:

Would fit with the William is the MiB theory. When William and Logan are there, the family company (possibly Delos?) has a stake in Westworld that Logan thinks they should bump. William is involved with the company, but not enthusiastically. By the time the MiB is there, 30 years later, it makes sense that the character would be on Delos's board, and also that he'd be involved in charity foundation work on the side.

But hard to think Ashley would know about it and Theresa would not. OTOH, Ashley might not know why MiB gets whatever he wants.

I'm still not 100% off the "William's Story is Set in the Past" bandwagon, but the evidence mounted against it with the back of house team's discussion about Dolores and William.  It only works now unless Ashley is a host as welll...