HBO's Westworld(v3)- The man in black fled across the desert, and we all followed. [spoilers]

[Charlie Hustle]

33 minutes ago, red snow said:

Great catch - I just rewatched that scene and there definitely is no door until Theresa mentions it. Chilling but also very dangerous for us as viewers as we could have been cheated over many a scene - including the one most of us cite as being the reason we thought the William/MIB couldn't be true any more.

What is it about the second example that's unreliable? Is it just that it's supposed to be the same house and it's devoid of a door?

Maybe because we were viewing the scene from Bernards perspective until Theresa mentioned it. It was obvious that Bernard couldnt notice the door because less than a minute ago he stated that hosts can be programmed not to see obvious landmarks.

[Castel]

2 hours ago, Gertrude said:

See, I don't think that the MiB is 'evil'. I think he has a purpose, but I don't see his behavior so far as evil. He knows this is a fantasy world simulation and most of his actions seem practical and efficient. His encounter with Dolores would seem to be the anomaly here, but that may have even had a purpose. Or perhaps it was a moment of venting off his frustration. Either way, I would no more call him evil than someone playing GTA just based on his actions. What his purpose and mission is, well that could be the turning point for me. Since we don't know what that is or what his motivation is, I can't call that at this point.

I mean...if you don't think that the hosts are human or that suffering doesn't matter as long as it gets wiped (which is a defensible position) then no, he's not "evil".

Otherwise...I mean, in his meeting with Dolores he gives indications of having done this more than once, and setting out to do it and enjoying it. Ford certainly implies that MiB is sort of...extreme, when they meet. 

He's also shown as   enjoying what havoc he wreaks. 

He may have a purpose but he isn't just acting efficiently and reluctantly. He really does enjoy hurting them. 

 

[RumHam]

24 minutes ago, Castel said:

I mean...if you don't think that the hosts are human or that suffering doesn't matter as long as it gets wiped (which is a defensible position) then no, he's not "evil".

Otherwise...I mean, in his meeting with Dolores he gives indications of having done this more than once, and setting out to do it and enjoying it. Ford certainly implies that MiB is sort of...extreme, when they meet. 

He's also shown as   enjoying what havoc he wreaks. 

He may have a purpose but he isn't just acting efficiently and reluctantly. He really does enjoy hurting them. 

 

The whole questions of if he's evil or not hinges on what will probably be the ultimate theme of the series. "Are the hosts people?" To side with "not evil" you have to assume that no, they are not.  From there it's just a matter of degrees from killing a Skyrim NPC to killing a host. 

If we imagine that the Man in Black has these awful violent impulses in the real world, but does not act on them outside of the park. Is he then evil for that? 

[Castel]

5 minutes ago, RumHam said:

The whole questions of if he's evil or not hinges on what will probably be the ultimate theme of the series. "Are the hosts people?" To side with "not evil" you have to assume that no, they are not.  From there it's just a matter of degrees from killing a Skyrim NPC to killing a host. 

If we imagine that the Man in Black has these awful violent impulses in the real world, but does not act on them outside of the park. Is he then evil for that? 

Well, first off: I think we can settle that he is, in fact,sadistic, at least towards hosts. He enjoys causing them pain. He notes as much when he kills Teddy and he laughs as he guns down one of the family members of his hostages. Before we get into whether he's evil, he is definitely sadistic.  It's not purely a matter of ruthless efficiency for him. Easy to argue that it's a character flaw regardless.

 

As for whether the hosts are people: if you told me nothing about the show I'd make an educated guess, knowing what I know of society today and its media: 80% chance they are human in some way and you're not supposed to be morally unconcerned with what MiB does. 

Having watched the show:99% chance you're not supposed to feel like MiB raping Dolores is akin to him playing a ruthless game of Plants vs. Zombies. 

[RumHam]

2 minutes ago, Castel said:

Well, first off: I think we can settle that he is, in fact,sadistic, at least towards hosts. He enjoys causing them pain. He notes as much when he kills Teddy and he laughs as he guns down one of the family members of his hostages. Before we get into whether he's evil, he is definitely sadistic.  It's not purely a matter of ruthless efficiency for him. Easy to argue that it's a character flaw regardless.

I agree that he is, but then that seems to be one of the two main draws of the park. A lot of people seem to go there to hurt "people" who aren't really people and so it's "ok." I totally get that it's fucked up, and agree he's clearly disturbed. I'm just not sure I'd call him evil for hurting robots. 

To make what's probably a poor analogy, Lets say you grew up on Chicken and Beef. Totally ignorant of how it came to be on your plate. Then one day you learned a bunch of horrible things about factory farming and whatnot and became a vegetarian. You still probably wouldn't call meat-eaters evil. You might think what they're doing is awful, but it comes down to intent and like...understanding their victims as beings with feelings. 

11 minutes ago, Castel said:

As for whether the hosts are people: if you told me nothing about the show I'd make an educated guess, knowing what I know of society today and its media: 80% chance they are human in some way and you're not supposed to be morally unconcerned with what MiB does. 

Having watched the show:99% chance you're not supposed to feel like MiB raping Dolores is akin to him playing a ruthless game of Plants vs. Zombies. 

It's obvious the message of the show is "is there really a difference between them and us?" I'm just saying that in a world where murder/sex tourism is an accepted thing because you're doing it to "robots" I don't think our moral compasses really apply. 

[Castel]

11 minutes ago, RumHam said:

I agree that he is, but then that seems to be one of the two main draws of the park. A lot of people seem to go there to hurt "people" who aren't really people and so it's "ok." I totally get that it's fucked up, and agree he's clearly disturbed. I'm just not sure I'd call him evil for hurting robots. 

To make what's probably a poor analogy, Lets say you grew up on Chicken and Beef. Totally ignorant of how it came to be on your plate. Then one day you learned a bunch of horrible things about factory farming and whatnot and became a vegetarian. You still probably wouldn't call meat-eaters evil. You might think what they're doing is awful, but it comes down to intent and like...understanding their victims as beings with feelings. 

I didn't use the term evil, I used much lighter language. "Character flaw" is  massive soft-pedaling lol. I honestly don't know where I stand on that.

I don't see it the same as factory farming. The thing about farming is that the food is the point. In this case the food is not in fact the point, verisimilitude is. The meat-eaters can be ignorant cause the point of the product can be separate from the problematic reality of how it's made

If you pay to go to a place to rape and hurt people that doesn't work. That's what you want to do.And the entire point of the park is to let you to it to human-like creatures. You could sit at home and knit or buy a blowup doll but you want the feeling of doing it to a person. It doesn't work without you wanting to do it to a person

Arguably, even if the hosts are not human or their memory wipes are perfect or something, this is still a character flaw or a very bad set of behaviors to both have and to have encouraged. Some things aren't just wrong or bad cause they cause direct harm to sentients, they have a negative impact on you and your character too. 

 

 

[karaddin]

Just wanted to add that even if the hosts aren't people, there is still plenty of room for "but capable of experiencing suffering" in a way that an inanimate object is not, that I'm not remotely OK with. Animals aren't people, doesn't mean I don't care about their suffering or think its fine to take enjoyment in it. And even if you accept the more cruel methods of meat production (ie factory farming, which I don't) there is still a big jump from accepting that for the utility of the outcome vs thinking its fine to be cruel for your own enjoyment.

 

 

[Wrl6199]

2 minutes ago, karaddin said:

Just wanted to add that even if the hosts aren't people, there is still plenty of room for "but capable of experiencing suffering" in a way that an inanimate object is not, that I'm not remotely OK with. Animals aren't people, doesn't mean I don't care about their suffering or think its fine to take enjoyment in it. And even if you accept the more cruel methods of meat production (ie factory farming, which I don't) there is still a big jump from accepting that for the utility of the outcome vs thinking its fine to be cruel for your own enjoyment.

 

 

How did you go from hosts to animal cruelty. I must admit that is pretty impressive. But seriously though they were robots made not like animals.

[karaddin]

1 minute ago, Wrl6199 said:

How did you go from hosts to animal cruelty. I must admit that is pretty impressive. But seriously though they were robots made not like animals.

Perhaps because two posts above me someone else already mentioned farming techniques? Or maybe because the conversation around whether cruelty to hosts is fine or not depends on whether they are "human" with a strong emphasis on the level of sentience? I mean if you don't want to see the show this way fine, but there is intentional questioning of morality in this show and if you want to ignore that then check out of the conversation instead of being a jerk.

[Arch-MaesterPhilip]

A place like that certainly blurs the lines between human and artificial and I think the problematic thing is being able to turn it off after two weeks. How can someone who has raped and murdered their way through that place not think about bringing it home with them ? 

[Wrl6199]

42 minutes ago, karaddin said:

Perhaps because two posts above me someone else already mentioned farming techniques? Or maybe because the conversation around whether cruelty to hosts is fine or not depends on whether they are "human" with a strong emphasis on the level of sentience? I mean if you don't want to see the show this way fine, but there is intentional questioning of morality in this show and if you want to ignore that then check out of the conversation instead of being a jerk.

I am sorry if i came off a jerk. I was joking around with that post a bit.

[AndrewJ]

51 minutes ago, karaddin said:

Just wanted to add that even if the hosts aren't people, there is still plenty of room for "but capable of experiencing suffering" in a way that an inanimate object is not, that I'm not remotely OK with.

 

 

But are they actually capable of experiencing any suffering? Or are they merely programmed to appear to be suffering. Say... if you have a choice between a host that is programmed to respond as enjoying abuse, or one that is suffering, or one that is indifferent.

I agree that somebody who wants the host to exhibit suffering is rather fucked up. And they'd certainly be some-one to be wary of - if that's how they get their rocks off, what's the likelihood of them doing the same with living people. But have they actually done anything wrong? Or is it just an enjoyable (for them) fantasy?

I don't know the answer to that. But I enjoy the question/exploration.

[karaddin]

10 minutes ago, AndrewJ said:

 

But are they actually capable of experiencing any suffering? Or are they merely programmed to appear to be suffering. Say... if you have a choice between a host that is programmed to respond as enjoying abuse, or one that is suffering, or one that is indifferent.

I agree that somebody who wants the host to exhibit suffering is rather fucked up. And they'd certainly be some-one to be wary of - if that's how they get their rocks off, what's the likelihood of them doing the same with living people. But have they actually done anything wrong? Or is it just an enjoyable (for them) fantasy?

I don't know the answer to that. But I enjoy the question/exploration.

I agree this is a fair question, and its pretty clear how I'd answer it from what I've already said lol. I don't really see a distinction past a certain level of sophistication between the response programmed into a synthetic piece of software simulating suffering and the response from a biological machine programmed to feel/simulate suffering by evolution. Its my way of coping with the 'free will is an illusion, we're all just biological machines that could only give this output from this complex array of inputs' possibility while retaining my morality.

One thing this show is doing is going to influence how I play games in the future lol. Can't go back to uncritically doing things once you've had the conscious questioning of it.

[AndrewJ]

For what it's worth, I have absolutely no doubt that Dolores and Maeve are actually suffering now. The question of whether they were when they were "dumb robots on their loop" is... intriguing. (You can probably guess that my inclination is to say no. But I'm by no means adamant that it's the case)

[PetyrPunkinhead]

7 hours ago, Charlie Hustle said:

Maybe because we were viewing the scene from Bernards perspective until Theresa mentioned it. It was obvious that Bernard couldnt notice the door because less than a minute ago he stated that hosts can be programmed not to see obvious landmarks.

Yeah, the moment he said, "What door?" I knew for 100% he was a host. It was definitely a big giveaway. Kudos to those who called it like after episode two though. 

I'm guessing that's a host copy of the woman Bernard killed being made down there, no? I wonder why Ford chose to kill her and not the board member? This is one fantastic, creepy ass performance Hopkins is giving. I just hope we get some sort of payoff with his new narrative this season. I still think Hopkins is underestimating this board and how badly they want him gone. Plus that whole speech about control that he gave was basically something a Bond villain would spout. So I feel like his arrogance and overconfidence in how much he is in control of the park and hosts will be his downfall. I see him dying by season's end. I thought for sure it'd be Maeve that killed Ford, but now I wonder if Bernard may end up doing it. 

[red snow]

4 hours ago, karaddin said:

I agree this is a fair question, and its pretty clear how I'd answer it from what I've already said lol. I don't really see a distinction past a certain level of sophistication between the response programmed into a synthetic piece of software simulating suffering and the response from a biological machine programmed to feel/simulate suffering by evolution. Its my way of coping with the 'free will is an illusion, we're all just biological machines that could only give this output from this complex array of inputs' possibility while retaining my morality.

One thing this show is doing is going to influence how I play games in the future lol. Can't go back to uncritically doing things once you've had the conscious questioning of it.

I guess it's our innate inclination to empathise with things that appear human and in terms of the new hosts I think they are human except for their brains. But it's strange how on one hand I'd say it's wrong for people to make them suffer even if that's what they are designed for. At the same time I don't see any of the hosts as "evil" because I feel they were programmed that way and therefore have no choice in their actions. I'm sure none of us thought Bernard was evil for killing Theresa. Maybe because he appeared to have free will prior to that? But in reality has Bernard shown any more free will than Teddy or Delores on their loops? The only difference seems to be that Bernard isn't on a loop and has probably years of existing.

The only host I think is currently capable of "evil" is Maeve because she seems capable of making that choice on her own. If she does escape this season then Westworld can add the "garden of Eden" to its influences as she escapes "paradise" (according to Ford) and gets free-will with the potential to do evil.

In the scene with the paper designs it was clear Bernard was one. There was also a "delores prototype". Was this a really old design they had lying around or a new model? Or was it simply implying that she is one of Ford's special models? I think the first design was for the head of the boy Ford made?

[unJon]

So I think MiB is a board member in addition to William. The Maze is I think Ford's way of manipulating MiB because he's a board member. Not exactly sure what Ford wants from the Board, but I think it will turn out that MiB will trade it to Ford at a key point in order for "Arnold's last secret."

Ford, being both an evil genius and nostalgic (see his secret robot family) will have made up the whole thing. The Maze is Ford'a tribute to Arnold and nothing more. Arnold is deader than dead (though looks like Bernard). 

[Fez]

13 hours ago, red snow said:

What is it about the second example that's unreliable? Is it just that it's supposed to be the same house and it's devoid of a door?

Yeah, its just another shot, from a different episode even, also showing that room without the door. In case anyone thought maybe it was just shadows or something blocking the door in the Bernard/Theresa scene.

Which means the show is in fact willing to have the camera be unreliable not just within scenes, but across the entire season. Making it more likely it has done things like made cuts that made scenes seem chronological but are actually not (likely reinforcing that Jeffrey Wright was playing Arnold in those scenes with Dolores), and that there's been at least one other example of hosts seeing something that wasn't true. As I understand the William=MIB theory, that would be Dolores, but I'm going a different route, I think its Maeve. Her scenes with the butchers have been too cute by half, and I think they only work if it turns out she's in a trap designed to prevent her from actually becoming free (There's a term for this, I forgot what it is; but its what the Architect described in the second Matrix movie). 

[Ded As Ned]

23 hours ago, Ferrum Aeternum said:

That was an amazing hour of television. When Bernard said "what door?" I utterly lost it. 

The degree to which Ford outplays everyone else in the story is beautiful to watch. Anthony Hopkins has to be a shoo-in for Best Supporting Actor, right? No one else could convey such calculating grandfatherly menace.    

Agreed.  If Hopkins doesn't win I'll be disappointed.  Also loved the scene with the door and the filming... I was like "what door?" "OH!"  So hat tip to the Boarders who called it awhile back!

21 hours ago, Mark Antony said:

And yeah like others have said William finding "his deepest self" in Westworld does hint at the William=MIB theories. Still not on board with it. Been hoping for Dolores/William to run into MIB/Teddy for the last three episodes  

Yeah I feel like they just missed each other (if on the same timeline).  Did anyone else notice the tree that knocks Delores off her horse is the same one that MiB hung El Lazo from to drain his blood?  Not sure if intentional, or just re-using a set/shooting location, but I did notice.

15 hours ago, Jaxom 1974 said:

Is it? There are apparently a lot more hosts working within the Back of house at Westworld based on the evidence of the security guard with Clementine (who was working the pad that started her up and such as I recall).  One needs to start questioning how many actual humans there are here...as we've heard, there are people who are rotated in and out...add in the idea that there doesn't seem to be much Ford isn't aware of in his park...

Also Bernard pointed out at the shack/hidden lab that most of the "employees" who survey the park were hosts, so they didn't even notice it as being there.  I think a good portion of the workforce are hosts.  Cheap, controllable labor.

14 hours ago, Michael Seswatha Jordan said:

Doesn't make sense. When they came to get Clementine they had the exact same power over the hosts, i.e. to stop time completely. I think that's just part of the code. Not really any special power that Ford has. Though, what would be interesting is if Ford is a host as well and has those powers written as code, so he doesn't need a tablet to accomplish it. H can just snap his fingers, or what have you. But, I hate the idea as Ford as a host.

This is what I'm on to.  I think Ford has to be a host, maybe the first with sentience. I was always curious how he could seemingly control them with his mind, and to me this is the only explanation.  Arnold created Ford to help build the park, and Ford ended up killing him and taking over.

So, I'm caught up!  Brilliant episode, although I wished we'd checked in on the MiB.  Also, the female board member said they were waiting for the rest of the board to get there so they could deal with Ford.  Coincidence that Ford seems to be taking action now, when he has them all in one place?  Does he have Theresa off them and replace them all so he's free to continue his little ploy at global domination?  

Waiting a week for more is painful enough... only 3 episodes left before the long night begins. 

[unJon]

So I just saw that Bernard Lowe is an anagram for Arnold Weber. That clinches it for me.