RumHam Posted October 31, 2016 Share Posted October 31, 2016 19 minutes ago, Fez said: I get what its like to be really attached to a fan theory, I sure was with Mass Effect's indoctrination theory. But at a certain point, you just start seeing clues that aren't really there and there's too much evidence against it. Yeah, I really don't think that's what's happening here. I was kinda glad when I thought it was debunked an episode or two ago. I didn't go into last nights looking for evidence to support it, but I saw a lot nonetheless. The guy who wrote the review I linked to also doesn't like the idea but thinks the episode supported it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RumHam Posted October 31, 2016 Share Posted October 31, 2016 Just now, Cas Stark said: Also, since Dolores is seeing these flashbacks when she is with William, if that is the past, she has nothing to flash back to, no? That suggests it's one timeline in the present. Well no, nobody is suggesting that William and Logan are there on opening day of the park. In fact that's clearly untrue as Logan has been there before. So Dolores has a past to flash back to. Arnold clearly died before their visit, and I think the events that lead to his death at the old church are what Dolores was flashing back to. It's just a question of if she's flashing back 30+ years or just like three or four. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cas Stark Posted October 31, 2016 Share Posted October 31, 2016 Yeah, but that means we haven't seen "present" Dolores since when? Since the MIB took her into the barn? If she's in the past w/William, then the last raid on the ranch was also in the past. And, wouldn't that also mean that Wyatt was in the past and the present? We know he's in the present w/the MiB, but he's also been mentioned in the Dolores/William timeline. It feels like two timelines becomes really convoluted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RumHam Posted October 31, 2016 Share Posted October 31, 2016 Just now, Cas Stark said: Yeah, but that means we haven't seen "present" Dolores since when? Since the MIB took her into the barn? If she's in the past w/William, then the last raid on the ranch was also in the past. And, wouldn't that also mean that Wyatt was in the past and the present? We know he's in the present w/the MiB, but he's also been mentioned in the Dolores/William timeline. It feels like two timelines becomes really convoluted. Wyatt is new, that was established in MiB's convo with Ford. So if you can show Wyatt existed in the William/Logan scenes than that'd be a pretty big mark against the theory. I don't think he does though. Wyatt wasn't the one attacking Dolores's family. MiB just lied to Teddy that he had taken her to motivate him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cas Stark Posted October 31, 2016 Share Posted October 31, 2016 1 minute ago, RumHam said: Wyatt is new, that was established in MiB's convo with Ford. So if you can show Wyatt existed in the William/Logan scenes than that'd be a pretty big mark against the theory. I don't think he does though. Wyatt wasn't the one attacking Dolores's family. MiB just lied to Teddy that he had taken her to motivate him. Was the last convo between Dolores and Teddy before or after Ford inserted the Wyatt memory? I thought it was after. Doesn't he leave to go on the bounty hunt to find Wyatt, and that is the last time he leaves Dolores? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark Antony Posted October 31, 2016 Share Posted October 31, 2016 7 minutes ago, Cas Stark said: Was the last convo between Dolores and Teddy before or after Ford inserted the Wyatt memory? I thought it was after. Doesn't he leave to go on the bounty hunt to find Wyatt, and that is the last time he leaves Dolores? Yes it's the reason why Delores is alone when she gets home that night when usually Teddy is with her. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pliskin Posted October 31, 2016 Share Posted October 31, 2016 55 minutes ago, Fez said: I get what its like to be really attached to a fan theory, I sure was with Mass Effect's indoctrination theory. But at a certain point, you just start seeing clues that aren't really there and there's too much evidence against it. I'm not at all attached to the theory actually. I'm even quite pissed off that it is coming to be true, not because I don't like it, but for the sole reason that the plot twist is just ruined for me from the start. As Sepinwall rightly says in his review, this kind of twists just don't work anymore on our era. People always work it out before they should. Sam Esmail (Mr. Robot) understood this somehow and worked out his twists so that it doesn't feel ruined when it's revealed. As RumHam said too, I went into the episode not looking for any clues, not caring at all about the theory. And still... it just jumped to my face unwarranted. And your answers just gloss over the evidence we're presenting. From my perspective, we're not the ones seeing clues where there aren't, you are the ones refusing to see them. All the counter-arguments fall into the category "it can be explained without the theory but it doesn't contradict the theory either". Whereas the arguments for the theory cannot be explained without it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fez Posted October 31, 2016 Share Posted October 31, 2016 35 minutes ago, Pliskin said: I'm not at all attached to the theory actually. I'm even quite pissed off that it is coming to be true, not because I don't like it, but for the sole reason that the plot twist is just ruined for me from the start. As Sepinwall rightly says in his review, this kind of twists just don't work anymore on our era. People always work it out before they should. Sam Esmail (Mr. Robot) understood this somehow and worked out his twists so that it doesn't feel ruined when it's revealed. As RumHam said too, I went into the episode not looking for any clues, not caring at all about the theory. And still... it just jumped to my face unwarranted. And your answers just gloss over the evidence we're presenting. From my perspective, we're not the ones seeing clues where there aren't, you are the ones refusing to see them. All the counter-arguments fall into the category "it can be explained without the theory but it doesn't contradict the theory either". Whereas the arguments for the theory cannot be explained without it. I haven't responded to any evidence because I haven't seen any, just conjecture. Like Lawerence, there is literally no evidence that he isn't the same host that was with MiB; cleaned up overnight and put back in service to meet Delores and William. You can theorize that something else happened, but there's no evidence anything else happened. ETA: Spoiler From the 'In the coming weeks' preview that aired last night At 40 seconds, Delores face-to-face with the MiB, wearing her gunslinger outfit that she gets when she's with William. Unless she hid that outfit for 30 years and decided to wear it again after regaining her memories a second time (which if that's the case, we haven't been seeing that other timeline), this is all one timeline. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cas Stark Posted October 31, 2016 Share Posted October 31, 2016 1 hour ago, Mark Antony said: Yes it's the reason why Delores is alone when she gets home that night when usually Teddy is with her. Then doesn't mean, odds are strong we are looking at a single timeline in the present? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ariadne23 Posted October 31, 2016 Share Posted October 31, 2016 We'll find out eventually. So if it's all one timeline, what does it mean that we have two Sweetwaters with different store fronts and street layouts and whatnot? Clementine and Dolores are in both of them, but I guess they could be different parks in the same timeline with some duplicate hosts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pliskin Posted October 31, 2016 Share Posted October 31, 2016 37 minutes ago, Fez said: I haven't responded to any evidence because I haven't seen any, just conjecture. Like Lawerence, there is literally no evidence that he isn't the same host that was with MiB; cleaned up overnight and put back in service to meet Delores and William. You can theorize that something else happened, but there's no evidence anything else happened. Well, for example the dialogue between Logan and William about Arnold. I'm trying to understand your reasoning but I just can't. I cannot make sense of that dialogue without the two timelines. Have you re-watched it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ser Rodrigo Belmonte II Posted October 31, 2016 Share Posted October 31, 2016 I think that preview confirms its 1 timeline only... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pliskin Posted October 31, 2016 Share Posted October 31, 2016 A preview can confirm anything you want. Without the context, a shot can mean everything and its opposite. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cas Stark Posted October 31, 2016 Share Posted October 31, 2016 29 minutes ago, Pliskin said: Well, for example the dialogue between Logan and William about Arnold. I'm trying to understand your reasoning but I just can't. I cannot make sense of that dialogue without the two timelines. Have you re-watched it? Why do you think it's confirmation? It doesn't make sense really that the park would be losing money shortly after it opened and I thought that Logan's manner of speaking made it sound like it was in the past, no one even knows what he looked like, etc. doesn't sound like something that happened recently but more like a decades old mystery. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jaxom 1974 Posted October 31, 2016 Share Posted October 31, 2016 I've not had a chance to catch last night yet...but I needed to get this up: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
red snow Posted October 31, 2016 Share Posted October 31, 2016 2 hours ago, RumHam said: Yeah, I really don't think that's what's happening here. I was kinda glad when I thought it was debunked an episode or two ago. I didn't go into last nights looking for evidence to support it, but I saw a lot nonetheless. The guy who wrote the review I linked to also doesn't like the idea but thinks the episode supported it. It does feel like they've drawn us back in to something most of us wanted to put behind us. I'm hoping it's not going to be like True Detective where they just created speculation but never addressed/used it other than to create atmosphere. What were Delores' final words to Arnold again? Guess there's a good chance we'll see this play out for the first time/again before the season is out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Week Posted October 31, 2016 Share Posted October 31, 2016 Seems more and more likely that Arnold embedded himself within the code of the hosts. There have been a few allusions that Ford has made that Arnold's code remains at the core of the codebase - despite all of the updates. That latent code can then be activated based on key words - as we've seen with the rhyme spoken by Dolores and Maeve. The discussion of his suicide and the portrayal of the 'discussions' that hosts seem to have with 'Arnold' on an ongoing basis feels almost Obi-Wan-esque to me. "If you strike me down, I shall become more powerful than you can possibly imagine" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pliskin Posted October 31, 2016 Share Posted October 31, 2016 1 hour ago, Cas Stark said: Why do you think it's confirmation? It doesn't make sense really that the park would be losing money shortly after it opened and I thought that Logan's manner of speaking made it sound like it was in the past, no one even knows what he looked like, etc. doesn't sound like something that happened recently but more like a decades old mystery. As I said before, two things: Logan gives as reason for the park having difficulty precisely the weird suicide of one of the founders. I fail to see how this suicide would have repercussions on a crisis the park would be facing 34 years after his death. So Logan and William must be in a timeline close to Arnold's death. Logan is testing the park because he's interested in buying shares. If the park was 34 years old, he wouldn't need to test it himself. Its value would be already well known and straightforward. The second point is arguably not specific to that single dialogue. If you're still not convinced by the first point, here is the exact speech, I'm not inventing anything: Quote "Rumor is they are haemorrhaging cash. We're considering buying them out. Supposedly, this place was all started by a partnership. And then right before the park opened, one of the partners killed himself. Sent the park into a freefall. I mean, I don't know any of the details. I don't even know his name." 'You must have a team of lawyers looking at this place." "Yeah, well, they came up empty. He's a complete mystery. Not even a picture." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Astromech Posted October 31, 2016 Share Posted October 31, 2016 4 hours ago, Pliskin said: I'm kind of baffled as to why you'd still think the theory is debunked. Don't you remember when Harris brought Lawrence to his village/family? It looked nothing like the Pariah we've seen with William. It's just a completely different setting and timeline. In the present, Lawrence's loop is just to be a hanged criminal (unless a guest does something and starts a quest with him). In the past, Lawrence's loop is to be the head of the revolution, and the boss in Pariah. Until someone starts the nitroglycerine quest. Lawrence's family was in Las Mudas. Pariah is a different city further south in the park on the outskirts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cas Stark Posted October 31, 2016 Share Posted October 31, 2016 Okay I get it. It does sound like he's discussing something recent...but still don't see how we get Dolores in two timelines, since Teddy left her to go after Wyatt, which is when she ended up with William. Turning that into a past/present split somehow would not be very credible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.