Westworld (HBO/Sky Atlantic) [** Spoilers **]

Penn

leggo wrote: »

Following this on BBC and I agree, it’s an excellent show.

It's decent alright. Definitely worth a watch, even though I had some issues with it. But for anyone who enjoyed Season 1 of Westworld it's worth checking out.

human 19

ixoy wrote: »

It's been mentioned before, but again: If you want a much more thoughtful look at the concept of free will vs determinism, watch 'Devs' instead. Unlike 'Westworld' it focuses on character rather than trying to do some huge big picture. It doesn't need to rely on big twists either. Some great music and visuals in it too.

I agree. Also check out Travelers for a similar AI extrapolating the future theme, where people are sent back in time to take over the bodies of people just before their deaths, in order to tweak the timeline. The agents also have to resume the normal lives of the hosts as much as possible while also trying to complete their missions. So they are also dealing with the normal real-world relationship issues.

pixelburp

human 19 wrote: »

I agree. Also check out Travelers for a similar AI extrapolating the future theme, where people are sent back in time to take over the bodies of people just before their deaths, in order to tweak the timeline. The agents also have to resume the normal lives of the hosts as much as possible while also trying to complete their missions. So they are also dealing with the normal real-world relationship issues.

+1 on Travelers, possibly one of the best shows nobody watched (for a relative value of "nobody" of course). It's on Netflix too. An excellent premise but never lost sight of its characters, all of whom really interesting. In fact it was so character focused the actual details of the plot didn't really manifest until the season 1 finale, which was kinda awesome.

CastorTroy

Did Travelers get a proper finale, end on a cliffhanger or mostly wrap things up but left open just in case? I haven't watched any of it

pixelburp

CastorTroy wrote: »

Did Travelers get a proper finale, end on a cliffhanger or mostly wrap things up but left open just in case? I haven't watched any of it

All of the above! it kinda did, giving its characters some closure but with just enough of a sense of "the end...?" in the finale. Left me wanting more but satisfied at the same time.

leggo

It’s so interesting how every first Netflix series seems to have that kind of ending: make it good enough to wrap it up if it’s one and done, but leave the door open if they want to go back. And so many shows can struggle a bit in re-opening the box as a result if they get renewed, having to be like “Oh you thought it was over? That’s just the beginning.” Very different from the old style of leaving the series on a cliffhanger in the hope it would force the network’s hand into renewing them. I wonder what the logic is behind it or if it’s a direction from Netflix based on their model.

Way off topic, apologies, I just find looking at those kinda trends really interesting.

human 19

I was hoping season 3 of Westworld would be set in The Sublime, especially given the possibly inadvertent reference to The Sublime in Iain M Banks' Culture series novels where The Sublime is where people in the real world, i.e, our Universe , make the decision to export their consciousness to this other plane of reality when they are tired or bored of this reality.

If WW set the next series in the sublime, I would love it if someone asked..."Why should we restrict our consciousness to a human-like host. Why could we not invest it into something else like, oh, I don't know, maybe a spacecraft?"

Turtwig

CastorTroy wrote: »

Did Travelers get a proper finale, end on a cliffhanger or mostly wrap things up but left open just in case? I haven't watched any of it

Yes.
It's a brilliant series imo. Some endearing characters. It didn't have to end.

human 19

leggo wrote: »

It’s so interesting how every first Netflix series seems to have that kind of ending: make it good enough to wrap it up if it’s one and done, but leave the door open if they want to go back. And so many shows can struggle a bit in re-opening the box as a result if they get renewed, having to be like “Oh you thought it was over? That’s just the beginning.” Very different from the old style of leaving the series on a cliffhanger in the hope it would force the network’s hand into renewing them. I wonder what the logic is behind it or if it’s a direction from Netflix based on their model.

Way off topic, apologies, I just find looking at those kinda trends really interesting.

I think they play with algotithms to try to appeal to as many people as possible. Look at "I am not ok with this" ... which seems to be an amalgamation of Stranger Things ('80's soundtrack for the nostalgic) , woke lesbian (are there any male gay heroes lately?) and marvel-like superpowers.

leggo

human 19 wrote: »

I think they play with algotithms to try to appeal to as many people as possible. Look at "I am not ok with this" ... which seems to be an amalgamation of Stranger Things ('80's soundtrack for the nostalgic) , woke lesbian (are there any male gay heroes lately?) and marvel-like superpowers.

They definitely do, although I think it comes more from accepting pitches that fit the algorithm than deliberately going out and commissioning plots based on keywords in the same way the likes of porn would get produced. Hence you get quality hits that feel at the centre of the zeitgeist but also have their own creative flair and direction. Netflix are supposed to be a dream for creators to work with from a creative freedom standpoint with minimal micromanaging.

I wonder more about how shows get renewed though and if it’s a deliberate tactic to do ambiguous endings rather than commit to shows long-term in the way, to tie it back in, HBO really committed to Westworld long-term when it needed a new smash hit as GOT wound down. And are shows on either platform and model better for it? Do we get a lot of one-hit wonders or does that long-term commitment from networks lead to the likes of what we’ve just experienced in Westworld where the writers are perhaps a bit too cocksure? Consider that networks need bankable investments that’ll come back and get bigger year-on-year ideally, whereas Netflix thrives off new, buzzy content so is just as happy to give €10m to a new show as renew another one that may have already served its purpose.

mloc123

I liked the

fightclub inspired ending to the series

Keyzer

Watched the finalé yesterday - what a pile of bollóx...

There were so many stupid things that occured in this season, it would take me hours to list them all. However...

Why the fúck would Serac connect anything, never mind Delores, to Rehoboam (stupid name) - even proposing do this is off the richter scale in terms of the risk it presents. Rehoboam is his most prized asset and he connects his biggest threat to it knowing she has been planning to destroy the thing from the start of the season. Absolutely idiotic writing...

Westworld S1 was amazing, mainly down to Anthony Hopkins.

S2 & S3 were dreadful shíte in comparison.

ManOfMystery

leggo wrote: »

It’s so interesting how every first Netflix series seems to have that kind of ending: make it good enough to wrap it up if it’s one and done, but leave the door open if they want to go back. And so many shows can struggle a bit in re-opening the box as a result if they get renewed, having to be like “Oh you thought it was over? That’s just the beginning.” Very different from the old style of leaving the series on a cliffhanger in the hope it would force the network’s hand into renewing them. I wonder what the logic is behind it or if it’s a direction from Netflix based on their model.

Way off topic, apologies, I just find looking at those kinda trends really interesting.

I don't think it's necessarily just Netflix these days. It's probably just a sign of the increasing huge amount of TV shows being made these days; so many are at risk of not being renewed (especially on the bigger name networks/streamers like Netflix) due to an increasingly crowded market unless they really pull in strong viewing figures, and I find the writers and showrunners on some like to tie their stories together without leaving loads of loose ends in case they don't get the renewal they seek. Of course, there can always be a post-credit scene or some small Easter egg which hints at things to come without leaving viewers on a cliffhanger.

We've seen a few shows over the year cancelled without tying up their stories (Terminator: Sarah Connor Chronicles, Flashforward and Southland were particular annoyances for me) and it's hugely frustrating for viewers and the productions themselves alike - it also shows that networks won't be held to ransom or give a hoot if a story remains unfinished.

With that said, some shows weave such complicated webs that it would be very difficult to tie them up season to season even with the best will in the world. Dark is a good example of that, season 2 answered so many questions but also posed so many new ones that it would have been very frustrating if it had been cancelled. Of course, with S2 sitting at 100% on Rottentomatoes that's unlikely unless S3 takes a serious quality nosedive.

dr.kenneth noisewater

Finally watched the last couple episodes, what a crock of sh1te. Loved S1 and thought S2 was ok but this is just a different show completely with some many stupid and pointless plots. Who are we supposed to even be rooting for? Very surprised it got another season

leggo

I think Dolores was the good guy all along because humans made some beautiful scenery (we didn’t). Apparently not wanting to do a total genocide but only murder some people to enact change, that you and only you have decided is necessary, makes you a hero.

ixoy

leggo wrote: »

I think Dolores was the good guy all along because humans made some beautiful scenery (we didn’t). Apparently not wanting to do a total genocide but only murder some people to enact change, that you and only you have decided is necessary, makes you a hero.

She's not too far off basically going, "Wake up sheeple!"

irishguitarlad

Finished it last night, it was terrible. The drop in standard from the first season has been astounding. I will not be returning for the fourth season. Fúcking rubbish.

Homelander

Really poor finale. What irritates me most about it all, is ultimately, the finale basically reveals that 80% of what happened in this season was irrelevant filler that has little bearing on the resolution or how it was arrived at.

There's a 2 hour plot stretched to 8 hours run-time, and when I look back at the season in its entirety, it mostly feels cheap and meaningless. Compare that to Season 1 where the narrative was so rich and layered, and almost every action, motivation and character had a profound impact on the progression of the story.

S2 was a drop in quality granted but it was nowhere near this bad, not even close.

The plot in S3 was just plain crap masquerading as pseudo-intelligent sci-fi with a laughable finale that had the depth of a child's shoe, there was no pay-off, and I didn't give a damn about any of the characters.

The "Charlotte Hale" aspect of the season was actually the most interesting and if the season had been actually based around Dolores v Dolores in the real world from the start, it could've been a genuinely interesting premise.

But this Rehobaum, Serrac, Dolores, Maeve, Jessie Pinkman crap was just an astounding waste of time in the end. It could've been a 90 minute movie and told the exact same story without any loss of narrative quality. I just can't get over how pointless most of the season is in retrospect after the finale.

pixelburp

Finished episode 6 and yeah, can see why people have been cooling on this season: I genuinely thought the show had reasserted itself, with a more focused plot & series of questions. The first few episodes teased something really interesting, but the tease has yielded nothing.

Instead has turned out to be almost comically shallow, dressed in finery: it throws out Big Ideas about data privacy or free will - with some gorgeous production and art design of this future-world - but completely failing to show anything tangible or relatable on this ground. With Caleb, I thought we might finally see some perspectives of ordinary people in this world yet he's a total empty vessel. Even on the ground floor, humanity seems to be shallow & superficially awful. Like:

Everyone we see reading their projected futures are almost hilariously terrible people. Where are the reports saying "hey, this person will live a happy, successful life & will die in bed". Instead it's all "they are the worst. Do not procreate."

. I get the essence of drama is conflict, but without any trace of nuance or agency, the characters are just floating about without purpose, brooding while spouting empty waffle.

You'd imagine there are dozens of script-writers out there grinding their teeth at the flimsy plotting and characterisation, while seething in jealousy over the obviously ludicrous budget this show gets to play with.

The most damning thing I can say: this show is so bereft, it couldn't even pull off a Drug Trip with any charisma. The "genre" trip has to have been the most pointless waste of a neat concept I've seen on TV in years.

leggo

I feel like they just kind of left the plan for what would happen once they left the park as a big question mark in their own minds, assuming it would be great and write itself, then realised they had nothing. They wrote themselves into a corner when Dolores only brought five pods with her and everyone else was dead or in ‘The Sublime’.

All of a sudden, any kind of host uprising was impossible and would probably be nixed by Delos who could spot it a mile off, necessitating Delos’ importance being minimised and Dolores having to go about her plan ‘undercover’, somehow. So we got Serac and some hamfisted plot around having to keep the theme of the show as free will vs determinism, plus a big new shiny lead actor in Aaron Paul to distract us from that. It’s writing by necessity rather than design.

I feel confident that some version of that is actually the case, and that’s REALLY not good enough for a HBO show with this kind of budget.

Slydice

Soundtrack is on youtube:
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=OLAK5uy_mDbUXCCIAtYo17Kn6PHPv_a36PFbD1oOQ

Yuhs!

nc6000

The Critical Drinker tries to make sense of how and why season 3 went so horribly wrong........:)

deadduck

Keyzer wrote: »

Westworld S1 was amazing, mainly down to Anthony Hopkins.

S2 & S3 were dreadful shíte in comparison.

this sums it up for me. i hoped that season 3 would somehow redeem itself, but no, it was complete rubbish, and definitely worse than season 2, that at least tried to be clever, even if it was a mess. S3 feels like it could be a season of any bad sci-fi show (albeit with fantastic special effects), and it it didn't have the WW name, it would be panned even harder i'd imagine

it's amazing how many people in my office never watched WW, i'm always harping on about how great S1 was, but that S2 wasn't worth watching. i'll still tell everyone how great S1 is, but i'll be doubling down on the "forget about S2 and S3, just enjoy S1 for what it is"

Keyzer

nc6000 wrote: »

The Critical Drinker tries to make sense of how and why season 3 went so horribly wrong........:)

He summed it up perfectly for me. I'm petty and vindictive also. Writers clearly have notions about themselves, writing convoluted shíte which is supposed to show how intelligent they are. Also, the depiction of every single man in this series as utterly useless is disgraceful. They castrated every decent male character.

Why is it even called Westworld anymore? A series about robots in a Westworld which is not set in Westworld anymore, stupid.

I'll say it again, S1 was brilliant but the rest was utter crap.

Fúckoff Westworld.

pixelburp

Keyzer wrote: »

He summed it up perfectly for me. I'm petty and vindictive also. Writers clearly have notions about themselves, writing convoluted shíte which is supposed to show how intelligent they are. Also, the depiction of every single man in this series as utterly useless is disgraceful. They castrated every decent male character.

Why is it even called Westworld anymore? A series about robots in a Westworld which is not set in Westworld anymore, stupid.

I'll say it again, S1 was brilliant but the rest was utter crap.

Fúckoff Westworld.

Disgraceful? There's no human characters in this show, let alone genders. To get incensed about neutered characters, you need characters in the first instance. Don't stumble down this path of "grr, misandry" in a show failing to get the basics of Good Writing this badly. There's not a single character written as a vital, emotional creature in the scripts. There's nothing to be outraged about.

De Bhál

Reading the comments here, I'm glad I didn't watch it now. Watched episode 1 of this season and just felt after that I couldn't force myself through another season of it.

Keyzer

De Bhál wrote: »

Reading the comments here, I'm glad I didn't watch it now. Watched episode 1 of this season and just felt after that I couldn't force myself through another season of it.

Good move - its absolute dogshít.

the beloved echo chamber is no more

Mr.Nice Guy

nc6000 wrote: »

The Critical Drinker tries to make sense of how and why season 3 went so horribly wrong........:)

Excellent analysis that sums up a lot of my own thoughts, and makes me glad I quit around the halfway mark (wish I had done so sooner).

Such a pity they turned this show into an absolute mess. I was surprised at the amount of people on this thread that were effusive in their praise of this season, talking as if there was some grand vision at work. I never saw it and still don't.

I was particularly amazed at the amount of people that are still invested in these characters, particularly Dolores. I loved the character in season one but I'd put her up there with Homer Simpson in terms of a character that morphs into one utterly obnoxious.

Dolores' chip on her shoulder towards humanity over the ill treatment of the robots by humans when she was in the park makes sense from her perspective, but it is totally nonsensical from the human perspective - because the humans that did all the nasty stuff didn't realise they were doing it to a sentient being. It would be like an NPC in a Grand Theft Auto game acquiring sentience and vowing revenge on the gamers that ran them over for fun. Or a vibrator that gains sentience and demands vengeance over being 'raped'. It might make sense from the robot-turned-sentient being's perspective, but we, the humans, are supposed to see this as an overreaction.

There's an interesting conflict to be explored there but I think the writers of this show got too enamoured with Dolores. Teddy, or Maeve, or William, or Bernard, might have been an interesting counter-balance to her vision of morality, provided there had been a better setting and story; but instead we got a lot of nonsense about righteous Dolores versus the big, bad, human corporations.

ixoy

Mr.Nice Guy wrote: »

I was surprised at the amount of people on this thread that were effusive in their praise of this season, talking as if there was some grand vision at work. I never saw it and still don't.

Myself, and others, were mostly saying that earlier on in the season when it seemed like there was a plan (with the various Delores) and happy to see them trying something new.
I doubt many would be giving the same praise when they saw it turned out to be a mess in the end. I had hopes but the writers dashed them in the end with a rubbish "twist" and weak characterisation.