Go back to around Post #190.
Tom Arnold would like to have a word with you about that argument!
Good on ya. No one else I know (in RL) caught it. Yul Brynner is one of my favorite actors from my youth (thus my profile pic) and Westworld was one of my first thrills on TV when I was a kid. It came on once a year and I watched it every time it was on.
Just realized something about my Who-William-Really-Is theory - it helps explain a problematic line. When the guys in HQ are discussing Dolores being off-loop, Stubbs asks whether she’s with a host, a tech responds, “Unclear.”
Under my theory, that response makes sense - because William is a special type of host programmed to read to other hosts as a guest. And oh hey, we learned a host programmed to read as a guest is thing during the most recent episode with the host who attacked Clementine.
Under the two timelines theory, that line is something that needs to be explained. Why is it “unclear” and not a simple yes or no?
Okay, I’ll argue that theory even though I’m not convinced of it yet. [spoiler]It’s “unclear” to avoid saying “no”; Dolores-in-the-present has run away on her own, and at the same time is remembering / hallucinating / we are shown what happened 30 years ago when she ran with William.
Throughout her sequence after she ran away from home, there are visual inconsistencies in Dolores’ scenes, which could indicate some sort of mixture between reality and memory.
The Dolores-William storyline will lead up to the event alluded to in the first episode, that happened “30 years ago”, which is probably that Dolores almost broke free, but in the end William stopped her, which is why MiB takes credit for helping the park survive when speaking to Ford.
[/spoiler]
But hey, it’s just a theory. :)
Seems like a good one.
[quote=“jostly, post:307, topic:75914, full:true”]
The Dolores-William storyline will lead up to the event alluded to in the first episode, that happened “30 years ago”, which is probably that Dolores almost broke free, but in the end William stopped her, which is why MiB takes credit for helping the park survive when speaking to Ford.
[/quote]
That seems likely, but the dialogue doesn’t quite support it:
Logan to William: Then right before the park opened, one of the partners killed himself. Sent the park into a free-fall.
MiB: The man I’d be asking died 35 years ago. Almost took this place with him. Almost, but not quite… thanks to me.
So from this it sounds like MiB helped save the park from the free-fall after Arnold died, before the Logan/William conversation?
The problem here is in the presentation, as we were first introduced to William as he arrived at the park with Logan and before he ever met Dolores. For the timeline shenanigans to be afoot this is a very bad scene if the justification is Dolores malfunctioning.
FWIW the most compelling thing I’ve seen suggesting chrono-shenanigans are afoot is how we’re introduced to William. At the start of Episode 2 Dolores wakes up lying in bed. She somehow is drawn to leave the ranchhouse still in her nightgown. After she’s some distance from the house we hear Bernard/Arnold(?)'s voice off screen saying to her “Do you remember” and the scene immediately shifts to our very first introduction to William, with a shot of him on the MagLev(?) (or whatever that futuristic transport is) arriving at WestWorld. That pretty strongly suggests that William is in fact in the past, as is his whole set of interactions with Dolores.
And how would she remember that?
Reveries.
Gah, the forum won’t let me quote spoilers. Fortunately this is all really speculation, so I’ll leave most of it in the open.
I don’t get how that qualifies as a reason for the tech “in the present” (where Dolores is alone under the popular two-timelines theory) to say the “unlear” line. Unless you’re suggesting that when a host has a flashback it scrambles the signal they send back to HQ? (But even then everything we know suggests hosts and guests are tracked by multiple methods, including external cameras. The tech should be able to see all the hosts and guest near Dolores, even if her own signal is scrambled.)
Absolutely! But as I argued upthread, it’s much easier to explain those visual oddities as flash_backs_ rather than flash_forwards_ themselves embedded inside lengthy flashbacks with William - flashbacks that aren’t indicated by any of the normal editing techniques. In other words, it’s easier to explain William and Dolores as being in the present, with brief time jumps to Dolores alone in the past.
The only reason to actually want William to be in the past is to justify his thematic connection with the MiB (which, don’t get me wrong, is clearly there in the writing.) What my theory offers is the possibility that there’s (at least) one different way to have that thematic-connection cake while eating a relatively straightforward timeline as well.
The benefit of William and Dolores in the present is especially apparent when you look at what happens right after the “unclear” line. Here’s the overall sequence as a refresher:
- Tech in HQ says Dolores is off-loop, Stubbs asks if she’s accompanying a guest, tech says, “Unclear.”
- Stubbs orders someone to round her up and take her home.
- Cut to Dolores by herself in the Mexican village. She hears a voice say, “Remember” and whispering.
- Guy walks up to Dolores in the village, asks her if she’s lost and offers to take her back to the ranch. Then William shows up and she says she’s with him.
This is a huge problem for the popular version of two-timelines, because 2) and 4) would appear to be a cause followed by its effect - i.e. two events on the same timeline. Under the popular two-timelines theory you run into the issue that Stubbs is giving an order in 2) but somehow that order appears to be fulfilled “30 years in the past” in 4).
The theorists behind the popular two-timelines theory have only two responses to this cause-and-effect paradox. One of them basically insults the filmmakers’ talents by suggesting the filmmakers just aren’t playing fair i.e. aren’t using the normal tools of filmmaking (editing techniques, foreshadowing, etc.) to leave clear signs along the way for the viewers to interpret so when the explanation comes the viewer looks back and says, “Of course, how could I miss that!” So instead there’s some completely unshown “present day” consequence of Stubbs’ order, and we’re all suckers for believing the (completely and utterly normal) editing that strongly implies 4) is a consequence of 2).
The second explanation of the paradox is that Stubbs is a host and that one HQ scene is actually 30 years in the past. Which kinda sorta makes sense, except that then it raises the question of why that’s the only HQ scene we’ve seen so far that applies to.
(I haven’t mentioned part 3 of the sequence. Admittedly 3 is pretty damn weird, but if for some reason 3 must be categorized as a time jump, then again I suggest the easier explanation is that 3 is a very brief flashback, like Dolores at the crosses, and when we get to 4 we jump back to the present-day.)
But how is she remembering scenes of William she never saw? Again, we’re breaking the normal language of filmmaking here. (And the rules of Westworld so far as we know them - hosts can have memories implanted, but not memories from completely other contemporaneous people. Teddy remembers Wyatt, but he doesn’t have Wyatt’s memories!)
Anyway, I claim the way William was first introduced supports my theory, and here’s a piece of trivia that might indicate why. When we first see William, he’s sleeping on the train. You know who the only people we’ve seen sleeping on the show so far are? Hosts.
Mind you, I don’t want folks to think that I’m 100% devoted to my William theory, or 100% opposed to the popular two-timelines one. I think I’d probably be happiest if neither turned out to be true. What I really want is what I said above - an explanation that makes me look back and say, “Of course! The signs were there all along.” This week’s reveal was that.
The problem with the popular two-timelines theory is that it needs so many side explanations about things like the above that it’s more like a textbook math problem than an entertaining magic trick. I want to be dazzled - not misled and then given a lengthy and convoluted lecture about how I was misled.
Well, it can be loosely interpreted as in the death of Arnold started a process that only came to its head a few years later, just in time for William to be positioned to stop it.
As I said, it’s to avoid being clear so that we the audience can speculate either way. I’m not saying it’s in any way conclusive evidence; I think that from what we know of the tech we have no idea of why the guest status would be unclear. To me it just seems like a “let’s keep them speculating” kind of thing.
Yep, that’s a major problem for the past-William theory, since by all appearances things occur as you say. I have no good explanation for it. :)
One thing that does speak for the theory though, that was quite obvious when I rewatched episode 2, was how different the Sweetwater that Logan and William are in is compared to the Sweetwater we’re presented with in all other episodes. The buildings are the same, but notice how most of the hosts shown there only turn up in that episode, as well as the storylines.
Regarding the “unclear” scene.
if Stubbs is a host and the girl from the board is too (this is a stretch) the preview we have been shown where Theresa is shown to be dead might be misdirection. This would be a pretty crazy thing to do (and the board girl being a host would need explanation) but this would explain who is being printed ingeh secret room.
I just binge watched this to date and I loved it. I’ve had a framed movie poster of the original movie in my office since 2003 so I might be biased … but I love the treatment they’ve given it so far.
(It is a wee bit heavy on the gratuitious boobs n’ flesh, but I guess that’s HBO for you.)
So those are inserting other host’s experiences? Because Dolores wasn’t there when William was picking out his hat etc. That’s not how reveries were established on the show.
That’s just writer fuckery for the sake of fuckery, though, and it should get the same amount of respect it shows the audience - none. If it turns out that the writers are putting things like that on a regular basis, then I’ve got better things to do.
Every good magic trick is a lie. The reverse is not true: most lies aren’t good magic tricks. A good magic trick needs a structure, it needs to build, and most importantly it needs to convince the audience to buy into to being tricked even though they know perfectly well they’re being tricked. I’m hoping that Jonathan “The Prestige” Nolan gets that, even if not every Redittor theorist does.
(Having put other people’s theories under the microscope, let me do the same to my own. If we accept that for whatever reason the scene with William saying “she’s with me” takes place in the present, then we don’t actually need my theory about William to explain why the tech says “unclear.” It could just be William and Dolores hadn’t actually made up their minds to travel together until the guy forced the issue by trying to take Dolores home. Not everything needs to be driven by a Shocking Twist.)
No, sorry, I didn’t realize you were being so painfully and needlessly literal. My apologies.
In general in TV/Movies a flashback is not limited to only exact POV of the character having the flashback. In order to make things make sense, the script writers and directors and editors give us a little context. I think that’s very clear what was being remembered, the Dolores time with William. The fact that we the audience are shown a few details that Dolores could not have been present for doesn’t invalidate that.
Dang, the more I think about what you pointed out with the “Remember” scene, the more I realize that you’re probably right on the timelines. Dolores digs up a gun that is clearly very old and in bad shape. I kept wondering how the gun got there (did Arnold put it there?)…but no, Dolores buried it there, 30 years ago. The reveries is allowing her to remember that kind of stuff.
I’m really looking forward to episode 8. There is supposed to be some major revelations revealed.