The board's server will undergo upgrade maintenance tonight, Nov 5, 2014, beginning approximately around 10 PM ET. Prepare for some possible down time during this process.
Now the running theory is that there are three timelines wtffffffff Westworld.
Why? What in the show mandates multiple timelines?
The running theory is that: since no humans have interacted between the William and Man in Black stories (only hosts like Dolores and Lawrence, who don't have a lifespan and don't age), that there's no reason to believe yet that they're occurring at the same time; many people believe that William is the Man in Black (which is why we haven't heard his name yet, and we know Ed Harris is rich, and we know that William is about to marry into money). There are holes in this theory, but it's possible.
One more thing about this, it would be hard to imagine a transformative event in William that would get him to point of committing acts of sexual violence against Dolores.
jwfocker wrote:
Definitely could be a host/body for Ford but I was thinking it was host/clone of Theresa. Who the hell knows. It's been a good 1st season so far.
It has been good so far. I've been trying to avoid online chatter about it, to avoid spoilers, but it seems like I ahve been missing quite a few of the easter eggs.
_________________ "The fatal flaw of all revolutionaries is that they know how to tear things down but don't have a f**king clue about how to build anything."
Now the running theory is that there are three timelines wtffffffff Westworld.
Why? What in the show mandates multiple timelines?
The running theory is that: since no humans have interacted between the William and Man in Black stories (only hosts like Dolores and Lawrence, who don't have a lifespan and don't age), that there's no reason to believe yet that they're occurring at the same time; many people believe that William is the Man in Black (which is why we haven't heard his name yet, and we know Ed Harris is rich, and we know that William is about to marry into money). There are holes in this theory, but it's possible.
One more thing about this, it would be hard to imagine a transformative event in William that would get him to point of committing acts of sexual violence against Dolores.
jwfocker wrote:
Definitely could be a host/body for Ford but I was thinking it was host/clone of Theresa. Who the hell knows. It's been a good 1st season so far.
It has been good so far. I've been trying to avoid online chatter about it, to avoid spoilers, but it seems like I ahve been missing quite a few of the easter eggs that are filling out the story. We need that old RMer who did the Lost write-ups to do this show as well.
_________________ "The fatal flaw of all revolutionaries is that they know how to tear things down but don't have a f**king clue about how to build anything."
Now the running theory is that there are three timelines wtffffffff Westworld.
Why? What in the show mandates multiple timelines?
The running theory is that: since no humans have interacted between the William and Man in Black stories (only hosts like Dolores and Lawrence, who don't have a lifespan and don't age), that there's no reason to believe yet that they're occurring at the same time; many people believe that William is the Man in Black (which is why we haven't heard his name yet, and we know Ed Harris is rich, and we know that William is about to marry into money). There are holes in this theory, but it's possible.
One more thing about this, it would be hard to imagine a transformative event in William that would get him to point of committing acts of sexual violence against Dolores.
Him falling in love with her and being forgotten, maybe?
Maybe. If he ends up leaving, marrying the douche's sister, Maeve escapes (with William) kills that family because she sees them as the slave owners, and William comes back to figure out what was the point.
It's interesting that Dolores is so far off of her loop (drop the can, get raped, repeat) and we haven't seen the park managers talking about it.
_________________ "The fatal flaw of all revolutionaries is that they know how to tear things down but don't have a f**king clue about how to build anything."
One more thing about this, it would be hard to imagine a transformative event in William that would get him to point of committing acts of sexual violence against Dolores.
Do we actually see the MIB commit such an act at any point? My vague recollection was that it was a cutaway moment.
Maybe. If he ends up leaving, marrying the douche's sister, Maeve escapes (with William) kills that family because she sees them as the slave owners, and William comes back to figure out what was the point.
It's interesting that Dolores is so far off of her loop (drop the can, get raped, repeat) and we haven't seen the park managers talking about it.
Surely she'd just have a "with guest" flag that would be active? They could check in from time and time and make sure it wasn't a false positive, but otherwise just let the guest do their thing.
Additionally - the show's mentioned a few times that Ford's new story is messing with the hosts' routines, so nobody seems to know exactly what's going on.
One more thing about this, it would be hard to imagine a transformative event in William that would get him to point of committing acts of sexual violence against Dolores.
Do we actually see the MIB commit such an act at any point? My vague recollection was that it was a cutaway moment.
You are correct, it wasn't shown.
_________________ "The fatal flaw of all revolutionaries is that they know how to tear things down but don't have a f**king clue about how to build anything."
Joined: Tue January 01, 2013 7:41 am Posts: 19721 Location: Cumberland, RI
ABNorman wrote:
Bi_3 wrote:
Maybe. If he ends up leaving, marrying the douche's sister, Maeve escapes (with William) kills that family because she sees them as the slave owners, and William comes back to figure out what was the point.
It's interesting that Dolores is so far off of her loop (drop the can, get raped, repeat) and we haven't seen the park managers talking about it.
Surely she'd just have a "with guest" flag that would be active? They could check in from time and time and make sure it wasn't a false positive, but otherwise just let the guest do their thing.
There was the moment where a host walked up to her and said, "Are you supposed to be here? Why not come with me?" And then when William walked over, he let her go with him. This is a crucial knock against the timeline theory, since right before this, we see the Hemsworth brother talking about a host being out of her usual area--and he's in the supposed "present" of the two timelines theory, so he shouldn't be anywhere near William or that Dolores. You can explain it away: he could be a host, too (therefore, he wouldn't age between the two time periods) or maybe he's talking about a different host. But these seem like bend-over-backwards explanations; the easiest way to explain it away is to say that there's just one timeline.
Quote:
Additionally - the show's mentioned a few times that Ford's new story is messing with the hosts' routines, so nobody seems to know exactly what's going on.
Similar to above: Ford's new storyline wouldn't mean anything if Dolores and William are years in the past. But I'm still not sold on it.
Maybe. If he ends up leaving, marrying the douche's sister, Maeve escapes (with William) kills that family because she sees them as the slave owners, and William comes back to figure out what was the point.
It's interesting that Dolores is so far off of her loop (drop the can, get raped, repeat) and we haven't seen the park managers talking about it.
Surely she'd just have a "with guest" flag that would be active? They could check in from time and time and make sure it wasn't a false positive, but otherwise just let the guest do their thing.
There was the moment where a host walked up to her and said, "Are you supposed to be here? Why not come with me?" And then when William walked over, he let her go with him. This is a crucial knock against the timeline theory, since right before this, we see the Hemsworth brother talking about a host being out of her usual area--and he's in the supposed "present" of the two timelines theory, so he shouldn't be anywhere near William or that Dolores. You can explain it away: he could be a host, too (therefore, he wouldn't age between the two time periods) or maybe he's talking about a different host. But these seem like bend-over-backwards explanations; the easiest way to explain it away is to say that there's just one timeline.
Yeah, I totally forgot that happened, good call.
_________________ "The fatal flaw of all revolutionaries is that they know how to tear things down but don't have a f**king clue about how to build anything."
Joined: Thu January 24, 2013 4:32 am Posts: 20855 Location: Surrounded by Wokes. Please send help.
To think that William is the MIB 30 years earlier is a slap in the face to Ed Harris. I guarantee you Ed Harris didn't look like as much of a pussy as Jimmi Simpson at age 40.
A) Dolores and Jeffrey Wright AS Arnold B) MIB who Jimmi 30 years later C) Jimmi and Dolores from when the park first opened.
I hope you are wrong. That's kind of a bullshit story telling trick.
_________________ "The fatal flaw of all revolutionaries is that they know how to tear things down but don't have a f**king clue about how to build anything."
Was the church steeple that Dolores ordered destroyed by Ford in a previous episode? That could be the first 'yeah it's really multiple timelines' evidence.
There was also some... uhhh... 'narrative parallelism' (?) between Dolores having the gun to her head when she saw the original town location and MiB's story about his wife.
It clearly suggested she was attempting to smuggle data our of the park... but then showed Bernard killing Elsie (maybe that's who Ford was growing in his secret lab). Seems conflicting.
_________________ "The fatal flaw of all revolutionaries is that they know how to tear things down but don't have a f**king clue about how to build anything."
_________________ "The fatal flaw of all revolutionaries is that they know how to tear things down but don't have a f**king clue about how to build anything."
Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 34 guests
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum
