It's not though, why is everyone so baffled by the Lawrence thing? The show spent time establishing that hosts get reset, that's the most likely answer to what happened to Lawrence. As for him being El Lazo, that's already been hinted at before.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Westworld - Live in Your World, Play in Ours - Sundays on HBO
- Thread starter RatskyWatsky
- Start date
It's not though, why is everyone so baffled by the Lawrence thing? The show spent time establishing that hosts get reset, that's the most likely answer to what happened to Lawrence. As for him being El Lazo, that's already been hinted at before.
You're acting like Nolan doesn't write "clever" scifi stories filled with misleading twists for a living.
WhiteRabbitEXE
Member
Yes. It wasn't very good.
Then again, what Crichton adaptation outside of Jurassic is?
From the creator of Westworld:
I've actually brought this one up a few times in this thread - people here should definitely read this. The writers are definitely keeping Westworld well within Crichton's "language", and Timeline is a good example of aspects of that language that the show is pulling from. Also, it's great.
Ya'll should read Jurassic Park if you haven't, too.
Meh. He later says call me Lawrence which kind of negated that that reveal back to hmmm maybe they just reset his loop.
We also knew that Lawrence was a wanted man who was sentenced to death by firing squad so the reveal is just as easily oh Lawrence = El Lazo and not anything more than that.
And this as the lead character is having MiB flashbacks. It's not in the past.
WhiteRabbitEXE
Member
Yeah, it's entirely possible that his loop begins with stealing the nitroglycerin, and ends with him being captured and hanged.
Alternatively, this could be a new story element worked up by Ford that didn't get applied until Lawrence got recalled and repaired.
Admittedly, both theories aren't perfect right now though, and as I've said I haven't ruled out split timelines entirely.
Bits N Pieces
Member
I've watched all the episodes shown so far and I have no idea what you are all talking about with the two timelines, eh?
WhiteRabbitEXE
Member
"Two timelines"/"split timeline" is a little misnomer-ish, but it's referring to the fan theory that the William and Logan scenes are actually flashbacks and don't take place at the same time as the rest of the show. Within that theory there's the other theory that William is actually a young Man in Black. There's other elements as well, but that's the general gist of it.
There are moments in the show that do seem to hint to this, but it's not a perfect theory. Personally I've always leaned against it, but there's enough there to not dismiss it outright.
biggersmaller
Banned
How are flashbacks bad storytelling?
You know, let's address more broadly how the term "multiple timelines" is being applied when theorizing. The term is incorrectly thrown around (imo) - it's not like Star Trek, Back to the Future, or Terminator where timelines are changed and new ones are created. The William scenes are just flashbacks of the same timeline. They are cleverly disguised and slowly revealed as such, but they are just flashbacks. I think it's narratively clever as hell and in no way complicated.
Are there details the contradict a two timeline scenario? I can't think of any off-hand but I haven't followed past sections of the thread very closely. Honestly they seem to segregate the two timelines fairly neatly.
Time to rewatch!
Seriously though, rewatch. I've watched every episode twice and found it immensely rewarding.
I feel like there's really no reason to the reveal of El Lazo if it's just him being reset. Like, it holds no surprise for the cast he's interacting with, as he has not interacted with them before. A host resetting its role holds no surprise for the audience. So why bother with the swooping in reveal and mystery identity if that's all it is? The emphasis makes no sense.
I don't think any of the behind the scenes operation has commented on Delores being with William.
WhiteRabbitEXE
Member
Explicitly? No. But there have been a few moments that have left the theory highly suspect, such as Stubbs dealing with Dolores being off-loop.
Indirectly, yes. They found Dolores was well off-loop and were going to recall her. Then we see a host try to recall her while with William.
Because there are scene progressions that flat out just don't make sense, and at this point it requires huge assumptions to even logistically work out from character relationships, park rules, park mgmt, park settings, host roles, and character development standpoints. They have to execute it perfectly for there not to be unanswered plot holes or poorly explained scenes. If they do pull it off well then I'm totally fine with it, but the longer they drag it out the more they have to explain.
My biggest beef with how this is set up is that it feels cheaper with each week. I'm pretty much convinced that the theory is true now, not just because of what they choose to show but especially because of what they choose not to show. It's very deliberate and forced. I think this sort of thing works best in a film, because you go into the experience with certain expectations, and if you're surprised or tricked, you still know the outcome by the time you come out. So any discussion and debate will be about how well they pulled it off, not whether they are trying to pull off something to begin with. With TV programming, especially a weekly show, when something is designed like this, it only really has one main purpose - to keep people guessing so they keep debating it. It's a cheap way of getting buzz and keeping your show on people's minds.
I think it would have been pretty clever if they did it for 3 episodes or so, and the surprise would be that what you first saw wasn't what you thought, but then your investment in the story and characters would continue with renewed perspective. By keeping the reveal all the way to the end, I feel it shows a lack of confidence in the material itself to naturally carry the show. There's interesting stuff to discuss in the show in terms of characterizations and themes, but it all gets overshadowed by the debate around what we are actually seeing.
I think it would have been pretty clever if they did it for 3 episodes or so, and the surprise would be that what you first saw wasn't what you thought, but then your investment in the story and characters would continue with renewed perspective. By keeping the reveal all the way to the end, I feel it shows a lack of confidence in the material itself to naturally carry the show. There's interesting stuff to discuss in the show in terms of characterizations and themes, but it all gets overshadowed by the debate around what we are actually seeing.
And that might be the only "trick" I can think of played by the show. Stubbs mentions her being off her loop but we don't see him send someone. It could be Bernard or Ford took care of it using one of the sessions we've seen and the minder that was sent was done in the past for the same reason (presumably they were monitoring hosts for compliance to their storylines back then too).
keltickennedy
Member
I agree, I thought he was just repaired and then retooled to play a new role in the world.
We see the Sherriff try and get her in Mexico only to be rebuffed by white hat.
Is the split timeline thing really going to be a twist?
The idea popped up after E2. By now half the fanbase is waiting for the payoff, not the twist itself. The "twist" has been laid out perfectly fine; this won't be a Shyamalan moment because it's been foretold time and time again with various hints and clues.
Those hints and clue may mean nothing BUT if the theories are true, the theory only came around because that's what the show was hinting at. Since the theory way born, the show has only reinforced it.
And to the chap asking about the conversations between the hosts and the park management, I think it's probably a form of VR interaction. VR in Westworld was introduced in E5 and there's little nuances to suggest it's not quite based in reality. Considering they all have some form of geo-location, I think someone would have noticed Bernard's off the record conversations with Dolores if they were physical interactions.
The idea popped up after E2. By now half the fanbase is waiting for the payoff, not the twist itself. The "twist" has been laid out perfectly fine; this won't be a Shyamalan moment because it's been foretold time and time again with various hints and clues.
Those hints and clue may mean nothing BUT if the theories are true, the theory only came around because that's what the show was hinting at. Since the theory way born, the show has only reinforced it.
And to the chap asking about the conversations between the hosts and the park management, I think it's probably a form of VR interaction. VR in Westworld was introduced in E5 and there's little nuances to suggest it's not quite based in reality. Considering they all have some form of geo-location, I think someone would have noticed Bernard's off the record conversations with Dolores if they were physical interactions.
Not everyone who's watching the show is reading forums about fan theories.
What is the fanbase? I highly doubt a million or so people are keeping tabs on these theories. Some people watching are picking up on timeline hints and some people aren't.
A good chunk of people I would think are fully expecting mib and william to meet and will be disappointed if that doesn't happen. Like what no showdown between white hat and black hat? William is the mib? What? Why? Proceeds to watch something else. That's the risk the shownrunners are taking if william = mib.
A lot of people would be completely thrown for a loop
Veritigo_X
Member
They also ask if she's with a guest (it wouldn't be weird for her to be off loop if a guest was directing her) and they say "it isn't clear." We do see a host trying to recall her, but it could be a misdirection.
WhiteRabbitEXE
Member
The biggest issue with the flashback theory is this timeline of events:
Dolores runs back home to find her (new) father dead - she momentarily see original Abernathy and starts bugging out
She then "sees" the Man in Black when dealing with Rebus
She has her meltdown and flees
(transition to Stubbs and Elsie)
She wanders into William and Logan's camp, barely conscious
Followed by later, the event with Stubbs being told she's off-loop, them talking about picking her up, and then a guest attempting to pick her up before verifying she's with William.
Now, I know the first part has been passed off as "maybe she's done this twice", but we also know the staff sees her as one of the most reliable hosts there is - see Stubbs's reveal that she's the oldest active host. And the entire presentation of the event makes it seem pretty dubious anyway. It's possible it's trickery, but if so, it's pretty risky and will have to be explained just right later, or honestly I'll feel it's just sloppy audience manipulation. The second part is even more suspect.
I think the overall issue though is this kind of trick in season one establishes audience expectations. If they are pulling off tricky flashbacks, then for every season going forwards audiences are going to expect some grand twist that affects the entire structure of the season and how literally everything is perceived, which is not necessarily a good thing, and a risky assumption to establish for audiences.
I think you greatly overestimate how many people are tapped into this theory. The few dozen people in this topic are not by any means representative.
Dolores runs back home to find her (new) father dead - she momentarily see original Abernathy and starts bugging out
She then "sees" the Man in Black when dealing with Rebus
She has her meltdown and flees
(transition to Stubbs and Elsie)
She wanders into William and Logan's camp, barely conscious
Followed by later, the event with Stubbs being told she's off-loop, them talking about picking her up, and then a guest attempting to pick her up before verifying she's with William.
Now, I know the first part has been passed off as "maybe she's done this twice", but we also know the staff sees her as one of the most reliable hosts there is - see Stubbs's reveal that she's the oldest active host. And the entire presentation of the event makes it seem pretty dubious anyway. It's possible it's trickery, but if so, it's pretty risky and will have to be explained just right later, or honestly I'll feel it's just sloppy audience manipulation. The second part is even more suspect.
I think the overall issue though is this kind of trick in season one establishes audience expectations. If they are pulling off tricky flashbacks, then for every season going forwards audiences are going to expect some grand twist that affects the entire structure of the season and how literally everything is perceived, which is not necessarily a good thing, and a risky assumption to establish for audiences.
I think you greatly overestimate how many people are tapped into this theory. The few dozen people in this topic are not by any means representative.
WhiteRabbitEXE
Member
Of course. But I didn't literally mean that GAF was the entirety of this theory. Rather, the majority of the audience is not following along online with every big fan theory. Online discussion is rarely representative of the real world.
Honestly what percentage of the 1-2 million people watching do you think are gooling that?
The early reviews would be about the only thing a substantial portion of the people watching would have looked at, and very few people actually probably read a whole review, just looked for a review score and said ok sounds good and I have HBO so I'll watch it.
And I don't know if any of the early reviews even mentioned a timeline theory, and then you're counting on people actually reading that part of the review, which is doubtful. Being on neogaf you should know a fuck ton of people don't read jack shit. They can barely be bothered to read a thread title.
I'm curious, how many people here watched The Prestige? Do you think that was deliberately misleading? Was the reveal at the end explained well enough? Ultimately when they do reveal that part of the show was a flashback, I don't think audiences will really be confused, especially the ones who have just been watching it at face value and not reading forums or whatever. Because people don't mind being tricked if it makes them feel like they're watching a "smart" show. As long as the reveal references all the misleading stuff before it to clarify what you're supposed to have been seeing, most people will just go "ooooooh" and "that's so clever" or whatever. I'm not really a fan of narrative trickery for the sake of it because I've grown a bit tired of it over the years, and I think a good story doesn't need gimmicks to be appreciated, but I general audiences definitely dig stuff like this.
Tbh, I didn't know this was a theory until I came into this thread but I did watch all five episodes back to back without really mulling over each one. Once I did see the theory, things started lining up. I'm in camp timeshift, which makes the most sense with everything we've seen. I'm more interested in what actually causes the shift from the William we know to what we get with MiB.
If online discussion gives you any clues a ton of people are still confused about what happened in the prestige.
All right, my bad, I may have been a touch arrogant in claiming half the fanbase were on board with the theories.
Half of Westworld GAF maybe.
Would it really be that hard to explain though? Dolores reaches the maze, likely not a physical place, and is greeted by some form of manifestation of Arnold. Confused, Arnold proceeds to explain, highlighting how many times she has tried to walk the same path.
Would that really feel cheap when there's been a consistency to the theory?
Half of Westworld GAF maybe.
Would it really be that hard to explain though? Dolores reaches the maze, likely not a physical place, and is greeted by some form of manifestation of Arnold. Confused, Arnold proceeds to explain, highlighting how many times she has tried to walk the same path.
Would that really feel cheap when there's been a consistency to the theory?
WhiteRabbitEXE
Member
I don't think that Prestige was structurally handled in anyway analogous to the potential flashbacks here though. It's not even really the same kind of twist. So I mean, I'm not really sure the lines you're trying to draw here really work.
Like I said though, I do think it can be handled satisfyingly. I'm just also saying the way they're presenting it is already very, very risky. When I go back and watch the Prestige, or a movie like say, the Sixth Sense, I see little elements where I'm like "ah-hah! I see what they're doing there! Clever." But watching through Westworld right now from the frame of mind that "it's official, this is all flashbacks" I don't see that as much as I do see parts where it's more "I feel like I'm literally being lied to here". I don't think "oh, these two scenes that are very clearly represented as being back-to-back chronologically actually take places 30 years apart and in reverse order and the complete with an utter lack of any element within these scenes pointing to that is so damn clever!"
Cornballer
Member
- Logline and promo pics from Episode 6 via HBO PR (please spoiler tag any discussion)
I feel like the creators of the show is delivering something different that is awesome. Every scene is a puzzle with hidden clues, yet the action and dialogue is finely crafted so that you hardly notice. Nobody can say for sure that hey figured out the timeline because it's kept perfectly ambiguous to fuck with us. Only the different logos is a solid tell.
The season still has to have a satisfying conclusion for it to feel like the time spent was worth while, but once it has ended everyone will understand that the show was tricking them along the way. Going into a second season we'll all be skeptically watching and taking notice of how things are said and presented.
greendomo's ghost
Member
I like the theory that Bernard is a robot version of Arnold, and that the Bernard/Delores conversations are actually between Arnoldand Delores and took place 30+ years ago.
Either way I'm convinced it's two timelines with William and MiB, they are too cute with the editing and trickery to believe otherwise.
When Stubbs says she's off loop thats in the present, just means this isn't the first time she's been off loop. I think she's recreating her journey to find the maze in the present, and we'll see her and William failed at finding it in the past.
Either way I'm convinced it's two timelines with William and MiB, they are too cute with the editing and trickery to believe otherwise.
When Stubbs says she's off loop thats in the present, just means this isn't the first time she's been off loop. I think she's recreating her journey to find the maze in the present, and we'll see her and William failed at finding it in the past.
I'll have to watch it again but I remember it being a confusing mess of a film. I just read the wiki summary and yeah... its pretty bad. Oh they did the trick with twins? No its a cloning machine. Oh wait that was a fake out but I built a real one. Wait I'm dead, no its just my clone, or my twin... what?
This is fine for a self contained film... but are they going to keep up this level of fuckery for 5 seasons? no thanks.
Suppose there is no reveal, and all of this timeline theorizing is completely unintended by the creators?
I mean, we COULD be discussing what they're actually showing us - themes, symbolism, and so forth. And there's been a little bit of that in this thread. I enjoyed the recent discussion about whether the robots feel pain and whether simulated pain is the same as actual pain.
It's on us if the thread's main thrust continues to be citing the details from each new episode that either prove or disprove the multiple timelines theory.
As someone who doesn't personally believe in the multiple timelines or that William = MiB, I do acknowledge that there are certain things that the show is keeping from us... what happened at The Church and the circumstances of Arnold's death, what's at the center of the Maze, and what exactly Ford and Bernard are planning. But all of those make sense to reveal (or partially reveal, keeping future seasons in mind) towards the end of the season's arc. This puts us more in Dolores' shoes.
I think what you're actually saying is that it wouldn't make sense to keep a massively nonlinear narrative "disguised" as a straightforward linear narrative for this long. And I agree with you - because that's not what they're doing.
---
One more piece of evidence that Dolores is NOT flashing back to her experiences with William: whenever William appears or disappears from a scene, Dolores has no reaction. Whereas when Dolores flashes back to the MiB or to The Church, she has a visible flinch reaction and a look of confusion. This points to the shots of Dolores by herself (at the end of ep 5, for example) simply being a metaphorical representation of her being deep in thought.
Captain Zyrain
Member
Well,
that's interesting.
Could
The Garrison be at 'the front'? From the War narrative? Or is the garrison Wyatt's people?
Because unless there is a malfunction or a narrative change, Hosts get placed back in their own role as we've seen.
We also heard MiB say literally to Lawrence he used to know him as a gang leader, and that's what we got a little later with William's timeline.
Lawrence then confirmed his name, to put the emphasis that he his the very same person.
1) A Wanted desperado, father and husband in a poor town in our current timeline
2) A gang leader involved in the War in a previous timeline (in a town where the church we saw burried with Robert might have been located)
Or how about all the scenes William is in that Dolores was nowhere near? How does she remember his arrival? The time he got shot? The conversations they had before she stumbled into their camp?
And I agree, Dolores by herself is her interacting with her own thoughts. Arnold is "the ghost on the machine" that they are programed to think is god. See also the interviews with Ford and Bernard, they are alone. Accessing them directly in their "dreams" When the actual techs are working on the hosts physically there are always people in the background doing other stuff.
-Plasma Reus-
Service guarantees member status
The question is, what does richard want?
Yes I know. It isn't clear that's the result of Stubbs noticing her there in that scene however and it may be a misdirection. Maybe a Stubbs equivalent in the past tried to get her back on her loop but once they realize she's with a guest things are fine. It would be the most misleading thing I can think of that the show has done to maintain the flashback scenario. It's not really egregious but in comparison everything else has been pretty straight forward.
Nah, it's likely even simpler than that. A few episodes ago when the MiB takes Lawrence to the police, they mention that he's the most wanted man in the area. This seems to hint pretty strongly that the Lawrence character has always also been El Lazo, his character just goes by two names (as any good crime boss would).
Wow... those screens...
Ignatz Mouse
Banned
I'm fully bought into the two timelines thing, and I'm even down with William = MiB. However, one thing puzzles me-- why keep it a secret? Why not just allow the audience to know? It's not like it's less compelling with that knowledge. In fact, it's making the show *more* enjoyable to me and less random-seeming.
Am I alone in this?
Am I alone in this?
StopMakingSense
Member
No. I have a bit of a worry that this show might get a bit Lost in the wilderness with they way it's layering on new mysteries on top of unsolved mysteries.
We need to get some satisfying revelations to some questions by the end of episode 10.