FlipBoard
HBO
I offered my general review of HBO's Westworld earlier this week, and now I have specific thoughts on the series premiere coming up just as soon as there's an unscripted sneeze…
“Seems you're not the man you thought you were.” -The Man in Black
“The Original” runs close to 75 minutes, and needs nearly every minute of that running time to properly introduce its sprawling cast of characters(*), explain how the park works – and the ways in which it's beginning to not work – and begin laying out the underlying themes of the world that interest Jonathan Nolan and Lisa Joy. The repetitive nature of the lives of the robotic “hosts” – basically, a Groundhog Day told from the point of view of one of the Punxsutawney residents who are oblivious to the time loop – is important to the story Nolan and Joy are telling, and require additional time to properly establish here at the beginning, but it makes the premiere something of a slog, and a deliberately disorienting one.
(*) Though even there, not every significant character appears in this episode, and some of the people who seem prominent here (the tourists other than the Man in Black, particularly) don't appear again in the later episodes.
We open not knowing exactly where or when we are, with a scene between Bernard the robotics chief and Dolores, the sweet young woman who in time will be revealed to be the park's oldest host, that seems to be taking place much later in the story (after Dolores' “father” begins glitching). From there, we dive into life inside the park, where it's only sometimes clear who's a host and who's a guest. We know going in that Dolores is a host, and most of the train passengers (who are discussing golf in contemporary terms) are guests, but the show does some misdirection with Teddy, the chipper gunslinger played by James Marsden, and even to an extent with Ed Harris as the Man in Black. (If you know the original movie at all – and haven't paid much attention to the marketing or advance discussion of the series – you might assume the Man is a robot.)
The only thing that's entirely clear at first is how beautiful the park's terrain is, and even that's quickly spoiled when Dolores and Teddy come upon the violent scene on her family's ranch, during which Teddy is killed and she gets raped as part of the Man's twisted video game fantasies(*).
(*) I was talking about the show with NPR's Barrie Hardymon earlier in the week, and she came up with the perfect phrase to describe the current state of a lot of cable and streaming drama, suggesting they're suffering from “over-pillaging.” All I know is that by the time I got to the end of the episode, I was ready to never see the Man in Black again, and I am a huge Ed Harris fan. Though I'm sure some level of comeuppance is due him eventually, there's a smugness to his omnipotent slaughter and torture of the hosts that I am not looking forward to sitting through until then.
After the player piano cues us in to how the hosts go through the same events over and over, we get some extended time with the staff, including Bernard, his assistant Elsie, the park's co-founder Dr. Ford, screenwriter Sizemore, the frustrated Theresa, and security chief Stubbs. We get a vague sense of most of them – Bernard and Elsie are curious, Theresa and Stubbs are constantly worried the robots could run amok, Sizemore just wants his scripts performed properly, and Ford has an agenda none of the others can read – and not a lot more before the story has to journey back into the park to show how each loop is both the same and different, depending on the whims of the guests. When Teddy gets distracted by a return visitor (whose friends are all like miniature versions of the Man in Black, even prepared to use Teddy for target practice if they grow bored), for instance, he's not there to pick up the can that Dolores drops, while a park newcomer frustrates Sizemore by shooting the homicidal bandit Hector while he's in the middle of delivering a big monologue after massacring most of the town while an orchestral version of “Paint It Black” plays.
Following some more torture by the Man in Black, who's looking for some kind of hidden level to the park/game, we're back with Dolores, whose father has begun glitching after getting a look at a guest's abandoned modern photograph. He's one of several malfunctioning robots, and though all seems to be back to normal near the end as Dolores goes through the same old loop with a new robot as her dad, all is not right even with her: the episode's opening scene features her ignoring a fly crawling across her eyeball, and it's a recurring motif that the hosts don't even notice the presence of insects on or around their bodies, but when a fly lands on Dolores' neck at the end, she knows to swat it away kill it, despite her programming to the contrary.
It's a lot to get through, and not always done gracefully. (A critic friend – who ultimately liked the show more than me – said they needed three tries just to finish the pilot.) But it looks amazing, and Evan Rachel Wood is riveting from the first frame. It's not The Next HBO Classic right out of the box, but I'm hopeful Nolan and Joy can identify the series' own glitches more quickly and effectively than Bernard and his team are doing with the park.
Finally, I'm not sure yet whether Westworld will be a weekly subject for me. As you can tell from what I've written so far, I'm ambivalent about the show at this stage, and might want to wait til we get past the four episodes I've already seen, assuming the show begins evolving notably at that stage. Or I might discover near the end of this week that I have a lot of things to say about episode 2. Wait and see, but in the meantime, discuss your feelings on this introduction to the show and its characters.
What did everybody else think?
Alan Sepinwall may be reached at sepinwall@hitfix.com
![[avatar]](https://profilecdn-woven.netdna-ssl.com/photo/106987/profile)
Something’s off and I can’t quite put my finger on it.
The Ed Harris stuff is the worst, not only because of the violence but because there’s no way they’re going to provide a satisfying answer to the “deeper game” stuff.
Wouldn’t it make more sense to protect the hosts when they’re delivering exposition to avoid what happened to the villain? Like those screens in video games where you don’t do anything.
That wouldn’t be an interactive and immersive experience for the guests. The crux in the world comes between making them too real and making them known as part of the “experience.” This is delivered by Sizemore. The message is two fold. 1) The dangers of A.I. 2) Do we as humans want to actually live out our depraved fantasies or do we want them to stay fantasies.
And here I was, thinking that the only truly unique part of the story was The Man In Black’s desire to “hack the game.” He found a weird maze inside one of the host’s skulls. That must have been put their on purpose, indicating that TMiB is not wrong about there being a deeper level to the game. I also wouldn’t put it past Dr. Ford to have embedded meta-puzzles for the more intense gamers. I curious about what will come of this plotline. It can’t be all about what a brutal sociopath TMiB is, because that’s boring. A meta-game, a hack, easter eggs… that would be pretty cool.
The inevitable AI rebellion has been done to death. Hello, Bladerunner, Ex Machina, etc. Can’t say I see anything fresh or exciting in that story line. So… I’m riding on my hopes for the Ed Harris/Anthony Hopkins gamesmanship, and the acting. Yes, Evan Rachel Wood is great.
There are no new stories, Eldon. Only new articulations of old stories.
There are no new articulations, Notmydayjob. Only new screen adaptations of old books.
All manner of new articulations, both adapted from old books and otherwise, Priscilla. Adaptation of existing stories is the lifeblood of storytelling. And good storytelling is all in the articulation. Standing on the shoulders of giants and all that. Or, to paraphrase Milch, “Everyone steals from stories that came before, so always steal from the best.”
As someone who loves the Groundhog Day type of time travel in almost everything I’ve seen/read it in (Groundhog Day, that one episode of Supernatural, Live Die Repeat, The First Fifteen Lives of Harry August) I really dug them showing the sort of turning back the clock the androids deal with every day, and how things can change for them. I think it was a good way to not only introduce us to their mechanics, but also make us feel a little something for them.
The workshop scenes felt a little off to me, not sure why exactly, yet, but overall I really liked the episode. Definitely going to keep tuning in.
I think the workshop scenes felt a little off because this is enormous world they’re created and are overseeing, and it appears to be all on the shoulders of one elderly man in a dark room.
I don’t mean that as critically as it sounds–I liked the pilot and thought those scenes were interesting–but they did have an odd feel to them.
Edge of Tomorrow w Tom Cruise and Emily Blunt also has the same Groundhog Day type time travel
I had convinced myself they were going to give us a shock pilot death in that final scene between Hopkins and the malfunctioning robot. I assume that was intentional on their part.
While I, too, anticipated a shock-factor murder, my assumptions lay more along the lines of Theresa tossing Sizemore off the ivory tower for getting too close to the underlying truth of the project. I’m still not sure it wasn’t their intent to imply such a danger existed and Sizemore avoided such fate only by virtue of proving he wasn’t smart enough to warrant eradication … yet.
As to the deeper purpose the Man In Black pursues … while it is too soon to consider any such speculation anything more than simply potential speculated based on Nolan’s past work and interests, I would not be surprised to find that the black child guest’s resemblance to the photo of Bernard’s obviously dead child is far from happenstance, and that the resurrection of the unknowing dead is what drives both Bernard’s and Dr. Ford’s obsession with humanizing the hosts beyond mortal capacity to discern them from the living.
Shades of Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep.
And likewise, also tend to anticipate that at least one of the major players will be revealed at some later date to be a “host” functioning in a real world capacity. If that is the case, my money is on Stubbs or Elsie (it was solely on Stubbs until Elsie’s manifestation of mercy for Delores in the Dream a Little Dream scene, which is right down Nolan’s line in terms of showing how the inhuman can so often be more merciful in their aping of humanity than we are in our ownership of as much.)
NotMyDayJob, I half expected Theresa to set aside her cigarette and fling that guy over the rail so you were not imagining the tension. That actress – I don’t know her name but I know her from the Hardhomme episode of GoT – has got that Lena Olin-esque icy reserve down perfectly.
Speaking of that rail, the compound they were in resembled a spaceship, didn’t it? I know it wasn’t but it may have been a visual clue that Westworld is not taking place on planet Earth. The conversation they had also suggested it.
I’ve heard tabletalk about the “not on Earth” thing Musime, but until they show/tell me differently, my assumption is that Westworld is located on Earth in some nebulous future timeframe. It would not invalidate anything for me to find the location is otherworldly or even virtual wordly. But in the spirit of the original, I prefer to see it articulated as moralistic SF rendered free of the hard science technobabble that would be required to sell any kind of off-world scenario.
Delores not only swats the fly, she kills it which is against their programming.
This. ^ “They couldn’t even hurt a fly.” *SPLAT*
Right. We’ve just been told they couldn’t harm a living thing.
Indeed, after the overt question, “have you ever hurt a living thing?” is presented two or three times in the episode (and the answer is always “no”) – the KILLING of the fly is significant. The reviewer may be non-plussed by the show – but may find it more intriguing if he were paying attention.
Wow. That is the crux of the episode and it went right over my head. So that’s why the male host had a meltdown when the fly landed on his face; he wanted to kill it but he couldn’t override his programming! Thank you for pointing this out because it made the ending far more intriguing.
Man, if this is happening here, I’d hate to think of what’s happening in Euro Itchy and Scratchy Land
I thought it was really engaging, if unsettling. I’ve not seen the original, but it seems like it’ll be an extended meditation on “what is Man in the State of Nature?” And more broadly…”what is Man?” (ie: they’re aiming big. I hope they do it well).
Also, besides Paint it Black, the other song they adapted was Black Hole Sun, by Soundgarden. So apparently every time a song with “black” in the title comes on, something horrible will happen. Wonder what’s next? Black Magic Woman? Back in Black? Blackbird?
You should see the original.
I caught the use of Black Hole Sun & Paint it Black too, and figured that can’t be a coincidence regarding song titles. That said, I’m glad they weren’t played during scenes involving the Man in Black. That would’ve been too on the nose for me.
I was enjoying it until the incredibly idiotic use (like a “Helter Skelter” level of misinterpretation) of a song about grieving as the backdrop for a murderous slaughter. The use of “Paint it Black” in that context has to rank as one of the worst uses of well-known music I’ve had the misfortune to sit through in my life. What a way to sh*t the bed!
Thought it was pretty good, and the western setting is not my favorite.
Question: I see where it’s helpful for us as an audience, but why would the scenes with just the hosts, such as the exchange between Dolores and her father every morning, need to be included at all? Any backstory could just be programmed in, so it seemed odd they were actually going through these rituals.
I think it’s because a guest could “enter the scene” at any point during the host’s routine. Granted, that’s early in the morning and the newcomers seem to always come on a train that arrives after the daughter/father interaction, but I’m also under the impression that people stay in the park overnight.
Yep, sounds good to me. Thanks.
The fly has more significance than you note. Delores answers the most important question of “would you kill anything alive” with no, of course not. The fly is alive. When she swats it at the end, she is in direct violation of Westworld’s prime directive as drafts off Asimov’s 3 laws of robotics: she knowingly and with intent kills something alive.
The man in black is also a deeper and more significant aspect of the show’s worldview than your review acknowledges. His dehumanization of the hosts by virtue of his murderous Ramsayism is a direct mirror of Jeffrey Wright’s far more subtle dehumanization of his non-host coworker in noting the microexpression he asks to record for use in programming the hosts. The message of both is the same: as Jeffrey’s work with the hosts has innured him to the humanity of his coworker to the point where, to him, her expression of anger is not relevant to his attention as an indicator of human emotion, only as an enhancement detail for his programming of hosts, so has The Man in Black’s play with the hosts inured him to the humanity they might otherwise represent to the point where, to him, their “suffering” at his hand is as irrelevant to his attention as the “suffering” of human avatars in a game of Grand Theft Auto.
The actions of these two characters represent a thematic bookend, approaching the same subject from opposing ends of the spectrum — Jeffrey from work that dehumanizes humans and Ed from play that dehumanizes hosts — to the common middle ground of the show’s primary point: that the act of dehumanizing others dehumanizes the actor more than the acted upon.
So you work on the show?
Incredibly insightful analysis. Didn’t pick up on Jeffrey Wright’s comment to the woman as being dehumanizing. I would call it desensitized but we’re getting at the same thing. Thank you for sharing this!
I am not affiliated with the show, Jimmbo. Just commenting on my take as a viewer, just like everyone else here.
Thank you, Mr. Belvedere.
My choice of “dehumanizing” over “desensitizing” (and I agree that, on the surface, we’re referencing the same basic thing with both terms) has to do with the import of any such overt flag planted by writers in establishing a character’s core matrix during a pilot. Because this scene plays so importantly, without other apparent reason to be featured so, as a defining point of observation for Bernard’s character construct, I feel the show is using it to establish something significant, but only as-of-yet glimpsed, about Bernard: that Bernard, surrounded by flesh and blood coworkers, has dehumanized these coworkers to naught but source material for his “Work.”
While this can be viewed as desensitization of a sort, desensitization comes from repeated exposure that devalues or degrades emotional response to ongoing exposure (something Elsie shows). Whereas what I’m seeing portrayed in Bernard is something far deeper, less borne of repeated exposure or experience tenure than indicative of the character’s base design. Perhaps an inborn personality defect (both sociopaths and psychopaths are renown for learning early on, in order to avoid detection of and/or negative reaction to their defect, to be hypervigilant to indicators of emotion they do not experience and/or empathize with as others do), but were that the primary point being made (as compared to a secondary aspect to be considered as a potential player in the overall dynamic), while Bernard might observe the microexpression, he would not likely comment upon it as, in cases of defense against detection, such observation is almost always driven by the need to fit in by observing the norm and replicating it, not the need to stand out by commenting upon the norm as interesting and useful.
For that reason, I feel the introduction of the child’s photo is the major reveal to be considered in terms of Bernard’s character construct inthat the photo implies Bernard’s dehumanization of his coworkers is a mirror of MiB’s dehumanization of the hosts in ways driven by their respective “Work.”
Capital W as in divine Work, from the perspective of the respective characters.
It is an SF trope that many, if not most, androids-mimic-humanity stories are driven by a character seeking to replicate a lost loved one to a degree that confounds observational reality. A difference that makes no difference and all that. WW introduces this trope with Bernard’s photo of an easily presumed lost child, and reinforces it with the resemblance that child bears to the black child newcomer Delores introduces horses.
Which is where I come to dehumanization over desensitization. Because the implication (at this point in time) seems to be that Bernard, who is visibly detached from emotional response to his environment en mass (including co-workers), yet still engaged enough to watch and process everything (as evidenced by his following of Stubbs into the potentially negative environment of the storage facility), has rendered his whole world moot but for the singularity of his Work, that Work being the Work of resurrecting an indistinguishably lifelike replica of his lost son through mastery of his work with the hosts. And that photo being his avatar for the Work, devoid of any emotional life or humanity of its own (as all photos must be) beyond what Bernard, in the constructed BernardWorld reality of his own memory, attributes to it.
This is all highly speculative, of course, but this is the groundwork I see Nolan and company laying in their pilot as it relates to Bernard, particularly in the context of Nolan’s pre-existing body of work. And I see that groundwork mirrored with the MiB in his treatment of the hosts.
Is the MiB any more psychotic in his actions than players in a first person shooter game that targets victims over combatants? This is the question posed by his actions and the context in which they are presented. The MiB is playing a game and his Work is to win. To find the hidden Meaning of his chosen avocation. And in pursuit of that Work, he suffers no moral boundaries as defined by the rules of engagement for THE GAME (as compared to Life): the hosts are not human, they are simply code. And he gets points for acting upon that code as he does and/or simply “enjoys” himself because, after all, it is just a game.
While the above may seem self evident, I take the space to declare it to draw the parallel that foundations my thinking on dehumanization as it relates to both characters: As MiB views hosts as nothing more than code as exists only to the purpose of achieving his Work by virtue of play, so Bernard views his coworkers (and, by extension, one assumes all humans) as nothing more than source material as exists only to the purpose of achieving his Work by virtue of work.
This is the polarized parallel I am seeing between the two characters. Not that Bernard’s extended work with the hosts has desensitized him to his coworkers emotional life. Nor that MiB’s extended play with the hosts has desensitized him to the hosts’ potential for emotional suffering. But rather that both characters have dehumanized their respective resources in order to pursue the Work that drives them. For MiB, that means the hosts. For Bernard, that means his fellow man.
And for my money, that makes me much more convinced that Bernard will show out the true villain of this piece, not the Man in Black.
to your 3:11 post, NOTMYDAYJOB: get a blog
No.
I found this review after watching maybe the first 20 minutes of the episode. And that’s because I pretty much checked out. A lot of the scenes are exposition dumps. I don’t know who wants what and what the stakes are if they don’t get it.
I don’t know, I don’t know. It’s a beautifully shot show but my overall thought while watching the pilot was, “Wow, this is really creepy.” The premise of the theme park is that it’s a place where guests can to live out sadistic fantasies. That just seems…wrong.
Something else that I was thinking: hosts can’t kill guests but guests can kill hosts…can a guest kill another guest? Because that seems like it would be very possible which, of course, would be hugely problematic.
I’m assuming none of the guns are real, and that the robots are programmed for their bodies to react as though it’s a real bullet hitting them. As far as blunt force (like falling off a cliff), I’m not sure there’s anything they could do about that.
Reply to comment…
Not just their sadistic fantasies. That’s just who some of the guests are, and the history of violence associated with he west reinforces it.
Surprised so many (including Alan) have reservations. I loved every bit of it.
In this new golden age of television, everyone is an amateur critic, and way too demanding.
I’d hardly call Alan an “amateur critic.”
Same here. They have my attention.
I thought it was a fascinating, beautiful, and very creepy pilot, and am looking forward to more. There are only a couple minor things that bothered me – mainly that the British actor was way too loud and broad relative to everything else; and that I don’t yet really identify with any of the human characters – though that is an objection that could be discarded if the show continues humanizing the robots, as I fully expect.
But I think it’s way too early to be overly ambivalent. I feel like we’re living in a moment of constant hot takes – like even the critics are now looking for reasons to turn on shows and dump them early if they don’t live up to an impossible standard right out of the gate. This wasn’t a perfect episode, but it was the best pilot I’ve seen other than Atlanta’s in 2016.
I did enjoy it and will keep watching (for a while anyway.) Agree about the guests being hard to identify with.
“…and it’s a recurring motif that the hosts don’t even notice the presence of insects on or around their bodies, but when a fly lands on Dolores’ neck at the end, she knows to swat it away.”
I think you missed the crucial point of the theme with the flies. The hosts are becoming human (or sentient, whatever). They are supposed to have built-in fundamental code – as indicated by the security’s chief’s final question to Dolores – that says they must not hurt/kill living things (that includes flies!). You know that something is going wrong when that important bit of code is being tested, and leads to misbehaviors such as bizarre twitching. A human would want to swat or kill the fly. But the code says don’t kill a living thing. Twitch. Before the problem developed, the hosts wouldn’t have batted an eye (pun intended) at having a fly land on them. But now they want to swat the flies, as humans would, leading to twitches and other types of malfunctions (The no-kill-humans law and the subsequent malfunctions are reminiscent of “I, Robot” by Asimov by the way).
The final image of Dolores crushing the fly is the show telling us she’s further along her deviation from her supposed tameness than any other host. And right after the security chief presents her to us as the most trustworthy of the bunch, to boot.
I am glad you pointed this out to the critic. ,i dislike pro critics ,as i think they have too much influence and have to justify their phoney baloney titles by digging into and dissaproving of something thats obviously great and they could never produce in a million years, i am convinced that many do not even watch the shows they critique and mash up a quick review from glimmed parts of trailers and other peoples reviews, the fact that he did not recognise the deliberate swatting of the fly and its huge inferrance makes me wonder how they get to be taken seriously as reviewers in the first place .
I am glad you pointed this out to the critic. ,i dislike pro critics ,as i think they have too much influence and have to justify their phoney baloney titles by digging into and dissaproving of something thats obviously great and they could never produce in a million years, i am convinced that many do not even watch the shows they critique and mash up a quick review from glimmed parts of trailers and other peoples reviews, the fact that he did not recognise the deliberate swatting of the fly and its huge inferrance makes me wonder how they get to be taken seriously as reviewers in the first place .
No reviewer can notice everything on every piece, Drunkin. They are first responders to any piece and denied the group think advantage so many commenters have in hearing first what the critic thinks, then what their peers, friends and other commenters think. Being a critic is hard work and requires a capacity to work within a vacuum of other responses to craft a singularly influenced response for others to use as a springboard for their own thinking to the pro or con of the critic’s remarks.
Alan’s influence is in direct ratio to his capacity to craft reviews that both bring interesting a valid opinions of his own to the table and also encourage the participation of others in sharing their own opinions on either the source material or the validity of the critic’s interpretation of that source material.
You think pro critics have too much influence? Then stop commenting on their reviews and go write a blog of your own where others can dog on you for being first out of the gate with an opinion for others to either agree or disagree with.
To reply not my Dayjob, thanks for your comment on my comment and calling me Drunkin in what you probably thought a humorous skit .
Well as not for noticing everything ,he missed pretty much the whole point of everything ,the fly swat is a major give away that not harming a living thing was no longer on the table, if he cant give enough attention to a programme he should not spread himself so thinly ,he said he had four episodes he has watched surely then the first episode we get to see and the fly swat is a big thing to us.
Next as i said i do not like peo critics and your defence of him proves my point that they have too much influence over people who are easily led,so i come in these forums to express that opinion as is much my right as is his and yours but i would not take up a blog and presume to kick too pieces the hardwork of others.
Not having worked in the industry but being a viewer of many years 54 at least i do have i think a fair opinion of whats good and bad ,but ! I keep it to myself abd wouldnt want to influence others as i would hope they being sentient beings could make up their own minds ,one mans meat etc, if we all followed like sheep there would be nothing but wall to wall cheapo so called reality programs as one critic with influence would persuade his followers, as the programme itself is about what is free will ,and no one person should be able to influence the many minds developed or developing , think for yourself .
Actually, I misread your name, Drukin. I thought it said Drunkin. My apologies.
Beyond that, as most any critic I’ve ever conversed with will readily testify, I am probably the least deferential individual on the planet when it comes to rendering an opinion — ANY opinion, but particularly on the subject of TV. That being said, I do recognize the monumental task it is to be first out of the gate with a review and give due credit to those who take on such task in public forums, paid or otherwise. And while I often disagree with much, or even all, of many of those reviews and have never as of yet deferred to any man’s opinion over my own (but for David Milch, who is the exception as proves the rule) on any subject for any reason but that their arguments swayed me to such a change of thinking, I also try not to lose sight of the fact that, if I am responding to a critic’s review in the comments section, there is some value to be had in his/her willingness to go on record with an opinion first, allowing me the luxury of responding to an existing stance over establishing my own without such advantageous footing as is afforded by response over initiation.
To the idea that I am easily led on any subject, I’ll have to leave that response as the laughter of anyone who knows me. Or has ever met me. Even virtually.
@Drukin the Lurker – Irrespective of this particular review of Sepinwall’s (and which salient points he may have missed or decided to avoid writing about here), I thought it might be worthwhile to mention the following:
For good and bad, the advent of the Internet has brought many people to the erroneous conclusion that functioning as a critic is simply the act of writing down your opinion. In fact, having an opinion about something and critical analysis are two different (yet related) things – that’s why there exists an entire field (i.e. methods, theories, books, courses, etc.) about the latter. There’s nothing “phoney baloney” about the discipline – it can be (and is) taught all around the world.
Statements such as, “I enjoyed and was entertained by X, so that means it’s good” or “I thought the pacing of Y was terribly slow, so that means it’s bad” are not actual critiques – they’re simply statements of opinion. Real critiques require constructing an argument to defend your opinion, and then citing examples which support your argument.
If a critic gets “taken seriously”, it’s because they’ve proven their ability over time to support their constructed arguments with good examples.
In reply to Not My Dayjob & Madmeme ,my argument is that no one should have a whole blog to critique a set of film,tv ,art, or literature: as all these subjects are open too individual opinion, and despite your protestations that people only take notice of them is because their views have been given weight by their previous proven examples is a moot point, no one asked them for their opinions in the first place ,they have taken it upon themselves to declare their thoughts on the matters involved and in effect by owning that site are trying to influence other people.
Now i am all for an open forum where such as you and i canpost our own opinions for others to agree with or savage as is there wont,but to take up a whole site and then give your opinions on a larger scale as the site itself will give to many a sense of qualification ,is not right.
Although i cannot argue with you too much over David Milch ( he has given me a great amount of entertainment over the years beyond arguement ) i would even question his judgement if he in fact declared one programme lacking and another sublime. As i have seen commentators reply too some critics ,” thanks for the info i wont bother watching that then” i have seen it often in one form or another and it makes me despair ,on pages for some of the best television going. People have been turned away from some stunning tv work by the egos of pro critics,i have also read quite a few reviews where the reviewer has patently not seen the programme at all or taken a review for some past film or tv show an pasted it in as a new insight on a different ,i will give you two quick examples a critic wrote that micheal keaton had given an opinion on the christian bale batman saying that it was no comparison as they were both two different kinds of portrayal ,i know for a fact this was actually said by adam west about micheal keatons batman,then another who said he had seen the first four episodes of Z nation the first series ,claimed a baseball bat was seen with nails driven through it ,tho it was never used or seen again,,well that was when i knew this “reviewer had not watched one episode of the show ,as the bat mentioned was indeed used, seen again in that first episode and in nearly every episode since and now in the current season has been updated to carrying an electric shock along with its swing, these and many more examples lead me to take up my metaphorical pen against lazy and ego ridden critics ,which then turned into a complete dislike against them all ,no matter your defence of them they do garner power over viewers and ultimately studios decisions ,i dont like to ponder what excellent series these pompous pricks could have brought to an untimely end and how they judge a whole series on a pilot show to be junk is outragous you yourselves will know of or have some favorite show cancelled because of bad reviews, my personal thoughts are there should be no critics of art in any form, open forums yes ,where one mans opinion has no more sway than anothers iam all for that ,but critcs with followings and say over what is percieved by them to be substandard a definate no! from me ,but i state this is just my opinion and should have no more weight than theres , i am a firm believer in tge axiom ,those that can do ,those that can’t criticise . These are my last words on this subject ,but go ahead and reply by all means ,thats your right and i will be interested in what you have to say ,wether i agree with it or not.
Could not possibly disagree more, Drukin. Analysis of art by educated critics with extensive exposure to and experience with the whole magilla of available work in any field (TV, movies, books, art, food …) is an essential aspect of audience engagement with that work. It is, in fact, the proliferation of “everyone with an opinion” blogs that are both the Johnny-come-latelys to the party and those that create the most havoc within the artist’s community itself.
As a rule, an audience only follows a PROFESSIONAL critic’s advice if they are followers looking for someone’s advice to follow. Most creatives in any creative industry would much prefer that the advice such an audience be given to follow be rendered by someone with a larger perspective and deeper education on the subject they address than just “that’s my opinion.”
As with any profession, there are good critics and bad; there are critics who do their due diligence on a subject before rendering a public opinion and those who don’t. And as with any subject, one can provide anecdotal incidents to (try and) prove the pro and con of any subject. But the reality is that anecdotal examples are just that: anecdotal. They are not proof of anything except the details of a singular instance related by the anecdotal example … and usually not even that, as anecdotal examples are notorious for being falsely related and/or inaccurately interpreted/portrayed by those with an agenda to prove out their point but without resources beyond the relating of anecdotal examples to do so.
But all that aside, far and away, the odds are HUGELY in your favor that the opinion of a paid critic is coming from someone who actually WATCHED a piece before spouting off about it (if for no other reason than because they were PAID to watch it first) as compared to the multitudes of unpaid critics shouting into the void either because shouting into the void is their thing or in hopes of being noticed … neither of which is a big driver to the ethics of rendering a fair and educated analysis of art as compared to just saying whatever pops to mind and/or whatever the blogger things will get them the most attention.
So while, absolutely, you are entitled to your opinion that all professional critics are hacks who wield too much influence over the creative process of both entertainment and art, I’m here to tell you that opinion is wrong. And to also point out that my assessment of your opinion on this subject is based on more than just my opinion on the subject, but rather on extensive exposure to and experience with critics both professional and amateur from both sides of the table.
Does that mean you have to agree with my assessment? Of course not. You have indicated quite clearly that your opinion on this subject will remain fixed no matter what is said in address of it, which is fine. Everybody’s got an opinion, and everybody is entitled to hold onto that opinion even when others argue against it.
And that’s the nice part of a comments section provided to a critical review such as this: it affords everyone reading the review an equal opportunity to respond with their own take on both the original subject and the critic’s assessment of the original subject regardless of their level of education or experience with the subject being discussed. But the whole “Nobody asked them” part of your argument? Actually, yes someone did. And they not only ASKED them for their opinion, they actually PAID them for it. And in the way of our world as it currently works, being PAID for your opinion on anything is usually a good indicator that, at the very least, you have made your case well enough in the past that there is at least one person on this planet who is willing to pony up some hard earned dosh to hear what you have to say next. And as evidenced by the share and comments numbers on this post alone, not only has someone paid for this critic to render his opinion of this subject, there are a whole lot of people who are interested in discussing that opinion, whether they agree with what he said or not.
Which is the greatest service a critical review serves. Not to influence the audience as to what to think, or what to watch, or what not to watch. But rather to serve as the host for a gathering of watchers who wish to discuss the material. And that, to any creative endeavor, is an essential service, and one that most creatives welcome, even when some of the things said, either by the critic or during the ensuing comments, are hurtful or frustratingly off target or even entirely misrepresentative of the work’s greater intent.
Because that’s not really the point. The point is, the audience watches, and now the audience speaks, all because a PAID critic stepped out first and established a venue and a starting point for them to do so.
I have nothing to add to NotMyDayJob’s well-articulated, contrapuntal post, other than to mention that “Those that can, do; those that can’t, criticize” is, in fact, not an axiom. And that’s not my opinion.
I had intended no further comment on the subject but not my day job you have winkled me out of my shell well done, what i say next is with a heavy heart as i know the response i am going to recieve but here goes.
I think your support of pro critics is because judging by your many replys to other comments it seems you long for the said position yourself, it screams from every long winded and over blown paragraph, and to address the nobody asked them by that i meant the general public not some newspaper editor ,or media blog operator , and certainly from what i have gleaned from reading many years worth and many varied artists of stage, screen ,gallery ,etc, that they too would away with pro critics ,perhaps for the obvious reasons in some cases but many for the negative effect on others who also contribute to many artforms themselves, as for better educated and proffessional critics with a better understanding of the arts, not needed in any sense, why ? as most of the public are General Viewers and not proffessional cameramen foley artists, directors or even best boys, their main understanding isnt camera angles timed, shots one take shots or pacing as such it mostly abides in the realm of did i like it or didn’t i , and no pro expert explaining technicalities could incite them to drop their opinion they haven’t got time for navel introspection into the right lentgh for a dramatic pause.No its was it interesting, sexy, violent ,creepy all of the afore said yes or no ,as in most things people make up their minds in seconds and would need a course of long term mind washing to deter them from their original thoughts .
Could i just add is madmemme a real commentor or a second email string to your own bow. It has been done before you know make a second guest name to argue with yourself so you can win, or agree with yourself ,i think you know what i mean.
As i will never persuade you that critics are not needed ,and you could never persuade me they are too continue the theme would be both pointless and a waste of both of our time, open forums say i cannot cause mayhem to a talents piece of work as it would be seen as scattershot and at worst a polemic ,but by a pro critic it will and has caused ireperrable harm to both artists and there product.
I wish you all the best in your endeavours ,and if you should ever fullfill your dream of becoming a pro critic be sure i will be there to harangue you with my determined position on critics . Yours Drukin the lurker in the web .
@Drukin the Lurker – Nope, NotMyDayJob is NotMyAlterEgo. Although, to be honest, I do possess an OlderEgo by the name of Marmad, who’s fevered ramblings can be found scattered around territories of the WayBack, including Sepinwall’s old BlogSpot site.
But why, you might ask, have I followed Sepinwall – a lowly professional critic – for years? Ironically, as an artist, I appreciate someone with keen critical analysis skills (it’s mandatory to take CA courses at art/film school) and a deep knowledge of the medium, and Sepinwall, whether innately or through intrepid learning, possesses those skills and employs them frequently. Does he pitch his A game every time? Nope, no one ever does. Do I strongly disagree with his opinions and reasoning from time to time? Of course. Yet his writings continue to, on occasion, inform, entertain, and, at their best, deepen my appreciation for a particular series, or the medium as a whole.
One last point (ignoring the other argumentum ad hominems about NotMyDayJob in your post): you seem to be under the strange belief that the public at large does not want professional critics. This is refuted by the simple fact that they continue to exist – i.e. newspaper editors, media blog operators, television stations, etc. are not paying them money out of the goodness of their hearts.
When I was a kid, one of the most popular local Chicago TV series was a little show called “Sneak Previews”, with two local newspaper critics. That show ended up becoming the highest-rated weekly entertainment show in PBS history, and the careers of those (at that time, nationally little-known) critics blew-up. Maybe you’ve heard of them somewhere later? Gene Siskel and Roger Ebert?
Thanks for your reply Madmemme and your honesty in declaring your previous incarnation ,admirable.
Sneak previews a brief summary of the forthcoming attraction ,cast, plot,censorship age etc, by all means ,but opinion as to wether it was good or bad thus affecting the possible audience figures a deeply resounding no. An open forum and word of mouth would be indications to most on its merits ,but still give the ordinary viewer the say in wether or not to patronise the imagined product, whereas to be condemned by a critic with perhaps vested interests ( not saying that all are tainted but there are some who for reasons of loyalty to one particular brand or copyright will throw cold water on anothers efforts or some who just for personal reasons may not like a certain ,actor ,director ,genre of script ,,this can and has led to hype lending one production too much publicity or denigrating another into being undone before its even released , though i must admit it can be done by social comment snowballing a theme ,look at the latest Ghostbusters fiasco for instance it was decide it was a fail before it was even released ,causing loss of earnings to investors and misery to some of the cast, it turned out it was a decent film but unfortunately i know many idiots who wont watch it because of the bad press from the start,a ll engendered by critics speculating on three women being able to pull it off,, but i dont know why i’m bothering ,you will not change your mind as i wont mine ,tho i have changed my opinion on some things in the past and hopefully will in the future as i like to think i am open to reason and sense and i know i am not fully cogniscent of everything i hold an opinion on ,i am afraid this is one subject i will stay adamant on, No Pro Critics, for me .
Your opinion of me is as wrongheaded and wholly inaccurate as your opinion concerning the importance and role of professional critics, Drukin. But that’s okay. As we covered earlier, it is everyone’s right to hold a wrongheaded opinion and to cling to that opinion regardless of what is said in address of it.
If nothing else, you are quite consistent in that regard.
You see not my day job your just as stubborn as me ,you call my opinion wrongheaded ,that is your opinion and therefore law is it ? because you have decreed it so?, You have proven my point for me ,if you had full title to this site you could and no doubt would disparage my thoughts totally and any followers would sycophantically agree ( madmemme) but despite your many opinions offered to others on this site it is not your personal place of pillory ,so as i have reiterated your single opinion on an open forum matters not a jot. QED.
I can finally get rid of HBO
What seemed “off” story-wise to me was the intrigue inside the “human world” of the Delos park (central command).
The sinister corporate “master plan” was far too expository. The female business representative all but twirled her mustache and cackled evilly as she plainly laid out to the audience that there is a secret reason for Delos to exist beyond Hopkins’ mad dream of creating the next evolutionary step (or leap).
If the show runners follow the FutureWorld sequel scenario you know what I’m talking about.
Ed Harris’ Gunslinger is clearly human. It’s just that he gets his jollies on raping and killing androids that can do him no harm for 30 years. His character lives to destroy while Hopkins’ lives to create – yet both are clearly crazy. He may very well be a sadistic “bag man” for a corporate competitor of Delos wanting to get to its secrets by any means necessary.
The show’s saving grace was the short interaction between Hopkins and Dolores’ “father.” That was quite a stunning scene that saved this flawed pilot. The mechanical man clearly would do anything to protect his “daughter” and wreck vengeance upon their creators who would put them through hell time after time.
The only other redeeming grace was our heroine robot: Delores herself – a captivating performance by Rachel Wood. Everyone else was pretty darn bland.
As for the guns themselves, their mechanism was discussed in Crichton’s original movie. They can read the heat signatures that only human “guests” emanate. So, if a “host” tries to kill a human “guest,” the safety kicks in. If a “guest” tries to kill another human, the same safety engages.
Of course, they’ve set things up for our rogue robots/androids to be able to disable the safeties after they’ve are fully aware of their predicament and become far more deadly as they would now have a means to defend themselves or outright murder humans – just like in Crichton’s original story.
If it’s taken Ed Harris 30 years to produce no answers, he’s one of the worst corporate spies ever
(and at 40k per day, one of the most expensive!).
Someone else did the math and, assuming Harris stays the maximum 28 days per year, he (or his sponsors) would have dropped 33.7mil to learn nothing. Not surprising given that Harris appears to spend most of his time striding around looking like a bad-a$$, torturing and killing robots, and raping the female lead.
The original Westworld didn’t play around much w/the morality of the park. It was a straight sci-fi horror movie. Everything led up to “I’m shot!” and the robot revolt. HBO played with this famous sequence, but it was exactly this moment that
things started going wrong. Yul Brynner as a robotic killing machine was great cinema. Ed Harris as a (presumably) wealthy/spy/psychopath/plot twist/one note bad guy really isn’t. It felt like a cheap trick rather than the brilliant setup of the original.
Hah-ha, tricked you, he’s really a guest! Um…ok, so….
I get it–his evil behavior is supposed to underline the corrupted morality of the guests who come to the park and abuse robots who are nearly human. That totally works for me. He’s a monster whose horrifyingly ugly acts of abuse make the “hosts” sympathetic characters. Excellent. But why do the writers feel the need to run the whole corporate conspiracy angle through this character? Don’t they have a full cast of park employees (and the owner, creator, 19th century-dressing genius programmer) for that? And do we really believe the park, with cameras, sensors, and presumably miles of logs from the robots themselves, is going to allow Ed
Harris to wander around hacking up corporate property in his search for a different level of “the game?”
The idea to reimagine Westworld through the eyes of the robots is genius. The idea to reimagine the Man in Black as a human trying to navigate a typical go-nowhere JJ Abrams conspiracy maze is not. Here’s hoping the robots revolt in S01E02 and throw Ed Harris off one of those beautiful cliffs the cameras keep showing us. His “game” is an unwelcome distraction to the fundamental premise of PTSD robots getting ready to go all Skynet on the human
race.
RstJ
Since every HBO show now appears to be contractually obligated to have images of women being sexually assaulted (from fantasies like GOT to even comedies like Girls), color me unsurprised that we got yet another one here, and in the first fifteen minutes, no less.
Frankly, now that it’s on HBO, I’m worried about the women of Sesame Street.
And the Muppets!
As an old school feminist woman i make a distinction between depictions of sexual violence that are germane to the story being told and those that are included merely for shock value or titillation. I felt that scene fell firmly into the former category and therefore was not bothered by it at all. The rape itself happened offscreen and it served an important purpose in showing just how terribly exploited these mechanical beings are. I can think of no better illustration of the cruelty inherent to the the act of wiping out the hosts’ memories every day than the subsequent scene where Dolores is shown being cordial to the man who violently raped her the night before. That moment gave me the chills as it obviously was supposed to.
Please don’t. I thought I was on AVclub for a second
To musime, the totall horror of their memorys wiped every day? Would you have qualms about wiping your smart phone,tablet,pc memory ,everyday if it called for it ( apart from the inconvenience) no of course not, the inventor and patrons are aware that tho clothed in synthetic skin they are at base a clever toaster,or digital recorder, if there was a vibrator with a face on it would it make it human no,its the same as people who anthromophise dogs and cats you are projecting onto them human thoughts and emotions, now as to A.I. yes that might develop to an almost human like intelligence ( and more likely beyond ,) but never emotions , he was not raping an actual woman anymore than a man who uses a blow up doll for relief is having sex with a real woman, and tho yes you can say the fact the robot is in human guise makes it offensive to the mind if some perhaps, but the actual deed performed in the robot itself is not rape. Or else people could sue the manafacturers of vibrators for sexual assault. Now if by my previous statement you think i condone any aggressive acts towards women i would like to point out this is most definitly not the case i abhor all types of intimidation and violence to anyBODY but thats the whole point of what the westworld holiday would be about the indulgence of fantasys however gross some may seem but ones that the holidaymakers would never repeat in real life, and is a way of letting off steam,shooting killing,making love,but to a simulated recipient ,which tho ultimately would be a sad thing if you thought for one minute that the recipient was feeling any pain or REAL trauma of anykind, but just incase the next time your smart device freezes or plays up ,dont swear at it ,you might just be hurting its feelings.
Very surprised by Alan and others’ tepid reactions. I thought it was beautifully paced and did an excellent job at introducing a ton of storylines, characters, themes, and questions.
You know the acting is amazing when Anthony Hopkins gives one of the least interesting performances. Louis Herthum – brilliant. Cinematography and production values were top notch (which was to be expected, given HBO’s hopes for the show). And so many wonderful small moments, sneaked into throwaway lines or left unspoken with visual touches. The attention to detail was terrific.
I honestly don’t get how something so sharp could be getting worse reviews (at least on metacritic) than the hammy, cliché-ridden Luke Cage.
The only real question I have is how they’re going to stretch this out into 4 or 5 seasons worth of material. Amusement park gone wrong seems like a one-season max type of story. But there are hints that there is more going on, so I’ll trust that the creators have hashed out a good plan.
I checked out, enjoy it for as long as it lasts lol
I won’t go into a morality dialogue, or any psychological discussion. I “sorta” liked the show the show for what it is / was – a dramatization of an interesting science fiction story with crazy twists. Was I left puzzled at the end? Yes. So. I guess that’s good; means I’ll watch again.
The next two or three episodes will determine the long term viability of this concept.
The first episode was “ok”, nothing more.
The thing that bothered me while watching the first episode, where did the money go? So many stories on the web about $100 million dollars, yet all it really comes down to is a standard western oater visually with some [not a lot] CGI and a science fiction plot. Western backlots should be abundant, the same with western costumes, horses, etc. Was the bulk of the money spent on salaries? As for Ed Harris, he is no Yul, but I guess he is not supposed to be. Seems way too old for the part to me.
Supposedly, it was $58 million for the season. Though, yes, I would assume most of the budget was for Hopkins and Harris’ salary.
Write a comment…OK – I REALLY wanted to love this one, HBO, but there were too many problems to ignore, even as an ‘expositional’ intro type of first offering – here’s what I wrote on Facebook. (And yes, if anyone is interested, I’ll go into specifics) – “Oh dear – not great. Sluggish pacing, poor writing and sloppy direction, choppy performances. No tension whatsoever. Disappointing kick-off. REALLY hope this gets its act together.” I will keep watching, but so far, HBO’s investment here looks like a bit of a bust.
The one aspect I didn’t understand was how the staff (I guess that’s what we’re calling them for now) could watch what unfolds in the simulations. Do they have cameras, or is it more science fiction than that?
They could see what was going on in a broad sense on their map, such as when they could see the bandit was ‘killed’ before he could get to his speech. I think things such as when they could detect Dolores’s ‘father’ had whispered to her are probably viewable in a system event log and are flagged as aberrant behavior.
I loved it and thought it was philosophically daring. Great directing and should continue for years. Wasn’t the sets fabulous? The high tech company behind Westworld is terrific! More on Ed Harris and the darke r side of humanity! This is indeed the future. People do not want to sit in the dark and watch movies, they want to have sex with Patrick Bateman (men & women) and a young Angelina Jolie.
Literally and unironically this.
Completely with you. I watched it for a second time last night, and I am glad I did. There’s a lot of depth that is going on in this show which I think is being missed by people.
1) Dolores slapping the fly has already been mentioned, but I don’t understand how the original reviewer could have missed to point of it. It was led up to for the entire show. How many scenes did they have showing flies landing on hosts’ faces – even their eyeballs! – with no reaction?
2) I think where the show is going to go is into the metaphysical realms, and it takes more than an hour in this format to lay out a pilot which will support that direction. Specifically, I think they are building a contrast between the original film Westworld and this series. The original robots were very clearly only machines. This was indicated in the sunrise scene in the movie, where all the robots in the 3 parks are shown switching on at the beginning of the day. The robots in this pilot DREAM. Although there are built-in commands to shut them down, they still can access memories that have supposedly been erased, outside of instructions to do so. They are clearly far more like people than the originals. (And for the person upthread who said that the newcomer characters weren’t very interesting, I think that’s probably the point.) In the upcoming episode previews, Thandie Newton is shown talking about how she has died multiple times, and asking how many times the programmer she is talking to has died. If they are capable of accessing memories from previous existences, then the park has effectively just created a robot form of reincarnation.
3) I think the really interesting question comes in with the Man in Black character. He’s “evil”, and in the opening scenes there is a newcomer having a conversation in front of Teddy about how much more he enjoyed his previous trip when he went evil. But the contrast comes in here between the original movie and this show, because when the main characters become desperadoes and kill the sheriff, there is never any sense that that are evil. How can they be? They shot a couple of machines, so what? It’s not at all a clear distinction this time around, even though the programmers believe it is. Most of the guests apparently just come here to blow off steam in some fashion playing out a frat-boy fantasy of raping and pillaging and playing shoot-em-up, as implied by the thoughtless way the guest-bros are talking about their stay while taking a bath (hey, if Teddy gets boring we can just use him for target practice), but the Man in Black really is evil after all. He clearly enjoys what he is doing, because on some level he knows that what he is doing is causing legitimate pain and horror. After all, as he says, if there’s a winner, there has to be a loser.
4) The Delos in the movie was much more like an amusement park. The 3 different areas were places where people could go to live out their fantasies of living as someone else in another period. Guests would, for the most part, actually try to make some attempt to live as someone from that time. Richard Benjamin gets put in jail after shooting Yul Brynner, after all. This Delos was intended that way, but has apparently evolved into little more than a nihilist paradise. The guest-bros clearly will have no negative consequences at all if they shoot Teddy, so why not just shoot Teddy? If there’s no negative consequences to anything, then there’s no longer any reason not to do whatever you want. Westworld is set in a paperback novel Old West, but in practice it could just as easily be set in the nighttime London of A Clockwork Orange.
5) All this may lead up to what I suspect is coming, which is that the designers and programmers are unable to recognize the volatility of their creation until it is too late, because they are trapped inside their own paradigms. They are providing a service for their guests, but their guests are absorbed by their entitlement so much that they have no idea what a can of worms they are opening.
Personally, I loved it, both as a reboot to a movie from my formative years and as a story in itself.
I enjoyed the pilot. The world they introduced was interesting to me right off the bat, and held my interest throughout the entire hour+ (outside of GoT, its Sunday night comedy companions & LWT, I still find myself multi-tasking on my laptop while I watch other HBO shows). I don’t know if it helps that I was completely unaware of the original story (I’m usually aware of what’s a belated remake, but I had no idea the original film w/Yul Brynner existed; when I saw Michael Crichton credited, I assumed this was tied to a belated “unpublished” story of his he had mulling around before his death), so I don’t know if that helps at all. Evan Rachel Wood is captivating, James Mardsen is endearing, and Sir Anthony appears to be trying, which is a plus.
That said, yes there is a creepy vibe about the show (the Man in Black’s activities, especially his intro, in particular…the robots being a cross between wind-up toys and sex dolls, totally nude while examined or in storage, also contributes). What will only become clear to me as I keep watching is, will the creepiness only be a somewhat unspoken vibe the shows gives off as it examines its themes and the characters’ behaviors (humanity doesn’t come off great here…but the ability to tackle some big themes is intriguing IF they’re up to it), or will the creepiness descend into torture porn violence (I felt relieved that the show didn’t stick around for what happened in the barn) and T&A that overwhelms anything interesting the show does, or a little of both? From this first hour, I’m totally going to stick around to find out and hope that any missteps aren’t enough to chase me away.
All that said, as a Raising Hope fan, it is SO good to have Shannon Woodward back as a regular presence on my TV again. This is a very different role, for sure, but I’m happy she’s back in a show I’ll stick around for.
I did not connect to one single character. At all. The robots are bland by design, but the park staff are even more dull. So many great actors doing so little of interest.
As much as I loved the pilot, in large part FOR its creep factor, I will concede that the single, creepiest thing for me was how much Anthony Hopikins is starting to look like Malcolm McDowell.
That creeped me RIGHT the fuck out.
(And speaking of creepy, hello under all that prosthetic makeup, Michael Wincott. We’d recognize your sexy, creepy-ass voice anywhere!)
Yes! I was pleased the second I heard his voice since he hasn’t turned up in anything I watch in a while.
But why a spoon? :D
Yeah, when they first showed him, from the back, I thought it was Malcolm, too.
I’m officially done with the show, not because of the quality (which is all over the place) but because this definitely not my cup of tea. Never been a SF fan so I don’t know why I even bothered watching it.
I think the pilot had some good moments – like the exchange between Hopkins and Delores’ dad, the moment when the guest blew away Escante mid-speech, and when Delores killed the fly at the end – but I didn’t love this. I was confused/had many questions, like how the audience was supposed to definitively tell guests from hosts (and the writers used that to their advantage with Terry), and how the heck can a guest tell a host from another guest? Maybe the guns don’t shoot real bullets, but a chair to the back of the head would sure hurt another paying tourist. I think the show needs to establish the “rules” of the world we’re watching sooner rather than later. Without knowing them, I’m distracted from the story by thinking about how this all works.
The Man in Black was way scary as hell, and I get it that he gets a sadistic thrill being there, but what will hacking the experience achieve other than something really, really bad? I guess we’ll find out.
I also kept thinking with all the bloodied hosts, especially when Escante came into town, can there be enough staff underground to keep repairing them in order to get them back into service?
I’m intrigued, so I’ll stick with it awhile but the jury’s still out.
This thing is a mess. I can barely differentiate between the guests and the hosts, plus the violence and generally low opinion of human nature is super offputting. I knew this production was troubled but man, am I ever disappoint.
The violence and generally low opinion of human nature is super offputting? Really?
First of all, humans are pretty much shit. Secondly, I guess you are not a fan of GoT either? Why are you even watching HBO?
Just go and watch ‘My Little Pony’ or something
Actually I really dig GoT. There will no doubt be essays all over the net contrasting these two shows, but for me the immediate difference is that I didn’t catch (Stupid) Ned Stark’s shining moral compass anywhere in Westworld. Even in darkness, there be light.
I’ll watch few more but tend to expect more nuance from HBO when it comes to exploring human nature. To genuinely think people are just shit and viewing only to have this notion verified seems like a pretty bleak outlook. Maybe you could use some My Little Pony yourself.
It was ok I guess. I don’t know if it’s fair to make any deep conclusions about the show after only seeing one episode. (I was the same person who said GAME OF THRONES wouldn’t last for three seasons after seeing one episode. So that goes to show you what I know.) I just think the whole episode was trying to make the show seem deeper than it really is. It looks like a Jurassic park type of thing to me. Definitely not another Game Of Thrones as advertised, but I will wait a few more episodes before I call it a total flop.
I love the Westworld movie and have been eagerly awaiting the show for months. Although I was let down by the premiere I blame myself for having unrealistic expectations. Given the talent involved, the gorgeous trailers and my level of interest in the material I expected it to evoke that OH MY GOD THIS SHOW IS GOING TO BE AMAZING!!! feeling that truly great pilot episodes inspire (I’m looking at you, True Detective). However it seems this show is going to be much more of a slow burn. A slow, slooow burn.
Disappointment aside, the groundwork has been laid for something fascinating and there are enough interesting elements at play to commit me to the entire season. Nolan and Joy have promised to explore some very interesting philosophical issues with this show and I’m looking forward seeing if they can pull it off.
I liked it and I’m willing to see where it goes (though I’m worried I will tire of the MiB quickly).
My question is since hosts die every day and they have to get them back and working for the next day, obviously there has to be some sort of system for checking on them right? Like so they would know if Teddy is shot and needs to be fixed. Soooo the host that was scalped by the MiB would be found and shouldn’t the “real world” team wonder who scalped him?
Also someone said in the show that there are 1500 guests in the park. But does anyone check in on what they are doing? I guess the MiB gets to live out his “fantasy” of raping Dolores, but is anyone watching to see the movements he’s making? Or it part of being a guest is that you are paying for anonymity?
Yes, the fact that they apparently weren’t noticing this one dude (MIB) costing a lot more money in property damage puzzled me too. You’d expect monitoring equipment within the bodies of the robots, via facial recognition cameras throughout, and even on guests just for maintenance and safety. So maybe anonymity is part of the deal or you pay extra. Figured I was overthinking and it would be explained in a later episode but yeah this “bugged” me too. Swat!
We have to assume the level of monitoring at the park is very high or guests would be getting hurt frequently. What confuses me is the presence of children as guest. This park seems constructed for violent adults, not kids feeding horses.
The staff are shown cleaning up after the saloon/whorehouse robbery, switching out the 200 defective robots and resetting the town for the (next day, next week)? I don’t get the loop continuity at all. Events are laid out such that adjustments at the week level can be made, yet we see Dolores reliving the same day over and over starting at sunup.
I like the explanation offered by one of the earlier posters that the “hosts” are going about their regular business on predetermined schedule, and guests can insert themselves into the action wherever and whenever they please.
Some characters (like Teddy) have daily roles to play so if they’re killed, they need to be reanimated or replaced on a daily basis (as we saw w/Dolores’ father).
All of this implies a tremendous amount of monitoring which fits with a complex that has at least 83 gigantic floors.
All of this is my theory, of course. They could just as easily be met at the train station, given a gun and a bottle of viagra, and told to go buck wild.
RstJ
I am not convinced the boy was a newcomer rather than a host. While speculative, if Bernard is driven to replicate his lost son, the boy might well be a work in progress travelling with newcomers for the cover such company provides against prying company eyes.
And I like your gun and Viagra theory.
This was fantastic.
I am always excited when we get to see something different and incredibly excited if it is also good. This pilot had both of those in abundance. Maybe Westworld doesn’t fit in to lot of peoples preconceived notions of what a “good show” should be like, or how it relates to current socio-political talking points in the real world. But why should any of that matter? The quality of the show is in full view, there are endless possibilities and intrigue, and I’m all in.
Agreed, we’re the malfunctioning robots. Blinkered viewers are the tourists and critics are the staff wondering why things aren’t working like they should.
Somebody had to swat that fly.
Ahead of its time like John from Cincinnati and The Leftovers.
I would agree with John from Cincinnati, but not Westworld. Jonathan Nolan’s work on Person of Interest paved the way nicely for this to be exactly the right time for this show, on this network, articulated in this way, with this quality cast.
As for Leftovers, I don’t know from nothing, as I have multiple dogs, so we never experience leftovers at our house. ;)
Do you think John from Cincinnati is worth checking out after all these years? I didn’t get to see it when it came out. Critics trashed it but I love David Milch’s writing and enjoy magical realism so I’m on the fence. I generally won’t watch something that only lasted one season but if the material is strong enough I will.
For my money, Musime, anything written by David Milch is ALWAYS worth checking out. JfC is profound and astounding in many, many ways. As Ed points out, it was also well ahead of its time in terms of an audience’s willingness to go where David led. The concept of putting enough trust in a writer/show creator’s vision to afford them the luxury of a slow, complex and occasionally uncomfortable build in order to articulate to the kind of profound, complex, multi-layer message that demands a slow, complex and occasionally uncomfortable build to properly articulate — that is a hard sell. And unfortunately, it didn’t sell to an audience who professed undying faith in Milch’s narrative vision but, when it came time to put up and trust, dumped out in droves on grounds of not enough instant gratification to hold them.
JfC was a very personal work for Milch, and he told it the way that particular story had to be told in order to say what he wanted to say. For my money, it is an extraordinary piece of work that was short-shrifted by both the audience and the critical media from nearly the get-go. Particularly in a format where you can follow each episode immediately with the next, I would consider it a must-watch, albeit one best approached with your full season investment purchased upfront, as the payoffs are great, but they are not every episode and are not always easily accessible.
In a nutsell, JfC is not particularly entertaining. But it is art. And it is great. And it is, on a very profound level, quintessentially Milch. If that appeals to you, then you will likely love it.
And also, David knew well in advance of the season finale that the show would not be picked up, so while his original vision required a much longer narrative arc to articulate than it got, he did truncate his intentions to the end of creating as much closure as he ever intended to create within the span of 1 season. So there’s no hanging chad here. In the end, it is a complete, single-season series, not a multi-season series that was unexpectedly unplugged after only one.
Musime – I completely agree with NOTMYDAYJOB about JFC.
“For my money, it is an extraordinary piece of work that was short-shrifted by both the audience and the critical media from nearly the get-go.” Hell yes. It also received some unnecessary flak from some that blamed it for Deadwood’s demise.
If you love Milch’s writing then you have it give this a shot.
NotMyDayJob, thank you for taking the time to write such a thoughtful and detailed response. Everything you’ve written makes me even more curious about JFC than I was before. I have no problem with mystery, ambiguity and unanswered questions but I did have concerns that the show’s premature end would make it really frustrating. From what you’ve said it seems like that isn’t much of an issue and even if there is some frustration involved it is still a ride well worth taking. I’m looking forward to checking it out!
Bruce, thank you for the reply. I had no idea JFC was perceived as contributing to the end of Deadwood. That would certainly explain some people’s vitriolic reaction to it. Good to hear from a fellow Milch fan that the show is worth watching. I am going to give it a shot!
Just a note to clarify: Jfc had nothing to do with the demise of Deadwood.
While Bruce is spot-on in saying there were some who BLAMED it for that, the reality is that they were 100% wrong to do so. And, in most cases, also ferociously determined to stick to their 100% wrongheaded assumptions. Loudly.
Bruce covered this by saying “unnecessary flak” and “blamed,” so just putting a neon highlight on it for those who might need a little more light on that text … even if so many f them still refuse to read it.
And I’m with Bruce: anything written by Milch is worth watching. Anything.
I thought it was pretty great. All the main actors were fabulous. However, the English designer-guy and European-security-business-whatever lady were awful. Their scenes together were painfully wooden. A Holly Hunter, Hope Davis, or Tilda Swinton would’ve killed it as the evil business lady. And there are dozens of fine actors who could play designer-guy with more subtlety. Someone remind the producers that supporting actors are important too! Also, I hope Ed Harris is secretly a robot.
English guy was terrible was hoping he was just playing Mr. I. Diefirst.
Well, you’re definitely in the distinct minority when it comes to Sidse Babett Knudsen’s performance: I thought it was great (and I refer to the New York Times and, well, just about any other, review of the pilot). And don’t worry – her Danish accent won’t hurt you.
I thought the Danish actress was perfect and hope she gets a good amount of screen time but the Englishman was terrible! With so much subtle acting going on around throughout the episode that guy seemed like he came in out of a Geico commercial. His over the top antics took me out of the show for a moment and I agree he needs to be robot bait.
Disappointed in how negative these reviews have become – Everyone I’ve spoken to about this show was floored, provoked, and fascinated by this pilot. Similarly to a few other shows, recently, the Sepinwall brand has become a bit wet-blanketish!
Your post lacks a strong central character but I’ll check in again from time to time and see if it improves, B+
If hosts look so human, how do guests know thy are not shooting another guest? Or, do they know the storyline they have signed up for? So there is a menu a guest can view of different scenarios?
If one guest shoots another guest, a safety measure kicks in.
I’m sure guests also have a list of robot characters.
They explained it better in the movie, but of course this is just the pilot.
I really enjoyed the show. Honestly, i can’t think of anything I didn’t like….
Anyone else who’d seen the original Westworld felt that the final scenes from Terminator were an homage to Yul Brenner? The relentless burning robot chasing you with red eyes blazing first appeared there. This show doesn’t appear like it will have that quality of menace. It’s more Mad Max than Jason in timbre.
Absolutely. You just know James Cameron saw Westworld at a young age and filed away those images in his mind. I saw it on tv when I was a little kid and had nightmares about the Gunslinger’s creepy glowing eyes. When it comes to playing scary robots Arnold has nothing on Yul Brynner!
Alan, WTF are you talking about?
I thought that was one of the better Pilot episodes i’ve ever seen.
You seriously might not continue reviewing it? and what, stick with the Flash reviews? Does anyone actually read those?
Give your head a shake.
This show needs someone as thoughtful as Sepinwall writing about it every week. I certainly hope he chooses to continue with it even it it is not one of his favorites.
Yeah, that might have came across a little disrespectful. But I enjoy reading Sepinwall’s reviews on episodes, and to see him throw his effort into the FLASH is almost like a tragic waste.
Yeah, that might have came across a little disrespectful. But I enjoy reading Sepinwall’s reviews on episodes, and to see him throw his effort into the FLASH is almost like a tragic waste.
I don’t think your comment was disrespectful at all and I’m sure a lot of commenters here agree with it. Alan is the only television critic I read regularly and I’ve gotten spoiled by his weekly insights into my favorite shows. The idea that he won’t be applying his critical talents to something as rich and complex as Westworld but will continue to analyse a horde of forgettable comedies and superhero shows every week is frustrating. I respect the man’s decision to choose his subjects but Westworld seems likely to be a cultural significant show. I hope he reconsiders.
I liked it, and will keep watching. I guess my issue right now is that there aren’t stakes yet. How exciting is a bandit shooting up hosts when it will just reboot the next day? And that scene wasn’t really about showing or giving exposition to the characters we’ll come to know (although there was a tiny amount with Delores and Thandie Newton in that scene), it seemed more like a way to get action into the episode (but again, action without stakes).
So, I think the show will be better served by avoiding the play western not self aware part as much as possible.
Anyone else concerned that this show will become another super expensive show that HBO will have to cancel early like Deadwood and Rome?
Ed Harris’ character is the hero…calling it now!
Has anyone wondered where they are?
I’m wondering if its on Mars?
Yes! I’m assuming they’re on Mars until proven otherwise. It’s possible Westworld is in some sort of biodome on a climate-ravaged planet Earth but I think Mars is the more likely explanation.
Alan, I’ve spent a lot of time thinking about this pilot ep and I think you’ve missed the mark in sizing this up. I’ve watched it 3x now because, as someone here said, ‘it seemed off’ and I wanted to put my finger on it. Then I considered the source: The Nolans. Think ‘Inception’. There are realities w/i realities in this series and the opener needs to lay the foundation for that.
There are a lot of puzzle clues here to unpack in the dialogue and all the micro reactions of these very excellent actors. Consider: The Man in Black is the output of the last catastrophic Westworld incident, the evolution of Yul Brynner’s robot. And that he is insane. He was programmed with autonomy and possibly self awareness, then let loose to ‘evolve’. He’s Host Zero – unkillable by other hosts and he’s spent 30 years being the only AI aware that his brethren live the same day, the same ‘lives’, unending tortures. He emulates the nature of the gods that created him in his tortures of Dolores while trying to *be* a god and awaken his brethren. Breathing life into lifelessness. Ford and Bernard tap Harris’ uniqueness for programming that enhances the other hosts, so they know all about him. Ford’s reveries were no mistake and the Company wants sentient, controllable AI for … The govt? Military?
Given the host ‘glitches’ we saw, why on earth would the security chief ask Dolores if she ever questioned the reality / nature of her world? Or if she’d ever lied to them?
What would a programmed robot with set scripts know of lying to their maker? Unless that was something they were aiming for?
These types of things don’t unpack easily on the first viewing, which is why it seemed plodding. Give this time, because this episode dropped a lot of info.
I was really excited to hear HBO was creating a series based on the Westworld theme. My reaction to the pilot episode: meh
I hope it improves. I’ll give it a few more episodes, but it hasn’t grabbed me like other HBO series.
I expected Sepinwall would like this. I have seen the first 2 episodes and am hooked. I didn’t have to “get through the pilot,” — i thought it was facinating.
It is just such a great subject and I want to learn more about this world. It is like the Leftovers meets the Hunger Games.