Westworld season 2 HBO April 2018 spoilers discussion (1 Viewer)

[Hollywoodaholic]

I enjoy reading the reviews and reactions to the show but Walter's right in his interpretation of why the rules they are creating eliminate any real stakes to the point where, ultimately, nothing matters. So why should we care?

 

[MarkMel]

I think someone needs to write an Idiots Guide to Westworld. I know I would read it. I usually get complicated plots and movies but I think there was so much filler and exposition that I found myself not paying close attention and surfing the internet. I'm sure I missed a lot of stuff that was buried in the fluff.

It's easy to say that you don't get something and therefore feel somewhat stupid for not understanding but in some cases, the onus is on the storyteller.

I will do some research to see if I can figure out some of the things I missed.

 

[Walter Kittel]

https://www.highdefdigest.com/blog/westworld-210-recap/

- Walter.

 

[Josh Dial]

I understood the implications of the post credits denouement; but it kind of makes the entire season feel pointless. The uncertain nature of all that has transpired kind of undermines the impact. If it was just another 'run' for William then does it really matter? Kind of like the Nth version of Delos in the episode 'The Riddle of the Sphinx'. While it speaks to the process does any one run really stand out from another?

For me, the season still has impact, if only because merely one part of the season concerns William's story. The rest of the season--the development and exploration of the hosts' free will--still stands. If you think the William story has less impact if you consider that the events are effectively predetermined by Human William's "code," then, I would argue, you've actually hit upon one of the central questions of the season: what is the meaning of reality ("have you ever questioned the nature of your reality?") if all of the events we ostensibly control (via free will) are actually predetermined by our human "code?" The companion question is: what is the nature of a host's reality if their behaviour is equally knowable and predictable? These questions dovetail with the idea of consciousness and free will.

We have only been presented with the hosts' (and to a certain extent, Ford's) theory of consciousness. To your second point, maybe human consciousness can't be reduced to a relatively small amount of code. It's one thing for the hosts to think that, but it's quite another for it to be true in fact.

William's final "fidelity achieved" run" occurs at some time in the seemingly distant future. It's not necessarily true that William has, in fact, achieved fidelity. Perhaps a future season will explore what is the final, "key ingredient" necessary to pushing hosts past the final barrier (some may say this is a "soul").

Edit:

Forgot to add a link. Here is what I think is the best timeline for the show to-date. The author updates it after every episode.

Second edit: wow, this image really screwed with the formatting. Mods: let me know if you want this removed and replaced with a link.

 

[Eve Babcock]

Have you seen the season finale? it was the bomb!

 

[MarkMel]

Excellent article and exactly how I feel;

https://www.avclub.com/welcome-to-tvs-golden-age-of-what-the-hell-did-i-just-1827118136

 

[Hollywoodaholic]

Excellent article and exactly how I feel;

https://www.avclub.com/welcome-to-tvs-golden-age-of-what-the-hell-did-i-just-1827118136

Yeah, my sentiments exactly:

"In fact, Westworld is just one of a modern breed of deliberately obfuscating shows that demand to be worked in order to—or sometimes, rather than—enjoyed."

"...the second season’s split narratives—with characters wandering through the same locations over and over, a mere two weeks apart, all to protect one last, biggish reveal—seems to suggest that Westworld wasn’t entirely confident that its story would be all that interesting if it were told from beginning to end."​

A point I kept trying to make, that they turned a simple narrative unnecessarily complex to make the material try to feel more important or profound than it actually is. And, in the process, completely lost the plot of how to tell a good story.

I would not lump LOST or Twin Peaks into this category as the writer here might imply. LOST, besides having much more developed and appealing characters, also told complete and interesting stories within each episode, almost like an anthology show. And Twin Peaks, well, any David Lynch fan already knows not to expect clear or rational answers from his stuff, but some provocative artistry and weirdness.

 

[MarkMel]

Right, I didn't agree with Lost either. I couldn't speak on Twin Peaks as I've never watched it.

 

[TravisR]

I couldn't speak on Twin Peaks as I've never watched it.

By and large, the Twin Peaks revival was very much a work of David Lynch but it was still understandable. Westworld isn't weird as much as it's too complicated for anyone who isn't really devoted to the show. And Legion (talked about in that AV Club article) is as close to surrealism as has ever been on TV.

 

[Josh Dial]

By and large, the Twin Peaks revival was very much a work of David Lynch but it was still understandable. Westworld isn't weird as much as it's too complicated for anyone who isn't really devoted to the show. And Legion (talked about in that AV Club article) is as close to surrealism as has ever been on TV.

Personally, I would say that Twin Peaks is the least "understandable" out of those three.

Westworld's timeline was jumbled, but once you sorted that out, it's relatively easy to unpack the season. While the timeline I posted above is certainly useful, I don't think it's absolutely required in order to truly follow the show. Thematically, the show is interesting, but I don't think it's as challenging as the other two.

Legion and Twin Peaks, meanwhile, are less accessible than Westworld in both story and theme, and require more from their audiences than ("simply") following unscrambling story lines. However, while Legion is ultimately "knowable" in that it asks dramatic questions and provides its audience with the dramatic answers (albeit in a highly surreal manner), Twin Peaks has a certain inherent unknowable-ness to it. Some imagery--and indeed some on-screen events--leave a measure of interpretation up to the viewer. The audience is also expected to remember (and understand) the significance of things like the Owl Cave Ring, musical cues, and colour theory (Legion plays with colour theory, too).

At the end of the day, for me, Westworld, Legion, and Twin Peaks are all highly engaging, highly entertaining pieces of art. Each creative team seems to be aiming for something slightly different, and going about reaching their targets in slightly different ways.

I don't echo the sentiment in the AV Club's piece noted above. In fact, I would go so far as to say the author misses the point entirely of what he pejoratively labels "why the hell should I bother" television. Like it or not, television is a form of art, and sometimes art asks a lot of its audience. Why the hell should you bother? Because sometimes it's interesting, challenging, and rewarding to engage with something and see if you "know." Even with the unknowable.

 

[TravisR]

Legion and Twin Peaks, meanwhile, are less accessible than Westworld in both story and theme, and require more from their audiences than ("simply") following unscrambling story lines. However, while Legion is ultimately "knowable" in that it asks dramatic questions and provides its audience with the dramatic answers (albeit in a highly surreal manner), Twin Peaks has a certain inherent unknowable-ness to it. Some imagery--and indeed some on-screen events--leave a measure of interpretation up to the viewer. The audience is also expected to remember (and understand) the significance of things like the Owl Cave Ring, musical cues, and colour theory (Legion plays with colour theory, too).

That's actually a good point and since I am a huge fan of Twin Peaks and have an understanding of David Lynch's work, I would have a step up over a person coming to it without that knowledge. Even the avant garde episode 8 largely made sense to me but good luck to anyone who isn't familiar with Lynch's work. I do think the plot of Twin Peaks, while certainly odd, made sense overall and, by the end, most bits that I might have been wondering about were clarified.

I need to rewatch the second season of Legion because I couldn't keep up with the narrative. I loved the feeling of the show but it's overwhelming enough that I lost track of what the hell was going on.

 

[Walter Kittel]

I have slowly come to the realization that (at least for me) some of the shows mentioned in this thread, notably Twin Peaks, Legion and S2 of Westworld; are probably best viewed in 'binge' mode. It is simply easier to keep track of some of the content without the delays associated with normal broadcast/cable viewing. While I probably wouldn't watch the entire season in one or two viewing sessions, the ability to return to the series the next day or so is markedly superior in terms of recall vs. a week or more between episodes.

- Walter.

 

[Patrick Sun]

I binged season 2, and was underwhelmed overall. Plus, not really a fan of Tessa Thompson, so her character's continued presence on the show doesn't help. LOL!

 

[Francois Caron]

Josh, I'm so glad you posted that image. I stopped watching halfway through episode 8 and dreaded trying to make any more sense of this series.

After reading the chronological timeline you've posted, I'm so glad I stopped watching! There's no possible way I could have followed any of it! And I design complicated software for a living! Programming a host would be easier than watching this show any further!

 

[NeilO]

I just watched the finale last night. There was a free HBO weekend 2 weeks ago and I got the series On Demand then and started watching from episode 2. The previous free HBO weekend was during the season premiere and I saw that then. Watching the remaining 9 episodes over the course of 2 weeks probably made it better than those of you who saw it a week at a time.

I thoroughly enjoyed the series but was a little confused (or couldn't remember) which of Bernard's actions fell with which timeline. That image there helped matters a lot.

The one thing about the season that didn't feel right was The Man in Black's total mental collapse during the two weeks of the season. It just didn't seem possible that he was so far gone that he would gun down all of those QA people and his daughter. For that matter, his surviving to that point seemed hard to believe.

Still, overall great season.

 

[Robert Crawford]

@Ronald Epstein For those interested, Amazon is selling the second season on 4K/UHD for $32.49 which is 50% off.

 

[TonyD]

Well season three has been announced for an appearance in 2020.

I might not even care anymore by then.

 

[Adam Lenhardt]

Personally, I would say that Twin Peaks is the least "understandable" out of those three.

If you accept that there are dangling plot threads (Audrey Horne, for instance), the revival was actually pretty easy to understand, certainly by modern Lynch standards. The first 17 episodes tell a rather satisfying story with a complete beginning, middle, and end. And then episode 18 dives off the deep end and goes "full Lynch".

Westworld's timeline was jumbled, but once you sorted that out, it's relatively easy to unpack the season. While the timeline I posted above is certainly useful, I don't think it's absolutely required in order to truly follow the show. Thematically, the show is interesting, but I don't think it's as challenging as the other two.

I agree, but I think that gets to Wayne's point: the non-linear storytelling felt like a gimmick to keep the audience disoriented rather than an essential part of the storytelling.

With "Twin Peaks" and "Legion", I felt like I was taken on a journey. With "Westworld" (especially Season 2), I felt like I was being jerked around.

 

[Josh Dial]

If you accept that there are dangling plot threads (Audrey Horne, for instance), the revival was actually pretty easy to understand, certainly by modern Lynch standards. The first 17 episodes tell a rather satisfying story with a complete beginning, middle, and end. And then episode 18 dives off the deep end and goes "full Lynch".

I guess we just disagree on this point. I think Twin Peaks and Legion are less accessible than Westworld. In each episode of Twin Peaks and Legion, the viewer has to do "work" to unpack something in almost every single scene. There is a lot craziness (for lack of a better word) going on, and the viewer has to ask, "why is this happening" and, more important, "what does this mean?" Meaning is at the core of Lynch and Hawley.

In Westworld, the viewer has to ask a fundamentally different question: "what is happening?" I think a lot lives in the distinction between "why" and "what." The timeline scrambling obviously reinforces one of the themes of the show (the showrunners are quite skilled), but other than piecing together the sequence of events, the viewer isn't expected to unpack a complicated visual and audio code. When Maeve shows Hector the safe, it's not really metaphorical--it's just literal (which is fine: not everything needs to be a metaphor). When Agent Jeffries comes back as a steam machine, well, the viewer has to ask "why?"

I also stand by my critique of the AV Club article's author asking "why the hell should I bother?" You "bother" because some forms of art ask their audiences to do work. There are so many good television shows on right now that we can literally pick and choose from a menu of high quality shows almost every night. Sometimes I wanted to be challenged and think carefully about meaning and interpretation, and so I'll watch Mr. Robot or Legion. Sometimes I just want to watch James Spader chew dialogue on The Blacklist.

 

[Bryan^H]

Well season three has been announced for an appearance in 2020.

Yeah, Fuck this "when we get around to it" TV mentality.
Lazy.