EPT[TV] HBO's Westworld - Page 7
| Forum Index > Media & Entertainment |
|
IgnE
United States7681 Posts
| ||
|
coverpunch
United States2093 Posts
On October 18 2016 09:48 Yhamm wrote: I don't think he admires them and it seems to me that he's totally conscious that they are not here to play god (and that it is a serious mistake to try to). Which is why he cuts the robot to show the probably new guy that those are just robots and not humans. I agree with this. I think he's trying to tell an intricate grand story but he sees other members of the staff mistake that for trying to play God. The show seems to be going in this direction but I hope they further explore the distinction between being the conductor of an orchestra and being in absolute control of the music. I'm really enjoying the thematic elements of the show of memory, illusion vs reality, and the robots being haunted by their inherent roles as victims, especially by each other in the stories. | ||
|
karazax
United States3737 Posts
It's interesting that Dolores's "emotions" were able to over ride her inability to fire the gun earlier in the episode. | ||
|
herMan
Japan2055 Posts
| ||
|
Daray
6006 Posts
On October 19 2016 02:36 herMan wrote: Did you guys notice how at the end the guy shot Dolores and she was bleeding from the stomach - then cut to the situation again where he missed here. I perceived the scene as one day, or loop if you wanna call it that, passing in an eyeblink to the same situation (it's like she loaded a game). Am I crazy or is this what the showrunners were saying? I thought it was part of her loop and that's the way it would normally play out and she knew it so she did something outside of her normal loop which should not be possible for the hosts. | ||
|
IgnE
United States7681 Posts
| ||
|
IgnE
United States7681 Posts
| ||
Yhamm
France7248 Posts
On October 19 2016 02:49 Daray wrote: I thought it was part of her loop and that's the way it would normally play out and she knew it so she did something outside of her normal loop which should not be possible for the hosts. I thought the same but at the start of the episode, didn't the gun disapear in the drawer? On October 19 2016 03:41 IgnE wrote: this whole "weapons privileges" though seems like nonsense. it does nothing to explain why hosts with weapon privileges are unable to kill humans. like how does the gun know its pointing at a human and that it should only shoot like a weak BB or whatever it is? and if weapons can't harm humans anyway what's the point of "weapon privileges"? it could be some smart guns or something, or just that the bullets do excessive damage to robot cause that's how they are built. And for the weapon privilege, I think it's for the bladed weapon & the like? they can always be dangerous against humans so only selected robots are allowed to use them | ||
|
Mr. Wiggles
Canada5894 Posts
On October 19 2016 03:41 IgnE wrote: this whole "weapons privileges" though seems like nonsense. it does nothing to explain why hosts with weapon privileges are unable to kill humans. like how does the gun know its pointing at a human and that it should only shoot like a weak BB or whatever it is? and if weapons can't harm humans anyway what's the point of "weapon privileges"? I think it may be the case that it's not a property of the bullets, but rather the hosts are made in such a way that they can react to being hit. Think of it like the squibs/compressed gas that are used for film effects. That's the same reason there wouldn't be issues with shrapnel. The point of the privileges may also just be an immersion/ease of programming thing. It restricts the situations in which the hosts can operate. This is complete conjecture though. | ||
|
IgnE
United States7681 Posts
| ||
|
Dav1oN
Ukraine3164 Posts
| ||
|
maybenexttime
Poland5731 Posts
On October 19 2016 05:06 Mr. Wiggles wrote: I think it may be the case that it's not a property of the bullets, but rather the hosts are made in such a way that they can react to being hit. Think of it like the squibs/compressed gas that are used for film effects. That's the same reason there wouldn't be issues with shrapnel. The point of the privileges may also just be an immersion/ease of programming thing. It restricts the situations in which the hosts can operate. This is complete conjecture though. I'm not sure I understand what you're saying. If a bullet can break a bottle (episode 2, I believe), then wouldn't it be able to kill a human? | ||
|
Thezzy
Netherlands2117 Posts
Maybe with a sensor in it so that the bullets breaks apart/shatters if it detects it is near to a human? Something like that maybe? | ||
|
Daray
6006 Posts
On October 19 2016 03:48 Yhamm wrote: I thought the same but at the start of the episode, didn't the gun disapear in the drawer? It did but i'm guessing it was another memory. I mean it's not a simulation so things shouldn't be disappearing, right? I'm not sure man. | ||
|
Mr. Wiggles
Canada5894 Posts
On October 19 2016 06:48 maybenexttime wrote: I'm not sure I understand what you're saying. If a bullet can break a bottle (episode 2, I believe), then wouldn't it be able to kill a human? Maybe I missed some of the collateral damage occurring during the gunfights. What I was getting at was the idea that the bullets are non-lethal/non-damaging (for the most part), and that instead, when a host is hit, the host itself reacts to the bullet by 'exploding' where the hit occurred. This is similar to how gunshot effects themselves are filmed. However, if there's evidence of the bullets causing damage to the environment as you mentioned, this is probably incorrect. The mechanism to not cause harm being in the bullets themselves doesn't quite make sense, as there'd be lots of room for injuries to occur. Firing different bullets depending on what you're pointing at would suffer from some of the same problems. So, it's probably best to just say 'Magic!', and suspend disbelief. | ||
|
herMan
Japan2055 Posts
I could see the the host bullets disintegrating when it hits a guest, and thus becoming nonlethal. I can't think of a solution on how this would actually be accomplished though. | ||
|
Dav1oN
Ukraine3164 Posts
The same thing blonde woman told to a cowboy in e2 that he cannot kill a person who must not be killed, and all the rest is up to his imagination | ||
|
karazax
United States3737 Posts
On October 19 2016 03:41 IgnE wrote: this whole "weapons privileges" though seems like nonsense. it does nothing to explain why hosts with weapon privileges are unable to kill humans. like how does the gun know its pointing at a human and that it should only shoot like a weak BB or whatever it is? and if weapons can't harm humans anyway what's the point of "weapon privileges"? It's a fail safe so that they only have to worry about X amount of hosts even possibly having a malfunction and doing something that could harm humans. Dolores was able to break the fail safe. Here is an explanation of why real guns wouldn't fire at real people in the original movie: When Peter (a first-timer) asks John (a veteran parkgoer) how he can be sure the "people" he kills aren't really alive, John tells his friend to try shooting him to see what happens. Peter points his gun at John, and tries to pull the trigger. Nothing happens. "The gun has a sensing device," John says. "It won't fire at anything with a high body temperature. Only something cold like a machine." "Hmm. They've thought of everything," Peter replies. | ||
|
ZenithM
France15952 Posts
As long as we don't know more, nothing is too crazy to assume in Westworld as far as technology is concerned, it's supposed to happen in a very advanced world, and with almost unlimited resources. Perfect physical androids are regularly created, damaged, repaired, destroyed. The horses are fake, why can't the bottles be as well? There is probably a hundred ways to simulate smart bullet-firing guns. Maybe the guns can fire 2 types of bullets, picked on-the-fly depending on what's going to be hit. I don't think it's that important. Edit: And as for "why weapon privileges?". Video game design. You can imagine each WW host as an NPC with hard-coded dialogue and behavior (to conform to "scenarios", which are just what we call quests or events usually), but also a degree of freedom around those, to make them react to circumstances and feel more real (that's the part that "passes the Turing test"). Dolores is supposed to fit a NPC archetype that should be obvious for players at all times: the "innocent naive young beautiful girl" or whatever. So to avoid any unwanted behavior when the NPC improvises around its routes/lines, the creators hard-code some permissions to stuff like weapons because that would make Dolores break character too much in their opinion. Players can now interact safely and predictably with her, and the creators can design other encounters around her because they're certain she won't deviate too much from the "innocent girl" template. At least that's my interpretation. | ||
|
IgnE
United States7681 Posts
On October 19 2016 21:25 karazax wrote: It's a fail safe so that they only have to worry about X amount of hosts even possibly having a malfunction and doing something that could harm humans. Dolores was able to break the fail safe. Here is an explanation of why real guns wouldn't fire at real people in the original movie: When Peter (a first-timer) asks John (a veteran parkgoer) how he can be sure the "people" he kills aren't really alive, John tells his friend to try shooting him to see what happens. Peter points his gun at John, and tries to pull the trigger. Nothing happens. "The gun has a sensing device," John says. "It won't fire at anything with a high body temperature. Only something cold like a machine." "Hmm. They've thought of everything," Peter replies. the "cold robots" hypothesis doesn't make sense either though. why would anyone have sex with a cold robot? | ||
| ||
