Yes, and it might be nice if you didn't reveal everything that happens for those who haven't yet seen the show. A spoiler alert is encouraged.
I apologize if my written summation lessened your (potential future) enjoyment of the show. But since this came up, I have a question (promise... no snark or smartassery intended) How long after a show airs is a spoiler neccessary? Once it airs... it's public knowledge. And this is a discussion thread about that show. It's no different than many of the written reviews published immediately following airtime. In many cases, what we are doing here is posting our review. Is there a forum standard?
I tend to avoid revealing content or plot twists, as 'public knowledge' based on first airing may not be true.
I've got tons of stuff on my DVR that I still haven't watched from the last 3 months. I know people who wait until all 12 episodes of a show like Westworld or Game of Thrones have aired before binging them all in a long weekend. All it takes is the bracket-spoiler-bracket message command to cover up any potential spoilers, or you can talk about the surprises in a general way without being super-specific, like, "wow I didn't know that <major character> was going to die in this episode!" I think anywhere on the net, it's just a case of trying to be polite. There are show-specific discussion groups out there where they'll actually say, "SHOW - EPISODE 3 DISCUSSION [WARNING: SPOILERS!]" or words to that effect. So there is a protocol on the TV-specific websites and discussion groups.
It may not be any consolation to you, but the specific comment I suspect that miffed you was, at this time, pure speculation on my part. In fact it had been disagreed with by a few others after I wrote it. I'll try and choose my words a little more carefully. Carry on, sir.
I wouldn't read any thread for a show or movie that has aired but I have yet to watch. That way I don't have to worry about spoilers.
This thread was started almost 5 years ago, and became the defacto discussion thread for WW. As Vidiot suggested, maybe a new thread “Westworld - Spoilers Allowed” or something? Someone commented that they wished WW was relased in a similar fashion to Netflix shows where all episodes drop at once. No thank you. I like having a week between episodes to digest and discuss. I am not a Netflix kind of guy and don't binge watch, so I was surprised when I went to watch the new Lost in Space and found all episodes dumped at once. I watched EP1, went to join the discussion and found many had watched two, three, or the whole season in one shot. Game over for me. If that’s how you roll, there is nothing wrong with that, but it would really sap the fun out of a show like WW with many layers to peel back.
Simple rule of thumb for me - if I'm not caught up I stay away from the thread. Anything discussed after an episode airs is fair game, IMO.
If I haven't seen an episode of a show I just stay out of threads discussing said show. I don't understand why people get upset about spoilers inside a thread dedicated to the show. If someone hasn't seen an episode yet perhaps they should stay out of a thread dedicated to discussing the show?
If finding out what happens to a phony character on a lousy tv show ruins your day .... you haven't suffered enough.
Just rewatched a bit of the second episode. There were a lot of crosses carved into brick... symbolism? Just a random pattern? I suspect nothing on this show is going to just be random.
I'm the opposite of being 'spoiled' with WW, I simply don't care, the story doesn't engage me in any way. I felt it was an interesting premise but somehow it feels flawed in its execution. I'm curious enough to continue reading the thread though, the lack of any type of 'raving' commentary is telling.
A buddy of mine said he wished that the hosts had something more to differentiate themselves from the human guests (he felt they were indistinguishable), and I said that the flat acting from most of the hosts is indicative of that difference. So I think some, but certainly not all, of the lack of engagement from viewers can be attributed to the acting of the hosts which is a little one dimensional. I mean how is the story of Dolores really that different from Khaleesi? But no one is wearing t-shirts with Dolores' quotes on them. I think the show succeeds in telling us something about our own attitude towards AI: I think we still see Dolores, Teddy, and Maeve more as Siris and Alexas than humans. I think all of this will change this season.
I don't buy the theory that the purpose of the park is to gather information to blackmail guests. Once this gets exposed it's the end of the park.
So something that was ostensibly about providing a service or entertainment (The Park) is used to watch you when you thought no one was watching and then to monetize that knowledge to be used against you or your interests. I could not help but find the parallels to recent Facebook issues to be jarring.
But you yourself don't really do that in all of the movie threads you participate in. Once you've seen a movie you talk about it. At least in my recollection and without going and searching for your comments. So why does it make sense for tv shows but not movies? I agree with those who stay out of a thread until they've seen the most current episode - spoilers shouldn't be necessary. My exception to this is for a show like Walking Dead, where too many people in the past used to post spoilers from the comics about what happened, prior to the episodes airing. For those type of comments spoiler tags seem worthy.
What I like about the show is that every major character has their own agenda, and every agenda is pretty twisted. And every agenda could collide with the other agendas at any given moment. In Game of Thrones, pretty much everyone shares the singular goal of ruling from the iron throne. That show's mass appeal probably comes from the simplicity of the goal and people's easy investment in hoping for their particular favorite(s) to win at that goal. Coupled of course with the amazing production values and wonderful actors of course. With Westworld, you - or certainly I - have to be more circumspect in who we are rooting for. I love Delores, and I expect many do, but I don't know if she's a hero or villain. Maeve, I hear some people love Maeve and hope she escapes or does whatever she wants to do. Myself, I find her terrifying. You cannot even declare yourself "team robot" or "team human" without possibly having to hide that t-shirt later on. To enjoy Westworld you have to be interested in going on a journey to find out the truth about everyone's character or moral compass. There's no Jon Snow to swoon over, at best there are characters who you admire and hope will find a path through a maelstrom of moments in which they could make incredibly questionable decisions. That's exciting.
Actually, I try to be careful not to reveal too much, which is what any good critic does. I constantly redact specific character names and situations so as not to spoil it for anybody, particularly if it's something within the last year. I would never say (for example), "gee, it's a shame in the new Avengers film that <characters names> die in the film." We already knew from the trailers that somebody is going to die, but it's not specific... and we know that this is the first part of a 2-part story, so it's fair to guess that our heroes are in big trouble by the end of it. But beyond that, there are some terrific surprises that would be sad to spoil. And in truth, in a comic-book world with magic and time-travel, it's a good guess that nobody necessarily dies permanently; I'm reminded of the "death" of Lois Lane in the 1978 Superman, which was a last-minute rewrite and still made no sense. (40 years later, I think it's safe to talk about that one.) The worst I will say is, "wow, I did not expect that gigantic surprise twist in this episode. I didn't see that coming -- brace yourself for a heartbreaker." No problem with that. But there are reviewers and critics and fans out there who constantly blurt out major reveals ("Vader is Luke's father!" or "Rosebud is the kid's sled!"), which is a problem for current films. Where exactly the statute of limitations ends, I dunno, but it certainly isn't a week after the thing was released. A year later, sure. We had some problems with this around here for ongoing long-arc shows like Lost, Breaking Bad, Dexter, The Sopranos, and others that had some pretty huge twists and turns. The fate of Gus Fring in October 2011 was a pretty big one, and I'm glad I was able to go into that show not expecting what was going to happen there -- one of the greatest moments in the history of the show. But even now, I'm not going to specify what happens to him, and it's been almost 7 years. I think it is fair to use the "Spoiler" mode so that you can say Spoiler nearly all the characters die and go to heaven at the end of Lost, villain Gus Fring in Breaking Bad gets half his face blown off in an explosion planted by Walter White in a hospital wheelchair, Dexter avenges his sister's death but fakes his own when a hurricane hits Miami and he becomes a lumberjack in Alaska, and apparently all of Tony Soprano's family are killed in a slow motion ambush when the mob boss eats at a local restaurant but nobody will be able to read these spoilers unless they click the little button. So that's a reasonable warning. One of these is good, too:
I gotta say, when the show first started I thought, "well, there's no way they can remake the movie, because we all know the robots are gonna go nuts and kill all the human guests." But very wisely, Jonathan Nolan and Lisa Joy chose to make the audience care for the plight of the robots and understand that they're kind of technological slaves who just want to be free... even if they have to kill an awful lot of human masters in order to get their freedom. And that's a very interesting choice, particularly when you can't quite figure out what's going on in their computerized heads. The show has gone far beyond the "amusement park gone wild" scenario that Michael Crichton originally wrote. That was a great scene in the most recent episode where Delores is able to convince another robot that the world they know is not the actual reality they live in. And it's true that you almost don't know who to root for in the show, because not all the humans are bad, and not all the robots are good. Last season, Anthony Hopkins' character made the point that some robots "went insane" because they couldn't handle much beyond their limited "storylines" in the park.
I completely agree with your assessment and I would add another aspect of the show which elevates it even further. I'm absolutely tickled pink that there is a serious science fiction TV show that tackles meaty themes of existence, what makes something 'real' and another thing not?, does the substrate (biology vs technology) matter?, justice, morality and philosophy. Few TV shows are able to touch all those bases intelligently, consistently and as cinematically. What's more, this show invites rewatching, because there is so much detail and nuance that can easily be overlooked the first time around.
They really should give Philip K. Dick a by-line as aspects of his work and stele and the themes he developed are alive in this series. (A very good thing). I can't wait to see where this series goes.