The multiple timelines have been really well-handled, I think. The Man in Black has had my attention for the entire season, and I was eager to see how he became who he is. I've had a feeling he was William for a few episodes now.
I don't know if I have to be American to like the show more. It's expensive, visually decent but... not catchy at all. Characters are dull, plot is confusing wannabe but realized with some mediocrity. It's weird.
the Maeve thing is just bleh personally..the manipulation of the 'goofy Asian' just seems like such a prominent stereotype in sci-fi literature that wasn't interesting or well done ala Ex Machina.
What goofy Asian character was in Ex Machina? Also, I'm not sure how that's a prominent stereotype in SF... It seems to me that Asians have been stereotyped in Western cinema for decades now.
The 'lawyers with morals and consciences' was the only thing that I groaned atDamn, really thought the quality dropped off about halfway through
Well, it did work for me in True Detective 2 - that the characters weren't as catchy as in the first season, yet they had history and it was interesting to see their lifestory developing, I found it trully beautiful actually. Here it's just lost, the only character who they sorta let us "in" to is Maeve. Ford reminds me of Hannibal series - it was also done so well, visually amazing and it was expensive, but the character of Lector wasn't rich at all, all he was doing - just annoying boring philosophy talks. And don't get me wrong - I like my shows to be smart and intellectual, but there should be a golden middle, and they seem to forget to respect it... like listening to a band that has mega technical and complicated music but still sounds like crap... So yeah, that's pretty much what made me drop Hannibal show - too much philosophy, not enough of being a human. Ford - is the same. He's supposed to save the show by being mighty Hopkins - but he's just boring with all the beating around the bash talks.I can't help but frame the show in the context of a lot of SF scholarship that I've read, which predisposes me away from character-building... so that's probably why I forgive it somewhat for any dullness in its characters.
I also think the stereotypes are probably intentional. It's a self-reflexive show about writing, about narrative, so I think it's deploying what to us look like narratively conventional, and even banal, tropes.
I agree with you on the system thing, I also don't need to be entertained by characters or plot jumps. I just don't see the philosophy in the show yet, or maybe find it a little shallow.Interesting on True Detective Season Two, I wasn't a big fan of that one. I do understand what you're saying about the characters in Westworld, but for me the characters are less important than the narrative and the philosophy - which I realize aren't everyone's cup of tea when shoved to the forefront.
I tend to think of books and films as systems, and characters as points of observation with varying perceptive scopes. It's a clinical method, but I enjoy it.
but for me the characters are less important than the narrative and the philosophy - which I realize aren't everyone's cup of tea when shoved to the forefront.
Westyworld
Has the show ever shown us how 'normal' people enter 'Westworld' ?
I mean we all know Ford isn't really dead right?[/spooiler]