Westworld: the next must-see cable series?

[Ghost of Harry Smith]

...the fundamental requirement of good speculative fiction - is it believable?

I've always felt that the fundamental requirement of good speculative fiction was to ask interesting questions, rather than to be strictly realistic.

They're not mutually exclusive points. Maybe "requirement" is the wrong word but my point is that it's vital for speculative fiction to present its world/environment realistically, so that the reader/viewer believes in its internal logic*.

If that doesn't take place (and I'd argue Westworld is only partially successful), then it's difficult to feel a depth of connection with the narrative and characters.

*in realist drama anyway, I get that postmodern fictions etc are doing something different.

[pcqgod]

They're not mutually exclusive points. Maybe "requirement" is the wrong word but my point is that it's vital for speculative fiction to present its world/environment realistically, so that the reader/viewer believes in its internal logic*.

If that doesn't take place (and I'd argue Westworld is only partially successful), then it's difficult to feel a depth of connection with the narrative and characters.

*in realist drama anyway, I get that postmodern fictions etc are doing something different.

One of my favorite sci-fi series ever was MTV's "Aeon Flux" -- and I'm referring to the full episode series rather than the preceding series of shorts. There was little-to-no character development and little continuing narrative because there was basically no continuity from episode to episode. A lot of it flat didn't make sense in any scientific way. But nearly every episode featured some mind-blowing concepts. Nevertheless, I'll grant that generally it's important for most fiction, even wildly speculative fiction, to have internal logic and continuity. I don't see that as a problem in "Westworld," myself, but I'm probably less nit-picky than you.

[pcqgod]

George R.R. Martin is a fan!

http://www.rawstory.com/2016/12/george- ... f-thrones/

[fange]

Looks like we're not far off from Series 2. Anybody still keen to see what happens?

[Dr Markus]

Yeah I am, looking forward to it.

[pcqgod]

Is the Man in Black going to be back? Thought I saw him in the promos.

[fange]

If memory serves, he got shot at but not killed at the end of season 1, so i'm hoping/expecting to see him.

[Dr Markus]

Is the Man in Black going to be back? Thought I saw him in the promos.

Is that ed Harris's character? Yeah he's back. To be honest, as much as I loved the show it got a tiny bit too convoluted sometimes. Maybe I need to brush up on it.

[pcqgod]

I definitely need to watch at least the final episode of season 1 again.

[Dr Markus]

Nicely paced first episode, and I think sets up the season well.

[pcqgod]

It seems like they're going to have to invent a new character arc for Dolores. Maeve at least has a fresh story arc for this season set up already.

[Dr Markus]

I think her arc is gonna be the leader of the revolt and the attempt to take over "our" world. That should keep her busy. That English cunt helping Maeve is still the shittest actor going.

[Daddy Longlegs]

Thoroughly enjoying season 2, the reflections on what is human, what is a singular instance of humanity, and can it be copied, Mauve, Delores, Bernard...even Ford and Arnold. Feeling a bit Fringe-like in spots (not a good thing, imo) and there have been a few places where the character's exposition feels forced as we set up the premise (such as the "mirror" versions of characters and story arcs in Shogun-world).

Sam noted that they rarely call the humans by name, but we seem to know all the hosts by their names. Perhaps coincidence, perhaps not.

[pcqgod]

Truthfully this past season was a real slog for me. Maybe I just want more action and less of this introspective hidden meanings/conspiracy/shifting reality stuff.

[Nervous Ned]

I enjoyed Season 2 but it has been willfully convoluted and confusing. I’m not quite sure splitting the narratives into different timelines achieves much more than obscuring any sort of clarity. Ironically the finale seemed to be a lot clearer than many of the episodes that preceded it.
The biggest problem for me are the multiple deaths/resurrections. It becomes increasingly difficult to care what happens to any given character when one suspects they will return, in some form or another, down the line.

[Sambient]

I felt the collecting of data on the visitors thing was relevant.
This is a hallmark of science fiction: exploration of the concerns of modern society.

With the first series, I would often re-watch in small chunks while I was doing other things. 20 minutes here and there affording the opportunity to take it in with new insight. I plan to do this again.
Truthfully, it's been ages since a series captivated me so.

And though JJ Abrahms' name is on it, he's not so responsible for the stories. Which is surprising. Daddy issues is one of his recurring themes. Maybe that's become an SF thing in general. Just like how many children's stories don't have a parent present.

[pcqgod]

I felt the collecting of data on the visitors thing was relevant.
This is a hallmark of science fiction: exploration of the concerns of modern society.

Absolutely.

[Daddy Longlegs]

Daddy issues is one of his recurring themes. Maybe that's become an SF thing in general. Just like how many children's stories don't have a parent present.

Given that the audience for SF was historically young males, I'm almost surprised the Daddy theme isn't even more prevalent in that genre.

[pcqgod]

I was happy to see Thandie Newton win for best supporting actress at the Emmys last night. Even if I wasn't crazy about season 2 overall, she was tremendous in it.