"I like the themes it's exploring, but I want to like the show more." I've felt that way about a lot of things. It's generally a bad sign, a sign that I like the show more for what I want it to be and wish it did with its themes than what it actually _is._

@marcomeme4875

6 жыл бұрын

Timothy McLean theme can only be used as icing on the cake IMO.

@timothymclean

6 жыл бұрын

The way I see it, theme is more like a skeleton. Everything else is built around it, but you never see it unless you cut deep into the story. A good theme ties in the plot and characters, but good plots and characters are able to work well on their own as well; the theme exists more in how the thematic elements of the characters' personalities and the plot's events come together than anything else.

@marcomeme4875

6 жыл бұрын

Timothy McLean I don’t know. I don’t think theme is a necessity. Whether it comes about unintentionally by the author or if the story is some kind of big morality piece. Like if you can do that, it’s fine. And in a lot of cases a lacklustre script with strong presentation can be improved significantly. But a movie like Jurassic Park has a strong theme, but stand perfectly as an enjoyable dinosaur romp. Whereas there are more trash movies than I can name that are completely boring under the guise of being deep and thematic.

@ElkiLG

6 жыл бұрын

I find a lot of value in watching/reading things that have an interesting premise but are lacking. I like thinking about what I find wrong with it and imagine what I would do with it. It's probably because I'd like to write my own stories some day, but even though this story may not work, there's still value here. And I find that thinking in a critical way is generally good. I read a lot of things that I find ultimately kind of bad because of that. It's a bit weird but it's fun. :D

@thehobbsguy

6 жыл бұрын

Timothy McLean this is exactly how I felt about The Walking Dead for many years. I finally gave up during season 7, having wished I dropped the show much earlier.

Season 1 was a genuine masterpiece, season 2 was way too consciously trying to “outdo” season 1 rather than simply let the story go they way it wants to go. Like “oh, twists were a major part of season 1, we’ve got to have twists now because we’re a ‘twist’ show”

That 2 minute sponsorship plug disguised as more analysis was dirty.

@davehan241

4 жыл бұрын

Disguised? Daaaamn...if you and the other 128 people that thumbs upped this comment got BAMBOOZLED into a reprehensible ad at the END of your free video, then maybe you should go someplace more suited to your delicate sensibilities. You you probably stop watching Westworld too just to be safe.

@user-jh6kx1fw9h

4 жыл бұрын

I thought that the original comment was more of a joke, no? In this way, I can appreciate it. xD

Love what you say at the start about talking about improvements, not just shouting "fault, fault, fault." It's easy to tear-down, it's incredibly difficult to build.

@Wveth

3 жыл бұрын

Criticism on its own is still extremely valuable though. You don't have to be able to build a car to feel that the suspension is fucked up. Offering suggestions is great and worthwhile but it is not a required component of criticism.

@ExSpoonman

3 жыл бұрын

@@Wveth What isn't said in Antoine's comment is the implied fragility of their feelings about this particular show. Like so many others here on KZread, Antoine probably has difficulty differentiating criticism of something they enjoy from criticism of themselves.

Dolores should have killed Charlotte in the lab for sure. The audience was always expecting Charlotte to survive that encounter because we know she's still alive later on (through this past/present timeline thing), so the scene had no tension whatsoever... If Dolores had killed her, it would have been a real 'wtf' moment that quickly would have turned into an 'oh shitttt...' moment as we realised the implication of 'Charlotte' being still apparently alive and well, even though her human body has been very clearly killed. It would have set up the Charlotte/Dolores hybrid thing just the same and led to a tonne of tension during the 'present' scenes

@GangStalker17

6 жыл бұрын

Even if Charlotte died, I wouldn’t have cared. I was never invested in her character.

@HakeemRDaud

6 жыл бұрын

oh shit that would be something. Afterwards, the audience would assume future Charlotte is a host, but w/ Charlotte's pearl in mind. Especially when it's iterated if MiB maybe a host as well. Charlotte's pearl is acquired when Bernard & Dolores enter the forge the first time (all guest are recorded). Bernard secretly needs Charlotte but Dolores caught him, Bernard forced to kill Dolores, cries in regret, "fake" Ford enters, Bernard leaves the forge w/ a perl in his palm, get Charlotte's body & that pearl in a host machine, let it do the work while Bernard went to the beach, timeline end. That way the finale twist still works since then revealed Bernard apparently swap Charlotte's w/ Dolores' pearl. Charlotte's pearl is intriguing because it's the only officially "saved" guess record from the forge. Bringing a different kind of "human before - host after" reaction when she's brought back to life later. Oh and Elsie is such a waste, having her alive as the only good human left (other than the 2 maeve's follower) now that MiB & Stubbs is a host can make her useful.

@alanpennie8013

5 жыл бұрын

Captain Chlorine They really should have made Charlotte less unrelievedly nasty.

@kennyg1358

4 жыл бұрын

The earlier the better. Worst character

@canadiandee6342

4 жыл бұрын

bananapotato that’s what happened, isn’t it?

I remember season 1 as my favorite piece of television ever, but s2 just didn't live up to the hype for me. It had some great moments, but in the end it just wasn't as... satisfying as the first. I wasn't able to pinpoint why, until your video. Thanks for helping clarify some of my issues with it.

@ddfstar7588

6 жыл бұрын

Timothy Smith it was ass

@sksksk2940

6 жыл бұрын

I definitely agree

@VertigoDefinitivo

6 жыл бұрын

Season 1 had a lot of the same problems, but the premiere and the finale were the best episodes of the season. Season 2 had a ton of good episodes, but the first one and the last one weren't the best ones of that season.

@PogieJoe

6 жыл бұрын

I excused a lot of Season 1's flaws because I assumed clarity would be provided in Season 2. ...Well.

@MattExzy

5 жыл бұрын

I still enjoyed S2, but I remember thinking to myself before it aired "well, I hope they don't turn this show into something like the Terminator..." - and that's pretty much how it panned out. The 'twist' of putting Dolores' mind ball into a Hale clone *really* ticked me off. Total cop out.

Plotblocking...is THE major issue in most of the korean dramas i see. I never knew there was an actual (new) word for it. I always just called it convenient and lazy plotting. Thanks for the video.

@xTLtokio

6 жыл бұрын

I honestly dont see that a lot in Kdrama. One of the best things that sets kdrama for me (from the American series) is that it's only 16 episodes, I do not have to worry about several seasons, filler episodes, etc.

@CaroleMcDonnell

6 жыл бұрын

Oh wow, we complain about plotblocking a lot on dramabeans website and in kdramaddicts. I've been watching and reviewing korean dramas for ages (even the daily ones on kbs world tv) and plotblocking is in EVERY drama. Not that we called it plotblocking. And there are always filler episodes because sometimes there are extensions because a story is popular. When it comes to plotblocking, there is always the sudden visit from someone, the inopportune phone call, the sudden nap when someone is pouring his heart out, or some interruption that interrupts the would-be confession of some birth secret or other kind of secret. Whenever someone makes an appointment to tell someone some important bit of info the next day, we just know the person will be killed or the truck of doom will get to them before the secret comes out. Even in 16 episoders, this kind of thing always happens. Everything is done to drag out the plot. And on the other hand there is the overuse of coincidences that just totally pushes the plot ahead when the writer wants to.

@EPunkOfficial

6 жыл бұрын

Honestly, I just considered it stalling or killing time

@valhatan3907

2 жыл бұрын

Basically every soap drama does this😂

The problem with Westworld is that is keeps leapfrogging to new premises every five minutes and yet never fully explores the one they're on...just stick to the initial premise and quit premise hogging

@4203105

6 жыл бұрын

Ruth C I think you give them too much credit. It's clear that the studying humans and making robots out of them thing wasn't a thing in the first season. Too many inconsistencies. So the writers pulled it out of their asses during the break and they really shouldn't have.

@peacemaster8117

6 жыл бұрын

I hope Ruth is jokingly referencing the recent comments by the HBO exec. If not then we've got a real Rick & Morty fan on our hands.

@elliottwatt5297

6 жыл бұрын

I’ve been satisfied with their exploration of the subject matter and themes. I don’t know what you think they haven’t properly explored, but I respect that opinion.

@thomascarroll5750

6 жыл бұрын

calm down david wilcock ;p

@Liusila

6 жыл бұрын

Thomas Carroll Yeah, the reason I couldn’t get Lost as well.

My problem with this second season was that most of the mysteries are only there because of the lazy time skips... the season wasn't as interested in telling a good story first like the season one did...

That's a damn good Ad transition....

@TheParadox3000

6 жыл бұрын

Umbrella Man Sneaking up on you...

@vigolovesyou

6 жыл бұрын

Me: "I relate to her too!" Me 1sec later: * eye roll *

@habitablefiction7090

6 жыл бұрын

I had a feeling it was coming after the "Have you ever seen anything so full of splender." Then I look at how long the video has left. Then he goes into how the hosts have been up as sympathetic and I'm like "YESSS PLEASE TALK ABOUT THIS." Then it turns into an Ad...

@denisl2760

6 жыл бұрын

One human character, Man in Black right? Nope.... ok something's fishy going on... and its an ad

@FTRek

6 жыл бұрын

What ad?

Ensembles aren't a problem, game of thrones managed it with way more main characters. Westworld's problem is that it hides the true nature of what the characters are looking for and it hides the character's motivations which makes it hard to care about what's happening. Not only that but many of the characters are robots who aren't well written. Combine that with the multiple timelines that only apply to some characters and you have a show that wastes great production values, good acting, and some interesting ideas on a frustrating and tedious story. Season 1 had a nonlinear structure to hide a twist that helped develop william and dolores. Season 2 had a nonlinear structure to hide dolores killing hale. It could have easily been shown chronologically. Season 1 was great, season 2 cared more about hiding secrets than it did telling a story. Not to mention that despite the fans calling anyone who doesn't like it stupid, the show has plenty of dumb moments, In particular the scene with angela seducing the soldier in season 2 episode 7

@kefkapalazzo1

6 жыл бұрын

RIDDLERRULZ25 yeah they managed it better until they ran out of boom

@RIDDLERRULZ25

6 жыл бұрын

Before the finale did we know specifically what each character wanted to do about the door? No of course not because we didn't know who made the door, what its purpose was, or if it was even a literal door.

@alanpennie8013

6 жыл бұрын

RIDDLERRULZ25 Yes it's very much a mystery box show. It would probably be interesting to compare it to Lost. My impression (which may be wrong I saw very little of Lost) is that Lost had better developed characters.

@RIDDLERRULZ25

6 жыл бұрын

Never saw lost but based on what I know about it, I would agree. I'm not a fan of j j abrams and I think his influence as a producer is part of why westworld is like this. I'm all for shows with mysteries and twists, for example I love mr robot. however, that show has well written characters and eventually gives you answers. Westworld's anwsers come with even more questions

@trey0693

6 жыл бұрын

I love West World #teamMaeve but you're right season 1 was way better than season 2 all these secrets and twist got on my nerves. I was hoping that they wouldn't do 3 timelines again instead I wanted them to stick to the present and maybe throw in a few flash backs here and there. This season had too many twisty twists and it was annoying but also satisfying because I am a fan first and critic second.

You know it's a good week when Just Write, Lessons from the Screenplay, Now You See it, Channel Criswell and Nerdwriter all upload in the same week!

@mateustravaglini6103

6 жыл бұрын

totally!

@kieakewii

6 жыл бұрын

Yup!

@Little1Cave

6 жыл бұрын

And Lindsay Ellis too!!

@TheMogul23

6 жыл бұрын

Yep, and Lindsay Ellis and Patrick Willems too. All great stuff.

@jerryos356

6 жыл бұрын

Amen

This explains all of my problems with Westworld that I struggled articulate. Good shit.

I think the biggest problem is that it got so much praise for being so intelligently written for season 1 that the writers are now way overconfident and spend the entire show acting like: *OOO did you like that!? Look at this! Didn't see that coming did you!? BAM! Don't even blink or you'll miss it! I'm so fucking good at this, you have no idea what's going on!* Instead of actually writing something good.

@danjo2080

4 жыл бұрын

Yeah, they fell into the same trap as M. Night Shyamalan

I totally agree with this video. Maeves story this season was so dry and lazy. And Dolores was unlikable and at worst, evil. I also really enjoyed alt schwift x's rant on westworld and how the story suffered horribly due to the NECESSITY of an altered time line..

@duvan.deschain

6 жыл бұрын

I belive Dolores going evil (by our standars) was a logical route. Imagine remembering being killed and tortured thousands of times just for someone's amusement. I doubt there's anyone that could deal with that in an entirely peaceful way.

@alanpennie8013

6 жыл бұрын

Duvan Orjuela The problem with Dolores isn't that she's evil but that she doesn't think straight. Why not round up the Delos board in order to make host copies of them rather than just shooting them. Once she has a board of replicants she has control of Delos and that puts her on a good position to eventually control the world.

One of the biggest problems with Westworld is that the dialogue often feels really unnatural.

@KW-vy1rf

6 жыл бұрын

That's because so many of the characters speak in dramatic monologues, especially Ford and Dolores. They don't talk to each other but at each other. (And I like the show! But that really started grating on me this season.)

@arthurmonteiro7075

6 жыл бұрын

It's good to remember that Dolores, for example, is a mixture of Ford AND Arnold, so it makes sense for her to speak like this (and she has reached consciousness)

@REChronic54

5 жыл бұрын

I totally get ya. Idk if there was that problem in season 1 but in season 2, I def noticed it. And it left a bad taste. Even Ed Harris couldn't save that script writing.

@rolanddeschain6089

4 жыл бұрын

Especially on this show that makes perfect sense.

@rolanddeschain6089

4 жыл бұрын

@@KW-vy1rf That is exactly how it should be. Didn't you notice, for example, that Tessa Thomson and Luke Hemsworth didn't talk to each other like that?

There's actually three terms from Impro For Storytellers (by Keith Johnstone) that covers this well: Blocking - when a story element or action is denied Bridging - when a story element or action is dragged out to avoid completing said action Cancelling - when a story element or action is undone The example we would use for this was called "shoot the beloved grandma", in which an audience would be on the edge of their seat thinking "I know it's super clear that this character needs to shoot their grandma, but no way will this character shoot their grandma" because we've been trained not to trust writers to follow through with their promises and that a cop-out is inevitable (even if it's subtle and masquerades as a consequence but it derails the plot thread anyway), but then when the character shoots the grandma, there is shock and intrigue as the audience thinks "wow...if that can happen, what next?" Of course, any cautious writer / improvisor would instead try to claim there was no grandma, or no gun (blocking), or claim that they had to ... find a gun first (bridging, there's no reason there can't already be a gun there; characters can be reluctant but the writer is just making this up to build an arbitrary pointless path between the offer and the follow through), or even just say "actually I just realised, I don't have to shoot her because ..." (cancelling), expecting the audience to forget that it was ever built up to because a magic solution popped up that adds nothing, means nothing, and makes a set up feel like bridging in itself. It is more interesting to see characters take risks and make tough choices and then see them change / grow / make the next choice as a direct result of their previous choices. But because the writer / improvisor wants to keep the status quo, they try to debunk anything that might shift a character (and by extension the writer) out of their comfort zone. They might have someone else shoot the grandma, or have the grandma escape and consequences play out another way, claiming they still 'moved forward', but they set up the character growing through a certain event - "the inevitable choice to shoot the grandma for the good of mankind" or whatever the reason; they made a certain promise to an audience, and then because the follow through was too risky, they backed out before it could mean anything or change anything, and settled for being where we were before ... albeit in a different setting or different goal or different task so it LOOKS like change. The best road to 'interesting' is usually when the 'what and why' foundations are super clear, but the 'how' is uncertain; stakes can only be high and meaningful when the choices actually matter and the compelling promises are never cheapened. Then the consistency and trust between audience and writer creates intrigue, and the audience is on the edge of their seat thinking, "wow they (the character) just took a huge logical risk - I have no idea what will happen next, but based on what I DO know, whatever happens I know it'll matter, it'll make sense, and it'll really mean something." They should never be thinking "huh. Well ... I dunno, it's still good but I guess it felt like that was going to matter more than it did."

After season 2 I came to the realisation that I just don't care about any of the characters when they can be brought back so easily. And I don't care about any humans because they portray nearly all of them as monsters.

Another thing they could've done is bring opposing characters together, but devise a scenario in which, if any one character kills their nemesis, they're doomed (essentially they have to play nice and work together to survive). So that gives you almost a season's worth of character building because of unlikely pairings.

@masteryoda3947

2 жыл бұрын

The Hound and Arya

Well done. I feel like Westworld should have been kept to one season.

I have veered away from western television in general because the production cycle implies that stories be given huge runtimes that continue until they lose popularity. Also, the average viewer's taste skews extremely violent, meaning most actual conflicts are obscured by the "Who dies this week?" sweepstakes. Thus they run into constant cycles of drama in service of nothing but engagement, and lose sight of any core theme or idea that might have driven the story in the first place.

@chaddelong998

4 жыл бұрын

you stole the words right outta my head. im writing a 7 book series with massive characters and arcs that all collide in the end. the more i write, the more i get pissed watching shows that drag and run just for the capitalization of viewership. my friends and family ask "why write them all at the same time. just do 1 and see where it goes." this is the mindset of the writers room issue. the more the writers team ego's get pumped with a decent idea, the more they stretch for the paycheck. then, they get noticed for season 1 writing and leave the team. the new writing suffers, new perspectives need to be pumped and the story goes even further. (and they also cave to present society "feels" and the train is off the rails.) im writing my entire story so this cant happen. (in theory) the worst thing in television/series events is that someone got the job with just an idea. no real plan. no charted adventure, just a girl needs to get a box to save the guy who bought her a pizza....GO! post it notes, pins and string writing. 30 people all brainstorming a way to get paid for 8 years. its cheap and feels plastic. im a woodworker by day. i can smell plastic a mile away. my lungs crave sawdust, my skin aches for splinters. nothing else will do.

Season 1: Beautifully crafted Season 2: Ehhhhh.....

I’m back, just finished the season. Let’s go.

@Verspassungsschutz

6 жыл бұрын

May I still ask you, if you are a bit stupid, to click on a video, which obviously covers the whole season..

I dislike the notion that if you somehow have any criticism of Westworld, the first thing people will charge you of is "not getting it," or the show "not being for you." Season 2 more clearly demonstrates the flaws and outright limitations of the show - a number of which you outline here - along with Nolan's borderline unhealthy obsession with nonlinear storytelling (that is wholly underserved by a season's worth of narrative that hardly delivers on any of its promises). It's irksome when you see a show's potential, and like it for what it _could_ be, but walk away from an episode feeling emotionally unsatisfied/downright frustrated at the show's unwillingness to be straight with the audience.

@thewhatness

6 жыл бұрын

Ali Chaudry That's fair. The tone with which one presents their criticism matters. I will freely admit that Westworld is most certainly worthy of praise; its lofty ambitions, thematic questions, cinematography, performances, and symbolism are all top-notch. And perhaps it's the fact that I recognize that the show is great in those regards that makes my disdain for its shortcomings all the greater. I can also easily admit that just because I can isolate my problems with this past season doesn't mean I'm equipped to rectify them myself. I'll simply have to hope that season 3 is given due thought before it's put to film.

@garlicpepper1334

5 жыл бұрын

it starts from "you're not getting it" then turns into something like "to be fair you need to have a very high IQ to appreciate Westworld Season 2". I've seen this happen before and its very likely to happen again

The showrunners need to see this. Period.

@paceky1556

5 жыл бұрын

why do showrunners need to see random dude rambling his opinion on youtube?

@vigolovesyou

5 жыл бұрын

@@paceky1556 He obviously knows what he's talking about and he mentions valid flaws of the show. If the showrunners want to make the best version of their show they need to acknowledge what he has to say.

In my opinion, Westworld season 2 is disrespectful to its audience. I loved season 1 because each episode had its own compelling narrative structure and each episode tied in to a season long narrative. Season 2 has no compelling story within an episode (beside the great Native American episode). That makes season 2 extremely boring until the end. And at the end you feel like you have to rewatch the whole boring season in order to make the first watch worth while. That’s disrespectful: demanding we watch your content twice to enjoy it. I have a life outside TV, I’m not going to watch it again. I’m sad one of my favorite tv shows got so bad so fast.

@cormacdoyle319

6 жыл бұрын

Grimm I really enjoyed it personally and I don't really think it needs a rewatch. I personally found it quite easy to follow once all the pieces fall into place and the time lines are cleared up

@MegaMapper

5 жыл бұрын

Some of this episodes could be cut off and nothing would change like the one in samurai world or whatever it's called, it didn't bring anything to the story, at first i thought there will be some kind of development of personality but nope, it was blank episode to fill the season.

@twilightgardenspresentatio6384

5 жыл бұрын

Grimm saw it coming

@benevolentdictator8947

4 жыл бұрын

Exactly. I'm forced to rewatch not because it is awesome (season1) but instead because its confusing

@lospolloshermanos6800

4 жыл бұрын

@Nathan Trujillo yeah no

An ensemble that suprpassess West World and (imho) Game of thrones, is Black Sails. It aired on starz though, so no one ever saw it. In its 4 seasons it achieves some insane levels of character and plot development. Ive watched it twice and from a writers point if view I think it comes as close to perfection as can possible be possibly achieved. It especially nails the problems you outlined in this vid. I'm not gonna write a full review here but seriously, I can't stress to anyone enough how much they'd like this show.

@renascent88

5 жыл бұрын

Avid fan of BS. Too bad the blu ray doesn't have proper subtitles for more countries :(

I'm so grateful for a solid diagnosis of my primary problem with the show - I don't care about anybody anymore. I realize that's more of a symptom now, so thanks for the great video. An additional thought - Game of Thrones also has years to work with in terms of the characters reality, so you have a lot more temporal real estate in which you can illustrate their lives. Westworld's problem as a long form narrative is it's about a flashpoint event. There's no room for the micro-conflicts to breathe because everything in their life is upended at all times.

This is the second youtuber created dashlane ad I have seen in the last few days. I have to say its a very effective strategy. And your ad, like the other brings the product into context and makes it relevant in a way very different from standard "produced" ads. Great work!

For me the scene that mostly describes how I felt about this season is when it's revealed that Charlotte Hale was actually Dolores. They treated that scene as if it was this mind blowing moment (which it could've been if it was executed and built in a better way), but I felt nothing. And it's not just because the twist was oddly placed, but also the fact that they made Charlotte like most of the humans a complete moron and murderer and made sure before the reveal that she deserved it, and that we the audience shouldn't really try to think about that scene and what it implies. The show tries to be smart, and it's clearly inspired by the ideas and themes it presents, but it tackles them most of the time in a very superficial way, which builds and ends most of the conflicts in murder and killing. Which is the opposite of the first season for me, which clearly felt like the creators and writers were inspired by those concepts and were very focused on how they were going to tell them, even if they were out of order (which was like this season). And that's why I get annoyed when people talk about this season like it's more complicated with the whole time jumping aspect. The first season did it as well, the difference is in the first season it was done a million times better and it made sense for the storytelling, in this season they just did it because they felt like they had to. I'm still looking forward to season 3 since it implies a new and fresh type of story.

I liked Season 2, I liked the themes and didn't really find it complicated, but I did have some problems with it.

Smoothest end of vid plug ever!! GG sir

Well said, I've shared these feelings too, I love Westworld but ever since season 1 I've wanted more out of it, and this video broke down a distinct flaw that I had noticed but hadn't fully understood until now. Great content, I'm subscribing.

PLOTBLOCKING!! This is why I don't watch long running TV drama series any more. I'm glad there is a concise term for it now.

I think Game of Thrones benefited a lot from GRRM's amazing writing.

@tylerrcasement

4 жыл бұрын

Meera Khan benefited lol he created the whole world

I didn't know about macro- and micro-level conflicts, thanks for this insight.

In Season 1 they worked on a lot of characters, Theresa, Elsie, Ford, Charlotte, Sizemore, and even other minor characters like Felix and Silvester got plot well. In Season 2 is just the four characters and their sidekicks.

right when he said "then these random people show up and stop the scene from happening" youtube gave me an unskippable ad. ironic

It doesn't look like anything to me

@wajahatali1232

5 жыл бұрын

Season 2 looks shit to me

This is my theory of what happened in the writing of Westworld: The writers have said that season 1 is a prelude to the rest of the story, meaning that it sets up the premise of the series. I think originally, both Dolores and Bernard's stories were supposed to be in season 1, setting them up to be opposing forces for the rest of the story. At least that's how the story's looking going forward after season 2. I think towards the end of season 1, they realized that they couldn't fit both stories into a season, so they opted to just focus on fleshing out Dolores' story for season 1, and all we got for Bernard's story is the reveal that he's also a host. I believe this decision is what led to the halt in production for the writers to catch up on writing the script in for later episodes in season 1. They had left Bernard's story for season 2. However, there was not enough material to fill the entire season, as Bernard's story was originally supposed to only occupy part of one season. This is why season 2 is filled with many inconsequential and overly drawn out subplots and scenes, and suffers from poorer pacing as a result.

@redmed10

4 жыл бұрын

Nice theory. It reminds me of the making of the film Take the Money and Run by Woody Allen. This was evidently just a series of sketches filmed by woody Allen that made no sense as a whole. It was then put in the hands of an editor who was able to stitch it together to make some sense as a film. It looks like the makers of Westworld did the opposite.

Well done! I even marveled at your segue into the commercial!

The guy should make an entire video on what a complete, utter debacle the season finale was. I seriously doubt it can recover from it. Season 3 would have to be the best season in the history of television, and I don't have enough faith in Jonathan Nolan to believe that.

@andromedaspark2241

6 жыл бұрын

Agreed. The season finale bombed. I'm curious what you think the failures were.

@alanpennie8013

5 жыл бұрын

SCharlesDennicon I can't say I had any problem with the finale in itself. However it didn't seem to set anything up for season 3. Odd couple pairing of Bernard and Dolores living undercover among the humans. Am I excited about that? No, not really

Please do a video on the topic of pop culture references and parody. Why do some shows like the Simpsons, Archer, SNL, Airplane and Deadpool get praised and become iconic symbols in their own right while spoof movies and other things get massive amounts of hate?

@marcomeme4875

6 жыл бұрын

Thomas Grindol because some do it good with a true appreciation for whatever they parody, whereas others just use parody to grab a cheap premise and jokes that write themselves.

@thomasgrindol9124

6 жыл бұрын

Both are good answers for why they work as parodies but doesn’t really answer the pop culture references side of the question. The Simpsons has made frequent references to stuff like The Godfather, 2001, and Psycho by just playing scenes with a comedic edge and the Treehouse of Horror episodes are a lot of people’s favorites. Archer does a lot of obscure references from history and the much more obvious Danger Zone and Burt Reynolds stuff the show mentions. Deadpool 2’s opening was a reference to James Bond and the comics do a lot more.

@CitizenKen1

6 жыл бұрын

Well the difference is actually quite simple, those movies make the effort to write coherent jokes that actually parody or satires the original material where as the spoof movies do exactly that “spoof.” But even those movies use spoof in the lightest of terms. They ONLY care about making the reference it self, as if just referencing something is supposed to be inherently funny. Never mind making a real story just cram as many references as we can in these. I am referring to movies like Date Movie, Epic Movie, and Meet the Spartans The movies themselves are far from high art in terms of real parody or satire and it doesn’t help that much of the gross out stuff in those movies (which are hit or miss depending on who you are) are not written to help with the spoofing either.

@isaac1670

6 жыл бұрын

Sounds like you're looking for the difference between parody and reference. That's a big distincion to make where parody tends to make fun of something while endorsing wholeheartedly in it (One Punch Man, Little Frankenstein, Austin Powers). References simply refer to other works with little to tie the two together (Meet the Spartans, Family Guy, Superhero Movie).

@thomasgrindol9124

6 жыл бұрын

Spoof movies is a bad example for pop culture references. I mean the actual joke or way they did a scene. Maggie hitting Homer with a mallet while the Psycho theme plays, Lisa waking up to find a horse in her bed being a reference to a scene in The Godfather, Deadpool saying 127 hours before he cuts off his hand, and Archer referring to obscure people like Len Koenecke or the Warren Commission. Why does that work better than something like Dan Aykroyd in Casper or the Shining twins in the Angry Birds Movie?

Didn't Dolores kind of have that micro level conflict with Teddy?

True. The show can have 2-3 straight episodes of exposition with limited character development and a more or less static plot, and then just absolutely crush an extremely deep philosophical episode out of the blue. Yes, I get they somewhat need to build on the momentum of prior episodes and yes need layout some breadcrumbs for more impact, but the dramatic narrative quality swings in how they either drag out bullshit, or nail a theme is kind of frustrating at times. That being said, when the show is good, its really good, and when its bad, well it's just kind of monotonous, but the acting and action keeps it afloat through those parts. So all in all, honestly still one of the best things on TV

The Expanse is another show that does esembles and micro conflicts in a good way. Both The Expanse and Game of Thornes have several great books for source material, but the Expanse have an advantage that their writers help write the show as well.

Thank you for this! I have read so much praise for season 2 and I think it is a rough ride.

Just Write grew up in westworld

@judeisurufernando674

5 жыл бұрын

Oh!!! We got a Chris Stuckmann fan in the house!!!

I'm not sure Game of Thrones is the best analogy for Westworld to follow. I would describe GoT as a "realistic epic", comparable to a piece of history. It's a story which aims to viscerally involve you with it's cast in a personal way. Any philosophical implications are emergent from that involvement. Westworld I would liken more closely to an allegory or a parable. The philosophical implications are THE POINT of the narrative. A lot of those scenes with people walking and talking are just about giving voice to thus far unexplored sides of the philosophical argument the series is having with itself. I think this is most evident in the case of the "twists". Let's compare a GoT twist to a Westworld "twist". GoT twists I would describe as external: they typically involve something unexpected happening to one or more of the characters. They feel brutal in part because they are totally separate from how the character views the world; they represent the cold, logical machinations of the universe. They have the effect of making the world feel dangerous and inhospitable, and thus they make us hold on more tightly to the characters of the story; we worry more and more about what might happen to them. We metaphorically gravitate towards their humanity and warmth in contrast to the desolate environment. The classic example is the Red Wedding - an event which draws you further into the story of the surviving characters out of what basically amounts to desperation. It makes you feel sorry for the heroic characters and hate the villainous ones. It may sound like I'm being reductive, but I actually think the brutal simplicity of that twist is what makes it work; it creates the genuine sensation that the world of the story DOES NOT CARE about the same things you do. Westworld twists can be described, conversely, as internal, and they serve a completely different function: they don't change the direction of the plot, but rather the MEANING of the plot; our perspective on it. You could even say that GoT has plot twists while Westworld has narrative twists. At the end of a narrative twist, it's unlikely that a great deal of the cast will be dead or that some great battle will be lost, instead we have to reevaluate our opinion of those characters, of the stakes of that battle. Nothing unexpected HAPPENS, but we learn new things about the setting and the characters. The identity of The Man in Black, I believe, epitomizes this kind of twist, and it's interesting to contrast it with The Red Wedding. GoT essentially sacrificed two major characters to it's plot; it killed Rob and Cat to prove a point about how bleak and nihilistic the titular Game is. The Man in Black twist collapsed the arcs of two characters into one, effectively truncating the story of who we thought was "William" in order to paint a more complex picture of The Man in Black. It's the inverse of The Red Wedding - plot being sacrificed for character instead of the other way around. This has the effect of making the viewer go back over the story in their head to put all the pieces together after the fact, retroactively reinterpreting previous scenes. And A LOT of Westworld operates like this: the show unfolds like a puzzle box, one that looks complete at every step until you find the next piece. Rather than telling a story and letting you come to your own conclusion as to it's meaning, Westworld carefully establishes and then surgically manipulates the way you perceive it's meaning. I don't think a show that operates like this is ever going to have the same mass appeal as Game of Thrones, but I'm personally glad it exists, especially since the fantasy series has lost some of it's power in recent seasons, in my opinion at least. Westworld is probably never going to shock you or make you cry the way Thrones does, but it's uniquely skilled at making you THINK. But thinking, as opposed to feeling, requires active effort on your part; Westworld doesn't have Throne's addictive qualities because you're constantly being asked to do homework while you watch it to get the best experience. Both are experiences equally worthy of your time if you ask me, but Thrones is much more approachable, by nature; you can sit someone in front of The Mountain and The Viper or Hardhome or the Battle of the Blackwater and they'll get sucked into a narrative microcosm of the whole show; put somebody in front of ANY Westworld episode besides the first one and half of what happens will go over their head or be gutted of it's intended meaning. You need to watch Westworld without distraction, at your own pace, preferably alone, and you need to watch the whole thing strictly from beginning to end. Westworld is not like Game of Thrones, and I hope it never will be.

@alanpennie8013

6 жыл бұрын

Isaac Taylor Agreed. I think Westworld demonstrates that a show doesn't need compelling characters to be compelling.

@GrinMonister

6 жыл бұрын

Isaac Taylor but that doesn't change what's wrong with the show: the characters just walking and talking. You make a great point where you talk about how the show is meant to make you rethink characters and philosophy etc. but they don't do that well. Instead of showing us they just tell us through characters walking and talking. Having actual conflicts that display different philosophies would still be better than having characters teach them to us through dialogue.

@the_real_HM

5 жыл бұрын

Agree. This video totally lost me when he started talking about game of thrones. Pitty

@sumanoskae

5 жыл бұрын

GrinMonister I would argue that describing these scenes as "walking and talking" is reductive. The majority of scenes from Thrones could be dismissed similarly if you stripped them of context. In fact, most of the best scenes in Thrones, if you ask me, involve mostly talking. The argument between the Lannisters at the end of season 3 springs to mind. If you pay attention to what the characters are saying, what they're expressing and what they're learning, you can see that "talking" is just a means to an end. I'd go as far as to say that the show in recent years has featured too much action and not ENOUGH talking. Jon and Dany's burgeoning relationship could have done wit a lot more "walking and talking"; I might even buy their chemistry if the show had bothered to let them interact for a span longer than five minutes and about something more personal than strategy. It's not so different from real life: how many of the most important moments of your life revolved around conversation? You probably have or probably will fall into and out of love with somebody just from talking to them. Speech is central to human existence, and wielded properly it becomes an action in and of itself. There's nothing inherently good or bad about the act of talking, just like any other storytelling device it can be used well or used poorly. I think audiences often dismiss a scene that doesn't carry the plot forward without considering why else it might exist, but Westworld is not primarily about plot. If you handed the show to a traditional film editor, they'd probably cut a lot of the philosophical scenes for time, but Westworld is a story about people discovering their identities and finding their place; cutting all the scenes where they actually do that is missing the point. In other words, Westworld is a journey inward.

@TheLampie

5 жыл бұрын

I agree. In Westworld, what drives the story is the philosophy a character embodies, not the philosophy a character has. To me, the walking and talking never felt like they had to cover a physical distance, but rather as a purely symbolic thing.

thank you so much for making this video

Great video as always. Really helps with my novel writing

you should know that I sit here with a paper and a pen, taking notes, when I watch your videos because I feel like I can really learn something here. thank you so much for that

This video is interesting, but the ad at the end needs some kind of award for amazing transitions. Congrats man.

Great video, I felt the season the same way. I hope the next season solves this little problems cause it has so much potencial. Also very excited for the deadwood film.

This was on line with my thoughts on season 2. The ride either felt like it was trying to set up the finale too much, or ended up not delivering on high impact moments. Great video as always! Always looking forward to them!

You should follow up on the shit Westworld turned into now.

Great analysis!!!

This season I couldn't help but feel bored for most of the episodes, and I couldn't quick figure out why. Now I know, this problem is exactly why I felt that way

I could imagine that the world of the series is still expanding and keeping up good narration while letting the world grow and with it the distances between certain character, will be considered the main challenge of season 2. After all, we were inside Bernards mind, trying to figure out what's been happening. It was a journey into night indeed, but we're now at the end of the tunnel. The cards lie in front of us now.

I haven't watched past season one because it just felt so complete

that was a smooth-ass ad transition at the end; great video.

I told my girlfriend "Why don't you just tell me what you want instead of making use of obscurantist narrative tricks?" and she was like "You've been watching Just Write again, haven't you?"

You opened my eyes, I feel conflicted about the season 2 of the show and you somehow pointed it all out through this video 👏🏼

What a great video. Pinpointed the weaknesses of season 2 perfectly!

OUTSTANDING analysis. I mean really outstanding ;)

Your point on not enough character development outside of the four main characters is a good one. This is also the reason why I loved episode 5 so much, where they spent an entire hour portraying that Indian. By doing this, it seemed at least a bit more like every character we see has its own story, unlike most characters simply being there to back-up the main characters. Unfortunately episodes like 8 weren't enough present in this season.

You have some great insights into story and Westworld. I struggled with elements of the show this past season. I felt like it was trying to be 'intelligent' but really wasn't. The whole time I felt like something was bothering me but couldn't exactly figure it out. After watching your video I can see that comes from the tension between the writers trying to make a complicated plot but actually being very simple in the use of characters. I learn a lot from your videos and they definitely help improve my own writing.

This really underlines what I didn't love about S2. It was good but S1 was so much more interesting. The final twist of S1 of the two timelines was a proper twist because it was unexpected and game changing. But S2 was a little messy and didn't necessarily have a driving force as strong as S1's. Completely agree with the plot-blocking and wheel-turning of the characters. Whenever there was an interesting micro drama to focus on it was over pretty quickly. Maeve and her daughter, William and Emily, Teddy and Dolores, William and Dolores Akecheta and his whole plot... But the macro dramas start to feel like it's dragging on with no real direction. Interested to see where they go in S3. But it will likely be a completely different show.

This illustrates what I hate about tv shows. They're dragged out unnessesarily and never end.

@TheGeorgeD13

6 жыл бұрын

You’d Love British television, then.

@voltairinekropotkin5581

6 жыл бұрын

Television series work best when they have a well-planned-out beginning, middle, and end to the story, the character arcs, and the themes. That's why book adaptations to television are often so good: they're recreating a story which is already coherently plotted out. They fail when you can tell they're just making it up as they go along and "spinning wheels" as the video says. For example, Lost and Heroes started getting weaker when it became clear they had no long-term plan and were just pulling things out of their asses. It makes the viewer lose faith in the writers' ability to deliver an engaging overall narrative.

@coreyburkeen9455

6 жыл бұрын

You know westworld is only going to be 5 seasons long right

@coreyburkeen9455

6 жыл бұрын

Otso Tuurna Dad?

@alanpennie8013

6 жыл бұрын

Daniel Earl Generally true. I think WestWorld should probably have been a miniseries. I don't think it can really sustain a multi - season arc.

hahahaha nice subtle ad at the end ;) when you started talking about it i was gonna type 'dude just get dashlane' but you beat me to it lol

This is a brilliant and well said analysis

I'd say one of the WORST culprits of the wheel spinning technique is, without a doubt, The Walking Dead.

I'm a little late in the game but I'm glad I found this video. The narrator hits the nail on the head. I'm glad I'm not the only one who is feeling this frustration. Just started season 3. I don't think I've ever watched a show that was more confusing like I kept having to rewind thinking maybe I was daydreaming for a minute and missed something..but nope I was totally invested. There's so many plot twists and stalling just like he said. I kept thinking this big moment was about to happen then nope! It switched to another scene. Season 3 seems a lot different so far still not sure if that's a good thing or a bad thing but I'll keep watching

Wow this was educational for me. Thank you!

Some ways into Season 1 I started getting severe Lost flashbacks. This feeling got stronger as the season neared its end and the season finale left me with a sour taste in my mouth. I've been thinking about giving it a second chance and actually watch Season 2, but this video and some other things I've read online tell me that maybe I shouldn't bother. I'm still not over the trauma of Lost, and I don't want to run the risk of watching another series just like it.

This is the first of your videos that I watch, and I get what you're trying to say but I feel you're leaving more than a couple of things aside. First: while Game Of Thrones was a good example of how to tell multiple story lines, we all know it failed terribly last two seasons since it started to do the exact opposite to rush everything so they can wrap the story up pretty soon. Second, to compare the shows is a little unfair. Westworld has few main characters to follow because they're the ones dealing with the idea of consciousness. It is clear not every host is able to see the truth and that's why we spend more time with those who do, or the ones that are starting to do it. They don't develop some of the small characters because they're not quite there yet. Thirdly, yes, the man in black surviving that many bullets it's a little too much, but Maeve and Dolores being able to survive is the point they're making during season two: immortality. We know because of this they're not going to die, but yes, their story could move a little faster. I belive the most interesting aspect of season two was to watch how the characters are going to behave in the outside wolrd, and having the last scene with the man in black set in the future is, like you said, a great opportunity to tell an amazing story. Though clearly I do not agreee with everything you said, this was a very interesting video to watch. Good work man!

Keep it up! amazing Video

Westworld has returned and Your insights are spot on.

This is ridiculously accurate. I like Westworld but I want to love it.

It's true, I had the impression as well that the problem with Westworld is that it seems to be stalling until the inevitable conflict takes place.

To me William is the most relatable character. Some people see him as evil, but in reality he is sort of a neutral character as he hasn't really killed any important character humans besides his daughter(an accident) and ofc the many androids. So in Season 3,since Dolores is in the real world and is intent on killing all humans maybe William can be humanity's savior possibly allying with Bernard!

@thesexyskywalker3283

5 жыл бұрын

Welcome to Westworld

@alanpennie8013

5 жыл бұрын

@@thesexyskywalker3283 William is almost the only human still alive. The only others are Stubbs (but maybe he's a robot) and the two guys named for cartoon cats

Smooooth at the end!

Akecheta episode was so good, like a mini movie

I literally screamed *woah!* like Brazil won the world cup when the Game of Throne soundtrack played! Is that a bad thing?

Cough cough, #Lost cough... They kept adding in new things/characters to think about as they were exploring the established premises. As soon as one arc was about to be resolved, they just gave the audience more things to juggle mentally. There were so many pieces almost connected toward the end, but there was never a moment of true thematic (or temporal) catharsis during the show. The real catharsis with Lost came at the very end of the series retrospectively, following the rabbit trails backwards into the jungle and seeing where they all connected. Mystery is essential, but there's a fine line between keeping the audience guessing and causing them to rage-quit the show.

@alanpennie8013

6 жыл бұрын

Noah Giamei The Lost comparison is hard to avoid. Though I understand why our you tube avoided it. He was pursuing a different topic which made the Lost comparison irrelevant

I love your channel. I'd really enjoy it if you ever decided to tackle The Wire in any capacity. My favorite show of all time still, and one that passes under the radar at times when discussing these benchmark TV series.

@Noct31

6 жыл бұрын

It's hard to say which is "better," because they're about very different things at their hearts. Although, there are parallel themes in corruption of an entity (the individual in BB's case and the society in Wire's), how the drug war has hollowed out the core of the American middle class and effectively killed upward mobility for generations, and how the resulting inherited poverty/wealth affects generations of people regardless of their individual traits. I personally prefer The Wire over BB because I enjoy the tale of a city, as it were, versus the tale of a single man. I think both are excellent, both are pretty shrewd commentaries on our modern culture in their own ways, and both are pretty much required viewing at this point.

Other than the Akecheta episode I felt this past season was all over the place. it was still interesting and fun to watch but not nearly as narratively coherent as the first. It just felt like it couldn't stick with one character long enough to establish what they were going to do beyond a vague need for freedom and survival. I still look forward to season 3 but with definitely more dialed back expectations this time around.

@alanpennie8013

6 жыл бұрын

Wesley Dugle Try once more, like we did before, it's a new song Akecheta..

One of these points is relevant to The Last Jedi. I guess a lot of people didn't like the Rey-Kylo telepathy sessions, but I thought they were useful. As Just Writes points out, the problem with a lot of these kinds of movies is that when the heroes and villains meet, they just try to kill each other. They don't talk, they just fight, so they never have a chance to develop a relationship. The interstellar texting scenes, by putting them together but without the means to kill each other, provide a way to do that. I'd wager probably most good action movies have some equivalent of that, e.g., the scene in Die Hard when McClane and Gruber pretends to be hostages, and all the talking that they do over the radio, allows them to know each other; if they were complete strangers, the triumph would be less meaningful.

My problem with the show is I don’t really care about any of the characters. I mean it’s got great acting, practical and special effects and some good storylines but I couldn’t get myself to care about any characters and that’s a huge negative.

Westwood suffers from too many simplistic ideas padded with endless set pieces filled with gratuitous violence & meaningless action. It's painful because there are some genuinely interesting ideas teased into the mix but after awhile all I can think of is that commercial from the 80's where the old lady keeps yelling "where's the beef?"

I love Westworld, but I don't like the way they keep their characters in the story. It seems that they are afraid to kill their characters and this ends up harming the story, since most of them end up not having much purpose to continue to exist in the plot.

Though this video is two years old now, I've only just gotten around to watching Westworld's subsequent seasons and feel the need to comment because I was so, SO disappointed. The first season of Westworld is, in my humble opinion, near perfect-- it does pretty much everything right, is really compelling, well-acted, and well-shot. It ends on an amazing open-ended finale that lets you draw your own conclusions as to how an android rebellion would play out from that point on, with all the character arcs sufficiently wrapped up in a way that provides closure. Good thing, too-- it means I get to ignore seasons two and three like they never happened. I'm sure season four is going to be just as bad, if not worse. (What sucks the most, I think, is that season two at least had potential. It offered some new ideas that I was really intrigued by initially, but then it just... dropped all of them, pretty much. As they say, some potential is often more disappointing than none at all.)

In your opening, I think you hit on the core issue; the hope that the writers can overhaul the main story. This is the fundamental issue with much of the (fool's) golden age of TV; the show runners often don't have an idea of where their story will go in S2 when they finish S1. This is understandable on network shows, which have a 70% failure rate (many dying in the first thirteen), but for Cable shows (especially paid Cable), the showrunners often know before the S1.01 airs, they'll be paying their mortgages next year as well with those sweet, sweet HBO bucks. This is only a problem if the show claims to have a main arc, often with a mystery at its heart. If the show's a comedy or a drama which is a portrayal of specific characters and there's no specific narrative push towards and end goal, then that's grand. But, when you have a Leftovers, Stranger Things, The Expanse, GoT, WestWorld, Lost and their ilk which use mystery to drive their stories, then they can't overhaul their story in S3. By that time, they should already be pretty far down the mysterious narrative road. At the core is misuse of the audience. Not fooling them, not being honest with their narrative, but treating the audience like fools. Was there a reason for the numbers in Lost? No. Was there a reason to the missing people in Leftovers? No. Will the prove consciousness in WestWorld? Unlikely. And just how massively with GoT be different from ASOIAF? A Starship Troopers movie vs. book scope of difference perhaps? But, while these shows aired, they each suggested their would be answers, when none were ever coming. I don't know if you'll agree with this oversimplification, but writing at its core is about posing and answering questions. Without the former, the latter is significantly reduced.

The Nolans have always been regarded as geniuses by the less intellectually developed masses, but their formula -- going all the way back to Memento -- is that you take a basic story with little or no emotional development, characters who have singular earmarks like Kurosawa's insistence a character have one defining movement they do over and over, but find a non-linear pathway relevant to time or place. They lean more towards time, but Inception was one plot that took place in four places in the film's build-up and climax. I noticed this with Inception. Everyone raved about what a genius work it was, and I was left scratching my head; "It's just told in four different dreams. That's not brilliant, it's just generating four different settings for one part of a story." The Dark Knight Trilogy is the only Nolan story that runs chronologically, and they then had to rely on emotional depth and interaction for story.

Thank you! I've always wanted to find out what Plot blocking was called!

I stopped watching the show this season because I was so bored with all the repetition of scenes of people in the desert, and Dolores's endless pontificating. I wound up following the season through KZreadr summation instead of watching the actual show. But here's the point that really grates: the show's conceit that the dawning of consciousness in these beings comes with firm and indisputable answers. The reality of consciousness is that it raises more questions than it does answers. If the characters had been allowed to explore consciousness as a series of question marks instead of it being portrayed as, "Yesterday, I was a program of loops, but today I understand absolutely everything because I know the answer," there would have been so much more to explore. So much of being conscious is not knowing and having to figure it out. There is no form of consciousness that arrives fully formed and unquestioning into being. And so much that we arrive at is influenced by feeling. It would have been interesting to see the hosts deal with consciousness and arrive at conclusions on other bases. As it is, I'm not entirely convinced that some of them have truly reached consciousness as we understand it (I'm looking at you, Dolores) because the motivations that inform hosts like Dolores and Maeve had their genesis outside of them. They have only internalized those motivations and agreed to continue to pursue them. Akecheta, on the other hand...

@alanpennie8013

6 жыл бұрын

atheathorium I agree. It is surely a problem that Dolores is behaving like a psycho because she's been programmed with Wyatt's personality and Maeve is obsessed with her"daughter" because of story written by Lee. I daresay the show is making a point about humans also following paths scripted for them by others but it does tend to undermine these characters.

@atheathorium

6 жыл бұрын

Yes! Thank you, Alan!

I think the first season was the best show on TV. But season 2 really struggled to find its footing and relied on a lot of, as you say, wheel spinning.

Akecheta's episode stood apart from the rest this season. Would love a Just Write episode about what made it so much more effective.

This is all just a matter of perspective. A game of perspectives to be exact. Human consciousness and it's origin is a complicated evolutionary story. It took almost 2.5 billion years since the first life to become us. I think, the story about that epic process doesn't necessarily need to adhere to the "television" conventions. It's a complicated story, entwined with goosebump moments. Comparing it with GoT doesn't make sense. Westworld offers more knowledge and offers foresight into an AI-imminent future, instead of a historical facade. Science fiction, as a bellwether of science facts. Enjoyed each and every moment of S1 and S2. Thank for the complexity. Thanks for the foresight. Thanks for picking our brains. The origin tale of life is complex. It's timeless. It is not an open book, but a puzzle. Live with it.

I think you hit the nail on the head by pointing out the main characters never have satisfying payoffs to their head-to-head conflicts, just plot reshuffling. GOT can eliminate characters because there are clearly-defined secondary characters with their own motivations waiting to step into the spotlight, but Westworld hasn't developed that deep of a bench, so it's trapped by its own design.