Talk:Westworld (TV series)/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

A couple of small items for after the big one

I can see that there are bigger fish to fry regarding the "Cast" section, but I hope one of you might consider and make some unrelated small changes after the big "Bernard" issue is settled. I'm not expecting to keep coming back to see if the bigger debate is done, thus decided to leave this brief note for others to consider (or ignore - no big deal).

First, "Ben Barnes as Logan, a long-time guest...". Minor item, but "long-time" sounds like he's been stuck visiting the world for consecutive months and months. He might be, but we don't really know. How about something like "regular guest" or "repeat guest" or "returning guest".

Second, "Anthony Hopkins as Robert Ford, the founder and creative director". Another minor item, but just wondering if Ford is a "co-founder". Thanks. Jmg38 (talk) 02:59, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Does anyone disagree with these proposed edits? They are correct imho and don't interfere with the rfc. PizzaMan (♨♨) 19:29, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

I've applied the edits. Not 100% sure if we should call Ford the founder or the co-founder, so co-founder seems safer. Perhaps the back story between him and Arnold and the creation of the park wil be expanded upon more in the second season. PizzaMan ♨♨♨ 21:13, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Angela's description

I think it would be best to delete the section in Angela's character description which says she is later reprogrammed to be a follower of Wyatt. This poses numerous questions that the plot summary, after the character descriptions, answers. According to the Wikipedia style guide, a brief description of the character is ideal. Justus et peccator (talk) 17:33, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Man in Black's identity

Why am I not allowed to list "Man in Black" as "old William"? He is, objectively, an aged William. Please forgive me, I'm new to editing. -Justus Et Peccator — Preceding unsigned comment added by Justus et peccator (talk • contribs) 19:03, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Justus et peccator, see the #RfC on Potential Spoilers and #Are we going to start the rfc all over again? For every spoiler in the cast and characters list? discussions above for why we have excluded the information from the Cast and characters section. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:26, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

@Justus et peccator: Because, unfortunately, editors have found it in their best personal interests to block the addition of spoilers in the face of existing guidelines. Hopefully you enjoy Wikipedia - remember that this is an exception, so don't expect your spoilers to removed everywhere. -- Alex^TW 23:31, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

That is a mischaracterization of the RfC result, as made clear by the closer of the RfC, but we obviously disagree on this issue. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 16:40, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Please, if you're going to respond, please keep it constructive and neutral. If you can't keep your hurt feelings out of it, don't bother responding, this is an active talk page with plenty of others who can respond more professionally. Sergecross73 msg me 17:35, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Your concerns are appreciated, but I will phrase my responses how I personally see fit. Cheerio. -- Alex^TW 00:12, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

The consensus of the the prior discussions was to omit information like this in the character list section. Many, like myself, argued that it didn't make sense to drop character bombshells and plots twists so early on in the article, before even any sort of premise or general synopsis was given. Additionally, ""old William a.k.a. Man in Black" probably wouldn't have been the best way to present this anyways - his name isn't "old William", and the formal writing in encyclopedias don't use abbreviations like "a.k.a". Sergecross73 msg me 17:35, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

@Justus et peccator: And then there was just as many that argued that omitting such information would be a blight upon the Wikipedia, as we are an encyclopedia of information, not a TV guide that censors its content for readers who know better. However, I might recommend taking a solid read of the RFC and resultant discussions, and expressing your own view on the matter. And the age of the character in the listing is acceptable - see Genius (U.S. TV series)#Cast and characters or Once Upon a Time (season 6)#Guest, for similar examples. -- Alex^TW 00:12, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

There's a simple way to address the issue: how is Ed Harris credited? If he is credited as "the Man in Black", then the article can reasonably call him that without falling afoul of WP:SPOILER. For example, Thor: Ragnarok's cast section names Tessa Thompson's character as Valkyrie even though she is never actually called Valkyrie in the film (she is only ever referred to as "Scrapper 142"). Likewise, Skyfall lists Javier Bardem's character as Raoul Silva, even though the film establishes that this is a pseudonym (his birth name being Thiago Rodriguez).

Maybe it's an issue that needs to be revisited in season 2. Both Harris and Simpson are returning. If they're both referred to as William, then I don't think we can keep calling Harris the Man in Black. Especially if the name is never used. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 01:45, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

He is credited in the main cast at the start of the episode, where only cast names are typically given, rather than character names. Character names are given in the credits at the end of the episode for guest and recurring cast. Hence, there is no character name given for Harris' crediting. -- Alex^TW 04:58, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

True, but it's possible to find alternative sources. There should be press releases confirming details of casting. There was definitely paraphinalia that shipped with the DVD release that listed Harris as "the Man in Black", and both Johnathan Nolan and Lisa Joy repeatedly refer to him as "the Man in Black" in the production vignettes bundled with the DVD release (commentaries and special features are frequently used in episode articles, so they're legitimate sources). If all else fails, we can rely on WP:COMMONNAME (in spirit) and look at what name is used in reviews and other third-party sources.

Don't get me wrong; I'm opposed to referring to him as "the Man in Black" for the sake of avoiding a spoiler. But we have to go with what the sources say. That's why I brought up Tessa Thompson in Thor: Ragnarok—she is credited as Valkyrie in the cast section, but as the name is never used in the film, the plot section only ever refers to her as "Scrapper 142" or "142". I actually think that the best way forward is to list Harris as the Man in Black, but ackowledge that he is William in the description. After all, the cast section already lists Wright as playing both Bernard and Arnold. (Actually, I think the whole cast section needs a re-write; in its current form it reads a lot like a press release.) Prisonermonkeys (talk) 09:24, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

I have no position on the wording; I exhausted myself trying to argue against the removal of spoilers in the RFC. It was the result of this RFC and the support for "no spoilers" in the article that has resulted in the cast list looking the way it was - the editors decided to make the descriptions of the characters based on their first appearance; basically, what you would see in a press release. -- Alex^TW 09:41, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

It definitely needs a re-think. There's a few inconsistencies, like the aforementioned mention of Wright in a double role, but avoiding things like mentioning William and the Man in Black being the same character. For example, Angela's entry mentions that she is a follower of Wyatt, but there is no prior mention of Wyatt in the article; understanding the entry requires the reader to have seen the series. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 10:50, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

You stated, "If he is credited as 'the Man in Black', then the article can reasonably call him that without falling afoul of WP:SPOILER." In what way do you consider the section running afoul WP:SPOILER if it mentions that William is the Man in Black? I ask because the supporters of including that detail argued that mentioning it was inline with WP:SPOILER. As for the Bernard aspect, do read #Are we going to start the rfc all over again? For every spoiler in the cast and characters list? and its subsections for why that aspect was included. As noted by others, it is not blatantly spoiling. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:52, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

"In what way do you consider the section running afoul WP:SPOILER if it mentions that William is the Man in Black?"

I don't. I'm just querying the rationale behind it. If the section has been written to prevent the reader from learning that William is the Man in Black, then it's SPOILER. I'm querying it because I think the whole section needs work—case in point, the entry for Angela describes her as a follower of Wyatt, but the article gives no indication of who Wyatt is. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 08:21, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

And this is similar to the argument I keep having - the issue really is less about SPOILER violations, and more about the fact that the article is conceptually poorly organized and poorly written. It doesn't make sense to drop major plot-points out of the blue before the premise of the show is even explained. For an analogy of what people are proposing to add to this article, lets's look at Titanic (1997 film). Is the first section in the body of the article a cast list that says "Jack was the movie's male lead. He dies in cold water at the end." No, of course not. The issue isn't that it's a spoiler, its that it doesn't make sense to jump straight to that in explaining things to the reader. There's a multi-paragraph story section first, which explains the movie's premise, Jack's relationships and experiences, and yes, his eventual death. If someone would do the same here, I'm pretty sure it would eliminate these arguments. But people are so buried in their Wiki-alphabet soup that they can't see the forest through the trees... Sergecross73 msg me 13:57, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

That is a brilliant example of a terrible analogy. A death of a character is completely different to character development; many of those arguing to include the "spoilers" noted that there's no sense of adding in deaths, as that is not character development and hence does not include in the character section. I kindly suggest to try again. -- Alex^TW 14:19, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Yes, this is exactly the WP:BATTLEGROUND, missing-the-point type attitude I was alluding to above. Character deaths, identity reveals, it doesn't matter. The point is that it doesn't make sense to reveal detailed information before a basic premise is established. Sergecross73 msg me 14:27, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Prisonermonkeys, by "Angela," do you mean Angela Sarafyan? If so, the section currently states: "Angela Sarafyan as Clementine Pennyfeather, a host; she works for Maeve and is one of Westworld's most popular attractions. Lili Simmons portrays another host fulfilling the same role when the original Clementine is decommissioned." It doesn't mention Wyatt. Either way, who Wyatt is could be briefly mentioned, but he doesn't appear to be a character who should have a listing in the section. And he currently doesn't have one. He's really just a narrative. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:17, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

@Flyer22 Reborn — no, I mean Talulah Riley:

"Talulah Riley as Angela, a host that welcomes newcomers to the park, later reassigned to be a follower of Wyatt's."

But even if Wyatt is more of a concept than a character, he is important enough to be mentioned given that his identity is at the core of the first season. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 05:43, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

I don't see that he should have an individual listing in the section. Who he is can be briefly clarified as part of the line you mention. On a side note: No need to ping me to this page since this page is on my watchlist. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:47, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

The more I look at the section, the more I think it needs an overhaul. Dolores' discovery of her true nature is explicitly stated, but Maeve's discovery is ignored. Secondary characters like Charlotte have more detail than primary characters like the Man in Black. Logan, Sylvester and Lutz have virtually no detail while future characters like Nicholas are covered in detail. Guest stars who appear in a single scene (like Currie Graham) are included in the article despite not being particularly notable while others like Devin the necro-perv (who actually do something) are omitted. The language of most of the entries read like they were lifted from a press release. The whole thing needs a lot of work. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 10:42, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

It's easy to edit the section for consistency. The section currently states, "Evan Rachel Wood as Dolores Abernathy, the oldest host still working in the park; she discovers her entire life is an elaborately constructed lie." And "Thandie Newton as Maeve Millay, a host; she is a madam." The latter part could be changed to "Thandie Newton as Maeve Millay, a host; she is a madam. Like Dolores, she discovers her entire life is an elaborately constructed lie." Or something like that. But think of it like this: Dolores is the character the series initially focuses the most on and continues to mainly center on. The story is built around her, including discovering that her life is a lie. Yes, Maeve's story is big, but she is secondary to Dolores. Are we to state "discovers their entire life is an elaborately constructed lie" for each character who discovers this? I think not. Maeve made two other characters (less prominent characters) aware that their lives are fabricated; this does not mean that it needs to be mentioned in the Cast and characters section. That section is for brief character detail, and the section does the brief thing well. There is a main article for more detail.

Also, below, we see that Justus et peccator has suggested we remove the "Talulah Riley as Angela" part. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 18:30, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

To make it clear that some other characters discover that they are androids, the "Evan Rachel Wood as Dolores Abernathy, the oldest host still working in the park; she discovers her entire life is an elaborately constructed lie." part could be changed to the following: "Evan Rachel Wood as Dolores Abernathy, the oldest host still working in the park; she discovers her entire life is an elaborately constructed lie, as do other androids." I was originally going to suggest "which eventually leads to others discovering they are androids" in place of "as do other androids," but it seems that Maeve (who is my favorite character in the series, by the way) woke herself. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:14, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

IMO I think we should retain Dolores discovering her entire life as a lie because she is the main character. Her story, actions, attitudes, and memories all drive the main, primary narrative. Although Maeve's story is important, she is still not as important as Dolores. Therefore we should keep her description to something like "the madam of the Mariposa Saloon." Also, if we were to consistently use the "discovery of the lie" description, we would have to do that for Hector, Armistice, the original Clementine and Peter, etc. On a side note, the show never uses the term "androids", so let's keep it as host in the article after the term is clarified. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Justus et peccator (talk • contribs) 19:20, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Yes, those are my thoughts. But as you can see, I suggested that we note in Dolores's description that others discover that they are also hosts. And, yes, for consistency, I should have stated "hosts" instead of "androids." But we do note in the article's introduction (lead) what we mean by "hosts" by stating "android hosts." Otherwise, readers would not know what we mean. It's similar to us noting in the lead of the The Walking Dead (TV series) article that "walkers" are zombies.

On a side note: Justus et peccator, sign your username with four tildes when you comment on article talk pages. You don't have to do it for comments that have already been signed by a bot. And doing so after a bot has signed it will just confuse the time stamp for when the comment was made. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:04, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

I see that you signed in the section below; so, like newbies need to, you are getting used to signing. No worries. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:08, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

I would suggest the following:

"Evan Rachel Wood as Dolores Abernathy, the oldest host still working in the park. Assigned the role of a rancher's daughter, she comes to discover her entire life is an elaborately constructed lie."

As for Maeve, something like this might work:

"Thandie Newton as Maeve Millay, a host who acts as the madam of Sweetwater. Her unresolved memories of a former role lead to her gradually becoming self-aware."

These are just crude versions, me thinking aloud.

"Although Maeve's story is important, she is still not as important as Dolores."

I would dispute this entirely. Dolores might be the main character, but without Maeve, she is doomed to fail. It is because of Maeve that the hosts can stage their uprising—without her, it's just Dolores killing Ford. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 06:05, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

I'd be fine with those wordings, Prisonermonkeys. I think others would be as well. If no one objects, you could try adding those changes.

Good point about Maeve. But, remember, although she initially woke up by herself, she was programmed to follow the narrative where she updates herself and wakes others. Seems she was programmed to wake for that second time. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 17:57, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

True, but she also chooses to ignore her own programming. She was given a directive for "mainland infiltration", but turned back at the last minute. I know the implication is that Ford gave her that directive, but if he always intended for her to find the other sentient hosts and rally the retired hosts into an army, why give her the instruction to infiltrate the mainland? If her update was scripted, why give her the ability to control non-sentient hosts and then have her leave the park? I think it's pretty fair to say that she becomes sentient if only because she ignores the directive. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 07:44, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

I also believe that she wins at the end of season 1 by choosing to ignore her own programming. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 08:21, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

I actually think it's more than that. I think Nolan slipped the "mainland infiltration" directive into her programming as a clue for the next season, trusting that the audience would attribute it to Ford without looking too closely at it. But I see a lot of "Leda and the Swan" in the first season, so that's really just speculation and original research on my part. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 10:14, 18 November 2017 (UTC)