sigrid28--disqus
sigrid28
sigrid28--disqus

I like your evaluation as well as Shoemaker's recaps. I would only add that Rufus's breakdown at the end might have improved with better direction and/or editing: The action in "Space Race" seemed too slow, with shots holding out too long during dialog and at the end of scenes, daytime soap opera-style. This sort

My favorite episode, too. In the proper hands, sometimes the silliest elements can explode with meaning, like they do in Shakespeare's "The Tempest" and "A Midsummer Night's Dream"—and this episode of "Timeless." For me, it's because the Late Romance feel of "Timeless" finally takes hold in this episode.

Delores's name means "sorrows." When we "enjoy" "Westworld," she is like a doll representing our rape culture, so much so that she deserves her name. No other female-identified character in "Westworld" fascinates us in the same way.

We have a different definition of "scene." You are calling "one scene" what is actually a series of scenes that start and end, start and end, start and end—separated by other material. My point is that in the very first of these scenes depicting Ford and the lost-boy host the writer/creators introduce uncertainty

You are entitled to your own opinions but not your own facts. The repetitions did not show any progression and certainly not the progression you are talking about. I was listening very closely as well to the discourse among the workers who operate "Westworld," and heard no explanation there—certainly not one as good

But that is not what we SEE going on. My problem is with how this is done: you have a very good concept of development. If it is the basis of "Westworld," that should have been apparent based on what the audience sees and hears. It was not.

I'm not upset with you. I'm just explaining.

I have argued that “Timeless” is an attempt to bring to prime time television the kind of experience Shakespeare brought to his audiences in his final plays, which some scholars call “the late romances.” The last play written wholly by Shakespeare, which is thought to be “The Tempest” (1610-11), differed enormously

I'm on board there. Since we can agree on this, may I ask one more question? If the creators of "Westworld" are not exploiting sensationalism for the sake of ratings, what is the point of the hosts being interviewed in the nude?

Either you are a rather bitter loser or I did not make it clear that I am criticizing the team behind "Westworld" for doing what HBO's team does with "Game of Thrones": exploiting sexual suggestion merely for sensationalism. It's lazy storytelling, but worse, it uses up time that might be devoted to material that

But Ford did not wipe the lost-boy host's memory DURING the first scene, which is the moment that delivers this familiar television trope. The wipe occurs later. The associations following the trope are allowed to percolate within the episode until the scene later in the episode where the wipe actually occurs.

Whatever do you expect by directing this post to me? Statistically speaking, the only thing this comment thread tells us is that only three or four of those posting on this comment thread actually say they do NOT find evidence of this TV trope: Technically, we do not KNOW what the others think, do we?
What "seemed

The first scene with the lost-boy host ends with Ford offering to let him join him. If the child molester suggestion were not in play, it would be clear from just this first scene ALONE that Ford and the lost boy host know each other, or that the boy is "father to the man" idea is at the core of it, or that Ford

It's not my worldview. It is a television trope you can see on documentaries and on police procedurals dealing with the topic of child molestation. Teachers, social workers, health professionals who treat children, and (hopefully) parents are all well aware of grooming behaviors employed by those who wish to harm

Don't throw this back on me. It's a trope in television programming dealing with the topic of child molestation, both documentaries and police procedurals, that a pedophile (or other adult intending to harm a child) will try to lure children by befriending them in some way, or helping them out if they are lost, or

Ford asks the boy to follow him. How is that not grooming the child? Why have such a scene, set up like this, if sexually abusing a child is not meant to be at least one of the potential scenarios guests may enact within the park? Nowhere does it say that only some perversions are acceptable and not others. That

Perhaps the hats cue the hosts, signaling which embedded script to pursue with the guest under each hat.

Or was Ford intent on exploiting a host (are we sure the boy is a host?) sexually while "off duty" disguised as a guest? Surely, even these perverse fantasies are permitted. Ford dressed as a guest seemed to be grooming the lost boy host when he invited him to follow him. Starz went there with depicting child rape

Again we are in agreement until I part company from you on "no matter what, Logan can expect to return to base . . . " Maybe the B-team was sent along in the second time machine (the B-machine) because the powers-that-be recognize that it and its crew might NOT come back. In "Contact," the second prototype must be

I liked your complaint/answer enormously for its detail and your personification of the ideal special operative. It made me think of the real-life expertise of the crew members on "The Last Ship," if you happened to see that science fiction series. In case you didn't see it, the story centers on the crew of this