WestWorld May Be Too Clever for Its Own Good

Marsden is Either Bored or Constipated

Marsden is Either Bored or Constipated

So, I’ve been watching WestWorld on HBO. This enrages my brother, Yan, who more or less believes that all remakes, reboots, and reinterpretations are bullshit. The moment he learns that a remake is looming, he goes off on a rant about how no one writes new stories any more.

He’s not wrong, but he’s not right, either. HBO’s version of WestWorld is entirely different from the original film. Everyone has a lot of affection for the original, mainly because of Yul Brynner’s classic performance as the Gunslinger and because every young man who watched that film in the 1970s and 1980s immediately began thinking about Sex Robots.

There are plenty of Sex Robots in HBO’s WestWorld. There’s also a lot of video game stuff, because some clever bastard obviously thought that a place like WestWorld would basically be an IRL video game. So when a guest arrives in town it’s like being in a sandbox-style video game, where you have a main storyline, but there are endless side-quests you can get sucked into that add content and depth (and playing time) to the game. That’s all well and good. That’s interesting and quite clever for a modern reboot of the concept.

The downside? The god-damn Non-Player Characters (NPCs) and the god-damn cutscenes.

GO BACK, JACK, DO IT AGAIN

A Cutscene is an unplayable scene in a video game that advances the story along a single, pre-chosen path. In other words, control is removed from the player and you just have to sit and watch it unfold. You can’t do anything to change it, and sometimes you can’t even skip them. Which is okay the first time you play a game, but the second through hundredth time you play it’s infuriating and boring (the 101st time it suddenly becomes funny, and then it’s funny from time 101 through 10,000, at which point you buy a new computer that no longer supports the drivers needed for that moldy old game).

WestWorld is so committed to the video game idea that they do a version of this. NPCs go on with their scripted actions whether a guest is there or not. This ensures that guests won’t spy NPCs just standing around like, well, robots, and it also adds to the organic adventure. Because the NPCs follow their scripted routes and actions, guests can encounter them at random places, and affect their stories in random ways. That’s good game design.

But when the NPCs are allowed to follow their own path, they do the same exact things over and over again. Take Teddy and Dolores, shown in the image above. As NPCs they have a set pattern they repeat if no guests interact with them. Dolores comes out of the dry goods store, drops a can of condensed milk, Teddy retrieves it, makes a joke, and she says “You came back.” They chat, he accompanies her home to her farm, they have a conversation—and then the cutscene ends as Dolores’s father is usually murdered, Dolores is raped, and Teddy is killed trying to defend her.

At this point, viewers have seen various versions of this scripted cutscene several times. Which means we’ve seen the same actions, dialog, and outcome several times. We’re being forced to watch a non-interactive cutscene over and over. And it’s killing me.

The Subtle Knife

There’s a point to this, I’ll admit. One, it demonstrates the NPCs’ robotic nature. It demonstrates that they have an existence, however programmed and controlled, outside the guest experience (that will be important, methinks). And by introducing the occasional flicker of doubt or hesitation, it’s actually an effective way to introduce the slow spread of sentience and awareness. When Dolores asks Teddy a non-standard question, Teddy hesitates as he tries to process a response that will get them back on script. That’s useful for a story that (appears to be) about the nature of existence and whether an artificial intelligence can evolve sentience and personhood. Which might be inconvenient for the AIs makers if that AI exists, like Dolores, to be endlessly raped and murdered by hooting, monied guests.

But, despite there being a cleverness at work here, it’s too clever. Because it’s boring. If I have to watch Dolores and Teddy have one more identical conversation, I will go Ham on everything in sight and burn my house down. As a writer, sometimes you need to recognize that just because an idea is a good, clever one doesn’t mean you need to double down on it endlessly.

5 Comments

  1. cecil c

    Thanks for the words.

    My late grandmother saw Brynner on stage in The King and I. He’s just that intense that no remake could touch him. He told me not to smoke – (so I don’t).

    Cecil

  2. jsomers (Post author)

    Yul Brynner’s PSA always haunted me: https://youtu.be/JNjunlWUJJI

  3. Jeffrey S Fischer

    I second that notion, sans burning my house down. Thanks for the video game stuff, I had no idea. I always look at these things as metaphor for human intelligence. I never think about IA stuff. Too complicated for me. I think this is by far the most watchable show I’ve seen in a while. I kinda remember the original, which I saw twice, back when my brain had a proper tissue to water electrical ratio, and I’m not disappointed at all with this remake. The robots playing out these stories in case a guest stumbles on them is interesting to me. Made me think of my life. Why do I keep doing that? I never really played video games so I don’t have those references. It made me think. While wondering very deeply and earnestly if someone could actually make a sex-bot that felt like the real thing. Gotta love this show. And Jeff Somers, of course. Though I haven’t checked in on one of your worlds lately, I do look forward to it. But now that I’ve stroked you a little I need to say in all honesty I was a little irritated with the Mags-Lem back story before each retying of the knot, if that makes sense. I know Mags and Lem so I was a little put off by the over explanation. I can’t even remember which story I’m thinking of. For what it’s worth. Which according to my experience in the literary world is absolutely nothing. I’ve just discovered wine instead of beer. I’m happy but rambling. Thanks Jeff!

  4. Jeff Fischer

    Holy bat cows, Lem-mags,

    I just got to drinking beer again, my favorite, whiskey=jail, so I started watching the latest Westworld episode to make sure I didn’t miss anything and sure enough I do believe that they are suggesting with the Alice in Wonderland reference that Literature may in fact create consciousness which is a pretty old argument but I do like it. What say you?

  5. jsomers (Post author)

    Actually hadn’t thought of that — interesting! I’ll keep an eye peeled going forward for more such references.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.