Talk:Westworld (TV series)/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Season titles

It appears each season is going to have a title, so I've added both "The Maze" and "The Door" to the season headings. I couldn't think of an appropriate place to put the citation reference though. —Hellboybookeeper (talk) 22:56, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Separate articles for seasons

I think it's time that we create separate articles for season 1 and 2, they have credible sources, material and enough information to be made into separate Wikipedia articles. —Nauriya (talk) 00:48, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

You are more than welcome to do so. If you wish to start separate season articles, I recommend you do so in the draft space. -- Alex^TW 21:50, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Season 2 episode titles

is https://www.fernsehserien.de/westworld/episodenguide a reliable source for the season 2 episode titles? I can't find another corroborating source that confirms them. IMDB still only has the title of s2e01 Justus et peccator (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 01:16, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Filling out the season articles

@Rusted AutoParts: As the editor who created the season articles, are you planning on moving the relevant production, critical reception and accolades to their respective articles, or are you leaving the season article at their bare bones? -- Alex^TW 23:35, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

If I post here, then I'd expect a reply here, not on my personal talk page. -- Alex^TW 00:24, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

@AlexTheWhovian: Well...that was pretty rudely put.

I’ll repost my reply here then. ::Well hopefully others will aid in areas that need expanding and I will too when I find relevant information towards each individual season. Rusted AutoParts 04:07, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

There was no sensible reason why the discussion was split into two places? As for the articles, they should have been developed in the draft space first, using the season-specific material that already exists here, then when the articles were moved to the mainspace, the content here should have been trimmed. Why is the season-specific production, critical reception and accolade information still here instead of the season article? I recommend the articles be moved to the draft space until they can be standalone articles, and this article be restored. -- Alex^TW 04:29, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

I thought I was responding to a message left on my talk page, misreading that it was posted here instead. So that was why. And from what I can see all the relevant information for the season articles are already on there so I’m not sure what exactly you’re suggesting, and even if there’s stuff to add in it wouldn’t be a long enough process to warrant moving them into a draftspace. Rusted AutoParts 04:44, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

Also agree that they should be moved to draft space. Unfortunately, the spit was not done correctly and even if it was, a lot more production and reception information for season two would need to be added to justify such an early split. However, I do think we should look at splitting the awards and nominations to a separate article soon once season two begins to receive nominations. - Brojam (talk) 04:47, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

Articles can be moved to the draftspace even after they're created in the article space. Actually, that's probably more common than the reverse. All the relevant information is not there, as there is a ton of season-specific content here and barely any at the season articles, and the second season hasn't even premiered yet. Splits should only occur if the parent article becomes too large to support all the content - that is very clearly not the case here. -- Alex^TW 07:21, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

The individual season articles are strong enough to stand on their own. It’s not even been a few days since they spun off, any other information needed to be put in can easily be done without the need to place them in a draftspace. I’ll go through and add in any missing information I missed when I was splitting them off. I was also not aware of the “correct way” to split them off, and I was also figuring that other editors would help in adding additional material to the articles as well, but I’ll just do it myself. Rusted AutoParts 11:10, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

There's still Season 1-specific content in this article. -- Alex^TW 14:28, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

I really don't get the aggressive approach you're taking here. I didn't think deleting information from here was the right thing to do as that would then deplete information from this article. I'll reiterate that people who contribute here are also more than capable of adding info they think should be over at the specific seasons. Me being flippant in my prior response about doing it myself shouldn't prevent you or others from correcting things you notice. This is a community project, no? Rusted AutoParts 14:45, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

I don't see the need to split off production information into season articles, since generally the production of an entire series is more comprehensive together, and that should be in the main show article. Some duplication is fine to understand key changes for later seasons. The seasons, however, absolutely must have their own standalone reception sections to justify why we have separate pages, keeping in mind that every episode of WW is likely to be notable due to its media attention. --Masem (t) 14:58, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

I made a single comment and I'm told I'm aggressive. Nice. Are ratings series-specific information? -- Alex^TW 15:01, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

You began this by chiding me about responding accidentally on your talk page instead of here, so I interpreted your approach to this as a bit aggressive. And frankly if you believe that information should be allocated over, why aren’t you aiding in doing so and instead coming here to point it out? I apologize if I’m coming off rude now but I can’t do everything. Rusted AutoParts 15:06, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Because I'm not the one who split off the content. The articles should have been done in draft space, completed, then moved, not done in an awkward fashion. This was posted a week ago and no further changes. -- Alex^TW 15:08, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

So you don’t feel obliged to assist in improving it then? I’m sorry you find it was done awkwardly, but there’s no sense in bemoaning the method it was split and instead getting it to where it can be. And I can’t do that by myself because I’m not entirely sure which information should be moved from here to the separate seasons without depleting the main show article. If you could either point out the specific things that should be moved or help in moving it, that’d be appreciated. Rusted AutoParts 15:13, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

West:word

West:word is a upcoming(to run along side the second season) show that is like the Westworld equivalent of the Game of Thrones after show (thronecast) on Sky Atlantic in the UK it will air just after the evening viewing(sky broadcasts westworld at the same time if not at least an hour as HBO in the USA but this around 2-3 am so they rebroadcast the episodes in the evening prime time so people don’t have to stay up if they don’t have catch-up ) of westworld like thronecast if evidence from many sources (Sky have got it on their website) this can be added to the release>broadcast. section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chocolateediter (talk • contribs) 01:35, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Source? -- Alex^TW 02:42, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

A google search produced nothing relating to the series, just something in Colorado. Rusted AutoParts 03:09, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Looks like it's true. Sources: [1], [2], [3], [4] - Brojam (talk) 03:13, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Spoilers

As we're now a good year or so out from the series debut, I wish to revisit the stance on spoilers. I've not encountered any articles on film/television until now that restricted spoilers. I feel it's incorrect to do so. I'll elaborate more shortly. Rusted AutoParts 19:34, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

I agree. We are an encyclopedia to list information as it's available, we are not a fan service. I'd be most interested in what you have to say when you do elaborate. -- Alex^TW 02:28, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

I’m not sure if WP:SPOILER was brought up during the initial discussion but we shouldn’t be the ones to protect the reader from potentially spoiling themselves. At that point when they’re reading about the show and about the characters they’ve opened themselves up to being spoiler vulnerable. At most if necessary we could put up a note at the top of the character list stating that there are spoilers below that sentence, but ultimately having Jeffrey Wright in two different sections as somehow a main character and recurring character makes no sense to me. Rusted AutoParts 10:06, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

I think to the point of splitting Wright was less about SPOILERs ultimately, than the fact if we look to the section as listing the characters, Bernard and Arnold are two separate characters, even if they are portrayed by the same actor. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:17, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

It's mainly a cast list in my opinion, and Wright can't be both a recurring and main character at the same time. This would definitely be something I'd see occuring on the List of Westworld characters article however. But in a cast list, it's kinda nonsensical. Rusted AutoParts 21:00, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

He actually does play a recurring character, Bernard Lowe, a robot host. And of course he plays a main character, Arnold Weber, one of the engineers and perhaps the inventor of robots the like of which he plays as the character Bernard Lowe. These are distinct characters. One is human. One is not. They are not at all in any way the same role. User:Pedant (talk) 05:46, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Pedant, Bernard is a main character. Arnold is more so recurring. But then again, I noted before (in the "Arnold in the cast list" discussion) that I came across a couple or few sources calling Benard a major (not main) character and that I didn't see sources calling him a minor or supporting character. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 18:59, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Reading through archives this seems like a contentious can of worms. But it’s a discussion I feel needs to be reopened. We aren’t beholden to protect readers from being spoiled. We list the entire plot summaries of many movies and entail the content of many television series episodes. What makes the spoilers in this show a special circumstance? @AlexTheWhovian: could you help me ping some editors to offer their two cents in? Rusted AutoParts 18:50, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

The discussions held a workable solution that people still haven't really bothered to implement; if a better/more details premise/plot summary were to become before the cast list, it wouldn't be such an issue to have the spoilers in the cast list. Much of the debate was less about "spoilers", and more about how the information was being presented - that it didn't make sense to drop bombshells before a basic premise was even described. Its a conceptual issue with the writing, not so much following or not following WP:SPOILER. Sergecross73 msg me 20:35, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

If we have a Plot summary, though, I still wouldn't feel that the spoilers should be in the Cast section. Similar to arguments made in the WP:Spoiler RfC I pointed to, a number of editors in the Westworld spoiler RfC made the argument that readers should expect to find spoilers in the Plot section, but that it's surprising to find them in the Cast section...especially when they are huge spoilers that have the potential of ruining the first season for readers. This goes back to whether or not the spoilers are needed in the Cast section. As you know, some felt that they are; others, like myself, felt that they aren't. I was also iffy on that in some respects. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 09:03, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

I would add that in looking to trim down the plot sections of individual articles, being able to address the non-linearity of the first season (eg the revelations from the finale that make clear what's going on in certain earlier episode scenes) would help tremendously. This is particularly true for Ep 3 - where I'm finding it hard to explain concisely why Dolores seems to be at two different places at once without discussing what we know later. I know episodes should reasonably be self-contained when we talk their narrative, but there's also a need for clarity to the reader. It's not an easy answer here. --Masem (t) 15:45, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Good points. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 09:03, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

Where is Arnold in the character list?

Ummm, is it just me or Arnold's section for the character list has been removed? Justus et peccator (talk) 21:21, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

You restored him. As noted in the #Spoilers discussion above, a followup to the RfC resulted in editors compromising by having him mentioned in the "Recurring cast" section. Now that the "Recurring cast" section is gone, he's mentioned higher up. The result is going to be the same for readers whether lower or higher up; so whatever on that. No need to mention that he died, though, especially when part of the concern was ensuring that the article didn't essentially state "Bernard is Arnold." Saying that Arnold died pretty much does that. So I removed that piece. But then again, it was also noted that readers will easily deduce soon enough that Bernard is Arnold. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:44, 8 May 2018 (UTC) Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:54, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Cast and characters season subheadings

Masem, I'm not used to seeing this format. Why do you think it's needed? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:04, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Okay, I see that Favre1fan93 removed the headings. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:44, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

On most other tv series articles with long-run cast, there's an indication on the cast page to give an idea of what seasons characters were introduced and left the series (at least as main). I have seen this done with tables but this is not a great solution and adds far too much excess weight. With WW, we haven't any confirmed people leave the show (S3 might change that), so it makes sense to segregate by when they were introduced. --Masem (t) 22:26, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

The alternate approach that is less "spammy" is to have text like "(season 1 - ongoing)" after each actor/character statement, which is also used on many other articles like The Walking Dead, particularly when the cast changes significantly over time. WW through s2 isn't quite there yet, but s3's new setting may significantly change that. --Masem (t) 22:40, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

As I noted in my removal of the headings, prose is a good indicator (ie "Riley became a main cast member in the second season" etc.), or as Masem suggested, text like "(season 1 - ongoing)". But the headings should be avoided. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 04:22, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

Season 3 draft

I started a draft for the season 3 article here. Rusted AutoParts 03:20, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Character list once again

The character list has once again drifted to a state that contradicts how the RFC was concluded. It now contains plot details /spoilers from season two:

• Dolores and Meave becoming self aware.
• The description of Gustaf "leads Delos' attempts to reclaim Westworld from the rogue hosts" could be changed to something like "leads Delos' security intervention team".
• Katja's description could be changed from "escapes into Westworld during the hosts' uprising." to just mentioning that she visits The Raj.
• Bernard and Arnold are now mentioned together, drawing more attention to the fact that they're the same.

Filling the character list with plot details serves no purpose for anyone who has already seen the series or doesn't care and just wants to know who's who and it can be utterly frustrating for people who use it as a reference while watching the series. It's perfectly possible to clearly describe characters without going into their development throughout the plot. I hope we don't need to go through a discussion for every new season.PizzaMan ♨♨♨ 20:28, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Reading through the RFC again, at some point we must have to reconsider this in light of the direction that the show goes. Taking Bernard as the principle example, him being a host is a extremely key point in S2 (not quite so much in S1), and the implications given by the showrunners for S3 stress this even moreso. Staying to the claim that Bernard is simply an employee of WW becomes useless compared to the statement that he a host modeled after Arnold. Now, I believe it best to wait until S3 actually gets here to figure that out, but I will say that the concerns about spoilers need to become less important as time passes and aren't talking about the spoilers from the most latest season. --Masem (t) 20:41, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

PizzaMan, see Talk:Westworld (TV series)/Archive 7#Spoilers and the section immediately below it. Like I stated in the latter section, "a followup to the RfC resulted in editors compromising by having [Arnold] mentioned in the 'Recurring cast' section. Now that the 'Recurring cast' section is gone, he's mentioned higher up. The result is going to be the same for readers whether lower or higher up; so whatever on that." As for Dolores and Meave becoming self-aware, when I made this edit back in 2017 per the RfC, the section already stated, "Evan Rachel Wood as Dolores Abernathy, the oldest host still working in the park; she discovers her entire life is an elaborately constructed lie." I see no problem with that statement since that is an important aspect of the premise of the show. Your RfC was not about that. And as for Meave, see the discussion starting at 10:42, 14 November 2017 (UTC) at Talk:Westworld (TV series)/Archive 5#Man in Black's identity. An editor stated, "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." A discussion about it ensued. I suggested going with the following wording or similar: "Thandie Newton as Maeve Millay, a host; she is a madam. Like Dolores, she discovers her entire life is an elaborately constructed lie." I also said, "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." You can obviously read the rest of the discussion. And AlexTheWhovian, when reverting you in July, stated, "RFC wasn't to blanket-remove all spoilers. 'becoming self-aware' isn't a spoiler, it's a character description." Please do not push your luck on the spoiler aspects. In the RfC, I clearly agreed with you on two big spoiler aspects, and I would hate to see the William and the Bernard/Arnold spoiler stuff overturned. We don't spell out the Bernard spoiler, and I fail to see how it helps to have the Arnold piece in a separate section. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 14:21, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Thank you both for the explanations. I can see how, as the series progresses, the distincion between unnecessary spoilers/plot details versus essential elements becomes harder. I'm still for breef character lists that describe characters as they are (known to the reader) at the onset of a story, be it a book, a movie or a series. But since the RfC wasn't very onesidedly conclusive on that, I'll just let it rest. The disappointment of people who get spoiled where they don't expect spoilers is just collateral damage I guess. PizzaMan ♨♨♨ 12:50, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Ordering of cast members

While I accept that it makes sense to follow the chronology of cast members' first appearances in the show, the list currently presented refs two characters (as acquaintances of other characters) before the cast members who play those characters have been listed. These two characters are Hector Escaton and William. It would be a lot easier to follow if they were described before being referenced in the description of another character to whom they are related somehow in the story. Just sayin' :-) Dtprice (talk) 00:09, 1 January 2019 (UTC)dtprice

GLBT groups' criticism of Westworld

Hello

I noticed that the critical reception section lacked mention of the many criticizing voices that Westworld recieved for its lack of male gay/bi characters, while nevertheless featuring female same-sex scenes, so maybe that would deserve to be mentioned?

A few links to such criticism can be seen below. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/act-four/wp/2016/11/01/how-westworld-managed-to-make-a-supposedly-decadent-orgy-feel-boring/

https://filmschoolrejects.com/the-regressive-heteronormativity-of-westworld-1d97fbb10aa8/

https://www.vox.com/culture/2016/10/31/13477222/westworld-orgy-contrapasso

Okama-San (talk) 20:01, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Spoilers in cast list

I know we don't avoid spoilers, but the point of explaining the plot in the cast list is what? Britmax (talk) 16:38, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Paramount Ranch - Post-Woolsey Fire.jpeg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 02:21, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Genres used on the description of the series

Westworld is an Hybrid Genre tv series. At its core is a Science fiction drama/ melodrama. It also has a number of characteristics from genres like Western and Soap Opera. But "technically" it could not be defined neither as a Western nor as a Soap Opera exclusively. Would it be ok to just say instead of "Westworld is an American science fiction Western and dystopian television series" something in the line of "Westworld is an American science fiction television series, a hybrid genre with Dystopian, Western and Soap Opera elements"?10:40, 6 July 2020 (UTC)Nitsugagmx (talk)

Whether it has typical soap opera elements in any significant or notable manner seems highly questionable to me, unless you (re)define in souch boroad terms, that you can call any drama series a soap opera. and the source you posted above so far don't seem to show that either.--Kmhkmh (talk) 13:36, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

I have been very specific about the different "Soap Opera" elements that anyone can find in WW. Saying that they seem "highly questionable to you" does not give enough specificity to infer which "Soap Opera" elements You think WW does not have. Could you be more specific? Of course the elements mentioned before could be found in any drama. but not all of them combined at the same time and in a similar way as it happens in Soap Operas and in WW.Nitsugagmx (talk) 17:49, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

One more thing: Would "Tv serial" be more adequate than "Soap Opera" to you?Nitsugagmx (talk) 18:09, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

I don't think anybody disputes it being a tv or web series (or serial). However I don't see what is gained by changing series into serial.--Kmhkmh (talk) 19:09, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

I guess, Kmhkmh the point is, given that the article is named "Westworld (TV series)" by saying also "TV serial" we are being more specific and therefore being closer to offer an accurate description of what it is. Does it makes sense?. Nitsugagmx (talk) 23:09, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

"Soap opera"

Trying to call WW a "soap opera" is going to need high quality sources that actually call it that.

WW is certainly a "drama" - there's a narrative that builds over each episode. But a "soap opera" has a very specific meaning and intent about melodrama and slow slow plot development over multiple episodes, which is not what WW is at all. You can't just point to the dictionary definition and make the claim. --Masem (t) 03:57, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

I agree. Moreover, Westworld has many other minor genres (e.g. Japanese action cinema, Mystery, Thriller, etc.), yet they do not need to be included at the top because they are minor to the most identifiable genres: Western drama/Dystopian drama. So, I'd leave it as it is.--TheVampire (talk) 08:40, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

I concur as well, "soap opera" should be removed unless backed up by (several) reputable sources.--Kmhkmh (talk) 09:29, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Answering Kmhkmh, here are some sources on Westworld as Soap Opera Nitsugagmx (talk) 11:23, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Answering The Vampire. Please keep in mind than most of the Western tropes that we see in the series are directly linked with Soap Operas like Cowboy Soap Operas and Mystery Soap Operas. Nitsugagmx (talk) 11:23, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

I do get the bad reputation and stigmas associated with the Soap Opera term. But please keep in mind that the goal is to achieve the most accurate description of the genres used in the series. Masem. I agree that "soap opera"" has a very specific meaning and intent about melodrama and slow slow plot development over multiple episodes, which is not what WW is at all" . True, that is not what WW is at all. But we could not deny that even if at its core WW is a Science Fiction drama, it also borrows a number of elements of the Soap Opera (specially the Mystery Soap Opera)genre like artificially sustaining characters conflicts without advancing them dramatically with actions, relying on a limited number of locations, dealing with moral and ethical conflicts and social issues, having strong female characters, opening multiple storylines without developing or advancing them extensively, use of cliffhangers and use of Deus ex machina effects. Nitsugagmx (talk) 11:23, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

There is actually a problem with those sources you refer to. What is needed here are reputable sources that exp0licitly describe the tv series as a soap opera rather than using the term soap opera in some other context.

Based on that your first source (merriam webster) is completely useless. The 2nd/3rd source matches the reputable sources criteria, but they don't seem to claim what you want/think. The second one actually describes the fate of the robots in the west world park as being forced to live in a soap opera, that is clearly not a statement of the tv series itself. The 3rd i couldn't access but going by the title it doesn't describe the series as soap opera either.--Kmhkmh (talk) 13:33, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Ok. First. The Merriem Webster definition of the Soap Opera should only be useless if you are familiarised with the definition. Not everybody is. So following your line of thought on "The second one actually describes the fate of the robots in the west world park as being forced to live in a soap opera, that is clearly not a statement of the tv series itself." would you agree on "The second one actually describes the fate of the robots in the west world park as being forced to live in a WESTERN, that is clearly not a statement of the tv series itself." and therfore the genre "WESTERN" should also be deleted from the description of the series?Nitsugagmx (talk) 17:49, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

I recommend you familiarize yourself with the No Original Research policy - we can only use claims made by reliable sources, not what we create. If you want to argue the "Western" genre label, it is very easy to go out and find sources that talk about it (a major point with Season 3 was how the show seemingly abandoned that, for example). If you want the "soap opera" genre to apply, you need to be able to find sources talking about the show and claiming directly that it is a soap opera, not the allusion as has been pointed out. --Masem (t) 17:59, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

No, I would not agree with your western variation of that statement either and for the same reason. A characterization the fate/(temporary) situation of some characters of the series is not a chrachterization of the series itself.

As far as Merriam-Webster is concerned, it is fine to link it here to assure a common understanding of the term "soap opera", but it is nevertheless useless as a source for the article, for the reasons masem is outlining above. Essentially using Merriam-Webster in connection with another source to argue that Westworld is a soap opera would be a violation of WP:SYNTH. Now a violation of WP:SYNTH may sometimes tolerated in practice, if all editors agree the description as it seem "obviously" true. However we are not in such setting, since editors obviously don't agree on the term "soap opera" is disputed. In such cases the only way to get a dxisputed description into an article, is to have (several) disputed backing it up explicitly.--Kmhkmh (talk) 18:47, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

What are you refering to when you say "the fate/(temporary) situation of some characters of the series is not a chrachterization of the series itself."? Are you implying that "the fate/(temporary) ("Western") situation (that is only present in season 1 and 2) of some characters of the series is not a chrachterization of the series itself.? Are you advocating to erase "Western" from the description of the series?Nitsugagmx (talk) 00:50, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

quote from the 2nd source: "[...] live as slaves in vast totalitarian prison, where their minds are trapped in a scripted Hollywood cliche old west soap opera".

"soap opera" is here not a description of the tv series, but of the situation of the robots in the park.--Kmhkmh (talk) 19:04, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

References

This last comment is basically what I wrote at the beginning. The series is clearly science fiction and the robots are indeed put in scripted situations which draw from many genres, not just one. However, the most identifiable, undeniable and most used one in sources throughout the internet for the first two seasons is the Western genre, while the dystopian genre is the dominant one in the third season. I am not against the creation of a section where these themes, including melodrama, are expanded and analysed with the support of relevant sources, but I am against listing every genre/theme that comes through from the robots' behaviour in and out of the parks in the lead or template. Melodramatic aspects have been in basically every modern drama but, in the case of Westworld, they do not dominate over the already mentioned most identifiable and cited genres: science fiction, Western (ssn 1-2), dystopian (ssn 3+). And drama is already an umbrella term for melodrama, by the way.--TheVampire (talk) 21:37, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for you input. I do know that there is a lot of confusions with terms like melodrama, soap opera, telenovelas and so on. Yes, most of the people the minute we hear “Soap Opera” we start thinking in Romantic melodramatic cheesy stories. But no. We can also find “Soap Operas” that have nothing to do with Melodrama or romance like The Edge of Night , Dark Shadows (1966–1971), Port Charles (1997–2003) o Passions (1999-2008). I hardly see any difference between the term "Soap Opera" and "TV serial" at least in English (in other languages/ countries is very different). So if most people see Serial as more neutral term that Soap Opera, then I have no problem using that instead. But my main point is that yes, some "hosts" from Westworld experience more or less “TV Serial” characteristics (being them melodramatic or not), but more importantly so, all the characters from Westworld are experiencing “TV serial” characteristics, probably because Westworld is a Tv serial.

Also I know I wrote this list of characteristics before, but let me write it here again (with some additions) so we could determine more clearly if Westworld could be defined as a tv serial.

Tv Serial characteristics like:

.- slow development of drama/melodrama through a number of episodes

.- developing characters conflicts mostly through dialogues instead of using actions to develop them dramatically

.- Set in a limited number of locations

.-deal with ethical and moral conflicts as well as social issues

.- having strong female leads with strong character and will.

.- introducing multiple narrative and plot lines constantly without developing them or push them further dramatically

.- frequent use of cliffhangers

.- frequent use of Deus Ex Machina solutions

.- a character´s death is not guaranteed to be permanent.

.- Every plot line presented in an episode will not be finished in the same episode (no matter how small the plot line is)

.- The complete narrative of the serial does not have an ending set in the calendar (therefore they could not build the ending first and work backwards to avoid inconsistencies).

Wolud be fair to say that "Westworld" is a "TV serial"?. Nitsugagmx (talk) 00:56, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Again, you are engaging in original research here still, we need to rely on sources that specifically talk Westworld and "soap opera". You can't say "Soap operas have these qualities" and "Westworld have these qualities" and then conclude for WP that "Westworld is a soap opera". Period.

Now, I will say that there is an idea out there that some of these shows in the vein like Westworld and Game of Thrones start to venture into the idea of the "primetime soap opera", but keep in mind that these do not say they are those type of shows. See this article for example. [5] This establishes that older shows like Dallas and Dynasty established those primetime soaps, and then today we have shows like Nashville and Grey’s Anatomy, which are fully considered primetime soaps. As this article goes into, if you start thinking long those lines of what a soap does - which tends to be the melodramatic and surprise twists to keep the audience invested, then Game of Thrones works as a soap - but it doesn't goes as far to say it is one. If this article had mentioned Westworld, the best we could do is in an reception or analysis section is mention that the show has elements of a primetime soap, but we'd still not classify it as a soap opera as a principle genre. --Masem (t) 01:24, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Indeed it mostly pointless to argue about our personal notions of "soap operas" and what we might see in Westworld or not (and our personal takes on the issue are in a sense irrelevant for Wikipedia). The relevant criteria for wikipedia is simply, whether there are reputable sources explicitly describing the series as such as a soap opera or not. So far we lack such sources and the sources linked above are not explicitly describing westworld as a soap opera. So as of now "soap opera" has to stay out.--Kmhkmh (talk) 12:57, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Ok, thanks a lot Masem. Your input about the vulture article really made things a little bit more clear for me. I don´t really care about the word. It could be Soap opera, tv serial, feuilleton, telenovela or serial drama. Or whatever. I was just surprised that in a Wikipedia article about Westworld some of its more idiosyncratic characteristics would not be present. I will keep looking for more sources about Westworld that highlight its feuilletonistic qualities and let you know if I find something.

In the meantime I will continue discussing Genres used on the description of the series. Nitsugagmx (talk) 00:31, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

/Hidden message research notes

I've started a page to document marketing collateral produced as hidden or secret messages, e.g. [6] and [7]. Please contribute! EllenCT (talk) 18:29, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

summaries

please someone updates the season summaries. S03 is partly missing, and other info is confusing, r.g. some "william" suddenly appearing without introduction. someone who does not know the series will not understand what is happening just by reading these confused summaries. the overal plot arc is missing completely. 47.71.12.38 (talk) 10:55, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Infobox starring change

Looking briefly at the starring parameter, I am likely going to change the order of the actors listed in the infobox. Don't think many of them deserve to be in the starring section at all... but I just can't see how Ingrid Bolsø Berdal is only in a third of the total episodes and is the fifth actor listed (and is certainly not a main character), as an example. Seems that most prevalent/main actors should be listed first. --PerpetuityGrat (talk) 21:49, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Nvm, per MOS:TVCAST. --PerpetuityGrat (talk) 18:58, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

If she is credited in the opening sequence then she is starring in the show and there is nothing we can do about that. Listing most prevalent actors first means we would have to come up with a new criteria which will probably be based on episode counts which in turn have been banned as a listing criteria. So we have to list main actors as the producers list them, that's also in the MOS:TVCAST.--TheVampire (talk) 09:00, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Don't disagree. Would be very subjective and lead to many arguments. --PerpetuityGrat (talk) 16:44, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

RfC Insider reliable for information on Westworld soundtrack?

Is this article from Business Insider a reliable source for information on the Westworld soundtrack (at time of publishing, obviously)? I am asking as concerns were raised about it at this FAC for another article (BI is no consensus at WP:RSP) and posting here as this is a more reasonable page to attract appropriate/knowledgeable attention. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 04:42, 28 August 2021 (UTC)