- This topic has 54 replies, 9 voices, and was last updated 7 years, 11 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
I think Thandie Newton, Anthony Hopkins and Jeffrey Wright all should be considered for an Emmy. I’ve actually been particular impressed with Jeffrey Wright as Bernard.
[adrotate group="5"]I think Thandie Newton, Anthony Hopkins and Jeffrey Wright all should be considered for an Emmy. I’ve actually been particular impressed with Jeffrey Wright as Bernard.
Yes,…but that would mean Lana Parrilla wouldn’t get one *sob*
Keeper of Regina's bravery
I think Thandie Newton, Anthony Hopkins and Jeffrey Wright all should be considered for an Emmy. I’ve actually been particular impressed with Jeffrey Wright as Bernard.
Yes,…but that would mean Lana Parrilla wouldn’t get one *sob*
She’ll never get one as long as she’s on OUAT.
"All your questions are pointless"
So I watched the finale and I have some thoughts on the show as a whole.
This show is one of the most intelligent shows ever made, the plot was interesting, the actors are great. However, I believe the show has one major flaw that has prevented me personally to really be invested and that is that I can’t relate to any of the characters, care about them or sympathize with them.
I’m really interested to see what they plan for season 2 though.
"All your questions are pointless"
Wow
I have thoughts and most of them are jumbled. The finale was really good and I agree that this is one of the smartest shows on TV right now. I sometimes wonder if it’s…too smart. They’re dealing with concepts that haven’t even been solidified by academics and that can be hard to see on TV because of their intangible nature. I mean, put three philosophers in a room and ask them to discuss what consciousness is and you’ll get three different answers. Sometimes really cerebral TV shows have this problem (Mr Robot, for example) where they get so caught up in being a show about an idea (or ideas) that it forgets to slow down just a hair and breathe character into the space between ideas (this speaks to Bar’s opinion about how the characters, while well performed don’t elicit sympathy in large quantities they are manifestations of those ideas instead of characters).
That wasn’t meant to be heavily critical. I really love this show and I love cerebral TV in general. I just feel like at the end of 10 episodes I have less to say about plot and character development and more about the ideas the narrative is toying with. However, the ideas–geez–the ideas! They are the sort that create and generate conversation and I love that about this show.
–Dolores = Wyatt was not a twist I saw coming but when I look back, it makes sense.
–The MiB = William was confirmed
–So….Maeve: awake or not? Actually, same with Dolores. Ford’s final speech about how his new narrative begins in a time of war, with a murder at the hands of a villain named Wyatt (with whom Dolores has merged, thanks to Arnold) sounds like a hint that Dolores is still not totally free. What if freedom itself is an allusion, another construct programmed into us by society and culture? All of this, if I take a real pessimistic view, is that Maeve and Dolores (and all the Hosts) are now in a new narrative that give them the appearance of consciousness.
–Ford’s not a villain? At least not a conventional one. He did all this to bring Arnold’s dream to life? I mean it doesn’t excuse his killing of Therese.
"He was a lot of things to me" "The only conclusion was love"
The topic ‘Are You Real? HBO's "Westworld"’ is closed to new replies.