The original is a bit of 70s cheese now, but you should watch. It wouldn't ruin anything from the series. The series is a lot different other than the basic premise


Yul Brenner makes quite a menacing and creepy robot gone haywire

You should definitely watch the original movie. It won't ruin anything. I am hoping that the insurrection referenced in the TV show is actually based on the events of that movie. But only the first movie, the second one was garbage.

The 2nd movie? Futureworld?

Yeah. I think so. That was horrible.

It's been a while since I've seen that one but your probably right


Michael Crichton wrote and directed the original I doubt he was involved with that one.

Yeah:

Futureworld is a 1976 American science fiction thriller film directed by Richard T. Heffron and written by Mayo Simon and George Schenck. It is a sequel to the 1973 Michael Crichton film Westworld. The second installment in the Westworld film series. The sequel stars Peter Fonda, Blythe Danner, Arthur Hill, Stuart Margolin, John Ryan, and Yul Brynner, who makes a cameo appearance in a dream sequence. Other than Brynner, none of the cast members from the original film appear, and original writer-director Crichton was not involved

I watched Westworld on TV as a kid several times and I was excited when Futureworld popped up a bit later...but I don't think I even watched the entire thing. It was such crap.

Here is something kind of fun from the wiki page on the original Westworld movie:

The technicians running Delos notice problems beginning to spread like an infection among the androids: the robots in Roman World and Medieval World begin experiencing an increasing number of breakdowns and systemic failures, which are said to have spread to West World. When one of the supervising computer scientists scoffs at the "analogy of an infectious disease," he is told by the Chief Supervisor (Alan Oppenheimer), "We aren't dealing with ordinary machines here. These are highly complicated pieces of equipment, almost as complicated as living organisms. In some cases, they've been designed by other computers. We don't know exactly how they work."

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/4kSGkGKwp9U" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

https://youtu.be/n_GxaHihdZU







Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Here's a very long recap of it...

https://youtu.be/HYhL0E0Wg2U










Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/1XTt2M7V7AE" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Im pretty sure the actor Jimmi Simpsons character is just the younger version of the man in black. I also dont think he raped her in the 1st episode in the barn but he us a little jaded & gives less f**** about short term violence. Hes looking at the overall goal & may even end up as a protagonist. I think he told her something that will be revealed later when they were in the barn that activated something. Pretty sure we will see alternate timelines

I'm just happy it's back on tonight. I hadn't watched it at all until last week, so this was the first time I had to wait a week in between shows. It was awful.

For those who believe in alternate timelines, how do you explain that the hosts (Dolores for instance) appear to be at the same level of technology 30 years apart for that to be true? Not just the gears versus guts but even the level of AI?

The one thing that came to my mind would be that the 'past' storyline is actually just Dolores recalling events to Ford and Bernard at some point in the 'present' after a psychotic break/major plot event/unavoidable question of sentience. So if Dolores is being held under a sort of house arrest while they figure out what to do with her, and the 'past' storylines are just her interpretations of events, then the story could be distorted because they are being told from her point of view. Other than that I still don't buy the multiple timelines.