Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnnyB
Watched the first season in a couple of marathon sessions over the last couple of weeks based on a friend's recommendation, then got a few episodes into season 2. The timeline manipulation was surprising and a nice twist in the end, but for the most part I find the writing to be pretty poor. Dialogue often feels hackney and there are things that take place with the technology that just seem inconsistent with their own reality. The characters and acting are also sometimes more out of daytime drama than out of top end HBO stuff. It's not bad. Entertaining enough, but certainly not rave-worthy.
|
The second season has lagged and dropped in consistent quality, but I fully disagree that the writing is poor. The way they weave in philosophical theories (consciousness, reality, identity, etc) into a premise of a robot theme park is pretty impressive, especially when you go back and watch the source material.
There are definitely moments that feel like a daytime drama, but I think that's due to the park's design. Hosts are supposed to be stereotypical, outlandish personalities that give guests a thrill that they are familiar with, ie movies, TV, and so forth. Hell, everything about the introduction of Sweetwater is pulled directly from a typical Western genre piece. The dialogue is supposed to be hackney, that's the appeal.
I'm not sure what you mean by the technology. What parts seem inconsistent to you?
I'm not ready to put Westworld on the platform with other major TV successes quite yet, but the first season reflected all the same qualities as any show I would consider in that category.