MovieChat Forums > Westworld (1973) Discussion > Love it, but it's ridiculous

Love it, but it's ridiculous

posted 4 years ago by Adam60z (3774)
8 replies | jump to latest

I've always loved this film (note I didn't see nor want to see the remake series), but think about it: they have Delos (which is actually the name of a Greek island I've been to) and create these 3 worlds with robots. Why not just use actors? The only possible answer I can think of is they can't actually shoot actors, but it's all fake anyway so the actors can play dead (like they do in movies such as this). And when the robots are shot they have to be repaired, then they're as good as new the next day. Isn't that the most inefficient least cost effective concept anyone can imagine?! But anyway it's all worth it for the ending sequence where Yul Brynner chases Richard Benjamin.
Also it seems to be set in the present (or near future). I mean the technology to have robots you cannot tell from humans is still in the works almost 50 years later, even as much as we've advanced in computers. Speaking of which this was the first film ever to use computer visuals when they show scenes from Yul's POV.

[–] BourbonKing (5778) 4 years ago

I think the concept of robots moving forward will have more to do with automation for economic gain. Creating human facsimiles for human interaction or servitude is still being worked on but the economic pay off is still a ways away. Even the sex doll/robot industry seems rather rudimentary at the moment.

As for your comment about using robots in this universe it actually makes sense to use robots you can quickly fix and reuse for other tourists. If you hire actors then they need to be housed, fed and ultimately paid for their services.

The only alternative to all of this will be the innovation of virtual and augmented reality. We're already seeing the migration from full live action movies to CGI-laden super hero/action movies and hundreds of millions of younger people prefer gaming to movie theaters in general.

[–] Adam60z (3774) 4 years ago

I just found out the film was meant to be set in 1983, 10 years after it was made. I get the points you make, but it just seemed to me to be extremely expensive to have those robots, not to mention they all go crazy, vs. actors normal expenses.

[–] spurtle467 (1549) 4 years ago

I guess it's all about heightening the realism. You could use real human actors but you're still limited by what you can do with them. Having robots that look like humans gives you the freedom to do what you want and in a world where shooting is common place, such as in Westworld, a real actor playing dead wouldn't have the same authentic experience as shooting a human-looking robot. You want to be able to shoot a real gun in there, and how is an actor going to play dead when you aim for the head?

[–] Adam60z (3774) 4 years ago

Yes, that was the point I made. But also I pointed out that every time a robot is shot it would be an expensive repair.

[–] [deleted] 4 years ago

this is the beauty of ALL movies: inside THIER universe, EVERYTHING makes sense. It doesn't have to fit perfectly into the reality of OUR universe. It's just fiction that is kind of recognizable. (albeit dated being tech from the 70s)

So, robots are hard to fix after being shot? In our heads, yes. Within THIS universe? Surely not, maybe they used mesh absorbing bullet catchers under the skin and plates to cover the important components and they were only repairing wear and tear. We don't know... but we know it all worked fine in THIS universe and how it was setup. This wasn't the first day in the park. It was full functional for a while, paying for itself, working robots etc - the other guy had been there before, and many others shown in the interview.

It all worked in THAT universe. It's just fiction. kick back and enjoy it.

[–] [deleted] 4 years ago

You can't say it's "just fiction," because the movie presents itself as high concept. High concept sci-fi is anything that tries to make some kind of statement about anything having to so with science and technology. If you want the audience to take your message seriously, the premise of your story has to be rooted in logic and plausibility. Otherwise, you're no different from the lunatic John 3:16 guy who used to appear at baseball games.

This issue is why people are taking apart this film. It wants to be taken seriously but is mind-numbingly stupid in its logic.

[–] Pete314 (3040) 4 years ago

Talking about plausibility: Are there really people out there with the great desire to fight against faked people in faked duells with a generally predictable result? Where is the thrill in it? I definitely wouldn't mind the girls' services, but killing a robot that is first and foremost programmed to pay respect to my weakness is ridiculous and totally dissatisfying.

[–] [deleted] 4 years ago

That was one of my issues with the film. Where was the fun at all to be had, really? Ooh, I get to be in a barroom fight (but I don't get hurt or really hurt anyone, since everyone is an android)! I get to be put in jail, when it's obvious I won't be kept in there for long! Wheeee!!