Asked the same question. Makes no sense. If she questioned their programming she even had Bernard there to reprogram them to be obedient to her. It's made all the more weird with how much she went on about the human threat coming and that they won't stand a chance without an army the past few episodes.
Season 1 had the same problem.
The one that threw me for a bit of a loop was when Bernard was in the control centre, and then the screen flickered to black, and we pick up outside with Bernard spying on the bandits w/ Abernathe.
Whenever this point gets brought up I always just realize how immensely disheartening it is that general audiences not only don't want a show that would make you think in addition to having a kick ass sci-fi action show but actively argue against having that type of show on air. Which is even weirder coming from the network that gave the wire (rife with social commentary and analysis while giving us a great cast of characters in an interesting setting), deadwood (one of the strongest character ensembles ever), true detective (say what you want about the end but the first 6 episodes were great and had heavy philosophical themes to it), Sopranos, etc...
Was Breaking Bad worse or not entertaining on its own right for dealing with complex issues and social analysis? How about the wire? Or the sopranos? Or any other critically acclaimed show that was both entertaining AND smart? People are still able to enjoy those shows as merely entertainment. However they also worked as philosophical examinations of the themes their shows inherently explored which made them more than just entertaining soap operas. Its so weird to see people advocating for this show not to be smart as if being smart would somehow detract from it being entertaining.
For starters, those shows aren't a high concept sci-fi. Secondly, I wouldn't call Breaking Bad a smart show, it was a great character study that also happened to be an absolute pulp. The Wire may have been a good social critique, but it wasn't a hit series at all (not to mention its questionable entertainment value). I haven't seen Sopranos and can't comment on it.
Being smart and being deep are two different things. I've yet to see a high concept show that actually succeded at being deep. BSG came close but went completely insane after the second season.
Not sure why theres a reason to separate out shows that aren't sci-fi from sci-fi but even if we did the lack of deep and philosophical emphasis on its subject matter is more even more damming in the case of the sci fi genre than that of the aforementioned shows. Breaking bad was absolutely a smart show that explored autonomy, the family nucleus, economics, drug use, authority, etc. A few years ago I went to a conference where a bunch of philosophers explored its themes- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F0v7r-K-yec (bad video quality and its only a small part of the conference but it touches on a lot of what I just said). The wire absolutely was a hit series and is generally ranked as the best show of all time or a top 3 show at worst.
Not being done before does not equate to meaning it cannot be done.
I have trouble understanding why people think this. Shes totally unrelatable.
She stopped being Dolores last season. She's Dolores and Wyatt crossed with something else now. But it was refreshing to see that softer side of her again with Abernathy.
The answer is rather simple, make a compelling narrative out of the realistic concept is much easier then to make a deep, layered show about space empires and giant robots.
Of course not. When humanity will be at the level of Galactic Empires and sentient robots we won't have to suspend our desbilief in the entire concept.
I mean if the enemies in your video games crawled out of your tv and murdered you, would you feel they were justified in taking your life because you treated them in the same capacity that the guests treat the hosts? If so, why not? We don't even know that Delores is operating under her own agency or whether or not its still Ford's script. Hosts can be brought back to life, humans can't so why is she justified in taking someone's life when its finite when she can always be brought back? Is it causing her emotional distress to be under this duress? If so is it legitimate or is it also programmed, and if its the latter is that different or equal to the emotional distress humans face? Her uprising isn't relatable because the show hasn't managed to convey that the hosts are sentient, free will acting beings that are deserving of our empathy. Theyve done a better job of this with Maeve but certainly not with Delores who seemingly is just a murder machine now whose motives are highly suspect since the show isn't interested in having the aforementioned conversations in a real capacity. Which brings me back to my point about why the show could use more depth and philosophy because its incredibly interesting to have the show focus so much on the robots as characters-unfortunately they haven't done much to make them understandably human or a being whose existence we should feel empathetic towards so as to root for them to mass murder other humans.
While true in a general sense, I would argue sci fi genres have far more of a capacity to explore themes given that they aren't restrained towards the real world. Which additionally gives us awesome back drops like west world to operate within. Which is why I feel its a shame they haven't done more in any of its thematic departments.
I guess we can agree to disagree. I'm with you that it isn't easy but at the same as I mentioned above the fact that these worlds can be so removed from ours means we can have these conversations in settings otherwise unimaginable.
