Even though they're not supposed to shoot at anything a guest could still kill a robot and take it's guns and start shooting guests. I mean really. And why can't a guest kill another guest with a sword in Medieval or Roman world? Something's fishy with the security around there. And do people have to pay $1000 a day to be in jail at Weatworld. Law suits I tell ya'!
shareI must say I noticed all of the things the OP is talking about too and was thinking about a logical solution to the questions but in the end just suspended my disbelief. Although I really liked the movie, it certainly has flaws.
If you'd really try you can explain away most of these things I guess. The robots could have real guns so that they could real damage to objects other than the guests. With the jail scene, when I saw his buddy go up to the woman (who I assume was a robot), I suspected it was part of some side attraction that they could send you to jail but there were a number of ways how to get out quickly. The thing I was in fact not able to explain is swords and other weaponry in the other two theme parks. That is a flaw, unless they built in some security in those weapons to so that guests can't use them on their guests (let's say a little electric shock to make them drop their weapons and realize the mistake they're about to make) but we certainly weren't given any evidence in that direction.
cause either the filmakers or crichton are idiots.
this whole film, including future world, was a very unsatisfying experience.
It would be very easy to be killed in Westworld by ricochets or stray shots. When the guys were at the pleasure house and the bank robbery was going on outside there were stray shots flying all over the place.
share1.) Live ammo = ammo w/ powder & bullet that kills;
non-live/ "dead" ammo = blanks.
2.) Why couldn't the bullets also contain heat sensors that cause the ricochets to self-destruct e.g., explode, when approaching humans?
True, each bullet would need to be incapable of fragmenting during a ricochet, but still somehow self-destruct later as needed w/o still hurting a human; however, that's the nuisance of sci-fi (just like in real life) providing a possible solution whose flaws then too need explaining and so on and so forth ad infinitum ....
You're gonna need a bigger boat.
Actually, the bullets, swords, & robotic fists/ feet all have built-in heat sensors + invisible force fields + self-destruct protocols (as appropriate) to mitigate human injury to a safe level e.g., only a bruise.
This was all fully explained (as appropriate) - as were all other seemingly-unsolvable plot holes too - in the screen-play drafts (not final version) and deleted scenes.... ;-)
You're gonna need a bigger boat.
So they could shoot the other robots. The only theory I can come up is this, when the computers began to override the parks safety systems (such as drawing slower on a guest, missing their shots.) The gunfighter went a step further and deactivated the "sensing device" on his weapons. Of course a scene showing this would have helped. The swords never had a "sensing device" and was left up to the robots to "go easy" on the guests. You could argue the black knight had a bent rubber sword and when things "went awry" got hold of the real sword being used by the guest. I'm not touching the saloon girls not being warm theory.
share[deleted]
What are you talking about. The guns could only shoot robots because of the heat sensor. They could not shoot humans. All guns.
Also the sword fights were being watched. The observer would shut the robots down or <<maim>> that before anything.
If another guest sword another person he would go to jail. There were cameras everywhere.
Its common sense.