GregM does not want to fuck his daughter
Feb 3, 2023 18:17:04 GMT
Post by My Avatar Is A Hot Babe on Feb 3, 2023 18:17:04 GMT
HBO's The Last of Us from the Chernobyl producer and Neil Druckman (warning: spoilers)
I think the episode was a mistake for several reasons. 1) It suggests that the show runners don't trust Joel and Ellie can't carry the show narratively. 2) It indulges in a salacious one-episode relationship instead building the father-daughter relationship that was the compelling narrative device of the game. 3) It belies Druckmann's position that he will only deviate from the game when absolutely necessary to make improvements.
Three episodes in, the game is much better than the show.
your takeaway from that relationship was it was "salacious"? ok...
What a ludicrous sentence. There was no actual sex in the episode, gay or otherwise. There was a pre-coital moment between two would-be lovers that was actually quite tender and completely in context to this episode's narrative - you'd have to be a prude, or something else considering the same-sex nature of the participants, to object to what was quite a beautiful scene.
The only thing salacious about Episode 3 is your increasingly prurient descriptions of the portrayal of Bill and Frank's relationship.
Anyhow, back to the zombies...
Some may call his marginalizing attitude as bigotry... actually scratch that, it's bigotry
Did anyone following my posts in the GOT threads see me criticizing depiction of homosexual sex and cast me as a homophobe there? Of course not. Because the gay sex in that show was perfectly in line with the flow of the story, the narrative and characters who had a history and a future far more significant than the characters shown in E3.
If you're looking for someone intolerant, have you tried looking in the mirror? Between you and I, only one of us is closed off to understanding another's position and only one of us is demanding censure and ending discussion. This thread isn't about you or me, though.
And this thread makes my past strategic use of the ignore button during the covid thread wars almost as brilliant as the show itself because I don't see any of posts you all seem to be responding to! It's magic - one click and a whole bunch of drivel just disappears! I encourage everyone to use it liberally.
I love it when people feel the need to announce that they’re ignoring someone. The fragility and impotent rage couldn’t be more transparent.
Do you know how I tell people I’m ignoring them? I don’t, but they eventually figure it out.
Don’t worry @gregm, I won’t ignore you. I’m here for you. This is a safe space.
GregM said:
I want to comment on Druckmann's fascination with indulging in same sex relationships that don't ring true whatsoever, but I'll refrain as I'm not an expert on those relationships. I'll just leave it with the characters not ringing true to me. That is too bad in a show where all other elements are made up. The least they could do is make sure they get the dynamics of relationships right -- not to mention the landscape settings.GregM said:
Why indulge in so much gay sex scenes? Why focus on Bill and Frank--ultimately inconsequential characters, obviously--when you could be better developing Joel and Ellie? Why deviate from the way Frank is found dead in the game and Bill is left alive in the game to indulge in the superfluous suicide pact? Was it all just for that moment when Joel goes outside to supposedly mourn Tess? Odd choices.I think the episode was a mistake for several reasons. 1) It suggests that the show runners don't trust Joel and Ellie can't carry the show narratively. 2) It indulges in a salacious one-episode relationship instead building the father-daughter relationship that was the compelling narrative device of the game. 3) It belies Druckmann's position that he will only deviate from the game when absolutely necessary to make improvements.
Three episodes in, the game is much better than the show.
Rotary Connection said:
Because it shows love blossoming in the worst of times. Which is relevant to the overall story imoyour takeaway from that relationship was it was "salacious"? ok...
Kevin j said:
I knew he’d have a problem with this episode, for obvious reasons. Best to move along…GregM said:
I could see indulging in the relationship if Bill was going to survive and meet up with Joel and Ellie later. This is why I sat through the relationship (which wasn't fun to watch for me).GregM said:
A purer love--like that between a father and daughter--is the entire point of The Last of Us as originally conceived in the game. That's what it's all about. Druckmann diverged like this to drive a wedge between viewers like me who love the original story and viewers like you. That's what he does (in addition to being a very talented writer/director/producer). I just find it totally unnecessary, manipulative and a bastardization of the beauty in the original. And yes it's salacious and inconsequential by definitionGregM said:
The purpose was clearly to shoehorn a gay tryst into a show about a man who'd lost his daughter and a girl who'd lost her sense of safety and trust in humanity. They'd better get to that or the show will rapidly fail. Already I'm questioning the TLOU title.Bulsara said:
So much gay sex scenes?What a ludicrous sentence. There was no actual sex in the episode, gay or otherwise. There was a pre-coital moment between two would-be lovers that was actually quite tender and completely in context to this episode's narrative - you'd have to be a prude, or something else considering the same-sex nature of the participants, to object to what was quite a beautiful scene.
GregM said:
That makes no sense. Nearly the entire episode was dedicated to it. Two men shown repeatedly fondling and kissing each other (including lying next to and on top of each other in bed the day they met) and heading into the bedroom together qualifies as gay sex scenes to me. Short of outright p0rn0gr@phy what else you could you possibly show on TV that would qualify as gay sex scenes? Not sure how you could designate it as anything else.Bulsara said:
You sound positively breathless with excitement writing all that down. There is a huge difference between two characters showing each other love and affection, and the same two characters engaging in the the physical act of making love. The latter is a sex scene - which took place in this episode briefly and was cut away before anything explicit took place.The only thing salacious about Episode 3 is your increasingly prurient descriptions of the portrayal of Bill and Frank's relationship.
Anyhow, back to the zombies...
Rotary Connection said:
Look - GregM is afraid of gay people. It clearly disturbs him so much that 1) it is ruining his favorite video game, and 2) he is dedicating hours of his life on this thread explaining why it is just so upsetting for him. There's no need to engage this frightened man on this topic any longer.Some may call his marginalizing attitude as bigotry... actually scratch that, it's bigotry
GregM said:
sa·la·cious| səˈlāSHəs | adjective - having or conveying undue or inappropriate interest in sexual matters: salacious stories.GregM said:
If anyone thinks that was the most touching and heartbreaking hour of television in the world, they are sorely mistaken. Chernobyl itself (the show) was far more touching and heartbreaking, but there are dozens of other examples. The tweet doesn't even work as hyperbole. The episode was written to deflect criticism by virtue of the subject matter that the writers knew would be controversial and purposefully indulged in for reasons that had nothing to do with TLoU.GregM said:
I just speak for myself and obviously don't care about social media, popularity contests, sacred cows or flashes in the pan. The game resonated with me and my daughter where the show does not, thus far. We especially didn't like the last episode and it's more than a little bizarre to us that some people thought it was the greatest thing ever on TV. We have solid reasons for our opinion that I can substantiate logically (and I haven't seen many logical responses here; "likes" to tweets that are a bit ridiculous need not apply).GregM said:
This is a pathetic, but foreseeable result of criticizing the episode.Did anyone following my posts in the GOT threads see me criticizing depiction of homosexual sex and cast me as a homophobe there? Of course not. Because the gay sex in that show was perfectly in line with the flow of the story, the narrative and characters who had a history and a future far more significant than the characters shown in E3.
GregM said:
I never said that. I said the love between a parent and child is more pure--the purest love--because it's innocent. Do you have a child? Then how do you know what I'm talking about?If you're looking for someone intolerant, have you tried looking in the mirror? Between you and I, only one of us is closed off to understanding another's position and only one of us is demanding censure and ending discussion. This thread isn't about you or me, though.
Sedwards said:
Wonderful and thought-provoking show, beautifully acted, wonderful sets and great story telling. Makes me eager for sunday evenings.And this thread makes my past strategic use of the ignore button during the covid thread wars almost as brilliant as the show itself because I don't see any of posts you all seem to be responding to! It's magic - one click and a whole bunch of drivel just disappears! I encourage everyone to use it liberally.
GregM said:
Thanks for the tip! I'll add you to my ignore list.Walter Ruben said:
Dude, just stop. We know what you are, and you know what you are. Take the L and jog on. And in the future maybe put in the effort to be less of a bigot.GregM said:
Congrats. You've been added to my ignore list too. If you stop the intolerant shtick and prove yourself intellectually capable of discussing the show, I'll consider taking you off ignore.Walter Ruben said:
Oh no!I love it when people feel the need to announce that they’re ignoring someone. The fragility and impotent rage couldn’t be more transparent.
Do you know how I tell people I’m ignoring them? I don’t, but they eventually figure it out.
Don’t worry @gregm, I won’t ignore you. I’m here for you. This is a safe space.
GregM said:
I don't disagree, but if you're a kid playing the game you're not going to necessarily assume partner means lover. Clearly Druckmann had this general idea about Bill and Frank from the start, but he didn't put it out there until now, leaving the game open to interpretation.GregM said:
Druckmann didn't see the need to make an overt issue of it in the game. Obviously he's not averse to overt displays of homosexuality. So it still seems to me that "going there" with the flashback was superfluous to the story.ralphb said:
What's been done with the series is the same thing that gets done when a stage play or novel gets adapted for the screen. It gets opened up or trimmed down to allow deeper or more streamlined characterization and storyline. Evidently this is not a point by point serialization of the game, it is a different thing entirely. People who love the game have the game, people who love a well acted and filmed sci-fi series have the show. No need to get upset. But I will say you seem to go back again and again to the gay plot point, and unnecessarily at that.