The Last of Us - HBO Series [Spoilers after episodes have aired -- no game spoilers]

[bax]

Originally Posted by Paulie Walnuts

Finally watched the first 3 episodes and the 3rd was the best so far in what has been a very slow and boring show.

I’m not trying to call you out or anything but, I can’t fathom calling the show slow and boring so far. I’ve been caught by surprise when the episodes end. I’m always wanting more.

[chemgear]

https://twitter.com/user/status/1621552117831057408

[btimbit]

Originally Posted by jayswin

I watched it a second time and I think I'll watch it one more time before Sunday. It was so beautiful, especially in a world where the LGBTQ community has become targets due to social media divide.

I think what I loved most is what someone else already said. When watching it I wasn't sitting in awe of how amazing it was, but then when it's over I can't stop thinking about it for days afterward.

[Johnny Makarov]

Originally Posted by Manhattanboy

The episode was well acted and beautifully filmed.

But I find the praise way over the top. Best ever episode of television? C’mon.

For me the series so far is kinda slow. Having never played the game I guess I’m not all that invested.

I would not put TLOU into the same league of shows as Breaking Bad, Saul, Sopranos, GOT, Fauda, Chernobyl etc. Maybe at the end of the season but not after 3 episodes that’s for sure.

No one ever said it was the best series ever after 3 episodes. but that 3rd episode is up there with the best.

My wife who only watches Kdramas said it was great. But prob not tragic enough for Koreans... lol

[FormerPresJamesTaylor]

Originally Posted by Johnny Makarov

No one ever said it was the best series ever after 3 episodes. but that 3rd episode is up there with the best.

My wife who only watches Kdramas said it was great. But prob not tragic enough for Koreans... lol

Need 90% of female characters ugly crying

[d_phaneuf]

Originally Posted by FormerPresJamesTaylor

Chernobyl is the only mini series I'd put on the same level as Band of Brothers.

Really looking forward to masters of the air on apple later this year, Spielberg and hanks behind that one just like band of brothers

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by chemgear

https://twitter.com/user/status/1621552117831057408

This is... frustrating. Does he not understand that this just legitimizes the idiots who call the episode, and things like it, "woke propaganda"? What that means is, "the reason the characters were gay is because they want to send an ideological, politically motivated message that there's a good way to think and an evil way to think, and they made this episode to promote what they want you to believe is the right way to think". And now Offerman is saying, "you're right - that was, in fact, why we made this".

It can't just be "we wanted to tell a love story because it's a good story, both on its own and within the context of the show, and the story we're telling requires that these two characters are gay - it doesn't work otherwise". Just... stop accepting the premise of the debate, for ####'s sake. Just because Tucker Carlson or whoever wants to make a TV show into a cultural battleground does not mean you have to engage.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

This is... frustrating. Does he not understand that this just legitimizes the idiots who call the episode, and things like it, "woke propaganda"? What that means is, "the reason the characters were gay is because they want to send an ideological, politically motivated message that there's a good way to think and an evil way to think, and they made this episode to promote what they want you to believe is the right way to think". And now Offerman is saying, "you're right - that was, in fact, why we made this".

It can't just be "we wanted to tell a love story because it's a good story, both on its own and within the context of the show, and the story we're telling requires that these two characters are gay - it doesn't work otherwise". Just... stop accepting the premise of the debate, for ####'s sake. Just because Tucker Carlson or whoever wants to make a TV show into a cultural battleground does not mean you have to engage.

It’s not frustrating, and no offence, but you finding it frustrating is as important as whether people who hate this episode because it has gay characters but the excuse as to why it was made.

A straightforward love story where the two characters happen to be gay men, not because they “had to be,” but because sometimes in life that’s just how it is. And telling those stories is important, especially because helps to fight off the ignorance around these relationships being a normal part of life, whether you think it is or not.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

It’s not frustrating, and no offence, but you finding it frustrating is as important as whether people who hate this episode because it has gay characters but the excuse as to why it was made.

It is frustrating because I'm frustrated when I read it. I am frustrated when I read it because it needlessly legitimizes a stupid argument advanced by stupid people, and the best reaction to those people in this case was to roll one's eyes at them. You may not be frustrated by that, or see things the same way. Your different reaction does not somehow invalidate my frustration.

I am assuming there is a typo in the first sentence, because "you finding it frustrating is as important as whether people who hate this episode because it has gay characters but the excuse as to why it was made" does not make sense in English.

A straightforward love story where the two characters happen to be gay men, not because they “had to be,” but because sometimes in life that’s just how it is.

These things are not mutually exclusive - in life sometimes that's how it is, and to tell this particular story, they had to be, because the story would not have worked as well if it were written about a man and a woman in love, or for that matter, two women in love. It was necessary for the story.

And telling those stories is important, especially because helps to fight off the ignorance around these relationships being a normal part of life

Telling these stories is important because they're good stories. Not everything needs to have an agenda, the ability to tell a good story that is good in part because the main characters are gay is undermined when the people who made it then say, "we made this to try to make an ideological point".

This is already more typing than I really wanted to do about the tweet. I found it annoying. I don't feel a need to get into an argument with you about what is the correct reaction to Ben Shapiro et al. saying ridiculous things to get a rise out of their followers.

[FormerPresJamesTaylor]

Calling them out occasionally is fine too

[PepsiFree]

Nah, Corsi is right, it had to be two gay men and only two gay men or this simple, beautiful love story could never have been told, because they’ve never told a simple, beautiful love story between two women or a man and a woman before, and it’s actually wrong to suggest they were gay for any other reason than a good love story could not function without two gay men, something homophobes on Twitter are sure to believe.

We’ll just keep any efforts to normalize gay love by purposefully giving it a place in the mainstream a secret, so as not to frustrate anyone.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

None of that accurately represents my position, which, of course, you know. You also know how unbelievably obnoxious I find it when someone deliberately tries to re-state my views in a way that I don't agree with, and that they know I don't agree with. In short, you're being a dick. I know that you do not care when people point that out to you, but I guess in this instance I just feel like doing it anyway.

In short, my general view is that the suggestion by certain people who happen to have a vocal minority of loud idiots following them that every time a love story gains mainstream popularity that features two men is an attempt at advancing any ideology is stupid, and that sometimes it's just that way because those characters being gay serves the story. Specifically, I think that this story serves a good example of the latter, and it was frustrating to me to see one of the principals accept the premise of the former, stupid, narrative. And we can just agree to disagree about some or all of that.

[Wormius]

I can just see Bill and Frank having this argument over a glass of wine.

[PepsiFree]

Not everything is ideological warfare though, and it’s not all a game or a debate that has to be won. He didn’t accept their premise, he just told it like it is or at very least how he felt, and at the end of the day it only matters what they think if it matters to you. So… just stop caring what they think? By criticizing how he responded to them, you’re making the most important thing how people respond to them, which gives them more importance than they deserve, and that’s ####ty. I know you don’t see it, that’s why I’m mentioning it. You can call me a dick, but sometimes you’re really ignorant about how you come off in these situations.

Trust me, if a young gay man has to choose between a guy like Offerman and what he said and a guy saying “actually Offerman is frustrating and wrong because he didn’t sufficiently de-legitimize the views of Ben Shapiro” when it comes to who makes him feel more supported, normal, and like people in the world actually have his back, it’s going to be the former.

Sometimes it’s just nice to know someone if willing to defend who you are even when it doesn’t gain them anything. It doesn’t have to be a game.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

Not everything is ideological warfare though, and it’s not all a game or a debate that has to be won.

That is... my point. You're acting like this is something different from what I'm saying when it's exactly what I just said twice - that it is not the case that every time there's a gay character or a gay love story the reason is to win points in a debate or engage in ideological warfare.

You are right about one thing - namely, I don't see how saying "just roll your eyes at these people and ignore them" gives them "more importance than they deserve", largely because doing that would only underscore just how unimportant they really are.

[Yamer]

####, I hate that such a beautiful episode has to weighed down by this dumb ####ing debate about the characters being homosexual.

[dino7c]

Originally Posted by Paulie Walnuts

Finally watched the first 3 episodes and the 3rd was the best so far in what has been a very slow and boring show.

and I thought your hockey takes were bad

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

That is... my point. You're acting like this is something different from what I'm saying when it's exactly what I just said twice - that it is not the case that every time there's a gay character or a gay love story the reason is to win points in a debate or engage in ideological warfare.

You are right about one thing - namely, I don't see how saying "just roll your eyes at these people and ignore them" gives them "more importance than they deserve", largely because doing that would only underscore just how unimportant they really are.

You sharing how frustrating it is that Offerman concedes some imaginary ground plays just as much into the idea that there is some ideological warfare to engage in as the type of comment you’re pretending to be frustrated by.

Ignoring them isn’t worrying about what they think to the point that you get frustrated when people don’t ignore them. It’s seeing Offerman’s comment and thinking “that’s nice” and not even bothering to question who it might be to, not “well thanks for legitimizing Ben Shapiro.”

Try actually ignoring them instead of pretending you are while going on a whole rant about them and people responding to them and Tucker Carlson and Ben Shapiro or whoever.

The bigots whining about the episode are bad enough without people doing multiple-paragraph takedowns of how people respond to the bigots whining about the show.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

You sharing how frustrating it is that Offerman concedes some imaginary ground plays just as much into the idea that there is some ideological warfare to engage in as the type of comment you’re pretending to be frustrated by.
Ignoring them isn’t worrying about what they think to the point that you get frustrated when people don’t ignore them.

This is just nonsense mental gymnastics. Saying "I wish people wouldn't engage" is not tantamount to engaging. That's absurd.

You know what, #### it. You're completely failing to understand where I'm coming from - unsurprisingly - and I was about to respond to all of the new off-base things you've just said, but instead I'll just agree, again, with Yamer and let you continue to live with whatever misapprehensions you like.

Unrelated, I did watch it again. There's a lot that's easily missed. The entire piano scene, starting with "do you know how much these things are worth" / "currently nothing", is incredible.

[PepsiFree]

Glad to complete another round of “it’s everyone else who is wrong, I’m just very smart and misunderstood.” Thanks Corsi.

The subtleties in the writing of the episode were very good though. I feel like part of it was the freedom of not being confined to hitting the same beats as the game. With the first two episodes, there was a lot to get through with certain plot points they needed to hit closer together, whereas with this one it was very much wide open, with just the beginning and the end. I’d like them to go off-game more often.