Start Here

Main Blog of Animajation. Female/Sheridan Graduate

[thingsyoudontsay]

I feel like they made the nora scene and mel’s death even worse in the show. not killing nora and leaving her there to turn with her bones smashed up is sooo much more brutal than putting her out of her misery and killing her (we don’t even know if ellie killed her in the game either). mel being conscious and wanting to save her baby and ellie’s helplessness in that moment was just devastating. people are mad about her accidentally hitting mel rather than intentionally killing her. but she DID kill her. whether or not it was an accident doesn’t change that fact and doesn’t change the effect it has on ellie. I feel like I’m losing it reading people’s takes about this show ngl

The show is definitely more brutal then the game, and I also don't understand how people think Ellie isn't as dark?? But the thing with Mel is Ellie DOES kill her accidentally in the games too. People misremember that fact because it happens differently then the show but she absolutely had no intention of killing Owen or Mel. She wanted info and she accidentally kills them before she could get it. But yeah. People are being so weird about the second season.

[thingsyoudontsay]

so many people: “why were there no seattle tommy scenes he’s supposed to be sniping people” meanwhile in the game we don’t see tommy from ellie’s pov until the aquarium. more people: “why is ellie not killing a pregnant woman on purpose she’s supposed to be blood thirsty! why is she crying!” in the game: ellie kills mel and realizes after shes dead that she was pregnant and proceeds to have a panic attack. she did not “purposefully kill a pregnant woman” in the game. more people: “why would ellie feel guilt over torturing nora shes supposed to want her dead!” in the game: ellie is visibly shaken after killing nora and traumatized. I could give more examples but the way these “gamers” talk about the show I’m like I don’t know if u guys actually remember the game that well…

LITERALLY THOUGH. It's so weird. I looooove the games. I play them every year. Hearing people say how the second season is a poor adaption is just wild. Did we play the same game??

[thingsyoudontsay]

i'm sorry but i disagree with you. as someone who played the games multiple times i never came away from the games thinking it was 100% settled that they "absolutely" would have developed a cure from ellie. it's definitely possible but how could we know for sure? just because neil said they absolutely would have doesn't mean i have to take that as truth.

joel took away the possiblity of ever developing a cure/vaccine, yes. he took away ellie's agency in deciding if she wanted to sacrifice herself for that chance. and those dilemmas is still there whether it was a sure thing or not

We know because the games/show tell us. Multiple times. Jerry (Abby's dad) even explains how they would do it. Ellie's version of the infection somehow mutated to be benign. They would use that to replicate her mutation and make a vaccine/cure for humanity. Does this follow real world science? No. But neither do mushroom zombies, and neither does Ellie's immunity, it requires some suspension of disbelief. So, if we're going to believe the in-game "science" that people can turn into mushroom zombies, and we're going to believe the "science" that Ellie is the one person who is immune (and the games/show never even really describe that process anyway) then it stands to reason to believe the "science" saying a cure/vaccine would be made. That's not to say that Joel is "bad" I think the point is that neither party is bad. That's what makes it a moral dilemma. The trolly problem. One party wants to save the world but sacrifices an innocent child to do so. The other goes against the child's wish and dooms the world, going on a murder spree and killing innocent lives, but saves the child. IS either party actually in the right? are they in the wrong? That's the debate. but the point is we can understand both perspectives. Look at it this way. If the Fireflies had asked Ellie first and she had fully consented (like we all know she was going to) Do you really think Joel would not have done exactly the same thing? Nothing would have changed for him. He says as much in the end of the second game. And you know what? I am right by his side here. I would absolutely chose the ones I love over the world. Doesn't mean that's a good choice. Doesn't mean the rest of the world can't be upset with me, but that would be my choice.

[thingsyoudontsay]

As someone who loves the last of us games so much and has replayed them both at least 4 times through, I don't think the fans who are overly critical of the show actually really remember the games cause like, no offence or anything, but half the shit you guys say is just not true. Anyway I think the show is going a pretty amazing job of adapting the source material and I'm enjoying it. Really looking forward to season 3 and Lev's storyline! Also since we're here. I really miss the days when tumblr users would keep their hatred to the "anti" tags. Where did those days go? Do people genuinely think that fans want to see hate when they hit up the main tags of the media they're consuming?

[thebrainofmae]

like I understand it’s all about the cycles of violence and why does the person you love matter more than the person I love etc etc

But Abby really does neglect to mention that her “unarmed doctor” father was about to kill an unconscious teenage girl in the hopes of finding a cure he had no way of knowing for sure would work, without even getting her consent first.

Like girl, Joel is right, shut the fuck up and do it already.

[thingsyoudontsay]

OK like I get it. We all love Joel, his death is devastating. We all want to believe he's right in the awful thing he did....but he....also took Ellie's agency away from her. He did the same thing the doctor did. And we know for a fact Ellie wanted to give her life to find a cure. She says so in the second game. Like I'm not saying that what Joel did isn't understandable cause heck yeah it is. If the game left if up to player choice, I would chose Ellie every time. But Abby has every right to be mad at Joel for shooting her unarmed father in cold blood when he could have just incapacitated him and still left with Ellie. Just because the doctor didn't follow modern medical practice to find the cure for humanity, doesn't justify Joel murdering him. Like come on now lol

[alegitsalvage]

These Joel good Abby bad takes are tiring. All of these characters are morally complex and prone to serious moral failings. You could "well actually" back and forth about this forever, because that's the whole damn point of ethical dilemmas and flawed characters.

[thebrainofmae]

Ok, just to be clear, I wasn’t trying to say that Joel didn’t do anything wrong and I understand that as much as WE know the science to be BS, we’re supposed to buy into the idea that this is probably a cure (tho I stand by the fact that since they’ve never done this before, even if we ignore all the flaws in the method here, the Doc still has no sure way of knowing it’ll work.)

I just meant to say that whatever his intentions were, Abby’s dad was also making a choice in the trolley problem that is the season one finale. He thinks he’s making the correct choice and I do understand his logic, but he’s also making an ethical sacrifice in doing that—yeah, just as Joel was.

And so I was annoyed bc Abby is framing her father as some completely innocent victim so that she could frame her vengeance as something righteous as opposed to just…brutal, violent, anger and grief driven vengeance! Which is fine, that’s her character. It’s also some of what Ellie is doing. It’s kind of a depressing place for the story to go, but whatever. That’s what I meant by the cycle of violence stuff at the start of my post, I get what they’re trying to say from a narrative perspective, I’m just also upset at the characters as they play it out.

I get that in the situation he’s in, her dad might make a legitimate decision that killing the unconscious teenage girl is the right thing to do. I just also think if you make that decision you should know that you might get shot in the face by her dad.

[thingsyoudontsay]

Ok super late reblog here...but the science isn't BS lol. You can't selectively apply real world science to a fictional universe where people turn into fungus monsters. If we're going to accept the 'science' behind the fungus monsters, then we're going to accept the 'science' behind curing or vaccinating the fungus infection. Those two things go hand in hand. The series has basically hammered it in by this point that Ellie would have absolutely been the vaccine for this fictional pandemic, if not a cure for minor cases. They make this point so often and yet there's still fans trying to "well actually" the games own fictional science. Like. Joel cost the world a vaccine. This is fact based on the universe. WE can understand why he did it though, that's what makes the moral dilemma. However, Joel screwed the world over, and he murdered a whole lot of people doing it. So just like you said "I think if you make that decision, you should know that you might get shot in the face" Or, in this case, stabbed with a broken golf club.

[dark-scape]

I'm not watching season 2 of TLOU for multiple reasons. I don't begrudge anyone who is watching it.

I haven't seen anyone say nobody should be watching it, but if I did, I would be empathetic. I would not expect them to shut up about racism to make others more comfortable. I would have far more empathy for those people than those who think it's reasonable to expect everyone to agree to disagree that it is fundamentally in its bones built on a narrative that is racist against a group of people actively experiencing a genocide funded by the government of the primary audience.

[thingsyoudontsay]

Can we please let this false narrative die already? The second game isn't "based" on the Israel/Palestine conflict and neither of the waring factions directly corelate to real world examples. What actually happened, is that Neil Druckmann said once in an interview that he had been inspired to write the second game after examining his own feelings around violence and hatred (From an article I will source at the end:)

"'In my mind, I thought ‘Oh, man, if I could just push a button and kill all these people that committed this horrible act, I would make them feel the same pain that they inflicted on these people.’"

Once that anger subsided, Druckmann said he felt disgusted over his own fury. But that made him think about how humanity processes hatred. “I landed on this emotional idea of, can we, over the course of the game, make you feel this intense hate that is universal in the same way that unconditional love is universal?'" He also goes on to clarify that being inspired by something doesn't mean you "based" your work on it (From that same article)

 “'It was inspired by, not based on,” Druckmann said of The Last of Us Part II and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. “That’s a really important nuance'" Now, many users all over the web have ran with this and made their own connections between parts of the second game and the very real genocide of the Palestinian people, but it's very important to remember, these are interpretations, and they change based on the individual making them. There is no intended 1 to 1 reading of the second game and what's happening in the real world. So I'm sorry but no. it is not "fundamentally in its bones built on a narrative that is racist against a group of people actively experiencing a genocide funded by the government of the primary audience." That's a misrepresentation of the creator's words, used to interoperate a narrative he never indented. If you want to interoperate the game that way, that's your prerogative, but you're interpretation of something as a racist piece of media does not, inherently, make it so, and it's very very important to remember that article you cited is literally an interpretation. It's how the author interprets what he sees based on his lived-in experience. That does not make it factual. For example, he goes to great lengths to say the scars are suppose to represent Palestinians....but his examples are extremely flimsy and show up throughout real world history ("religious fanatics" Like....Christians? "Martyrdom being a major point of the religion" Like Christianity?? At one point, and I'm not joking here, he tries to make the argument that the Scars are secretly suppose to represent Palestinian's because they use...secret system to travers the city....like literally every real world rebel faction ever?? Hell in the first game, Joel and Tess use literal secret tunnels to travers Boston...are they suppose to represent Palestinians too??) In conclusion, can we please please PLEASE stop taking one man's extremely flimsy and bias interpretation of the second game's themes and messages as fact? Thank you, that's the end of my TED Talk. here's the article: https://time.com/7275781/the-last-of-us-controversy-israel-gaza/

[dark-scape]

I have read Druckmann's comments and I know he thinks he's saying something nuanced. It is an echo of decades I have spent with zionists telling me how nuanced and complicated the situation is and "both sides" and "cycle of violence". He explicitly included the narrative that Jews are always victims in the game and uses the game to get players invested in Jewish history and Jewish characters, but his supposedly even-handed nuanced take has no such humanization for Muslims or Palestinians. That's not an "interpretation". If you want to ignore the creator's own claim that he was inspired by the idea of "universal hate" by seeing members of a genocidal occupying army killed, that's you being creative to land at an interpretation that comforts you. The rest of us can see 2+2=4.

The narrative extols that the supreme moral choice is walking away. His family was able to walk away from participating in the colonization of Palestine and keep their wealth and rights and freedom of movement. It is not an equally available choice. It is not a "cycle of violence", it's an occupation and genocide. The narrative is tired and familiar and harmful and needs to be called out.

[thingsyoudontsay]

Yes. Jewish characters. Jewish people aren't inherently Zionists and assuming that showing Judaism in a positive light is automatically a Zionist stance is antisemitic. Again, nothing in the game is purely linked to Israel and Palestine specifically. If this game came out in the 90's people would make comparisons to the Yugoslavian war/genocide. Hell, the show has actually made comparisons to FEDRA and the Nazi's, but no single group has a real world comparison, and you can ignore all my points if you want to believe you're flawed narrative but again, that doesn't make it fact. The narrative isn't making moral positions at all, it's stating that every action has a reaction. That is the very basis of the narrative. It's not saying that revenge is "bad" but it IS saying that enacting revenge will put you in a position where someone may want to do the same to you. Sometimes the solution is having to fight the messed up system and it's oppressors (The fireflies fighting FEDRA for example) and sometimes the solution is just leaving and making your own home (Joel and Ellie) There's no right way to handle anyone situation and I think an issue with you and the author of that Vice article is you are trying to take a nuanced story and making it black and white to try and fit a narrative you want to believe. The rest of us are seeing the nuance and complexities and not trying to pigeonhole things into a real life scenario and then telling other people our flawed interpretations of a narrative we want to believe are "racist" are facts.

[dark-scape]

I did not say Jewish characters are zionists. He is literally the one who linked the game to Israel/Palestine. He did that voluntarily while humanizing one group in the game and promoting a victim narrative about them and not the other. No one was holding a gun to his head.

[thingsyoudontsay]

He did literally none of those things though. He was inspired to make the game based on emotions he felt in relation to violence. That’s a very different thing than “basing the game on a specific real world conflict” I don’t know how you’re grasping it.

And I’m sorry you think the WLF are hunanized more than the Seraphites??? The WLF?? The same group that has an entire torture chamber? The same group that was willing too shoot their best soldier to get to a kid?? You think that group was humanized by the game’s narrative??

D

Or maybe you think it’s the other way around and the Seraphites who hang people and cut their bellies open, or force their children into their heteronormative society?

Girl.

This is what I mean by you taking a nuanced narrative and trying to force it into your own personal (bias) interpretation. Neither group is better or worse then the other

[dark-scape]

GIRL I'm not talking about metaphors. I am not talking about the WLF. I'm talking about the stuff that is explicitly about Jewish people in the game. Yes, he voluntarily connected it to Israel/Palestine. It's in your very next sentence. You know that because he said it publicly AS PART OF HIS PROMOTION OF THE GAME. Are you losing it?

And very cutesy of you to vaguely allude to "violence" when you're talking about the deaths of members of a violent occupying army.

[thingsyoudontsay]

I literally called it a genocide against the Palestinian people in my first reblog but ok! You clearly just want to see whatever fits your narrative.

[dark-scape]

I'm not watching season 2 of TLOU for multiple reasons. I don't begrudge anyone who is watching it.

I haven't seen anyone say nobody should be watching it, but if I did, I would be empathetic. I would not expect them to shut up about racism to make others more comfortable. I would have far more empathy for those people than those who think it's reasonable to expect everyone to agree to disagree that it is fundamentally in its bones built on a narrative that is racist against a group of people actively experiencing a genocide funded by the government of the primary audience.

[thingsyoudontsay]

Can we please let this false narrative die already? The second game isn't "based" on the Israel/Palestine conflict and neither of the waring factions directly corelate to real world examples. What actually happened, is that Neil Druckmann said once in an interview that he had been inspired to write the second game after examining his own feelings around violence and hatred (From an article I will source at the end:)

"'In my mind, I thought ‘Oh, man, if I could just push a button and kill all these people that committed this horrible act, I would make them feel the same pain that they inflicted on these people.’"

Once that anger subsided, Druckmann said he felt disgusted over his own fury. But that made him think about how humanity processes hatred. “I landed on this emotional idea of, can we, over the course of the game, make you feel this intense hate that is universal in the same way that unconditional love is universal?'" He also goes on to clarify that being inspired by something doesn't mean you "based" your work on it (From that same article)

 “'It was inspired by, not based on,” Druckmann said of The Last of Us Part II and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. “That’s a really important nuance'" Now, many users all over the web have ran with this and made their own connections between parts of the second game and the very real genocide of the Palestinian people, but it's very important to remember, these are interpretations, and they change based on the individual making them. There is no intended 1 to 1 reading of the second game and what's happening in the real world. So I'm sorry but no. it is not "fundamentally in its bones built on a narrative that is racist against a group of people actively experiencing a genocide funded by the government of the primary audience." That's a misrepresentation of the creator's words, used to interoperate a narrative he never indented. If you want to interoperate the game that way, that's your prerogative, but you're interpretation of something as a racist piece of media does not, inherently, make it so, and it's very very important to remember that article you cited is literally an interpretation. It's how the author interprets what he sees based on his lived-in experience. That does not make it factual. For example, he goes to great lengths to say the scars are suppose to represent Palestinians....but his examples are extremely flimsy and show up throughout real world history ("religious fanatics" Like....Christians? "Martyrdom being a major point of the religion" Like Christianity?? At one point, and I'm not joking here, he tries to make the argument that the Scars are secretly suppose to represent Palestinian's because they use...secret system to travers the city....like literally every real world rebel faction ever?? Hell in the first game, Joel and Tess use literal secret tunnels to travers Boston...are they suppose to represent Palestinians too??) In conclusion, can we please please PLEASE stop taking one man's extremely flimsy and bias interpretation of the second game's themes and messages as fact? Thank you, that's the end of my TED Talk. here's the article: https://time.com/7275781/the-last-of-us-controversy-israel-gaza/

[dark-scape]

I have read Druckmann's comments and I know he thinks he's saying something nuanced. It is an echo of decades I have spent with zionists telling me how nuanced and complicated the situation is and "both sides" and "cycle of violence". He explicitly included the narrative that Jews are always victims in the game and uses the game to get players invested in Jewish history and Jewish characters, but his supposedly even-handed nuanced take has no such humanization for Muslims or Palestinians. That's not an "interpretation". If you want to ignore the creator's own claim that he was inspired by the idea of "universal hate" by seeing members of a genocidal occupying army killed, that's you being creative to land at an interpretation that comforts you. The rest of us can see 2+2=4.

The narrative extols that the supreme moral choice is walking away. His family was able to walk away from participating in the colonization of Palestine and keep their wealth and rights and freedom of movement. It is not an equally available choice. It is not a "cycle of violence", it's an occupation and genocide. The narrative is tired and familiar and harmful and needs to be called out.

[thingsyoudontsay]

Yes. Jewish characters. Jewish people aren't inherently Zionists and assuming that showing Judaism in a positive light is automatically a Zionist stance is antisemitic. Again, nothing in the game is purely linked to Israel and Palestine specifically. If this game came out in the 90's people would make comparisons to the Yugoslavian war/genocide. Hell, the show has actually made comparisons to FEDRA and the Nazi's, but no single group has a real world comparison, and you can ignore all my points if you want to believe you're flawed narrative but again, that doesn't make it fact. The narrative isn't making moral positions at all, it's stating that every action has a reaction. That is the very basis of the narrative. It's not saying that revenge is "bad" but it IS saying that enacting revenge will put you in a position where someone may want to do the same to you. Sometimes the solution is having to fight the messed up system and it's oppressors (The fireflies fighting FEDRA for example) and sometimes the solution is just leaving and making your own home (Joel and Ellie) There's no right way to handle anyone situation and I think an issue with you and the author of that Vice article is you are trying to take a nuanced story and making it black and white to try and fit a narrative you want to believe. The rest of us are seeing the nuance and complexities and not trying to pigeonhole things into a real life scenario and then telling other people our flawed interpretations of a narrative we want to believe are "racist" are facts.

[dark-scape]

I did not say Jewish characters are zionists. He is literally the one who linked the game to Israel/Palestine. He did that voluntarily while humanizing one group in the game and promoting a victim narrative about them and not the other. No one was holding a gun to his head.

[thingsyoudontsay]

He did literally none of those things though. He was inspired to make the game based on emotions he felt in relation to violence. That’s a very different thing than “basing the game on a specific real world conflict” I don’t know how you’re grasping it.

And I’m sorry you think the WLF are hunanized more than the Seraphites??? The WLF?? The same group that has an entire torture chamber? The same group that was willing too shoot their best soldier to get to a kid?? You think that group was humanized by the game’s narrative??

D

Or maybe you think it’s the other way around and the Seraphites who hang people and cut their bellies open, or force their children into their heteronormative society?

Girl.

This is what I mean by you taking a nuanced narrative and trying to force it into your own personal (bias) interpretation. Neither group is better or worse then the other

[dark-scape]

I'm not watching season 2 of TLOU for multiple reasons. I don't begrudge anyone who is watching it.

I haven't seen anyone say nobody should be watching it, but if I did, I would be empathetic. I would not expect them to shut up about racism to make others more comfortable. I would have far more empathy for those people than those who think it's reasonable to expect everyone to agree to disagree that it is fundamentally in its bones built on a narrative that is racist against a group of people actively experiencing a genocide funded by the government of the primary audience.

[thingsyoudontsay]

Can we please let this false narrative die already? The second game isn't "based" on the Israel/Palestine conflict and neither of the waring factions directly corelate to real world examples. What actually happened, is that Neil Druckmann said once in an interview that he had been inspired to write the second game after examining his own feelings around violence and hatred (From an article I will source at the end:)

"'In my mind, I thought ‘Oh, man, if I could just push a button and kill all these people that committed this horrible act, I would make them feel the same pain that they inflicted on these people.’"

Once that anger subsided, Druckmann said he felt disgusted over his own fury. But that made him think about how humanity processes hatred. “I landed on this emotional idea of, can we, over the course of the game, make you feel this intense hate that is universal in the same way that unconditional love is universal?'" He also goes on to clarify that being inspired by something doesn't mean you "based" your work on it (From that same article)

 “'It was inspired by, not based on,” Druckmann said of The Last of Us Part II and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. “That’s a really important nuance'" Now, many users all over the web have ran with this and made their own connections between parts of the second game and the very real genocide of the Palestinian people, but it's very important to remember, these are interpretations, and they change based on the individual making them. There is no intended 1 to 1 reading of the second game and what's happening in the real world. So I'm sorry but no. it is not "fundamentally in its bones built on a narrative that is racist against a group of people actively experiencing a genocide funded by the government of the primary audience." That's a misrepresentation of the creator's words, used to interoperate a narrative he never indented. If you want to interoperate the game that way, that's your prerogative, but you're interpretation of something as a racist piece of media does not, inherently, make it so, and it's very very important to remember that article you cited is literally an interpretation. It's how the author interprets what he sees based on his lived-in experience. That does not make it factual. For example, he goes to great lengths to say the scars are suppose to represent Palestinians....but his examples are extremely flimsy and show up throughout real world history ("religious fanatics" Like....Christians? "Martyrdom being a major point of the religion" Like Christianity?? At one point, and I'm not joking here, he tries to make the argument that the Scars are secretly suppose to represent Palestinian's because they use...secret system to travers the city....like literally every real world rebel faction ever?? Hell in the first game, Joel and Tess use literal secret tunnels to travers Boston...are they suppose to represent Palestinians too??) In conclusion, can we please please PLEASE stop taking one man's extremely flimsy and bias interpretation of the second game's themes and messages as fact? Thank you, that's the end of my TED Talk. here's the article: https://time.com/7275781/the-last-of-us-controversy-israel-gaza/

[dark-scape]

I have read Druckmann's comments and I know he thinks he's saying something nuanced. It is an echo of decades I have spent with zionists telling me how nuanced and complicated the situation is and "both sides" and "cycle of violence". He explicitly included the narrative that Jews are always victims in the game and uses the game to get players invested in Jewish history and Jewish characters, but his supposedly even-handed nuanced take has no such humanization for Muslims or Palestinians. That's not an "interpretation". If you want to ignore the creator's own claim that he was inspired by the idea of "universal hate" by seeing members of a genocidal occupying army killed, that's you being creative to land at an interpretation that comforts you. The rest of us can see 2+2=4.

The narrative extols that the supreme moral choice is walking away. His family was able to walk away from participating in the colonization of Palestine and keep their wealth and rights and freedom of movement. It is not an equally available choice. It is not a "cycle of violence", it's an occupation and genocide. The narrative is tired and familiar and harmful and needs to be called out.

[thingsyoudontsay]

Yes. Jewish characters. Jewish people aren't inherently Zionists and assuming that showing Judaism in a positive light is automatically a Zionist stance is antisemitic. Again, nothing in the game is purely linked to Israel and Palestine specifically. If this game came out in the 90's people would make comparisons to the Yugoslavian war/genocide. Hell, the show has actually made comparisons to FEDRA and the Nazi's, but no single group has a real world comparison, and you can ignore all my points if you want to believe you're flawed narrative but again, that doesn't make it fact. The narrative isn't making moral positions at all, it's stating that every action has a reaction. That is the very basis of the narrative. It's not saying that revenge is "bad" but it IS saying that enacting revenge will put you in a position where someone may want to do the same to you. Sometimes the solution is having to fight the messed up system and it's oppressors (The fireflies fighting FEDRA for example) and sometimes the solution is just leaving and making your own home (Joel and Ellie) There's no right way to handle anyone situation and I think an issue with you and the author of that Vice article is you are trying to take a nuanced story and making it black and white to try and fit a narrative you want to believe. The rest of us are seeing the nuance and complexities and not trying to pigeonhole things into a real life scenario and then telling other people our flawed interpretations of a narrative we want to believe are "racist" are facts.

[dark-scape]

I'm not watching season 2 of TLOU for multiple reasons. I don't begrudge anyone who is watching it.

I haven't seen anyone say nobody should be watching it, but if I did, I would be empathetic. I would not expect them to shut up about racism to make others more comfortable. I would have far more empathy for those people than those who think it's reasonable to expect everyone to agree to disagree that it is fundamentally in its bones built on a narrative that is racist against a group of people actively experiencing a genocide funded by the government of the primary audience.

[thingsyoudontsay]

Can we please let this false narrative die already? The second game isn't "based" on the Israel/Palestine conflict and neither of the waring factions directly corelate to real world examples. What actually happened, is that Neil Druckmann said once in an interview that he had been inspired to write the second game after examining his own feelings around violence and hatred (From an article I will source at the end:)

"'In my mind, I thought ‘Oh, man, if I could just push a button and kill all these people that committed this horrible act, I would make them feel the same pain that they inflicted on these people.’"

Once that anger subsided, Druckmann said he felt disgusted over his own fury. But that made him think about how humanity processes hatred. “I landed on this emotional idea of, can we, over the course of the game, make you feel this intense hate that is universal in the same way that unconditional love is universal?'" He also goes on to clarify that being inspired by something doesn't mean you "based" your work on it (From that same article)

 “'It was inspired by, not based on,” Druckmann said of The Last of Us Part II and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. “That’s a really important nuance'" Now, many users all over the web have ran with this and made their own connections between parts of the second game and the very real genocide of the Palestinian people, but it's very important to remember, these are interpretations, and they change based on the individual making them. There is no intended 1 to 1 reading of the second game and what's happening in the real world. So I'm sorry but no. it is not "fundamentally in its bones built on a narrative that is racist against a group of people actively experiencing a genocide funded by the government of the primary audience." That's a misrepresentation of the creator's words, used to interoperate a narrative he never indented. If you want to interoperate the game that way, that's your prerogative, but you're interpretation of something as a racist piece of media does not, inherently, make it so, and it's very very important to remember that article you cited is literally an interpretation. It's how the author interprets what he sees based on his lived-in experience. That does not make it factual. For example, he goes to great lengths to say the scars are suppose to represent Palestinians....but his examples are extremely flimsy and show up throughout real world history ("religious fanatics" Like....Christians? "Martyrdom being a major point of the religion" Like Christianity?? At one point, and I'm not joking here, he tries to make the argument that the Scars are secretly suppose to represent Palestinian's because they use...secret system to travers the city....like literally every real world rebel faction ever?? Hell in the first game, Joel and Tess use literal secret tunnels to travers Boston...are they suppose to represent Palestinians too??) In conclusion, can we please please PLEASE stop taking one man's extremely flimsy and bias interpretation of the second game's themes and messages as fact? Thank you, that's the end of my TED Talk. here's the article: https://time.com/7275781/the-last-of-us-controversy-israel-gaza/

[tref0il]

WHEN ON PERIOD:

do not crash out

your feelings are NOT valid

do not send that text

don't kill yourself. lock in

do not act on negative emotions until at least 2 days have elapsed

[thingsyoudontsay]

I've seen so many posts talking about how Dina isn't bi anymore because of the "You're gay, I'm not" line and questioning her and why she's so uncertain of her feelings for Ellie and it's like...guys...Dina isn't gay. She was never gay. She's Bi. This is an important distinction. When she says the "I'm not gay" Line. Her bisexuality isn't being erased. She's not gay! She was also always uncertain of her feelings for Ellie, even in the games. It's just, in the games, POV is far more limited so we only get subtle hints about it through Ellie's journals and some dialog (Dina always seemingly jealous of Ellie's ex for example) The show is far more clear about it. Dina IS conflicted about her feelings for Ellie and she doesn't know if Ellie feels the same way for her. She's testing the boundaries. Dina and Ellie's relationship is such a huge part of the games, and with the second game being split into 2 seasons, it seems like they're making the relationship more of a slow burn, and really showing how it builds. I get the anxiety around mainstream media and LGBTQ rep. We've all been so burned in the past...but not by The Last of us? The first season has even better rep then the games do and the same people are writing the second season. And to be fully honest, some of yall's posts are coming across as a little biphobic, weather intentional or not.

[thebrainofmae]

like I understand it’s all about the cycles of violence and why does the person you love matter more than the person I love etc etc

But Abby really does neglect to mention that her “unarmed doctor” father was about to kill an unconscious teenage girl in the hopes of finding a cure he had no way of knowing for sure would work, without even getting her consent first.

Like girl, Joel is right, shut the fuck up and do it already.

[thingsyoudontsay]

OK like I get it. We all love Joel, his death is devastating. We all want to believe he's right in the awful thing he did....but he....also took Ellie's agency away from her. He did the same thing the doctor did. And we know for a fact Ellie wanted to give her life to find a cure. She says so in the second game. Like I'm not saying that what Joel did isn't understandable cause heck yeah it is. If the game left if up to player choice, I would chose Ellie every time. But Abby has every right to be mad at Joel for shooting her unarmed father in cold blood when he could have just incapacitated him and still left with Ellie. Just because the doctor didn't follow modern medical practice to find the cure for humanity, doesn't justify Joel murdering him. Like come on now lol

[madrosie]

I'm I the only one who doesn't have an issue with Lucanis still romancing Neve but not Rook if Minrathous is saved?

Like Rook is the boss, the leader, the one calling the shots on who to save, Neve isn't. He's not as pissed at Neve because she wasn't the one who made the call to sacrifice Treviso.

[thingsyoudontsay]

Ok but like....Rook doesn't just choose one city and forget the other? They send half the team to one, and take the rest to the other. They're actively trying to save both cities and it isn't even them that does it. It's the Lyrium Dagger. If Rook had gone to Minrathous, for example, but had let Lucanis take the dagger with him to Treviso, then, by the game's on logic, Treviso would be saved. Furthermore, a Shadow Dragon Rook would, of course chose to save their own home, just like Neve does, but Lucanis is set to lock Rook out even if this was the case, which makes the entire argument moot. This choice by the devs doesn't feel like it's actually there because of narrative reasons, but because the devs needed some sort of big consequence for choosing to save Minrathous (if you save Treviso you lose out on content with Dorian, that's a pretty big deal since he's a fan favourite from the last game) and they choose to make a romance lock-out with Lucanis that consequence. I don't think it actually holds up narratively and I can't wait until there's a mod to fix it, because it honestly ruins the writing of the game a bit for me.

[thingsyoudontsay]

After beating Veilguard I can officially call myself a Solas hater. That little bitch.

I have one Inquisitor who romanced him and he honestly does not deserve her. She will leave him for Gary. I’ll never forgive him for *redacted* and how he treats *redacted* especially knowing he *redacted, redacted, redacted*

[animajation]

A quick Fenris sketch. I miss this brooding elf so much.

[thessaralka]

love a man who casts aside service to an arrogant goddess in favor of the love of a mortal woman who just really gets him

[thingsyoudontsay]

I see we're already getting to the "Let's completely disregard what this lady character is like in Canon for an extremely unfavorable interpretation because she gets in the way of our ship" Part of the fandom experience. That was fast.

[thessaralka]

god you nerds are fucking weird y'all take this shit so seriously

[thingsyoudontsay]

I mean yeah there’s a ton of misogyny in this fandom usually surrounding ships so people take it seriously

But also girl your tags?? Firstly “shipping” has nothing to do with canon it’s literally just which pairings you like.

Secondly canon in DA doesn’t exist? My inquisitor is male. It’s literally impossible for him to be with Solas romantically. Canon is whatever you choose in your game.

Seriously how old are you? You’re taking this all really personally.

[thessaralka]

love a man who casts aside service to an arrogant goddess in favor of the love of a mortal woman who just really gets him

[thingsyoudontsay]

I see we're already getting to the "Let's completely disregard what this lady character is like in Canon for an extremely unfavorable interpretation because she gets in the way of our ship" Part of the fandom experience. That was fast.