I know right. I'd been seeing the rumours and I was thinking "there's no way. It's too stupid of an Idea" and yet here we are. I was expecting him to stick around for the christmas special, then regenerate, but i guess he wanted to jump ship before it fully sunk.
I just watched season 2 over the weekend and it was pretty good. It definitely wasn't as interesting as the 1st season but the probably overall better. I started watching Nathan For You and that show is fucking hilarious. I didn't realize he made a fake pig video that legit went viral across the world like 12 years ago.
hahah yeah of course I got sent this clip over the wknd 'cause everyone know I'm Fielderfan#1. Wolf Blitzer just downplaying any attempt to acknowledge that he's probably the boss of their show lol
Finished (well "caught up on") Poker Face. Once you accept the complete, constant, and shameless contrivance, it's an enjoyable show. It effectively tows the line between humor and austerity, but for a show called "Poker Face," you wonder how someone with Charlie Cale's ability is so piss poor at showing her hand. I guess it adds to its charm that she is so confident as to reveal she's figured out a killer's best-laid plans right in front of them... with no one else around, i.e.: she figures everything out, and instead of going to he cops, pulls the "A-HA!" to the killer who has nothing to lose (being a killer,) and the one person who knows is one bash over the head away from being the one person who KNEW.
I'm gonna have to call some BS on this article. "Game Ellie spent five years training to be a killing machine bordering on being an actual sociopath..." Ignoring the fact that in the game it was 4 years, not 5, she most definitely didn't spend that time training to be a killing machine any more than Dina or Jessie did. She went on patrols, that was it. Also, in the game Dina never finds out what Joel did, she only finds out Ellie is immune and that Joel, Tommy, and Maria know. But she never finds out Joel killed the Fireflies at Salt Lake City because they were trying to find a cure and kill Ellie in the process. Only in the show does Ellie tell her that.
‘The Last Of Us’ Season 2 Created A New Ellie Out Of Thin Air
HBO’s The Last of Us has invented an entirely new Ellie for season 2 that didn’t exist in the (much better) season 1 and certainly did not exist in the games at all.www.forbes.com
I played a bit of the game myself again after Season 2, and there's a little detail where Ellie will get a sweat stain around her collar after running. And this was present during cutscenes. This isn't just TLoU2, games have entire teams working on shit like this. There's so much focus on realism in games that AAA studios want to make damn sure you see every sweat drop and sand particle on a character's face. TV shows probably feel they don't need to be this dedicated to realistic details, because it's already real. Abby is a real person on screen now, so why bother making her clothes look appropriately worn, her skin properly blemished, and her hair accurately mucky? I have shirts that look more worn than Abby's in the show. There's a scene where Catherine O'Hara's character is sitting next to a cooler, and it looks brand new. And then remember that that thing is 25 years old.
Speaking of details, I had a talk about the season with a friend of mine who watched it all the way through without having played the game, and we both ended on the conclusion that the HBO show isn't just a bad adaptation, it's an adaptation that doesn't even seem to understand how adaptations are supposed to work to begin with. In both TLoU games a ton of characterization and tone is created during gameplay. Not just the banter between characters, but in the animations (like how Joel strangles dudes), environmental details, enemy behavior and even the gore. TLoU 2 is an intentionally miserable game not only to watch but also play, and I think the violence is genuinely a more important part of creating that atmosphere than people realize. It's one of the few games where the gore made me genuinely uncomfortable: the horrifically realistic detail and blood spatter, locational damage (did you know you can actually shoot people through the throat, and they'll give a realistic response?), dismemberment and so on. But it's also how the characters act around the violence: Ellie's expressions are vicious, and her combat dialogue is often along the lines of "Got you, fucker".
There's a lot to say about how the sequel vs. the first game vs. the show handles gore and violence. In my opinion the first game did it the best, and succeeded in what the sequel tried to do with its violence by not putting so much emphasis on it. I think TLoU2's violence becomes miserable less due to how off-putting it is and more due to how obnoxious it becomes. I don't think the show needed more gore, it just needed the action that was there to be better and more vicious. You take movies like No Country for Old Men and A History of Violence... These are not action movies, but when the violent scenes hit they hit hard and fast, and you can tell a lot of effort went into crafting them. Just the scene where Tom Stall's son beats the shit out of those two bullies, there's no gore there, but you can feel the pain in those hits.
If you do decide to check out the Clone Wars show, firstly: expect some good shit. Secondly, look up the chronological/recommended viewing order for the episode. Don't just go by the release order.
Why? If they released it in an order, we can watch in that order? I understand if the events are chronological, but so what?
Having watched it...I'm not sure what the reason was in the episode release order, because the timeline goes all over the place at seemingly random. That said, the other reason I recommended chronological over release is that...well, season 1, when watched in episode order, can be a bit of a turn-off because the show really doesn't start kicking into quality until about halfway through season 2.
Hmm ok well maybe I'll do that.
That thing about not pressing charges, I don’t know if it’s common in the US but there are certain offences in Australia - domestic abuse for example - which the police are obligated to investigate regardless. But they’re usually crimes that involve violence, although robbery by definition involves violence. But in 1969, if someone said they weren’t interested in pursuing it I don’t see the cops doing anything other than saying “Woohoo!” and going away. So yeah I agree that’s odd.
