1,216
pages
ALL POSTS
All posts by Maseflakeza
<p>Usually, it changes with the game difficulty. On easy, in this part of the game, there are bricks and bottles everywhere. On grounded (never played the 3 other difficulties, so i don't know) there is none. Maybe it's just that ?
</p>
(Edited by Maseflakeza)
<p>In my mind, this is more Joel than an antagonist. Kevin Tong is an artist who use a lot the color blue and red but mostly red. The red color is definitively a part of his style. The Poster could represent Joel or an antagonist, but in both cases, the poster would be red/dark.
Kevin Tong already did this kind of dualism with the posters of Warcraft and Halo Wars 2 where the protagonists (the Alliance for Warcraft and James Cutter for Halo Wars 2) were in blue/light and the antagonists (The Horde for Warcraft and Atriox for Halo Wars 2) were in red/dark. I don't know, maybe it's just doing it for the third time, for a video game, would be a bit lazy...
[1]
</p><p>If i had to chose a spirit animal for Joel and Ellie, and without know the posters, i would have pick the butterfly for Ellie and the wolf for Joel. Both totally match with their personalities.
</p><p>I have the feeling that these posters represent the more their actual state of mind and goals at the beginning of the Part 2, than anything else.
</p><p>In symbolism wolves represent a quick, stealthy and ferocious warrior. They are also know for their sharp intelligence, strong instincts, lack of trust in people but deep loyalty for their pack. In Native American folklore the wolf is a pathfinder and so in a kind of way, a protector. Pretty much like Joel.
</p><p>The Hammer often represents the justice or so the revenge, and which fit with Ellie's quest of justice. It just shows that Joel will certainly will have a major role in Part 2. Ellie will be the main protagonist, but Joel is still a very important character.
</p><p>In my opinion, the 2016 poster clearly showed Ellie personality. The tattoo hides her bite but in same time the spleenworts clearly show that she "accepted" her new identity, mean someone different. She's infected and she's embrass this part of herself. Doesn't mean it would be easy to accept her new identity, but she certainly would like to stay true/honest with herself.
The two differents spleenworths also show the path she was supposed to take (death, as infected or because of the fireflies) and this new and unknown path that the butterfly took and where she doesn't really know where she goes and how it will end.
And the switchblade was Anna's of course.
</p>
(Edited by Maseflakeza)
<p>Or he could be dead. Most of his fortune is virtual, and without banks, without stock exchanges, without telecommunication, and at the beginning of the infection, the only thing who matters is how much cash money you have. Most of his bodyguards will certainly leave him to protect their own families, and someone would certainly rob him and maybe kill him, if he/she think this money could help to survive. Not like money seem very important in TLOU's world. Same about technologies.
</p><p>While at first, FERDA certainly did the "right" things to keep people alive and protect them from infected, they have quickly built a military dictatorship where opponents/rebels were certainly executed.
</p><p>Public figures often bring people together and people listen to them because they already "know" them, they have a kind of authority. Public figures (more particularly from the past) who could critic their dictatorship, would be executed.
</p>
(Edited by Maseflakeza)
<p>One more thing. There is something very fishy about Anita Sarkeesian.
</p><p>I read that she was stalked, harassed, threated and so on but when i checked her twitter, i've just notices that maybe 90% or 95% of her followers are fake accounts she has certainly bought. I don't have a twitter, so maybe i'm wrong and i just don't really understand how it properly works, but i think someone with 770k followers should have more than an average of of 100 likes per tweet (her best tweets can reach the 1000 likes but that's rare). Means in reality, lot of people don't really care about her and maybe her threats and stakler are as fake as her supporters.
</p><p>I'm just trying to figure how this is possible to make the things evolve in a positive way, with a real respect and equality between men and women, when you're dishonest about how society and men are treating you and how they react to the things you say. I don't care about her popularity. Polularity is not something who makes you more interesting or intelligent. It's just the reason of why she did it who disturbs me.
</p><p>
</p><p>@Brainwasher5 As Snivystorm has closed the thread without give me a chance to answer, I answer here. I checked the list of her 1000 last followers and most of them are fake accounts without any tweet, any likes and an most of them without any profil picture or just a profil picture with no header photo. You don't need to follow someone on twitter to read the tweets of a public account. They are not hater, they are fake accounts! I also checked who those fakes account followed and most of the time this is always the same public 'famous" personalities (they ALL follow Ken Levine or Brenda Romero. the last one, Brenda, has 550K followers with an average of something like 50 likes per tweet and who's the game designer of totally unknown and very sexist erotic video games like Playboy: The Mansion - Private Party. [1] but then why all those "hater" don't praise Brenda work? why they also ignore her ?) and never follow single (private) account of friends or family member. This is not a conjective, this is a fact. I invite you to check it by yourself! [2] </p><p>And honestly i don't understand why close a thread. this is just my opinion but that's stupid. New people can always come and bring something new. What is the point of being on a forum if people can't speak? If you or Snivytorm are not interested just don't read. </p><p>
Edit : Just found out that I'm not the only one who think her twitter is fishy and she buys fake accounts. </p><p>Apparently, she has gained +300k followers in less of 2 years, but strangely, her rate of likes has not really changed when it should! [3] She's fooling people. Sorry if i don't appreciate it, and don't believe a single second your conjecture about 770000 haters who would follow her on twitter... While i also believe, from time to time, there are spam accounts who can follow real twitter accounts, i don't believe in hundreds of fake accounts who all follows the same peoples and do it for free... </p><p>
Anyway, what bother me, is Anita Sarkeesian to supposed be a spokewomen, but she lies about her supporters. So this is logic, normal, to ask "well, what about the rest ?". It doesn't mean she has never been insulted or harassed, I totally believe it (and sometimes she's looking for troubles... shouldn't be suprise of people very "friendly" answers). It's just now, I wouldn't be suprise if she exagerated the violence and amount of negative answers she received to generate a buzz... It bothers me that The Last of Us Part 2 could be influenced and associated with someone with this kind of personality. That's why, on this thread, i was asking people opinion about it... </p>
</p><p>@Brainwasher5 As Snivystorm has closed the thread without give me a chance to answer, I answer here. I checked the list of her 1000 last followers and most of them are fake accounts without any tweet, any likes and an most of them without any profil picture or just a profil picture with no header photo. You don't need to follow someone on twitter to read the tweets of a public account. They are not hater, they are fake accounts! I also checked who those fakes account followed and most of the time this is always the same public 'famous" personalities (they ALL follow Ken Levine or Brenda Romero. the last one, Brenda, has 550K followers with an average of something like 50 likes per tweet and who's the game designer of totally unknown and very sexist erotic video games like Playboy: The Mansion - Private Party. [1] but then why all those "hater" don't praise Brenda work? why they also ignore her ?) and never follow single (private) account of friends or family member. This is not a conjective, this is a fact. I invite you to check it by yourself! [2] </p><p>And honestly i don't understand why close a thread. this is just my opinion but that's stupid. New people can always come and bring something new. What is the point of being on a forum if people can't speak? If you or Snivytorm are not interested just don't read. </p><p>
Edit : Just found out that I'm not the only one who think her twitter is fishy and she buys fake accounts. </p><p>Apparently, she has gained +300k followers in less of 2 years, but strangely, her rate of likes has not really changed when it should! [3] She's fooling people. Sorry if i don't appreciate it, and don't believe a single second your conjecture about 770000 haters who would follow her on twitter... While i also believe, from time to time, there are spam accounts who can follow real twitter accounts, i don't believe in hundreds of fake accounts who all follows the same peoples and do it for free... </p><p>
Anyway, what bother me, is Anita Sarkeesian to supposed be a spokewomen, but she lies about her supporters. So this is logic, normal, to ask "well, what about the rest ?". It doesn't mean she has never been insulted or harassed, I totally believe it (and sometimes she's looking for troubles... shouldn't be suprise of people very "friendly" answers). It's just now, I wouldn't be suprise if she exagerated the violence and amount of negative answers she received to generate a buzz... It bothers me that The Last of Us Part 2 could be influenced and associated with someone with this kind of personality. That's why, on this thread, i was asking people opinion about it... </p>
(Edited by Maseflakeza)
Totally agree with it.
(Edited by Maseflakeza)
<p>Sorry, my english is not very good and i understand lot better than i speak. I'm saying, he's talking about her immunity to "force" Tommy to take Ellie with him, and to make her feel guilty because she run off (and neither work) and make her understand that she must stay with Tommy. He doesn't want to speak about his feelings.
</p><p>And yes, in a kind of way she's right.
</p>
(Edited by Maseflakeza)
<div class="quote"><i>
<p>Mi Name's Dave wrote:
Why was Joel so eager to leave Ellie up to Tommy (as he stated in the beggining of the chapter when he found his brother) when he was willing to give up his life to help her escape the hunters just a few months ago. For those who don't remember he said he was going to boost Ellie over a truck so she could run past the armored truck that was chasing them, basically meaning that Joel would get mowed down by their machinegun.
</p>
</i></div>
<p>I think he just did what lot of other adults would do in the same situation. If it was Sam instead of Ellie, I think he would had the same behavior. </p><p>
</p><p>"Most likely because Joel knew how important she was due to being immune to the virus. Maybe he thought that her safety was more important than his life because she could potentially save humanity. At that time, his job was to escort her to the Fireflies and make sure she stays alive. When he wanted to leave her with Tommy, it was because Joel trusted Tommy and, being an ex-Firefly, he could get her to where she needed to be. However, this obviously changes over the last few chapters of the game when Joel begins to start caring about Ellie as his own." </p><p>I think Joel has never cared about her immunity. It was just his excuse to get rid of her. </p><p>I also think that the players, Joel and Ellie all have different perception of the infection. in TLOU's world, people learn to deal with it and 20 years later it maybe kill as much as cancers kill. Joel in a kind of way is used to it and has seen worst. Ellie during the 14 first year of her life knew almost nothing about infected. Her first encouters with them was when she was sneeking out with Riley. the second time has been during her journey with Joel and she's certainly still traumatized by it. I think a cure or a vaccine is maybe not as much important for Joel than it could be for Ellie or the players. </p><p>This is just my opinion but I don't think TLOU world would need a vaccine to get rid of the infecteds and maybe Joel knows it. The FEDRA, the militaries control the population more than they fight infecteds and use the fear of infection (and hunters) to have an upper hand on people (and that's why this is the fireflies who try to find a vaccine/cure). the problem is, you can't cure a "world"(or goverment) who doesn't want to be cured. </p><p>This is for this reason i think Joel never really cared about Ellie's immunity. </p>
<p>I think he just did what lot of other adults would do in the same situation. If it was Sam instead of Ellie, I think he would had the same behavior. </p><p>
</p><p>"Most likely because Joel knew how important she was due to being immune to the virus. Maybe he thought that her safety was more important than his life because she could potentially save humanity. At that time, his job was to escort her to the Fireflies and make sure she stays alive. When he wanted to leave her with Tommy, it was because Joel trusted Tommy and, being an ex-Firefly, he could get her to where she needed to be. However, this obviously changes over the last few chapters of the game when Joel begins to start caring about Ellie as his own." </p><p>I think Joel has never cared about her immunity. It was just his excuse to get rid of her. </p><p>I also think that the players, Joel and Ellie all have different perception of the infection. in TLOU's world, people learn to deal with it and 20 years later it maybe kill as much as cancers kill. Joel in a kind of way is used to it and has seen worst. Ellie during the 14 first year of her life knew almost nothing about infected. Her first encouters with them was when she was sneeking out with Riley. the second time has been during her journey with Joel and she's certainly still traumatized by it. I think a cure or a vaccine is maybe not as much important for Joel than it could be for Ellie or the players. </p><p>This is just my opinion but I don't think TLOU world would need a vaccine to get rid of the infecteds and maybe Joel knows it. The FEDRA, the militaries control the population more than they fight infecteds and use the fear of infection (and hunters) to have an upper hand on people (and that's why this is the fireflies who try to find a vaccine/cure). the problem is, you can't cure a "world"(or goverment) who doesn't want to be cured. </p><p>This is for this reason i think Joel never really cared about Ellie's immunity. </p>
(Edited by Maseflakeza)
<div class="quote"><i>
<p>Snivystorm wrote:
</p><p>The latter undoubtedly would have screamed to Joel "I gotta detach myself from this kid, if I ever cared for her the way Henry cared for Sam, I'm gonna kill myself too" especially after it pretty much confirmed Bill's warning about it "blowing up in his face".
</p>
</i></div>
<p>
Yes and no. I'm not sure Joel cared that much about his life. He's a survivor, but, i think what scared him the most was his feelings for Ellie, not the possibility to die, and that's the reason of why Tommy finally agreed to take Ellie with him. </p><p>Interesting video with the original script. Start at 25:48. Ashley/Eliie asks to Troy/Joel what he's so scared of, and Joel answers "Because I'm a big coward". Since Sarah's death, Joel fear to get too emotionally involved with someone else and he knows if he stayed with Ellie, this is what is going to happen. You're right, Henry's suicide and Sam death has certainly influenced his decision. </p> <figure class="article-thumb tleft show-info-icon" style="width: 670px">
<span class="thumbnail-play-icon-container"><svg class="thumbnail-play-icon" viewbox="0 0 180 180" width="100%" height="100%"><g fill="none" fill-rule="evenodd"><g opacity=".9" transform="rotate(90 75 90)"><g fill="#000" filter="url(#a)"><rect id="b" width="150" height="150" rx="75"></rect></g><g fill="#FFF"><rect id="b" width="150" height="150" rx="75"></rect></g></g><path fill="#00D6D6" fill-rule="nonzero" d="M80.87 58.006l34.32 25.523c3.052 2.27 3.722 6.633 1.496 9.746a6.91 6.91 0 0 1-1.497 1.527l-34.32 25.523c-3.053 2.27-7.33 1.586-9.558-1.527A7.07 7.07 0 0 1 70 114.69V63.643c0-3.854 3.063-6.977 6.84-6.977 1.45 0 2.86.47 4.03 1.34z"></path></g></svg></span> <figcaption> <p class="title">Grounded The Making of The Last of Us</p> </figcaption></figure>
<p>
Yes and no. I'm not sure Joel cared that much about his life. He's a survivor, but, i think what scared him the most was his feelings for Ellie, not the possibility to die, and that's the reason of why Tommy finally agreed to take Ellie with him. </p><p>Interesting video with the original script. Start at 25:48. Ashley/Eliie asks to Troy/Joel what he's so scared of, and Joel answers "Because I'm a big coward". Since Sarah's death, Joel fear to get too emotionally involved with someone else and he knows if he stayed with Ellie, this is what is going to happen. You're right, Henry's suicide and Sam death has certainly influenced his decision. </p> <figure class="article-thumb tleft show-info-icon" style="width: 670px">
<span class="thumbnail-play-icon-container"><svg class="thumbnail-play-icon" viewbox="0 0 180 180" width="100%" height="100%"><g fill="none" fill-rule="evenodd"><g opacity=".9" transform="rotate(90 75 90)"><g fill="#000" filter="url(#a)"><rect id="b" width="150" height="150" rx="75"></rect></g><g fill="#FFF"><rect id="b" width="150" height="150" rx="75"></rect></g></g><path fill="#00D6D6" fill-rule="nonzero" d="M80.87 58.006l34.32 25.523c3.052 2.27 3.722 6.633 1.496 9.746a6.91 6.91 0 0 1-1.497 1.527l-34.32 25.523c-3.053 2.27-7.33 1.586-9.558-1.527A7.07 7.07 0 0 1 70 114.69V63.643c0-3.854 3.063-6.977 6.84-6.977 1.45 0 2.86.47 4.03 1.34z"></path></g></svg></span> <figcaption> <p class="title">Grounded The Making of The Last of Us</p> </figcaption></figure>
(Edited by Maseflakeza)
<p>No armband, no yellow jacket.
</p><p>
</p> <figure class="article-thumb tleft show-info-icon" style="width: 398px">
<figcaption> </figcaption></figure><figure class="article-thumb tleft show-info-icon" style="width: 400px">
<figcaption> </figcaption></figure><figure class="article-thumb tleft show-info-icon" style="width: 400px">
<figcaption> </figcaption></figure>
</p> <figure class="article-thumb tleft show-info-icon" style="width: 398px">
<figcaption> </figcaption></figure><figure class="article-thumb tleft show-info-icon" style="width: 400px">
<figcaption> </figcaption></figure><figure class="article-thumb tleft show-info-icon" style="width: 400px">
<figcaption> </figcaption></figure>
(Edited by Maseflakeza)
There is no firefly armband.
(Edited by Maseflakeza)
<p>i've just watched Anita Sarkeesian's other videos... Now I understand why so many people hate her. Her videos Damsel in Distress was very interesting and rather pertinent. It was a good way to question ourselves about the importance of story telling in video games and how to build more realistic characters and how video games industry has evolved.
</p><p>Anyway, I just watched some other videos like Women as Background Decoration and while there are valid facts, she loses all credibility with idiotic analysis and obviously lies/hypocrisy. In a kind of way, she reminds me of John Berger with his "Ways of Seeing" that lot of people with rather poor knowlege in painting, history and sociology praised, when it was full of craps and he manipulated informations. .
</p><p>Sometimes this is almost like she said "if men rape or beat women, this is because of video games like GTA or Hitman", and this is complet bullsh*t. Like i said, people who live(d) in place without TV or Video Games are not more respectful with women. Yes, murderers, rapists can enjoy these games, but this is more a concequences of their tastes for violence or abuses than its cause. If i had to chose, i would prefer to see these sadists spend their time playing video games (where they could kill "women") than torture and kill animals or people in real life.
</p><p>I also have the feeling that her opinion about objectify is rather extrem. This is not because you objectify someone, it means you can't respect this person and not longer perceive him or her like a human being. There is nothing wrong at objectify someone or being objectified when it's a consensual act. This is not because you have a one night stand with someone you think attractive but you don't even want to know his names, his job or his favorite restaurant, that if this person had an heart attack or a drug overdose during the encounter, you won't call the emergency. Yes some people won't, but most of the time, this is because they fear police or how their wife/husband would react. Not because video games have desensitized them from other human beings.
Yes rapist often objectif their victims, but it doesn't mean that everybody who objectify another person is an heartless monster.
</p><p>Also, her video about the stripper is rather comical. I've been in stripclubs before (against my will, as for years I only liked girls), and I know many strippers who live in NYC. Honestly, in real life, from what I saw, men are more respectful toward female strippers than women with male strippers. I've never seen or heard about a drunk men who who will climb on the stage to try to perform a cunnilingus on a stripper, while drunk women, yes, many time.
</p>
(Edited by Maseflakeza)
<p>as so as a director, Cary Fukunaga because of the first season of True Detective who was amazing (and because i still have a little crush on him). Michael Haneke could be a very interesting choice. The relationship Joel/Ellie would certainly be incredible. Unfortunately I can't imagine him directing scenes with hunters or infected.
</p><p>
Hugh Jackman of course as Joel </p><p>Millie Bobby Brown as Ellie </p><p>Tristan Wilds as Henry because he i adored him as Michael in The Wire. </p><p>Caleb McLaughlin as Sam (and because he already know Millie) </p><p>keep W. Earl Brown as Bill. (also adored him in Deadwood) </p><p>Adrien Brody as David. John Hawkes would be fine too and he has already worked with W. Earl Brown on Deadwood. </p><p>maybe Charlie Hunnam as Tommy </p><p>Sherlyn Lee as Maria (maybe a little too old) or Naomi Watts </p><p>also keep Annie Wersching and Merle Danridge as Tess and Marlene. </p><p>Amandla Stenberg as Riley </p><p>Alyvia Alyn Lind as Sarah (she's only 10 years old and don't know no idea if she good actress) </p>
Hugh Jackman of course as Joel </p><p>Millie Bobby Brown as Ellie </p><p>Tristan Wilds as Henry because he i adored him as Michael in The Wire. </p><p>Caleb McLaughlin as Sam (and because he already know Millie) </p><p>keep W. Earl Brown as Bill. (also adored him in Deadwood) </p><p>Adrien Brody as David. John Hawkes would be fine too and he has already worked with W. Earl Brown on Deadwood. </p><p>maybe Charlie Hunnam as Tommy </p><p>Sherlyn Lee as Maria (maybe a little too old) or Naomi Watts </p><p>also keep Annie Wersching and Merle Danridge as Tess and Marlene. </p><p>Amandla Stenberg as Riley </p><p>Alyvia Alyn Lind as Sarah (she's only 10 years old and don't know no idea if she good actress) </p>
(Edited by Maseflakeza)
<p>Another short film directed in 2013 named The Scent of a Woman. she wrote the story and played the main character.
</p><p>At first i thought it was a short film inspired by the excellent italian movie of the same name directed in 1974 by Dino Risi. I had a shock when i've watched it...
</p>
<figure class="article-thumb t " style="width: px">File:Master of Matters of the Fart <figcaption></figcaption></figure>
(Edited by Maseflakeza)
<p>"At the end of the game, the ball is in Ellie's court. Joel needs Ellie to validate his existance, and it's up to her to forgive him. In contrast, Ellie doesn't really need Joel as much as he needs her. The finale and the girrafe scene both show Joel trying to get Elle's attention, but it's obvious her mind is somewhere else. She is coming to her own with her own sense of agency, and it's Joel who is trying to keep her by his side.
</p><p>I think this points to one of the fundamental problems with some of the femnisist criticism out there, namely their need to criticize something based on grocerly list of tropes the game has offended and calling out gender problem based on feats, but mostly their lack of nuanced reading because of the two criteria above. As Neonakis stated, "Ellie is powerful not because of the violence she is capable of committing. Rather, she is powerful despite it." In terms of character development, Ellie has came out way more ahead than Joel. Despite his physical superiroty and his ability to dominate the world around him, he is still stuck in the past unable to cope with what happened to him. In that respect the whole thing is a clever play on the women in regrigirator trope, where the men actually end up becoming worse off because of that."
</p><p>i'm totally agree with it!
</p><p>Video games with female and non (or not very) sexualized protagonists exist since a while, but they are rare. When I was a teenager, I played many of these games, and most of them were based on tv shows with already a important fanbase, like Buffy the Vampire Slayer, Alias, Dark Angel. I was not a huge fan of these TV shows, but it was fun to play these very strong and cool female characters who also save many male characters! Unfortunately, for the two last, their stories were rather weak and i've never finished the last game.
</p><p>Yes, most of people who play video games and boys, but most of people who work in video games insdustry are men too. When they create a story, most of the time, they wrote with their point of view. it's never easy (doesn't mean impossible) to create a good story with a progagonist of the opposite sex, even with best intentions and talent, the writer can be wrong. A good example is Stieg Larsson with with his trilogy. The main character of the serie, Lizbeth Salander is a good characters but mostly everything about her personality is cliché.
</p><p>Every writer has weaknesses and sometimes video games developpers prefer security and don't trust enough their creative team to try something new and challenging. That's why feminism figure like Anita Sarkeesian in video game are extremly important. They can extend the freedom of these creative team and allow them to create what they really want.
</p><p>I'm glad Naughty Dog is working with Anita Sarkeesian and took Halley Gross as co writer. I watched what she has previously done and this is not bad. This is not excellent either, that's rather average... But i like her personality! She seem very fresh, natural, funny and sweet, and i totally trust her to avoid sexist tropes in The Last of Us part 2.
</p><p>here the trailer of a short film named Chemistry Project she wrote in 2009.
"When openly-gay Alex learns that she's leaving their high school, Britt finally gets up the nerve to ask Alex to help her learn about chemistry."
</p>
<figure class="article-thumb t " style="width: px">File:Chemistry Project - Trailer <figcaption></figcaption></figure>
(Edited by Maseflakeza)
<p>"You know what's interesting? I read somewhere that when young men first get into voyeurism when it's encouraged in video games, pornography, etc. they feel guilty doing it, because they know in their conscience that a person's body should be private. They know in their minds that a person's body should be earned, not free-to-enjoy. But because society encourages this of young men repeatedly, they just become desensitized to it over time. And then they grow up to find looking up girl's skirts without any repercussions normal and even "comical" when the girl is shooing them away and then they fall back on the excuse "I'm just being a guy.""
</p><p>I hear the same thing all the time about violence, but does it mean half of people who play video games like Uncharted or The Last of Us will shot people in their high school with a gun ? No, not at all.
Does it mean boys in the past or who lived in slum without TV or video games won't watch under the girls skirt or will be more respectful with women ?
</p><p>Of course video games can influences people, but what really matter is more the story, the personalities and relationships between the characters than the camera's moves... It doesn't mean, they don't need to respect women, just education and personality are more important than video games.
</p><p>By the way Resident Evil 4 is a rated Mature + 17. I think at 17 years old a boy already know the difference between fiction and reality and that look up under the girls skirt is not very respectful...
</p><p>
"In my opinion, feminists will never be happy with anything (sorry!). I often like to use this example... You open a door, and look back to see a woman just behind. If you don't hold the door open for her, a feminist could interpret that as a man not treating a woman with equal respect and being discourteous because she is a woman. However... if you do hold the open for her, a feminist could equally interpret that as men condescending to women, not believing that they are capable of opening doors for themselves - "women shouldn't have to rely on men! we can do things for ourselves too". You might think this is a flimsy example, but the point is, you can't win (with some feminists, not all - I don't want to generalise too much!)" </p><p>I'm a girl and I'm totally agree with it! There is a group of girls i know since 6 or 7 years and who live in NYC. Most of their parents are artists (painters mostly) or work in the show business (one mother was working for Drew Barrymore, another, who were dating with a good friend of mine, is the daughter of Nirvana and the Cramberries's manager). Because of their parents, they have been in the best art school in United States (RISD) and were in touch with lot of famous people in fashion industry (they studied fashion). </p><p>Over the years, they have created a feminist group who protest against UNDERsexualization of women in medias. Because of their contacts in the fashion industry and NY art scene, they have achieve a small celebrity (on IG so i prefer stay relative). since a couple of years, they're are protesting/fighting against Instragram policies about nudity (like there was nothing more important). Long story short, now many of them have hundred of thousands followers on instagram. last time i check (means a couple of week ago) their stories, one of them has posted many videos of her pubis/clitoris while she was taking a bath... The problem is, lot of people give more and more credit to these girls and their protest against medias when what they are doing is a complet BS. These idiots don't even understand if IG doesn't allow nude picture, this is not to piss off artists or because of misogyny, but to protect the victims (mostly kids and teenagers) of cyber bullying, child pornography and porn revenge. Unfortunately, if one of these girls was asked to give her opinion about The Last of Us, i'm pretty sure she could say something negative about it, and lot of people could follow her opinion. </p>
"In my opinion, feminists will never be happy with anything (sorry!). I often like to use this example... You open a door, and look back to see a woman just behind. If you don't hold the door open for her, a feminist could interpret that as a man not treating a woman with equal respect and being discourteous because she is a woman. However... if you do hold the open for her, a feminist could equally interpret that as men condescending to women, not believing that they are capable of opening doors for themselves - "women shouldn't have to rely on men! we can do things for ourselves too". You might think this is a flimsy example, but the point is, you can't win (with some feminists, not all - I don't want to generalise too much!)" </p><p>I'm a girl and I'm totally agree with it! There is a group of girls i know since 6 or 7 years and who live in NYC. Most of their parents are artists (painters mostly) or work in the show business (one mother was working for Drew Barrymore, another, who were dating with a good friend of mine, is the daughter of Nirvana and the Cramberries's manager). Because of their parents, they have been in the best art school in United States (RISD) and were in touch with lot of famous people in fashion industry (they studied fashion). </p><p>Over the years, they have created a feminist group who protest against UNDERsexualization of women in medias. Because of their contacts in the fashion industry and NY art scene, they have achieve a small celebrity (on IG so i prefer stay relative). since a couple of years, they're are protesting/fighting against Instragram policies about nudity (like there was nothing more important). Long story short, now many of them have hundred of thousands followers on instagram. last time i check (means a couple of week ago) their stories, one of them has posted many videos of her pubis/clitoris while she was taking a bath... The problem is, lot of people give more and more credit to these girls and their protest against medias when what they are doing is a complet BS. These idiots don't even understand if IG doesn't allow nude picture, this is not to piss off artists or because of misogyny, but to protect the victims (mostly kids and teenagers) of cyber bullying, child pornography and porn revenge. Unfortunately, if one of these girls was asked to give her opinion about The Last of Us, i'm pretty sure she could say something negative about it, and lot of people could follow her opinion. </p>
(Edited by Maseflakeza)
<p>sorry double post because of some problems with the videos.
</p><p>Isabelle Adjani would make an incredible infected/runner.
</p>
<figure class="article-thumb t " style="width: px">File:Possession-2 <figcaption></figcaption></figure>
(Edited by Maseflakeza)
<p>
</p> <div class="quote"><i> <p>David = Vigo mortessen - David is a strange character for me in the sense that I think he is just Joel on another side (and a bit creepier) but in the sense of him maybe not wanting to play Joel on account of it being too similar to the role he played in the road it'd be a good shout </p> </i></div>
<p>Vote for Vigo too, but because of The Reflecting Skin. This is an american horror movie who's pretty unknown but extremly good. It's a good mix between Days of Heaven of Terrence Malick and David Lynch. Unfortunately lot of people don't like this movie because the story is too dark </p> <figure class="article-thumb t " style="width: px">File:THE REFLECTING SKIN - Official Trailer <figcaption></figcaption></figure>
</p> <div class="quote"><i> <p>David = Vigo mortessen - David is a strange character for me in the sense that I think he is just Joel on another side (and a bit creepier) but in the sense of him maybe not wanting to play Joel on account of it being too similar to the role he played in the road it'd be a good shout </p> </i></div>
<p>Vote for Vigo too, but because of The Reflecting Skin. This is an american horror movie who's pretty unknown but extremly good. It's a good mix between Days of Heaven of Terrence Malick and David Lynch. Unfortunately lot of people don't like this movie because the story is too dark </p> <figure class="article-thumb t " style="width: px">File:THE REFLECTING SKIN - Official Trailer <figcaption></figcaption></figure>
(Edited by Maseflakeza)
<div class="quote"><i>Quote:
<div class="quote">M67PattonZippo wrote:
<div class="quote"><div class="quote"><span style="font-style:italic;">.</span></i></div>
</div>The Bandits and Hunters don't really seem like the type to trade for things; rather, they seem more likely to just take what they need by force <p>I agree; seeing how the Hunters got started could be quite interesting. The Pittsburgh uprising must have been quite a fight, as 2 Bradley IFVs were destroyed. </p> </div>
<p>True, but everyone is different (same for militaries or fireflies). Some had certainly joined the hunters because they thought they had no other choices. Joel was certainly not the only who lose a loved one because of FEDRA and refused to work or support them. </p><p>There is another thing that we shouldn't forget, this is how leaders can manipulate their men and let them believe they're fighting for one thing when they don't. </p><p>For example, the Soviet army during the Prague Spring. When they arrived in Prague, Soviet army thought they were there to fight a german invasion, when of course they didn't. Another example in 1956, when Nasser had nationalized the Suez Canal. French amry was sent in Egypt but most of french soldiers had no idea why they were there. A thrid example who comes to my mind is syrian teenagers who tried to join the rebel army because (even if their families have forbidden them) to help their their big father, brothers, their cousins and so on and are recruted and join ISIS without even know. They thought they were fighting Syrian Army, when they were fighting rebels. </p><p>They make me think to Ellie, where in militaries school, they teached them how to kill fireflies, but she has no idea what clickers or a bloaters were when they should be their real enemies. Would be curious to hear FEDRA's propaganda. </p> </div> <p>Just noticed i wasn't connected when i wrote it. </p>
<div class="quote">M67PattonZippo wrote:
<div class="quote"><div class="quote"><span style="font-style:italic;">.</span></i></div>
</div>The Bandits and Hunters don't really seem like the type to trade for things; rather, they seem more likely to just take what they need by force <p>I agree; seeing how the Hunters got started could be quite interesting. The Pittsburgh uprising must have been quite a fight, as 2 Bradley IFVs were destroyed. </p> </div>
<p>True, but everyone is different (same for militaries or fireflies). Some had certainly joined the hunters because they thought they had no other choices. Joel was certainly not the only who lose a loved one because of FEDRA and refused to work or support them. </p><p>There is another thing that we shouldn't forget, this is how leaders can manipulate their men and let them believe they're fighting for one thing when they don't. </p><p>For example, the Soviet army during the Prague Spring. When they arrived in Prague, Soviet army thought they were there to fight a german invasion, when of course they didn't. Another example in 1956, when Nasser had nationalized the Suez Canal. French amry was sent in Egypt but most of french soldiers had no idea why they were there. A thrid example who comes to my mind is syrian teenagers who tried to join the rebel army because (even if their families have forbidden them) to help their their big father, brothers, their cousins and so on and are recruted and join ISIS without even know. They thought they were fighting Syrian Army, when they were fighting rebels. </p><p>They make me think to Ellie, where in militaries school, they teached them how to kill fireflies, but she has no idea what clickers or a bloaters were when they should be their real enemies. Would be curious to hear FEDRA's propaganda. </p> </div> <p>Just noticed i wasn't connected when i wrote it. </p>
(Edited by Maseflakeza)
<div class="quote"><i>M67PattonZippo wrote:
<div class="quote">Maseflakeza wrote:
[...] <p>One group who doesn't make sense to me is the bandits. So yes, this is funny to kill them ,but i don't get why they attack Tommy's dam, when instead, they could join them... </p> </i></div>
They probably didn't want to take orders from Tommy or whoever ran his group. It is also possible that Tommy's group would not have allowed them to join, since the bandits are so aggressive and lawless. They would have had a hard time adjusting to living in a more peaceful society with rules and responsabilities again.
</div> <p>Yes, you could be right. I thought that maybe they could refuse to trade with them too. </p><p>
</p><p>Anyway, it would be amazing to learn more about hunters and bandits back stories in the Part 2. </p><p>Could be nice if one of the bandits betrayed/had an violent arguments with other bandits, then went to Tommy's dam and asked to join them. Later, Tommy's group would be attack by the other bandits and many people from both side would be killed or seriously injured before someone from Tommy's group would murder the first bandit. </p>
<div class="quote">Maseflakeza wrote:
[...] <p>One group who doesn't make sense to me is the bandits. So yes, this is funny to kill them ,but i don't get why they attack Tommy's dam, when instead, they could join them... </p> </i></div>
They probably didn't want to take orders from Tommy or whoever ran his group. It is also possible that Tommy's group would not have allowed them to join, since the bandits are so aggressive and lawless. They would have had a hard time adjusting to living in a more peaceful society with rules and responsabilities again.
</div> <p>Yes, you could be right. I thought that maybe they could refuse to trade with them too. </p><p>
</p><p>Anyway, it would be amazing to learn more about hunters and bandits back stories in the Part 2. </p><p>Could be nice if one of the bandits betrayed/had an violent arguments with other bandits, then went to Tommy's dam and asked to join them. Later, Tommy's group would be attack by the other bandits and many people from both side would be killed or seriously injured before someone from Tommy's group would murder the first bandit. </p>
(Edited by Maseflakeza)
<p>In my opinion this could be even more complex than it. Hunters don't kill to survive. they rob people to survive, but they kill because they can't really take more survivors with them. they have not enough food, no enough medicine, and if they let people go, they would talk about the place where the hunters lived and two things could happen.
</p><p>First : People would know the place is dangerous and would stop to come.
Seconde : Militaries could come back. Not to protect people against hunters, but because they would fear that communities who don't follow their laws could prosper, that those communities could expose the flaws of the goverment and people would rise against the actual regime (like the fireflies did).
</p><p>I think that's the true reason why hunters hunted Joel, Ellie, Henry and Sam in the suburbs. Not to steal their douzen of blueberries or Ellie and Sam shoes they could never wear, and not just because they were seeking revenge for all the hunters Joel has killed, but to keep the quiet what's happen to Pittsburg.
</p><p>Anout the cannibalism, well, this is twisted. In same time, if they must kill people to keep protect their community and they lack of food, well...
</p><p>One group who doesn't make sense to me is the bandits. So yes, this is funny to kill them ,but i don't get why they attack Tommy's dam, when instead, they could join them...
</p>
(Edited by Maseflakeza)