Of course this is just speculation, but as a fan of the games I noticed a lot of weirdness around the reactions.
The show obv has some real budget and time constraints, which has meant so far that you don’t really see zombies (which sucks for a zombie show) and some epic scenes from the game have been either totally removed or botched.
My opinion: if they remake this show as much as the game, then it’ll eventually become great. A CGI show might make much more sense though (and seeing how good Gantz:O was, or Arcane, it’s totally doable with today’s tech). I hated the third episode because it did nothing to the story, but now I realize that the off episodes (3 and 7) are actually the best ones because at least I have no expectation.
I'm tired of zombie slasher movies/shows. I want a good drama show with great story telling set in a post apocalyptic world, and i dont want it to be like "the walking dead".
And I like that this time it's fungi. Pretty neat and scarier.
I did watch a let's play though and it was clear that it was the character drama that was the best part of the game, so it makes sense that's what they'd focus on for the show too.
Could it be as simple as the majority enjoying the show, without it being anything more nefarious going on? And if I enjoy something, I want to hang out with others who enjoy it, not someone coming in just to shit on it. That goes for most things.
Of course, it should be allowed to criticize things, and not enjoy all parts of it. But if you know the tlou2 story, it got hard brigaded by homophobes, transphobes etc. So the aversion to criticism should be seen in light of this. You never really know if it's a valid concern, or just concern trolling by someone with an anti-woke agenda.
LGBT people get very defensive about anything that doesn't support more more more representation on TV despite what is already a statistical overrepresentation in media. And even though what I have said is 100% fact, I expect it to get downvoted and flagged because that is what happens in these cases, truth be damned.
Not everything is about representation, sometimes stories, designs and sets come off as “LGBT-esque” since that’s how they depict aspects of life.
Below is a perfect example of a social media comment that is completely lacking in nuance:
>Anybody who brings this up then gets branded as someone who wants all the gays sent concentration camps.
It is quite clear from your comment here that nuance isn't really your thing. Don't be intellectually dishonest.
/r/television has a few dozen hits for “boring”. It really was a slow episode, and combined with the previous episode it’s starting to become a slow series overall.
The one on the official subreddit? Zero. It’s eerie just how _positive_ everyone is which is hard to believe considering reactions elsewhere.
I personally like the show, and I’m glad it’s not just another zombie show, I’m pretty fed up with those.
Also my wife would absolutely not watch the show if there were zombie suspense scattered through every episode.
I haven’t played the games though so maybe my expectations would have been different.
What makes a movie like Jaws or Alien good is you don’t really see the monster very much. A zombie show ought not to be judged by zombie volume.
I see that same controversy continue with the discussion around the show which, typical to reddit, manifests as downvotes, reports and name calling (woke or bigots, depending on side)
They've expanded the story of several characters, notably Bill and Frank. Their story in the game is similar, but not told really, since the game follows Joel and Ellie from their perspective, which means we don't get to see the story from Bill or Frank's perspective. So, the show has really allowed more of the story to be told because they can switch perspectives.
As a huge fan of the game, the show has been absolutely amazing to watch and I've been excited for every single episode so far. It's just all around great. I wish there was more of the show, it's just something I want more of.
If you like this type of thing, check out the podcast for the show, there's an HBO podcast hosted by Troy Baker (voice of Joel in the game, and a character in the next episode). It goes into a lot of the decision making they had to make to change the way they tell the story. Fascinating listen.
I watched someone play the game and this feels a little darker. Maybe because you aren’t playing through, just trying to survive. It has had a few moments of grace but gerenally is pretty dark. I wonder what the people that worked on think of their character and cut scenes ending up on HBO.
[1. on the media podcast about game adaptations, with transcript] https://www.wnycstudios.org/podcasts/otm/episodes/on-the-med...
[can video games make great tv. New yorker] https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2023/01/02/can-the-last-o...
I assume Reddit sells (or at least enables) a ton of marketing via boosting certain topics. Especially popular culture items that can be discussed, such as sports/tv shows/movies.
(I’ve not played the game though but I’m going to get it now)
Also, the game is an action game, so, naturally, zombies are more plentiful or it wouldn't really be an action game so much.
Each sub is essentially its own website, its own forum, on a unified UI and userbase.
And it is extraordinarily hard to create and advertise an alternative sub to an established one. If I think /r/apples is terrible, for example, it is uncommon for a breakaway /r/realapples can get traction.
So yeah, the TLoS subs are probably a bunch of fans mostly, and are wary of trolls. Legitimate criticism is just blown away because the power users of that sub don't care for it. It sucks but that's how it is on that site.
As for your opinion, I think the show is good, I like the world-building and how people cope with the details of the life.
Is it 9/10? Mmm, not really.
Anecdotally, I've found that generally HBO needs to pass a lower bar in order to get a higher rating than Netflix has to. So, same quality, Netflix could get a 7-8/10, whereas HBO gets 9.*/10 on IMDB.
In the same way Elden Ring "revolutionized open world games" and is a "must play game", when it doesn't really have any internal motivation to begin with.
Many gamers just want to get lost. Many gamers are fine with challenge. We do not need a thousand markers on the screen because nan might get lost. Nan would rather get lost in a fantasy world and fight a boss a dozen times than having an easy mode.
Elden Ring is an absolute masterpiece and deserving all of its praise.
That said, the open world is Elden Ring's biggest flaw, and I hope to return to the less accessible design of the previous games. Victory has to be earned to truly mean anything.
It has been years since I felt the way I do playing it. I cannot recommend it enough.
It’s one of the greatest games imo.
I assume the other hope is that it takes a great story and makes it more accessible to a less-zombie-keen audience.
My gripe with this strategy is that in minimising the infected presence, the dream of a vaccine from Ellie's situation feels less important. What's the point if the world is rife with dangerous raiders anyway, etc.
On the other point, I seriously doubt PR companies are working to the extent you suggest. It's defensive behaviour from some fans who take issue with opinions of other fans. Usual culture-war battleground stuff.
> We had some pinball machines and arcade games not make the cut because they were too expensive to license, or the IP owner wasn't licensing that particular game for that use at that particular time. We had a Ms Pac-Man that wouldnt clear because they were not allowing a license at that time.
> ...New titles from the 90s were all mostly too expensive to license or use
> ...Some licenses only allowed for showing the game in the deep background, or couldn't feature game play, but only attract modes (Street Fighter II for example).
"New titles from the 90s"
Can anyone on here explain why these IP owners would want to keep their product OUT of these shows? Why would they want to require an agreement/or-money for licensing out when it is free advertising for some old ass IP that could get second life?
It's because it is "old ass" and has low value - the corporation gets forever monopoly on the IP basically for free. To work out the licensing deal, some appratchik needs to talk to legal and several people need to be dragged into meetings and write reports and write marketing papers and contracts and all the other ceremonies that go with DoingThings(tm) at a corporation.
And if noone gets promoted or mentioned in the next performance meeting, it ain't happening. It's not like there's any downside for them to keep the IP locked down and inaccessible forever.
/s
Some of the IP should have been a slam dunk. I'm surprised Williams/Midway was a hassle since Warner Interactive now owns most of those titles.
For things like pinball with licensed titles, that's a huge mess. If you want a Bally Addams Family pin in your show you not only need to contact the slot machine company that owns the Bally pinball IP but you need to contact Paramount Studios, Anjelica Huston's agent, and the estate of the now deceased Raul Julia. Good luck with that.
I really don't understand the value in our currently level of IP law... like you said it often costs more paying lawyers to review contracts than the actual contract is worth.
Unfortunately, in this litigation-happy world we are becoming increasingly risk-averse.
There was an article recently on how music is now “co-written” by the influences for that piece, as well as the influences for those influence pieces, etc - just to preempt these kind of legal challenges.
It’s fucked up, and it needs to change.
I'll give you a real world example. Madonna Ciccone, famous pop singer, published a coffee table book called Sex in 1992. The book, natch, is filled with explicit images and words.
One of the pictures featured Madonna, semi-nude, being sexually penetrated on top of a Williams Electronics "Taxi" pinball machine. The entire machine is visible including a very prominent Williams logo.
Williams took Madonna to court over it and she quietly settled before it got to a judge. Williams had a very strong argument that their trademarks were being used in a manner contradictory to their product - a family-friendly pinball machine. This kind of imagery is damaging to their brand. And, of course, no permission was requested by Madonna. This was a slam dunk case. You need permission to do things like this.
IP holders get all kinds of legal opinions involved when permission is requested. What exactly are you doing with that Ms Pac machine? Is it just background filler, or is a major character going to be beheaded on top of it? It's not just a matter of "can we use this?" but a question of "HOW is this going to be used?"
Do you think the obvious answer is no? Kate Bush's resurgence during the Stranger Things run was so recent...
I bet Steam could release a deal called "Games featured in the hit show The Last of Us" and it'd sell well. The videogame version of an OST.
And now you have made it more complex, because "Games featured" with only Ms Pacman sucks, so you need to get a variety of stakeholders on board, so more meetings, etc.
And who codes the pinball games? Engines exist, but...
From a different angle, if a character is seen drinking a Coke Cola, is the film paying for that shot or Coke Cola?
As I understand it, yes! Otherwise, it is a made up brand, with the goal of no freebies.
And consider, if this wasn't done, who gets to pick the brand. The actor? Are they already affiliated, and thus, getting kickbacks essentially?
Did a writer, the director, props guy, get cash on the side?
So, it is fake generics, or paid brands...
https://productplacementblog.com/tv-series/inkjoy-gel-pen-in...
I know very little about TV production and set design but I, too, was blown away by the amount of work and attention to detail. That the studio worked with experts in the retro arcade community was really cool. I found the description of the of the playout system for the MK machine fascinating, and reminiscent of the staged UIs I’ve read about being created in Unity and friends for other productions. Staged, but not green screen staged. And on the other hand, the description of the photo booth setup was just as fascinating - and that one was a green screen!
What a wonderful crossover career that seems to be.
What is the logic or justification here? It would never have occurred to me that you have to license games if you are filming in an arcade. Do you have to get a license if you film someone playing on a PlayStation? Playing a board game? Playing with LEGO bricks? Making coffee with a Bialetti? Standing next to a car with trademarked design elements? Is there somewhere some legal clause like you can play with your Game Boy but you can not film it without explicit permission? Is it because in the case of games - or software in general - you are not truly buying it but only getting a license to use it? Do I need a license to film someone using a browser or Photoshop? I mean, I can see that you have to license the music in a film if you make deliberate artistic decision and it really contributes to the scene, but what about some random music playing on a radio in the background? What about the radio in the background of a documentary film?
As for random music playing in background, where I live there was a period where you technically needed a special license if you had radio playing in any place of business. Don't even need to film it. I think they later loosened or clarified it so that it only applies to when it can be heard by customers (like a hair salon or restaurant) but not when it's only for employees in an office or a warehouse.
> What about the radio in the background of a documentary film?
Copyright and trademark laws complex with a bunch of exceptions for specific cases without which they would be completely impractical. News reporting is usually excluded, whether that also includes Documentaries is not obvious, might vary between countries.
Also the police thing does not really seem relevant, they are abusing the system but that does not mean that you are actually in violation of any rule if you are filming a police operation where some music is playing at the scene.
The cops doing this shit don't give a damn if it is breaking of rules or what not. They know that all the content creator is trying to do is get some footage they can put on their channel, promote, get clicks. It's not like they are trying to get footage that can then be used in a law suit. So in this case, the cops win because they know that the algos will flag the content immediately for copyright infringement and not allow the footage to be seen. That's the entire point of the cop's actions, so yet again, they win. What will be awesome is when these lazy creators start finding the music being played and subtract it from the audio feed with a some actual audio skillz so the issue won't be a problem, but that's too much effort on their behalf.
Would be great if Google could just make this a checkbox one could click when uploading a video.
Phew! :)
