I’m impressed by pretty much everything I see from Offerman, and his role in TLOU was fantastic. It had real impact, and didn’t feel at all like the lazy tokenistic drivel that’s become Disney’s standard fare.
I’ll tell you why:
Because it, kind of like Brokeback Mountain all those years earlier, appreciates that homosexuality and the gay community are not one in the same. While the gay community is extremely important and should never be downplayed, media always tends depict gay people as connected to it or at the very least evoking many of the same aspects and tropes.
This isn’t an unfair thing to depict, far from it, but it has the unfortunate result of making many gay characters feels rather same-y, occasionally even one note.
Offerman’s character depicts a very accurate thing that doesn’t get as much attention in media: the straight acting man discovering his sexuality late in life. With the exception of his piano playing and his penchant for wine and setting the table for elaborate dinners, his character has none of the telltale “gay” aspects you typically find in media, nor does he develop them. In fact his character aspects (survivalist, paranoid, shut in, loner, even a hint conservative) are generally not associated with gay characters, out of fear of depicting them in a poor light.
That’s not at all to suggest other depictions of gay men are wrong or bad, Bartlett’s character is very well done too. The characters of Bill just feels more notable and fresher in our current media landscape because we see it far less often.
piano playing
Fellas, is it gay to play an instrument?
I know that’s not what you’re saying I just thought it was a funny way to phrase it
If you’re playing the skin flute, it might be gay… hahaha
Only if you don’t tell your bro “no homo” afterwards.
Also, is liking wine gay?
Men can only drink beer and whiskey. Everything else is gay.
/S
Allowing other homophobic men to determine what you should drink or do is the gayest act you could perform.
Also I wonder how long it’s going to take for ‘Gay’ to become good in mainstream lexicon? Probably until all the millennials die out huh? Fight the good gay fight!
deleted by creator
Look, not all pianists are gay, but all gay people play the piano.
how often must i gay to be able to play piano? because i love piano
At least 5/7
i’ve never even tried it with rice
Depends on how big the candelabras are.
And how sparkly the cape.
Mahvellous, dahling …
Depends, are you speaking of the skin flute?
I really appreciate this take. A lot of us are trapped in the closet for a variety of reasons and it takes years to finally be yourself comfortably. Once we are out, we can exist as just people…if our community lets us that is.
homosexuality and the gay community are not one in the same
I think a lot of people don’t understand that being GSRM does not automatically make you part of the LGBT community.
GSRM
“Gender, Sexual and Romantic Minorities“ for those like me who didn’t know the acronym.
deleted by creator
I think this is a good take, but my criticism of Disney is more in line with my perception of their business model - art by focus group.
They know that if they combine these 3 IP’s with these 3 diversity checkboxes, the movie will return x, meaning they have a budget of y to deliver a given ROI. Much like their endless parade of remakes, it’s cynical commercislism that has no interest in storytelling artistic value, or representation - and it shows.
To your point, TLOU separated the relationship from the community, and while the community representation is important, this type of representation is critical to normalising homosexual relationships - “oh - they’re in a regular loving relationship just like me - it’s not all disco music and flapping about in sparkly clothes, making catty comments.” kinda deal.
I got to see his standup routine a few months back and it was hilarious and wholesome.
Offerman is becoming more and more a chad in my eyes and that love story was really really good and its coming from someone who really hates comedy and romance genre but gotta say it was really good.
Read his books, but only if you’re a lefty. I showed my boomer parents and they hated it.
Which books ?
I’ve listened to Paddle Your Own Canoe on audiobook (he narrates). Dunno about the rest, but I’d agree based on that one. He makes it clear pretty quickly that Ron Swanson was just a character and his views are different and more nuanced.
The only similarities between Nick Offerman and Ron Swanson are his giggle and his faithfulness to his friends.
Wood working and a very erotically charged relationship with Megan Mulally too
And he really does play the saxophone.
I know he’s liberal in real life, but the way he plays Ron in parks and rec is how I wish conservatives actually were in real life.
He’s not a “conservative” in Parks and Rec, he’s an actual libertarian.
The greatest trick neocons ever pulled was tricking right libertarians into thinking they were small government.
Nick Offerman has always been Cool and Good
Also good and cool
When did “a Chad” become a positive term? From my experince growing up it was a mid-west term for rich city kids, and then later on the internet it became a red piller/incel term for “Alpha male”.
Is this one of those “taking it back” and owning it things to take power away from red pillers & incels?
Nick Offerman:
I’ve enjoyed the hell out of his content. I loved it when
Adam SavageThis Old House did a shop tour with him. I’ve also listened to his Twain’s Feast audiobook and enjoyed the hell out of that. The historical journey through American regional cuisine was amazing. And how much we’ve actually lost is even more amazing.I think it’s just more ironic than “taking it back”. I don’t think anyone worth respecting would call themselves “a Chad”.
So in context for this, a dude doubling down on his gay love story is certainly not what an incel would attribute to “a Chad”, but the rest of us could look at Nick Offerman and say “damn, I respect the hell out of that guy, what a Chad”.
When did “a Chad” become a positive term? From my experince growing up it was a mid-west term for rich city kids, and then later on the internet it became a red piller/incel term for “Alpha male”.
In my extended friend group we use Chad as a comedyish thing to call someone when they do something cool/good or perceived as cool/good but we mean it. While someone calling themselves a Chad in a non self deprecating way is usually a dbag.
Nick Offerman is better than any any “Chad”. He’s an Offerman. The Chad’s wish they could be as dope as him.
I don’t know how anyone could watch that episode and see anything other than an absolutely heart wrenching tale of love and how beautiful and sad and even stupid it can be. You don’t even have to be gay to identify with it, you just have to be human.
I dunno. I really like the episode, but Frank was super manipulative and it felt like Bill was being romance-conned.
I agree, and that complexity is part of why I loved the episode so much. It feels bittersweet, because I get the sense that if not for the whole world ending, Frank could’ve easily spent his whole life in the closet. It was cute to see him navigating a relationship with the same sweetness of a teenager with their first love, but that also comes with there being a pretty significant emotional maturity gap between Bill and Frank.
That by itself isn’t an issue (and because of varying degrees to which LGBTQ people feel safe to be out, varying levels of romantic or sexual experience is a fairly common theme I’ve seen within the community irl), but I also think there were some iffy vibes in the dynamic which went unchallenged, likely because neither of them wanted to disrupt a dynamic that they felt lucky to have.
It reminded me a lot of a lesbian friend of mine who stayed with her first girlfriend for way too long because they were the only two out lesbians in the tiny town. They were an awful fit for each other and they stayed together for years longer than they should’ve because they felt like there weren’t any other options (and indeed, there wasn’t really, not in that town).
So overall, Frank and Bill’s story was a beautiful and sweet story of love blooming in improbable circumstances, but it also had nuance from the subtle darker undertone to the relationship. For me, it highlighted that ultimately this was a tragic love story, and the tragedy was only partly caused by the zombie apocalypse.
As all good love story, it’s complex and withultiple facades, which made it even more realistic and well-written
I find it to be a great 1 hour of television, but due to Frank’s manipulative nature and the aforementioned romance con it felt like, I wouldn’t classify it as a good love story.
deleted by creator
I remember when it was coming out, and everyone on reddit was going gaga over how faithful to the story it was.
Then that episode came out and everyone loved it, so as someone who didn’t play the games, naturally I wondered if it was in the game, as that had been apparently of utmost importance to the fans.
But merely asking “was it in the game?” got an army of angry people calling me every name in the book.
I never even watched the show because I thought that was just so fucking stupid. Fans ruin every franchise.
People had a knee-jerk reaction to your question because there were lot of conservative snowflakes at the time complaining that they added “woke” politics to the show (a ridiculous idea, but I probably don’t need to tell you that).
Fans of the show were on edge and defensive, don’t let the “culture war” ruin your experience. I highly recommend watching the series.
And, to answer your question earnestly, in the game Bill and Frank’s relationship was only implied in a note that Frank left to Bill after killing himself. The show focused heavily on their relationship and took it in the opposite direction; a decision most fans loved, because it was done really well. In the game, Bill rejected Frank’s attempts to let other people into their life and drove him away, while in the show Bill slowly opened up and lived a long happy life with Frank despite the apocalypse.
It was a love story and it was touching. I had to look away during the intimate scenes as watching two guys making out gives me the heebie jeebies.
I’m sorry you’re getting downvoted. You’re allowed to like things and dislike things, as long as tolerance and respect are given for others’ choices. It seems like you’re doing that here.
Acceptance for something you like and enjoy is pretty easy and natural. It’s a bit harder, and takes more thought and courage, to show respect and tolerance for things you don’t like and don’t enjoy, but you accept them anyway because it’s the right thing to do and it’s a part of being a human on this planet with billions of other humans. Grow up, lemmy.
Very well said, I agree.
OP was being honest without being derogatory. It sounds like perhaps they may have experienced some personal growth from watching the episode.
If OP hasn’t been around gay people who openly express physical affection, they may have felt initially uncomfortable. But that’s why representation is important.
That’s why movies, TV, books, and visual arts are so important to us as a culture and as individuals; exposure to new ideas helps us grow and become better people.
Agreed. Well said.
I originally had it downvoted, but you’re right, they aren’t being directly disrespectful. Besides, saying it was a touching love story first and foremost is evidence enough that OP isn’t an asshole, just a human with human opinions. I apologize, and have rescinded my previous judgement.
That being said… Getting the “heebie jeebies” from watching 2 dudes kiss is a red flag that OP has some deep rooted homophobic views/tendencies, which is absolutely something they need to address in their own time. Maybe not here, on the internet, in front of several thousand schmucks making dick jokes; but if that’s how it has to be in order to bring OPs attention to it, then so be it.
I’m all for having your own opinions, but if a same sex couple being romantic grosses you out while a heterosexual couple doesn’t, that feels like something you should do some soul searching over lol. OP might be a great person irl, but I do think it’s important to recognize your own shortcomings and address them where possible. God knows we all have enough of em
I originally had it downvoted, but you’re right, they aren’t being directly disrespectful. Besides, saying it was a touching love story first and foremost is evidence enough that OP isn’t an asshole, just a human with human opinions. I apologize, and have rescinded my previous judgement.
That is awesome, and so rare in online discourse. I really appreciate that.
I’m all for having your own opinions, but if a same sex couple being romantic grosses you out while a heterosexual couple doesn’t, that feels like something you should do some soul searching over lol. OP might be a great person irl, but I do think it’s important to recognize your own shortcomings and address them where possible.
You kind of lose me here. I think it’s not my place to judge someone whether they like or don’t like observing homosexuality. If they’re respectful, and show tolerance and acceptance, then whether they like it is not really my concern. It’s certainly not my place to judge whether they have ‘soul searching’ to do. I agree that saying it gives them the “heebie jeebies” isn’t the most respectful way to say they don’t care for it, but on the scale of ways to put that, it’s way, way down towards the harmless end. In my opinion it certainly wasn’t egregious enough to warrant the absolute avalanche of downvotes and judgement that person was getting.
You’re already showing incredible empathy and the ability to be self-reflecting. I encourage you to stop judging others for saying they don’t like the things you think they should like. Instead, we should hold each other to the standard that we are respectful and tolerant of others whether we like what they’re saying and doing or not. Unless, of course, that tolerance is of those who express intolerance, but then we’re squarely in Paradox of Tolerance territory and that’s a whole other thing.
Getting the “heebie jeebies” from watching 2 dudes kiss is a red flag
Eh… I regularly watch gay porn and have no trouble seeing guys suck dick and fuck eachother but I skip past the kissing scenes because I just don’t like it at all. I genuinely can’t explain why.
Character arc, the good ending lol
As a good exercise for personal growth, you should ask yourself why seeing that gives you the heebie-jeebies.
Eh, I think it’s pretty clear that some amount of homophobia is innate as much as homosexuality is. Some people just plain find it gross. As long as they respect everyone’s right to have their own lifestyle, that’s really what tolerance and getting along is all about. We can’t except everyone to like everything, so we should be proud when they put up with harmless things they don’t like.
I wouldn’t say innate, that makes it sound like humans are born homophobes.
Unavoidable when you’re raised in a homophobic society and something to improve.
I don’t think the argument has been phrased well by anyone but there is possibly something to it, it’s just that ‘heebie jeebies’ is a really loaded and unhelpful phrase. I think a lot of people insert themselves into the media they watch, so if they are not sexually or romantically interested in men, watching two men kiss may not be a 100% positive experience for them, in the same way that watching two straight people kiss might not be the most engaging experience for a gay person.
If you watch the comedy masterpiece Norbit, the intent of the Eddie Murphy’s relationship with his large wife, also played by Eddie Murphy, is to cause distress on the viewer in a similar fashion. It’s very avant-garde in that way
I did actually choose innate intentionally. While I’m sure trying to prove it would be an absolute bitch, it’s not unreasonable to suggest some people’s homophobia can be innate in the same way homosexuality or asexuality can be. Some people are just built that way.
In any case, I think the mechanism is somewhat irrelevant when it comes to my point. If you think something is disgusting but you know it’s fundamentally harmless, well, learning to get along is what it’s all about!
I don’t disagree and I’m not trying to shame or put anyone down, my point is just that it’s productive and enlightening to learn these things about ourselves when we can. For me at least, it helps me improve in areas I find myself lacking, and meet other people where they are when they see things differently than I do.
Excellent point!
Well said. I think it’s important to analyze your own prejudices so you can grow as a person; but so long as you accept that they are your own personal views and, most importantly, remain respectful of others, it’s not doing any real harm
deleted by creator
You are a weak person
Yeah, watching anyone making out gives me heebie jeebies but I still stare at them to assert dominance
ಠ_ಠ
You are what’s wrong with “progressive” or “left” or lgbt friendly circles. Fuck your judgement, you pathetic asshole. Public displays of affection give MANY people the heebie jeebies, regardless of gender, you judgemental prick.
A love story without affection sounds hollow. The original comment specifically singled out an expression of affection displayed by gay characters in a romance story, they did not say in their original comment that public affection in general is what bothers them. That led me to believe they have some homophobic feelings in their original comment, which is where my response came from. With either original intention, be it a distaste for love stories or homophobic origins, you’re quite aggressively upset. I suggest maybe you don’t watch love stories if you don’t like public displays of affection, just a thought.
You are the one coming in here and being hostile. I’m just giving in kind. People don’t have to have personal issues to not want to stare at others making out.
You are just further showing how judgemental without thought you are. You have failed to mature and fundamentally understand that others do not have the same perspective as you.
Shame on you for pretending to have the high road.
Based.
Honestly, thanks for still watching it anyway. Don’t know why you are getting downvoted. If it was a touching love story about morbidly obese people, I would get the same heebie jeebies.
You are part of the change that needs to happen in the world, we can’t help what makes us feel queasy, but you both respecting their performance, the story AND your own sensibilities IS how we achieve progress.
Proud of you, no sarcasm.
Thanks :) I wouldn’t consider Offerman morbidly obese, just chonky.
CHONKY
Watch it again, this time keeping in mind it weren’t real strawberries anyway because Hollywood
And the best single episode love story ever.
I didn’t watch the whole season, but Jesus, THAT episode was awesome. I nearly cry at the end. I’m a big Nick fan, and he was perfect for the role.
The most Offerman thing to say. 👍
I loved the episode but it is very much a gay story
Do you also refer to romantic stories between man and a woman (traditionally referred to as “love stories”) as “heterosexual stories”?
It’s okay to clarify and specify when something is gay.
Its clearly its own sub genre, Netflix has specific categories for it and Asian culture has an acronym (BL for boy love). Many people prefer it over the rest, even without being gay themselves.
Acknowledging a difference isn’t necessarily an insult.
The ENTIRE POINT is that it is NOT from the “gay” culture, you numpties. You are CHOOSING to miss the entire point.
It is NOT a “gay” story. It’s a homosexual love story. The fact you don’t know there even is a difference says a lot about how far you need to grow.
If I were asked to qualify one, sure. It’s a love story about a gay couple. It’s a gay love story. If they were Indonesian it would be an Indonesian love story.
The story isn’t about them being gay. Its about them being in love and dealing with the post apocalyptic bullshit along with their relationship. To call it a “gay story” is to single out the one tiny part of it that is them being gay and reduce the whole thing to that. I doubt you’d just classify Schindlers list as a “Jew story” or Black panther as a “Black story”. I do like how you slipped from it being a “gay story” to a “gay love story” tho, nice save. The quote was about people calling it a gay story, not a gay love story. I think even subconsciously you understand that “gay story” is not really a good way to summarize that story.
In no world is somebody asking for more detail on a story going to want to hear “its a gay story” and be satisfied. If they want details you’d tell them more, and if they didn’t a more accurate summary would be “love story” or even “post apocalyptic gay love story” but just “gay story” is like calling lord of the rings a “travel diary”
That argument is a bit like the idea of colorblindness when it comes to discussing race, however. It doesn’t do justice to be dismissive of identity in the name of equality because that ignores the different social contexts that are inherent to that identity.
I would say the fact that it is a gay love story is very significant to note for that particular episode given the time period that The Last of Us takes place in. What I mean is: society collapses in summer of 2003 in the Last of Us TV series (10 years earlier than the game). These characters are living in Massachusetts, which is one of the first states to recognize gay marriage, but would not have occurred until late 2003 if society hadn’t collapsed almost overnight earlier that year. Obergefell v. Hodges would be another 12 years off, making widespread legitimacy of gay marriage a distant fantasy.
These two characters, effectively, had to live their entire lives closeted in a broadly homophobic society that would not recognize them. But it was after the collapse of that society that they were at liberty to be their true selves and, as we see, become happier after the apocalypse than they were before. It would not be the same story at all if it was turned into a hetero relationship.
You see, if they had mady ANY commentary about all of that stuff you said, THEN I’d be OK throwing “gay” on “love story”. But it didn’t.
Being gay was not a critical part of the story, no matter how much people celebrate it for that. It WAS NOT an important part of the story, even if it was an important part of why people got emotional over the episode.
The ENTIRE POINT is that the episode was otherwise normal. That’s what Offerman is saying. It’s NOT a gay story. It’s a love story where the characters happened to be men. If society were actually progressive, “love story” would be far more accurate, because that’s all that happened.
If the sexual orientation and origin of the characters don’t make a difference in the story, why do you feel the need to qualify it anything but a love story? Because doing it honestly makes you look like a bigot…
Because they were asked to specify what kind of love story it is?
If they were black, it would similarly be a black love story - but what do you think choosing to describe it as a black love story indicates?
There’s a million different lenses to look through when describing a story or a relationship - the aspects we choose to point to (particularly unprompted, as was the case for the trolls) tend to indicate more about us than the story - particularly when they have no meaningful bearing on the story.
It indicates that it is a love story between two black people. You drawing attention to it as if saying “black” is some forbidden, taboo word / description is the problem.
Saying they’re black or gay when it has no bearing on the story doesn’t tell anyone much. You didn’t choose to say they were loving, outdoorsy, not super-physical, middle-aged, wealthy, blonde, family-oriented… Noone is coming out to crucify me here - talking about race isn’t taboo - but the non-relevant aspects of the relationship you choose to highlight for reasons tells plenty about you.
By who? Unless you’re clicking tags on netflix I don’t think anyone is going to have this hypothetical convo:
Oh there’s a great episode you should watch
Oh whats it about? Tell me more?
Its gay
Oh ok thanks, all I need to know.
The quote is about them calling it a “gay story” not a “post apocalyptic gay love story”. The reductive 2 word description is rightfully annoying to a man who brought a well written and fleshed out love story to life, only to be told he made a “gay story”
By literally the OP above? They were specifically asked how would they clarify and they responded as a “gay love story”.
Buddy, you can be angry about whatever you want, but it is not “irrellevant to the plot” that there is a relationship between two people in the series. It is not irrellevant that it is between two men or two women. They can desribe it any way they want to, and it is not reductive to call it a “gay love story”.
No.
I’ve had more dick in my mouth than your mother, don’t call me a bigot for using adjectives.
“I’ve got a black friend, I can’t be racist!”
Yeah… Go take a walk and have a good reflection on the way you see things.
If the sexual orientation and origin of the characters don’t make a difference in the story, …
I would argue that the sexual orientation of the characters does make a difference in the story.
They’re living in a world with little trust, and they have to overcome that. Neither one can be sure that the other is trustworthy, and won’t kill them when they’re not looking. And they have to overcome the remaining stigma of same-sex relationships, which could end very badly in the same way. They are both walking through two minefields, in a way which is different from how a similar heterosexual story would play out. Maybe?
It is definitely first and foremost a love story, but it’s not only a love story, and looking away from other aspects does a disservice to everyone.
But the same story could have been told with an heterosexual couple or even two people that had a platonic relationship…
Each of those (especially the platonic relationship one) would be a different story, even if they would all be first and foremost “love stories.”
Yet nobody is here calling it an American love story.
well, did America still exist in the story?
I don’t recall them naming it. However, it was in the geographic region of America, even if society had broken down.
They also didn’t identify the characters as gay. They could have been bi or pan. That do snt seem to be a point of contention though, oddly.
And yet in the original comment you never said it would be a gay love story. You just said gay story.
But let me rephrase that then - would you call a love story between a heterosexual man and a woman a “hetero love story”?
The “gay” in “gay love story” is a secondary classificator - it’s a love story of two people who happen to be gay. A “gay story” could be a love story, but could also be a story of someone finding their identity, about their struggles in the world as a gay person etc.
Exactly. Just like that classic 1970 film staring Ryan O’Neal and Ali McGraw: Straight White American Love Story
[Insert County ]love story
A teen love story
A divorcee love story
Yes. We do this for all types of shit all the time. Just because you put gay in front of it doesn’t make you homophobic.
So a post-apocalyptic love story? Cuz that seemed to be the main theme. Unless you were just too caught up over the characters being gay to notice.
Offermans character was deep in the closet and his future husband had to break down some heavy emotional walls. It was his first relationship with a man.
Being gay was very much part of the theme and wasn’t just some offhand detail about them imo.
There was a lot to the episode but pretending their sexuality had no impact on how the story was told or its impact is silly. I don’t think it would have been as touching without it.
Some of you really need a rewatch.
You should really rewatch it, because the genders could be changed and it’d still be a good episode.
No mattrr how much people whine or gloat about it, the gayness wasn’t required. It’s not a “gay” story. That’s the entire point Offerman is making.
Nowhere in the original comment did they say it is a gay love story.
Full disclosure: I’d probably call it a gay love story before encountering this post. But there is fair point in the title of the post - why do we need to differentiate love stories based on what sexuality are the protagonists? And if we do that, why not do the same if protagonists are heterosexual? Then the classifications you mention would have to go like:
[Insert country] gay love story
A teen hetero story.
A divorce bi story.
The sexuality really should be secundary classificator.
The most common option is always left out. We say Thai food or Chinese food but no one says “Lets have some American food tonight” when living in the US, because it’s implied if no other type is mentioned.
I don’t think there’s anything wrong with calling it a gay love story or just a love story, one just offers more information.
… But we do? When deciding whether to go for lunch, everyone I know very much will say, “Do you want Mexican, Thai, American,…” and so on.
I think they’re innocent in their meaning, but don’t understand the nuance of what you’re trying to tell them.
I disagree.
The characters involved happen to be gay, but there’s nothing in the scenarios that are exclusive to gay couples. The same messages can be taken from it even if they were a hetero couple.
there’s nothing in the scenarios that are exclusive to gay couples.
There definitely are. Before the collapse of society, these two characters would not have been allowed to marry in the place where they live. It was only after societal collapse that they were free to be their true selves without discrimination or government oversight to tell them that their love was wrong.
It would not be the same story if it was a hetero couple, and it is dismissive to the unique challenges faced by gay people to suggest it would be.
Does it really matter though? Because from what I watched that episode was what someone would do for love. And to be honest, I don’t think it would’ve had as big as an impact with a hetero couple.
I mean I think that’s the point of the episode. Love is love.
I just disagree with the idea that the context doesn’t matter, because heterosexual love and homosexual love were not viewed the same before societal collapse and so it wouldn’t have been liberating in the same way for a hetero couple.
Before the collapse of society, these two characters would not have been allowed to marry in the place where they live. It was only after societal collapse that they were free to be their true selves without discrimination or government oversight to tell them that their love was wrong.
Before the societal collapse, these people were early
teenagersinfants, if that. They never lived an adult life under such a regime, and have just as much an understanding about life in such a regime as hetero couples that did live under it: they probably heard about it, and know that on paper it was bad, but they never had to live it.Ellie is 14 when we first meet her, some
6 months20 years after the collapse. She has zero understanding of what it was like to live under the pre-infection government.Edit: initially got the time jump wrong. It’s 20 years not 6 months
This whole thread is about the two middle aged guys who we meet somewhere around halfway through the first season, not the reveal that Ellie is gay near the end.
Ah. Huh. In the games, specifically the first one, you not only get this info much earlier, you even get to meet her partner pre-infection, albeit in flashback form.
I thought it was this that would have gotten people pissy.
Still this episode is a nice addition IMO. Don’t get why the pissiness, it’s not like this is even anywhere near off-brand for TLoU.
Honestly when I first watched it, having not played the games, I probably eye-rolled a little and thought about how recent streaming shows have been going full tryhard mode about incorporating LGBTQ characters into existing storylines, but then I learned that was how the original character was portrayed in the game and thought no more of it.
Back when the game was first released, the inclusion of so many LGBT characters was pretty avant-garde (remember this was before things like Gamergate).
I don’t doubt this helped the series gain the fanbase it has. Besides being an excellent game with a well written story and Nintendo ERD levels of technical wizardry, it gave a lot of LGBT people actual characters to connect to, out of a desperately small pool at the time
Can I upvote x100? That’s the thing that struck me the hardest, I guess. Finally no-one to judge them. For them to be them and just be two humans with nothing but true love. But it needed a zombie apocalypse to be free from all other shit
I haven’t seen it but I don’t follow why it can’t be both
Hetero couples do have the added difficulty of scoring contraceptives in a post apocalyptic world though.
And gay people are safer without enemas and douches? Nevermind hiv treatments?
Lol do you understand any of that? Why would they need HIV treatments unless they had HIV?
Lets be real. In a post apocalyptic world HIV will go untreated and with that it will be a quick death sentence. Especially if we are talking about a zombie infection making rounds.
I had a friend who stuck his finger in his butthole while washing his ass, liked it, and died of AIDS 2 weeks later. True story.
/s
I’m not sure they have cottaging in TLOU world.
Does that mean every other story is a straight story?
Gay guy here. It was a gay story and I don’t get the pearl clutching on calling it what it was. Getting that much representation on such a show was amazing, but saying it wasn’t a gay story is like saying Cinderella was not a straight story.
Keyboard warriors, Am I right?
The point is that nobody calls Cinderella a straight story. Yes, it was great representation and the reason it was great was because it wasn’t cliché or leaning into stereotypes for characterisation.
It was certainly a gay story, but it was first and foremost a love story. The only people who would choose to name it a gay story first and foremost are saying so to minimize it or demean it.
You can be technically correct and still call it wrong.
Yeah, there’s nothing wrong with something being a gay story, you shouldn’t have to erase that in order to normalise it to those who will never accept it as normal anyway (I’m sure he means well, but I think it’s important to make these observations).
I guess that’s not enough of an opinion.
I want Nick Offerman to be my dad. And I even love my real dad. (sorry dad)
So you’re saying you want two dads? The gay agenda is confirmed, folks!
/s (if it wasn’t obvious enough)
My dad’s pretty awful. Can I have your dad so you can have Nick Offerman?
I agree with the sentiment of the article, but the author can jump off a bridge for perpetuating the “SLAMS” bullshit.
I mean, was it written by a real person?
What’s SLAMS?
An overused word that the authors of clickbait use to make a petty complaint sound like something with actual teeth.
Oooh lol I thought it was an abbreviation I didn’t know. I just knocked on my head and said, “hello? Is this thing on?” in a comical way so I should be fine now.
Simultaneous Localization And Mapping
This is decade’s old practice. Remember headline space used to actual have to fit on real papsr.
The episode was directed by the same guy who directed all of “It’s a Sin”, another incredible bit of telly.
It was my favorite episode. It was a beautiful story.
I think the Last of Us demonstrates the difference between writing a story around the character vs the sort of crap in other shows where inclusivity is more like a box ticking exercise and a casting quota.
I loved that episode and I love Offermans pov about it!! Do I like this episode as part of Last of Us? No, I was expecting something different from this series. More action and adventure, less emotional trauma and humanity.
I think the show is trying too hard to lean into the emotional side of the apocalyptic scenario, and I think the TV scene is already saturated with kind of stuff. I wanted something which would be more focused on the main characters, their experience, and the action and adventure as captured in the game.
Should there be more stories about gay love in different scenarios? Yes. Is it okay that this story showed up under this context? Definitely, overall it’s a great story and I am better off for having experienced it. Do I like it as part of Last of Us? No, my expectations were different. I would say the same if the love story was between a heterosexual couple.
Edit: that said, given the bias and discrimination against LGBTQ+ folk, I am not surprised that writers (who are often overwhelmingly empathetic) choose to add such stories in their work
Do I like this episode as part of Last of Us? No, I was expecting something different from this series. More action and adventure, less emotional trauma and humanity.
Hmm, for me that’s a strange take from someone who played the games. The heart of the Last of Us always was about tragedy and how humanity handles such a catastrophe. Action and adventure in the games was mostly there to not loose interest as a gamer between the story. That’s just how these two different medium work. Obviously a live action series can’t work on the same formula to keep it’s audience engaged. That’s one reason why there wasn’t that much zombie action since too much of it will get old pretty quickly and the writers didn’t wrote a brainless zombie action adventure but a human drama tale.
God I love that man
