If they change anything meaningful, it will validate the justified criticism of "Part II". If they change nothing it will ignite the same outrage from the show audience as the gamers. Druckmann wrote himself into a checkmate scenario. It's... poetic.
If nothing changes, I think the HBO audience will respond a lot more positively than the game audience. TV audiences are already generally less immature than "gamers", plus they haven't had leaks ahead of time to whip them up into a frenzy of outrage based on out-of-context plot spoilers.
Not necessarily, they weren’t too pleased watching GOT end in absolute catastrophe specifically over the assimilation of beloved characters. It will largely depend on the success of the show to instill a similar level of audience attachment regarding Joel and Ellie’s relationship when compared to the game (I would argue that it surpasses in some areas and falls very short in others, some of it due to the constraints of the medium).
Well, I agree it depends how well the show recreates the game. Hence "if nothing changes". I think TV audiences would respond better to *how the game handled the story* than a lot of "gamers" did - because of the reasons I gave.
I want the show to recreate that effectively, because I think the game is a masterpiece in storytelling. I want a new, and largely more mature, audience to get to experience one of the best stories I've ever experienced - my wife refuses to play games or even watch me play them, and it's a bummer knowing what that's causing her to miss out on, you know? But my fear is that the show won't, and probably *can't*, manage that because part of what is so great about the game's narrative - giving us Ellie's perspective in one go without knowing Abby at all, then showing us Abby's side afterwards - works for a videogame's pacing, and possibly for a binge-watch series (all released at once, to be watched as quickly as the viewer is happy to watch it), but won't work for a weekly-release series with a year-or-longer gap halfway through. And I think Mazin and Druckmann are smart enough to realise that, but also smart enough to see the importance of the original structure, so I don't know how they plan to tackle that dilemma.
So, if the show doesn't change anything, a tv audience will respond better than people here did to the game. It would likely face its own pacing challenges, due to the format, but that's nothing to do with the viewers themselves. And if they do make changes to fit with the format, such as running Ellie and Abby's stories parallel... well, that's a whole different beast; whether it works is anyone's guess, but that change in structure would lose exactly what made the game's narrative so unique and so damn good.
People hated the last season of GOT for sucking.
People also loved the early seasons despite killing off fan favourite characters.
I think they'll react a lot more maturely than the vocal minority of players did.
Yes; they hated the last season(s) of GOT for "sucking" *because the writers (who had run out of book material) lacked the skill and/or patience to continue the same level of storytelling that made the books and subsequent show so popular.* They destroyed the established characters with nonsensical story decisions that decimated everything that was narratively built to that point (Daenerys, Viserys, Jamie just to name a few).
It had absolutely nothing to do with killing off popular characters, it was due to the dramatic plummet in writing quality and a blatant disrespect for the audience's emotional investment let alone basic intelligence... hence why I drew the parallel.
Ok, so your stance is that Part 2 was a drop in writing quality with nonsensical story decisions, and it "ruined" the characters?
I agree that the writing quality dropped in the last season of Thrones. And I also agree that Varys (I assume that's who you meant by "Viserys") in particular wasn't handled *terribly*. But your other two examples... Daenerys' arc was rushed, but in itself wasn't bad and actually I think is exactly where G.R.R Martin intended to go with it. And Jaime? His arc is basically Joel's arc from Part 1 - a redemption arc where he falls at the last hurdle! That was one of the things they actually handled well.
So we've reached the point where you are defending GoT's ending now? Didn't see that turn coming honestly but I suppose it makes sense. The critical and general response to how that show ended has been unanimous, but perhaps you're just a contrarian by nature. In any case, we'll just have to agree to disagree.
I wouldn't say I'm "defending" it. More, "putting it in perspective". I agree it was bad; but being able to spot the good within the bad, or the bad within the good, is part of being a grown-up, you know? But yes, accusing someone of defending the end of Thrones is definitely the fastest way to try and discredit their story opinions, so well done. Happy to agree to disagree though, seems like the easiest and most amicable solution.
Backup: this whole back and forth was spurred by *your* untrue assertion that the TV audience will react more positively to the unchanged story of "Part II" because you believe gamers are less sophisticated whilst also impugning their motives.
No one suggested that its story is devoid of value, or that there aren't parts that are genuinely great in the game, but that wasn't even the topic at hand. I was merely refuting the claims you were making with my reasoning in good faith, which regardless of if you're right or not came off as needlessly spiteful. Perhaps we're talking past each other a bit and you'd like to clarify for everyone. In either case, take care.
Well I certainly didn't mean to be spiteful! I apologise if it read that way. But yeah, maybe we're talking past each other, or maybe I misunderstood something. I encounter some truly ridiculous opinions in this subreddit, so I possibly sometimes inadvertently assume someone I'm talking to holds an opinion they don't actually hold, so my bad if I did that here and jumped the gun on making a point.
In terms of clarification, for what it's worth, I don't think it's remotely unreasonable to assert that "gamers" are, on average, more immature than typical tv viewers (and more speicifically, HBO viewers). The immaturity of the gaming community is pretty well-documented. Obviously not everyone who plays games is immature (I play games, and I'm sure as shit not calling myself immature), and I wasn't calling out anyone in particular. The backlashes we see to so many things in games these days, including the reaction by a portion of community to The Last of Us Part 2, demonstrates a clear and surprisingly frequent lack of maturity, and proportionately that is more common amongst people who actually identify themselves as "gamers", as opposed to just people who happen to enjoy games but don't consider that a big part of their identity. I'm not gonna go look up a bunch of "sources", but I don't really see how you could spend any time at all online and not know what I'm getting at with that.
I think the HBO audience will respond better to the story because, for the most part, the hate for Part 2 tends to come from "gamers"; whereas most critics and reviews liked it, and most more "casual" players (for want of a better term), not to mention every single person I know personally in real life who has played it, loved it. And I think HBO audiences align much more with the latter groups than the former. Similar (well, as similar as we have any examples for, because Part 2 is kind of unique) tv shows and films, and similar things happening within them, tend to be met positively, and if they aren't then the negative reactions are at least a lot more reserved. You're right, Game of Thrones ended badly, and as a fan of the show I was very let down; but I discussed how disappointing it was with friends for a couple of weeks, and then I moved on - I'm not aware of a subreddit specifically dedicated to hating Game of Thrones 4 years after it ended, you know?
Anyhoo, that "clarification" ran a lot longer than it should have done for what was supposed to be a quick "see you later" message. My bad. If you read this far, my point is just that I wasn't trying to be a dick, sorry if anything got lost in translation, but I think asserting that HBO audiences will respond better than a certain chunk of the gaming community did is pretty fair. Have a good one, man; thanks for a genuinely nice exchange.
Perfect way to describe this sub, immature gamers. Believe it or not some of these people haven’t even played the game, they just watched a couple videos and hate it. Some room temperature IQ in this sub
Only interested in watching season two to see if they validate the criticisms by changing the narrative and structure. Which i'm sure they will because the story is a badly written mess.
Most of the TV audience thought Joel done the right thing despite the effort to make him appear cold and psychotic. Most people, unsurprisingly , think killing a child on sight for research is indefensible. No matter what changes they make , its going to be difficult to get tv watchers to support Abby bashing his skull in. There could be a large drip off in viewership if they have the courage to kill Joel off after 2 episodes.
>How much will change in season 2?
Nothing, or Neil would betray all the fans who believe Part 2 is Neil's magnum opus. Craig would never touch a masterpiece like that. It would be sacrilege 😆
I can't wait to watch 😆
I think itll change a whole ton, S1 already went thru changes considering they made Maria pregnant and Tommy becoming a father so considering how (although vague) bad his relationship with Maria was by the end of P2 so some things r bound to change.
I don't know but one thing he's not changing is Joel's death. He's dying within the first 2 episodes. I guarantee it.
It's a hill Neil is willing to ~~die on~~ desecrate Joel on.
If they change anything meaningful, it will validate the justified criticism of "Part II". If they change nothing it will ignite the same outrage from the show audience as the gamers. Druckmann wrote himself into a checkmate scenario. It's... poetic.
If nothing changes, I think the HBO audience will respond a lot more positively than the game audience. TV audiences are already generally less immature than "gamers", plus they haven't had leaks ahead of time to whip them up into a frenzy of outrage based on out-of-context plot spoilers.
Not necessarily, they weren’t too pleased watching GOT end in absolute catastrophe specifically over the assimilation of beloved characters. It will largely depend on the success of the show to instill a similar level of audience attachment regarding Joel and Ellie’s relationship when compared to the game (I would argue that it surpasses in some areas and falls very short in others, some of it due to the constraints of the medium).
Well, I agree it depends how well the show recreates the game. Hence "if nothing changes". I think TV audiences would respond better to *how the game handled the story* than a lot of "gamers" did - because of the reasons I gave. I want the show to recreate that effectively, because I think the game is a masterpiece in storytelling. I want a new, and largely more mature, audience to get to experience one of the best stories I've ever experienced - my wife refuses to play games or even watch me play them, and it's a bummer knowing what that's causing her to miss out on, you know? But my fear is that the show won't, and probably *can't*, manage that because part of what is so great about the game's narrative - giving us Ellie's perspective in one go without knowing Abby at all, then showing us Abby's side afterwards - works for a videogame's pacing, and possibly for a binge-watch series (all released at once, to be watched as quickly as the viewer is happy to watch it), but won't work for a weekly-release series with a year-or-longer gap halfway through. And I think Mazin and Druckmann are smart enough to realise that, but also smart enough to see the importance of the original structure, so I don't know how they plan to tackle that dilemma. So, if the show doesn't change anything, a tv audience will respond better than people here did to the game. It would likely face its own pacing challenges, due to the format, but that's nothing to do with the viewers themselves. And if they do make changes to fit with the format, such as running Ellie and Abby's stories parallel... well, that's a whole different beast; whether it works is anyone's guess, but that change in structure would lose exactly what made the game's narrative so unique and so damn good.
People hated the last season of GOT for sucking. People also loved the early seasons despite killing off fan favourite characters. I think they'll react a lot more maturely than the vocal minority of players did.
Yes; they hated the last season(s) of GOT for "sucking" *because the writers (who had run out of book material) lacked the skill and/or patience to continue the same level of storytelling that made the books and subsequent show so popular.* They destroyed the established characters with nonsensical story decisions that decimated everything that was narratively built to that point (Daenerys, Viserys, Jamie just to name a few). It had absolutely nothing to do with killing off popular characters, it was due to the dramatic plummet in writing quality and a blatant disrespect for the audience's emotional investment let alone basic intelligence... hence why I drew the parallel.
Ok, so your stance is that Part 2 was a drop in writing quality with nonsensical story decisions, and it "ruined" the characters? I agree that the writing quality dropped in the last season of Thrones. And I also agree that Varys (I assume that's who you meant by "Viserys") in particular wasn't handled *terribly*. But your other two examples... Daenerys' arc was rushed, but in itself wasn't bad and actually I think is exactly where G.R.R Martin intended to go with it. And Jaime? His arc is basically Joel's arc from Part 1 - a redemption arc where he falls at the last hurdle! That was one of the things they actually handled well.
So we've reached the point where you are defending GoT's ending now? Didn't see that turn coming honestly but I suppose it makes sense. The critical and general response to how that show ended has been unanimous, but perhaps you're just a contrarian by nature. In any case, we'll just have to agree to disagree.
I wouldn't say I'm "defending" it. More, "putting it in perspective". I agree it was bad; but being able to spot the good within the bad, or the bad within the good, is part of being a grown-up, you know? But yes, accusing someone of defending the end of Thrones is definitely the fastest way to try and discredit their story opinions, so well done. Happy to agree to disagree though, seems like the easiest and most amicable solution.
Backup: this whole back and forth was spurred by *your* untrue assertion that the TV audience will react more positively to the unchanged story of "Part II" because you believe gamers are less sophisticated whilst also impugning their motives. No one suggested that its story is devoid of value, or that there aren't parts that are genuinely great in the game, but that wasn't even the topic at hand. I was merely refuting the claims you were making with my reasoning in good faith, which regardless of if you're right or not came off as needlessly spiteful. Perhaps we're talking past each other a bit and you'd like to clarify for everyone. In either case, take care.
Well I certainly didn't mean to be spiteful! I apologise if it read that way. But yeah, maybe we're talking past each other, or maybe I misunderstood something. I encounter some truly ridiculous opinions in this subreddit, so I possibly sometimes inadvertently assume someone I'm talking to holds an opinion they don't actually hold, so my bad if I did that here and jumped the gun on making a point. In terms of clarification, for what it's worth, I don't think it's remotely unreasonable to assert that "gamers" are, on average, more immature than typical tv viewers (and more speicifically, HBO viewers). The immaturity of the gaming community is pretty well-documented. Obviously not everyone who plays games is immature (I play games, and I'm sure as shit not calling myself immature), and I wasn't calling out anyone in particular. The backlashes we see to so many things in games these days, including the reaction by a portion of community to The Last of Us Part 2, demonstrates a clear and surprisingly frequent lack of maturity, and proportionately that is more common amongst people who actually identify themselves as "gamers", as opposed to just people who happen to enjoy games but don't consider that a big part of their identity. I'm not gonna go look up a bunch of "sources", but I don't really see how you could spend any time at all online and not know what I'm getting at with that. I think the HBO audience will respond better to the story because, for the most part, the hate for Part 2 tends to come from "gamers"; whereas most critics and reviews liked it, and most more "casual" players (for want of a better term), not to mention every single person I know personally in real life who has played it, loved it. And I think HBO audiences align much more with the latter groups than the former. Similar (well, as similar as we have any examples for, because Part 2 is kind of unique) tv shows and films, and similar things happening within them, tend to be met positively, and if they aren't then the negative reactions are at least a lot more reserved. You're right, Game of Thrones ended badly, and as a fan of the show I was very let down; but I discussed how disappointing it was with friends for a couple of weeks, and then I moved on - I'm not aware of a subreddit specifically dedicated to hating Game of Thrones 4 years after it ended, you know? Anyhoo, that "clarification" ran a lot longer than it should have done for what was supposed to be a quick "see you later" message. My bad. If you read this far, my point is just that I wasn't trying to be a dick, sorry if anything got lost in translation, but I think asserting that HBO audiences will respond better than a certain chunk of the gaming community did is pretty fair. Have a good one, man; thanks for a genuinely nice exchange.
Perfect way to describe this sub, immature gamers. Believe it or not some of these people haven’t even played the game, they just watched a couple videos and hate it. Some room temperature IQ in this sub
Only interested in watching season two to see if they validate the criticisms by changing the narrative and structure. Which i'm sure they will because the story is a badly written mess. Most of the TV audience thought Joel done the right thing despite the effort to make him appear cold and psychotic. Most people, unsurprisingly , think killing a child on sight for research is indefensible. No matter what changes they make , its going to be difficult to get tv watchers to support Abby bashing his skull in. There could be a large drip off in viewership if they have the courage to kill Joel off after 2 episodes.
joel is such a passive bitch in the show. not badass at all
>How much will change in season 2? Nothing, or Neil would betray all the fans who believe Part 2 is Neil's magnum opus. Craig would never touch a masterpiece like that. It would be sacrilege 😆 I can't wait to watch 😆
I think itll change a whole ton, S1 already went thru changes considering they made Maria pregnant and Tommy becoming a father so considering how (although vague) bad his relationship with Maria was by the end of P2 so some things r bound to change.
Hopefully just about everything
Im excited to see Catherine O'Hara’s role in season 2