Chataboutgames t1_j6i2ssy wrote

I don't see it as a spiritual successor any more than any other post apocalyptic show. The Last of Us (based on the game and the show so far) is pretty much devoid of the characteristics that defined The Leftovers like the complete mystery/lack of interest in solving that mystery, the high concept storytelling, the focus on the existential angst of grief rather than processing it and moving on etc.

While it feels like blasphemy at this point, The Last of Us has way more in common with The Walking Dead than The Leftovers. The Last of Us is likely to be a Game of Thrones level HBO mega hit while The Leftovers was a specific critical darling with a devoted but modest fandom, and there's a reason for that.

TLDR: TLOU wouldn't make "International Assassin."


Chataboutgames t1_j5z96yz wrote

Am I misremembering? I thought in the OG stories he was also a military veteran. Although IIRC it's Red October where he famously never touches a firearm, he does in other stories.

But again the tone is "more than just a pencil pusher," not "motherfucking terminator"


Chataboutgames t1_j5z7qhp wrote

Wasn't the whole point of the character that he's also a badass vet who is more than capable of violence when the situation calls for it?

I think the unfortunate change is that instead of him being unwillingly thrust in to the occasional violent situation, he's basically the black ops vanguard leading the charge whenever violence is the solution. And violence is always the solution lol


Chataboutgames t1_j5vjz62 wrote

Oh I don't think the show is, that's my point. I feel that particularly if you read Mike White interviews he's pretty straightforward about how he just kinda likes subverting expectations with these funny situations. I think the conversation/social media tries to frame it as smarter and deeper than it is.


Chataboutgames t1_j5vagq5 wrote

It's that exactly. And honestly it didn't even go all that viral until S2. The conversation/fandom surrounding it got wildly different for S2.

Ultimately pretty much every question the show ever asks get answered with a muddy "people are people" sort of answer. S2 didn't say anything deep or profound about sexuality. Probably the closest it came was Imperioli yelling at his father for his inherited womanizing. It doesn't even really say much about the nature of tourism. Hell the most well meaning of the "rich set" in the first season ends up being the most destructive by far. In interviews mike White comes across damn near trolling people who want a really left leaning "rich people bad" message because they end up all being garden variety jerks rather than embodiments of evil wealth.

Then in S2 the very TikTok-y pathologizing came out. Every character was either a "sociopath" or an "incel" or an "abuser" or "closeted gay" or a secret rapist or something. Surprise surprise, aside from the outrageous murder gays plotline, every other character was aggressively vanilla in their sins.


Chataboutgames t1_j5v1ezw wrote

I do wonder if this show is going to look a lot different in retrospect. It's one of those shows that everyone has convinced themselves is very smart but there's actually little evidence of that in the show, and even the creator is largely flippant about the themes. What's funny is on every post the upvoted top level comment will have a wildly different take on the themes of the show, they're all contradictory and everyone agrees to them.

Ultimately it's just sort of a fun show that humanizes bad behavior and doesn't have a whole ton to say.


Chataboutgames t1_j5q0dn3 wrote

I think part of the point of The Sopranos is to have filler episodes. In no world would the show be better off without "Pine Barrens." It wasn't designed to tell a singular, tight, high suspense narrative. It was designed to be very concerned with the day to day lives and emotions of these characters.