That's definitely what they meant, that it's easier to create an original plot involving two (or more) central characters when each character's background, personality, and physical appearance have already been created.

In Arcane, the writers had free reign in writing story lines as long as they stuck to the basics of the lore (Vi and Jinx being sisters; Vi acquiring her gauntlets; Jinx going "crazy"; both being at-odds with each other), including the lore of other characters added into the show (Jayce developing hextech and becoming a leader; Viktor eventually ending up as he does in the game; Caitlyn becoming Sheriff of Piltover; Ekko developing his 'powers'; etc.).

In The Last of Us, the video game is the story line. It tells the entire thing from start to finish. The story of Joel and Ellie in the first season must start with Joel meeting Ellie (Point A) and end with the decision Joel makes at the end (Point B). There is no room to maneuver there for the writers, other than how the story gets from Point A to Point B (and they've cleverly added in some flashback material to flesh out certain characters and some key questions surrounding the infection).

While Arcane is certainly exceptional in its creativity, its aesthetic, its marriage of action and dramatic tension, and its engaging cast of characters, it certainly had an easier time offering something new for viewers compared to The Last of Us.

With that said, I think both are exceptional.

Yeah, it ended up in the wrong spot (it was in both the Anthology and Drama sections, but was meant to only be in Drama).

I'm going to copy-paste my most recent comment to someone else who wanted suggestions on top-tier television.

Anthology or mini-series:

(NOTE: Each season is a different story/cast, so you can watch them independently of each other):

• Fargo (seasons 1 and 2)
• True Detective (season 1)
• Band of Brothers
• Chernobyl

Drama series:

• Breaking Bad
• Mr. Robot
• Battlestar Galactica (2003) (science-fiction)
• The Expanse (science-fiction)
• Utopia (Channel4) (UK)
• Attack on Titan (anime)
• Arcane (animated)
• Mindhunter
• Dark (science-fiction)
• The Last of Us*

(* indicates the show premiered within the most recent year and opinion may change if quality drops)

Comedy series:

• Fleabag (BBC, AmazonPrime)
• Taskmaster (UK)
• Community

When recommending certain shows, I always have a few caveats:

• For Parks & Recreation and The Office: if you do not enjoy the first episode, just skip to Season 2 Episode 1 for both shows. Both shows find a more comfortable footing in season 2.

• For It’s Always Sunny in Philadelphia, start with Season 2. (I learned my lesson with this one, as I had at least three friends who attempted to watch IASIP from the beginning, but they didn’t really like the first few episodes, so they stopped. For those who I managed to convince to just jump to S2E1, they enjoyed it and stuck with the show. In Season 1, many of the characters are unlikeable, but in Season 2 onwards, they are unlikeable while also receiving their ‘comeuppance’). Plus, Frank is introduced.

• Mr. Robot: a general warning that Season 2 is a little slower than all the other seasons, but that it all comes together in Seasons 3 and 4.

• The Leftovers: a general disclaimer that the show isn’t really about ‘why’ people went missing, but about those left behind.

• The Expanse: if you find the premise and/or characters interesting, but are feeling a bit underwhelmed or bored, keep watching until at least the end of Episode 4.

We get it, Mindy, you can write essays. Still not going to watch your show.

He made "one remark that could be interpreted as homophobic"?

Here, I'll link you directly to an essay that Card published in 1990 (when he was 39 years old). It is entitled, "The Hypocrites of Homosexuality."

Card prefaces the essay by explaining that anyone using it to attack him as a homophobe clearly doesn't understand the context of the essay, specifically, a 1986 Georgia law prohibiting sodomy in the privacy of one's own home being constitutional. Additionally, he attempts to ground his essay in the beliefs of the Mormon Church, believing that this will shroud him a veil of protection for his own beliefs because he's just reiterating those of the church he frequents and supports.

But Card has significant problematic opinions in his essay. I will point out a few for reference:

>(Par. 1) I did learn that for most of [the homosexual community,] their highest allegiance was to their membership in the community that gave them access to sex.
>
>(Par. 2) And when one's life is given over to one community that demands utter allegiance, it cannot be given to another. The LDS church is one such community. The homosexual community seems to be another. And when I read the statements of those who claim to be both LDS and homosexual, trying to persuade the former community to cease making their membership contingent upon abandoning the latter, I wonder if they realize that the price of such "tolerance" would be, in the long run, the destruction of the Church.

See, because Card fundamentally believes that partaking in homosexual tendencies and homosexual acts is a sin, one cannot both be a follower of the Mormon church and someone who partakes in homosexual acts. He views the two as separate communities, and believes that someone who is homosexual can only adhere to one.

Notice how, throughout the entire essay, he avoids mentioning how one can easily be both heterosexual and a follower of the Mormon church. Basically, if you are male, it's completely fine to date women and have sex with your wife as much as you want, but if you are gay, you cannot date men nor get married to another man nor have sex with another man and still be a member of the church.

>(Par. 4) The argument by the hypocrites of homosexuality that homosexual tendencies are genetically ingrained in some individuals is almost laughably irrelevant. We are all genetically predisposed toward some sin or another; we are all expected to control those genetic predispositions when it is possible.

Here, Card tries to point out that it doesn't matter if homosexuality is genetically ingrained in an individual since birth--what matters is whether or not they 'act' on it. He tries to further explain that, much like when he was a 15-year old teenager, he also had urges to have sex, but was encouraged to fight against those urges. He explains that youth are forgiven for their transgressions, but that adults are not (and should not) be forgiven for failing to resist these urges (unless otherwise happily married).

>(Par. 5)Are we somehow cruel and overdomineering when we teach young men and young women that their lives will be better and happier if they have no memory of sexual intercourse with others to deal with when they finally are married? On the contrary, we would be heartless and cruel if we did not.

It's fine if we teach young men and women not to have sex until they are married, Card explains. Just so long as, when they grow up and finally get married, they are one man and one woman, and not two men or two women (or two LGBTQ+).

>(2008 article) No matter how sexually attracted a man might be toward other men, or a woman toward other women, and no matter how close the bonds of affection and friendship might be within same-sex couples, there is no act of court or Congress that can make these relationships the same as the coupling between a man and a woman.

And in 2008, Card published an article that gay marriage marked "the end of democracy in America." See, as long as homosexuals never act on their attraction to members of the same sex, and they follow all the ideals of the church, and if they choose to marry, they only do so to someone of the opposite sex, then that's fine!

Sorry, Card can try and hide behind the Church's beliefs in order to shield himself from the outcry of bigotry thrust upon him, but it's quite evident that his personal opinion is that homosexuals are acceptable in society so long as they never act on their attractions (ever) and, should they choose to get married, it must be to someone of the opposite sex. The man believed that gay marriage ruined democracy in his country for Christ's sake.

I know you've since learned about Card's personal beliefs, but I'd just like to comment on my experience.

I read Ender's Game when I was 15 years old. I loved it. It was my favorite book for a long time (until I was 21 when I read Dracula for the first time). I still think of it as an excellent novel, with brisk pacing, good characterization, great themes and motifs, and perhaps most importantly, a work that is perfect for young adults (teenagers) because the language isn't too complex and the work is very easy to read because of how engrossing it is.

Unfortunately, that all came crashing down in my early 20s when I learned of Card's personal beliefs. See, I'm someone who studied English and would love to be able to separate the art from the artist. This concept is very easy to do when the artist is dead--after all, they can no longer espouse hateful beliefs and write further works that may or may not contain such messaging. However, when the artist is still alive, we run into the problem where purchasing work by these artists sends money directly into their pockets, allowing them to continue to preach from their soapbox some extremely hateful things.

As a gay man who didn't fully accept himself until my early 20s, hearing about how Card would rather have me killed or cease to exist than be a fan of his works was heartbreaking. How could someone be so hateful? How could someone--a fellow artist, no less--not see me as a person, just like him, who wants to be creative and spread excitement and inspiration in the world?

After that, I could never buy another one of his works, and will never do so in the future.