Why was this charcater created?
Eleanor. I know she saved Kate but Richmond now have Lingard, (Determinant). There was absolutely no reason why she appeared in every single episode in ANF. She had no charcater development at all. In a older version of the story she was Joan's daughter, this would be a great setup for her and her charcater and why she is in the series. Telltale decided to give her two lines in each episode, she had more potential than that! Which makes me think maybe she might return in another DLC or Season 4? What do you think about Eleanor, I think she was wasted and had potential, even though she is confirmed alive.
Sign in to comment in this discussion.
Comments
They would create a hottie
Eleanor? All I now that when we can forgive her for betrayal I will bite her throat then throw of window then when she will be walkers I will beat her by bat
I think that can be said for the entire cast of ANF. They all needed more character moments , and Eleanor was a lot of wasted potential. It could've been great to romance her, and find out she scouts for Joan by living in communities or disagrees with her.
I think she was supposed to have a major role before the rewrites. I heard that she was supposed to be Joan's daughter or something like that.
I was gonn smack you if this was about Gabe.
But yeah, Eleanor is in this weird spot where I'd say she's very much utilized but also not really. Unlike Tripp, she has a clear role in the story and is always doing useful things, but we get very little time with her as a person outside of one or two scenes at the very beginning. Even her "betrayal," which should've(and originally would've) logically opened up some screentime for her, basically amounts to a lame twist on top of feeling very tacked on(and kinda offensive) to begin with.
Long lost daughter, hence her comment about sympathizing with missing family. Additionally, Joan wasn't the main antagonist originally--"Mason" was.
Rewritting a story some minutes before the book is realized is NEVER a great idea !
Who was this "Mason"?
Did you mispell character on purpose? :P. Eleanor was kind of an after thought after the first episode to me. A lot of characters are treated badly and not really given any development as it later became clear further in the season that the only character the writers give a damn about is Javier.
Fixed.
Why do you think that
Because it became clear to me during Above the Law that the entire story is built on David, which would leave Javier as a Supporting Character by undermining any actual development he gets and overshadowing every other character(particularly Kate). And sure enough, just about all the stakes, nuance, and emotional weight were aimed at him and he somehow managed to hijack the final episode despite Joan(or originally "Mason") being there purely so he wouldn't have to be the Big Bad.
I don't think the story ever casts enough light on any one character to create any overshadowing. It feels like a script written first with the writers planning what they wanted to see visually with the action, choices, and QTE's, then trying to write the characters around that for each episode. There's a lot of time devoted to Javier / Kate and Javier / David , but with the shorter episode times this doesn't amount to much for any one of the three for being the main cast ( comparatively Larry has more development in S1 ). Gabe is ignored as was Mariana. Clementine is almost lifeless. The rest of the supporting cast are more like the red shirts in Star Trek.
We still have a lot more to work with concerning David than we do Javier and especially Kate though. Only Gabe really rivals him and even he can be seen as just a proxy for David himself for the most part.
Also, even though I like him, no way does Larry have more development than Gabe or especially David considering he's only in 2 episodes. Though I suppose that may depend on what you consider development.
Well you can say the same for most of the cast. Tripp's a great example.
that's doctor lingard?
Honestly, I think having Eleanor be the romance would have made the story make alot more sense in a way, Kate betraying Javi and making David go amok, Eleanor betraying the group would be a much more emotional moment since she was close to Javier
I think Eleanor was created to lure players into thinking that she could be an alternative love interest, should players have little to no interest in romancing Kate.
Once Eleanor turns traitor, it would rub salt in the wounds for those who were hoping to romance Eleanor.
That's the only reasonable explanation I can come up with as to what Eleanor's role was supposed to be, seeing how she barely has one to begin with.
A better question to ask is why ANF was created.
All of anf charecter had potential in their arc until telltale scrapped it up and made them all bland due to misunderstanding in their writing team that's my bet
Yes, that's Dr. Lingard's design in the trailer. According to the AMA, that model was originally intended for the main antagonist Mason but was remodeled with a lab coat to be Dr. Lingard instead.
She's the medic of the group who likes helping people. Also, she was indeed designed as Joan's long lost daughter, so the somewhat underplayed plot point of her being welcomed by the people of Richmond and not wanting to jeopardize that was likely a holdover of that idea.
It's just too bad that the series barely gives Eleanor anything beyond being a medic and supposedly being Joan's daughter, if Telltale had intended for them to be related but didn't want to spell it out to everyone.
I'm still bummed out that Eleanor was written so that they she would turn traitor, since it's was so predictable that the writers would have her go down that route. And what's worse, she barely has any screen-time nor many emotional connections with the players to even make her betrayal elicit more of a response than an "oh, okay then" from the players.
Apparently, they changed Eleanor's character so much that that backstory no longer made sense.
....
Yeah.
Yeah, seriously. Had enough of that sexism in Season 1, thank you. And it really did feel so tacked on in part because even I missed the foreshadowing/setup earlier in the epiosde and I usually kept an eye out for more subtle characterization this time.
Then again, considering what they did with Gabe and Kate in the same episode, it's possible they considered not doing it but did it anyway because everyone expected it.
Huh, if only Eleanor was the sole example of wasted potential.
He had the same clothes in the flashback. Except the sunglasses.
Another unnecessary deleted content.
Did he? I'll check my Composite character thread.
EDIT:
Oh yeah, you're right!
I guess they wanted to avoid having "Evil/Sick White Man #12" be the bad guy yet again. Which, to be honest, is one of the reasons I liked Joan at first.
Yeah if her and Clementine weren't in s3 everything would've been fine
The entire supporting cast was pretty limp in my opinion. Clem was ANF's season 2 Kenny (fanservice) but with much less development and for better or worse no real bearing on the story. Eleanor, Tripp, and Jesus were ANF's Mike: pleasant enough, helpful enough, and mostly just....there. Why the writers thought we needed three Mikes idk. lol This is one of the issues on which season 2 is superior to ANF. In season 2 there is more variety of personalities to balance out the game.
That is a pretty good comparison actually, though David is definitely the other half that got the missing stuff--with a fuckin vengeance!
Eleanor is more plot relevant than all of them, but I can't think of another comparison to make with her. But yeah, that other guy and especially Tripp kinda fit. In fact, I say Tripp was much worse than Mike, who was more the result of a dummied subplot then anything else--one that I feel you could still implement and still have his character make sense, perhaps even more. At least until they reveal something substantial about him, which I doubt, so I guess Eleanor really is a better comparison in that regard as well.
So I guess that makes Tripp a bad combination of what some people thought of Luke, Carlos, and Alvin in one package.
Agreed. Cause honestly, outside of Gabe, Conrad, and for their short bursts Kate and Ava, most of the characters here were either poorly defined, borderline one-note(or two notes if they're lucky/unlucky), or occasionally painful rehashes.
Right, I thought he wore those. His jacket seems lighter, though. Funny, I thought I remembered seeing him wear those cool shades, too. My mind is clearly bugging out with too much trivia/info from these games.
Also, Badger does NOT make an appearance in the flashback in the final game, correct?
I feel like the episode was meant to focus more on Javier's lust for revenge after Mariana's death, but that got muddled up, and what he does to Badger and/or Max barely seems to matter.
I agree. Ep.1, Ep.2, and Ep.4 are mainly Javier/Kate episodes. Episodes 3 & 5 are mainly about Javier/David.
Well, I like to think Ep.4 was a Gabe episode, meaning he was the central focus. Mariana was easily used as a plot device, so I agree.
Agreed. It's a shame she went from Best Female Video Game Character of the Year in 2012 to most lifeless in 2017.
another example of wasted potential. eleanor was most likely meant to have a larger role, considering the fact that it is claimed by the devs that she was intended to be joan's daughter, but the rewrites minimized her role immensely. i feel that they may have rewritten this instance, where eleanor was joan's daughter, due to so many people predicting it. rewrites have occured several times due to people predicting certain events in later episodes.
He might be the background, but I don't remember seeing him. Pretty sure Clint's there though.
More like Ep 4 determinately has 3 Kate moments.
That's clearly the intention. Too bad they didn't take proper/full advantage of that.
Yeah, the trailer really played that up to an overwhelming degree, but it was more or less a brief incidental thing, for better or worse.