"A lot of the themes, ideas** and maybe even characters that were explored in the first season are kinda still on the table to bookend as a final season"
"A lot of the themes and ideasthat were explored in the first seasonbookend as a final season"
"A lot of the themes, ideas** and maybe even characters that were explored in the first season are kinda still on the table to bookend as a … morefinal season"
"A lot of the themes and ideas that were explored in the first season bookend as a final season"
Yep were finding a fuckin boat in season 4
But probably a good bet. I'm sorry, but I still just don't see them not killing her off. I'll be happy if they don't, but this is Telltale we're talking about here.
Yeah. The bookend comment worries me. I'm less concerned with Clem dying (though I would like her to live) and more with copy and paste of Season 1's sacrifice. AJ, being an infant, simply can't have the character depth that 9 year-old Clem did. Her sacrifice would simply feel a lot emptier than Lee's. It's not going feel nearly the same and just wind up being a sad copy if they go that route. I could be wrong. It could be amazing. Regardless Clem's status and how it happens, I want the ending to be amazing.
But I just see Clem sacrificing herself for AJ coming off as "Hey, remember the feels from Season 1. Feel them again because it's the same. Ignore the vastly different context." Largely because it's largely impossible for most people to care about a character with no real depth or characterization than one who has been well-developed(ish) for 4 games. It's not AJ's fault that he's an infant. But that doesn't change how people are going to view the story.
EDIT: If you want to see people's attitudes, just look at the ANF choices regarding Clem. They are vastly pro-Clem even when they shouldn't necessarily be. If it's a choice between, Clem and AJ, I expect to see a lot of dead AJ's because their fictional characters and Clem's the one we're attached to.
"The hardest thing about there being a final season is everyone yelling at us saying "Does that mean Clementine is gonna die?"...that's not … moreneccesarily the case
But probably a good bet. I'm sorry, but I still just don't see them not killing her off. I'll be happy if they don't, but this is Telltale we're talking about here.
Robert Kirkman and other Skybound people were in the writing room for the final season 'hammering out the details'
This is very interesting, both in a good and bad way. We did have Jesus in ANF and the events of the game are pretty much caught up to the comic storyline. This could just be to prevent some continuity issues, but it may also mean that we could see even more tie ins between the game and comics, quite possibly some comic characters making appearances. Again, this could be good or bad, depending on how Telltale uses them, I don't think we want another Ramsey Snow situation.
Clementine… [view original content]
I wonder if Telltale figured out how they'd bring back Kenny & Jane if you chose to leave alone. Wellington as well, I know there's that option not to go at all.
Exactly. HISTORY. "The white's long dead ancestors called my long dead ancestors the N word during terrible times in history, so that must mean they can never use it but only I can call myself the N word!!" You know how fucking ignorant that sounds?
Far less ignorant than saying it was white's "long dead ancestors" when there's a lot of people still alive from the time when it lynchings were common in the South.
Far less ignorant than trying to imply racism doesn't exist anymore by shoving it off on "long dead ancestors."
World Wildlife Fund , St. Jude, Save the Children, and Charity: Water
My point. Just because someone is a racist doesn't mean they are pro-childhood cancer. Someone can be caring in one aspect and terrible in another. I never claimed PewDiePie was a 2 dimensional caricature. Just that he's a racist.
Comparing Chris Brown and PewDiePie
OK. Chris Brown is a bigger asshole. I should have stated that in my previous post. That doesn't mean PewDiePie's behavior is no less racist.
Yes true, but Brown genuinely is an asshole. He has a networth of 30 million, donated merely 100,000. Pewdiepie? Networth of 5 million. Raised over 1.3 million for nonprofit organizations.
There's a difference between raised and donated. Raising means you convinced other people to donate money. So, you're not giving fair comparisons. PewDiePie did not donate a 20% of his fortune.
Also, I'm calling bullshit on your numbers for Chris Brown. Here's an article about he donated $100,000 to Hurricane Harvey victims alone:
That is of course, not counting the charity he started, Symphonic Love, and all the others ones he has donated to.
Don't get me wrong. It doesn't matter how much he donates, he's still a piece of shit. He's a bigger asshole than PewDiePie even if he donates more money in dollar amount and percentage.
That's my point. Donating money doesn't wipe out the shitty things you do.
Look at that "big" list you have of rappers that donated, then tell me how big the list is of rappers who have millions of dollars in their networth but have not donated. Then let me ask you how many of them have said the "N" word publicly, but no one bat an eye.
That's not how debates work. If you make a claim, YOU have to back it up. YOU need to be the one who finds the big list of rappers who don't donate. Or that not donating to charities is symptomatic of rap culture like your post implied.
Also, your argument seems rather absurd. He gives money to charity, so it's cool when he does racist things. How much money must one give to be get the "Not-Racist-Because-I'm-Rich-And-Give-Some-Away" card?
It was said in the privacy of his own home with no malicious intention, to no one that existed in real life, causing no harm to anyone.
No. When you're making a video that you expect to make money off of, it's not the "privacy" of your own home. Were the cameras off and he not filming, then yeah, you could say that. But that's not the case. He was at work and very much in the public eye.
Second, there's problematic aspect that it indicates that word is a part of his regular vocabulary. I never say it when I'm pissed off. I say a lot of swear words, but never that. Is it because I am some magnificent enlighten being? No. I just don't use that word. Apparently, PewDiePie does. And if it was just this one incident, we could just go, well, that was bad, stop it. But he had already lost a contract with Disney for a history of anti-Semetic "jokes." It's a pattern.
Intent only matters to an extent. You know, if it was the one incident, I might even be on your side.
Actually, fuck that. Intent doesn't matter here. That word has one definition in the context he used it. Sure, it can be used as a term of endearment (and much of the time, it's a different, albeit very similar word), but he wasn't. Hell, if he was, I would be say he's a fucking idiot, not a racist. But he used it in anger. That has a specific definition. It is a racial slur. Just because he directed at a video game means it was less of a racial slur. Nor does racial slurs only allow the target to be offended. By their very nature, racial slurs put down a whole race of people.
The sooner you realize that the more well rounded your life will become.
Well rounded how? That it's cool for white people to start using racial slurs as long as it's not in person?
Oh. What if you're playing a phone game and yell it out when a black person happens to walk by you? Are you being racist even though you directed at a game? Do they have the right to be offended?
Or that once you donate enough money to kids with cancer that you can use racial slurs?
I work at a retail store that collects for St. Jude's. How much does someone need to give before they can start using racial slurs? Do I give them a card or something? Is there a limit? Or is a lifetime "Not Racist" card once someone gives enough? Is it a straight dollar amount or a percentage of their income?
This is one of the biggest bullshits you have said (and considering the amount you have thrown out there, that's saying something). Words matter. If they didn't, why would you give a crap that people call him out on it. No one shot him. No one is suggesting violence against him. That was your standard for him. "he said a word, he didnt shoot anybody." So, why are you defending a guy you say you don't like if words don't matter?
Which ones? Seriously. Who? Iggy Azaela received shit for singing in a "black voice." Somehow, I doubt there's a bunch of white rappers out there using the N-Word.
We knew what you meant. There's no reason to hide it.
Though, if you can find me some famous white rappers who make it a part of the music and don't get called out on it, then you might actually have a point.
I really want to feel that magic I felt when I played your first walking dead season telltale plz end it the same way AND PLEASE LET THIS FINAL SEASON HAVE ONLY ONE ENDING.
You know that part of your brain that says "Lets hold on a second, and think about whether or not this is a smart thing to say in front of people. And if it isn't, maybe not say it. Because it isn't. Seriously, just shut up and don't say this"?
That part of Pewbs' brain apparently malfunctioned a while ago lol
I just woke up to see this. I am extremely happy to see some news on the Final Season. I have a feeling that this Final Season will be amazing! Thank you for sharing this with us and thank you everyone who also gave us information from the Livestream. Now the big question is......Where can I watch it and Am I able to watch it? Is there a website?
Yeah i guess some of these characters more than others in my opinion should have lasted longer:
Id say Ben was one of the worst characters to kill off in season 1 because while he did have some great scenes if you saved him for episode 5
he never really gets to Prove to the others that he can do something that he can indeed help out which makes me feel like his character arc was incomplete due to the fact he had a determinant status.
When I look back in retrospect I wish the season 1 cast was never killed off. I know they weren't planning for anymore installments at the t… moreime but the characters were way more interesting than anyone else in the other seasons. I think Clem, Lee, Kenny, Ben, Omid, Christa, Carley/Doug, Katjaa, and Duck should've all especially lasted on. I feel like every season has been about introducing characters and killing them off immediately and we don't have much time with them anymore like we did in the first season. Most of the main characters were fleshed out before they died but I feel they still could've lasted longer.
I guess now that the final season is looming I'm just really bummed and disappointed at how it all turned out. I think they tried to turn Clementine into a solo badass way too young and now they struggle trying to find out what story to tell with her. Had Lee and the others been around another season or two I think it'd be more … [view original content]
"A lot of the themes, ideas** and maybe even characters that were explored in the first season are kinda still on the table to bookend as a … morefinal season"
"A lot of the themes and ideas that were explored in the first season bookend as a final season"
Yep were finding a fuckin boat in season 4
He is the bad guy for using DMCA as a means to punish/shame. That's not the basis the law was built on. It was meant to work as a shield for companies who have their products stolen from them/missused in some way or form, never as a sword. This was targeting of someone they didn't particularly like, over something that didn't even occur during the handling of their company's product, it was not them defending their product. (After all, it's no doubt Pewdiepie actually uplifted Firewatch, you know, doing a great deal of the advertising for them with his playthroughs. Their sales would most likely have been considerably lower had his playthrough not existed).
It shows just how easy companies are able to legally take down content from youtubers and streamers alike. Imagine Telltale decides to take down a youtuber's whole set of Telltale Games playthroughs because they've pissed them off by saying, in another completely unrelated video, that Clem is a bad character. For example. Now imagine if the Telltale videos made a big part of that youtuber's ad revenue. Boom, career ruined, monetarily weakened, if not destroyed. By accepting what Vanaman did, you would also have to find this acceptable and just. Which it's most certainly not.
Wait, people actually think he's the bad guy because he didn't want a guy who posts anti-Semite joke videos and calls people n*****s during live streams advertising his games? Lol wtf
"A lot of the themes, ideas** and maybe even characters that were explored in the first season are kinda still on the table to bookend as a … morefinal season"
"A lot of the themes and ideas that were explored in the first season bookend as a final season"
Yep were finding a fuckin boat in season 4
Acceptable has nothing to do with it, legality does. It's no secret that you're simply purchasing a license to play the game when you purchase it, the creators remain the owner of the property. But yes, legally, I find it very acceptable. People are broadcasting the property of the studios that made these games, their work. And some of these guys are making a living off of it. Off of showcasing other peoples work. The studio is in their legal rights to file a claim, but most don't, as it is good exposure.
They could argue that they don't want their IP associated with this racist, they could argue that he's got a stupid face, they could not put forth an argument at all, and the studio would still win. If they don't want someone broadcasting their work, someone who has no legal ownership over it, they're going to win that argument every time. Pewbs being a piece of shit is really just a side note in all of this, regardless of whether or not it influenced the decision.
He is the bad guy for using DMCA as a means to punish/shame. That's not the basis the law was built on. It was meant to work as a shield for… more companies who have their products stolen from them/missused in some way or form, never as a sword. This was targeting of someone they didn't particularly like, over something that didn't even occur during the handling of their company's product, it was not them defending their product. (After all, it's no doubt Pewdiepie actually uplifted Firewatch, you know, doing a great deal of the advertising for them with his playthroughs. Their sales would most likely have been considerably lower had his playthrough not existed).
It shows just how easy companies are able to legally take down content from youtubers and streamers alike. Imagine Telltale decides to take down a youtuber's whole set of Telltale Games playthroughs because they've pissed them off by saying, in another completely unrelated video, that C… [view original content]
Acceptable has everything to do with what you asked. I thought we were talking about why the audience thinks Vanaman is the "bad guy"?
I don't remember denying what Vanaman did was legal ("It shows just how easy companies are able to legally take down content from youtubers and streamers alike."). I said it's something that's being misused, as DMCA's original purpose was not to persecute individuals, but to defend copyright infractions, something Pewdiepie definitely did not infringe as his video was under fair use.
So, to answer what I thought was your original question: Vanaman had the legal liberty to do this, absolutely, no question there. Not that it saves him from the audience's response, which is that Vanaman is a moron, misusing his right to takedown lets plays.
Acceptable has nothing to do with it, legality does. It's no secret that you're simply purchasing a license to play the game when you purcha… morese it, the creators remain the owner of the property. But yes, legally, I find it very acceptable. People are broadcasting the property of the studios that made these games, their work. And some of these guys are making a living off of it. Off of showcasing other peoples work. The studio is in their legal rights to file a claim, but most don't, as it is good exposure.
They could argue that they don't want their IP associated with this racist, they could argue that he's got a stupid face, they could not put forth an argument at all, and the studio would still win. If they don't want someone broadcasting their work, someone who has no legal ownership over it, they're going to win that argument every time. Pewbs being a piece of shit is really just a side note in all of this, regardless of whether or not it influenced the decision.
Multiple endings isn’t a good idea for the Final Season, tbh. I think the last season should have one ending but have a different outcome. Like in S1 you had the option of either shooting Lee or leaving him. I want something like that.
Except he's not. It isn't unprecedented for a youtuber profiting off of another party's creation to be hit with a DMCA. I understand what you're trying to say, but it's not a misuse if the entire system revolves around a studios action or inaction to pursue a takedown. At the end of the day, they all have the right to do so because no third party publishing a let's play has any protection unless it's sponsored by the people who own the property. It's was very well within Vanamans rights to contest the independent publication of anyone who seeks to do this, inaction against people who do so while also managing not to publicly out themselves as intolerant trash is irrelevant when such things are handled on a case by case basis. The law gives studios the power to contest what they feel may be harmful to them through these means, but only through them. These things are at a selective decision by the owners, as they're the ones who determine what's deemed harmful or beneficial to their private business. Had he been sponsored by them, this would be a different story. But his own stupid actions led to the company forcefully distancing themselves from him. Had he gotten expressed approval in the first place, this would be a non issue. Looking forward, it may be an avenue he wishes to pursue. People with a lot more mainstream appeal have had sponsors walk out on them for much less than what he did, so I'm not sure how much good it would do right now.
Acceptable has everything to do with what you asked. I thought we were talking about why the audience thinks Vanaman is the "bad guy"?
I … moredon't remember denying what Vanaman did was legal ("It shows just how easy companies are able to legally take down content from youtubers and streamers alike."). I said it's something that's being misused, as DMCA's original purpose was not to persecute individuals, but to defend copyright infractions, something Pewdiepie definitely did not infringe as his video was under fair use.
So, to answer what I thought was your original question: Vanaman had the legal liberty to do this, absolutely, no question there. Not that it saves him from the audience's response, which is that Vanaman is a moron, misusing his right to takedown lets plays.
They did it 2 hours ago. Was gonna make a thread for it but you beat me to it.
The highlights:
* "The hardest thing about there bein… moreg a final season is everyone yelling at us saying "Does that mean Clementine is gonna die?"...that's not neccesarily the case
* Robert Kirkman and other Skybound people were in the writing room for the final season 'hammering out the details'
* Clementine will be playable every episode
* "We can't say who just yet but... some of the talent who worked on S1 will be coming back to work on S4
* "A lot of the themes, ideas and maybe even characters that were explored in the first season are kinda still on the table to bookend as a final season"
* "We encourage you to play Season 2 and 3, even if you haven't you're gonna come into the fourth and final season to get something that is, we think, tonally gonna bookend our series nicely"
* Melissa will be coming back to VO Clem but "I can't say any other act… [view original content]
I just woke up to see this. I am extremely happy to see some news on the Final Season. I have a feeling that this Final Season will be amazi… moreng! Thank you for sharing this with us and thank you everyone who also gave us information from the Livestream. Now the big question is......Where can I watch it and Am I able to watch it? Is there a website?
Honestly, I prefer multiple endings. Sure, if they are done well, a single ending can be good - amazing even - but I think the strength of the video game format is the idea of a more unique experience. Honestly, Season 2 had great endings. Clementine's story could have ended there easily, and it would have been great.
Lee's ending certainly gave the feels, but it was pretty cool to see Clementine having different endings worked great. It made me feel like my Clementine was different from others (even my other playthroughs) which I think is a good thing and a strength of the format.
I'm sorry, but I still just don't see them not killing her off.
If they do I won't be much upset if it's done right. Meaning not a mirror of Lee's fate but equally as impactful like his fate. Could also highly likely be pointlessly determinate so some can have a chance for an alive or dead Clem like at the end of season 2 with Kenny.
I don't really understand the denial, rage and anxiety surrounding Clementine's possible death. It creates a sense of realism to these games.
"The hardest thing about there being a final season is everyone yelling at us saying "Does that mean Clementine is gonna die?"...that's not … moreneccesarily the case
But probably a good bet. I'm sorry, but I still just don't see them not killing her off. I'll be happy if they don't, but this is Telltale we're talking about here.
Robert Kirkman and other Skybound people were in the writing room for the final season 'hammering out the details'
This is very interesting, both in a good and bad way. We did have Jesus in ANF and the events of the game are pretty much caught up to the comic storyline. This could just be to prevent some continuity issues, but it may also mean that we could see even more tie ins between the game and comics, quite possibly some comic characters making appearances. Again, this could be good or bad, depending on how Telltale uses them, I don't think we want another Ramsey Snow situation.
Clementine… [view original content]
"The hardest thing about there being a final season is everyone yelling at us saying "Does that mean Clementine is gonna die?"...that's not … moreneccesarily the case
But probably a good bet. I'm sorry, but I still just don't see them not killing her off. I'll be happy if they don't, but this is Telltale we're talking about here.
Robert Kirkman and other Skybound people were in the writing room for the final season 'hammering out the details'
This is very interesting, both in a good and bad way. We did have Jesus in ANF and the events of the game are pretty much caught up to the comic storyline. This could just be to prevent some continuity issues, but it may also mean that we could see even more tie ins between the game and comics, quite possibly some comic characters making appearances. Again, this could be good or bad, depending on how Telltale uses them, I don't think we want another Ramsey Snow situation.
Clementine… [view original content]
The problem with season 2’s endings is I wish they could have made a choice that factored in you previous decisions. Kinda like how ANF left you with different ending AND different relationships.(Btw I’m not defending ANF I think from the gallows is the worst TWD episode I just liked how they did their final choice)
Honestly, I prefer multiple endings. Sure, if they are done well, a single ending can be good - amazing even - but I think the strength of t… morehe video game format is the idea of a more unique experience. Honestly, Season 2 had great endings. Clementine's story could have ended there easily, and it would have been great.
Lee's ending certainly gave the feels, but it was pretty cool to see Clementine having different endings worked great. It made me feel like my Clementine was different from others (even my other playthroughs) which I think is a good thing and a strength of the format.
Did Lee really sacrifice himself for Clem like Kenny kind of tried doing for Ben and Christa or was it more along the lines of BECAUSE of Clem leaving she had inadvertantly ended up causing Lee's death? There were indirect contributions from Clementine and the Stranger that caused Lee to ultimately get bitten.
But probably a good bet. I'm sorry, but I still just don't see them not killing her off. I'll be happy if they don't, but this is Telltale w… moree're talking about here.
Yeah. The bookend comment worries me. I'm less concerned with Clem dying (though I would like her to live) and more with copy and paste of Season 1's sacrifice. AJ, being an infant, simply can't have the character depth that 9 year-old Clem did. Her sacrifice would simply feel a lot emptier than Lee's. It's not going feel nearly the same and just wind up being a sad copy if they go that route. I could be wrong. It could be amazing. Regardless Clem's status and how it happens, I want the ending to be amazing.
But I just see Clem sacrificing herself for AJ coming off as "Hey, remember the feels from Season 1. Feel them again because it's the same. Ignore the vastly different context." Largely because it's largely impossible for most people to care about a character with n… [view original content]
They've said this for each season
They said it for S2, they said it for S3, now they're saying it again for S4
I guess all we can hope for is that this is more of the S2-type of 'newcomer friendly'
Yeah it does the same for me. However a YouTuber called DomTheBomb did a video discussing what Job said during the interview. If you like I could give you a link to his video?
Hopefully they stick with their original idea and not changing the story so many times like in ANF.
And I thought I was the only one thinking this. TTG seems to have awesome ideas out the gate but then changes their minds to the point where the story gets messy. Sure some changes proved better like changes in TWAU and TFTBL, but TWD seems to have suffered from changes in ideas. It seems like the big meet Job mentioned means they have established the overall story's arc. Please, don't change TTG. Trust your ideas.
Robert Kirkman and other Skybound people were in the writing room for the final season 'hammering out the details'
I wonder if this … moremeans The Final Season will have more tie ins with the comic...or its possible it might end with Clem arriving at a community in the comics.
A lot of the themes, ideas and maybe even characters that were explored in the first season are kinda still on the table to bookend as a final season"
That means either Christa or Lily will be making their return. Maybe even Molly but I doubt it. As for themes, I hope they Make a inner group conflict again similar to the Motor Inn Group.
Will probably come out probably around Spring/Summer, maybe around April/May (could shift, but aim is Q2)
I’d hope around May since it’s my birthday month. Wouldn’t mind for a June or July release.
They had a big meeting recently - Job says they seem to have a plan for how the story will start and en… [view original content]
I don't think the Season 1 callback will necessarily be about characters than, like he stated, themes and ideas. Themes of regret and second chances, family (the needs of the few) vs. the group (the needs of the many), trusting strangers, etc; I think this is more what TTG is looking at. Having the series come full circle with Clem experiencing the same situations and decisions she and/or Lee faces in Season 1 from a new perspective can be interesting. Some fans have also been asking for some of the horror from Season1 to return, which I don't mind as long as it's there for character development.
"The hardest thing about there being a final season is everyone yelling at us saying "Does that mean Clementine is gonna die?"...that's not … moreneccesarily the case
But probably a good bet. I'm sorry, but I still just don't see them not killing her off. I'll be happy if they don't, but this is Telltale we're talking about here.
Robert Kirkman and other Skybound people were in the writing room for the final season 'hammering out the details'
This is very interesting, both in a good and bad way. We did have Jesus in ANF and the events of the game are pretty much caught up to the comic storyline. This could just be to prevent some continuity issues, but it may also mean that we could see even more tie ins between the game and comics, quite possibly some comic characters making appearances. Again, this could be good or bad, depending on how Telltale uses them, I don't think we want another Ramsey Snow situation.
Clementine… [view original content]
I don't think it's time for her to die. There is no real legacy left behind if she dies. AJ is too young to carry the mantle. Clem has no family or community to impact by dying. Everyone who has died or sacrificed for Clem will have their deaths be for nothing. I can see her death being impactful and meaningful after a few years of being an asset to a community like Richmond or when AJ is Clem's age in Season 1. For a main character, her death as of now for the last season would seem a little pointless and predictable. I don't want TTG to give Clem the Sam (Michonne series) treatment with a death that has no weight.
I'm sorry, but I still just don't see them not killing her off.
If they do I won't be much upset if it's done right. Meaning not a m… moreirror of Lee's fate but equally as impactful like his fate. Could also highly likely be pointlessly determinate so some can have a chance for an alive or dead Clem like at the end of season 2 with Kenny.
I don't really understand the denial, rage and anxiety surrounding Clementine's possible death. It creates a sense of realism to these games.
Comments
Literally a quick google search could answer all your questions. Google is your friend.
...This really happened.
Yep were finding a fuckin boat in season 4
It’s bad news for you Kenny, there isn’t enough space for you.
Yeah. The bookend comment worries me. I'm less concerned with Clem dying (though I would like her to live) and more with copy and paste of Season 1's sacrifice. AJ, being an infant, simply can't have the character depth that 9 year-old Clem did. Her sacrifice would simply feel a lot emptier than Lee's. It's not going feel nearly the same and just wind up being a sad copy if they go that route. I could be wrong. It could be amazing. Regardless Clem's status and how it happens, I want the ending to be amazing.
But I just see Clem sacrificing herself for AJ coming off as "Hey, remember the feels from Season 1. Feel them again because it's the same. Ignore the vastly different context." Largely because it's largely impossible for most people to care about a character with no real depth or characterization than one who has been well-developed(ish) for 4 games. It's not AJ's fault that he's an infant. But that doesn't change how people are going to view the story.
EDIT: If you want to see people's attitudes, just look at the ANF choices regarding Clem. They are vastly pro-Clem even when they shouldn't necessarily be. If it's a choice between, Clem and AJ, I expect to see a lot of dead AJ's because their fictional characters and Clem's the one we're attached to.
I wonder if Telltale figured out how they'd bring back Kenny & Jane if you chose to leave alone. Wellington as well, I know there's that option not to go at all.
Far less ignorant than saying it was white's "long dead ancestors" when there's a lot of people still alive from the time when it lynchings were common in the South.
Far less ignorant than trying to imply racism doesn't exist anymore by shoving it off on "long dead ancestors."
My point. Just because someone is a racist doesn't mean they are pro-childhood cancer. Someone can be caring in one aspect and terrible in another. I never claimed PewDiePie was a 2 dimensional caricature. Just that he's a racist.
OK. Chris Brown is a bigger asshole. I should have stated that in my previous post. That doesn't mean PewDiePie's behavior is no less racist.
There's a difference between raised and donated. Raising means you convinced other people to donate money. So, you're not giving fair comparisons. PewDiePie did not donate a 20% of his fortune.
Also, I'm calling bullshit on your numbers for Chris Brown. Here's an article about he donated $100,000 to Hurricane Harvey victims alone:
https://www.digitalmusicnews.com/2017/08/29/chris-brown-hurricane-harvey-relief/
That is of course, not counting the charity he started, Symphonic Love, and all the others ones he has donated to.
Don't get me wrong. It doesn't matter how much he donates, he's still a piece of shit. He's a bigger asshole than PewDiePie even if he donates more money in dollar amount and percentage.
That's my point. Donating money doesn't wipe out the shitty things you do.
That's not how debates work. If you make a claim, YOU have to back it up. YOU need to be the one who finds the big list of rappers who don't donate. Or that not donating to charities is symptomatic of rap culture like your post implied.
Also, your argument seems rather absurd. He gives money to charity, so it's cool when he does racist things. How much money must one give to be get the "Not-Racist-Because-I'm-Rich-And-Give-Some-Away" card?
No. When you're making a video that you expect to make money off of, it's not the "privacy" of your own home. Were the cameras off and he not filming, then yeah, you could say that. But that's not the case. He was at work and very much in the public eye.
Second, there's problematic aspect that it indicates that word is a part of his regular vocabulary. I never say it when I'm pissed off. I say a lot of swear words, but never that. Is it because I am some magnificent enlighten being? No. I just don't use that word. Apparently, PewDiePie does. And if it was just this one incident, we could just go, well, that was bad, stop it. But he had already lost a contract with Disney for a history of anti-Semetic "jokes." It's a pattern.
Intent only matters to an extent. You know, if it was the one incident, I might even be on your side.
Actually, fuck that. Intent doesn't matter here. That word has one definition in the context he used it. Sure, it can be used as a term of endearment (and much of the time, it's a different, albeit very similar word), but he wasn't. Hell, if he was, I would be say he's a fucking idiot, not a racist. But he used it in anger. That has a specific definition. It is a racial slur. Just because he directed at a video game means it was less of a racial slur. Nor does racial slurs only allow the target to be offended. By their very nature, racial slurs put down a whole race of people.
Well rounded how? That it's cool for white people to start using racial slurs as long as it's not in person?
Oh. What if you're playing a phone game and yell it out when a black person happens to walk by you? Are you being racist even though you directed at a game? Do they have the right to be offended?
Or that once you donate enough money to kids with cancer that you can use racial slurs?
I work at a retail store that collects for St. Jude's. How much does someone need to give before they can start using racial slurs? Do I give them a card or something? Is there a limit? Or is a lifetime "Not Racist" card once someone gives enough? Is it a straight dollar amount or a percentage of their income?
This is one of the biggest bullshits you have said (and considering the amount you have thrown out there, that's saying something). Words matter. If they didn't, why would you give a crap that people call him out on it. No one shot him. No one is suggesting violence against him. That was your standard for him. "he said a word, he didnt shoot anybody." So, why are you defending a guy you say you don't like if words don't matter?
Which ones? Seriously. Who? Iggy Azaela received shit for singing in a "black voice." Somehow, I doubt there's a bunch of white rappers out there using the N-Word.
We knew what you meant. There's no reason to hide it.
Though, if you can find me some famous white rappers who make it a part of the music and don't get called out on it, then you might actually have a point.
Season 1 technically had 2 endings but nothing changed much so I don’t think one ending is the best idea
You know that part of your brain that says "Lets hold on a second, and think about whether or not this is a smart thing to say in front of people. And if it isn't, maybe not say it. Because it isn't. Seriously, just shut up and don't say this"?
That part of Pewbs' brain apparently malfunctioned a while ago lol
I just woke up to see this. I am extremely happy to see some news on the Final Season. I have a feeling that this Final Season will be amazing! Thank you for sharing this with us and thank you everyone who also gave us information from the Livestream. Now the big question is......Where can I watch it and Am I able to watch it? Is there a website?
Yeah i guess some of these characters more than others in my opinion should have lasted longer:
Id say Ben was one of the worst characters to kill off in season 1 because while he did have some great scenes if you saved him for episode 5
he never really gets to Prove to the others that he can do something that he can indeed help out which makes me feel like his character arc was incomplete due to the fact he had a determinant status.
And then Kenny s just randomly there missing an Arm and a beard 3x the size of the season 2 beard Saying: ´´I got lucky real lucky.´´
He is the bad guy for using DMCA as a means to punish/shame. That's not the basis the law was built on. It was meant to work as a shield for companies who have their products stolen from them/missused in some way or form, never as a sword. This was targeting of someone they didn't particularly like, over something that didn't even occur during the handling of their company's product, it was not them defending their product. (After all, it's no doubt Pewdiepie actually uplifted Firewatch, you know, doing a great deal of the advertising for them with his playthroughs. Their sales would most likely have been considerably lower had his playthrough not existed).
It shows just how easy companies are able to legally take down content from youtubers and streamers alike. Imagine Telltale decides to take down a youtuber's whole set of Telltale Games playthroughs because they've pissed them off by saying, in another completely unrelated video, that Clem is a bad character. For example. Now imagine if the Telltale videos made a big part of that youtuber's ad revenue. Boom, career ruined, monetarily weakened, if not destroyed. By accepting what Vanaman did, you would also have to find this acceptable and just. Which it's most certainly not.
Acceptable has nothing to do with it, legality does. It's no secret that you're simply purchasing a license to play the game when you purchase it, the creators remain the owner of the property. But yes, legally, I find it very acceptable. People are broadcasting the property of the studios that made these games, their work. And some of these guys are making a living off of it. Off of showcasing other peoples work. The studio is in their legal rights to file a claim, but most don't, as it is good exposure.
They could argue that they don't want their IP associated with this racist, they could argue that he's got a stupid face, they could not put forth an argument at all, and the studio would still win. If they don't want someone broadcasting their work, someone who has no legal ownership over it, they're going to win that argument every time. Pewbs being a piece of shit is really just a side note in all of this, regardless of whether or not it influenced the decision.
Gasp!
Acceptable has everything to do with what you asked. I thought we were talking about why the audience thinks Vanaman is the "bad guy"?
I don't remember denying what Vanaman did was legal ("It shows just how easy companies are able to legally take down content from youtubers and streamers alike."). I said it's something that's being misused, as DMCA's original purpose was not to persecute individuals, but to defend copyright infractions, something Pewdiepie definitely did not infringe as his video was under fair use.
So, to answer what I thought was your original question: Vanaman had the legal liberty to do this, absolutely, no question there. Not that it saves him from the audience's response, which is that Vanaman is a moron, misusing his right to takedown lets plays.
Well you're right but I don't think multiple endings for the final season is a good idea but if it was to be like season one I'm fine with that
Multiple endings isn’t a good idea for the Final Season, tbh. I think the last season should have one ending but have a different outcome. Like in S1 you had the option of either shooting Lee or leaving him. I want something like that.
Something I can't put my finger on feels fishy, but I'm hopeful nonetheless.
Except he's not. It isn't unprecedented for a youtuber profiting off of another party's creation to be hit with a DMCA. I understand what you're trying to say, but it's not a misuse if the entire system revolves around a studios action or inaction to pursue a takedown. At the end of the day, they all have the right to do so because no third party publishing a let's play has any protection unless it's sponsored by the people who own the property. It's was very well within Vanamans rights to contest the independent publication of anyone who seeks to do this, inaction against people who do so while also managing not to publicly out themselves as intolerant trash is irrelevant when such things are handled on a case by case basis. The law gives studios the power to contest what they feel may be harmful to them through these means, but only through them. These things are at a selective decision by the owners, as they're the ones who determine what's deemed harmful or beneficial to their private business. Had he been sponsored by them, this would be a different story. But his own stupid actions led to the company forcefully distancing themselves from him. Had he gotten expressed approval in the first place, this would be a non issue. Looking forward, it may be an avenue he wishes to pursue. People with a lot more mainstream appeal have had sponsors walk out on them for much less than what he did, so I'm not sure how much good it would do right now.
Now I'm really getting my hopes up for Lilly and Christa returning
Fishy you say?
I'm trying to watch too! But the link just buffers for me. They probably removed it ._.
Honestly, I prefer multiple endings. Sure, if they are done well, a single ending can be good - amazing even - but I think the strength of the video game format is the idea of a more unique experience. Honestly, Season 2 had great endings. Clementine's story could have ended there easily, and it would have been great.
Lee's ending certainly gave the feels, but it was pretty cool to see Clementine having different endings worked great. It made me feel like my Clementine was different from others (even my other playthroughs) which I think is a good thing and a strength of the format.
If they do I won't be much upset if it's done right. Meaning not a mirror of Lee's fate but equally as impactful like his fate. Could also highly likely be pointlessly determinate so some can have a chance for an alive or dead Clem like at the end of season 2 with Kenny.
I don't really understand the denial, rage and anxiety surrounding Clementine's possible death. It creates a sense of realism to these games.
Clementine is not going to die
He's gonna fit just fine, considering he's now missing most of his body parts.
The problem with season 2’s endings is I wish they could have made a choice that factored in you previous decisions. Kinda like how ANF left you with different ending AND different relationships.(Btw I’m not defending ANF I think from the gallows is the worst TWD episode I just liked how they did their final choice)
He'd still find a way to operate the boat without a limb or two.
It's Kenny we're talking about, he would sail a boat with his beard if he had to.
davy jones' theme starts playing
Did Lee really sacrifice himself for Clem like Kenny kind of tried doing for Ben and Christa or was it more along the lines of BECAUSE of Clem leaving she had inadvertantly ended up causing Lee's death? There were indirect contributions from Clementine and the Stranger that caused Lee to ultimately get bitten.
They've said this for each season
They said it for S2, they said it for S3, now they're saying it again for S4
I guess all we can hope for is that this is more of the S2-type of 'newcomer friendly'
DeltinNO spoiler alert. This is gonna be good, SOMEBODY COVER THE FUCKING GATES OH GOD
Yeah it does the same for me. However a YouTuber called DomTheBomb did a video discussing what Job said during the interview. If you like I could give you a link to his video?
And I thought I was the only one thinking this. TTG seems to have awesome ideas out the gate but then changes their minds to the point where the story gets messy. Sure some changes proved better like changes in TWAU and TFTBL, but TWD seems to have suffered from changes in ideas. It seems like the big meet Job mentioned means they have established the overall story's arc. Please, don't change TTG. Trust your ideas.
I don't think the Season 1 callback will necessarily be about characters than, like he stated, themes and ideas. Themes of regret and second chances, family (the needs of the few) vs. the group (the needs of the many), trusting strangers, etc; I think this is more what TTG is looking at. Having the series come full circle with Clem experiencing the same situations and decisions she and/or Lee faces in Season 1 from a new perspective can be interesting. Some fans have also been asking for some of the horror from Season1 to return, which I don't mind as long as it's there for character development.
I don't think it's time for her to die. There is no real legacy left behind if she dies. AJ is too young to carry the mantle. Clem has no family or community to impact by dying. Everyone who has died or sacrificed for Clem will have their deaths be for nothing. I can see her death being impactful and meaningful after a few years of being an asset to a community like Richmond or when AJ is Clem's age in Season 1. For a main character, her death as of now for the last season would seem a little pointless and predictable. I don't want TTG to give Clem the Sam (Michonne series) treatment with a death that has no weight.