Well the thing is there, too, it's largely a function of whose story it is right? It doesn't end up "all right" in the end, but it isn't the end either. But it is Cedric's end. It's only not crushing because of whose story it ultimately is.
-
-
Replying to @loudpenitent @muddlewait and
And like this is why TLOU2 *really* ticked some people (myself included, to a degree) off; its "lack of moral clarity" as the article proclaims it is *really* just refusing to assign a clear, absolute protagonist and antagonist. Giving the antagonist their own full arc & quest.
2 replies 1 retweet 7 likes -
Replying to @loudpenitent @muddlewait and
And that is saying something pretty fundamental about the falsehood of narrative, isn't it The game would be less "morally gray" if we cut Abby's half of the game You're saying you want me to withhold information so your moral decisions are easier to make
2 replies 1 retweet 16 likes -
Replying to @arthur_affect @loudpenitent and
(That's slightly unfair, since after all this is all fiction anyway Even so though It's a trite point but I think it's a true one -- if showing you a full biopic about this enemy soldier's life would make it unacceptable to kill him, then you need to quit the Army)
2 replies 1 retweet 16 likes -
Replying to @arthur_affect @loudpenitent and
Also why most anti-war films fail They try to be anti-war but pro-troop, and thus are open to being used as propaganda, because the enemy must be bad I can't remember an anti-war movie that actually humanises the enemy.
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @UnknownEnby @arthur_affect and
Depending on your definition of "the enemy" Letters From Iwo Jima did a decent job.
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @loudpenitent @arthur_affect and
That, I haven't seen! I mean, there's All Quiet, too. I mean, a movie with "our guys" as the heroes, who kill someone we know and care about. We have Private Ryan and the osttruppen, and one older one... was it Dirty Dozen, maybe? The "what does bitte mean, anyway" line.
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @UnknownEnby @arthur_affect and
I mean that's the trick, that's the thing that modern soldiers don't really do, the ultimate problem and challenge to the liberal mindset: In general soldiers are extremely ok with killing people who are going to kill them. And brutally gung ho about it. Otherwise they die.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @loudpenitent @UnknownEnby and
Like you don't really get this Empathy Crisis as much in successful soldiers as liberals want there to be. Sure plenty of gentle people have been war heroes. But they became war heroes because they protected the humans who they could protect from the ones who would destroy them.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @loudpenitent @UnknownEnby and
Have there been Tragic Wars Between Men Who Could Totally Have Been Friends? Absolutely. It's kind of a given of wars. But they AREN'T friends because they're trying to kill each other! So they each think "fuck 'em". They reject the universal empathy as a survival hazard.
3 replies 0 retweets 2 likes
"It's nothing personal, but on this trip I'd rather only be with officers who I've fought with side-by-side" "Bricks' fought by your side, technically" "Nooooo... no, face-to-face really isn't quite the same as side-by-side" - Thud!
-
-
Replying to @arthur_affect @UnknownEnby and
Haha, yes. "I killed the soldier who killed him. Weren't his fault. Weren't my fault either. We were soldiers." -Monstrous Regiment
0 replies 0 retweets 1 likeThanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.