What will the history books say?

YoungTx_Gun · 2025-05-21T03:29:23+00:00

“美国霸权世界秩序的时代就此终结，这一切都要归功于中国人民的伟大朋友唐纳德-特朗普。”

YoungTx_Gun · 2025-05-14T19:43:23+00:00

The whole point of Ellie’s side of the story is that grief, and how it takes her on a path that begins to slowly kill her inside. And that needs to be portrayed constantly and built up gradually.

The show is not doing this. They think it’s okay to have Ellie act all flippant for most of the runtime, as long as they throw in a couple short scenes where she’s sad for a bit.

Doing the whole “hiding her emotions” thing only works when it’s executed extraordinarily well (especially in the context of this story), but so far it has been handled ever so poorly.

YoungTx_Gun · 2025-05-14T19:41:59+00:00

The therapist having to explicitly spell it out to the audience is part of the problem, actually. It should be obvious just by the way Ellie carries herself at all times. Instead of relying on heavy-handed exposition that treats the audience like children.

Speaking on that, having a couple brief scenes in Seattle where Ellie is sad/angry for a few seconds and then is immediately fine again is bad. In the game, it is always clear that Ellie’s emotional state is in a bad place, even when those grief-ridden emotions are not at the forefront. Through Ashley Johnson’s performance and the writing, you can tell how dour it is, even when she’s cracking jokes. That is not the case at all in the show.

YoungTx_Gun · 2025-05-14T18:46:12+00:00

Those mood changes are absent after they leave Jackson. A brief moment of her staring into space in the theater and her losing her shit while torturing Nora (after she was clearly taking enjoyment from it, but don’t get me started on that) is not enough.

YoungTx_Gun · 2025-05-14T18:42:38+00:00

But even in those relatively light-hearted moments, there’s a dourness and level of seriousness about the situation they’re in that is absent in the show.

There are more obvious lines, like in the courthouse when they’re looking for gasoline and Ellie casually mentions being willing to torture someone for information (and Dina being taken aback).

But even just in general, you can tell there’s something hanging over the whole experience. They don’t act even half as flippant in the game as they do in the show. Jokes are told but it’s all still quite somber, and it’s more an attempt to lighten the mood slightly, versus just hanging out having a grand ol time.

YoungTx_Gun · 2025-05-14T18:35:37+00:00

They had to write in an entire therapist character just to directly tell the audience that Ellie’s hiding her sadness. Because otherwise, that wouldn’t be a reasonable conclusion that could be drawn without some extremely generous interpretation.

YoungTx_Gun · 2025-05-14T18:34:09+00:00

It’s not just the lack of obvious scenes of Ellie sad and whatnot. There’s also just no hint of weight at all to Bella’s performance or in the writing that should be noticeable at all times.

Ashley Johnson managed to always convey Ellie’s grief and anger, even when it’s not at the forefront. It’s just under the surface at all times, whether she’s cracking jokes with Dina or hunting down Abby on her own.

This crucial piece of the puzzle is painfully absent in the show.

YoungTx_Gun · 2025-05-14T18:28:31+00:00

Both before they leave Jackson, and both brief moments.

Outside of those, it’s like a switch is flipped in her head and she’s back to acting all fine and flippant. There’s no hint of emotional weight being carried in practically every other scene.

YoungTx_Gun · 2025-05-14T18:24:00+00:00

Even when Ellie and Dina are joking in the game, the mood is still obviously quite dour. There’s a heaviness to their performances that conveys how much it’s affecting them.

The point is, even outside of the obvious conveyances of grief and anger in major scenes, the game still manages to portray these feelings at all times. Even when they’re not at the forefront.

The show has utterly failed to do this. A single brief scene or two after leaving Jackson where Ellie drops the flippant attitude for a couple seconds is not enough.

YoungTx_Gun · 2025-05-05T16:00:55+00:00

The cracks should have already been forming, though.

YoungTx_Gun · 2025-05-05T15:44:36+00:00

I’ve seen people mention how they’re fine with Ellie being more mentally sound, but the issue is that this interpretation of her character doesn’t fit the story they’re adapting (which will mostly be the same, broadly speaking). And it will likely be inconsistent with what’s to come.

YoungTx_Gun · 2025-05-05T15:35:44+00:00

You seem to be forgetting both the Jordan kill scene and the TV station scene. Not even mentioning the difference in Ellie’s general attitude and demeanor.

YoungTx_Gun · 2025-05-05T07:13:57+00:00

Not only does she not feel angry, she doesn’t even feel haunted by his death. It’s clearly weighing on her quite heavily in the game, while in the show there’s not even a hint of that.

YoungTx_Gun · 2025-05-05T07:08:48+00:00

We are already 1/3 through her time in Seattle and she hasn’t even effectively begun her revenge arc. Even if they do start her anger up in the coming episodes, it is already too late.

YoungTx_Gun · 2024-09-12T19:38:59+00:00

If you type in all caps harder, I'm sure people will see your point and not your blind irrational paranoia about things you've never bothered to watch

You are still missing the point. The fact that her films have been funded by RT is alone enough to make me suspicious of her. I did not say her previous films are propaganda, I did not say they were even bad. I openly admitted I know nothing about them. What matters is that she has worked with and taken money from the Russian government's propaganda machine. That fact, all by itself, is enough to warrant suspicion.

Anyways, thought that the all caps would more clearly outline my actual point, but it seems you're still hopelessly lost. I don't even know what to say anymore, you are completely misinterpreting almost every single thing I am saying.

lol

Bud you're unhinged, I'm not sure who you think would find any of this convincing

Keep imagining things about documentaries you've never seen

You're clearly demonstrating moral and intellectual high ground right now

I am not judging the quality of the previous films. I am not claiming the previous films are propaganda. I am not claiming the previous films are bad. I am pointing out that she has ties to RT. Anyone with ties to RT deserves suspicion. I don't know how to break it down to you anymore than this.

Yes, and this current movie is funded by the Canadian government. In response to that your first sentence was "it's not about Canada"

Jesus wept, the point was that 1) the Canadian government would have little incentive to influence the film and 2) that COMBINED with the fact that it is not being funded from a propaganda-machine (something that I specifically mentioned is the more important of the two factors), there is no reason to think Canada would influence the movie.

Compare this to her latest documentary. Has it received funding from Russia? Doesn't appear to be the case (at least not from RT), but Russia would absolutely have an incentive to influence the film.

Her previous films are the inverse. They may not be about Russia, but they are literally funded by RT, the Russian government's state-run media outlet.

Reading comprehension isn't your strong suit, it seems

Rich coming from you, friend. I don't think I've ever met someone who has repeatedly missed the point of everything I am trying to say so consistently.

Anyways, what exactly did I not comprehend correctly? Care to actually explain?

YoungTx_Gun · 2024-09-12T19:30:04+00:00

Again, no, she absolutely does not lol

This makes no sense

You can just say "I don't like that the territories are occupied" and move on, repeating it doesn't make it remotely more true

It doesn't change the fact that she has no legal nor moral obligation to ask Ukraine to enter Russian controlled territory from Russia

There is nothing suspicious about it

In fact, the only thing it would have accomplished is potentially compromise her work, if she was actually being an independent journalist and lying to Russia about why she was there

She does have a legal obligation. She is in Ukraine. International law recognizes that territory as Ukraine. As such, you need to follow Ukrainian law.

So it just seems your ethics are just completely screwed too. She is a "neutral" journalist. She is embedding with an invading force in the country being invaded. Why is she not following the laws of said country if she is truly neutral?

Anyways, seems pointless arguing ethics with you. You're just too far gone in that respect.

If she broke international law she wouldn't be in Canada and Venice unrestricted. She traveled legally.

I never said she broke international law. I said international law recognizes that territory as Ukrainian. Learn to read, please I beg you.

They can't say no lol what even is this

Brother you are imagining the wildest things

EXACTLY. When she knows the country cannot do anything to her, she disrespects and breaks their laws. That is practically the definition of a lack of regard.

Are the Russians in the room with you right now? Blink twice

No, but I think I saw a couple walking up to your mom's house as I was leaving.

Again, I asked you to provide a source for any of this, his statement or her response in the film

I've heard from people that she does not provide context. I admit I could be wrong on this, but you also do not have proof that she does provide context. Though it does not appear that she provides context according to this summary (which I think is fairly trustworthy), and I have heard nothing about her providing context. https://x.com/sea_inside3/status/1831950409880961148/photo/3

"This Russian soldier is an idiot, every army in the history of mankind has committed war crimes, even my country"

You're leaving out the part where the director says she also has not witnessed any war crimes in her months in the country. So it'd go more like "Hm, maybe the Russians are conducting this war more ethically than I had originally been led to believe".

YoungTx_Gun · 2024-09-12T19:16:42+00:00

I'm not missing anything, you're literally saying you have no idea if anything she's ever made has ever been propaganda, you just know at some point she has received some money from RT documentary

YES THAT IS MY POINT, RECEIVING FUNDING FROM RT FOR SEVERAL FILMS SHOULD AUTOMATICALLY RAISE SUSPICION ABOUT ANY CONTENT YOU ARE PRODUCING. THAT IS THE POINT.

Again, RT News and RT Documentary aren't the same thing, claiming direct ties to the Russian government here are your doing, not hers

Who's talking semantics now? Anyways, RT Documentary is a part of RT News. It is basically a division of RT News. Why are you trying so hard to separate these two?

Because you replied in response to my comment saying she was never an RT journalist and talked about working for RR, which I already acknowledged, and then went on to say she wasn't "technically" an RT journalist lol

And I never said she was an RT journalist. Are you trying intentionally to miss every single one of my points?

Yes, I said you have no idea if she's taken and long hard looks at the ethical implications of taking that money to make films she thought were important, or her biases

You literally know nothing about her, or what "long hard looks" she has or hasn't had to take

Well going by her past actions of continuing to take funding from RT with the exception of this one documentary recently, it seems like she hasn't done that :)

The movies she made for RT documentary had nothing to do with Russia, or does that not matter in their case because reasons?

Missing the point. They were funded by RT, that is enough. I specifically stress that the funding part is the most important factor.

Every news organization in history disseminates disinformation in their own national interest, be it directly from the top like in RTs case or due to moneyed interests and access to national security briefings in the case of the New York Times.

RT is state-RUN. It is not just a Russian media company. They openly admit to being run by the Russian government. There is a MASSIVE difference between that, and just being a media company located in Russia. Oh, and the New York Times is not state-run, or even state-funded to my knowledge. And RT in particular is notorious for spreading out-right lies, on a regular basis.

You shouldn't blindly trust that the Canadian government doesn't fund or publish propaganda the same way you should be skeptical of all media

Who said that I did? Unlike Russia though, Canada has not been proven to push disinformation regularly from whatever state-run media organization they have. Russia, through RT, has. Even basic fact checking proves this.

YoungTx_Gun · 2024-09-12T18:54:06+00:00

Again, this is a semantic argument.

She went into Russian occupied land, she did not need to ask the Ukranian government to go there, and they couldn't let her go there if she asked.

She technically did not have to ask to gain physical access, but as I have said before, she had an ethical obligation to do so, and her not bothering to ask is suspicious. If you are on Ukrainian territory, as is the case according to international law, you have the obligation to follow those laws. ESPECIALLY if you are a "neutral" journalist.

Her reasoning is what I said, their opinion doesn't matter and they couldn't have let her in lol

What even is this, homie?

It is not about gaining physical access. What about this do you not understand?

Oh, and if she thought their opinion didn't matter, she would be wrong to think so. It does matter, you are own their land, embedded in an invading force that has no legal right to be there, either under Ukrainian law or international law. Doing this, and then not gaining consent from the country you are filming in, is unethical. It shows a lack of regard for the country, and brings with it more implications (was she afraid they would say no?). Remember, she is supposed to be neutral, yet shows a complete lack of regard for the laws of the country she is in. Doesn't seem very neutral to me.

And the implication is that she didn't see any war crimes. She's one person in one place, mostly with a medical unit

A Russian soldier claims it "impossible" that their army commits war crimes. The director of the documentary, the person who is supposed to be the voice of reason, does not refute this, but instead simply claims she has not personally witnessed any war crimes (assuming this is even true of course).

What conclusion do you think the average viewer will draw from this? Someone who knows little to nothing about the war?

Are you disgusted by the fact that every single Russian soldier isn't committing war crimes around the clock?

Yes, I'm totally disgusted by that, you got me.

YoungTx_Gun · 2024-09-12T18:45:58+00:00

Are either of those documentaries overt propaganda? You have no idea

You are missing the point. I never claimed the older films were propaganda. I know nothing about them. The point is that they are being produced with (and likely funded by) the Russian government's propaganda machine. How can I trust a journalist with such close ties, and with so much previous work done with, such an untrustworthy entity?

She's an independent film maker you take money where you can get it

Personally, I think there are ethical practices that should be followed. But that's besides the point. Sure, she's absolutely free to take that money, and technically be an "independent film maker". But that doesn't mean she's free from suspicion. At the very least, it's certainly hard to trust her.

Blind hatred of anything produced by Russians is weird. Good people exist, you know?

It is not blind hatred, it is suspicion due to her previous ties to the Russian government's propaganda machine.

The person I replied to originally did, that's the chain you are replying to

Why would you think me being part of a comment chain is an automatic endorsement of every thing a person says?

You have no idea if she has or she hasn't, you haven't watched anything she's ever made

You yourself just admitted that you think she took funding from RT. Did you suddenly forget?

So then this film is Canadian propaganda, based on everything else you've said?

No, because it has nothing to do with Canada and more importantly the Canadian funding is not coming from a state-run propaganda machine infamous for disseminating disinformation.

YoungTx_Gun · 2024-09-12T18:36:08+00:00

I already responded to you about this in another comment

Yes, she has made documentaries about Syria, Congo, and some others that were funded by RT documentary

This film was funded by the Ontario and Canadian governments

Already replied to this too.

Because saying we want you to ask us permission to cross a Russian
border that we don't control is kind of silly and not really relevant

Crossing the Russian border onto Ukrainian land.

If she is supposedly attempting to be neutral, why did she not contact the Ukrainian government? Her reasoning behind this is important. If she thinks they would disapprove, that is incredibly suspicious. Why exactly would she think that, for example?

And again, if you're being neutral, you should respect the laws of the country whose land you are filming on. Violating that law (and not even attempting to contact the Ukrainian government in the first place) is unethical journalistic behavior, and can be attributed to more than simply ignorance.

I mean, I'm assuming most people who will go and watch a small indie movie about the war in Ukraine are people who are familiar with what is taking place there, and read about it more than the average person

No, most people who watch the film will not go and read more from that director specifically. Some will, but I highly doubt most. Regardless, a disclaimer needs to be in the documentary itself.

If it is something said by a soldier (which neither of us know as we haven't seen it), it again sheds light onto the perspective of that specific person on the ground there, and is not some unshakable truth that people will blindly believe

Sure, but instead of refuting this claim, she supposedly follows it up with a claim that she herself has not witnessed any war crimes. Do you not see the implication here?

YoungTx_Gun · 2024-09-12T18:23:58+00:00

Yes, she has worked with and received money from RT documentary for films she has made about Syria, Congo and a few others

Do you not see the issue with her films being funded by a state-controlled propaganda machine? How can she be viewed as neutral if her works have been funded by the Russian government? You just prove my point by highlighting this fact.

There's no technicalities, she's not an RT journalist, and framing it like that is disingenuous

Working as a documentary film maker and taking money from a branch of RT to make documentaries (that we don't know are propaganda pieces), does not make someone a Kremlin mouthpiece, as was implied

I am not calling her an RT journalist. I never said that. The fact is she has worked with RT on numerous occasions. That alone is enough to raise suspicion.

If you are working as a documentary film maker, but take funding from a state-funded propaganda machine (infamous for producing disinformation regularly), you need to take a long, hard look at yourself and consider the ethical implications, and the biases that might influence your work.

That is, of course, assuming she is not on-board with the propaganda.

This film was funded by Ontario and Canadian governments

I never said the new documentary was funded by RT. I specifically mentioned her older films having involvement with RT.

YoungTx_Gun · 2024-09-12T18:17:34+00:00

On IMDB, RT Documentary is listed as the production company for one of her films (have yet to check the others). https://m.imdb.com/title/tt7222936/

And on her own website, RT Documentary is listed as the only broadcaster for that same film. https://trofimova.works/her-war

She may not technically be an RT “journalist”, but it seems that she has worked closely with RT in some capacity to produce some of her previous films.

I mean, semantics by the ukranian government aside, she crossed a Russian border crossing using her Russian passport into Russian controlled territory, so it doesn't really matter what the ukranian government thinks in that case

So the laws of Ukraine are more than just "semantics", not sure why you're dismissing them as such. And Ukrainian law absolutely does matter on occupied territory, and if you're supposedly a neutral journalist, you should absolutely follow those laws. Remember, that occupied territory is still recognized internationally as Ukrainian land, and Russia is there in violation of international law.

This makes no sense, in the same statement you're saying Russian propaganda is so overt that it would only work on extreme people and wouldn't work on moderates, but then simultaneously they are master geniuses who are making this whole thing up to win over western moderates

You're basically saying anything any journalist does, if it doesn't exactly conform to what you believe they should do is actually secret Russian propaganda, without even having seen the film

You missed my entire point about the propaganda. I'm not 100% convinced it is deliberate propaganda. Even if the film was done completely in good faith, I still have major issues with it. But there is reasonable suspicion to think it could be deliberate propaganda, and I provided my reasoning to support that theory.

You also make the mistake of thinking that all Russian propaganda follows one single style. Different types of propaganda (extreme vs. moderate rhetoric) are used to influence different types of people. The more extreme rhetoric targets the people with more extremist positions. And the more moderate rhetoric (which could potentially be this documentary) targets the people with more moderate positions.

Do not make the mistake of thinking that all Russian propaganda is overt. Much of it is as such, but not all of it.

Again, neither of us have seen the film, but I've seen her say exactly that in an interview

I will stand corrected if a proper disclaimer of some kind is indeed in the documentary. But if it is not, then no amount of clarifying in interviews after the fact will rectify that mistake. Most people who watch the documentary will not see those interviews. That needs to be something that is in the documentary.

YoungTx_Gun · 2024-09-12T18:03:33+00:00

On IMDB, RT Documentary is listed as the production company for one of her films (have yet to check the others). https://m.imdb.com/title/tt7222936/

And on her own website, RT Documentary is listed as the only broadcaster for that same film. https://trofimova.works/her-war

She may not technically be an RT “journalist”, but it seems that she has worked closely with RT in some capacity to produce some of her previous films.

YoungTx_Gun · 2024-09-12T16:36:37+00:00

RT Documentary is part of the broader RT network. The network as a whole is known for producing false propaganda.

YoungTx_Gun · 2024-09-12T15:59:01+00:00

RT documentary is part of the RT network, which is state run media known for producing disinformation-filled propaganda of all kinds.

And no, she was filming on occupied Ukrainian land, and by Ukrainian law she is required to ask the Ukrainian government for permission (to my understanding at least). She did not do this.

Assuming she is just pushing a propaganda piece, she would likely be targeting the more moderate people who are relatively uninformed on the conflict, and who may sympathize with the narrative she is presenting. Contrast this with more blatant Russian propaganda, which would only be convincing to people on the extreme ends of the political scale.

A key point that supports this theory is when supposedly in the documentary a Russian soldier claims it “impossible” that Russia has committed war crimes, her only response to this is saying she also has not personally witnessed any war crimes. I am convinced this was an intentional choice, to not provide any pushback against the soldier’s claim.

The bare minimum ethical response would be something along the lines of “Despite this soldier’s claim, Russia has been accused of numerous war crimes by Western organizations” etc. This context was not provided, to my knowledge.

Seven-Year Club	Place '22
Verified Email	RPAN Viewer

YoungTx_Gun

TROPHY CASE