I’m impressed by pretty much everything I see from Offerman, and his role in TLOU was fantastic. It had real impact, and didn’t feel at all like the lazy tokenistic drivel that’s become Disney’s standard fare.
I’ll tell you why:
Because it, kind of like Brokeback Mountain all those years earlier, appreciates that homosexuality and the gay community are not one in the same. While the gay community is extremely important and should never be downplayed, media always tends depict gay people as connected to it or at the very least evoking many of the same aspects and tropes.
This isn’t an unfair thing to depict, far from it, but it has the unfortunate result of making many gay characters feels rather same-y, occasionally even one note.
Offerman’s character depicts a very accurate thing that doesn’t get as much attention in media: the straight acting man discovering his sexuality late in life. With the exception of his piano playing and his penchant for wine and setting the table for elaborate dinners, his character has none of the telltale “gay” aspects you typically find in media, nor does he develop them. In fact his character aspects (survivalist, paranoid, shut in, loner, even a hint conservative) are generally not associated with gay characters, out of fear of depicting them in a poor light.
That’s not at all to suggest other depictions of gay men are wrong or bad, Bartlett’s character is very well done too. The characters of Bill just feels more notable and fresher in our current media landscape because we see it far less often.
piano playing
Fellas, is it gay to play an instrument?
I know that’s not what you’re saying I just thought it was a funny way to phrase it
homosexuality and the gay community are not one in the same
I think a lot of people don’t understand that being GSRM does not automatically make you part of the LGBT community.
I think this is a good take, but my criticism of Disney is more in line with my perception of their business model - art by focus group.
They know that if they combine these 3 IP’s with these 3 diversity checkboxes, the movie will return x, meaning they have a budget of y to deliver a given ROI. Much like their endless parade of remakes, it’s cynical commercislism that has no interest in storytelling artistic value, or representation - and it shows.
To your point, TLOU separated the relationship from the community, and while the community representation is important, this type of representation is critical to normalising homosexual relationships - “oh - they’re in a regular loving relationship just like me - it’s not all disco music and flapping about in sparkly clothes, making catty comments.” kinda deal.
Offerman is becoming more and more a chad in my eyes and that love story was really really good and its coming from someone who really hates comedy and romance genre but gotta say it was really good.
Read his books, but only if you’re a lefty. I showed my boomer parents and they hated it.
I’ve listened to Paddle Your Own Canoe on audiobook (he narrates). Dunno about the rest, but I’d agree based on that one. He makes it clear pretty quickly that Ron Swanson was just a character and his views are different and more nuanced.
I know he’s liberal in real life, but the way he plays Ron in parks and rec is how I wish conservatives actually were in real life.
When did “a Chad” become a positive term? From my experince growing up it was a mid-west term for rich city kids, and then later on the internet it became a red piller/incel term for “Alpha male”.
Is this one of those “taking it back” and owning it things to take power away from red pillers & incels?
Nick Offerman:
I’ve enjoyed the hell out of his content. I loved it when Adam Savage This Old House did a shop tour with him. I’ve also listened to his Twain’s Feast audiobook and enjoyed the hell out of that. The historical journey through American regional cuisine was amazing. And how much we’ve actually lost is even more amazing.
I think it’s just more ironic than “taking it back”. I don’t think anyone worth respecting would call themselves “a Chad”.
So in context for this, a dude doubling down on his gay love story is certainly not what an incel would attribute to “a Chad”, but the rest of us could look at Nick Offerman and say “damn, I respect the hell out of that guy, what a Chad”.
When did “a Chad” become a positive term? From my experince growing up it was a mid-west term for rich city kids, and then later on the internet it became a red piller/incel term for “Alpha male”.
I don’t know how anyone could watch that episode and see anything other than an absolutely heart wrenching tale of love and how beautiful and sad and even stupid it can be. You don’t even have to be gay to identify with it, you just have to be human.
I dunno. I really like the episode, but Frank was super manipulative and it felt like Bill was being romance-conned.
I agree, and that complexity is part of why I loved the episode so much. It feels bittersweet, because I get the sense that if not for the whole world ending, Frank could’ve easily spent his whole life in the closet. It was cute to see him navigating a relationship with the same sweetness of a teenager with their first love, but that also comes with there being a pretty significant emotional maturity gap between Bill and Frank.
That by itself isn’t an issue (and because of varying degrees to which LGBTQ people feel safe to be out, varying levels of romantic or sexual experience is a fairly common theme I’ve seen within the community irl), but I also think there were some iffy vibes in the dynamic which went unchallenged, likely because neither of them wanted to disrupt a dynamic that they felt lucky to have.
It reminded me a lot of a lesbian friend of mine who stayed with her first girlfriend for way too long because they were the only two out lesbians in the tiny town. They were an awful fit for each other and they stayed together for years longer than they should’ve because they felt like there weren’t any other options (and indeed, there wasn’t really, not in that town).
So overall, Frank and Bill’s story was a beautiful and sweet story of love blooming in improbable circumstances, but it also had nuance from the subtle darker undertone to the relationship. For me, it highlighted that ultimately this was a tragic love story, and the tragedy was only partly caused by the zombie apocalypse.
As all good love story, it’s complex and withultiple facades, which made it even more realistic and well-written
I remember when it was coming out, and everyone on reddit was going gaga over how faithful to the story it was.
Then that episode came out and everyone loved it, so as someone who didn’t play the games, naturally I wondered if it was in the game, as that had been apparently of utmost importance to the fans.
But merely asking “was it in the game?” got an army of angry people calling me every name in the book.
I never even watched the show because I thought that was just so fucking stupid. Fans ruin every franchise.
People had a knee-jerk reaction to your question because there were lot of conservative snowflakes at the time complaining that they added “woke” politics to the show (a ridiculous idea, but I probably don’t need to tell you that).
Fans of the show were on edge and defensive, don’t let the “culture war” ruin your experience. I highly recommend watching the series.
And, to answer your question earnestly, in the game Bill and Frank’s relationship was only implied in a note that Frank left to Bill after killing himself. The show focused heavily on their relationship and took it in the opposite direction; a decision most fans loved, because it was done really well. In the game, Bill rejected Frank’s attempts to let other people into their life and drove him away, while in the show Bill slowly opened up and lived a long happy life with Frank despite the apocalypse.
And the best single episode love story ever.