Another fun fact. It is quite expensive to license some games to show in TV/Movies.
What is the logic or justification here? It would never have occurred to me that you have to license games if you are filming in an arcade. Do you have to get a license if you film someone playing on a PlayStation? Playing a board game? Playing with LEGO bricks? Making coffee with a Bialetti? Standing next to a car with trademarked design elements? Is there somewhere some legal clause like you can play with your Game Boy but you can not film it without explicit permission? Is it because in the case of games - or software in general - you are not truly buying it but only getting a license to use it? Do I need a license to film someone using a browser or Photoshop? I mean, I can see that you have to license the music in a film if you make deliberate artistic decision and it really contributes to the scene, but what about some random music playing on a radio in the background? What about the radio in the background of a documentary film?
“If in the first act you have hung a Mortal Kombat II poster on the wall, then in the following one it should be played. Otherwise don't put it there.” - Anton Chekhov
> Another fun fact. It is quite expensive to license some games to show in TV/Movies.
> We had some pinball machines and arcade games not make the cut because they were too expensive to license, or the IP owner wasn't licensing that particular game for that use at that particular time. We had a Ms Pac-Man that wouldnt clear because they were not allowing a license at that time.
> ...New titles from the 90s were all mostly too expensive to license or use
> ...Some licenses only allowed for showing the game in the deep background, or couldn't feature game play, but only attract modes (Street Fighter II for example).
"New titles from the 90s"
Can anyone on here explain why these IP owners would want to keep their product OUT of these shows? Why would they want to require an agreement/or-money for licensing out when it is free advertising for some old ass IP that could get second life?
> Why would they want to require an agreement/or-money for licensing out when it is free advertising for some old ass IP that could get second life?
It's because it is "old ass" and has low value - the corporation gets forever monopoly on the IP basically for free. To work out the licensing deal, some appratchik needs to talk to legal and several people need to be dragged into meetings and write reports and write marketing papers and contracts and all the other ceremonies that go with DoingThings(tm) at a corporation.
And if noone gets promoted or mentioned in the next performance meeting, it ain't happening. It's not like there's any downside for them to keep the IP locked down and inaccessible forever.
For some of the cases, it's just not worth the time and effort, even for that "old ass IP". If HBO/Warner/Discovery shows up asking to use your title and it takes a lawyer 20-40 hours to iron it out at $200/hr, what's the return? Is someone really going to buy a copy of Ms Pac because they saw it in the background of a zombie show?
Some of the IP should have been a slam dunk. I'm surprised Williams/Midway was a hassle since Warner Interactive now owns most of those titles.
For things like pinball with licensed titles, that's a huge mess. If you want a Bally Addams Family pin in your show you not only need to contact the slot machine company that owns the Bally pinball IP but you need to contact Paramount Studios, Anjelica Huston's agent, and the estate of the now deceased Raul Julia. Good luck with that.
It is now morally repugnant to not chase every possible dollar? Unless the brand is directly associated with the big evil of a film, I too am at a loss. Reeses Pieces sales famously had an enormous boost after being featured in the movie ET. Other candy companies had refused to be featured in the film.
From a different angle, if a character is seen drinking a Coke Cola, is the film paying for that shot or Coke Cola?
It’s amazing how much work went into making it look like an abandoned 2003 arcade, even down to the team worrying about the color of the legs of a machine that might give it away as a more recent release. Then HBO stuff a Papermate Inkjoy RT pen in Sarah’s hand right in the first episode. The Inkjoy brand didn’t appear until around 2012 (and the retractable one was a little later). I’m assuming it was a product placement thing but it was quite in your face.
I think the obvious conclusion here is that canonically Papermate is operating normally, releasing products on the same schedule as they did in the real world, until 2012 at least. Presumably they use the communication advantages endowed by superior writing instruments to weather the apocalypse.
In the video game, the outbreak was in 2013. Maybe the product placement deal was made with that in mind before they changed the outbreak in the TV show to 2003.
I played (and greatly enjoyed) the games, but haven't seen the show, so I don't know how big this arcade scene is, but sometimes it amazes me how much work goes into constructing sets for large TV/Movie productions. I dabble in arcade restoration, so I'm aware of how much of a time and money suck it can be, and to think about how much work would go into just this one scene of one episode shows how easy it is for them to spend millions of dollars per episode on a big show these days.
Somewhat related, but anyone has noticed hard brigading and moderation to squash bad opinions about the show on Reddit? It sounds genius actually, if you produce content which success heavily relies on public opinion, why not hire a few PR companies to alternate the reality in reddit, youtube, etc.
Of course this is just speculation, but as a fan of the games I noticed a lot of weirdness around the reactions.
The show obv has some real budget and time constraints, which has meant so far that you don’t really see zombies (which sucks for a zombie show) and some epic scenes from the game have been either totally removed or botched.
My opinion: if they remake this show as much as the game, then it’ll eventually become great. A CGI show might make much more sense though (and seeing how good Gantz:O was, or Arcane, it’s totally doable with today’s tech). I hated the third episode because it did nothing to the story, but now I realize that the off episodes (3 and 7) are actually the best ones because at least I have no expectation.
As a newcomer to the story (and i believe most redditors are as well) i absolutely love that they keep the zombies on the down low and more something that is something in the background.
I'm tired of zombie slasher movies/shows. I want a good drama show with great story telling set in a post apocalyptic world, and i dont want it to be like "the walking dead".
> hard brigading and moderation to squash bad opinions about the show on Reddit
Could it be as simple as the majority enjoying the show, without it being anything more nefarious going on? And if I enjoy something, I want to hang out with others who enjoy it, not someone coming in just to shit on it. That goes for most things.
Of course, it should be allowed to criticize things, and not enjoy all parts of it. But if you know the tlou2 story, it got hard brigaded by homophobes, transphobes etc. So the aversion to criticism should be seen in light of this. You never really know if it's a valid concern, or just concern trolling by someone with an anti-woke agenda.
Lots of feeling and few examples of manipulation. Using Occam’s razor, I think it’s more likely people are actually reacting positive to the show, rather than HBO paying some entity to brigade. The risk of being caught is high and it would cause an enormous scandal.
I personally like the show, and I’m glad it’s not just another zombie show, I’m pretty fed up with those.
Actually, the great thing about this show is that it doesn't focus so much on the actual zombies, that just gets boring fast. This show is story driven and I really like that.
One thing not mentioned by other replies is that the discussion around the story of Last of Us got very polarized when the second game dropped. There was a very loud opposition from part of the fanbase to certain plot points, themes and other decisions made in the story. This made the people who still liked it get very defensive about it.
I see that same controversy continue with the discussion around the show which, typical to reddit, manifests as downvotes, reports and name calling (woke or bigots, depending on side)
I read an interview with the directors saying they wanted to make a good show inspired by the game rather than a straightforward adaptation. I can’t judge what they changed since I haven’t played the game, but I found this show really well done.
> It sounds genius actually, if you produce content which success heavily relies on public opinion, why not hire a few PR companies to alternate the reality in reddit, youtube, etc.
I assume Reddit sells (or at least enables) a ton of marketing via boosting certain topics. Especially popular culture items that can be discussed, such as sports/tv shows/movies.
What you describe on reddit is more about its tyrannical moderator problem.
Each sub is essentially its own website, its own forum, on a unified UI and userbase.
And it is extraordinarily hard to create and advertise an alternative sub to an established one. If I think /r/apples is terrible, for example, it is uncommon for a breakaway /r/realapples can get traction.
So yeah, the TLoS subs are probably a bunch of fans mostly, and are wary of trolls. Legitimate criticism is just blown away because the power users of that sub don't care for it. It sucks but that's how it is on that site.
As for your opinion, I think the show is good, I like the world-building and how people cope with the details of the life.
Haven't played the game in ages. But wasn't the biggest threat always other humans instead of zombies? I feel the show seems to be portraying that pretty well.
I think it's a good show. Is there brigading? There could be, but that itself wouldn't be enough if the show itself was not good enough.
Is it 9/10? Mmm, not really.
Anecdotally, I've found that generally HBO needs to pass a lower bar in order to get a higher rating than Netflix has to. So, same quality, Netflix could get a 7-8/10, whereas HBO gets 9.*/10 on IMDB.
In the same way Elden Ring "revolutionized open world games" and is a "must play game", when it doesn't really have any internal motivation to begin with.
The infected are the substrate for human stories, which are the parts that make the games (and show) remarkable. What is fun in a game is likely less so in a show, so I can understand why they've minimised the infected.
I assume the other hope is that it takes a great story and makes it more accessible to a less-zombie-keen audience.
My gripe with this strategy is that in minimising the infected presence, the dream of a vaccine from Ellie's situation feels less important. What's the point if the world is rife with dangerous raiders anyway, etc.
On the other point, I seriously doubt PR companies are working to the extent you suggest. It's defensive behaviour from some fans who take issue with opinions of other fans. Usual culture-war battleground stuff.
I've had quite a lot of experience with filming around CRT's, and it's impressive how well they achieved these OLED screen replacements in this episode because while watching I was so drawn into the scene that I didn't even have the thought occur of 'how did they manage that without mad amounts of flickering'
I was thinking that it was also unrealistic how quickly they stopped playing. At that age, discovering these things, I probably wouldn’t have been able to get away from the screen and would have played all night with minimal talking lol
I seem to remember a lot of the 90s fighting games like mortal kombat and killer instinct had the finisher combos on the side of the arcade machine. Everyone wanted to do the finishers, but internet in your pocket did not yet exist.
TIL that old-style forums still exist. This brought back memories from 2010s. I don't know what to think about forums anymore though; they definitely do seem to be a thing of the past (esp. when users are hidden behind made-up names and portfolio pictures). Somehow, the comment sections of tiktok videos feels more authentic and alive than dedicated forums.
They've apparently disabled signup on the forum due to the hug -- anyone actually a member there able to grab and rehost the various cool pictures that are only thumbnails to non-members?
Interesting, apparently they made their own CRT ”shader” from scratch. I wonder why not use one of the amazing ones available in something like RetroArch?
a bit OT, but I've noticed over the past 20+ years that almost every movie/tv show that shows someone playing video games will play the same 40 year old sounds. I'm always hearing the arcade Defender shooting and thrusting sounds, and occasionally Atari 2600 Pacman sounds. Are these just 'public domain'? Why don't we hear more 'real' video game/arcade sounds?
Probably in 1980, someone got licenses from all the game producers to include them in a royalty-free album that became an essential item for the sound department at every production company, and soon after, game companies stopped being willing to sign such deals.
[+] [-] danbruc|3 years ago|reply
What is the logic or justification here? It would never have occurred to me that you have to license games if you are filming in an arcade. Do you have to get a license if you film someone playing on a PlayStation? Playing a board game? Playing with LEGO bricks? Making coffee with a Bialetti? Standing next to a car with trademarked design elements? Is there somewhere some legal clause like you can play with your Game Boy but you can not film it without explicit permission? Is it because in the case of games - or software in general - you are not truly buying it but only getting a license to use it? Do I need a license to film someone using a browser or Photoshop? I mean, I can see that you have to license the music in a film if you make deliberate artistic decision and it really contributes to the scene, but what about some random music playing on a radio in the background? What about the radio in the background of a documentary film?
[+] [-] OscarTheGrinch|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] no_butterscotch|3 years ago|reply
> We had some pinball machines and arcade games not make the cut because they were too expensive to license, or the IP owner wasn't licensing that particular game for that use at that particular time. We had a Ms Pac-Man that wouldnt clear because they were not allowing a license at that time.
> ...New titles from the 90s were all mostly too expensive to license or use
> ...Some licenses only allowed for showing the game in the deep background, or couldn't feature game play, but only attract modes (Street Fighter II for example).
"New titles from the 90s"
Can anyone on here explain why these IP owners would want to keep their product OUT of these shows? Why would they want to require an agreement/or-money for licensing out when it is free advertising for some old ass IP that could get second life?
[+] [-] izacus|3 years ago|reply
It's because it is "old ass" and has low value - the corporation gets forever monopoly on the IP basically for free. To work out the licensing deal, some appratchik needs to talk to legal and several people need to be dragged into meetings and write reports and write marketing papers and contracts and all the other ceremonies that go with DoingThings(tm) at a corporation.
And if noone gets promoted or mentioned in the next performance meeting, it ain't happening. It's not like there's any downside for them to keep the IP locked down and inaccessible forever.
[+] [-] joezydeco|3 years ago|reply
Some of the IP should have been a slam dunk. I'm surprised Williams/Midway was a hassle since Warner Interactive now owns most of those titles.
For things like pinball with licensed titles, that's a huge mess. If you want a Bally Addams Family pin in your show you not only need to contact the slot machine company that owns the Bally pinball IP but you need to contact Paramount Studios, Anjelica Huston's agent, and the estate of the now deceased Raul Julia. Good luck with that.
[+] [-] 0cf8612b2e1e|3 years ago|reply
From a different angle, if a character is seen drinking a Coke Cola, is the film paying for that shot or Coke Cola?
[+] [-] davb|3 years ago|reply
https://productplacementblog.com/tv-series/inkjoy-gel-pen-in...
[+] [-] bee_rider|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dfxm12|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] differentView|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] hotpotamus|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] baby|3 years ago|reply
Of course this is just speculation, but as a fan of the games I noticed a lot of weirdness around the reactions.
The show obv has some real budget and time constraints, which has meant so far that you don’t really see zombies (which sucks for a zombie show) and some epic scenes from the game have been either totally removed or botched.
My opinion: if they remake this show as much as the game, then it’ll eventually become great. A CGI show might make much more sense though (and seeing how good Gantz:O was, or Arcane, it’s totally doable with today’s tech). I hated the third episode because it did nothing to the story, but now I realize that the off episodes (3 and 7) are actually the best ones because at least I have no expectation.
[+] [-] Chilinot|3 years ago|reply
I'm tired of zombie slasher movies/shows. I want a good drama show with great story telling set in a post apocalyptic world, and i dont want it to be like "the walking dead".
[+] [-] matsemann|3 years ago|reply
Could it be as simple as the majority enjoying the show, without it being anything more nefarious going on? And if I enjoy something, I want to hang out with others who enjoy it, not someone coming in just to shit on it. That goes for most things.
Of course, it should be allowed to criticize things, and not enjoy all parts of it. But if you know the tlou2 story, it got hard brigaded by homophobes, transphobes etc. So the aversion to criticism should be seen in light of this. You never really know if it's a valid concern, or just concern trolling by someone with an anti-woke agenda.
[+] [-] yokoprime|3 years ago|reply
I personally like the show, and I’m glad it’s not just another zombie show, I’m pretty fed up with those.
[+] [-] weazl|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] flappyeagle|3 years ago|reply
What makes a movie like Jaws or Alien good is you don’t really see the monster very much. A zombie show ought not to be judged by zombie volume.
[+] [-] jitter_|3 years ago|reply
I see that same controversy continue with the discussion around the show which, typical to reddit, manifests as downvotes, reports and name calling (woke or bigots, depending on side)
[+] [-] fvdessen|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] lotsofpulp|3 years ago|reply
I assume Reddit sells (or at least enables) a ton of marketing via boosting certain topics. Especially popular culture items that can be discussed, such as sports/tv shows/movies.
[+] [-] notatoad|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] rahoulb|3 years ago|reply
(I’ve not played the game though but I’m going to get it now)
[+] [-] scld|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unethical_ban|3 years ago|reply
Each sub is essentially its own website, its own forum, on a unified UI and userbase.
And it is extraordinarily hard to create and advertise an alternative sub to an established one. If I think /r/apples is terrible, for example, it is uncommon for a breakaway /r/realapples can get traction.
So yeah, the TLoS subs are probably a bunch of fans mostly, and are wary of trolls. Legitimate criticism is just blown away because the power users of that sub don't care for it. It sucks but that's how it is on that site.
As for your opinion, I think the show is good, I like the world-building and how people cope with the details of the life.
[+] [-] djbusby|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] aceazzameen|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] kif|3 years ago|reply
Is it 9/10? Mmm, not really.
Anecdotally, I've found that generally HBO needs to pass a lower bar in order to get a higher rating than Netflix has to. So, same quality, Netflix could get a 7-8/10, whereas HBO gets 9.*/10 on IMDB.
In the same way Elden Ring "revolutionized open world games" and is a "must play game", when it doesn't really have any internal motivation to begin with.
[+] [-] prawn|3 years ago|reply
I assume the other hope is that it takes a great story and makes it more accessible to a less-zombie-keen audience.
My gripe with this strategy is that in minimising the infected presence, the dream of a vaccine from Ellie's situation feels less important. What's the point if the world is rife with dangerous raiders anyway, etc.
On the other point, I seriously doubt PR companies are working to the extent you suggest. It's defensive behaviour from some fans who take issue with opinions of other fans. Usual culture-war battleground stuff.
[+] [-] MrBuddyCasino|3 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] King-Aaron|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Medox|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] wilsynet|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] secretsatan|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] baby|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] _fs|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] hijp|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] b112|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] realjhol|3 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] behnamoh|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] cm2187|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] vehementi|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] e12e|3 years ago|reply
Phew! :)
[+] [-] low_tech_love|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] exitb|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] arrowsmith|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|3 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] mgkimsal|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] raldi|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dezgeg|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] andrewmartin1|3 years ago|reply
[deleted]