No you don't. You are interpreting everything around preexisting notions of intent on ND/Druckmann's behalf. The reason why this is going round and round is that you cannot and will not support your assertion with any sort of evidence.
I'm not the one passing judgement sight-unseen. You want to call conspiracy, the burden of proof is on you. I'm just looking at what there is out now and pointing out how your viewpoint fails to jibe with it.
Sorry but this is the sort of basic projection I'm talking about:
Yeah, because despite keeping it on the down-low, Ellie is a fucking bad-ass, we know this from the events of the first game as I pointed out. Even as a 14 year-old she was offing infected and cannibal marauders, so her saying "she's just a girl" is more about subterfuge than fact. Same as not advertising her immunity to infection and the large tattoo that covers the scar. It also kinda significant that she's Joel's adopted daughter, because he's a scary dude.
But all this backstory, and the whole tender/bloodthirsty dichotomy in her character arc that the trailer (game?) is fundamentally based upon can and should be discarded because Druckmann's a male feminist and therefore part of a leftist conspiracy...
There you go again. What does Ellie being a 'bad ass' have to do with narrative construction? It's not projection, it's how the scene was 'designed' to play out. It was intended to convey that message. I'm not seeing something that isn't there, I'm describing exactly what is there intentionally. You are assuming something about me and then judging what I said according to your assumption. I'll post something from early in the thread I posted to explain. but NOTE, as I keep saying over and over, I'm still going to buy the game and judge for myself because full context is important even though the scene is definitely designed to convey exactly what I've said it does.
First of all I need to explain a technique that’s used often in films and books for transitional sequences. It’s used in the trailer, and I’m certain of that; 100% certain of that. People need to understand that nothing is just written. Every word, every sentence and every paragraph is painstakingly crafted to maximise the desired emotional effect.
There are two similar techniques, one is ‘mirroring’ and the other is ‘echoing’. Just so you understand the differences, because it’s subtle: Mirroring would be a guy walking though a cold and snowy environment, cut to someone opening a fridge. Echoing would be a guy walking through a cold and snowy environment, cut to someone sunbathing on a beach. In this scene, Neil uses ‘mirroring’. The conversation leads us there carefully, to the word ‘terrified’. The mirror word:
Ellie: ‘Every guy in this room is staring at you right now’
Dina: ‘Maybe they’re staring at YOU.’
Ellie: ‘They’re not.’
Dina: ‘Maybe they’re jealous of you.’
This is quite cleverly orchestrated, leading to the switch. It’s a little short for my liking but it gets the job done adequately. Those first four lines are setting up the theme of the conversation and the theme of what’s to follow. Now we get to the switch in tone and intent. Up to now it’s been a personal conversation about the relationship but it takes a turn with use of ambiguity:
Ellie: ‘I’m just a girl. Not a threat.’
Dina: ‘Oh, Ellie, I think they should be terrified of you.’
Mirroring: We cut to a scene of Ellie stabbing a guy in the neck. Indeed, ‘they’ (men) should be terrifie of Ellie. Like I said, this is a certainty. That scene was written specifically for the purposes of switching the meaning of ‘they should be terrified’ from Dina maybe no longer being available to men literally being scared of her. It’s actually quite cheap when taken apart like that. The ‘victim’ (woman) becomes the aggressor against the ‘threat’ (men), BUT only if the agenda is at work. I swore then to wait for the full context and I’m still waiting for the full context.
The very last scene is of Ellie decapitating a man. She kills many people, some women and some men, but the opening scene (to fit the mirroring) and the last scene (to emphasise the mirroring) is of her killing men. And just to make sure the audience understood, either consciously or unconsciously, on returning to the dance floor, Dina reiterates:
Dina’: See, I told you, they should be terrified of you.’ The word 'see' there reflects the breaking of the fourth wall because it implies Dina has just experienced the gameplay herself. This is why I think this scene may not even play out like this in the finished game.
That, I believe, is what a lot of people were picking up. Maybe they didn’t quite understand what it was … it just felt off to them. It was nothing to do with the kiss.
Like I said, that is a 100% certainty. It’s exactly what was intended. That is Neil emphasising a point because the initial transition is all you need for the mirroring. The last dialogue line is making sure you got it.
I'll just add something here that wasn't in the original post: Just as the conversation turned from the personal to the mirroring and meaning, it turns back from the mirroring and the meaning to the personal. The kiss itself becomes the intention of 'see, I told you, they should be terrified of you,' but relates more to the previous scene. It is quite clever in that respect. That is what that scene is about. It's not an interpretation, it's literally written and presented to make sure you can't miss it ...
Maybe the motives could be questioned but the sheer effort that's gone into crafting this goes without question. It deserves reward either way.
