The Last of Us - Dark Near Past Gamer Title - HBO

Great show all around. It followed the plot of the game sort of. Beginning and end and a couple of scenes.

Now that the season is done I am wondering why the rush. There were so many flashbacks and flashbacks to other people's stories that they tell very little of the many months that Joel and Ellie travel together. And, strangely, they didn't introduce several characters that appeared in the game.

Perhaps when they started the enterprise they didn't realize what they had. They could have included so much more.

So now what? Do they start season two where the second game starts? Will we get further adventures of Ellie and Joel - events that take place between the two games?

I'm looking forward to finding out.
 
I never played the game and so don't know how playing the game and killing dozens of men would affect me when compared with watching Joel in the series 'actually' doing it.
It sure felt not good in the series how Joel handled things, but really, I don't think it ought to feel right in the game either. I suppose playing a lot of such games makes you kinda losing touch with reality and watching it being played on TV corrects that false outlook.
But that is an issue I have with many series or movies; how many people is OK to kill just to save one person? One person you know and love versus many unknown persons, easily depicted as mean and evil. Is there a morally indicative point at which a Operation Saving One Person becomes Operation Murder Any Opponent In Your Way?

But then, things started to go wrong with the Fireflies and their inordinately (and unexplained) haste to put Ellie on the operation table. Possibly because they knew in advance that it would kill her and they wanted have it done before anyone (Ellie or Joel) could protest. The decision should have been Ellie's. And it could have saved many, many lives. And, let's not forget, that was the very reason why they had traveled so far; to find a cure possibly hidden in Ellie's system.
Though it is understandable that Joel didn't want a second time to lose someone put in his care (first Sarah, now Ellie), one could debate whether it was selfishness on his part thereby overlooking the greater good or love that just overrode everything else.
It is interesting how the initial roles where reversed towards the end where Ellie became the troubled, reticent one and Joel the talkative person who just had found a new reason to live. And was prepared killing for.

I read there will be a season 2 and 3. We'll see where it will lead Joel and Ellie.
This idea came up in a different thread about violence in video games.

And it is a bit alarming how a standard game element is the main character against everyone else, especially "bad" factions like "raiders." In game play, you see a member of a bad faction and you kill them where they stand, sit or sleep. No hesitation. Some games give bonuses for killing sleeping opponents. This game is very much that way.
 
Not a gamer as such. So didn't know the plot. Therefore I was really impressed by the series. Thought the finale was brilliant.

I will make one point though. The show is heavily influenced by TWD. The producers may deny it, but the series with the flashbacks, independent episodes, emphasis on humanities flaws etc. These are all TWD influences.
 
This idea came up in a different thread about violence in video games.

And it is a bit alarming how a standard game element is the main character against everyone else, especially "bad" factions like "raiders." In game play, you see a member of a bad faction and you kill them where they stand, sit or sleep. No hesitation. Some games give bonuses for killing sleeping opponents. This game is very much that way.

elckerlyc said:
I suppose playing a lot of such games makes you kinda losing touch with reality and watching it being played on TV corrects that false outlook.

The age-old debate of how newer forms of entertainment supposedly blur boundaries between fiction and reality and can desensitize the youth to violence... Now it's video games and the Internet, before that it was Japanese anime and Saturday morning cartoons, before that it was TV as a whole (which makes it rather funny when I read that "watching [TLOU] on TV corrects this false outlook"), comic books, movies, violent sports and literature, and in 40BC people probably complained how the latest play would corrupt the minds of the young and bring society to its knees...

Sure, it would be "alarming" if four-year-olds the world over were raised on this kind of violence, but any regular teenager knows the difference between a video game and reality.

Killing in a game is nothing like taking a human life. I've killed thousands of pixelated enemies in games over the years, maybe even millions, and I don't feel even a pang of regret over it, nor should I. And I will kill many more before I'm done.

In real life I can't even bring myself to kill a spider.

This debate should have been put to rest centuries ago. If entertainment had the power to make people violent, the world would have disappeared already. Entertainment does not make people violent, but violent people also have to entertain themselves... Take violent video games out of the equation and violent people will still exist and find their kick elsewhere: violent cartoons, comic books, movies, sports, literature, ancient plays... And we'll have come full circle.
 
Last edited:
I have mixed feelings on the series. I thought some of it was fantastic, some of it was totally superflous.

Episode 3 is the perfect example, it is probably one of the strongest episodes of the season, but it was completely out of place, it did nothing to further the story. It took more time away from Ellie and Joel which was where the emotional impact for the season needed to be. I felt the same about the flashback where Ellie was bitten, except that episode was incredibly boring. I understand a mall to an Apocalypse Survivor would be amazing, but to the viewer its a broken down mall that probably has some hidden danger somewhere (surprise, surprise).

Both of these LGBT storylines were pointless in the end because they added nothing to the story overall. I wanted more Joel and Ellie, not over an hour on a minor backstory for a minor character. Also - they really expanded the religious aspects of Davids character, and whenever a character stars quoting from the bible they always have to end up being evil - it's such a cliched trope at this point.

So yeah, mixed feelings for me. Pedro Pascal was excellent.
 
The age-old debate of how newer forms of entertainment supposedly blur boundaries between fiction and reality and can desensitize the youth to violence... Now it's video games and the Internet, before that it was Japanese anime and Saturday morning cartoons, before that it was TV as a whole (which makes it rather funny when I read that "watching [TLOU] on TV corrects this false outlook"), comic books, movies, violent sports and literature, and in 40BC people probably complained how the latest play would corrupt the minds of the young and bring society to its knees...

Sure, it would be "alarming" if four-year-olds the world over were raised on this kind of violence, but any regular teenager knows the difference between a video game and reality.

Killing in a game is nothing like taking a human life. I've killed thousands of pixelated enemies in games over the years, maybe even millions, and I don't feel even a pang of regret over it, nor should I. And I will kill many more before I'm done.

In real life I can't even bring myself to kill a spider.

This debate should have been put to rest centuries ago. If entertainment had the power to make people violent, the world would have disappeared already. Entertainment does not make people violent, but violent people also have to entertain themselves... Take violent video games out of the equation and violent people will still exist and find their kick elsewhere: violent cartoons, comic books, movies, sports, literature, ancient plays... And we'll have come full circle.
I was mainly airing my dislike for these kinds of narrative. And that, if seeing it played out in a TV series feels wrong it ought to feel the same in a game also. It does seem to imply that people apply diiferent sets of (moral) rules when playing such games. That's fine, it's a game after all.
I was not arguing that it desensitize people. If it did you would feel the same watching the series as it did when you played the game. Which it didn't. Nor was I implying you are a bad person for liking to play such games. It might even have a positive effect. I don't know. Millions of people worldwide like these games.
I don't because I can't look beyond the narrative.
 
I was mainly airing my dislike for these kinds of narrative. And that, if seeing it played out in a TV series feels wrong it ought to feel the same in a game also. It does seem to imply that people apply diiferent sets of (moral) rules when playing such games. That's fine, it's a game after all.
I was not arguing that it desensitize people. If it did you would feel the same watching the series as it did when you played the game. Which it didn't. Nor was I implying you are a bad person for liking to play such games. It might even have a positive effect. I don't know. Millions of people worldwide like these games.
I don't because I can't look beyond the narrative.

@Elckerlyc I didn't mean to be unpleasant in my reply, forgive me if it came across as the opposite.

It is true that player agency in a video game makes playing them a very immersive experience (we are the protagonist). Where I disagree is when people imply that it has anything to do with a shift in moral values, that somehow pressing buttons that rain virtual lead on pixelated foes makes shooting up a Walmart more relatable (or acceptable). The two belong to completely distinct universes and anyone with a clear head, unaffected by serious mental issues, knows that.

The reason I feel different watching TLOU as a series vs a game is precisely the "game" aspect. When playing any kind of game (video game, board game, RPG...) you enter an unspoken agreement with yourself and potentially other players that you will have to follow the scripted rules imposed upon you, the player, to try and "win" (whatever that means: Scoring points, finishing a level...). If those scripted rules mean pressing buttons that fire virtual bullets out of virtual guns at virtual enemies, so be it. But there is no disconnect in your mind that could lead you to believe you're actually shooting at people, not anymore than I feel like I'm a plumber annihilating angry-looking mushrooms by jumping onto their heads in Super Mario. You do not bring your own sense of morality into the screen, and outside the screen you're always just a player following the rules of a game to win it.

When I watch TLOU as a series, I don't have to agree to follow the rules of that world anymore because I have no agency in it. The storyline is presented to me as a fait accompli and I can only choose whether I want to watch it or not. If the characters want to do something that I, the spectator, want no part in, I don't have to agree to be a part of it to finish the episode. So while I felt that Joel's actions in the game, while morally reprehensible, were also the right thing to do (to win), in the series I just see an egotistical man who couldn't bring himself to face despair once again and chose the dark side.
 
Last edited:
I've kept away for a few years, so I'm sorry if this is like a stranger butting in. I've never played the game--any FPS for that matter. I didn't find the story/series particularly unique (whether a virus or fungi, it still makes zombies which make more zombies). The post apocalyptic setting I enjoyed, yet I found the characters somewhat shallow, which is understandable, considering the time constraints. Overall, I enjoyed the time spent watching the series.

The insights in this thread as to Joel, however, I'm having a tough time wrapping my head around.

First off, the morality of our world today, doesn't apply. All governments' initial solution to curb the pandemic was to bomb their own cities--killing millions, I assume. The people have struggled for 20 years under an oppressive government that knows of no other way to defend partial-city fortresses from the pandemic and keep civilization as they knew it intact. So they're brutal, have essentially enslaved the people (not that different from post nuclear planning), and consider any resistance capital in nature. The people inside those walls I also assume have become rather callous as well. Outside those walls are raiders, cannibals, and small pockets of society--who all kill others to survive, or don't survive. I could go on, but anywho, it's kill or be killed, everyone killing anyone as a precautionary measure for good reason.

So let's talk Joel.

* Ex-combat military before all this. He's had to kill before. Now, he kills before he is killed, as everyone else does, or they're victims.
* Initially after this all started, he did things he's not proud of to survive--like many others--and as many will if the day does come.
* He still kills because that is the way of this world, kill or be killed. You are either an aggressor, a defender, or a passive victim.
* Why kill the people in Kansas City (think that's where it was) instead of letting them go once disarmed? Because they would get others to kill him and Ellie, not just give up and sit on the sidelines since they lost the fight. So they remain a serious threat.
>>> Skipping to the last two episodes brought into question.
* Why kill the man he interrogated, who answered his questions; the man's bound brother; all the others to rescue Ellie form the cannibalistic pastor, would-be child molester? Because if he didn't, again, they would get their compatriots to kill him and Ellie--just like the four men from the same group that attacked them previously. They didn't mean to talk to or capture them. They meant to kill Joel and Ellie, take what they had, possibly take them to eat, and if one failed the rest would finish it.

>>>> In the last episode, I found Joel's moon-eyed gaze and passive tone rather strained, however, considering the episode's length I suppose they were grasping to portray that Joel did not find a surrogate daughter. He found respect for Ellie, recognized her strength, that she endured, and perhaps even developed a platonic love for her--a new person like all others he had bonded with--he would gladly sacrifice himself for.
* Ellie was not aware that the Fireflys would kill her. They made that clear, 'she didn't know, to not scare her.'
* They 'hope' that maybe, perhaps, possibly, are unsure, what's in Ellie's brain might make a vaccine. They don't know if a serum can be made from her blood, or her harvested anti-bodies, whatever. The 'one surgeon' has a theory, and he'll kill a thousand Ellies to prove it. To him, the Fireflys, Marlene (that one irks me), if it fails, oh well, keep trying. It sounds noble 'searching for a cure to mankind's ills,' at everyone else's expense, not their own. As far as we know, they may not even have the means to mass produce it--and then who gets it? Fedra, or do they get left out as punishment? What if the Fireflys or Fedra decide to only release the cure to those who pledge fealty to them--that's a whole lot of ifs and maybes.

>>>>> Joel has evolved from survive to protect Tess/Tommy, to fulfill a promise, to survive to protect Ellie, nothing more. He is focused on that singular existence. Even his survival means little as long as he accomplishes that task.
* Why methodically kill all the Fireflys, even Marlene? Because if he doesn't kill each and every one that is a combatant--experienced killers in their own right--as he tries to leave with Ellie, they will kill him, and kill Ellie for a possible nothing, period.
* Why lie to Ellie at the end? Because she has proven herself to be a strong person--meaning--she likely has within herself the will to sacrifice herself for others. The trouble is, she is too young to realize that a LOT of people are too willing to sacrifice others casually. If he doesn't lie to her, she may well seek out more Fireflys, thinking she is doing something noble, not realizing it is for a possible nothing. That's what youth does. They hope to change the world through their selfless acts, never realizing others will waste lives casually.

So, I guess it boils down to throw your hands up and say, "What will be, will be"--insert moo or baaa here--and passively lay down and die, or do all you can to protect the one person who means something to you. How many lives is one life worth? That depends on what that one life means to you. I know what I would try to do, and can find no fault in Joel's actions.

Just because he will act where we might not, does not make him a maniac.

K2
 
Last edited:
@-K2-

Joel is not a combat veteran and as far as we know has never had to kill pre-pandemic. A lot of people seem to make that mistake. The truck we see him in in the first episode is his brother's, not his'. Anyway, that's irrelevant to the overall point.

They 'hope' that maybe, perhaps, possibly, are unsure, what's in Ellie's brain might make a vaccine. They don't know if a serum can be made from her blood, or her harvested anti-bodies, whatever. The 'one surgeon' has a theory, and he'll kill a thousand Ellies to prove it. To him, the Fireflys, Marlene (that one irks me), if it fails, oh well, keep trying. It sounds noble 'searching for a cure to mankind's ills,' at everyone else's expense, not their own. As far as we know, they may not even have the means to mass produce it--and then who gets it? Fedra, or do they get left out as punishment? What if the Fireflys or Fedra decide to only release the cure to those who pledge fealty to them--that's a whole lot of ifs and maybes.

All this is nothing more than assumptions based on your interpretation of what little we know:
We do not know how sure the Fireflies are that Ellie will allow them to produce a vaccine. It might be 1%, it might be 100%. What we know is that they believe it hard enough to cease all their operations and regroup on the other side of the country, taking huge risks and spending a lot of resources in a world where they are a luxury, so at the very least it's safe to assume that they are sure they stand a fair chance.
We do not know that surgeon, whether he is the "one surgeon", whether he simply has "a theory" or has already run the math and knows the vaccine is here within their grasp. Your phrasing tries to pass him off as some mad scientist who wants to play god, but it's disingenuous. We simply do not know. And there is nothing to show that he will kill a thousand Ellies to prove he's right.

I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm saying... we don't know.

Anyway, I don't think anyone here meant to suggest Joel was a maniac for killing a few people in a post-apocalyptic world. What I for one stated is that Joel, for entirely egotistical reasons and at the expense of many human lives, chose to go in and rescue Ellie. Against her will. She already turned him down when he offered to give up because she wanted the struggles she'd had to face to mean something, and in the second game - which, okay, not everybody is meant to have played or be aware of yet - she tells him almost word for word she wanted the Fireflies to kill her and make the vaccine because at least her life would have meant something and he deprived her of that forever.

Now whether the Fireflies could actually have produced a vaccine out of her or not almost doesn't matter at all. The fact is that there was this one chance and that Joel refused to try. And again, for entirely selfish reasons and not "to save Ellie" but "to save his own reason to go on living."
 
Last edited:
Anyway, I don't think anyone here meant to suggest Joel was a maniac for killing a few people in a post-apocalyptic world. What I for one stated is that Joel, for entirely egotistical reasons (his own survival) and at the expense of many human lives, chose to go in and rescue Ellie. Against her will. She already turned him down when he offered to give up because she wanted the struggles she'd had to face to mean something, and in the second game - which, okay, not everybody is meant to have played or be aware of yet, she tells him almost word for word she wanted the Fireflies to kill her and make the vaccine because at least her life would have meant something and he deprived her of that.

Now whether the Fireflies could actually have produced a vaccine out of her or not almost doesn't matter at all. The fact is that there was this one chance and that Joel refused to try. And again, for entirely selfish reasons and not "to save Ellie" but "to save his own reason to go on living."
Sorry, but I don't see it that way. Whether Joel's 'egotism,' his own survival (they were letting him go), or to save his reason to live. He doesn't seek out a reason to live. In fact, he made it clear that long ago he was good with dying. He wants to save Ellie, for her.

As to Ellie--against her will--again, she didn't know. And as to the future reveal that 'her life would have meant something,' I already addressed my view on that:
* Why lie to Ellie at the end? Because she has proven herself to be a strong person--meaning--she likely has within herself the will to sacrifice herself for others. The trouble is, she is too young to realize that a LOT of people are too willing to sacrifice others casually. If he doesn't lie to her, she may well seek out more Fireflys, thinking she is doing something noble, not realizing it is for a possible nothing. That's what youth does. They hope to change the world through their selfless acts, never realizing others will waste lives casually.

Anywho, I've intruded enough.

K2
 
The show went to great lengths to explain to us that Joel had no reason to live beyond his role as a protector. He stated it in the simplest of terms in that last episode. He was this close to saying that Ellie was now his sole reason to go on living, the one who had fixed him, kept him together. He no longer feels "okay about dying" because now Ellie is in his life. And when the Fireflies threatened to take that away from him, he ran to the rescue. Because he could not bear to lose his reason to live again.

So the way I see it, Joel saves himself, not Ellie. But that doesn't mean I don't understand him, I do. And I'd like to think I'd do the exact same were my daughter the only hope for humanity's long-term survival. Doesn't change the fact that I'd do it... for myself, to preserve myself from the pain.

Still, it's interesting to hear/read other people's perspectives. Shows that the series at least made a good job of giving us enough complexity that several readings are possible.

Your point about Ellie is valid but relies only on the assumption that the vaccine would not have gotten made, that her sacrifice would have been meaningless, that she would have surrendered her life "casually". We do not know that.
 
Although I found this show to be watchable, I found it long on violence, thin on plot and short on character development.
Maybe a video game does not provide the best source material for a television series.
 
Although I found this show to be watchable, I found it long on violence, thin on plot and short on character development.
Maybe a video game does not provide the best source material for a television series.

I saw. a few episode and just didn't find it al that compelling a watch .
 
Essentially , its jut another Zombie tv show.
 
Nope. The zombies are just the background, the setting, in which the tensile relation between Joel and Ellie is played out.
 

Similar threads


Back
Top