"The Last of Us" (Inclusive: both games, both TV seasons--spoiler spores warning)

[an0maly]

Don't know if this thread will get a lot of attention, but the first game and the first season were, respectively, astoundingly brilliant and very good. I thought people might want to evaluate season 2 here, and my enthusiasm for it is something between very low and highly skeptical. I will come back to that. Saw the first episode of season 2 and thought it was flawed but pretty good.

The initial 2013 video game was so great it raised the art form to a new level, and has been frequently hailed as the greatest game ever made. Playing this game, was one of the most incredible experiences I have had. Nobody that played it will care that such praise will raise an eyebrow on some people who have never played great video games. If you don't know then you can't know, and it's akin to explaining a stunning sunset to a blind person. It was a deeply emotional experience in which I cared about the characters--as one does in the best films--but also experienced being one of the characters, and living the character experiences in the game world. It was called the Citizen Kane of games, but that film was not universally praised on release the way The Last of Us instantly was. In fact few works this century have gotten so much praise. The settings, concepts and the premise (scientifically justified "zombies" from the very real idea of Cordyceps fungus) were great, but the depth of the story and the characters really drove all the praise. Season 1 of the HBO/Max show captured a lot of that quality, for the most part, though there were valid complaints it did it too fast in too few episodes.

You must see season 1 to take on season 2, but nobody really needs to have played either game to enjoy and understand the series. I read about the controversial aspects of part 2 of the game and chose not to play it, and I will probably get into that later if someone is interested. I did watch extensive game play on YouTube to know what and why I did not play it.

I assume spoilers will infect (pun) this thread, but probably best to give warnings.

 

[UNCatTech]

I'll mark this for when I can start watching.

Season one was great and the thread on the IC ZZL was fun also.

 

[WaynetheDrain]

Anxiously awaiting the Rat King.

 

[Bobfripp]

The humans discover Desenex and the world is saved?

 

[circlesky88]

Did not play the game but I did watch season 1. I thought it was okay. Didn’t love the first episode of season 2 but I will continue for now.

 

[WaynetheDrain]

Wow, they actually did it in episode 2. Was thinking they’d stretch it out a bit before doing the controversial deed.

 

[HandsonFire]

Wow, they actually did it in episode 2. Was thinking they’d stretch it out a bit before doing the controversial deed.

Yeah it’s going to be a long week.

 

[JCTarheel82]

That was a great episode. I mean really fantastic. Gave me GoT vibes. I was admittedly underwhelmed by the end of season 1 as well as the season 2 premiere, but I'm fully on board again.

 

[p5mmr9]

Jesus christ - episode 2 is traumatic. I knew it was coming but good lord.

 

[UNCatTech]

Why?

I didn't play the game, so I wasn't prepared for that.

 

[WaynetheDrain]

Why?

I didn't play the game, so I wasn't prepared for that.

That feeling of betrayal you are feeling over their decision regarding Joel? Now, imagine playing through the game and being forced to play as Abby for about half of the time after that happened.

Gamers everywhere were PISSED. In retrospect, it turned out to be a really good design choice in terms of story-telling, but it was an awful gut-punch to all of us who played the first game.

 

[donbosco]

Why?

I didn't play the game, so I wasn't prepared for that.

damn

 

[an0maly]

So here we are, and the show's viewership has cratered, but hey, the viewer ratings have cratered even worse. I could have called it, given Druckman's intransigence and ego, but I thought maybe there would be some sort of shifting and adjustments to improve the narrative.

I disagree with Healing's views above (except the sociopathy observation, if a bit facetious on my part), and will say more about my rejection of part 2 of the game and now my huge misgivings about the series direction that mirrors it.

The problem with the second game is that it transformed into something ridiculously bad because it tries to lamely teach you the BiG LeSsoN that revenge is meaningless, kids, and does it by forcing you to play a character you absolutely despise. That is a contrived, silly, ABC After-school Special thing for a game creator to come up with. Joel did what a father any would do in the first game. His own daughter was killed in front of him and his surrogate daughter, Ellie, unknown to her and without her consent, was to be killed to attempt a cure of some kind by a small and highly questionable group led by "a doctor" feeding their fever dream of saving humanity. Beyond his defense of her life of someone he now sees as his daughter, what he did was also proper because the so-called cure was clearly no certainty. They captured Joel and Ellie by force and violence--even the series shows them bashing Joel in the back of the head with a rifle. The fireflies were simply another group about power, and whatever confidence you assign the rag-tag group with the ability to fix the cordeceps outbreak worldwide, Joel was not going to morally allow Ellie to be killed. (Neil Druckman agrees with what I just wrote). The doctor also came at Joel with a knife to prevent the rescue.

So part 2 of the game asks the player to instantly see Abby as a valid equal, and to try to force you to not only take her side, but to begin to hate Ellie for going on the same revenge mission. This Ellie, who was gradually turned from possible future delinquent to someone who cared deeply about Joel (as he transformed in game one from a person who rejected almost all humanity, to someone who cared again in protecting Ellie) now is made cruel and trivial and simplistic. It was this way in the second game and they have made her the same rather disgusting persona in part 2 of the series.

I admit a lot of people were on board with how the second game changed as I described above. A good number of thse people who unfortunately just play video games to shoot things thought part 2 and being Abby was all "this is fine," but I always felt if this TV show adaptation likewise attempts make us hate Ellie and favor Abby it risks turning into the same awful, annoying mess.

So after the episode with the attack on Jackson (brilliantly staged, but lost and forgotten in the wake now) and the murder of Joel, we get a weepy episode, and one to set a path of more blind mad revenge, but now with a campy feel at times like a teenager buddy movie. To be clearly honest, both of these were largely filler material. Now we will see if the series is forced to keep right on following the second game and go from an immensely moving character story to "revenge-er-tainment" stuff, not at all unlike "Kill Bill" or "John Wick," or whatever similar Hollywood product.

 

[UNCatTech]

Catching up tonight.

I like it, though it has a different feel than season 1.

 

[Icky Mettle]

I wasn’t a fan of season two, overall. They wrote Ellie essentially as an impulsive naive idiot with shit survival instincts. Maybe that works for non game players, but in the game, yeah, Ellie is prone to anger, but she’s defined by sullenness, moodiness, reflection, and brutal guile. She’s aware of her surroundings and distinctly not kid-like. She may be 19 but she’s 19 in a similar way dudes returning from WW2 were 19.

Dina was a definite highlight, with the unfortunate side effect that, imo, Isabella Merced’s acting was far superior to Bella Ramsey’s, making a lot of the scenes feel emotionally imbalanced and unearned for Ellie.

Lastly, folks, wtf are we doing with the CW level makeup and costume design? This is a fungus zombie apocalypse in the PNW and pants and shirts are clean? Hell, sometimes they even look pressed. Dina’s hair always has that perfect TV anchor framing wave, and she never pulls it back? Quibbles? Yeah, and, the cleanliness impacted the immersion - a lot.

C-, would not recommend.

That last paragraph: Yes! That has actually bothered me a lot. Somehow Dina and Ellie travel 850+ miles from Jackson, WY to Seattle through the wilderness on horseback, and they arrive in Seattle (rather quickly and easily, it seemed) looking like they’ve been staying in places with indoor plumbing and other modern amenities.

I was also bothered by how nonchalantly they walk through the streets of Seattle, talking at a normal volume, seemingly not on high alert unless they see or hear something. You’ve got the Wolves, the infected, and a violent cult— with a ton of places for them to be hiding and from which they can ambush— and they’re just walking around out in the open making normal conversation.

Then there’s the one scene where Ellie and Jesse are just walking through the streets rather nonchalantly. They hear a bang and find a place to hide. A few seconds later, several Wolves chase a cult member into the building in which they’re hiding. Yet somehow they went completely undetected prior to that. And then within a matter of seconds after the Wolves drag away the cult member, they come out of hiding and go back out on to the streets as if there’s not a chance that the Wolves will be nearby at that point.

And how are they able to find everything in Seattle so easily, including finding one another? It’s a place they’re not familiar with and the whole zombie apocalypse and aftermath had to have altered it considerably from what they see on their maps. And again, how do Jesse and Tommy get to Seattle so quickly from Jackson and so easily get connected with Ellie and Dina? And then they all so easily find on another as they move around Seattle.

 

[WaynetheDrain]

I was wondering if they were just going to write the Abby point of view out of the show, but it looks like she will be the main focus of season three.

 

[rodoheel]

I didn't have some huge philosophical objection to how the second game was framed, even if the whole "now we're going to force you to sympathize with the people you learned to hate in the first half" as part of exploring the futility of revenge cycles was a bit contrived. (The whole thing where you spend the first act terrified or and killing evil guard dogs and then you basically have to pet and love the puppies as Abby felt particularly manipulative.) However, I did find it very hard to play through the second game because it was simply so long and emotionally exhausting. For the last third of the game, especially, I no longer agreed, or even really sympathized with, the choices characters were making, so it wasn't really that fun and I wasn't really that eager to see what happened; I just wanted it to be over. I was finishing it to know that I had played through the whole narrative, not because I really wanted to see what happened anymore.

For that reason, I've chosen not to watch the second (and I guess 3rd and maybe 4th) season of the show. I know what's going to happen, in broad strokes, and candidly I don't have any desire to put myself through that again; just like I have no intention of playing through the game again.

 

[circlesky88]

So Ellie was so gung ho to go after a group of Wolves when they drag the Scar kid away. But she gets the drop on two of the people that are responsible for Joel's death and she turns into a quivering mess?

 

[rodoheel]

The problem with the second game is that it transformed into something ridiculously bad because it tries to lamely teach you the BiG LeSsoN that revenge is meaningless, kids, and does it by forcing you to play a character you absolutely despise. That is a contrived, silly, ABC After-school Special thing for a game creator to come up with. Joel did what a father any would do in the first game. His own daughter was killed in front of him and his surrogate daughter, Ellie, unknown to her and without her consent, was to be killed to attempt a cure of some kind by a small and highly questionable group led by "a doctor" feeding their fever dream of saving humanity. Beyond his defense of her life of someone he now sees as his daughter, what he did was also proper because the so-called cure was clearly no certainty. They captured Joel and Ellie by force and violence--even the series shows them bashing Joel in the back of the head with a rifle. The fireflies were simply another group about power, and whatever confidence you assign the rag-tag group with the ability to fix the cordeceps outbreak worldwide, Joel was not going to morally allow Ellie to be killed. (Neil Druckman agrees with what I just wrote). The doctor also came at Joel with a knife to prevent the rescue.

I mostly agree with your critique of the second game but one thing I will push back against is the idea that Joel's actions at the end of the first game were unambiguously (1) "what any father would do" and (2) "proper." I very much disagree with the first - I don't think every father would murder numerous morally neutral, if not morally good, strangers to save their own kid's life in that situation, even understanding Joel's past trauma, and especially in light of the fact that Ellie herself was making the choice to sacrifice herself. I think some fathers would have had another conversation with Ellie to make sure she understood and give her one last chance to reconsider, then respected her wishes; some might have let it happened then killed themselves; some might have let it happen and gone on living to honor and experience the hopefully new world her sacrifice had bought. Playing through the end of the first game as Joel, I was saying "no no no no" as I had to shoot and kill all the Fireflies to get Ellie out. It was a difficult sequence to play through.

And from a moral perspective, I outright disagree with the idea that it was necessarily "proper" to refuse to sacrifice Ellie - and murder all the Fireflies - simply because the cure was "no certainty" and because the Fireflies displayed some questionable ethics throughout the game. Whatever the case, it was what Ellie wanted - it was, to Ellie, the point of all the difficulty they'd gone through, to be part of making a cure. Joel took the decision entirely out of her hands, and then lied to her about it, making her unknowingly complicit in what he did.

Honestly I think it undercuts the brilliance of the first game to suggest that Joel's choice at the end was morally and emotionally uncomplicated. The moral ambiguity of what Joel did - and making gamers consider and debate what they would have done in the same circumstance - was a big part of what made the game so special, beyond just how good a game to play it was overall. So while I agree with some of your critiques of the second game, the fact that it refused to treat Ellie and Joel as the unambiguous "good guys" - and Abby and her friends as the unambiguous "bad guys" - was not really a significant issue from my perspective.

 

[an0maly]

I mostly agree with your critique of the second game but one thing I will push back against is the idea that Joel's actions at the end of the first game were unambiguously (1) "what any father would do" and (2) "proper."

That's fine, and I am going to also push back to defend my stances, and try to offer some details from the game to defend my views.

I very much disagree with the first - I don't think every father would murder numerous morally neutral, if not morally good, strangers to save their own kid's life in that situation,

Several things wrong there. Starting here, the characterization of "strangers" is a charitable deflation of what they are. The FIreflies were identified throughout as a militia group, one that Tommy (identified as a good person) chose to leave before our story events. In game 1 Ellie and Joel are attempting to fight their way across America to reach the Fireflies because they must deliver Ellie to doctors working on a cure. season 1 of the TV show, and how they discuss it in Boston.

I accept your assertion that not every single father of every kind would murder to save her, but your "morally neutral, if not morally good" characterization is false. It is a war from the start, for Joel and all the soldiers who are Fireflies. The doctor came at Joel to kill for a cure, the soldiers were there to kill the enemy. They brutalize Joel at each point in the scenes of him with them. The point is not every father, the point is Joel and what he personally lost before as his intolerably horrific life story. It is impossible for him morally--within his own morality-- to allow another daughter, albeit surrogate, to be killed.

Lastly, your use of the term "murder" is questionable in the extreme. It is a warfare situation in which Joel is at war to save Ellie, at that point.

even understanding Joel's past trauma, and especially in light of the fact that Ellie herself was making the choice to sacrifice herself.

In the game this is false; Ellie is put to sleep and there is no suggestion she was told she had to be killed in their process. She is not saved by Joel before being put asleep, but after, after saving her from nearly drowning, and within seconds of having fatal brain surgery. In the game the Fireflies and Marlene are clearly depicted as not regarding Ellie as a human being, or her life mattering at all except as their means to an end. Marlene makes it clear that Ellie did not know by saying "it's what she would want." Would? Not did. Marlene is not just dismissive of Joel's concerns, she will not even allow him to see her ever again, and when he begins to respond to this he is kicked brutally in the back. This is twice the Fireflies have brutalized Joel for no reason. The first time was when he was in the process of rescuing Ellie from nearly drowning, and needing help. Marlene and the FIreflies treat both Ellie's life as a sacrifice and Joel as a person to be brutalized, killed if needed, and then just told to leave, that he should just forget about Ellie.

I think some fathers would have had another conversation with Ellie to make sure she understood and give her one last chance to reconsider, then respected her wishes; some might have let it happened then killed themselves; some might have let it happen and gone on living to honor and experience the hopefully new world her sacrifice had bought. Playing through the end of the first game as Joel, I was saying "no no no no" as I had to shoot and kill all the Fireflies to get Ellie out. It was a difficult sequence to play through.

I am astonished at that, I was 100% all in to save Ellie in my play-throughs, but actually you can play through it, stealth style, with very few kills. The TV show has an agenda of making Joel far less favorable and has him kill all he meets. I could digress on that lame narrative annoyance but skip it for now.

And from a moral perspective, I outright disagree with the idea that it was necessarily "proper" to refuse to sacrifice Ellie - and murder all the Fireflies - simply because the cure was "no certainty" and because the Fireflies displayed some questionable ethics throughout the game. Whatever the case, it was what Ellie wanted - it was, to Ellie, the point of all the difficulty they'd gone through, to be part of making a cure. Joel took the decision entirely out of her hands, and then lied to her about it, making her unknowingly complicit in what he did.

This is not correct, as I have detailed, and a lot of change to the story has happened in the second game and in the TV show. Fireflies were not good, Ellie was not told, was the story.

Honestly I think it undercuts the brilliance of the first game to suggest that Joel's choice at the end was morally and emotionally uncomplicated.

It is complicated, it is not moral for him, as Joel, to allow her to be killed for a cure, real or not. In all formats he is emotionally damaged as a character, and his experiences morally demand his choices.

The moral ambiguity of what Joel did - and making gamers consider and debate what they would have done in the same circumstance - was a big part of what made the game so special, beyond just how good a game to play it was overall. So while I agree with some of your critiques of the second game, the fact that it refused to treat Ellie and Joel as the unambiguous "good guys" - and Abby and her friends as the unambiguous "bad guys" - was not really a significant issue from my perspective.

I never had a problem with some supposed need of keeping a good guys versus bad guys narrative, and I have very often decried that simplistic approach in books, theater, and movies as melodrama, and false to the realities of the human condition. It is not, in essence, a problem for me to have Joel killed in the story, or to have Abby as his killer to be a playable character in a game, but as I wrote, any narrative that is only about revenge is not interesting to me. Part 2 is simply making Ellie horrible like Abby was, and trying to show us revenge versus revenge. Worse, the attempt by Druckman to "teach me" that revenge is meaningless, and have that "lesson" be the story --instead of one about caring for the life of another person, in a game is naive and silly.