HBO: The Last of Us

R_R_X said:

Absolutely, I'm not entirely sure Joel would've accepted Ellie's choice if all 3 of them sat down and how he would've reacted but if there's one person who could've convinced him the sacrifice was the right choice it was Ellie but unfortunately for everyone involved Marlene and the not important doctor decided to make that choice for her and that was the true choice that led to the chain of events at the hospital but if I was in Joel's shoes I would do exactly what he did and in fact I did in the game and "I would do it all over again."

Click to expand...

I'm sure most people would do the same in his position tbh, **** the world it had it's chance .

chrisstbh said:

I'm sure most people would do the same in his position tbh, **** the world it had it's chance .

Click to expand...

Yeah lol and in the world of the show all you need is a fence and some traps to live peacefully for the rest of your life anyway, there's barely any infected out there aside from big groups in cities so the need for a cure doesn't even feel as necessary as it does in the games where the threat of the infected is very much real and present everywhere, even close to communities and QZs.

choombaz said:

While I enjoyed it I didn’t think this. There is a ton of amazing tv out there right now and this ain’t one of them, the writing and directing really let this one down.

Click to expand...

Spoiler:

"]

In the spirit of pointing out something more positive in the series, I thought Lamar Johnson ( Henry) was fantastic. He was only in two episodes, but he really delivered. You could see the fear and tension within him during the entire situation that kept getting worse and worse.

There was great chemistry with Kevionn Woodard ( Sam) and it was extremely thoughtful and believable. While this might sound like heresy to some here, had the show switched it up and focused on Henry and Sam's story as the primary lead characters, I wouldn't have been disappointed. Or if they got their own spin off, and showed what happened in KC, that too would have been very welcome.

Nick Offermann is getting most of accolades for the guest star category, but Johnson really came through with his A game in this series.

I felt the weight on Henry's shoulders as he pleaded his way for Joel and Ellie to help him. The quiet desperation in his voice, facial expression, tone and demeanor. IMHO, this was the true breakout of S1, not Offermann, not Ramsey, not Storm Reid, not Nico Parker, etc, etc.

I did like Joels rampage here more than in the game though, in the game you're just mowing down Fireflies left and right and it feels like a video game set piece, you feel like the hero racing to save Ellie. But here you see Joel go from protagonist to essentially horror movie villain. He's detached, emotionless and cold and you can see it in his face as he kills these people; unsure if it's really Joel or he's just essentially on autopilot doing what needs to be done.

chrisstbh said:

I agree. I think people are missing the point; Joel's decision is supposed to be questioned, was he right? No. But was he entirely wrong either? No. The whole point is that nobody gave Ellie a choice.

Marlene knows what kind of person Joel is, had she simply sat Joel and Ellie down and had a conversation then there's a chance it could have been resolved with a whole lot less bloodshed.

If Marlene was so confident that Ellie would have made the right choice then she should have given her the opportunity to make said choice. Had Ellie consented Joel likely would not have good on an unhinged dissociated killing spree, I don't think he would have handled it well but still better than he did here.

Click to expand...

Yeah Marlene's choice to rob Ellie of her own choice is what lead to this. I haven't played the game either so to me this was well played.

I can imagine how it would hit differently in a game though since as a player, you'd have direct control over Joel's actions, and (I assume) in order to progress through the game, you have to carry this out whether you agree to Joel's choice or not.

chrisstbh said:

I did like Joels rampage here more than in the game though, in the game you're just mowing down Fireflies left and right and it feels like a video game set piece, you feel like the hero racing to save Ellie. But here you see Joel go from protagonist to essentially horror movie villain. He's detached, emotionless and cold and you can see it in his face as he kills these people; unsure if it's really Joel or he's just essentially on autopilot doing what needs to be done.

Click to expand...

Gustavo did the heavy lifting with that ominous music, to be honest I didn't feel like the hero when I was playing the game I knew that this would probably be a bad choice but I was scared, I was selfish and didn't want to lose Ellie just like Joel didn't so anyone who got in my way was getting a bullet I didn't want to save Ellie and be her hero I wanted her to live because she's the only thing worth saving in that piece of **** world, I think most players also though that as well especially in the operating room a lot of them don't want to kill the doctor and try to aim for his foot instead but there's also those that kill everyone in the room lol I think Joel's most villainous moment and where we as the player are the most at odds with him is when he shoots Marlene and we switch back to Ellie's perspective for the ending, really makes you just soak in what the hell happened and question Joel since you're not in his shoes anymore.

R_R_X said:

Gustavo did the heavy lifting with that ominous music, to be honest I didn't feel like the hero when I was playing the game I knew that this would probably be a bad choice but I was scared, I was selfish and didn't want to lose Ellie just like Joel didn't so anyone who got in my way was getting a bullet I didn't want to save Ellie and be her hero I wanted her to live because she's the only thing worth saving in that piece of **** world, I think most players also though that as well especially in the operating room a lot of them don't want to kill the doctor and try to aim for his foot instead but there's also those that kill everyone in the room lol I think Joel's most villainous moment and where we as the player are the most at odds with him is when he shoots Marlene and we switch back to Ellie's perspective for the ending, really makes you just soak in what the hell happened and question Joel since you're not in his shoes anymore.

Click to expand...

I just think some of the tension/atmosphere/weight is lost when you're running around a hospital with a flamethrower, bow and arrow and throwing bottles around .

MeatHookGekko said:

Spoiler:

"]

In the spirit of pointing out something more positive in the series, I thought Lamar Johnson ( Henry) was fantastic. He was only in two episodes, but he really delivered. You could see the fear and tension within him during the entire situation that kept getting worse and worse.

There was great chemistry with Kevionn Woodard ( Sam) and it was extremely thoughtful and believable. While this might sound like heresy to some here, had the show switched it up and focused on Henry and Sam's story as the primary lead characters, I wouldn't have been disappointed. Or if they got their own spin off, and showed what happened in KC, that too would have been very welcome.

Nick Offermann is getting most of accolades for the guest star category, but Johnson really came through with his A game in this series.

I felt the weight on Henry's shoulders as he pleaded his way for Joel and Ellie to help him. The quiet desperation in his voice, facial expression, tone and demeanor. IMHO, this was the true breakout of S1, not Offermann, not Ramsey, not Storm Reid, not Nico Parker, etc, etc.

Click to expand...

I personally didn't really feel like he was the best one but I didn't feel that about anyone, I think Brandon Scott's performance in the game was more powerful especially in Henry's final moments, Offerman was great but he always plays some type of Ron Swanson character in everything he's in and this was no different, Bella surprised for the better in the final episodes but I'm still not convinced she was the right person for the role and Pedro just lost me at the end I feel like any other guy could've played this role.

Ashley Johnson is the one who really grabbed me and got me emotional and she only had like 2 minutes of screen time but goddamn she was so great in it, I hope if there's a Part 3 of the game she's the lead cause she's a treat to watch in the games and now in the show, insanely talented and underrated.

R_R_X said:

I hope if there's a Part 3 of the game

Click to expand...

chrisstbh said:

I just think some of the tension/atmosphere/weight is lost when you're running around a hospital with a flamethrower, bow and arrow and throwing bottles around .

Click to expand...

I loved frying people and infected with that flamethrower and it became my go to weapon to execute the totally random doctor.

chrisstbh said:

View attachment 628040

Click to expand...

R_R_X said:

I hope if there's a Part 3 of the game she's the lead

Click to expand...

Key words here, Ellie's story isn't done yet.

R_R_X said:

I loved frying people and infected with that flamethrower and it became my go to weapon to execute the totally random doctor.

Click to expand...

Just imagining Pedro bursting through the doors with a flamethrower and torching the entire room whilst laughing manically.

chrisstbh said:

Just imagining Pedro bursting through the doors with a flamethrower and torching the entire room whilst laughing manically.

View attachment 628041

Click to expand...

And then this happens, **** I'd be down for that.

R_R_X said:

And then this happens, **** I'd be down for that.

Click to expand...

If they had the balls to just make the finale of the show into a musical out of nowhere then it’d be a masterpiece

e30ernest said:

Yeah Marlene's choice to rob Ellie of her own choice is what lead to this.

Click to expand...

My take is part of the moral dilemma is the implied double standard.

Let me explain by running a hypothetical.

Situation A - You have no kids. You have no romances, no ties, no debts, no dependents nor obligations. It's just you in a screwed post apocalyptic world full of clickers, FEDRA and Fireflies. The issue of Ellie having a choice has some impact on your life, but you can decide for yourself what measure of risk you will accept for yourself.

Situation B - You had three kids. Two already died from infections/clickers/attacks. Your youngest is still alive. Having Ellie be operated on and sacrificed works as a slim chance that a "cure" can be found, thus giving all of humanity some measure of hope. But by extension, also giving your last surviving child a better chance to survive and maybe even, one day, to thrive.

I have a young nephew. If he was in Ellie's shoes, i.e. as "The Cure" Then No, I wouldn't accept him getting lobotomized even if the entire world had to burn over it.

However, if it was the child of someone out there or even here was that same cure, and their sacrifice would give my nephew a fighting chance at a decent safe and productive life moving forward, then I'd literally pick up that kid, and toss them into a woodchipper if I had to do it.

I readily admit I have a double standard here. I'm not trying to be fair, if some will say that's not fair or hypocritical. If they or you called me a hypocrite, I'd agree. I'd admit it openly. People can call me whatever names they want, as long as my nephew is safe. Some people here are parents, or they have younger siblings or cousins or nieces or nephews, that kind of thing. They see where I'm coming from with all this. What I'm saying is not from a place of malice. It's not like I'm advocating going around hurting kids for sport or for no apparent reason. But blood is blood, nothing else is it's equal.

If Ellie was the cure, and Sarah was still alive, does anyone think Joel wouldn't literally crack open Ellie's head on his own, if he had to do it, to try for that 1/10000th percent chance of finding a cure to keep his real biological daughter safe?

I do believe though, for Joel, there is a lot of complexity here. When he was arguing with Tommy, Joel points out that they did what they needed to do to survive ( i.e. a rationalization) whereas Tommy simply said, "There were other ways" But Tommy has that luxury, because Joel was the one who was responsible to lead and make decisions. It's easy to choose the virtuous path when it costs someone less. What happens if it costs you more?

So I'm not trying to pick on you here. I am however saying the show and this story creates a pretty fascinating moral quandary.

My view of "right versus wrong", and no one needs to share it, comes down to what I can sleep with at night. And I can sleep with a lot. And for my nephew, I can sleep with even more. You could fill an ocean with what I could sleep with if that's what it took to keep him safe from harm. And I suppose that's part of the tragedy. That one could inflict so much hate and bloodshed upon the world for the sake of unconditional love.

MeatHookGekko said:

My take is part of the moral dilemma is the implied double standard.

Let me explain by running a hypothetical.

Situation A - You have no kids. You have no romances, no ties, no debts, no dependents nor obligations. It's just you in a screwed post apocalyptic world full of clickers, FEDRA and Fireflies. The issue of Ellie having a choice has some impact on your life, but you can decide for yourself what measure of risk you will accept for yourself.

Situation B - You had three kids. Two already died from infections/clickers/attacks. Your youngest is still alive. Having Ellie be operated on and sacrificed works as a slim chance that a "cure" can be found, thus giving all of humanity some measure of hope. But by extension, also giving your last surviving child a better chance to survive and maybe even, one day, to thrive.

I have a young nephew. If he was in Ellie's shoes, i.e. as "The Cure" Then No, I wouldn't accept him getting lobotomized even if the entire world had to burn over it.

However, if it was the child of someone out there or even here was that same cure, and their sacrifice would give my nephew a fighting chance at a decent safe and productive life moving forward, then I'd literally pick up that kid, and toss them into a woodchipper if I had to do it.

I readily admit I have a double standard here. I'm not trying to be fair, if some will say that's not fair or hypocritical. If they or you called me a hypocrite, I'd agree. I'd admit it openly. People can call me whatever names they want, as long as my nephew is safe. Some people here are parents, or they have younger siblings or cousins or nieces or nephews, that kind of thing. They see where I'm coming from with all this. What I'm saying is not from a place of malice. It's not like I'm advocating going around hurting kids for sport or for no apparent reason. But blood is blood, nothing else is it's equal.

If Ellie was the cure, and Sarah was still alive, does anyone think Joel wouldn't literally crack open Ellie's head on his own, if he had to do it, to try for that 1/10000th percent chance of finding a cure to keep his real biological daughter safe?

I do believe though, for Joel, there is a lot of complexity here. When he was arguing with Tommy, Joel points out that they did what they needed to do to survive ( i.e. a rationalization) whereas Tommy simply said, "There were other ways" But Tommy has that luxury, because Joel was the one who was responsible to lead and make decisions. It's easy to choose the virtuous path when it costs someone less. What happens if it costs you more?

So I'm not trying to pick on you here. I am however saying the show and this story creates a pretty fascinating moral quandary.

My view of "right versus wrong", and no one needs to share it, comes down to what I can sleep with at night. And I can sleep with a lot. And for my nephew, I can sleep with even more. You could fill an ocean with what I could sleep with if that's what it took to keep him safe from harm. And I suppose that's part of the tragedy. That one could inflict so much hate and bloodshed upon the world for the sake of unconditional love.

Click to expand...

I agree with you. To add to that, the flashback at the start of the episode bears weight here.

The entire show talks about having a sense of purpose in that world. Joel's purpose disappeared when Sarah died, but he regained that purpose with Ellie. Bill and Frank's purpose was to live with each other so when one was going to die, the other followed through. Same for Henry and Sam. Ellie found her purpose in being the potential cure.

Marlene promised to "protect" Ellie just before she kills her best friend. I think this is what is weighing down on Marlene's side. She doesn't really care about Ellie, but she wants the death of her friend to amount to something. I think Marlene is looking for a purpose to the death of her friend. A purpose to prevent further deaths like this from happening. This is why she is ready to sacrifice the life of a child in the hopes of attaining that purpose.

Joel is coming from the opposite side. His purpose to save Ellie is borne out of love and the need for love. It's selfish in a way but I can sympathize with him. Since Sarah's death, he's really just surviving in that world and not living in there. He's pretty much just like the zombies here.

Now he has a reason to live, but that reason is being taken away from him in the same way his daughter was taken from him. I definitely understand why he did that.

chrisstbh said:

Just imagining Pedro bursting through the doors with a flamethrower and torching the entire room whilst laughing manically.

View attachment 628041

Click to expand...

While wearing his grandmother's clothing...

My take on this. Screw the fireflies. People act like if they found a cure they would save humanity. Hell no. They’d use it for power and control. They weren’t saints. They turned towns into war zones. They didn’t give Ellie a choice, they just did what they wanted.

Also screw that doctor. If a guy comes at you with a knife of course you defend yourself. I remember being just like Joel mowing down those guys in the hospital hoping to save Ellie. Could care less how it made me look. All I knew is they were gonna kill a beloved character.

I’d imagine any of us would do the same if sonic the hedgehog was strapped to a hospital table and about to be killed. Wouldn’t let that slide

R_R_X said:

Gustavo did the heavy lifting with that ominous music, to be honest I didn't feel like the hero when I was playing the game I knew that this would probably be a bad choice but I was scared, I was selfish and didn't want to lose Ellie just like Joel didn't so anyone who got in my way was getting a bullet I didn't want to save Ellie and be her hero I wanted her to live because she's the only thing worth saving in that piece of **** world, I think most players also though that as well especially in the operating room a lot of them don't want to kill the doctor and try to aim for his foot instead but there's also those that kill everyone in the room lol I think Joel's most villainous moment and where we as the player are the most at odds with him is when he shoots Marlene and we switch back to Ellie's perspective for the ending, really makes you just soak in what the hell happened and question Joel since you're not in his shoes anymore.

Click to expand...

Honestly I did t think of it that way. I saw it as an urgency to save your adopted daughter from some crazy people. I didn’t feel any guilt nor did I care about them after they were suddenly about to kill Ellie. I just kinda rushed in. Now was it right? No. But screw those guys. They aren’t out to save the world. They will use a “cure” for their own personals gain. And screw that doctor ….

Don't know why this just popped in my head, but it's making a lot of sense.

Druckmann wanted Part 1 (game) to be a revenge story with a female lead, at the time Tess. Somehow (whether it was Straley or the head honcho's) they go with the male lead (obviously Joel).

Part 1 becomes a monstrous success, critically and financially.

Stanley and Druckmann are put onto Uncharted 4 (against Straley's wishes, as he believed Amy Henig should still lead the series), because they are the "new best thing."

Straley leaves after Uncharted 4 as he apparently had an unpleasant time making it and decided he needed to have a sabbatical (no doubt Druckmann's ego was exploding by this time and he would have been an obnoxious **** to work with).

Druckmann gets promoted within Naughty Dog and leads Part 2 and finally gets to make his female lead, revenge game... (that completely divided the fanbase and sold less than half of the first).

So...

Was Joel's golfing incident, Druckmann's conscious (or subconscious) way of saying **** you, to Straley (and those that made the decision to make Part 1 a male lead)???

Which also leads to another thought... make Joel completely different in the tv show (anxiety, less aggressive and masculine, etc) and - as it turns out - now have a lot of people saying how much they dislike Joel (tv version) for making the decision he did (because in the game, the characters, their relationships and motivations were so well developed, NOBODY disked Joel and the decision he made. It's never been a conversation point ever, anywhere, before this last episode aired.