The Last of Us - HBO TV show (With game spoilers)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Great finale and season. However, as someone who did not play the game, the moral dilemma aspect didn’t strike me so much as I watched the ending. The way I viewed everything, they were going to kill Ellie based on a doctor’s assertion that he could MAYBE create a vaccine. And then that vaccine MIGHT save lives but there’s no assurance that it would lead to the restoration of normal government, since things were already fubar worldwide. So in my mind yeah, it would be reasonable for Marlene and team to pump the brakes and look for a way to develop a vaccine without killing Ellie. They know how she became immune, and it did not require anyone’s brain to be removed, so it just does not logically follow that this was the only way to proceed. So in my viewing it felt like Joel was completely justified in his actions.

I get that I am making my own inferences here but I’m just explaining how I perceived it.

I agree with this.

That’s how evolving science is, though. There is no way to tell and sometimes people need to be sacrificed for the greater good or possible greater good.

Or they just take blood samples and work with that.

yeah they really should have started with blood samples instead of cutting her head open and leaving her to die. Christ on a bike that was a severe plan.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Great finale and season. However, as someone who did not play the game, the moral dilemma aspect didn’t strike me so much as I watched the ending. The way I viewed everything, they were going to kill Ellie based on a doctor’s assertion that he could MAYBE create a vaccine. And then that vaccine MIGHT save lives but there’s no assurance that it would lead to the restoration of normal government, since things were already fubar worldwide. So in my mind yeah, it would be reasonable for Marlene and team to pump the brakes and look for a way to develop a vaccine without killing Ellie. They know how she became immune, and it did not require anyone’s brain to be removed, so it just does not logically follow that this was the only way to proceed. So in my viewing it felt like Joel was completely justified in his actions.

I get that I am making my own inferences here but I’m just explaining how I perceived it.

I agree with this.

Interesting. There’s a great article in GQ with Neil Druckmann and Craig Mazin about how in the game, you’ve inhabited Joel for so long that his decision to save Ellie makes more sense than in the show, which is far more condensed. Druckmann has been insistent that Joel did the right thing, as Ellie’s surrogate parent, because that’s what parents do. But a lot of people hated the ending of the game, thought Joel made the wrong decision, etc. In the game, that final scene is the one in which he calls Ellie “baby girl” for the first time - I totally cried when that happened.

In any case, I’m super excited for the remaining seasons/Part 2. Having Ashley Johnson appear as Ellie’s mother in the finale was so beautifully fitting.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Great finale and season. However, as someone who did not play the game, the moral dilemma aspect didn’t strike me so much as I watched the ending. The way I viewed everything, they were going to kill Ellie based on a doctor’s assertion that he could MAYBE create a vaccine. And then that vaccine MIGHT save lives but there’s no assurance that it would lead to the restoration of normal government, since things were already fubar worldwide. So in my mind yeah, it would be reasonable for Marlene and team to pump the brakes and look for a way to develop a vaccine without killing Ellie. They know how she became immune, and it did not require anyone’s brain to be removed, so it just does not logically follow that this was the only way to proceed. So in my viewing it felt like Joel was completely justified in his actions.

I get that I am making my own inferences here but I’m just explaining how I perceived it.

I agree with this.

Interesting. There’s a great article in GQ with Neil Druckmann and Craig Mazin about how in the game, you’ve inhabited Joel for so long that his decision to save Ellie makes more sense than in the show, which is far more condensed. Druckmann has been insistent that Joel did the right thing, as Ellie’s surrogate parent, because that’s what parents do. But a lot of people hated the ending of the game, thought Joel made the wrong decision, etc. In the game, that final scene is the one in which he calls Ellie “baby girl” for the first time - I totally cried when that happened.

In any case, I’m super excited for the remaining seasons/Part 2. Having Ashley Johnson appear as Ellie’s mother in the finale was so beautifully fitting.

Thanks for this. That is an interesting take. I was all for Joel ploughing the medics down to save Ellie. I think because they had been through so much to get there, that his entire existence had become about protecting her, that it made perfect (parental) sense and I didn't question it for a moment. His reasons for continuing to live had evolved over the 20 years and had come to a place where she was his reason for living. I think.

[Anonymous]

I mean, let’s get real. The Fireflies were completely inept from the beginning! They were always getting killed off en masse by infected or even the idiot battery thieves from the first episode. If I were Joel, I DEFINITELY would have done the same and saved Ellie and killed off whoever I needed to in order to GTFO. Shit, that doctor the Fireflies had was probably a podiatrist or whatever in the before times. And really, they were going to just kill Ellie on this risky as hell gambit? No trying other less lethal ideas first? I mean, what are the odds that even if that doctor wasn’t a podiatrist, that he was BOTH an extremely skilled neurosurgeon AND an accomplished epedemiologist with vaccine development expertise? And that all of the ancillary technology was also available? Yeah, I’m sure that “plan” had more than a 0.000000001% chance of working.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I mean, let’s get real. The Fireflies were completely inept from the beginning! They were always getting killed off en masse by infected or even the idiot battery thieves from the first episode. If I were Joel, I DEFINITELY would have done the same and saved Ellie and killed off whoever I needed to in order to GTFO. Shit, that doctor the Fireflies had was probably a podiatrist or whatever in the before times. And really, they were going to just kill Ellie on this risky as hell gambit? No trying other less lethal ideas first? I mean, what are the odds that even if that doctor wasn’t a podiatrist, that he was BOTH an extremely skilled neurosurgeon AND an accomplished epedemiologist with vaccine development expertise? And that all of the ancillary technology was also available? Yeah, I’m sure that “plan” had more than a 0.000000001% chance of working.

They didn't have the tech for it to be successful. There was no monitor on her brain, no MRI scan, nothing and in terms of hygiene. Well, we've all see the show and how often people get a chance to actually WASH.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Great finale and season. However, as someone who did not play the game, the moral dilemma aspect didn’t strike me so much as I watched the ending. The way I viewed everything, they were going to kill Ellie based on a doctor’s assertion that he could MAYBE create a vaccine. And then that vaccine MIGHT save lives but there’s no assurance that it would lead to the restoration of normal government, since things were already fubar worldwide. So in my mind yeah, it would be reasonable for Marlene and team to pump the brakes and look for a way to develop a vaccine without killing Ellie. They know how she became immune, and it did not require anyone’s brain to be removed, so it just does not logically follow that this was the only way to proceed. So in my viewing it felt like Joel was completely justified in his actions.

I get that I am making my own inferences here but I’m just explaining how I perceived it.

I agree with this.

That’s how evolving science is, though. There is no way to tell and sometimes people need to be sacrificed for the greater good or possible greater good.

Or they just take blood samples and work with that.

yeah they really should have started with blood samples instead of cutting her head open and leaving her to die. Christ on a bike that was a severe plan.

Haha exactly. Like even if I was willing to be martyr for humanity I’d be like - have you tried everything?!

Relevant - https://slate.com/culture/2023/03/last-us-finale-hbo-season-1-vaccine-ending.html?cx_testId=3&cx_testVariant=cx_1&cx_artPos=1&cx_experienceId=EX6NH8ULG1D7#cxrecs_s

In all seriousness, this show was really fun to get into and I know they were working with the game plot, I just found this one aspect a bit off in the storytelling. Would still watch it again! I really enjoyed Bella and Joel and the many subplots throughout.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Great finale and season. However, as someone who did not play the game, the moral dilemma aspect didn’t strike me so much as I watched the ending. The way I viewed everything, they were going to kill Ellie based on a doctor’s assertion that he could MAYBE create a vaccine. And then that vaccine MIGHT save lives but there’s no assurance that it would lead to the restoration of normal government, since things were already fubar worldwide. So in my mind yeah, it would be reasonable for Marlene and team to pump the brakes and look for a way to develop a vaccine without killing Ellie. They know how she became immune, and it did not require anyone’s brain to be removed, so it just does not logically follow that this was the only way to proceed. So in my viewing it felt like Joel was completely justified in his actions.

I get that I am making my own inferences here but I’m just explaining how I perceived it.

Did they really know how she became immune?

How would they immunize people knowing that? Have a zombie bite every woman giving birth?

I agree. In Ellie’s case, it was seconds between the bite (located close to the birth canal), the birth and the cutting of the umbilical cord. No one would know how short of a time frame it was. The doctors would have no idea how long a baby can remain in the womb before birth - before it is immune versus before it’s infected (or if a baby can even be infected in vitro).

I mean it’s fiction so no one can say. I was not saying like literally the only thing they could do was replicate the same conditions in the middle of a birth. I was saying that the plot leaves room to conjecture that you could give someone a very minuscule exposure and vaccinate them since that is what happened to Ellie. That is how science works, you see someone happen and you try multiple experiments and hypotheses to try to explain/replicate it. Also if I was going to really take this overly far I should say they should also start with mice first, etc., all before killing someone!! But my point was just that the story leaves plenty of room to doubt Marlene’s plan.

She was exposed via the placenta. Which may be a factor.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Great finale and season. However, as someone who did not play the game, the moral dilemma aspect didn’t strike me so much as I watched the ending. The way I viewed everything, they were going to kill Ellie based on a doctor’s assertion that he could MAYBE create a vaccine. And then that vaccine MIGHT save lives but there’s no assurance that it would lead to the restoration of normal government, since things were already fubar worldwide. So in my mind yeah, it would be reasonable for Marlene and team to pump the brakes and look for a way to develop a vaccine without killing Ellie. They know how she became immune, and it did not require anyone’s brain to be removed, so it just does not logically follow that this was the only way to proceed. So in my viewing it felt like Joel was completely justified in his actions.

I get that I am making my own inferences here but I’m just explaining how I perceived it.

Did they really know how she became immune?

How would they immunize people knowing that? Have a zombie bite every woman giving birth?

I agree. In Ellie’s case, it was seconds between the bite (located close to the birth canal), the birth and the cutting of the umbilical cord. No one would know how short of a time frame it was. The doctors would have no idea how long a baby can remain in the womb before birth - before it is immune versus before it’s infected (or if a baby can even be infected in vitro).

I mean it’s fiction so no one can say. I was not saying like literally the only thing they could do was replicate the same conditions in the middle of a birth. I was saying that the plot leaves room to conjecture that you could give someone a very minuscule exposure and vaccinate them since that is what happened to Ellie. That is how science works, you see someone happen and you try multiple experiments and hypotheses to try to explain/replicate it. Also if I was going to really take this overly far I should say they should also start with mice first, etc., all before killing someone!! But my point was just that the story leaves plenty of room to doubt Marlene’s plan.

She was exposed via the placenta. Which may be a factor.

meh

[Anonymous]

How are zombies still alive after 20+ years? The fungus needs their host, a human, to survive. Humans need water. Zombies don't drink water. Or am I overthinking this and it's a tv show?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:How are zombies still alive after 20+ years? The fungus needs their host, a human, to survive. Humans need water. Zombies don't drink water. Or am I overthinking this and it's a tv show?

I think it’s that new ones keep getting created.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How are zombies still alive after 20+ years? The fungus needs their host, a human, to survive. Humans need water. Zombies don't drink water. Or am I overthinking this and it's a tv show?

I think it’s that new ones keep getting created.

I think they do create new ones but also what was that thing in the episode when they burst out of the ground ? They can lay dormant for long stretches I think and then "come alive" as it were. I don't know - maybe someone who plays the original game can explain?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How are zombies still alive after 20+ years? The fungus needs their host, a human, to survive. Humans need water. Zombies don't drink water. Or am I overthinking this and it's a tv show?

I think it’s that new ones keep getting created.

No, Joel said that some of them had been around for 20+ years, some are new.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How are zombies still alive after 20+ years? The fungus needs their host, a human, to survive. Humans need water. Zombies don't drink water. Or am I overthinking this and it's a tv show?

I think it’s that new ones keep getting created.

I think they do create new ones but also what was that thing in the episode when they burst out of the ground ? They can lay dormant for long stretches I think and then "come alive" as it were. I don't know - maybe someone who plays the original game can explain?

I can't entirely explain the mechanics, but in Kansas City - where they burst out of the ground - the zombies had been buried. They finally broke out. If you remember the scene where Kathleen and her right hand man look at the concrete in that locked room - they were looking at where the zombies had been buried. The one guy - Henry? - leads Joel, Ellie, and Sam through some tunnels. It's implied that the zombies had also gotten into the tunnels.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I mean, let’s get real. The Fireflies were completely inept from the beginning! They were always getting killed off en masse by infected or even the idiot battery thieves from the first episode. If I were Joel, I DEFINITELY would have done the same and saved Ellie and killed off whoever I needed to in order to GTFO. Shit, that doctor the Fireflies had was probably a podiatrist or whatever in the before times. And really, they were going to just kill Ellie on this risky as hell gambit? No trying other less lethal ideas first? I mean, what are the odds that even if that doctor wasn’t a podiatrist, that he was BOTH an extremely skilled neurosurgeon AND an accomplished epedemiologist with vaccine development expertise? And that all of the ancillary technology was also available? Yeah, I’m sure that “plan” had more than a 0.000000001% chance of working.

+1, it's horrifying to watch Joel murder all those people, but their plan is deranged and shows they are every bit as dangerous as FEDRA or the militant opposition group in St. Louis. Which means they are dangerous.

Just killing this girl you've raised since infancy on the premise that this ONE doctor thinks he can use cells from her body to develop a cure? I don't know a single scientist worth their salt who would consider that a viable plan, or in any way ethical, unless you'd done extensive testing, run experiments, looked for alternatives, etc.

The don't even have plans in place to manufacture this imaginary cure that they assume will be developed... when? Or distribute it. Since you are talking about killing someone here, how about you let them enjoy a little more life while you sort out some of these details?

Like the mere fact these people were ready to grab Ellie and kill her to harvest her cells without even saying hello tells you everything you need to know about them. Yes the scene is upsetting and it's also upsetting when he kills Marlene and it's upsetting when he lies to Ellie. It's not like he's 100% morally in the right. But the idea that I'm supposed to take it as a given that the Fireflies are making a moral, thought-out choice in killing Ellie, instead of a violent and rash decision that disregards human life for a crackpot plan that probably won't work? Nope. On balance, I think Joel made the right choice AND I think part of the beauty of his character is that he's probably one of the few people who would have been able to make that choice -- other guardians Ellie might have wound up with might have wanted to save her but lacked the skill or courage or, frankly, the cynicism to do so.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How are zombies still alive after 20+ years? The fungus needs their host, a human, to survive. Humans need water. Zombies don't drink water. Or am I overthinking this and it's a tv show?

I think it’s that new ones keep getting created.

I think they do create new ones but also what was that thing in the episode when they burst out of the ground ? They can lay dormant for long stretches I think and then "come alive" as it were. I don't know - maybe someone who plays the original game can explain?

That part wasn't in the game. In game they were chased by a group of hunters, not Kathleen's army. And there was 1 or 2 clickers that bite Sam.
The bloater fight was in the Colorado university.