TV: The Last of Us (HBO)

Pierce Hawthorne

HFBoards Sponsor
Sponsor
Apr 29, 2012
46,524
45,108
Caverns of Draconis
I really do not understand the complaints about weekly releases. I couldn't be happier that more shows are starting to spread releases out over a longer period of time again.
Agreed. Used to be part of what made Television series so great to me. Not being able to watch the entire thing in one sitting, the excitement of each new week and new episode, especially when the previous episode would end on some sort of a cliffhanger.


I enjoy being able to binge watch series as well, but having a few shows that are on a weekly release is great. Something to look forward to every week again.
 

Pierce Hawthorne

HFBoards Sponsor
Sponsor
Apr 29, 2012
46,524
45,108
Caverns of Draconis
The only two flaws IMO about that episode

1) The quickness in which Bill/Frank were getting it on. I mean come on it wasn't even a few hours since they met and how did Frank know that Bill was gay? And frankly Frank was far too aggressive with first kiss most men or woman would not have been thrilled to have someone all over them a few hours after meeting.

Literally impossible to compare the feelings of Men and Women in our current society to the feelings of a man who has been entirely on his own without a single other human connection for over 3 years. Not to mention people hook up within hours, hell minutes, of meeting one another quite frequently even in our current society.

Just silly to even make the comparison
 

shadow1

Registered User
Nov 29, 2008
16,729
5,526
I got a late start and watched the first three episodes over the last three nights.

So far it's a great start to what is on track to be another great show from HBO. Episode 3 in particular was outstanding, and I liked how it deviated from the video game.

I didn't have any problem with Bill and Frank's quick developing romance; on the contrary it made complete sense to me. Even in a non-apocalypse, people use apps on their phone to agree to hook up with others based solely on profile photos. Multiply that urge several times over for someone who hadn't seen another human being for nearly half a decade.
 

izlez

Carter Mazur Fan Club
Feb 28, 2012
5,061
4,053
I got a late start and watched the first three episodes over the last three nights.

So far it's a great start to what is on track to be another great show from HBO. Episode 3 in particular was outstanding, and I liked how it deviated from the video game.

I didn't have any problem with Bill and Frank's quick developing romance; on the contrary it made complete sense to me. Even in a non-apocalypse, people use apps on their phone to agree to hook up with others based solely on profile photos. Multiply that urge several times over for someone who hadn't seen another human being for nearly half a decade.
Sure, that's believable... but why didn't the writers tell that story?

Instead, we get a brief picture of a self-sustaining survivalist that looks to be thriving on his own and don't need no man.

It's seems like people are saying: "All you have to do is completely ignore what the writers told us, fill in some blanks that the writers didn't hint at at all, and you wind up with this incredibly well written emotionally enthralling episode. Brilliant job done by the writers"
 

shadow1

Registered User
Nov 29, 2008
16,729
5,526
Sure, that's believable... but why didn't the writers tell that story?

Instead, we get a brief picture of a self-sustaining survivalist that looks to be thriving on his own and don't need no man.

It's seems like people are saying: "All you have to do is completely ignore what the writers told us, fill in some blanks that the writers didn't hint at at all, and you wind up with this incredibly well written emotionally enthralling episode. Brilliant job done by the writers"

They did tell that story, it was the point of the entire episode. Over a 20 year period we got to see the evolution of a paranoid loner into someone who'd rather be dead than be alone again.

Bill was thriving in the sense that his psychological and safety needs were being met, but not his needs for love/belonging.
 

izlez

Carter Mazur Fan Club
Feb 28, 2012
5,061
4,053
They did tell that story, it was the point of the entire episode. Over a 20 year period we got to see the evolution of a paranoid loner into someone who'd rather be dead than be alone again.

Bill was thriving in the sense that his psychological and safety needs were being met, but not his needs for love/belonging.
Right. So when we meet him he is a paranoid loner. This paranoid loner character invites someone into his home and leaves him unattended within MINUTES of this man coming on his property??

Sure, we see him evolve over the next 20 years. But as a viewer watching the show they told us 1 thing about him: He's a paranoid loner. If he is going to betray that within the first few minutes he is on screen, why tell us that at all? Why not tell us he's a man who is desperate for human interaction? His wife died and he's been looking for human interaction?

They could have told us any story they wanted. What they did tell us is this character is wildly inconsistent from scene to scene with no reason given. How the writing is being praised in particular is very confusing to me.
 

TheAngryHank

Expert
May 28, 2008
18,402
6,922
I got a late start and watched the first three episodes over the last three nights.

So far it's a great start to what is on track to be another great show from HBO. Episode 3 in particular was outstanding, and I liked how it deviated from the video game.

I didn't have any problem with Bill and Frank's quick developing romance; on the contrary it made complete sense to me. Even in a non-apocalypse, people use apps on their phone to agree to hook up with others based solely on profile photos. Multiply that urge several times over for someone who hadn't seen another human being for nearly half a decade.
While all this is true there is also a massive trust issue in that world that forces you to be the bad guy or your the dead guy.
 

ThePhoenixx

Registered User
Aug 7, 2005
9,579
6,298
I do find it interesting how some posters here are belittling and making very clear they hold some supposed moral high ground or higher thought pattern over any who did not like the episode.

I felt it a waste of time. It did nothing to forward the story and could be completely removed and the plot would remain the same. This is some GOT season 8 stuff. The, "Stop shooting gets him shot." or "He's suddenly in a chair, but it's not who you think!"

As the first two episodes were fantastic, I personally tuned in to watch the main characters and plot , not some side quest. Others obviously really enjoyed it. That's fine.

I, however, certainly didn't think I was going to be skipping ahead because I was bored and disappointed. But I was, and I did.
 
  • Like
Reactions: TheAngryHank

GKJ

Global Moderator
Feb 27, 2002
193,322
43,657
Right. So when we meet him he is a paranoid loner. This paranoid loner character invites someone into his home and leaves him unattended within MINUTES of this man coming on his property??

Sure, we see him evolve over the next 20 years. But as a viewer watching the show they told us 1 thing about him: He's a paranoid loner. If he is going to betray that within the first few minutes he is on screen, why tell us that at all? Why not tell us he's a man who is desperate for human interaction? His wife died and he's been looking for human interaction?

They could have told us any story they wanted. What they did tell us is this character is wildly inconsistent from scene to scene with no reason given. How the writing is being praised in particular is very confusing to me.

I think you're not really in focus here on Bill. They told you a lot more than you heard.

Making him a paranoid loner paints him too broadly. He was a survivalist first and foremost, and by nature that makes you rely, if not be completely dependent, on instinct. His instincts told him to be paranoid. And he was right, because if FEDRA got him, he would be dead.

His instincts then told him to relent when it came to Frank, most likely because he fell in love with him on the first day. Is that out of character? I don't know, maybe, love can make you do stupid shit out of character, but his instincts proved him right again to let Frank into his life. Bill knew how to survive, but he wasn't living. Frank knew how to live, even in a crazy stupid world, and that led them to Joel and Tess. It's something Bill knew he didn't have, and once he had it, he didn't want to lose it. And there was only going to be one way to not lose it.

Bill's instincts let him down one time - when he didn't want Joel to help him fortify his perimeter. Whether he was paranoid about further human interaction, any survivalist will tell you that overconfidence is a cardinal sin and will get you into the deepest shit. And that's what happened, the guy almost got dead and went outside like an idiot to start shooting when he already knew his traps would take care of the intruders (he said as much, and he was right). Maybe it's out of character, but if you think you're on death's door, it's to be expected. But in that moment, he now knew he trusted Joel, which is why he told Frank to call him.

And that's why Bill left Joel all of his shit.
 

shadow1

Registered User
Nov 29, 2008
16,729
5,526
Right. So when we meet him he is a paranoid loner. This paranoid loner character invites someone into his home and leaves him unattended within MINUTES of this man coming on his property??

The only times Frank was left alone was while showering and briefly in the dining room as Bill walked in with the lunch. I don't know why you're mentioning this.

Sure, we see him evolve over the next 20 years. But as a viewer watching the show they told us 1 thing about him: He's a paranoid loner. If he is going to betray that within the first few minutes he is on screen, why tell us that at all? Why not tell us he's a man who is desperate for human interaction? His wife died and he's been looking for human interaction?

They could have told us any story they wanted. What they did tell us is this character is wildly inconsistent from scene to scene with no reason given. How the writing is being praised in particular is very confusing to me.

As a paranoid loner, what's the lie Bill tells himself? That he doesn't need anyone but himself.

Over the course of the story, this belief is challenged. First, he meets Frank, and a physical relationship turns into a romantic one. This is the first challenge to his belief. It's not all smooth from here though, because Bill and Frank clash over their philosophies, and Frank wants them to meet even more people.

Eventually this leads to the lunch with Joel and Tess. Bill has a gun trained on Joel throughout the lunch, and tells him that he and Frank don't want or need their help. However, Joel informs him that his fence won't hold and that Joel can get him materials to build a fence which would last a lifetime.

Initially it seems like this is going to be a mistake by Bill and will lead to Frank's death. However, when the couple is attacked years later, the fence holds - revealing he did agree to trade resources with Joel. Another challenge in the belief.

The same night, when he's shot and believing he's about to die, Bill pleads with Frank to call Joel and Tess; that Frank can't be there alone. His previous belief system has all but crumbled.

Bill's final character arc ends years later when Frank is dying and asks for his help with an assisted suicide. Bill also decides to kill himself, deciding that a life alone isn't one worth living. His belief system has come full circle.

That's my long winded explanation of why the writers made Bill a paranoid loner. He's the protagonist of this episode (basically a movie) who's going through change. If his character background is that he's desperate for human interaction, then the writers needed to tell a different story. Adding that detail to this story would've made it less nuanced and frankly generic.
 

Fish on The Sand

Untouchable
Feb 28, 2002
60,362
2,133
Canada
I agree. I don’t think I’ve ever been more vested in a one episode appearance than with these two characters. I rarely come to the entertainment boards these days, but this episode was worth the trip. Just a beautiful story. I will say, I never played the game, if that matters…
Their story in the game was basically the exact opposite of how the show portrayed it. The show did an amazing job here. Absolutely tremendous.
 

Pierce Hawthorne

HFBoards Sponsor
Sponsor
Apr 29, 2012
46,524
45,108
Caverns of Draconis
I do find it interesting how some posters here are belittling and making very clear they hold some supposed moral high ground or higher thought pattern over any who did not like the episode.
Because quite frankly, its true.


Like someone earlier in the thread said, if you cant recognize just how much this episode actually did for the character development of Joel in particular.... I believe they called it media literacy.
 

TheBeastCoast

Registered User
Mar 23, 2011
32,552
33,777
Dartmouth,NS
well you should come up with a better term, I wouldn't call video games like the last of us cartoons. it just really isn't one at all.
would you consider all cgi in movie's cartoons?
I mean...argue about word choice all you want the general point is true. A direct port of video game Bill to the TV show doesn't really work. The character works in the video game...because it is a video game but it is very much your typical video game sidekick, meet up couple cut scenes go do missions together and off you go. They objectively told a better story with the TV version.

Because quite frankly, its true.


Like someone earlier in the thread said, if you cant recognize just how much this episode actually did for the character development of Joel in particular.... I believe they called it media literacy.
Yeah I have a hard time taking anyone seriously when they say you could take the episode away and it wouldn't effect the plot....when this episode is the one that drives the plot forward into the next episodes. Just because Joel and Ellie didn't have a lot of screen time does not mean the plot wasn't moved forward. I would think the end of the episode would have smacked people in the face as a major moment for the character of Joel but what do I know!
 

Arthur Morgan

Registered User
Jul 6, 2016
8,985
6,283
Toronto
www.youtube.com
I mean...argue about word choice all you want the general point is true. A direct port of video game Bill to the TV show doesn't really work. The character works in the video game...because it is a video game but it is very much your typical video game sidekick, meet up couple cut scenes go do missions together and off you go. They objectively told a better story with the TV version.

Doesn't make sense to me at all. What about video game Bill is so difficult to put to live action? they were able to do it with everything in episodes 1 and 2 and it was almost identical to the game other than a few little small changes. I mean have you even played the game? it's pretty realistic, I cant recall Bill doing a single thing that would seem impossible to transfer to live action.

How exactly did they tell a better story? okay the episode its self was fine but it had zero progress on the main story. I don;t know about you but Im more invested in Joel and Ellie and I dont really give a shit about Bill and Frank's love story. you could literally take that entire episode out other than them getting the truck and it would have zero change on the overall direction. this would have been a great filler episode later on but episode 3...... little early for pointless episodes on characters no one really cares about.

tbey literally arent suppose to end in a happy way. they are suppose to grow apart due to Bill's way, this area was pretty crucial in Joel beginning to bond with Ellie. so basically now Bill has zero impact on the main characters
 

ThePhoenixx

Registered User
Aug 7, 2005
9,579
6,298
Because quite frankly, its true.


Like someone earlier in the thread said, if you cant recognize just how much this episode actually did for the character development of Joel in particular.... I believe they called it media literacy.
I think perhaps you need to read such authors as Robert McKee "story." on proper screenplay construction. Then go to the section on flashbacks and how they are a poor, lazy writing technique that pulls people from the story and ends up being a borderline exposition dump. Not to mention this example taking it to the next level and having forwarding during the flashback to make it a full story.

Then go to sections explaining how each scene is meant to be believable while furthering plots and character development while keeping motivations as a driving factor. Then look on your statement concerning media literacy and your supposed higher thought patterns over other posters.

They spent almost an entire episode giving a backstory on a character that they killed at the end. The scene of the stoic Joel staring off into the distance after previously resolutely moving on from his partners death (whom he loved) was corny. He had one scene eating with them for a moment. Nothing was built there. Then we are to believe that he didn't see the deaths coming of the business partners he sees regularly? I wont get into the fence or any of the other ridiculous scenes in this episode.

The whole episode could've been done and explained in real time. Instead we sat through an hour long flashback. This is what usually happens when writers have an agenda while constructing scenes. The story does not flow naturally.

Edit: McKee instead of Jordan. heh
 
Last edited:
  • Haha
Reactions: Pranzo Oltranzista

Arthur Morgan

Registered User
Jul 6, 2016
8,985
6,283
Toronto
www.youtube.com
I think perhaps you need to read such authors as Robert Jordan on proper screenplay construction. Then go to the section on flashbacks and how they are a poor, lazy writing technique that pulls people from the story and ends up being a borderline exposition dump. Not to mention this example taking it to the next level and having forwarding during the flashback to make it a full story.

Then go to sections explaining how each scene is meant to be believable while furthering plots and character development while keeping motivations as a driving factor. Then look on your statement concerning media literacy and your supposed higher thought patterns over other posters.

They spent almost an entire episode giving a backstory on a character that they killed at the end. The scene of the stoic Joel staring off into the distance after previously resolutely moving on from his partners death (whom he loved) was corny. He had one scene eating with them for a moment. Nothing was built there. Then we are to believe that he didn't see the deaths coming of the business partners he sees regularly? I wont get into the fence or any of the other ridiculous scenes in this episode.

The whole episode could've been done and explained in real time. Instead we sat through an hour long flashback. This is what usually happens when writers have an agenda while constructing scenes. The story does not flow naturally.
its the type of episode side characters get usually between season 5 and 6 as a filler episode. its basically Breaking Bad's fly episode obviously a fly isn't a b character but its still nothing more than a filler episode. which is really weird in a short 9 episode season thats suppose to cover the entire game. so now the events of the 1st game will be done in 8 episodes.
 

ThePhoenixx

Registered User
Aug 7, 2005
9,579
6,298
its the type of episode side characters get usually between season 5 and 6 as a filler episode. its basically Breaking Bad's fly episode obviously a fly isn't a b character but its still nothing more than a filler episode. which is really weird in a short 9 episode season thats suppose to cover the entire game. so now the events of the 1st game will be done in 8 episodes.

I think perhaps they meant the episode as a homage to the video game players? Probably would've been fine if it was a fringe show, but it went mainstream.

I made an error in my post. It was meant to say McKee, not Jordan.
 

Arthur Morgan

Registered User
Jul 6, 2016
8,985
6,283
Toronto
www.youtube.com
I think perhaps they meant the episode as a homage to the video game players? Probably would've been fine if it was a fringe show, but it went mainstream.

I made an error in my post. It was meant to say McKee, not Jordan.
imo they skipped alot of awesome parts in the game, kinda was looking forward to an action filled episode with them setting off all of Bill's traps to being saved by Bill along with Bill and Ellie banter and a plan to get a truck the development between Joel and Ellie was skipped,

hell even if they save the school for later it would have been fine but I didnt like see this end in a happy way, I didn't shed a tear for these characters because they just seemed like a complete opposite from how I viewed Bill, never cared about Frank I mean they could have given us all these moments AND done that romance episode at the same time.

imo this episode was a huge miss from what could have been a epic episode. instead we got a sappy romance that people actually cried to.... lol


I did like the episode but it wasn't anywhere close to what I had in mind for it
 

RobBrown4PM

Pringles?
Oct 12, 2009
8,926
2,845
imo this episode was a huge miss from what could have been a epic episode. instead we got a sappy romance that people actually cried to.... lol
Wowzers.

Not sure if I should be throwing pity your way for not being able to enjoy a great human story between two people, or be terrified that you interpret the happenings in the episode as laughable.
 

Arthur Morgan

Registered User
Jul 6, 2016
8,985
6,283
Toronto
www.youtube.com
Wowzers.

Not sure if I should be throwing pity your way for not being able to enjoy a great human story between two people, or be terrified that you interpret the happenings in the episode as laughable.
Listen the last thing I would care about is your pity. Im not watching The Last Of Us for a romance story over the interactions that happened in the game. this entire episode was fine, it could have been kept but missing out on the events that happen in that part of the game is a pretty big disappointment,

kinda stupid that you feel your better than me or something because I expected it to follow the game over giving us a romance filler episode. it didn't move the overall direction of the story at all,

The Last Of Us isn;t about great human stories, it's about loss and survival. Bill shouldn't have died and the events of the game shouldn't have been skipped. they could have had this episode and still given us the interactions between Bill, Joel and Ellie.

This Bill didn;t make me think he was the video game Bill he seemed like a completely different character. he's not suppose to be happy, he's suppose to be very strict with his ways to the point where it pushes Frank away to infection/suicide. along with extended isolation that made Bill go a little crazy. did he even refer to himself in the 3rd person once in the show?

if this was the direction they wanted to go. imo Bill's Town should have been 2 episodes.

Push starting the truck with infected after them could have been a pretty awesome moment on TV too
 
  • Haha
Reactions: DaaaaB's

Arthur Morgan

Registered User
Jul 6, 2016
8,985
6,283
Toronto
www.youtube.com
Its a TV Show.

If you wanna replay the game story...just replay it.

The public for this show is everybody...not 18.35 male who played a video game..

Ffs people are dump as rock
its obvious there will be some changes so but far after both episode 1 and 2 it's very true to the game, some parts are even word for word from the game, there was nothing wrong with that 3rd episode at all. it was good tv but they skipped alot of moments I thought would have made some pretty epic TV. after how close 1st and 2nd episodes were this seems like a huge miss. Bill's Town had some pretty awesome moments that surely could have been great even if it was done in a separate episode.

I also thought this show was suppose to follow as closely as possible to the game, thought this show was for others to experience it that would never play the game or video games in general
 

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad