TV: The Last of Us (HBO)

[ThePhoenixx]

I had the impression that whatever it was there wasn't a damn thing they could do about it, other than pack up and leave the area. Like this is a fungal infection zombie theme, and that thing is bubbling up in an enclosed room. Poke it and it could douse the room in spores that will quickly mushroom-zombiefy anyone in the vicinity.

In such a scenario, if she tells everyone they probably panic and leave the city, denying the vengeance she's after. But it hasn't burst yet so she still has time, so vengeance still overcomes preservation.

Unless I missed something, they or their spores(?)(Isn't it a bite?) are not immune to fire. The burning pits showed that. Her order to quarantine the building also implies that it cannot just emerge spontaneously anywhere.

So she has supposedly kept her people alive for how many years and at this time, just as our protagonists arrive, we are to believe that she is suddenly willing to shoot her only doctor, ignore the mess in the basement that is going to kill everyone, and disrespect her second in command like a grunt. How did they survive so long with such leadership?

 

[Osprey]

Seemed pretty clear to me she was ready to kill him but held off hoping he could save the two random grunts. But taking her brief story in whole she seemed, to me, pretty fixated on avenging her brother. Admittedly the performance from the actress didn't convey that as well as she could have but her actions tell the story well enough. She's dead set on revenge, obsessed with getting it, and seems unhinged in that obsession.

She didn't know about the two grunts yet and I got the impression that she wasn't ready to kill him because she flinched each time that he mentioned being her doctor. Regardless, she's certainly determined to avenge her brother, but she doesn't seem unhinged to me. In fact, she feels too "normal" to be a villain.

 

[TheBeastCoast]

That's right, they discuss. How do you think exposition dumps happen? One character starts telling the other character about stuff. That's the very definition of it unless the voice over person enters the movie. I suspect you are being a tad facetious in your defense of the dump.

They mentioned some group who was in control. The name FEDRA was dumped during this time. When this happens people in the room with me tend to start talking or texting as characters are now telling you stuff. It's boring. I tend to go for the phone or a refreshment.

You can imagine the writer replying to a confused editor that a simple line or two while these characters are talking will solve their confusion. It's poor world building. Lots of telling, little showing. I think we saw some troops once. Like I said, I skimmed your wall of text, just as some of us skim the characters telling us stuff. Better things to do than hear some actor drone on unless said actor has amazing charisma.

It really doesn't matter anyway. When I mentioned I had no pre-knowledge of the game, you replied how you were no different as you had only heard a few things and knew the ending. So obviously none of these groups really matter at the end.

It's all just background noise.

I mean it seems your issue is you decided not to pay attention to the first episode. If your head was in your phone during the episode it isn't surprising you would have missed when they showed and didn't tell because they did both. There is this idea that any exposition=bad which is just wild to me. You have to have some amount of exposition, it just needs to be matched by what you actually see happening. Like should the characters just not talk about FEDRA at all because "exposition bad!". The flash to present time literally starts with the scene with the child coming to the QZ and being tested by the FEDRA agent for the infection and the reveal that they killed the kid then we see them executing survivors for leaving the QZ. If you weren't actually watching the episode though I get how you would miss these and think it was just a verbal exposition dump.

 

[norrisnick]

I mean it seems your issue is you decided not to pay attention to the first episode. If your head was in your phone during the episode it isn't surprising you would have missed when they showed and didn't tell because they did both. There is this idea that any exposition=bad which is just wild to me. You have to have some amount of exposition, it just needs to be matched by what you actually see happening. Like should the characters just not talk about FEDRA at all because "exposition bad!". The flash to present time literally starts with the scene with the child coming to the QZ and being tested by the FEDRA agent for the infection and the reveal that they killed the kid then we see them executing survivors for leaving the QZ. If you weren't actually watching the episode though I get how you would miss these and think it was just a verbal exposition dump.

Yeah, it's wild to me that someone just straight up states they didn't watch the show and then complain that things are unclear in a discussion thread.

 

[Arthur Morgan]

"DRUCKMANN: Yeah. I think the part that makes our story special is its themes and what it says about humanity because ultimately our story is about love, more specifically the unconditional love a parent feels for their child, that these two characters start out not knowing each other, not even liking each other."

Derp.

ok fair enough but still as an overall its hardly about love, Id still argue the biggest theme of the game is loss. which I highly doubt they would disagree with.

other than that one small part of the game, everything else is surrounded by loss and no hope.

Ive watched the documentary and I cant recall a single time while they were talking about the game love came up. people talking about the last of us as a love story is something I never heard until episode 3 released

even through all the shit The Last Of Us Part II got and people comparing stories, not once did I ever read or hear someone say it was a beautiful love story. you know why? because its not really a love story.

 

[Arthur Morgan]

"DRUCKMANN: Yeah. I think the part that makes our story special is its themes and what it says about humanity because ultimately our story is about love, more specifically the unconditional love a parent feels for their child, that these two characters start out not knowing each other, not even liking each other."

Derp.

and yes there is a part of love within the last of us but I dunno if Id call it the theme of the game or show. but yeah you guys are right there is as aspect of love in the game, found this old article so I guess I was wrong saying no one really talked about it before episode 3 released. just not something many people really even speak of.

I still think the theme of the game is loss more so then love. loss is shoved in your face every corner you take. every second your reminded of it. the love part slowly develops and isnt really that big more so just part of the story

Why The Last of Us is a Game About Love - Hardcore Gamer

The Last of Us received critical acclaim, both in its original PS3 release and when it was remastered for the PS4 – and for good reason. The Last of Us is a

hardcoregamer.com

 

[Blender]

We have to believe that the character is emotional and irrational enough to explain the bad decision. If Kathleen had watched her brother die on the payment just before confronting the doctor, who got up in her face and disrespected him, and she snapped and shot him, that would be understandable as an emotional reaction made in the heat of the moment. Instead, she let him live because he was a doctor (suggesting that she was thinking rationally), then suddenly changed her mind because of the deaths of two people whose relation to her was unclear, walked back to the cell with the intention to kill him and did so without hesitation, provocation or expression. She seemed to me relatively unemotional and aware of what she was doing.

She walked out and asked if a doctor could save the people, the medic guy said no, and she walked back and killed him.

 

[Bocephus86]

That's right, they discuss. How do you think exposition dumps happen? One character starts telling the other character about stuff. That's the very definition of it unless the voice over person enters the movie. I suspect you are being a tad facetious in your defense of the dump.

They mentioned some group who was in control. The name FEDRA was dumped during this time. When this happens people in the room with me tend to start talking or texting as characters are now telling you stuff. It's boring. I tend to go for the phone or a refreshment.

You can imagine the writer replying to a confused editor that a simple line or two while these characters are talking will solve their confusion. It's poor world building. Lots of telling, little showing. I think we saw some troops once. Like I said, I skimmed your wall of text, just as some of us skim the characters telling us stuff. Better things to do than hear some actor drone on unless said actor has amazing charisma.

It really doesn't matter anyway. When I mentioned I had no pre-knowledge of the game, you replied how you were no different as you had only heard a few things and knew the ending. So obviously none of these groups really matter at the end.

It's all just background noise.

Maybe a show that has an extensive background isn't for you if you immediately 'go to your phone or for a refreshment' when the characters start trying to explain the world to the viewer.

For what it's worth, my fiance is always on her phone during shows, it drives me nuts. She figured out what FEDRA was basically right off the bat, and has followed along without issue so far. She's also the one that wants to watch this show ASAP each week. Maybe you should reflect on your viewing habits?

 

[Richard]

She walked out and asked if a doctor could save the people, the medic guy said no, and she walked back and killed him.

And that was straight up STUPID. Lazy stupid writing as well.

 

[Bocephus86]

ok fair enough but still as an overall its hardly about love, Id still argue the biggest theme of the game is loss. which I highly doubt they would disagree with.

other than that one small part of the game, everything else is surrounded by loss and no hope.

Ive watched the documentary and I cant recall a single time while they were talking about the game love came up. people talking about the last of us as a love story is something I never heard until episode 3 released

even through all the shit The Last Of Us Part II got and people comparing stories, not once did I ever read or hear someone say it was a beautiful love story. you know why? because its not really a love story.

The largest theme of the entire game is the love between Joel & Ellie, and how that love culminates in the final act of the game. Loss, lack of hope, the world they travel through, all of it acts as a backdrop to that theme - as a literary foil so to speak. It's a 'love conquers all' story. Always has been. And I don't need articles to tell me that, I played the game and picked up on it myself.

 

[Blender]

And that was straight up STUPID. Lazy stupid writing as well.

Yes the character was irrational and made a stupid decision. What evidence did the show provide that this was a person operating rationally or who would make good long term decisions over short term ones?

 

[Richard]

Yes the character was irrational and made a stupid decision. What evidence did the show provide that this was a person operating rationally or who would make good long term decisions over short term ones?

Usually the leaders of a successful revolution don't act irrationally. They usually act with rational irrationality. What did shooting the doctor gain her or her "movement." Nothing.

I mean if it was a lacky, ok. But, I dunno I don't see Castro shooting the one doctor left in Havana. But what do I know.

Everything else has been well done this felt like a cartoon.

 

[x Tame Impala]

Never played the games. I’m liking the show for the most part. I hope we don’t spend anymore significant time with that faction that took over FEDRA.

1) I don’t believe that Kathleen woman would be in control of a bunch of militarized men whatsoever.

2) I don’t care about them narratively. Get me back to Joel and Ellie or tell me more about the fungus/initial outbreak like we were teased with in Indonesia. The Bill and Frank episode was great and I think it satisfied whatever humanity aspect they’re going for here. Making me care about some faction just feels like the worst parts of Walking Dead.

 

[The Merchant]

ok fair enough but still as an overall its hardly about love, Id still argue the biggest theme of the game is loss. which I highly doubt they would disagree with.

other than that one small part of the game, everything else is surrounded by loss and no hope.

Ive watched the documentary and I cant recall a single time while they were talking about the game love came up. people talking about the last of us as a love story is something I never heard until episode 3 released

even through all the shit The Last Of Us Part II got and people comparing stories, not once did I ever read or hear someone say it was a beautiful love story. you know why? because its not really a love story.

Just gotta say that it's pretty insane the hoops you're willing to jump through to justify your criticism of a single-episode gay love story. Some real strange behavior, to be honest.

 

[HanSolo]

That's right, they discuss. How do you think exposition dumps happen? One character starts telling the other character about stuff. That's the very definition of it unless the voice over person enters the movie. I suspect you are being a tad facetious in your defense of the dump.

They mentioned some group who was in control. The name FEDRA was dumped during this time. When this happens people in the room with me tend to start talking or texting as characters are now telling you stuff. It's boring. I tend to go for the phone or a refreshment.

You can imagine the writer replying to a confused editor that a simple line or two while these characters are talking will solve their confusion. It's poor world building. Lots of telling, little showing. I think we saw some troops once. Like I said, I skimmed your wall of text, just as some of us skim the characters telling us stuff. Better things to do than hear some actor drone on unless said actor has amazing charisma.

It really doesn't matter anyway. When I mentioned I had no pre-knowledge of the game, you replied how you were no different as you had only heard a few things and knew the ending. So obviously none of these groups really matter at the end.

It's all just background noise.

No I'm not being facetious about anything. As to everything else I don't need to add to what others responded to you with other than real facetiousness: man the first season of Game of Thrones must be a real piece of shit given that 70% of the script is exposition.

 

[HanSolo]

She didn't know about the two grunts yet and I got the impression that she wasn't ready to kill him because she flinched each time that he mentioned being her doctor. Regardless, she's certainly determined to avenge her brother, but she doesn't seem unhinged to me. In fact, she feels too "normal" to be a villain.

Probably already made up her mind about killing him because of his involvement with her brother's death and isn't blind to the heavy loss killing the only doctor would be. And I don't think someone needs to act deranged to be unhinged. As soon as she hears that she lost men due to a pair of unrecognized people with supplies in a truck that was taken down, her mind immediately jumps to them being an ally of her enemy and his "collaborators" who was brought in as backup instead of the far more likely and accurate case that it was a random pair passing through the city. She's at the very least paranoid, or she's using a random occurrence as propaganda to rile her people up. I agree that under ordinary circumstances this normal ass lady isn't what you'd expect out of a villain. But she's the voice of authority over a group that overthrew the ruling class of their quarantine zone in a post-apocalyptic dystopia. How she managed to get there is not shown but it's a reasonable inference that she must be pretty ruthless. These aren't ordinary circumstances. Villains don't have to be mustache twirlers. If she's wrong about Henry, which she seems rather predictable that she will be, then she poses a threat to good people (including the protagonists) and has already f***ed her group over killing their only doctor. That's enough to make a villain for me.

 

[John Price]

 

[LarKing]

Great show so far. Shame some people are so unbearable in these threads. Episode 3 deserves awards. I love that they're showing the impact of taking a life, even an infected one's at times.

 

[Mr Fahrenheit]

Usually the leaders of a successful revolution don't act irrationally. They usually act with rational irrationality. What did shooting the doctor gain her or her "movement." Nothing.

I mean if it was a lacky, ok. But, I dunno I don't see Castro shooting the one doctor left in Havana. But what do I know.

Everything else has been well done this felt like a cartoon.

The doctor was turning on people and reporting them to FEDRA, which in their draconian society means they would be executed, which included her brother

 

[Richard]

The doctor was turning on people and reporting them to FEDRA, which in their draconian society means they would be executed, which included her brother

My understanding is that the doctor wouldn't turn in the father/son who turned in the leaders family member.

 

[Mr Fahrenheit]

My understanding is that the doctor wouldn't turn in the father/son who turned in the leaders family member.

The doctor was turning people over to FEDRA, likely for infractions. The father was the one who said something about her brother. So, yeah, the doctor wasnt the actual one who turned in her brother to FEDRA but he was protecting the one who did, Henry, and he also turned in other people who were presumably killed

 

[Osprey]

Yes the character was irrational and made a stupid decision. What evidence did the show provide that this was a person operating rationally or who would make good long term decisions over short term ones?

You seem to be suggesting that she made a stupid decision because she's irrational, but judging that she's irrational by the fact that she made a stupid decision. If each explains the other, then writing simply can't be criticized because anything dumb that the characters do simply proves how compromised their mental states are, thus excusing their decisions. I believe that good writing establishes a character's mental state beforehand, so that, when he makes a bad decision, it tracks with what we've come to understand about him. For example, in Star Trek II, when Khan follows Kirk into the nebula, sacrificing his advantage, that dumb decision makes sense (and I've never heard anyone complain about it) because it's been well established how impulsive and vengeful he is. We're not left to assume his mental state from the fact that he makes the bad decision.

 

[Blender]

You seem to be suggesting that she made a stupid decision because she's irrational, but judging that she's irrational by the fact that she made a stupid decision. If each explains the other, then writing simply can't be criticized because anything dumb that the characters do simply proves how compromised their mental states are, thus excusing their decisions. I believe that good writing establishes a character's mental state beforehand, so that, when he makes a bad decision, it tracks with what we've come to understand about him. For example, in Star Trek II, when Khan follows Kirk into the nebula, sacrificing his advantage, that dumb decision makes sense (and I've never heard anyone complain about it) because it's been well established how impulsive and vengeful he is. We're not left to assume his mental state from the fact that he makes the bad decision.

I'm judging she was irrational by how she was acting before she killed him. She was clearly emotional and trying to work her way up to kill him anyways, but that he was a doctor was holding her back. Everything she was saying to him pointed to acting irrational.

 

[Arthur Morgan]

The largest theme of the entire game is the love between Joel & Ellie, and how that love culminates in the final act of the game. Loss, lack of hope, the world they travel through, all of it acts as a backdrop to that theme - as a literary foil so to speak. It's a 'love conquers all' story. Always has been. And I don't need articles to tell me that, I played the game and picked up on it myself.

ok fair enough I cant argue that. I mean I obviously know there is a love aspect to the game I just never really viewed it as a love story. I guess love stories can also be a parents love/unconditional love. I guess I always tied love stories with like romance and there's for sure none of that in The Last of Us until episode 3.

 

[Bocephus86]

ok fair enough I cant argue that. I mean I obviously know there is a love aspect to the game I just never really viewed it as a love story. I guess love stories can also be a parents love/unconditional love. I guess I always tied love stories with like romance and there's for sure none of that in The Last of Us until episode 3.

Ya for sure, it's a different kind of love story, and not one that is often in any medium, let alone video games (father/daughter type). Good conversation, sorry if I came across abrasive at any point, not used to open minds on these forums haha.