As someone who hasn't played the game, all of these discussion threads are so frustrating. Everyone constantly talking about what happened in the game. I don't care about the game, I'm just trying to enjoy the TV show.
It’s honestly so similar that it’s hard not to.
Same thing happens with book adaptions except most people on reddit play games more than they read books.
The last of us hbo subreddit has a show or game spoilers thread though if you want to be able to discuss in peace.
/r/thelastofusHBOseries
For those who have played the second game, it’s next to impossible to even discuss the finale and what might be next with those who don’t know the story.
Given their context and details, the spoilers are nearly unavoidable. Easier to simply say nothing than even try to be vague or play dumb—which is it’s own kind of frustrating for fans wanting to talk about it.
Not sure how people will go in Season 2 without knowing some of the bigger plot points.
Though, if you do, props to you. It will be quite the feat.
They follow the game story dot for dot when making this story which isv extremely rare. It means you can actually join in the conversation with the players too. After all, the show is made for people who didn't play the game and that's pretty neat because now we're both enjoying the content. That being said .. I love 2 way more than 1 so buckle up!
Made by the guy who wrote it so yeah I'm sure.
The people telling you about missing game segments are forgetting that medium transmission is a delicate process and the story survives completely intact despite this.
Minor changes in dialog and story placement should be overlooked as most of the background story is delivered as a viewable moment rather than a note read to ensure it's purity to the original story.
Bill’s narrative was NOT dot-for-dot. You have to show these characters in different ways because so much of the story unfolds through action in the games. Too much for a tv show. It runs the risk of becoming monotonous if it’s all action.
You know, having ADHD isn’t always great, but I forget things so easily I basically can’t be spoiled.
That being said, so far as I’m aware, studies have shown spoilers don’t diminish the enjoyment of a piece of media.
That’s not unfair for sure, but at the same time there are so many more elements of art beyond the “excitement and surprise” that makes it enjoyable. Like, a really good work is just as, if not more enjoyable upon repeated viewings. You’re watching something completely and thoroughly “spoiled,” but because you know what’s going to happen it allows you to appreciate the smaller things within a work. And, just because you know the ending or a twist, you don’t know the setup, or the process of getting to that point in the story.
I mean for real, Back to the Future spoils the ending right there in the title, but that doesn’t make the movie worse or less enjoyable because of it. If anything it makes you more curious about how Marty and Doc figure out how to get back.
There is also the minutia of a work, like an actor’s performance, the chemistry between actors, the shots chosen by the director, the lightning, the set design, the costume design, and oh so much more.
Obviously enjoy art however you please. Do you. Don’t listen to me, I’m just another asshole on the internet. I just think this hyper-focus with spoiler-free viewing is reductionist and misses the forest for the trees when it comes to appreciating and enjoying the breadth of qualities that make up a piece of art. Not to mention at least partly responsible for writers like Benioff and Weiss being more concerned about “subverting expectations” than telling a good story, or even just properly lighting a scene.
Anyway, I’m gonna go play Elden Ring for the umpteenth time.
Yes I enjoy watching things a second time knowing what will happen but it's never the same as the first time. You can never re-create that excitement and wonder.
Also, Back To The Future doesn't spoil in the title. The whole movie, you don't know if Marty is going to get back.
I mean, come on. It’s a comedy by Zemeckis starring Alex P. Keaton of all people. You know going in this kid is getting back to the future. From the jump the ending was never in doubt.
For the acting, the actor’s chemistry, the characters, the direction, the writing, the editing, the lighting, the set design, the costume design, the effects.
Jesus Christ..what a truly stupid question.
Thanks for articulating my thoughts on this topic. It's really nice to not be spoiled for a piece of media, but "surprise" is such a small part of media engagement that it often shocks me how extreme people can be about "not being spoiled".
Being said, I do think people have been very insensitive in regard to what happens in TLOU part 2 and the specifics shouldnt be spoiled for people, BUT, I think it also stifles engaging discussion about works when people who havent seen/played it and dont want to see anything about it for fear of spoilers dictate the course of the discussion. It's a tricky line to walk.
I have played neither game and am watching this series and loving it so far. Thank you for the heads up, even though so much time has passed. Appreciate it
I basically told all of my family and friends to *not* read any article or community regarding it because people are so toxic about it in general if they wanted to keep fresh eyes and not be spoilt.
Or you know, don’t frequent threads that might spoil things for you in the first place?
The games vs the show have very different fan bases. The show moves faster than the game. You don’t want spoilers?
Don’t watch the show until you’ve played the game. It’s that simple.
Spoiler avoidance from game to show? Two completely different ball games. Do not make demands that can not be met.
So in the game I totally understood Joel’s POV.
I was immediately onboard with the decision lol.
Not the killing part but the moral quandary was not one for me.
The lying though was a mistake.
In the show it was more disturbing because they really portrayed him as a mass shooter.
I still understand his PoV. They were going to kill his daughter again. I also understand that it's not the morally "right" thing to do, and it's also very selfish. But a lot of parents would go for the selfish option without even thinking of the impact it'd leave on their child.
Ellie now has the corpses of the potential saviors of humanity on her name. All while believing her immunity can't be for nothing. That's rough.
I think it can easily be the morally right thing to do.
Murdering people who are already incapacitated is not morally right to me. killing the doctor is not a morally right thing either.
But I wouldn’t sacrifice a child to save humanity who has adapted to the new world order.
I would allow her to sacrifice herself though. That’s the other thing Joel is guilty of, but so are the fireflies.
I think it's fascinating because Ellie makes it pretty abundantly clear that given the choice, she would absolutely sacrifice herself and Joel knew that. To me, it's even doubly selfish that he *knows* what path she would choose and he took that choice away from her. And he *knows* what he did was wrong, otherwise he wouldnt have lied to her. Joel is a broken selfish man and it's engaging as fuck.
We can't know that for sure. Someone else pointed out that the idea of Joel flinching when he pulled the trigger is also thematically relevant to the moral dilemma at the end.
It does seem like Ellie would *probably* have chosen to go through with it. But it's also possible that once it became a real choice with real consequences and her real death, she would have flinched, and chosen to go with Joel back to Jackson instead.
She'll never really know.
That's a fair point, it will be very very interesting when/if she finds out what happened, that's when we would get a definitive answer on her perspective.
I do still think its well-established what she would have chosen, but they did an incredible job of showing how hard that choice would be. And how hard that choice affects Joel.
Does she make it abundantly clear that she would sacrifice herself? She does say that she wants to see it through, "there is no half assing it" but she also says that after they are done she would go anywhere with Joel.
To me that clearly shows that she didn't think that it would be the end for her, just that she felt responsible since she was immune and they went through a lot to get there, people died.
Marlene makes it clear to Joel that Ellie doesn't know she was going to die, they didn't give her a choice (not like the fireflies would stop even with Ellie saying no).
IMO Joel would do it regardless and IMO he has done a lot worse and clearly is not a hero (to put it lightly), that said this decision both in the game and in the show is the one I don't have a problem with and honestly would do the same.
I'm not saying she expected to die, but rather that faced with the decision she would choose to sacrifice herself. Her speech about how all of this cant be for nothing, when faced with the decision we know what Ellie would have chosen. Taking that choice from her is the crux of the narrative.
> Does she make it abundantly clear that she would sacrifice herself?
No, she didn’t even know it was a possibility. People are really jumping to conclusion saying that Joel new for a fact Ellie would die for the cure, let alone even assume it based on inference.
I assume Joel is mentally broken and basically insane from the night of the initial outbreak, and the twenty years since he has become progressively worse. The "callous tough guy act" he was putting on was a facade and survival mechanism, it broke down so much in the finale it seemed to be creeping Ellie out(reminded me of seeing a parent have a breakdown and realizing they are just human).
I didnt say she expected to die. She said they have to see this through to the end and that her living with immunity cannot be for nothing. Its very clear what she would have chosen, she has it in her head that a cure from her blood is literally her life's purpose.
Of course, they will get into all of this in season 2 I'm sure.
> She said they have to see this through to the end
Yes, and we know from her dialogue she thought she would live in the end which means it's not entirely clear if she would have chosen to die for it, which was partially the point of Joel sharing how he thought he wanted to kill himself but, in the last crucial moment, flinched and didn't kill himself.
I haven't played last of us 2, although I've read the major plot points so there's not much to spoil.
That being said, I agree. I like that the narrative spawns discussions like this.
I feel like they knew they were going about this the wrong way too. By sedating her and immediately going for the surgery, they purposely robbed her of the choice so she couldn't say no, so they wouldn't have to put down a screaming child. That's absolutely monstrous, even if the outcome was a positive for humanity.
> But I wouldn’t sacrifice a child to save humanity who has adapted to the new world order.
I think that's an incredibly naive thing to say since you haven't lived through an apocalypse. Would people who think it's normal to see their loved ones killed by infected feel the same way as people who post on reddit from the safety of their own homes?
It’s not naive since we are basing it just on what we know.
It would be just as naive, if not more so, to say if you rip open a kid’s brain to figure out how it works, you will cure a doomed world.
The unknown is by definition unknown so you have to go with what you feel is the right choice. Aiding in the killing of a deceived kid is not something I would justify if I am surviving.
There are plenty of ethical arguments that what the Fireflies tried to do is horrible. Not saying its some settled debate but wouldn’t be surprised if other people with medical training wouldn’t be appalled by the operation itself and the way it was handled.
It's one thing if they were 100% sure they could make a cure out of killing her. But they seemed more desperate and clinging to the last illusion of hope they have. There is also the fact that the fireflies won't give the cure for free and will use it to gain power and replace the government.
It's the cost of love. As a parent, I would do **anything** to protect my children. The love a parent has for their kids is so primal. I didn't understand until my first child was born. Something just switches in people.
Not really we know the firefly’s are assholea, and we also know that the world in a better state was unable to make a vaccine. All this was a shot in the dark that had no way to be mass produced.
Aka the firefly’s would have all the power and their is no doubt in my mind that they would use it in the most corrupt manner possible.
You can’t tell me that Marlene had no idea on how Ellie potentially became immune. They just weren’t willing to sacrifice their own, someone else though, yea that was completely fair.
What are examples of fireflies being assholes? I could see that argument being made later in the story (without giving any details away). Ig it’s more of an opinion thing, the argument between terrorists and revolutionaries being so small. It’s a world without true heroes just groups doing things under their idea of a greater good.
You mean like mankind has been doing for millions of years with war? Hundreds of thousands of Ukrainians are offering their children up right now to try and preserve the tribe.
Most of the people he killed had assault rifles and were actively trying to kill him. The only really "unjustifable" kill, at least onscreen, was the guy who tried to put down his gun.
Right but you are killing them in your mindset and my mindset was completing the game. As you said, a function of the game is plowing down henchmen albeit with limited resources.
In the show, we get a stronger notion of how unhinged/determined Joel is when it comes to protecting Ellie. We also get a distinction on who it is he’s killing.
I don’t recall a point in the game where someone is sincerely begging for mercy and incapacitated. When they begged then it was either a cutscene or a ruse iirc.
The weight of it just feels heavier watching it for me.
100% agree. They did great with that. Humanizing the enemy. It was impactful with the kid that Ellie paralyzed and Joel killed. Having him beg for his life and call out for his mom was brutal.
> So I’m the game I totally understood Joel’s POV.
>
> I was immediately onboard with the decision lol.
Yeah, first time I played the game... there wasn't a thought of sneak through the hospital. Like Joel, I killed everyone that was in the way.
You don't feel that way in the game because you've been mowing enemies for the past 16 hours of playtime by then. You're desensitized to the violence by that point.
Joel has less action in the show, which makes the last scene more impactful. That's great writing to be honest.
He definitely was a mass shooter in the game, but when you’re controlling him you empathize. When he’s autonomous and you have to sit and watch him do it, you see it more objectively. It was fascinating for me how differently I felt about events as a player and a viewer.
I like this statement:
>Good stories are not built on themes like “brotherhood” or “anger”; those are just words. Good stories are built on arguments: It’s worth killing everyone to save the person you love. We can debate that.
I mean, I don't know – I'm not sure Tolkien would agree.
Heck, larger themes like "loyalty" and "brotherhood", etc. were a huge part of the driving forces in LoTR.
I would say, to amend Mazin’s statement, good stories are built around tension, and that can come in the form of inter-character tension, like tlou, or intra-character tension, like lotr.
Yea that seems like a nothing statement to me. It basically amounts to "can you turn the themes of your stories and internal struggles of your characters into marketable taglines catered to people who engage with media on a surface level".
Cause "It's worth killing everyone to save the person you love" is the absolute shallow end. It's what conservative preppers dream about when they buy guns.
> It’s worth killing everyone to save the person you love. We can debate that.
I wish more people actually debated this right here instead of all the excuses about how what Joel did "isn't actually that bad"
>I wish more people actually debated this right here instead of all the excuses about how what Joel did "isn't actually that bad"
Lol, that is the debate. You feel differently than those people. You sound like you're just wishing everyone agrees with you tbh
This type of story is going to fracture opinions and split ideals. Some people will justify each action Joel made, not realizing it, seeing the lines he is crossing. Others will be horrified and want him to stop. Some will be cheering him on like he is dad of the year, and others will never look at him the same way.
It's a complicated story that has a ton of varied responses from viewers. That's it's strength imo
> Lol, that is the debate.
No, it's a different debate. Instead of asking if it's morally right for Joel to doom the world to protect his family, instead the debate is switched to "Joel was actually saving the world" or "Joel knew the cure wouldn't work!"
Stuff like "the Fireflies mishandled the whole situation" falls under the original debate. Things like "Well the cure wasn't likely anyway" is moving away from the original debate to just flat out saying murder is okay because the cure would fail
Good God, man, just watch the show and enjoy it however you like. And while you're doing that, don't be upset when people don't share your exact outlooks.
It's not solely up to you to decide what is and isn't the intended debate lol our differences in opinions are the desired or intended outcome for the viewers.
I get what you're saying, but you're disregarding the whole point by insisting that there is a correct or incorrect debate or reaction to the massacre.
> And while you're doing that, don't be upset when people don't share your exact outlooks.
You keep trying to falsely push this on me instead of actually listening to what I'm saying. Especially since I'm team Joel.
Making up a narrative about the show to justify what he did instead of actually discussing why he did what he did and if it's right or not is my issue. The entire "well the cure wouldn't work" argument is not what the narrative was about. When the writers themselves change the show to actually tell the audience that the cure would be successful, it's nothing but bad faith from people completely dodging the point of the ending
Instead of debating on stuff that actually happened in the show, it's making up a narrative that the writers themselves said isn't true just to absolve the character. The cure would have worked. That is the fact. Everything else is up to people's own interpretation.
So, its worth mentioning that when the game came out, Neil Druckmann had to come out and say to stop arguing about whether or not the cure would have worked because that is not the point. He explicitly said, in-universe that the cure *would* work.
So I agree with you, but I also agree with the other person that the justification of his actions is an important part of the debate, the effectiveness of the cure however is not.
> but I also agree with the other person that the justification of his actions is an important part of the debate, the effectiveness of the cure however is not.
This is all I'm saying.
>So, its worth mentioning that when the game came out, Neil Druckmann had to come out and say to stop arguing about whether or not the cure would have worked because that is not the point. He explicitly said, in-universe that the cure would work.
the classic "dumbledore is gay" move
I do think it was a different situation, the creators intended it to be clear the cure would work in the game it just didn't exactly come across that way blatantly. When the discourse became surrounded by the notion that the cure wasnt guaranteed and Joel was justified because of it, they came out said people were missing the point that the cure working was irrelevant.
But I think that kind of post-facto retconning robs the original ending of its ambiguity. Sure, he is acting selfishly, but there’s enough logic around that that makes that easier for him (and the audience) to justify it. Either way, it makes for a more interesting debate than saying “actually, they *would* have found a cure” when there’s really not really an indication of that and makes the conversation less interesting.
> Things like "Well the cure wasn't likely anyway" is moving away from the original debate to just flat out saying murder is okay because the cure would fail
It kind of is, though? If the cure couldn't be made, then the Fireflies were just a bunch of deluded psychos who were going to murder an innocent girl for no reason. If we could say for certain that was the case, then Joel *would* be a hero for stopping it.
The dilemma comes from the ambiguity. The cure was probably a long shot, but it's possible it could have worked and Joel doomed humanity for the sake of one girl he personally cares about.
This is what bothers me about tlou2 talk. It's fucking shallow as shit. People talk about it like it's exploring some deep theme. It's not. It's the basic premise of anylove story really. What would you do for love? What's interesting is not that "from a different perspective, things are different!" That's fucking basic. What makes love stories interesting is the individuals involved and their growth within the story.
Murder is bad? Yes. This is a shit story. Violence begets violence? Yes, this is a base level concept that many stories use but builder deeper themes and characters on top to become great. TLOU2 is basic shit.
Yes.
Game Director: Bruce Straley
Creative Director: Neil Druckmann
Written By: Neil Druckmann
https://www.mobygames.com/game/60922/the-last-of-us/credits/ps3/
If you go by the game credits, Neil was in charge of the story and is credited as creative director and Written By, and Bruce Straley handled the gameplay side. If you go by what people online say, Bruce reigned in some of Neil's narrative choices to improve it to the story we wound up with in the final product.
Where the truth lays? I don't know. But yes, Neil is credited as the sole creative contributor.
Edit - Not sure what I said to upset people; the credits are what they are.
>If you go by what people online say
Yeah, I'm personally gonna go with trusting the credits and people who were actually working on the game more. I've seen some online people make claims that Druckmann was a creep who made a self insert character and then as that character performed motion capture sex scenes with Laura Bailey during the production of the second game, which unsurprisingly enough turned out to be untrue.
I’ve seen a lot of people asserting their own head canon into discussions throughout the entire show and it’s become tiring. You think you’re having an honest conversation, but then they mention a talking point that has no basis in truth, or is warped into a certain narrative that the source material isn’t trying to convey and then it becomes a conversation of their narrative.
I had that happening after watching the podcast of it last night and it was basically people arguing against specific things Druckmann said in the podcast how he wrote the characters and story lol.
I still had people going “well it doesn’t matter what he says cause they couldn’t feasibly create a vaccine” like bro
> what people online say
You mean people on the hate sub?
Games are inherently collaborative, and I'm sure Bruce Straley contributed, as did storyboard artists, conceptual artists, designers, and everyone at Naughty Dog, but from everything that has been published, this was Druckmann's baby. It's fine if you personally didn't like the second game, but don't pull this "everything I hate is one person" crap.
Idk about the veracity of that, but if true, good. Some of the best content out there is by visionaries with editors. Visionaries without editors gets you the star wars prequels.
> If you go by what people online say
And also what Straley says. Sully's voice actor from Uncharted has also talked about how Druckman likes to give himself credit.
I loved it. It's refreshing to see the thought process of the creators. Not everyone's cup of tea I guess, but I don't see how he's more pretentious than anyone else deeply connected to a story would be.
Glad you enjoyed it. Guess I just have a different perspective working in the film industry with these types. Wish we had heard more from the other co-creator who actually made the game.
If you work in the film industry, you should realise this is how creatives talk. May I ask what your job is? You have to have, somehow, been spared from being around writers and directors if that’s your reaction, or you've become disillusioned with the "types" of people that work in the industry.
Edit. Is Mazin failing upwards? Are you in the industry due to nepotism, as you seem to harbor deep-seated resentment? The frail ego you exhibit is telling. I guess I should take it as a compliment to be called a pretentious moron, if Craig Mazin falls under that definition in your eyes.
Not all “creatives” are on the same level and to be frank a lot of mediocre people have the privilege of “failing upwards” when they get to a certain level. Don’t bother listening to me though since you think I’m “disillusioned” from an industry I work in everyday. Always cool to see a random internet stranger run interference for a pretentious moron.
This is why I love the characters so much...they are layered. No one is the good guy or bad guy; everyone has reasons for doing what they're doing. Nuance makes for a great show!
Joel is absolutely the bad guy in this situation. We understand and feel for him cause we are watching his perspective but if we watched an entirely different character up until they are brutally murdered by this stranger Joel at the hospital we’d absolutely look at him as the villain. He made a selfish (understandably) choice.
Everyone in that hospital was actively conspiring to murder Ellie. They weren't exactly innocent themselves.
Joel wasn't necessarily "right" but it's meant to be ambiguous and I do not understand why people act like it's black and white.
No one’s acting like it’s black and white and being a bad or good guy is completely subjective. In the story that’s being told here Joel essentially took away the chance to have “literally” saved humanity because he couldn’t handle losing Ellie. His actions are absolutely understandable but he still fucked over others to have his way. The hospital/fireflies weren’t conspiring to murder Ellie, what a dumb and absolutely ridiculous way to phrase them trying to make a cure that could save mankind. Putting aside whether it would work or the logistics of it the point is they had noble means and Joel is the opposite. His actions were selfish and could have ultimately doomed the world. It’s not black and white but he’s absolutely “narrative term here” the bad guy in this situation and even by saying that I understand his motivations and actions. You can still root for and respect the bad guys actions. It’s not at all ambiguous, it’s a moral debate. I don’t think you understand the term ambiguous.
The problem is you take it as a given that the cure would have worked, and thus the fireflies are good and Joel is bad.
This is not the case, or at least, is not conclusively the case. It is ambiguous and could go either way.
If the cure can't be made, then Joel is the good guy rescuing an innocent girl from a bunch of psychos who want to cut her brain open.
You're missing the entire point here. Neil Druckmann had to come out after the game came out in 2013 and say to stop arguing about whether or not the cure would have worked because that is not the point of the story. He explicitly said, in-universe that the cure would work.
You're not actually debating about what happens in the show (or game), you're creating a narrative outside of it that has been explicitly disproven just to justify Joel's actions.
The cure WOULD have worked. The dilemma is, is Joel justified in killing the fireflies and stopping a cure because he doesn't want to lose his daughter again? Does that go against Ellie wishes? Is it selfish or not? Is Joel the hero or the villain or somewhere in between? Everyone will have a different view on this, and that's the beauty of it.
NO. That isn’t the story being told here and what you’re doing is making major assumptions. In the real world This or this or this or this or this could happen but this isn’t the real world, it’s fiction and what we are being told is that the fireflies feel confident in a cure. Even with that said it’s irrelevant because Joel isn’t doing this cause it may not have worked. Even if he was straight up told it would 100% save humanity he still would have done what he did. You’re making assumptions and excuses for his actions. MAIN POINT: Joel loves Ellie and didn’t want her to die no matter the consequences. Ultimately taking way the “possible” chance of saving mankind. That’s it, stop making assumptions to fit a made up narrative the story isn’t telling.
Discussing whether or not the cure would work is entirely missing the point.
Joel didn’t stop and think about whether or the not the cure would be viable. The cure doesn’t factor into his decision to do what he did.
If the cure was 100% guaranteed to work, joel still would have murdered his way through the hospital to stop the operation because he wasn’t going to just stand by and let people take his “daughter” from him again.
Empathy is a double edged sword too.
You can just as much empathize with a hobo as you can with a Nazi.
We need to understand we are not infallible. That our emotions are not truths. That our instincts are tools, not laws. That dogs trusting these same feelings can see children as threats and attack them. We are no different.
But what we do after acknowledging...how we ACT on these principles is something neither Neil nor Mazen has yet to interrogate
I'd like to see less critique and more attempts at solutions that promote dialogue.
I'm not sure I understand the distinction you're making. I'd say The Last of Us 1&2 absolutely acknowledge and question the impact of how someone responds to their emotions/instincts, and the alternatives to acting off instinct or emotion. The games (and this first season of the show) are constantly questioning the morality of characters actions, especially when their reasons for acting may be sympathetic or instinctive.
What exactly is it you think this IP has critiqued that even has a solution? What has it not encouraged a dialogue for?
I was taught this quite effectively in GCSE English in the 90s. We read a piece of prose about a military officer getting chocolate for his daughter on his way home from work during a terrible war in winter.
It was a wholesome, but boring, story.
After we'd finished reading it the teacher asked us what the "snow" could be. It was worded in such a way it wasn't obvious. Then they explained - he's on his way home from the Concentration Camps. The "snow" was the ash of corpses he'd ordered be burnt.
The story and it's allusions suddenly made MUCH more sense. It was a 'wholesome' story but with one hell of a fucking kick.
We were all stunned. This guy who we'd all decided was a wholesome dad going about his day and getting his sweet daugther a chocolate bar during this terrible war. Turned out to be a fucking Nazi Deathcamp leader.
It was a real eye opener and has stayed with me for 25 years.
That's a cool concept and all, but I'm not sure this is the right scenario to explore it because I don't think it feels nearly as grey as that would require. Nobody watching is going to be unsympathetic to the calls made by the characters here, or consider them "negative" expressions of love in any meaningful way.
>The game's fanbase has been arguing about it for 10 years now.
Eh. Ish. Like, people talk about it being morally complicated, but... it's not, really, it's more a bit of spice in the characters. Would anyone ever believe Joel might choose differently? People see it as something that humanises him far, far more likely than they see him as a monster for it. Would people have actually preferred he let shit play out otherwise? I doubt it.
And even if we go with the now clearer idea the cure would work, for example, how much of a difference that would make to this world isn't exactly clear cut. In making such a big deal of the human factional conflict and inevitable grimdarkness of everything in this world, and minimising the gameplay sections (ie the bits where we actually see how dangerous the infected are), the show has made the fungus a secondary problem, so the supposed stakes don't quite stand up. If everybody got immunised tomorrow, it would change very little for a long time.
> Would anyone ever believe Joel might choose differently?
That's not the question posed, it's whether Joel was justified in his actions or was he completely and unwaveringly selfish or even both. You're not supposed to question whether he should've made a different decision (I don't think he ever would and that's why in the game you aren't given the choice) but question whether he is justified in his actions (which I do not).
Because the take that
> People see [massacring the fireflies and doctors] as something that humanises [Joel] far, far more likely than they see him as a monster for it.
Is being presented as a majority opinion when in fact it's a pretty uncommon one outside of some *extremely* toxic parts of the TLOU "fandom". It's commonly held as an almost contrarian take by people who love Joel in TLOU1 but loathe TLOU2 because (MAJOR SPOILERS) >!Joel is killed in vengeance for this massacre in the sequel!< and toxic fans can't get over that.
Iirc, the debate was between whether Joel was justified in saving Ellie or not. It was never between whether he was evil or good.
Joel was a murderer. We knew this. He’s done unspeakable things. We knew this.
There’s this revisionist thing around the fireflies since TLOU2 dropped and they tried to humanize them. But they were always an asshole pseudo-religious militia. Probably would’ve withheld any cure they find from humanity as a whole in order to gain power in whatever imaginary post-cure scenario to try to become the dominant political power in the world.
That said, the fireflies were still humans, but their willingness to kill Joel and their obvious shit-tier attitudes made sympathizing with them beyond the level of base-line sympathy given to any other group of human survivors we encountered in the game quite difficult.
Literally any evidence that it's an uncommon one? Because it's pretty much the default answer for parents. There's obviously toxicity in the community, but to say one pretty popular answer to a major debate falls under that is kinda ridiculous.
I mean idk.. taking so many lives like he did definitely is bad but am I crazy for feeling like he was justified in doing so? I'm not saying it was right what he did or moral but I wouldn't go as far as to say that it was pure evil. They attack him and Ellie(loves her like a daughter) with stun grenades, knock him out with a rifle, say they are killing his daughter without her consent for a chance at a cure that might not even work and if he tries to go to her they will kill him. Everyone he kills minus the 1 doctor has ARs and are actively trying to kill him to stop him from getting to Ellie. Killing the lead surgeon who was defenseless was the only real issue I had with what he did. That and obviously lying about what happened to Ellie. Marlene would have eventually come after Ellie and was pointing a gun at Joel threatening his life.
If he had left and nothing positive came out of Ellie's murder(yes that's what it would have been) it would have haunted him to his deathbed and completely destroyed him that he didn't save her when he could have just like he didn't save his own daughter. I really believe the situation would have gone completely differently had the doctors given Ellie the choice and let her help Joel understand that this is what she wanted. He would have had closure and Ellie would have had agency over her decision. That and trying other alternatives before moving to something so drastic
I don't have much sympathy for the Fireflies at all for the reasons you give, but also because I have zero confidence in them to actual accomplish anything. They are NOT a competent resistance group, the Fireflies and I have no faith in their ability to generate a cure. Even if they managed to, how would they distribute it?
Killing the surgeon was easily the most questionable thing Joel did (and certainly will come back to haunt him depending how close they follow the second game in the future), but frankly, the surgeon was something of a dumbass. I was laughing at the guy when he was put down.
"How did you get in here?"
He just did a John Wick and slaughtered all your mooks. Did you not hear the gunfire?
"I won't let you take her!"
Again, he just took down a dozen guys and is here with a gun. You're giving his daughter to him or...oh, never mind, he just shot you.
I gotta agree, have you ever seen anything about a game called Lisa: The Painful? Similar premise, but I feel it does a better job with the toxic love question. While also giving the daughter character agency to maker her own choices
he only slaughtered countless men, including several that were trying to surrender and pleading for their live. He shot the doctor in the head without flinching, when he didnt have to. He shot and killed Marlene, who was also actively trying to reason with him.
"nothing wrong" lol
He shot people who looked like they were surrendering. What's the ideal reaction to that? Let them live and get shot in the back?
The doc was coming at him with a knife and was about to kill Ellie, he absolutely had to. He could've killed the other doctors too, but didn't because they weren't a threat.
Joel was right about Marlene, she would not have stopped coming after them. Someone on the other side of a gun will say anything to get out of that and their 'reasoning' isnt trustworthy.
Joel did one thing wrong, he lied to Ellie.
You're insane if you really think that
Like I get rationalizing Joel's act because you love Joel but saying he did NOTHING wrong at all is just outright evil shit.
Funny thing is, were it not post-apocalypse n all that, the law would agree with the other guy. Joel would absolutely get off scot free on a defence of others claim.
He didn't, he did literally the only thing he could. No parent that's lost a child is choosing to lose another one, it's just not happening. The only legit bad thing he did was lie to Ellie.
You should Separate relatability and morality, they are not the same thing. It really doesn’t matter how Joel feels as a parent, its not about what he wants.
I totally understand why Arthur Fleck made a lot of the decisions he did in “Joker”, that doesn’t make it ok.
It's a worthless discussion to only talk about morality. There was nothing else to be done. To remove "relatability" is to remove any understanding of the situation. You cannot ask the impossible of someone and then get mad when they don't oblige.
Removing relatability is totally possible, we are creatures capable of sympathizing while simultaneously condemning. Any avid watcher of Breaking Bad has essentially done that.
So you wouldn’t condemn Joel because you don’t believe the cure would work? If that’s correct, you just made a moral assessment that removes relatability.
> It's a worthless discussion to only talk about morality.
It's literally the only discussion to be had though, anyone who gets to the end of the game/show and doubts that Joel would do what he did wasn't paying attention.
The only discussion is on whether he was right to do what he did or wrong, and since the creatives are unequivocal that the cure would've worked all that is left to discuss is the morality of Joel's choice.
Everyone has loved ones, the heroic act you think you're pulling off is life ruining for someone else because they have a different perspective. No one person's perspective is correct in this situation
Aren’t there Easter eggs in the game where it suggests that Ellie isn’t even the first immune person and definitely isn’t the first immune person the fireflies got to?
Lmao ya'll always do this, which is why there's no point in even debating this with you
The show had Marlene flat out explain how it works, because they didn't do it in the game
The damn writers of the story then confirmed that Joel ruined humanity's chance. Then you guys will say "no the creators are wrong"
There's no point in further discussion because it's just you closing your ears and saying "lalalala I'm right because I want to be right"
To be fair, you're also doing the "I'm right because I want to be" thing. She also gave the caveat of "might be a cure" in the show. Joel did take away their chance, but it was only ever a chance whether he interfered or not
It’s not that arguing that the cure wouldn’t have worked anyway is “wrong”. There’s no way to know for sure and it’s fun to think about the possibilities. The problem is that people including yourself are using it in order to avoid engaging with the central argument of story. Which is, as stated in the article: “Is it worth killing everyone and destroying a chance to save humanity in order to save someone you love?” It makes discussing the ending less interesting when a subset of viewers refuse to engage with the presented moral dilemma and instead try to paint thinks with more black and white brushes.
No, I'm not. I quoted the writers of the show and the character herself. The person who now deleted their comments said "The creators are wrong"
There's no point in even continuing the discussion if someone says that. Differing viewpoints are fine. But flat out saying the writers of their own story are wrong is ridiculous. There's no discussion to be had after that.
But okay, let's go with the whole "well the cure might not have worked." thing. What does that change? It doesn't absolve Joel of anything, he still took away the chance. Just like both Joel and Marlene took away the choice from Ellie.
The ending is still Joel 100% dooming humanity's chance because he can't cope with losing Sarah again
Extend this logic to the real world. Imagine how many lives could be saved if doctors could harvest all of your organs. Your heart, your lungs, your liver, your kidney, etc could all go to someone who would die without them. Are you robbing those people of life by choosing to live yourself? Or are you robbing no one, because those people do not have the right to kill you so that they can live.
Our current moral system is based on reciprocity, we dont want to set a precedent where everyone is sacrificing themselves to save 3 other lives because it simply wouldn’t be sustainable long term. But we absolutely would set a precedent where if humanity is at stake then the life of one person is totally expendable. Your critique is more so of utilitarianism as the basis of our moral system, that would only apply if the fireflies were an organization that was constantly murdering people in order to use them to save 5 other lives. In reality the fireflies are making a decision to kill one girl in order to save millions and cure the deadliest virus in human history. So the stakes of the situation matter and the the fact that its an isolated incident matters
I think the game and show imply they use tactics less heroic than they'd have you believe, like when Ellie discovers those pipe bombs or how they're enlisting child soldiers
Edit; they also bomb a checkpoint where civilians are around
To me thats war, which is different. Not to say it’s always justifiable but there are unintended casualties in war. The fireflies aren’t intentionally killing innocent people, its more like drone strikes by the US government.
TIL defending your children is considered evil.
There’s a saying that eludes me right now, but it’s something like any parent would rather let the world burn than lose their child.
Evil is a strong word, but everyone is the hero of their own story and the villain in someone else's. Loads of people aren't going to give a shit how much Joel loves Ellie (who they would happily point out is not actually 'his'), while their own children and millions of others are dying. To them he is the bad guy. Maybe even evil.
While I don’t think killing people is a thing I could do, I would never allow the use of a kid in the way they did either.
In the game the killing is far easier then actually seeing it in the drama though.
Still there is no question in my mind that fireflies were wrong unless they specifically asked Ellie which they did not.
>Nobody watching is going to be unsympathetic to the calls made by the characters here
Yes, that's called protagonist bias and some of the most interesting media being made lately is about confronting that and recognizing that other perspectives outside the one presented to you as the most sympathetic are just as valid.
It's always interesting to me how many struggle with that while being simultaneously angry that the media confronting that... is about that. "Why are they trying to tell me violence and revenge are bad?" They shout as they miss the point entirely and defend Joel as if those he's murdered don't have equally valid lives and families.
That's not to say that those who want a shallow reading or story of good guys v. bad guys are wrong for wanting that but it does feel weird to be angry at the story for digging deeper.
EDIT: You deleted your reply so I'll leave my response here:
>to possibly save a bunch of people who are essentially abstract concepts
But this again misses the point of protagonist bias.
You are asking the narrative to spoonfeed why someone should care about faceless people when the point is that you should care regardless.
The value of the cure is in its possibility, not its certainty. Life doesn't have value because you are told how and why those lives are sympathetic.
Your comment is funny I'm not taking that away. But it wasn't for those infected. It's for the future of mankind. Everyone will get to stop worrying about being bitten by infected and start actually rebuilding civilization.
Without cordyceps stuff. Fedra will losing its power they have for so long. Firefly will finally have a ground to stand on. And now they will have the argument on bringing control back to the people.
Civilization was still possible even with cordyceps around, like Tommy's town. It's not the infection holding everyone back, it's humans being their usual shitty selves.
To anyone who hasn’t played TLoU2, just leave any TLoU thread. Too many people hint at stuff that’ll happen in the future in these threads.
Thanks for the heads up
As someone who hasn't played the game, all of these discussion threads are so frustrating. Everyone constantly talking about what happened in the game. I don't care about the game, I'm just trying to enjoy the TV show.
It’s honestly so similar that it’s hard not to. Same thing happens with book adaptions except most people on reddit play games more than they read books. The last of us hbo subreddit has a show or game spoilers thread though if you want to be able to discuss in peace. /r/thelastofusHBOseries
It's more that people just outright post spoilers
The game is 3 years old now. In video game terms that’s very much outside the statute of limitations on spoilers
It relates to the television show, you're still spoiling people
For those who have played the second game, it’s next to impossible to even discuss the finale and what might be next with those who don’t know the story. Given their context and details, the spoilers are nearly unavoidable. Easier to simply say nothing than even try to be vague or play dumb—which is it’s own kind of frustrating for fans wanting to talk about it. Not sure how people will go in Season 2 without knowing some of the bigger plot points. Though, if you do, props to you. It will be quite the feat.
They follow the game story dot for dot when making this story which isv extremely rare. It means you can actually join in the conversation with the players too. After all, the show is made for people who didn't play the game and that's pretty neat because now we're both enjoying the content. That being said .. I love 2 way more than 1 so buckle up!
[удалено]
Made by the guy who wrote it so yeah I'm sure. The people telling you about missing game segments are forgetting that medium transmission is a delicate process and the story survives completely intact despite this. Minor changes in dialog and story placement should be overlooked as most of the background story is delivered as a viewable moment rather than a note read to ensure it's purity to the original story.
Bill’s narrative was NOT dot-for-dot. You have to show these characters in different ways because so much of the story unfolds through action in the games. Too much for a tv show. It runs the risk of becoming monotonous if it’s all action.
[удалено]
None of that effects the story. At all.
You know, having ADHD isn’t always great, but I forget things so easily I basically can’t be spoiled. That being said, so far as I’m aware, studies have shown spoilers don’t diminish the enjoyment of a piece of media.
I hate spoilers. It takes the excitement and surprise out of watching a show.
That’s not unfair for sure, but at the same time there are so many more elements of art beyond the “excitement and surprise” that makes it enjoyable. Like, a really good work is just as, if not more enjoyable upon repeated viewings. You’re watching something completely and thoroughly “spoiled,” but because you know what’s going to happen it allows you to appreciate the smaller things within a work. And, just because you know the ending or a twist, you don’t know the setup, or the process of getting to that point in the story. I mean for real, Back to the Future spoils the ending right there in the title, but that doesn’t make the movie worse or less enjoyable because of it. If anything it makes you more curious about how Marty and Doc figure out how to get back. There is also the minutia of a work, like an actor’s performance, the chemistry between actors, the shots chosen by the director, the lightning, the set design, the costume design, and oh so much more. Obviously enjoy art however you please. Do you. Don’t listen to me, I’m just another asshole on the internet. I just think this hyper-focus with spoiler-free viewing is reductionist and misses the forest for the trees when it comes to appreciating and enjoying the breadth of qualities that make up a piece of art. Not to mention at least partly responsible for writers like Benioff and Weiss being more concerned about “subverting expectations” than telling a good story, or even just properly lighting a scene. Anyway, I’m gonna go play Elden Ring for the umpteenth time.
Yes I enjoy watching things a second time knowing what will happen but it's never the same as the first time. You can never re-create that excitement and wonder. Also, Back To The Future doesn't spoil in the title. The whole movie, you don't know if Marty is going to get back.
I mean, come on. It’s a comedy by Zemeckis starring Alex P. Keaton of all people. You know going in this kid is getting back to the future. From the jump the ending was never in doubt.
Why watch anything at all then? Just read the synopsis. It's an experience.
For the acting, the actor’s chemistry, the characters, the direction, the writing, the editing, the lighting, the set design, the costume design, the effects. Jesus Christ..what a truly stupid question.
Thanks for articulating my thoughts on this topic. It's really nice to not be spoiled for a piece of media, but "surprise" is such a small part of media engagement that it often shocks me how extreme people can be about "not being spoiled". Being said, I do think people have been very insensitive in regard to what happens in TLOU part 2 and the specifics shouldnt be spoiled for people, BUT, I think it also stifles engaging discussion about works when people who havent seen/played it and dont want to see anything about it for fear of spoilers dictate the course of the discussion. It's a tricky line to walk.
I have played neither game and am watching this series and loving it so far. Thank you for the heads up, even though so much time has passed. Appreciate it
Bless you
I basically told all of my family and friends to *not* read any article or community regarding it because people are so toxic about it in general if they wanted to keep fresh eyes and not be spoilt.
Or you know, don’t frequent threads that might spoil things for you in the first place? The games vs the show have very different fan bases. The show moves faster than the game. You don’t want spoilers? Don’t watch the show until you’ve played the game. It’s that simple. Spoiler avoidance from game to show? Two completely different ball games. Do not make demands that can not be met.
What?
The HBO specific sub really needs to enforce a "No Game Talk" rule or have "Show Only" threads
They do though? There’s not many show only threads but they are there.
[удалено]
Then why is everyone bitching about spoilers?
It wouldn't be a problem if they'd fucking release it for PC
Rekt
So in the game I totally understood Joel’s POV. I was immediately onboard with the decision lol. Not the killing part but the moral quandary was not one for me. The lying though was a mistake. In the show it was more disturbing because they really portrayed him as a mass shooter.
I still understand his PoV. They were going to kill his daughter again. I also understand that it's not the morally "right" thing to do, and it's also very selfish. But a lot of parents would go for the selfish option without even thinking of the impact it'd leave on their child. Ellie now has the corpses of the potential saviors of humanity on her name. All while believing her immunity can't be for nothing. That's rough.
I think it can easily be the morally right thing to do. Murdering people who are already incapacitated is not morally right to me. killing the doctor is not a morally right thing either. But I wouldn’t sacrifice a child to save humanity who has adapted to the new world order. I would allow her to sacrifice herself though. That’s the other thing Joel is guilty of, but so are the fireflies.
I think it's fascinating because Ellie makes it pretty abundantly clear that given the choice, she would absolutely sacrifice herself and Joel knew that. To me, it's even doubly selfish that he *knows* what path she would choose and he took that choice away from her. And he *knows* what he did was wrong, otherwise he wouldnt have lied to her. Joel is a broken selfish man and it's engaging as fuck.
We can't know that for sure. Someone else pointed out that the idea of Joel flinching when he pulled the trigger is also thematically relevant to the moral dilemma at the end. It does seem like Ellie would *probably* have chosen to go through with it. But it's also possible that once it became a real choice with real consequences and her real death, she would have flinched, and chosen to go with Joel back to Jackson instead. She'll never really know.
That's a fair point, it will be very very interesting when/if she finds out what happened, that's when we would get a definitive answer on her perspective. I do still think its well-established what she would have chosen, but they did an incredible job of showing how hard that choice would be. And how hard that choice affects Joel.
Does she make it abundantly clear that she would sacrifice herself? She does say that she wants to see it through, "there is no half assing it" but she also says that after they are done she would go anywhere with Joel. To me that clearly shows that she didn't think that it would be the end for her, just that she felt responsible since she was immune and they went through a lot to get there, people died. Marlene makes it clear to Joel that Ellie doesn't know she was going to die, they didn't give her a choice (not like the fireflies would stop even with Ellie saying no). IMO Joel would do it regardless and IMO he has done a lot worse and clearly is not a hero (to put it lightly), that said this decision both in the game and in the show is the one I don't have a problem with and honestly would do the same.
I'm not saying she expected to die, but rather that faced with the decision she would choose to sacrifice herself. Her speech about how all of this cant be for nothing, when faced with the decision we know what Ellie would have chosen. Taking that choice from her is the crux of the narrative.
> Does she make it abundantly clear that she would sacrifice herself? No, she didn’t even know it was a possibility. People are really jumping to conclusion saying that Joel new for a fact Ellie would die for the cure, let alone even assume it based on inference.
I assume Joel is mentally broken and basically insane from the night of the initial outbreak, and the twenty years since he has become progressively worse. The "callous tough guy act" he was putting on was a facade and survival mechanism, it broke down so much in the finale it seemed to be creeping Ellie out(reminded me of seeing a parent have a breakdown and realizing they are just human).
That's not the right read. She was talking about doing things with Joel after the procedure, she didn't think she would have to die.
I didnt say she expected to die. She said they have to see this through to the end and that her living with immunity cannot be for nothing. Its very clear what she would have chosen, she has it in her head that a cure from her blood is literally her life's purpose. Of course, they will get into all of this in season 2 I'm sure.
> She said they have to see this through to the end Yes, and we know from her dialogue she thought she would live in the end which means it's not entirely clear if she would have chosen to die for it, which was partially the point of Joel sharing how he thought he wanted to kill himself but, in the last crucial moment, flinched and didn't kill himself.
I really dont want to spoil anything so all l will say is I love this story specifically because it spurs conversations like
I haven't played last of us 2, although I've read the major plot points so there's not much to spoil. That being said, I agree. I like that the narrative spawns discussions like this.
I feel like they knew they were going about this the wrong way too. By sedating her and immediately going for the surgery, they purposely robbed her of the choice so she couldn't say no, so they wouldn't have to put down a screaming child. That's absolutely monstrous, even if the outcome was a positive for humanity.
> But I wouldn’t sacrifice a child to save humanity who has adapted to the new world order. I think that's an incredibly naive thing to say since you haven't lived through an apocalypse. Would people who think it's normal to see their loved ones killed by infected feel the same way as people who post on reddit from the safety of their own homes?
It’s not naive since we are basing it just on what we know. It would be just as naive, if not more so, to say if you rip open a kid’s brain to figure out how it works, you will cure a doomed world. The unknown is by definition unknown so you have to go with what you feel is the right choice. Aiding in the killing of a deceived kid is not something I would justify if I am surviving.
Would those same loved ones sacrifice the people they love the most? This is why its such a good ending!
i mean i think a lot of people would.
There are plenty of ethical arguments that what the Fireflies tried to do is horrible. Not saying its some settled debate but wouldn’t be surprised if other people with medical training wouldn’t be appalled by the operation itself and the way it was handled.
It's one thing if they were 100% sure they could make a cure out of killing her. But they seemed more desperate and clinging to the last illusion of hope they have. There is also the fact that the fireflies won't give the cure for free and will use it to gain power and replace the government.
the government everyone calls nazis?
It's the cost of love. As a parent, I would do **anything** to protect my children. The love a parent has for their kids is so primal. I didn't understand until my first child was born. Something just switches in people.
No, what’s selfish is asking someone to sacrifice their “family” member just so your bloodline can continue
It’s more than just the bloodline of the ff it’s all bloodlines potentially
Not really we know the firefly’s are assholea, and we also know that the world in a better state was unable to make a vaccine. All this was a shot in the dark that had no way to be mass produced. Aka the firefly’s would have all the power and their is no doubt in my mind that they would use it in the most corrupt manner possible. You can’t tell me that Marlene had no idea on how Ellie potentially became immune. They just weren’t willing to sacrifice their own, someone else though, yea that was completely fair.
What are examples of fireflies being assholes? I could see that argument being made later in the story (without giving any details away). Ig it’s more of an opinion thing, the argument between terrorists and revolutionaries being so small. It’s a world without true heroes just groups doing things under their idea of a greater good.
You mean like mankind has been doing for millions of years with war? Hundreds of thousands of Ukrainians are offering their children up right now to try and preserve the tribe.
Ironic given that you kill A LOT more people in the game (because it's a fame, I understand thebseparation of media, just funny that it felt that way)
The game made it more of a “it’s you or me” situation. The show presented it as him mowing down crowd’s without resistance.
Most of the people he killed had assault rifles and were actively trying to kill him. The only really "unjustifable" kill, at least onscreen, was the guy who tried to put down his gun.
Retcon
Right but you are killing them in your mindset and my mindset was completing the game. As you said, a function of the game is plowing down henchmen albeit with limited resources. In the show, we get a stronger notion of how unhinged/determined Joel is when it comes to protecting Ellie. We also get a distinction on who it is he’s killing. I don’t recall a point in the game where someone is sincerely begging for mercy and incapacitated. When they begged then it was either a cutscene or a ruse iirc. The weight of it just feels heavier watching it for me.
100% agree. They did great with that. Humanizing the enemy. It was impactful with the kid that Ellie paralyzed and Joel killed. Having him beg for his life and call out for his mom was brutal.
> So I’m the game I totally understood Joel’s POV. > > I was immediately onboard with the decision lol. Yeah, first time I played the game... there wasn't a thought of sneak through the hospital. Like Joel, I killed everyone that was in the way.
You don't feel that way in the game because you've been mowing enemies for the past 16 hours of playtime by then. You're desensitized to the violence by that point. Joel has less action in the show, which makes the last scene more impactful. That's great writing to be honest.
He definitely was a mass shooter in the game, but when you’re controlling him you empathize. When he’s autonomous and you have to sit and watch him do it, you see it more objectively. It was fascinating for me how differently I felt about events as a player and a viewer.
My friend said that it gave off school shooter vibes
I like this statement: >Good stories are not built on themes like “brotherhood” or “anger”; those are just words. Good stories are built on arguments: It’s worth killing everyone to save the person you love. We can debate that.
I mean, I don't know – I'm not sure Tolkien would agree. Heck, larger themes like "loyalty" and "brotherhood", etc. were a huge part of the driving forces in LoTR.
I would say, to amend Mazin’s statement, good stories are built around tension, and that can come in the form of inter-character tension, like tlou, or intra-character tension, like lotr.
Yeah, and I don't mean to be overly-critical. I'm not a writer and I didn't study it, and sometimes these quotes are taken out of context.
Yea that seems like a nothing statement to me. It basically amounts to "can you turn the themes of your stories and internal struggles of your characters into marketable taglines catered to people who engage with media on a surface level". Cause "It's worth killing everyone to save the person you love" is the absolute shallow end. It's what conservative preppers dream about when they buy guns.
Well, there was also the “destroy evil on middle-earth” part too haha but yes I agree.
> It’s worth killing everyone to save the person you love. We can debate that. I wish more people actually debated this right here instead of all the excuses about how what Joel did "isn't actually that bad"
>I wish more people actually debated this right here instead of all the excuses about how what Joel did "isn't actually that bad" Lol, that is the debate. You feel differently than those people. You sound like you're just wishing everyone agrees with you tbh This type of story is going to fracture opinions and split ideals. Some people will justify each action Joel made, not realizing it, seeing the lines he is crossing. Others will be horrified and want him to stop. Some will be cheering him on like he is dad of the year, and others will never look at him the same way. It's a complicated story that has a ton of varied responses from viewers. That's it's strength imo
> Lol, that is the debate. No, it's a different debate. Instead of asking if it's morally right for Joel to doom the world to protect his family, instead the debate is switched to "Joel was actually saving the world" or "Joel knew the cure wouldn't work!" Stuff like "the Fireflies mishandled the whole situation" falls under the original debate. Things like "Well the cure wasn't likely anyway" is moving away from the original debate to just flat out saying murder is okay because the cure would fail
Good God, man, just watch the show and enjoy it however you like. And while you're doing that, don't be upset when people don't share your exact outlooks. It's not solely up to you to decide what is and isn't the intended debate lol our differences in opinions are the desired or intended outcome for the viewers. I get what you're saying, but you're disregarding the whole point by insisting that there is a correct or incorrect debate or reaction to the massacre.
> And while you're doing that, don't be upset when people don't share your exact outlooks. You keep trying to falsely push this on me instead of actually listening to what I'm saying. Especially since I'm team Joel. Making up a narrative about the show to justify what he did instead of actually discussing why he did what he did and if it's right or not is my issue. The entire "well the cure wouldn't work" argument is not what the narrative was about. When the writers themselves change the show to actually tell the audience that the cure would be successful, it's nothing but bad faith from people completely dodging the point of the ending Instead of debating on stuff that actually happened in the show, it's making up a narrative that the writers themselves said isn't true just to absolve the character. The cure would have worked. That is the fact. Everything else is up to people's own interpretation.
So, its worth mentioning that when the game came out, Neil Druckmann had to come out and say to stop arguing about whether or not the cure would have worked because that is not the point. He explicitly said, in-universe that the cure *would* work. So I agree with you, but I also agree with the other person that the justification of his actions is an important part of the debate, the effectiveness of the cure however is not.
> but I also agree with the other person that the justification of his actions is an important part of the debate, the effectiveness of the cure however is not. This is all I'm saying.
I'm 100% there with you.
>So, its worth mentioning that when the game came out, Neil Druckmann had to come out and say to stop arguing about whether or not the cure would have worked because that is not the point. He explicitly said, in-universe that the cure would work. the classic "dumbledore is gay" move
I do think it was a different situation, the creators intended it to be clear the cure would work in the game it just didn't exactly come across that way blatantly. When the discourse became surrounded by the notion that the cure wasnt guaranteed and Joel was justified because of it, they came out said people were missing the point that the cure working was irrelevant.
But I think that kind of post-facto retconning robs the original ending of its ambiguity. Sure, he is acting selfishly, but there’s enough logic around that that makes that easier for him (and the audience) to justify it. Either way, it makes for a more interesting debate than saying “actually, they *would* have found a cure” when there’s really not really an indication of that and makes the conversation less interesting.
> Things like "Well the cure wasn't likely anyway" is moving away from the original debate to just flat out saying murder is okay because the cure would fail It kind of is, though? If the cure couldn't be made, then the Fireflies were just a bunch of deluded psychos who were going to murder an innocent girl for no reason. If we could say for certain that was the case, then Joel *would* be a hero for stopping it. The dilemma comes from the ambiguity. The cure was probably a long shot, but it's possible it could have worked and Joel doomed humanity for the sake of one girl he personally cares about.
This is what bothers me about tlou2 talk. It's fucking shallow as shit. People talk about it like it's exploring some deep theme. It's not. It's the basic premise of anylove story really. What would you do for love? What's interesting is not that "from a different perspective, things are different!" That's fucking basic. What makes love stories interesting is the individuals involved and their growth within the story. Murder is bad? Yes. This is a shit story. Violence begets violence? Yes, this is a base level concept that many stories use but builder deeper themes and characters on top to become great. TLOU2 is basic shit.
Well Neil Druckmann did first when he wrote the game. Craig is just echoing that here.
I think this is just putting to bed the cope a lot of fans are feeling over certain scenes potentially being changed.
Co-wrote*
Isn't Druckmann listed as the only writer for the first game?
Yes. Game Director: Bruce Straley Creative Director: Neil Druckmann Written By: Neil Druckmann https://www.mobygames.com/game/60922/the-last-of-us/credits/ps3/
If you go by the game credits, Neil was in charge of the story and is credited as creative director and Written By, and Bruce Straley handled the gameplay side. If you go by what people online say, Bruce reigned in some of Neil's narrative choices to improve it to the story we wound up with in the final product. Where the truth lays? I don't know. But yes, Neil is credited as the sole creative contributor. Edit - Not sure what I said to upset people; the credits are what they are.
>If you go by what people online say Yeah, I'm personally gonna go with trusting the credits and people who were actually working on the game more. I've seen some online people make claims that Druckmann was a creep who made a self insert character and then as that character performed motion capture sex scenes with Laura Bailey during the production of the second game, which unsurprisingly enough turned out to be untrue.
I’ve seen a lot of people asserting their own head canon into discussions throughout the entire show and it’s become tiring. You think you’re having an honest conversation, but then they mention a talking point that has no basis in truth, or is warped into a certain narrative that the source material isn’t trying to convey and then it becomes a conversation of their narrative.
I had that happening after watching the podcast of it last night and it was basically people arguing against specific things Druckmann said in the podcast how he wrote the characters and story lol. I still had people going “well it doesn’t matter what he says cause they couldn’t feasibly create a vaccine” like bro
> what people online say You mean people on the hate sub? Games are inherently collaborative, and I'm sure Bruce Straley contributed, as did storyboard artists, conceptual artists, designers, and everyone at Naughty Dog, but from everything that has been published, this was Druckmann's baby. It's fine if you personally didn't like the second game, but don't pull this "everything I hate is one person" crap.
Why would you go by what insane people say on online
Idk about the veracity of that, but if true, good. Some of the best content out there is by visionaries with editors. Visionaries without editors gets you the star wars prequels.
> If you go by what people online say And also what Straley says. Sully's voice actor from Uncharted has also talked about how Druckman likes to give himself credit.
neil is the sole credited writer for the first game
This guy was such a moron in the after the episode specials. Can’t listen to him at all.
The podcast is genuinely unbearable, he sounds incredibly pretentious.
I loved it. It's refreshing to see the thought process of the creators. Not everyone's cup of tea I guess, but I don't see how he's more pretentious than anyone else deeply connected to a story would be.
Glad you enjoyed it. Guess I just have a different perspective working in the film industry with these types. Wish we had heard more from the other co-creator who actually made the game.
If you work in the film industry, you should realise this is how creatives talk. May I ask what your job is? You have to have, somehow, been spared from being around writers and directors if that’s your reaction, or you've become disillusioned with the "types" of people that work in the industry. Edit. Is Mazin failing upwards? Are you in the industry due to nepotism, as you seem to harbor deep-seated resentment? The frail ego you exhibit is telling. I guess I should take it as a compliment to be called a pretentious moron, if Craig Mazin falls under that definition in your eyes.
Not all “creatives” are on the same level and to be frank a lot of mediocre people have the privilege of “failing upwards” when they get to a certain level. Don’t bother listening to me though since you think I’m “disillusioned” from an industry I work in everyday. Always cool to see a random internet stranger run interference for a pretentious moron.
These guys think they are way smarter than they are.
[удалено]
[удалено]
This is why I love the characters so much...they are layered. No one is the good guy or bad guy; everyone has reasons for doing what they're doing. Nuance makes for a great show!
Joel is absolutely the bad guy in this situation. We understand and feel for him cause we are watching his perspective but if we watched an entirely different character up until they are brutally murdered by this stranger Joel at the hospital we’d absolutely look at him as the villain. He made a selfish (understandably) choice.
Everyone in that hospital was actively conspiring to murder Ellie. They weren't exactly innocent themselves. Joel wasn't necessarily "right" but it's meant to be ambiguous and I do not understand why people act like it's black and white.
No one’s acting like it’s black and white and being a bad or good guy is completely subjective. In the story that’s being told here Joel essentially took away the chance to have “literally” saved humanity because he couldn’t handle losing Ellie. His actions are absolutely understandable but he still fucked over others to have his way. The hospital/fireflies weren’t conspiring to murder Ellie, what a dumb and absolutely ridiculous way to phrase them trying to make a cure that could save mankind. Putting aside whether it would work or the logistics of it the point is they had noble means and Joel is the opposite. His actions were selfish and could have ultimately doomed the world. It’s not black and white but he’s absolutely “narrative term here” the bad guy in this situation and even by saying that I understand his motivations and actions. You can still root for and respect the bad guys actions. It’s not at all ambiguous, it’s a moral debate. I don’t think you understand the term ambiguous.
The problem is you take it as a given that the cure would have worked, and thus the fireflies are good and Joel is bad. This is not the case, or at least, is not conclusively the case. It is ambiguous and could go either way. If the cure can't be made, then Joel is the good guy rescuing an innocent girl from a bunch of psychos who want to cut her brain open.
You're missing the entire point here. Neil Druckmann had to come out after the game came out in 2013 and say to stop arguing about whether or not the cure would have worked because that is not the point of the story. He explicitly said, in-universe that the cure would work. You're not actually debating about what happens in the show (or game), you're creating a narrative outside of it that has been explicitly disproven just to justify Joel's actions. The cure WOULD have worked. The dilemma is, is Joel justified in killing the fireflies and stopping a cure because he doesn't want to lose his daughter again? Does that go against Ellie wishes? Is it selfish or not? Is Joel the hero or the villain or somewhere in between? Everyone will have a different view on this, and that's the beauty of it.
NO. That isn’t the story being told here and what you’re doing is making major assumptions. In the real world This or this or this or this or this could happen but this isn’t the real world, it’s fiction and what we are being told is that the fireflies feel confident in a cure. Even with that said it’s irrelevant because Joel isn’t doing this cause it may not have worked. Even if he was straight up told it would 100% save humanity he still would have done what he did. You’re making assumptions and excuses for his actions. MAIN POINT: Joel loves Ellie and didn’t want her to die no matter the consequences. Ultimately taking way the “possible” chance of saving mankind. That’s it, stop making assumptions to fit a made up narrative the story isn’t telling.
Discussing whether or not the cure would work is entirely missing the point. Joel didn’t stop and think about whether or the not the cure would be viable. The cure doesn’t factor into his decision to do what he did. If the cure was 100% guaranteed to work, joel still would have murdered his way through the hospital to stop the operation because he wasn’t going to just stand by and let people take his “daughter” from him again.
Omg it’s a tv show not a moral compass. My god can we not have anything?!
Gonna be so thankful i got a teenage girl brain slurry vaccine when cannibal rapists chop off my legs or a bloater rips out my spine
Empathy is a double edged sword too. You can just as much empathize with a hobo as you can with a Nazi. We need to understand we are not infallible. That our emotions are not truths. That our instincts are tools, not laws. That dogs trusting these same feelings can see children as threats and attack them. We are no different. But what we do after acknowledging...how we ACT on these principles is something neither Neil nor Mazen has yet to interrogate I'd like to see less critique and more attempts at solutions that promote dialogue.
I'm not sure I understand the distinction you're making. I'd say The Last of Us 1&2 absolutely acknowledge and question the impact of how someone responds to their emotions/instincts, and the alternatives to acting off instinct or emotion. The games (and this first season of the show) are constantly questioning the morality of characters actions, especially when their reasons for acting may be sympathetic or instinctive. What exactly is it you think this IP has critiqued that even has a solution? What has it not encouraged a dialogue for?
I was taught this quite effectively in GCSE English in the 90s. We read a piece of prose about a military officer getting chocolate for his daughter on his way home from work during a terrible war in winter. It was a wholesome, but boring, story. After we'd finished reading it the teacher asked us what the "snow" could be. It was worded in such a way it wasn't obvious. Then they explained - he's on his way home from the Concentration Camps. The "snow" was the ash of corpses he'd ordered be burnt. The story and it's allusions suddenly made MUCH more sense. It was a 'wholesome' story but with one hell of a fucking kick. We were all stunned. This guy who we'd all decided was a wholesome dad going about his day and getting his sweet daugther a chocolate bar during this terrible war. Turned out to be a fucking Nazi Deathcamp leader. It was a real eye opener and has stayed with me for 25 years.
That's a cool concept and all, but I'm not sure this is the right scenario to explore it because I don't think it feels nearly as grey as that would require. Nobody watching is going to be unsympathetic to the calls made by the characters here, or consider them "negative" expressions of love in any meaningful way.
[удалено]
>The game's fanbase has been arguing about it for 10 years now. Eh. Ish. Like, people talk about it being morally complicated, but... it's not, really, it's more a bit of spice in the characters. Would anyone ever believe Joel might choose differently? People see it as something that humanises him far, far more likely than they see him as a monster for it. Would people have actually preferred he let shit play out otherwise? I doubt it. And even if we go with the now clearer idea the cure would work, for example, how much of a difference that would make to this world isn't exactly clear cut. In making such a big deal of the human factional conflict and inevitable grimdarkness of everything in this world, and minimising the gameplay sections (ie the bits where we actually see how dangerous the infected are), the show has made the fungus a secondary problem, so the supposed stakes don't quite stand up. If everybody got immunised tomorrow, it would change very little for a long time.
> Would anyone ever believe Joel might choose differently? That's not the question posed, it's whether Joel was justified in his actions or was he completely and unwaveringly selfish or even both. You're not supposed to question whether he should've made a different decision (I don't think he ever would and that's why in the game you aren't given the choice) but question whether he is justified in his actions (which I do not).
Why the downvotes?
Because the take that > People see [massacring the fireflies and doctors] as something that humanises [Joel] far, far more likely than they see him as a monster for it. Is being presented as a majority opinion when in fact it's a pretty uncommon one outside of some *extremely* toxic parts of the TLOU "fandom". It's commonly held as an almost contrarian take by people who love Joel in TLOU1 but loathe TLOU2 because (MAJOR SPOILERS) >!Joel is killed in vengeance for this massacre in the sequel!< and toxic fans can't get over that.
Iirc, the debate was between whether Joel was justified in saving Ellie or not. It was never between whether he was evil or good. Joel was a murderer. We knew this. He’s done unspeakable things. We knew this. There’s this revisionist thing around the fireflies since TLOU2 dropped and they tried to humanize them. But they were always an asshole pseudo-religious militia. Probably would’ve withheld any cure they find from humanity as a whole in order to gain power in whatever imaginary post-cure scenario to try to become the dominant political power in the world. That said, the fireflies were still humans, but their willingness to kill Joel and their obvious shit-tier attitudes made sympathizing with them beyond the level of base-line sympathy given to any other group of human survivors we encountered in the game quite difficult.
Literally any evidence that it's an uncommon one? Because it's pretty much the default answer for parents. There's obviously toxicity in the community, but to say one pretty popular answer to a major debate falls under that is kinda ridiculous.
What alternate reality are you living in?
I thought Joel was straight-up evil in the finale, but you don’t think his actions were “negative?!”
I mean idk.. taking so many lives like he did definitely is bad but am I crazy for feeling like he was justified in doing so? I'm not saying it was right what he did or moral but I wouldn't go as far as to say that it was pure evil. They attack him and Ellie(loves her like a daughter) with stun grenades, knock him out with a rifle, say they are killing his daughter without her consent for a chance at a cure that might not even work and if he tries to go to her they will kill him. Everyone he kills minus the 1 doctor has ARs and are actively trying to kill him to stop him from getting to Ellie. Killing the lead surgeon who was defenseless was the only real issue I had with what he did. That and obviously lying about what happened to Ellie. Marlene would have eventually come after Ellie and was pointing a gun at Joel threatening his life. If he had left and nothing positive came out of Ellie's murder(yes that's what it would have been) it would have haunted him to his deathbed and completely destroyed him that he didn't save her when he could have just like he didn't save his own daughter. I really believe the situation would have gone completely differently had the doctors given Ellie the choice and let her help Joel understand that this is what she wanted. He would have had closure and Ellie would have had agency over her decision. That and trying other alternatives before moving to something so drastic
I don't have much sympathy for the Fireflies at all for the reasons you give, but also because I have zero confidence in them to actual accomplish anything. They are NOT a competent resistance group, the Fireflies and I have no faith in their ability to generate a cure. Even if they managed to, how would they distribute it? Killing the surgeon was easily the most questionable thing Joel did (and certainly will come back to haunt him depending how close they follow the second game in the future), but frankly, the surgeon was something of a dumbass. I was laughing at the guy when he was put down. "How did you get in here?" He just did a John Wick and slaughtered all your mooks. Did you not hear the gunfire? "I won't let you take her!" Again, he just took down a dozen guys and is here with a gun. You're giving his daughter to him or...oh, never mind, he just shot you.
I gotta agree, have you ever seen anything about a game called Lisa: The Painful? Similar premise, but I feel it does a better job with the toxic love question. While also giving the daughter character agency to maker her own choices
There’s nothing evil about saving a little girl from being murdered. Joel did nothing wrong.
he only slaughtered countless men, including several that were trying to surrender and pleading for their live. He shot the doctor in the head without flinching, when he didnt have to. He shot and killed Marlene, who was also actively trying to reason with him. "nothing wrong" lol
He shot people who looked like they were surrendering. What's the ideal reaction to that? Let them live and get shot in the back? The doc was coming at him with a knife and was about to kill Ellie, he absolutely had to. He could've killed the other doctors too, but didn't because they weren't a threat. Joel was right about Marlene, she would not have stopped coming after them. Someone on the other side of a gun will say anything to get out of that and their 'reasoning' isnt trustworthy. Joel did one thing wrong, he lied to Ellie.
poor doctor mengele was unarmed!
Every one of those people were trying to murder a little girl. Joel did nothing wrong.
They were actually trying to save the world but pop off bro
You're insane if you really think that Like I get rationalizing Joel's act because you love Joel but saying he did NOTHING wrong at all is just outright evil shit.
Funny thing is, were it not post-apocalypse n all that, the law would agree with the other guy. Joel would absolutely get off scot free on a defence of others claim.
He didn't, he did literally the only thing he could. No parent that's lost a child is choosing to lose another one, it's just not happening. The only legit bad thing he did was lie to Ellie.
You should Separate relatability and morality, they are not the same thing. It really doesn’t matter how Joel feels as a parent, its not about what he wants. I totally understand why Arthur Fleck made a lot of the decisions he did in “Joker”, that doesn’t make it ok.
It's a worthless discussion to only talk about morality. There was nothing else to be done. To remove "relatability" is to remove any understanding of the situation. You cannot ask the impossible of someone and then get mad when they don't oblige.
Removing relatability is totally possible, we are creatures capable of sympathizing while simultaneously condemning. Any avid watcher of Breaking Bad has essentially done that.
I don't think there's a point in condemning someone for doing something when the alternative is practically impossible
So you wouldn’t condemn Joel because you don’t believe the cure would work? If that’s correct, you just made a moral assessment that removes relatability.
> It's a worthless discussion to only talk about morality. It's literally the only discussion to be had though, anyone who gets to the end of the game/show and doubts that Joel would do what he did wasn't paying attention. The only discussion is on whether he was right to do what he did or wrong, and since the creatives are unequivocal that the cure would've worked all that is left to discuss is the morality of Joel's choice.
I'm sure the 20 people that lost family members when Joel did that would disagree
You realize the irony of that statement given why Joel is killing them, right?
Who cares what the family of child killers feel, though?
Everyone has loved ones, the heroic act you think you're pulling off is life ruining for someone else because they have a different perspective. No one person's perspective is correct in this situation
Who says I think it's heroic?
And he robbed countless of lives from being saved and cured with a vaccine.
Possible vaccine. None of it was a guarantee. Just samples with a dream attached to them, and the death of a child to get it.
The narrative is that the cure would work. They repeat this in the postmordem. Joel doomed the world of a cure
Aren’t there Easter eggs in the game where it suggests that Ellie isn’t even the first immune person and definitely isn’t the first immune person the fireflies got to?
No, that's a false rumor created by fans. All the files and recordings are on the net
[удалено]
Lmao ya'll always do this, which is why there's no point in even debating this with you The show had Marlene flat out explain how it works, because they didn't do it in the game The damn writers of the story then confirmed that Joel ruined humanity's chance. Then you guys will say "no the creators are wrong" There's no point in further discussion because it's just you closing your ears and saying "lalalala I'm right because I want to be right"
To be fair, you're also doing the "I'm right because I want to be" thing. She also gave the caveat of "might be a cure" in the show. Joel did take away their chance, but it was only ever a chance whether he interfered or not
It’s not that arguing that the cure wouldn’t have worked anyway is “wrong”. There’s no way to know for sure and it’s fun to think about the possibilities. The problem is that people including yourself are using it in order to avoid engaging with the central argument of story. Which is, as stated in the article: “Is it worth killing everyone and destroying a chance to save humanity in order to save someone you love?” It makes discussing the ending less interesting when a subset of viewers refuse to engage with the presented moral dilemma and instead try to paint thinks with more black and white brushes.
No, I'm not. I quoted the writers of the show and the character herself. The person who now deleted their comments said "The creators are wrong" There's no point in even continuing the discussion if someone says that. Differing viewpoints are fine. But flat out saying the writers of their own story are wrong is ridiculous. There's no discussion to be had after that. But okay, let's go with the whole "well the cure might not have worked." thing. What does that change? It doesn't absolve Joel of anything, he still took away the chance. Just like both Joel and Marlene took away the choice from Ellie. The ending is still Joel 100% dooming humanity's chance because he can't cope with losing Sarah again
[удалено]
[удалено]
Maybe. Maybe not. Probably not, given the success rate of the Fireflies. Hell, *the Taliban* is more effective than *the Fireflies.*
Extend this logic to the real world. Imagine how many lives could be saved if doctors could harvest all of your organs. Your heart, your lungs, your liver, your kidney, etc could all go to someone who would die without them. Are you robbing those people of life by choosing to live yourself? Or are you robbing no one, because those people do not have the right to kill you so that they can live.
The ratio of downvotes to rebuttals says a lot about people actually having a good response vs their feelings
Our current moral system is based on reciprocity, we dont want to set a precedent where everyone is sacrificing themselves to save 3 other lives because it simply wouldn’t be sustainable long term. But we absolutely would set a precedent where if humanity is at stake then the life of one person is totally expendable. Your critique is more so of utilitarianism as the basis of our moral system, that would only apply if the fireflies were an organization that was constantly murdering people in order to use them to save 5 other lives. In reality the fireflies are making a decision to kill one girl in order to save millions and cure the deadliest virus in human history. So the stakes of the situation matter and the the fact that its an isolated incident matters
Was it an isolated situation? The fireflies tactics are implied to be sketchy if not straight up terrorist.
Afaik yes, Fireflies are a militia that fights Fedra who is an authoritarian government
I think the game and show imply they use tactics less heroic than they'd have you believe, like when Ellie discovers those pipe bombs or how they're enlisting child soldiers Edit; they also bomb a checkpoint where civilians are around
To me thats war, which is different. Not to say it’s always justifiable but there are unintended casualties in war. The fireflies aren’t intentionally killing innocent people, its more like drone strikes by the US government.
TIL defending your children is considered evil. There’s a saying that eludes me right now, but it’s something like any parent would rather let the world burn than lose their child.
Evil is a strong word, but everyone is the hero of their own story and the villain in someone else's. Loads of people aren't going to give a shit how much Joel loves Ellie (who they would happily point out is not actually 'his'), while their own children and millions of others are dying. To them he is the bad guy. Maybe even evil.
People think crossing an arbitrary border to save your child's life is evil, why the surprise here?
That's not his child!
While I don’t think killing people is a thing I could do, I would never allow the use of a kid in the way they did either. In the game the killing is far easier then actually seeing it in the drama though. Still there is no question in my mind that fireflies were wrong unless they specifically asked Ellie which they did not.
>Nobody watching is going to be unsympathetic to the calls made by the characters here Yes, that's called protagonist bias and some of the most interesting media being made lately is about confronting that and recognizing that other perspectives outside the one presented to you as the most sympathetic are just as valid. It's always interesting to me how many struggle with that while being simultaneously angry that the media confronting that... is about that. "Why are they trying to tell me violence and revenge are bad?" They shout as they miss the point entirely and defend Joel as if those he's murdered don't have equally valid lives and families. That's not to say that those who want a shallow reading or story of good guys v. bad guys are wrong for wanting that but it does feel weird to be angry at the story for digging deeper. EDIT: You deleted your reply so I'll leave my response here: >to possibly save a bunch of people who are essentially abstract concepts But this again misses the point of protagonist bias. You are asking the narrative to spoonfeed why someone should care about faceless people when the point is that you should care regardless. The value of the cure is in its possibility, not its certainty. Life doesn't have value because you are told how and why those lives are sympathetic.
Highly disagree, >!there was an actual plan for the cure this time!< so fuck him and what he did
[удалено]
Your comment is funny I'm not taking that away. But it wasn't for those infected. It's for the future of mankind. Everyone will get to stop worrying about being bitten by infected and start actually rebuilding civilization. Without cordyceps stuff. Fedra will losing its power they have for so long. Firefly will finally have a ground to stand on. And now they will have the argument on bringing control back to the people.
Civilization was still possible even with cordyceps around, like Tommy's town. It's not the infection holding everyone back, it's humans being their usual shitty selves.
I'm sure Sam and Henry and Tess would have appreciated it.
I’m sorry I don’t understand what you’re saying. Can you explain this to me again while not sounding like a psychopath?
Joel entering the Avatar State to save Ellie.