The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
The Politics of "The Last of Us"
The message of the hit new series cuts across conventional ideological lines - and features a highly skeptical view of government.
NOTE: This post features some spoilers for The Last of Us.
HBO's new series The Last of Us, which aired its season finale yesterday, has rapidly won plaudits and become a hit. It is set in a world where a devastating fungal pandemic has wiped out much of humanity, turning many into zombies who spread the disease further. In this dystopian world, predatory humans are often an even greater menace than the zombies. Smuggler Joel Miller (Pedro Pascal) is tasked with escorting teenager Ellie (Bella Ramsey) across the country to a research facility where her apparent immunity to the pandemic can be use to develop a vaccine or cure. On the way, they encounter all kinds of perils, more often from humans than zombies.
The series, which is based on a popular video game of the same name (I have not played the game, and will not try to comment on the similarities and differences between it and the show), features great acting by the two leads, and solid plotting. It has also stimulated a debate over its politics, with some claiming the show promotes left-wing "wokeness," while others argue it's actually conservative.
In reality, The Last of Us cuts across standard left-right ideological lines. It doesn't easily fit either side's narrative. Claims that the show is left-wing primarily revolve around Episode 3, which featured a (very favorably portrayed) relationship between Bill and Frank - two gay men, who survive the apocalypse together, and find meaning in their love. The show also gradually reveals that Ellie is a lesbian (or at least a bisexual; the latter possibility is never ruled out). This has annoyed some hard-core social conservatives (though same-sex marriage and same-sex relationships command widespread public support, with even a majority of Republicans approving of them).
But one of the gay characters in Episode 3, is Bill, a "prepper" who has long believed in all sorts of right-wing conspiracy theories about the US government. The episode - and the show as a whole - at least partially validate his ideology, as the pandemic-era US government rapidly becomes tyrannical and oppressive. Also, Bill's seemingly paranoid stockpiling of weapons and equipment is what enables him and Frank to survive and (to some extent) even prosper.
More than strict adherence to either conservative or progressive ideology, The Last of US features extreme skepticism of government. From very early on in the pandemic, the US government rapidly descends into horrific tyranny. Within hours, the military begins to shoot innocent civilians in hopes of preventing the fungal virus from spreading (this is how Joel's daughter Sarah dies on the very first night of the outbreak). Within days, they start committing large-scale massacres.
By the time of the main action of the show (twenty years into the pandemic), what's left of the US government has become a series of "quarantine zones" ruled by FEDRA, an oppressive, quasi-totalitarian military bureaucracy. Ellie's life as an orphan being raised in a FEDRA school is thoroughly dystopian.
FEDRA can, perhaps, be seen as a kind of right-wing military dictatorship. But left-wing alternatives aren't portrayed much more favorably. When Joel and Ellie reach the ruins of Kansas City, they find that the the FEDRA government there has been overthrown by a more progressive resistance movement. But the new regime, led by resistance leader Kathleen Coghlan (who becomes a major antagonist of our main characters), is just as cruel and repressive as the old.
Another episode features a community led by a venal, near-psychopathic religious cult leader. His theocracy doesn't seem any better than secular government.
The vaguely progressive Firefly resistance movement is depicted a bit more favorably (they are the ones who sent Joel on his mission). But they too are often seen as ruthless and potentially authoritarian. With the exception of a small group in the last episode, we never see an actual Firefly-ruled community. But what we do see of them doesn't inspire confidence that they would rule much more justly than the other regimes in the series.
The one significant exception to the extremely negative portrayal of political institutions, is Episode 6, where Joel and Ellie encounter a well-functioning "communist" (the leader explicitly refers to her settlement in this way) communal society in Wyoming. Unlike every other society the lead characters encounter, this one seems happy and (relatively) prosperous.
Here, I wish the producers had read up on the history of actual small-scale socialist communities, most notably Israel's kibbutzim. While these institutions have generally avoided the repression and mass murder characteristic of large-scale socialist states, those that have survived over time have generally had to bring back private property and market incentives in order to stave off disaster and prevent talented people from leaving. Economic liberalization has proven popular with kibbutz residents, despite the fact that most were previously raised on socialist ideology or moved to a kibbutz because of their adherence to it.
But even the Wyoming case is more an exception to the rule than a model for others. At one point, Joel tells Ellie that such a system could not work on a large scale, and it seems like the producers mean for us to believe him. That's a major constraint if you want to be able to interact with more than just a small group of a few hundred people. Among other things, such a small community is unlikely to ever rise much above subsistence-level poverty, especially after the stock of goods left over from pre-pandemic times runs out.
If there is little hope in government, perhaps the message of The Last of Us is that true salvation lies in personal relationships and the love of friends and family. This idea is implicit in the relationship between Frank and Bill, and in the growing father-daughter like attachment between the two main characters. At the start of the series, Joel has little to live for. But his life takes on new meaning as Ellie gradually takes on the role his daughter Sarah previously had.
But the series also stresses that love and familial attachment have a dark side. Several times, Joel's zeal for protecting Ellie leads him to engage in morally questionable violence, including killing defenseless prisoners. In each case, there is at least some possible justification for his actions (e.g. - the prisoners might have escaped and harmed Joel and Ellie). But the moral of the story is not that paternal love is an unalloyed good.
This issue comes to a head in the season finale, where Joel and Ellie finally arrive at the Firefly-controlled research facility in Utah. It turns out that Firefly scientists believe the only way to create a cure for the Pandemic involves extracting material from Ellie's brain, killing her in the process. The Fireflies detain Ellie so they can force her to undergo this procedure; but they are willing to let Joel go. He, however, goes on a violent rampage in which he kills nearly all the Fireflies, including several who threw down their weapons in surrender and the doctor who may be the only one who knows how to synthesize a cure for the fungal pandemic.
Whether Joel's actions in the finale are justified is an issue much-debated by fans of the show. The episode raises the classic question of whether it is justifiable to kill one innocent person in order to save the lives of many. At the very least, it seems hard to justify Joel's killing of the doctor and those Fireflies who tried to surrender. The Fireflies' actions are also questionable. They could, at least, have tried harder to find a way to synthesize the cure without killing Ellie, or (failing that) given her a choice.
In sum, The Last of Us doesn't offer a clear ideological message, whether left or right. While highly skeptical about government of almost every kind, it also suggests that personal and familial attachments should not be taken too far.
This ambiguity may disappoint viewers who want the show to offer a clear ideological message, or a compelling solution to real-world political problems. But it does have the virtue of making you think.
The Last of Us has been renewed for a second season (expected to be based on Part 2 of the video game). Perhaps its political themes will be further developed there.
Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
HBO hasn't had a good show since "Eastbound & Down"
"Here, I wish the producers had read up on the history of actual small-scale socialist communities, most notably Israel's kibbutzim. While these institutions have generally avoided the repression and mass murder characteristic of large-scale socialist states,"
Freedom of exit, and the threat of the surrounding non-socialist society intervening if they get too bad. Put those same groups on an isolated island and you'd have mass murder. Socialism just does not work without freedom of exit and the looming threat of a larger society backstopping it.
Even families, the actual closest thing to working socialism, work because they're embedded in a larger society.
Put those same groups on an isolated island and you’d have mass murder.
So your pinched worldview requires. I could as easily argue that you put a bunch of profit-taking capitalists on an isolated island and they’re the ones heading for a big murderfest. But I'm not one who thinks ideology answers all questions - the real human nature cannot be engineered like that.
In reality, we don’t know, and even if we did I highly doubt it’d be a broad rule across a given political ideology.
Damn ... Castro!!! came in and defended socialism real quick! But don't call him a socialist ... NO!!!!
A capitalist island ... like Hong Kong?
I also defended capitalism. I think you did it read my whole comment.
"I defended arsenic AND salt! what's your problem?"
Look, capitalism is wildly unlike socialism, which is why the West was usually tolerably free, while all the communist countries were totalitarian hellholes.
For one thing, capitalism actually WORKS. Capital letters, underscore, bold. Capitalism is as big an advance over what predated it as agriculture was over being a hunter-gatherer. That's why even the communists have to ape it, they have 'capitalist' societies where the state is the sole capitalist.
But the key difference, as David relates, is that capitalism lets the full range of human motivations operate. Capitalists don't prohibit doing things out of love, the way socialists try to prohibit acting out of self-interest. That's why you can try out a kibbutzim in a capitalist society, but you can't do free enterprise in a communist society.
Yes, you are an extreme ideologue and think that even small-scale socialist communes must be bad.
People sharing resources without markets is no arsenic. It's not scalable, but you are straining for a much smoother universe of human nature than exists.
"Yes, you are an extreme ideologue and think that even small-scale socialist communes must be bad."
No, I explicitly said that they can be OK so long as they are kept in check by being embedded in a larger, non-socialist economy, and have freedom of exit. Like the kibbutz are. Take away those checks, and, yeah, it's going to get ugly. Jonestown ugly.
You said they are OK, but if you put those people on an island they'd murder one another.
That's not OK. That's you writing off working socialist societies as always dependent on capitalism, via supposition and declaring it so.
Reality is not so Manichean. It's OK for there to be some ambiguities in life.
YES, socialist societies are always dependent on capitalism to keep them from descending into horror. I stand by that.
Reality IS so Manichean. The 'counter-examples' are all either embedded in a capitalist society which is keeping them in check, or not actually very socialist.
Some things just do not WORK, Sarcastr0, and it's murderous to keep pretending that somebody is eventually going to get it right.
There were socialist societies well before capitalism was a thing. Your history is incoherent.
Reality IS so Manichean
LOL.
And of course you're back to the redbaiting. Because when your reality is so simple, you only have a few arguments to fall back on, even if they aren't on point.
(No, thinking a small group of people can share amongst themselves without trouble doesn't mean I love Stalin, you asshole).
"There were socialist societies well before capitalism was a thing."
Not anything like what we TODAY call "socialism", because "socialism" as referred to in modern terminology is a conscious reaction to and rejection of capitalism.
Yes, I think Sarcastro is cheating – using a sweeping hand waving definition of socialist, and a much more specific definition of capitalism. Capitalism in the sweeping hand waving sense simply means market. And even the most primitive societies encompass market and extended family based transactions.
I'm saying there are and have been small societies where property was all commonly held.
And I'm also saying that Europe in the 1100s was not capitalist.
These are not really uncommon definitions.
I’m saying there are and have been small societies where property was all commonly held.
Such as ? Presumably you don't include knives, bows and arrows, shoes etc ?
In any event, even common ownership of some resources, such as land does not of itself betoken "socialism." A dead wildebeest is "commonly owned" by the pride of lions that has just killed it, but that certainly doesn't mean equality of dibs. Not even slightly.
Traditional hunting societies do tend to share the food from a big kill more widely than within the family of the successful hunters, but that is simply an investment. If you have too much to eat you invest the surplus in the bodies of tribe members in the hopes that they will reciprocate when they have a successful hunt. Small kills are not shared.
And I’m also saying that Europe in the 1100s was not capitalist.
Europe in the 1100s certainly used markets. Strip farming gave peasants the right to ciultivate a piece of land for their own benefit, subject to payments of rent. The feudal system often meant that peasants were not free to seek alternative employment, so the labor market wasn't free if you were a serf. And agricultural products were sold in markets, which is why the towns holding markets were called market towns.
Lee - https://reason.com/volokh/2023/03/13/the-politics-of-the-last-of-us/?comments=true#comment-9967575
Traditional hunting societies do tend to share the food from a big kill more widely than within the family of the successful hunters, but that is simply an investment.
If you want to declare everything is capitalist, that's fine. But that's not how anyone else uses the term.
I don't tend to use "capitalism" at all, unless someone else has brought it up first. Capitalism in the Marxist sense is just a market system in the context of capital intensive industry. But in principle it's no different to a market system in any other context.
And a market system is simply a trading for cash example of regular old microeconomics - people do stuff that they think is going to benefit them.
But just for the avoidance of doubt, my hunting example was not intended as an example of capitalism or markets (though it is an example of microeconomics at work) it was an attempt to refute the notion that traditional hunting societies typically produce and consume in common. They don't. They share what they can't use within the family, or with allies, and the benefit is an expectation of future reward. What they can use within the family, or with allies, they don't share more widely.
So far every socialist group that wasn't embedded in a larger capitalist society has gone murderous. Every. Last. One. How much proof do you want, anyway?
David Friedman, Milton's smarter son, identified the problem years ago: Human cooperation rests on three basis: Love, trade, and force. Socialism, in theory, depends on love, and rejects trade, but love doesn't scale, and isn't sufficient for a society to function. Love being insufficient, and trade rejected, what's left to fill the gap?
Only force.
Unclear what you mean by socialist, then.
What does embedded mean? Plenty of hermetic self farming Christian socialist enclaves in history,
You make a superlative claim, including predictions, based on…careful tailoring to ignore all exceptions, and also ignoring all exceptions.
"Plenty of hermetic self farming Christian socialist enclaves in history,"
Yeah, and how long did they last? Were they really where nobody could keep track of what they were doing?
No new goalposts, and quit speculating your way into a reductive reality.
This thing you don't like, isn't evil and bad in every shape it is encountered. Like everything else in this wide universe of ours. Deal with it.
It's not a new goal post, I keep pointing to the same goal posts over and over, and you keep ignoring them.
So long as the socialist community is inside of a larger, non-socialist society, and has freedom of exit, things can't get too bad, because if they do, people can bail, and if they're not permitted to bail, somebody will rescue them. This severely limits how much mischief the people running the show can get away with.
It's not an accident Jonestown was in an isolated location. The people who founded it went out of their way to make sure they wouldn't have the constraints that ordinarily keep such communities from going bad.
Again, look at history of Europe. Eastern and Western. Christian communes abounded for generations. Actively shunning sinful civilization. NOT 'inside of a larger, non-socialist society.'
That doesn't count the Native American societies.
You have a thesis. It has no support, other than you feeling it to be true. When I offer counterexamples, you expand your definition of 'inside' to basically cut off everything that isn't a nation.
Writing out all non-national socialist societies is overdetermined.
Bill and Ellie are both gay in the game, so that’s not a change in the story (although Bill’s relationship with Frank does not go well in the game). There is no indication of David being religious in the game. He’s just the leader of a raider/cannibal group.
Bill is gay (or decided he was after the pandemic) but he was also a survivalist - which is normally not an attitude admired by the left. So he had components of his personality that were unpopular with both sides.
But he was also the baddest ass mf in the entirety of the first season. And a very honorable guy, like telling Joel in the suicide that he and Joel have the same purpose that they’re good at (protecting certain people) and “God help any motherfucker that gets in our way.”
I didn’t get any political lean either way out of the whole season. Even as to the commune there was a dispute between characters as to whether it was actually communist or not.
“Ellie's daughter Sarah”? I haven’t seen the show, but is that right?
No, that’s a typo. Sarah was Joel’s daughter. She dies at the start of the apocalypse. Ellie is about her age during the show.
There was a time when entertainment reinforced moral values and the good guys (and gals) won in the end.
Personally, I think that those times were better...
When was that? You really into the Hayes Code?
The problem for conservatives with sexual minorities like gays in shows like this isn't that they're there. It's that they're always hugely over-represented.
The problem for anybody with gays in shows like this - ie about pandemics that have more or less wiped out humanity - is that these are hardly your ideal survivors for re-peopling the Earth.
Bill and Frank need to be swallowing their reluctance and going at it hammer and tongs with every woman of childbearing age they come across. And Ellie should be starting on the motherhood front at age 13 or 14.
I've not seen the show, but I'm guessing that this was not a plot idea that the scriptwriters chose to feature.
How the hell are you going to repopulate earth with infected outnumbering survivors by maybe 5 to 1. Maybe more.
No doctors, no medicine, no anything. Except guns and knives and bullets I guess.
And Bill made it obvious from the start that he didn’t want people around to begin with. He explicitly said so. So he’s not going to care about repopulation.
Do us all a favor and don't suggest what should happen in a show you haven't bothered to watch.
Realistically, they're not the sort of people you'd expect to have survived the pandemic in the first place. OK, maybe Ellie, as lesbians are actually at less risk of STDs than heterosexuals. But Bill and Frank? Homosexuals have always been at the front line of every pandemic in history, pretty much. They manage to turn things into pandemics that aren't even up to propagating through heterosexual populations.
Barring some plot hook like HIV meds being wildly protective, they'd have been among the first to die.
But modern Hollywood demands that gays be portrayed as something like half the population, and pretty much always positively.
Omg you are so full of shit. Just gonna fake it till you make it on this subject too, eh? Of course you are. Bill was closeted. Had no relationships prior. And the premise of the show is cordyceps, a fungus that cannot currently survive human body temps, evolves due to the warming climate to infect humans. It has nothing whatsoever to do with homosexuality, jackass.
Homosexuals have always been at the front line of every pandemic in history
This is fucking awful, Brett. Do some fucking research before you pop off with such fucking nonsense.
Cholera; black plague; syphilis. All counterexamples to your ignorant bigotry.
Oh, really, you have stats from the black plague or cholera on incidence according to sexual orientation? Let's see them.
And, syphilis? You've got some gall citing it as a counter-example.
Signs of a Sea Change? Syphilis Increases May Be Reversing among Gay & Bisexual Men
"Syphilis continues to disproportionately affect gay, bisexual and other men who have sex with men (MSM), but a decades-long increase in reported cases may be reversing, according to Sexually Transmitted Disease (STD) Surveillance, 2020. The CDC annual report was published this week during STD Awareness Week 2022.
This apparent leveling-off in reported primary and secondary (P&S) syphilis cases among gay and bisexual men is a small glimmer of hope in an otherwise concerning report. The data collected in 2020 for this report, show that even in the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic, 2.4 million cases of chlamydia, gonorrhea, and syphilis were reported in the United States.
Nationally, the number of P&S syphilis (the most infectious stages of the disease) cases among MSM slightly declined – 2.2 percent – during 2019-2020. However, this population remains disproportionately affected – comprising 43 percent of all P&S cases."
I assure you that gays are not 43% of men in the US. Except maybe in Hollywood casting.
I seriously do not understand why you'd have picked a sexually transmitted disease to dispute that claim. That is about the most self-defeating move you could have made, is your heart not in this argument?
There is no evidence of homosexuals being at the forefront of any of those pandemics. Was it covered up? Want me to prove a negative? Gay men guilty before innocent?
And of course your link has zero to do with the actual syphilis pandemic from the Victorian era.
Loathsome. But a good window into the facile reasoning of the bigoted mind.
Good grief, how many medical reports do you want? Gays are notorious for having ultra high incidence of almost any infectious disease you care to mention.
Sure, I can't prove it of the Black Death. Lack of relevant records. But why would the black death be an exception?
“Homosexuals have always been at the front line of every pandemic in history.”
This is what you said. Nothing you linked is even relevant to that claim.
YOU ARE CLAIMING GAYS MAYBE SPREAD BLACK DEATH, BECAUSE WE CAN'T KNOW THEY WEREN'T!
Same shit as your birtherism, now. Refuge in ‘can we really know anything? So maybe I’m not full of shit.’
Naw, dude. We can know things. And you are full of shit.
Enteric diseases of homosexual men
"Certain enteric ailments are particularly common among homosexual men. They are primarily infectious diseases and include not only such common venereal diseases as gonorrhea and syphilis but also infections not usually regarded as being sexually transmitted."
Homosexuals have always been at the front line of every pandemic in history
This is your broad and utterly awful claim. It is a LOT broader than your link here.
You're not going to be able to prove your claim above. Because it's impossible to prove something so broad. But you don't care, you got there by means of being a hateful bigot not evidence.
One would think that, at your advanced age, you'd have learned a long time ago when it was more appropriate for you to keep your mouth shut and avoid sharing your hateful bigotry.
Instead, we're graced with more of your bullshit - that it's inconceivable that one of 'the gays' was a closeted doomsday prepper who hated the government and society at large, and therefore was well-suited to survive on his own after everyone else was rounded up by fascist government forces.
It's pathetic that you defend your hateful opinions, but when you're called out on making up 'facts' entirely, you disappear forever from the thread.
I guess we can easily surmise what you value more - bigotry or truth. Only one of those things do you bother to defend.
Literally the filthy disease ridden queers bigoted trope straight from the 1980s.
Um, you know that STDs — sexually transmitted diseases — require that you have sex with someone who's infected in order for them to transmit the disease to you, right? Gay men don't get AIDS from the air by dint of their gayness. Unless Bill or Frank were infected with AIDS or some other STD before they met each other — and of course Bill was a virgin, homosexually speaking, before they met each other — they were at zero risk of AIDS or any other STD.
Most gay people do not have AIDS, you know.
At the very least, it seems hard to justify Joel’s killing of the doctor and those Fireflies who tried to surrender.
Not seen the show, so it depends on the circumstances.
But the current laws of war, which expect you to accept your enemy’s surrender, are written for large national armies with facilities for dealing with surrendering prisoners. This is an exception – made for the mutual benefit of the warring parties – to the basic common sense rule which is that if you engage in a potentially lethal fight and you lose, then the act of surrender is a request for mercy, and not any kind of assertion of a right.
Whether the winner grants you mercy is up to him, and if your surrender does not leave him in safety from you, or your allies, and invites him to expose himself, or his allies, to additional danger which he would not face if he said “No thanks” to your surrender, and slit your throat, then you have no reaonable cause for complaint if he decides against granting you mercy.
I believe there was a historical “trial” a few years ago, conducted by modern lawyers, in which Henry V was convicted of a war crime for killing French prisoners after the Battle of Agincourt. Which tells you everything you need to know about the intersection between modern lawyers and common sense.
“Not seen the show…”
It’s okay to not have opinions about things you know nothing about. Preferable even.
Why would I need to have seen the show to have an opinion on the general ethical question of whether accepting your enemy’s surrender is a moral imperative ?
Because this is the comment section under an article discussing the show and your opinion on the general ethical question of whether accepting your enemy’s surrender is a moral imperative is irrelevant to the show. You’re not even accidentally on point. Save it for Thursday.
Actually it’s an article assessing the show’s position on the spectrum of political opinion, and includes more than one reference to the possible moral flaws in one of the characters arising from his decision to kill people attempting to surrender to him. So the question of when killing surrenderers is OK or not is directly on point. So basically you’re talking crap. But that’s OK, but I’m all for people saying what they want to.
I just cant past the thought that the whole Zombie Apocalypse genre has to be the stupidest plot element in entertainment to date to even get into any political implications except perhaps for Superheroes.
It's mostly just a basic post-apocalyptic scenario, with some added entertainment value from zombies; didn't FEMA put out information for surviving zombies, to get people to read advice which also applied to hurricanes and other real-world disasters?
I haven't seen "The Last of Us", but most of the Walking Dead series was about the threat of other, crazy or predatory, survivors.
http://smbc-comics.com/comic/apocalypse-soon
It’s okay to not have opinions about things you know nothing about. Preferable even.
It’s not OK to attach significance to something that is patently ridiculous on it’s face. The emperor really does not have clothes.
You know what I do when faced with a topic on which I know nothing and about which I hold even less interest? I skip it and go read something else.
This is television, people. Derived from a video game. Not some sort of prescience-endowed docudrama.
These types of articles are irresistible on Both Sides. But we do expect to see more from the “conservative” side as they, once again, attempt to include themselves in a cultural phenomenon they don’t quite get.
“In reality, The Last of Us cuts across standard left-right ideological lines. It doesn’t easily fit either side’s narrative.”
This is because any ideology you perceive in TLOU is window dressing. The theme of the game and the show is about relationships between people. Everything, including the infected, is for flavor, atmosphere.
“Conservatives” refuse to see homosexuals as people. So episode 3 is evidence of wokeness and dei and esg and crt. To normal people it’s a beautiful episode about two people, one of whom had been closeted his whole life, who find each other in an apocalypse.
As for KC, the group you claim is “progressive” isn’t borne out by the story. The resistance to FEDRA isn’t political. It grows as resources dwindle, not due to anti-government sentiment (though that certainly served as kindling). Off-screen and pre-show, FEDRA reacts to the growing trouble, which unsurprisingly includes excessive violence and repression (at least as the “rebels” relate). Resources fall further, violence picks up. And pretty soon vicious FEDRA is replaced by vicious Local Rule. Which serves its people by implementing a “kill everybody you don’t know and bring us their stuff” policy.
There’s no right-left in the apocalypse. There are leaders and followers. There are in groups and out groups. Cannibals. Lots of people doing “what is necessary” to survive. But pretty much it all boils down to relationships. And everything else just sets the mood.
BTW, the show differs from the game by expanding on some events in-game and, quite obviously, cutting back on the sheer number of infected and humans Joel and Ellie have to kill to get to Colorado. But there is a ton of fan service. For example, the giraffe and surgical room scenes in the finale are pretty much note-for-note.
Because it’s clear most of the local asshats haven’t played the game or seen the show I’ll just post this as a general notice rather than address it individually…
It’s okay to not have opinions about things you know nothing about. Preferable even.
I don't have to have personal experience of whatever the latest TicTock Challenge is to know its probably pointless and stupid.
Some things simply aren't worth examination or analysis.
You should seek professional help to address your involuntary impulse that causes you to comment on matters you judge to be unworthy of examination or analysis.
Otis,
As someone who has experience both, what do you like or dislike about the changes they made for the TV adaptation?
I think that many of the changes have been for the better, and have enjoyed the podcast discussing some of them.
I like the show. Most of the changes flesh out things that happen offscreen in the game. My only light criticism is it felt hurried. But that’s largely because they edited out hours and hours of Joel and Ellie opening drawers, checking shelves, and picking the pockets of corpses to collect alcohol, duct tape, scissor parts, cloth, and ammo. Also, Joel moves way faster through that hospital than I did.
I think the pacing is the show's biggest issue so far. They wasted an entire episode (7) telling a story that everyone already knew the outcome to.
I'll pass, thanks.
Best comment so far...