Jump to content

The Last of Us (HBO Spoilers)


Relic

Recommended Posts

53 minutes ago, Ran said:

That said, what exactly is the part of the finale that Bella Ramsey suggested was going to divide the viewership? The vast majority of people are going to be absolutely in tune with Joel choosing Ellie over the possibility of a vaccine.

 

Maybe. It’s been an ending that’s been talked about since it came out and I’m not sure it’s as cut and dry. Maybe in the gaming world, it skews but saving Ellie and dooming the entire human race to what it has become was definitely a back and forth discussion on choices. Additionally, doing this when you were fairly sure that she would want to save the human race is even more selfish. I’m not sure the vast majority would agree with Joel.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, sifth said:

So doom the human race? 
 

I remember playing the final level of the game, and feeling like suck a jerk.

Are you a parent?  I’m not going to be able to rationalize my way to standing back and letting someone kill either of my children.

ETA: If my child is informed and wants to take the risk… make the sacrifice… I’m not sure what I would do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Are you a parent?  I’m not going to be able to rationalize my way to standing back and letting someone kill either of my children.

Yes; but I’m a huge believer in the needs of the many, always coming before the needs of the few. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Ramsay B. said:

Yup. I stood there staring at the surgeon not wanting to shoot at all, but you obviously have to. 

That was easily the worst part for me as well. Though the lies that fallowed hurt nearly as much. I’m very honest with my kids. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, sifth said:

Yes; but I’m a huge believer in the needs of the many, always coming before the needs of the few. 

Your uninformed anestheitized child? And how far would you take that philosophy?  Would you kill 49.9999999% of the human population to save 50.0000001% of the human population?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Your uninformed anestheitized child? And how far would you take that philosophy?  Would you kill 49.9999999% of the human population to save 50.0000001% of the human population?

No, but I’m against taking away one’s chance to choose. 
 

Your second question is pure insanity. All forms of extremism are bad and your example is extremism to the 11th degree. It’s basically Thanos level logic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

47 minutes ago, sifth said:

Your second question is pure insanity. All forms of extremism are bad and your example is extremism to the 11th degree. It’s basically Thanos level logic.

So you don’t believe the “needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few”?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I see we have a lot of utilitarians here, whol'll push the button that brings world peace but first it'll kill one random  innocent person, or the ones who choose to stick around Omelas because the suffering of one child is worth the price of living in utopia.

I tend to view The Last of Us's ending through a deontological lens: what was the immediate moral and ethical choice presented to Joel? The murder of Ellie was unethical, so stopping it was ethical and right. Lying to Ellie was unethical, so there Joel was in the wrong. 

There's a bit of gamey bullshit in the ending, of course, in that the idea that they need to immediately kill Ellie to harvest her brain is the only solution. You guys don't want to draw blood, get some plasma, try and harvest antibodies, maybe get a biopsy from the brain, etc. before you just up and kill the only known immune person on a moonshot of an idea that you'll solve the problem?

And finally, is it really the doom of humanity? Humanity is no longer the apex predator, but cordyceps is dumb and people like Frank and the folks behind Jackson Hole have been able to find ways to live with proper preparation. Enough time to adapt and maybe bit by bit, cordyceps is cleared from areas, and humanity starts growing again. Or maybe not. But it's certainly not a given that humanity is going to get wiped out without Ellie's brain-vaccine.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, sifth said:

Yes; but I’m a huge believer in the needs of the many, always coming before the needs of the few. 

In that case you should be in the pro-Cordycep camp and celebrate Joel's actions and the annihilation of the human species. Humans actively suppress the needs of every neighboring living being, which is the many.:cool4:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From Joel's perspective, I don't think he believes the world deserves saving, especially not if the price is the death of an innocent girl. Sarah wasn't killed by an infected, but by a soldier following orders. From then, everything Joel did and saw likely showed that the world is messed up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, Ran said:

I see we have a lot of utilitarians here, whol'll push the button that brings world peace but first it'll kill one random  innocent person, or the ones who choose to stick around Omelas because the suffering of one child is worth the price of living in utopia.

I tend to view The Last of Us's ending through a denotological lens: what was the immediate moral and ethical choice presented to Joel? The murder of Ellie was unethical, so stopping it was ethical and right. Lying to Ellie was unethical, so there Joel was in the wrong. 

There's a bit of gamey bullshit in the ending, of course, in that the idea that they need to immediately kill Ellie to harvest her brain is the only solution. You guys don't want to draw blood, get some plasma, try and harvest antibodies, maybe get a biopsy from the brain, etc. before you just up and kill the only known immune person on a moonshot of an idea that you'll solve the problem?

And finally, is it really the doom of humanity? Humanity is no longer the apex predator, but cordyceps is dumb and people like Frank and the folks behind Jackson Hole have been able to find ways to live with proper preparation. Enough time to adapt and maybe bit by bit, cordyceps is cleared from areas, and humanity starts growing again. Or maybe not. But it's certainly not a given that humanity is going to get wiped out without Ellie's brain-vaccine.

 

This is exactly what I was thinking when it ended.  Show was awesome, really enjoyed it, but in the end it was all or nothing? That didn't make much sense to me.  They couldn't run any test, or do anything else that doesn't end with her dying? They couldn't wait for her to die of old age?  It could only be that she is either sacrificed without her consent on the spot or Joel doing what he did?  Bothered me a little, but like I said, still really enjoyed it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Corvinus85 said:

From Joel's perspective, I don't think he believes the world deserves saving, especially not if the price is the death of an innocent girl. Sarah wasn't killed by an infected, but by a soldier following orders. From then, everything Joel did and saw likely showed that the world is messed up.

I don't think Joel's that complicated. The show (and the game) do a very good job of showing exactly why Joel would make this choice and how it makes sense, even if it's not a great choice. He doesn't care about saving the world one way or another. I guess if you asked him he'd probably agree with you to a certain extent, but that's not something he's about; he begins and ends with his family and the people he loves, and his inability to say goodbye to them. 

That's ultimately what this story is about, and it does a good job of that. It shows Joel and Sarah and his loss, it shows Bill and Frank and the power of their love (and in the game, the bitterness of the idea of not being part of something bigger), it shows Sam and his brother and the horrible things he does for love - all for it to be useless at the end. 

But the problem with all of this is that Joel is not doing it for Ellie; he's doing it for himself. Regardless of what you think of Joel making the right value and how sympathetic his viewpoint might be he is still never letting Ellie make a say. This is no more apparent than what he does to Marlene; he has the ability to escape or to let Ellie wake up and talk to him and Marlene at that point. He isn't under any threat. He has the chance to stop and talk if he so chooses. But he doesn't, because for him there is no choice. He is not going to lose Ellie, even if it is what Ellie wants

The show inadvertently jumps into an even more poignant morally relevant story because of this. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

So you don’t believe the “needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few”?

I don’t believe in extremism. I find it rather funny that you had to use the most extreme possible case to make your point. A much simpler one would be, the choice to save one loved one or 50 strangers from a fire. 
 

I know full well that I could not let 50 innocents die, just to save 1. I also know most of my family would never forgive me if I did.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, sifth said:

I don’t believe in extremism. I find it rather funny that you had to use the most extreme possible case to make your point. A much simpler one would be, the choice to save one loved one or 50 strangers from a fire. 
 

I know full well that I could not let 50 innocents die, just to save 1. I also know most of my family would never forgive me if I did.

So… you’ll let small numbers of people die to save large numbers of people?  What is the correct ratio to allow people to die?  You said you’d allow one person to die to save fifty.  So, is 50/1 an acceptable ratio?  You’d allow 1,000 people to die to save 50,000?  10,000 people to save 500,000?  100,000 to save 5,000,000?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

So… you’ll let small numbers of people die to save large numbers of people?  What is the correct ratio to allow people to die?  You said you’d allow one person to die to save fifty.  So, is 50/1 an acceptable ratio?  You’d allow 1,000 people to die to save 50,000?  10,000 people to save 500,000?  100,000 to save 5,000,000?

There’s no exact science. I just know I wouldn’t doom the entire human race for my own personal happiness. You’ll never be able to convince me one life is worth thousands or possibly millions. This is particularly true if you play the second game and see the person Ellie grows up to become.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, sifth said:

There’s no exact science. I just know I wouldn’t doom the entire human race for my own personal happiness.

And you are a parent?  In fairness the fungus isn’t “the doom” of the human race.  It just makes things harder.  There seem to be plenty of humans around.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

And you are a parent?  In fairness the fungus isn’t “the doom” of the human race.  It just makes things harder.  There seem to be plenty of humans around.

That’s conjecture at best. The games make it pretty clear that without a cure, humanity is all, but doomed. 
 

Also Joel isn’t Ellie’s father, no matter how much he wants to be. Mentor sure, parental figure……maybe, father no. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...