The Last of Us (HBO Spoilers)

[Week]

Some upcoming changes for Part 2:

 

 

[Makk]

3 hours ago, Kalnestk Oblast said:

You're misunderstanding me. 

At the point that Joel executes Marlene she is not an immediate threat. In the show at least no one is coming after Joel right then. Marlene is all that's left. And she puts her gun down. Joel could, at that point, simply wait for Ellie to wake up and talk to her and Marlene. Get Ellie's viewpoint. And then, if Ellie wants, she could sacrifice herself...or she could say fuck that, and THEN Joel could kill Marlene. 

I'm not suggesting that he would spare Marlene - as you say, that'd be stupid, as stupid as Marlene sparing Joel. And it isn't what Joel does. I'm suggesting that again the real problem is that Ellie has no choice here and if Joel actually wanted to give her one then he had the chance...and didn't. Because, again, Joel doesn't care about what Ellie wants. He only cares about what he wants here.

Joel is only thinking about what is best (at least in his point of view) for Ellie. He doesn't like or want to perform any of the killing but he is unflinchingly prepared to do so to keep Ellie safe and well. And to keep her well it is better (again from Joel's perspective) that she doesn't have to live with the knowledge that she was partially responsible for these deaths. Or give her the option of sacrificing her life for some crazy crackpot scheme that would never have worked. This is not for Joel but entirely for Ellie.

[Rippounet]

21 minutes ago, Makk said:

This is not for Joel but entirely for Ellie.

Yeah... How many people here would actually be cool with a loved one (parent, spouse... etc) making the most important decision of their life for them without telling them, possibly against their wishes, killing people because of it, and then lying about it?
No sane person would ever do that out of love. Joel does it because he's a broken man who desperately needs Ellie, and both of them know it. The show went to great length to establish it all, and his decision is meant to be uncomfortable:

Quote

Part of what makes The Last of Us gripping is the gradual revelation of the type of man you’ve been playing—and the way you’ve become inured to it until the jolt of that final, selfish act. On TV, Joel slots into a long-standing antiheroic tradition; to an audience trained on “Game of Thrones,” the lie he tells Ellie may feel queasier than the violence he commits in her name. Midway through the episode, she’d refused Joel’s entreaty to abandon their search for the Fireflies and return to Jackson, Wyoming, where his brother Tommy lives in the only truly functional society they’ve encountered; as she tells him, “There’s no halfway with this.” Neither Marlene nor Joel stops to ask her, but it seems likely that, had she been given the choice, she would willingly have sacrificed herself for the common good. In attempting to protect her, Joel also robs her of her sense of purpose.

It's funny to compare Joel to Daenarys, but of course it only works in terms of "tricking" the viewer. The Last of Us, just like Game of Thrones or ASOIAF is about making the viewer/reader condone acts that are in fact morally questionable, until at the very last there is that one final act that should definitely not be condoned.

[dbunting]

10 hours ago, Kalnestk Oblast said:

I'm not suggesting that he would spare Marlene - as you say, that'd be stupid, as stupid as Marlene sparing Joel. And it isn't what Joel does. I'm suggesting that again the real problem is that Ellie has no choice here and if Joel actually wanted to give her one then he had the chance...and didn't. Because, again, Joel doesn't care about what Ellie wants. He only cares about what he wants here.

Lets not forget Ellie just went through a very traumatic experience as was clearly evident in her behavior this episode. Another pretty damn big thing is that Ellie is only 14 years old. In the real world she would not be able to give consent for just about anything let alone dying for a possible, maybe, hopefully, but we have no evidence cure.

[Corvinus85]

I was a bit confused as to why Ellie was uncharacteristically silent in the first part of the episode. Indeed, she went through a traumatic experience, but last we saw them they were somewhere in north Colorado, and there was a lot of snow. And here they are in fine weather, not even needing jackets, and approaching Salt Lake City. So was Ellie largely silent throughout this entire last part of the journey? Or was her silence only partially related to the David trauma and she was thinking that the journey was coming to an end and she wasn't feeling excited about it considering all the loss that came before?

[dbunting]

36 minutes ago, Corvinus85 said:

I was a bit confused as to why Ellie was uncharacteristically silent in the first part of the episode. Indeed, she went through a traumatic experience, but last we saw them they were somewhere in north Colorado, and there was a lot of snow. And here they are in fine weather, not even needing jackets, and approaching Salt Lake City. So was Ellie largely silent throughout this entire last part of the journey? Or was her silence only partially related to the David trauma and she was thinking that the journey was coming to an end and she wasn't feeling excited about it considering all the loss that came before?

IMO it was the trauma. Last we saw her she was genuinely terrified and screamed when Joel got to her. This episode we see her and it appeared her spirit was broken. It wasn't until Joel told her about trying to kill himself and the giraffes until she came out of it a little bit.

[The Anti-Targ]

On 3/14/2023 at 12:58 AM, 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.

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

But any other child, fine no problem? That's the problem with "as a parent" arguments. They are motivated more by selfishness not love. Personally I would be sad beyond belief, but if the death of my son (of which I have two) meant saving humanity from an apocalyptic scourge I would encourage my son to do it.

Many is the parent that has happily told their sons (and more recently daughters) to go off and fight in a war for the good of their country / freedom / democracy etc, implicitly being willing for their child to die as well, since not everyone returns from a war.

On 3/14/2023 at 3:48 AM, Ran said:

 

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. 

 

 

Was it though? As Ellie's defacto parent in the moment he also had the moral option of consenting on her behalf, knowing that she probably would have made the sacrifice herself. Wrong for Marlene not to ask Ellie, but Joel could mitigate that wrong, even up to the last minute before shooting the doctor, and possibly even after that and before shooting Marlene.

You're right that it was a bit of narrative BS in the game and the show, there was no need to immediately go to the kill step. But given 20 years ago the greatest scientific minds couldn't figure out a cure or vaccine, it's also not outside the realms of realism that there is no reason to believe taking blood samples or any other non-lethal interventions would help. A recoverable brain surgery might have been possible 20 years earlier with fully functional medical infrastructure, but with 2 nurses and one surgeon, not so much.

[Makk]

On 3/15/2023 at 10:37 AM, Rippounet said:

Yeah... How many people here would actually be cool with a loved one (parent, spouse... etc) making the most important decision of their life for them without telling them, possibly against their wishes, killing people because of it, and then lying about it?
No sane person would ever do that out of love. Joel does it because he's a broken man who desperately needs Ellie, and both of them know it. The show went to great length to establish it all, and his decision is meant to be uncomfortable:

That is a completely warped representation of what happened. Joel did not "take away" any decision that Ellie made. They didn't tell Ellie she would die, and they didn't sit her down and explain what the actual chance of their plan working would be (extremely slim in reality) or what it would yield. They forced Joel to make a decision right then without any time to think to either risk his own life in a chance to save hers or let her die. For you to suggest that someone who tries to save their daughter in that situation is insane and doesn't love her boggles the mind.

Joel also made two other decisions. He chose to kill people who surrendered or were of little immediate danger. That was probably the most monstrous thing he did imo. But it wasn't insanity, it was rational. They were a risk to Ellies life. Leaving them alive meant he wouldn't be able to return to his brothers shelter but a less ruthless person would have spared them.

The last decision was to lie to her about it. The real question here is whether he did this for himself so he could keep up a father/daughter relationship with her, or whether he did it to protect her. You seem to be convinced it is the former but I don't agree. What good would it have done her to know? If he had told her the truth what would she have felt and what would she have done? She would likely hold herself somewhat responsible and feel terrible even though she absolutely should not. I believe he wanted to spare her this, remember she is still a 14 year old child no matter how messed up a world she has grown up in. Without being able to get inside Joel's head and get his thoughts there is no real way to know what his actual motivation was.

[A True Kaniggit]

You’d think it would have been more of an inoculation than a vaccine. 
 

Did Ellie even once bite somebody to see what would happen?

Cowpox vs. Smallpox sorta situation. 

[RumHam]

On 3/13/2023 at 7:56 PM, Clueless Northman said:

Honestly, the whole "Let's just kill the only known person immune to infection because bogus cure reasons" never made any sense to me. They might have seen that the fungus attacks the brain, but what led them to believe that it actually went that far with Ellie? They're going to kill their only research subject based on a ridiculous wild guess that doesn't make any medical sense?

 

Overall, really good series, imho, with some powerful moments (episodes 3 and 5 have already been praised here around, obviously). Not sure how good they can make season 2 if they follow the game; some plot decisions might not go well.

I just blew through the show, loved it. But I came here to confirm that the show was presenting the cure as a bogus pipe dream.

The two actual experts (the dude on the Cavett show and the Jakarta doctor) were adamant there was no hope of cure or vaccine. That latter didn't even try.

 

[Ran]

9 hours ago, The Anti-Targ said:

Was it though? As Ellie's defacto parent in the moment

He's not her parent. She certainly never called him that. Yes, they've grown close, and their relationship now has echoes of it, but it's more complicated than that. Complicated enough that I wouldn't make the assumption that knowing her for a few months means he's adopted her.

9 hours ago, The Anti-Targ said:

he also had the moral option of consenting on her behalf,

You can't consent to stuff at gunpoint. He was literally beaten by one of the Fireflies while simply having a conversation with Marlene.

Quote

knowing that she probably would have made the sacrifice herself. 

Probably is a pretty massive fly in the ointment.

Joel does not know what Ellie would do if she was asked. Neither do the Fireflies. Suspicion or belief is not certainty.

[Pebble thats Stubby]

As someone who has only watched the show they really ballsed up the ending if they wanted to make it seem like going though with the surgery had anything other than a faint hope of working to create a cure.  Given that Joel did exactly the right thing.  even killing the surrendering doctors.  From that point on leaving any alive means Ellie will never be safe.

 

If they hadn't had gone straight to the kill her solution, done a few tests  took some blood, maybe even a scan or Xray to see if it really was in her brain as they think it is.  There was nothing other than their assumption she had an infection from birth that made the fungus think she was already infected.  it could easily have been something in her blood.  If they had done a scan or Xray they could have Joel overhear the doctors talking to Marlene showing her where it is and what they need, maybe convincing her there is no other way and they can't get to any of it without killing her, they had hoped to get to some outside of the brain or the bits they could get to proved not the right bits.  Joel overhearing that part - I mean at least they tried something else and did not straight away go with killing their best hope if this did not work.  it would be a bit more of a problematic decision.   And Yes Ellie should still have been asked.  This would only have take another 5 or 10 mins of TV and made much more sense for all parties.

 

As its presented in the show I also have no problem with Joel lying to Ellie afterwards, to protect her from the horror and guilt.  I think maybe he should tell her in a month or two though when the initial shock and disappointment wane and if she really wants to sacrifice herself for a slim shot then I'm sure the government could be approached.  Its not just the fireflies who have doctors and scientists.

[IFR]

10 hours ago, The Anti-Targ said:

But any other child, fine no problem? That's the problem with "as a parent" arguments. They are motivated more by selfishness not love. Personally I would be sad beyond belief, but if the death of my son (of which I have two) meant saving humanity from an apocalyptic scourge I would encourage my son to do it.

Many is the parent that has happily told their sons (and more recently daughters) to go off and fight in a war for the good of their country / freedom / democracy etc, implicitly being willing for their child to die as well, since not everyone returns from a war.

I quite like this take. I cannot say that I'm impressed by the argument of the power of a parent's love. To me this sounds solipsistic: that one's emotions from a parental attachment compromises any utilitarian interests (utilitarian from an anthropocentric point of view, of course).

And to me this is intended to be a trolley problem. People are right to argue that as presented in the context of the show, it's a poorly stated trolley problem, but that's clearly the intention of the dilemma.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

2 hours ago, Pebble thats Stubby said:

As its presented in the show I also have no problem with Joel lying to Ellie afterwards, to protect her from the horror and guilt.  I think maybe he should tell her in a month or two though when the initial shock and disappointment wane and if she really wants to sacrifice herself for a slim shot then I'm sure the government could be approached.  Its not just the fireflies who have doctors and scientists.

I agree with you entirely… with the exception of the last point.  Lying to Ellie was wrong.  Joel’s fundamental honesty (up to that point) is why Ellie trusted Joel.  He told her the harsh truth.  He may not tell her everything but he never lied… until that moment.

Ellie deserves the truth and his rationale for his actions.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

1 hour ago, IFR said:

I quite like this take. I cannot say that I'm impressed by the argument of the power of a parent's love. To me this sounds solipsistic: that one's emotions from a parental attachment compromises any utilitarian interests (utilitarian from an anthropocentric point of view, of course).

And to me this is intended to be a trolley problem. People are right to argue that as presented in the context of the show, it's a poorly stated trolley problem, but that's clearly the intention of the dilemma.

If Ellie dies and no cure is created… is killing Ellie the moral choice?

[IFR]

9 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

If Ellie dies and no cure is created… is killing Ellie the moral choice?

I'm not going to answer that! You'll say I'm wrong, and it will be just my luck the thread will then close, and it won't be worth it to go through the effort of starting a new one just to make a retort. And the rule of debates is that they who have the last word are the victors, so won't I feel silly then.

[Pebble thats Stubby]

16 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

I agree with you entirely… with the exception of the last point.  Lying to Ellie was wrong.  Joel’s fundamental honesty (up to that point) is why Ellie trusted Joel.  He told her the harsh truth.  He may not tell her everything but he never lied… until that moment.

Ellie deserves the truth and his rationale for his actions.

I agree Ellie deserves the truth,  but not sure she needs it straight away.  I might be wrong but I get the impression this was not long after she woke up.  I'm not sure telling her right then was correct.  Might not be sensible to wait a month, but maybe a day.  It is certainly an understandable lie even if its not right.

[Denvek]

5 hours ago, IFR said:

I quite like this take. I cannot say that I'm impressed by the argument of the power of a parent's love. To me this sounds solipsistic: that one's emotions from a parental attachment compromises any utilitarian interests (utilitarian from an anthropocentric point of view, of course).

And to me this is intended to be a trolley problem. People are right to argue that as presented in the context of the show, it's a poorly stated trolley problem, but that's clearly the intention of the dilemma.

Absolutely a trolley problem - we can all see why Joel had no hesitation in making the choices he made and why he believes they were the right ones, but we aren't Joel and so we might have different opinions about what the right choice is and if there even is a "right" choice in that situation.