What’s the Last TV Series You Watched?

[Moranis]

For a show about a zombie apocalypse there are very few zombies in Last of Us.  Rather disappointing.  I know they are expensive and they probably had to cut some stuff, but cutting out basically all of the zombies is not the way I would have gone.

I get this, but I think the desire was to focus on the Joel / Ellie story at the expense of suspense and action sequences. Most of the antagonists are human, which makes plenty of sense. 

I tried to think, what would more “zombies” have added, and I can’t think of a lot.

I think it would have added to the suspense, the fear, etc.  It would have shown why people really are the way they are.  If there aren't zombies, then why do people still live like they do.  You have to show the threat is real and ever present or it doesn't make sense.  I get there are budgets and I'm sure part of the reason they jumped 20 years instead of 10, was so there were less zombies, but the reason the world ended is still around and yet they weren't in the show basically at all.  I mean the last time Ellie and Joel came across a zombie was Kansas City, 4 episodes before the finale.  If there are that few zombies, then nothing about how they live makes sense.  Nothing about the threat and the need to find a cure makes sense.  It takes away from the fundamental story by not having zombies.

[Roy H.]

For a show about a zombie apocalypse there are very few zombies in Last of Us.  Rather disappointing.  I know they are expensive and they probably had to cut some stuff, but cutting out basically all of the zombies is not the way I would have gone.

I get this, but I think the desire was to focus on the Joel / Ellie story at the expense of suspense and action sequences. Most of the antagonists are human, which makes plenty of sense. 

I tried to think, what would more “zombies” have added, and I can’t think of a lot.

I think it would have added to the suspense, the fear, etc.  It would have shown why people really are the way they are.  If there aren't zombies, then why do people still live like they do.  You have to show the threat is real and ever present or it doesn't make sense.  I get there are budgets and I'm sure part of the reason they jumped 20 years instead of 10, was so there were less zombies, but the reason the world ended is still around and yet they weren't in the show basically at all.  I mean the last time Ellie and Joel came across a zombie was Kansas City, 4 episodes before the finale.  If there are that few zombies, then nothing about how they live makes sense.  Nothing about the threat and the need to find a cure makes sense.  It takes away from the fundamental story by not having zombies.

For me, I just accepted that they existed, without having to see them all of the time.  But, you make fair points.  The infected seemed like a real threat in Boston, and to in KC at the end of that episode.  But, 10 miles outside of Boston or in Wyoming and Colorado, people seemed to be surviving just fine.  There's plenty of room for debate regarding whether that makes sense.

There's definitely a sense of scale that's different than, say, the Walking Dead (where, since everybody is infected, there are something like 8 billion potential / actual zombies).  If the fungal contagion was spread wide enough to encompass the entire United States within 20 years (and seemingly, much less) than you would expect mass hordes were hanging out somewhere.  But, I was fine suspending disbelief a bit here, understanding that there was a real threat underlying the series, without having to see it.  (And, we do see infected in episodes 7 and 9, although they are in flashbacks.  In episodes 6 and 8, the "threat" comes from humans who are struggling with the new world.)

[Moranis]

For a show about a zombie apocalypse there are very few zombies in Last of Us.  Rather disappointing.  I know they are expensive and they probably had to cut some stuff, but cutting out basically all of the zombies is not the way I would have gone.

I get this, but I think the desire was to focus on the Joel / Ellie story at the expense of suspense and action sequences. Most of the antagonists are human, which makes plenty of sense. 

I tried to think, what would more “zombies” have added, and I can’t think of a lot.

I think it would have added to the suspense, the fear, etc.  It would have shown why people really are the way they are.  If there aren't zombies, then why do people still live like they do.  You have to show the threat is real and ever present or it doesn't make sense.  I get there are budgets and I'm sure part of the reason they jumped 20 years instead of 10, was so there were less zombies, but the reason the world ended is still around and yet they weren't in the show basically at all.  I mean the last time Ellie and Joel came across a zombie was Kansas City, 4 episodes before the finale.  If there are that few zombies, then nothing about how they live makes sense.  Nothing about the threat and the need to find a cure makes sense.  It takes away from the fundamental story by not having zombies.

For me, I just accepted that they existed, without having to see them all of the time.  But, you make fair points.  The infected seemed like a real threat in Boston, and to in KC at the end of that episode.  But, 10 miles outside of Boston or in Wyoming and Colorado, people seemed to be surviving just fine.  There's plenty of room for debate regarding whether that makes sense.

There's definitely a sense of scale that's different than, say, the Walking Dead (where, since everybody is infected, there are something like 8 billion potential / actual zombies).  If the fungal contagion was spread wide enough to encompass the entire United States within 20 years (and seemingly, much less) than you would expect mass hordes were hanging out somewhere.  But, I was fine suspending disbelief a bit here, understanding that there was a real threat underlying the series, without having to see it.  (And, we do see infected in episodes 7 and 9, although they are in flashbacks.  In episodes 6 and 8, the "threat" comes from humans who are struggling with the new world.)

But it makes Joel's decision seem like an easy one.  There aren't any zombies so why am I going to let Ellie die on a chance that they may find a cure to cure something that barely exists.  It takes away from the entire premise of the show when there aren't any zombies.  And frankly, they could have fixed that without crazy budget.  They could have added like 5 minutes here or 5 minutes there, showing Joel and Ellie traveling across the country, leaving a building, and then it pans inside and there are dead or dying zombies (maybe even a clicker or two).  They could have shown them in the distance.  They could have shown living cordaceps at places.

it is the same issue that game of thrones had at the end.  You add 10 minutes of dialogue or scenes and you fix a lot of the fundamental flaws of the show.

[tazzmaniac]

For a show about a zombie apocalypse there are very few zombies in Last of Us.  Rather disappointing.  I know they are expensive and they probably had to cut some stuff, but cutting out basically all of the zombies is not the way I would have gone.

I get this, but I think the desire was to focus on the Joel / Ellie story at the expense of suspense and action sequences. Most of the antagonists are human, which makes plenty of sense. 

I tried to think, what would more “zombies” have added, and I can’t think of a lot.

I think it would have added to the suspense, the fear, etc.  It would have shown why people really are the way they are.  If there aren't zombies, then why do people still live like they do.  You have to show the threat is real and ever present or it doesn't make sense.  I get there are budgets and I'm sure part of the reason they jumped 20 years instead of 10, was so there were less zombies, but the reason the world ended is still around and yet they weren't in the show basically at all.  I mean the last time Ellie and Joel came across a zombie was Kansas City, 4 episodes before the finale.  If there are that few zombies, then nothing about how they live makes sense.  Nothing about the threat and the need to find a cure makes sense.  It takes away from the fundamental story by not having zombies.

Personally I found the zombie fungus plot point to be nonsense.  However, I agree with you about the lack of suspense or fear.  Not just from the zombies but from humans as well.  The characters did not act like they were in a dangerous post apocalyptic situation a lot of the time.  With all of the wasted time on back stories, they really didn't even spend that much time developing the Joel/Ellie relationship.  I think it was a mediocre TV show at best and wouldn't care at all if they didn't make a 2nd season. 

[Roy H.]

For a show about a zombie apocalypse there are very few zombies in Last of Us.  Rather disappointing.  I know they are expensive and they probably had to cut some stuff, but cutting out basically all of the zombies is not the way I would have gone.

I get this, but I think the desire was to focus on the Joel / Ellie story at the expense of suspense and action sequences. Most of the antagonists are human, which makes plenty of sense. 

I tried to think, what would more “zombies” have added, and I can’t think of a lot.

I think it would have added to the suspense, the fear, etc.  It would have shown why people really are the way they are.  If there aren't zombies, then why do people still live like they do.  You have to show the threat is real and ever present or it doesn't make sense.  I get there are budgets and I'm sure part of the reason they jumped 20 years instead of 10, was so there were less zombies, but the reason the world ended is still around and yet they weren't in the show basically at all.  I mean the last time Ellie and Joel came across a zombie was Kansas City, 4 episodes before the finale.  If there are that few zombies, then nothing about how they live makes sense.  Nothing about the threat and the need to find a cure makes sense.  It takes away from the fundamental story by not having zombies.

For me, I just accepted that they existed, without having to see them all of the time.  But, you make fair points.  The infected seemed like a real threat in Boston, and to in KC at the end of that episode.  But, 10 miles outside of Boston or in Wyoming and Colorado, people seemed to be surviving just fine.  There's plenty of room for debate regarding whether that makes sense.

There's definitely a sense of scale that's different than, say, the Walking Dead (where, since everybody is infected, there are something like 8 billion potential / actual zombies).  If the fungal contagion was spread wide enough to encompass the entire United States within 20 years (and seemingly, much less) than you would expect mass hordes were hanging out somewhere.  But, I was fine suspending disbelief a bit here, understanding that there was a real threat underlying the series, without having to see it.  (And, we do see infected in episodes 7 and 9, although they are in flashbacks.  In episodes 6 and 8, the "threat" comes from humans who are struggling with the new world.)

But it makes Joel's decision seem like an easy one.  There aren't any zombies so why am I going to let Ellie die on a chance that they may find a cure to cure something that barely exists.  It takes away from the entire premise of the show when there aren't any zombies.  And frankly, they could have fixed that without crazy budget.  They could have added like 5 minutes here or 5 minutes there, showing Joel and Ellie traveling across the country, leaving a building, and then it pans inside and there are dead or dying zombies (maybe even a clicker or two).  They could have shown them in the distance.  They could have shown living cordaceps at places.

it is the same issue that game of thrones had at the end.  You add 10 minutes of dialogue or scenes and you fix a lot of the fundamental flaws of the show.

Here you go, Mo:  https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/last-us-season-2-lot-020000964.html

[Moranis]

For a show about a zombie apocalypse there are very few zombies in Last of Us.  Rather disappointing.  I know they are expensive and they probably had to cut some stuff, but cutting out basically all of the zombies is not the way I would have gone.

I get this, but I think the desire was to focus on the Joel / Ellie story at the expense of suspense and action sequences. Most of the antagonists are human, which makes plenty of sense. 

I tried to think, what would more “zombies” have added, and I can’t think of a lot.

I think it would have added to the suspense, the fear, etc.  It would have shown why people really are the way they are.  If there aren't zombies, then why do people still live like they do.  You have to show the threat is real and ever present or it doesn't make sense.  I get there are budgets and I'm sure part of the reason they jumped 20 years instead of 10, was so there were less zombies, but the reason the world ended is still around and yet they weren't in the show basically at all.  I mean the last time Ellie and Joel came across a zombie was Kansas City, 4 episodes before the finale.  If there are that few zombies, then nothing about how they live makes sense.  Nothing about the threat and the need to find a cure makes sense.  It takes away from the fundamental story by not having zombies.

For me, I just accepted that they existed, without having to see them all of the time.  But, you make fair points.  The infected seemed like a real threat in Boston, and to in KC at the end of that episode.  But, 10 miles outside of Boston or in Wyoming and Colorado, people seemed to be surviving just fine.  There's plenty of room for debate regarding whether that makes sense.

There's definitely a sense of scale that's different than, say, the Walking Dead (where, since everybody is infected, there are something like 8 billion potential / actual zombies).  If the fungal contagion was spread wide enough to encompass the entire United States within 20 years (and seemingly, much less) than you would expect mass hordes were hanging out somewhere.  But, I was fine suspending disbelief a bit here, understanding that there was a real threat underlying the series, without having to see it.  (And, we do see infected in episodes 7 and 9, although they are in flashbacks.  In episodes 6 and 8, the "threat" comes from humans who are struggling with the new world.)

But it makes Joel's decision seem like an easy one.  There aren't any zombies so why am I going to let Ellie die on a chance that they may find a cure to cure something that barely exists.  It takes away from the entire premise of the show when there aren't any zombies.  And frankly, they could have fixed that without crazy budget.  They could have added like 5 minutes here or 5 minutes there, showing Joel and Ellie traveling across the country, leaving a building, and then it pans inside and there are dead or dying zombies (maybe even a clicker or two).  They could have shown them in the distance.  They could have shown living cordaceps at places.

it is the same issue that game of thrones had at the end.  You add 10 minutes of dialogue or scenes and you fix a lot of the fundamental flaws of the show.

Here you go, Mo:  https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/last-us-season-2-lot-020000964.html

Sure, but the critical moment in the finale when Joel makes his decision basically has no meaning because it wasn't a real threat.  That is the problem.  I absolutely understand the human element and playing a video game is different than a show.  But when you have a big bad that caused the end of the world, to not have that big bad in the last 4 episodes (aside from flashbacks years in the past) is a real problem.  Again, 5 extra minutes in a few episodes and it is just so much different.  Shows like that shouldn't get passes for poor writing and/or decision making.  I generally enjoyed the show, but Joel's decision had no meaning as it wasn't really a choice.  It was easy to do what he did with the way they made the show.  That shouldn't be the case. 

[Roy H.]

I generally enjoyed the show, but Joel's decision had no meaning as it wasn't really a choice.  It was easy to do what he did with the way they made the show.  That shouldn't be the case.

Really?  As a viewer, did you really need to be shown the threat several times to accept that it was a threat?  I get it, it's usually better to explain stuff in visual ways rather than through exposition, but between being told repeatedly about the threat, the destruction of every city we see, and plenty of infected in the show (albeit front-loaded), I'm not sure it's fair to say that there was no real choice, or that humanity was fine either way.

Frankly, if anything undercut Joel's choice, it was the Firefly hospital itself.  It was a bunch of armed thugs, one doctor and two (maybe three?) nurses.  Joel was greeted by a grenade and being knocked out.  Ellie was immediately taken to surgery, without a choice.  Nothing much was really established about the doctor's credentials that I remember.  Is this a high-end vaccine research scientist, where there could be some hope for success?   And since medical ethics seem to be dead, wouldn't the Fireflys have simply injected pregnant mothers on the verge of giving birth with the fungus, most likely against their will?

Joel has no reason to trust this one doctor / scientist, especially after they demonstrated that they don't care about informed consent.  Even if there were infected in every scene, Joel shouldn't let this particular dude cut up his surrogate daughter.

[Moranis]

I generally enjoyed the show, but Joel's decision had no meaning as it wasn't really a choice.  It was easy to do what he did with the way they made the show.  That shouldn't be the case.

Really?  As a viewer, did you really need to be shown the threat several times to accept that it was a threat?  I get it, it's usually better to explain stuff in visual ways rather than through exposition, but between being told repeatedly about the threat, the destruction of every city we see, and plenty of infected in the show (albeit front-loaded), I'm not sure it's fair to say that there was no real choice, or that humanity was fine either way.

Frankly, if anything undercut Joel's choice, it was the Firefly hospital itself.  It was a bunch of armed thugs, one doctor and two (maybe three?) nurses.  Joel was greeted by a grenade and being knocked out.  Ellie was immediately taken to surgery, without a choice.  Nothing much was really established about the doctor's credentials that I remember.  Is this a high-end vaccine research scientist, where there could be some hope for success?   And since medical ethics seem to be dead, wouldn't the Fireflys have simply injected pregnant mothers on the verge of giving birth with the fungus, most likely against their will?

Joel has no reason to trust this one doctor / scientist, especially after they demonstrated that they don't care about informed consent.  Even if there were infected in every scene, Joel shouldn't let this particular dude cut up his surrogate daughter.

I think they did.  There were literally no zombies for 4 episodes.  They went from Missouri to Wyoming to Utah to Colorado and back to Wyoming and there wasn't a single zombie.  They were in Cities, towns, and the wilderness.  No zombies.  If the threat was that real and that present, then where the heck were all the zombies.  You don't need to see episode after episode of constant zombie killing, but there did actually need to be zombies.  The show was poorly put together in that regard. 

As for Joel, you are sort of proving the point I'm making without the zombies.  In the game, it is a real choice Joel has to make because there are in fact zombies everywhere.  There is an actual threat so he does have to choose between Ellie and humanity.  In the show, the zombies weren't around so there is no choice.  You pick Ellie every single time without a second thought.  That is what the presence of zombies provides.

[Roy H.]

As for Joel, you are sort of proving the point I'm making without the zombies.  In the game, it is a real choice Joel has to make because there are in fact zombies everywhere.  There is an actual threat so he does have to choose between Ellie and humanity.  In the show, the zombies weren't around so there is no choice.  You pick Ellie every single time without a second thought.  That is what the presence of zombies provides.

What I'm saying here is, even if there were infected all over the place, Joel still doesn't have much of a choice to make.  Isn't it still a complete hail mary, based upon the competency of the one scientist?  Because, if he sacrificed her because the threat was ever-present, he'd be doing it out of desperation, not because of legitimate hope.  I get your point:  there may be a path forward without a vaccine.  Humanity seems to be "winning" in the show, albeit slowly.  The infected can be driven out of cities, even underground.  Enclaves are safe in the cities, and pretty much all of the rural areas are.  So, it creates a disconnect between what we're told -- pending apocalypse -- and what we're shown.  That's fair.  I'm more willing to buy into exposition and narratives than you are, and that's fine.

But, zombies or not, I'm not giving up my surrogate daughter to some random doctor with a staff of two.

(Have you seen or read Knock at the Cabin / Cabin at the End of the Word?  There are some similarities.)

[tazzmaniac]

As for Joel, you are sort of proving the point I'm making without the zombies.  In the game, it is a real choice Joel has to make because there are in fact zombies everywhere.  There is an actual threat so he does have to choose between Ellie and humanity.  In the show, the zombies weren't around so there is no choice.  You pick Ellie every single time without a second thought.  That is what the presence of zombies provides.

What I'm saying here is, even if there were infected all over the place, Joel still doesn't have much of a choice to make.  Isn't it still a complete hail mary, based upon the competency of the one scientist?  Because, if he sacrificed her because the threat was ever-present, he'd be doing it out of desperation, not because of legitimate hope.  I get your point:  there may be a path forward without a vaccine.  Humanity seems to be "winning" in the show, albeit slowly.  The infected can be driven out of cities, even underground.  Enclaves are safe in the cities, and pretty much all of the rural areas are.  So, it creates a disconnect between what we're told -- pending apocalypse -- and what we're shown.  That's fair.  I'm more willing to buy into exposition and narratives than you are, and that's fine.

But, zombies or not, I'm not giving up my surrogate daughter to some random doctor with a staff of two.

(Have you seen or read Knock at the Cabin / Cabin at the End of the Word?  There are some similarities.)

Joel shouldn't have had a choice.  There was no reason for the Fireflies to allow him to wake up from being knocked out. 

[Roy H.]

As for Joel, you are sort of proving the point I'm making without the zombies.  In the game, it is a real choice Joel has to make because there are in fact zombies everywhere.  There is an actual threat so he does have to choose between Ellie and humanity.  In the show, the zombies weren't around so there is no choice.  You pick Ellie every single time without a second thought.  That is what the presence of zombies provides.

What I'm saying here is, even if there were infected all over the place, Joel still doesn't have much of a choice to make.  Isn't it still a complete hail mary, based upon the competency of the one scientist?  Because, if he sacrificed her because the threat was ever-present, he'd be doing it out of desperation, not because of legitimate hope.  I get your point:  there may be a path forward without a vaccine.  Humanity seems to be "winning" in the show, albeit slowly.  The infected can be driven out of cities, even underground.  Enclaves are safe in the cities, and pretty much all of the rural areas are.  So, it creates a disconnect between what we're told -- pending apocalypse -- and what we're shown.  That's fair.  I'm more willing to buy into exposition and narratives than you are, and that's fine.

But, zombies or not, I'm not giving up my surrogate daughter to some random doctor with a staff of two.

(Have you seen or read Knock at the Cabin / Cabin at the End of the Word?  There are some similarities.)

Joel shouldn't have had a choice.  There was no reason for the Fireflies to allow him to wake up from being knocked out.

That's not how you sell sequels.  "Joel and Ellie were both murdered.  The end."  I guess if that's the world you want to roleplay, you could turn off the game / show as soon as they're captured.

[tazzmaniac]

As for Joel, you are sort of proving the point I'm making without the zombies.  In the game, it is a real choice Joel has to make because there are in fact zombies everywhere.  There is an actual threat so he does have to choose between Ellie and humanity.  In the show, the zombies weren't around so there is no choice.  You pick Ellie every single time without a second thought.  That is what the presence of zombies provides.

What I'm saying here is, even if there were infected all over the place, Joel still doesn't have much of a choice to make.  Isn't it still a complete hail mary, based upon the competency of the one scientist?  Because, if he sacrificed her because the threat was ever-present, he'd be doing it out of desperation, not because of legitimate hope.  I get your point:  there may be a path forward without a vaccine.  Humanity seems to be "winning" in the show, albeit slowly.  The infected can be driven out of cities, even underground.  Enclaves are safe in the cities, and pretty much all of the rural areas are.  So, it creates a disconnect between what we're told -- pending apocalypse -- and what we're shown.  That's fair.  I'm more willing to buy into exposition and narratives than you are, and that's fine.

But, zombies or not, I'm not giving up my surrogate daughter to some random doctor with a staff of two.

(Have you seen or read Knock at the Cabin / Cabin at the End of the Word?  There are some similarities.)

Joel shouldn't have had a choice.  There was no reason for the Fireflies to allow him to wake up from being knocked out.

That's not how you sell sequels.  "Joel and Ellie were both murdered.  The end."  I guess if that's the world you want to roleplay, you could turn off the game / show as soon as they're captured.

They could actually write a story that makes some sort of sense.  Characters who actually act like they are in a potentially dangerous situation rather than goofing off with bad puns and getting themselves ambushed.  Unfortunately lazy, unimaginative writing was typical of the season. 

[Goldstar88]

For a show about a zombie apocalypse there are very few zombies in Last of Us.  Rather disappointing.  I know they are expensive and they probably had to cut some stuff, but cutting out basically all of the zombies is not the way I would have gone.

I get this, but I think the desire was to focus on the Joel / Ellie story at the expense of suspense and action sequences. Most of the antagonists are human, which makes plenty of sense.

I tried to think, what would more “zombies” have added, and I can’t think of a lot.

It’s not an action film, so If that’s what you were expecting, you’re going to be disappointed. Plenty of movies/shows out there with constant zombie killing and they are not as good. Also, It makes sense to me that Joel (a black market smuggler) would try to avoid the areas with the most zombies(and raiders) while traveling with Ellie in order to survive. Did you see episode 5?

[Moranis]

As for Joel, you are sort of proving the point I'm making without the zombies.  In the game, it is a real choice Joel has to make because there are in fact zombies everywhere.  There is an actual threat so he does have to choose between Ellie and humanity.  In the show, the zombies weren't around so there is no choice.  You pick Ellie every single time without a second thought.  That is what the presence of zombies provides.

What I'm saying here is, even if there were infected all over the place, Joel still doesn't have much of a choice to make.  Isn't it still a complete hail mary, based upon the competency of the one scientist?  Because, if he sacrificed her because the threat was ever-present, he'd be doing it out of desperation, not because of legitimate hope.  I get your point:  there may be a path forward without a vaccine.  Humanity seems to be "winning" in the show, albeit slowly.  The infected can be driven out of cities, even underground.  Enclaves are safe in the cities, and pretty much all of the rural areas are.  So, it creates a disconnect between what we're told -- pending apocalypse -- and what we're shown.  That's fair.  I'm more willing to buy into exposition and narratives than you are, and that's fine.

But, zombies or not, I'm not giving up my surrogate daughter to some random doctor with a staff of two.

(Have you seen or read Knock at the Cabin / Cabin at the End of the Word?  There are some similarities.)

This is exactly the point.  And again, it isn't like it would have required all that much to hammer home the point that the big bad zombies are alive, well, and all over the place.  A few scenes here and there, and that goal is achieved.  But to have no zombies at all in the present day for 4 episodes in which thousands of miles were traveled, is ridiculous. 

It is a game and show about the end of the world caused by zombies.  You need to actually have zombies. 

[Moranis]

I'm actually enjoying Wolfpack a lot.  Finale is tomorrow I believe.  That is a pretty well done show so far.  See how it ends, but I like the buildup so far.