HBO’s The Last of Us S2E2 recap: Andrew did not see that coming

A shocking scene hits a bit different thanks to some odd narrative choices.

See full article...

 

[SassInYourPants]

Not guilt-stricken; just accepting that his decision caught up with him. Most people, especially parents, would understand the choices before Joel back then, and the decision he made. Many would do the same.

What is not healthy is to identify with Joel as a typical video game protagonist, who mows down dozens and dozens of people, and then invent a situation where Joel is not depriving humanity of some chance for a cure, because it's "impossible". (Joel did not believe that.) All so they can do -- or sympathize with -- all his killing with a clear conscience?


Correct: no choice. It is actually the "more humane" way: no fear and anguish. But later Marlene says, and Joel did not disagree (he knows/suspects it's true), that Ellie would have agreed. (And she definitely would have.) So consent is not the Get Out of Jail card that it's made out to be.

And then Joel lies about the whole situation so that Ellie does not try going back to offer herself: dozens of other immune, the Fireflies can't make a cure work, they stopped trying. (Joel does not know how many doctors/scientists remain, etc. Nor does he care.)

Ellie's lack of agency is key, going forward.

You're correct. Even this most recent episode made it clear that Ellie feels guilt when someone dies from the infection now - she winces when Jesse tells her the story about Eugene - because in her mind, if the cure was possible, those deaths are on her to some extent.

 

[tangerinecheese]

I wonder if part of the reason for changing the story beats and making it clear why Abby did as Abby does is to spare the actress the same insanity that followed Laura Bailey after the game came out. People (irl) can be downright crazy about characters in media, we know the guy who played Joffrey got a lot of actual hate from real life people for his amazing portrayal of a mad king.

Also, did Andrew call Inigo Montoya bland?? That is outrageous, I need to find the unsubscribe button asap.

 

[Langdon]

This season's "Nick Offerman" episode will be the backstory about Eugene (Joe Pantoliano) and his death at the hands of Joel.

And will probably end with Maria offing Kevin Mccallister's mom for her role in Joel's undoing. This new additional character to the universe was cast a little too high profile to not be an important thread in the storyline.

 

[Nvoid82]

This so much. The "the cure was never possible" is such a narratively dull headcanon. Instead of having this intense moment where Joel chooses Ellie despite the potential ramifications for the rest of the world you just have action man killing a bunch of evil scientists who apparently just want to dissect another human for fun.

I think the cure being not necessarily impossible, but not a guaranteed thing, makes the story more meaningful. Desperate people taking risks for what they believe is right.

 

[dobrien75]

I think the cure being not necessarily impossible, but not a guaranteed thing, makes the story more meaningful. Desperate people taking risks for what they believe is right.

Exactly. It's a lot more nuanced than a straight up trolley problem. The possibility existed for a cure from Ellie's death, but in no way is it guaranteed. Given that, it makes Joel's decision more believable and possible.

I agree somewhat about the game/show turning into a revenge story, but it is more complex because both main protagonists are on a revenge journey for subtly different reasons. The subtext being mindless revenge causes terrible harm to everyone it touches

 

[Soothsayer786]

I'm really annoyed with CNN over this. I never played the games, and I did not know the death was coming. It would have been a total surprise if CNN hadn't put up an article with a headline saying "This week's episode of 'The Last of Us' absolutely wrecked us"

I didn't click on the article. I didn't need to. I just saw the headline and there was only one thing that really made sense from that and it was Joel dying. I was pissed that it wasn't a surprise.

 

[dobrien75]

I'm really annoyed with CNN over this. I never played the games, and I did not know the death was coming. It would have been a total surprise if CNN hadn't put up an article with a headline saying "This week's episode of 'The Last of Us' absolutely wrecked us"

I didn't click on the article. I didn't need to. I just saw the headline and there was only one thing that really made sense from that and it was Joel dying. I was pissed that it wasn't a surprise.

A bit of wild speculation from that headline, don't you think? Ellie could have died. The destruction of Jackson. Death of Joel's brother (not quite as wrecking but still)

That being said, I hear you. I often have to wait 12 hours to watch Formula 1 races (the timezone curse of Australia), so I go internet dark for that time to avoid spoilers.

 

[Waco]

The wife and I never played the games and have been thoroughly enjoying the series...this was utterly unexpected and hit harder than I thought it could.

We're still loving it, though it's sad to see Joel / Pedro out of it (with the exception of flashbacks).

 

[cat5ix]

The online rage against killing off Joel, which has been going on for 5 years now, is really tiresome.

A lot of it seems fixed on the idea that Joel is the "hero," so he can't die. If Joel dies, that means he is the "bad guy" to them. The whole point of Last of Us Part I, is Joel is not a fantasy hero who saves the world. He's not a "good guy" or a "bad guy." They were injecting a little realism into the story in a shocking way, in this same way that Game of Thrones injected a little realism when Ned Stark's head was cut off.

The same is true with Joel dying in part II. There is no way that Joel walks away from what he did in the past without consequences, except in the very silly sort of fantasy genre that the audience is expecting.

The other aspect is that Joel's narrative arc and character development is already over. Yes, he was a great character is part I, but there isn't really anywhere to take him in terms of character development in part II. The story needed to focus on Ellie without Joel, and her developing as her own person. If they didn't kill Joel off, they'd have to remove him from the story somehow.

 

[Kressilac]

I thought about why this happened in ep2. I'm assuming 8-10 episodes for the season. If the producers kill Joel say 2-3 episodes before the end, then the 3rd season can't happen. Bella Ramsey never gets to establish herself as the lead. Pedro Pascal is too big of a name and casts a massive shadow over every other character as long as he is alive.

The producers know he has to die. He knows he has to die. Now, the other cast members are out from his shadow. It was done abruptly enough that game players and non-game players alike have a keen interest in seeing where this goes. It's water cooler conversation, something HBO hasn't had since the Red Wedding.

So now, the show writers get a 2-3 episode grace period to reorient and the remainder of the season to re-establish the series in a Pedro Pascal less future. The gamble is can any of the remaining characters carry the show? Who's the Kit Harrington to Sean Bean? Can Bella Ramsey do it? I don't know if anyone can honestly say yes or no but we'll all watch the next few weeks to see if she can. Or anyone can for that matter. The stakes are pretty high because without a compelling lead, it becomes another Walking Dead knockoff.

 

[RickRoyLeonPrisZhoraRacha]

At least Pedro Pascal got to keep his eyeballs this time!

That's a mountain of a line right there!

I played Last of Us when it was released and barely recall it. I think watching the show, it took too many liberties. And I still think Joel needed to just explain "if you were a Father, and protecting your daughter, you'd have done the same thing" to Abby. But it was "a game" for pete's sake. It was entertainment. Many get too seriously engrossed in stories and critical of the protagonist(s) and outcome.

 

[SiLv3rShArK]

This is actually a misunderstanding of a piece of writing in the game that floats around on this issue. They never found other immune people. The material people seem to be referring to that they base this claim on is:



I've bolded the part that I think confuses people. What it MEANS is "as we've seen in other infected patients, cordyceps is in the spinal fluid, HOWEVER she's not sick at all." People took that to mean "as we've seen in other past cases of immunity." But that's a misreading of it. Ellie is considered infected, she's just not harmed by the fungus' presence in her body, so functionally immune.

It goes on to say:



So the game actually makes it clear she's unlike anything they've ever seen before.

THANK YOU! Felt like I was being gaslit by the other comments saying it wasn't likely or that there was no chance for a cure.

 

[Pierre B.]

No, he didn't deprive the world of a cure. The world ended in the game in 2013 and in 2003 in the show. You know what we still can't do in 2025? Make vaccines for fungus. There's no way a doctor in the ruins of a hospital could develop one.

Her father should have known that. He was a doctor. He was going to murder a child for no reason. If I found out my dad was going to do that, I sure as hell wouldn't get revenge on the person who killed him.

Abby deserved what she got in the game. The whole "she was justified" discourse is nonsense on a base level.

And don't give me the "but zombies don't exist either!" crap. The world is exactly the same as ours except for cordyceps evolving. It's never been stated otherwise.

Wow, you sure are able to accept all the fantasy of the video game, all the alt-history of it, while being a stickler nit-picker about whether a cure was possible. You also entirely ignore that her dad was a doctor who got cold-murdered by the very person who was tasked with bringing the cure.

And amongst all that, you display the typical video-game fueled insensitivity to the fact that if you actually objectively look at what is going on, Ellie and Joe in the game are butchering psychopaths who murder cold-blood 90%+ of everyone they meet. Yes, combat is a well-ingrained game mechanic, but that does not change the fact that in every shooter video game, the player is a murderous psycho. You, as a p;layer, know that if you don't shoot first while staying hidden you'd be attacked, but that is 100% artificial.

Joe and Ellie are psychos. And in the second The Last of Us game, Ellie is totally off the rail.

But you somehow want to make the doctor the murderous bad guy. Because you magically "know" that the cure is impossible and that the doctors 100% knew, which is totally inconsistent with the extent to which they went to bring the possible cure to them. That's some surprising specific refusal to suspend disbelief and bad faith don't you think?

(Edit: fixed typo)

 

[rjzii]

THANK YOU! Felt like I was being gaslit by the other comments saying it wasn't likely or that there was no chance for a cure.

I think it's fair to say that there is a chance at a cure but the idea that you would jump straight to operating on someone that is functionally immune in a manner that is likely to kill them doesn't seem to functionally be good science. If anything it strongly implies that the Fireflies were functionally incompetent.

As others have noted elsewhere, that is a major plot hole in the story that doesn't really get addressed and causes other parts of the narrative to collapse under examination.

 

[hazmatzak]

the idea that you would jump straight to operating on someone that is functionally immune in a manner that is likely to kill them doesn't seem to functionally be good science

Good science is not the only factor. The world is dangerous, and maybe you don't have the luxury to take your time. Suppose some crazy person breaks in and kills a bunch of people, including key scientists.

 

[rjzii]

Good science is not the only factor. The world is dangerous, and maybe you don't have the luxury to take your time. Suppose some crazy person breaks in and kills a bunch of people, including key scientists.

Sure but from a risk mitigation standpoint you usually don't jump straight to what is effectively destructive testing with the only sample. Even with the more limited surgical environment present in the show if you just needed enough of a sample to try and grow a culture then presumably you could start with trepanation which has been around for a long time and should be survivable given that that they are aware of infection control.

Of course, if the chemical messenger is the most important thing to replicate then presumably that would be circulating in the rest of the body as a signal to other possible infections and that would imply that it should be something you can isolate from blood samples or cerebrospinal fluid. Which goes back to the point of being cautious with the only immune individual you are aware of.

Ultimately though, the answer to everything is the same as what James Cameron said about the ending of Titanic - it doesn't matter because of the story we are trying to tell.

 

[Karede]

Is Neil's self insert character in the show?

I dropped TLOU when I saw that 2 was a bait and switch and will never watch the show or play the second game but I am curious if that character survived the translation from game to tv series.

 

[coconutboy]

I never got around to playing TLoU part 2. Not due to a lack of interest, but simply because ye olde gaming backlog is huge, and I spread my entertainment hours in a lot of different avenues. When I make time for gaming, I still haven’t finished The Witcher 3, Cyberpunk, or Elden Ring despite buying and playing all 3 at launch.

Despite my pop-culture-gaming-tardiness, I’ve somehow avoided most spoilers regarding the above 4 mentioned games. The first episode of season 2 had me wondering if this was TLoU2, or some new Hollywood creation, and I debated pausing on this season till I played the game, but nah… I try to watch the top-shelf content early on so it hopefully gets renewed for future seasons.

I strongly agree that the way this 2nd episode played out seemed really contrived, and not up to season 1 quality. Hopefully this is merely a low-point for the season (puny!). I didn’t mind Joel’s death, and he will of course make cameos in at least a couple future episodes, but man did Abby’s debut fall flat. It wasn’t the acting by anyone that failed, it’s the choices made by people off-screen. Most of Abby’s screentime, especially the moralizing, wasn’t interesting and felt like filler. Daughter of a child-killing doctor tortures and murders a sometimes-reluctant serial killer who raised his adoptive daughter to not only survive, but relish killing things on the path to becoming a serial killer herself. Oh, and there was a public lesbian scene because titilating!

It could be worse, but there’s near-infinite opportunity to get better. Hopefully episodes 3 and 4 deliver

 

[Jilkon]

I think it is worth mentioning that the core theme of TLOU1 is "Love in all its forms, and what it can drive men to do", whereas the theme of TLOU2 is basically "Hatred in all its forms, and why hatred and revenge are ultimately never a good thing".

Game 2 is not a feelgood story most of the time. It explores dark emotions and does not necessarily attempt to make it make sense. Because perpetuated hatred and revenge does not make sense. But it is a thing that exists in many parts of the world, and so portraying it has some value. For people to see it for what it is when they run into it.

 

[RickVS]

The big question for me is, does Abby know why Joel killed her dad? Why didn't Joel have the opportunity to at least tell Abby that her dad was about to kill his daughter? Maybe she would have better understood and not been as torturous. Does she know in the game?

 

[acmegamer]

In the game, on the Firefly hospital level, if you read some of the various material spread about the hospital it's revealed that Ellie is not the first one with immunity they've found, and that they've operated on many without any success, killing all of them. It painted a picture that there was a very low chance that Ellie's sacrifice would have made any difference.

This is my issue with anyone defending the doctors actions. They aren't innocent, they're kidna operating like a Unit-731 or doctor Mengele. Which is total BS in my opinion that folks would defend these doctors actions.

I get the whole "the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few" to a degree. That said, what these doctors were doing was wrong and criminal in my opinion. So I very much disagree with Kyle and Andrew's comments in the article and those defending the actions in the posts.

I won't even get into the whole fungal argument and instead will focus on the above.

 

[SassInYourPants]

The big question for me is, does Abby know why Joel killed her dad? Why didn't Joel have the opportunity to at least tell Abby that her dad was about to kill his daughter? Maybe she would have better understood and not been as torturous. Does she know in the game?

Spoiler: Spoiler alert for game with the answer

She knows in the game. There's a flashback moment where she overhears her dad and Marlene discussing the difficult choice they're facing, that the only way getting a cure being a surgery that would kill Ellie and she tells her father that if it was her, she would agree to it. She believed in her father's work, so Joel to her is just a rampaging psychopath who destroyed their only chance at a cure after years of work. She doesn't realize Ellie is the immune child, though.

This, btw is exactly how Ellie feels, and a huge part of why she's so angry at Joel. She felt her life had meaning and could help people and he made that choice for her.

 

[Sulla]

Also, did Andrew call Inigo Montoya bland?? That is outrageous, I need to find the unsubscribe button asap.

I didn't read it that way. I read it to mean that Abby's revenge plot was bland compared to Inigo's.

Not only did he deprive the world of a possible cure, but he removed Ellie's body autonomy. It was her choice, and he didn't let her have it.

But there wasn't really any autonomy at stake since she wasn't given the full picture, i.e. the fact that she'd die. There's a difference in making a decision between "undergo this potentially lethal surgery that will give us a cure" and "undergo this fully lethal surgery which may or may not give us a cure."

 

[Meglao]

The biggest problem with adapting TLoU 2 is that it was too big to fit in a single season so it will be told across 2 seasons. But this requires a breakpoint for a 2 year wait to produce the third season. So where is that breakpoint going to be? My thought after the first two episodes was that Ellie and Abby's perspectives would be told concurrently, else why make Abby's motivations so abundantly clear? Well, I did some IMBD sleuthing and I do not think they're going to be told concurrently at all.

Spoiler: If you have not played the game then don't read!

If they were told concurrently then my guess is the season would end after Nora's killed by Ellie. But I had to throw this out when I discovered that Yara and Lev haven't been cast yet, and Owen and Mel don't reappear until the final episode of the season.

That pretty much guarantees that season 2 is going to end in the theater, with Abby having killed Jesse, threatening Tommy, pointing her gun at Ellie, and with a brand new character Lev in tow. But will they show Abby and Lev finding Mel and Owen's body or save that for season 3? This also means that season 3 is going to open with 3-5 uninterrupted episodes of Abby's story before we get to the theater again.

I'm worried that with such a big time-gap and so little to go off of from Abby's perspective that people will bounce off season 3 hard.

As an aside, it's kind of crazy that so many people had to be cast for short roles but extremely important scenes in season 2 when they get much more significant roles in season 3 which won't be filming for another year or so.

 

[SomeoneElseFromSomewhere]

I can't believe 5 years out from the 2nd game and people are still doing the "but fungal vaccines are impossible in our universe." You know what else didn't exist a couple years before it saved millions of lives? A covid vaccine. Turns out, when humans are faced with an existential threat, scientists focusing exclusively on the threat can make some pretty amazing advancements in combating it.

Besides the fact that the game is clear, in this universe, immunity - and a vaccine - is possible. And more importantly, Joel didn't kill all the fireflies because he had read the literature and felt that fungal vaccines were not possible scientifically. He did it because he would rather she live than a cure be found. It does not redeem him in any way shape or form.

You know what else COVID vaccines didn't need? Killing a girl and harvesting her brain. That's my issue with the game and the show, any doctor that suggests removing the brain as the first port of call probably isn't a real doctor. ....but it is just fiction

 

[SassInYourPants]

You know what else COVID vaccines didn't need? Killing a girl and harvesting her brain. That's my issue with the game and the show, any doctor that suggests removing the brain as the first port of call probably isn't a real doctor. ....but it is just fiction

Yeah I don't think the "that's not realistic" argument holds up unless you apply it to every facet of the story. We can't just pick and choose which parts we want to apply reality to IMO. If I can believe that the cordyceps virus can evolve and make humans into zombies, then I can believe that the way to make a cure is by dissecting an immune person.

 

[Apple fanboy 101]

I finally watched it and I think they fucked up. Maybe because the writers knew the story so much they forgot the impact the scene in the game had, how confused the player is left.
Now from the get go of season 2, we learn that the story is going to be about revenge. It's completely lame. They butchered it, terrible decision.

 

[Apple fanboy 101]

No, he didn't deprive the world of a cure. The world ended in the game in 2013 and in 2003 in the show. You know what we still can't do in 2025? Make vaccines for fungus. There's no way a doctor in the ruins of a hospital could develop one.

Her father should have known that. He was a doctor. He was going to murder a child for no reason. If I found out my dad was going to do that, I sure as hell wouldn't get revenge on the person who killed him.

Abby deserved what she got in the game. The whole "she was justified" discourse is nonsense on a base level.

And don't give me the "but zombies don't exist either!" crap. The world is exactly the same as ours except for cordyceps evolving. It's never been stated otherwise.

But zombies don't exist either.
An fungi cannot transform a person this way in the real world.
So maybe he could have found a cure. That's what the story says. Maybe the chances were very low but even a low chance is worth trying in such a world. One sacrifice is worth it. What Joel did however was selfish. He is the bad guy there.

 

[Apple fanboy 101]

You know what else COVID vaccines didn't need? Killing a girl and harvesting her brain. That's my issue with the game and the show, any doctor that suggests removing the brain as the first port of call probably isn't a real doctor. ....but it is just fiction

You think vaccine development doesn't involve cruelty of some form?

 

[SomeoneElseFromSomewhere]

You think vaccine development doesn't involve cruelty of some form?

Are you referring to the tears of RFK? I'll allow it.

 

[Apple fanboy 101]

Are you referring to the tears of RFK? I'll allow it.

I am referring to animal testing.