Jump to content

  • Welcome!

    Register and log in easily with Twitter or Google accounts!

    Or simply create a new Huddle account. 

    Members receive fewer ads , access our dark theme, and the ability to join the discussion!

     

The Last of Us on HBO Max

Varking

By Varking,
in Nerdvana

 Share

Recommended Posts

Brooklyn 3.0 Grand Master

Brooklyn 3.0

Posted
Posted

I don't like nor watch it ... but the "filler" episode yesterday was actually just a DLC extra in the game. So, not filler at all. Pure fan service. Which is, IMO. what the show is. Fan service for video game people. If you want a good zombe/creature show ... well, there's not one. But like Cull said, just watch TWD.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
PanthersATL Grand Master

PanthersATL

Posted
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Cullenator said:

So the history of how Ellie was bitten and the why behind her decision to stay with Joel is now "filler"

Just go watch 28 Days Later and The Walking Dead

While the overarching theme of the show is tied to the infected (or zombies, for easier reference) -- the show itself is not a zombie show

The first episode makes it seem like it's All Zombies, All The TIme.   But it's not.  It's about how people still need to find a connection to other despite difficult circumstances.

Perhaps "difficult" is an understatement given the fungus. But folks have lived - some would say thrived - over 20 years, as they found their connections that could get them through.

As someone who hasn't played the game, the show is pretty darn good. The fact that it is inspired by a game doesn't detract. Yes, there are set pieces that seem very video game-ish. But so does pretty much any action film.

Was the Ellie backstory required to be a full hour episode?  For the TV viewing audience - probably.  But the same could be said for episode 3 -- these stories needed to be told to bring the human element to the character's drive to find those connections.

To me, this is basically a Zombie-themed version of The Mandalorian.  

In both shows, Pedro Pascal is tasked with bringing The Child to an unknown/hidden destination, with various people helping or trying to prevent things along the way.

 

Edited by PanthersATL
Link to comment
Share on other sites
cookinbrak Veteran

cookinbrak

Posted
Posted
9 hours ago, Cullenator said:

So the history of how Ellie was bitten and the why behind her decision to stay with Joel is now "filler"

 

 

Just go watch 28 Days Later and The Walking Dead

Did they need a 58 minute explanation of how she got infected? Maybe they should have spent some of that time explaining how an abandoned mall was getting electricity?

At least TWD waited a few seasons to start using one off filler episodes. Half of the episodes on this have been 5 minute stories stretched out  to an hour.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Cullenator Grand Master

Cullenator

Posted
Posted
7 minutes ago, cookinbrak said:

Did they need a 58 minute explanation of how she got infected? Maybe they should have spent some of that time explaining how an abandoned mall was getting electricity?

At least TWD waited a few seasons to start using one off filler episodes. Half of the episodes on this have been 5 minute stories stretched out  to an hour.

Dude. Come on.

This told us a lot about who and what Ellie was.

 

Yes they needed 58 minutes to tell that story.  For me it just developed a depth to her that justified her choice to stay and help Joel. 

 

Ive never played the game so I'm coming at this from a "tell me a compelling story" perspective.  And so far Im in.  This is appointment TV for me at this stage.

  • Pie 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites
PanthersATL Grand Master

PanthersATL

Posted
Posted
10 hours ago, cookinbrak said:

Did they need a 58 minute explanation of how she got infected? Maybe they should have spent some of that time explaining how an abandoned mall was getting electricity?

They said it was when Fedra restored power to a section of town, they inadvertently powered up the closed off mall that nobody is supposed to go in.  Reasonable explanation, considering.

As one critic said this week as to why the mall episode worked:  

the series keeps a close eye, through Ellie, on what’s been lost. Ellie’s fondness for even a dilapidated shopping center offers a reminder of how simple pleasures can be as important as food and shelter. This ruined complex is meaningful not because it houses a sick collection of Halloween decorations, but because it’s a monument to Ellie and Riley’s friendship. Genuine human connection is rare enough in a normal world.  Sure, this episode included little forward momentum of the overarching plot, but that’s the point: The show is not just about whether Joel and Ellie will save the world. It’s about what is left to save, and why they should save it at all. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
stan786 Mentor

stan786

Posted
Posted
On 2/27/2023 at 1:44 PM, Brooklyn 3.0 said:

I don't like nor watch it ... but the "filler" episode yesterday was actually just a DLC extra in the game. So, not filler at all. Pure fan service. Which is, IMO. what the show is. Fan service for video game people. If you want a good zombe/creature show ... well, there's not one. But like Cull said, just watch TWD.

Honestly I know you dont like it from you comment and thats fine but as someone went in expecting the show to be pure fan service, it stands alone as a TV show very very well. The people with the biggest problem with it seems to be the video game crowd who wanted a one for one fan service level remake.

  • Pie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • PMH4OWPW7JD2TDGWZKTOYL2T3E.jpg

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • Jackie Lee
      If you wanted Danny Dimes here’s the chance

      By Jackie Lee · Posted

      Strange, every news article and tweet I just searched all mentioned waivers. It is definitely his sixth year of at least 6 games. All I was trying to think of earlier was at the vet min could he beat out Bryce in camp next year lol. He's kinda got the old Darnold issue where he can obviously launch deep balls and qb run at a level Bryce will never achieve, but it sounds like he would be content being like a Josh Allen backup who doesn't throw the whole game plan out the window if he has to come in for a series or two. If we had him and for some reason still wanted to start Bryce he would kinda do what Justin Fields was doing the other night with Dangeruss, coming in for designed runs and maybe some play action/triple option rpo things to go deep. That would be so obvious and sad though. At least Russ can still sling it 40 yards in the air with a flick of the wrist
    • strato
      If you wanted Danny Dimes here’s the chance

      By strato · Posted

      Too late to edit above but the quote is from this Diane Russini article in the Athletic: https://www.nytimes.com/athletic/5941684/2024/11/23/russinis-what-im-hearing-the-day-the-jets-fell-apart-and-the-broncos-rallied-belichick-best-fits/ Okay.. there you have sorry I left that out the first post.  Also waivers keep the contract intact. That is the major difference in released and waived. It's all in that link from the other post.
    • strato
      If you wanted Danny Dimes here’s the chance

      By strato · Posted

      Okay so I am reading something in The Athletic and it says that Jones had to pass through waivers. So I don't know. I looked this stuff up when we were number one there all offseason and I thought it said 4 years in the league got you vested, as they call it.  Vested gets you out of waivers as I understood it. I probably got something wrong, but when I think about the slack quality of journalism these days I wonder about that. So I went and looked, again. Well, well.  For everyone: "When a player has accrued at least four seasons in the NFL, they are considered a vested veteran. When these vested veterans get cut, they are released and their contract is terminated. When a vested veteran is released, they are an unrestricted free agent that can sign with any NFL team, and the team that released them doesn’t need to provide any additional compensation." It runs it all down here, where the quotes came from: https://www.profootballnetwork.com/waived-vs-released-nfl/ As far as Jones, the team turned down his 5th year option so I knew that meant he had 4 years in, because they re-signed him anyway, after turning down the much cheaper extra year.  The Athletic is owned by the New York Times so I shouldn't be surprised. That paper was an institution once upon a time but they let their standards go.
×
×
  • Create New...