HBO Max The Last Of Us review (SPOILERS!)

[Bartholen]

The world of TLoU tries to appear realistic, but is ultimately just a zombie apocalypse that wants to focus on human drama. And the human drama will generally take presedence over realism.

And that's where my point about missed directions they could have taken with Frank and Bill comes into play. They could have had the touching love story without sacrificing verisimilitude: They could have shown them struggling with each others' views of the world. They could have shown how they had to deal with any infected that stumble on their compound, and how that affects their dynamic. They could have shown their bond with each other growing stronger through adversity they stick through together. Which I guess they kind of do with the bandit encounter, but we never even see the aftermath of that. How they grow older in a dangerous world, how Frank's ability to be any help diminishes with his cancer, they could have done any number of things that would have retained the sense of post-apocalypse while also building their relationship. But instead things just go hunky dory all the way through in their little paradise (the bandit encounter aside), and that's why I feel the episode seriously detracts from the worldbuilding.

 

[Casual Shinji]

And that's where my point about missed directions they could have taken with Frank and Bill comes into play. They could have had the touching love story without sacrificing verisimilitude: They could have shown them struggling with each others' views of the world. They could have shown how they had to deal with any infected that stumble on their compound, and how that affects their dynamic. They could have shown their bond with each other growing stronger through adversity they stick through together. Which I guess they kind of do with the bandit encounter, but we never even see the aftermath of that. How they grow older in a dangerous world, how Frank's ability to be any help diminishes with his cancer, they could have done any number of things that would have retained the sense of post-apocalypse while also building their relationship. But instead things just go hunky dory all the way through in their little paradise (the bandit encounter aside), and that's why I feel the episode seriously detracts from the worldbuilding.

Maybe, but then I was expecting things to fall apart or go sour at certain points, assuming Bill was going to end up alone for when Joel and Ellie show up. So things actually going relatively well was a nice surprise for me. I think what ultimately matters is showing how the commitment Bill and Frank had toward one another reflects on Joel. He's really the exclaimation point at the end of the episode.

 

[Johnny Novgorod]

It wasn't empowering, but that's due to the mechanics never giving you that sense. But outside of that Joel is murdering his way through a good 10 to 12 people in the section right after Tess' death alone. Nevermind the horde of infected you encounter and kill before that. Joel doesn't control like a powerhouse, but everything he does (at his age) pretty much makes him one.

Could there have been more of Joel doing his thing, sure, but I think the show so far has done a good job at showing us what kind of man he is.

For me, I'd prefer it if the show had more grit. Maybe I'm desensitized to the idea that Sarah and Tess die so quickly and so pointlessly, but I wasn't so gut-wrenched by the first two episodes that I needed 65 minutes of blissful domesticity in the form of a day-in-the-limelight filler episode to properly contextualize the main plot and characters. I want strife goddammit. The situation doesn't seem that desperate nor the government that oppressive when three episodes into your gritty climate change zombie dystopia you show a perfectly happy couple living 16/17 years almost completely unbothered in a private paradise only to die just before the plot even needs them.

Joel and Ellie have a car. That's it. Joel is weary of relationships compromising survival, but that's something he already knew.

I honestly wouldn't. That's not to say that I don't wish what was there was handled better; the zombies (including the Clickers) really aren't doing much for me. My biggest issue so far is how the show depicts the dilapidation and the reclaiming of nature. It's why Episode 3 fairs better in that regard, because it's Joel and Ellie in the woods and fields - something they didn't need to set-dress and try to make look like nature.

Seeing how the show does its action so far, I don't think I'm as interested in more of that (though I understand that it is necessary to an extent). The quiet moments though, where the characters are just talking to eachother, is where the show is excelling at. Those interactions between Joel and Ellie at Bill's house and in the car were far more engaging to me than any of the (zombie) action in the show as of yet.

I don't need a Walking Dead style "we'll be shooting zombies in a barrel for 40 minutes" episode. But the show keeps shortchanging the big set pieces from the game. There's no fight with Robert, we just see the results. There's no Joel dangling from a trap shooting zombies. There's no fight with a Bloater or whatever it was called. And I know they're gonna cop out with the brothers and give them either a happy ending or something not quite as horrifying as the game.

 

[Casual Shinji]

For me, I'd prefer it if the show had more grit. Maybe I'm desensitized to the idea that Sarah and Tess die so quickly and so pointlessly, but I wasn't so gut-wrenched by the first two episodes that I needed 65 minutes of blissful domesticity in the form of a day-in-the-limelight filler episode to properly contextualize the main plot and characters. I want strife goddammit. The situation doesn't seem that desperate nor the government that oppressive when three episodes into your gritty climate change zombie dystopia you show a perfectly happy couple living 16/17 years almost completely unbothered in a private paradise only to die just before the plot even needs them.

Joel and Ellie have a car. That's it. Joel is weary of relationships compromising survival, but that's something he already knew.

I don't need a Walking Dead style "we'll be shooting zombies in a barrel for 40 minutes" episode. But the show keeps shortchanging the big set pieces from the game. There's no fight with Robert, we just see the results. There's no Joel dangling from a trap shooting zombies. There's no fight with a Bloater or whatever it was called. And I know they're gonna cop out with the brothers and give them either a happy ending or something not quite as horrifying as the game.

Yeah, I can see that. I didn't feel like the first two episodes were that great; Episode 1 had rather flimsy directing and was just kinda going through the motions, and Episode 2 while slightly better directed and having tighter character focus, was still not giving me much the game didn't already do other than the zombie kiss (hence why it was probably my favorite part of that episode). And I think that's why I liked Episode 3 so much, because it actually had a solid director at the helm and it gave me something new (that still tied into the story and characters). If it was just the same old Bill from the game, doing the same old thing with Joel and Ellie, I don't know how much I would've cared. And it would've equally resulted in Joel and Ellie getting a car and Bill disappearing from the story forever. Maybe it would've been cool if they could've done the action justice, but so far they haven't really been able to. I mean, that Bloater is going to show up (I think actually next episode), but I'm really not expecting too much of it judging by the zombie action we've seen. I wouldn't hold my breath for a Bloater face rip.

 

[hanselthecaretaker]

So I'm watching this show with my wife, who knows nothing about the game. This last episode hooked her and got her invested, because, yeah, it was great.

I strongly believe that adaptations' primary audience should be those NOT familiar with the "source material," because it's its own thing.

Or perhaps those familiar with the source material need to just acknowledge and accept that a 1:1 representation isn’t a prerequisite to good story telling, regardless of how good the source material is. Creative liberties are welcome if they are handled by people smart enough to understand it and talented enough to enhance it.

That said, it did feel like the whole episode was more about showcasing that Bill and Frank are gay to tick that box than anything else. Like, what are the odds he was literally dropped right into his trap and ends up fulfilling his untapped (no pun) secret? I guess stranger things have happened, like a fungal virus destroying civilization.

 

[BrawlMan]

Or perhaps those familiar with the source material need to just acknowledge and accept that a 1:1 representation isn’t a prerequisite to good story telling, regardless of how good the source material is. Creative liberties are welcome if they are handled by people smart enough to understand it and talented enough to enhance it.

Exactly. Hence why they are called adaptations. They have to adapt. Whatever problems I have with both Sonic movies, they still did their own thing while being true to the source material. The closest to 1 to 1 adaptions that we have from games to movies or TV is the first Mortal Kombat movie, the first two Fatal Fury movies, and Street Fighter 2 the Animated Movie. And even then, they had to change things to fit their 90-95 minute run time. The Castlevania TV series is an adaption of Castlevania 3, yet not everything is not one to one in that show either. Still considered one of the best game to TV adaptations ever made.

 

[gorfias]

Or perhaps those familiar with the source material need to just acknowledge and accept that a 1:1 representation isn’t a prerequisite to good story telling, regardless of how good the source material is. Creative liberties are welcome if they are handled by people smart enough to understand it and talented enough to enhance it.

That said, it did feel like the whole episode was more about showcasing that Bill and Frank are gay to tick that box than anything else. Like, what are the odds he was literally dropped right into his trap and ends up fulfilling his untapped (no pun) secret? I guess stranger things have happened, like a fungal virus destroying civilization.

Elsewhere, I was called names for thinking it can actually be a bad thing to follow source material too closely. I found aspects of the early Spiderman movies dull as I knew what was going to happen. Nolan's "Dark Knight" is my all time favorite. The Joker in it isn't even really clown looking from being dunked in acid. Would you really want a Spiderman 3 in which Sandman is defeated with a vacuum cleaner?

I am irked that, "the last of us Director says he wanted to trick audience into watching a gay love story" but it was a well written, if not full of holes, story. (Really? A guy can live that high a quality life during the apocalypse!?!?!: total side note. Recent, enjoyable HBO show, Station Eleven, I thought the survivors were enjoying the apocalypse way too much too. Example, untrained guy decides to be an MD? Just does it! Who is to stop him if that's what he feels like doing!?!? I understand the book upon which that is based is far darker).

 

[Johnny Novgorod]

Or perhaps those familiar with the source material need to just acknowledge and accept that a 1:1 representation isn’t a prerequisite to good story telling, regardless of how good the source material is. Creative liberties are welcome if they are handled by people smart enough to understand it and talented enough to enhance it.

That said, it did feel like the whole episode was more about showcasing that Bill and Frank are gay to tick that box than anything else. Like, what are the odds he was literally dropped right into his trap and ends up fulfilling his untapped (no pun) secret? I guess stranger things have happened, like a fungal virus destroying civilization.

I think there's a middle point you're looking for when adapting something. I'm not demanding 1:1 fidelity (although the first couple of episodes were close enough, which adds to the "shock" of the third one) but past a certain point why even call it an adaptation.

Episode 3 doesn't have any conflict. That's my main problem with it. People are memeing about how it's like the opening montage of Up, either ignoring or forgetting that the opening montage of Up was rife with conflict. It's about how life gets in the way of what they want from life. They want to have a baby, but they can't. They want to save enough to go on this fabled trip, but they can't. And even though they lived a full happy life one way or the other, in the end one of them ends up alone and miserable.

The Bill and Frank episode has NONE of those things. In the thickness of the post-apocalypse they get absolutely everything they ever want at no cost and zero effort, meeting absolutely no resistance and ending things exactly on their own cozy terms. Is Bill ever conflicted about being alone? Never in 4 years. Is Bill conflicted about someone mooching from his efforts? Nope. About his sexuality? Nope. What luck, the only other person he ran into in 20 years just happened to be everything he didn't even know wanted from a partner. Do Bill and Frank ever get into a fight about anything? Frank wants to repaint the house (he repaints the house) and have friends over for a wine party (he has friends over for a wine party). The only opposition they face in 16 years is one random attack on their property, which they easily repel despite making astoundingly out of character stupid decisions.

Not only is ep3 a momemtum killer, it doesn't even come up with a decent story to tell instead. Ron Swanson and Prissy S1 White Lotus Manager are great in it but they were given practically nothing to act against.

 

[Casual Shinji]

I am irked that, "the last of us Director says he wanted to trick audience into watching a gay love story" but it was a well written, if not full of holes, story.

Yeah, I've heard this going around in the usual reactionary circles, and I can't help but respond with 'And?' Hitchcock did this shit back in 1960. The only reason it's apparently bad that the director of Episode 3 tricked the audience is because they were tricked into watching gays, which is bad because... yeah, we know why they think it's bad.

The Bill and Frank episode has NONE of those things. In the thickness of the post-apocalypse they get absolutely everything they ever want at no cost and zero effort, meeting absolutely no resistance and ending things exactly on their own cozy terms. Is Bill ever conflicted about being alone? Never in 4 years. Is Bill conflicted about someone mooching from his efforts? Nope. About his sexuality? Nope. What luck, the only other person he ran into in 20 years just happened to be everything he didn't even know wanted from a partner. Do Bill and Frank ever get into a fight about anything? Frank wants to repaint the house (he repaints the house) and have friends over for a wine party (he has friends over for a wine party). The only opposition they face in 16 years is one random attack on their property, which they easily repel despite making astoundingly out of character stupid decisions.

A lot of that is implied by Bill's behaviour and the visuals. There's even one specific shot that shows him eating, clearly framed to make him look alone. He probably grew up conservative, as the house he grew up in is colonial, and he has that 'don't tread on me' flag in his bunker, so he was very likely closeted. When he says to Frank that he's only ever been intimate with a girl a long time ago this hints to that as well. Bill's behaviour when he first meets Frank, during that dinner, shows how starved he is - even as closed off as he is - for human interaction. And that the last four years were him probably just going through the motions of surviving. Even Frank's little tear when he first kisses Bill implies this is probably the first act of human kindness he's received in years. And what we see of their final two days - Bill looking after Frank, and Frank slowly losing more of his motor functions - shows the routine that they've established over probably the last couple of years when Frank first got sick.

Little of it was very dramatic, but to say there was no strife, effort, or cost, no.

 

[Johnny Novgorod]

Yeah, I've heard this going around in the usual reactionary circles, and I can't help but respond with 'And?' Hitchcock did this shit back in 1960. The only reason it's apparently bad that the director of Episode 3 tricked the audience is because they were tricked into watching gays, which is bad because... yeah, we know why they think it's bad.
A lot of that is implied by Bill's behaviour and the visuals. There's even one specific shot that shows him eating, clearly framed to make him look alone. He probably grew up conservative, as the house he grew up in is colonial, and he has that 'don't tread on me' flag in his bunker, so he was very likely closeted. When he says to Frank that he's only ever been intimate with a girl a long time ago this hints to that as well. Bill's behaviour when he first meets Frank, during that dinner, shows how starved he is - even as closed off as he is - for human interaction. And that the last four years were him probably just going through the motions of surviving. Even Frank's little tear when he first kisses Bill implies this is probably the first act of human kindness he's received in years. And what we see of their final two days - Bill looking after Frank, and Frank slowly losing more of his motor functions - shows the routine that they've established over probably the last couple of years when Frank first got sick.

Little of it was very dramatic, but to say there was no strife, effort, or cost, no.

So most of these are just observations about Bill's psychological makeup rather than him overcoming adversity to meet a specific goal. Yes, it's obviously implied that he grew conservative and closeted. So what? It shows in the performance but doesn't affect the story. None of it informs his actions. Same with him being starved for company. Except this is just scene blocking. He was clearly already a loner from the get-go and I didn't really get a sense of deterioration from him after 4 years of hot showers and gourmet cooking. Me, I wanted to [REDACTED] my brains out after three months of total isolation in 2020.

Frank gets sick and yeah, I felt sad for him, but getting sick and euthanizing yourself isn't conflict. It would be conflict if Frank had to somehow procure the means to off himself, or if Bill were desperately trying to stop him (see Netflix's Paddleton). But no. He got sick, fought it maybe, came to terms with it, everyone's on the same page, goes out on his own terms. Hell, Bill offs himself too. Fuck it. No biggie. The show pulls an ellipsis on character struggle (again) and just shows you the part afterwards (again).

I love muted drama and implicit inner turmoil, but this was not it.

 

[Casual Shinji]

So most of these are just observations about Bill's psychological makeup rather than him overcoming adversity to meet a specific goal. Yes, it's obviously implied that he grew conservative and closeted. So what? It shows in the performance but doesn't affect the story. None of it informs his actions. Same with him being starved for company. Except this is just scene blocking. He was clearly already a loner from the get-go and I didn't really get a sense of deterioration from him after 4 years of hot showers and gourmet cooking. Me, I wanted to [REDACTED] my brains out after three months of total isolation in 2020.

Frank gets sick and yeah, I felt sad for him, but getting sick and euthanizing yourself isn't conflict. It would be conflict if Frank had to somehow procure the means to off himself, or if Bill were desperately trying to stop him (see Netflix's Paddleton). But no. He got sick, fought it maybe, came to terms with it, everyone's on the same page, goes out on his own terms. Hell, Bill offs himself too. Fuck it. No biggie. The show pulls an ellipsis on character struggle (again) and just shows you the part afterwards (again).

I love muted drama and implicit inner turmoil, but this was not it.

You're right, and yet I found it thoroughly engaging, with the tension coming from expecting the usual bad things to happen in this scenario; Bill being extremely distrustful of Frank for the first couple of scenes, Bill pushing Frank away during that first kiss in a 'fuck you, I'm not like that' sorta way that gay characters like this usually act initially, their fight over Frank wanting to clean the place up being the start of their mounting relationship issues. But this then not happening. Bad things happen, but not the bad things that typically happen in these kinds of stories. It was a nice rhythm of letting tensions rise, but then deflating it. Call it the 'My Neighbor Totoro' effect, I guess.

 

[BrawlMan]

The response to HBO's 'The Last of Us' shows homophobia is still a major issue in gaming

HBO's "The Last of Us" sparked homophobic backlash from some viewers. It's long been an issue in the gaming community.

www.businessinsider.com

 

[Casual Shinji]

The response to HBO's 'The Last of Us' shows homophobia is still a major issue in gaming

HBO's "The Last of Us" sparked homophobic backlash from some viewers. It's long been an issue in the gaming community.

www.businessinsider.com

And unfortunately we will not see the day that it won't be in our lifetime.

 

[Catfood220]

It's also very resource draining, and while it looks cool in isolated encounters, remember that if you played like that all the time, you'd run out of resources right in the next one.

Yeah, not really.

During my last time playing the game, I was so pissed off with the game that I was on the point of rage quitting. My opinion of the game going from "meh, this game is ok" to "this game is utter garbage" in the space of 3 separate play throughs. So, I stopped giving a fuck and just started shooting my way through every encounter. Not once did I have a problem with supplies once I adopted that play style.

 

[Johnny Novgorod]

 

[FakeSympathy]

Episode 4: Please Hold to My Hand

The episode starts on a location that I don't think gets covered much in post-apocalyptic worlds; A big open field, in the middle of nowhere. Joel and Ellie have stoppped at a gas station to siphon for some gas. I'm impressed with thie location setting here, as many abandoned cars seems to tell unknown stories. Ellie gets a moment to tell some puns, which did give me a good laugh.

So this episode brings back people to the plot from the game, where Joel and Ellie are on a road and a recreation from the scene in the game, coupled with the song Alone and Forsaken. It works really well as they pass by various sceneries, including a train bridge that has been blown up. Honestly, the cameraworks and visuals have been to-notch so far.

They decide to camp out in the middle of the woods. Joel decide to stand watch for a night, which makes me think did he do it for himself or to protect Ellie. Joel gets to drink coffee that he got from Bill's, which is a nice nod to his game counterpart saying how much he misses coffee.

As they continue to drive towards WY, Joel talks more about what happened between him and Tommy. Apparently, Tommy has always been a bit delusional and joined whatever causes seemed noble, only to quit them shortly afterward and been wandering around. My guess is instead of falling out, he lost track of Tommy until now?

They arrive in Kansas City, and you can tell something isn't right. Soon they get attacked by bandits. And I don't think this scene worked out too well. Partly because the game version felt more intense, partly because I've seen gunfights like these thousands of times in other movies and tv-shows, and partly because I never found bandits to be as threatening as infected.

....And then Ellie paralyzes one of them waist-down. Honestly, her reaction seems genuine as the guy screams in agony. I'd imagine this is what it'll like for most people, or what it was like for anyone who had the misfortune of shooting someone for the first time.

We then find out they weren't in fact bandits, but part of survivor group in Kansas City. Katleen, someone who seems to lead these people, wants to find Joel, Ellie, and Henry and kill them. I once again couldn't understand what was the point of introducing this group, but then I realized they were simple bandits in the game, and here they are trying to humanize them. It's this group mentality of having a common enemy, which we have seen in many media. I appreciate the effort, but the depths of these characters are about as deep as a kitty pool, so they don't really seem to work. Katleen especially seems to come up as a really obnoxious, headstrong, and kinda dullard leader.

Then we get more bonding moments between Joel and Ellie, where he tries his best to comfort her and teach her how to hold a pistol. Joel seems to be really caring about Ellie having to do something so shocking. By the way, this episode was full of terrible puns, and we get to see both of them laugh together for the first time, as I laughed along too. The episode ends with them meeting Henry and Sam pointing guns in their faces.

Another great episode, with exception of Katleen. Was she introduced for the sake of being hated?

We are now just under halfway through the first season, as there are supposed to be 9 episodes. I'm starting to think it might not cover the first game in its entirety.

 

[BrawlMan]

College Humor has been doing that shit since the late 2000s. Funny skit, but CH did it the best.

​

 

[Casual Shinji]

Just saw Episode 4 and it was alright. Whenever this show delves into city environments and tries to do action it just doesn't do too well.

So it doesn't look like this takes place in or even near Pittsburgh like in the game, since Joel was blocked off from going to Kansas City and then made a one minute swerve to... wherever they are now, Kansas City, I wager. They expanded on the 'people revolted against FEDRA and then became just as bad' from the game with actual characters and people in charge, but the head honcho is... I'm not too sure. I suppose her talking like a grade school teacher is one way to go, but if it's meant to make her seem intimidating or a force to reckoned with, it's not really working. Seeing Jeffrey Pierce (Tommy in the game) as her second-in-command did a lot too smooth things over though. And the dude looks fucking badass too. It was very nice seeing him back. Also, major Bloater foreshadowing. I'm guessing this'll be set as a big event for either the next episode, or for when the rule of Kathleen (grade school lady) is on its last legs and the Bloater takes her out (or maybe Jeffrey Pierce's character).

This unfortunately suffers from the same issues Boston did in the first episode, in that the city just comes across as small (so far). This might have to do with the show suddenly jumping around to different perspectives again, like in Episode 1. Both Episode 2 and 3 kept the focus on one group of characters for a significant time and it really helped to get a feel for the environment and the journey. I did really like the car ride montage and watching the whithered infrastructure go by.

Whenever the show straight-up lifts dialoge sections from the game it still weirds me out. So that porn magazine bit, while I'm sure it'll make a lot of people go 'look, look, it's the thing from the game', all I could do is just feel it clash with how the game did it. I liked the change in Joel talking to Ellie about her having to shoot the guy that was choking him. I was expecting them to just follow the game, but instead Joel handles it with a lot more tact and understanding, and it served as a nice little moment between the two.

Which brings me to something I haven't talked about yet, but I think 4 episodes in is worthy of mentioning, and that's the chemistry between Pedro Pascal and Bella Ramsey. It's not bad, but it's not Troy Baker and Ashley Johnson. And in the game's story this was kinda essential. I'm not too engrossed by the dynamic between Pascal and Ramsey yet.

Oh, and Henry and Sam show up, but there's not much to talk about yet. I guess Sam has a superhero thing that I'm sure won't be used to contrast how powerless he is in his current state, and will then later surely not lead to some massive disillusionment.

 

[Casual Shinji]

Oh, and I think it's implied Ellie actually (mercy) killed Riley, which means we will finally get more on a conclussion to that character than we got in the DLC. I mean, we know she dies, but considering how important she was to Ellie it's always felt like such a waste to not show how Ellie dealt with Riley actually turning.

 

[gorfias]

Episode 4: Please Hold to My Hand

The episode starts on a location that I don't think gets covered much in post-apocalyptic worlds; A big open field, in the middle of nowhere. Joel and Ellie have stoppped at a gas station to siphon for some gas. I'm impressed with thie location setting here, as many abandoned cars seems to tell unknown stories. Ellie gets a moment to tell some puns, which did give me a good laugh.

So this episode brings back people to the plot from the game, where Joel and Ellie are on a road and a recreation from the scene in the game, coupled with the song Alone and Forsaken. It works really well as they pass by various sceneries, including a train bridge that has been blown up. Honestly, the cameraworks and visuals have been to-notch so far.

They decide to camp out in the middle of the woods. Joel decide to stand watch for a night, which makes me think did he do it for himself or to protect Ellie. Joel gets to drink coffee that he got from Bill's, which is a nice nod to his game counterpart saying how much he misses coffee.

As they continue to drive towards WY, Joel talks more about what happened between him and Tommy. Apparently, Tommy has always been a bit delusional and joined whatever causes seemed noble, only to quit them shortly afterward and been wandering around. My guess is instead of falling out, he lost track of Tommy until now?

They arrive in Kansas City, and you can tell something isn't right. Soon they get attacked by bandits. And I don't think this scene worked out too well. Partly because the game version felt more intense, partly because I've seen gunfights like these thousands of times in other movies and tv-shows, and partly because I never found bandits to be as threatening as infected.

....And then Ellie paralyzes one of them waist-down. Honestly, her reaction seems genuine as the guy screams in agony. I'd imagine this is what it'll like for most people, or what it was like for anyone who had the misfortune of shooting someone for the first time.

We then find out they weren't in fact bandits, but part of survivor group in Kansas City. Katleen, someone who seems to lead these people, wants to find Joel, Ellie, and Henry and kill them. I once again couldn't understand what was the point of introducing this group, but then I realized they were simple bandits in the game, and here they are trying to humanize them. It's this group mentality of having a common enemy, which we have seen in many media. I appreciate the effort, but the depths of these characters are about as deep as a kitty pool, so they don't really seem to work. Katleen especially seems to come up as a really obnoxious, headstrong, and kinda dullard leader.

Then we get more bonding moments between Joel and Ellie, where he tries his best to comfort her and teach her how to hold a pistol. Joel seems to be really caring about Ellie having to do something so shocking. By the way, this episode was full of terrible puns, and we get to see both of them laugh together for the first time, as I laughed along too. The episode ends with them meeting Henry and Sam pointing guns in their faces.

Another great episode, with exception of Katleen. Was she introduced for the sake of being hated?

We are now just under halfway through the first season, as there are supposed to be 9 episodes. I'm starting to think it might not cover the first game in its entirety.

IMDB lists Melanie Lynskey's character as Kathleen. Different from the game? Maybe they got it wrong? I think her voice far too weak to find her a credible military leader. Maybe they have other really good reasons to be following her.

And I was cringing in terror the entire time Joel was training Ellie with the hand gun. Yes, we see him remove a round from the chamber. That still doesn't explain the apparent reckless manner with which they were handling the gun. Especially after the Baldwin incident.

EDIT: Great, they tell us she was in the show but not who she played: