Season 2 dropped its most controversial moment and the internet has not recovered. Fans who never played the game are furious, purists say it's the bravest thing prestige TV has done in years, and everyone in between is screaming. Was this the right call, or did the show just torch its own foundation for shock value?
Join the debate to comment
Reading is free. Members pay to post — that's why it stays clean.
Add your commentthe red wedding comparison is actually a good one but also GoT then completely fell apart after that so maybe it's not the defense you think it is lmao
I genuinely had to sit in silence for ten minutes after that episode. Not because it was good. Because I felt CHEATED. Joel was the emotional core of everything. You don't remove the heart of the story in episode two.
stopped watching. not because i couldn't handle it emotionally but because the show has now asked me to care about a character I actively despise and I don't find that enjoyable. that's not a failure of intelligence it's just a legitimate viewing preference and i'm tired of being told i'm wrong for having it
People said the exact same thing about the Red Wedding when it aired on Game of Thrones. 'How dare they.' 'I'm done.' Years later it's considered one of the greatest television moments ever made. Let's revisit this conversation in three years.
my mum genuinely thought she'd downloaded the wrong show when it happened. she kept saying 'but he's the main character' and i had to explain that ellie was always the main character. it was a whole thing
as someone who cried actual tears playing part 2 of the game: the show is doing it justice. abby's actress is phenomenal and i need people to trust the process before they write think pieces about it
At the end of the day if the show sticks the landing — if Abby's arc lands the way it does in the game — people will look back at this moment as the necessary wound the story had to inflict. If it doesn't stick the landing, they'll say they were right all along. We simply don't know yet.
nothing annoys me more than 'you just didn't understand it' as a defense for alienating your audience. you can have artistic intentions AND make choices that damage your show's ability to reach people. both can be true.
I think what's being missed in this debate is that the POINT is to feel exactly what Ellie feels. You're supposed to be devastated and then forced to ask yourself whether revenge is worth it. The discomfort is the whole text.
What I find interesting is that the discourse around this is almost entirely about Joel and almost nobody is talking about Bella Ramsey's performance in that episode which was absolutely harrowing and should be the conversation
Kaitlyn Dever as Abby is doing something genuinely special. I don't want to get into spoilers but if you've played the game you know where her arc goes and she is going to DELIVER. Everyone hating right now is going to have to reconcile with that.
The way Abby's introduction is handled actually mirrors the game almost beat for beat, and THAT is what makes it brilliant. Naughty Dog and Craig Mazin both know the reaction is the point. You are being deliberately manipulated into hating someone so you can be challenged on that hatred.
Joel had to die. He made a monstrous choice at the end of season 1 that he never truly answered for. The entire moral architecture of this story demands he face consequences. Anything else would be narrative cowardice.
I played Part 2 when it came out and got death threats for saying online that I thought it was a masterpiece. The fandom was genuinely toxic about it. Now four years later most people have come around. History is repeating itself and it's exhausting.
My husband and I watched it together and he just turned to me and said 'I'm done' and went to bed. He's not dramatic. He just genuinely loved Joel and the show never told him it was going to rip that away so fast. We haven't watched episode three yet and it's been two weeks.
The thing that gets me is how LONG the scene was. It wasn't just a death. It was drawn out in a way that felt almost cruel to the audience. I understand it thematically but emotionally it was a lot.
I agree he had to face consequences but there are ways to do that which don't involve removing him from the story entirely in episode TWO of a ten episode season. The pacing is what people are reacting to not the concept
ok but Pedro Pascal literally carried season 1 on his back. the chemistry between him and Bella Ramsey was the entire show. cutting that loose THIS early is a massive creative risk that I genuinely don't think TV audiences are the same as game audiences and HBO may have underestimated that
^^^^^ THIS. She was extraordinary. The grief work she did in that single episode deserves an Emmy conversation full stop.
Exploitative is the wrong word. That's just... drama. Every good story makes you love characters before testing them. Otherwise there are no stakes.
^^^ That is completely false lol he does not survive. Please stop spreading misinformation in comments sections
Abby is literally one of the most well-written characters in the entire source material and everyone hated her for years until they actually understood her arc. give the show time before you torch it
everyone comparing this to game of thrones needs to remember that show had like eight seasons to develop characters before it started killing them. the last of us is in season TWO. the calculus is completely different
i work in television development (not on this show) and from a pure craft standpoint what they did is technically correct. you have to pay off the thematic promise of part 2. Joel's actions in the season 1 finale have consequences. that's what good storytelling looks like.
The ratings reportedly dropped significantly after the episode aired. So whatever the 'correct' artistic choice was, HBO is going to be looking at numbers and that is a real business problem regardless of the thematic justification.
No no no. You can't just say season 1 was overrated to defend season 2's choices. They are separate arguments. Season 1 was genuinely excellent television. The question is whether season 2 is honoring that or abandoning it.
I think what frustrates me most is not the death itself but that the show spent all of season 1 making us love Joel specifically so that we would feel this. Which means we were set up to be hurt. It's effective but also somewhat exploitative?
Hot take: Season 1 was overrated anyway and people are only THIS upset because Pedro Pascal is very famous right now and they were watching for him specifically more than the story
Casual viewers ≠ the audience this show was made for. I know that sounds gatekeepy but it's true. Part 2 was always a story for people willing to be uncomfortable.
people acting shocked haven't played the game lol. this happened in 2020. you had five years to prepare yourselves
I read somewhere that Joel actually survives in the show's version because HBO was too scared to commit to the game's ending. Is that true??
Is it wrong to choose not to have children just because you don't want to?
110 comments
Netflix's 'Adolescence' shows a teenage boy becoming a killer — did the show actually get modern boyhood right, or did it miss the point entirely?
109 comments
Would you still eat meat if you had to kill the animal yourself?
109 comments
Are dating apps genuinely harder for men or for women?
108 comments