Throw me in the group that doesn't like the casting of the militia leader right now. I feel like they tried to show she was ruthless by the way she killed the doctor, but IMO that just made her look like a bad leader. You just killed the only doctor in town over a grudge he had nothing to do with. Even if he did know where Henry was, release him and follow him in case he goes back.
*** THE LAST OF US *** (Non-Gamer Thread)
214,612 Views |
2419 Replies |
Last: 1 yr ago by jokershady
this.M.C. Swag said:
I thought this was a pretty weak episode (comparatively). It had great moments (Joel and Ellie telling jokes and Bryan pleading for his life, were the best scenes), but it didn't feel like an HBO show. The actress who is playing the "leader" of the resistance is horribly miscast. I'm not even sure why we should care about their hunt for "Henry" but I can't believe these dudes would take orders from Rose from 2 & Half men. This episode felt the most like a video game in a bad way with the side quest mission and cartoonish villain. Overall I'd give it a 5.5/10.
we have seen like 2.5 or more women in power through 4 episodes.aTmAg said:
This episode seemed a little too Walking Dead for my taste. People didn't act with any common sense. Why wouldn't Joel go up the ramp, cross over, and then go on the other side of the highway? Why would the idiots in KC assume that every lone car driving by was some sort of enemy and start shooting at them? In what universe would a bunch of militant people follow that pathetic woman? That dude with a beard would have been a much more clear choice. At least they made it clear that she was supposed to be an incompetent leader. I assume that is going to come into play later. It would have been worse if they made her laughably "tough" like most of the rest of modern shows (and this show in Ep 1).
Authoritative positions in a zombie apocalypse being women.
'
no comment.
Nevermind
It actually is. What percentage of warlike societies/groups have been lead by women (not talking those that inherited their throne)? It has to be close to zero. There is a reason for that.Goldie Wilson said:I know right? So unrealisticgigemJTH12 said:we have seen like 2.5 or more women in power through 4 episodes.aTmAg said:
This episode seemed a little too Walking Dead for my taste. People didn't act with any common sense. Why wouldn't Joel go up the ramp, cross over, and then go on the other side of the highway? Why would the idiots in KC assume that every lone car driving by was some sort of enemy and start shooting at them? In what universe would a bunch of militant people follow that pathetic woman? That dude with a beard would have been a much more clear choice. At least they made it clear that she was supposed to be an incompetent leader. I assume that is going to come into play later. It would have been worse if they made her laughably "tough" like most of the rest of modern shows (and this show in Ep 1).
Authoritative positions in a zombie apocalypse being women.
'
no comment.
Oh **** off and don't start this argument. After a week of having to see you boobs get triggered about a gay relationship, I doubt any of us want to see y'all get triggered about a woman in charge.
Kathleen is searching for Henry? and Sam. We don't know exactly why yet. I am assuming that's who we see at the end of the episode during Joel's abrupt awakening.drmwvr said:
What was the story behind the attic room with the canned food and Superman drawings? Obviously someone was hiding out there but I couldn't make sense of it.
I'm so glad the next episode is airing two days early, because I can already feel the pathetic-woman-in-charge convo becoming the next grist for the outrage mill. At least it will be over by Friday instead of Sunday.
The ones getting triggered are those who pretend that men are not physically stronger than women. Facts are facts. Hollywood's view of this is eyerolling fiction. It actually distracts from the story.
BowSowy said:
Oh **** off and don't start this argument. After a week of having to see you boobs get triggered about a gay relationship, I doubt any of us want to see y'all get triggered about a woman in charge.
This x 1000.
At this rate, I'm about start a new, Non-Gamer, Non-Triggered thread.
aTmAg said:
The ones getting triggered are those who pretend that men are not physically stronger than women. Facts are facts. Hollywood's view of this is eyerolling fiction. It actually distracts from the story.
I hate to break it to you, but the rest of it is fiction as well, what with all the zombies and killer fungus and what not.
Maybe shows shouldn't put pathetic women in charge? Then people wouldn't be distracted by it? Imagine if they made it a 10 year old kid instead. Even YOU would be talking about how stupid it was.TCTTS said:
I'm so glad the next episode is airing two days early, because I can already feel the pathetic-woman-in-charge convo becoming the next grist for the outrage mill. At least it will be over by Friday instead of Sunday.
If you can suspend disbelief that there are zombies, why can't you suspend disbelief that there is a woman in charge?
oh get over yourself. Women are never in those positions for anything combat related.TCTTS said:BowSowy said:
Oh **** off and don't start this argument. After a week of having to see you boobs get triggered about a gay relationship, I doubt any of us want to see y'all get triggered about a woman in charge.
This x 1000.
At this rate, I'm about start a new, Non-Gamer, Non-Triggered thread.
Youre more triggered than anyone by people simply pointing that out.
The two kids at the end of the episode who took Joel and Ellie by surprise were the people in the room. "Henry" and "???". The second kid also matched the appearance of the superhero drawings.drmwvr said:
What was the story behind the attic room with the canned food and Superman drawings? Obviously someone was hiding out there but I couldn't make sense of it.
Not sure what their role is at this point and why the other group is so concerned with the,.
because while its a zombie show, the point of most shows is to show how people would realistically act in a non realistic scenario.Chuck Cunningham said:
If you can suspend disbelief that there are zombies, why can't you suspend disbelief that there is a woman in charge?
this isnt hard to understand.
Then you would not be allowed to post in it by your own rules.TCTTS said:BowSowy said:
Oh **** off and don't start this argument. After a week of having to see you boobs get triggered about a gay relationship, I doubt any of us want to see y'all get triggered about a woman in charge.
This x 1000.
At this rate, I'm about start a new, Non-Gamer, Non-Triggered thread.
1. homophobia
2. misogyny
3. ???
4. profit
2. misogyny
3. ???
4. profit
Yeah, but at least that is 1000X more realistic.TCTTS said:aTmAg said:
The ones getting triggered are those who pretend that men are not physically stronger than women. Facts are facts. Hollywood's view of this is eyerolling fiction. It actually distracts from the story.
I hate to break it to you, but the rest of it is fiction as well, what with all the zombies and killer fungus and what not.
And just like that we have found our pointless thing to ***** about this week. I guess even seeing someone who isn't just like you is now too woke.aTmAg said:Maybe shows shouldn't put pathetic women in charge? Then people wouldn't be distracted by it? Imagine if they made it a 10 year old kid instead. Even YOU would be talking about how stupid it was.TCTTS said:
I'm so glad the next episode is airing two days early, because I can already feel the pathetic-woman-in-charge convo becoming the next grist for the outrage mill. At least it will be over by Friday instead of Sunday.
Oh...so you're ok with Zombies wiping out most of the world, but bristle at a woman being in charge because it's not realistic.rtpAggie said:because while its a zombie show, the point of most shows is to show how people would realistically act in a non realistic scenario.Chuck Cunningham said:
If you can suspend disbelief that there are zombies, why can't you suspend disbelief that there is a woman in charge?
this isnt hard to understand.
aTmAg said:Maybe shows shouldn't put pathetic women in charge? Then people wouldn't be distracted by it? Imagine if they made it a 10 year old kid instead. Even YOU would be talking about how stupid it was.TCTTS said:
I'm so glad the next episode is airing two days early, because I can already feel the pathetic-woman-in-charge convo becoming the next grist for the outrage mill. At least it will be over by Friday instead of Sunday.
I think your posting history *finally* makes sense, seeing as the only explanation is that you're posting from a computer you stole from your future and brought back to the 1950s with you.
I wouldn't lead military society either. There are 10 people within a 100 foot radius who would be more qualified than me. But guess what? None of them are women.WES2006AG said:And just like that we have found our pointless thing to ***** about this week. I guess even seeing someone who isn't just like you is now too woke.aTmAg said:Maybe shows shouldn't put pathetic women in charge? Then people wouldn't be distracted by it? Imagine if they made it a 10 year old kid instead. Even YOU would be talking about how stupid it was.TCTTS said:
I'm so glad the next episode is airing two days early, because I can already feel the pathetic-woman-in-charge convo becoming the next grist for the outrage mill. At least it will be over by Friday instead of Sunday.
you ever heard of the boy who cried wolf?tomtomdrumdrum said:
1. homophobia
2. misogyny
3. ???
4. profit
calling the comments on this thread misogynistic really detracts from when actual misogyny needs to be called out and handled.
hope that helps.
Known premium board troll trpAggie has now shown up to troll this thread. It's truly remarkable how this show brings out the worst of this website.
where did I troll?
Talk about being triggered.TCTTS said:aTmAg said:Maybe shows shouldn't put pathetic women in charge? Then people wouldn't be distracted by it? Imagine if they made it a 10 year old kid instead. Even YOU would be talking about how stupid it was.TCTTS said:
I'm so glad the next episode is airing two days early, because I can already feel the pathetic-woman-in-charge convo becoming the next grist for the outrage mill. At least it will be over by Friday instead of Sunday.
I think your posting history *finally* makes sense, seeing as the only explanation is that you're posting from a computer you stole from your future and brought back to the 1950s with you.
Doesn't matter if we are talking 1200s, 1950s, 2020s, or 2200s. Women are weaker than men and are less suited for combat due to millions of years of evolution. It's nothing to do with "misogyny" You can't close your eyes and pretend that wasn't the case.
Four Seasons Landscaping
Joined:
Nov 11, 2020
Posts:
2,020
How long do you want to ignore this user?
aTmAg, maybe it's time to stop watching the show or just start your own "***The Last of Us Anti-Woke Rants***" thread.
Nah.. I'm good.Four Seasons Landscaping said:
aTmAg, maybe it's time to stop watching the show or just start your own "***The Last of Us Anti-Woke Rants***" thread.
Four Seasons Landscaping
Joined:
Nov 11, 2020
Posts:
2,020
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Oh, and TCTTS and aTmAg are in another slap fight.
TCTTS is triggered so hard right now. Praying for himFour Seasons Landscaping said:
Oh, and TCTTS and aTmAg are in another slap fight.
I agree with this. It felt purposeful to me that they put someone "unexpected" in that position of power, and I'd be surprised if we didn't get that reason next episode.TCTTS said:
Melanie Lynskey is a pretty highly regarded actress, who's been in a ton of stuff and nominated for multiple awards (most recently an Emmy last year for Yellowjackets). I totally get how she felt miscast, but she's such a big, indie name that I'm assuming there's a point to casting her, specifically. I would at least give her a chance, and I'm betting we learn more about her character in a way that makes more sense of her casting. Her whole storyline felt deliberately vague and discombobulating, and like they were actively placing someone in that role who you wouldn't think would be in charge in the way she is. But she was ruthless with that doctor, and I loved her argument with him, so I can at least understand how some people would follow her. I would be surprised if the rest of her story doesn't snap into place next week.
did you read what I said?Chuck Cunningham said:Oh...so you're ok with Zombies wiping out most of the world, but bristle at a woman being in charge because it's not realistic.rtpAggie said:because while its a zombie show, the point of most shows is to show how people would realistically act in a non realistic scenario.Chuck Cunningham said:
If you can suspend disbelief that there are zombies, why can't you suspend disbelief that there is a woman in charge?
this isnt hard to understand.
of course the zombies are unrealistic. no *****
but how the world handles them would not be with women barking orders and militant dudes just being like "yes ma'am whatever you say!"
no one on here said women cant be leaders, cant be CEOs, cant do just as many great things in this world as men. but it aint this!
get over yourselves. You're not a hero. A hero isnt needed at the moment I regret to inform you.
So, in terms of leadership where they're not actually doing any fighting, they're weaker than men? Because I've not seen her do any hand to hand combat or even carry heavy equipment.aTmAg said:Talk about being triggered.TCTTS said:aTmAg said:Maybe shows shouldn't put pathetic women in charge? Then people wouldn't be distracted by it? Imagine if they made it a 10 year old kid instead. Even YOU would be talking about how stupid it was.TCTTS said:
I'm so glad the next episode is airing two days early, because I can already feel the pathetic-woman-in-charge convo becoming the next grist for the outrage mill. At least it will be over by Friday instead of Sunday.
I think your posting history *finally* makes sense, seeing as the only explanation is that you're posting from a computer you stole from your future and brought back to the 1950s with you.
Doesn't matter if we are talking 1200s, 1950s, 2020s, or 2200s. Women are weaker than men and are less suited for combat due to millions of years of evolution. It's nothing to do with "misogyny" You can't close your eyes and pretend that wasn't the case.
I'm now convinced this thread is texags staff under cover, posting stupid **** to finally twist my arm into subscription so I can ignore people.
Featured Stories
See All
Phelps' career night wills Taylor-less Aggies to improbable comeback
by Olin Buchanan
5 Thoughts: No. 10 Texas A&M 80, No. 17 Oklahoma 78
by Luke Evangelist
13:45
31m ago
451
25:46
22h ago
10k