S01.E09: Look for the Light

[Dev F]

On 3/22/2023 at 11:43 AM, CooperTV said:

I think the writers should have maybe create a universe where killing children for greater good is okay, and anyone going on a rampage to prevent that is a bad guy. I feel like they wanted it to be so, for the sake of "ambiguity" or "discourse".

But the same writers consistently, from the episode one, showed us that killing children for whatever reason is horrific thing to do.

No one is arguing that it's not horrific. Just that the series sets up a world in which it might be justifiable, even necessary, despite being horrific.

After all, literally the first thing the series shows us about the postpandemic setting is that it's a world in which even a gentle and conscientious doctor is forced to euthanize children, with her kindness expressed solely via the fact that she had a carefully practiced method for doing it in the most reassuring way possible.

"We didn't tell her. We didn't cause her any fear. There won't be any pain," Marlene says of the Fireflies' treatment of Ellie. That FEDRA doctor probably told herself the same thing on a regular basis.

Quote

This is a massive writing issue that became even more obvious in the finale, where we, as viewers, are supposed to sympathize with known terrorists, child murderers and medical hacks over a father that wants to save his child from said terrorists.

And here you're kind of arguing in circles—saying, essentially, that the series failed to establish a substantially altered moral landscape in which killing a child might be justified, because the only characters who held a substantially altered moral worldview have to be discounted for believing that killing children might be justified!

In fact, the Fireflies serve as quite a strong indication that the moral landscape has shifted. They are, by our standards, terrorists who enlist child soldiers, attack civilian targets, etc. But until the last episode, they are not presented as villains. Their struggle against FEDRA is characterized as righteous, with two of the most likeable characters in the series (Bill and Frank) putting aside their political differences to jointly affirm that FEDRA are "fascists." A main character's love interest is a member of the Fireflies, and although the two characters spar over which side is in the right, Ellie doesn't react with the kind of moral repugnance one would expect from learning that a loved one had joined, say, al-Qaeda or ISIS.

And this isn't a situation where the story makes us think they're the good guys only so they can milk our surprise when they turn out to be bad guys in the end. Nothing about their actions in the finale is out of step with how they've been presented previously—sacrificing Ellie to save the world is pretty darn congruous with causing indiscriminate violence and death to restore democracy, which has previously been presented as morally complicated but certainly not "100% off limits."

[Cobalt Stargazer]

4 hours ago, Dev F said:

No one is arguing that it's not horrific. Just that the series sets up a world in which it might be justifiable, even necessary, despite being horrific.

For the sake of argument, let's say that Marlene and Company weren't incompetent idiots, that a vaccine was possible and Ellie's death was the only thing that could bring it about. There's not much evidence of that in the show as it was written, but again for the sake of argument. That still leaves her as a threat to Ellie's life, and possibly Joel's sanity. Like David, Marlene ultimately thought Ellie was expendable, that she had one use and once that was fulfilled she was disposable. I don't think it can be disputed that David saw himself as good and right and even chosen by God, and while Marlene was not the identical kind of monster, the moral question the show wants us to ask (IMO), is, Does a world that demands the death of a child to save everyone who's left deserve to be saved? Poor execution might make it difficult to answer the question, but that doesn't alter what I think the writers intended.

[Dev F]

8 hours ago, Cobalt Stargazer said:

 I don't think it can be disputed that David saw himself as good and right and even chosen by God, and while Marlene was not the identical kind of monster, the moral question the show wants us to ask (IMO), is, Does a world that demands the death of a child to save everyone who's left deserve to be saved?

What does that mean, "deserve to be saved"? We're not talking about, say, whether the actions of FEDRA or the Fireflies render them unfit to hold power; the series makes it pretty clear that no leaders outside Jackson are fit to to run so much as a school library. We're talking about whether countless innocent people "deserve" to live under constant threat of turning into monsters and watching helpless behind their own eyes as they murder everyone they love.

That's a question that's so far outside anything we in our world ever have to contemplate that I don't think we can easily dismiss the Fireflies' reasoning as clearly monstrous.

Probably the closest real-world example I can think would be some sort of military targeting situation, e.g.: A car is barreling toward your checkpoint and refusing to stop, and you can see that there's a child in the passenger seat. Do you blow up the car before it gets to you to potentially stop a car bomber from taking out your entire emplacement? Certainly it would be an agonizing choice, and a lot of factors would weigh on whether to shoot or hold fire. But at no point would the argument be "Well, if we have to kill that child, maybe we deserve to be blown up by a car bomb."

[Dobian]

On 3/23/2023 at 7:40 PM, Constantinople said:

Then by your own definition what happened in this episode isn't an example of the trolley problem.

Over two and a half minutes elapse between the time Joel tells Marlene "Find someone else" in his hospital room and the time he attacks the guards in the stairwell.

Two and a half minutes is a very long time.

Dion of Syracuse knew Plato personally and if I remember correctly, studied under him and was one of his better students at that time.

He was a disaster.

Marcus Aurelius left the Roman Empire to his son Commodus. That was a terrible decision.

It's a lot easier to be a deep thinker in the abstract when you're not the one making the decisions that affect people outside of a thought exercise in a classroom.

Not that the issue facing Joel or the viewers requires deep thinking because the showrunners provided no evidence to suggest a vaccine is remotely feasible. Therefore there's no choice to be made, no conundrum. Nothing.

Philosophers and their students can discuss the trolley problem all they want, but "the trolley problem" isn't a magic phrase that excuses substandard writing in a television show, particularly about an event that's been building up in the show for the entire season.

You do a lot of conflating and apples and oranges comparisons. We’re not talking about the quality of the writing, and we’re not talking about the quality of Ancient Greek politicians.   Everyone has said that the writing could have been better and that there are plot holes in the whole Ellie must die for a cure angle.  We’re talking about your comparison of the trolley problem to a government making murder to save others illegal.  I only pointed out how that isn’t an accurate comparison, it’s two different things.  And the choice of whether or not to sacrifice Ellie for a possible cure does match the trolley problem because the story presents her as the sole option to save humanity.  You can argue that this now gets into the realm of bad writing, and I would kind of agree.  But this is their premise, and based on their premise, it fits the trolley problem.

Edited March 27, 2023 by Dobian

[blixie]

You know I liked the show and found the end true to who Joel was, I also don't think it was too morally ambiguous, in a world as completely broken as the one the show wanted us to believe they are living in (way more Kathleens/Davids than not) but the really really wild thing is to think the best plan is to bring Ellie the singular cure girl to the doctor instead of the fucking doctor to the girl or to meet. half way, but I'm sure this was the ONLY hospital. There was way too much there is only ONE immune girl in the whole of the world, there is only ONE doctor in the whole of the world who has figured this shit out in 20 years. And apparently a doctor who is really bad at medicine. They never ever should have set this 20 years in. The large scale collapse I buy the complete lack of rebuilding/maintaining I don't. 

But I was in this for Ellie and Joel, and Joel and Ellie and in that respect the finale was the perfect capper. Joel was a ruthless murderer/mercenary before he met Ellie and his heart opening didn't make that part of him go away. Ellie knew that, she knew he was lying about the mission, he knew she knew he. But they love each other and eventually they'll get to it. 
 

[Constantinople]

On 3/26/2023 at 9:57 PM, Dobian said:

You do a lot of conflating and apples and oranges comparisons.

I contend you keep moving the goal posts

On 3/26/2023 at 9:57 PM, Dobian said:

We’re not talking about the quality of the writing

We very much are. There's no trolley problem if writers haven't established the trolley isn't moving or that the trolley even exists.

On 3/26/2023 at 9:57 PM, Dobian said:

and we’re not talking about the quality of Ancient Greek politicians.

Then why did you bring up Socrates and Plato?

On 3/26/2023 at 9:57 PM, Dobian said:

We’re talking about your comparison of the trolley problem to a government making murder to save others illegal.  I only pointed out how that isn’t an accurate comparison, it’s two different things.

Istated as a fallback argument that even if there were a trolley in the show, it's not legal anywhere to kill someone and harvest their organs to save more people than you killed.

You replied

Quote

Your example involves premeditation.  The trolley problem does not

Which means, by your definition, Joel's choice does not involve the trolley problem because two and a half minutes elapsed between the time Joel says "Find someone else" and the time he attacked the guards in the stairwell.

Except now you're saying that is the trolley problem.

On 3/26/2023 at 9:57 PM, Dobian said:

And the choice of whether or not to sacrifice Ellie for a possible cure does match the trolley problem because the story presents her as the sole option to save humanity.  You can argue that this now gets into the realm of bad writing, and I would kind of agree.  But this is their premise, and based on their premise, it fits the trolley problem.

If the trolley problem involves premeditation, then the organ harvesting hypothetical is an example of the trolley problem. If the trolley problem does not involve premeditation, then the show did not offer an example of it.

To summarize

1. There is no trolley problem in the show because the writers / showrunners failed to establish that the trolley existed, there were trolley tracks and that the trolley was moving
2. Even if they had established that, no society that I know of has said you may murder one person if harvesting that person's organs would save more than one person
3. If the organ harvesting hypothetical isn't an example of the trolley problem due to premeditation, then neither is what happened in this episode.
4. Bad writing isn't excused when the writers / showrunners waive around the phrase "trolley problem" as if it were some sort of talisman

Edited March 30, 2023 by Constantinople

[Starchild]

Interesting video about Joel's actions. It even references the trolley problem we're going back and forth on, reminding us how much more complicated it gets when that one person you have to sacrifice for the many happens to be someone you love, a key variable that I think has gotten lost in the dialogue here.

 

[CooperTV]

28 minutes ago, Starchild said:

It even references the trolley problem we're going back and forth on

The proper use of the Trolley problem was used in the game called Prey (2017). First it was introduced to the player in a psychological testing without any context to it (as it exists in our world on a random Wiki page).

And in the end of the game player/the main character uncovers the entire point of this testing and has full context to apply it. Prey (2017) is also what we call "a non-linear" game, and with number of various choices, big (astronomically big) and small, that decide character's fate.

TLoU writers wanted their game/show to be a narrative masterpiece with a complex message. And yet don't ever give their players/viewers (I uses it interchangeably because the TloU 1 = TloU s1) the freedom of choice or even freedom to think for themselves. And their "complex" message is not that interesting or complex when is presented in the flawed and reductive way they did in the game/show.

[Dobian]

On 3/29/2023 at 11:32 PM, Constantinople said:

I contend you keep moving the goal posts

We very much are. There's no trolley problem if writers haven't established the trolley isn't moving or that the trolley even exists.

Then why did you bring up Socrates and Plato?

Istated as a fallback argument that even if there were a trolley in the show, it's not legal anywhere to kill someone and harvest their organs to save more people than you killed.

You replied

Which means, by your definition, Joel's choice does not involve the trolley problem because two and a half minutes elapsed between the time Joel says "Find someone else" and the time he attacked the guards in the stairwell.

Except now you're saying that is the trolley problem.

If the trolley problem involves premeditation, then the organ harvesting hypothetical is an example of the trolley problem. If the trolley problem does not involve premeditation, then the show did not offer an example of it.

To summarize

1. There is no trolley problem in the show because the writers / showrunners failed to establish that the trolley existed, there were trolley tracks and that the trolley was moving
2. Even if they had established that, no society that I know of has said you may murder one person if harvesting that person's organs would save more than one person
3. If the organ harvesting hypothetical isn't an example of the trolley problem due to premeditation, then neither is what happened in this episode.
4. Bad writing isn't excused when the writers / showrunners waive around the phrase "trolley problem" as if it were some sort of talisman

I will close by saying that you repeatedly make false equivalencies.  A country having a law that you can't take a person's life against their will to save five or ten or one hundred is not the same as taking a person's life against their will to save the whole of the human race.  You also conflate by combining two separate arguments, the quality of the show's writing with the moral question the story poses.  Those are two completely different things. 

No one is arguing that the show fell short narratively.  But if the writing clearly established that Ellie was in fact, the only option, that there was no way to create a cure without killing her, and that the future of civilization was bleak if they didn't find a cure, then you have the basis of a good trolley problem.  I understand the gist of what they were trying to do and my points are based on this story having clearly established those facts.  The bulk of your argument is based on the writers actual execution.

No, Joel didn't premeditate anything.  He found out they were going to put Ellie under the knife, and he had a choice to save her or let her die.  He saved her, believing that she probably was the key to a cure.  So for him, it was a trolley problem.  The Fireflies didn't premeditate anything.  They weren't out canvassing the cities for a bunch of Ellies to bring in and experiment on and see if they held a cure.  Ellie fell into their lap.  Your real-world example generally involves premeditation since it includes scenarios where there are sick and dying people, and there are other options available for saving them besides killing a specific individual.  These laws weren't created with apocalyptic scenarios in mind.

And yes, I would trust the wisdom of Socrates, Plato, and a host of modern-day thinkers and philosophers over pretty much any politician.

Edited April 2, 2023 by Dobian

[mcree]

On 3/30/2023 at 9:44 PM, CooperTV said:

TLoU writers wanted their game/show to be a narrative masterpiece with a complex message. And yet don't ever give their players/viewers (I uses it interchangeably because the TloU 1 = TloU s1) the freedom of choice or even freedom to think for themselves.

How would choice work in an HBO show? Viewers vote like on Dancing with the Stars? And then in Part/Season 2, Ellie either is or is not in it based on their choice?

Thought-provoking tales have been told for a long time without choice.

Choice can make a game more interesting and enhance replayability. It can also be a trap -- Mass Effect, for example. In the game, TLoU goes the other way: making the player complicit in Joel's choice by forcing them to push a button to advance the story.

It's telling when people fill in the blanks left by the story -- because surely that would have been compelling gameplay/drama, watching scientists performing tests on fungus -- to manufacture a scenario that makes Joel's choices more justified.

[Heathrowe]

On 3/13/2023 at 10:31 AM, PurpleTentacle said:

It's not about what I want, it's about how it was written. I want this to be morally ambiguous. I love these kinds of stories. That is why I'm so frustrated that Druckman didn't fix it! The way it is written now, there is no question, what Joel did was the right and rightous call from every conceivable angle. It would be so much more interesting if there was a real possibility for a cure and Joel just murdered everybody anyway. But that's just not the case.

We're arguing about it, so it must be ambiguous to some of us, at least? I thought there was a chance whatever they were doing would work. But that said-I do wish it had been a longer episode, I wish they had eased us into Firefly Hospital and given us a little more of everything before the shooting started.

I just binged the whole series, loved it. This last episode was too brutal for me, but the whole series was well done. I now get all the Pedro Pascal hype. (It's deserved!) He is really wonderful in this role. 

[PurpleTentacle]

11 hours ago, Heathrowe said:

We're arguing about it, so it must be ambiguous to some of us, at least?

People are arguing about if the earth is a sphere or not. I don't think things have to be ambiguios for people to argue about it.

[Lebanna]

I have loved reading everyone’s philosophical and moral arguments on both sides in this thread.

Anyway, for me it’s as simple as - he’s not a nice guy, but come on. They were trying to kill the man’s baby.

Joel calls both his daughters ‘baby girl’ and from early on in episode one we see that 14 year old Sarah still curls up to fall asleep on the sofa with her head on his lap like a toddler and he still carries Sarah to her bed and tucks her in with her shoes still on, so she doesn’t wake up, as if he subconsciously thinks that waking her would make her cry like a newborn. At that age and with her in so many ways very independent, most parents would just make their kid wake up and go brush their teeth. And then he just goes out and leaves her alone in the house at night and bad things happen.

But Joel has this odd way of both understanding that his girls have too much on their shoulders already - Sarah waking him up in the morning, making his breakfast, organising birthday treats for him and Ellie doing… well, everything she has to do. And yet he thinks of them on some deeper and less conscious level to simultaneously still be his little baby, like he imprinted on that first helpless baby-care stage as his fundamental identity as a parent and can’t ever quite let it go.

He ends up cradling Sarah in his arms and she is ripped from them. When he tries to pick her up her again, she slips away forever. He ends up holding Ellie the same way and this time has the power to choose not to let her go. They are in his arms just as he would have held Sarah when she was first handed to him after she was born. There’s symbolism in it.

It’s weird and primal and it makes sense to me. If it’s the world or your baby, then the world has got to go.

 

Edited June 1, 2023 by Lebanna

[TaurusRose]

On 3/13/2023 at 3:23 AM, Anela said:

Joel, you gorgeous human being.

Yes, that's what I was thinking, as he murdered the people who were going to murder Ellie. I don't care. They gave him a little girl to protect, and that's exactly what he did. 

I was thinking the same thing: that they would impregnate women, and have them bitten just before giving birth. *shiver* 

Now, I'm going back to my Dead Like Me re-watch. 

So then, women are dispensable? This goes from bad to worse. 

[supposebly]

I've enjoyed reading the discussion quite a lot, thank you.

I haven't watched the show yet but saw a playthrough of the game a few years ago. I wasn't planning on watching it since I actually had nightmares about the fungi-zombies and that clicker sound. And I have quite some trichophobia, which didn't help. Based on what I'm reading here and on youtube clips, it seems there is a lot less of that, so I might go and watch it some time this winter, I think. If a show creates this much interesting discussion, it seems worth the occasional gross-out moment.

A few comments (I'm pretty much spoiled about the showat this point).

While the doctors and Marlene not only take away Ellie's choice, so does Joel. Not by lying, but by killing the apparently last doctors who still have the education and knowledge to possibly figure this out. At least doctors they can reach.

Another thing that occurred to me while reading the discussions, Joel not only takes away the option for Ellie to save the world, he also takes away from all the other daughters in the world to maybe grow up somewhere that's not quite so dangerous. All the while, the chances of Ellie getting killed in this nightmare of a world are pretty high. 

It sounds like the writing was a bit of a letdown for this final conundrum. I felt a bit like that when the game was over, too. But in the end, Joel doesn't care. "Find someone else" really tells me that even if Ellie had chosen to die, even if there had been a conversation, if he had the chance, he would have tried to get her out of there with or without collateral damage.

I often wondered if the end of the game would have been more interesting if the player had to choose among different options and then see the consequences of that choice. 

For the show, I think it would have been interesting and helpful to have the show follow Marlene from Boston to SLC and flesh out her character. Maybe one episode that traces her trip and elaborates more on what the plan actually is. Spend some time and thinking on what the plan actually is. From what I'm reading, the way she and the fireflies are written, they don't seem to make much sense or are utterly incompetent.

[DrSpaceman73]

I'm confused at the doctors/ scientists intentions because you can do a brain biopsy and rhe person doesn't necessarily die.  I don't know if they were saying she'd be sacrificed (it was implied) for the greater good or just take a small part of the brain. Big difference. 

He obviously made a selfish decision either way. 

It's an intersting story. But after awhile seemed to replay same scenario each week with different characters. 

Also curious about the origin.  Obviously the patient zero was in the factory in se Asia but did she have a random wound on her foot and it got infected by being at the contaminated plant with the fungus there but not transmissable except  by an open wound or was it a transpecies transmission by a bite on her foot?  Were those wild monkeys the saw infected. ?

 

 

[PurpleTentacle]

I was kinda done with the discussion at the time, but got pointed at this page through a notification today and felt I should reply to this:

On 3/13/2023 at 4:33 PM, MrWhyt said:

On 3/13/2023 at 3:31 PM, PurpleTentacle said:

If I was a writer I would want to take pride in my work. I guess maybe that's just me and Druckman is fine with being adulated for crappy work.

or, and I realize that this wild speculation, he doesn't share your opinion of the work and your opinion may not actually be a universal one.

I mean probably. He is a technically decent writer, but has horrible instincts and taste. During TLOU1 game Bruce Straley reigned him in a few times and as far as I can tell for the show the better ideas, like changing up Bill and Frank's story, came from Craig Mazin. Sadly nobody reigned Druckman in on the ending of TLOU1 / season 1 or the whole of TLOU2.

So yeah, it would be totally in character for him to think that this amalgamation of dumb was actually good. You'd hope that he'd grown a bit in 10 years, but evidently not.

I though the "him being fine to be adulated for crappy work" being facetious was obvious.