by Jason Mack, Contributing Writer
Spoilers for the first three episodes of The Last of Us lie ahead!
Episode 3 of The Last of Us, “Long, Long Time,” is transcendent and undeniably great storytelling, or so you would think. Unfortunately, a vociferous minority is the exception that proves the rule with their toxic masculinity, insecurity, and homophobia, highlighting a troubling trend of review bombing.
This difference in outcry is illustrated in the review bombing. As of this writing, Episode Three received 158,615 user reviews on IMDB, and 61.4% of reviews were nine or 10 stars. The scores from two through eight stars accounted for 10.4%, and the remaining 28.2% were one star. This dragged the average score down to 7.9 stars.
Without the same outcry, Episode Two only received 69,043 votes. They were overwhelmingly positive with 93.7% at eight stars or above.
The numbers illustrate the story even more on Metacritic, where Episode three received an average score of 4.9 out of 10. Episode Two had an 8.5 average.
In a show about a fungal pandemic creating a highly original version of a zombie apocalypse, “Long, Long Time” ventures mostly away from the main cast to explore survivalist Bill (Nick Offerman) and the nomad Frank (Murray Bartlett), who stumbles upon Bill’s property years into the pandemic.
What follows is one of the most beautiful and concise love stories ever told, which both fills your heart and breaks it, much like the famous montage of Carl and Ellie in Pixar’s Up. Bill was closeted and an introvert, and he never openly embraced who he was. As the lyrics to the Linda Ronstadt song “Long, Long Time” performed by Bill reinforce, he was resigned to admiring from afar and accepting love was not for him. His odds of finding love were already slim, so happening upon it in this broken world with the man who happened to stumble into his trap hole is a beautiful story. By pulling Frank out, Bill is in turn metaphorically pulled out of his hole by Frank and is given purpose.
Three potential reasons exist for the review bombing of this episode on websites such as IMDb and Metacritic. The deviation from the main storyline and the changing of plot points from the game both played a part, but the primary culprit is the complaint it promoted a gay agenda.
There is a distinguishable difference between a love story that happens to feature gay men and a story using gay men to push an agenda. This story even has good thematic reasoning for making it a gay couple. Through both his survivalist skills and his relationship with Frank, Bill thrives and finds acceptance in the apocalypse unlike he ever could in the real world. Against all odds, they find each other and showcase the happiness and beauty that can still exist amidst the chaos.
There is no agenda here, unless you count the basic implication that gay people deserve to be accepted and loved just like anyone else. It was a plot strengthened by featuring gay characters, and using a straight couple to appease the wrongfully offended would have been a failure to storytelling. If it were a straight couple in the game and they changed it simply to appear accepting, then you could make an argument for an agenda. Failing that, anyone criticizing the agenda is really providing an insight into their bigotry and insecurities.
Offerman followed his commanding performance with an equally great presence on social media. He has taken the hate and homophobic comments in stride, responding with tweets like, “Buddy, your brand of ignorance and hate is exactly why we make stories like this.” The audacity of people to say he is less of a man for portraying this role is absurd, and it’s encouraging to see he is unaffected by it.
Best known for his Parks and Recreation character Ron Swanson, Offerman has built a career on being the consummate “man’s man.” It is a concept that has rightfully fallen by the wayside, but Swanson embodies the old ideals of being a tough, gruff, and handy outdoorsman, and Offerman shares many of these qualities. What Offerman and Swanson also share is an open acceptance of a wide range of lifestyles, making him an icon of “manly” acceptance. He’s also married to Megan Mullally who starred on Will & Grace, a show which helped vault gay culture into the mainstream. Seeing Offerman excel in this role and deftly defend criticism of it is an asset in the never-ending war on trolls.
The complaint of it being a side episode is also absurd. The main characters, Joel (Pedro Pascal) and Ellie (Bella Ramsey), start and end the episode, and the rest of the story informs their journey. Joel is also featured in flashbacks which provide depth to his character. The conclusion forces Joel to finally mourn the loss of Tess (Anna Torv), albeit in his subdued way. More importantly, it forces upon him the realization Ellie is worth fighting for, thus giving him a purpose like Frank did for Bill. The episode also gets them the transportation they have been seeking, which literally and figuratively drives the story forward, and it allows Ellie to pocket Chekhov’s gun.
It doesn’t just propel and inform their story. It also does numbers for world building. You get a better look at the brutality of the military response to the outbreak, and this shows more of why Joel is so ready and willing to rebel against authority. You see how open, rural areas can be meccas compared to the anarchic state of big cities. You see how no matter what dangers befall the world, humanity will always be the greatest threat to itself. So much about the new world order is either implied or spelled out explicitly.
For anyone complaining about changing from the game, there are multiple issues. First, the idea of rigidly sticking to the existing storyline despite opportunities to improve upon it is ludicrous. Hindsight is 20/20. The original video game creator Neil Druckmann has had years to reflect on the story and think up new ideas, and he is partnered with another brilliant creator Craig Mazin, who brings a unique perspective. Together, they are honoring the spirit of the original and improving on it when opportunities arise.
Second, where were these complaints in Episode Two? In the show, Joel, Tess and Ellie are overrun by zombies. In the game, they are pinned down by military personnel. This is a monumental change, but there was no massive outcry about it.
Sexuality is not the only cause of review bombing. Gender was at the center of another prime example, as the all-female starring cast for 2016’s Ghostbusters received significant backlash with tens of thousands of negative reviews rolling in before the movie even released in theaters. It is an issue prevalent among reviews for movies, TV shows, video games and more. Amazon’s The Lord of the Rings: The Rings of Power took a hit due to the presence of Black Elves and Dwarves.
Pretty much anything deviating from the straight white male narrative is knocked down by trolls. As a straight white male who loves diversity in his storytelling and learning about others’ experiences through media, I’m embarrassed by the actions of the few and how they represent the whole.
The goal of reviews should be providing an accurate assessment of quality. Unfortunately, they have become politicized just like everything else on the internet.
Episode three of The Last of Us is objectively well made, and is arguably one of the best episodes of television ever. There are always going to be people who it is just not for who will default to a one-star review rather than utilizing nuance, but the numbers are too great here for that to account for anything close to all of it.
Is the goal to drag down something they don’t agree with to minimize the spread of the message? Attempted oppression through disingenuous reviews is a disturbing concept. Ironically, it is a failing concept since the review bombing inevitably draws even more eyes to the project.
I’m sure there are people with legitimate reasons they did not enjoy the episode, and I would love to hear them. Unfortunately, the true reviews often get drowned out by the sea of hyperbole. That’s why I love coming across a community like SiftPop where you can engage in real discourse, and I’ll continue dreaming of a day when the rest of the online interactions catch up to that mentality. Regardless, it’s also important to remember that while reviews and star ratings can be a fun and informative exercise, they should serve as a first step in the dialogue, rather than as a substitute for your opinion.
You can read more from Jason Mack, or follow him on Twitter and Letterboxd