‘The Last Of Us’ Season 2 Has An Abby Problem

Forbes - Apr 21st, 2025

The release of Season 2 of HBO's adaptation of 'The Last Of Us' is causing a stir among viewers, similar to the divisive reception of the video game 'The Last Of Us Part II'. One of the major controversies stems from the storyline that sees Joel, a central character, being killed off early in the season, turning the narrative into a complex revenge tale. As the series progresses, viewers are introduced to Abby, the antagonist responsible for Joel's death, and the show attempts to build empathy for her character. However, this transition has proven challenging, as the TV format lacks the immersive experience of a video game where players directly engage with the character’s journey.

The show's efforts to translate the game's narrative into a television format have sparked debate about its effectiveness in conveying themes of revenge, empathy, and forgiveness. The narrative shift and the portrayal of Abby have left audiences split, questioning whether the series can replicate the game's unique storytelling magic. The bold narrative choices, including the violent depiction of Joel's death and Abby's motivations, continue to be points of contention among fans, raising questions about the show's future direction and its ability to resonate with viewers in the same way the game did.

Season 2 Hbo Video Game Adaptation Empathy Ellie Abby Joel The Last Of Us Revenge Kaitlyn Dever

Story submitted by Fairstory

RATING

6.4

Moderately Fair

Read with skepticism

The article provides a detailed and engaging analysis of the divisive nature of 'The Last of Us Part II' and its adaptation into a TV series. Its strengths lie in its clear structure, engaging tone, and timely relevance to current cultural discussions. The personal narrative and passionate opinions of the author add to its engagement potential, inviting readers to reflect on their own views and participate in the conversation.

However, the article's reliance on personal opinion and lack of external sources limit its balance and impact. The absence of diverse perspectives and supporting evidence reduces its credibility and the potential to influence a broader audience. While the article effectively captures the author's viewpoint, it could benefit from a more balanced representation of differing opinions and additional context for readers unfamiliar with the source material.

Overall, the article succeeds in sparking interest and discussion among fans of the franchise, but it could be strengthened by incorporating more comprehensive analysis and diverse perspectives to enhance its credibility and impact.

Accuracy

The article accurately reflects the divisive nature of 'The Last of Us Part II' and its adaptation into a TV series. The claim about the game being divisive is supported by the widespread discourse among fans and critics, which is well-documented. The mention of 'review-bombing' on Rotten Tomatoes is a common occurrence for controversial media, though the article does not provide specific data to verify this claim.

The description of the game's narrative, such as Joel's death and the shift in player perspective to Abby, is accurate and aligns with the game's storyline. However, the article lacks specific evidence or sources to support the assertion that these narrative choices are the primary reasons for the divisiveness among viewers of the TV adaptation.

The analysis of the TV show's adaptation challenges, particularly in creating empathy for Abby, is speculative but grounded in a reasonable understanding of narrative adaptation from interactive to non-interactive media. Overall, the article presents a truthful account but would benefit from more precise data and external sources to support its claims.

Balance

The article primarily presents the author's perspective on the divisive nature of 'The Last of Us Part II' and its adaptation. While it acknowledges that some people loved the game, it heavily leans towards the author's conflicted feelings and criticisms, particularly regarding narrative choices like Joel's death.

There is a lack of balance in representing the viewpoints of those who appreciated the sequel's bold narrative choices. The article could have included perspectives from fans or critics who found the game's themes of revenge and redemption compelling, thus providing a more rounded view.

By focusing mainly on the author's personal experience and opinions, the article misses an opportunity to explore the broader spectrum of audience reactions, which would offer a more balanced analysis.

Clarity

The article is well-structured, with a clear narrative flow that guides the reader through the author's analysis of the game and its adaptation. The language is accessible and engaging, making complex themes like narrative adaptation and character empathy understandable to a general audience.

The use of examples, such as the description of Abby's character arc and the game's narrative shifts, helps illustrate the author's points effectively. However, the article occasionally assumes that readers are familiar with the game's storyline, which might be confusing for those who are not.

Overall, the article maintains a clear and coherent tone, but could benefit from additional context for readers unfamiliar with the source material.

Source quality

The article does not cite external sources or provide references to support its claims, relying heavily on the author's personal opinions and experiences. This lack of source variety and authority impacts the article's credibility.

While the author's insights are valuable, especially for readers familiar with their previous work, the absence of third-party sources or expert opinions limits the article's reliability. Including perspectives from other critics or data from audience reviews would enhance the credibility of the analysis.

The article could be improved by incorporating more diverse sources, such as interviews with the show's creators or audience surveys, to provide a more comprehensive view of the show's reception.

Transparency

The article is transparent about its subjective nature, with the author clearly stating their personal feelings and experiences with the game and the TV show. The use of first-person narrative makes it evident that the analysis is based on personal interpretation.

However, the article lacks transparency in terms of methodology or criteria used to evaluate the show's adaptation. There is no disclosure of potential conflicts of interest, such as any affiliations with the game's developers or the show's producers, which could affect impartiality.

Providing more context on how the conclusions were reached, or any potential biases, would enhance the article's transparency and help readers better understand the basis of the analysis.