‘The Last Of Us’ Season 2 Review Scores Have Arrived

Forbes - Apr 8th, 2025

HBO's 'The Last of Us' returns for its second season, maintaining its critical acclaim with a 93% critic score, only slightly lower than the first season's 96%. The new season is set to cover half of the second game in the series, with seven episodes planned. Despite concerns about character development, particularly Bella Ramsey's portrayal of an older Ellie, early reviews are positive. The show's creators have confirmed that they will not extend the series beyond the existing game narrative, unlike 'Game of Thrones', ensuring that the adaptation remains faithful to the source material.

The decision not to surpass the existing games is significant as Naughty Dog, the game's developer, focuses on its next project, 'Intergalactic', delaying any potential 'The Last of Us Part 3' until the 2030s. This strategic focus indicates a long pause before any new content emerges for the series, suggesting that both HBO and Naughty Dog may move on from the franchise, at least for the next decade. This careful approach reflects the importance of narrative integrity in adaptations and highlights the growing trend of successful video game-to-TV adaptations.

Hbo Naughty Dog Video Game Adaptation The Last Of Us Bella Ramsey Television Series Neil Druckmann Ellie

Story submitted by Fairstory

RATING

6.8

Fair Story

Consider it well-founded

The article provides a generally accurate and engaging overview of 'The Last of Us' series, focusing on its critical reception and future narrative plans. It effectively communicates the main points and maintains a clear and accessible tone. However, the article could improve in areas such as source quality and transparency by providing more explicit attribution and context for its claims. While the article is timely and relevant to current entertainment trends, its impact is primarily confined to the realm of entertainment rather than broader societal or cultural issues. Overall, the article offers valuable insights for fans and viewers but could benefit from a more balanced exploration of differing perspectives and a deeper engagement with potential controversies.

Accuracy

The article is largely accurate in its claims about 'The Last of Us' series and its critical reception. The reported critic scores for both seasons align with available data, with Season 1 at 96% and Season 2 at 93%, though the audience score for Season 2 is not available yet. The claim that Season 2 covers half of the second game's story and that Season 3 will cover the remainder is consistent with statements from the showrunners. However, the article mentions a $300 million opening for a 'terrible' Minecraft movie, which is not verified and could be misleading. Overall, the article presents factual information with minor areas needing verification, such as the specifics of the Minecraft movie's performance.

Balance

The article primarily focuses on the positive aspects of 'The Last of Us' series, highlighting critical acclaim and anticipation for the upcoming season. While it mentions some fan concerns about character portrayal, it quickly counters these with positive reviews, which may skew the balance slightly towards a more favorable view of the series. The comparison with the Minecraft movie is brief and lacks depth, potentially omitting other perspectives on video game adaptations. Overall, the article presents a predominantly positive view but could benefit from a broader exploration of differing opinions.

Clarity

The article is generally clear and well-structured, with a logical flow that guides the reader through the key points about 'The Last of Us' series. The language is straightforward and accessible, making it easy for readers to understand the main claims and supporting details. However, some sections, such as the comparison with the Minecraft movie, are less detailed and could benefit from additional context to enhance clarity. Overall, the article effectively communicates its main points but could provide more depth in certain areas.

Source quality

The article references critic scores from Rotten Tomatoes, which is a reputable source for aggregated reviews. However, it does not cite specific sources or experts for other claims, such as the show's narrative decisions or future projects by Naughty Dog. The lack of direct quotes or references to interviews with showrunners or industry insiders limits the article's source quality. While the information is generally credible, the article would benefit from more explicit attribution and a wider range of sources to support its claims.

Transparency

The article does not explicitly disclose its sources or the methodology behind its claims, such as how it obtained information about the show's future narrative arcs or the timeline for Naughty Dog's projects. Additionally, there is no mention of potential conflicts of interest, such as the author's connection to the entertainment industry. The article could improve its transparency by providing more context on how the information was gathered and clarifying any affiliations that might influence the reporting.