(TV) The Last of Us (2023) - Episode 3 - "Review Bombed", Apparently
(TV) The Last of Us (2023) - Episode 3 - "Review Bombed", Apparently
Fact checking the agenda benders
Origins
Would you believe… once again… the never ending story… there can be only one… Screen Rant are publishing false and libelist statements targeting reviewers who don’t follow their queer agenda.
This time they’re coping over the incel-tastic; ‘The Last of Us’ (2023) TV series. Specifically Episode 3. Which I give so few shits about that I can’t muster the enthusiasm to look up the name for.
Brought to my attention by Geeks + Gamers
This shows was meant to be based on a computer game. In the same vein of ‘The Founder’ (2016) being based upon real events. For anyone who doesn’t know the background to McDonalds; that movie is fictional horse shit.
I’ve never played ‘The Last of Us’ game because I’m not a woman and wouldn’t normally care. However, I do care about creators shitting in the eyes of fans who funded their work. It doesn’t matter how good a creator thinks their project is, in order for it to succeed the public must give them money.
Computer games, movies, TV, literature and music are all publicly funded. If a company doesn’t make a profit then it’s failed. Don’t get me started on investors. So long as creators stay true to their beginnings, real fans will support them through any adversity. Which is where ‘The Last of Us’ project is stumbling. Only time will tell how well it holds together.
Apparently there’s an agenda bender named Neil Druckmann who wrote the games? I wasted 14 years of my life working for the biggest video game studios that ever existed and have no idea who he is. Says a lot. He also wrote the ‘Uncharted’ games; more consoletard drivel I, along with every respectable gamer, have not played.
It would appear Druckman is another puppet, propped up in an industry dedicated to grooming children and vulnerable individuals. Brief Internet searches reveal he’s a male feminist, whatever that means. A guy who can’t get laid so turns to homosexuality hoping for attention from women? Then there are claims he’s an SJW, shoehorning degeneracy and questionable morals in to his work. I don’t care enough to form an opinion. His games are shit, move on.
So it’s not the game, the show or the creators which bother me. What I’m interested in are those who claim, with no evidence, that something is being… “review bombed”. The insinuation is negatively review bombed. Which I guarantee this is not.
Screen Rant only mentions IMDB as the source of this heinous act of Internet terrorism, which makes investigations a hell of a lot quicker…
IMDB
These reviews may have minor formatting issues. All content is accurate:
Excel - Episode 1 reviews and ratings - 5pm, 04/02/2023
208 reviews
Excel - Episode 2 reviews and ratings - 5pm, 04/02/2023
141 reviews
Excel - Episode 3 reviews and ratings - 5pm, 04/02/2023
801 reviews
For transparency, my results yielded 5 duplicate reviews for Episode 3. No idea how that could have happened. IMDB reviews aren’t paginated so they should all be unique. This is the biggest number of reviews I’ve pulled from their site, so it’s possible they have issues rendering such big numbers? I’ve stripped out the 5 duplicates.
Also noting, again, that the number of star reviews compared to text reviews don’t add up. It appears as though there’s a way to submit a star rating without writing a review? IMDB is owned by Amazon, so there’s a near 100% chance manipulation is taking place. It could be that star only reviews are being pulled from Amazon? Doesn’t make sense as IMDB is a separate website. It could be that users can submit star reviews without text. If true, that’s a very dumb exploitative system.
A Look at the Numbers
The reviews and numbers I’m working from were captured around 5pm on 04/02/2023.
As expected, the Screen Rant article includes no quotes from any reviews. Apparently reading would be having to accept reality. The sole evidence readers are presented with is a vague number:
“…it has also earned the attention of review-bombers who went on IMDb to hammer the project by providing over 27,000 reviews rating the episode a 1 out of 10 at the time of this writing”
The article was written 3 days ago. Needless to say, the number of negative reviews has increased to 41,785. Compared to the previous 3 episodes, there does appear to be something awry...
We, those of us with intelligence, can’t make dubious claims by only analysing a single number. To a simpleton this may look nefarious, but even a cursory glance at the entire page should set alarm bells ringing. If episode 3 is negative review bombing, then all 3 episodes have positive review bombing. Which is far worse. At least from a commercial, money generating perspective. Advertising techniques don’t work on bots.
Let’s not dwell on the negative, instead focus on the positive and look at the number of 10 star ratings:
Episode 1: 45,476
Episode 2: 40,670
Episode 3: 81,326
Why was there a doubling of positive reviews for episode 3? More interesting; why is there an incredible number of 10 star reviews for a series which doesn’t stick to cannon? Gamers are a fickle bunch of incels.
If a TV adaptation doesn’t strictly adhere to cannon then it’s historically been negatively reviewed. From what I’ve heard, this show followed cannon up until episode 3. Perhaps those positive reviews all switched to negative and the studio are performing damage control, manipulating positive reviews?
The total number of reviews are:
Episode 1: 73,483
1 stars: 1,243
2-9 stars: 26,764
10 stars: 45,476
Episode 2: 66,522
1 stars: 1,234
2-9 stars: 4,618 (very odd)
10 stars: 60,670
Episode 3: 148,890
1 stars: 41,785
2-9 stars: 25,779 (similar to episode 1, hmm)
10 stars: 81,326
That’s a substantial difference with episode 3 and there certainly looks to be manipulation. Around 40,000 negative reviews have appeared from the wild. They can’t be the positive reviewers, who have changed opinion, as they’ve increased by around 28,000. Where did they come from?
Anyone who’s worked in the creative industries will confirm that the public rarely leave positive reviews. For anything. The only time people go out of their way to review a product is if they don’t like it or there’s an incentive. Which generates more suspicion as to why there are so many positive reviews for a TV series that differs from cannon. At least with with Episode 3, where the problem lies.
From what little I’ve read, Episode 3 added perverted gayness of gay people being gay. I don’t know if this was in the game, but apparently that’s always the reason everything is always negatively review bombed. So if this were in the game then surely every episode would have been negatively review bombed?
There appears to be consensus with the unhappy reviewers, that this arc wasn’t worth dedicating nearly an entire episode to. It’s likely this detraction from the story, rather than the gayness, which has pissed legitimate reviews off. It would be akin to making a Mario TV series and dedicating an episode to how Toad was a shitdick.
IMDB don’t give us much information to dissect, however…
These numbers tell us that under 18’s aren’t watching the show. Fantastic news. They should be reading, writing, drawing and learning skills to contribute something to society. Not watching or playing degenerate mindless crap like ‘The Last of Us’.
Unfortunately, over 18’s are watching. To consider this negative review bombing, there must be pattern. There aren’t any. The number of reviews for Episode 3 have substantially increased across the board. There are no patterns with age range or gender. For simplicity, bots traditionally target specific ranges or groups. These numbers are too natural.
Demographics don’t prove anything either:
Episode 1
US Users: 15,950
Non-US Users: 56,781
Episode 2
US Users: 13,939 (-12%)
Non-US Users: 51,837 (-8%)
Episode 3
US Users: 33,269 (+231%)
Non-US Users: 113,532 (+219%)
US and non-US users have a consistent pattern between all 3 episodes. Ideally we would need a far more than 3 samples, but this all we have. This isn’t Russian collusion. Nothing ever is. As proven time and time again.
A Look at the Positive Reviews
I’ve linked a dump of all current reviews at the top of the IMDB section of this article for reference. The reason I dumped all 3 episodes was to look for patterns in users. Such as…
These reviews are sorted by ‘featured’, whatever that means. Because this is Excel data with a header, the grey numbers are offset by +1. For Episodes 2 and 3, this reviewer was featured in the number 1 spot. Why? Those words are review titles, not the review body. However, 2 words with double exclamation marks for each title is a pattern that heavily suggests bot activity. That would be positive review bombing.
No review texts stand out as following traditional bot patterns to me; cloning of sentences or common spelling mistakes. Doesn’t mean there aren’t any, only nefarious people are likely generating large bodies of text to make their bots more realistic.
This makes it very hard to detect false reviews. It’s not a case of them being well written. Actually it’s the opposite. Reviews are traditionally so poorly constructed that it doesn’t take any effort to write a bot which mimics the illiteracy. Episode 3 has more examples than I’ve ever encountered before!
Episode 3, review 769, 10 star review:
“I adored BBM so I put hands in advance, but some notes on this episode. Technically it was very good, excellent acting by Mr Bill and I loved the way it was intertwined with Ellie&Joel plot”
Is that a bot or someone who’s never typed a sentence before?
Episode 3, review 768, 10 star review:
“A great Episodes show a human part about live just two person for years without know how going end. The thing about how work is very clean they want show a human view about the event what make a great thing first they show manything we can see in the game bring some drama what is expect for something like a addaptation. In the begginer I think is strange but after in the middle the splot for the episode pickme and bring how is really survivor is not just shoot in the fungus but how normal people going live they own life in this situation about love other and find safe space to see more not just destrution and death.”
What in the name of unprotected triple insertion gang bangs is that supposed to be? Test your bots!
Episode 3, review 245, 10 star rating:
“This episode was an emotional one and I couldn't help but cry during it”
Women.
Episode 3, review 271, 10 star rating:
“One of the most beautifully written, acted, and captured stories I have ever witnessed. Deeply compelling and amazing TV. I have nether played the video game.”
There’s your problem, lady.
Episode 3, Review 235, 10 star rating:
“That entire change in the character arc was beautiful and emotional torture, these are the kinds of things that truly make this show stand out amongst other adaptions”
There haven’t been any other adaptations you lunatic.
Episode 3, review 239, 10 star rating:
“This was simply an outstanding hour-plus. Some of the best TV on the air. With the emotional state of the country, we need this now more than ever.”
Are you seeing the pattern?
‘The Last of Us’ franchise appears to attract and consumes mentally unstable individuals. The degenerates and perverts who refuse to integrate with society and claim everything is negatively review bombed. Not social outcasts, but socially retarded people who can’t process reality.
These obsessed weirdos can’t comprehend how something they like may not be liked by someone else. If you’re feeling braver than me, look up independent reviews of the ‘The Last of Us 2’ game. It’s here where a divide between fans and legitimate sex offenders began.
This is why I, along with the other real men, would rather play the 20+ year old game Counter-Strike over ‘The Last of Us’ or ‘Enchanted’. Those interactive propaganda narratives will rot what little brain you have.
A Look at the Negative Reviews
Screen Rant were insinuating negative review bombing. So let’s look at some negative reviews. If they’re legitimate, they should be as poorly written and femicidal as the positive reviews were!
Episode 3, review 28, 6 star rating:
“I don't mind that they included the side characters, but I just didn't find their story that compelling. It dragged on for too long and should have been about half the run time that it was originally given. It felt like a lot of filler was put into it to pad the episode, and ultimately it didn't add much to the main story arc.”
That’s so well written it has to be a bot.
Episode 3, review 38, 2 star rating:
“Was it a beautiful episode? Sure. But I have zero interest in dedicating 1 hour to a love story between side characters when there is SO MUCH MORE to the story in the game. And of course I'm talking about the story affecting Joel and Ellie.”
Valid. Apparently these 2 characters are basically background NPC’s and this does nothing to progress the story. Makes sense.
Episode 3, review 50, 2 star rating:
“There are plenty of reviews about the nature of the love story in this episode - so I am not going to rehash any of that. I will just say that, I'm terms of the flow of the story - this change of pace SO early in the series was abrasive and made for a very dull episode after two episodes of great pacing, suspense, and excitement.”
I’m not cherry-picking these, just randomly scrolling the document.
Episode 3, review 108, 1 star rating:
“Useless filler after only two episodes where we show the (very long) story of two random very secondary characters who won't make any difference in the rest of the serie. Absolutely zero continuity with the first two other episodes, we go from a apocalyptic serie with a virus into some random romance.”
Good point. Very jarring for a viewer who wants consistency in a show. Would guess the reviewer is French by the wording?
Episode 3, review 165, 3 star rating:
“The series was going very well until this episode, a filler love story that contributes nothing to the main plot, that is very badly told and that has situations that border on the ridiculous, Here we know the story of Bill, a maniac obsessed with survival who After making an enormous effort to entrench himself and fill his entire neighborhood with traps, he lets the first stranger in, cooks for him, plays the piano for him and falls in love with him before even know his name…”
Ok, I’m ending it there!
What stands out about those negative reviews? Obviously they’re very well written and provide arguments beyond ‘muh feelings’ and ‘I like gay’. They’re in a totally different class than the positive reviews. So which are bots?
Then there’s the star rating. They aren’t all obsessive 1 star negative reviews. Unlike the positive reviewers, who throw around 10 stars like they’re being paid. Cough.
I have never and will never watch this incel show, yet will stake all the money I don’t have that nothing contained within is worthy of 10/10. It’s a fad. Something forgotten in less than 6 months time. The dent heads and hype-followers buy in to whatever they’re told to like. Which is why ‘NCIS’ (2003) is currently on its 20th copy-pasted season.
Designating ‘The Last of Us’ a perfect TV series is likening it to the ‘X-Files’ (1993, before the reboot), ‘The Outer Limits’ (1963, original series), ‘Friday Night Lights’ (2006) or ‘The Sopranos’ (1999, never seen it). All of which had average or bad episodes, though most were good.
Why can’t ‘The Last of Us’ have a bad episode? Everything else has. It’s the mentality of an adult child, who this series panders to, that every episode will be perfect and liked unanimously. Technically it’s autism in adults; the inability to process someone else’ viewpoint. If autism existed. Which it doesn’t.
The iconic pilot episode of ‘The X-Files’ is currently rated 8.3 on IMDB, while the first 2 episodes of ‘The Last of Us’ are each rated 9.2. Really? No, really? Not sure I can get this through peoples heads without a baseball bat. If you think dumping a 60 minute bender love scene in the middle of an apocalyptic action series is good writing, go watch an idiot play games on Twitch.
What’s the common theme with this negativity? The episode was dedicated to 2 minor characters which no one cared about and added nothing to the story. Agenda benders are blaming this on the inclusion of homosexuality. Actual reviews simply state it’s bad production, unnecessary, boring, adds nothing to the story and breaks immersion of an apocalyptic action series. All valid points.
Let’s take a second to briefly dissect the degenerate agenda. I don’t know much about the series, though encountered every synonyms for ‘apocalypse’ while looking through IMDB reviews. Something bad has happened and it must be the end of the world. Why are there gays?
The first responsibility of survivors would be to repopulate. A penis in the arsehole won’t make a baby. A mans role would be to impregnate a woman then protect and provide for her. Not for 9 months, until she gives birth, for years and years. Baby after baby. The survival of the species comes before your perversions. With a population split of around a 50/50 split, there are plenty of girls to go around. How is spreading AIDS and monkey pox going to propagate life? Or was that the apocalypse?
‘The Las of Us’ just sounds like a clone of ‘The Walking Dead’. Which also sucked balls. In a different way.
Conclusion
There is no negative review bombing. End of.
To date, all 3 episodes have been positively review bombed. Proven.
Screen Rant have published another false article with no editorial review. Or the editor is grossly incompetent and lets this libelist nonsense through.
Lukas Shayo is not a credible source. He has no investigatory skills, no ability to analyse simple data sets or perform unbiased reasoning. This is the second false article he’s written that’s come across my feed. There are bound to be more but I’m not wasting any more time on him, today. He is not a competent writer and never will be. There’s a reason mainstream websites are failing; pay shit writers shit money and you’ll have shit content.
If you’re going to state opinion as fact, bring receipts.
Don’t presume everyone in the world is accepting of your perversions and degeneracy. You are the minority.