The “woke” boogeyman strikes again as review bombers go after acclaimed third episode of The Last of Us
The internet is gonna internet.
Michael Stoyanoff 
Image via HBO
What started as universal acclaim by early previews and critics alike quickly degenerated into the lowest form of the internet when HBO released episode three of The Last of Us to the masses. The episode in question pulls back the curtain on fan-favorite character Bill from the original The Last of Us, giving him a fleshed-out and fulfilling backstory with his partner Frank that the game only vaguely touched upon. This did not sit well with a certain section of viewers, however, who have begun a coordinated assault to bomb the IMDB rating for the episode citing “woke” grievances.
The episode, titled “Long Long Time,” started with a 9.8 rating on Sunday night and is now sitting at an 8.2. While there is obviously valid criticism to be had for the episode, the amount of one-star ratings popping up is suspicious. Fans saddened over the show not recreating the events of the “Bill’s Town” chapter in the game have every right to be disappointed, but most of them would likely not rate the episode as the worst possible hour of television.
Related: What disease did Frank have in The Last of Us show? Answered
This is not the first time that The Last of Us franchise has elicited the ire of trigger-happy keyboard warriors. The Last of Us Part II was surrounded by controversy upon release for its inclusion of LGBTQ+ characters as well as contentious decisions made in the narrative. Malevolent Reddit groups popped up to review bomb the game even then, but could do nothing to stop the metric ton of awards and accolades the game went on to receive.
Works of art will always register differently between people. While someone can look at something and see it as a thing of beauty, another can not get the same emotional response. It is always good to have worthwhile discussions over valid criticism and respect people’s viewpoints, but dismissing something simply for including aspects of life that very much exist should not be justified.
About the author
