What The Last Of Us Actually Changed
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 26 сен 2024
- For 40% off WorldAnvil, go to www.worldanvil... and use code "JustWrite."
Support this channel on Patreon at / justwrite
How do you tell the same story but different but the same but different?
Join this channel to get access to perks:
/ @justwrite
Twitter ▶ / sagehyden
Music by
Epidemic Sound.
“Electric Mantis - Daybreak | Majestic Color”
ow.ly/G7gg30iypqm
A compelling argument that Neil Druckman made in order to justify the existence of the show is that: "At the end of the day, there are people out there that are never going to pick up a controller (or watch a gameplay video), and I think that our story is good enough to be experienced in this new way, reaching a new audience." I think he was into something there. I watched the show with my mom (she has never played a videogame in her life), and she was totally engrossed in the story and even asked me stuff about the game (I never saw that happening). So in that regard, I'll say that's a pretty good explanation as to "why make this."
That’s so sweet! A lovely bonding moment ❤️
100%. And also the best reason to respect a story that good in adaptation. Unlike great books where we applaud a film staying true to the source, people tend to champion "not following the game too much" when it comes to games. And that makes no sense to me. Never has. There's a reason it worked so well you wanted to adapt it. Respect that reason.
Yeah, I was a bit confused about how they missed that obvious point. Most adaptations are about reaching different and new audiences with a proven IP, at least in part.
I wholeheartedly agree. My feller and I are a bit of a Bill and Frank type. As it stands, there is precisely zero chance he would have ever sat down to play the game. As it is, we've watched the whole thing together and there's been crying.
Then it's back to carpentry and smoked fish...
I think this is one of the most important reasons for the show's existence. There are millions of people who must've had played the game but there are way more who would've never, including myself. I absolutely loved the show, its setting and its characters and so have many of my non-player friends.
The third episode also helps a LOT about the themes of the game/series of "existing is not enough, you need to have reasons to live" which explains Joel's arc
Yeah. That letter at the end is the real lynchpin of Joel's arc. By the finale, no matter what you think of Joel's decision, it's hard to see him making any other choice. His entire world steered him there, from his daughter to multiple dead friends telling him that his whole meaning as a person boils down to succeeding where he once failed.
@@dtipson she's literally his reason to live, he basically had to do that
Bill's Town served that exact same purpose in the game, just in a different way
I would argue that Bill's section of the game still does, just in the opposite way: where show!Bill shows Joel what he could have if he just opened his heart, game!Bill shows Joel the danger of where he's going if he continues to shut everyone out.
@@ThornheartCat I feel the game has a more dark and realistic edge to it as Bill didn't live this bizarrely happy existence despite basically being isolated with 1 other person in an apocalypse. I prefer the game version personally also due to how Joel is given a purpose, then shown what he'll be like without it, to seeing a community of people with purpose instead of the show basically saying the same thing twice with Tess and Bill's letter. I do deffo think as far adapts go it's good it's just there's changes like this which I'm not fond of.
I think the big thing with this show for a lot of people it that it's easier to get someone to watch a show for a thing you like than it is to get a non-gamer to sit down an play a game.
Yeah my parents in their 70s watched this but no chance they play the game (they didn't even know until episode 7 or so there even was a game).
Thank you! Naughty dog has re-released this game on every console I own for a decade, but god forbid they release a new adaptation of that same story lol. Video games have desperately needed a screen adaptation to win. Uncharted (another naughty dog IP) came close but I think HBO's The Last of Us did that unequivocally.
Yeah, even as a gamer one doesn't have time/interest to play every single good game. Like, I get headaches and vertigo with FPS and over-the-shoulder shooting type games. I need to see the character's feet to avoid this. And in general, I avoid shooting builds/playstyles in favor of strategy and stealth. So I'm glad HBO adapted The Last Of Us.
And "survival horror shooter" isn't most people's intro genre, anyway.
Certainly it worked for this non gamer.
I’m glad they focused more on the character moments despite the lack of infected.
It's weird ,though, to say they focused more on the character moments and at the same time have far less character development between the two main characters and their relationship.
@@jaketaf98 I mean it’s kind of impossible because a show has far less time than the game. Also games are much more personal because you actually play as Joel so it ain’t really that fair to expect the same time but damn did they really develop that relationship in the time they had.
agreed. If ones more context and action - there is a game. If you want to see more drama - series is the way to go
Agreed, I was ok with the amount of infected we got, did not really need more of them
@@jaketaf98 You're just wrongfully equating time to more character development which is common with adaptations. If the game never existed everyone would think the character development was enough.
Amplifying the subtext to text isn't all though. The game was first person only experiencing it from Ellie or Joel's perspective. But in the show they were able to show some scenes from the perspective of the groups that they'd come across in their journey, the other side of the story.
Not having played the game first I wonder how this will paint my perspective of the characters when I do, like having to trust David fighting along side him against the infected before he shows his real intent.
*third person
@@yhavinmiles third person camera, but not third person narrative in regards to the story. You experience the game from Joel or Ellie's perspectives. In the show they can flesh out the story of the other characters like Kathleen, Dave, and other rebels. Their motivations and their perspective narratively.
but thats kinda the point of the second game, do I'm not sure what are they're going to do in season 2
@@NabilTouchie what they're going to do is switch perspectives more frequently since a show isn't bound by gameplay and two separate progression trees.
fyi this isn't an april fools things for anyone coming down to the comments to figure that out.
I was worried 😮💨
Bu- awww...
That's exactly what an April fool's comment would say!
The biggest answer to "do we need this?" to me is that I've heard for *years* how good the last of us is but I never played it because I genuinely don't like playing those types of games. The medium of tv was a way for me to finally engage with the story and I really enjoyed my time with it.
I’m in pretty much the same boat. I hear “AAA zombie survival horror” and my eyes will immediately glaze over.
@@GiantButterKnife yeah I love playing games but if the game is trying to be a show, I'd rather watch a show. I play games that are games for a reason.
As someone who hasn't kept up with video games over the past 10-15 years I'd say this show was definitely needed. It's a great story and by making a show it's reaching a much.bigger audience
Another subtext that was raised to text was in the last scene with Joel and Ellie. In both the game and the show, this is when Ellie first tells Joel about Riley. In the game, it could be inferred that, because Riley turned and Ellie didn't, that Ellie had to kill Riley's infected self. In the show, it's made much more explicit, both because the show includes the DLC chapter that many people didn't play until after completing the main story line and also when Ellie bring up the "first time I killed."
Personally, I preferred the more ambigious approach to a lot of these elements, made it feel like you were walking through a world that had been going before you came and continued to go after you left, but I appreciate the changes Mazin and crew made to adapt the show to a TV format and in the ability to tell new stories in that format.
Love your essays. Respectfully, I think this one is a bit oversimplified. Each of the changes you mentioned accomplishes something different, so it’s basically impossible to respond to the question “why make [subtext] explicit?” with one blanket answer:
- With the world building in the first scene, the writers use the story’s new context post-2020 as a hook. They compare a viral pandemic to a fungal one, and use current events (including global warming) to instantly make the world of TLOU hit close to home. I can’t imagine them making this show today without at least acknowledging the COVID connection.
- I still do not know if Joel and Tess are fuckin’. She spoons him while he’s asleep and facing away from her. It sets a tone, but idk exactly what it means. they still have a relationship that leaves more questions than answers.
- I haven’t played the game but I’m guessing the communism mention is some necessary exposition?? Because I can’t run around exploring Jackson in a TV show. You might be right about this one being a lazy addition. Idk what was lost in translation.
- It’s 2023 and there’s nothing to be gained by keeping the nature Bill and Frank’s relationship subtextual. Like you acknowledged, they did a great job with this one.
- Nothing to be gained by making David’s intentions subtextual either. The audience doesn’t deserve a chance to avoid their discomfort by rationalizing Ellie’s situation as ‘open to interpretation’. Making David’s intentions more explicit forces us to fully empathize with Ellie, which is extremely uncomfortable. It turns watching this episode into a visceral experience (which I imagine helps recapture the feeling of playing it through in a 1st person game.)
To answer the question of “why do we need this?” Like many other ppl, I don’t play video games. I enjoyed the hell out of the show. It’s nice to finally get the hype around TLOU.
Yeah, thoroughly agree. This analysis felt extremely undercooked. As for Bill and Frank, whilst yeah, there's nothing worth hiding there, I'd argue the first game already does this with Ellie's DLC about her and Rylie. As someone who played the game, Bill and Franks Ep was my absolute favorite.
What I think Bill and Frank is about is why Joel needs Ellie. We can't see who Joel is before Ellie comes along, but its clear why their relationship is so necessary despite the burden she initially presents. The scene of Joel guarding Ellie all night before they reach Kansas City really reminded me of how Bill was defending his compound against the bandits. Ellie is Joel's justification for pushing forwards with life and without her, he's nothing more than the marauder he lived as for so long.
@@cameronjohnson918 Yes absolutely. I kinda brushed past this one, thank you for articulating it so well!
I'm really unimpressed with this video. It ignores the two biggest differences between mediums, a show can jump between perspectives much more freely and it has no gameplay. The first change means the show constantly switches away from Joel's perspective instead of just when he passes out, allowing for great side stories like the Kansas City arc and of course the 3rd episode. The lack of gameplay means action is used more sparingly, giving it a stronger impact when it does happen, as well as not having the plot be constantly interrupted.
"Do we need this?"
I've said it multiple times and I'm gonna say it again. Just as not everyone reads books, not everyone plays games. This is the whole godamn point of an adaptation
Exactly.
"Do we need this?" or "Did I/you enjoy this?"
Hell yeah I did.
Then there are those who watch the cut scenes of games they hear about that are effectively movies.
If you force a person who watched the show first to play the game, I think they would retroactively ask the same question too.
i don't think it's a smart comparison. Adapting a book is transforming a text into an audiovisual piece. So it's completely justified. Yes, adapting TLOU into a TV show is a way to allow a different audience to discover this story. But is it aesthetically interesting ? I don't think so. It's like those shot by shot remake of Psycho or Funny games. If you show them to people who never saw the originals, they would think they are great movies. But once you've seen the originals, those remakes seem useless.
You make a fair point, but although he doesn't say it explicitly, I think Sage's point is that the HBO adaptation was underwhelming, which is something I wholeheartedly agree with. To me it was meh. And I'm someone who has never played the games, but watched and loved many playthroughs of it, from gamers on RUclips. I was excited about this adaptation. It was supposed to come out in 2022, and I was more excited about it than *_House of the Dragon._*
I think Pedro & Ella are great actors, but I was extremely disappointed. A lot of storytelling and character reveals happen during game play, and the show seems to not understand that. All the cut scene moments in the show did not hit hard for me as they hit int he game. Most of the time, they didn't hit at all. I didn't understand why Joel wasn't crying over his daughter dying in the first episode. In the game he is balling. He's an emotional wreck. The best episode remains E03, it's the only one that really moved me. But again, as Sage said, the fact that it was sequestered from the main storyline makes it lose points.
Turning subtext into text can be a better decision for filmed media vs an interactive video game. You brought up that a lot of the scenes from the game are directly recreated, and hints, winks and nods in the game are fleshed out, and asked "why do we need this?". interactivity builds a bond with the characters and the world that has a directly different impact than filmed media. For example, the Master Chief has almost no personality, retconned backstory and minimal voice acting to start, and yet the faceless space marine that is John-117 still sticks in people's minds as a definitive character in all of gaming.
Doing versus watching are two very different experiences. The plot itself is almost 1:1 between the show and game, and the ludonarrative dissonance is much smaller than any other game save something like SpecOps: The Line. But, game Joel and TV Joel serve slightly different functions. I personally don't love that most games 'blank slate adjacent protagonist' is a white, middle aged, scruffy asshole, but there does need to be some reason why a "generalized" player would control a character or follow an npc. Putting things in the game into subtext that wider eyed players pick up on is super important! But a TV/Movie performance can't assume the audience interacts in the same way as a player or a media critic. Exposition is a necessary evil when you cant have TV Joel search through 25 containers in a row, murder two people, quip a bit, kill a zombie, run in circles solving a platforming puzzle, then have a heartfelt scene without that be jarring. Things do need a bit more condensing, spelling out and characterization in those moments.
I'm not sure I follow the opinion that Bill's sexuality was hidden in the game unnecessarily. Right before that part, the video points out that even Joel's and Tess's sexualities were so unspoken that it was hard to know for sure that they were even in a sexual relationship together.
The game's story commonly relied on subtext, because the player is one character (Joel) and it would be silly to write a story in which the character explicitly knows all interesting things about all other characters.
The whole game's perspective is mostly cynical--people are shit, and the collapse of civilization would do nothing but remove the pretense. Bill's falling out with Frank reflects that in the game.
Outside of Bill greeting Ellie with "Hi, my name's Gay Bill," I'm not sure how the game could have made that more explicit. Bill's reaction to Frank's hanging corpse was a beautiful way to expose that, I think. In fact, the first time I played it, I thought the note was even a little on-the-nose in a patronizing way. The venom in it made it super interesting, though.
Bill wouldn't let Frank open his boutique and wouldn't start trusting outsiders, and that made Frank hate him. Show and game are cool alternate realities where that subplot is concerned.
Agreed. Appreciate you because I was not typing all of that
Totally understand this perspective, but my best guess is that Bill (and Frank) in the game aren’t deemed satisfactory queer representation because the only way players know the two of them is through a lens of misery and suffering. Bill is a jaded asshole, Frank’s note full of hatred for his partner… Nothing conveyed that the two of them held love for each other at any point in their history. Yes, anyone in a romantic relationship, of any sexuality, can experience relationship issues, and that can give characters “depth” from a storytelling perspective, but the disproportionate amount of suffering that LGBTQ+ characters go through across media (the “bury your gays” trope comes to mind, especially with Frank’s death here) is a way to include queer characters without offering them the three dimensionality afforded to straight characters (their death and suffering define their character as much as their identity does). And it’s so easy to read into a gay character’s sexuality being “responsible” for their suffering-anyone with prejudices can latch onto this as justification for continuing their own queer-phobias, and anyone coming to terms with their own queerness can see this suffering as a personal inevitability for embracing their identity.
That’s why it was so refreshing to see how the show handled Bill and Frank, who were not perfect and not always happy, but they got to be happy sometimes. They are gay but their problems are not caused by the fact that they are gay. They bicker and struggle but they love each other (often the arguments were about how to show love). Also agree with the video’s point that the show really went off on a tangent with showcasing their storyline, but I’m glad the showrunners put in the effort to fix the poor judgment (even if there were good intentions) behind the original portrayal.
@@Shimmerlight 10/10
It's not just a change in media. It's a change in audience. There will be millions more people seeing the story of Joel and Ellie. More than who played the game, who are a minority of a minority. I know video games are more popular now than ever, but it's easy to forget just how many people watch TV shows by comparison. It's not just money that drives a creator to take their creation to new audiences. I suspect most creative people think of the money second.
I needed it. I cannot play games any longer due to disability, and I LOVE the story so far.
That’s a great point that I don’t hear enough people bring up!
as someone who had no interest playing the games, im glad the show exists
I disagree that the show had no subtext of its own to raise. I felt that in Bill and Frank's story had some pretty heavy subtext that a queer relationship like theirs was, in certain ways, better off without the rest of society. IMO it seemed unlikely that Bill would've ever come out of the closet pre-pandemic, and a lot of the happiness that they shared as because they had the whole world to themselves without the fear of judgement or social expectations of how a queer relationship should be.
My father would have never played the game or watched me play trough the whole thing, but now that he watched this show we can finally talk about this story. Of course you don't need this adaptation if you already played the game, but if you don't play games/don't play narrative single player games, this is absolutely worth checking out for you. It might even convince you to pick up the controller for the first time, knowing how good of a story can be told in that medium. You can't dismiss how many people watch tv versus how many people plays videogames when discussing whether we need this or not.
I like the Escapist's Frost's point on this: The show didn't add anything that let The Last of Us benefit from the new medium, it just removed things that it didn't benefit from in the old medium. If the tables were turned, we'd all be asking whether The Last of Us really needed to be a game instead of a tv drama.
Yeah, Frost's video on the topic was so good. Also the show does add something: the ability to change perspective away from just the player character.
“Blue for Boring, Red for Psychopath”
SMT has been doing that choice for decades. Only both solutions involve a lot of murdering the innocents if you pick the blue or red routes.
I think part of Bill in the game being an asshole up front and hiding his romantic involvements is part of what his character does for Joels development.
Joel has previously done the same thing as Bill, kept everyone at arms length so he can't get too attached and also so that he doesn't need to look after someone that can weigh him down physically and emotionally. Bill's character arc is finalised, he doesn't want to leave, doesn't have any romantic involvement and is basically waiting to die. He's a cautionary tale that Joel now has the opportunity to avoid himself with his adoptive daughter.
TV show Bill starts the same, but as we see him develop he chooses to let someone in. He devotes himself to this person, bends for them, compromises and leads a happy life. Ultimately, BIll chooses to leave this world with them as life isn't life without them. This is an aspirational tale for Joel, as stated in his letter. Make attachments with others and you get to actually live rather than be in a stasis of just surviving....like a zombie.
I guess what I'm getting at is that even though they may have lead with an objective driven episode of "Let's have a better gay love story" the writers ALSO decided to transform the subtext of how this story affects Joel from a cautionary one to an aspirational one.
If you watch the creators speak after the episodes, you can see it's more than just about money. Aside from the endless hours and lives they give up for it, they seem very PASSIONATE about their work and story.
Word. TLoU is Naughty Dog’s baby. It’s like Toy Story for Pixar. No one gets to touch it just because there’s money to be made. (Merchandising alone fills the investors’ greed.) It’s because there’s something they bring to the IP’s table. Namely, people who watch watch TV but don’t play video games now get to experience the story in their chosen medium.
This is just straight up denial and lies, when the people involved barely played the damn game, and some involved were actively encouraged not to play it. I don’t give a shit that grandma got to experience a watered down version of the story. There are plenty of other better works in the genre already in the first place.
The answer to the question 'do we need this?' depends on who 'we' are. Do fans of the game need a TV show adaptation? No. Should people who don't play video games have a chance to experience this story? Yes. The money thing is silly, the people making the show don't get much of the money and would likely get the same amount if they chose to work on a different project. They clearly wanted to make this show to do right by the game, and they put in the care and effort to do that.
A series that turned out to be good in spite of the last of us's fandom having a hateboner for the thing they are a fan of.
People are allowed to discuss things they are passionate about. "Haters" is just a general rejection of any criticism. Say you don't like Abby and your opinion is been dismissed "just because she ". Yes, the player was supposed to hate her, but the player was also supposed to like her in the end. If people dislike her at the end, it's a writing problem, not a hating problem. GoT for example gave us a lot of characters to first hate then love.
@@Arvigeus You made like an entire essay about stuff I didn't even say or imply.
I am straight up seeing a movement of Last of Us fans on twitter say the original was actually bad or overrated in hindsight.
@@Arvigeus No one said people _aren't_ allowed to discuss things they're passionate about, but not everyone passionately hating TLOU2 or this show have genuine, nuanced critiques as to why. There is a chunk of the TLOU fandom that hates Part 2, and particularly characters like Abby, not because they have genuine criticisms of the writing but for irrational and/or reactionary reasons.
Also, I'd argue you don't have to like Abby at the end, but why is it a writing problem if players don't as opposed to a matter of subjective opinion? If I don't like Jaime Lannister, is that a writing problem or just my own take?
@@Fangtorn if you don't like Jaime Lannister,, would you watch an entire spinoff series about him? TLoU2 promised we'll play as Ellie, it turned out to be only half-truth. People were right to be upset and feel cheated.
@@Arvigeus No, I probably wouldn't, but I wouldn't call the show badly written either. When were people promised they would only play as Ellie? I can understand being disappointed having to play for a long time with a character you don't like, but no one promised you'd like the story. No one was cheated.
I'm glad it exists, because i didn't want to play a spoopy stress game with monsters, but i like watching shows about them.
Don't know if you listened to the official podcast, where Druckmann and Mazin explicitly stated that one of the things they wanted to explore in the show is how love can make things bad. I suppose that can be a kind of subtext made text, but from all the gameplay comparisons, I don't think that was consistently or even consciously incorporated into the first game. (Haven't played the games, knew about their broad strokes from videos on them at the height of the "are video games art" debate.) Tess's final words to Joel at the state capitol included the idea that he did not reciprocate the affection she felt for him. The whole Bill and Frank story. Aging down Sam, making him deaf, giving him leukemia, giving the limited supply of drugs to KC FEDRA, making Henry choose family over Michael. Kathleen's relentless hunt for Henry, at the expense of securing themselves from the infected which are still active underground. We get examples of love causing people to lose sight of the morality of their actions. This all of course ends in the season 1 climax, which pretty exactly reproduces the ending of the first game. As stated on The Infinity Podcast, The Last of Us is the trolley problem for nerds.
You keep asking, "Did we need this?" The answer is "Yes, we needed this." Far too many people played the game and _didn't get the subtext_ in the game. In fact, some seemed to have interpreted the subtext as saying the complete opposite of what was intended. So bringing the game's narrative to more people (not everyone plays games, but almost everyone watches TV), and turning the subtext into text, has made sure that the messages intended, is the message received.
Imo thats the mark of a good story.
I think it’s valid to examine the differences between the game and the show, the original and the adaptation, and what can potentially be gained by adapting source material. At the same time, I can’t help but think the question “did we need this?” often comes with the rather silly premise or insinuation that only things we need should exist. It’s often the wrong question to ask, imho.
exactly. we don't "need" any tv show or video game. that's not what art is about
So just write spent the first portion of this video justifying the shows existence but I feel there is one critical detail he missed out on: video games have and always will have a limited audience and retelling this story in tv format is a way to give this beautiful piece of media to a much larger audience than the game will ever have. I feel it’s like saying because I’ve listened to an artists songs on Spotify why would I go to a concert to hear it again.
The Netflix show Witcher massively boosted the amount of new players to the Witcher game series and the Witcher books, even though the show fizzled out too much in the end.
I have no doubt this fantastic tv show has finally gotten a lot of people who kept meaning to play it some day to bloody finally do that, as well as get a lot of people who otherwise wouldn't have played the game to actually play it.
@@Call-me-Al that’s my point, why does a show need to justify its existence any more than being a great story and it’s creators wanting to show it to new people
Like many other comments have so far, I have to reiterate how annoying the “do we really need this?” question is with adaptations and especially this one. Yes, we did. And the only reason you may think the contrary is if you played the original game. Despite the gaming industry being among the most profitable, most people don’t play games, and those that do don’t always play narratively driven ones. Everyone who’s never played the game or just doesn’t engage in that medium benefits from seeing this story in television. I get to enjoy this story, and the great changes the show has, with so many more people in my life now. Young and old.
I predict the future seasons will have more changes, since the second game’s story structure was very much locked into that medium. Maybe then will we stop wondering if this show is “necessary.”
I was genuinely surprised S1 ended at the end of the game; there was an implied break in the game that I thought the show would capitalize upon for longer seasons of production. And, a perfect cliff hangar! You know which I mean…
Leave Joel on the rebar, as the game does, and close the episode with Ellie alone, in the snow … and end of S1.
However, I’m glad they didn’t!
They would either have to be really short seasons or add a ton of filler material if you do it over two seasons. I wouldn't have minded one or two extra episodes, but two seasons is too much. It's not that long a story.
@Carabas72 The Last of Us game is a very long game. They could have easily made it into 2 seasons. The reason why it seemed so short was because they took most of the action, infected and human, and the detours out of the show. Their path in the game was never straight. They kept running into problems and destroyed environments that they had to traverse and get around. They could of also expanded on the stories that we got in the various notes across the game. They were not as imaginative as the Walking Dead was in the medium of television. It seemed like they were rushing to get to the story in part 2. Since that is going to get 2 seasons.
@@warrenharshaw7677 The second game is much longer than the first, but I do agree they could have definitely made the first season longer by expanding on the fireflies, FEDRA or another faction and split the game over 2 TV seasons.
As someone who doesn't play (a lot of) videogames, the answer to the question "do we need this?" is obvious. I wouldn't have gotten to experience this story if it wasn't for the adaptation.
Definitely agree the show provides text to a lot of subtext in the game, but I dont think it actually leaves the HBO show with less subtext or questions to linger on. I think Joel and Tess’s relationship in the show still leaves us with many questions, I think a lot of things do, and in some cases new questions now that the ones from the game have been answered.
Joel and Tess’ relationship was a weird example in the video, because I still do not know if they are fuckin’.
@@nicole_1747
Yeah, we need to see them on screen.
To be fair. A lot of people will never play a video game. But they'll watch a show. So the show does introduce the story to a larger audience.
Well, I'm glad they made a TV show out of it; so now my mom can watch it. She's not so much into video games but watches a lot of television - also I think I would be just too much for her to play the game. So she never had a chance to catch up with this great story until now.
Exactly what I thought too. It expands the audience quite broadly.
To be honest, for me the answer is simple - I am not a gamer. This way I can finally experience the story.
Sure, but I think the point is also “why did we need this when people that don’t play games can watch a let’s play?”
@@lman318 I think autocorrect messed smth up in you message. I guess you meant “why make a live action peace when people who don’t play games can just watch play through”? In that case it is valid, I could watch it. But it is just does not look good. It is still lower res gam-y rendering. Not high end cg animation like let’s say Arcane or even supporting movie for FFXV (“Kingsglave”)that I did watch and enjoyed. It does not sound fun to me (personally!!) to watch smth meh (in my opinion) just for the story. I work in VFX, so gam-y look is just not doing it for me (sorry!!!). And in the end the story is just still classic (tho very well executed) zombi story, where humans are the real monsters and you become family with strangers you meat alongside.
As someone who played the game and enjoyed the story but not the gameplay, it was great to revisit this story through a different format.
I keep telling people. The question of whehter we "need" an adaptation, remake, reimaging, whatever the fuck that is telling a story again is itself not just nonsense, it is idiotic. The art of storytelling is older than writting, and as far as we can tell retelling a story has always been part of the tradition. Stories have been refined and improved and made relevant and talked about again due to it. And reteling is always transformative, specially after the invention of writing where you're not depending on people to pass on the work itself word by word through spoken repetition - it is literally written down, sometimes in stone even, if you want any specific telling of a story, it is still there as it always has been, it goes nowhere because someone else decided to take their spin on it and make their take publicly available in some manner. But even the act of reading/playing/watching/whatever the fucking the original again is itself transformative, because the text or "text" might still be the same, but you the audience aren't. You already changed to some degree since the last time, and you will fill the gaps in a different way this time, whether a bit or a lot, but different anyway.
It is a great thing that this adaptation was really good, but that doesn't justify its existence, because it never needed to really to justify existing. It is just another telling and if one doesn't like a telling, one can just seek another teller and telling they like, such as the original - it still exists and is available for purchase, rent or borrow from some libraries, last I checked.
A very elegant assessment, with a deep understanding of the nature of storytelling, and how our relationship to stories changes through time. Though I think it could do without calling people idiotic for not understanding that.
@@rottensquid Thanks for the compliments, but that final bit does disturb me. I called a question idiotic, not people.
@@louisvictor3473 Fair enough. It still comes off a little hostile. I'm just saying this because I liked what you were saying, I thought it was really smart and perceptive. But starting it off that way made me reluctant to engage.
@@rottensquid That is because it was hostile. I repudiate that position, and (specially) the elitist attitudes that often come with it, I think they're quite harmful and irrational. I am not usually keen on mincing words solely for the sake of "politeness" when talking about something like that.
@@louisvictor3473 Okay, if that's your idea of a good time. I don't see what you're going to get out of being impolite. You're certainly not going to change anyone's minds that way, or have a positive engagement. But you do you.
"this is a commune, we're commune-ists!" just leaves me rolling every time I see that clip
A). Check out how communes usually end up going...
B). Good luck growing that commune to > 200 people functionally.
I mean, one of the big reasons to do a TV adaptation of a video game with a strong story focus is that it makes the story accessible to everyone that isn’t a gamer, which is a lot of people. Figure that part should be pretty damn obvious even to the gamer fanboys…
You can't separate "story" from suspense, adventure and the world of the story itself. They all combined together, become the story. So, us "gamer fanboys" have experienced a much richer and heavily emotional story than any of you mere-passive-audience can ever imagine. That's just the fact of the matter, and that is the only reason we hate or dislike this tasteless adaptation.
Clearly he’s talking about reason to make a show from a creator’s stand point.
You’re describing a reason from an audience standpoint.
A creator is not sitting there going I want more people to interact with this story that already exists in a pretty accessible medium.
unless their reasoning is more people = more money.
@@YourBlackLocal I disagree - if you have a story you believe is worth telling, then it's not unreasonable for you to want to share it more widely. Yes, gamers will already have access to the story, but non-gamers, or people who don't like the gameplay style for whatever reason, don't. If the new version spreads access to an entirely new audience, that's a good argument for it.
Also, "I want to tell this in a new medium to reach more people" is a more acceptable excuse than "I want to retell this so I can fix the flaws I see in my storytelling".
@@rmsgrey If i wanted a non gamer to have access to The Last of Us i would recommend them to watch a game movie edit on RUclips, where they would'nt have to go through gameplay but also enjoy it's storytelling to the fullest. The show on the other hand is just some disabled piece of dog poop.
@@TheGoddon So what you're saying is that you'd recommend an ad-hoc compilation of cutscenes divorced from the context and personal agency provided by the gameplay over putting together a new version of the story that's made from the beginning to be consumed passively?
In specific instances, that may be the better option, but as a general rule it's not going to be - and the compilation is going to appeal more to an audience familiar with gaming who can intuit what's in the gaps anyway.
I haven't watched the show myself, so only have second-hand opinions on its quality, but it's going to be much easier to get my parents to watch the show than to get them to watch a RUclips video with awkward transitions between one cutscene and the next where there's supposed to be gameplay.
Aside from everything else; I think it's worthwhile because it reaches an audience that it otherwise wouldn't-people that can't or won't interact with it on the terms of "video game" are a lot more lenient when it comes to TV.
Just personally, there are at least 5 people off the top of my head who both watched and loved the TV show AND completely refused to play the game over the last decade no matter how much I tried convincing them it's worth it (two of them are now playing the game).
For the "crossover audience" I think the value is...significantly lessened, but TV is just so much more accessible for people.
Also on "does the subtext need to be text", I mean...it's better when it's not, but sometimes, kind of?
Like, I love it when shows don't just spell things out.
But it's incredibly frustrating when there are situations like people going on about how Abby's actions are completely unwarranted in the second game. There's definitely conversations to be had about if Joel did the right thing or not in the end of the first game, or if what Abby did was the *right* thing to do, or if a 'sacrifice the few for the many' approach is valid or not.
But not accepting that Joel's actions would be seen as bad guy moves from the other side is just...like, fuck right off. Does the game need to shout "ACTIONS SOMETIMES CAN LEAD TO CONSEQUENCES"?
I feel the biggest subtextual departure the show makes from the game is that it displays a lot more functional, happy people living normal fulfilling lives after the apocalypse. Bill and Frank are the clearest example of this. In the game, the world is a cruel place where you might be murdered in the street on the off chance that your boots fit your killer. Any attempt at something resembling "love" is either a bitter, grudging partnership of convenience, like Joel and Tess, or a growing resentment that ends in suicide, like Bill and Frank. This is a world that a man like Joel could legitimately believe is _not worth saving_ - not if it means sacrificing the one relationship (and the one person) he has experienced in 20 years that he knows is genuinely good. We as audience members understand his decision in this light, and we are challenged to wonder if we would have done any different.
However, in the show, Bill and Frank live out a long, happy, beautiful life together, with Joel periodically watching from the sidelines. With this sterling example of how good life can still be right in front of him, it recontextualizes his decision to save Ellie at the end. How many Bills and Franks is he sacrificing in order to save Ellie? Saving Ellie becomes a decision that is more solely motivated by his personal journey of trauma and healing, rather than one which also includes a cruel and indifferent world into the equation. I think it is easier to condemn Joel as a monster in this light, which makes the ending a bit inferior to that of the game, imo.
I really loved the TV version. I strongly dislike the gameplay of the games, which meant I never bothered playing them. But I had obviously heard that the story was great, meaning I was missing out on something worthwhile. That's why it was perfect for people like me when they announced they were making a TV series about it. Luckily, they made a *really good* TV series at that, so I'm happy.
That said, I get it if people who play and love the games won't get much out of it, or at least feel like it's unnecessary.
It was a big brain move for HBO adapting an already film like game for being a story driven title great enouh that cutting the gameplay would make it into an interactive film.
As someone who had stopped playing video games and never regained the inclination to take them up again by the time the first game came out (yeah, that’s making me feel old - but the professional world will do that to you), the answer to “do we need this” is a resounding YES for me. What I think you’re missing is that it’s not just the subtext to text, but the medium itself that is the point. By bringing it to TV it massively broadens the audience of the game and, frankly, makes it a more enjoyable piece of art to experience beyond the solitary experience of playing a video game. I can sure as heck assure you that my wife would have had zero interest in sitting down and watching me play a video game for hours, but we were both able to enjoy this series together immensely. The fact that you don’t see this is a bit odd to me.
Hahaha that "freak... like me" was great. Amazing video. I think it's very precise, or at least i felt the same way, and well explained.
(A little critique: the volume of the music at the end killed me.)
The obvious answer is that there is a larger majority of people who wouldn't ever play the game and therefore this would be their only way of experiencing this story. Your question should be, do they need this.
Honestly i think the show is in many ways a refinement and perfection of the game. The gameplay was never a particularly strong aspect of the game and the show, by cutting it out, essentially dropped a weight holding back the narrative pacing. Then the show tightened up the narrative. It merged some stuff, cut out others, expanded in a few places, and outright changed a couple things. It took a story that, while told brilliantly in a game, was always better suited for a medium like television, changed it around to properly fit the new medium and fixed some of the problems with the original, and created what is, in many was, a better, tighter, more effectively told and refined version of the original story.
That said i dont think the same will hold true for Season 2/Part 2. Part 2 very much relies on its interactivity and its nonlinear storytelling to hit as hard as it does. That final brutal hopeless brawl between Ellie and Abby is so *perfect* because youre holding the controller, because youre pressing the buttons, because youre forced to engage with and partake in such a deeply deeply uncomfortable and depressing and horrible moment. I dont think that moment would have been anywhere near as impactful if it were just a cutscene, and that is something that i feel holds true for a LOT of Part 2 and I cant see it translating as well to 8-10 hours of a non-interactive medium.
💯
yep, the show really fills out the character motivations like Joel wanting to find Tommy and gives character's more depth like the changes to Sam. The removal of gameplay allows the story to be told without constant interruptions and it can make the violence feel more impactful.
Good video, thanks. I think for me the biggest reason for this show to exist is the gameplay of the original wasn't for everyone. I really liked the story but quit the game because the gameplay itself was frustrating to me, so will look forward to what sounds like a pretty faithful adaptation. A lot of people don't play games at all, so I guess it brings a cool story to them for the first time too.
Queer male here. Loved the first game. Liked the second game. Adore the show. Every change feels so perfect to me. Also, I can't wait to see all the casuals react to the next season.
Because my parents don't play videogames, and this way, I can get them to watch, and tell them this is the story I played through, finally having them understand why I love gaming so much.
I loved the show. Mainly for two reasons: first, I don't have time to play the game, but the story was kinda interesting; secondly, because the characters behave (mostly) logically, unlike most other post-apocalyptic shows.
I am happy they made the show because I am not a gamer. I only vaguely knew of it because of fandom friends who love it and they suggested I watch the show. I watched it with my dad, whose almost 70, who also never would have played the game and we both enjoyed it immensely so I am very happy they made it into a show to reach people like me who would have not known the story otherwise.
You could actually watch the whole gameplay on RUclips to get the immersive experience. Just saying.
the first TLOU was the first (and possibly last) horror game I've ever played, I was so stressed the whole time, especially during Bill's level, I completely missed all of the queer subtext, which I usually pick up on very fast, it REALLY was blink-and-you'll-miss-it
This show is not about the money, it's a collaboration of two writers wanting to tell a story (a good one) to a wider audience and move videogame and adaptations storytelling forward. This has set a major standard going forward, and people who aren't gamers will now take videogame storytelling more seriously as a medium. I mean, as a writer you should have known this. Takes like "they did this for the money" is why people tend to not take videogame adaptations more seriously.
While I don’t disagree explicitly with either argument made in the video, you have to realize the contradiction between complaining that Franks gay relationship is relegated to subtext vs complaining that the show fleshes things out so there is no longer subtext…
It is needed because most people don't play video games and the people who do and don't want an adaptation could simply not watch it. It's a different media and a good opportunity to tell a good story. The casting is great and it is well done. I could say that maybe it wasn't needed because there are a lot of media about the apocalyptic world, a lot with zombie-like creatures but this story is better and the infected are more an excuse than a motive, so, in my opinion, yes again.
Great video. I agree wholeheartedly about the lack of subtext. However, I don't think the semi-central question of this video "do we need this" was answered properly outside of a repeated cynical joke about the TV show being a cash-grab.
I think I saw a video of the creators Craig and Neil either before the show was released or in the first episode's podcast/commentary with Troy Baker and they answered it pretty definitively - adapting The Last of Us to TV allows the creator Neil and fan Craig to "bring this story to a new audience".
I'd like to believe that was one of the main driving factors, outside of Sony likely pressuring Naughty Dog to make an adaption because there is obvious money to be made and they would commission it to be made regardless, so Neil thought it better if he had creative control over the adaption. We saw what happened to Uncharted when a heart is set on making money and loosely adapting the source material for brownie points. Having to include Mark Wahlberg just because he was tied to a decade-old contract for an Uncharted movie that would have starred him as Nate. The film ultimately came back to life because Tom Holland tried to generate more work for himself, by coming up with a franchise he could star in, with the director or producer, that would be written to accommodate the simple pitch of can Tom be young James Bond? Turns out the answer is no, but Sony will let them do that to Uncharted instead.
About the Last of Us show...
It was 2021 and my dad was off work for a long time due to sickness. I suggested he could fill his time by playing The Last of Us and he immediately rejected that idea because he hates the idea of playing games. Recently, he told me he heard about the HBO show and was very interested in watching it. This brought me joy. Simple as that. That is why the TV show adaption matters. Now I can talk to so many people about a 10 year old game who have never experienced it before.
Secondly, I speculate that Neil sees this HBO adaption as an opportunity to attempt to unite the fan-base as best he can, over the controversial decisions he made creatively within The Last of Us Part 2. Not everyone is going to like it regardless, due to the handling of certain characters, but there is a chance to retell Part 2 in a different order to how it was presented in the game. Due to the fact that Bella is actually 19 but looks 14, she can't just magically age to look as old as Part 2 Ellie looks (despite also being 19) overnight, ( maybe she could with production make-up).
The Last of Us show can benefit from telling Part 2 in chronological order, which is personally how I hoped the game would tell the story too. [SPOILERS] Pre-release, I'd hoped I would get to play through the second game and watch as Ellie gradually grows more distant from Joel, leading to a climax near the end of the game, of her learning the truth about what happened with the Fireflies and the cure and then Joel getting his inevitable and deserved comeuppance, by Ellie leaving him anyway and him getting killed by Fireflies and Ellie ultimately having regret over that... etc. Or something like that. I believe the structure of the game was probably the best they could do, because they needed a central objective from early on to drive gameplay into infected zones for fun (find and get revenge on Abby). Also, the game took a long time to come out, so having Ellie age with the audience instead of being 15 for most of Part 2 was also smart.
The show has the chance to let us have more time with Joel and Ellie before that inevitability. I hope that such a structure to the story will be more satisfying for me to consume, compared to the game where I got trauma at the golf section, and had to put the game aside for a day or so, to mull over the heavy stuff I had to witness, to sort of morn for Ellie since she wasn't spending long doing that, before I came back ready to go on a revenge mission for the rest of that long game.
Thanks for coming along to my Ted Talk.
I appreciate this is a very niche perspective but here is the perspective from my little niche.
I will never play the game (horror is not my genre and even now with more effort going into accessibility options, games like this are very difficult), but many of my friends have played this game and talked about it over the years. We don't *need* this but I'm so grateful it was made. Friends who have played the game and I finally got to share one of the best stories to come out of games as an artistic and storytelling genre. I'm not great at horror but the acting was so compelling and the world building so great that I couldn't stop watching.
Obviously, it's all about the money but I do also appreciate that I get to enjoy a fantastic piece of story telling in a format that is accessible to me. Due to the limited range of games I can play, story fomo is something I experience fairly often when looking at games.
The problem with asking "do we need this" is that we're not asking about necessity, rather we're asking "does this story have any right to exist outside of it's original medium." Do we really need a movie about a book when we have the book? Do we really need a video game about a movie series when we have the movies? Do we really need a tv show about a video game when we have the video game? Why adapt the story into a different medium that will give a different take when we have the original?
As a guy that likes guys I always thought Bill was one of the best depictions of gay men in media, especially games. The fact his sexuality wasn't explicitly stated added to his character as a reserved, antisocial, and mistrustful loner. You can tell Bill kinda struggles to say who Frank is when Joel asks. When you give him the note he crumbles it up and throws it away after he reads it before looking away from Joel, mumbling to himself in such an upset and broken tone. He's obviously not used to being open about his feelings, or even the fact he's attracted to men.
There's a particular trope in media where queer characters are so often young, attractive, and have more approachable personalities. Bill of course is none of these; he's likely in his 50's, he's balding, and is incredibly not fun to be around much less talk to. This works well both to hit people used to the aforementioned trope like a 10-ton truck and as a juxtaposition to Joel as a character; Bill's demeanor and personality mirroring the angry and resentful old man Joel would've turned into had Ellie not entered his life; similarly you can use Joel's life of loss and regret to understand why Bill is the broken and unapproachable man he is.
So, I actually commented as the show was going on about one point of taking subtext to text that wasn't mentioned in this video.... Joel's reasoning for trying to dump Ellie onto Tommy. In the game, it's never REALLY delved into why he's trying to do it. Joel has that moment that he emphatically says that he, "NEEDS," Tommy to do this, but never explains why. And then after the raider fight, when Joel is fretting over Ellie and making sure she's OK, that's when Tommy changes his mind and it can be read/assumed that he realizes that Joel is starting to care for her and see her as a daughter figure and won't survive if anything happens to her in his care. Meanwhile, the show gives us that excellent scene in the leather shop where Joel confesses that he's terrified that he's just going to get her killed.
And I honestly can't say what's better. I think it's good to leave some things more subtle and let the audience draw their own conclusions or interpretations, but some of the textualization that the show did delivered us some really great moments or episodes. I don't know that we needed the show, but I thoroughly enjoyed it and cannot wait for S2.
Nothing scares me more than zombies.. as a 8 year old child I accidently sat down and played resident evil one time my parents weren't home.. ever since I've not been able to consume zombie media.
My wife had seen a friend play it, and wanted me to experience it. But I said she had to play it... and my wife had not played PlayStation since she played Spyro on PS1. So she were bad.. The first time you meet a clicker in the game she explained to me that it could only hear when it clicks.. and that she would throw an item to distract it. Only to throw it directly at the ground and then the clicker scrambling for her... By sheer luck she made a spasm that made Joel jump over the counter and avoid the clicker. After that I took the controller.. because seeing my wife do all the wrong things was even worse than playing myself.
I came to a point were you have to jump down a hole were there is both clickers and the ones that could see.. and I could not get myself to jump down there.. So no.. I never got out of Boston. Which meant I never got to experience The Last of Us.
The show gave me a chance to do so - I know a lot of people complained about the lack of zombies.. but for me it was just fine xD
The bill and frank ep felt like a note you would discover looting houses in the games. It did such a great job of crafting another perspective away from the main story that I honestly hope we get more in the second season. Give me an hour long ep about a couple joining the seraphites, etc
Can I also add a motivation to the adaptation of almost any piece of work, especially into tv or movies: disseminating it to a wider audience. Moving Last of Us into a hit tv show means MANY people who have not heard this story will now know it. Just as how many people who haven't read a book but see the movie will now know that story. Each week, I have been so excited to discuss the details of this story with my friends who haven't played the game. Seeing and hearing about their reactions to Ellie and Joel's story has been so great. I definitely can't wait to see how they all react to season 2 and the bombshells that are sure to come with it!
That's what I was thinking as well. I had heard of the game, but was never going to play it, I'm glad they made a show of it as it was really good.
Well anyone who likes Joel won't like season 2.
@@uanime1 as someone who has gotten too many spoilers and likes joel: nah. It will be great. It's like the early game of thrones seasons! Natural consequences of his actions! Liking the character doesn't mean you agree with him 100% nor that you would have done things the way he did, nor that his death can't be really meaningful to the story.
@@Call-me-Al
"as someone who has gotten too many spoilers and likes joel: nah. It will be great."
Even though nearly everyone who played the game hated this part.
"It's like the early game of thrones seasons! Natural consequences of his actions!"
Except it wasn't, it was completely contrived.
"nor that his death can't be really meaningful to the story."
It wasn't since the story tries to make you side with his killer.
@@uanime1 my impression was that the game merely put you in the killer's shoes as much as it had earlier put you in Joel's and Ellie's shoes.
Yes, we need it actually. I was finally able to share this amazing story with folks like my parents who just weren't going to play the game, and definitely not watch RUclips videos of gameplay.
I never heard of The Last of Us until I saw the trailer for the tv show. I never would have played the game version so this would be the only way I could have seen this story told.
I've seen several similar comments below, but I'd say that one of the reasons to make this is because it brings the story to a new audience.
I love games, but I don't have the time for 15-22 hours of gameplay (especially with combat), so I've never actually played it. The story being turned into a show means I may actually be able to sit down and appreciate it.
The fact that the commune was the healthiest society in the show makes me smile every time I think about it 😊
Communism: achievable for small communities (in this case, in fictional small communities), disastrous for countries
@@nirvanachile24 It isn't inherently disatrous for countries, communism's greatest threat is always from outside elements, not from within.
Basically, without The United States and the CIA spending billions to undermine and destabilize, a communist country has a good shot at working.
I think a big, important reason for the Last of Us show existing is that not everyone is going or able to buy a console or shell out the $90 odd dollars for the PC port in order to experience this as a game. The TV show allows anyone to experience the show without the cost and genre gating that a videogame has, for a story that doesn't really lose anything in TV adaptation, as compared to a choice based game story.
As someone who has played the game and loved it for many years, I actually liked the show's versions of the characters more. I liked that Ellie, from the beginning, was a character who was not just 'spunky' but capable of violence on her own. I liked that Joel dealt with his trauma in a more tangible way.
At times in the games, the Joel and Ellie relationship felt one sided. Joel benefits from it at a much greater rate than Ellie does. She lets him be human again, lets him connect and love in a way he hasn't for two decades. In return he lies to her, he shapes her in his own image, he corrupts her to be more like him: a jaded, reckless, and brutal character.
This happens in the show too, but I feel the difference is that Ellie always had that in her. She doesn't exist just to be changed by Joel. From the moment that she sees Joel kill someone-kill for her, she likes it. She likes that there's a person to protect her, she likes that someone would do that for her. These characters are a good match in that their relationship gives them a lot of joy, but also that it enables them to do great acts of violence.
This comes across much stronger in the show, and like you said, it makes subtext into text. But I don't think that's a bad thing. Not if it makes the characters more interesting.
Lastly, I feel like it's a bit in bad faith to ask why a story should exist. Humans are stories, We have been telling and retelling them for as long as we have existed. This adaptation was made with love from Mazin, and Neil Druckmann, who played a huge part in making the game. If they wanted to take another spin on a familiar tale they loved, I see no problem with that. Yes some stories, like the rings of power, exist primarily for money and accolades, but I don't think we should discredit stories just on that fact. I don't like the rings of power, but that's because it relies on nostalgia, shock factor, and an insane production budget to tell a story that doesn't actually say anything. What TLOU tells us, in both show and game, is just how much love can change you, for the best and the worst.
Plus, I liked the show because I got to look at Pedro Pascal for hours. Who could say no to that.
All this is just my opinion ! Everyone is allowed to have their own.
Great video! But question why did you see the the relationship subtext in the game between Joel and Tess different from Bill and Frank. Neither situation ever really confirmed relationship status. As you stated, we were left asking “Are they f**king?” Good job with this! Keep killing it. 😊
We needed it so my mum and other non gamers could experience it. That's it. That's the only true reason lol.
Druckmann said it best years ago. I mean yes the paycheck doesn't hurt but there simply are a lot of people that would enjoy the story but would never pick up a controller or watch someone play through the game.
One thing to consider though is accessibility. The game could only be played on 1 console which is a lot steeper of a buy-in than 2 months of HBO, and not everyone can play video games
No PC releases? Welp, then I absolutely no way in hell would ever have been able to play the game in the past: You gotta be rich enough to buy a dedicated gaming device, not just use the equipment you use for everything else in your life from spreadsheets to tv watching to games. I watched this tv show with friends, so I wasn't the one who footed the bill for HBO.
I normally am not a big advocate of adaptations/prequels/sequels/remakes but I do think game adaptations should be discussed differently than any other adaptations because the reality is the original format is quite literally inaccessible to many audiences.
First off, almost all iconic and well known games need some kind of expensive device to run them to experience them how they were originally made- a PC, a PlayStation, an Xbox, etc. Movies and tv require just a screen and sometimes a streaming subscription but you could just do a free trial or watch all at once then cancel.
Second, they usually require some kind of skill in dexterity to play successfully and many people not experienced in gaming would never make it through to the end. Even if you can game, horror games can be particularly tough to get through. I can manage a lot of games but I would never make it through 8+ hours of a first person shooter character being constantly attacked by zombies. But I love zombie and sci-fi movies and shows so I was really excited when I heard about this adaptation! Sure, I could watch the cut scenes compiled on RUclips but that’s not how it was designed to be experienced.
So yeah, I’ve seen a lot of “was this necessary” videos (many of which like this one saying yes, mostly because of how well made the show is) but it’s asking the question from a gamers perspective, which is very different from a more general perspective when looking at other adaptations or remakes like the awful Fantastic Beasts series or Disney live action remakes. Definitely not necessary.
Great video though, just had this thought as I’ve seen quite a few videos titled like this lately!
Joel’s puppy dog eyes as subtext. Got it
They forced a lot of subtext into obvious surface level dialogue. The most egregious example is the episode with Ellie and David. They made David a preacher who beats children and says shit like “I thought you knew the fighting is the part I like.” It’s just so disappointingly surface level and bad. Not saying there aren’t good moments, but the show suffers from some very poor writing that was not present in the game. It just sucks a video game trusts it’s audience to infer more than a premier HBO show.
Apart from giving us the backstory of the apocalypse, the talk show scene of the first episode does another important job. It takes a game that was released 10 years and makes it relevant to today's audience. We just experienced a viral pandemic. We know that global warming is happening. So, when you combine these two points, and further add the fact that it will lead to a fungal pandemic that is incurable? It scared the hell out of me and made me want to watch the series more as a subconscious way of dealing with that fear.
The answer to the question "Why?" is of course: To give us Pedro Pascal, the dad we all deserve.
I've been watching the series, after having heard so much about it, and am delighted by what I've seen so far. I've never played a video game in my life, so if nothing else; this series is for those of us who haven't.
"So the non-gamer audience will see it" is an obvious reason to make it, but it's not something this video missed. The video is talking about the creative reasons to retell the story. A larger/different audience is not a creative reason.
Even as a gamer I struggle to play games like the Last of Us, I'm just not really good with zombie/horror-type games. I knew it was great but couldn't get through it.. this show allowed me to experience the story and the characters. I think that's a good reason to make a TV show, to reach new audiences. Was surprised you didn't really touch on that much
Jackson, Wyoming is very different than the rest of the State - Like how Austin, Texas is very different than most of Texas.
even in the shot-by-shot scenes, i think HBO's version is better. henry and sam's death, for example, or joel asking tommy to take ellie to the fireflies
I know that technically watching The Last of Us as Craig Maizen's PhD on The Last of Us, but listening to him talk about it in the bonus content, I would absolutely just watch him do that too
Yes, we need this, because Sony would never release all of the cut scenes from the video game in one long movie-like edit of the entire thing.
Yes, we need this, because far more people are going to watch a TV show on HBO than play a 10+ year old video game.
Yes, we need this, because a lot of video game players, like me, want player agency in their games. We want choices in the games we play. If Joel is always going to shoot the doctor at the end, why is the player even there? Just make a TV show or movie. Oh, wait.
do we need this? maybe not, but i'm glad they did. as a lot of other people in the comments said, it made the story accessible to a wider audience, some who do not play video games, maybe some who didn't like the style of gameplay, maybe some that will now try the game now that they've seen this. if the show was lousy i'd definitely be in the camp of why is this even a thing. but they did a really good job imo. it's obvious a story worth telling again.
One thing it did good was persuade my video game hating parents that maybe video games CAN have impactful narrative art, and that's good enough for me.
The point about Bill's sexuality and queer representation isn't a very good point. Not only did part 1 focus mostly on the tragedy's narrative rather than the sexuality of the characters, the DLC put it right out there about Ellie and Riley. Bill was a certain type of character and it wouldn't have been necessary, since he was alone and curmudgeonly, to make his queer identity a huge issue. In Part 1, NG was certainly thinking in terms of diversity and representation, but they didn't force narratives about sexuality where it wouldn't have been relevant. And in that storyline, it wouldn't fit. They made it fit by altering the narrative significantly in the HBO show. They arguably revolved several narratives in Part 2 around sexuality and trans. But Part 1, no I'm not seeing the problem. If you want to normalize queerness, don't make it abnormally obvious within the given storyline.
Because it was a story worth telling & for those that don’t play games this would be the only way they’ll experience it, this show is great & does justice to the original material
This made me want to make my own video about game vs show because I disagree so much within just the first three minutes. Not only is TLoU in an audio-visual format, it's still interactive and you have an active role in the story even if you do not affect it. YOU kill that doctor, you pull the trigger, you feel the driving force Joel feels because YOU want to save Ellie.
This has always just been my main point of why TLoU is never going to work as well in other mediums, not just because Joel picks up an assault rifle despite trashing the thematic choice of keeping the AR out of his hands until he becomes the bad guy (again).
People love talking about the third episode 'fixing' Joel's arc, but from my point of view, it just shoves the meaning into your face. In the game Joel shuts down every mention of Tess after her death, getting angry that Ellie would even bring her up, until they come across Frank's body in Bills' town. They come across it as Bill and Joel argue about Tess, and when Joel sees Bills reaction to not just Frank's body but his note, and Joel knowing Bill, sees himself in that stubborn anger.
Also to the point of the queer representation being 'problematic' in the game... As an extremely queer person myself, I love that it doesn't shove the 'look we don't hate gay people' down our throats. That, and we have Left Behind, which may have been DLC but IIRC it was more akin to reintroducing cut content. The second game does queer representation even better. I feel like you disprove the theory yourself by showing that Naughty Dog isn't a studio to shy away from being honest and representative with the TLoU2 reactions.
The show also kills off the only two gay men the franchise has. I always say the worst kind of gay-rep there is, is the one where they're tragic without it being meaningful. Like the Ellie and Dina tragedy.
People have misunderstood TLoU 1 & 2 since forever. I personally haven't bothered watching the show because despite stellar casting and from what I've seen very nice cinematography, there's nothing to make me want to watch it. It feels like a watered down 'mainstream' version of an intricate and intelligent story that respects the audience to connect the dots themselves.
With all that said, yeah, I wish Craig would've kept the subtext, I really dislike the fact the show feels like a caricature of the game. I have very little hope that season two is going to be any better, it might just straight up tell us the Israel-Palestine inserts that is WLF vs Seraphites.
There is also something to be said about the much more grounded portrayel of violence in the show. Fights in the show were short, intense, believably even and always had consequences, be it the loss of a character (tess and sam) or reframing character dynamics and seriously contributing to character development (entering Kansas city, fight with David). Often both at the same time. To me these infrequent, high stakes fights felt like a breath of fresh air. It was great having our characters feel on par with the rest of the world. It made them mortal in our eyes, allowing every fight to feel like a serious struggle, and the show got as much milage out of each fight scene as it possibly could have. The only real exception to the grounded part was Joel's suicide run to save Ellie, which was a bit much, but it is explicitly framed as a reckless last ditch attempt with no regard for his own safety.
This runs counter to the game, where fight scenes are prolific. David's small holdout is more of an all male settlement of 500 people and all groups of raiders think you solve problems by throwing bodies on them. Of course the game had gameplay limitations in this respect, but none the less it really affects the framing of violence in the story being told, and on this front I found the HBO show far more compelling.
Considering the prominent role of violence and the theme of senseless revenge for the sake of revenge in The Last Of Us Part 2, I doubt Naughty Dog would have taken this infrequent, grounded violence approach even if they could.
What does "needing" this even mean?
I'm surprised that he didn't talk about Ellie and Riley.
Wait, did people actually care about Ellie being gay in TLOU2? I mostly remember them screaming about Joel and Abby
In the game, I think most people noticed bill was gay, it wasn't hidden that well. You didn't see Joel and Tess, or Bill and Frank making out to know there was something important there. Production companies now think you're too dumb to understand subtext. I'm just glad people who don't play video games can have a chance to experience my favorite of all time.
IDK, I think the "do we need this" or "did anyone ask for this" is better phrased as "Do I need this?" It's conceivable that the show is made for people who didn't play the games and never will. As odd as it might seem to "The Fans," they're not the only calculation in business decisions. How many people who saw the Harry Potter films bothered to read the books? Same with comics and the MCU. There's no calculation that fans of the show will be limited to fans of the game. The thought is, "if it was popular with one audience, it could well be popular with another."
I don't think because I read several issues of The Walking Dead comic, the show shouldn't have been made. I was glad it was made because I could share it with friends and family who don't read comics. But oddly enough, on the other end, when adaptations do veer dramatically from the source material, there's another scream from "The Fans" that they should have stuck to the original content that the fans already knew. You get this constantly with the MCU these days. No one's happy either way.
@@blaubeer8039 Exactly. And there's merit in bringing a great story to a different audience. That _Hamlet_ started as a play doesn't mean a film should never be made from it.
@@blaubeer8039 profit doesn't equate with "artistic stories worth telling" or any other form of art. I think Vincent van Gogh made the equivalent of $75 from art sales in his life. But the stuff that gets invested in is the things that investors think will turn a profit. That's not just expansions of existing IP. It's also the calculation that lets most new IPs, like _The Last of US_ video games, get created in the first place. The project was never artistically devoid of profit motive because that ain't the culture we live in
How anyone could play the game and think Bill’s sexuality is even remotely unnoticeable is beyond me. I figured it out without the porn mag or the note and I’m heterosexual. It just wasn’t a focus. That’s not the same as hiding or downplaying it. Especially when that’s not the role the character plays in the story. That’s like saying someone heterosexuality is too subtle in most films because we never see them holding someone’s hand.
I think you made two points I would debate about.
First, is the reason to make the adaptation. Yes, of course money, but also reach. I think having this story be available for more people than just those who play video games on Sony consoles, is an attractive proposition for a company that would like to be taken seriously for the media it creates.
Second, I don't think the ambiguity about Frank is because they didn't want to piss people off (they have shown zero aversion to that), but more because there is value in having a gay character whose queerness is not a defining characteristic. Frank is gay, but that has no bearing on any part of the game that he is involved with, so there's not really any reason for it to come up within the scope of the story. Every single day we interact with people and their sexuality has no bearing on the interactions, so it just doesn't come up. Why should Frank's sexuality come up in this part of the game? I really don't see a way for it to be more explicit without coming across an unnatural to the scene.