What The Last Of Us Actually Changed 

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."

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

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.

fyi this isn't an april fools things for anyone coming down to the comments to figure that out.

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.

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 glad they focused more on the character moments despite the lack of infected.

i watched this show with my parents, who loved it and keep telling me how they’re recommending it to their friends. i think an adaption was needed to share this story to a wider audience

It's so interesting to hear people talk about Bill's sexuality being hidden and easy to miss. He talks about Frank in the same context as Joel and Tess (unless you don't read Joel and Tess as romantically involved either, I suppose), talks about the dangers of caring about someone, refers to Frank as "my partner", and Frank's last letter to him does not sound like two platonic friends got in a little argument. It feels like you can only miss it if you forget gay people exist (which like....some people do, but it's not really subtle imo) That said, I absolutely think they could've had better queer rep. 100% agree. I just find it so interesting that people consider it easy to miss

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.

"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

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.

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.

The answer is yes, we did need this. Specifically because I wanted it. I definitely think if you were going to talk about Bill and Frank, you should've talked about Ellie and Riley. The two episodes compliment each other in a way the game never would have been able to, and for that reason alone, I think the show justifies itself.

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.

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.

I needed it. I cannot play games any longer due to disability, and I LOVE the story so far.

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

I think yes, we do. It's a great story, but not everyone can or want to play 20 hour game to experience it. This way more people can get familiar with Joel and Ellie. Not to mention Pedro Pascal and Bella Ramsey killed it with their performances, it's one top notch acting worth experiencing on it's own.

Another reason to adapt material from one medium to another is reaching a broader audience. Most commonly adapting a book into film/ tv to reach people who don’t like to read. And I love to read. But I personally, no matter how linear or impressive the storytelling, will never play a video game. I simply don’t like them (and yes, I’ve tried). But I would watch a show based on a game if the plot is appealing to me. So while I do completely agree with everything in this video, I also think there is another common “why”. 🤷‍♀️❤️

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.

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.

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.

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.

as someone who had no interest playing the games, im glad the show exists

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.”

To be honest, for me the answer is simple - I am not a gamer. This way I can finally experience the story.

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.

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.

Implying that the main reason for this adaptation to exist is just money is kind of gatekeeping. Adaptation is always about reaching a wider audience, and yes, it needs to be adapted properly to its new medium and yeah it does involve making more money (so what though, in this current industry, it's no longer enough for an IP to be successful in just one form - it is horribly expensive to create entertainment these days). But my SO would for sure never ever be able to experience the story world of TLOU if it didn't exist, and I wouldnt want to deprive any potential fans of that, as long as the spirit of the original story is kept.

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.

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…

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.

excellent game. excellent adaptation.

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!

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.

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.

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.)

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. 😊

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.

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.

We needed it so my mum and other non gamers could experience it. That's it. That's the only true reason lol.

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.

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.

are you for real with this

Cool essay, but kinda disappointed this is not an April First prank

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

Man, I usually love this channel but I feel like this video repeatedly misses the mark. Firstly, as others have mentioned, the primary reason for this adaptation was to bring the story and characters to a new audience. It was a passion project that Druckman was heavily involved in. I don't see that as a cash grab at all. Secondly, I think the queer rep section is quite uncharitable. For one, Part II didn't get review bombed because it was queer. Or at least, that wasn't the catalyst for it. And I don't think queer rep always has to be super prominent to be valid. We need that too, but sometimes it's okay to just have a character be gay. Also, the original game had a canonically gay Ellie in the DLC, including the same kiss that's in the show, so this argument feels weird to me. Lastly, I really don't agree that the game was basically an HBO drama already. The Last of Us was *revolutionary* in how it used the medium to enhance its narrative. The unique tools available to games aren't limited to player choice. You even mentioned how the climactic scene hits so hard in the game because it removes player choice. Most people spend a while walking around that room trying to avoid killing the doctor. This is a vital part of the way The Last of Us tells its story. The player is made complicit. In the show, the audience is on the edge of their seats hoping Joel saves Ellie. In the game, the player feels sick with themselves. You are supposed to think "oh man, I don't really wanna do this. Do I have to kill him?" and that's a powerful emotional response television is unable to replicate. Similarly, the game uses action sequences as primers for catharsis. In the game, the giraffe scene comes after a particularly gruelling slog through an action-horror segment. The catharsis is so powerful because the player receives respite along with the characters. In the show, this scene is still moving, but it lacks much of the release present in the game. IMO ignoring how masterfully The Last of Us uses its medium to tell its story, and how the show at times struggled to hit the same emotional resonance primarily because it lacked the interactivity of its predecessor, is a real disservice.

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.

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.

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"?

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.

“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.

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.

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.

"do we need this?" is a pretty weird question to ask in relation to media. of course we don't _need_ this. any of this. but we as well may still want this for whatever reason. to my liking the game was too bloated and padded with mediocre gameplay. and i personally have no desire to play a game, where i _explicitly_ can not influence a - however compelling - narrative in any meaningful way. for that i can go read a book or watch a show. druckmann with his specific talents should've been doing tv at the first place anyway. oh, and i didn't find chernobyl the tv-show being much more "about" climate change, than chernobyl the actual diaster itself was, but maybe i just was inattentive.

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.

"this is a commune, we're commune-ists!" just leaves me rolling every time I see that clip

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.

As someone who doesn’t play a lot of video games, I’m glad this was made! It let me experience the story and meet these characters, and I loved it 💞

Good video, but Chernobyl was NOT about climate change, but about totalitarian stupidity and its consequences.

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.

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 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.

Especially around the bill and frank argument, I feel you basically just created a massive contradiction in your question, "do we need this?" Clearly yes. And also that episode was fantastic for exactly the reason of it being mostly separate from the rest of the season. It gave a huge contrast to the world they were building which basically stated "yeah the post apoc is pretty terrible, but there is room for more than just morbid stories of survival." You argued that there is no reason for the adaptation to exist because it was just cut for cut the same story and then in the same video talk down about the biggest divergence in the story telling... What is this video? Do we need this?

I think part of why this was needed was accessibility. I could go over to the library and rent a book, to play TLoU prior to the Steam release I would have had to drop hundreds of dollars on a specific game system that is no longer current-gen. It’s a good enough story that people beyond a subset of gamers should be able to enjoy it.

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.

Hey since we’re on the topic of adaptations, how about looking at The Legend Vox Machina? It’s an animated series based on an original pen and paper DND campaign. Has that ever been done before?

You made a 15 minute video essay in which you highlight the contrast of how the game conveys its ideas and themes in a subtextual and understated way vs. how the show takes all those ideas and themes and makes them explicit. Then somehow looked at the gay relationship in the game being understated, just like everything else in the game and decide it's because of homophobia. But the gay relationship being explicit in the show, just like everything else in the show is, is somehow a virtuous stand and a victory for gay representation... The game treated the gay relationship the exact same way it treated everything else and you said its a problem. The show treated the gay relationship the exact same way it treated everything else and its a great thing for gay representation. Why? How did you make a whole video about the contrast between the game conveying details of its story through subtext as compared to the show making the details of the story and characters explicit and see the gay relationship and think ah this isn't about details being understated vs explicit this is about homophobia vs pro gay representation?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Do we need your commentary, either? No we don't. But every iteration of a subject can add something.

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.

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.

What does "needing" this even mean?

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.

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.

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!

I am really glad they made this, even if my reason is a bit dumb. I find Zombies super scary, and games immerse me so much that I was genuinely incapable of properly playing the game. With the show, that issue isn't really there that much. Accessability and bringing the story to a larger audience is probably the best thing this adaptation has done.

My ONLY hottake here is the part with the communism, because living in a commune isn't communism.🤔🔥

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…

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.

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.

Wait, did people actually care about Ellie being gay in TLOU2? I mostly remember them screaming about Joel and Abby

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 RU-vid 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!

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.

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.

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.

Couldn’t you argue that the reason anyone does anything is for money? A book might be great but let’s adapt it into a movie or show.do we need anything other than the book? I think the show was different in a lot of ways. I respect the opinion though. I think part 2 will deviate much more from the game, but we’ll see.

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.

Another zombie story but this time, fungus. Anyway gonna watch this next time.

Jackson, Wyoming is very different than the rest of the State - Like how Austin, Texas is very different than most of Texas.

"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.

The fact that the commune was the healthiest society in the show makes me smile every time I think about it 😊

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.