If you'd like to join my Discord server where we chat about our writing, and the movies/shows we love, here's a link you can use to join. My Discord: discord.com/invite/aJpYPQX I'm very active there. If there are any questions you'd like to ask me, this is the place for it! Keep writing! - Henry
I have played The Last Of Us Part 1 at least a dozen times, & I can say that this show is the best videogame adaptation (film or movie) ever! It does what any good adaptation should do; be mostly loyal to the original source material, but change just enough so there's something new yet still enjoyable to watch. For example, about 80% of what we see in the 1st 3 episodes is from the 1st few levels of the game, but the remaining 20% is things like expanded backstory & more development for certain characters we didn't originally get.
Let's not forget Sam being younger, making Ellie an older sister figure, a caretaker, and making him deaf, which explains why he didn't attack her while she was sleeping in the same room and just in general makes an already sad and awful situation even sadder.
Could you please explain what else has been effected by Sam deafness? Or it was needed just for this ruined moment? It was ruined because not one but TWO people have known about the bite. And acted very stupid.
Then why didn't I feel bad about these characters dieing in the show? The characters were kind of dumb in the show, and I much prefered them in the game.
I also like how they show Joel interacting with that FEDRA guard he kills. They clearly aren’t friends but it still shows us that it isn’t just a random bad guy. Joel knows him and probably knows him well. So watching all that familiarity melt away in the face of Joel’s trauma and rage just adds so much to the scene. I agree that the show feels like the final draft of the story.
@@Agisek Joel reacted that way because a soldier with a gun and flashlight attached to it being pointed at him in the dark with a little girl nearby him that he needs to protect…that scenario is basically what happened to him on outbreak day with his daughter which led to her inevitable death…thats why they showed that little flashback during that scene making joel relive that trauma again, but this time with ellie… makes perfect sense
@@Agisek No but this may have been the first time since the death of his daughter where he's now directly responsible for another child's life and has to face that same situation all those years ago.
@@Agisekit makes clear sense if you understand the circumstances a lot of people need to bring their ptsd to life. They need to be similar even if only vaguely.
@@Agisek Why not? It's actually very likely that it was the first time, at least the first time he was close enough to defend or that the guard had the intention of killing
@@Agisek Earlier in the first episode we saw a public hanging. The FEDRA executioners announced the names of the condemned and their crimes they were being executed for. This included unlawfully exiting and entering the quarantine zone. There was a more pragmatic reason why Joel would go off.
Another thing I really appreciated in the show is that they had a lot of the original VA’s play some of the side characters. Tommy’s VA is the second-in-command dude in Kansas City who got killed by the bloater. Joel’s VA was David’s second-in-command in ep. 8. And Ellie’s VA played Ellie’s mom during the flashback scene in the finale.
@@jeromedickons6466 My bad, I thought you meant she made the physical appearance in the show, but may not have known she was the VA in the game as well during that scene.
Tommy is mentioned several times in the game not halfway through. He's in the prologue, Marlene mentions Tommy, and Tess tell Joel to take Ellie to Tommy. He doesn't come out of nowhere.
I’m glad someone said it. I thought I was losing my mind. When he said, “…the show is an even better story than the game was…”, I was like okay, that’s bold but I’ll give you a shot. And then he blows his opinion’s credibility by fucking up and saying Tommy wasn’t mentioned until you see him halfway through. Like, dude, did you even play the game? He’s in the first 30 minutes of the game.
@@aiironiko8891 not to knock the video, but it really does feel like the creator didn’t play the game, or at least that he prefers shows to video games in general. Many of the changes make sense in a tv show, but wouldn’t translate to a video game well.
@@aiironiko8891I don’t think he meant that Tommy was just non-existent but tbh, I forgot Tommy existed after Tess said to get Ellie to Tommy’s. A lot happens between that point and actually getting to Tommy’s and I don’t think it’s other worldly to think that no one thought that hard about Tommy until then. Sam and Henry are introduced with the idea of getting to where they are going and I doubt I was the only player unsure if we could continue on that path of deviate. Tommy wasn’t that big of a plot point but the show made him a bigger plot point.
I think what makes it so good was because they obviously cared about the source material. They knew when to change things, and when to keep it as is - because honestly the game was a great film, just not accessable to everyone. The changes they have made, I've liked - and the changes they haven't give me the joy of recognition.
Its literally ass, and what do you mean loyal? Episode 1 was loyal not the rest at all. Maybe episode 8. I can't believe how people simp over this dog shit. They changed Ellie and Joel. Joel gets panick attacks instead of subtle signs of fear, Ellie is trash all over. I don't know if it's the actor or the directing but she is jusr annoying. And Joel isn't strong and reliable anymore. I liked him more as hardened and traumatized 50yo dude instead of a pussy that loses every single fight one way or another.
@@Shockkings0714 last of us has almost no plot... travel to point a to b and in the end happens one twist. Only other plot is finding Tommy. Which they changed to Joel thinking he has an emergency and only that makes him accept Ellie. So 1:1 huh?
@@AlexAllfather hardly, they had nine episodes, two of those episodes hardly feature Joel and Elle due to the creative decision to tell side stories. Those two episodes would have made a massive difference
While the relationship definitely landed for me and the chemistry was very much there for them as an acting duo, I do agree that this is a case where I think a longer season would have served the show well. Ironically I think we could have done with a bit more “filler” (in terms of the plot not moving forward with Important action and story points) with Ellie and Joel, even a bit more of the quiet character moments
@@R.444- I thought the chemistry between the actors was brilliant and having some more quiet moments together with them I think would have help a lot. I guess I just felt their relationship hadn't been built up enough to justify everything that happens in the end episode, Joel almost felt like a different character in the finale
I completely agree that the problem with many adaptations, and why they fail, is because the writer thinks they can do a better job than the original. I find myself in a minority arguing that Wheel of Time is badly done. Without even reading the books I thought it was bad. I made a list of the crap things I saw, and apparently virtually all of them are not in the books, so many of the bad things that I hate about the TV show are changes.
The most fun I've had watching this show, after reading the books is thinking "How are they going to pull of scene X or event Y after this change" Only for them to not do them, and introduce even more changes.
Not in the minority for sure. It’s one of those things where people got really heated and angry, so most of the discourse was around being rude rather than the merits of the show. But pretty much everybody who read the books dislikes the show, as it’s not even close to representing the spirit of the books, or even the events of the books.
@@undertone8367 I can't wait to see the Rand chase from Book 3. Putting aside large chunks of story from later books that are now impossible to happen. Even something as basic as literally anything that happens in book 2 is off the table.
The Boys is a great example of a disloyal adaptation as it makes the story in the series interesting and entertaining while also keeping the weirdness and shock value from the comic itself
"We are intimately familiar with every mistake we've ever made." This is a core character development concept that I wish more people understood. Many characters become Mary Sues by never having failures and mistakes to agonize over. Their perfection makes any, relationships, character arcs and achievements far less meaningful. I'm very glad it hasn't happened here, but the examples he gave showcase this perfectly.
One of the things I think makes this adaptation the most successful is that the writers have a fundamental understanding of the differences in medium, and how they can use those to their advantage to tell the story. The directors have a podcast, hosted by troy baker, where they talk about each episode as they're released, and one of the things they say a lot in each installment is "we don't have to stay with Joel and Ellie, so we can do [this]". They understand what's important within the game, why the perspective is the way it is and why the enemies are presented the way they are, and they subsequently know that they can now do different things and show different parts of the story because theyre not bound by the rules of a game. They can show us a full episode about Bill and Frank, they can show us the inside of Jackson, they can give us a backstory for Henry and Sam and give them personal ties to kansas city, they can make us afraid of David by showing how he treats the members of his group. They can create more emotional conversations and character exploration, and can make entirely new characters, because those things are interesting in a TV show the way they aren't in a game. It's amazing, and I can't wait to see what they do with the end of season 1's story and season 2.
I think the key difference that seperate TLOU as a good adaptation rather than a bad one, is that they’ve remained extremely faithful to the plot, themes, and characters of the game, while putting in the effort to expand and enrich the story where possible. Compared to most adaptations that unfaithfully change the story without need, or dumb it down and simplify it, stripping it of what made it unique.
i think another really good example of your argument here is Arcane. it's such a good show, based on League of Legends. i don't play league, but my exposure to it is primarily through this show and analyses of it, and League has little bits of lore, but it's not a comprehensive story. that is kinda what led to arcane being so different than any other animated series or videogame adaptation.
There is a bunch of lore relating to League on their Universe Page. And even then, the lore it does have differs completely from Arcane. Caitlyn's parents weren't kidnapped by C and likely won't ever be, Clan Ferros wasn't related to the creation of Hextech thus Camille can't exist in a way that makes her stories work, Jayce isn't a completely unapologetic asshole, Ekko's parents are still alive and his story shows that Piltover's ideals aren't unique to Piltover, Jinx isn't crazy because haha bored need to do explosions now, Heimerdinger likely wasn't alive to witness the Rune Wars that is implied with his dislike over the Hexcore, the Hexcore isn't aethetically related to The Void in any way, Viktor is most likely turning to post-humanism due to needing it to survive rather than agreeing with its philosophy, Vi grew up with Definitely Not Warwick and not in an orphanage, Hexcrystals don't appear to be Brakern-based in any way that explors Skarner's opinions. All of those extra details, the extra stories would detract from the main story Arcane is trying to tell. If Jayce wasn't the one to start the Hextech revolution, you wouldn't have Jayce falling into the corruption that being the one that started the revolution caused, you wouldn't have Viktor going further into his work when told to stop, you wouldn't have Jinx being as interesting a protagonist. Ekko losing his suragote family mimics Powder losing hers and showing different responses to that works in Arcane's favour. Focusing less on what the technology precisely is gives room to explore how it effects both the people with access to it and the people effected by its existance. Arcane works in spite of, and in some cases because of, its deviations from "canon" lore. But trying to squish the two together hurts both the "canon" Runeterra and the Arcane universe of events. Lore nerds are already aware of concepts similar to this (see Cithria saving Jarvin III when she isn't even in training at that point, whether Yordles are hidden from society or not, the multiple versions of Sentinals of Light, etc).
LoL definitely has a comprehensive story and huge lore. It's just not obvious in the gameplay, it's like two different things that are related. So yeah, Arcane is a masterpiece but not really a game adaptation, it's more like a book or myth adaptation.
@@aimilios439 That's a good way of putting it. Arcane is closer to "The Little Mermaid" than "Last of Us" in how it's basically taking some known elements from League and creating an entirely new story out of them.
League has a bunch of Lore and stories outside the game. Though Arcane does change all of the Canon champions like Vi, Jinx, Caitlyn, Jayce, Heimerdinger and Viktor had.
I do love that they jump back to Sarah a lot for why Joel may snap. It just shows that despite 20 years passing, he is still TRULY stuck in that first night. Stuck in outbreak day.
I feel like the Tlou show isn’t a perfect adaptation, but it’s pretty good. One thing is that Ellie’s personality is quite different compared to her in the game. In the beginning of the show, they show that she is violent, but in the game she’s not at all, and is often shocked by Joel’s violence, at least in the beginning. She becomes more violent since she’s around Joel all the time. While I like all the world building, that time could have been used to build on Ellie and Joel’s relationship more. If they added just a bit more Ellie and Joel time it would have felt much more finished imo.
yeah instead they gave us a whole episode for side characters that doesnt even do anything for the plot of the show. actually holds the show back. the last thing i want in tlou, is to watch bill giggle while being fed strawberries getting tickled in his garden way before ellie was even born.
@@BarkerVancity Not to mention Bill was actually critical to the Joel-Ellie story - he was instrumental in kicking off Joel's protective instincts around her. And Joel knew Bill from before the infection, so the whole presentation in the show (Bill keeping a gun trained on him at lunch, dying, Ellie just finding a letter) was strange.
@@lumeronswiftPeople overlook how good Bill's town was in developing Joel and Ellie's relationship. Bill is such a fantastic character and presence. 3 characters, all with their own flavor of "abrasiveness" created great interactions. Bill was harder on Ellie which did kick in Joel's protective instincts like you say.
THANK you. I felt that the underdeveloped relationship between the two of them makes Joel look more like a madman than a father figure, changing the original super clean purpose of the story(though fitting better into season 2)
I gotta disagree with the tension aspect. I never felt happy taking on the infected, in fact I dreaded encountering clickers because of how hard they are to kill and how easy they kill you and you barely have any resources so you have to think about saving and such. The game was extremely tension filled especially in sections like that area filled with clickers when you're with Tess and Ellie and you have to sneak past to get to the ladder in the dark or even the graveyard in Bill's town. The game builds great tension because of how little they give you leading to you having to rely on stealth or die which is difficult when you have stuff like the infected who have annoyingly good hearing. Also I feel the changing of perspectives worked against the show because I cared more for Joel and ellie in the games because you basically follow their every step never leaving their side but in the show you see the backstory of Sam and Henry and you change to Kathleen's perspective and you have Bill's story and you also have the flashbacks. I think some of the expansion worked against me feeling for the main characters as much as I did in the game especially with seeing Kathleen's stuff because her character was pointless and not even interesting. Obviously expanding on characters is great but too much can take away from the story you're trying to tell and for this it's the relationship between Joel and Ellie. Enough screentime away from Joel and ellie impacted my connection with their relationship, yes I am definitely invested but not as much as I could be and was in the game and for that reason I still say the game is better. Edit: I also forgot to mention the Tommy part. Yes I definitely prefer what the show did where Joel's only motivation is to get to Tommy and he takes ellie because it's along the way and not the whole get the guns thing but to say Tommy isn't mentioned and comes out of nowhere isn't really right. In the game when Tess dies she directly tells Joel to get Ellie to Tommy's and in Bill's town Ellie directly says that they are looking for a car to get to Tommy's. So Joel's whole motivation after Tess dies is to get Ellie to Tommy's.
I think I must be the only person who actually likes the Kathleen storyline and understands why it’s there… especially since it’s a big theme of the games that’s especially foreshadowing part 2
@@clover2739 I understand why it's there. Her story was meant to add more emotional weight to Henry because of what he did and It's meant to be the whole there's always two sides of the story and it all depends on perspective and that's what part 2 did with shifting from ellie to abby. I get that but I don't think her character was interesting at all and the screentime used for her could've been used on Joel and ellie to develop their relationship even further. I just feel nothing would be lost by cutting out her scenes. Henry could still have that moral conflict of what he did to Kathleen and have it be as impactful without showing Kathleen until the sniper section. I just did not care about her in episode 4 and 5.
@@K1214-m9w if you understand everything about why she’s there than that means that she’s not pointless you just don’t like it. Which is completely fine but you’ve already explained why calling her pointless isn’t true. Yeah not finding her interesting is fair enough but I was more talking about the pointless comment. She was there for a reason and it’s not even really all to do with Henry either. Her character is more about how love can make you do horrible things and about vengeance destroying you… which is a big part of part 2 in general and I think the show wanted to have a bit more of a transition into that.
Agree with both paragraphs. Doubly so on the first argument. I stopped playing the game when I first encountered a clicker outside the Boston QZ -- literally put it down snd didn't return to it for a year, when a friend told me that I would love it for its story. So I stomached the horror and persisted through the difficult combat until the relationship between Joel and Ellie began to compel me forward. Now I've played the game all the way through at least a dozen times just to experience the development of Joel and Ellie. We've been deprived of that to a significant degree in this adaptation. It seems as if the creators value the world more than their dynamic pairing... in a way that suggests they feel the world can support several/many different stories (side stories and loosely related sequels) absent of Joel and Ellie. This is as opposed to crafting a world that is designed specifically to tell a story about Joel and Ellie ( and especially Joel).
The show truly has really amazing new concepts, but the actors weren't true to the original source material characters at times and lacked the chemistry, presence, bond you felt with the characters in the game universe. Its still a much better game adaptation than most though, but that's not saying a lot.
Their production and writing team is garbage though. Druckman Wrote this and Last of us 2, and both of them were dog shit compared to Part 1's team back when Druckman's influence was much more limited.
@@redlethe8679 they also got the guy from Chernobyl though. Also TLOU 2 isn’t that badly written, it’s just not the right way they should’ve continued the story
@@redlethe8679 very interesting that people just think, something is bad just because they dont like what is happening. Dont be so disrespectful. What should TLOU 2 be about in your opinion? Should it have been the same story as the first game? Wow, so boring. You need conflict to let characters grow. And that is what makes good stories. How should they have done that in TLOU2 when you want a Joel and Ellie story again? TLOU 2 is a masterpiece and the part with Abby and Lev is excactly as good as the Joel and Ellie part in TLOU 1. Neil Druckmann also wrote the script for this show together with Craig Mazin and so far most people liked it a lot. so what is your problem with Neil?
@@tvolz9749 yeah you need conflict for a story to work, that’s true. But you have to EARN that conflict, not just have characters forget their skills and basic survival instincts. That’s the reason why Joel dying in that way seemed so out of character, because you could’ve done it a better way without having to forget what he’s capable of. And yeah the Lev and Abby dynamic is good, but it’s almost exactly the same as Joel and Ellie in the first game. It doesn’t make it “just as good”, it makes unoriginal and derivative.
It works because it is very faithful to the source material. Most of the changes are either minor or necessary. They also added things to the story that actually fit and show the show is being run by actual storytellers.
Oh yeah, episode 3 having an entire flashback, along with Bill turning out dead anyways, was very necessary, same goes for episode 7, like oh boy, I sure do love a flashback lasting an entire episode. I'll tell you one thing that's "minor", the appearances of ZOMBIES in this, y'know, ZOMBIE APOCALYPSE, literally had less screentime than they did in Part 2, and Part 2 was already bad enough.
This isn’t really a disloyal adaptation. It has the same story beats, characterizations, character actions, and themes. It is a very loyal adaptation in that it mirrors the spirit of the game
Yeah the biggest thing they changed was the infection's depiction, understandably so the survivors don't have to wear gas masks which is fair I suppose
You're wrong about Joel's motivations. In the game, Joel and Tess get roped into escorting Ellie after a trade gone wrong, and after they find the Fireflies are dead and Tess gets bit, Joel is obligated to get Ellie to Tommy because he knows where the Fireflies are, but they've been estranged for years. In the show it seems they have a better relationship and still communicate over the radio, but then something happens and Tommy went silent and Joel was going to find Tommy anyway, so escorting Ellie at the same time is just like two birds with one stone. It's not better, or worse, it's just different
The first game is a masterpiece and it says a lot about the show that people are even having this discussion. That being said, the last episode was always going to be the hardest one and I think we need to wait to see if and how they adapt that before deciding which is better or not.
good point. it think its really interesting that they didn't have Pedro or Bella play the game and avoid it at all costs. gonna make their reactions and the show only people's reactions all the more interesting when the Golf Club Scene happens. and i really hope shit hits the fan, not in the good way haha.
I have a feeling they're gonna scrub away a lot of the ambiguity from the first game. Based on how the second game went, it's pretty clear what they wanted us to think after finishing the first one. So I suspect it'll be a lot more heavy handed. We'll see! Just one more day now. :)
I loved that they added the scientist in the beginning. The explaination that there are real fungi that possess insects helps sell the possibility that one could infect humans.
I’m loving this show, and I understand that certain elements from the game need to be trimmed for an adaptation, but the lack of infected in many of these episodes really make this world feel a little less dangerous. The humans of this world can be equally or even more dangerous than the infected, but they’re still out there. You never know when you might encounter one or many of them. They establish the clickers as being really terrifying threats in episode 2, and then you never really see any again. I was hyped to see the way this show would depict the stalkers because they seriously scared me during the game and could have lent to some amazing suspense, yet they're almost non-existent here. For episode 8 specifically, the mission in the game with all the infected swarming Ellie and David was INTENSE and it was completely omitted from this episode. Teaming up with David made it feel more like he was truly an ally, only for him to ultimately turn out to be the opposite. Felt a little rushed in episode 8, like it was just a highlight reel of the cutscenes
yeah the main problem with that is: what is the point in Ellie being the "last hope of humanity" when the infected are no big threat in the first place? All the episodes, especially 3, made you believe that you can live just fine in this world as long as you are avoiding big cities. I think this is really bad for the ending of part 1 because the real dilemma from the game will not really exist. Right now, Joels decision in the end will just be the logical one while I always thought, it was a very selfish choice in the game and a huge setback for humanity. That was so great about the ending of the game and I dont see this conflict here at all. We dont need to fight infected all the time in the show. But a few infected in the cities or smaller villages would have been nice for the setting. Just let them be seen from afar.
Exactly!!! My point people keep saying this isn’t about the infected but the show had little to none which puts the question if they were even a problem to begin with. I never really felt like Ellie was the “saving grace” because they didn’t have dangerous moments with many infected and her. I can’t even remember a moment besides the riley episode which was completely irrelevant where she even killed an infected. Throughout the show there was never enough danger.
Yeah. The game has you basically only fighting infected except for at the beginning, the canninal village, and the ending where you're decimating fireflies The show has far more human enemies, and the infected barely have a presence. In the game it's shown that, even if you're out in the woods you're not safe, because infected roam and wander. They can migrate to new areas and start up new cordyceps colonies. In the show, the only time they're in any danger from the infected is when they're indoors or overrun by literally thousands of them. The Last of Us is, in my opinion, a story about the depths people will go to in order to protect the people they care about. Joel in TLOU's finale is just tearing through the fireflies at the hospital, knowing that he could be destroying humanity's only hope at a cure, but he does it because he sees Ellie as a daughter. I can never see that happening in the show, because throughout the entire thing Joel is distant, viewing it only as a job, and he suddenly makes a heel-face turn when they get to the village. He goes with Ellie to the university despite Tommy being healthier and far more able to protect Ellie and himself. The game is a story about people doing terrible things. The show feels more like it a story about how societies make people do terrible things. And that subtle change makes a massive difference
I think the whole point of the videogame was not about the infected (even though they are important to the plot) but how humanity is its worst enemy not capable to overcome a global pandemic and taking any change the get to go back to survival mode, we look for the most tiny reason to get violent. If you look closely in the videogame that's what they want to touch on: how easy it is for humanity to lose itself amidst difficult times.
I don't agree the show is better, but this is because I think the cutscenes have pitch-perfect acting. Comparing the scene of Ellie and Joel in the bedroom to the show is the best example. Both actors are great... but damn, that scene was 1000 times harder in the game. In the game, I felt every ounce of pain in Ellie voice. Her disappointment, her frustration, and that tinge of love. In the show? I know it's there, but I don't feel it. I felt like I was watching a REALLY good impression, but not the original. It's a good show. Do not get it twisted. It's just nowhere near the game's level. It's not as good as Arcane either. Arcane is just insane with how stellar it delivers its story.
Yeah, the game is better executed. I also think it uses its medium better. It’s often the little things that sell the setting and the relationship, like Ellie stabbing a guy from behind when he puts Joel in a headlock in gameplay.
It’s interesting because I never played the game and watched the show first. But now I’m going back and watching gameplay of the game, and in my opinion, the show executes nearly everything better. I feel like it has to do with where you first experience the story. Like that bedroom scene for me was first experienced in the show and all the emotions were felt in that moment, so when I go to see the game’s version, it doesn’t move me as much. Idk the differing perspectives are interesting.
@@vita7456I like the game better but I think this may be due to the connection you build in the game, you spend hours with Ellie and Joel watching them joke and cry together growing a connection to the characters, so when it hits in the game it hits hard. While the show did act it better it didn’t have the advantage the game had which is time, the time to build and connect the players to the character.
My biggest complaint w the series in general is how casual and flat a lot of the lines are delivered. It feels like they're too chill and not trying to over act but I feel like it's an overcorrection
It's not the deviation from the source material itself that makes an adaptation good or bad. It's the motivation. If the writer is motivated to change certain things of the source material to AMPLIFY the themes and motifs of the original, you get a good adaptation. This is what you get from a writer that respects and admires the source material without revering it too much that they won't deviate from it. If the writer is motivated to change certain things of the source material that completely upends and undos the themes of the original material and replaces it with something completely foreign, you get a bad adaptation. This is what you get from a writer who has no respect for the source material and instead thinks "Oh, I can definitely make something better than this". Ultimately that's the distinction that separates something like TLoU from something like the Halo show.
No way is the show is better than the game. In general I think the relationship between Ellie and Joel works much better in the game, also because I think Ashley Johnson's Ellie is a way better character than Bella's Ellie. But having control of Joel in the game also makes the ending be more compelling, since you're the one who's rescuing Ellie, which I think most players want to do. Throughout the game you've experienced the world with her, trying to protect her and slowly seeing the relationship between Joel and Ellie develop. I loved many of the additions they made to the series, they were brilliant. Some I thought were unnecessary and took away time you could've used more on Joel and Ellie. I didn't need to see from the perspective of the resistance group in Kansas City that much, or at all really. Henry's backstory was good but not that much time had to be spent on it. I loved the Bill episode though and that's the only time I didn't mind spending so much time away from Ellie and Joel. It was a brilliant episode and it also shows what the game is about and what's still worth fighting for in their world.
Is it really better or just different? I always saw Joel as a guy that gets shit done, not someone with a beast inside. That remade scene when they get caught sounds like fanfic tbh. Same as the being dead inside part. For me Joel was actively keeping his emotions in, he looks after Ellie because he can't help being protective even if he's trying to do the opposite, not because he doesn't feel but because he's afraid of feeling too much and going through loss again.
Yeah I thought the scene with Joel killing the guard was super forced in the show. There wasn’t any dynamic between them at that point early in the story to warrant that kind of trigger involving Ellie. In the game he wasn’t explicitly protecting Ellie, he was just moving through an obstacle on the mission, cause he was cold at that point.
Joel felt different for me in the show. Game Joel was a survival expert, suited for this dangerous post apocalyptic world because he became cold hearted. Not many people could escort Ellie, but If anyone could do it, it would be him. Show Joel on the other hand became miserable for the most part. Taking any job, struggling on a day to day basis. And since the shows universe feels so empty, with barely any Infected around, there just weren't enough moments for both to rely on each other in life and death situations. It didn't help that Bella Ramsey felt less vulnerable and innocent compared to Game Ellie. Which created this lack of dependency and natural bonding, resulting in me not really buying their father daughter dynamic. I can only see them as friend. To be honest, sometimes it even felt a bit creepy and forced from show Joel.
The problem with TLoU series is that the characters themselves are significantly altered, not just the specifics of the story. I could stomach some changes to the story if they had kept Joel and Ellie intact as characters. First, you are actually quite off on your interpretation of the changes to Sam. They MASSIVELY hurt the story. Why? Because Sam and Henry are supposed to be stand-ins for Joel and Ellie. The entire point of those two characters is their remarkable similarity to the main duo. Henry is a bit of a badass, just like Joel. Sam is plucky and capable, just like Ellie.. Sam is NOT helpless and vulnerable.. he is a stand-in for Ellie, or is supposed to be. They aren't pointless side characters, they serve a specific purpose. The reason this is important is that Henry, with all his strength, loves Sam more than anything, and, in the end, failed to keep him safe. And Sam, with all his moxie and capability, was not able to keep himself safe either. This causes a world-spinning realization to happen internally for Joel. Joel wants to believe that he views Ellie as just delivery cargo, not someone he can get close to. He refuses to admit to himself that he cares for her. If Henry couldn't keep Sam alive, with all of their strengths and combined capabilities, and Henry actually cared about Sam so much he'd rather die than go on living knowing he had failed him... what hope is there for Joel to keep Ellie alive, who he still views as cargo in many ways? This is what leads to Joel attempting to cut ties with Ellie. Part of him knows she means more to him than he is letting on... and a huge part of him now sees the writing on the wall from what happened with their mirrored characters Henry and Sam... they aren't likely to succeed.. and if.. or rather WHEN he fails to keep her safe.. he will crumble, and that scares him... terrifies him. And Joel isn't the sort of guy that gets scared... EVER. He's also not the sort of guy that will have a damned stress-induced panic attack from sheer cowardice. So, he lashes out and tries to dump Ellie onto Tommy. He tries to convince her that he thinks Tommy would be the better man to protect her.. but HE DOESN'T BELIEVE IT. He knows that she would be safer with Joel, but he is having one of his few moments of weakness in the entire story.. he cannot face the possibility that he will fail, and she will die, and what that will do to him. So they have their fight. Series Joel, on the other hand, ACTUALLY BELIEVES he is the inferior man, and wants to have Tommy take her because he truly thinks he is the better choice. It isn't an act of avoidance, but of desperation.. he realizes now that he is incapable and incompetent, and the completely wrong person to guard Ellie on her journey, so he asks Tommy, the much more capable brother, to take over. So they have their fight. One important change in that fight: When Ellie says everyone she's ever known has left her and pushes him and says "Except for YOU!".. in the series, Bella plays it off as ANGER.. but Ellie isn't angry.. she's hurt. In the game, you can clearly see that she is feeling hurt and betrayed.. It's more "I thought I could trust you, how could you do this to me?" rather than "Do what you are supposed to do, you damned dog!".. but that comes down to MAJOR differences in the personality of Ellie from the game to the series. Afterwards, there are the make-up scenes where the separation ends. In the series, Ellie and Tommy catch Joel about to steal a horse... so not only is he a coward now, but someone who'd steal from his own brother as well. They have a discussion.. Joel says that Ellie deserves a choice and ASKS her whether she wants to go with him or Tommy, and claims AGAIN that he believes Tommy would be the better choice.. BECAUSE HE STILL BELIEVES IT.. he has lost faith in himself, he believes his is weak and incapable. Ellie slaps her stuff at Joel like "Get on the horse, good doggy" and that's that.. no actual reconciliation just "My dog is now behaving correctly" Contrast that with the game version.. series Joel's weakness is that he is incompetent and incapable, and he knows it... his weakness is that he is actually rather weak and realizes it. Game Joel's major weakness is his inability to be weak. He does not show vulnerability, and the thing that makes him feel vulnerability.. his connection with Ellie.. that's what's causing him stress at this moment. The three are riding on horseback from the cabin towards the settlement. Tommy and Ellie are ahead, Joel is several horse lengths behind. Sad music plays.. their hearts are breaking.. OUR hearts are breaking. They make it to the settlement.. Joel has had a long somber quiet ride to sort out his thoughts. He says something to the effect of "Ellie get on off that horse and get your stuff. Give that horse on back to Tommy".. and ASKS his brother "Gonna keep this horse for a while if that's alright".. he doesn't steal it, he's not a thief, at least not one that would rob his own family. He also doesn't ASK Ellie who she wants to go with.. he doesn't have to.. he already knows the answer. Ellie sits dumbfounded.. did she really just hear what she thought she did? Joel adds "Go on, girl, don't make me repeat myself".. Ellie scrambles off the horse and starts loading her things on Joel's. Tommy asks why he changed his mind, Joel says something to the effect of "that wife of yours.. wouldn't want her mad at me, she's scary".. which is totally a lie. He isn't going to admit the true reason to Tommy.. he has come to terms with the fact that Ellie means everything to him. He has decided to accept the vulnerability that Ellie causes in him.. he's on board with whatever that means. And Joel knows undeniably and now fully accepts that there is no one in the world that would be better to guard Ellie than himself, because he will lay his life down to protect her to the end. Ellie jumps up on the horse, Joel leans back and asks, simply, "We good?" That's the only apology she'll get, because that's the only apology Joel can offer.. she responds, relieved, "Yeah, we're good". There is closeness.. there is acceptance.. there is forgiveness.. there is reconciliation.. the beginning of healing with just those few words. Now THAT is storytelling. The series is full to overflowing with completely missed marks like that, caused by their complete alteration of the personalities of the two main characters... and that's why I stopped watching before the end of the series. It simply pales in comparison to the game version.
@@connorbranscombe6819 No.. not really. In fact, I eventually watched the last episodes, and it was just as crap as the rest of it, with just as many glaring deficiencies in relation to the far superior version. In short, I should have trusted my instincts and what the rest of the series was showing me, and just not wasted my time with the rest of it.
I only watched the show. Never played the game. To me ellie being angry at joel was showing how hurt she was that he was going to leave just like everyone else. It makes sense for the ellie in the show to express pain through anger
I *will* say that one of my favorite gaming experiences was an old Doom mod, that was pretty much the entirety of the movie "Aliens". The first stage, you're airdropped down to LV-426. You're free to explore the entirety of the outside of the colony, see the comms tower that Bishop eventually crawls to, pick up ammo and keycards and....nothing else. No Aliens, although walking across certain sections of the map will ping a sound file from the movie, with Hicks or Hudson commenting about the situation. You're left for 30 minutes, in a Doom-WAD, based around Aliens, and you've seen....no Aliens. Eventually you get the last keycard, that grants you access to the Processing Station, and as you're walking down the hallways, the floor gives way and you fall down....into a "Stage 1: Complete (Press Spacebar to begin Stage 2)". Stage 2 starts, it's dark, you're fumbling with your keyboard to find the flashlight button, Aliens are rushing you, it's frightening and Exhilerating. You quickly find out that there are a number of objects around you (similar to explosive barrels) so that if you're using heavy-fire, you'll quickly make yourself explode, so now you're ALSO looking for your Shotgun and Pistol to try and be more precise against the things that are immediately upon you. It's hard for a video game to build atmosphere like that, before dumping you into "OH SHIT OH SHIT OH SHIT" but that mod definitely did it.
I prefer the game still, I do like a lot of the changes that the show makes but I prefer the presentation of our two leads in the game - and that tips the scales far more towards the game for me than any amount of extra little flourishes could.
Can't help but appreciate this video essay despite disagreeing that the show is better than the game, despite its many flaws. I think the sins of the show outweigh the sins of the game, but I love the way you support your arguments to help walk the listener through them. Love these every time they come out. Keep up the good work!
Those are not exactly adapting a specific game's story to another medium though, they are just taking place in the same universe and are original stories written entirely for the medium they are in to accompany the story and lore of the games.
Yeah I still think Arcane is a better show, but a case could be made that it is not an adaptation since it's an original story (and LoL does not really have a coherent story to adapt in the first place). Same goes for Edgerunners where almost no characters even appear in the game, except for Adam Smasher (who first appear in the original TTRPG anyway and not the videogame).
1:14 Have you even played the game recently? There were several times long before this scene where Joel or someone else talks about Tommy before the scene where they reunite at the Hydro Electic Power Plant by the halfway point of the game.
Yeah I said the same thing. They never sprung Tommy into the game randomly. He was mentioned at least 3 times I can think of before Joel and Ellie meet him in the game
Man it's refreshing that someone in this male-centric film RU-vid community is enjoying TLOU. Most of the film bros seem to be jumping on the bandwagon of hating on the casting and writing for no coherent reasons.
Honestly, I think the show is great for an adaptation, but aside from that I think it's beyond overrated. While I think changes are to be expected and are understandable, even some which I prefer, I personally think the game says a lot more with less. Subtlety plays a big part of the game because a character like Joel could display something that you may miss such as when he looks at his watch due to Ellie, but with the show everything's kind of just said or shown to you bluntly in a way like the ptsd flashback guard scene. I think Joel is quite ambiguous because we question what we would do in his situation plus the fact that we can empathize and sympathize with what he's lost which the game knows so it doesn't beat you with morality and let's you question him yourself whereas in the show it's brought up a fair bit and drones on with it. A scene such as Ellie questioning Joel about the hunters and killing innocents is an example as Game Joel doesn't reply and is flustered because he knows that to a degree it's horrible and when Ellie takes it as a yes openly he snarls take it however you want because he doesn't feel the need to explain himself in order to have us to agree or disagree with surviving that way.. Like Ellie you could move on and accept stuff he's done and like him regardless and sympathize or you could just think he's terrible. Then there's the show version where he feels the need to explain himself to Ellie like we get why he did what he did we didn't need to have him give a it was to survive speech we can think for our selves and it alters that core aspect to his character (an extremely hardened man who is a closed book to mostly anyone and mostly compartmentalizes trauma as he can only keep moving forward and cannot well on past events or reason them). For me one of the main reasons why I think Joel caring for Ellie the way he does at the end is so effective to me is because of how cold he is to her originally but then having many tiny moments where his sternness briefly slips just be reminded over and over why he shouldn't get close, they struggle so much during the game yet have so many peaceful and nice interactions that when Joel's walls come crashing down it just feels earned as they've done so much together and you've seen his callous demeanor chip away over time. But with the show many of these interactions are gone, or cut down, many moments of conflict were removed plus Joel's extra emotional vulnerability and transparency leaves it feeling less earned and more on the nose in my opinion.
The show got rid of one thing that the game made excellent use of: Downtime In the show they're ALWAYS going from one thing to another. In the game, however, you get to see them actually talk on their hikes about how things are going to go, and you see they have a rapport by the time they get to Bill, compared to the show where they're still antagonistic far beyond that point. It also helps that, at this point, the two have been helping each other out of necessity, and Joel is trusting her with a gun to watch his back, whereas in the show he explicitly says she is not to use her gun. Joel starts the game as a guy doing what he needs to do to survive, but it goes beyond that about halfway through the game, because he's found a reason to live again. Protecting Ellie has become his reason to keep on not just surviving, but actually living. And you can see that with how he talks and acts. He becomes a lot more violent when people threaten her
Wow, you've completely hit the nail on the head. Agreed 1000%-though you might want to add a couple paragraph breaks so it's easier for more people to read. But really, I've felt the exact same way about the show's characterization of Joel.
Pretty much exactly what you said. In the game, what hit me the hardest was how willing Joel was to talk to Ellie right before they reached the hospital - because it was new. They talked before, obviously, and they cared about each other - but just the way he kept initiating conversations with her when he noticed how upset she was felt so fresh and it really touched me. In the game, Joel blocked most of Ellie's attempts at communication for like the entire first half of the game before SLOWLY starting to open up. In the show, the progression just felt… weird? Idk, on one hand, they talked so much more early on, and on the other, I didn't really feel their bond as I did in the game. Their relationship - the core aspect of the game - is just one of the things that didn't really work that well in the show, in my opinion.
I honestly was afraid they were going to do a shot by shot movie to the point where I could predict everything but thankfully they had the sense to not listen to people who are not writers and switch things up, giving the original story more depth and really leaving you wondering while carrying the same essence of the material.
I agree with everything you said but I do want to add one thing: one definite strength of the medium of video games is the sheer length of time you spend with the characters. In The Last of Us this became very apparent when just the amount of time we spend with the characters and all the little moments we share with them lead to a much deeper bond than what could ever be put to screen.
I think the show adds some good stuff but it does so at the cost of the growing connection between Ellie and Joel. If the show had 14 episodes in S1 there would have been time for both but i think the backbone of the game is lost when the arc of Joel and Ellie gets put on the backburner to showcase other parts of the story.
Disagree. They are the focus by far. The large majority of the episodes are about them. Of course a game will have more time with them. Episodes for Joel/Ellie development episode 2, first & second half of 3, episode 4, most of 5, episode 6, episode 8, and likely episode 9.
I disagree to your disagreement. Most of the episodes you count up contains them but the story has more to do about third parties and by the end of e8 the emotional journey between them is more or less complete. Maybe if they would have skipped parts of the ”3 months later” and such and showed minor happenings that grew the relationship between them instead it would feel more satisfying but as it is now Joel goes from a person that is dead inside to considering Ellie something alike his daughter and Ellie to think of him as family in a flash simply because there are so long blind spots in the story. As i said, 4-5 episodes more would have given them the time to flesh out their story.
@@loper42Joel and Ellie only meet at the end of ep1, and they barely get to know each other in ep 2. They get 10 minutes in ep 3, the rest is bill and frank. Ep 4 has some development, but ep 5 is more focused on Kathleen, Sam, and Henry. Ep 6 jumps forward 3 months and skips most of the time Ellie and Joel spent together, so we've missed most of their bonding. Ep 7 is the flashback, and Joel and Ellie only reunite at the end of ep 8. So the amount of time that the show spends on developing Joel and Ellie's relationship is actually pretty miniscule when compared to the game.
@@undertone8367 9 episodes of a tv show that is roughly 50ish min per is inevitably going to be shorter than 15 hours of a game. You are allowed to think the game is better, but to say that it doesn't focus on the main protagonists is just not true. I bet if I analyzed the show by screen time Joel and Ellie would be at the top of the list.
@@loper42 I'm not saying that they don't get the most screen time, I'm saying that their relationship isn't as strongly developed as the game. The show's still great though.
One of the interesting things I discovered while watching the show vs playing the game, is how much I projected on Joel while playing the game. I remembered the ending sequence very differently because when I played the game I was 'roleplaying' to some degree. I rushed through the final sequence desperately trying to get to Ellie as quickly as possible. Getting shot a bunch of times while brutally killing everyone in my path with no stealth. I remembered Joel being in a complete Kratos-like fit of rage because that's how I had played out that final sequence. When watching this in the show it didn't match my memory so it felt very different. Not bad, just different. It wouldn't have made sense for Joel to be getting shot a bunch of times in the show, so it made his decision a more calculated decision, vs an emotional reaction. Just an interesting observation of how even in a linear story-based game, it's easier for the player to project and make their own "headcanon" which better matches how they would like the story to be.
Idk if I agree with you about the show being better, but you raise some interesting points. I personally prefer the way the hunters were portrayed in the game. Not all villains need complex motivations, Kathleen just didn't really add much for me. Though I did enjoy seeing Tommy's voice actor there.
Agreed. There are some emotional beats in the series that are phenomenal - and almost all of them (in my opinion) are NOT from Joel and Ellie. My main issue with the show is that Joel and Ellie both feel flat as a duo, and it really hurts because when they are acting with others in the show, they shine. The show really falls flat on building Joel and Ellie specifically. Pedro is just sad man most of the time while Bella is bratty overconfident child. Yes, Ellie did start of kinda bratty in the game, but she loses it fast and immediately becomes dependent and attached to Joel, and this is what slowly makes him warm up to her. This isn’t as seen in the show.
@@theshooterflynn Yeah, I loved episode 3, it's my favourite even though it's completely diffrent from the game. And I like joel and ellie in the series, I just have a hard time believing they are the same people as in the game. As said in the video, they are different mediums and changes have to be made. And if you really don't want to change anything at all, then what would even be the point of adapting? But I must say Bella Ramseys delivery of "broke you f*cking finger" is better than the game imo.
I’m just watching the show as a separate thing and just enjoying it that way, I think it just makes it more enjoyable in general than comparing everything that happens or doesn’t happen from the game. I get doing that since I did it the first couple of episodes but then I just stopped and I’m more like ‘that’s cool!’ When something is exactly from the game
I loved the show. But I wish they would have put the “Left Behind” episode with Riley after they get out of KC/after Sam and Henry die. Where they put it breaks the immersion in a major climbing action, but I think it would have fit perfectly during the “3 Months Later” between then and when they go to Jackson. Not only did Ellie lose another friend to Cordyceps in a similar way, but it would make sense for her to be thinking about it after watching Henry have to kill someone he loves for the same reason she did. It also would make sense as she and Riley talk about FEDRA vs the Fireflies and they had just escaped a place where they could see a community after the fall of FEDRA.
They made good changes, they also made bad ones. Why are they obsessed with expanding on everything and including everything from the game, when they only have 9 episodes, when the price is to take shortcuts in the growth of Joel and Ellies relationship. Maybe shortcut is the wrong word, the beats are there, but they feel less earned. They made a 60+ minute episode to expand on the Bill & Frank story (while sacrificing the IMO great dynamic between Bill, Joel and Ellie), but crammed the David storyline in a single usual length episode. Then use a whole episode for Left Behind, without seeing the struggle of Ellie trying to take care of Joel. More episodes and/or longer episodes, there would be no problem. The show is good, I just don't think it's better than the game. They also did some things worse than the game (the cut to black after Henry's death was way more effective than seeing the funeral right the next second, also Ellie getting pulled off of David by Joel instead of them just meeting right after that, just to mention some).
Seeing Ellie’s face was better than the screen just cutting to black, and Joel saves ellie emotionally not physically in the show which is better for their relationship imo
@@WeedsterDuck Joel doesn't save Ellie physically in either version, he was always late. the difference is he caught her right after she killed David in the game, aka where he emotions were at their very peak. as opposed to the game where she's already cooling down. The latter is FAR less intimate than the former and hits much less as a consequence.
the issue at 18:24 is what i think yo be one of the biggest pitfalls for BOTW. The game tries so hard to make you terrified of ganon but by the point you encounter him the combat is just so fun and optimized that all of the stakes virtually evaporate
I never got the sense I was supposed to be super afraid. I got the sense that Link was supposed to be faithful and determined, like you are GOING to rescue Zelda and Hyrule, and NOTHING will stand in your way.
To be honest, music has a lot to do with aiming our emotions. The Guardians were the scariest thing in the game for me because of their resilience to damage and heavy focus. You could be up a wall and as soon as that music kicked in you knew somewhere one was staring at you.
Also don't expect Season 2 to vary THAT much from TLOU 2. Neil has said several times that he thinks the fans who hate the second game hate it for petty reasons. He stands by his decisions regardless of the backlash. I DEFINITELY think the order of events couldve been done better (the day 1-3 then 1-3 again BS). But assuming he'd change it for the fans is ignoring his own statements on the matter
The story has been optimized for tv. The story was optimized for a video game before. It doesn’t mean it’s better now, it just means they were different mediums with the goal of doing different things
Tommy is mentioned in the game be for you meet him a few times Tess tells jole to take Ellie to Tommys and jole and Ellie have a conversation were jole tells Ellie the last thing Tommy said to him before the spilt up
i dont think the mouth tendrils were scarier personally, having transmission come from bites (as in the spores need broken skin to infect) is fine and the mouth tendril kissing scene was just weird and completly took me out of that scene.
@@deriznohappehquite Plus, it gives this sense of inevitability. If your gas mask filter fails, for whatever reason, you WILL get infected if you go there.
Spores being the transmission doesn’t make sense in a real world setting, it was more of a gameplay hazard. If spores were transmitting a disease, everyone on the planet would be infected in a few days. I much prefer cordyceps to act and behave like a real fungus, I.e. transmitting signals and frequencies through miles and miles of myocelium with the infected themselves acting as mushrooms, and the mouth tendrils being a way to plug more infected into the “network”
@@goldenbrandon1716 spores aren't the "transmission" in the games, spores are just a one form of potential infection in the game, they are only in areas where tons of infected have been confined in a closed space for a long time, there were still bites in the game. Imo, the spores are more realistic than tendrils. They aren't all over and that's not how the infection spread, spores are just a relatively minor side effect, compared to the traditional from of spread by bite. Spores also weren't even a gameplay hazard, they are just there to add more to the world, there's never a time where the spores can actually do anything to you, it was just to show you another form of horror.
This reminds me of Gigguk's vid where he compared Anime to Manga, it is not what's medium is best, it's how each mediums are used to their full potential.
Not only was the Joel going ham on the guard a good measure of who he is, but Ellie's reaction was the beginning of her bond to him. And a profound moment for her at that.
I think part of the reason is that The Last of Us game itself is like a movie, you don't play your own character, you don't have agency in the story but only somewhat in how you get there, it's a game that doesn't take advantage of what makes games unique as a medium, and that's fine, because simply being interactive makes the player immediately more compelled than if it were a show. There isn't much narrative player choice in TLOU and that makes it the perfect candidate for an adaptation to something that's not interactive. But if one were to adapt an RPG for example, say Dishonored, they would be constrained to only one story version, one set of choices and one ending, and having to choose which one is the better written, makes most narrative sense, and that's what the novel Dishonored: The Corroded man did in its retelling of the first game, in every mission Corvo has the choice to either kill or incapacitate, the novel made sure to clearly explain why Corvo chose one over the other, and that's about as well as it could've happened, the book was still a mixed bag because it didn't have Dishonored's magic and vibe, and I'm not even sure it can be translated to a book considering Dishonored is about finding unique ways to tackle problems and having a sandbox of tools to play with. Halo on the other hand has had very successful novels and (in my opinion) they are amazing additions to the already fascinating lore but notice how out of the 6 original novels released, only one has had a terrible reception, and that's Halo : The Flood, which is a retelling of the first game Halo Combat Evolved. Besides the lifeless prose (Chief threw a grenade, shot a few grunts, got on the Warthog and ran over more grunts) that reads like a combat report, Halo CE doesn't really have a compelling story, or rather, its story works in video game format but not in novel format, in that the conflict is superficial and has no emotional beats, unlike the 2nd game, and thus a novel really wouldn't (and didn't) work. I think ultimately the best way to adapt video games is to either do a retelling if the game has potential for adapting the story and is relatively choice free (Castlevania 3: Dracula's curse) and develop it, or a spinoff/in-world independent story like Arcane, Dota Dragon's Blood Detective Pikachu if it doesn't work well.
There isn’t much narrative choice in most video games. Most video games aren’t western RPGs. There’s little to no narrative choice in Halo, StarCraft, Pokemon, Mario, Call of Duty, Assassin’s Creed, Nier: Automata, The Legend of Zelda, Sonic the Hedgehog, God of War, and many others.
Most video games have more in common with theme park rides than movies. The narrative is mostly linear, but how we move and experience that story makes it unique because everyone has an individualized custom experience.
@@MildMisanthropeMaybeMassive I’d say theme park rides are somewhere between a movie and a video game. While you are along for the ride, the audience doesn’t actually do anything in a theme park ride. Video games depend on interactivity. To look at an example OP gave: Halo 1 vs. Halo: The Flood. In the game, the player doesn’t need to get invested in the characters because they’re invested in the combat, which in turn gets you hooked into the setting and plot. The novelization failed because there was nothing to anchor the reader to the story. In video games, gameplay can be that anchor, and can work in conjunction with story elements to enhance the overall experience. The Last of Us, the game, can throw clickers at the player repeatedly, and still have them feel threatening, because they literally are threatening with their one-shot kill. In the show they would quickly feel like a non-threat.
when they said the zombies are connected I thought to myself:oh so it's gonna be way easier for them to find their next victim and it means we are gonna see more action with fungi zombies involved. However,we somehow even got less.
@ভাঙ্গা খারাপ Thor 4 and ant man 3 are garbage movies because for one thing they have no story.or atleast not a coherent one.the lst of us game is better than the tv series because for one thing it contains better story beats.And last time I checked it was set in an apocyliptic zombie world.Therefore ofcourse I would expect more and better action.They are carring around those rifles for a reason
@@matijasostojic4288 Realistically there would at least be ONE infected after episode 5. Not a single one. The show made them feel like they were just a nuisance. I agree humans are more dangerous, but damn, at least make them have a presence.
I'd argue that it works just as well in the game about Joel heading west. They just murked two Fedra troopers outside the front gate, and left a infection test monitor that was flashing positive. By the time Tess was killed and her body was left, it was essentially a no go on the return. The low level police work here wouldn't even require computers. Take Tess body back, see who she would be running with through local sources, Joel and Tess had enough enemies, find out the likely suspect would be Joel. Find out if Joel is in Boston, if he isn't then he was one of the trio running beyond the fence. Hem him up if he comes back to Boston. The FEDRA officers called it in when they first got caught. Boston was Dunzo. I think that everything was more subtle in the game. I remember feeling that the blowup between Ellie and Joel at the ranch house was kind of out of left field, but there are several instances you can see it coming a long way before during multiple playthroughs. I still prefer the OG story to the series, just because Joel had all the same insecurities, but was the series firefly hospital Joel the whole game. In the game it just took him a whole lot longer to say what he wanted to say. Pedro was the best thing about the series though, so I don't have a problem with the series either, other than I wish some of the episodes were longer.
Great video! As someone who often rolls my eyes to any adaptation when there is any change at all that's made, this really made me take a step back and really give more thought about what good and bad adaptations look like. Long story short, the key to a good adaptation is having a good understanding of the source material and why it worked so well (to the point of even having an adaptation in the first place in most cases), before trying to think about enhancing and improving it where it potentially and eventually failed. Thank you!
I love that now, we have two different ways to enjoy the story and builds an even better world for us fans to enjoy instead of copying, or flat out ignoring what makes each medium great. I can't wait for season two & three to fix the issues of part 2. This series is HBO's next big hit and as a fan of the Last of Us, I'm glad others like my dad get to enjoy it now.
HBO's The Last of Us is good but the game is still better. There are so many little moments of dialogue and environmental story telling (Ish's story) that had to be cut out for the show. Also while I did enjoy Pedro Pascal as Joel and Bella Ramsay as Ellie I still think Troy Baker and Ashly Johnson did a better job at portraying their respective characters.
I wonder if maybe the game and the show are both really well done, and ranking them is kind of pointless. As for Joel and Ellie, Troy and Ashley were great but I’m almost certain they wouldn’t be nearly as compelling in the TV show as Bella and Pedro. Voice acting isn’t the same as acting in front of a camera. They are entirely different skill sets. And I wonder if you could give specific examples of exactly how they were better? Cause it feels pretty arbitrary and kind of vague, almost as if you’re just pissed it wasn’t the people you wanted versus any kind of real shortcomings.
@@timmceown7646 If I was pissed by not having the "people I wanted" then I would have said that Pedro and Bella were terrible in their roles. I still think that they both have done a good job with the characters that they've been given. Most of what I'm feeling I will admit is probably more of a gut feeling than the most thought out science. However, go watch the end of episode 8 where Ellie kills David and then right after go watch the same scene from the game. Both are good but one, the game, is better. In the games version listen to how Ellie's voice cracks or the sigh of relief in Joels voice when he says "baby girl". The games version is also significantly enhanced because of the music that plays during that scene. I also think it's kind of weird that you are trying to make someone feel like they can't have their own opinions by saying it's pointless to rank them. Would you say we can't rank what version of Halo is better (game vs show). Should we not rank which Game of Thrones version is better (book vs show). If you liked HBO's version of The Last of Us better then good but don't act like I'm not allowed to my own opinion. Also I like how The Closer Look said (not exact quote) in this video you might want to wait before forming too strong of positive feelings for something. Best to wait a little to clear your head. It's fun to ride the hype train. Lastly, I don't think Troy and Ashley are only good voice actors. The cutscenes in the game are created through motion capture. Which has them on their feet acting like any other "normal" actor. There are many videos on RU-vid that show them acting in their motion capture suits. And also just for the record I didn't want Troy to play Joel again nor did I want a 39 year-old Ashley to play Ellie a 14 year-old.
@@matthewpowell1091 I get you enjoyed it more, and you’re right, you are obviously allowed your own opinion--but I wasn’t saying I liked one better than the other. I was saying that different mediums require different approaches and different skillsets. Which makes comparisons like yours kind of specious, in my opinion. This whole argument about which is better (game or TV show) is kind of like saying you like chocolate ice cream more than vanilla--it’s true but so what? The scene you describe is one that had more impact for me in the show than the game but that is an entirely subjective response and doesn’t really say much. I think we can agree both the game and the movie have created a phenomenal experience given their specific limitations. And believe me if the show were poorly shot, or acted, if the production design were shoddy, if it was poorly directed or written, I wouldn’t bother--and while even those are subjective opinions they are easier to argue about coherently than just saying ’this is better’. PS: Motion capture acting is an entirely different animal and there is a ton of stuff you can do in post to enhance or change what you shot--stuff you can’t really achieve in live action. As far as ‘the hype train’ goes that’s just a red herring. Some things are so well done that it appeals to a broad swath of people and has nothing to do with promotion or hyperbole.
@@timmceown7646 You're right that different mediums require different approaches and I think The Closer Look perfectly described that in his video. However, I think it's completely fine to make comparisons between two different mediums. Especially with a game like The Last of Us which is already a very cinematic game. Even Craig Mazin said that The Last of Us (game) was already like a movie. All opinions on any form of entertainment are going to at least somewhat subjective if not entirely subjective. Also you analogy with the ice cream, in my opinion, reinforces my viewpoint. I think it is completely fine for someone to say that they like chocolate ice cream over vanilla. That seems like a valid opinion and to respond to someone by saying "so what" seems very dismissive and pointless. You're right we can both agree that the game and the show are fantastic. But you're first reply just seems pointless. Like who cares if I express my opinion about which one I prefer. Some people prefer the Harry Potter books over the movies and I think that's completely valid. Especially because the books just have much more content when compared to the movies. That's also one reason why when it comes to The Last of Us I prefer the game. There's more content in the game. Numerous amounts of dialogue and environmental story telling that was left out of the show. I understand why they left some of it out. You only can have so much screen time. That and a limited budget. In closing though I do understand your point of different mediums having different strengths. So to some degree it can be pointless to over compare. But I do believe it's fine to make at least some comparisons. Anyways though I hope you have a good day and I imagine we'll both be watching the season finale of TLOU tonight. ❤
@@timmceown7646 you sound triggered that matthew isnt fawning over the show like you are. ill take it a step further, the show is actually worse then the game, in pacing, story telling, dialogue, acting, tension, characterization and writing. its a downgrade, but that doesnt make it bad, its very good actually! its juts not as good as the game, and they desperately needed more episodes to do what they wanted to. (still wouldnt make the show better imo simply cause I got a lot more emotion from troy and ashlee rather then pedro and bella)
Saw a good point being made that the lack of Spores in the show makes the cure much less valuable. The cure isn't really relevant after infected encounters (generally speaking). The infected usually just straight up murder you if they get your hands on you - escaping while infected is really not standard. The spores however can be much harder to avoid than and infected and don't kill you leaving people alive but infected and the cure would actually matter for that situation.
Spores means a cure is a necessity. Mouth tendrils mean that a cure is a bonus. The mouth tendrils mean the infected are only dangerous when they're alive and close. Spores means they're dangerous long after they died
Spoiler warning. For what it's worth, I think the show is only better as a shorter story, and the game still presents a better story overall. You do get a better understanding of both the infected and how people have structured themselves to survive in the game by running into multiple different groups of them in different places, in different situations at different times. The show didn't really have time to show that as much, tho I was surprised by how much they did manage to show. But I do think Joel's ultimate choice won't land with the same weight after not having seen so much of people. The point of the game was that no matter how scary the infected are, it's always much scary to run into people. Doesn't matter who they are. So Joel has very little reason to believe that the Fireflies would be able to actually make a cure by killing Ellie, or that they would be able to distribute it if they succeed, or that they would do the right thing with it instead of abusing its existence to gain power and control over people. I always preferred to run into infected rather than people in the game, the show hasn't quite given me the same vibe. Infected were like a natural force you just don't mess with, but at least can predict, while were complete wild cards that more often than not meant trouble and extreme danger no matter what you did. In the show the infected are almost worse tho, so killing Ellie might seem rather reasonable. At least that's what I'm a little worried about. Ultimately Joel made the choice because he couldn't lose another child again, sure, but it was also about him not trusting people after what happened with Sarah and what he's seen in all the years since.
There is a Let's Play that Troy Baker does with some of the main VA in the game. In the last episode he says, (paraphrasing) "Joel was sent out save the world, and in the end he did. He saved his world."
The show is not a "better written story" than the game. The game and show are the same story, but the show had the benefit of having more time to tell the story so it feels deeper.
I think The Last of Us can change things because of how incredibly faithful it IS. To me faithful doesn't mean a 1:1 copy. For example most of the Disney Live-Action adaptations to me are not faithful to the original, even tho they look to be on the surface, because it doesn't capture the same magic. And that happens so often with adaptations. On the surface it looks like the thing, expensive production makes it look good, but then we learn that it doesn't have the heart of the original. So the way they are changing things shows me how incredibly faithful to the original they are, because they GET what the story and the game is about. What the emotion and messaging is supposed to be. And thus can make informed decisions of how they can change scenes, some because games and shows are a different medium and work inherently differently, or simply because they found ways to improve details, backstories and add beats, while cutting on others. And thus they keep the core, it FEELS like The Last of Us and ends up feeling more faithful than many others trying the same.
This reminds me of a quote from Tolkien: "The canons of narrative art in any medium cannot be wholly different; and the failure of poor films is often precisely in exaggeration, and in the intrusion of unwarranted matter owing to not perceiving where the core of the original lies."
Perhaps that's why its feels like they're bending the story (and characters) of the first game so it would make "more sense" the one from the second game. These are not the same Ellie and Joel of part one, nor they have the same slow development of their relationship. On top of that, so many time spent in other characters backstories. Prior to the show, I hoped they would make better the second game, but I think they are "fixing" the first so the second makes more sense.
my biggest problem with the show so far is that it feels like a last of us greatest hits moment and that every episode needs a scene that was one to one with the game with the exception of episode three but that episode took an entire episode when we are already moving through the story at breakneck speed
Basically the game feels perfectly paced at 13-17 hours. This show is roughly 8 hours and two hours of that includes pretty major deviations into side plots. There’s no time to just chill in this world with this relationship.
You hit the nail on the head - they did a great job of expanding the story and fleshing out the characters more. my only argument is for their casting choices. I didn't quite understand the lady in charge of the city after FEDERA fell. She was the sister of the main guy, but it didn't seem like she had any real experience or know how to handle the responsibility. She didn't come off as menacing or two faced to me or anything like that at all. I wish they had kept the scene in the sewer where you learn that one of them turned and then they basically died locked in the room with the kids waiting for the end becuase they couldn't escape. it was pretty impactful to me. I don't recall if there were bullet casings, but that would have added even more to the scene - better to go out on your own terms than starve to death. Kind of like the ending to the movie the Mist.
@@HistoryEvolves Yah. I mean how dare people have a different opinion than you. Everyone should just agree with how you feel. What’s wrong with people?
A game which imo does the whole "Being scared of the enemies"-thing perfectly is Metroid Dread. One of the most prominent gimmicks of the game are the E.M.M.I., robots, who's mission is to hunt you down. You're told over and over again how dangerous the E.M.M.I. are but the gameplay actually follows through on that. They're essentially invincible and kill you in one hit and you're supposed to hide from them since they only attack you if they notice you. The visual- and sound design of E.M.M.I-Zones does a great job at making you feel unsafe, there's always so much tension when entering one of these zones. It's still fun because the zones are really well-designed but it still can be terrifying. Another game I'd like to mention is Botw, at least in the early game. The kingdom was essentially destroyed by Guardians. When encountering them, you're pretty helpless since their laser does so much damage, it essentially one-shots you (There are obviously some tactics against them like reflecting their laser but A: a new player likely won't know about that, and B: the timing is really difficult and if you miss, you're basically dead.). Pair that with a fast-paced, panic-endusing battle theme and you got yourself an enemy which will likely scare the shit out of those new to the game.
This series is far from being disloyal. It’s a decently faithful adaptation but what you are saying in the first couple minutes isn’t being disloyal it’s called expanding on the story and tying things together. It still follows relatively the same story beats. The worst thing you can do in an adaptation is stray from the source material and be disloyal to it. Expanding on the source material on the other hand is a good thing. I mean look at game of thrones. The moment that didn’t have the books to follow (because the last books were and still are in development) the series fell into disarray because they stopped writing the story and characters intellectually like when they were following the source material
Yep, he lost me when he said the show was being disloyal. In a sense, the Last of Us had it easy of adapting more than Halo did. The reasons are pretty obvious. No need to waste 30 min. listening to his drivel.
1:14 tommy was mentioned during the first encounter with ellie and marlen and then again when tess dies she says to get ellie to tommy because he was a firefly we dont just randomly stumble across him in the show we just get a little more reason to find tommy
I want to adopt Pedro Pascal as my own protective Daddy figure. Can we have a fungi infested apocalypse just so we can exchange bad puns while killing Clickers?!
I feel like the flashback to joel's daughter dying was pedantic, like we are uncapable of remembering or concluding that joel felt he was in the same situation again. That's bs.
I like the show, but I truly love the game and I feel like he’s not a true fan of The Last Of Us otherwise he would know that there is very subtle details that make the game better. The show is very mixed for me as some changes work better than others.
Its a loyal adaptation because it expands upon the original, instead of completely changing it like some other adaptations.... RE, Halo.... A core foundation and respect is present,
These are all generally aesthetic changes that don’t affect the plot and slightly affect the story. The core themes, characters, plot beats, and settings do not change
I believe the main reason The Last Of Us was adapted so well this way, is because the people in charge of adapting the material, actually cared about the original source material, and treated it with respect, passion and love. Therefore resulting in the writers making absolutely sure that even if it does bend the source material as much as it does, it does those changes well and with reason
The show's more grounded, cautious, and less action-competent tone does have the potential to create unnecessary dramatic potential, but it comes at a price to the cohesion of the story and characters. None of the big character moments are as intense/powerful/impactful/meaningful or hit as hard in the show as they do in the game. For example the small tweaks made to Joel and Ellie, to Sarah's murder, the escape, Ellie can't swim, Sam's turn as well as the retroactive weight of the conversation from the night before, the date activities in left behind, the entirety of winter, it all undercuts the significance of those moments in my opinion. The show doesn't show us any passive bonding moments either, we are just meant to accept they are close now after an awkwardly jarring scene and two more ripped from the games. I expect St. Mary's, will not be as devastating as the game. That is not to say the show is bad, it is good tv, if alittle on the slow side with very little forward momentum, some minor focus problems and pacing issues. You do yourself a disservice in my opinion, if you watch this adaptation having played and enjoyed the game, because this show could be great if you are oblivious to what you are missing. For season 2 I would like to see Druckmann more in charge than mazon, because whatever it is that appeals to mazon and whatever he is doing to the story and the characters it is not even close to what drew me into the world of the Last of Us.
I feel like it needs to be said, but the lack of Bruce Straley in the show is a very big issue, as he essentially co-wrote the game even if he wasn't credited, same with Troy and Ashley. The lack of their input and voices in this show can be sorely felt.
@@Shockkings0714 Sorry for the late response. I can't remember it dead on but was something like "Why the last of show is better". In fairness, he is more than entitled to have that view but as we know with this games community... well, it's a hot zone to say the least. I'm gonna assume it was either to spike the initial vids views or simply an oversight that he felt needed change once realized Idk.
I disagree. I think the reason The Last of Us works where so many others fail is that it is very loyal to the spirit of the story. The heart and soul, but not the body. What I mean is that the essence of the characters, plot, and meaning is preserved but the body is changed to suit the medium. I think it also helps immensely that they worked so closely with the original creative team so they could benefit from their experience and reflection as you pointed out. Then you have this fresh team skilled in this new medium to help trim what needs trimming and expand what needs expanding. I think that is where a lot of bad adaptations fail and a lot of good ones succeed. The Shining is a wonderful example, it trimmed and molded what needed to be molded and kept what worked great but the essence of the story was the same. The Halo series was bad because they paraded around the corpse of the games and hollowed out the spirit. Game of Thrones and The Witcher are also great examples of this. In Game of Thrones the earlier seasons were faithful to the spirit and changed what needed to change for the medium and the essence was preserved. Then at the end they paraded around the lifeless body propped up with twists and turns designed to only get a rise out of people. The first season of The Witcher wasn't the greatest thing, but the heart was there if not the soul. And when the heart was crushed everything just collapsed under its own dead weight. On the other hand I think Starship Troopers worked so well is because for the most part the book didn't have much heart and soul to begin with, It was a blatant military propaganda piece. So it was less parading around the vacant body of the book and more they stole the uniform off the corpse then had Doogie Howser wear that uniform and start prancing around mocking the empty shell.
About the Cordyceps, the elements that the show added add realism because this is how fungi grow and connect in reality. It's not a "hive mind" or a psychic connection or whatnot. Fungi grow tendrils called mycellium and form what's called "mycorrhizal networks" that can spread for miles. Tess explains it in episode 2 and they also talk about this in the Making of.
I think the show is mostly worse then the game. Many scenes lack the dept that the game had and sometimes just quickly break points of tensity. Like when joel was pierced. In the game one was sure that he is dead and it was this sad part of Elie surviving and hunting on her own, it only breaks that certanty when Elie asks for the medicine. In the show you know he is still alive from the get go. Yes she still hunts and survives on her own but it took out all the sadness from the scenes. That being said the show also improved some scenes like the one where the first bloater appears. They made this scene way more intense, gave it way more story and absoltely shocked with the introduction of the bloater and the little clicker. So my opinion is that the show is worse, but still an amazing show nontheless.
When the cold open scientist said “what if, perhaps, the world got warmer?” i got shivers. That stuck with me more than any cordyceps scene in terms of sheer horror. Like, humans sewing their own destruction. And of course in this world even the real threat of cordyceps spelled out does nothing to stop fossil fuel use. Fantastic, compelling storytelling which only furthers the message about human evil being a far greater threat than cordyceps.
the only thing i feel the game did better, is during the david chapter david helps ellie fight infected. i wish in the show, a stalker had snuck up on them before their conversation infront of the fire. in the game, david helping ellie during the fight kind of confused me, i couldnt tell what direction his character was going to go until he gave his "everything happens for a reason" wheras in the game, they show us a bit of him before that moment and we can kind of get an unsettling vibe from him early on.
13:45 That's true. From my experience, in a video game, you are inhabiting/working with a character and become attached to them, while in a show or movie you are a spectator so stepping away from the main character feels less disrupting
just one thing, the fungus being spread in the flour im pretty sure is in the game as well, in the collectables you can find some clues to that, they just made it more clear in the show :V also, i feel im in the minority on this, but i didnt like the change on the inffected, idk why but the game version feels more realistic to me over the hive mind they introduce in the show and about the final scene of the first episode, to me it felt rushed, cause they just gloss over the reveal that Ellie is immune to the next episode, cause for real if that happened to you, after you find shelter wouldnt you immediatly start asking questions to Ellie, or you would do what they did in the show and just stay in guard looking over her, in the game they dont even get to shelter, they start questioning Ellie right there with FEDRA on their heels but thats my opinion, pretty much everthingelse they changed im on board with it, even thou id love to see Bill and Ellies interaction in live action, but episode 3 was so wholesome that ill let that by :V
The only change that has been bothering me is how Ellie acts. The show Ellie is just such a brat, constantly acting like she's smarter than the everyone else. In the game, she was a more receiving of Joel's advice which made for a great father-daughter dynamic. Ellie's character development in the show feels so much less earned.
Agreed. She started in the show as a bratty kid and has literally had no arc from that since. I really can’t tell if that’s on Bella or the directors for letting her stay rather 2 dimensional for most of the show. Like the whole “you’re not my daughter,” confrontation had such little impact in the show, and it was nullified even further by her overly bratty reaction when Joel shows up at the horses trying to apologize. There are HINTS of what their emotional arc could have been in the show: stand-out moments for me are when Joel laughs at the diarrhea joke, when Joel comforts her about killing, when Joel tried to warn her about the pile of bodies near Bill and Franks - like, there are these gorgeous moments that shine, then every other scene is Pedro be sad while Bella be bitchy?
@@dumitch18 but even in the series version of the flashback Ellie is portrayed as a Bratty, snarky girl, which is exactly how she starts and for the most part has been throughout the series. In theory and contextually: yes they do humanize her, but visually and emotionally in the series there is such a negligible notice in the emotional arc between Joel and Ellie that it comes off as forced. Genuinely my main “issue” with this show is that it somehow manages to make side characters more emotionally available and interesting over its main Duo.
My thoughts on it is like transplanting plants some specific ones will work and grow while others will wither away. You can't transplant anything somethings have to stay in their own grounding.
15:35 uh, it actually isn’t that hard to perspective shift in games if they already have multiple playable characters. The Last of Us already has a moment like this where we switch from Ellie to Joel waking up from his injuries. Hell, God of War: Ragnarock does this all the time with Kratos and Atreus and there is a scene where we follow Sindri into the “basement” while the rest of the characters continue to discuss stuff. Just like in movies and shows, you just need to play a cutscene and have the camera follow a different character into the next gameplay segment.
The show was ... fine. It may arguably be the best video game adaptation ever made, but it still has a ways to go. From my perspective, 9 episodes were not enough to make the bond between Joel and Ellie feel real. The video game gave you 26 hours with these characters; the series gave you the summary. Also, the stakes never felt high; every obstacle seemed like a minor inconvenience that was overcome too quickly in the show ... or ... to quote the Pitch Meeting guy, "Barely an inconvenience."
I disagree i find the monsters far far scarier in the game, because I'm immersed and I control the character in the game I found myself at times too scared to move lol at times id have to pause the game to psych myself up to carry on cos I was scared of the dark surroundings and noises from the monsters in the distance. I literally screamed a few times when a monsters would run at me or pop up out of no where like I dreaded encountering the clickers in the game. When watching a show there is more of a barrier and you feel more removed from the medium than you do playing a game, I didn't find the clickers scary at all watching the show.
