Now that The Last of Us season 1 is in the rearview mirrors and the viewership numbers are being recorded, let’s discuss adaptations that take it upon themselves to deviate from the canonical continuity of their respective source material. HBO’s series, based on the Naughty Dog video game property, continued to set new viewing records right up to its finale. 8.2 million viewers It ends with the highest rating of the show to date. The Last of Us rolled hard to last chance. This is a testament to its attention-grabbing quality. It’s a successful show, and that means a successful adaptation — even if the storytelling has crafted its own made-for-TV path that isn’t swayed by game choices.
After the departure of Henry Cavill as Geralt of Rivia from Netflix’s The Witcher season 4 last December, the disingenuous adaptation was again questioned, but not as often as executive producer and showrunner Lauren Hissrich’s comments. was. In response to Megastar’s Jumpship, Hissrich said he was excited about the potential storyline reorientation because he “doesn’t know exactly where the adventure will end”, although Andrzej said that he’d be interested in Sapwoski’s The Witcher. If you’re an avid fan of the novel— What the show supposedly followed like a blueprint —Do you know where The Witcher ends up after eight stories are completed.
This is a question that has puzzled filmmakers and showrunners for years. Film and television adaptations are a thorny endeavor, as they please multiple audiences. It should be given enough respect to source material that has amassed a fanbase that might be rabid about a viewable version of a video game. There are risks. Shooting a beat-by-beat recreation that transforms another medium onto the screen can rob you of originality that could be a lost spark.
The question is whether stories of dishonest adaptation should be cause for concern. Is it so wrong for a storyteller to spin an already experienced narrative elsewhere or change its tone?
The Last of Us deviates from the game for the better
Naughty Dog’s HBO interpretation of The Last of Us debuted with quite a difference in storytelling, but received glowing feedback and continues to engage viewers. , chose a new method of spreading Cordyceps fungus: tendrils.The article states that if a fungal infection spreads through the air via spores, it could kill stars like Pedro Pascal and Bella Ramsey when they are not in space. Mandatory wearing of gas masks most episodes of the show. Through adaptive creativity, Druckmann and Mazin highlight the apocalyptic epidemic that will destroy humanity while sidestepping the problem of masking the faces of stars and muffled dialogue. Clickers have these suckers that plant the French kiss of death. Problem solved.
Or take a look at Episode 3 (which is vying for one of the best TV episodes of the year). Nick Offerman’s Bill does not survive and accompanies Joel and Ellie on their quest. Because there’s a painfully tender episode about Bill falling in love with an intruder, Frank (Murray Bartlett).the episode is already written and extensively analyzed aboutdefying gaming norms for the benefit of the story, even if we all wanted to see Offerman hanging around for more episodes. The point is to achieve ultimate impact with the greatest cultural resonance. It just proves that staying true to the storytelling you do is all that matters.
Then there’s Kansas City leader Kathleen, played by Melanie Lynskey. She is an all-original character who hunts down Joel and Ellie in search of connections with a local traitor she wants to bring to justice. Kathleen is a step above the show’s cosmic mini-bosses and fits in with the dystopian mindset that pervades The Last of Us. Druckmann and Mazin feel that adding characters like Kathleen to The Last of Us’s legacy is what they’re looking for. Proving you understand The Last of Us, taking risks pays off while replicating the first game’s ending for “unbroken, unfixable” familiarity.
Creators should be able to tell their stories
I’m going to tell you about a rather famously dishonest adaptation that never gets scolded for: Steven Spielberg’s Jurassic Park. Michael Crichton’s 1990 novel is very dark, with gory writing and an overall message of crooked capitalism. Take John Hammond, for example. Crichton’s Hammond is a stone-cold capitalist pig who even plans to reopen his Jurassic park after a tragic event.
“
Spielberg’s tweaks to Crichton’s formula traded a more graphic and mature theme for a playful, adventurous spirit. Jurassic Park could have earned a hard R rating — Spielberg did the best way to make Jurassic Park a “smash hit” because a well-told story always trumps nostalgia. (In addition, he saved Ian Malcolm).
Shouldn’t we trust filmmakers and screenwriters to present the best iteration of the adaptation they see fit? Tina Fey chose the self-help parenting book The Queen Bee and the Aspirant — seemingly irreconcilable — and through creative trickery they eventually became Mean Girls (and now the author of this book is take legal action to Paramount regarding profits from the film). Sonic the Hedgehog thrives by fusing elements of Sega’s famous side-scrolling franchise with a wholesome Paddington-like live-action hybrid instead of living inside a Sega cartridge.There is nothing disrespectful about the changes made to The story of Calliope in Neil Gaiman’s The Sandman Because the showrunners knew there was no reason to explore more explicit details written years ago in another era. , which means to identify areas for improvement.
all biohazards
Paul WS Anderson’s Resident Evil franchise is a great example of a video game adaptation that ignores an already highly cinematic playthrough and turns a survival horror quest into a financially lucrative action franchise. Milla Jovovich’s Alice doesn’t appear anywhere in Capcom’s games, but she’s more iconic to the public listening to “Resident Evil” out loud than Claire Redfield, Jill Valentine, or even Albert Wesker. Maybe. Resident Evil: The Final Chapter — the sixth and final film in Anderson’s chronology — was Sony’s most lucrative cash-in. Globally, he’s $314 million against a $40 million budget. Anderson filters Resident Evil with his energetic, entertainment-focused blockbuster style, never looking back or giving in to complaints that it’s not “Resident Evil.” Anderson did his best, and audiences rewarded that confidence with increased ticket sales (the revenue decline only occurred between Resident Evil: Afterlife and Resident Evil: Retribution).
Staying under the Resident Evil umbrella also encounters the welcome nature of adapted filmmaking when it comes to feedback.No matter what filmmakers do, they’re wrong and never live up to the gold-standard nostalgia of superfans embracing rosy memories. Expect Craig Mazin Some fans expressed concern, stating, “It’s okay for people to get upset…everybody has reached this level of fan engagement and what people are discussing and feeling passionate about these things.” I dream of working on
For years, Anderson has made something of a Resident Evil crowd-pleaser that has made the majority of fans (myself included) as pants-wet, suspenseful, and horror-forward as the early games of Resident Evil’s films. I asked for Johannes Roberts gave us that with his Resident Evil: Welcome to Racoon City. Despite the early post-lockdown situation, it made just $40 million worldwide and left the vocabulary of game fans still demanding a “shot by shot” Resident Evil remake. , presents a Resident Evil show that blends its creative origins with the more puzzle-based gameplay of previous games. “Sincere” but “Fresh” And the internet will be unusable for anyone who dares enjoy the now-canceled TV version of Andrew Dove.
First of all, it’s too different. That’s too loyal. Next is “Not My Resident Evil”. No fan-satisfying arena.
Balance between new and old viewers
This is not to say that adaptations should be protected at all costs. Robert Rodriguez’s Alita: Battle Angel has failed the test of building a franchise that welcomes newcomers by speeding up the exposition and worldbuilding that avid manga readers already understand . In the House of the Dead video, Uwe Boll tested the limits of “reliving” the game on screen, but by creating the uncommon zombie his Boa, Sega’s beloved light gun His shooting lost the essence of his game. Ghost in the Shell? Like I said, adaptation should not be protected at any cost. We should be open to these types of on-screen recreations.
It’s unfair to require an adaptation filmmaker to meet our expectations in shaping the story, developing the characters, and bringing the vision to life. Based on that, it’s neither bad nor good. The beauty of creative interpretation is finding new ways to retell familiar stories. Tying creators to rigid franchise guidelines is silly. I’m not saying all adaptations are bulletproof, but I’m saying creators should be free to explore adaptations. We live in a world where his 1993 sci-fi fever dream Super Mario Bros. and his 2023 animated Super Mario Bros. movies can coexist.
“
Adaptation is part of the DNA of filmmaking. Studios always pursue their most important interests — how could they deny the attention of Twilight’s payday or The Hunger Games? Adaptations are always demanded and criticized in equal measure. Unfaithful adaptation itself is nothing to worry about. But things like misunderstanding the themes of the primary source material, or inappropriately stumble upon a world vividly created from other media, are nothing like understanding.
The Insincere adaptation deserved to exist and has become one of my favorite movies. HBO’s Game of Thrones goes its own way, but I’m sorry, Georgie. That’s the right of every creative team. Instead of humiliating yourself with the toxic logic that nostalgia is king and that the medium has no room for improvement or experimentation, let us only judge movies and shows on the quality of such subversion.
