HBO’s ‘The Last Of Us’ Isn’t Exactly The Same As The Game, And That’s A Good Thing

Adapting a beloved story from one medium to another is a tricky challenge. Some aspects inevitably have to change. Things that work in a novel may not in a film, and retelling a game beat-for-beat in a TV show doesn’t make a lot of sense. Even when it’s a game that’s as cinematic as The Last of Us.

Thanks in part to some of the different paths it takes, HBO’s adaptation of the 2013 game is off to a stellar start. The cast and crew absolutely nailed the first episode, in my book. They hit the story beats they needed to while changing things up enough to surprise fans of the game and, at least in some places, make the narrative work better in another medium.

The cold open is a scene from a ‘60s talk show, which is immediately a new twist. A scientist, played by the wonderful John Hannah, sets things up neatly by explaining what the cordyceps fungal infection can do (take over its host’s mind and bodily functions) and how it could eventually affect humans. It wouldn’t be able to affect us without global warming, so good job, humans!

We zip forward to 2003, ten years before the opening of the game, and get a really nice sequence with Joel (Pedro Pascal), his brother Tommy (Gabriel Luna) and Sarah. We get to see some of what Sarah’s day-to-day existence is like in the hours before the outbreak occurs. It’s a smart way to contextualize her life and it’s worth spending that 15 minutes or so on before all hell breaks loose.

Again, not to spoil too much, but the show hits the key plot points. The most important scene in this part of the episode is almost exactly the same as in the game and some other moments are replicated shot-for-shot, but up until this point there are lots of changes.

Sarah, for instance, doesn’t discover the infected when one busts through the patio door of her home. Rather, she enters a neighbor’s home and encounters one. What’s more, Joel isn’t home at the time, putting her in more danger.

I won’t break down all of the deviations the episode makes from the game. I think the show reframes the beef that Joel and Tess (Anna Torv) have with Robert in a way that more logically advances the overall story. Their first meeting with Ellie (Bella Ramsay) is totally different, as is how we first get a sense of why her survival is so vital.

Many of the reviews I’ve read point to HBO and the creatives shuffling what they need to and expanding on this world in new ways. Changing how the infection spreads from spores to fungus, for instance, means that the actors don’t have to wear masks in some scenes.

I’m especially looking forward to the much-lauded episode that focuses on Bill and Frank, a relationship that’s only spelled out in the game in environmental storytelling, a note and Bill’s reaction to it. Deviating from Joel and Ellie’s story to tell another one in this universe — something that wouldn’t be possible for the game to do — is an exciting change.

Adapting a popular work into another medium doesn’t mean devotedly retelling exactly the same story. In this case, the writers and producers had to condense a 15-hour game into a 10-hour season of television. But that aside, adaptations are almost always more compelling when they deviate a bit from the source material.

In Nothing Lasts Forever, the novel that Die Hard is based on, the protagonist is Joe Leland, a retired NYPD detective who goes to a Christmas party at the office tower where his daughter works. Leland’s wife is dead by this point. The movie swapped Leland for a younger, active police officer and set the party at his wife’s office instead. It’s safe to say those changes worked out for the best.

In the novel that Who Framed Roger Rabbit is based on, Roger is murdered early on. A faithful adaptation would never have given us that classic team up of Roger and Eddie Valiant. While I love Tom Bombadil, cramming him into the Lord of the Rings movies would have slowed down the pace of an already-epic saga. And if The Wonderful Wizard of Oz and The Little Mermaid had been retold exactly in their most famous movie versions, they would not have been suitable for kids.

In the same way, a movie that adapted any of the core Mario games exactly would quickly fall flat. There’s not enough story in them to hang a feature film on. I enjoyed the first Sonic the Hedgehog movie, which is nothing like any of the games, and I’m interested to see how the Gran Turismo film shakes out, given that it’s about someone who’s very skilled at those games becoming a real-life racing driver. For what it’s worth, I had a good time with the Uncharted film too, even though it smashed together elements of multiple games in that series.

All of this is to say there are lots of reasons for creatives to make changes while adapting a work for another medium. It doesn’t always work out (many movie adaptations of video games aren’t exactly great), but things can’t stay always precisely the same as they were in the source.

There’s no use getting too precious about an existing property that’s being adapted into another medium. If you want an experience that’s exactly the same as Naughty Dog’s game, you can simply play The Last of Us.

It may be the case that the show doesn’t live up to your expectations and turns out to be disappointing. I hope not, especially after how good the premiere is, but the quality of the show isn’t going to negatively impact the game’s legacy. The original incarnation The Last of Us (or the PS5 remake) will still be the same thing that you love and can always go back to. Nobody, not even HBO, can take that away.

I’m all in on this new version of the ride, though. I’m counting down the hours until episode two.
The Last of Us airs on HBO and HBO Max at 9PM ET on Sundays.

The article HBO’s ‘The Last Of Us’ Isn’t Exactly The Same As The Game, And That’s A Good Thing was originally published by Kris Holt on Forbes.