Last of Us - TV show.

Last of Us (Part 1) came out in 2013 (ten years ago) as a video game for PlayStation 4 (I believe it was an exclusive title for PS4 at the time) and was considered the best game of the year for that year. 

Gamer communities (including those in Japan) had considered the game to be one of the best for the PlayStation 4 due to its story plot, game play and character development (all which was butchered in Part 2 by the way).Now, HBO with collaboration from SONY Pictures Television, PlayStation Productions, Naughty Dogs, the Mighty Mint(?) and Word Games (seriously?) had produced a TV series based on the game which premiered recently (on January 15th, 2023). 

I have watched the first two episodes on Netflix here (largely due to encouragement from my nephew who also played both games). I usually watched a TV series after they had completed the season since I don't like to wait a week for the next episode to come but my nephew could not wait.

Frankly speaking, they (the production team and studios) did a marvelous job portraying the scenario of the show to be as accurate to the game as possible. The mannerism, personality and dialogue as well as the presentation of the characters were similar to what the characters in the game were (largely) like. The mood of the scenes as well as the bleak atmosphere of the post-apocalypse nightmare which the survivors lived in is also shown accurate and in perfect manner. Overall, it is one of the most perfect recreation of game-to-screen which I had every watched on both TV and movie representation (so far).

As for characters, Pedro Pascal was an odd choice for the character of Joel Miller. Physically, Pedro Pascal does match the build and shape Joel was in the game. The problem here is that Pedro looked a lot younger than Joel even so in the game, Joel was actually a lot younger than his TV character shown. Joel in the TV (Pedro) shown already reached the age of 50+ years but in the game, Joel Miller was a young man when he had Sarah (in his teens), which made him around 20+ when the outbreak happened and in late 40s at the end of the game (the game character commented so at the end of the game). 

In the TV show, Joel (Pedro) was shown as a older man, no mention of his marriage status when he had Sarah (most likely that will come later) and shown as a combat veteran (take note of the back of his pick-up truck on the first episode) which could explain his experience and skill in combat situations and weapons handling. But as you progress through the show, the age difference blends away, and you could not notice it. 

Also, I did not notice Pedro Pascal was the Mandalorian from the TV show of the same name until later, which means that I went and watch without comparing his performance in both TV shows and frankly speaking, he does make a good Joel Miller - moody, silent, strong type.

Anna Torv played the character Tess, Merle Dandridge played the role Marlene and Bella Ramsay played the role of Ellie. Of all three character portrayal, I think only Bella Ramsay stand out as the odd one (and considering that she plays the most crucial role, it seems that is a bit odd here). 

The first thing that I had notice is that Bella's face was a bit oddish. Flat nose, wide cheek bones and wide forehead - she looked like a rich girl from uptown New York, instead of the skinny girl who was surviving the Post-Apocalypse as portrayed in the game. The other two (Anna Torv and Merle Dandridge) were accurate in their portrayal of the characters so it was a bit odd why the studio could choose a girl who had different feature to the game Ellie, considering that Ellie should be the important character here (along with Joel).

I had read the wikipedia on the TV show and one thing strikes me is that the repeated statement by the producers (to the actors) not to reference their characters to the characters of the game but to produce their own "version" of the character. In another word, create their own perspective and aspect to the character (and dialogue given). This approach does have a limited success since a lot of dialogues which I had seen in the first two episodes were identical to the dialogues spoken in the game itself, which makes me wonder just how much actual writing had went into the screenplay dialogues and just how the producers wanted the actors to act, given the fact that the dialogues given were based on the game itself. I could have preferred if they created brand new dialogues for the character(s) instead of following the similar dialogues of the game and then tell the actors not to follow what is shown and done in the game.

I believe that the producers are having an "Arthur Conan Doyle" moment here. They know the success of the 2013 game was largely due to the brilliant portrayal of its characters, designs, plots and scenes created in the game but at the same time, they hated the success of the game and tried to stir clear of the same path which will likely to produce similar expectations which will eventually lead to disappointment by the fans, especially when they reach Part 2. Are they going to change the whole plot of Part 2 for the TV show? Frankly speaking, I do not know but I doubt it.

Oh, in case anyone wondering what I meant by "Arthur Conan Doyle" moment, I was referring to run-away success of Sir Doyle's Sherlock Holmes series which become a sort of addiction to 19th century English society. So much so that Sir Doyle had tried to kill his own character, Sherlock Holmes by throwing him off a water fall (which you could remember from the 2011 movie : Sherlock Holmes : A Game of Shadows). After that, Sir Doyle tried to move away from writing the character, by producing new materials but most of them were unpopular or successful to the mainstream audience who demanded him to bring back their beloved character (Sherlock Holmes) which he did eventually.

Same situation can be said is currently haunting the producers of the TV show. The success of the 2013 video game (including its characters, scene designs and plot) are helping the show to move forward, however, the producers are trying to decouple the TV show from the game's shadows, fearing a similar criticism and backlash when they reach the second part of the TV series. Unless they changed the plot completely to decouple themselves from the (Part 2) game plot, I do not see how they have any means of getting off the train they already got on and currently moving ahead.

Oh, by the way, some game companies like SQUAREnix is also trapped in "Arthur Conan Doyle" moment as well. As SquareSoft, they produced some of the best games in mid/late 1990s and early 2000s but currently stuck with the yardstick which they could not match with their current game production, which is why they, like CAPCOM (another game company in similar situation), remaking games which came out before, just to make profit meet.

Anyway, we need to see how it goes for the rest of the episodes of Last of Us before we could make additional comments about the show and its direction. One thing I do like about the show is the way they portray the fall of civilization (based on 2003 society) at the beginning of each episodes which showcased the bleak situation they were heading in the current time line (2023). That is a superb take to add, especially considering a lot of the information on how the society fell was largely omitted in the games (Part 1 and 2). I'm personally interested in the Cordyceps fungus infection and so far, I have some idea how they are shaped, transmitted and how a possible cure could be devised here but more on that later, maybe after the end of season 1. 

Source :

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Last_of_Us_(TV_series)