Can An Adaptation Be Too Faithful?

With the recent HBO adaptation of The Last of Us (one of my favorite games) it got me thinking: can adaptation be too faithful? And it's honestly not a question for myself that I find easy to answer. On one hand--five (almost six) episodes in--and it's been pretty faithful to the source material; but then, on the other hand, they made changes that make me wonder: was that necessary?  And I'll try my best to explain my issues with both of these, almost conflicting, thoughts. 

And be warned, there will be slight spoilers from here on out. I'll do my best to keep things vague where I can, but I'm just letting you know now.

But, let's go in reverse order here and tackle the thought of the creators changing things for reasons I've yet to fully understand. Now, I know sometimes it's for the better to change things up from one medium to another as they cannot tell quite as a coherent story as it was told before. It happens a lot with book adaptation to the screen. Sometimes things sound better on paper than they look on screen. Look at the many adaptations of Stephen King novels. Some of the things he puts to paper don't translate well to screen because they are two completely different ways to tell a story. 

But what happens when it's two visual mediums that can get across the story beats in almost the exact same manner? And The Last of Us the perfect example of this. One of my biggest issues with the show so far (and to some it might be very small) is the change from spores to tendrils for how people get infected. Why change it? If people are going to buy into fungus zombies running around, why would the thought of just having clouds of spores just be more centrally located in certain heavily infected areas be too much? The reason given was that realistically everyone would be wearing gas masks all the time; fair enough. But why are the creators thinking about working those in next season? Now, instead of just letting that aspect of the game carry over and just letting the audience suspend their level of disbelief, they're going to have to come up with a reason as to why it wasn't an issue in the first place. But beyond even just that it changes how certain character moments that played out in the game are handled in the show. Ellie being able to breathe in heavily spore infected areas in the games hammers home to Joel that she truly is immune and this scenario has bigger implications in The Last of Us Part 2. And since it's been recently confirmed that there will indeed be a second season of the show, they are now either going to have to cram in a excuse for the spores so they can let those moments play out the same, or they are going to have to come up with a completely different reason for those revelations to come to light for those characters. Why? Why was this necessary? And on a personal side-note, I hate the look of the design. It just looks like the infected have a wad of bean sprouts stuck in their teeth!

I think that's one of the reasons I don't lovingly embrace the show like so many others. For every faithfully recreated scene from the game there are changes that just take me out of the moment and make me question it. And the spore situation is just one example here; there are many more that had me scratching my head. Why'd they change the moment where Tess and Joel confront Robert? It removed a great character moment for Tess! Later when they get out of the QZ, Joel and Tess discover Ellie is infected, then cut to the second episode where they didn't question it any further until the following morning. I guess they weren't too concerned about the possibility of escorting a potential highly infectious girl to her destination. Where as in the game it's a way more intense scene, but before they can finish their discussion, FEDRA starts to show up, forcing them to leave and put it on hold a little longer so they don't get caught. And it's the little things like these that start to build up for me. Scenes or choices that really stood out in the game feel like they're not given the same weight or urgency in the show; and some of those things are not just small moments or details; some are bigger reactions to revelations. It just stands out as odd to me.

However--before we move onto my next point and this kinda acts as a sloppy segue--I do want to take a moment to discuss a couple of changes that I thought were handled really well or are interesting to me. The first change is for the characters of Bill and Frank in the third episode of the show. In the game you don't get a lot of time to get to know Bill as the situation pushes Joel and Ellie further along they're journey. So, you only get hints of Bill's life in his corner of the world. You don't know why he and Joel clash (something that they just kind of shoehorned in the show, unfortunately) or what their relationship was before then. Or where his partner, Frank, has disappeared to (something that you soon discover). You're only given the hints and are left to fill in the gaps yourself, which is something I genuinely prefer; I like putting the pieces together myself. But what we get in the third episode was a really great, and heartfelt, change to the source material. We now get more context to Bill and Frank's relationship; showing how they met, fell in love and built a life together out of all the tragedy and horror that surrounded them. It was a very emotionally raw episode and everyone deserves credit for what they put on screen! 

The second big change is in episodes four and five, involving Henry and Sam. In the game, Joel and Ellie are ambushed and--after fighting they're way threw the city--run into those two characters. They eventually team up and try to escape the city together. And that's about it; though it is a well done section of the game. In the show, however, after Joel and Ellie are ambushed we learn their attackers are part of a bigger community within the city, lead by a new character by the name of Kathleen. And her group are actively hunting Henry and Sam down for something that wasn't divulged to the audience until episode five. I was immediately intrigued by this change and that last episode really nailed it home. It was something new, but didn't take away or distract from the main story.

And I think that's what surprised me the most was how much these big changes didn't bother me like the other, smaller ones had. Now, maybe this is because I'm starting to warm to the show with each passing episode. That's a very distinct possibility. But I think it's because these changes felt like very meaningful ones, and not just something that felt like they were just changing up things because they could. And it was the first time I felt like I was getting something new out of this world, and not something that's trying to come across as an exact recreation of story beats that are so ingrained into my mind.

And this brings us neatly along to my other point now: when the show recreates exact scenes from the game.

While I appreciate that they brought exact moments and scenes to life, and with amazing accuracy, something about them have a tendency to take me out of the show.

And it might be partly because I'm not the biggest fan of some of the casting choices in this show. Ever since it was announced, I couldn't picture Pedro Pascal as Joel. I think he's a decent actor and has done pretty well with the roles I have seen him in, but I think he lacks the same kind of presence that Joel has in the game. It feels like he's not as gruff or gritty as his video game counterpart. Then there's Bella Ramsey as Ellie; the flip-side of my thoughts for casting. I initially had hope for that casting, but, so far, I'm feeling let down by that as well as this Ellie comes across as more annoying than endearing to me. However, I will put in a quick note: I'm starting to warm up to the two of them as of watching episode five. But this still doesn't take away from the fact that when they, or any other character, start doing a scene from the game, it starts to take me out of the moment because I've seen it already played out before--and to a much better emotional and acting degree. For instance, take the scene in episode two where Joel, Tess and Ellie reach what's left of the Firefly camp outside the QZ. In the game, Tess is frantically searching, and asking Ellie, for a clue as to where the lab might be, only for Joel to finally snap at her. And when she reveals to him that she had been bitten early, Joel almost doesn't believe it when he sees it. This is followed up with Tess pleading to him to finish what was started and to leave before the FEDRA soldiers show up. Now in the show this, more or less, plays out in the same manner, but it just lacks the weight of the game. It feels more like the actors are just going through the motion of recreating these scenes. And where Joel was at his limit in the game, comes across as feeling kind of indifferent or distant from the situation. Tess doesn't feel as frantic or desperate. The same can be said for Sarah's death in episode one; it comes across as actors recreating the scene, but in the game it comes across as the emotional moment of loss that it should be. And there are other instances, but I think you get the point. While these scene are recreated pretty faithful, they lack the weight and gravitas that the games seemingly delivered effortlessly. 

And for me a lot of that can be credited to Troy Baker and Ashley Johnson as Joel and Ellie in the game, respectively. They have, and always will, be Joel and Ellie to me. Their line delivery and MoCap are practically second to none. They're performances have always stuck with me from the opening moments on Outbreak Day to the uneasy and ambiguous ending. This also extends to the other actors as well, they all were spot on for their roles. Everyone in the game hit their marks and then some. And I urge anyone reading this who maybe haven't played the game (though, I'd wager that that's not too many of you) to, if nothing else, go watch the game on YouTube to see for yourself.

Before we move on to my final point, I will admit that a large portion of my biased thoughts can be derived from the fact that I am a big fan of that first game (and to some decent extent, the second one as well. Though, that's a story for another time) and it's strange watching these characters either talk or behave in a different manner than what I'm used to (funny, I know, considering what happens in that second game). And maybe that's the main problem for me. Because in the game--outside of the cut scenes--I am in control with how to proceed through a section of game play. And I think that control also lends itself to that connection of the characters. I want, and need, to see this journey through and help this characters out to the best of my ability, even if I know where their story ends. I get a say in how they get there, when I need to act to protect them from the threats that lay ahead, or how they interact with each other; I am immersed in their world. Then when I watch the show that control I once had is fully stripped from me and I feel held at arms length from some of my favorite characters that are saying things or behaving differently than what I know. I don't feel as immersed in their story. And maybe that's the key difference; it's their and my story in the game, but it's solely their story in the show.

Now that I've digressed for a while, I should probably get back to the main point of this post.

I believe (for me anyways) there is a very fine line between not being faithful to the source material to being overly faithful. On one hand I don't want to see something that completely ignores it's inspiration and I want to see all the recognizable characters, scenery, scenarios and easter eggs. But on the other hand I don't know if I care to see exact moments recreated and feeling let down by some aspect that I felt was done better the first time around, and it just makes me want to go play the game instead. I think a prime example of this is Jurassic Park. I know it's a little different since it's a book being adapted, not another piece of visual media, but it's still a decent comparison. While the basic story is largely the same, it changes up some things just enough to where I don't feel like I'm experiencing the exact same story beat for beat. Or as another quick example that's more closely aligned with my point is the 2001 Tomb Raider movie; it's the same character and she does the same things as she does in the game, but it's not telling the exact same story from those games.

And I'm not here to tell anyone they should feel the same way as me or to get them on my side. If anything, if you're enjoying the show and it sparks interest to go check the game out, I think that's fantastic! And even if you don't, I'm glad you're experiencing this story in some form, because even though there are things I don't care for it's still a well written show. These are just thoughts that have been rambling in my head since the show started. And while I'm not 100% on board with the show like a lot of people are, I am enjoying it more and more with each episode. The fifth episode I especially enjoyed as I think it had the right balance of character development and some of the action and horror elements that the game has to offer. 

Ultimately, I think for me I prefer adaptations that bring some of the engaging moments from the original source material while leaving room to expand on the world and characters in a meaningful way that offers something fresh for long time fans.

I hope all of this doesn't come across as whining or complaining. It's not my intention to come across as some jaded or cynical fanboy. Rather, I'm just trying to point out things that make my mind question: can an adaptation can be too faithful?

But what do you think? Is HBO's The Last of Us the perfect adaptation? Do you enjoy seeing other actors recreate exact moments from the game? Do you hate the show? Or are you like me and are starting to warm up to what it has to offer with each passing episode? Either way, let me know in the comments below. And I hope you all have a great day!