‘The last of’ awful adaptations
Adaptations shouldn’t stray too far from the source
Ronnie Saenz / Contributor / The USD Vista
The popular post-apocalyptic zombie video game “The Last of Us” has recently received its own television adaptation that premiered on HBO Max on Jan. 15, and made waves among viewers for being “surprisingly good.” This isn’t a surprise because the zombie genre is overdone, rather it’s surprising because video game adaptations into film or television are usually synonymous with dumpster fires and Adam Sandler movies. But, with “The Last of Us,” video game enthusiasts have found their perfect adaptation.
From “The Super Mario Bros.” (1993) to “Sonic the Hedgehog 2” (2022), video game adaptations to the big screen and television have become commonplace. Just as common is that these adaptations are often critical failures, and that comes down to the faithfulness to the source material. “Uncharted,” “Doom,” “Resident Evil” (2022), “Monster Hunter” and “Tomb Raider” all have below a 50% critic score on Rotten Tomatoes with the consistent comment, “It was nothing like the video game.”
Take the TV adaptation of “Halo” for example. “Halo” the video game defined the modern first person shooter genre and is beloved by many for its fast paced action. The story of the game series is simple, fun, memorable and action packed. On the other hand, “Halo” the TV adaptation almost completely ignores the action adventure that the Halo franchise is known for. “We didn’t look at the game,” says season one showrunner Steven Kane in an interview with Vanity Fair. “We didn’t talk about the game. We talked about the characters and the world. So I never felt limited by it being a game.”
As a result of ignoring the game, the “Halo” show focuses more on drama than the action packed scenes fans have come to expect. Even after spending $10 million per episode, “Halo” only has a critic score of 70% on rotten tomato and an audience score of 52%.
What’s unusual about “The Last of Us” is that it is (so far) extraordinarily similar to its video game counterpart, often having scenes that are identical frame by frame, which is unheard of for video game adaptations. Even the casting is great, as many are relieved the main protagonist in “The Last of Us” Joel is still hot and the zombies are not.
As mentioned, most video game adaptations infamously overhaul significant amounts of the original piece, whether out of fear it may not connect with general audiences or simple ignorance of the source material, but the commercial and critical success of “The Last of Us” is proof that less creative liberties is better than more.
Following the source material as closely as possible is a good idea because it keeps the very things that people loved about that story intact for the adaptation. This is very much an “if it ain’t broke don’t fix it” scenario.
Even though these pieces are based on beloved series, audiences often cite their disappointment that adaptations aren’t more faithful to that series. By straying from the games, these films are alienating the original fans instead of general audiences, in effect creating a generic piece of media instead of one based on an adored franchise, with pre-existing character arcs and canon. The cost of these creative liberties is reflected in the film’s poor critical reception, proving the excess of creative liberties taken on these projects are actually weighing them down.
While all the mentioned films and TV shows are critical failures, they aren’t commercial failures, raking in tens to hundreds of millions of dollars at the box office. It’s proven that when a popular video game series is attached to a film project, it doesn’t matter how good or bad the adaptation is; it will make money simply for the brand recognition. This is why studios pump out so many lazy films based on popular video games. If it will make money anyway, why try to create compelling and good-faith films? I could cite artistry as a reason for the deviation, but from a money perspective, these film adaptations are important for another reason: exposure.
Video games are an inaccessible and expensive medium, with newly released games costing $60 per customer, and the caveat of having to learn how to play them. Film and TV don’t have this problem, as they are relatively inexpensive and no one needs to learn how to watch them.
If your only exposure to a video game and the stories it tells is through poorly done film and TV adaptations, then you will have a bad impression of that game. If you make a good impression of a game, then more people will buy that game and more sequels will be made.
According to IGN, “The Last of Us Part 1” game sales have skyrocketed 238% in the UK since the recent release of the show, because newer fans are buying into its success. A faithful adaptation is more likely to bring long-term success than the lazy adaptation capitalizing from the popularity of a game.
Video game adaptations have come a long way from Yoshi being played by a literal dinosaur to Joel being played by Pedro Pascal. After “The Last of Us,” the future is bright for video game adaptations with upcoming projects such as “The Super Mario Bros. Movie” (2023) and a “God of War” show. As long as future adaptations stick to the sources, these game series and so many more can bathe in the long-term success paved by their predecessors. It’s also important that we as audiences demand more out of studios to give these projects to people who love and care for the games.
Video games are an excellent medium for storytelling, and it’s great that we are finally seeing those stories faithfully acted out on screen, but if things don’t change, we’ll continue to see bad adaptations and audiences won’t open themselves up to original video games. I do truly believe that the future of video game adaptations is bright, but inaccurate adaptations could change this.