Some things in TLOU HBO show will “deviate greatly”

[StaceyPowers]

I saw this quote from Neil Druckmann about TLOU HBO show: “Things sometimes stay pretty close. It’s funny to see my dialogue there from the games in HBO scripts. And sometimes they deviate greatly to much better effect because we are dealing with a different medium.”

His example involves spending more time on drama and less on mechanics, but the use of the word “story” makes me wonder. I don’t like the idea of big story changes, but I trust Druckmann as a writer. Thoughts?

 

[Crazycrab]

I'd expect their to be a lot of changes.  In the original just as much if not more of the storytelling and character development is done through interactive gameplay rather than cutscenes.  To adapt that in to non-interactive media then it's obvious those parts will have to done differently.

[killamch89]

On 3/23/2021 at 7:03 PM, Crazycrab said:

I'd expect their to be a lot of changes.  In the original just as much if not more of the storytelling and character development is done through interactive gameplay rather than cutscenes.  To adapt that in to non-interactive media then it's obvious those parts will have to done differently.

In addition to that, I expect them to explore some overlooked parts of the story because it wouldn't be entertaining if they just re-enacted the original scenes of the game.

[m76]

I'm pretty sure it will be a hit or miss. Either great, or absolutely terrible. While I liked the two games, I think Druckman can be a bit self-serving at times in writing, much like Kojima. If he can avoid that it will be great, if not, the show will be frustrating and painful to watch.  My biggest concern for the show however is Pedro Pascale, his behind the scenes shenanigans on the Mandalorian bumped his reputation down a few notches in my eyes.

[Shagger]

33 minutes ago, m76 said:

I'm pretty sure it will be a hit or miss. Either great, or absolutely terrible. While I liked the two games, I think Druckman can be a bit self-serving at times in writing, much like Kojima. If he can avoid that it will be great, if not, the show will be frustrating and painful to watch.  My biggest concern for the show however is Pedro Pascale, his behind the scenes shenanigans on the Mandalorian bumped his reputation down a few notches in my eyes.

 

Don't get me wrong, I get the idea of a writer and/or director taking more value with the audience knowing it's their story over simply serving the story itself. I'd call out M Night Shamalan to a prime example of that, but in what is Neil Druckman in that category? I personally find his writing more subtle and in service to the plot. 

[m76]

1 hour ago, Shagger said:

 

Don't get me wrong, I get the idea of a writer and/or director taking more value with the audience knowing it's their story over simply serving the story itself. I'd call out M Night Shamalan to a prime example of that, but in what is Neil Druckman in that category? I personally find his writing more subtle and in service to the plot. 

Remember he is the self professed "abuser of characters". He did alienate a lot of fans with The Last of Us 2. It is pure chance that I happened to like it regardless, but I can understand how a lot of people were dismayed by it. Going to write a story that you know at best would be highly divisive is self-serving.

So I curb my expectations for the TV show, I'd rather be pleasantly surprised than badly disappointed.

[Shagger]

On 3/29/2021 at 10:32 AM, m76 said:

Remember he is the self professed "abuser of characters". He did alienate a lot of fans with The Last of Us 2. It is pure chance that I happened to like it regardless, but I can understand how a lot of people were dismayed by it. Going to write a story that you know at best would be highly divisive is self-serving.

So I curb my expectations for the TV show, I'd rather be pleasantly surprised than badly disappointed.

 

So he wrote a story that's morally grey and open to interpretation knowing it would divide opinion to feed his ego? Wow, did I get that wrong! All this time I thought he was writing a tragic story for adults with a complex, challenging take on morals and emotional trauma and not children that needing to be taught the very basics of right and wrong and where everything is happy clappy. Man, was I silly. 

[m76]

17 minutes ago, Shagger said:

 

So he wrote a story that's morally grey and open to interpretation knowing it would divide opinion to feed his ego? Wow, did I get that wrong! All this time I thought he was writing a tragic story for adults with a complex, challenging take on morals and emotional trauma and not children that needing to be taught the very basics of right and wrong and where everything is happy clappy. Man, was I silly. 

And here I was thinking that the goal of "entertainment" was to entertain your audience.  Doing anything else is the very definition of self-serving.  Divisive stories will always be hit and miss, whether you care to admit it or not.

[Reality vs Adventure]

3 hours ago, m76 said:

And here I was thinking that the goal of "entertainment" was to entertain your audience.  Doing anything else is the very definition of self-serving.  Divisive stories will always be hit and miss, whether you care to admit it or not.

How is divisive stories self-serving? You could have a divisive story and be completely neutral to either side, but produce the story just for the sake of entertainment, or just for the sake to cause a splash. Making money is self serving regardless. 

  

[Shagger]

7 hours ago, m76 said:

And here I was thinking that the goal of "entertainment" was to entertain your audience.  Doing anything else is the very definition of self-serving.  Divisive stories will always be hit and miss, whether you care to admit it or not.

 

Yes, video games and the stories they tell are a form of entertainment, but creative writing is also a form of art. Like all art, it's defining purpose is itself, and that's the only purpose art should ever have. Creative writers always leave something of themselves in what write because they have to, they write what they know. A case can be made ALL creative fiction is self serving for those who create it because of that. 

 

So the question is when does a creative writer go too far when is comes to signature? For me, the line gets drawn when a creative writer stops serving the plot at the cost of the story to add unnecessary quirks and style to distract the audience. Breaking immersion to see that the audience not only knows that this is fiction, but more importantly, that it's their fiction. Doesn't matter if it's nonsensical, boring, doesn't develop anything or add meaningfully to the story, all that matters is that the audience is taken out of the story to be reminded who created it.

 

Given how emotional both fans and haters have gotten when it comes to The Last of Us Part 1 and especially Part 2 over the games, it's clear to me that Neil Druckmann is not that kind of writer. I can't even identify any specific thing that feels that indigenous to his work. He's not shy about being left leaning in his personal politics and it dose show is his writing from time to time, but not to the extent that I would have noticed that if I didn't already know that about him.

 

Then there's the "abuser of character" angle you mentioned. I don't know whare you heard that and my own efforts to find that quote have not been successful, so if you can, please link the quote for me. In the meantime, I'll proceed under the assumption that he did say that. The Last of Us has always had a strong theme of suffering, struggle and survival, so it makes sense for the characters to go through some shit. Still, that doesn't immediately sound like one of Neil Druckmann's tropes. Hero's have to suffer to come through the other end, so if anything it is a trope of action. Remember, Druckmann also wrote Uncharted, and I suppose he does put Nathan Drake through hell in that game series, but not any more than most traditional hero's go through in their adventures. It certainly not worse than, for example, what the often compared India Jones or Lara Croft have gone through, so don't see that as a Niel Druckmann trope, it's just how action is written. The Last of Us definitely has a darker, less positive them, but it's still an action game it's core. 

 

While you see as a man trying inflate his ego through his work, I see someone who stuck to his guns and told the story he wanted to tell. Maybe we will just have to agree to disagree as it's not up to me to decide how you define this. I respect your point of view. I just like to believe that people have come to the conclusions they have for the right reasons, that's all. 

 

3 hours ago, Reality vs Adventure said:

How is divisive stories self-serving? You could have a divisive story and be completely neutral to either side, but produce the story just for the sake of entertainment, or just for the sake to cause a splash. Making money is self serving regardless. 

  

 

Good point, and that could be considered another example of writers being self serving, but in a way that's even worse. Stifling themselves and their work to make it more commercially palatable. Writing a divisive story if anything limits the products commercial potential, so Druckman certainly isn't guilty of that form of "self serving" either. 

Edited March 30, 2021 by Shagger

[StaceyPowers]

39 minutes ago, Shagger said:

So the question is when does a creative writer go too far when is comes to signature? For me, the line gets drawn when a creative writer stops serving the plot at the cost of the story to add unnecessary quirks and style to distract the audience

Thank you. I could not have said this better.

I think stories, even those that are made up, have an internal integrity to them, a way they will naturally tend to unfold if the writer doesn't attempt to drag them off-course out of wish-fulfillment, profit, or another motive. The writer who sticks to that integrity regardless of audience perception isn't being self-serving; he is serving the story/art.