• 72 results
  • 1
  • 2
#1 Edited by Anwar (871 posts) -
#2 Posted by Yummylee (21665 posts) -

Maisie Williams is also apparently set to play Ellie. Which, sure, that's at the very least a pretty smart casting choice. Can't say I'm too excited about the movie all the same, though, especially since it's simply adapting the game's story. Completely needless far as I'm concerned.

#3 Edited by Sgtpierceface (624 posts) -

I'm all for it. Why bother saying "It's going to suck as a film" or "There's no point in adapting it"? Just let them make the movie and we'll see how it ends up. I really hope this one actually gets made.

#4 Edited by Milkman (16802 posts) -

Sam Raimi is kind of a weird choice here. I don't see how the typically campy vibe of his movies really translates because The Last of Us could not be less about that.

EDIT: check that, looks like Raimi is just producing. Disregard.

#5 Edited by EuanDewar (4938 posts) -

Is that poster legit? The story I saw from Comic Con said they were still in casting talks for Ellie (If I recall correctly I believe they were specifically considering the actor who plays Arya Stark on Game of Thrones).

#6 Edited by Sterling (2314 posts) -

Isn't the game basically an interactive movie. I guess I don't see the point in making the movie. I mean, I will watch it. And probably enjoy it. I just don't see the point other than money.

#7 Edited by I_Stay_Puft (3401 posts) -

@milkman said:

Sam Raimi is kind of a weird choice here. I don't see how the typically campy vibe of his movies really translates because The Last of Us could not be less about that.

I think Sam Raimi would give the film some legitimacy among the die hard horror fans. It also gives the general population a name cause of his work on the original Spiderman trilogy. Just speaking on Sam Raimi himself, he can do good horror if he wants to I thought the original Evil Dead & Drag Me to Hell were alright horror films.

#8 Posted by Yummylee (21665 posts) -

@sterling said:

Isn't the game basically an interactive movie. I guess I don't see the point in making the movie. I mean, I will watch it. And probably enjoy it. I just don't see the point other than money.

Not at all. It's... cinematic sure, but when someone calls a game an ''interactive movie'' I think of stuff like the modern Telltale adventure games or Quantic Dream's stuff. The Last of Us has a lot of gameplay in there.

That said, its highly cinematic nature and its, what I consider to be, perfect weaving of story and gameplay make such a direct movie adaptation about as pointless as a Max Payne movie. But money and all that, so. Its intended audience likely isn't for people who played the game in any case.

#9 Posted by ll_Exile_ll (1708 posts) -

@sterling said:

Isn't the game basically an interactive movie. I guess I don't see the point in making the movie. I mean, I will watch it. And probably enjoy it. I just don't see the point other than money.

When I think "interactive movie" I think of David Cage games or Telltale's stuff, not the kind of cinematic, stealth, survival, third person action game that The Last of Us is. Though while I don't agree with your terminology, I do agree that the movie doesn't seem like a great idea.

It reminds of Avatar: The Last Airbender. The show was phenomenally brilliant and there was absolutely no need for an adaptation. I feel like the best case scenario for The Last of Us is a good film that isn't as good as the game and the worst case is what happened with The Last Airbender film (ruined by needless changes, trying to fit the story in a running time 1/10 of the source material, bad casting, and horrible acting).

#10 Posted by Anwar (871 posts) -

@yummylee: Max Payne was just an IP which got sold and nobody who made the game was heavily involved iirc, right? So that's a bit different imo. I don't have great expectations, but I'd like to see it.

#11 Edited by believer258 (11914 posts) -

@yummylee said:

@sterling said:

Isn't the game basically an interactive movie. I guess I don't see the point in making the movie. I mean, I will watch it. And probably enjoy it. I just don't see the point other than money.

Not at all. It's... cinematic sure, but when someone calls a game an ''interactive movie'' I think of stuff like the modern Telltale adventure games or Quantic Dream's stuff. The Last of Us has a lot of gameplay in there.

That said, its highly cinematic nature and its, what I consider to be, perfect weaving of story and gameplay make such a direct movie adaptation about as pointless as a Max Payne movie. But money and all that, so. Its intended audience likely isn't for people who played the game in any case.

I'd rather see The Last of Us in film form because I liked everything about it a whole lot except the gameplay. I would rather see it in a late-night cable TV format, though - the game's story has a pace that fits it perfectly but it's too slow and there's too much of it for a movie.

EDIT: OK, I should elaborate. I liked a fair bit of the gameplay, but I thought it had a few major issues. Overall I still think the game is pretty great.

#12 Posted by Brackstone (66 posts) -

If Bill is still a character in the movie, they'd better cast W. Earl Brown again. That's pretty much the only opinion I have on the movie.

#13 Posted by spraynardtatum (2972 posts) -

Do you know what was already a good Last of Us movie? The Last of Us video game.

#14 Edited by handlas (2683 posts) -

I feel like so many video game movies are announced and I never see them come out... so It's hard to care about any of these.

And I agree with spray... the game itself is a good movie (tho perhaps he meant that as an insult). It was good as it is and doesn't really need to be a movie unless they change it and, then, what's the point. The story is kind of cliche but the way Naughty Dog was able to make the characters so believable in the game was what made it so good. Which isn't really going to be as much of an accomplishment in a movie.

#15 Posted by TheManWithNoPlan (5517 posts) -

I refuse to believe this will ever come out.

#16 Edited by RVonE (4638 posts) -

This seems like a bad idea.

EDIT: unless it's going to be Michael Bay's Jerry Bruckheimer's The Last of Us.

#17 Posted by AMyggen (3068 posts) -

I refuse to believe this will ever come out.

Yeah, pretty much the same.

#18 Edited by Video_Game_King (36272 posts) -

@yummylee said:

@sterling said:

Isn't the game basically an interactive movie. I guess I don't see the point in making the movie. I mean, I will watch it. And probably enjoy it. I just don't see the point other than money.

Not at all. It's... cinematic sure, but when someone calls a game an ''interactive movie'' I think of stuff like the modern Telltale adventure games or Quantic Dream's stuff. The Last of Us has a lot of gameplay in there.

I'd call The Last of Us an interactive movie, at least to some extent. The beginning was especially like this, with a lot of planned set pieces you played through, like it was a movie or something.

#19 Posted by Yummylee (21665 posts) -

@yummylee said:

@sterling said:

Isn't the game basically an interactive movie. I guess I don't see the point in making the movie. I mean, I will watch it. And probably enjoy it. I just don't see the point other than money.

Not at all. It's... cinematic sure, but when someone calls a game an ''interactive movie'' I think of stuff like the modern Telltale adventure games or Quantic Dream's stuff. The Last of Us has a lot of gameplay in there.

I'd call The Last of Us an interactive movie, at least to some extent. The beginning was especially like this, with a lot of planned set pieces you played through, like it was a movie or something.

That seems awfully reductive... Just because it has the odd sequence that's heavily scripted shouldn't then qualify it as an ''interactive movie'. If something like The Last of Us can be classed as such then the same could be said for a lot of other games out there.

#20 Posted by Video_Game_King (36272 posts) -

@yummylee said:

@video_game_king said:

I'd call The Last of Us an interactive movie, at least to some extent. The beginning was especially like this, with a lot of planned set pieces you played through, like it was a movie or something.

That seems awfully reductive... Just because it has the odd sequence that's heavily scripted shouldn't then qualify it as an ''interactive movie'. If something like The Last of Us can be classed as such then the same could be said for a lot of other games out there.

I could honestly make that argument.

#21 Posted by joshwent (2207 posts) -

Casting call for Ellen Page?

#22 Posted by GunstarRed (5190 posts) -

@yummylee said:

That said, its highly cinematic nature and its, what I consider to be, perfect weaving of story and gameplay make such a direct movie adaptation about as pointless as a Max Payne movie.

Max Payne 3 is a much, much, much better movie than the actual Max Payne movie.

#23 Edited by csl316 (8691 posts) -

I need this to star Clive Owen and Chloe Grace Moretz, thank you.

#24 Posted by Shindig (378 posts) -

Oh, I can see the bus ads now...

"Its like The Road with zombies - * * * * *", some gimp from The Sun. With the casting, could they not have just cast Ellen Page. She hasn't aged for like, 10 years and isn't set to age for another 30.

#25 Posted by Yummylee (21665 posts) -

@yummylee said:

@video_game_king said:

I'd call The Last of Us an interactive movie, at least to some extent. The beginning was especially like this, with a lot of planned set pieces you played through, like it was a movie or something.

That seems awfully reductive... Just because it has the odd sequence that's heavily scripted shouldn't then qualify it as an ''interactive movie'. If something like The Last of Us can be classed as such then the same could be said for a lot of other games out there.

I could honestly make that argument.

Well, it's an argument I'm not much interested in really, as it veers awfully close to the silly ''what makes a video game a video game'' sorta territory. I still believe that classing a game like The Last of Us as an 'interactive movie' is highly reductive and kind of insulting to its game design, but if that's what you think then that's your prerogative.

#26 Posted by A_E_Martin (219 posts) -

Maisie Williams could work. As long as they don't let Sam Raimi have any creative involvement, this might turn out alright, especially if they get someone like Matt Reeves or Alfonso Cuarón to direct.

#27 Posted by StarvingGamer (8250 posts) -

@handlas said:

And I agree with spray... the game itself is a good movie (tho perhaps he meant that as an insult). It was good as it is and doesn't really need to be a movie unless they change it and, then, what's the point.

Because it's a good story that is worth experiencing, even if you don't play video games. How many people read A Song of Ice and Fire before they watched Game of Thrones? How many decided to read the books after watching Game of Thrones? And the barrier of entry to reading a book is significantly lower than the barrier of entry to playing TLoU for a casual/non-gamer.

Also I'd argue that if you believe the story of TLoU was cliche, so is every other story we've experienced in our lifetimes.

#28 Posted by Video_Game_King (36272 posts) -

@yummylee said:

Well, it's an argument I'm not much interested in really, as it veers awfully close to the silly ''what makes a video game a video game'' sorta territory.

That would actually be part of my argument. I'm just fed up with the term "video game" simply because people forget the game part. It's a little foolish to say that Xenosaga and Solitaire are both games, even if Xenosaga has light game elements. (A less holistic approach to this kind of discourse would help immensely.)

I still believe that classing a game like The Last of Us as an 'interactive movie' is highly reductive and kind of insulting to its game design, but if that's what you think then that's your prerogative.

This would be another part: looking past this terminology as reductive. Hell, it could even be informative. Saying that BioShock is interactive theater tells you a little bit about what the experience would be like, as would the act of saying that Flower is an interactive painting. Imperfect, I know, but a little more precise than "video game."

#29 Edited by Yummylee (21665 posts) -

@starvinggamer said:

@handlas said:

And I agree with spray... the game itself is a good movie (tho perhaps he meant that as an insult). It was good as it is and doesn't really need to be a movie unless they change it and, then, what's the point.

Because it's a good story that is worth experiencing, even if you don't play video games. How many people read A Song of Ice and Fire before they watched Game of Thrones? How many decided to read the books after watching Game of Thrones? And the barrier of entry to reading a book is significantly lower than the barrier of entry to playing TLoU for a casual/non-gamer.

Also I'd argue that if you believe the story of TLoU was cliche, so is every other story we've experienced in our lifetimes.

But the story excelled because of the gameplay alongside it. As a film it's likely to function as just another well made post-apocalyptic movie; The Road but with zombies. Plus it's different with books because they're not already visualised with actors, sets, camera work ect, whereas a video game is. Comics too, sorta, because they're elevating comic book storylines & characters from static images into something with voices and movement. They allow more of our senses to partake in its narrative, whereas a game-to-film adaptation actually reduces the number of ways you can engage with a story.

#30 Posted by Yummylee (21665 posts) -

@yummylee said:

Well, it's an argument I'm not much interested in really, as it veers awfully close to the silly ''what makes a video game a video game'' sorta territory.

That would actually be part of my argument. I'm just fed up with the term "video game" simply because people forget the game part. It's a little foolish to say that Xenosaga and Solitaire are both games, even if Xenosaga has light game elements. (A less holistic approach to this kind of discourse would help immensely.)

I still believe that classing a game like The Last of Us as an 'interactive movie' is highly reductive and kind of insulting to its game design, but if that's what you think then that's your prerogative.

This would be another part: looking past this terminology as reductive. Hell, it could even be informative. Saying that BioShock is interactive theater tells you a little bit about what the experience would be like, as would the act of saying that Flower is an interactive painting. Imperfect, I know, but a little more precise than "video game."

I'm currently more than OK with keeping it all under the umbrella of ''video game''. I'm sure a more fitting moniker may arise as the years go by to better differentiate it all, but for now I feel that directly comparing video games to other mediums is unfair to what video games can accomplish. When what we know as video games potentially overthrows film as the most popular medium of storytelling, do we then start calling film ''non-interactive/static video games''?

#31 Posted by StarvingGamer (8250 posts) -

@yummylee said:

@starvinggamer said:

@handlas said:

And I agree with spray... the game itself is a good movie (tho perhaps he meant that as an insult). It was good as it is and doesn't really need to be a movie unless they change it and, then, what's the point.

Because it's a good story that is worth experiencing, even if you don't play video games. How many people read A Song of Ice and Fire before they watched Game of Thrones? How many decided to read the books after watching Game of Thrones? And the barrier of entry to reading a book is significantly lower than the barrier of entry to playing TLoU for a casual/non-gamer.

Also I'd argue that if you believe the story of TLoU was cliche, so is every other story we've experienced in our lifetimes.

But the story excelled because of the gameplay alongside it. As a film it's likely to function as just another well made post-apocalyptic movie; The Road but with zombies. Plus it's different with books because they're not already visualised with actors, sets, camera work ect, whereas a video game is. Comics too, sorta, because they're elevating comic book storylines & characters from static images into something with voices and movement. They allow more of our senses to partake in its narrative, whereas a game-to-film adaptation actually reduces the number of ways you can engage with a story.

The gameplay wouldn't have had anything to elevate if the story wasn't strong on its own. Having gameplay does not inherently make it a more valid or valuable experience, just look at all the video game adaptations of movies out there. Even the South Park game, that was able to deliver on the feel of the cartoon so well, was not in any way better than the show itself. It was excellent, but the addition of gameplay just made it differently good. The same can be true for TLoU if they are smart about the way they adapt the story from the game to fully take advantage of the movie format. You say "The Road" but with zombies, but how many other quality films can you say that about? That sort of generalization only matters if the plot synopsis is what you watch a movie for. It's about the moment-to-moment human interaction, and the setting of TLoU is an amazing one for that.

#32 Posted by Jeust (10655 posts) -

It may arise as an interesting apocalyptic movie in the veins of The Road, and I Am Legend. I'm not going to see it, but it has potential as a movie.

#33 Posted by CornBREDX (5306 posts) -

I hope it's better than the game. I don't think it will be, but who knows.

My initial reaction is one of high skepticism. I'm not really a fan of the game, but I don't see how it could even possibly work as a movie when all the game is is an homage to movies, books, and other games of it's own genre.

I do suppose in the hands of the right crew of people it could be interesting. It does tackle some interesting ideas (even if it does most of them poorly). I suspect the most interesting part of the game wouldn't even be in it, though, if past game to movie adaptations are any indication. They'll try to follow the "directors vision" instead of following what the game is already.

I don't know, we'll see.

#34 Edited by Yummylee (21665 posts) -

@yummylee said:

@starvinggamer said:

@handlas said:

And I agree with spray... the game itself is a good movie (tho perhaps he meant that as an insult). It was good as it is and doesn't really need to be a movie unless they change it and, then, what's the point.

Because it's a good story that is worth experiencing, even if you don't play video games. How many people read A Song of Ice and Fire before they watched Game of Thrones? How many decided to read the books after watching Game of Thrones? And the barrier of entry to reading a book is significantly lower than the barrier of entry to playing TLoU for a casual/non-gamer.

Also I'd argue that if you believe the story of TLoU was cliche, so is every other story we've experienced in our lifetimes.

But the story excelled because of the gameplay alongside it. As a film it's likely to function as just another well made post-apocalyptic movie; The Road but with zombies. Plus it's different with books because they're not already visualised with actors, sets, camera work ect, whereas a video game is. Comics too, sorta, because they're elevating comic book storylines & characters from static images into something with voices and movement. They allow more of our senses to partake in its narrative, whereas a game-to-film adaptation actually reduces the number of ways you can engage with a story.

The gameplay wouldn't have had anything to elevate if the story wasn't strong on its own. Having gameplay does not inherently make it a more valid or valuable experience, just look at all the video game adaptations of movies out there. Even the South Park game, that was able to deliver on the feel of the cartoon so well, was not in any way better than the show itself. It was excellent, but the addition of gameplay just made it differently good. The same can be true for TLoU if they are smart about the way they adapt the story from the game to fully take advantage of the movie format. You say "The Road" but with zombies, but how many other quality films can you say that about? That sort of generalization only matters if the plot synopsis is what you watch a movie for. It's about the moment-to-moment human interaction, and the setting of TLoU is an amazing one for that.

That's what I mean, in that The Last of Us is such a memorable game for me specifically because of its perfect blending of the gameplay and story. That moment-to-moment human interaction, that still exists in the game, only it's further accentuated by you yourself controlling the character. I could emphasise with the weariness of Joel all the more because of his somewhat sluggish movement, and the moment when he punctures his stomach after falling on the pipe, having to control Joel while he can barely stand again adds to the sense of not only witnessing but also feeling what's he going through. Not literally feeling what he's going through of course, but it helped add to the effect all the same for me.

It's why I often tend to find myself more attached to video game characters, by virtue of actually having control of them. I wouldn't claim that, say, Marcus Fenix is a better and more engaging character than John McClane in terms of action stars, yet I can't deny that I find myself more attached to Marcus. I feel there's less worth in film than there is video games; sure, movies are often much better written, directed, and are still a more reliable venue for dealing with serious themes. But in the long run what we know is video games is likely to make them almost seem sort of obsolete. Well, maybe obsolete is a little extreme, as you could look at film/TV as something that offers a more guided experience as opposed to the open interactivity of a video game.

Still, the point is I think The Last of Us' success as a story loses a piece of it when adapted to film, and because acting/storytelling in film is of such a higher and more consistent calibre there's a lot more tougher competition out there, that's then likely to have filmgoers wondering what the fuss was all about.

#35 Posted by SunBroZak (1117 posts) -

I guess it's cool for people who don't play video games. I was completely satisfied with the game itself, and don't feel any need to see a movie adaptation.

#36 Posted by falserelic (5437 posts) -

I'll be down to watch it.

#37 Posted by CorruptedEvil (3396 posts) -

I guess it'll be cool to finally be able to say to people that don't play them that videogames can have amazing stories.

#38 Posted by StarvingGamer (8250 posts) -

@yummylee said:

That's what I mean, in that The Last of Us is such a memorable game for me specifically because of its perfect blending of the gameplay and story. That moment-to-moment human interaction, that still exists in the game, only it's further accentuated by you yourself controlling the character. I could emphasise with the weariness of Joel all the more because of his somewhat sluggish movement, and the moment when he punctures his stomach after falling on the pipe, having to control Joel while he can barely stand again adds to the sense of not only witnessing but also feeling what's he going through. Not literally feeling what he's going through of course, but it helped add to the effect all the same for me.

It's why I often tend to find myself more attached to video game characters, by virtue of actually having control of them. I wouldn't claim that, say, Marcus Fenix is a better and more engaging character than John McClane in terms of action stars, yet I can't deny that I find myself more attached to Marcus. I feel there's less worth in film than there is video games; sure, movies are often much better written, directed, and are still a more reliable venue for dealing with serious themes. But in the long run what we know is video games is likely to make them almost seem sort of obsolete. Well, maybe obsolete is a little extreme, as you could look at film/TV as something that offers a more guided experience as opposed to the open interactivity of a video game.

Still, the point is I think The Last of Us' success as a story loses a piece of it when adapted to film, and because acting/storytelling in film is of such a higher and more consistent calibre there's a lot more tougher competition out there, that's then likely to have filmgoers wondering what the fuss was all about.

I don't disagree that the gameplay of TLoU is definitely additive to the strength of the entire experience. I don't disagree that some of that would definitely be lost in translating it to film. But that doesn't mean something couldn't be gained as well. To start, ludonarrative dissonance that seems to be a big issue for a number of people is completely eliminated in a filmic format. And no matter how good TLoU looks, that rebar through the gut is never going to be as cringe-worthy as watching the same thing with a real actor and some excellent practical effects.

TLoU is amazing, and a lot of that has to do with its specific strengths as a game, but that doesn't preclude someone from taking the good, non-game-specific parts, and infusing it with all the things you can only accomplish in cinema. A TLoU movie will never be great in the same way the game is great, but there's absolutely nothing about it that would inherently prevent it from being great in the way that movies are great.

#39 Posted by handlas (2683 posts) -

@handlas said:

And I agree with spray... the game itself is a good movie (tho perhaps he meant that as an insult). It was good as it is and doesn't really need to be a movie unless they change it and, then, what's the point.

Because it's a good story that is worth experiencing, even if you don't play video games. How many people read A Song of Ice and Fire before they watched Game of Thrones? How many decided to read the books after watching Game of Thrones? And the barrier of entry to reading a book is significantly lower than the barrier of entry to playing TLoU for a casual/non-gamer.

Also I'd argue that if you believe the story of TLoU was cliche, so is every other story we've experienced in our lifetimes.

That's the problem with only quoting part of someone's opinion. You completely miss the point of what I was saying.

#40 Posted by StarvingGamer (8250 posts) -

@handlas said:

@starvinggamer said:

@handlas said:

And I agree with spray... the game itself is a good movie (tho perhaps he meant that as an insult). It was good as it is and doesn't really need to be a movie unless they change it and, then, what's the point.

Because it's a good story that is worth experiencing, even if you don't play video games. How many people read A Song of Ice and Fire before they watched Game of Thrones? How many decided to read the books after watching Game of Thrones? And the barrier of entry to reading a book is significantly lower than the barrier of entry to playing TLoU for a casual/non-gamer.

Also I'd argue that if you believe the story of TLoU was cliche, so is every other story we've experienced in our lifetimes.

That's the problem with only quoting part of someone's opinion. You completely miss the point of what I was saying.

You were saying that you think the story is only good in the context of "it's a video game story" and I'm saying I think it's worth experiencing outside of a video game. What am I missing? Did you type half of your post with an invisible keyboard?

#41 Posted by Hunkulese (2728 posts) -

@sterling said:

Isn't the game basically an interactive movie. I guess I don't see the point in making the movie. I mean, I will watch it. And probably enjoy it. I just don't see the point other than money.

A movie is a better storytelling medium than a game. The Last of Us had a pretty great story when the game wasn't getting in the way.

#42 Posted by ganjaman (107 posts) -

Maybe it's just me, but I can envision a scruffy Jon Hamm playing Joel (strictly speaking about his look and not his acting).

#43 Posted by JasonR86 (9710 posts) -

I really liked the Last of Us' story and characters but I wonder if it made such an impact because my expectations are different for games. I mean when you break down the characters and stories I don't think they really stand out that much in movie form. I think I'll like the movie because I liked the game. But I'm curious how an unbiased audience will think. I could see this getting moderate critical reception and barely breaking even at the box office.

#44 Posted by ToTheNines (723 posts) -

oh god no.. they can only fuck it up..

#45 Edited by Jazz_Bcaz (271 posts) -

I don't know how I feel about this. Any of this. Neil Druckmann is penning the script at least, but personally I found his expertise to lie in knowing what works well in a game and how he can pace his characters in that medium. His dialogue isn't exactly mind blowing.

#46 Posted by Creamypies (4066 posts) -

I can't wait until we live in a world where everyone plays games, and you don't have to make movie adaptations that appeal to those who don't.

Just play the damn game. Enjoy the story as it was originally intended.

#47 Posted by Red12b (9084 posts) -

@yummylee said:

@sterling said:

Isn't the game basically an interactive movie. I guess I don't see the point in making the movie. I mean, I will watch it. And probably enjoy it. I just don't see the point other than money.

Not at all. It's... cinematic sure, but when someone calls a game an ''interactive movie'' I think of stuff like the modern Telltale adventure games or Quantic Dream's stuff. The Last of Us has a lot of gameplay in there.

That said, its highly cinematic nature and its, what I consider to be, perfect weaving of story and gameplay make such a direct movie adaptation about as pointless as a Max Payne movie. But money and all that, so. Its intended audience likely isn't for people who played the game in any case.

@sterling said:

Isn't the game basically an interactive movie. I guess I don't see the point in making the movie. I mean, I will watch it. And probably enjoy it. I just don't see the point other than money.

When I think "interactive movie" I think of David Cage games or Telltale's stuff, not the kind of cinematic, stealth, survival, third person action game that The Last of Us is. Though while I don't agree with your terminology, I do agree that the movie doesn't seem like a great idea.

It reminds of Avatar: The Last Airbender. The show was phenomenally brilliant and there was absolutely no need for an adaptation. I feel like the best case scenario for The Last of Us is a good film that isn't as good as the game and the worst case is what happened with The Last Airbender film (ruined by needless changes, trying to fit the story in a running time 1/10 of the source material, bad casting, and horrible acting).

I love this,

You guys posted 6 minutes apart but had exactly the same points, referencing completely different properties to support your claims and presenting it in the same two paragraph structure........

#48 Posted by edsone (268 posts) -

I can't wait until we live in a world where everyone plays games, and you don't have to make movie adaptations that appeal to those who don't.

Just play the damn game. Enjoy the story as it was originally intended.

Nothing wrong with an adaptation. If it's got potential to be a great movie why not? The only problem is when it alienates the core fanbase which happens very often with games/comics adaptations.

#49 Posted by senrat (323 posts) -

This movie seemed to have gotten the green light to be made quite quickly. Years ago, the woodbe director of the Bioshock movie had to fight studios limiting budget and making it PG-13 and as a result it never got made. I think studios are now willing to take more of a chance video game based movies, hopefully this means the franchises we have aways wanted to see movies of will be made.

#50 Edited by bemusedchunk (692 posts) -

Will this be better than Kane and Lynch?