Neil Druckmann confirms the Fireflies could have made a viable cure in interview (+ other insights on the show, games, and future) | ResetEra

Published 9 hours ago• 19 minute read

You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.

Full on spoilers for TLOU1, TLOU2, and both seasons of the show ahead

I saw this clip on the TLOU subreddit making the rounds. Neil goes into the viability of the cure, and he says this:

"Could the Fireflies make a cure? Our intent was that, yes, they could. Now, is our science a little shaky that now people are questioning it? Yeah, it was a little shaky and now people are questioning that. I can't say anything. All I can say is that our intent is that they would have made a cure. That makes it a more interesting philosophical question for what Joel does."

I can't post the interview due to the interviewer, however, if you are a fan of TLOU, I would suggest maybe looking for articles/posts covering it or finding the interview yourself. Neil goes into A LOT. I'll bullet point some highlights.

Show highlights:
- Neil says Ellie and Dina's relationship was intentionally static in the game. The same approach wouldn't work for the show because shows need movement.
- The series needs constant conflict/progression because story is everything in the medium. In games, you can have nothing of high importance going on for a while and still be invested due to interactivity.
- He recognizes the divisiveness of the second season from game fans. He's appreciative of their love for the material and finds it cool how people see a game as standing shoulder-to-shoulder with a HBO show. He thinks it highlights how gaming has elevated as a medium.
- Abby's motivation and the porch scene were moved up due to the reality that the second game needed multiple seasons to be fully adapted. Neil and Craig felt these elements wouldn't land if they kept the game's structure due to how long TV viewers would have to wait to get to them. There was a fear that the impact of these elements would have been lost due to people not remembering the previous season clearly enough to draw connections.
- Craig is very intrigued by the idea of the prophet and wants to expand on who she is in the future.

Game highlights:
- There was originally a sequence planned for one of the flashbacks in TLOU2 where we would play through an infected attack on Jackson as Ellie alongside Joel.
- There was no intent for the WLF/Seraphite conflict to serve as an allegory for the Israeli/Palestinian conflict. He took inspiration from the latter but he also took inspiration from other conflicts. Neil feels certain people online were cherry-picking statements to fit a narrative. He views the game conflict as a secular group clashing against a religious group.
- He confirms he would be open to TLOU3 like he said in the documentary but wants to ensure he has the right idea for it that lives up to the series' pedigree
- Neil's top priority right now is Intergalactic above all else. He claims it has the deepest gameplay they've ever done.

Last edited: Today at 2:57 AM

Never understood why people thought they couldn't.

That's the whole point of the ending. Joel being selfish, not willing to sacrifice someone he cares about for the greater good.

I thought it was left vague in both the game and the show until the show's latest episode.

Heh, I liked the ambiguity of not knowing if there was a 100% success guarantee out of sacrificing Ellie.

Heh, I liked the ambiguity of not knowing if there was a 100% success guarantee out of sacrificing Ellie.

Agreed. It should be left unknown.

Maaan Neil really needs to stop, feels like he's stripping away what's left of the nuance with those latest comments on the story.

Then again, his story, his right I suppose, my headcannon remains strong and stubborn though. :P

btw. interesting interview 🤔

Risev

"This guy are sick"

Never understood why people thought they couldn't.
That's the whole point of the ending. Joel being selfish, not willing to sacrifice someone he cares about for the greater good.

I always got the impression the game wanted you to skip through the bullshit and just assume the cure would work, but it's still mediocre writing at best:

- the lead doctor was a veterinarian.
- the fireflies were desperate, lacking man power, and funds.
- literally almost zero testing on Ellie before Just wanting to rip her brain out of her skull
- literally zero attention given to the special circumstances that could have led to ellie being immune

hell yeah, next we should ask christopher nolan if the top was gonna fall down

Death of the author applies here, I don't really care what he has to say if it's not in the original game/text.

It's clearly supposed to be ambiguous and it's staying that way for me.

Neil knowing the answer isn't the same as Joel knowing the answer - the only guarantee was that Ellie was going to die.

hell yeah, next we should ask christopher nolan if the top was gonna fall down

lol

Threadmarks Clarification on cure New

For further context, he also states that if you had a different takeaway on the ending scenario of the first game, that's fully valid as well. He's just clarifying his authorial intent while also acknowledging that a player/viewer may read the situation much differently. I think he finds the philosophical question of saving a loved one versus saving the world more interesting than the specifics of how they got to that point.

I always assumed there was a shot at a cure and that's what Joel denied humanity with his selfish, murderous behavior. There was no ambiguity about it for me playing the second game. It's just not subtle at all.

I thought it was left vague in both the game and the show until the show's latest episode.

I think his answer still keeps it vague, but emphasising that serious possibilities existed

Why creators their own productruin years after a good product releases. Man just focus on making new stuff instead of clarifying theories.

Risev

"This guy are sick"

For further context, he also states that if you had a different takeaway on the ending scenario of the first game, that's fully valid as well. He's just clarifying his authorial intent while also acknowledging that a player/viewer may read the situation much differently.

With all due respect to Niel, but that'a bullshit lmao. He also said the exact same thing about Ellie forgiving Joel / knowing he killed the fireflies at the end of the first game just a month or so before the release of Part 2 which gives a clear answer and renders any other interpretation invalid

It's kind of moot if you make this so technichal

Could they make it, could they deliver it, etc.

Agreed. It should be left unknown.

The game came out over 12 years ago. The idea that a creator/author should just shut up and literally never comment on an ambiguous ending or complicated choice is so weird to me, especially when it's just his opinion at the end of the day.

Never understood why people thought they couldn't.
That's the whole point of the ending. Joel being selfish, not willing to sacrifice someone he cares about for the greater good.

This. I was surprised to see people online saying they couldn't make a cure. It also obviously had no bearing on Joel's decision to massacre the hospital either. He just went back to doing what he used to do with Tommy for 20 years.

Definitely makes Druckmann's recent comment about doing what Joel did sound sociopathic.

Heh, I liked the ambiguity of not knowing if there was a 100% success guarantee out of sacrificing Ellie.

Yes, me too. I liked that the Fireflies were acting on the basis of hope rather than hard facts.
Maybe Joel was right to save Ellie from pointless sacrifice. Maybe Ellie's savior complex was based on nothing and she was right to just live and enjoy life as it was.

Woah Woah Woah... You mean Joel is a shitty self-serving asshole??!!

Say it ain't so...

Death of the author and all that, he really shouldn't confirm something like that. I suppose it's his right, but it hampers the discussion irrevocably.

In either case, it does not make any sense on any level to kill the one girl with immunity milliseconds after making the deduction. Not to mention since the Fireflies are murderous, lying pricks anyway, it doesn't make any sense why Joel should believe them just because an omniscient entity (as far as the universe is concerned) confirmed it.

Will never understand why people split hairs over this or claim the supposed "ambiguity" of the vaccine viability adds anything to the story. In BOTH games, every character that matters is confident in the possibility of the vaccine, and that is what is important. People so DESPERATELY want to be morally vindicated that siding with Joel is not just righteous, but also rational even pursuit of a vaccine, even though the most passing glance interpretation of the ending is OBVIOUSLY written to not satisfy that perspective. It's a trolley problem, and the trolley problem is what makes the ending, and Joel's decision, interesting. If it's not actually a trolley problem, the ending and the story lose a lot of their depth and impact.

Last edited: Today at 3:02 AM

Risev

"This guy are sick"

Woah Woah Woah... You mean Joel is a shitty self-serving asshole??!!
Say it ain't so...

if only he picked up the phone when Neil was calling to tell him the cure works...

SCUMMbag

Prophet of Truth - Chicken Chaser

Never understood why people thought they couldn't.
That's the whole point of the ending. Joel being selfish, not willing to sacrifice someone he cares about for the greater good.

This.

TLOU isn't a written masterpiece so there's some holes but the intention of those scenes were pretty clear.

A lot of the ambiguity comes from things like "they did no testing" and "they decided this far too quick" which are just leaps you'd make to keep the pacing of your game.

Milk

Prophet of Truth

No shit. People trying to "um achually ☝️🤓" their way out of Joel's choice ruins the entire point of the ending in the first place. If there's no realistic way to create and disperse a vaccine then there's no choice in the first place.

At the same time, I get it. Obviously you want to realistically analyze parts of a story you're experiencing. But story intent still applies, in this instance, it's literally just better to accept the Fireflies at their word and assume a cure would work.

I feel like the cure having been likely possible is far more interesting because it means Joel's decision has more around it. Cause yeah, his decision to kill them all means a lot more than if the cure was never possible and they were just a bunch idiots cause then Joel was 100% in the right to stop them.

: Oct 27, 2017

: 27,779

: Spain

Never understood why people thought they couldn't.
That's the whole point of the ending. Joel being selfish, not willing to sacrifice someone he cares about for the greater good.

Because the science behind it was pretty stupid, tbh.

But you're right, from a dramatic point of view, it needs to be that way.

If they can make a cure: The ending is a moral dilemma, where Joel is willing to sacrifice humanity to save the person he loves.

If they can't make a cure: Joel is saving a child from child murderers.

I never understood why anyone would prefer a Mario saves Peach style ending instead of the actual interesting ending we got. When you question their ability to make a cure you are arguing the ending is worse than it is.

If they can make a cure: The ending is a moral dilemma, where Joel is willing to sacrifice humanity to save the person he loves.
If they can't make a cure: Joel is saving a child from child murderers.
I never understood why anyone would prefer a Mario saves Peach style ending instead of the actual interesting ending we got. When you question their ability to make a cure you are arguing the ending is worse than it is.

Exactly.

Risev

"This guy are sick"

No shit. People trying to "um achually ☝️🤓" their way out of Joel's choice ruins the entire point of the ending in the first place. If there's no realistic way to create and disperse a vaccine then there's no choice in the first place.
At the same time, I get it. Obviously you want to realistically analyze parts of a story you're experiencing. But story intent still applies, in this instance, it's literally just better to accept the Fireflies at their word and assume a cure would work.

I'd say this is Neil's biggest shortcoming as a writer and is worth criticizing: wanting you to make leaps and just skip through some plot holes for the service of the plot.

Uncharted 4 also contains an extremely glaring plot hole that you have to gloss over to enjoy the story

The arguments about if the cure would have worked come usually from people who want to justify hie actions.

The justification there actually is, love.

Edit: "They didn't even ask her" point is also kind of moot because how often we heard from Ellies mouth that she would have done it.

I thought it was more interesting leaving it unknown

It was always the case; people just obscured things to make themselves feel better about Joel's decision.

The whole point of the games ending was dealing with the "Save many by the cost of one/few" trope we've seen before.

Boooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo

The story is infinitely more interesting and thought provoking, particularly in regards to character motivations, actions, and subsequent consequences, when the climax of the first game is viewed through the lens of the unknown; that people and groups make decisions and take actions, sometimes decisively and recklessly, without knowing for sure what the totality of consequence will be, or being fundamentally unable to know if the risks taken are worth the cost.

I don't even care about the science behind it (which is dumb). Knowing the cure would/wouldn't work sucks shit and is a boring lame framing of the narrative. Not knowing adds a hefty ambiguity and weight to the choices made. People making decisions, or committing to causes, without ever fully knowing for sure how subsequent events will transpire, is literally how life works is is the ultimate fuel and weight behind our personal journey through guilt and accountability.

I'd say this is Neil's biggest shortcoming as a writer and is worth criticizing: wanting you to make leaps and just skip through some plot holes for the service of the plot.
Uncharted 4 also contains an extremely glaring plot hole that you have to gloss over to enjoy the story

I'm not a Neil defender, but that's not a shortcoming of a writer; that's just an extremely basic aspect of storytelling to motivate the drama and create interesting circumstances. Pretty much no long-form story that depends on exceptional scenarios is going to be free of contrivance or convenience. Some stories obviously take it too far and it can make the narrative feel too arbitrarily authored and unnatural, and every individual person has their own threshold for how far they can suspend their disbelief, but the willingness to trust writers by suspending our disbelief is what makes stories strong and effective, and a writer depending on their audience to be able to do that, at least to some extent, is not a weakness.

With all due respect to Niel, but that'a bullshit lmao. He also said the exact same thing about Ellie forgiving Joel / knowing he killed the fireflies at the end of the first game just a month or so before the release of Part 2 which gives a clear answer and renders any other interpretation invalid

It doesn't really matter what he says because within the text there clearly is ambiguity and there is basically no way to retcon that away. Considering their situation, what the audio logs say and the state of the world it's definitely a long shot but it's also THE long shot.

I'd say this is Neil's biggest shortcoming as a writer and is worth criticizing: wanting you to make leaps and just skip through some plot holes for the service of the plot.
Uncharted 4 also contains an extremely glaring plot hole that you have to gloss over to enjoy the story

I'm not sure that the situation in LoU qualifies as a plot hole tbh.

Death of the author applies here, I don't really care what he has to say if it's not in the original game/text.
It's clearly supposed to be ambiguous and it's staying that way for me.

Exactly where I stand. Why he would want to clarify/comment on this so long after the fact leaves me dumbfounded.

Boooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
The story is infinitely more interesting and thought provoking, particularly in regards to character motivations, actions, and subsequent consequences, when the climax of the first game is viewed through the lens of the unknown; that people and groups make decisions and take actions, sometimes decisively and recklessly, without knowing for sure what the totality of consequence will be, or being fundamentally unable to know if the risks taken are worth the cost.
I don't even care about the science behind it (which is dumb). Knowing the cure would/wouldn't work sucks shit and is a boring lame framing of the narrative. Not knowing adds a hefty ambiguity and weight to the choices made. People making decisions, or committing to causes, without ever fully knowing for sure how subsequent events will transpire, is literally how life works is is the ultimate fuel and weight behind our personal journey through guilt and accountability.

Yeah, this is what I meant and said sooo much better lol.

I always thought it would have worked as well. The entire game is building up to Joel facing the Trolley problem but with Ellie on the track. I don't think it really has any teeth if you just say killing Ellie doesn't do anything.

It's kind of moot if you make this so technichal

You aren't supposed to because it's not real life

I always thought it would have worked as well. The entire game is building up to Joel facing the Trolley problem but with Ellie on the track. I don't think it really has any teeth if you just say killing Ellie doesn't do anything.

It's funny because literally nothing about the story ever implies that the cure wouldn't work. For every single thing that gets addressed in a "grounded" way that particular tidbit has never been more than people using it as an excuse to justify/lighten the severity of Joel's actions.

"Eh does it really matter that he shot up the hospital at the end of the day? Not like the cure would've worked anyways. I, the player/Joel did nothing wrong."

I'm not a Neil defender, but that's not a shortcoming of a writer; that's just an extremely basic aspect of storytelling to motivate the drama and create interesting circumstances. Pretty much no long-form story that depends on exceptional scenarios is going to be free of contrivance or convenience. Some stories obviously take it too far and it can make the narrative feel too arbitrarily authored and unnatural, and every individual person has their own threshold for how far they can suspend their disbelief, but the willingness to trust writers by suspending our disbelief is what makes stories strong and effective, and a writer depending on their audience to be able to do that, at least to some extent, is not a weakness.

Yeah, I'm going to have to disagree with this. It's not about suspending disbelief, it's about the game deliberately making the whole situation with the Fireflies seem sketchy. I genuinely spit out my drink and started laughing when it was revealed that they were going to instantly take the precious immune person and dissect her almost immediately after getting their hands on her. This goes beyond contrivance or convenience and into the realm of deliberately misleading the player into thinking there's ambiguity. All it would have taken is something denoting the passage of time prior to wanting to scoop out her brain and it would have been fine. It's not about suspending disbelief, it's about making unneeded decisions that mislead the player.

If they really would have made a cure or not kinda doesn't matter in the context of the story, it's about how Joel put himself over the needs of the world. Everyone out there trying to survive would agree that Ellie's sacrifice would be worth restoring some semblance of peace to the world even if it wasn't a safe bet, Ellie herself would have wanted to save the world but Joel made that choice for her.

It's all about Joel being the selfish person he is, he chose himself over everyone else.

Honestly don't think the cure being viable or not matters at all.

Joel makes the decision to save Ellie to save his second daughter. It's really not that deep and you also have no agency over this in the game.

Whether that's the moral thing to do on the promise of a cure is an open question.

Reality doesn't matter (I disagree - they are barely properly staffed, they've never done this before or seen it before so its a hail mary at best etc etc all the discussion)

but from a story perspective it makes sense that at least Joel believes its possible to have a cure - it makes the narrative and his reaction stronger, and the 'my life could have meant something' from Ellie's side stronger to create that necessary tension.

But I don't like it.

I mean yeah so? Honestly personally i don't think it even really matters at that point world was already in a absolute shit state with literal cannibal and murderers everywhere and the infected can not be cured so you still have millions of monsters running around everywhere ripping ppl apart.

There was nothing worth saving even if they did manage to make a cure and actually distribute it which is definitely the bigger problem here considering the state the Fireflys where in and the logistics involved.

Last edited: Today at 3:24 AM

Vyse

One Winged Slayer

Joel might have pressed a 100% cure button that kills his daughter but even a 1% chance it was a hail mary by sketchy people guaranteed the slaughter.

None of you (and I do mean none of you) would let your child die to save other people.

This new piece of information changes nothing. Joel could've never know.

None of you (and I do mean none of you) would let your child die to save other people.
This new piece of information changes nothing. Joel could've never know.

He never once doubted that it would work though.

Origin: