Nathan Fillion Wants You to Stop Pestering the Uncharted Director

[Frank_Sinatra_]

Nathan Fillion is wrong for the role. Sony want a blockbuster, and there's no way that Fillion's name sells tickets to the general public. No matter how the geek community feels, the guy just happens to be a solid TV actor, not a name that can be prominently displayed on the poster of a multimillion dollar blockbuster.

THANK YOU!
Good lord thank you. Honestly people, let's look at this rationally instead of letting our nerdy love get to us.
Yes Nathan is great, but he's not the best thing to hit the planet and he's not perfect for every movie role.

 

[scnj]

Okay, yes, Nathan Fillion could be a good chose for the role, but I still feel that, the best choice is, Nolan North, he will sound exactly like Drake! And he even looks like Nathan Drake! I realize he isn't well known out of the video game industry, but, still my choice.

I'm afraid this seems even less likely than Nathan Fillion. North is in no shape to play Drake on screen. Plus his lack of on screen experience means there's pretty much no way they're going to put him in the lead role of a blockbuster.

Emily Rose and Claudia Black both have acting experience though, so I could see them being at least considered for Elena Fisher and Chloe Frazer.

 

[Pipotchi]

Avatar? Nobody went to see it

You lost all credibility right there.

What? You just quoted half my sentence?. I said Nobody went to see it because of Sam Worthington, meaning of the millions who went to see it nobody did so because of Sam Worthinton.

Maybe you should be a little more clear next time so that it doesn't sound like you meant that it sold no tickets.

Maybe you should stop and think about what someone is trying to say before quoting them. My comment is perfectly understandable within the confines of the sentence I wrote.

There are two possible meanings I could have infered from my comment. Firstly as you seem to think, I stated that No-one in the whole world saw Avatar owing to a pathological dislike of Sam Worthington or secondly (and far more likely) that nobody saw Avatar BECAUSE of Sam Worthington.

Seeing as how the rest of my post was about Sam Worthington it would be bizarre for me to suddenly switch topics and posit that no-one saw Avatar surely?

 

[Canid117]

Avatar? Nobody went to see it

You lost all credibility right there.

What? You just quoted half my sentence?. I said Nobody went to see it because of Sam Worthington, meaning of the millions who went to see it nobody did so because of Sam Worthington.

Maybe you should be a little more clear next time so that it doesn't sound like you meant that it sold no tickets.

Maybe you should stop and think about what someone is trying to say before quoting them. My comment is perfectly understandable within the confines of the sentence I wrote.

There are two possible meanings I could have inferred from my comment. Firstly as you seem to think, I stated that No-one in the whole world saw Avatar owing to a pathological dislike of Sam Worthington or secondly (and far more likely) that nobody saw Avatar BECAUSE of Sam Worthington.

Seeing as how the rest of my post was about Sam Worthington it would be bizarre for me to suddenly switch topics and posit that no-one saw Avatar surely?

Read the sentence you wrote again. Read it out loud. Go over it a few times. The order in which you structured it implied that A) "No one went to see Avatar" (which typically means that very few people went to see it when spoken. exaggeration for emphasis is incredibly common when making a point) and B) "The reason no one went to see Avatar was because Sam Worthington was in it." If you really wanted to state what you intended to say then you should have typed "Sam Worthington is not the reason anyone went to see Avatar." The most important point you are trying to convey should be the first one in the sentence so that the reader fixates on that point first. Doing so removes the ambiguity that caused this little disagreement.

 

[Cain_Zeros]

I like Nathan Fillion as an actor (like most nerds) but I would point out that there might be more to this than we're considering.

Looking at Nathan in Castle recently, the dude is developing some MAJOR bags under his eyes, you can even see it in the above picture though it conceals it a lot better. While that in of itself doesn't prove anything, it definatly seems like the guy might be showing the effects of some heavy drug use. It might be that he has lame makeup people, but I think it's more of a sign that the problem is pronounced enough where they can't cover it up any more than they are.

Or he's 40, and working his ass off. I think it's probably that one.

 

[Pipotchi]

Avatar? Nobody went to see it

You lost all credibility right there.

What? You just quoted half my sentence?. I said Nobody went to see it because of Sam Worthington, meaning of the millions who went to see it nobody did so because of Sam Worthington.

Maybe you should be a little more clear next time so that it doesn't sound like you meant that it sold no tickets.

Maybe you should stop and think about what someone is trying to say before quoting them. My comment is perfectly understandable within the confines of the sentence I wrote.

There are two possible meanings I could have inferred from my comment. Firstly as you seem to think, I stated that No-one in the whole world saw Avatar owing to a pathological dislike of Sam Worthington or secondly (and far more likely) that nobody saw Avatar BECAUSE of Sam Worthington.

Seeing as how the rest of my post was about Sam Worthington it would be bizarre for me to suddenly switch topics and posit that no-one saw Avatar surely?

Read the sentence you wrote again. Read it out loud. Go over it a few times. The order in which you structured it implied that A) "No one went to see Avatar" (which typically means that very few people went to see it when spoken. exaggeration for emphasis is incredibly common when making a point) and B) "The reason no one went to see Avatar was because Sam Worthington was in it." If you really wanted to state what you intended to say then you should have typed "Sam Worthington is not the reason anyone went to see Avatar." The most important point you are trying to convey should be the first one in the sentence so that the reader fixates on that point first. Doing so removes the ambiguity that caused this little disagreement.

I did read it out loud, I wrote the sentence how I would say it and seeing as how no-one else has misunderstood me I dont feel I did too badly. Now time to knock this on the head I feel

 

[Smurf McSmurfington]

Avatar? Nobody went to see it

You lost all credibility right there.

What? You just quoted half my sentence?. I said Nobody went to see it because of Sam Worthington, meaning of the millions who went to see it nobody did so because of Sam Worthington.

Maybe you should be a little more clear next time so that it doesn't sound like you meant that it sold no tickets.

Maybe you should stop and think about what someone is trying to say before quoting them. My comment is perfectly understandable within the confines of the sentence I wrote.

There are two possible meanings I could have inferred from my comment. Firstly as you seem to think, I stated that No-one in the whole world saw Avatar owing to a pathological dislike of Sam Worthington or secondly (and far more likely) that nobody saw Avatar BECAUSE of Sam Worthington.

Seeing as how the rest of my post was about Sam Worthington it would be bizarre for me to suddenly switch topics and posit that no-one saw Avatar surely?

Read the sentence you wrote again. Read it out loud. Go over it a few times. The order in which you structured it implied that A) "No one went to see Avatar" (which typically means that very few people went to see it when spoken. exaggeration for emphasis is incredibly common when making a point) and B) "The reason no one went to see Avatar was because Sam Worthington was in it." If you really wanted to state what you intended to say then you should have typed "Sam Worthington is not the reason anyone went to see Avatar." The most important point you are trying to convey should be the first one in the sentence so that the reader fixates on that point first. Doing so removes the ambiguity that caused this little disagreement.

Granted, if that sentence was completely ripped out of context, it MIGHT cause some confusion, but the great thing about context in this case is that there actually is context, the entire following paragraph in fact.
OT: I don't really see why they're making a damn Uncharted film, it'll just be a cheap Indiana Jones knockoff, which is what Uncharted the game basically was. So even if he were to get that part, he'd just be wasting his time on a film that'll MAYBE pull in some money, but will essentially be a pointless endeavour in terms of filmmaking.
Edit: In retrospect, I think I might've wasted my time on stating the obvious.

 

[The Wooster]

"the ruggedly handsome, Castle star, out of, quite understandable, spite."

Went a bit mad with the commas there, Grey.

That's a perfectly legitimate sentence, it just has ... character.

 

[lord.jeff]

I have to agree, he's the director, he should make the decisions he thinks are best for the movie. Lots of movies have tried to just go in and give everyone what they want those movies end up being bland summer blockbusters that get forgotten by the next year.

 

[Zing]

Oh my god anyone but Sam Worthington.

Fillion is okay, but I think he's too old now. He would have been great back in his Firefly days.

 

[UnravThreads]

No, there aren't a single Chinese citizen in Fallout 3 which you can kill, unless you count virtual representations that an AI create, and you can't even kill those.
There isn't a single "Let's kill this race/nation because they are bad!" in any Fallout-game.

Really? [http://fallout.wikia.com/wiki/Chinese_remnant].

So what if RDR has mexicans ? How is it an ssue when you kill far more Americans. There are also a few black guys in the gangs.

So you can just ignore it because there's fewer of them? That's ridiculous.

Fallout 3 you fight the enclave. That kinda negates the argument. Besides are you asking for a game where you just kill white people exclusively ? Becuase I dont think you can paint a game as "a white guy killing opposite ethnicitis" if you kill 100 white guys and say 20 chinese. Bsides in fallout I can be any race.

No, it doesn't. You fight the Enclave, yes, but there are Chinese soldiers in the game. Even if you kill one non-American in the game, it's a game where you can kill those of a different (What's an "opposite ethnicity"? It doesn't make any sense) ethnicity. Also, regardless of the race you choose in Fallout, you're still American. Maybe not a white American, but still American.

 

[ChillShark]

So now Carter is a serious journalist. Sounds more like he is married to Fillion.

 

[Realitycrash]

No, there aren't a single Chinese citizen in Fallout 3 which you can kill, unless you count virtual representations that an AI create, and you can't even kill those.
There isn't a single "Let's kill this race/nation because they are bad!" in any Fallout-game.

Really? [http://fallout.wikia.com/wiki/Chinese_remnant].

Those are ghouls, there's nothing "Chinese" about them any longer, except a twisted form of their previous mission. It's like claiming the Enclave really represents the United States of America.

 

[irishda]

Mainly, any actor with chops at comedic action roles could take this one on. I think most of the fans simply push for Fillon because they're the most likely to picture firefly or serenity when thinking of comedy/action. Robert Downey Jr., for instance, could just as easily fill the part, and its not hard to see Tom Cruise doing well in the role too.

 

[walrusaurus]

Glistening Adonis eh? Thats..... descriptive.

I for one have never understood the rapid adoration nerd-dom currently has for Fillion,

 

[SL33TBL1ND]

Not Sam Worthington! the man cannnot act, Why has he become the go to guy when you need bland and uninteresting.

Avatar? Nobody went to see it because Worthington was in it, Clash of the Titans? The bloody Kraken manages to emote more than that man

Oh god, that man's awful. He was one of the reasons COD7's campaign was horrible. He can't maintain an accent for longer than a sentence at a time, including his own.

Is Nathan Fillion petting a wooden fish?

No. What he's doing is so awesome your mind has failed to comprehend it, and has subsequently managed only to parse the image into that of Nathan Fillion petting a wooden fish.

-m

Obviously. Well, either that, or he's deliberately playing up a self-aware "wacky" angle just to continue to endear himself to people who want to throw money at him.

Eh. Works for me.

 

[mysecondlife]

heh. I thought I saw Drake holding a treasure when I saw that picture.

 

[Riobux]

Many fans still maintain that popular Firefly actor, Nathan Fillion, is the only rational choice for the role. In fact, the rising chorus of demands and the wailing and gnashing of teeth that accompanies even a mention of any actor but Fillion in connection with the role has grown quite annoying. Not least of all to Fillion himself.

You know you're a successful actor when...