Uncharted Director Changing Drake's Back Story

[That's Funny]

Antiquities police, no just NO.

 

[Blind0bserver]

*sighs* Goddammit, Hollywood.

Okay, movie makers, here's a very simple guildline for you people to follow, one that you've proven time and time again that you desperately need because you can't seem to stop yourselves from doing the exact same f*ckups time and time again:

If you're going to adapt something (in this case a videogame), don't take liberties with the source material. If there are changes you want to make, like giving the main character a family and altering his entire motivation throughout the story, take the absolute bare-bones of the game's concept and make a new goddamn IP. C'mon, you idiots, this isn't a hard concept to grasp, and after that dreadful "Doom" movie and every videogame adaptation ever made by Uwe Boll I thought you might have learned something by now.

~Van

 

[Frozen Donkey Wheel2]

Well then it's not really an "Uncharted" movie, is it? My question is, if he wants to make this weird "family treasure hunter" movie, then why is he even using Uncharted as source material? Why doesn't he just make HIS OWN GODDAMN MOVIE? Right now, he's just preventing a REAL Uncharted movie by using the title, and pretty much nothing else.

 

[Michael Logan]

I have never played these games, but this makes me mad, seriously Im pissed of right now.

Im gonna go punch a wall or something.

 

[TheRealGoochman]

...................what the freaking hell?!?!?!!?!?!?!?!?!?!?
DONT CHANGE THE UNCHARTED STORY!!!!!! (this is my yelling voice)
grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr allow me to vent my frustration.....and lack of trust in the games to movies transitional stage

 

[TheRealGoochman]

Well then it's not really an "Uncharted" movie, is it? My question is, if he wants to make this weird "family treasure hunter" movie, then why is he even using Uncharted as source material? Why doesn't he just make HIS OWN GODDAMN MOVIE? Right now, he's just preventing a REAL Uncharted movie by using the title, and pretty much nothing else.

and I do have to quote this, Nathan Drake...........whose ancestor is Sir Francis Drake, sort of a big piece of the uncharted world. It almost gives a reason why he went into treasure hunting, the following of his ancestor led him to a life of pirate like adventure and treasure hunting. Come on don't mess this up Hollywood, please....you're making me cry

 

[kitsunefather]

At this point, shouldn't they just put the last bullet in and hire Uwe Boll?

 

[Centrophy]

At this point, shouldn't they just put the last bullet in and hire Uwe Boll?

Ninja'd, I was totally thinking that this wasn't supposed to be a Uwe Boll movie. Well I for one won't be spending money on watching this and I'm gonna push people I know away from it.

 

[BehattedWanderer]

Hey, anyone else remember where Uncharted took it's inspiration from? From the treasure hunting, tomb-raiding, conspiring efforts of Indiana Jones, National Treasure, and Lara Croft? And how none of them really had the moral high ground, but had coincidentally convenient circumstances that put them in the protagonist position? Anyone else feel that making Drake into a protector of antiquities somewhat makes what he does actually moral, and therefore counter to the character itself?

Remember how they did the same thing with Resident Evil?

And remember further that time Marky Mark was menacing a potted plant in The Happening?

 

[fulano]

Who cares? Another Indiana Jones may work in videogames but in movies that's already been done. As long as the character remains consistent that should be all people cared about.

Yeah, but this just sounds like National Treasure.

I'd much prefer a new Indiana Jones-style character, and your argument doesn't really hold much weight given the sheer amount of stuff recycled in the film industry.

Nope. My argument is just fine whereas yours, on the other hand, is anorexic (sorry, couldn't resist the pun).

One thing is to recycle stuff and another to try your hand at redoing something associated with a seminal work, which is not neccessarily wrong; but still a class beyond from the ongoing recycling of stuff over and over again as you are almost sure to never live up to the high expectations associated with the work, and thus fail.

For example, the whole "Adventure Seeker Archaelogist" thing was attempted from time to time since Raiders of The Lost Ark came out, by a diverse group of folk ranging from Richard Chamberlain to Angelina Jolie, and even Tia Carrere at some point; but the whole thing still failed to stick in collective pop culture beyond Indiana Jones, and everything that comes forth under that same banner is inevitably compared to it. Not a fair thing to do, mind you, but still something that keeps happening. And it will indeed happen to this film eitherway. Thus the whole seminality deal.

It's not like space operas or westerns that have been done and overdone to death in film, even producing seminal works on their own merits, that at the very least have not sunk to the point where every work is associated with a single property all the time, whereas "Adventure Seeker Archaeologist" films are still seen as "Indiana Jones" films by mass audiences worldwide. No need to burden a new movie even more with such a generic origin story and so much cash at stake.

Basically, people need to make more good "Adventure Seeking Archaeologist" films so that people are less and less enticed to compare the whole genre to the Indiana Jones franchise.

I don't really care as long as the character is consistent but it still rings as some of a ***** move by O'Russell. He could have easily gone with the "Greedy Bastard" aspect of Drake's personality to great effect, but he either chose to play it safe or that's as far as his imagination went coupled with the fact that he doesn't play videogames. All in all, it's not a bad thing.

 

[NickCaligo42]

Oh god, another video-game-to-movie-adaption failure on the horizon. No surprise, really.

My thoughts exactly. Isn't this PRECISELY the kind of thing that makes people go buttfuck insane over the lousy Resident Evil movies, the Silent Hill movie, and all of Uwe Boll's films? This at least sounds like an interesting premise for a movie compared with those, but it seems pretty stupid to name it "Uncharted" and call the hero Nathan Drake if it's not actually Nathan Drake. Meanwhile they're publishing a novel that's about the Nathan Drake from the video games and not the Nathan Drake from the movies. Doesn't this strange discontinuity seem a little odd?

I'm going to have to get an incredibly big flame shield for all the defending I'll be doing of this film, but I still think it's going to be good. Russell is a good director, Wahlberg is a good actor, and this change could be interesting. Why just re-tell the same story? The game is "cinematic" enough, so that that isn't necessary.

I get the reason they want to do this--there really isn't all that much to Uncharted as a story. It's entertaining, the dialogue's good, I enjoy the characters, but as a story it's really no more complex than The Mummy with Brendan Frasier, and we already have that movie. Goodness knows this sounds like a fairly original concept for an adventure film, and that's a genre that needs more original concepts. It's a lot more original than the actual Uncharted. Still, I can't help but feel that this is very disrespectful to fans of the games, the makers of the games, and basically all of gaming itself.

Don't get where I'm coming from with this? Go and read MovieBob's articles on superhero movies--he brings up some good points. The little details about Superman's characterization are unimportant, but by God, he's from Krypton, he grew up in Smallville, and he's a mild-mannered reporter in Metropolis. Nobody cares about the little details of Peter Parker, so long as he was bitten by a radioactive spider on a field trip, it gave him spider powers, his Uncle Ben is dead, he's partially responsible, and he has a close relationship with his Aunt May. So far film hasn't disappointed us that much with respect to superheroes. What we're saying with this game-to-film adaptation is that we aren't willing to give game characters the same credit we give comic book characters. We don't consider those fans as valuable or as discerning and we don't consider that media as valid a source for story material, even when it--hello--wins awards from the writers' guild! At the end of the day, ladies and gents, this is the film industry telling us outright that they respect guys who OD'd on radiation and now run around fighting crime in their pajamas more than video game characters, however realistic they are or well-crafted they may be.

I'm not saying this because I'm an Uncharted fan. Far from it, in fact, I absolutely hate the games. I enjoy the characters, I recognize what a technical achievement it is, but I can't stand the shallow jump-through-hoops-to-get-to-the-cutscene gameplay and feel like it depends way, way too heavily on film cliches for its ideas. It's a stark clash with my own philosophies as a game designer and a writer both and I see it as being exemplary of exactly how not to design mechanics on many levels. Even so, I understand its popularity and appeal, I understand why the game industry respects it so much, and I am interested in seeing gaming advance as a storytelling medium. I hear about this, and it just tells me that even a good director isn't willing to pay our industry the respect of creating some sense of continuity between the game and the film or holding himself above using its title as an opportunistic bait-and-switch.

 

[Oliver Pink]

"Bigger, more muscular stage of a movie."

You know, at first I objected because it seemed like a dreadful insult to gamers everywhere - claiming that Movies were better than Games...

But I take it back - after all, it's an appropriate metaphor. Movies are single-track, like big muscular men who don't bother with petty things like 'education' and 'socialisation', and instead focus on doing the best they can at making themselves Massive blunt instruments.

Whereas games are a lot more versatile, they can choose any number of paths, options and can engage an audience much more effectively through interaction.

Not that there's anything wrong with being a body-builder - far from it! Movies are wonderful, moving things... if done right. But to claim that going from Game-Form to Movie-Form will make the Uncharted experience 'more muscular' just makes my eye twitch.

I've gotta say that films generally have a lot more to say in terms of education and socialisation that games, dude...

Hence why I said 'if done right'.

Admittedly I didn't phrase my point very well, given it was 1am when I wrote it - what I meant was that there is only ONE way to experience a movie. Good Games can be experienced any number of ways depending on what the player does.

 

[Jumplion]

Mmmkay.

I don't really see the problem.

I mean, the Uncharted series is already pretty much Indiana Jones turned into a game, and whatever kind of movie the Uncharted movie will become is pretty much negligent since it's pretty much just going to be a standard action movie. You know, just like how the games is pretty much just an action game.

This isn't to say Uncharted isn't a good game series, I quite like them, but it's not like we should really expect much from the movie adaptation since it's practically already a movie.

 

[Thaius]

...

COME

FREAKING

ON!!!!!!!

Gosh, people, get it into your heads! Almost all video game adaptations to film have sucked, even if their source material features a great story. Why is that? Because you never tell the same story that everyone loved in the original product. Get your heads out of your asses and understand that already! Why is this the only medium in which every freaking adaptation is a completely different product from the source material?

I mean honestly! I understand that changes have to be made to a story when it is adapted to another medium, though the necessity from linear game to film may be questionable outside of some basic shortening. But to change the story entirely? It's why Resident Evil sucked, it's why Max Payne sucked, it's why Prince of Persia was merely decent, and I'm starting to worry that it may be why this movie is gonna' suck. I really, really hope not.

 

[Thaius]

Don't get where I'm coming from with this? Go and read MovieBob's articles on superhero movies--he brings up some good points. The little details about Superman's characterization are unimportant, but by God, he's from Krypton, he grew up in Smallville, and he's a mild-mannered reporter in Metropolis. Nobody cares about the little details of Peter Parker, so long as he was bitten by a radioactive spider on a field trip, it gave him spider powers, his Uncle Ben is dead, he's partially responsible, and he has a close relationship with his Aunt May. So far film hasn't disappointed us that much with respect to superheroes. What we're saying with this game-to-film adaptation is that we aren't willing to give game characters the same credit we give comic book characters. We don't consider those fans as valuable or as discerning and we don't consider that media as valid a source for story material, even when it--hello--wins awards from the writers' guild! At the end of the day, ladies and gents, this is the film industry telling us outright that they respect guys who OD'd on radiation and now run around fighting crime in their pajamas more than video game characters, however realistic they are or well-crafted they may be.

I have to say, I agree. And you (and MovieBob, I suppose) stated it a lot better than I, in my unconsolable rage, was capable (probably because I really like the games, so I'm freaking pissed at the moment). So good job.

 

[WorldCritic]

This sounds awful but I can think of one way they could make it interesting.
-enter the Drake Squad-
"FREEZE! TREASURE HUNTING POLICE! PUT THE ARTIFACT DOWN AND PUT YOUR HANDS UP!"
-camera pans over to show Lara Croft-
"Damn, I thought I would never get caught."

 

[Tyrian07]

WHY!?!?
Is it that hard to understand? Directors of these movies are like the stay at home mothers that hate video games for no apparent reason: They have NO IDEA what the hell they are talking about or doing!

This is going to be just like when I was so excited to see DOOM (Although the casting was horrible, but I thought it could be made up due to the fact IT WAS F^@4!NG DOOM) but NOOO. OH LOOK! Opened a portal to Hell did you? NO WAIT ITS ALIENS!!

Morons. Total and complete morons. Uncharted is a story about a two thieves that work together namely Sully and Nathan, who meet people along the way in search of stealing ancient artifacts for vast profits, which lead them to having amazing adventures.
MONEY. WOMEN. GUNS. ADVENTURE. and WOMEN. HELOOOOOO!!!
Its not INTERNATIONAL Treasure you stupid twat directors...

Whatever. I had to vent about this because it sickens me to no end. Do people care about what their audience wants anymore? Or do movie directors purposely try and get our hopes up so that we can just call them stupid and let another awesome story never be made into a movie because of some dumbass who has a hard on for Marky Mark. All gaming movies should probably have quite a few gamers on their payroll to help oversee and help write the stories. BUT NO thats too difficult for these baby-boomers that think they know how to tell a story.

 

[Doctor Glocktor]

I'm going to have to get an incredibly big flame shield for all the defending I'll be doing of this film, but I still think it's going to be good. Russell is a good director, Wahlberg is a good actor, and this change could be interesting. Why just re-tell the same story? The game is "cinematic" enough, so that that isn't necessary.

The story is what makes the game. The movie is changing the story so much that the only similarities are the names of the characters and the title.

Movies based on games always fail, because stupid directors think that its a good idea to deviate from the story.

 

[Zero_ctrl]

*Cough* National Treasure *Cough*

 

[shadow741]

I am SO disappoint.