Wahlberg, De Niro, and Pesci Back in Uncharted Movie
- Thread starter Tom Goldman
- Start date
Plus, he does a rockin' Christopher Walken impression.Onyx Oblivion said:
I have no idea why I brought that up.
OT: I'll say it again - even if I'm kind of interested of seeing a movie with De Niro, Pesci and Wahlberg, an Uncharted movie does not need to exist.
At all. It's like making a damn Mass Effect movie for crying out loud.
Crap. [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/100901-Mass-Effect-Movie-in-the-Works]
Alright, it's like making... eh, a Heavy Rain mov... Oh. [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/98724-Heavy-Rain-Film-Rights-Optioned-Years-Ago] Okay then.
Do your pointless little Uncharted movie then, you wasteful, money-grubbing hacks.
This already seems like a bad idea, and adding Marky Mark Wahlberg won't help. I don't care if he's won an academy award or whatnot, he had his chance to be play a game character in Max Payne, he sucked, give someone new a shot. Someone with talent. Someone who's awesome. Someone whose name is something like Nathan Fillion.
But who could it possibly be...?
But who could it possibly be...?
Yes. I wanted to bring that up as an example too, but a CoD movie could actually be fun. AND IT IS FUN.Onyx Oblivion said:
Because it's called The Rock.
It's entertainment, such a thing as a "need" for a movie is ridiculous. If it's fun and does the source material justice, then I don't see why it's not welcome as any other movie out there. Same with a Mass Effect-based movie.JourneyThroughHell said:
If they don't, well, they'll notice the failure in their pockets then.
It's unnecessary. Things that are already really cinematic don't need adaptation to movies. In fact, video games rarely do.Cowabungaa said:
With that said, I only think there is a "need" for such things because, by tying themselves to a license, the authors of the (in this case) standard treasure hunt movie are tying themselves to a license which won't exactly make for a good movie because there are the far superior game cutscenes on YouTube should they follow it... and will piss fans that came to see it off should they not.
It's a money grab. If a franchise's adaptation to the big screen will be "pointless", don't make it. Also, if you can't make it without "betraying" the original source, don't make it either.
Life is unnecessary, it's a nonsense argument. The goal of a movie like this is to entertain, and for fans like us it's damn good if it does the source material justice as I've already stated. If it succeeds in that it is as 'necessary' as any other movie.JourneyThroughHell said:
You do not know yet whether the cutscenes are far superior to the movie, the movie is not yet made. Now of course, this being a video game adaptation I'm holding my breath, but one should not judge so quickly.
I'm with you on that one. But if not Nolan North, then Nathan Fillion is the next best option. Mark Wahlberg isn't a bad actor, but NOTHING about him says "Nathan Drake" to me. At all.Onyx Oblivion said:
All it's doing by picking up the license is just reimagining a game that's already kind of a movie in a form of movie - that and restricting itself with licensing.Cowabungaa said:
I'm not holding my breath. I know I will be nitpicking, I know I won't enjoy it, I know the fact that it shares the name with a fairly recent game telling the same story a similar way will tick me off.
And don't go all phylosophical on me. I think a movie being made on a license that doesn't need a movie under its belt is wasting potential and could've been so much more entertaining if not for the license.
Isn't that what you were talking about? Entertainment?
This. I will never accept Wahlberg or Fillion as long as Nolan North is still alive and able to do act.Onyx Oblivion said:
Although at this point I don't care anymore. They haven't even started filming yet and I'm already I'm sick of hearing about this movie and wish it would go die in a fire. Maybe Drake and Sully can leave it in that burning house in Uncharted 3 before they escape? That'd be just lovely.
Who says they're going to do that instead of making a new story, just with the same characters and general Uncharted feel? Even still, don't forget that there's a huge crowd out there that probably hasn't even heard of the Uncharted franchise.JourneyThroughHell said:
As for you already judging the movie before it's released, that's your fault, not the movie's.
I ain't being philosphical, I'm just saying that it's a pointless argument to make. No license 'needs' a movie, the Lord of the Rings books didn't 'need' a movie either, nothing does.
And again, you're placing all kinds of judgements on this movie before it's even made. That's completely unfair. I'm not saying it'll be a box office hit or even good, I'm just saying that judging this before we've seen this, or at least before it's made. They haven't even started shooting yet!
how about not making a movie and just concentrating on the game? really annoyed by hollywood taking video game ip's because they are out of ideas... i would think that by now they would know that just because it works in one medium doesn't guarantee a success in another.
how about not making a movie and just concentrating on the game? really annoyed by hollywood taking video game ip's because they are out of ideas... i would think that by now they would know that just because it works in one medium doesn't guarantee a success in another.