​

It seems like Sony Pictures has plans for more of Tom Holland's Nathan Drake in the future. In an internal memo that leaked to Deadline, chairman of Sony Pictures Motion Picture Group Tom Rothman declared the film adaptation of Uncharted a "new hit movie franchise," also noting it has done well with audiences, citing its "90% positive audience score on Rotten Tomatoes." The film has also over-performed at the box office, grossing $51 million in the U.S. over President's Day weekend, when it was only expected to gross $30 million. In an interview with Deadline, director Ruben Fleischer said the worldwide gross as of February 21 was $139 million (on a $120 million budget), which Deadline attributes to Sony choosing not to release their films on streaming services during the pandemic, instead holding on to large event films for traditional theatrical release.

In that same interview, Fleischer says he's hopeful for a sequel and would like to direct the franchise again. Shortly before the film's release, he also announced he had begun some work on a Jak & Daxter film, which Tom Holland has also said he wants to star in, though we don't know right now if that project has been greenlit by Sony. Regardless, given Uncharted's success, it's likely we'll be seeing one or both of these projects soon.

Source

 

[Stone_Wings]

It was horrible!

I was really bored + disappointed. Even more so knowing Druckman had some oversight on the film, embarassing

Looking forward to Sonic 2 though in other 'video game movie' news.

I thought the first Sonic was god awful and have ZERO desire to see the 2nd. Jim Carrey is so intolerably annoying to me I can barely watch the majority of what he's in. Dumb and Dumber being the main exception.

 

[Satellizer]

This pretty much sums it up

 

[The Catboy]

Went to this movie. Theatre was surprisingly packed. So I suppose they'll make enough money in the box office?

I still don't understand why this movie was made in the first place.

Money
/thread

 

[Stone_Wings]

This pretty much sums it up

No. It really doesn't. I mean, the guy shows the following image that clearly shows Holland being a fantastic choice for a young Drake, then 3 seconds later is going off on how wrong he is for the part, that Sully is supposed to be in his mid 60's, and that the film makers didn't have any idea what they were doing. Seems like the guy who made the video is the one who didn't know what's going on, as it's set before the events of the games. It's not SUPPOSED to be 35-40 yr old Drake and mid effing 60's Sully in the movie.

 

[LoggerMan]

Honestly, although still not the right one, sounds like a better cast. At least doesn't look like a teenager and can hit snarky lines better believably.

They should have aimed for someone like Nathan Fillion:

They left it too long, Nathan Fillion is closer to Sulley's age than Drake's age. Even in that fan film Fillion is looking and sounding too old. Drake's voice is much more boyish than Fillion's is now.

 

[Axido]

... It's 2022 and people still judge movies, games, etc. based upon reviews before seeing or playing them for themselves?

This strategy is called "I don't want my time and money to be spent on things I probably won't enjoy, which could ultimately lead to more things I won't enjoy being produced." That's what reviews are for. First you get to see trailers of the product and if those already make you feel cautious about it, you'd usually not rush to buy into it and instead wait on what the majority has to say about it.

Are you on the other hand implying that you must have wasted precious time and money on something to have any right to call it bad? Or are you just condoning piracy here? That would save you the money, but not the time.

Btw, you make it sound like hating on an entertainment product without having tested it thoroughly is some kind of blasphemy. How dare anyone to insult a fictional thing without having invested into it, right? I'm pretty sure entertainment products don't deserve as much care, since in the end they are only made to cash in on our daily boredom.

 

[jumpman17]

Having actually seen the movie in theaters, I was entertained from start to finish and would watch a sequel.

 

[Purple_Shyguy]

Holland is 5'7 and looks 16

 

[Stone_Wings]

This strategy is called "I don't want my time and money to be spent on things I probably won't enjoy, which could ultimately lead to more things I won't enjoy being produced." That's what reviews are for. First you get to see trailers of the product and if those already make you feel cautious about it, you'd usually not rush to buy into it and instead wait on what the majority has to say about it.

Are you on the other hand implying that you must have wasted precious time and money on something to have any right to call it bad? Or are you just condoning piracy here? That would save you the money, but not the time.

Btw, you make it sound like hating on an entertainment product without having tested it thoroughly is some kind of blasphemy. How dare anyone to insult a fictional thing without having invested into it, right? I'm pretty sure entertainment products don't deserve as much care, since in the end they are only made to cash in on our daily boredom.

Wow. Did I really hurt your feelings THAT much with my comment about judging things for oneself instead of judging them based on someone elses opinion? So much so that you needed to make a post full of dreamt up assumptions and implications? Would it be fair of me to write a review on what I think about you, and for mass amounts of other people to judge you based upon what I wrote? I mean, it IS fair after all, right? To insult something or someone they've never invested in. Right? And before you say "But but but that's different! One is a movie the other is a person!!!" No, it's not different. The principle of placing judgement without knowing for oneself is exactly the same.

Reviews are for people to give their own personal opinion of something. They are not to be used to judge something yourself that you've not experienced first hand. If I skipped over every movie, song, game, food, beverage, person, or whatever it may be that OTHER people didn't like, there would TONS of things (or people) that I really enjoy that I never would have gotten the chance to had I gone by what others thought, or by a combined score of some sort. Review bombing is also a perfectly valid reason to not go by what others think, and it happens often enough that one should take that aspect into consideration.

Btw, do you know what YOU make it sound like? Like you're broke and so horrible at managing your finances that seeing a movie here and there that wasn't to your 100% full satisfaction is completely breaking your bank.

 

[playstays_shun]

I thought the first Sonic was god awful and have ZERO desire to see the 2nd. Jim Carrey is so intolerably annoying to me I can barely watch the majority of what he's in. Dumb and Dumber being the main exception.

I can understand that perspective. Tbh Jim Carrey is why I enjoyed sonic1 for all its flaws lol. If not for him I would’ve not liked it too haha Reminded me of prime 90s era Carrey instead of whatever he’s become these days generally, a shell of his former self

 

[FAST6191]

Reviews are for people to give their own personal opinion of something. They are not to be used to judge something yourself that you've not experienced first hand. If I skipped over every movie, song, game, food, beverage, person, or whatever it may be that OTHER people didn't like, there would TONS of things (or people) that I really enjoy that I never would have gotten the chance to

Random review plucked out of the aether. Might be tricky.

Review of people you generally align with, or that note presence of items you don't like or are detrimental to the article as a whole (which by and large can be done for storytelling as well as a spanner). Different matter entirely.

If I have limited time, energy, money, materials, space... and things are broadly analogous to those (which is everybody in the world) then utilising a review to see if you wish to partake would be the intended purpose of such endeavours.

Flaws in that can certainly arise -- the difference between "professional" critic reviews and and user reviews, assuming it is not all robots, would speak to one or both being wrong for at least someone out there but that is probably different discussion.
This is also not saying anything of reviews being entertaining in their own right but that is very much a different discussion.

 

[Stone_Wings]

I can understand that perspective. Tbh Jim Carrey is why I enjoyed sonic1 for all its flaws lol. If not for him I would’ve not liked it too haha Reminded me of prime 90s era Carrey instead of whatever he’s become these days generally, a shell of his former self

Glad you enjoyed it. I know plenty of people did.

Random review plucked out of the aether. Might be tricky.

Review of people you generally align with, or that note presence of items you don't like or are detrimental to the article as a whole (which by and large can be done for storytelling as well as a spanner). Different matter entirely.

If I have limited time, energy, money, materials, space... and things are broadly analogous to those (which is everybody in the world) then utilising a review to see if you wish to partake would be the intended purpose of such endeavours.

Flaws in that can certainly arise -- the difference between "professional" critic reviews and and user reviews, assuming it is not all robots, would speak to one or both being wrong for at least someone out there but that is probably different discussion.
This is also not saying anything of reviews being entertaining in their own right but that is very much a different discussion.

Fair enough. But I also feel my own thoughts on the matter are fair enough.

 

[SG854]

I don't understand people's obsessions with actors looking like the characters they play. It's so much more important that they capture the character's emotions and voice. I mean, Cesar Romero, Jack Nicholson, Heath Ledger and Joaquin Phoenix look nothing alike but they all played the same character pretty well. Sean Penn doesn't look like Harvey Milk but still did well in that movie. I dunno, it's just weird to me.

Not weird lol

Getting a person that looks the part is important or this is disconnect. It's just weird if they don't look the part. It's like getting McLovin from Super Bad to play as James Bond 007.

 

[relauby]

Not weird lol

Getting a person that looks the part is important or this is disconnect. It's just weird if they don't look the part. It's like getting McLovin from Super Bad to play as James Bond 007.

Yeah, the look needs to match the character's personality, but they don't need to look like they did in the original media. James Bond is actually the worst example you could've pulled because he's been played by seven different actors that look nothing like each other.

 

[Dr_Faustus]

I don't understand people's obsessions with actors looking like the characters they play. It's so much more important that they capture the character's emotions and voice. I mean, Cesar Romero, Jack Nicholson, Heath Ledger and Joaquin Phoenix look nothing alike but they all played the same character pretty well. Sean Penn doesn't look like Harvey Milk but still did well in that movie. I dunno, it's just weird to me.

I just want to point out that the only Joker that anyone really ever had a lot of problems with was Jared Leto's version and also happens to be the one you left out of your name drop of actors there. Also its a character with different designs depending on the material its being based on and is in make up most of the time. Its not really a sound argument here.

 

[SG854]

Yeah, the look needs to match the character's personality, but they don't need to look like they did in the original media. James Bond is actually the worst example you could've pulled because he's been played by seven different actors that look nothing like each other.

They don't need to look like each other. They just need to look the part. A guy that looks like he has finese and swagger.

Not like a guy that looks like this

McLovin was not a horrible example to use
for James Bond. And Tom Holland felt like a miscast for Drake. His looks does not embodify a Nathan Drake. He doesn't have to look exactly like him. Only embodies a Drake.

https://www.gamesradar.com/tom-holl...s-bond-pitch-turned-into-the-uncharted-movie/

 

[The Catboy]

Yes, but will this new hit franchise that we're all so entranced with, lure us to the Woke side, because if not, if it's not pro-humanists, then I will refuse to watch them, no matter how much money Sony pumps into advertising. Besides, why is he a man, how come he's not a blue haired butch that identifies as Salmon? And where is all the Eskimo representation? And are we supposed to support the violent police or de-fund them...
...no wait, wrong movie.

Please touch grass

That being said, I haven’t seen this movie and I am going to assume it’s just going to be nothing spectacular. I can also easily assume that the rest are going to go downhill from here

 

[64bitmodels]

the franchise should have been a movie to begin with

 

[BitMasterPlus]

I'm surprised it made any money at all. I remember watching the trailer and it did not impress me in the slightest. I don't know why teen-baby face Tom Holland keeps getting cast for parts. And him wanting to be in a Jak and Daxter film? How about no.

 

[Stone_Wings]

I'm surprised it made any money at all. I remember watching the trailer and it did not impress me in the slightest. I don't know why teen-baby face Tom Holland keeps getting cast for parts. And him wanting to be in a Jak and Daxter film? How about no.

Well, for this one it was because 1) He is a current money maker and 2) he is near spitting image of young Drake as depicted in the games that you've never played.