Uncharted (Ruben Fleischer; February 18, 2022) Movie • Page 3

I haven't looked into the plot at all, but is this movie a live action version of the latest game? Or is it more of a sequel/movie in the same universe? I had thought that one of the plane scenes came straight from one of the games, but I haven't played them in a min.

 

It's a prequel. It's the story of how Nate, Sully, and Chloe all met and how Nate got into treasure hunting.

 

It's not in the same universe. It's definitely just an origin story that adapts elements from multiple games.

 

Yeah this is not following the established game canon from Uncharted 3 and 4 re: Nate's childhood and how he met Sully/Chloe.

 

Fuck me. So not only do they decide to not adapt the games, but they don't even bother to make it a canon story? Then what was even the point of all this?

Narrator: The point was to make money.

 

Well, if it worked for Resident Evil...

 

Ugh.

 

It makes sense for it to not be a prequel to the games and set in its own reality because then if they make sequels they don’t have to follow stories from the game’s timeline.

 

I'm sure it makes sense to some people but to me it doesn't, because I feel the point of acquiring a license is to adapt that license.

It's one thing to take these characters and give them a new adventure. It's another thing to change characterizations, completely remove them from established canon, and basically make a completely different story and just call it whatever because of the established audience the brand name invites.

I know this seems like it's incompatible with, as an example, me being okay with the changes Marvel makes to characters in the MCU, but Marvel still involves the broad strokes and the important details for the most part. An opposite example that proves the rule is how they wasted the character of Taskmaster in Black Widow.

Or, a different example. Loved Voltron: Legendary Defender (except for the ending). And the reason it worked was because it took the broad strokes of the old Voltron cartoon and gave it a fresh coat of paint. It did change some characterizations, but it was also respectful in how it adapted and revered the old material. There's a nuance to it.

Anyway, this is why I dislike the Resident Evil movies. It's like, why even bother getting the license if you're going to completely divorce it from what people already established that they like?

Although as someone pointed out, clearly it worked for them since there were like five of them. It's just not for me.

I dunno, I just feel like it's bonkers that they decided to make a younger Nate story and also remove it from canon. Like, if it wasn't going to be canon anyway, then why even bother making him young? I figured the point of making him young was to avoid conflict with the games.

 

Most film franchises I can think of that are based on pre-existing material are set in different timelines as the main medium. It allows for more creative freedom.

 

Yea, doing it’s own thing makes sense to me.

 

I don't think most film franchises really even think about something as complex as "timelines". They just take the source material and may take liberties, but they generally just adapt what's there.

I mean, Lord Of The Rings adapted the books. It wasn't considering itself to be a different universe, it was literally just Peter Jackson adapting the books, and he cut things out and shifted things here and there, but largely it was an adaptation.

To use a geekier example, Mortal Kombat (the 90s movie) is based on the games. It's not meant to be another universe, it's meant to be taking the characters and lore from the games and making a movie out of it. Again, it left things out, but it kept things relatively accurate.

If you're going to do your own thing completely, then why even bother getting the rights to the franchise? And the answer is simple: because the brand name has a built-in audience, and it's about making money off the power of the name.

I realize this isn't always the case, and that's why I'm trying to stress that there are nuances, but I think what I'm saying is largely true.

EDIT: I also think that this approach to adaptations is why movies based on video games have largely failed.

 

This isn't even doing it's own thing completely. Character names are still there and they look relatively similar, they solve puzzles and go on an adventure to find a treasure, and they have a villain that is trying to do the same. To think that an adaptation of anything is going to be set in the same universe/timeline/continuity as the source is just setting yourself up for disappointment.

 

Being fair, as I said before, I haven't seen this movie, so I don't know how much it deviates character-wise. I only know I've heard a lot of criticism that the characters are nothing like they are in the game, and that's what I'm basing that on.

I'm also not intending my comments here to be a criticism of the movie itself. More a commentary on adaptations in general, and how they get made and why. I wouldn't be surprised if a script for this movie already existed under a different name and it was made to fit the license rather than the other way around. Again, could be wrong. Just basing this off of what I've heard and what I know about previous adaptations.

Anyway, considering all the negative feedback about this movie, I'm not scrambling to rush out and see it, and I'm not really sure if I ever will. I'm not that invested and really never was. I'm more interested in the discussion surrounding this movie and how a movie like this gets made.

For example, your last sentence. I wonder, is that because we've been conditioned to expect that adaptations won't adapt the source material? I think the best adaptations are the ones that respect the source material. I've already given examples of ones that don't religiously adhere to canon, but still be respectful.

There are plenty of examples of those that don't. And I'm curious if there's any anyone can think of that have actually been good. I think when you adapt something, you have to have a certain amount of respect for it and you have to actively enjoy it, otherwise that's going to show in the final output. If you don't care about what you're working on, how do you expect fans to do the same?

 

I am sure I will be in the minority of fans of the game, but i thought this movie was pretty awesome. It kept enough of the games core. while being it's own things. I can already play the game, so why would I want that condensed to 2 hours to watch it?

The action scenes were thrilling, the character interactions were great, and the plot like all treasure hunter movies, was a bit muddled and far fetched, but still cohesive enough to not lose me at any point. It's a hodge podge of all the games so far vs following one from beginning to end so we got a scene or a character or a reference from nearly all the games (if not all of them, I'd have to think on it a little more).

I'd definitely be interested in a sequel and I will definitely watch it again when it hits streaming. It was just a fun movie.

I am seeing this argument everywhere in that when something gets changed when it's put to visual format, it's because the people making it don't care, and are untalented hacks mining source material for a quick buck. Sure, that's the case sometimes, but movies are a different median from games and and books and need to be treated differently. I'm always going to view the movie/TV show with that in my mind. Most of it not all the changes they made, just made it a great viewing experience, arguably better than doing a 1 to 1 translation.

Solid 8.5/10 for me. As far as casting, I actually settled in and saw Mark as Sully way before I accepted Tom as Nate.

 

Medium, not median.

For my part, I don't believe changes from a source are bad inherently. You're absolutely right, movies are a different medium and it's impossible to tell the same story in both a 20-40 hour game and a 2-3 hour movie. It's about making sure what you're doing is both respectful to the source and also making proper use of the medium.

I've been getting all my feedback on this movie from other people, so I'm going to ask: do Tom and Mark feel like Nate and Sully? Cause TV Tropes, for example, lists this movie as:

I think some adaptations get that bum rap of being for a quick buck because they seem unwilling to properly adapt anything from the source. It's not just about being a different medium. You can tell an original story, for example, and still have the characters sound and behave faithfully. If you choose to deliberately ignore anything about the original work, then are you really adapting it?

I see similar arguments when a comics writer takes on particular characters but doesn't take the time to make those characters sound anything like their typical characterization. It's fans getting frustrated because they've come to like a character for specific reasons and feeling the writer doesn't understand what makes that character great.

Is that feeling sometimes misplaced? Certainly. But that's also part of adapting something with a built-in audience; you have to know it's going to be held under scrutiny.

 

I don't think Nate ever felt right in the movie. He's played as this young, no purpose, cocky young adult, but not in the right way (as Nate is cocky in the games). Other than #4 with Nate and Sam as kids, Nate was a grown man, and I can't ever really see him acting like he's portrayed in the movie and developing into the Nate in the game (I know he's purposefully younger in the movie but don't think it's a prequal, it's a reinvention where Nate is just different and isn't and won't be game Nate). However, it didn't deter from my enjoyment, nor did it came across as a disrespectful change, and I thought his relationship with Sully was sort of game like in that you've got the vet and the newbie going on an adventure together (sort of like the 3rd game). Sully is pretty bland in the movie, very little back story or motivation to him, so it didn't add to the game or detract from it. I don't think the game really ever explains Sully more than that he's a conman anyway, so I don't think anything was destroyed in the movie, just nothing new added.

And maybe I'm being naïve here, but I think too many fans of a book or a show, just want it made for beat for beat to satisfy them with no regard that it's a business. Most of these franchises that are getting adapted, would not survive on just a verbatim translation and need to translate to non-fans of the source material. There's no internal dialogue so you need actions to show thoughts and traits.

I know you know all that, I just get tired of seeing nothing but negativity whenever a franchise is adapted or in the works to be adapted.

 

Oh, I almost forgot. This movie has the Indiana Jones line, “snakes. Why does it have to be snakes?” Except they make it about nuns. Made me roll my eyes.

 

I do understand the feeling about wanting an adaptation to not be the source material verbatim.

I'm thinking now about Watchmen and how Moore was against adapting it for film because he felt it was unadaptable. And then Zack Snyder proved him right, because he adapted it by making the film the exact same as the comic beat for beat, save one notable exception.

The overall feeling I had after seeing it in the theater was that I would've much rather read the graphic novel over again. It's not that it was bad, it just left me with this weird feeling like I wasn't experiencing anything new.

Although, and I recognize I am probably in the minority on this, I did like Snyder's choice for Ozymandias' scheme better than the original book. And that's funny because my favorite part about the movie is the one thing he didn't lift from the book wholesale.

 

This was not near the disaster that I was expecting. Not great by any means, but I wasn't bored with it and Holland is charming enough.

 

I’m shocked how much money this made. I don’t know a single soul who saw this. I know people, I swear!

 

I honestly loved this. It’s stupid but it knows that it is, it’s a solid cross of the national treasure movies and goonies.

 

This is having another good weekend. Looks like Holland may be a box office draw.

 

This was entertaining but somewhat forgettable. Would check out a sequel.

 

Didn't really go into this expecting much but honestly really enjoyed it. I'm down for sequels if they decide to make some. That whole climax with the pirate ships was a god damn blast.

also loved the NN cameo.