"Uncharted: Drake's Fortune: The Motion Picture" (1 Viewer)

[Edwin-S]

Originally Posted by Brian Borst

Wy don't they give the actors that did the voices a crack at it? They both did good jobs in the games. I'd be more likely to go and see this film if the original actors from the game were in it. Do the producers of this film really think that Mark Wahlberg is somehow going to be a big drawing card? Fuck. This is why Hollywood movies generally suck. They keep signing the same old burnt out "talent", expecting that a so-called "name" actor is going to pull in the audience. They should give some new blood a chance already. They haven't even written the script, but the bits I have read about + Mark Wahlberg + Joe Pesci + Robert DeNiro = avoid at all costs.

I'm sorry, but since when are these guys considered bad actors? Sure, they've made some awful choices, but to not see a movie because of them seems ridiculous. It also seems to me that some are ready to hate the entire project, even when there's hardly anything known about the movie.

[/QUOTE]

Well, I never said that they were bad actors. I said that it gets tiresome that Hollywood keeps casting the same actors over and over, because they think that they have drawing power based on their "name". I'd like to see some new blood, not the same old war horses.


Mark Wahlberg is not suitable to play Nathan Drake, because his character portrayals have been dour in personality. I don't think the guy has any idea how to play a character in a humorous, but still serious manner. DeNiro, in his prime, would have been an ideal antagonist for Drake, but the idea of having him play Drake's father is dumb. I can't believe that the Wahlberg could actually say that another lame father/son storyline is something fresh and original. We have had several action/adventure/fantasy films that used the same old tired trope and they were not particularly good. Indiana Jones and The Legend of The Crystal Skull comes immediately to mind as an example. As for Pesci, maybe he could be a good choice, but somehow I get the feeling that he would be the "comic relief" in this "fantastic" screenplay that Wahlberg was waxing eloquent about.

 

[Don Solosan]

"a fun, likable, intelligent, and somewhat witty adventurist. I don't think even one of those adjectives would fit a single of Wahlberg's roles to date. He generally plays naive, uneducated, or 'average' for a reason."


I can't say I've seen a lot of the guy's movies, but The Italian Job and Sniper don't seem to fit your profile. He plays smart and savvy in both of those.

 

[Zack Gibbs]

Originally Posted by Don Solosan

I can't say I've seen a lot of the guy's movies, but The Italian Job and Sniper don't seem to fit your profile. He plays smart and savvy in both of those.

And he was an astronaut in that Planet of the Apes remake. And Denise Richards once played a nuclear physicist.


It takes more than words on a page.

 

[Don Solosan]

"And he was an astronaut in that Planet of the Apes remake. And Denise Richards once played a nuclear physicist."


So he can't have one stinker role on his resume? In my mind, he proved his ability with those other roles, performed well. End of story. If you just don't like the guy, there's nothing I can do about that.


Also re: Planet of the Apes, "it takes more than words on a page." No one could have made that script work. And you blame him?

 

[Aaron Silverman]

Originally Posted by Edwin-S

Well, I never said that they were bad actors. I said that it gets tiresome that Hollywood keeps casting the same actors over and over, because they think that they have drawing power based on their "name". I'd like to see some new blood, not the same old war horses.

The thing is, actors *do* have drawing power based on their names. So do some directors. If screenwriters sold tickets, we'd see their names above the title on movie posters too. "Mark Wahlberg" is going to sell a heck of a lot more tickets than "Nolan North." Like, millions of dollars worth. (Doesn't mean we have to like it, but that's the way the cookie crumbles.)


How's this for reaching for hope: Adrian Grenier's character on Entourage is based on Marky Mark, and he certainly plays happy-go-lucky enough to be Nathan Drake.

 

[Edwin-S]

Originally Posted by Aaron Silverman

Well, I never said that they were bad actors. I said that it gets tiresome that Hollywood keeps casting the same actors over and over, because they think that they have drawing power based on their "name". I'd like to see some new blood, not the same old war horses.

The thing is, actors *do* have drawing power based on their names. So do some directors. If screenwriters sold tickets, we'd see their names above the title on movie posters too. "Mark Wahlberg" is going to sell a heck of a lot more tickets than "Nolan North." Like, millions of dollars worth. (Doesn't mean we have to like it, but that's the way the cookie crumbles.)


How's this for reaching for hope: Adrian Grenier's character on Entourage is based on Marky Mark, and he certainly plays happy-go-lucky enough to be Nathan Drake.

[/QUOTE]

There is no way to objectively say that Mark Wahlberg is going to sell more tickets than Nolan North, when the man isn't even given a chance to see what he could do with the character in a live action venue. The problem as I see it is that they cast someone like Mark Wahlberg based only on his supposed "drawing power". His name gives the movie some draw for two days, until people realize that he has "shit the bed" as far as portraying the character. The end result is a drastic drop in attendance less than a week later. The film then then turns into a disastrous flop because the makers made their casting decisions solely on the basis of a "drawing card" instead of on whether the actor was suitable to play the role in the first place.


I suppose the same result could happen with an actor named Nolan North or Adrian Grenier, but how does one know if they are never given a chance to see what they can do with a character. They get rejected merely because their name isn't "established" like Marky Mark's. Frankly, it's pathetic and it's why a lot of potentially good movies get ruined because Hollywood casts for "drawing power" instead of on whether the actor actually fits the character. I guess we will have to wait and see; however, so far, what I have read about this movie is not making me want to see it, especially after Wahlberg stated that it was going to contain yet another tired father/son motif.

 

[Zack Gibbs]

Originally Posted by Don Solosan

"And he was an astronaut in that Planet of the Apes remake. And Denise Richards once played a nuclear physicist."


So he can't have one stinker role on his resume? In my mind, he proved his ability with those other roles, performed well. End of story. If you just don't like the guy, there's nothing I can do about that.


Also re: Planet of the Apes, "it takes more than words on a page." No one could have made that script work. And you blame him?

I just think of Planets as a similar stretch to what he would need to do here, and he failed miserably. Excuses be damned.


To your direct examples, I just don't see the similarity. In 'Shooter' he was a highly trained soldier, executing the skills imparted upon him by the army. In The Italian Job... I can't remember what he did there. A kind of point-man I guess. But he was definitely more thug than historian. Neither characters supported any kind of high academic education. Both could be called 'street smart,' and were still solemn, impersonal thugs.


I'm not seeing Nathan Drake here.

 

[Don Solosan]

"Both could be called 'street smart,' and were still solemn, impersonal thugs."


Then maybe you should watch The Italian Job again, because Charlie is a cheerful guy who finds romance during the story. For high academic education, think how Nick Cage pulled off the lead in National Treasure. Did you know he had it in him? As far as Shooter goes, he bonds with the wife of the soldier who was killed on their last mission; he's hardly impersonal and he's certainly not a thug.


By your standards, Leslie Nielsen would have never been cast in Airplane! because he was a serious actor and had never shown any silliness in his previous roles. Think of all the stand-up comedians who have gone on to do dramatic performances... none of them would have ever had the chance if you were in charge...


As far as Planet of the Apes goes, it was a train wreck and shouldn't be used for or against the guy.


"It takes more than words on a page."


Remember: "If it ain't on the page, it ain't on the stage."

 

[Aaron Silverman]

Originally Posted by Edwin-S

Well, I never said that they were bad actors. I said that it gets tiresome that Hollywood keeps casting the same actors over and over, because they think that they have drawing power based on their "name". I'd like to see some new blood, not the same old war horses.

The thing is, actors *do* have drawing power based on their names. So do some directors. If screenwriters sold tickets, we'd see their names above the title on movie posters too. "Mark Wahlberg" is going to sell a heck of a lot more tickets than "Nolan North." Like, millions of dollars worth. (Doesn't mean we have to like it, but that's the way the cookie crumbles.)


How's this for reaching for hope: Adrian Grenier's character on Entourage is based on Marky Mark, and he certainly plays happy-go-lucky enough to be Nathan Drake.

[/QUOTE]

There is no way to objectively say that Mark Wahlberg is going to sell more tickets than Nolan North, when the man isn't even given a chance to see what he could do with the character in a live action venue. The problem as I see it is that they cast someone like Mark Wahlberg based only on his supposed "drawing power". His name gives the movie some draw for two days, until people realize that he has "shit the bed" as far as portraying the character. The end result is a drastic drop in attendance less than a week later. The film then then turns into a disastrous flop because the makers made their casting decisions solely on the basis of a "drawing card" instead of on whether the actor was suitable to play the role in the first place.


I suppose the same result could happen with an actor named Nolan North or Adrian Grenier, but how does one know if they are never given a chance to see what they can do with a character. They get rejected merely because their name isn't "established" like Marky Mark's. Frankly, it's pathetic and it's why a lot of potentially good movies get ruined because Hollywood casts for "drawing power" instead of on whether the actor actually fits the character. I guess we will have to wait and see; however, so far, what I have read about this movie is not making me want to see it, especially after Wahlberg stated that it was going to contain yet another tired father/son motif.


Yes, theoretically speaking, a movie starring Nolan North could become a breakout hit. But a movie starring Mark Wahlberg is GUARANTEED to sell a certain number of tickets because Mark Wahlberg fans will go see it -- and it still might become a breakout hit. Where is a movie studio going to lay its $100 million bet?


I wasn't suggesting Adrian Grenier for the part (I guess maybe, but IMO he looks too young); I was just saying that if Wahlberg resembles Grenier's character, who is supposed to be Wahlberg, then maybe he has it in him to be Nathan Drake.)

 

[Chris Will]

Ugh, Mark Wahlberg causes me to loose almost all interest in this movie. I don't like Wahlberg so, unless the trailers eventually spark my interest, this movie is now off my radar.

 

[Ron-P]

I like Wahlberg and while I'd rather see a no-name actor in this it is one I will see, depending that is, on how the trailers are.


If it ends up looking like the latest trailer for The Green Lantern that is nearly 100% cheesy CGI, I may have to pass.

 

[Chris Farmer]

Originally Posted by Aaron Silverman

Yes, theoretically speaking, a movie starring Nolan North could become a breakout hit. But a movie starring Mark Wahlberg is GUARANTEED to sell a certain number of tickets because Mark Wahlberg fans will go see it -- and it still might become a breakout hit. Where is a movie studio going to lay its $100 million bet?


I wasn't suggesting Adrian Grenier for the part (I guess maybe, but IMO he looks too young); I was just saying that if Wahlberg resembles Grenier's character, who is supposed to be Wahlberg, then maybe he has it in him to be Nathan Drake.)

Yep. That's why The Happening and Max Payne (to name two) were such break-out hits. All the Mark Wahlburg fans really pumped up the box office there. Surefire hit; can't go wrong.

 

[TravisR]

Originally Posted by Chris Farmer

Yep. That's why The Happening and Max Payne (to name two) were such break-out hits. All the Mark Wahlburg fans really pumped up the box office there. Surefire hit; can't go wrong.

And those movies would have done any better with an unknown in the lead? Mark Wahlberg is a movie star and a movie star is going to get talk show appearances (which is 10 or 15 minutes of free national advertising) and having his face is on the poster or in the trailer or commercials is going to get more attention than an unknown actor.


Love or hate Mark Wahlberg, they're not paying him $15 or $20 million a movie because they want to spend alot of money, they're paying him that much because they know having a star in the movie will likely result in making more money (especially in foreign territories).

 

[Chris Farmer]

They sure couldn't have done much worse. There's nothing in Wahlburg's career to demonstrate that he has the kind of draw some in this thread are attributing to him, and there ARE plenty of counter-examples to show that he doesn't. He's a known name, but I'd hardly call him a star. What was the last major blockbuster he carried? But yeah, unknown leads, big mistake. Really hurt Avatar. If only it had starred Mark Wahlburg maybe it wouldn't have bombed.


In reality, there really aren't that many people who can get butts in seats based on their name alone, and even that doesn't extend much past the first weekend. Tom Cruise before he went batshit insane could do it. Tom Hanks, Will Smith, Sandra Bullock for the acting side probably still have a pretty big draw. On the directing side Steven Spielberg, Christopher Nolan, Peter Jackson, maybe Sam Raimi. It's really not a long list, and I absolutely wouldn't put Mark Wahlburg on it. Despite all the hype placed on the name, the most important part is telling a story audiences find compelling. Engage the audience and the money will come. Bore them and all the big names in the world won't do jack to salvage the financial disaster.

 

[TravisR]

Originally Posted by Chris Farmer

They sure couldn't have done much worse. There's nothing in Wahlburg's career to demonstrate that he has the kind of draw some in this thread are attributing to him, and there ARE plenty of counter-examples to show that he doesn't. He's a known name, but I'd hardly call him a star. What was the last major blockbuster he carried? But yeah, unknown leads, big mistake. Really hurt Avatar. If only it had starred Mark Wahlburg maybe it wouldn't have bombed.

In reality, there really aren't that many people who can get butts in seats based on their name alone, and even that doesn't extend much past the first weekend. Tom Cruise before he went batshit insane could do it. Tom Hanks, Will Smith, Sandra Bullock for the acting side probably still have a pretty big draw. On the directing side Steven Spielberg, Christopher Nolan, Peter Jackson, maybe Sam Raimi. It's really not a long list, and I absolutely wouldn't put Mark Wahlburg on it. Despite all the hype placed on the name, the most important part is telling a story audiences find compelling. Engage the audience and the money will come. Bore them and all the big names in the world won't do jack to salvage the financial disaster.

Like I said, Mark Wahlberg gets on talk shows which is a 10 minute free commercial for the movie and having a Hollywood movie star definitely sells more tickets in foreign territories.


For the record, I've seen most of Mark Wahlberg's movies and I've only really liked The Basketball Diaries, Boogie Nights, Three Kings and The Departed (and those movies would most likely be good without him) so it's not like I'm starting the Mark Wahlberg Fan Club but the guy is a star.

 

[Don Solosan]

Hollywood has a hundred years of experience in casting movies, and they know how the cookie breaks when it comes to stars vs. unknowns. It comes down to the odds being better with a name actor. Remember, the studios resisted "star power" early on and refused to give screen credit to actors, so they wouldn't become known, and therefore more expensive. Public demand forced them to reconsider.


Of course, star power requires a star vehicle. Put a big name in some wonky story that no one is interested in, and it'll flop. But you match up a star with a great story, and it'll pay off big.

 

[Ruz-El]

The big screen version of Uncharted: Drake's Fortune is starting to sound less like Raiders of the Lost Ark and more like National Treasure. Director David O. Russell says his upcoming game-to-film adaptation will focus on treasure-hunting hero Nathan Drake (to be played by Mark Wahlberg) -- as well as his extended family.

The writer-director, who said he is now halfway done with his script, told The Los Angeles Times, "This idea really turns me on that there's a family that's a force to be reckoned with in the world of international art and antiquities ... [a family] that deals with heads of state and heads of museums and metes out justice."

"We'll have the family dynamic, which we've done in a couple of movies now," said Russell, whose past films about dysfunctional familes include Flirting with Disaster and The Fighter. "And then you take that and put it on the bigger, more muscular stage of an international action picture, but also put all the character stuff in it. That's a really cool idea to me."

Russell also called the urgency of the Uncharted production, a high priority for Columbia Pictures who wants the film out sooner than later, "a locomotive."

A family adventure? A tough hero with kids flick? This movie just dropped a dump into the turd pile for me.

 

[Arild]

Ugh. This sounds nothing like Uncharted.

 

[Aaron Silverman]

Originally Posted by Chris Farmer

Yes, theoretically speaking, a movie starring Nolan North could become a breakout hit. But a movie starring Mark Wahlberg is GUARANTEED to sell a certain number of tickets because Mark Wahlberg fans will go see it -- and it still might become a breakout hit. Where is a movie studio going to lay its $100 million bet?


I wasn't suggesting Adrian Grenier for the part (I guess maybe, but IMO he looks too young); I was just saying that if Wahlberg resembles Grenier's character, who is supposed to be Wahlberg, then maybe he has it in him to be Nathan Drake.)

Yep. That's why The Happening and Max Payne (to name two) were such break-out hits. All the Mark Wahlburg fans really pumped up the box office there. Surefire hit; can't go wrong.

[/QUOTE]

That only reinforces my point. Mark Wahlberg fans went to see those films and buy the DVDs -- without a star in them, they would have made even less money than they did. It's about studios hedging their bets on films that *don't* become breakout hits.

 

[Ruz-El]

Originally Posted by Arild

Ugh. This sounds nothing like Uncharted.

Agreed. they don't want to adapt Uncharted, they want to make a different movie under the "Uncharted" name. Which makes no sense since outside of PS3 gamers, no one knows what the hell "Uncharted" is. Another example of Hollywood not knowing who their market is.