UNCHARTED film adaptation

David O. Russell has said that fans should "trust" him with the Uncharted movie.
The Three Kings director told Slash Film that games are very different to movies and that it requires a narrative to embrace the viewer.
"I'm not going to present myself as hardcore," he said. "But I played the game a bunch of times and I also read as much as I could about the game and I met the game's creator, Amy Hennig, who's really cool.
"I started to brew together what I thought could be a really cool idea that I'd never seen in a film before... Really intense action and really intense family dynamics on a global stage.
"To grow a game into a movie is an interesting proposition because a game is a very different experience than a movie. You guys are playing the game, and it's about playing the game. It's not about a narrative embracing you emotionally. You know what I'm saying?"
Russell added that although he will be "respectful" of the source material his priority is to make a good film.
"As far as I'm concerned, I'm very respectful as far as the core content and spirit of the game, but beyond that it's my job as a filmmaker to make what I think is going to be an amazing movie."
He added: "People have to trust that and let that go, I think."
Mark Wahlberg has been confirmed to play series protagonist Nathan Drake in the film.

edolan wrote: »

I've always thought that Wahlberg is likeable in Four Brothers, Shooter and Three Kings.

Variety wrote:

A pair of tentpole-sized studio projects have lost their helmers, as David O. Russell exited "Uncharted: Drake's Fortune" over creative differences with Sony while Albert Hughes ankled Warner Bros.' live-action remake of the Japanese manga epic "Akira."

Though Russell was set to both write and direct "Uncharted," Thursday's departures would seem to be more of a blow to "Akira," the bigscreen take on the 1988 animated cult classic considered extremely difficult to adapt.

Hughes had been attached for more than a year to "Akira," which has been struggling to get an A-list male lead like Keanu Reeves, who was recently offered the role but passed. "Uncharted," meanwhile, is based on the juggernaut PlayStation 3 videogame franchise that Sony is still eager to develop for the bigscreen.

Russell had seemed excited about the Columbia Pictures project, speaking frequently and enthusiastically about it as he made the rounds to promote "The Fighter" during awards season. But creative differences between him and Sony developed and the sides parted amicably, insiders say.

Thomas Dean Donnelly and Joshua Oppenheimer penned the first draft of "Uncharted," which Sony is still very high on, though the studio has already begun a search for another scribe. While there has never been talent formally attached to "Uncharted," Russell had been looking to reteam with "The Fighter" star Mark Wahlberg; project was also rumored to co-star Robert De Niro and Joe Pesci. But with a new writer and director coming aboard, producers Avi Arad, Ari Arad, Charles Roven and Alex Gartner will likely start from scratch.

dreamers75 wrote: »

Is this a deadpool type thing?

Hope so would love to see more of this.

pixelburp wrote: »

But would it? Tomb Raider is a pretty apt comparison here: it was an adaptation of the more recent, intentionally cinematic reboot of one of the more well-known videogame properties, yet while its stats are decent enough it hardly set the box office alight. Another one of those films whose foreign takings eclipsed domestic, while the "2x" rule for calculating the final budget means it didn't even make its production budget back. It also slunk by on shoulder-shrugs for reviews, and a broadly lukewarm audience reception.

The Resident Evil films make gangbusters because their budgets are much tighter (last year's 'the Final Chapter' had half the production budget of Tomb Raider), while at the same time is a series that, for all its faults, happily embraces the schlocky, z-movie heritage from which it & the game IP was born. It's the exception that proves the rule.

Otherwise, game adaptations just don't work, and wish Hollywood would leave well enough alone. They're nearly always on a hiding to nothing: few of the IPs have a fanbase that translates into cinema footfall anyway, and if you can't recreate the visceral thrill of actually playing a game - what's the point?

If anything, it's TV where the more narrative focused games should focus; if networks wanted to pick up an adaptation of Bioshock, Half-Life or so on - that could give pause for consideration.

pixelburp wrote: »

Right. Indiana Jones. Exactly. That's the precise reason why Tomb Raider failed again, and why Uncharted isn't a sure-fire hit. Strip away the quips, the frippery, and most importantly, the interactivity, what you're left with are uninspired Indiana Jones knock-offs; no different than any other attempt to make an off-brand version - such as the Nicholas Cage 'National Treasure' films.

I don't buy the argument that 'highest selling game' means a thing to box-office viability, that's kinda the point I was gearing towards. Video games just don't demonstrate the kind of invested fanbase that (say) book adaptations might possess & often follow into the cinema. And while video-games have never been more mainstream, why would I want to pay €15 to watch a 2 hour cutscene that has (probably) taken liberties with the story I already know - and can take part in?

The Tomb Raider franchise is one of the largest there ever was, and Lara Croft mania was an actual thing that transcended the medium back in the late 90s. Still didn't translate to box office domination, even the first time around with the Jolie films. They did fine, well enough for a sequel, but faded quick enough.

Agent Coulson wrote: »

‘Uncharted’ Movie Director Confirms the Film Is ‘Close to the Starting Line’



https://variety.com/2018/gaming/news/uncharted-movie-update-1202903178/