Someone mentions in 3, Marlow I think, that his father gave him up to welfare and the way the sentence is phrased implies he didn't have a brother, or anyone else in his life. But it's just one line.
-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
-
We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.
Tom Holland Says Uncharted Has a Solution to the Video Game Movie Problem
- Thread starter Deleted member 59955
- Start date
It would be easy for the villain who literally pulled out records of Drake's past to talk about his brother that was not only active until they were well into adulthood but also still alive, especially if she's able to pull out records about his parents. Kindly stop trying to defend what is an incredibly contrived plot point that originally was intended to be an incredibly contrived twist in the original narrative of uncharted 4.
She quite literally whips out Drake's records. Whips out glasses to read them and everything.
"I know you better than anyone but I'm definitely not gonna mention your brother, just.....your mother and father, and even the specific orphanage you were in in this game that contains flashbacks of your childhood with zero mention of your sibling being active."
This is before the nonsensical chase scene that was designed before they had a plot which is followed by the villains setting up a doll of Sully several sips away from where they were keeping Nathan because I suppose they just expected him to kill everyone on his way there and find it. Uncharted's writing peaked at 2 so it's understandable that this scene is
Last edited:
I remember when Uncharted 3 covered the entire conception of Nathan Drake and followed every single moment of his entire life up to Uncharted 1 with absolutely no exceptions. That was great.
I just watched the scene and yeah I dont know man it she has some police records and a photo of elena. Threatening Elana together Nate to cooperate was the main objective. That's why her photo was in the file. When she talks about the parents she just reading a few notes in the file before she shows the picture. Should the file mention a brother ? Yes. I expect katherine just doesnt really care because she cant use a brother that is presumed dead to motivate Nate.
Now obviously its because he wasnt thought up yet but I personally dont think his existence clashes with a scene that's main purpose was to threaten Eana.
While she says she knows more about him then anyone, she is most likely full of shit and just pulled some records . Actually we know she is wrong because Sully knows more about Nate.
Sam is not active at this time.He is still in a prison that for all we know declared him dead during the escape. Just because your a villain with connections doesnt mean you know everything.
As for the mom thing. I dont know why people expected her to be a low life and were upset she was a famous historian. People from all walks of life kill themselves. It would be helpful to know why the dad gave them up but Indont remember him being covered much in uncharted 4.
The purpose of the scene was to manipulate Nate first by tearing him down via exposing him then by threatening Elena. Nate and his brother literally got themselves thrown in the same jail, police records would indicate this. And it's not just this one instance, it's the ENTIRE flashback sequence that was the original Nathan Drake origin.
This person was able to pull up the records of the specific orphanage Nathan Drake was put in, the same one that his brother was put in.
The fact that they're making this movie with Tom Holland and not Nathan Fillion, who has already proven that he's perfect for the role, tells me that the studio does not give a shit about this franchise.
Lol at y'all trying to explain the retcon. You think Catherine Marlowe, who is described as being big BIG shit in universe, doesn't know about Rafe Adler? And about Drake's connection? Not to mention Drake mentions the Panamanian jail in previous games to Uncharted 4. The biggest issue is Sam is supposed to be a villain and Druckmann and Straley made him a anti-hero ally. That literally explains 90% of the overlap and lack of fit with the rest of the series. It was forced.
Point being 4 is a massive retcon, and ruins the Everyman nature of the protagonist. It's bullshit and they fucked up Uncharted.
Point being 4 is a massive retcon, and ruins the Everyman nature of the protagonist. It's bullshit and they fucked up Uncharted.
NOBODY wants that movie.
Uncharted players don't want it
non-Uncharted players don't want it
People who don't know Uncharted don't want it
It's such a 100% guaranteed bomb, how can producers be so out of touch with the market? Is it the same guys that made the Cats movie?
Uncharted players don't want it
non-Uncharted players don't want it
People who don't know Uncharted don't want it
It's such a 100% guaranteed bomb, how can producers be so out of touch with the market? Is it the same guys that made the Cats movie?
Nope! The solution is to retcon Uncharted 4, the high point of the series, which happens to include a satisfying origin story.
The infamous Super Mario Movie is technically an origin story since it's about Mario and Luigi going to the Mushroom Kingdom for the first time. And that was not only one of the first but also one of the worst adaptions ever.
"Angry Birds" was also an origin story and that one was a critical flop too. Even some of the Uwe Boll video game movies were origin stories.
Really, the trick is to focus on making a good movie. Just like with any other source material.
Just because she obtained those files doesnt mean she knows everything. Police obtain files all the time, do you think they know everything about a suspect? I agree he should be in the files but am not sure why mentioning a brother was necessary at all to tear him down. She mentioned his mom committed suicide and his father gave him away. Shes throwing digs at him and she achieved it. Not Bringing up the brother changes nothing to the end purpose at this point which was to threaten Elana. She could easily just not care . Her main motivation is not to mind fuck Nate it's to obtain wealth.
The entire bit is 30 seconds. If she spent more time dressing him down then I would absolutely agree something is off. She moves so fast to threatening Elana is just nitpicky and expecting perfection when writers and fictitious villains just arent. This of course is just my personal opinion.
I love how they film the start of the shoot out like you're about to take control of Nate.
This was the best we'll ever get UC on film.
Well, the Warcraft movie respected the characters, world and tone, and although I thought it was decent enough (and even fixed some plot holes like Thrall being green), it didn't exactly set the world on fire. Regardless of whether he's wrong about Uncharted already having told an origin story, the hypothesis that to make a good videogame movie you need to tell a story that the games haven't told yet may not be entirely misguided. The obvious problem is that it's hard enough for celebrated videogame stories to get worthy stories in their own sequels, let alone a relatively ancillary product in a different medium.
The Assassin's Creed movie told a story the games didn't told and was Canon
It made less than the Warcraft movie
Uncharted 3 and 4 certainly do not provide an "origin". They tell us chunks of Drake's background - how he met Sully, how he found out about his family history... But they don't show Drake "becoming who he is today" - assuming that by "origin" this is what they mean.
E.g. Naughty Dog never felt it necessary to do a Tomb Raider 2013. We always knew Croft's background - we never knew her "origin", when she becomes the legendary treasure hunter.
Naughty Dog know that doing a proper "origin" of the character (ala Tomb Raider 2013) would not work at all in a game. So they never touch it. E.g. Drake's first kill, his first big thefts, his escalating career...
We never see that transition in the games - we never see that origin.
A movie, frankly, will be way better at covering that sort of ground.
E.g. Naughty Dog never felt it necessary to do a Tomb Raider 2013. We always knew Croft's background - we never knew her "origin", when she becomes the legendary treasure hunter.
Naughty Dog know that doing a proper "origin" of the character (ala Tomb Raider 2013) would not work at all in a game. So they never touch it. E.g. Drake's first kill, his first big thefts, his escalating career...
We never see that transition in the games - we never see that origin.
A movie, frankly, will be way better at covering that sort of ground.
Pretty sure she would if the story was actually well written but UC3 is not sooooo
Video game stories are generally written quite a deal worse than films, that's always been the major issue.
Last edited:
EXACTLY.
Castlevania takes the framework from games with basically no story, writes good stories, good world, and REALLY good characters, and runs with it.
Take the license and make it into a good piece of entertainment. How hard is this?
One of the worst movies I've seen this year so far. Along with some of the worst acting :) I really liked Homecoming. One of the few good Marvel movies out.
Last edited:
An Uncharted movie isn't an outrageous thought, the issue is let's say the movie sucks now you have one failure on an otherwise perfect record and it messes up the Uncharted mystique.
Holy cow how did I miss this, this was fantastic and pretty much exactly what I wanted from a UC movie, except for the stupid cheesy behind-the-back videogame camera angle (this looks absolutely awful in every movie that tries it)
Part of the issue is that videogame stories are still judged using the same metrics as film or even literature, which makes no sense because film and literature aren't judged using the same metrics as each other (except when the latter is adapted into the former and inevitable falls short).
Videogames have advantages and disadvantages compared to each of these two storytelling media, exactly the same as they also have advantages and disadvantages compared to each other. Chastising videogames for medium limitations (e.g. ones arising from the fact that it needs to accomodate gameplay) is as asinine as complaning that the ceiling for a movie's character detail and complexity is lower than a book's. The existence of books doesn't make a good movie less of a good movie, and the existence of movies doesn't make a good videogame story less of a good videogame story.
Last edited:
Pikachu and Sonic already solved the video game movie problem, Tom
It tells me that Sony is desperately trying to piggyback on Tom Holland's MCU appeal with a franchise of their own. It won't work, never has.
Video games almost always emulate film so ofc there's going to be a comparison. Games that break out and use the medium to it's full advantage tend to get less attention than those that emulate film as much as possible.
This is only true if all you take into account are cinematic AAA experiences. In other words, it isn't even remotely true.
I literally said this:
Games that break out and use the medium to it's full advantage tend to get less attention than those that emulate film as much as possible.
Nier Automata, Papers Please, Kentucky Route Zero, Superhot, Undertale, etc. got way less attention than Red Dead, GTA, or the Last of Us.
This is like a reverse Tom Holland experience, usually he spoils the films and this time he has no clue what he is talking about because he was probably given a fake script.
Video game movies generally suck because they're almost always trying to please "gamers" and regular movie viewers, as if they cannot be one in the same
No it's not. AAA games that emulate film get much more attention than games like Nier or Undertale. And this is down to game design as well, as in, game design that seeks to make it fee like you're playing an interactive film. Ofc, market interest trends have changed but the point still stands when Red Dead and GTA are making half a billion at release.