David O. Russell's Uncharted: Drake's Fortune script was too ambitious
It is said that his screenplay was, "too long and ambitious" for Sony's liking. David O. Russell also included a number of characters which aren't featured in the video game. We got a hint at these inclusions when the director referred to "family" elements of Uncharted: Drake's Fortune, even though the video game only focuses on one man, Nathan Drake.
Sony is still moving forward with the project, currently seeking a new writer and director for Uncharted: Drake's Fortune. Mark Wahlberg will likely not star in the adventure, perhaps paving the way for fan-favorite Nathan Fillion to make a case to play Nathan Drake.
Uncharted: Drake's Fortune comes to theaters in 2012 and stars Mark Wahlberg, Robert De Niro, Joe Pesci. The film is directed by David O. Russell.
Comments (63)
To leave a comment, please sign in or use
Facebook or Twitter
Josh
@lane1 Haha...to each his (or her) own, I guess. I certainly wouldn't argue that some game series have great stories. Mass Effect is very cinematic and would make a fantastic film trilogy. I think Metal Gear Solid is groundbreaking in terms of video game storytelling, as are some of the Final Fantasy games (though the sheer bulk of those two series' stories arguably makes them unsuitable for film adaptation). I love the RE franchise, but I love it for its atmospheric style and gameplay, and have never been wowed by the fairly generic storytelling in them.
10 months agoby @shuabertFlag
Lane
@dan1 I think I was more of a "new fan" coming into the Prince of Persia series when Sands of Time was released, but I do still remember the originals. Whether or not I actually played them is a more vague memory to me, lol. But if Sands of Time could get me hooked on the series, that's saying a lot. :)
10 months agoby @lane1Flag
Lane
@shuabert If you could've seen my face when I said "What!?" to your first comment about the RE games, it would've been priceless. :P
First off, I beg to differ. There are games that are clearly designed for and MADE to be praised for their innovative gameplay, but there are ALSO games that have great story-telling and/or both those things. A lot of games are actually very plot and character driven over anything else. With RE being one of them, saying that the games don't have a story that's "innovative enough" when the plot of the games is arguably the best thing about them (the older ones, I mean), even over the survival horror aspect of the gameplay which fans also love about it too, that's just ridiculous. The story for the RE games is GREAT and if you can't see that, I worry about hearing your opinion on Prince of Persia's storyline if you ever play all 3 games... I shudder at the thought really, lol.
The stories for both of those series (the REAL stories) are enough to make a great film franchise if done RIGHT. You know as well as I that the right director can make ANYthing look good/better than it's actually presented in other media. So, saying that games shouldn't be adapted into film is a very pessimistic view, in my opinion. Just because we've had crap VG to movie series with crap directors thus far, doesn't mean we should give up on future products actually turning out good with better, talented directors who have the right visions. Imagine if Peter Jackson had stayed on Halo or Gore Verbinski could find the money to finance the Bioshock movie he really wants to make. If done well, those movies would be the standard for all VG adaptations to come after them.
...and I liked the first Resident Evil movie too... until I watched it again, and again, and again before seeing the second one. And by that point I was so pissed about the direction the movies had gone in, I realized they both sucked and that future sequels would never get better. Disgraceful compared to the games. Now I've come to the point where I can't even watch the first one without thinking about how it's turned into such a sh*t movie series and just can never finish watching it.
10 months agoby @lane1Flag
Dan
@shuabert @lane1 Nice. I need to sit down and play the original games again. My hat is always off to people who have played the original PoP games, and know where they came from.
11 months agoby @dan1Flag
Josh
@lane1 That's fair. Though I've played all the RE games, and I don't think there is really any story there that's innovative enough to make a compelling movie. I've seen only the first two films, and enjoyed the first, but as with PoP, I don't think there's much plot there that's worth adapting. This is the case with most videogames, IMO. They're videogames because of the innovation in gameplay, not because they're examples of first-rate storytelling. There are exceptions, of course. I think Mass Effect would make a great movie series, but most games aren't things I'd expect much out of when being adapted.
11 months agoby @shuabertFlag
Mutant
This is the best news I've heard in the last few days.
11 months agoby @zenderFlag
Lane
But no, it was the exact same prince in each of the games, @shuabert
11 months agoby @lane1Flag
Lane
@shuabert Well then there ya go. You can't really get the full experience without playing all 3 games or understand the point I'm trying to make about how the movie ruined any possibility of that great storyline from progressing on film in the same way as the games.
It's the same with Resident Evil. Once the first was a "hit", they continued with all the sequels that had nothing to do with the game's storyline (aside from Umbrella, which they actually screwed up too) which is far superior than any of that sh*t Paul Anderson has put on film.
11 months agoby @lane1Flag
Josh
@lane1 I've only played the Sands of Time, so I was unaware they were actually a trilogy. I thought the three games all had a different lead. That said. I remember specific scenes and jumps you have to make, but I don't remember jack sh*t about the plot, so gameplay definitely trumped story for me.
11 months agoby @shuabertFlag
Josh
@dan1 Of course, a loooong time ago. Back when I was playing Pitfall and Oregon Trail. :P
11 months agoby @shuabertFlag
Lane
@shuabert Still have to disagree. The story is what made the games for me, and probably a lot of others - not the gameplay. While the gameplay was fresh and inventive, the games wouldn't have continued after the first and been able to hold up as well as they do today without the progression of a fantastic story. The gameplay was just as good, but without the story, I gaurantee you Prince of Persia wouldn't have lasted past Warrior Within, or even Sands of Time for that matter. And after Warrior Within, The Two Thrones was a great step-up and conclusion to the series which tied it together with the first perfectly. Just imagining those games as a great trilogy on film makes me disappointed in how the Hollywood cop-out movie version of the first ruined that excitement for me.
And I'll contest that it captured the visuals of the game pretty well... but the minute I saw "Dastan" (which wasn't even the Prince's name in the games, he had none, which I would've been fine with the change in the movie had the rest actually been somewhat close to accurate) using the dagger, I was waiting, hoping, and expecting to see the story of the games unfold. I even remember saying "Cool!" the first time they showed it's magic power... But look at the games... He needed the sands in order to even use the dagger and gain any power from using it. Which the movie completely left out, from my knowledge. And my anticipation finally died once Dastan and the princess got to the temple and found the sands, except... Op, what'd ya know? IT WASN'T IN THE HOURGLASS. There was no hourglass at all -- completely f*cking killed it for me, and at that point, I just could not overlook the movie's many story flaws.
And to answer your question @dan1, I'm sure I did play the original when I was younger but I don't remember. It comes as a hidden unlockable within The Sands of Time game, though, so that was cool.
11 months agoby @lane1Flag
Bane. Ferguson
what's wrong with being ambitious and ambiguous you f*cking c*cksuckers!
11 months agoby @Zak-FFlag
Dan
@shuabert @lane1 Query: did either of you play the original, 2D side scrolling Prince of Persias on Mac computer? If you did, huge old school points :)
11 months agoby @dan1Flag
Josh
@lane1 I think all of those criticisms of the POP movie are fair, especially the whitewashing of the lead character (though they wrote it into the film as a plot element). Still, I never cared about the POP games for the stories, but for the fun of the gameplay, which I thought Newell captured perfectly in the film. It had the spirit of the game, for me, right down to the scene in which Dastan has to infiltrate the castle, and the camera goes through each element of the infiltration process in order to show the player/viewer how this series of stunts is going to work. It wasn't a great movie by any stretch of the imagination, but it was a lot of fun. For my money, far more fun than something like Bay's Transformers.
11 months agoby @shuabertFlag
Lane
@shuabert I agree with all your choices for good or decent video game adaptations... except for Prince of Persia. Sorry, but that movie was terrible. I was a huge fan of the trilogy of Persia games they did for that series, starting with Sands. And Sands of Time was yet another example, and excuse, of how a movie director/writer changes the story and characters of the games to fit their screenplay. It was okay for those who'd never played the game, sure, but that was pretty much it's target audience anyway... Because the minute a fan of the game sees that the story and concept have been changed to fit the film, they're either worried about how it turns out or they refuse to see it at all. Most of the people I know who saw the movie, liked it... but then, none of those people had ever played the game before seeing it.
Not to mention they cast Jake Gyllenhal as the Prince of f*cking Persia. A caucasian american as a persian prince. Come. On.
Tomb Raider is still the best video game adaptation, despite it's story having nothing to do with the first game's storyline. But then, for a Tomb Raider movie, you don't really need the same story as the game. Lara Croft could do anything and go anywhere and, well... it'd still feel like Tomb Raider. You wanna know what's really great about that though? Is despite the movie having a brand new storyline, they got the CHARACTER of Tomb Raider right. From the look to the accent, right down to the backstory. For all intents and purposes, Jolie WAS Lara Croft. Something I can't say they did the same for the Prince of Persia movie.
11 months agoby @lane1Flag
XxNickTheFilmCriticXx
Well, this sucks.
1 year agoby @XxNickTheFilmCriticXxFlag
Nautical
Ha, The Franchise started off on a bad foot. I would have left it too.
1 year agoby @nautical05Flag
Funkster
Fillion would be great choice for Drake, even if he's on the older side. Even if we don't get Fillion, there are plenty of actors out there who could play Drake better than Walhberg.
1 year agoby @funksterFlag
Pjwolsker
@bruce-ha it didnt seems that special to me
1 year agoby @pjwolskerFlag
Perickson81
I just read bruce_ha's comment and I agree
1 year agoby @perickson81Flag
Perickson81
Fact of the matter is fans of the game want to see the movie done right
1 year agoby @perickson81Flag
Perickson81
If you ask me David o Russell was about to do to this movie what Paul Anderson did to the resident evil movies. Even though I still like them for what they are.
1 year agoby @perickson81Flag
Perickson81
Great news... Now is our chance to get Nathan fillion plus a better director that will do the story right!
1 year agoby @perickson81Flag
bruce_ha
@dan1 Couldn't agree more. Perfectly explained why David's version of this movie would kill the most important part of this franchise, Nathan Drake's character. You can't just add a family to a character like him, it would be the same as if Lucas would add a family to his character Han Solo.
1 year agoby @bruce-haFlag
bruce_ha
@k-man Nolan never made any big changes in i.e. what characters are in his universe. He didn't for example add 4 siblings to Bruce Wayne. It was still the same story that every batman fan is familiar with. What David clearly was trying to do was use the name Uncharted in making HIS own version of Indiana Jones type Mob movie without any regard to the stories being told in the games. Calling the stories in the games non adoptable for movies, which is bull. Gaming is more similar to movies in that they have cutscenes, novels are more forgiving in that matter. Novels leave room for the readers to build their own version of the world and interpret it differently that's why it's more forgiving to make changes in for example LOTR. Uncharted and games aren't like that. Uncharted stands out from the rest of the games in the industry by having what is undoubtedly the most cinematic cutscenes. The fans already have "their movie" (in a sense) within the game itself, and when the story is ported to the theaters it's more difficult and dangerous to change even the most subtle things about it. The general view of games are that the only cinematic parts we experience is through the gameplay which is wrong, cutscenes have much bigger part in the storyline.
My idea of why the games>movie adoptions are failing isn't absurd. They change too much in the movies, like in the Resident Evil movies. Who the F*CKKKK!!! gives a damn about Alice character? Seriously, if anything it's the perfect example of why changing or adding too much is just wrong.
In Uncharted, the whole story is about the relationship of these three key characters. You don't need to add these changes to the storyline and add the dramatic tension. Atleast not in the first movie of this franchise.
In some cases, you are correct, the changes made when porting a franchise from a medium to another can be good. But look at all the other game movies out there, the changes that were made ended up hurting the movies more than anything.
If the changes were minor, which they were not in this case, all would be forgiven. David simply tried to change the story too much.
I'm not saying they should make the story EXACTLY like the games, but don't come here and say that the one thing that was going to make Uncharted better for the movies was by adding family elements and make it more "Sopranos". I'm sorry but, if that's the case then clearly we have different views on what the story of Uncharted is all about.
1 year agoby @bruce-haFlag
Dan
But at the end of the day, concerning video game adaptations, I'm usually with @ejk1, in that it's not necessary. One can simply play the game again, and as others have said, video games are becoming more and more cinematic these days anyways.
1 year agoby @dan1Flag
Dan
@bruce-ha @k-man Alright guys, let's take it back a notch lol.
Look, I'm cool with changing a few things here and there for adaptations, too, sometimes it turns out better for it (see: True Blood HBO series vs the books), but it changes the concept of Uncharted quite a bit adding a family element. Drake is a bachelor adventurer, in very much the same vein as Indiana Jones (before that mess called Kingdom of the Crystal Skull). He doesn't have family tying him down, he has his trusty side kick friend, and the girl who alternates from damsel in distress to kicking ass on her own. I got almost the same feeling as I did from watching Raiders of the Lost Ark from playing Uncharted, and that's f*cking sweet.
1 year agoby @dan1Flag
Mutant
I see your point @k-man but Uncharted isn't a family theme game. It has adult themes in it so it wouldn't work out, the film maybe horrible or not, it really depends on the director.
1 year agoby @zenderFlag
K-Man
@bruce-ha - I am amazed at how so many people are this naive on how ANY kind of adaptation is transformed into a film. Do you guys think that what I am saying is some new kind of concept thats never been done before?
Dude, I'm not saying you change EVERYTHING.....you change what needs to be changed to make it work for the big screen. If that means adding new elements, like a family or whatever, for a more dramatic story, then so be it. Video games are not the only ones that go through changes to adapt for the screen....
Take novels, for example, say.........Jurassic Park. Was that book EXACTLY like the finished film? Hardly. There were plenty of similarities, yes, but their were DOZENS of changes throughout.....but it was still Jurassic Park. It still had dinosaurs, it still had people genetically tampering with nature to create the prehistoric beasts, it still had all hell break loose on the island......AND it still had the names of the characters. BUT the overall structure of the story is completely changed to make, what ultimately became, a cinematic MASTERPIECE. There were scenes in the film that never appeared in the book and vice versa.
If they had stayed true to the original source material, exactly how it was written in the book, it would have been a complete mess. The same goes for a lot of truly great films, including The Lord of the Rings, Contact, The Godfather, Jaws and even Fight Club....but after serious tweaking they all became GREAT films.
Now, why you think that it's ok for novels, which are often written by some of the best authors in recent history, to get changed to better fit the big screen but it isn't ok to change a f*cking video-game......is beyond me.
I know what Uncharted is about......and yes, it would be a good adaptation for the big screen, especially for a video game. It's got a lot of the "Indiana Jones" vibe going on about it. But it needs changes.
Why is this hard for you guys to get your head around? Take a writing class or something and maybe you'll understand why it needs to be done.
P.S. @bruce_ha - Your fourth paragraph down, talking about why video game movies have failed thus far, is absurd......and the reference to Christopher Nolan is simply hilarious (and ironic) considering you use him, of all people, as an example of "someone who doesn't abuse their reference material".....when he has only directed original stories that he and his brother have written (that includes Batman because they completely reinvented it).
1 year agoby @k-manFlag
bruce_ha
@k-man What's the point of making an Uncharted movie if you're going to CHANGE EVERYTHING??????!!!!!!! Sony did the right thing, for once.
Uncharted is about few lead characters Nathan, Sully and Elena on an adventure/race towards finding artifacts before these blackmarket crooks, Elena(cute reporter) just happened to be on the wrong place at the right time. David is on a different trail with his family dynamics and sopranos references. It seemed as if he had put zero effort in making the script relate to the already great fanbase. And to top it all off he says he has respect for the gamers, pffffft. Good riddance is what i have to say.
Uncharted is the ONE game that screams "This is a game that should be recreated as a movie", and David blindly ignored that. He basically said no games out there would be good if they were created as movies.
The issue isn't with David himself it's with all directors. When they're given a project like this, they try to change everything. It's in their creative nature to put part of themselves into their projects. It's good for their business but maybe not so much on the movie itself. They simply don't relate to the story in the game and they think they can abuse the product by making their own version of it. But at some point, there's gotta be a director respectable enough to see a great story within the Uncharted franchise without changing it too much. The reason there are lack of great game>movie adaption is because of just that, they either change everything or fail to bring out what's so great about the stories in the games. There are directors out there who don't abuse their reference material, in the likes of Christopher Nolan. But these types of directors don't grow in trees, sadly.
@pjwolsker I'm sorry but if you don't see the resemblance in Nathan Fillion's characteristics and Nathan Drake's then i don't know what you're doing here. Just take a look at this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RmU-Bmk4Wrk
1 year agoby @bruce-haFlag