​

It seems like Sony Pictures has plans for more of Tom Holland's Nathan Drake in the future. In an internal memo that leaked to Deadline, chairman of Sony Pictures Motion Picture Group Tom Rothman declared the film adaptation of Uncharted a "new hit movie franchise," also noting it has done well with audiences, citing its "90% positive audience score on Rotten Tomatoes." The film has also over-performed at the box office, grossing $51 million in the U.S. over President's Day weekend, when it was only expected to gross $30 million. In an interview with Deadline, director Ruben Fleischer said the worldwide gross as of February 21 was $139 million (on a $120 million budget), which Deadline attributes to Sony choosing not to release their films on streaming services during the pandemic, instead holding on to large event films for traditional theatrical release.

In that same interview, Fleischer says he's hopeful for a sequel and would like to direct the franchise again. Shortly before the film's release, he also announced he had begun some work on a Jak & Daxter film, which Tom Holland has also said he wants to star in, though we don't know right now if that project has been greenlit by Sony. Regardless, given Uncharted's success, it's likely we'll be seeing one or both of these projects soon.

Source

 

[Marc_LFD]

Wahlberg and Holland are miscasts. They look nothing like the actual characters.

 

[CoolMe]

Wahlberg and Holland are miscasts. They look nothing like the actual characters.

Well, at least they didn't cast Chris Pratt as ND..
Scores seem about average, which was expected, selling tickets or not..

 

[AlanJohn]

Went to this movie. Theatre was surprisingly packed. So I suppose they'll make enough money in the box office?

I still don't understand why this movie was made in the first place.

 

[Dr_Faustus]

Wahlberg and Holland are miscasts. They look nothing like the actual characters.

Seriously, especially with Holland, No matter how roughed up you can make someone look he will always have that face of a teenager. He is probably going to be one of those actors that never loses that face when they get older like Matthew Broderick.

 

[AdenTheThird]

Ooh, I can do that too!

I declare the Virtual Boy the start of a revolutionary line of video game consoles!

 

[subcon959]

I got the impression Tom Holland hated the experience and didn't want to do it again.

 

[XDel]

Yes, but will this new hit franchise that we're all so entranced with, lure us to the Woke side, because if not, if it's not pro-humanists, then I will refuse to watch them, no matter how much money Sony pumps into advertising. Besides, why is he a man, how come he's not a blue haired butch that identifies as Salmon? And where is all the Eskimo representation? And are we supposed to support the violent police or de-fund them...
...no wait, wrong movie.

 

[KimKong]

Hah yeah right... I don't believe that for a second! Studio heads don't have a clue!

 

[Veho]

I still don't understand why this movie was made in the first place.

Because money.
And it looks like it worked.

 

[Reploid]

If a lame and stupid 'game' can become 'a hit' why can't a lame and stupid 'movie'?

 

[Flame]

If a lame and stupid 'game' can become 'a hit' why can't a lame and stupid 'movie'?

your starting to become cringe. i saw 'Reploid' as last poster i knew you was going to post cringe about how a game sucks or something on those lines.

you have no character. your a broken record.

 

[Godofcheese]

I'm not sure if he watched the same movie like the rest of us
Really wasn't a hit movie

 

[tech3475]

Went to this movie. Theatre was surprisingly packed. So I suppose they'll make though money in the box office?

I still don't understand why this movie was made in the first place.

It actually makes sense when you think about it....from a corporate perspective, at least based on what I've heard about the system.

First of all, pre-existing IPs are expected to have been successful on some level and subsequently give the studio a theoretical pre-existing audience with less risk compared to something original.

Second, it's a Sony owned IP, so it's not like they're having to license an external property from a third party.

That said, without knowing the marketing budget, it's hard to tell how much the movie has actually made in terms of profit.

I wouldn't be surprised if they had plans to make an Uncharted Cinematic Universe even before release, in case of any hypothetical success.

 

[GoldenBullet]

I want to watch this movie just to see how they can screw up a generic action flick. Uncharted is literally just about a guy looking for lost treasure. You would think The Last of Us would have had a live action version before this.

 

[pustal]

Well, at least they didn't cast Chris Pratt as ND..

Honestly, although still not the right one, sounds like a better cast. At least doesn't look like a teenager and can hit snarky lines better believably.

They should have aimed for someone like Nathan Fillion:

 

[Dr_Faustus]

It actually makes sense when you think about it....from a corporate perspective, at least based on what I've heard about the system.

First of all, pre-existing IPs are expected to have been successful on some level and subsequently give the studio a theoretical pre-existing audience with less risk compared to something original.

Second, it's a Sony owned IP, so it's not like they're having to license an external property from a third party.

That said, without knowing the marketing budget, it's hard to tell how much the movie has actually made in terms of profit.

I wouldn't be surprised if they had plans to make an Uncharted Cinematic Universe even before release, in case of any hypothetical success.

I would not even say that much, Its clear that Sony Entertainment is hitting a few limitations on its creativity and its reach. It probably cannot seem to make anything original anymore in the film space that is not already an existing property of some sort, which either does well but might be consumed by Disney in the long run or does poorly in market because its trying to reboot a series that was once good and did not need any continuation but they figured why not try to milk it again.

The same goes for their Video Game sector, where all their better known stuff has more or less hit a conclusion that can't really be milked any further without possibly damaging the name, and the fact that this sector is going through some weird changes as of late with them possibly moving away from their own console hardware with the IP's. So what is a better way to make the most out of it than to market Sony Video Game IP's as movies/series? They probably want to make these IP's into whole franchises that they can make the most profit from and move away from solo profiting from the games themselves.

Also I guess Sony Owns Tom Holland now, which is the only thing I think makes sense of why he is in this. Watch him be integrated into every live action Sony video game show/movie in some way. He will be Sony's Chris Pratt.

 

[FAST6191]

I did not hear good things about this, even if I went in only wanting by the numbers action film. Will have to wait and see how it actually pans out -- opening weekend is often one thing, the final results quite another.

 

[Issac]

I've not seen the movie and can't comment on its qualities, but Tom Holland as Nathan Drake doesn't jive with me at all from the trailers. I actually looked up if he's supposed to be a son, or something like that.

Now, maybe he isn't the actor for the job, but I always imagined Patrick Dempsey as Nathan Drake when I pictured an Uncharted movie in my mind. I can't really say why.

 

[TomRiddle]

Wahlberg and Holland are miscasts. They look nothing like the actual characters.

Holland also looks way too young to be playing Nathan Drake, and he looked like someone who was in his late 20's or 30's.

Tom Holland is still looks too slightly early in comparison being 25.