Uncharted Creator Cool With Loosey-Goosey Movie

The Uncharted movie sounds pretty stupid! It's about a globe-trotting family of antiques collectors that dispense treasure-hunting justice. That doesn't sound like Uncharted at all. What does Uncharted game designer Amy Henning think of the movie's concept?

Henning told MTV that the game's developers are "protective" of the Uncharted games, just like the fans. To those who wonder if David O. Russell, who doesn't appear to have played much Uncharted, is the director for the job, Henning says we should be happy that the filmmaker behind Three Kings wants to do the Uncharted flick. Don't be so impressed with Russell, because he's made some stinkers, too.

According to Henning, "I understand that film is a different medium to games, and I think if people are too literal about what they think an adaptation ought to be, they'll probably make a bad film...somebody's got to come in and say, Well, what is it that fundamentally works in this franchise? What's charming about the characters? And then do an adaptation that honors that in spirit without being too literal."

There's being too literal, and then there's doing something that is Uncharted in name only. If David O. Russell wants to make a film about a family of treasure hunters, dishing out justice, that's fine. But it's not Uncharted, so why feign that it is? This sounds like simple branding—Russell's gonna make the film he wants to make, and they're going to slap the name Uncharted on it to goad players into seeing it.

If you're going to make an Uncharted movie, make an Uncharted movie. Otherwise, what's the point? To make money. Oh, right. Forgot!

Naughty Dog's Hennig On 'Uncharted' Movie: Shouldn't Be 'Too Literal' [MTV]


Comments

    I can't agree with the whole "different medium" comment. Of all the games I've played, Uncharted has felt closest to a movie. Claiming that it being made into a movie now means we need it to be about an antique dealer justice dispensary is an excuse, and quite a poor one at that.

    Agreed with the author though, they're making a movie called Uncharted, but it isn't the Uncharted movie.

    Movies and Games are a different medium but, out of all the games I've ever played Uncharted by far comes the closest to replicating the same story, script etc as a movie.
    However, I recently had an epiphany. Why should the movie be the same as the game?
    Let me clarify my train of thought. Recently I begun to read James Bond and to my surprise it is completely different from the movies which is great! It means now that I have two different variations on characters and a 'universe' I really enjoy.
    Now back to Uncharted, if the movie was the same as the game, why should I be happy to go see it? It would be just paying to watch something that I myself have actually done through the game (and lets face it, they'll never nail Nathan Drake outside of the game. Indiana Jones is the closest thing imo).
    Basically what I'm trying to convey is that having different takes on the same 'idea' isn't necessarily a bad thing. Your always going to have the brilliant game the movie was never going to change that.
    On the other side of things though, the movie being produced is a stupid idea....would of been better just to keep the same concept as the games but make an original story that incorporates some aspects of 'dickhead directors' vision. Like Goldeneye isn't actually a James Bond novel, it still made a great movie without having to change anything.

    If Uncharted doesn't work as a movie, then you can't make an Uncharted movie.

    If Uncharted doesn't work as a movie, and you change Uncharted to make it work as a movie, you didn't make an Uncharted movie. Way to not get it, folks.

    Hennig has to say that stuff but we all know they're using the name, not the concept and hoping the legions of gamers who own the games will see the movie... just like every other move based on a game ever made. And they all suck.

    I completely agree with Hennig.

    To me, the Uncharted games ARE already films in their own right, so first, I don't wanna see what I already know, again, in live-action form. I have zero interest in that. Uncharted is basically a well written National Treasure or Indianna Jones experience, which requires very little of its material to conform with the game. As opposed to something like Metal Gear Solid where events and lore are very specific to its uniqueness.

    Second of all, are we forgetting a little movie called 'The Dark Knight'. Compare that with the original source material and I think you'll agree that there's a vast difference. So why was it so good? Because it's the idea of taking the spirit of what Batman is and playing with it. Why haven't any of you bitched and moaned yet about why you'll never see Man Bat or the Penguin or Poison Ivy, or Killer Croc in their true-to-comic form?

    Oh, that's right, because you couldn't give two **** as long as the movie is good.

      Christopher Nolan based/was inspired by The Long Halloween comic series. He therefore used Batman's original medium(comics) to develop a plot. David Russell is just carbon copying a stereotyped script and adding the uncharted name.

      P.S. Uncharted owes credit to Indianna Jones for sure but it's nothing like National Treasure, if anything the movie sounds like it's going to be a National Treasure rip off.

        I loved Year One + Long Halloween and so I loved seeing it get adapted.

    They're probably getting a shitload of money for the rights to the name 'Uncharted'. They are selling out, and good on them. Lets hope the money is used to make better, and more badass games like Uncharted series.

    "I understand that film is a different medium to games, and I think if people are too literal about what they think an adaptation ought to be, they’ll probably make a bad film"

    But you see, they're still making bad films when they do that!

    Cha-chingg!

Join the discussion!