We all wanted Nathan Fillion but we also knew Hollywood probably wanted more star power. And man, if all the names involved in this project stick…

That "Uncharted" movie looks to be moving ahead at full steam, and it has been rumored that director David O. Russell ("Three Kings," "The Fighter") was seeking Robert De Niro and Joe Pesci (both in too many movies to list, but both were in "Casino" together) for various roles in the film. Furthermore, there was rampant speculation over who would have the leading man role…well, it seems we now know. According to MTV Multiplayer Blog , it's current film superstar Mark Wahlberg. It's not exactly surprising, as he's somewhat similar to Drake and he has also worked with Russell quite a bit. "David is one of the best writer/directors I've ever worked with," said Wahlberg. "The idea that he has is just insane. So hopefully we'll be making that movie this summer."  Yes, well, we'll be looking forward to that.

As for those De Niro and Pesci rumors, Wahlberg confirmed those, too- "That's who he wants to write the parts for. I talked to Pesci about it and I know David's people have talked to [Robert De Niro]." As for what parts the two long-time actors would play, Wahlberg said De Niro would play Drake's father while Pesci would play his uncle. …well, no such characters have been in either of the Uncharted games but then again, movies based on games seem to turn out better when there's more of a departure. And vice versa, by the way.

Well, what do you think? Wahlberg has proven himself to be quite the competent actor over the past decade, and he just might fit really well…

Subscribe
Notify of
110 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
spiderboi
spiderboi
9 years ago

NOOOoooooo………..

Damn that sucks.. Fillion really was Drake. I don't get these Hollywood people, always going for the popular actors rather than those who fit more. C'mon, Watchmen was cast with a bunch of relative nobodies, but it was a great move (sure of course the source was great to begin with). Now we go to another great source.

Why? Why??? Wahlberg doesn't have that certain comedic charm. I'm very skeptical on his casting. He's more a serious type than a laid back adventurer if you ask me.

C'mon now Hollywood, you screwed up Max Payne with the same decision (although the story I guess was much to blame there, but hey, he was no Max Payne for me). Please rethink this!

Cavan1
Cavan1
9 years ago

gotta disagree, he does have the comedy, have you not seen the other guys? hes a top actor, was brilliant in the departed as well. Am fine with this, i wasnt so sure about fillion, i wanted josh flannigan from stargate atlantis, but still if it has a bigger star, it will be watched by more people, simple as, and hes a good actor so am fine with this.

shadowpal2
shadowpal2
9 years ago

Wahlberg doesn't have that comedic charm? Have you ever seen The Departed – he was one of THE BEST ACTORS in it.

Although I have to say that Wahlberg is one of those actors that is a bit strange for me. No no not the Marky Mark thing…but rather it's because there are some movies in which he acts brilliantly and other movies which is like "what?"

Anyway I hope the best.

Proxy
Proxy
9 years ago

If you're trying to defend Walhberg's comedic abilities perhaps using 'The Departed' as an example isn't a good idea.


Last edited by Proxy on 11/24/2010 4:00:02 PM

MyWorstNightmar
MyWorstNightmar
9 years ago

Proxy – The Departed is actually a good example. He had some of the funniest lines in that movie. He pulled off having a very dry sense of humor perfectly, which is what he needs for Drake.

Jawknee
Jawknee
9 years ago

No doubt he was good in the Departed but instead of being the Brooklyn Tough guy he was a Boston Tough Guy.

NiteKrawler
NiteKrawler
9 years ago

Should have just been a CG movie. Keep the voices and looks. I hate Hollywood.

manofchao5
manofchao5
9 years ago

people may have preferred Fillion but even though its not the exact same look as the game character, i feel that Wahlberg fits the part just fine, anybody ever see Shooter or the Italian Job, he did great in those action movies, he'll do great in this, just wont be the exact same look but who really gives a shit, i just want the acting not an exact replica of the game character

Underdog15
Underdog15
9 years ago

I know most people were hoping for Fillion, but I think I'm happy with this.

Mark's a good actor, and I think he can pull off a few different things. From what I've seen of him, I believe he's very ecclectic and diversive in his abilities. He should be able to pull everything off pretty well.


Last edited by Underdog15 on 11/24/2010 11:06:15 AM

nogoat23
nogoat23
9 years ago

Agreed. I think Mark Wahlberg can pull it off.

BTNwarrior
BTNwarrior
9 years ago

true but I don't see roles for gangsters on tropical islands though

maxpontiac
maxpontiac
9 years ago

I am fine with that, I just hope they don't screw the movie up.

Hezzron
Hezzron
9 years ago

A decent choice. I believe Nathan Fillion would of been kryptonite to any box office success.

So Nathan Drake's father is going to be in it? Sounds like a Indiana Jones movie already.

bigrailer19
bigrailer19
9 years ago

Nathan fillion would have been good… But I like wahlberg! I think it's a great choice! I didn't start actually liking wahlberg, until I seen shooter. I really like him now, an I think he can fill this role rather well…

airwedge1
airwedge1
9 years ago

I don't think Mark fits the role as an adventurer. I think the movie character is going to have a completely differently personality then in the game. It seems like the movie just wanted to have the video game title, and that is almost all they have in common. I wonder if the director or actors even played the game.That being said it could still turn out to be a good movie just won't be similar to the game.

frostface
frostface
9 years ago

Wahlberg is a bad choice. Not saying he's a bad actor, he just doesn't have the natural Nathan Drake persona. Yeah, I know it's acting and someone will say he can pull it off but Fillion would of been the ideal choice.

spiderboi
spiderboi
9 years ago

agree. he's an action-gunner, not adventurer-explorer

WorldEndsWithMe
WorldEndsWithMe
9 years ago

I agree, I like him as an actor but he kind of plays the same part every time and Nathan Drake isn't it.

BikerSaint
BikerSaint
9 years ago

NOOOOO!

Even Stevie Wonder can clearly see that Nathan Fillion "IS" Drake!!!!!!

Alienange
Alienange
9 years ago

After having watched the atrocity that is The Other Guys, I can safely say this is a bad choice.

GuernicaReborn
GuernicaReborn
9 years ago

I'd have to agree. I remember in an interview he did for his previous game to movie adaptation Max Payne that Wahlberg said he did not play games, and didn't even play Max Payne. At all. Bad Move Mark.

I think De Niro and Pesci are both good choices. De Niro can and has played many roles successfully. Pesci, well, he was in Home Alone. That's a kids movie.

Jawknee
Jawknee
9 years ago

Terrible choice. Leave to Hollyweird to screw things up.

Zorigo
Zorigo
9 years ago

Wahlberg doesnt seem to fit.
But three kings was an awesome film, and De Niro is a ledgend.
Still lookin good.

MadKatBebop
MadKatBebop
9 years ago

I like Wahlberg a lot but I still think it should be Fillion (sigh). I like De Nerio but I don't think he should be Sully. As long as they get Emily Rose to still play Elena and make the movie right all will be forgiven.

CH1N00K
CH1N00K
9 years ago

I don't agree with the Wahlberg choice either. He was good in "The Shooter" and "The Departed" He's got the physique of an action star, but his voice always ruins it for me. When he talks he's to soft spoken, it takes out any credibility he has of appearing tough. Drake's got a more aggressive persona then Marky Mark does. I think I'd rather see Matt Damon in this role then Wahlberg. What Damon did with the Bourne movies is more of what Drake would feel like to me.

But I don't have millions and don't own a production company, so this isn't my choice to make.

As soon as I saw DeNiro and Pesci though> I instantly thought of Sully (DeNiro) and Eddie (Pesci) I know Eddie and Pescie aren't of the same nationality but that annoying little attitude of Pesci's would make a perfect Eddie

MadKatBebop
MadKatBebop
9 years ago

I can't believe Ive never thought of Damon! that's actually a pretty good choice.

swapnilgyani
swapnilgyani
9 years ago

I think if they can come up with a compelling script and screenplay, the cast would matter little.

And the script does not necessarily have to be tied to the games either, just retain the soul of the characters, and a few winks and nods would do 🙂

booze925
booze925
9 years ago

make-up can do crazy things to people.
and the movie you SHOULD have mentioned that had De niro and Pesci was "Goodfellas"
damn good movie.
"Now go on home and get your goddamn shine box"

Jawknee
Jawknee
9 years ago

It's not about how he looks, its about how he acts. I couldnt care less that he doesn't look all that much like Drake, it's that he doesn't act like him. He's a Brookyln tough guy in all his movies. He's never been able to shake that from his performances. Same with his brother.


Last edited by Jawknee on 11/24/2010 1:34:30 PM

BikerSaint
BikerSaint
9 years ago

Booze,

Ahhh, Goodfellas = GREATfellas….

"You talkin' to me"?

BANG……

"Yo, You think I'm funny"?

"How"?

BANG, BANG, BANG……..


Last edited by BikerSaint on 11/24/2010 5:33:56 PM

ace_boon_coon
ace_boon_coon
9 years ago

I don't think nathan fillion was a good choice to begin with, and a damn sure know mark walhberg is a terrible choice. I think they should get Nolan North himself to play drake.

Underdog15
Underdog15
9 years ago

Not a single person has yet given a viable reason as to why Walhberg is a bad choice. All I've heard is about a movie he was in someone didn't like (which was the director's fault for said movie, by the way), and that was it.

And bring it on. It's been a while since there's been a potential topic that is 100% my expertise.

For instance, not a single person has commented on the Director's ability. Walhberg will definitely be able to pull off the character should the overall vision be accurate. It's an actor's job to create the character in conjunction with the director's vision of what is most important to character development within the 2 hour time-slot the movie allows. If the director doesn't allow an opportunity for the actor to establish their character, they'll be floundering throughout the entire production without a base.


Last edited by Underdog15 on 11/24/2010 12:08:45 PM

PorkChopGamer
PorkChopGamer
9 years ago

Planet. Of. The. Apes. Every morning since I saw that movie, I wake up and curse a pox on everyone involved with it, from Tim Burton and Mark Wahlberg all the way down to the caterer that supplied cottage cheese for the snack table. Then I brush my teeth.


Last edited by PorkChopGamer on 11/24/2010 12:51:22 PM

frostface
frostface
9 years ago

Well, this is a topic I believe is 100% my expertise, although I've no credentials on paper to back such a claim up lol

However, Wahlberg is a bad choice. I'm not questioning the director. I'm not even questioning Wahlberg as an actor. But Nathan Drake is a wise cracking adventurer, Wahlberg is a guns blazing bad-ass without the witty flare to add to the personality of the character.
And I must of been psychic because a few posts above I predicted someone would claim it's about acting the part and that Wahlberg could pull it off. If you can name one role, were Wahlberg showed some of the natural smart ass wit that's needed to play Drake, I will apologise, bow down to your awesomeness in your 100% expertise subject, and crawl back under the rock from which I just came from! lol

Jawknee
Jawknee
9 years ago

Underdog, because he's the same damn person in all his movies. He can't shake the "Brooklyn New Yorker tough guy" schtick. He's not a method actor. He doesn't get into his rolls and live them like say…an actor like Daniel Day Lewis.(not saying Day Lewis would be right or the roll either, just an example of an actor who actually acts instead of playing himself). Hes just not that great. He's nothing like Drake and since he's NOT a method actor, that's a problem.

Underdog15
Underdog15
9 years ago

Well, Frostface, I do have credentials on paper. A nicely framed one with nice signatures from highly educated folks. A theatre degree tends to give me some insight on such a topic, I find.

@Highlander You do need star power to sell a movie. Which, admittedly, is unfortunate, but a harsh reality. But I don't think that plays as big a role in this argument.

@Frostface again: I think the biggest problem with Mark is not his own personal abilities. Everyone seems to label a Hollywood actor based on the roles they play. What you need to remember is that people are often cast for a specific look and act. In other words, if you pull off a tough-guy act once really well… well… most of your jobs will be just that. (With a title like Planet of the Apes, you can't seriously think of that as a high quality theatrical piece….. seriously….)

Now, Frostface, I think if anyone could name a role he played to predict he could pull off Nathan Drake would indicate one very serious problem. That would indicate that Nathan Drake is not a unique character and is, in fact, merely a character type. If Nathan Drake was a character type, you could conceivably go for a specific actor. However, I believe Nathan Drake is a unique character that has been very well written and conceived. For that reason, you cannot type cast him. You can't say Mark wouldn't do a good job just because he's never done anything like it before. There aren't any characters like Nathan Drake. If there are, then quite frankly, Drake is not so unique that we need it to be so specific of an interpretation.

And there it is… the interpretation. A HUGE ownus of interpretation does not belong to an actor. An actor may come to the table with a well thought out interpretation of how a character should be portrayed and then be trumped by the director… sometimes for the better, and sometimes very much so, not. The actor's job is to develop a history and back story of a character and relate personal experience or research to how that would cause their character to react to different situations in real life. The director, on the other hand, takes the entirety of the text and is responsible to interpret the entire piece. For that reason, the original character in the mind of the actor, is often changed in an attempt to fit the rest of the work. As I said, sometimes it works… sometimes it doesn't.

What WILL determine Walhburg's success, is his chemistry with the director and their ability to collaborate on the piece. Don't forget that many of the works you might see Walhburg in was written poorly. It's hard to turn bad lines into gold. Alec Guinness was an extremely accomplished and tallented actor, but come on… Obi Wan Kenobi's lines were uber lame in Star Wars. And at times, Alec looked like a tool.

Basically, my point is that there are SO many aspects that will affect the Nathan Drake character that will be out of Walhberg's control. (Come on… Planet of the Apes? Who used that against him? That was a losing battle!!) I strongly believe, based on his ability to react to other characters (which, even if you don't like his roles, any one who knows what they are looking at knows he plays on and reacts to other actors VERY professionally), if he has good direction and good writing with a clear idea of the character of Nathan Drake and what that should look like, he will be successful. Instead of hearing the lines, try watching his non-verbal action. It's crisp, clear, and believable.

My point in calling you fellas out was that I knew you would only try to compare him to other works that he has been in and not consider all the elements. The only problem with me calling you out, is that most people probably wouldn't be able to recognize when you know what you're talking about or not. Afterall, all it takes to believe your points of view is to point out a bad movie he was in and people will believe you that he sucks… None of you yet have been able to comment on his stage/film presence, his ability to react with/to others, how he wrecked an otherwise amazing piece of writing, etc. etc.

In fact, I challenge any one of you to name a brilliantly written character that he has ruined. And explain why.


Last edited by Underdog15 on 11/25/2010 12:08:32 PM

Drake_RB3
Drake_RB3
9 years ago

Hopefully it's better than Max Payne.

frostface
frostface
9 years ago

They should of got Chuck Norris for the role!

Nynja
Nynja
9 years ago

I'm going to reserve comment on this one. I know that De Niro and Pesci can bring out the best in the surrounding cast. Also, I do respect the choice to not recycle stories from video games. A reference to events would be more acceptable.

This will be interesting.

Zen_Zarab
Zen_Zarab
9 years ago

This movie can be one of the very few Good Movie adaptions of a Video Game. Along side Silent Hill and the First Resident Evil.

Can't wait. 🙂

main_event05
main_event05
9 years ago

Did you just call that Resident Evil hack job a good adaptation??

tridon
tridon
9 years ago

Nathan Fillion could've easily carried this film with his new-found stardom in 'Castle'. I don't believe him not being casted has anything to do with star power. I mean, this is being developed by the same studio who casted Andrew Garfield as Spider-Man. No, the reason Marky Mark is being chosen is because the director, David O. Russell, has a huge man-crush on him.

I don't have anything against Mark Wahlberg. He's a good actor and there's an excellent chance that he'll play a decent Drake but come on… this is just one more reason why I hate Hollywood's adaptations of properties from other forms of entertainment.

TheHighlander
TheHighlander
9 years ago

As much as I like Fillion and think he'd have been great in the part, being a TV star does not confer movie stardom. Mark Wahlberg is a much bigger name in film.

tridon
tridon
9 years ago

Still though, how do you become a movie star without receiving the chance? It's not like Fillion's new to the game. He's been around for over a decade now. It's also not like Hollywood hasn't passed off big-budget blockbuster adaptations to newbies before. Garfield as Spider-Man, Brandon Routh as Superman, Daniel Radcliffe as Harry Potter, Hugh Jackman as Wolverine… it's been done and it's usually quite successful if it has the backing of the fans and the critics. It's just frustating that fans have been ridiculously vocal about wanting Nathan Fillion as Nathan Drake and, as far as I know, he didn't even receive an audition. There's something wrong with that picture. Fans have made Uncharted the success that it's become on the PS3 but when it comes to the film, their opinion means nothing.

frostface
frostface
9 years ago

@Highlander, being a white boy rapper feeling 'The Good Vibrations' seems less likey of stardom then a TV star, since a lot of movies stars started out on TV not advertising Calvin Klein underwear!! lol

I gotta dig out that 90s music collection…

'c'mon feel it feel it, feel the vibrations'

Bring back the early 90s dance scene! What ever happened to the Funky Bunch?

Hezzron
Hezzron
9 years ago

Spider-Man, Superman, Wolverine and Harry Potter are all household names familiar to 2 year olds on up. Nathan Drake unfortunately isn't yet. Hence the need for some star power.

Jawknee
Jawknee
9 years ago

No need for "star power". District 9 proved that when they cast Shartlo Copley to play the main protagonist.

tridon
tridon
9 years ago

Exactly what Jawknee said. If the film is well-written, well-made and entertaining as hell, you could fill it with the cast of Jersey Shore and it'd still make cash.

Hezzron
Hezzron
9 years ago

Maybe Mark Wahlberg has real strong hands and knuckles of steel. Any actor playing Drake would certainly need those.


Last edited by Hezzron on 11/24/2010 1:33:02 PM

TheHighlander
TheHighlander
9 years ago

Whatever guys, it all depends on what Hollywood thinks will make a sale.