UTJeff

An ending change wouldn't have fixed this movie's problems.

I can't force people to change their minds if they like the music or not. I hated the score. The movie didn't have a real theme or at all. Lots of percussion. Lots of drums, but all of it just sounded big and chaotic. I like big, but it never sounded cool and epic. There was nothing about it I really liked. Saying there were worse movies or whatever this year, well that's your opinion. If you somehow liked the movie, then great. But just because the movie had a budget and some big name actors doesn't mean it's automatically elevated and shouldn't be criticized as much as say Neighbors 2.

I thought Maleficent was a terrible movie, but it did very well. At the same time, I can't even see how they are doing Maleficent 2 but oh well. I just don't see how you make a movie about Young Cruella and attempt to give her the Maleficent treatment.

Deadline: "Assassin's Creed: What Went Wrong?" Article: An insider told us, "I don't get it. We had Ubisoft. We had a big budget. We had a legitimate cast of Award Winners?! You should've seen it! We gave everything from the game in it and gave something gamers never get from these movies!"

Nothing wrong with enjoying Annie every now and again.

There's no proof of a mythical 140 minute cut. It was an unsubstantiated report because of an inaccurate number put out by the Empire Cinemas website. That number was probably based on adding the trailer and credits to the show time. I exposed this myth.

Doing a lot of shows isn't the same as doing major big budget films.

Berg would probably cast Taylor Kitsch or Mark Wahlberg as Nathan Drake.

A lot of big stars who are typically draws have been in flops. It happens. You can't tell me Robert Downey Jr. didn't become a big draw after Iron Man. He had Sherlock Holmes, Tropic Thunder, Due Date, Sherlock Holmes 2, all of which were big hits and did considerably well. Eventually he did The Judge which flopped.

Yes because you just know the critics always love Star Wars https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/star_wars_episode_i_the_phantom_menace/

With respect I disagree. Nothing against the guy, but IMHO he hasn't made a single great film. Him working on Stranger Things doesn't convince me he's still not a terrible choice. I'm a huge Uncharted fan, and I'm way more invested in this movie than most other game movies. I'm still convinced it can't be done and work on film.

Carnahan was never attached as director. Also, TV and film are different. In TV, most of the creative license is on the writers and showrunners and executive producers. For a TV episode, directors are more or less hired guns. In film, they oversee all aspects of production.

Just because he did a reasonably good job on a TV show that wasn't even his doesn't convince me he's ready to knock Uncharted out of the park. Doug Liman has his failures as well, but IMHO he's at least proven to have a fairly strong track record showing he can do multiple genres and larger scale projects after starting small with Swingers. There's something else to consider. If Assassin's Creed just flat out bombs this weekend, do you all think notoriously frugal and micro-managing studio head Tom Rothman will still be up to greenlight Uncharted, especially when it would likely cost upwards of $200 million or more? Uncharted would not be cheap...at all.

It has the same Rotten Tomatoes score as Real Steel. https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/mr_and_mrs_smith/ https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/real_steel Your move chief. Also you want to credit him for Stranger Things which isn't even his show and concept. He didn't create Stranger Things. Yeah he worked on it and I'm sure he helped get it made and was probably instrumental in getting it on Netflix. But he didn't conceive the concept and look of that show. The first two episodes were also directed by the Duffer Brothers. So they set the tone and bar from the show. It's not like David Lynch who was very much the co-creator of Twin Peaks.

So is Crank, and Crank's a fun little movie. But I still don't think it proves you can make the Uncharted movie not suck. To me the video game sensibility of Edge of Tomorrow was more meta. Like when you play a guy you die but maybe each time you get a little bit better and you get a little further. That's essentially what Cruise's character was doing. Like he was playing a Destiny game except it was real life and the actual fate of the planet and human race was at stake. And he just gets better from constant practice and doing it over and over again.

And before that he made Swingers, Mr. and Mrs. Smith, and The Bourne Identity which are great, classic films...so...what's your point? If you are comparing track records, I'm pretty sure Liman stacks well ahead of Shawn Levy. Heck, I'd be less nervous if he got the gig instead of Levy. Not convinced it can work, but I think he'd be a smarter choice.

Stranger Things is a Netflix TV show, not a video game movie. Also, he's not the creator and showrunner of Stranger Things. The creators and showrunners are the Duffer Bros. The show is not his concept that he came up with and shepherded. You know what Alan Taylor worked on before Terminator Genisys? Game of Thrones.

Except that's not a video game, it's based on a Japanese light novel called All You Need Is Kill. Later became a manga of the same name. It doesn't really prove a video game movie can work really. Also let's not forget, Edge of Tomorrow made only $100 million domestic.

Yeah $150 million, sorry. But my point is this. Lately we are seeing less experienced directors getting gigs on these bigger higher level films and it's been happening more frequently in the last several years. The Hollywood Reporter wrote this in an article about all the drama surrounding Suicide Squad: http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/heat-vision/suicide-squads-secret-drama-rushed-916693

Were those movies really that god? I thought This Is Where I Leave You was terrible https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/real_steel/ https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/this_is_where_i_leave_you The director of Night at the Museum Working on the Uncharted movie doesn't sound like great news.

It's not unprecedented. He did two well received and acclaimed genre pictures. Stranger things have happened. A complete unknown Carl Rinsch who had never done a feature at all was given a $175 million budget for 47 Ronin. Gareth Edwards had only done one low budget movie before Godzilla. Monsters was like a $150,000 movie. Godzilla was a $150 million movie. Colin Trevorrow's sole directorial feature was a low budget movie Safety Not Guaranteed before he was hired for Godzilla. Josh Trank got Fant4stic after just one movie Chronicle. Joss Whedon's only directorial feature before Avengers was Serenity. So it happens, and sometimes the results are mixed.

What makes you so sure someone like Doug Limas or the Russo Brothers even want to do those type of movies? Also, Need for Speed only cost $65 million.

I didn't find the film sexist in any way. Then again, I'm an adult Jewish guy. Others might feel differently, I had some problems with it, but I wouldn't call it sexist. Overall, I enjoyed the romance and chemistry between Pratt and Lawrence. I actually wouldn't have minded seeing more of it explored.

That's obviously not enough. Assassin's Creed had a big name attached. Assassin's Creed is a sci-fi action adventure series where instead of interstellar aliens, it's time travel and Assassins vs. Knights Templar.

Except they weren't able to do this. Callum Lynch was pretty much a cipher with no character development. Even Aguilar is pretty much a blank character. It's one thing for Hollywood big shots to say they are aware of this and they are working a way around it and it's entirely another thing to successfully execute it. I think the problem is that for making a movie based on a game, you can't remove these mechanisms and still make an enjoyable movie that will satisfy everyone. Gamers want those mechanisms for a game because it empowers them. It lets them put a piece of themselves into how they play. If they are in Assassin's Creed, maybe they want to get out with as little killing and bloodshed as possible. Or maybe they don't mind going in guns blazing, shoot first ask questions later. If you made a Legend of Zelda movie, how do you even start with making Link a satisfying character? You see Link is a proxy for the player in Zelda. He doesn't really have much of a personality other than that he's the Hero of Time. How do you rectify Link as a character in a movie when Link is so many things to many people? A lot of people now have their own idea of what Link should look or act like. Some people think Link should be represented as a female as well, and Nintendo has even created a female avatar for Link in Linkle, who was in Hyrule Warriors. I think the reason Mortal Kombat sort of works the way it does is they basically made Enter the Dragon with some fantasy and supernatural elements. The film is in many ways like a martial arts, stunt show type of experience with a simple plot but it works on that level. Mortal Kombat is like a martial arts exhibition tournament. Movie is a similar deal.