• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Sony Pictures says Uncharted Movie is a "New Hit Movie Franchise"

mckmas8808

Mckmaster uses MasterCard to buy Slave drives
Sony doesn't give a fuck about critics...they have been doing feel-good movies for a while now and they apparently know what audiences want.

Stuff like the latest Jumanji (and its sequel), Venom (and its sequel), the latest Ghostbusters movie and now Uncharted are all hits even if they don't hit fresh (or barely in case of Ghostbusters) on rotten tomatoes.

But this movie has a 90% on Rotten Tomatoes too! So maybe the movie is actually good.....
 

mckmas8808

Mckmaster uses MasterCard to buy Slave drives
If there's one person in the world who can portray Aloy perfectly then it is Marie Avgeropoulos from The 100 TV series. But Sony's gonna pick Tom Holland for that role as well!

HOLY SMOKES!!!!

I can't believe there's someone else that's watched the 100 TV series enough to know that she's the perfect choice! I loved her on that show.
 
His ideia os break even is to become millionaire.
I’m too far away from break even… well let’s get that one million first.
My source said the production cost was 120 mil. And in the first weekend the movie brought up 100 mil. I said nothing about break,even. Thats just the first week....so they will make a profit of this movie, thats a given.
 

zaanan

Banned
While that film cost $250m to produce, Variety is estimating it will need to make between 800-900m to break even. So that's between 3.2 and 3.6 times its production budget. Not quite 4x, but close

Ok. I skimmed the article and found the part where they said it would need to make 800-900m to “get out of the red.” However, they do not say how they arrived at this number. So at best, it’s just an anecdote about one movie, and at worst, they just pulled this number from their ass. Neither of which does anything to prove or disprove 4x as the new rule of thumb. So let’s do a quick web search for “how much money does a movie need to make to break even,” shall we?

Results
Cinemablend: 2.5x
Screenrant: 2x
Slashgear: 2x
QuirkyByte: 2x
Gizmodo: 2x

So far, it’s journalists and editors 5, random guys on the internet 0.

I am sure there is more to the story- hollywood accounting is infamously opaque and questionable. But the vast majority of somewhat authoritative sources use the “at least 2x” number, so I see no reason we should use any other metric, at least in general.
 

gow3isben

Member

Don't know who this is but she is too hot for Aloy.
 

Dr Bass

Member
Casting sells. And people enjoy their theme park popcorn flicks, especially an entertaining 2 hour escape/distraction of the past 2 years and probably beyond.
Which is exactly why I don't understand how this movie could be appealing. Tom Holland looks like a kid dressing up as Nathan Drake for halloween. I get that a lot of people won't follow the games but the whole thing just looks so dang bizarre to me.
 

DeepEnigma

Gold Member
Which is exactly why I don't understand how this movie could be appealing. Tom Holland looks like a kid dressing up as Nathan Drake for halloween. I get that a lot of people won't follow the games but the whole thing just looks so dang bizarre to me.
In the world of TikTokers ... you will find your answer.
 

Dreamin

Neo Member
I haven't seen the film yet and could be wrong but from my understanding it's supposed to be a young Drake, which makes the choice of Tom Holland a bit strange to me, he can pull off looking young but he isn't actually, for a 1 off movie that's fine but it's gonna be weird if it does become a franchise and they jump forward in time with a sequel or something and Drake still has that face/build etc.
 

Alebrije

Gold Member
The movie is fun, is a good adventure one with nice action scenes, is much better than Angelinas Tomb Rider,.

Tom Holland as Natan still does not looks right but guess Sony expects to deliver more movies so a young well known actor was their goal.

But well , in a world where Rober Pattinson can be Batman why no TH Natan.
 
Ok. I skimmed the article and found the part where they said it would need to make 800-900m to “get out of the red.” However, they do not say how they arrived at this number. So at best, it’s just an anecdote about one movie, and at worst, they just pulled this number from their ass. Neither of which does anything to prove or disprove 4x as the new rule of thumb. So let’s do a quick web search for “how much money does a movie need to make to break even,” shall we?

Results
Cinemablend: 2.5x
Screenrant: 2x
Slashgear: 2x
QuirkyByte: 2x
Gizmodo: 2x

So far, it’s journalists and editors 5, random guys on the internet 0.

I am sure there is more to the story- hollywood accounting is infamously opaque and questionable. But the vast majority of somewhat authoritative sources use the “at least 2x” number, so I see no reason we should use any other metric, at least in general.

The standard assumption has always been 2x and it has been that way for a long time and honestly, that's probably being aggressive, but that's the rule.

I do think Sony would have liked this to hit 400-500 million worldwide though and I doubt it will.
 

Arthimura

Member
As someone who played the Uncharted games, the movie is pretty fun and has the same spirit of adventure and lighthearted humor.

Happy to see the movie being a sucess.
 
I haven't seen the film yet and could be wrong but from my understanding it's supposed to be a young Drake, which makes the choice of Tom Holland a bit strange to me, he can pull off looking young but he isn't actually, for a 1 off movie that's fine but it's gonna be weird if it does become a franchise and they jump forward in time with a sequel or something and Drake still has that face/build etc.

They are banking on the cross-promotion of him being Spider-Man and Nathan Drake.

I could see them trying to do 3 or 4 more Uncharted movies over the next 6-10 years. By the conclusion of which he would be 35 years old.

What they don't want is a Daniel Craig situation where he was 38 years old in Casino Royale and is now 53 after just 5 films.

They would love Uncharted to last longer like Fast and the Furious which ran from 2001 to 2021. 20 years 9 movies.

If Holland did 20 years as Nathan Drake by the end of it he'd still only be 45.
 

ethomaz

Banned
I just checked and it is in the cinema near me.
I will call wife to go there… let’s see if I got somebody to watch kids.

My little boy can only watch movies in animation form… he basically can’t stay 5 minutes in real human movies lol
 
Last edited:

Lognor

Member
Ok. I skimmed the article and found the part where they said it would need to make 800-900m to “get out of the red.” However, they do not say how they arrived at this number. So at best, it’s just an anecdote about one movie, and at worst, they just pulled this number from their ass. Neither of which does anything to prove or disprove 4x as the new rule of thumb. So let’s do a quick web search for “how much money does a movie need to make to break even,” shall we?

Results
Cinemablend: 2.5x
Screenrant: 2x
Slashgear: 2x
QuirkyByte: 2x
Gizmodo: 2x

So far, it’s journalists and editors 5, random guys on the internet 0.

I am sure there is more to the story- hollywood accounting is infamously opaque and questionable. But the vast majority of somewhat authoritative sources use the “at least 2x” number, so I see no reason we should use any other metric, at least in general.
You think Variety, a publication focused on the motion picture industry pulled this number out of their ass? And instead you're using a bunch of no name websites to argue your point? LOL, you serious mate? No, Variety did NOT pull that number out of their ass. They know more than you do. They know more than Slashgear (lol really?), Screenrant, etc. If you are going to listen to one publication about the motion picture industy, it should be Variety. Not "QuirkyByte. Why do I even need to say this?

Journalists and editors? LOL, yeah those journalists and editors at Quirkybyte are well respected in the industry. Variety who amirite?!
 

Twinblade

Member
Sony doesn't give a fuck about critics...they have been doing feel-good movies for a while now and they apparently know what audiences want.

Stuff like the latest Jumanji (and its sequel), Venom (and its sequel), the latest Ghostbusters movie and now Uncharted are all hits even if they don't hit fresh (or barely in case of Ghostbusters) on rotten tomatoes.
The new Ghostbusters movie was actually pretty good. I also enjoyed Venom.
 

EverydayBeast

thinks Halo Infinite is a new graphical benchmark
The story is good, Nathan Drake is a big treasure hunter Indiana Jones name, I believe it offers the best opportunities for movies (Jungle, grappling hook, treasure, locations, villains etc.) this is maybe my favorite platforming game series and every now and than a good game to movie comes out (Tomb raider).
 

Lognor

Member
The new Ghostbusters movie was actually pretty good. I also enjoyed Venom.

I fucking loved the new Ghostbusters. Got a little teary eyed at the end. Might be my favorite of last year.
I was really let down by the new Ghostbusters. I dunno. There was so much build up and the climax was a letdown. Cool they brought the dead guy back though.

I think NYC is part of what makes Ghostbusters what it is. Doing a Ghostbusters in the fucking midwest was boring.

And the humor was lacking.
Still better than the all female Ghostbusters though!
 
Surprised by the success of the movie after reading critics.
Looks like the perfect lazy Sunday afternoon movie to me. Will stream for 4.99 (y)
 

Dick Jones

Gold Member
I just checked and it is in the cinema near me.
I will call wife to go there… let’s see if I got somebody to watch kids.

My little boy can only watch movies in animation form… he basically can’t stay 5 minutes in real human movies lol
If you can't get a babysitter, I can bring your wife to the cinema while you mind the kids. 😂
As much as I cannot see Holland as a young Drake, he is 1000000000000000x better than Pattison as Batman. What a fucking joke!
Mr Mom Michael Keaton got Batman and people complained. He was the right choice. People complained about Heath Ledger as Joker. At least wait until reviews are out before burying Pattinson.
 
Sony - Uncharted Movie is a hit franchise.

Some posters here - No they 'Probably' spend this much in my opinion and need to hit this amount to break even. Otherwise a flop.
Well, it's the same studio that tried to say Ghostbusters 2016 was performing fine, so...
They also got caught inflating scores.

But, this film does need to hit $240M to break even on just the production budget. It cost $120M to make and studios take in ~50% of the box office. Throw in marketing and it's more like $360M to break even. It's definitely off to a decent start, but I'd see how the 2nd weekend holds up before calling it a hit.
 

zaanan

Banned
You think Variety, a publication focused on the motion picture industry pulled this number out of their ass? And instead you're using a bunch of no name websites to argue your point? LOL, you serious mate? No, Variety did NOT pull that number out of their ass. They know more than you do. They know more than Slashgear (lol really?), Screenrant, etc. If you are going to listen to one publication about the motion picture industy, it should be Variety. Not "QuirkyByte. Why do I even need to say this?

Journalists and editors? LOL, yeah those journalists and editors at Quirkybyte are well respected in the industry. Variety who amirite?!
Mocks the first few results of a simple web search to confirm that 2x is universally understood to be the rule of thumb... Check.

Provides zero counter argument or evidence that the 4x rule has superseded the universal 2x rule... Check.

 

Oddvintagechap

Gold Member
i don't understand why people wants the movie to fail ? 🤔
Gamers who think their opinions matter too much.

If they were in charge of Sony Pictures they would sign Nathan Fillion to a multi picture deal as Drake. David Hayter as Snake. And book whoever looks most like Joel, even if he works at a home depot.

This movie is doing great compared to its peers because its aimed a crowd that active in the theaters. The Jumanji crowd. If Tom doesnt make a cameo in Jumanji, ill agree with these ignorant gamers, these executives don’t know what they are doing.
 

Gamerguy84

Member
I usually don't watch movie adaptations but I will this one.

Way too many people have enjoyed it and it has mostly positive reviews. It sounds like a fun movie
 

Oddvintagechap

Gold Member
Yet the deal that studios are hotly chasing is not very profitable.
Under its previous agreement, Sony paid 50 percent of the production costs for “Spectre” — which totaled some $250 million after accounting for government incentives — but received only 25 percent of certain profits, once costs were recouped. Sony also shouldered tens of millions of dollars in marketing and had to give MGM a piece of the profit from non-Bond films Sony had in its own pipeline, including “22 Jump Street.”

In a 2014 email stolen by hackers and widely published online, Andrew Gumpert, who then oversaw business affairs for Sony, figured that the studio would realize about $38 million in profit if “Spectre” performed as “Skyfall” did. And “Spectre” did not, taking in $881 million, about 20 percent less than “Skyfall,” which was released in 2012.

Why, then, do studios want to distribute Bond so badly? Bragging rights, mostly. Having a Bond movie on the schedule guarantees at least one hit in a business where there is almost no sure thing.

Here is an article from Variety about No Time to Die to put things into perspective about budget costs and breaking even.

While that film cost $250m to produce, Variety is estimating it will need to make between 800-900m to break even. So that's between 3.2 and 3.6 times its production budget. Not quite 4x, but close on the high end.
Using James Bond as an example for anything is pointless. Barbara Broccoli has a bunch of requirements, huge productions costs, huge marketing budgets, first dibs into revenue, dibs into revenue into other franchises… basically whoever offers the most concessions gets the rights to make James Bond.

Uncharted doesn’t need anything close to this. There’s literally only one company to feed. Sony.
 
"With over $100M in box office worldwide in just one weekend, and a 90% positive audience score on Rotten Tomatoes, Uncharted is a new hit movie franchise for the company."

- Tom Rothman, Sony Pictures CEO








Tom Holland Yes GIF by Uncharted
Always has been a hit movie franchise.
 

Alphagear

Member
Well, it's the same studio that tried to say Ghostbusters 2016 was performing fine, so...
They also got caught inflating scores.

But, this film does need to hit $240M to break even on just the production budget. It cost $120M to make and studios take in ~50% of the box office. Throw in marketing and it's more like $360M to break even. It's definitely off to a decent start, but I'd see how the 2nd weekend holds up before calling it a hit.

Ridiculous for you to doubt the producer of the film considering they are the ONLY people who actually know what the film cost to make, marketing costs and what it truly makes in box office.

I keep hearing 120 million production budget yet other sites say 90 million. Isn't that enough not take anyone seriously including you posters?

Only Sony knows the figures.


The PG-13 “Uncharted” cost $90 million to produce and several millions more to market to global audiences, which is a hefty total but not enough to require “Spider-Man: No Way Home”-level revenues to make money. (“Spider-Man: No Way Home,” another Holland-led tentpole, grossed a mammoth $1.83 billion globally.) However, ticket sales in China could be the difference between simply breaking even and making the kind of bank that leads to sequels and spinoffs.
 
Last edited:
Top Bottom