I just kinda wish they typecast it better. - Uncharted (2022) Discussion

I don't think you know what typecast means.

reply

Maybe he doesn't, but he's still correct. Marky Mark was seriously miscast.

reply

Weird they didn't just cast Mark Wahlberg as Nathan Drake. Not the perfect choice but I'd buy him more than Tom Holland.

reply

[–] FilmBuff (6692) 2 years ago

Both seemed like good fits for the role to me, though I did hear Wahlberg in an interview say that the when he was first told about the film, he was offered the Drake role, and the search was on for a seasoned older actor to play Sully. However, years later, when the production finally got underway, and he was told he'd be acting alongside Tom Holland, he was initially confused. "He's too young to be Sully," he thought, and then it dawned on him-- so much time had passed since the initial discussions, that he was now the seasoned older actor.

reply

[–] RealInfinitum (424) 2 years ago

Yeah he's definitely too young to be Sully.

reply

[–] Drax (111) 2 years ago

I certainly would not have mind Mark as Nathan Drake. Still it is insane they decided not listen to the fans and cast Nathan Fillion. They might think both are too old to play the character. But that short Uncharted fan film on Youtube proves Fillion can play that character regardless of his age.

If they wanted someone the right age, James Lafferty from One Tree Hill, would have been a great choice too and be more believable in the role than Tom.

reply

[–] HarlemEagle42 (16185) 2 years ago

Wow good choice he even looks like a younger Nathan Fillion.

reply

[–] RealInfinitum (424) 2 years ago

I don't think you know what anything means.

reply

[–] TheArgentinian (6445) 2 years ago

Just admit you are stupid and move on.

reply

[–] RealInfinitum (424) 2 years ago

Just admit you don't even know what stupid is, that you're it, and move on.

reply

[–] TheArgentinian (6445) 2 years ago

What are you, 5?

reply

[–] RealInfinitum (424) 2 years ago

[deleted]

[–] RealInfinitum (424) 2 years ago

To quote sslssq:

type·cast
/ˈtīpˌkast/

verb
assign (an actor or actress) repeatedly to the same type of role, as a result of the appropriateness of their appearance or previous success in such roles.
"he tends to be typecast as the caring, intelligent male"
represent or regard (a person or their role) as a stereotype.
"people are not as likely to be typecast by their accents as they once were"

Keywords: appropriateness of their appearance or previous success in such roles.

OR

to cast (a performer) in a role that requires characteristics of physique, manner, personality, etc., similar to those possessed by the performer.

So yes AGAIN Mark Wahlberg and Tom Holland are not properly typecast in this since Mark Wahlberg neither has the physique, manner nor personality that would fit Sully, nor does Tom Holland have that which would fit Nathan Drake.

Can we be done with this now that you've been proven to be wrong nerds?

reply

[–] TheArgentinian (6445) 2 years ago

I know what typecast means. You are just not using it properly.

reply

[–] RealInfinitum (424) 2 years ago

You do not know what typecast means. If you did you'd know I used it properly. Here's the definition and explanation again. Copy pasted.

https://www.dictionary.com/browse/typecast

verb (used with object), type·cast, type·cast·ing.Theater.
1. to cast (a performer) in a role that requires characteristics of physique, manner, personality, etc., similar to those possessed by the performer.

So yes AGAIN Mark Wahlberg and Tom Holland are not properly typecast in this since Mark Wahlberg neither has the physique, manner nor personality that would fit Sully, nor does Tom Holland have that which would fit Nathan Drake.

reply

[–] triplea (3577) 2 years ago

He's right dude, you cant say a movie is typecast correctly/incorrectly as it doesn't make any sense; that isn't the context in which the word should be used.

You just meant 'cast', no need to double down.

reply

[–] RealInfinitum (424) 2 years ago

You're seem to be stalking me, perhaps because I corrected you brutally earlier.

Again:verb (used with object), type·cast, type·cast·ing.Theater.
1. to cast (a performer) in a role that requires characteristics of physique, manner, personality, etc., similar to those possessed by the performer.

TYPECAST means TO CAST appropriately in a role. Seriously, you need to learn English or at least go back to school because you lack comprehension. Did you graduate high school?

reply

[–] triplea (3577) 2 years ago

Lol talk about an own goal.

You just proved yourself wrong ... We all know the definition of the word dude.

Maybe you should reread it and then try to explain how it's meant to apply to an entire film LOL!!!

reply

[–] Burk48917 (10988) a year ago

Yeah, you used it wrong. When multiple people disagree with an individual, rarely is the individual smarter than the masses.

reply

[–] R_Kane (15828) 2 years ago

Real,"typecasting" means "plugging in someone who has played a role like this A LOT before,"like Ryan Renolds or Bruce Willis. "Casting" means seletomg an actor who can KILL in the role, regardless of previous roles s/he's played, like Nicole Kidman in To Die For, of which Roger Ebert wrote (paraphrase), "I kept looking for her in the movie, and did not recognize that it was she."

Eschew typecasting. It's lazy and trivial.

reply

[–] RealInfinitum (424) 2 years ago

It's not trivial. An appropriate Sully, an appropriate Nathan Drake and hiring NEW ACTORS would be more work than hiring tired out actors that don't fit the roles.

reply

[–] sslssg (27771) 2 years ago

You just mean that you wish they had cast actors more appropriate to the role.

type·cast
/ˈtīpˌkast/

verb
assign (an actor or actress) repeatedly to the same type of role, as a result of the appropriateness of their appearance or previous success in such roles.
"he tends to be typecast as the caring, intelligent male"
represent or regard (a person or their role) as a stereotype.
"people are not as likely to be typecast by their accents as they once were"

reply

[–] RealInfinitum (424) 2 years ago

Yeah I think this boils down to millennials inability to understand the English language.

Did you read your own definition?

"as a result of the appropriateness of their appearance"

So yeah I MEANT TYPECAST.

reply

[–] sslssg (27771) 2 years ago

Well, I'm not a millennial, so there's that.

But, you think that Mark Wahlberg doesn't look like the character should look like? That is the opposite of typecasting.

I do believe you mean that he was miscast.

mis·cast
/misˈkast/

verb
allot an unsuitable role to (a particular actor).
"he is badly miscast in the romantic lead"
allot the roles in (a play, movie, television show, etc.) to unsuitable actors.
"it's hard to imagine a more miscast version of “Julius Caesar”"

reply

[–] RealInfinitum (424) 2 years ago

Well that's nice to know, that you're not a millennial. So we've ruled that out as to your misunderstanding of the English language.
So let's go back to your definition.

"as a result of the appropriateness of their appearance or previous success in such roles."

So Marky mark has never been an elderlylike mentor type. He doesn't look like the tallish Sully who appears to be 6'1" or 6'2". So therefore he was mis-typecast.

Tom Holland is nothing like Nathan Drake someone who appeared, appeared - but was all self taught, to be an ex special forces agent who is a master of parkour type grappling and weapons.

So..,yeah, I meant TYPECAST. Thank you for playing. Have a nice night. I have spoken.

reply

[–] sslssg (27771) 2 years ago

Wow. Is English your first language? I'm really not trying to be rude here, but you've had several people point out your mistake, but you keep doubling down. Your definition is completely incorrect. Someone cannot be mis-typecast.

If Mark Wahlberg often played elderly mentor types, then he would be typecast. If Tom Holland often played roles like Nathan Drake then it would be typecasting. I do not know why you find that so difficult to comprehend, but that's fine. You have spoken.

reply

[–] RealInfinitum (424) 2 years ago

No no one has pointed out any mistake including you. There is no mistake. According to your definition I was perfectly accurate.

Again: "assign (an actor or actress) repeatedly to the same type of role, as a result of the appropriateness of their appearance or previous success in such roles."

So since Mark Wahlberg has never played elderly mentor types then he is not properly typecast. Since Tom Holland has never played any roles like Nathan Drake then he is not properly typecast. I don't know why you find that so difficult to comprehend but yes I have spoken.

reply

[–] sslssg (27771) 2 years ago

Okay, you are just trolling now. Have your self a nice day.

reply

[–] RealInfinitum (424) 2 years ago

Pot calling the counter black.
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/typecast

verb (used with object), type·cast, type·cast·ing.Theater.
1. to cast (a performer) in a role that requires characteristics of physique, manner, personality, etc., similar to those possessed by the performer.

So yes AGAIN Mark Wahlberg and Tom Holland are not properly typecast in this since Mark Wahlberg neither has the physique, manner nor personality that would fit Sully, nor does Tom Holland have that which would fit Nathan Drake.

Can we be done with this now that you've been proven to be wrong nerds?

reply

[–] sslssg (27771) 2 years ago

typecasting (ˈtaɪpˌkɑːstɪŋ)
n
(Film) the practice of casting an actor repeatedly in the same kind of role, esp because of his or physical appearance or previous success in such roles

reply

[–] RealInfinitum (424) 2 years ago

What is it about PHYSICAL APPEARANCE, or PREVIOUS SUCCESS IN SUCH ROLES do you not understand?

Mark Wahlberg nor Tom Holland have the physical appearance nor the previous success that match the role of Sully and Nathan Drake respectively.

reply

[–] sslssg (27771) 2 years ago

What you are not understanding is that while casting for appearance is casting to type, the most common use of the word typecasting is the one which I have presented over and over to you. Ask an actor if they would like to be typecast. They would most likely say no.

Vernacular changes over time.

For instance...
gay
/ɡā/
adjective
1.
(of a person) homosexual (used especially of a man).
"the city's gay and lesbian people"

2.
DATED
lighthearted and carefree.
"Nan had a gay disposition and a very pretty face"

Not long ago #2 would have been the most widely used. Now if you called someone gay they would assume you meant #1.

reply

[–] RealInfinitum (424) 2 years ago

What you are not understanding which you have presented to yourself and that I have presented to you over and over again is typecasting is defined as:

(Film) the practice of casting an actor repeatedly in the same kind of role, esp because of his or physical appearance or previous success in such roles

What is it about PHYSICAL APPEARANCE, or PREVIOUS SUCCESS IN SUCH ROLES do you not understand?

Mark Wahlberg nor Tom Holland have neither the physical appearance nor the previous success that match the role of Sully and Nathan Drake respectively.

What you are implying is that "typecast" has some sort of pejorative connotations, however, it does not. You're just still struggling with the English language.

reply

[–] sslssg (27771) 2 years ago

I was honestly trying to just be helpful, but you react with insults.

Please look into actors who have been typecast and see if they try to break out of that. Ask around about typecasting and see how positive it is. Why don't you go into a sports bar when the home team is winning and comment how gay it is there.

I'm done being insulted by you.

reply

[–] RealInfinitum (424) 2 years ago

Correcting you is not insulting. And your condescension was obvious from the beginning. Just because I countered it effectively your feelings are hurt.

Why don't you go into a sports bar when the home team is winning and comment how gay it is there.

So after providing the dictionary meanings, and finding out your narrative doesn't fit the dictionary meanings you're trying to say the meaning has changed to something pejorative. I understand what YOU are trying to say, but I was the one who started this thread and that's not what I was trying to say, and I was following the dictionary meanings. Do you understand now?

reply

[–] sslssg (27771) 2 years ago

There was zero condescension in my first message to you. Then you tried to imply that I was a millennial, and your following message was just patronizing. I again kindly tried to point out that your use of the word typecast is not the generally used term, you insulted again. I understood exactly what you were trying to say, and only wanted to help out as others pointed out the word as well. I see now how you respond with insults. So I really am done now. Go ahead and get the last word in.

reply

[–] RealInfinitum (424) 2 years ago

It's nice that once you're beaten you're able to behave like a human being. If only that were the case of all internet trolls. The thing is my use of the word typecast is generally used even if it isn't in colloquial terms amongst Hollywood circles.

So I really am done now.

Oh, so the first time you wrote it, you weren't really done.

reply

[–] DracTarashV2 (4475) 2 years ago

Well Marky Mark can obviously only be Marky Mark (sometimes he’s ok at it, many times not lol). I’m fine with the casting regardless.

reply

[–] RealInfinitum (424) 2 years ago

I'm not fine with it AT ALL. Patrick Bergin would be the PERFECT Sully. Who do you think would make a better Nathan Drake for Uncharted 2? Besides Bear Grylls. Need someone like Bear Grylls but looks more like Nathan Drake.

reply

[–] DracTarashV2 (4475) 2 years ago

I'm not fine with it AT ALL

Yeah…. you’ve made that (are making it) pretty clear. Preaching to everyone who was against the casting (particularly Holland’s casting) before and after the movie came out you are. Well me not being a fan of Wahlberg aside, too bad for y’all the casting can’t be changed. A better Drake for the sequel? Uh…

reply

[–] RealInfinitum (424) 2 years ago

"Preaching"? This was my only time mentioning it. It's the numbskulls that don't understand the meaning of "typecasting" that needed to be corrected. And I was particularly against Mark Wahlberg's casting, not Tom Holland. People are only against Tom Holland because he is English. Holland is ok since this is Uncharted 1 or a young Nathan Drake.

reply

[–] cyguration (3844) 2 years ago

You're absolutely right here, I have no idea how people are butchering the English language so much that they don't understand what the gist of this post is?

For people still struggling to understand: RealInfinitum was hoping they had cast a traditionally handsome athletic actor to play Nathan Drake because said actor would be typically cast to play handsome, athletic roles, like Josh Duhamel, Ryan Reynolds, Nathan Fillion, or Bradley Cooper.

The same would apply for Sully, having an older, grizzled actor known for playing older, grizzled characters playing Sully, such as Sam Elliot, Liam Neeson, or Mel Gibson.

Instead they went with some oddball choices that don't fit the characters really at all, since Tom Holland has never (and will likely never) play a tall, athletic, charming badass, and Marky Mark has never been known for playing older, wise, grizzled veterans who can charm the ladies.

reply

[–] actionkamen (23176) 2 years ago

I learned something new today.

reply

[–] JoeBlow88 (548) 2 years ago

I thought the same thing.. But if they make a bunch of these movies their age works well. I think Drake is supposed to be in his late teens or early 20s in this movie?

reply

[–] UncleRuckis (2552) 2 years ago

The movie starts out with him looking about 13ish with his brother, then jumps to 15 years later, so Drake is supposed to be in his late 20's in this. Seeing as how Holland is around that age, it's fairly spot on.

I like Walberg (and Fillion), but both are in their 50's and way too long in the tooth to play Drake at this point in their careers.

reply

[–] TandyMan (10367) 2 years ago

Tom Holland is the big miscast for me. I've never even played the games and I can tell he's not right for the part. Doesn't help that he's literally just doing his Spider-Man routine. I actually found Marky Mark to be a breath of fresh air. It's a bit of a meta cast cause being a big movie star, he brings the weight of his past work with his screen presence, which is what this movie needed.

reply