Tough crowd in here. Lol.
Personally, I think the choice to do a young Drake story is a wise one. It gives the writers/directors the right kind of distance from the source material to tell an interesting story in another medium. Had they just made a straight-up adaptation of Uncharted, the focus would have been on how faithful it was, but by giving us a young Drake, they avoid direct comparisons and free themselves up to tell a story we've never seen before. As a bonus, Tom Holland doesn't have to be Drake from the games, only a character that might one day grow into that character.
In any event, it will be a far better and more faithful (which for fans is usually the same thing) adaptation than that David O. Russell thing starring Marky Mark would have been, as much as I liked The Fighter. I say we give it a chance.
Real movie critics praised it almost universally and SW dorks whined about it and I'm convinced that SW dorks will never like any movie that any comes out because it doesn't reference all the stupid EU events they want or have cameos for all the awful fanservice they want.
We're getting off topic, but I'm a far cry from the mental image of a "SW dork" you're lambasting, and I thought it was terrible just as a narrative work, clearly written to shock and surprise rather than tell a story. Characters make nonsensical choices and the plot meanders and loops pointlessly (which is odd in a movie that is essentially an extended chase sequence) all for the sake of setting up expectations that can later be subverted for dramatic effect. It's gotcha writing, and sloppy gotcha writing at that. A far cry from "good art."
In any case, it's not just overly passionate hardcore fans who left theaters unimpressed, so your points about "real critics" and "good art" actually reinforce his argument that there is a disconnect between what some segments of Hollywood think people want, and what actually works for audiences. No need to get mad about it.
