WarCraft movie is getting slaughtered by critics

[Orogun01]

I was never a fanboy of Warcraft but I still went to see it, if only to have a new topic of conversation.

It wasn't so bad, the acting was competent with some of my favorite underrated actors and Paula Patton stole the show for me.

Storywise the movie was a little all over the place for at least the first part and the characters, lore and locations weren't presented as well as they could have. It was all very superficial.
I began enjoying it more towards the middle, once the actual conflicts gets underway and there is finally something happening, plus here is where the characters begin to actually develop.
Visually there were some things that didn't work for me but considering the source material they did well with what they had to work with.

All in all it felt like a B movie much along the vein of the Dungeon and Dragon movies, which are good for a watch on television. So if you curb your expectations you might get some joy out of it...and you probably should wait for the BluRay or until it comes on TV. 

[Calax]

Went and saw it. I think that it was almost to MUCH of a fan movie. Not in the sense that it was aimed at fans, but that it was made by fans. From my perspective, Doomhammer should have been the primary orc, not Durotan. Because for the era that they're playing in, Doomhammer is the focus of the Horde (In the games he offed Blackhand and forced Gul'Dan into submission after murdering all his guards).

 

And the reason I think that Everyone compares this to LOTR is because the visuals are very reminiscent of LOTR in the Human parts. And it has a similar feel to it where they name characters, but never really give the audience a moment to get to know them. I guess you could say there's no "audience surrogate" character that's done well. Most people watching will know Gul'Dan, Durotan, Garona and Khadgar. Beyond that there wasn't much in the way of "Hello, my name is Anduin Lothar, I'm commander of the Human Forces!" By comparison Lord of the Rings started correctly in that you had the Hobbits, and then the cast slowly built as the audience got to know who was who (although most of the audience only knows Sam as "the Gay one" and Merry and Pippin as "those other two") before growing the cast more to include other characters. In Warcraft it was "Durotan!" "Orgrim!" "Durotans wife!" "Gul'Dan!" "Garona!" cut to Human Lands "King Llane!" "Anduin Lothar!" "Khadgar!" "Medivh!" "Llane's Wife!" "Baby Lothar!" etc.

[Amentep]

Never played Warcraft (or World of Warcraft) so I'm not that up on the lore (I knew some people who did, though).

 

I thought the movie was fine.  In a way it reminds me a lot of Boorman's Excalibur.  But overall I think the film is fine; some of the characters are very well drawn many others are not, but you get what you need to know about them to understand why they do the things they do.

 

A lot of the film falls on Garona as the bridge character between the humans and the orcs and therefore ends up being the character the audience is going to gravitate towards simply because she's the character that will fuel their understanding of the world and I think Paula Patton did the job very well.

 

The biggest problem ultimately to my mind is...

 

The film is an obvious portion of a larger story; to some degree if felt like if you'd made "The Empire Strikes Back" as the first film instead of "A New Hope"; and unlike LotR there isn't a commitment to telling the bigger story.

 

 

[Hurlshort]

I saw it and enjoyed it.  I wouldn't say it was a good movie, but it had enough entertaining parts to make it worth the price of admission.  Kind of a weird drop between the acting abilities of some of the people, namely Khadgar, the King, and Lothar's son were all extremely forgettable.  The guy from Vikings really carried it, and the orcs as a whole were well done.  It was also a pretty convoluted story.  I played a lot of WoW and the original RTS games, and I still felt pretty lost at times.  I think they needed to slow down the story quite a bit to make it close to good.  LotR kind of nailed that part of the fantasy epic, whereas this jumped around a ton.

 

Not that I think they needed to make it longer, or have less action.  Quite the contrary, I thought they could have spent more time on the action scenes they had and not tried to tell such a long story.  If they had just told the story of the orcs going through the gate and stopped there it could have been a solid 90 minutes.     

[Orogun01]

Never played Warcraft (or World of Warcraft) so I'm not that up on the lore (I knew some people who did, though).

 

I thought the movie was fine.  In a way it reminds me a lot of Boorman's Excalibur.  But overall I think the film is fine; some of the characters are very well drawn many others are not, but you get what you need to know about them to understand why they do the things they do.

 

A lot of the film falls on Garona as the bridge character between the humans and the orcs and therefore ends up being the character the audience is going to gravitate towards simply because she's the character that will fuel their understanding of the world and I think Paula Patton did the job very well.

 

The biggest problem ultimately to my mind is...

 

The film is an obvious portion of a larger story; to some degree if felt like if you'd made "The Empire Strikes Back" as the first film instead of "A New Hope"; and unlike LotR there isn't a commitment to telling the bigger story.

 

 

Yeah I liked that about the movie, I feel that more films should do that since everything is getting franchised nowadays anyways...BTW is that Passion of Christ sequel thing true?

[Gromnir]

everybody these days seems to use lotr as the high-water mark for fantasy movies.  am an admitted contrarian at times, but we actual liked the rankin and bass the hobbit more than any jackson film.  skip "the scouring of the shire" were what we credit jackson for most regarding the lotr films. 

 

dragonslayer (1981) and conan the barbarian (1982) is, in our opinion, the best fantasy flicks evar, but only if one excludes the empire strikes back (1980).

 

'pon reflection, am s'posing that being john malkovich (1999) deserves a nod as well.  the movie boasts excellent acting and it is crazy-arse unique.  original ain't = good, but a good film that is also unique warrants recognition.

 

HA! Good Fun!

 

ps three other animated films deserve serious consideration for best fantasy: the last unicorn (1982), spirited away (2001) and song of the sea (2014).  too often kids and/or animated movies is overlooked when discussing quality movies.  is a shame.  same happens with literature.

 

pps can't believe we failed to mention brazil (1985).  

Edited June 15, 2016 by Gromnir

[Calax]

 

Never played Warcraft (or World of Warcraft) so I'm not that up on the lore (I knew some people who did, though).

 

I thought the movie was fine.  In a way it reminds me a lot of Boorman's Excalibur.  But overall I think the film is fine; some of the characters are very well drawn many others are not, but you get what you need to know about them to understand why they do the things they do.

 

A lot of the film falls on Garona as the bridge character between the humans and the orcs and therefore ends up being the character the audience is going to gravitate towards simply because she's the character that will fuel their understanding of the world and I think Paula Patton did the job very well.

 

The biggest problem ultimately to my mind is...

 

The film is an obvious portion of a larger story; to some degree if felt like if you'd made "The Empire Strikes Back" as the first film instead of "A New Hope"; and unlike LotR there isn't a commitment to telling the bigger story.

 

 

Yeah I liked that about the movie, I feel that more films should do that since everything is getting franchised nowadays anyways...

It gets franchised if it sells. American Ultra didn't make that much money, but the screenwriter was already banking on it being a hit and had written out the draft for a second film (stupidly).

 

The problem is that if you go into it expecting "This'll be a HUGE hit and I don't want to write myself into a corner!" you wind up writing a movie that feels incomplete because half of your one good idea is going to be put in another film. It seems like China has managed to Save the warcraft Movie in terms of ticket sales. But I'm wondering if the studio would take the chance on #2 (at least Domestically). If they did I could see them shifting the director and most of the crew to be less fanservicy and thus loose what little audience they have trying to get an Audience they already lost.

[Gromnir]

pan's labyrinth (2006) is another worthy o' best fantasy consideration.  the more we think on the subject, the more fantastic fantasy films we recollect.

 

am s'posing most will not consider raiders of the lost ark (1981) as fantasy?  

 

other worthies we wouldn't necessarily place in The Best category, but deserving mention is time bandits (1981), the dark crystal (1982), the secret of nimh (1982), the princess bride (1987), and edward scissorhands (1990).  am thinking that all is better than any single lotr movie.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=spHEw2n9LwE

 

no. just, no.

 

HA! Good Fun!

Edited June 15, 2016 by Gromnir

[teknoman2]

from what i saw, it was fine if you are someone who knows his warcraft lore but it failed to explain properly what's up to anyone who goes in blind

[Amentep]

everybody these days seems to use lotr as the high-water mark for fantasy movies.

In this sense, I think its an apt comparison simply because LOTR is the only real fantasy franchise created as a multi-part story (excluding science fantasy like Star Wars).  Are there better fantasy films - sure.  But CONAN THE BARBARIAN wasn't created with CONAN THE DESTROYER already planned; Harryhausen never planned out a continuity between his SINBAD films.

 

And as I mentioned, I think WARCRAFT owes more to EXCALIBUR than to LOTR; I mentioned LOTR because the story in the books were broken up from a larger story and so the books often feel incomplete to me ('Fellowship' is the only one that kind of works on its own, sorta) and this feels like a 'Fellowship' story with no guarantee of a 'Two Towers'.

 

am an admitted contrarian at times, but we actual liked the rankin and bass the hobbit more than any jackson film.

 

I liked the Rankin/Bass Hobbit better than Jackson's Hobbit Trilogy.  I also liked their Return of the King better than Jackson's LOTR entry (but I was the right age for that at the time it came on TV).  Jackson's films were much more engaging than Bakshi's LOTR which was dull rotoscoping (IMO his FIRE AND ICE is a better fantasy film than his LOTR).

 

Not that I didn't like Jackson's films (I even like the Hobbit even though they're even less successful than the LOTR), but they suffer (IMO) from the same kind of problems the book has, compounded with some new problems introduced by the film narrative.

 

Yeah I liked that about the movie, I feel that more films should do that since everything is getting franchised nowadays anyways...BTW is that Passion of Christ sequel thing true?

 

Yes, it is to be about the resurrection of Christ.

 

It gets franchised if it sells. American Ultra didn't make that much money, but the screenwriter was already banking on it being a hit and had written out the draft for a second film (stupidly).

 

The problem is that if you go into it expecting "This'll be a HUGE hit and I don't want to write myself into a corner!" you wind up writing a movie that feels incomplete because half of your one good idea is going to be put in another film. It seems like China has managed to Save the warcraft Movie in terms of ticket sales. But I'm wondering if the studio would take the chance on #2 (at least Domestically). If they did I could see them shifting the director and most of the crew to be less fanservicy and thus loose what little audience they have trying to get an Audience they already lost.

 

CONAN THE DESTROYER was created because CONAN THE BARBARIAN (which bombed in the US) had done well in Europe. I believe the PERCY JACKSON sequel and the NARNIA film sequels existed because of overseas performance. The greenlight on PACIFIC RIM 2 was due to overseas money, as it didn't perform great in the US. So I think the sales in China are likely to give a greenlight to a WARCRAFT 2. I'm not 100% sure they'd ditch the direction totally and lose the markets they were a success in; they could actually try to get more China investment in a sequel though.

 

from what i saw, it was fine if you are someone who knows his warcraft lore but it failed to explain properly what's up to anyone who goes in blind

 

I don't really know the Lore of Warcraft (although its not totally alien to me; I never played the games so any knowledge I have isn't first hand) but I think the narrative is fairly straightforward.  decimated orc world -> Portal -> abundant land of piece -> fighting -> in-fighting -> new portal -> more fighting ->end

Edited June 15, 2016 by Amentep

[Gromnir]

 

everybody these days seems to use lotr as the high-water mark for fantasy movies.

In this sense, I think its an apt comparison simply because LOTR is the only real fantasy franchise created as a multi-part story (excluding science fantasy like Star Wars).  Are there better fantasy films - sure.  But CONAN THE BARBARIAN wasn't created with CONAN THE DESTROYER already planned; Harryhausen never planned out a continuity between his SINBAD films.

 

fair enough, but one must admit that by limiting only to fantasy movies with genuine planned sequels, you is fishing in an extreme small pond.  even star wars (episode 4) were not having a sequels greenlit at the time of its production.  heck, lucas had only vague notions o' where to take a sequel and he made significant changes to his tentative plans.  for instance, the emperor, an obviously pivotal character in the franchise, we envisioned by lucas during star wars writing as a puppet o' the military-industrial complex. lotr were actual unique in that all three movies were filmed consecutive w/o waiting for box office results o' the introductory title. 

 

HA! Good Fun!

[Amentep]

I agree it is a very small pond, with NARNIA, and HARRY POTTER possibly being LOTR's only modern bretheren amid English language films

[Hurlshort]

So looking at the numbers, Warcraft cost 160 million to make (wth) and is going to get nowhere near that domestically, but make a ton in China and turn a profit.

 

How did they spend that much money?  The actors clearly weren't getting much of that, the only big name was Glenn Close, and she had a small cameo.  Some fo the sets looked like they were out of a ren faire.  I assume it was all special effects, yikes.  

 

Would a sequel still cost that much to make?

[Amentep]

Given that all the orcs excepting half-orc Garona were mocap performances...it was effects work.

 

IIRC DAWN OF THE PLANET OF THE APES cost $170 million

[Valsuelm]

 

How did they spend that much money?

 

Have you not paid attention to movie budgets before?

 

Nothing spikes the cost of a movie like quality (for the time) CGI does. ~$160 million for Warcraft, given how much CGI was in it, is par for the course.

[Hurlshort]

 

 

How did they spend that much money?

 

Have you not paid attention to movie budgets before?

 

 

It was more of setup question that I used to poke fun of the bad acting and set design.  The whole quote being:

 

 

How did they spend that much money?  The actors clearly weren't getting much of that, the only big name was Glenn Close, and she had a small cameo.  Some fo the sets looked like they were out of a ren faire.  I assume it was all special effects, yikes.  

 

 

[Malcador]

Apparently she is meant to be Medivh or something.

[Heijoushin]

So looking at the numbers, Warcraft cost 160 million to make (wth) and is going to get nowhere near that domestically, but make a ton in China and turn a profit.

 

I found that interesting. It completely flops at home, but the Chinese love it? Why is that? Are they all WoW addicts? Do the elements the Americans hate seem quirky and exotic to them? 

 

So we might get a War2 movie thank to China  

[Meshugger]

For 160 million you probably get some high-quality animatronics. It would've been more fun as well.

[Valsuelm]

 

So looking at the numbers, Warcraft cost 160 million to make (wth) and is going to get nowhere near that domestically, but make a ton in China and turn a profit.

 

I found that interesting. It completely flops at home, but the Chinese love it? Why is that? Are they all WoW addicts? Do the elements the Americans hate seem quirky and exotic to them? 

 

So we might get a War2 movie thank to China

 

 

Chinese love it for a couple reasons...

 

First, it didn't get the bad publicity that it did in the U.S. prior to release. Propaganda, buzz, 'marketing', etc. matter... a lot. The propaganda machine has a great deal of sway on the public. It will convince many a good movie is bad, or a bad movie is good. The title of thread is an example of just how much sway that machine has. So is the initial box office.

 

Second, In China, Blizzard hasn't burnt so many bridges with their fans as they have in the U.S/Europe, and WoW is still quite popular (or at least at this point, more popular). It's China that has been propping WoW sub numbers up for years. Without going in to much detail (which could fill a few pages for even people familiar with WoW, let alone for those who aren't), in very short, Blizzard's name is a bit tarnished amongst a great many former major fans. Had this movie come out in say '06-'08, it would have been at least the better part of a billion dollar movie. I personally know at least a few dozen people who would have flocked to it back then, who couldn't care much less now. You can multiply that many times over, as there are oodles and oodles of disenfranchised former Warcraft fans out there. As popular as Blizzard still is among many, it's very possible they have more former fans than current ones, particularly when it comes to the Warcraft franchise.

 

Also, it's 'cool' amongst many in the modern western video game community to hate on WoW these days....

 

All of the above barely if at all takes into consideration the quality of the movie itself, yet all factor huge into how much money it will make. As someone who had very low expectations when I went to see it, and couldn't even convince any of the half dozen or so disenfranchised former Warcraft fans I know locally to join me, I was very pleasantly surprised. As I said above, the movie is actually pretty good. And that's the sentiment of a lot of folks out there. The buzz amongst many if not most now is: 'The critics have no idea what they are talking about. The movie is pretty good, nothing amazing, but good. If you like fantasy films, or at any point in your life were a Warcraft fan, you should see it.'

 

As for a sequel...

 

Warcraft 2 is more than likely happening. The story was set up a continuation (and anyone who knows their Warcraft lore knows the first movie just scratched the surface and the best (potentially anyways) is yet to come). The current movie is on track to be the highest grossing movie ever, that was based on a video game. And if you've paid attention to the IMDB, and other media sources, 'Warcraft' as it was being referred to just a week ago, is now more commonly being referred to 'Warcraft: The Beginning'....

 

I'd wager that while not officially green lit yet, producers are already working on putting together a sequel.

Edited June 16, 2016 by Valsuelm

[Malcador]

Next up will be a Starcraft movie.

[Calax]

 

 

So looking at the numbers, Warcraft cost 160 million to make (wth) and is going to get nowhere near that domestically, but make a ton in China and turn a profit.

 

I found that interesting. It completely flops at home, but the Chinese love it? Why is that? Are they all WoW addicts? Do the elements the Americans hate seem quirky and exotic to them? 

 

So we might get a War2 movie thank to China

 

 

Chinese love it for a couple reasons...

 

First, it didn't get the bad publicity that it did in the U.S. prior to release. Propaganda, buzz, 'marketing', etc. matter... a lot. The propaganda machine has a great deal of sway on the public. It will convince many a good movie is bad, or a bad movie is good. The title of thread is an example of just how much sway that machine has. So is the initial box office.

 

Second, In China, Blizzard hasn't burnt so many bridges with their fans as they have in the U.S/Europe, and WoW is still quite popular (or at least at this point, more popular). It's China that has been propping WoW sub numbers up for years. Without going in to much detail (which could fill a few pages for even people familiar with WoW, let alone for those who aren't), in very short, Blizzard's name is a bit tarnished amongst a great many former major fans. Had this movie come out in say '06-'08, it would have been at least the better part of a billion dollar movie. I personally know at least a few dozen people who would have flocked to it back then, who couldn't care much less now. You can multiply that many times over, as there are oodles and oodles of disenfranchised former Warcraft fans out there. As popular as Blizzard still is among many, it's very possible they have more former fans than current ones, particularly when it comes to the Warcraft franchise.

 

Also, it's 'cool' amongst many in the modern western video game community to hate on WoW these days....

 

All of the above barely if at all takes into consideration the quality of the movie itself, yet all factor huge into how much money it will make. As someone who had very low expectations when I went to see it, and couldn't even convince any of the half dozen or so disenfranchised former Warcraft fans I know locally to join me, I was very pleasantly surprised. As I said above, the movie is actually pretty good. And that's the sentiment of a lot of folks out there. The buzz amongst many if not most now is: 'The critics have no idea what they are talking about. The movie is pretty good, nothing amazing, but good. If you like fantasy films, or at any point in your life were a Warcraft fan, you should see it.'

 

As for a sequel...

 

Warcraft 2 is more than likely happening. The story was set up a continuation (and anyone who knows their Warcraft lore knows the first movie just scratched the surface and the best (potentially anyways) is yet to come). The current movie is on track to be the highest grossing movie ever, that was based on a video game. And if you've paid attention to the IMDB, and other media sources, 'Warcraft' as it was being referred to just a week ago, is now more commonly being referred to 'Warcraft: The Beginning'....

 

I'd wager that while not officially green lit yet, producers are already working on putting together a sequel.

 

It probably doesn't help that they're trying to prop up an entire generations nostalgia with the movie. Consider seriously that there is an entire generation of children who grew up playing warcraft with their parents. I mean the game came out in 2004. Most of the player base today probably hadn't been old enough to get in on that when it was popular. And the movie is trying to go back to the 22 year old game for their lore.

 

Meanwhile most of the players who were of the generation that had played the RTS games and knew the lore had moved on, gotten jobs and played less and less until it became just a drain on their wallets that they only logged into once a month. 

 

Honestly, before the land of twitter and social media, I could see this being in the vein of Independance Day or a Michael Bay film. Critics hate it but the average joe would be like "eh, worth 6 bucks"

[Oerwinde]

Next up will be a Starcraft movie.

 

I'm down. Either that or Warhammer 40k, I just want me some space marines in power armor.

[aluminiumtrioxid]

 

Next up will be a Starcraft movie.

 

I'm down. Either that or Warhammer 40k, I just want me some space marines in power armor.

 

 

Because that turned out so well last time.

[Malcador]

Well, if at first you don't succeed...