I would have aimed for purposely camp
If it sucks, then it sucks. I'm still interested enough to see it and make up my own mind.
I'll never understand the Rotten Tomatoes obsession.
The pathetic part is that there are people who are truly excited for this movie, but will choose not to see it because of its Rotten Tomatoes rating. As if what's written on that site is infallible gospel.
Reading a review on Rotten Tomatoes is no different than asking a random person walking out of the theater what they thought about the movie.
In all fairness there are only 5 reviews, I think people need to let the sample size get bigger before they start judging in either direction.
Also, just because a movie isn't rated well doesn't necessarily mean it's bad, be your own judge, don't let other people decide if you like dislike something for you. The inverse is also true.
i never listen to critics or movie reviewers but that being said, everything ive seen about the movie gives me a pretty generic "meh" feeling about it. the cgi is really about the only thing that will save it. outside of that it looks like a typical game to movie production. itll probably make its money back but i doubt seriously itll break any records or make anything compared to LotR.
An army of Captain Hindsight rising in this thread. -.-
Last edited by Nightstalker; 2016-05-25 at 02:32 AM.
Soloing Wotlk/Cataclysm/MoP/WoD
http://www.youtube.com/user/thststth/videos
http://eu.battle.net/wow/de/characte...alker/advanced
http://de.twitch.tv/nightst314 >>Stream<<
Critics only know LOTR and expect LOTR.
They read the book ages ago and get excited about Frodo. Sorry critics, Warcraft doesn't have Frodo.
They probably should have done the Lich King from the beginning to be honest.
I don't trust Rotten Tomatoes as many of the movies that have a high "freshness" rating are actually trash, like "The Babadook" and "The Witch", while movies like "Synecdoche, New York" and "Antichrist" receive low ratings. A lot of the movies they have at high rating seem to be very surface level movies that do nothing spectacular or different and aim to please the general audience.
Although I do believe this is likely to be a very shitty movie. I would wait until you see it yourself or wait for more reviews to form a concrete opinion on this movie.
Last edited by Odobisean; 2016-05-25 at 02:41 AM.
I'm going to call BS, first of all, there was plenty of grim and dark things that happened in MoP, and second, WoW specifically has never been an overly serious game, there has always been poop quests and pop culture references, the game hasn't changed much in terms of tone, maybe you've just outgrown the humor/style.
Embargo 'til the 30th, not sure what these reviewers are reviewing.
"So my advice is to argue based on the reasons stated, not try to make up or guess at reasons and argue those."
Greg Street, Riot Developer - 12:50 PM - 25 May 2015
Google Diversity Memo
Learn to use critical thinking: https://youtu.be/J5A5o9I7rnA
Political left, right similarly motivated to avoid rival views
[...] we have an intolerance for ideas and evidence that don’t fit a certain ideology. I’m also not saying that we should restrict people to certain gender roles; I’m advocating for quite the opposite: treat people as individuals, not as just another member of their group (tribalism)..
Kotaku can be disregarded entirely.
As for Rotten Tomatoes, I've found that they can be very nitpicky. I've watched plenty of films that they've rated poorly, and I've enjoyed them.
How about we decide for ourselves whether the film is any good or not.
Idk. I dont see this movie getting greenlit for a sequel for less than 400m. Narnia had a similarly sized budget to Warcraft, but had a lot of time to become a well known name. I wasn't really a fan of the movies tbh, but the first one did make 745m worldwide. With inflation maybe 800m? So i guess half of that isn't out of the realm of possibility. Idk what kind of profit a movie needs to get a sequel?