Warcraft movie MEGA THREAD

[Thimagryn]

I'm not sure what the goal of these reviews is, to be honest. If Warcraft had been more similar to LotR, it would have been called a rip-off. But since it's different, it's by default not as good. What exactly did these people want from this movie?

Sounds like you don't understand the point of reviews. If reviews aren't for you, then I'm sure you have nothing to worry about.

[Ultimacy]

The latest Rocky (creed) is a fine example, 94% really??. I would rather watch my parents have sex then watch that again.

Why would you want to watch the movie again afterwards?

[Kauko]

You mean aside from 60 years of book sales? You're comparing a Video Game Movie, which have, historically, failed time & time again at Hollywood, to literally one of the most successful books in history, which hadn't been adapted years earlier only because it was deemed "unfilmable" by anyone who tried to.

I don't get what has this to do with what i said...
Lotro(one of the best books/movies ever) as a book is far less complex to make as a movie than Warcraft. You have 3 books. Sure, there is Silmarilion, Hobbit... but this stories are not necessary for a "newb" to understand the Lotro book trilogy. The same with Hobbit. But in Warcraft, if you read only for instance Lord of the Clans, you have no clue what the hell is happening. Who is Thrall, where he came from etc etc... So, from that, I wanted to make a point that for the success of the movie, they should have made at least two parts from this one movie. Its like if Lotro movie started when Fellowship split and new Characters were appearing in every 2nd scene. Jones and the crew just put to much of a story in a 2h long movie. With that, they simply couldn't develop characters for "newbs" to understand.

[Soulwind]

Sounds like you don't understand the point of reviews. If reviews aren't for you, then I'm sure you have nothing to worry about.

You can review a movie by its own merits without using other movies as a metric of what it should be. In fact, that's how a proper review is done.

Lazy "journalists" writing a couple paragraphs full of comparisons and jokes aren't giving any more information than what a score can provide. Those are just roundabout ways of just saying that they liked or disliked something, not any more reliable than a comment on youtube or a post on reddit.

[Eldar45]

http://collider.com/warcraft-review-movie-talk/

[Baracuda]

I don't get what has this to do with what i said...
Lotro(one of the best books/movies ever) as a book is far less complex to make as a movie than Warcraft. You have 3 books. Sure, there is Silmarilion, Hobbit... but this stories are not necessary for a "newb" to understand the Lotro book trilogy. The same with Hobbit. But in Warcraft, if you read only for instance Lord of the Clans, you have no clue what the hell is happening. Who is Thrall, where he came from etc etc... So, from that, I wanted to make a point that for the success of the movie, they should have made at least two parts from this one movie. Its like if Lotro movie started when Fellowship split and new Characters were appearing in every 2nd scene. Jones and the crew just put to much of a story in a 2h long movie. With that, they simply couldn't develop characters for "newbs" to understand.

Many movies nowadays have a problem with trying to cram in too many characters, hope we don't have to deal with it for long. It's funny because Warcraft I has almost no story whatsoever so it's not like they must have a ton of characters...

[Huehuecoyotl]

I saw the movie yesterday and it was good.
Thing is, if you aren´t familiar with Wow or Warcraft´s lore, you will find the movie very dull.

So in your view the movie isn't very good; it is only made good by a depth of experience with the game.

Sounds almost as though you are agreeing with the critics; because why they hell would they base the review of a film on whether you had played the game or not? If LotR had required everyone to read the books from cover to cover, it would have failed as a film. It might still have looked and sounded great, and may even have rated relatively highly with critics as a result, but it would still have failed, and been rated accordingly.

It didn't need that background; it stood on its own merits as a piece of art. Something that, by the sounds of it (and your opinion) this film does not.

[oathy]

Thing is again reviews in the UK are linking the film with GOT!! and its just showing these reviewers haven't got a clue about WOW or its history
Said in another thread look at the Resident Evil films almost everyone of them has had dire reviews. But Sequels have been made if the film delivers financially
more will be made. My guess is all the parties are hoping the subscriber base will see the movie making it viable

http://www.digitalspy.com/movies/rev...inning-review/

[Thimagryn]

You can review a movie by its own merits without using other movies as a metric of what it should be. In fact, that's how a proper review is done.

Lazy "journalists" writing a couple paragraphs full of comparisons and jokes aren't giving any more information than what a score can provide. Those are just roundabout ways of just saying that they liked or disliked something, not any more reliable than a comment on youtube or a post on reddit.

In an ideal world, we wouldn't need reviews because people are smart enough to make those judgements for themselves. So really, the blame shouldn't be on lazy journalists, it should be on lazy people.

But of course, it's easier to point fingers at critics because we can visually point out the ones doing their job badly. Who would blame the unwashed masses amirite?

[Thelxi]

Damn dropped even lower than 29% now. Who knew they were being generous with the 40% lol.

[Soulwind]

In an ideal world, we wouldn't need reviews because people are smart enough to make those judgements for themselves. So really, the blame shouldn't be on lazy journalists, it should be on lazy people.

But of course, it's easier to point fingers at critics because we can visually point out the ones doing their job badly. Who would blame the unwashed masses amirite?

You can't expect everyone to watch every single movie out there. Critics are a filter. Bad critics are a bad filter.

[Cooper]

In an ideal world, we wouldn't need reviews because people are smart enough to make those judgements for themselves. So really, the blame shouldn't be on lazy journalists, it should be on lazy people.

But of course, it's easier to point fingers at critics because we can visually point out the ones doing their job badly. Who would blame the unwashed masses amirite?

How is somebody supposed to make those decisions without information? It's not like people can just independently, magically know whether a movie is worth their time before actually seeing the movie. That's what why movie reviews exist; without them the only way for people to decide which movies to spend their money on would be advertising (obviously biased information) and maybe word-of-mouth.

[lolbubble]

Damn dropped even lower than 29% now. Who knew they were being generous with the 40% lol.

its at 22% now....LMAO

[Roadblock]

1) We can't evaluate something we haven't seen
2) The problem isn't that some reviews are bad. The problem is those bad reviews are dumb and don't make any sense.

The 5 stages of grief: Stage 1: Denial

(anger will follow)

[Thimagryn]

How is somebody supposed to make those decisions without information? It's not like people can just independently, magically know whether a movie is worth their time before actually seeing the movie. That's what why movie reviews exist; without them the only way for people to decide which movies to spend their money on would be advertising (obviously biased information) and maybe word-of-mouth.

Make those decisions by watching the movie. If dedicating time to watch a movie requires forethought and planning, then that's really up to the person to decide whether it's worth the time or not. But no one can ever tell you what a good or bad movie will be, that's up for the individual to decide.

We rarely spend this much forethought into trying a new restaurant or choosing a new brand of soap. Perhaps it's the volume of available movies that makes it difficult to choose, which makes reviews a necessary form of information to rely on?

[daywalker02]

its at 22% now....LMAO

still 37% at metacritic

[TheTaurenOrc]

Most of you are right about the critics, there is more than just the star count they give it that can be read into.

They are not going to shit on a movie even if its is bad for fear of pissing off the studio and not getting invited another advance screening. Especially the smaller websites and publications. They are very softly, softly with their reviews. No name websites giving it 3/5 and small papers with a more ballsy 2/5.... yeh its crap.

Empire magazine weighed in with 2/5, personally they haven't let me down in the past and they don't give out 5/5 easily either. None I am sure some of you will dredge up some outliner examples to try and discredit them. Go ahead and take one step more instead of throwing up some crappy movie and going "look they gave X 4/5" show me some great movies that are <30% on Rottentomatoes.

[Cooper]

Make those decisions by watching the movie. If dedicating time to watch a movie requires forethought and planning, then that's really up to the person to decide whether it's worth the time or not. But no one can ever tell you what a good or bad movie will be, that's up for the individual to decide.

We rarely spend this much forethought into trying a new restaurant or choosing a new brand of soap. Perhaps it's the volume of available movies that makes it difficult to choose, which makes reviews a necessary form of information to rely on?

First of all, there's a whole industry built around giving restaurants stars. There are guidebooks just for that. There is a lot of prestige in being a 5-star Michelin restaurant, but even beyond that there's things like Yelp. Lots of people ask "Hey, that new restaurant opened up. Is it any good?"

Movie reviews are a guide. People have limited time and money, and movie reviews (like any other sort of review) help them decide where to spend that time and money. The only difference between choosing what movie to spend time and money on, and what washer and dryer set to spend money on, is the scale of the commitment. People aren't "stupid, unwashed masses" for looking up what Kenneth Turan thought of a movie.

[jackofwind]

First of all, there's a whole industry built around giving restaurants stars. There are guidebooks just for that. There is a lot of prestige in being a 5-star Michelin restaurant, but even beyond that there's things like Yelp. Lots of people ask "Hey, that new restaurant opened up. Is it any good?"

Movie reviews are a guide. People have limited time and money, and movie reviews (like any other sort of review) help them decide where to spend that time and money. The only difference between choosing what movie to spend time and money on, and what washer and dryer set to spend money on, is the scale of the commitment. People aren't "stupid, unwashed masses" for looking up what Kenneth Turan thought of a movie.

People who take Yelp reviews to heart are dumbasses. Make up your own mind about things and don't rely on other people to feed you their opinions as if they're facts.

[zsecmmo]

Their are what 11+ million people that play WoW? This is only a small percentage of reviews. The movie is going to own box office you watch.