Warcraft movie MEGA THREAD

[Huehuecoyotl]

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.

2011 called, it wants its subscriber numbers back.

[Thimagryn]

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.

You misinterepret my point.

I was replying to someone being overcritical of 'lazy reviewers', when in reality all reviews have their purpose. The 'lazy reviews' appeal to 'lazy people'. So if there's any blame for reviewers comparing movies to a Lord of the Rings or Star Wars, it's because most of us simply accept broad generalizations as acceptable metrics. 'Unwashed masses' is a poke at the perspective of movie-comparisons in reviews are a low standard.

I can see where you would think I was talking about all reviews in general, given the complete lack of context in my reply.

[Cooper]

You misinterepret my point.

I was replying to someone being overcritical of 'lazy reviewers', when in reality all reviews have their purpose. The 'lazy reviews' appeal to 'lazy people'. So if there's any blame for reviewers comparing movies to a Lord of the Rings or Star Wars, it's because most of us simply accept broad generalizations as acceptable metrics. 'Unwashed masses' is a poke at movie-comparisons in reviews being a low standard.

I can see where you would think I was talking about all reviews in general, given the complete lack of context in my reply.

Comparing a movie being reviewed to a movie that most people will know is just an easy way to give a frame of reference to an audience. It means more to most people than "This movie's costume design and art design was too clean and glossy." How clean and glossy is too clean and glossy? By comparing it to Lord of the Rings, the reviewer's audience now has a more concrete idea. It's the same difference as "The dog is large" to "The dog is the size of an Irish Wolfhound."

This isn't to say that there aren't bad reviewers around, but using similar movies as a frame of reference in a review doesn't make one.

[Elian]

Who gave life to Orcs by the way? it is not Metzen, as some of you like to believe, But Tolkien through a collection of mythology. And therefore, it is perfectly acceptable to compare it with LOTR's success. of course, the orcs in warcraft (movie) are very different, hence they should have been called something else. then.

[Thimagryn]

Comparing a movie being reviewed to a movie that most people will know is just an easy way to give a frame of reference to an audience. It means more to most people than "This movie's costume design and art design was too clean and glossy." How clean and glossy is too clean and glossy? By comparing it to Lord of the Rings, the reviewer's audience now has a more concrete idea. It's the same difference as "The dog is large" to "The dog is the size of an Irish Wolfhound."

This isn't to say that there aren't bad reviewers around, but using similar movies as a frame of reference in a review doesn't make one.

Yes. That was my point. I was responding to someone who was equating them as one and the same

- - - Updated - - -

Who gave life to Orcs by the way? it is not Metzen, as some of you like to believe, But Tolkien through a collection of mythology. And therefore, it is perfectly acceptable to compare it with LOTR's success. of course, the orcs in warcraft (movie) are very different, hence they should have been called something else. then.

Warcraft was influenced by Warhammer (literally started as a pitch to Games Workshop), which was influenced by Tolkien's works. Orcs and Elves are a staple in high fantasy. I don't think they work the same if they were given a different name.

I always wondered though, since Orcs and Elves are so prominent in general high fantasy why sub races like Uruk-hai weren't widely adopted.

[Omnoms]

Just went to see the movie.
Wont tell you much about it although they have of course re-written some of the story. Similar to how GoT books are to the series.

Definitely worth a watch, it's good fun and interesting entertainment.
Of course it has it's shortcomings, but as a fun adventure/fantasy flick, it stood fine on its own.
People that know the lore will appreciate it, but also be slightly bugged.

Those are my unsolicited 2 cents.

[Adunai]

Who gave life to Orcs by the way? it is not Metzen, as some of you like to believe, But Tolkien through a collection of mythology. And therefore, it is perfectly acceptable to compare it with LOTR's success. of course, the orcs in warcraft (movie) are very different, hence they should have been called something else. then.

Tolkien did not invent the word Orc, he merely took it from Quenya. In the Primitive Quendian language, the root RUKU meant "the dreadful shapes ... taken by the servants of Melkor". It's about 12k years old. Source.

[Black Phillip]

This movie was DOA. Lets please be honest here.

[Cooper]

Tolkien did not invent the word Orc, he merely took it from Quenya. In the Primitive Quendian language, the root RUKU meant "the dreadful shapes ... taken by the servants of Melkor". It's about 12k years old. Source.

Is this a real post?

[Lilija]

The 5 stages of grief: Stage 1: Denial

(anger will follow)

/facepalm

The randomness of this comment is just... Thx for a good laught :P

[Xuvial]

It was fairly predictable this movie would be mostly fanservice, made by people who were also fans. They probably prioritized throwing in as many references, locations, characters, etc as possible instead of creating a deep/compelling movie.

[RyusekiV2]

The fact that you all care about shitlord critics on rotten tomatoes is hilarious. No audience review score. Keep on riding that stuffy stuck up critic dick.

[Thornquist]

Went to see it today.
Really wanted to like this movie, but its average at best.

Too tired to make a long review, but id give it a 5/10.
Prob less if I wasnt a Warcraft fan. :/

[Nachtigal]

LOL! I do love them, Im a big fan of RE, but the movies are bad... so bad. The sorty could be sooooo much better. And when they cater to 3D OMG. BLEH! Why do you think it takes forever to make a new one?

But im still gonna go see the new one and buy it to add to my collection. I wanna see how they are gonna end this thing.

Bro if it entertains you, it isn't a bad movie. And don't tell me "it's so bad it's entertaining" because it's not. Sharknado is one of those movies.

[Thimagryn]

being entertained doesn't affect the quality of a movie. You can like a bad movie, but it doesn't stop it from being bad. While the definition of quality itself can also be subjective, there are standards which we gauge movies on when talking about film quality.

[shoc]

It is well received by fans and that is the only thing that really matters.

Did anyone really expect for Warcraft to be reviewed positively by film critics, who focus on artistic quality and narrative as the basis of their reviews?

Of fucking course the Warcraft movie wasn't going to have great narrative, it was written by a dude filling the pages of a 1994 MSDOS game's instruction manual.

[Deleted]

The fact that you all care about shitlord critics on rotten tomatoes is hilarious. No audience review score. Keep on riding that stuffy stuck up critic dick.

Some of the reviews from "critics" are trash anyway. The Guardian gave it a low score; half their "review" is about the parallel of the plot to modern day politics and social justice. Like, literally half their article on it talks about the race of the humans and how the Orcs are brown invaders and so it feels like racist propaganda. Dafuq?

[Synbaby]

Most reviewers generally do not like fantasy or sci fi movies, especially cgi heavy. They are movie snobs who think truly good movies have no cgi. Look at most the Oscar best pic nominees over the years. Very few or hardly any ever got nominated for best pic.

I'm going to see it on release day in IMAX. I don't care what critics think most of the time anyways

[hulkgor]

And the RT rating keeps diving. @ 22% right now lol.

Holy hell, will it go under 20? I'm pretty sure it will, just for the stiff acting, crappy human\stormwind cgi and laughable characters like the king, garona or khadgar, and that's just from the trailer.

i'll watch it, of course, but i'm already conscious that it will be an average fantasy flick, far from Lord of the Rings quality, so i don't expect the same quality.

[Deleted]

And the RT rating keeps diving. @ 22% right now lol.

Holy hell, will it go under 20?

Does it matter? Most people like the movie