Warcraft movie MEGA THREAD

[Zaqwert]

International box office is of course great, but as I pointed out, they get less % of every international market than domestic typically, varying significantly by country.

So yes, doing good international box office does help a movie's bottom line, but $1 domestic box office is > $1 international typically.

[daywalker02]

International box office is of course great, but as I pointed out, they get less % of every international market than domestic typically, varying significantly by country.

So yes, doing good international box office does help a movie's bottom line, but $1 domestic box office is > $1 international typically.

Their marketing team did very well to postpone domestic release and move it behind Europe, China.

- I cannot imagine what a disaster or disappointment it would have been if it opened in the US and Canada first because of haters, critics who have set up

their minds that LOTR cannot be surpassed yet feel the need to compare every fantasy film to it.

- Now I think it has a better chance to attract more audience with the good news from Europe and China.

IMO Domestic numbers are as important as international numbers

- Yes, while Blizzard, Legendary, and Universal want to make money there is a higher motive here, Blizzard wants to be recognized on the big screen.

- Getting an opportunity to shoot a sequel is of utmost relevance to the Warcraft franchise.

Fans and newbs should have an opportunity to watch more of Warcraft.

- And perhaps it would encourage making a Starcraft or Diablo movie. Who knows?

[SDMF]

Their marketing team did very well to postpone domestic release and move it behind Europe, China.

- I cannot imagine what a disaster or disappointment it would have been if it opened in the US and Canada first because of haters, critics who have set up

their minds that LOTR cannot be surpassed yet feel the need to compare every fantasy film to it.

- Now I think it has a better chance to attract more audience with the good news from Europe and China.

IMO Domestic numbers are as important as international numbers

- Yes, while Blizzard, Legendary, and Universal want to make money there is a higher motive here, Blizzard wants to be recognized on the big screen.

- Getting an opportunity to shoot a sequel is of utmost relevance to the Warcraft franchise.

Fans and newbs should have an opportunity to watch more of Warcraft.

- And perhaps it would encourage making a Starcraft or Diablo movie. Who knows?

"Haters and critics who thinks all fantasy flicks are inferior to LotR are working together in unison trying to make this movie flop, I'm telling you guys!!!"
You're beginning to sound like a crazy person. There's no worldwide conspiracy, there's no hidden agenda. It's just an average movie. I won't watch it because the trailers utterly failed to impress me.
Trailers are all about making you excited and hyped to see a movie, yet I cringed at how bad it all looked. Based on that, I say the reviews so far has been pretty much on point.

[Lotus Victoria]

Watched it yesterday. FUCKING INSANELY AMAZING.

[Plehnard]

I still think $25mil domestic opening is a bit pessimistic, but time will tell.

They were counting with roughly 20 million with the first wave of markets as well and it turned out to be 31.
In Germany the movie had the best start this year, outperforming giants like "captain America: civil wars" and "x-men: apocalypse" and getting in double the viewership than the new Alice film which started in the same week.
I personally don't think the film will bomb in the US.

Trailers are all about making you excited and hyped to see a movie, yet I cringed at how bad it all looked. Based on that, I say the reviews so far has been pretty much on point.

The trailers were utter shit compared to the end result.

[Deleted]

I usually only trust IMDB reviews as they seem to be the most accurate. Only had one miss with Birdman which, IMO, was the worst garbage imaginable but got a high rating there. Rotten Tomatoes tends to be biased and give higher scores to these so-called "quality movies".. or low budget French black and white artistic borefests.

[Huehuecoyotl]

The problem is that critics like to compare every fantasy film to the Lord of the Rings.

It's a fantasy film. That the makers want to be a trilogy. That involves humans fighting against orcs. And you are apparently surprised that the critics are comparing it to LotR.

You know that almost every review ever written will have some kind of comparison to previous films; to allow the readers to put the film into a context. If they weren't going to compare it to LotR, what exactly should they have compared it to? Citizen Kane? Austin Powers?

Come on now, put some effort in. Instead of just complaining about who they did compare it to, give us the benefit of your vast experience, and let us know which movies it should be compared to.

[The Kao]

This film is... hm.

Okay so it may not be ultra bad per se. I'll give it that. It's quite the accurate depiction of the game - if you can say that - which is interesting and probably holds up well for anyone interested. But with that also come a lot of problems and those begin with the fact that it's a 2h movie and not a game. To have this story work for itself on the big screen thus reveals a lot of its shortcomings. Which are most prominently, an insanely large cast that can in no way be dealt with appropriately in 2 hours, a very shallow story construct that does not only feel like, but is in fact taken directly from a 90s pc game with almost no attempt to spice it up, and of course the looming feeling that we've somehow seen all this so many times before. All those are inherent flaws - for a movie - that derive directly from the fact that it is much too faithful to the game.

So while I see how some may get their enjoyment out of this - and why there are so many of you here - it feels very basic and unrefreshing as a whole. Like watching the 7th installment of a comedy fanchise that wasn't funny after the 3rd film anymore. It even has the same level of "feeling left out" if you're not into the franchise. It may be good in some way. However as a movie it simply has to compare to other movies, especially to those that are more or less alike. That's fair assessment really, and in that comparison, frankly, it loses to the majority of medieval fantasy outings done in the past 20 years.

Hold it as high as you like, no problem. To everyone their taste. But end of the day, as a movie, it is simply not very outstanding at all, and that is simply because it is just what it is, and nothing beyond - a Warcraft movie.

[Grimtide]

I was pleasantly surprised by the movie, following the awful trailers and posters. I felt it got off to a slow start, but was 'ok', then when it got the first confrontation between the orcs and humans I felt it was getting better, and by the end I was very into it. I did also feel like they struggled to fit so much into two hours, and some important things were left unexplained.

[SDMF]

That is not what he said.

The problem is that critics like to compare every fantasy film to the Lord of the Rings.
That's a trilogy that was nominated for 30 Oscars, won 17 of them and is based on a book that is almost 70 years old and has been sold over 150 million times.
That series made three billion dollar.

That's like comparing every new song to Beethoven's Pianosonate 14 (pt 3) because it makes you look smart.

If they're of the same genre, I see nothing wrong with it. People compare Beethoven to other composers such as Bach, Wagner and Mozart all the time. If you expect a score of 10, meaning absolute perfection, you have to put out something truly spectacular.
Just like The Dark Knight set the tone for superhero movies, Lord of the Rings set the tone for fantasy movies. In this case, they're both fantasy movies with orcs and humans in it so of course comparisons are going to be made.

[Deleted]

Would've been smarter if they went for the Arthas/Lich King story right away.

[Fojos]

"Haters and critics who thinks all fantasy flicks are inferior to LotR are working together in unison trying to make this movie flop, I'm telling you guys!!!"
You're beginning to sound like a crazy person. There's no worldwide conspiracy, there's no hidden agenda. It's just an average movie. I won't watch it because the trailers utterly failed to impress me.
Trailers are all about making you excited and hyped to see a movie, yet I cringed at how bad it all looked. Based on that, I say the reviews so far has been pretty much on point.

An average movie where critics give it 20 points. Average is generally considered 6/10.

Critics loved hunger games and it's fucking shit. Sometimes the feeling is that money is involved.

Avatar they also loved which only had effects going for it, and the effects in Warcraft were better.

[Garthul]

If they're of the same genre, I see nothing wrong with it. People compare Beethoven to other composers such as Bach, Wagner and Mozart all the time. If you expect a score of 10, meaning absolute perfection, you have to put out something truly spectacular.
Just like The Dark Knight set the tone for superhero movies, Lord of the Rings set the tone for fantasy movies. In this case, they're both fantasy movies with orcs and humans in it so of course comparisons are going to be made.

The problem there is a distinction between comparing two related things and weighing their differences and basing your standards of one upon the other and counting any differentiation as a failing. There is a fundamental difference in the structures of the conflicts in LotR and Warcraft. There is no racial conflict in LotR, the orcs have no agency and are merely an extension of Sauron's will. It's an idealized story, a true fantasy in the literal sense of the word. Warcraft's conflict is informed by our understanding of real conflict. The orcs are not a simple evil 'other', they are a faction as multifaceted and complex as any other.
The only relation between LotR and Warcraft orcs is that they are called orcs.

[Soulwind]

It's a fantasy film. That the makers want to be a trilogy. That involves humans fighting against orcs. And you are apparently surprised that the critics are comparing it to LotR.

You know that almost every review ever written will have some kind of comparison to previous films; to allow the readers to put the film into a context. If they weren't going to compare it to LotR, what exactly should they have compared it to? Citizen Kane? Austin Powers?

Come on now, put some effort in. Instead of just complaining about who they did compare it to, give us the benefit of your vast experience, and let us know which movies it should be compared to.

It's a fantasy film. It has orcs. The similarities with LotR pretty much end there.

"It's a trilogy" is a ridiculous comparison. So is Nolan's Batman, or the Matrix, should we compare Warcraft to those aswell?

This is a fun, visually impressive war movie between two cultures like Avatar, not a journey with a new threat around each corner like LotR.

It features both sides of the story, like Planet of the Apes, not a group of good heroes against an ancient evil who commands a faceless army like LotR.

The characters are heroic and powerful, like in comic book movies, not unlikely heroes like the hobbits.

So while the theme is similar to LotR, or any other fantasy franchise really, the execution is very different, and there are much better comparisons. Not that comparisons are of any use in a proper review.

The problem with these reviews is that they are judging Warcraft in a "1 to LotR" scale, and those differences are seen as flaws, while at the same time, the similarities are seen as plagiarism, and frown upon. You literally can't win on those terms.

What's funny is that the real flaws of the movie, such as the breakneck speed the characters are introduced with in the first few minutes, aren't even mentioned in many of those. What's a review good for if it doesn't address the real issues of a product, and proceeds to make up its own?

[Sharein]

It's a fantasy film. That the makers want to be a trilogy. That involves humans fighting against orcs. And you are apparently surprised that the critics are comparing it to LotR.

It makes them look like amateurs that haven't actually seen the movie but write a review based on what they hear from other people, with the same mindset as them. It just makes you look daft tbh, like a student that hasn't bothered to do his research before writing a paper.

Ofcourse it's not of the same quality as the LotR trilogy, expecting them to be is stupid considering the LotR movies are pretty much the best movies ever made.

[SDMF]

An average movie where critics give it 20 points. Average is generally considered 6/10.

Critics loved hunger games and it's fucking shit. Sometimes the feeling is that money is involved.

Average means it's neither good or bad, which directly translates into 5/10.

The problem there is a distinction between comparing two related things and weighing their differences and basing your standards of one upon the other and counting any differentiation as a failing. There is a fundamental difference in the structures of the conflicts in LotR and Warcraft. There is no racial conflict in LotR, the orcs have no agency and are merely an extension of Sauron's will. It's an idealized story, a true fantasy in the literal sense of the word. Warcraft's conflict is informed by our understanding of real conflict. The orcs are not a simple evil 'other', they are a faction as multifaceted and complex as any other.
The only relation between LotR and Warcraft orcs is that they are called orcs.

So what you're saying is that two different movies have two different stories, who would have thought? No matter how much you try to twist and turn it, they're still fantasy movies with orcs in them and that is why a comparison always will be valid.
Reign in Blood sounds nothing like Master of Puppets, yet they're still always compared to each other. Why? Because they're both thrash albums.

[dess]

40% at least is better rating then BvS ... lol

[Tackhisis]

they are a faction as multifaceted and complex as any other.

In the movie, they are just mindless killers compelled to do every whim of their master Gul'dan.

[Techno-Druid]

Would've been smarter if they went for the Arthas/Lich King story right away.

That wouldn't have made sense. If you're going to do a Warcraft movie franchise that doesn't start with the first orcish invasion, it should either cover the entirety of Warcraft 3 in two maybe three movies or you should start at Pre-WoW-Vanilla where the first major conflicts between the New Alliance and New Horde escalated.

[Seezer]

Surprise level: 0.0%.

We all knew this was going to be a dud from the very beginning. It is a GAME MOVIE, they never ever ever ever ever ever ever turn out well.

And every disgruntled nerd is going to bash anything related to blizz. That's why the surprise level is 0.0%.