Warcraft movie: the main mistakes

[Sharde]

What bothered me is that the Orcs did not have red eyes (the green ones at least). I know this is a very small detail but details are important. Also I dislike that they did nothing with Grom in the movie, he was there in a couple of scenes but he was just a foot soldier. I feel like integrating him and his "hellscream" would have made a valuable addition to the horde and made them look more menacing. Especially the ambush in the woods opened with that instead of Blackhand just dropping from a tree.

the orcs have no red eyes because they are not yet infected by the bloodlust. will probably come in the next movie

[Deleted]

the orcs have no red eyes because they are not yet infected by the bloodlust. will probably come in the next movie

I might be mistaken but weren't the red eyes a by-product of corruption when they drank the blood of Mannoroth? Which also turned their skin green?. I know in the the movie they simplified it to just fel corruption by Gul'dan.

[Sharde]

I might be mistaken but weren't the red eyes a by-product of corruption when they drank the blood of Mannoroth? Which also turned their skin green?. I know in the the movie they simplified it to just fel corruption by Gul'dan.

that was probably one of the liberties of the movie. they turned green by gul'dan and his fel magic. the blood of mannoroth was not consumed yet. that was also the reason why the orcs defied gul'dan on several accounts. they where no mindless murdering machines yet.

this is of course only my own opinion. idk what they will do with the lore in the next movie.

[Magemaer]

It's not the first time Duncan had to deal with studio changing stuff with the final cut, the theater ending of Source Code wasn't the one he wanted.

But this is very common in Hollywood, very few directors have the power to decide anything on the final cut. That's why some even started their own production studios.

It's a very strange industry. They greenlight some obviously bad projects on the hands of weak teams, which anyone can see flopping. And negatively interfere with the work of actually competent projects and teams.
You clearly have to become extremely high regarded as a director to be able to do your work fully. We hear that even established, oscar-winning directors have difficulties getting their projects approved.

[Deleted]

that was probably one of the liberties of the movie. they turned green by gul'dan and his fel magic. the blood of mannoroth was not consumed yet. that was also the reason why the orcs defied gul'dan on several accounts. they where no mindless murdering machines yet.

this is of course only my own opinion. idk what they will do with the lore in the next movie.

You're right this is one of the freedoms the movie took. I find it strange though since originally (and not the fucked up alternate timeline fun we had in WoD) the orcs drank the blood of Mannoroth in the Temple of Karabor. Hence I would assume it would have to have been before the orcs invaded and they will just leave this completely out of the movie unfortunately.

[Servasus]

but they're talking about the movie.....not the marketing

pedantic to be pedantic?

Literally everything she said applies directly to the movie as well. Dick to be a dick?

[Sting]

I liked the movie because I could fill in some plot holes with my own knowledge. That said, what they did show was often contrary to established lore. Blackhand dying to Lothar instead of Orgrim, Orgrim not being Blackrock from the start, where the fuck was Grom Hellscream (he does make a cameo appearance once or twice, but is never mentioned by name nor does he do anything important), Dalaran already floating, Medivh being killed without Garona there, Garona having an affair with Lothar instead of with Medivh, Khadgar isn't aged at all by his fight with Medivh, fel magic needing life force instead of just demonic magic, stormwind escapes unharmed, llane's death is still by garona but under entirely different premise, fuck the list goes on man I could up half a page more. Basically almost everything you'll see in the movie is just made up out of thin air. It's enjoyable enough, but the lore is completely butchered.

[Magemaer]

It's enjoyable enough, but the lore is completely butchered.

And most of the time for the worse, to make the movie more easily digestible for your transformers-fan-movie-goer

[StraTosSpeAr]

The problem with your whole premise is that the Warcraft story hasn't ever actually been good. It was respectable and engaging, but never particularly deep. The original story until the WoW years wasn't very character-driven, and once Blizzard started trying to make Warcraft and Starcraft character-driven is when the writing turned to complete shit.

Warcraft's story was far more interesting when it was event-driven with characters to anchor you to the events. This is how WC3 was done. LotR, by contrast, is a character-driven story focused on Frodo and Sam, and that approach would never work for Warcraft; it would be absolutely awful.

[Magemaer]

The problem with your whole premise is that the Warcraft story hasn't ever actually been good. It was respectable and engaging, but never particularly deep. The original story until the WoW years wasn't very character-driven, and once Blizzard started trying to make Warcraft and Starcraft character-driven is when the writing turned to complete shit.

Warcraft's story was far more interesting when it was event-driven with characters to anchor you to the events. This is how WC3 was done. LotR, by contrast, is a character-driven story focused on Frodo and Sam, and that approach would never work for Warcraft; it would be absolutely awful.

Deep this story isn't, but it has the potential of turning into really good storytelling-media (perhaps movie). That's what i meant as 'good' here. It can look at the human heart in conflict with itself, it has dramatic turns and has catharsis.

I think you're being a bit too arbitrary in your considerations of character driven or event driven.
And i wouldn't call LotR a "character-driven story focused on Frodo and Sam".

[Masser]

do yourself a favor and read the warcraft movie novelazition. it's way better than the movie.

[Magemaer]

do yourself a favor and read the warcraft movie novelazition. it's way better than the movie.

You mean this one: http://www.amazon.com/Warcraft-Offic.../dp/1783295597 ?

[Darktbs]

Stormwind not being destroyed in the end is acceptable since they can destroy it in the sequel and WC1 didn't said who won the war since you have two campaigns.
On the movie the orcs won the battle?Yes,but their plans were ruined,kinda.

What i didn't like was Ogrim actions

*spoiler alert*

He betray his friend,then help him escape and just stand there while his friend died,yes he couln't do anything.But he should just..."Ok gul'dan,the Horde will no longer follow this path,im the Warchief now"



As much he acted well the character was...disappointing not someone i would dedicate a city to.

[StraTosSpeAr]

Deep this story isn't, but it has the potential of turning into really good storytelling-media (perhaps movie). That's what i meant as 'good' here. It can look at the human heart in conflict with itself, it has dramatic turns and has catharsis.

I think you're being a bit too arbitrary in your considerations of character driven or event driven.
And i wouldn't call LotR a "character-driven story focused on Frodo and Sam".

That is exactly what LotR was. Frodo and Sam's relationship was the center of that entire series.

And nothing about how I described those two terms is arbitrary. They mean precisely that.

[Jibjub]

Here's the main problem with the current movie industry. They do not care if it's a great movie. They do not care if they give away EVERY plot point in the trailers (trailers show just about everything these days, no mystery). They want to do one thing: sell tickets.

Now, a great movie will /probably/ make a lot of money because of word of mouth. But probablys don't put food on the marble tables. An OK movie, with the right marketing behind it, will /definitely/ make money.

If you can /definitely/ make a 25% return on investment or maybe make 100% or also make a net loss ... as a business man (the people who make movies) you are usually obligated to go for the "sure thing"

[Sanguinerd]

I really wish they would've just made the entire movie about the Orcs or something.. the entire human cast felt out of place and generally just wrong ;/ can't really explain what I felt but I just felt awkward watching it. Lothar had such a weird accent no idea what was up with that.. Llane didn't really have presence as a king and all the other humans just looked.. WEIRD MAN.

I really wanted to like the movie, and some parts I really enjoyed but the cast was just.. wrong to me. Medivh didn't look the part, Khadgar didn't look the part the list goes on. The queen was Lothar's sister but they didn't even LOOK blood related.. so adopted or.. ? wasn't clear to me.

The CGI cast was much better and even interacted better, I really enjoyed them.

Not really sure why Blizzard decided to change so much of the lore, now they have to change even more IF they're gonna make more movies at all.

[BenBos]

The movie is great as it stands.

No need to pull in no lifers with a red shirt guy attitude.

It dwarfs all other Fantasy movies in raw power and portraits of Orcs, Dwarfs and different shades of grey in good/bad already both for humans and Orcs.

A movie is a movie not a play garden for obsessed Lore fanatics.

9.5/10. I sure will buy the extended version on Blue Ray.

- - - Updated - - -

That is exactly what LotR was. Frodo and Sam's relationship was the center of that entire series.

And nothing about how I described those two terms is arbitrary. They mean precisely that.

Warcraft is pure and raw Fantasy. LotR is a nice fairy tale which -- after more than decade - aged very badly in tecnics used.

Warcraft is not about the good vs the evil. It is about the good struggling with the evil ... inside.

I liked it and it really pulled me in.

- - - Updated - - -

[Deleted]

The problem is even Duncan had his hands tied up. His "director's cut" was actually 2h 40mins and he was actually critical about the lack of trailers and the type of marketing being done for months. A small fish like him doesn't really decide those things, it's the studios.

I have to agree here, this is probably the studios calling the shots which led to this. This is further reinforced by Duncan Jones himself saying the cut was very aggressive. I think it's especially noticable in the beginning. In my opinion it's still a good movie but the director's cut will be even better. It will have more immersion and a better pace.

[Varitok]

The story has shifted and changed so much in the game that it was the right decision to streamline and write one just for the movie. You can not copy paste a videogame story over to a movie, all you can do is take the general idea and stay true to the characters. Which this movie has done well in my opinion.

See, People keep saying that but no movie ever attempts a direct adaptation of a game that has a good story. You don't know if it wouldn't work if no one has tried.

[Deleted]

To be fair about the Film It's not going to win Oscars. I actually enjoyed it, was better than i actually though it was going to be. And i probably would go see it again.
Is it the Best most classic film of all time with oscar winning performances- well No. Some of the Acting leaves a lot to be desired. The film is going to polarize opinions as most films/games do.