Warcraft movie MEGA THREAD

[BenBos]

Your opinion doesn't mean shit.

Movie sucks, no sequel.

I saw it, you didn't. BIG difference.

The people who saw it, know better.

this is PURE raw fantasy at its best.

Warcraft makes LOTR look like a clunky puppet theater really.

Warcraft''s Orcs are freightening, its Dwarfs are more natural instead of shrunk humans.

And ... ANY reviewer giving this Fantasy fest less than 4 is really a WoW hater.

Nothing more nothing less.

The movie is already a pure Cult Fantasy film. No problem to have a follow up with this blockbuster.

China and the US: here it comes ! Have fun.

[hyphnos]

Im sure RT is very very scientific when it comes to understanding how it work.

The point stands, that RT really doesn't know dick about anything. They give good review for bad movies and bad for good movies. its all about the OPINION of the people doing. not for the "greater good" so to speak.

I would trust the morons who post the Entertainment Weekly ratings over RT.

Slamming RT is about slamming RT not being a little pussy bandwagon jumper.

Dear god, you come here and make posts slamming RT while at the same time making it 100% certain that you have no earthly idea how the RT site works.

RT gives no movie anything, it merely aggregates reviews of both critics and viewers. Therefore, you are correct RT doesn't "know dick" because it's essentially a goddamned algorithm. Now do please tell us how google doesn't "know dick" about anything or some other such rot.

[Deleted]

Well, I love the LotR movies (better than the Hobbit trilogy, which was OK but very bad in some points like this artificially created Tauriel character).

I did not like them strengthening the role of Arwen, though. I get why they did it, but I did not like it. I am female, but I don't like if a story is bent to be more "inclusive" for the modern female audience. LotR is working with archaic themes, women are not fighting there (except Eowyn, who plays a decisive role on the battlefield, but afterwards, becomes a "normal" woman of that times), and the only truly strong female character in there is Galadriel, who is the most powerful Elven sorcerer in Middle Earth. Period.

In Warcraft, they did a good job presenting a different turn on that - we have had female soldiers / fighters either in the human or in the orc camp, we had a female leads with Garona (although she made a strange impression on me in some situations), Draka and Queen Taria Wrynn. Also, I always liked Warcraft because the orcs there are more "human" than their counterparts in LotR, which are just monsters. The line between good and evil is very clear in LotR, its only blurred in humans somehow. Warcraft has many shades of grey, which is more believable. (I liked the orcs in Earthdawn and Shadowrun even more, but this is a totally different story.)

Anyway, I think the movie is way better than Dungeons and Dragons. 16% is definitely not justified.

Edit: RT could be biased by the selection of people using it. If people who create reviews on RT tend to be of a special kind, and not representing the overall population of moviegoers, then the algorythm will present a skewed percentage - not because the algorithm is wrong, but because the error lies in the representation of people on the site. Anyway, I only trust in Nerdist reviews - there I know that the people share my interests and opinions regarding movies and tv shows, so if they have a good rating, I know that I will enjoy the show.

[Teebone]

https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/bla.../?search=BLAIR

RT gave Blair Witch an 86% and that movie was one of the worst movies ever.
Its the only movie ive ever ask for my movie back.

You should probable rethink where you look for "critics"

You should really understand how something works before quoting it.

- - - Updated - - -

I was wrong about the movie.

After a second view, now in full 3D I upped my score. It now stands at 9.5.

Spectacular graphics, FAR better dwarfs portrayed than in LotR and an incredible speed in both action and story.

The only reason for some low ratings are the usual WoW hater idiots.

These "reviewers" even use troll forum technics on their websites.

The movie is very good indeed. I fell asleep in Avatar and the latest SW. I had no time to be bored 3 seconds in "Warcraft".

My son found it fantastic too btw.

I think low raters are simply idiots. Next time do a review of a black and white French speaking movie with 2 hours of monologues please.

Do you need to be an ex-player? Not at all.

THIS movie IS at least pure Fantasy, not some half baken dwarfs shrunk from humans or wearing ridiculous masks in Star Wars.

Frankly: the CGI in this movie beats Lord of the Rings many times. Lotr looks like kid stuff in this respect today.

Orcs in Lotr are extreme inferior to what we see here in Warcraft.

That's the reality. Giving 0/10 and 1 or 2's is simply trolling.

Translation: Anyone who disagrees with me is a troll.

So what exactly does that make you?

[Aori]

...OUCH.
10chars

"When an army of musclebound CGI trolls invades the human realm, the daftly named but forgettable characters hop all over the place via teleportation spells and giant lion-eagles, so it’s impossible to keep track of any of them."

I laughed a bit. Warcraft should have been made more casual, it is clearly to hard to watch.

[Teebone]

"When an army of musclebound CGI trolls invades the human realm, the daftly named but forgettable characters hop all over the place via teleportation spells and giant lion-eagles, so it’s impossible to keep track of any of them."

I laughed a bit. Warcraft should have been made more casual, it is clearly to hard to watch.

I hate defending WarCrap, but I suppose I should point out that anyone completely unfamiliar with the story, background and lore of this universe isn't going to follow along right away. That would be anyone who isn't playing WarCrap, has never played WarCrap and has no interest IN playing WarCrap. This is a valid point but it is also a bit of bias [which would be the slight defense in WarCrap I will offer].

[VTerpsichore]

RT doesn't give anything o_O it gathers critics reviews and gives a percentage of how many think the movie is good. I don't understand what you're missing about that.

That said, I read some of the reviews RT is using and I don't take at least half of the critics opinions seriously in the case of this movie. It's going to be another wiiiide gap in critic reviews vs. moviegoers that we see more often these days.



I SEE WHAT YOU DID THERE

Yes, i understand how it woks. same as Entertainment weekly, metacritic, and the others. Even IMDb (who gives a very positive rating) but regardless of these sites actually complete there own review of the movies, these are the REVIEWS they have GIVEN to to public by choosing to not review it themselves.

The BOLD you have written is basically what im talking about. Just because a site picks and chooses its reviews and they give bad reviews means nothing. There are many out there.

RT is like most of the tool-bags on here, they read or listen to a few select people or quotes and minds are made up.

[Alomega]

For everyone poo poo'ing RT's methodology.

Think of the last 5-6 movies you saw and greatly enjoyed and look up their RT%

Think of the last 2-3 movies you saw and thought sucked, and look up their RT%

I don't currently have the time to list that many movies but off the top of my head:

The Witch: RT score is 91% yet the audience score is 55%...

The movie was borderline okay. Nowhere near the 91% though. It is more in line with the audience score. That is just one example where critics prefer "artsy" films over your average everyday film that is just there to entertain people. For what it is worth the IMDB rating is 6.8. Nowhere near what the critics gave it.

I honestly don't know why people think critics are godsend. I for one don't give a shit about either RT nor IMDB ratings. I make up my own mind whether I want to see a movie or not. When in doubt, wait for the DVD / Blu-ray is my motto.

Besides, who cares if it flops in America. Legendary is a subsidiary of a Chinese conglomerate, Wanda Group. I'm sure they will be willing to help secure funding a sequel if it performs well enough in China and other international markets.

[VTerpsichore]

Dear god, you come here and make posts slamming RT while at the same time making it 100% certain that you have no earthly idea how the RT site works.

RT gives no movie anything, it merely aggregates reviews of both critics and viewers. Therefore, you are correct RT doesn't "know dick" because it's essentially a goddamned algorithm. Now do please tell us how google doesn't "know dick" about anything or some other such rot.

again, you, like other assume i have no clue. how it works. and just wanna bitch a moan. OMG OMG OMG!
ive made a reply about it in a post before this.

Again. by choosing to not review the movies themselves, and only post reviews, (shitty reviews) but reviews of others means this is the review they have GIVEN!

Google knows everything brah!

[BenBos]

Well, I love the LotR movies (better than the Hobbit trilogy, which was OK but very bad in some points like this artificially created Tauriel character).

I did not like them strengthening the role of Arwen, though. I get why they did it, but I did not like it. I am female, but I don't like if a story is bent to be more "inclusive" for the modern female audience. LotR is working with archaic themes, women are not fighting there (except Eowyn, who plays a decisive role on the battlefield, but afterwards, becomes a "normal" woman of that times), and the only truly strong female character in there is Galadriel, who is the most powerful Elven sorcerer in Middle Earth. Period.

In Warcraft, they did a good job presenting a different turn on that - we have had female soldiers / fighters either in the human or in the orc camp, we had a female leads with Garona (although she made a strange impression on me in some situations), Draka and Queen Taria Wrynn. Also, I always liked Warcraft because the orcs there are more "human" than their counterparts in LotR, which are just monsters. The line between good and evil is very clear in LotR, its only blurred in humans somehow. Warcraft has many shades of grey, which is more believable. (I liked the orcs in Earthdawn and Shadowrun even more, but this is a totally different story.)

Anyway, I think the movie is way better than Dungeons and Dragons. 16% is definitely not justified.

Edit: RT could be biased by the selection of people using it. If people who create reviews on RT tend to be of a special kind, and not representing the overall population of moviegoers, then the algorythm will present a skewed percentage - not because the algorithm is wrong, but because the error lies in the representation of people on the site. Anyway, I only trust in Nerdist reviews - there I know that the people share my interests and opinions regarding movies and tv shows, so if they have a good rating, I know that I will enjoy the show.

I sure can understand your arguments. And we agree after watching the movie: the low raters have an agenda, which is simply showing by their ridiculous scores.

Actually the movie impressed me so much in a second view that I began to compare Warcraft with other Fantasy movies and I really don't see anything near it with your excellent description of "different shades of grey".

And my feeling never deceived me really. This movie is a rock solid Action Fantasy adventure with huge wide openings to more stories. With the latest news incoming from China, 150 million dollars in just the first week, it is just a matter of months before they will announce a second project around Warcraft 2.

Duncan Jones did a great job to leave the field of the boring fairy tales and showed some real Fantasy. I hope the raw meat will be even more present next time around.

[BenBos]

You should really understand how something works before quoting it.

- - - Updated - - -



Translation: Anyone who disagrees with me is a troll.

So what exactly does that make you?

A smart guy who sees through the obvious usual suspects in these forums.

I saw the movie and frankly I don't see anyone here who watched it too that could agree with a score under 4 ...

So it is quite evident. It says it all really and simply proves the hate scores are badly camouflaged trolls on whatever medium.

Because the movie is far better than a 1/2/3/-10. Anyone who saw it in a theater knows this by now.

What we see here is the usual WoW hate, now projected through other means, but just like Overwatch gets a 7 because a few dozen idiots vote 1/10, so are some silly haters voting to down rate the movie.

A movie that has 7.9 ratings by 35.000 viewers already...

[Jerichofr]

I still kind of want to see it, but the fact that it's basically orcs vs humans is a major negative to me.

[BenBos]

I still kind of want to see it, but the fact that it's basically orcs vs humans is a major negative to me.

It is NOT orcs vs humans.

It is different kinds of orcs vs different kinds of humans, each battling the corruption and heroism within.

Actually I saw more fights between Orcs than Ocrs fighting humans ... and the few Dwarfs and other races in it are awesome too.

I guess the few Dwarf scenes are forever burned on my brains as of now : epic.

[Tart]

I don't think we should focus on that percentage, personally. With the way the calculation is structured, you could have every review getting just over the cutoff (is the cutoff for a fresh film 3/5 stars?) and it would be 100%. If every critic was just under the cutoff, it would get 0%.

Wild variances for very little difference in perceived quality. It just isn't a metric that any sensible person would use to try and properly measure the reactions to anything.

The average rating is currently 4.2/10 from the reviewers. Which is a better way of measuring, but could still stand the removal of some of the outliers (I think one reviewer gave it 0/100, which is clearly nonsense).

Its reached the dizzy heights of 18 now hasyahacutol

[Reyvah]

Because the movie is far better than a 1/2/3/-10. Anyone who saw it in a theater knows this by now.

Show a little empathy, and look at the review from someone's perspective who isn't a Warcraft fan. Or heck, a different Warcraft fan.

I loved the 1986 original "Transformers The Movie" animated 1.5 hour commercial of a film haha. It was awesome, it had robots killing each other in epic sieges, it murdered off major characters like Optimus Prime in crazy lightsaber duels, it featured a literal planet-eating monster of a machine, and even featured a Weird Al parody song "Dare to Be Stupid". It was delightful, and everything I ever wanted as a kid. I'd score it a solid 9/10 and I'll still happily watch it today.

The 2007 Transformers reboot with Shia and Fox though? A huge letdown for me, I was crushed after leaving that theater. I'd rate it as 2/10, if only because I got to hear Peter Cullen voicing Optimus Prime again. A lot of people enjoyed the film, but I thought it was a dumpster fire (and this is coming from an excited Transformers fan who had the toys, comic books, lunch box, and drew my own made-up characters).

The point is, there's no conspiracy behind my personal reviews. I simply didn't enjoy it. It's not that I didn't "get" the Transformers source material, or I didn't appreciate the CGI - I just found the movie to be nothing that I was looking for.

My opinion doesn't detract from other fan's enjoyment of the reboot - but I'm not going to raise my personal score just because other people enjoyed it.

[karzal]

It's not really, is it?
That's one of the things Duncan supposedly changed once he became director of the movie. He wanted to make sure people saw both sides of the conflict and that it wouldn't just be a generic orcs vs humans story.

[Plehnard]

It's not really, is it?
That's one of the things Duncan supposedly changed once he became director of the movie. He wanted to make sure people saw both sides of the conflict and that it wouldn't just be a generic orcs vs humans story.

And he succeeded in doing that. Not all Orcs are evil in this story, tbh. the two most likeable characters were on the orc side.
Don't listen to the extremists in this threat who haven't even seen the movie they spill their hate all over here.

[Glorious Leader]

The movie, for me and my friends, was at least as enjoyable as Civil War.
In the end, just like the game industry with it's purely bought reviews, i do believe that Disney might pay a little more for "marketing".

Its possible. OR YOU AND EVERYONE ON A WARCRAFT FAN SITE SHOCKINGLY LIKES THE WARCRAFT MOVIE. I'll leave you to decide which is the more likely of the two.

[OreoLover]

^ I would dig it, if everyone on this site was "slightly negative or better" about the movie existing.

Very disgusted by "I hope Blizzard fails at everything; they're shit" posters, especially the ones who turn around and say "I loved their past and would gladly go back to it; I can't move on."

[Glorious Leader]

^ I would dig it, if everyone on this site was "slightly negative or better" about the movie existing.

Very disgusted by "I hope Blizzard fails at everything; they're shit" posters, especially the ones who turn around and say "I loved their past and would gladly go back to it; I can't move on."

This is not logical. I'm sure I can find positive reviews of the movie as well. Does that mean we can accept the 16% aggregate review at rt? Why does the handful of people who are negative about it on a fan site invalidate the obvious bias coming from the fact that it is a fan site? Should the hand full of positive reviews vindicate the negative critics?