[Movie] Warcraft (June 2016)

[Pull My Finger]

I wouldn't exactly call Equilibrium good. It's not, from a cinematographic point of view.

I think you mean "from a movie-snobby point of view". Just because one views themselves as a discerning cinema connaisseur, it doesn't mean that they hold universally true and "correct" values and opinions on film making - or that such a thing exists.

[ryanmahaffe]

The pacing is only that bad in the first 15 minutes, the acting is good, if you are giving a movie flak for not having amazing acting than that's just stupid, good acting is just that good, and a lot of these characters are really good actors doing really good jobs.

Seriously, Any of the lord of the rings movies or hobbits are no better than this, with just as much unexplained shit, just more stretched out to have "better pacing"

[TirielWoW]

Funny you should say that. I also thought it was a simple but great retcon (not often that happens at all)! It sure as heck makes it easier to explain than going back through layer after heavy layer of titanic, universe bounding, good-vs-evil lore characters just to get to Sargeras' will.

However, I do hope they have at least written the plots and screenplays of any future Warcraft movies so tidbits like these are still consistent ...

Yep, in some ways, I thought it made it worse because she was in control of her own actions. Nevermind that Llane asked her to do it, she still has to live with it - and with the knowledge that Lothar, who has her mother's tusk, will never forgive her for it.

[Tempguy]

I always wonder why fans of this are so against it being anything like LOTR. When people think of fantasy done right, they think of those films.

Why would you be against that? Would you rather be closer to Dungeons and Dragons?

[Jotun]

I find it funny that some people act as if the acting is objectively bad or sub-par in this film. The biggest part of good acting is making your character seem believable, which is subject to change from person to person watching the performance. It is very hard in a lot of cases to objectively pinpoint a 'bad performance', especially if the film doesn't call for a lot of emotional/'over the top acting'. I found the acting good, I didn't have trouble believing any of the characters. It was never meant to be a fullblown drama with a ton of emotional scenes, and I found the more 'subtle' approach of acting refreshing and natural a lot of the times. An example of this is when Blackhand kills Lothar's son, a lot of people expect the usual over the top yelling/crying/'noooooooo!'. I loved the fact that it was shown more in his eyes and that he wouldn't show weakness in the face of Blackhand by giving him that satisfaction as Blackhand was staring and grinning at him. Anyway, that's just my opinion on the whole matter.

[daywalker02]

From your critical standpoint 85% of all movies are pure shit from 0-3 10% are from 4-6 4.9% 7-9 and 0.1% is a masterpiece
if that's the case I agree with you

do you know where most of the production money went? Should be CGI but is there a source?

[Pull My Finger]

Spoken like someone who is regulary heard on second opinions from How Did This Get Made?

More like spoken without having one's head up the ass at all times.

[Deleted]

do you know where most of the production money went? Should be CGI but is there a source?

CGI and all the stuff they've built

[Deleted]

I always wonder why fans of this are so against it being anything like LOTR. When people think of fantasy done right, they think of those films.

Why would you be against that? Would you rather be closer to Dungeons and Dragons?

I'm not against, but I grown in a decade where corny fantasy movies were pretty much everywhere (Conan, Neverending Story, Dark Crystal) and no one had a problem with that. Much like the superhero movies today. LotR isn't or shouldn't be the absolute model of fantasy movies.

[Deleted]

Right, and Zardoz shouldn't either.

Just because you posted:



But Zardoz is 1974, He-man would be a worse example from the 80s.

[daywalker02]

CGI and all the stuff they've built

are there exact numbers?

[Pull My Finger]

Rofl. There it is. Get over the fact that people have seen movies and have an opinion on them. If it is a lot of movies then that begins to include things like cinematography and other technical aspects. You may enjoy movies no matter how badly they are shot, not everyone does though.

You should stop whining in my ear. And also assuming that you actually know more about this stuff than the person you're talking to. Easy to make a fool out of oneself that way.

[Faier]

It's not only a matter of liking or disliking a movie, it's a matter of judging a piece of art with standards pertaining to the field of this work of art.
You can like a work of art which is regarded as poor in its field. But critics will judge the piece of art in regard to what is done in its field (it is what being a professional critics means).

lol

ALL Movie critic's reviews are VERY SUBJECTIVE. There is SOME objectiveness in SOME reviews. Otherwise they would ALL agree on the problem of the film (or any film). They DON'T. Most of them find the movie bad, but the reasons are quite varied, some more common than others. Take actors, who's good and who's bad. It is all over the place. CGI is something more objective to analyse. Is the CGI groundbreaking or terrible? I cant tell by critics reviews.

Iv'e read quite a few reviews of very renowned and knowledgeable critics who enjoyed the film and their review had far more positive than negative things to say about the film. Are they lying?

Listen to a podcast with a group of critics and academics, watch they discuss any film. Opinions are all over the place. Sometimes the same aspect is thought great by a critic and disliked by another. Who's is right?

As in any profession, there are all kinds of movie critics. Talented and not. Capable and not. Some are very knowledgeable about the medium and write very well write reviews. Other don't. There are many poorly written reviews for the film (and any film), most of them trashing it. Is the opinion of a reviewer that can't even do his job right (right a proper review) of any relevance? It shouldn't be!

And, as a movie, Warcraft is deeply flawed on almost all aspect (as I said, it is little more than a sloppy 1960s fantasy movie, in CGI). Which doesn't mean you can't like it. Sometimes even I like flawed movies/TV shows. But it doesn't mean they are not flawed.

To the cineast, there is little doubt that, as an example, on a cinematographic standpoint, the LoTR movies are way better than the warcraft movie. There are some very concrete reasons the LoTR movies are regarded as masterpieces, regardless of if you did like those movie or not.

1960 fantasy movie? lol
One key aspect about Warcraft is that it differs (in a good way) to 90% of what is produced in Hollywood, in terms of narrative and aesthetics. Not everyone liked that. Warcraft is so different to LotR in it's cinematographic aspects that is very hard to compare. Also, LotR is a 10+ hours film. LotR has many flaws (and I love the films, have the DVD box and everything), narrative and technical. It was still an amazing film regardless.

[ryanmahaffe]

Lord of the Rings explained the important shit at the top of the first film. And the acting was in a different league. If you honestly didn't see the bad acting in Warcraft then I envy you. And the pacing sucks in the middle of the film.

- - - Updated - - -



Why wouldn't he forgive her for serving the king and all of Azeroth? He was all about doing the same even if it cost him his life.

I guess your right...

"I AM NO MAWN, ARGHGHGHGHGH"

And dont forget how well explained everything is.

"The hour grows late and gandalf the gray rides to Isenguard seeking my council"

WHO THE FUCK IS YOU

"A Balrog, a demon"
WHO THE FUCK IS YOU?

"A last alliance of men and elves"
WHY THE LAST

"I wish I could muster up an army of dwarves"
WHY NOT, WHERE THE FUCK ARE THEY.

In my book at least, for the 2 hours they had, they did far better than any of the lotr films did at explaining everything thing. Not as a trilogy, but as single entities.

I think you are being way to critical Vegas, if the lotr movies released today, they would get just as much hate as the hobbit or Warcraft did.

[Wikiy]

From a critical standpoint the bad pacing, acting and script all bring this thing down to a 4-6. It is sitting at 4.1 on RT right now with many of those middling reviews acknoledging they had fun. Not sure what more you want.

Something like a 6 is what I want. Bad pacing, some bad acting and some bad lines isn't enough to bring it down to a 4 when there are many other elements to this movie that are either sort of or fully amazing.

Also, the score itself is pretty irrelevant when there's a huge approval rating above it which is quite lower.

[Deleted]

are there exact numbers?

Look at this video u'll understand better how VFX works I don't know if ILM works different but usually they have a contract for X amount of money
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TgSPys9PatU
For the stuff that they've built it's different you don't know exactly how much it'll cost you have models then test materials colors and so on so it can be much expensive not cheaper
I don't think you can find the exact numbers

[Chickat]

Just saw it. Pretty good. CGI for the most part was great. Plot was okay. Acting was not perfect, but most Fantasy movies have cheesy lines. Overall from a fan 8/10. I can see 6/7s from non fans, but anything less than a 5 just seems like you have an agenda to trash the film.

[Wikiy]

7.6/10 or 7.7 on IMDB is hardly abysmal.

Those aren't critics.

- - - Updated - - -

I always wonder why fans of this are so against it being anything like LOTR. When people think of fantasy done right, they think of those films.

Why would you be against that? Would you rather be closer to Dungeons and Dragons?

Because they know that it's worse than LotR and think they can avoid admitting it (to themselves and everyone else) by saying they're not comparable.

Movies are compared all the time, movies that are hugely different among themselves than LotR and Warcraft are among each other. There is no closer movie to Warcraft than LotR. There is nothing else to compare it to. And it is painfully obvious that LotR does a better job in many compartments. Not a hugely better job, but a better job still. It's simply that LotR is 9-10/10. Of course Warcraft wont be on par with it.

[Tornwar]

Acting was not perfect, but most Fantasy movies have cheesy lines.

THIS. Everyone seems to have forgotten how cheesy fantasy movie dialogue can be. Mostly because they have to talk about things that are out of this world!

[Wikiy]

In my book at least, for the 2 hours they had, they did far better than any of the lotr films did at explaining everything thing. Not as a trilogy, but as single entities.

It's not like every little thing has to be explained. Not when it's a simple element of the setting. Which is why I don't understand that sort of criticism when aimed at Warcraft.