[Movie] Warcraft (June 2016)

[karzal]

Why is Tomb Raider not a video game adaption?

It is a video game adaptation. People tend to say that they have a different opinion about something (which isn't possible in this case as it is a fact) so that they can use it to reinforce their statement...

[quras]

I don't consider those 'video game' adaptations. Resident Evil, maybe, but Lara Craft is definitely not. What I mean by that is that Warcraft as a video game is high fantasy genre, and that's where the bulk of the problem was, that's what made it risky. How to make that appeal to the general audience? That's where Warcraft stands above everyone else. Not even Lotr comes close. For instance, in Lotr, magic was depicted as hand waving, or light here and there, without any 'effects', not to mention Lotr Orcs are just dudes with prosthetics. While Warcraft goes heavily in to the fantasy world, not compromising on anything. All of these previous 'video game' adaptations didn't face the same obstacles like Warcraft did. Still not even close to the 'mix'.

Well unfortunately for you I don't think many will agree with you. Warcraft is no different than the other video game to movie scenarios. Just thank your lucky stars it was done a bit better than those that came before it. Not anything amazing but at least it's a step up from previous attempts.
Maybe one day they will get it right for a truly blockbuster movie.


LotR is not a video game to movie at all but a book to movie. So not sure how that really comes into play for that particular discussion.

[Wikiy]

Lord of the Clans alone is not a good conclusion. That's nothing but Thrall's story and his story can't be the conclusion of a trilogy that started with a plot and characters utterly unrelated to that story. While I agree that it serves well as conclusion, it does more as side-story somewhat related to the main story arc of the trilogy rather than being the main story itself.

It's not nothing but Thrall's story. Of course, it follows Thrall very closely, but the fate of the orcs is very closely related to Thrall at that point in time. There's no one else to follow, plot-wise, given the lethargy of the orcs. And I do think it's part of the main story. Mainly because of Duncan's latest statements. He was blatantly clear when it comes to what this trilogy is about - it's about the orcs finding a home. He literally said those very words. Lord of the Clans, or, rather, the events therein, are a very important chapter of that story, and possibly the closing one, depending where Duncan plans to cut it.

Overall, I do think it may be a bit of a weird ending, but I think a transition could be made at the end of the second movie where we stop following the humans with them having won, Lothar having died, Orgrim having been imprisoned, etc. A time jump would then happen to the Lord of the Clans initial setting, at the beginning of the third film.

Still, I like the idea overall. All the rough edges shouldn't be hard to smooth.

I'm pretty surprised you like the idea, to be honest. You keep going on about (and rightly so) how the movies need to be actual movies and not a simple retelling of events. The idea that was proposed has the trilogy ending with a parallel following of two stories. I.e., the stories in the trilogy, if we got such film, would be divergent rather than convergent.

And yes, I agree, this idea about Lord of the Clans being the last movie does seem unconventional with how most characters from the previous parts of the trilogy aren't there, but is there really a reason why it wouldn't work? It seems more satisfying to me than the idea of watching two stories side-by-side and never seeing them converge.

[phyx]

Well unfortunately for you I don't think many will agree with you. Warcraft is no different than the other video game to movie scenarios. Just thank your lucky stars it was done a bit better than those that came before it. Not anything amazing but at least it's a step up from previous attempts.
Maybe one day they will get it right for a truly blockbuster movie.




LotR is not a video game to movie at all but a book to movie. So not sure how that really comes into play for that particular discussion.

I disagree for the reasons I mentioned earlier.
@Jotaux @karzal The reason I don't consider Lara Craft a 'video game adaptation' per se, is because there's nothing 'video gamey', if you will, about it. Just a standard action movie. Nothing else. It's missing those gaming elements which are so hard to transfer to the big screen. Same reason I don't consider Assassin's Creed (I know I will get smashed for this one) a video game adaptation, not to the same extent as Warcraft at least.

To me, personally, true video game adaptations are high fantasy, high sci-fi, with rich lore and rich background. Everything else is just a standard movie, that just happens to be a video game, too. I'm pretty sure I'm not articulating my thoughts in a concise manner, but my main point still stands.

[Jotun]

I disagree for the reasons I mentioned earlier.
@Jotaux @karzal The reason I don't consider Lara Craft a 'video game adaptation' per se, is because there's nothing 'video gamey', if you will, about it. Just a standard action movie. Nothing else. It's missing those gaming elements which are so hard to transfer to the big screen. Same reason I don't consider Assassin's Creed (I know I will get smashed for this one) a video game adaptation, not to the same extent as Warcraft at least.

To me, personally, true video game adaptations are high fantasy, high sci-fi, with rich lore and rich background. Everything else is just a standard movie, that just happens to be a video game, too. I'm pretty sure I'm not articulating my thoughts in a concise manner, but my main point still stands.

I can see your point, especially with the Tomb Raider franchise because afaik (correct me if I'm wrong, not too read up on TR) that doesn't have lot of background story. Although I figure AC pretty much fits in with your description. There's a lot of sci-fi and a lot of background/lore behind it, not as much as Warcraft, but how many games have as much as WC really?

[Zulkhan]

There's a difference between characterisation and altering plot details and backstory. Warcraft isn't an original movie, it has source material. I can understand changing some details to ensure the film fits smoothly and cutting things that are needless. But characterisation is already there, otherwise why not start from scratch with characters and just say the film is "inspired by Warcraft".

It's not a matter of characterization, is a matter of circumstances. That's why I used the example of the 6.2. If you didn't play it I'm not going too deep in that, but I'll just say that Gul'dan plays more active role after he takes control of the Iron Horde, with Kilrogg serving, more or less, what Blackhand was in the movie: a Warchief in the truest sense of the word, aka a leader of the armies with Gul'dan serving as the equivalent of a supreme (fel) far seer/shaman.

Gul'dan played from the shadows during the events of Rise of the Horde because he needed to do that, the orcs were still rather distrustful of his ways and didn't possess any public reputation, so he needed a strong warrior as "facade leader" who possessed that reputation. What the Gul'dan of WoD (specifically after the 6.2) and the one of the movie have in common is the fact that, in both cases, they ended up to gain great reputation and acknowledgement among the orcs: in the 6.2 Gul'dan gives to the Iron Horde the means to keep fighting their war against the Horde/Alliance, in the movie Gul'dan has acquired huge respect and reputation for coming up with a way to save the whole orcish race from extinction (or at least he had, before Durotan undermined Gul'dan's "image" in front of the whole Horde).

In a nutshell, there's a difference between a defining trait of one's character and a way of action dictated by circumstances. Gul'dan's defining traits as a character are his cunning, ruthless, deceiving and manipulating nature and these are all part of the "movie" Gul'dan. Playing from the shadows was a necessity from circumstances of our lore that have little to share with those of the movie.

It's not nothing but Thrall's story. Of course, it follows Thrall very closely, but the fate of the orcs is very closely related to Thrall at that point in time. There's no one else to follow, plot-wise, given the lethargy of the orcs. And I do think it's part of the main story. Mainly because of Duncan's latest statements. He was blatantly clear when it comes to what this trilogy is about - it's about the orcs finding a home. He literally said those very words. Lord of the Clans, or, rather, the events therein, are a very important chapter of that story, and possibly the closing one, depending where Duncan plans to cut it.

Thrall remains too much of a central character and so the story of the orcs. The humans and the Alliance become nothing more but mere background actors in such story and this is clearly not what Duncan wants to do. He was very clear about Warcraft being told from both sides, two different perspectives holding equal weight in the story, heroes and villains on both sides because that's what defines Warcraft, according to Duncan and according to Blizzard as well.

Just because you intend to show where the Orcs are supposedly gonna live in the last movie does not mean you're going to make that last movie, the last chapter of a trilogy, entirely focused on them and their issues.

Overall, I do think it may be a bit of a weird ending, but I think a transition could be made at the end of the second movie where we stop following the humans with them having won, Lothar having died, Orgrim having been imprisoned, etc. A time jump would then happen to the Lord of the Clans initial setting, at the beginning of the third film.

It's just not an organic story in the slightest and it doesn't make sense to completely forget about the Alliance in the last movie.

I'm pretty surprised you like the idea, to be honest. You keep going on about (and rightly so) how the movies need to be actual movies and not a simple retelling of events. The idea that was proposed has the trilogy ending with a parallel following of two stories. I.e., the stories in the trilogy, if we got such film, would be divergent rather than convergent.

I'm aware of that issue and that's why I didn't acknowledge the idea as a perfect one. Having a divergence rather than a convergence within a story may cause a lack of common purpose and finality. I still acknowledge it as one I like though, surely more than the ones proposed so far. That's why I said that the rough edges could have been "smoothed", I don't think it could be told in the exact way Hardy proposed but I think is a good basis, especially the idea about having most of the Second War dealt in the second movie with the first "bits" of Thrall's story introduced, only to go full on that in the last one, during a final adaptation of the "Beyond the Dark Portal" arc.
After all, Orgrim would be defeated at the end of the second movie, he would play no part in the third, which means he could go and be Thrall's teacher. Grom played one but nothing essential, you could have him and his Warsong do what they did after BtDP just after the defeat of the second movie. On the other hand, the Alliance would deal with Ner'zhul and those "fugitives" of the Horde that didn't get captured and trust the old shaman's plans.

There could be a way to pursue a momentary yet pivotal convergence of these stories, accompained by a definitive divergence at the very end? Maybe, I don't think it's impossible.

And yes, I agree, this idea about Lord of the Clans being the last movie does seem unconventional with how most characters from the previous parts of the trilogy aren't there, but is there really a reason why it wouldn't work? It seems more satisfying to me than the idea of watching two stories side-by-side and never seeing them converge.

Well, it's not much the fact that it "couldn't work", in fact is not a monumental feat to make it work. It's just a very underwhelming conclusion for a trilogy. I don't know you, but personally when I had to go through 3 whole movies to follow a narrative arc I would like the last chapter to feel pretty epic and satisfying in terms of closure. I just don't get or imagine such feeling from that.

[charan25]

So because a few snobby US movie critics were harsh on rating this movie, even though the rest of the world massively likes the movie it is considered a flop? Yeah, right. Should the opinion of a tiny group hold more weight than that of the vast majority? I don't think so.

Besides, I haven't seen any of them come up with objective reasons on what is flawed about this movie, all I see is subjective opinion. That alone says more about the critics than the movie itself.

The movie needs to make $450 million just to break EVEN. Worldwide, its at approx $306.5 million now with US debut. They still have a $143.5 million debt to make up, and that's still a steep hill to climb. It could possible still generate a buzz, and people go to the theaters to see it, but if its not making money for the theater, it'll be dropped for a more popular movie. Lets face it. That Dory Film is coming out, and if a theater complex needs another room, it'll boot the lowest making film and make it another Dory presentation.

And even if it does break even, how much of an actual profit it makes will determine how great of a success it is. I mean, if it makes a total of $451 million...woo? You didn't fail? Put that whole million dollars towards the sequel?

I feel basically everyone is happy it just wasn't Uva Bowel bad. Its like being praised for getting a C while everyone before you kept getting Fs.

[daywalker02]

The movie needs to make $450 million just to break EVEN. Worldwide, its at approx $306.5 million now with US debut. They still have a $143.5 million debt to make up, and that's still a steep hill to climb. It could possible still generate a buzz, and people go to the theaters to see it, but if its not making money for the theater, it'll be dropped for a more popular movie. Lets face it. That Dory Film is coming out, and if a theater complex needs another room, it'll boot the lowest making film and make it another Dory presentation.

And even if it does break even, how much of an actual profit it makes will determine how great of a success it is. I mean, if it makes a total of $451 million...woo? You didn't fail? Put that whole million dollars towards the sequel?

I feel basically everyone is happy it just wasn't Uva Bowel bad. Its like being praised for getting a C while everyone before you kept getting Fs.

people have awful lot to complain and whine these days.

[jvbastel]

I saw the movie for the second time yesterday together with my brother, who has never played world of warcraft but has played W1,2,3.

I actually enjoyed it more than the first time. I had the intention of searching for easter eggs, but I was too engaged in the story to do that. After my first viewing, I would have given it a 6.5-7/10. Now I give it an 8.5/10.
The only real issue I still have with it is that there are obviously some missing scenes. Dalaran desperately needs some extra time, as does the first 15-20 minutes.
What surprised me is that the characters I didn't like at first (Medivh and Khadgar) didn't bother me at all. Even Llane didn't. So I'm now very satisfied with how it turned out.

My brother found it a great movie as well, even though he didn't remember any of the characters except for Lothar, Doomhammer and Gul'dan.

[jdbond592]

The movie needs to make $450 million just to break EVEN. Worldwide, its at approx $306.5 million now with US debut. They still have a $143.5 million debt to make up, and that's still a steep hill to climb. It could possible still generate a buzz, and people go to the theaters to see it, but if its not making money for the theater, it'll be dropped for a more popular movie. Lets face it. That Dory Film is coming out, and if a theater complex needs another room, it'll boot the lowest making film and make it another Dory presentation.

And even if it does break even, how much of an actual profit it makes will determine how great of a success it is. I mean, if it makes a total of $451 million...woo? You didn't fail? Put that whole million dollars towards the sequel?

I feel basically everyone is happy it just wasn't Uva Bowel bad. Its like being praised for getting a C while everyone before you kept getting Fs.

Ahem...After all is said and done, warcraft will turn a profit of 200million upwards. Easily.

[daywalker02]

The movie studio will still get a portion of money from film merchandise, Bluray DVD sale, TV deals and so on.

[Tackhisis]

They picked an actress that happened to be.
She is also pretty caucasian lookign as well. so that is even more stupid.

I can't believe there is a shortage of physically fit Caucasian women in USA or Canada.

Patton's face and voice are not Caucasian. In some scenes, you can even see her white palms (!), which is quite upsetting.

[charan25]

Ahem...After all is said and done, warcraft will turn a profit of 200million upwards. Easily.

And you know what? That's sad. I mean, really sad. Because if that qualifies warcraft to be a great movie, then the first Twilight movie is a far superior movie, since the first Twilight only cost 37 million to make, and was just shy of 400 million gross worldwide.

And what's wrong with me complaining about wanting the movie to be a huge hit, to throw off the stigma of video game movies not worth it in theaters? The genre needs a grandslam right now like the comic book movie genre got, and this was a perfect chance for it to happen. You got an MMO that was a culture phenomenom at its peak, a good story, and yet this is the best it could do? I'm more concerned on why aren't you mad at this? Why is it that people can say "well, it was good, and I'll settle for that!" when it should've been amazing? The movie should be making a profit NOW, not waiting for bluray dvd sales.

So yeah, I will complain that a movie that should've blown expectations didn't, and is being written off as average at best. Somebody fucked up.

[daywalker02]

In Mexico Conjuring 2 raked 9 million in 2 days. Mexico is still a market to come.

[Nathreim]

IDK but we also will never know if an "Alliance" or human centric WarC movie would have brought better Box office results, maybe a tad better reviews

There is not really a way to know that, a Warcraft PC game adaptation is immensely hard to make, you can flame Jones all you want, but he did not do any bad there.

I don't think it would have. US critics were determined to hate the movie from the start regardless of the story. If it went more traditional Orcs bad Humans good they would have bashed it as a cheep Lord of the Rings knock off.

Damned if you do damned if you don't.

- - - Updated - - -

So yeah, I will complain that a movie that should've blown expectations didn't, and is being written off as average at best. Somebody fucked up.

I blame the editors it probably would have been much better with the 40 minutes that were cut.

[Tackhisis]

There is a fresh bunch of reviews from Australia, and they are also uniformly negative.

[Tornwar]

There is a fresh bunch of reviews from Australia, and they are also uniformly negative.

Yay

Oh by heavens...

[Dentelan]

Btw boxofficemojo is not updating such markets as Russia for a long time, it stands $19,100,000 last 10 days i guess, or something like that, and last time i was watching Warcraft (it was third time), the hall was full of people.
http://www.kinometro.ru/release/card/id/14581
These guys says that warcraft already did in Russia +cis $20 336 994

[daywalker02]

Btw boxofficemojo is not updating such markets as Russia for a long time, it stands $19,100,000 last 10 days i guess, or something like that, and last time i was watching Warcraft (it was third time), the hall was full of people.
http://www.kinometro.ru/release/card/id/14581
These guys says that warcraft already did in Russia +cis $20 336 994

those guys are sloths.

114 Million UPI (international release outside of China)

http://upi-boxoffice.com/

[karzal]

The movie needs to make $450 million just to break EVEN. Worldwide, its at approx $306.5 million now with US debut. They still have a $143.5 million debt to make up, and that's still a steep hill to climb. It could possible still generate a buzz, and people go to the theaters to see it, but if its not making money for the theater, it'll be dropped for a more popular movie. Lets face it. That Dory Film is coming out, and if a theater complex needs another room, it'll boot the lowest making film and make it another Dory presentation.

And even if it does break even, how much of an actual profit it makes will determine how great of a success it is. I mean, if it makes a total of $451 million...woo? You didn't fail? Put that whole million dollars towards the sequel?

I feel basically everyone is happy it just wasn't Uva Bowel bad. Its like being praised for getting a C while everyone before you kept getting Fs.

Fyi, Warcraft isn't the lowest making film in most of the countries of the world, apart from the US. I went there yesterday (Netherlands) and the room had 20 people in it on a Wednesday noon (which was quite crowded in my opinion. Not so large city) and turtles in the evening had 8 people or so.