I KNEW the movie would flop

[LilSaihah]

Wait is this serious? Haha!

Have you never known me to not be completely, 100% serious in all things? You wound me.

serious tho, northrend wasn't on the map when it should have been, Lordaeron has built colonies there by that time so it should be at least somewhat mapped

Serious movie analysis tho: I thought the movie was, broadly speaking, okay, maybe even good. The first half was a bit clumsy but it's understandable since setting up the humans and orcs is a big job. The second half is quite good and almost makes up for it, though I would've made a few changes like not have Llane ask Garona to kill him, particularly, or at least not show it- I thought it would have been more interesting if the audience had the same information as Khadgar/Lothar. Also a longer Lothar/Blackhand fight would've been great; Blackhand was set up to be pretty hardcore by that point in the film so being defeated by a powerslide was underwhelming

[velde046]

Uh, critics in nearly every market the film was released in panned it.

I don't agree with the critics myself but you can't discount the film's negative reviews as being "purely American" when it was almost universally disliked by all film critics.

Agree, but there is a visible trend where US people are more likely to follow what the critics have to say instead of making their own mind up....

- - - Updated - - -

We just expected it to be in line with other $150-200M movies. It definitely failed to deliver.

No it didn't. It sure isn't one of the all time best movies, but still it was very entertaining and I absolutely LOVED the CGI, especially the Orcs, so expressive.... wow. I do agree that the story could have used a bit more fleshing out, the pace was very high. Then again, if there will be a sequel, a lot of groundwork has been done now and the pacing might feel better next movie since there are less characters and environments to introduce.

[Goat7]

I didnt know it would flop but i knew it wouldnt hit 500 million. I saw the movie and i thought it sucked ass. CGI was great. Character lores and storys sucked, meaning they were way off. They did a real bad job and staying to the warcraft storyline as well. It should of been a movie that really stuck to the character storys and the warcraft story and built up alot of drama and lead into the next, they failed miserably at everything except the CGI. IMO!!!!!

[pyrostorm9001]

Im going to jump into this thread because it keeps coming up on mmo champ and just say a big F U to the critics. Looking at rotten tomatoes all I see is page after page of bullshit catchphrases like "game over" looking to one up each other on how bad a video game SHOULD be, while barely even mentioning the movie they should be reviewing.

Take this shit sipper Anthony Lane, from The New Yorker and his review http://www.newyorker.com/goings-on-a...ovies/warcraft
"Orcs are vast and rapacious hulks; of their many weapons, none are more lethal than their protruding underbites." Did he even watch the movie? Or did he just see the horrible trailers (yes they have a LOT to answer for) and base his review on that? Anyone who had watched it would know that there is far more to the Orcs than just walking around like a bunch of brutes. Sam Raimi's script was about making the Orcs bad guys and Humans good guys, and Duncan Jones changed that. I often wonder if, like Sam Raimi, the critics struggled with the idea that both sides of a war can have its heroes and villains.

I have seen the movie twice now with 2 different groups of mates and honestly gamer and non gamer mates have loved it and found the story very interesting and left wanting more.

Do yourself a favor, if you have not seen it, go see it and take your friends with you.

[Tackhisis]

of their many weapons, none are more lethal than their protruding underbites.

He just tells us that one cannot take them seriously because of ridiculous design, despite all the animators' efforts.

[Ickabob]

I genuinely feel bad for anyone who didn't see the movie just because some know-nothing critic swayed their opinion. Those people seriously missed out on a great film.

[rda]

I genuinely feel bad for anyone who didn't see the movie just because some know-nothing critic swayed their opinion. Those people seriously missed out on a great film.

I don't know, I genuinely feel good for them not wasting their time on nonsense like this movie. It's a bad movie. You don't like what the critics are saying, fine, look at the earnings. You like it, great, but not many people do.

[Mormolyce]

Have you never known me to not be completely, 100% serious in all things? You wound me.

serious tho, northrend wasn't on the map when it should have been, Lordaeron has built colonies there by that time so it should be at least somewhat mapped

Serious movie analysis tho: I thought the movie was, broadly speaking, okay, maybe even good. The first half was a bit clumsy but it's understandable since setting up the humans and orcs is a big job. The second half is quite good and almost makes up for it, though I would've made a few changes like not have Llane ask Garona to kill him, particularly, or at least not show it- I thought it would have been more interesting if the audience had the same information as Khadgar/Lothar. Also a longer Lothar/Blackhand fight would've been great; Blackhand was set up to be pretty hardcore by that point in the film so being defeated by a powerslide was underwhelming

Are you sure Lordaeron had Northrend colonies during the First War? Entirely possible whoever painted the roof of Stormwind Keep wasn't aware. Real world medieval maps are highly variable too.

I felt like Blackhand probably got the worst treatment of the Orcs, personally. I think the movie didn't have time to set him up as well as Gul'dan so they simplified him to a straightforward stooge. I always had the impression he maintained a show of being the Warchief while Gul'dan lurked in the shadows.

[Vitrino]

I don't know, I genuinely feel good for them not wasting their time on nonsense like this movie. It's a bad movie. You don't like what the critics are saying, fine, look at the earnings. You like it, great, but not many people do.

You're wrong. The vast majority of people who watched it, liked it. The earnings only speak of the amount of people who has watched it (not much people comparing to other blockbusters, that is true) . But for the ones who didn't see it nor you nor I could say if they would have liked it.

[Osmeric]

Agree, but there is a visible trend where US people are more likely to follow what the critics have to say instead of making their own mind up....

Ah yes, another "correlation = causation" error.

Maybe the critics have a good sense what the public is going to like (which can be predicted with high accuracy, at least in the US, from internet data; Google showed this), and tailor their reviews to reflect that (so they come across as more predictive themselves). So, the correlation exists, but the causation is the opposite of what you think it is.

- - - Updated - - -

You're wrong. The vast majority of people who watched it, liked it.

This does not contradict what he was saying, since the people who would go to see it are not a random sample of the entire potential audience.

[Vitrino]

Are you sure Lordaeron had Northrend colonies during the First War? Entirely possible whoever painted the roof of Stormwind Keep wasn't aware. Real world medieval maps are highly variable too.

I'd swear there weren't Lordaeron colonies at Northrend before Arthas went there at the Third War. And as they didn't know the existence of Kalimdor, it would be consistent to think they didn't know of Northrend either.

[THEORACLE64]

Right now, sitting at a disastrous score in RT. It begs the question to what Blizzard was thinking with this shit again.

What was the point?

Well, I guess you were wrong about that then.

[Vitrino]

This does not contradict what he was saying, since the people who would go to see it are not a random sample of the entire potential audience.

Including not-random (I suppose you're speaking about fans) and random (non-fans), the majority of people who watched the movie, liked it.

[Osmeric]

Including not-random (I suppose you're speaking about fans) and random (non-fans), the majority of people who watched the movie, liked it.

Yes, but that doesn't mean the people who didn't watch the movie would have reacted the same way if they had watched it. There was very plausibly a correlation between "was willing to see the movie" and actually enjoying the movie.

[Vitrino]

Yes, but that doesn't mean the people who didn't watch the movie would have reacted the same way if they had watched it. There was very plausibly a correlation between "was willing to see the movie" and actually enjoying the movie.

That's exactly what I'm saying. But rda is stating they wouldn't have liked it. And about that, nobody knows.

[Osmeric]

That's exactly what I'm saying. But rda is stating they wouldn't have liked it. And about that, nobody knows.

I think you're trying to conclude that because lots of people who saw it liked it, then lots of people in general would have liked it had they seen it. But one can't draw that inference.

[ro9ue]

Im going to jump into this thread because it keeps coming up on mmo champ and just say a big F U to the critics. Looking at rotten tomatoes all I see is page after page of bullshit catchphrases like "game over" looking to one up each other on how bad a video game SHOULD be, while barely even mentioning the movie they should be reviewing.

Take this shit sipper Anthony Lane, from The New Yorker and his review http://www.newyorker.com/goings-on-a...ovies/warcraft
"Orcs are vast and rapacious hulks; of their many weapons, none are more lethal than their protruding underbites." Did he even watch the movie? Or did he just see the horrible trailers (yes they have a LOT to answer for) and base his review on that? Anyone who had watched it would know that there is far more to the Orcs than just walking around like a bunch of brutes. Sam Raimi's script was about making the Orcs bad guys and Humans good guys, and Duncan Jones changed that. I often wonder if, like Sam Raimi, the critics struggled with the idea that both sides of a war can have its heroes and villains.

I have seen the movie twice now with 2 different groups of mates and honestly gamer and non gamer mates have loved it and found the story very interesting and left wanting more.

Do yourself a favor, if you have not seen it, go see it and take your friends with you.

Look there's definitely a huge number of critics that are so insecure in their own opinions they have to do the standard "LOL video game film" thing so they seem a part of the "club" of series film critics.

That being said. The movie still wasn't that great. I enjoyed watching it, probably on a similar level to the first Avengers. So the 3/10 from RT is a bit low. But it's no 8/10 either. Prob a 5 or 6 out of 10 from me.

[Vitrino]

I think you're trying to conclude that because lots of people who saw it liked it, then lots of people in general would have liked it had they seen it. But one can't draw that inference.

Then I'm not explaining well myself. Let's start again :

rda : "Not many people liked the movie".

Vitrino : "Wrong. Many people didn't watch it so they can't have an opinion. Maybe they would have liked it or maybe not. Nobody can't say anything about that.Many people did watch it and they liked it. Few people watched it and they disliked it."

[rda]

That's exactly what I'm saying. But rda is stating they wouldn't have liked it. And about that, nobody knows.

Sure, nobody knows, but that's not necessary, the numbers speak for themselves. Otherwise, any movie is good, even if it only got a couple thousand viewers, because who knows what those others who didn't bother to go and see it would have said about it if they saw it, right? (It doesn't work that way.)

I wouldn't put much weight into "the majority of people who watched the movie, liked it" either. How big is that majority? I saw both positive and negative reviews. If we look at ratings, then there are plenty of bad ones. If you say that we should only look at ratings from viewers, then sure, let's do this, but keep in mind that they are skewed by fanboys - on several sites, first and foremost IMDB, they voted *before* the movie was out "to show support" - it is telling, btw, that that particular rating decreased somewhat after the movie actually went live. /shrug

- - - Updated - - -

Then I'm not explaining well myself. Let's start again :

rda : "Not many people liked the movie".

Vitrino : "Wrong. Many people didn't watch it so they can't have an opinion. Maybe they would have liked it or maybe not. Nobody can't say anything about that.Many people did watch it and they liked it. Few people watched it and they disliked it."

See above. It doesn't matter that many people didn't watch the movie. Yes, that's correct, but that's not how you tell whether a movie is bad or good, measuring just the number of those who bothered to view it is enough.

[RenegadeXan]

gosh, how the hell do people feed such trolling threads...get a real hobby.