I KNEW the movie would flop

[Deleted]

Considering this started with Rotten Tomatoes...

Warcraft is the lowest (7th of 7) critic-rated, of the current 7 Top Box Office films.

It is the third highest (3rd of 7) viewer-liked.

Warcraft (29%, 81%)

I only have one thing to say bout rotten tomatoes .I.(-_-)

They are the worst platform to rate movies. I never trusted rotten tomatoes in my life and i don't even know why the site is so famous.
I witnessed numerous times rotten tomatoes giving absolutely ridiculous ratings to good movies. The supposed "specialists" giving the ratings are a bunch of trolls.

Rating the Warcraft movie a 20 out of 100 is pure stupidity or a hidden agenda to make the movie fail.
That rating is so incorrect it hurts.

[reasonstolike]

See it for yourself. It wasn't bad at all. It was a solid fantasy film

[Drutt]

There are over 1700 reviews on Metacritic, and the average score is 8.6 (or 86/100) versus 32/100 from the critic ratings.

It's pretty obvious that the critics reviews don't remotely reflect the views of the public with this film, because IMDB, Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic all clearly show that viewers rated the movie as very good.

A timeless classic it is not, but it is a good movie and was an enjoyable theatre trip. Anecdotally, every single person I know who has seen the film has liked the film (and they're not all Warcraft fans).

This movie is a clear case of the critics getting it wrong.

[shise]

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?

The film has been a success.

Do you even realise that those ratings are pure business? It is Activision Blizzard we are talking about, so of course everyone wants to take them down.

Any Warcraft series fan I know actually liked it.

[Drithien]

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?

You didn't know the movie would be a flop, you hypothesized it. That is unless you have some kind of time-travelling capabilities, or can see the future. In either case you should use your powers for more important things than stroking your ego based on someone else's perceived misery. You know, like healthy, mature human beings are supposed to do.

Not that it matters much anyway, since, well, the movie is not a flop.

Rotten Tomatoes score means nothing to anyone using their own brain to decide whether they will see a movie or not. This is cinema, not a football match; if you want to be helped by a review, you read the bits with the words in them, not look at the score. And those bits in WarCraft's case revealed that, a) a lot of critics have a quite significant problem with their own egos, reviewing movies for what they want them to be, rather than what the movies' creators' intentions are, which is a fundamental flaw in critiquing any piece of art; and b) the movie is quite good for a summer blockbuster, impressive even, with some good craftsmanship in places, and overall a nice way to spend an evening at the cinema if you aren't looking for anything exceptionally good.

And, far more importantly, audiences seem to like it. The movie's financial success is proof of that. Even more considering it is neither a comic-book-themed movie, nor has the Tolkien seal of quality to boost it. Nothing really other than some obscure fanbase that can in no way make it financially successful on its own - or are willing to try even, as you are proof of: WarCraft fans that wish the movie fails for some reason, such logical beings. So it stood on its own, a new cinematic property, that cost quite a lot to produce, and made a good profit.

So much for your oracle powers. You should get a refund if you are still eligible. As far as the movie is concerned, I hope Blizzard take their lessons from this first, mediocre-to-good, attempt, and go for a sequel as soon as possible.

[rda]

The results are useful, because they take from a static range as a representative of that range. That range (1-8; 1-9) grew over the course of the movie release, and has held steady since. I understand what you're saying, but it isn't correct in nullifying the represented information. (And the kicker is: that growth and steadiness occurred with "hater" votes left in and "lover" votes removed)

I will give you a quick numeric example.

Suppose we are removing 10s and leaving 1-9s, all fanboys are voting exclusively 10 for simplicity.

Suppose at some point the real rating of the movie (without fanboys) is 6, the ratio of the people voting 1-9 is 50%, the ratio of the people voting 10 is 50%, and of the latter 50% just 1% are fanboys. Since the real rating is 6, that 6 is composed from 50/99 of rating X from the group that are voting 1-9 and from 49/99 of the group who are voting 10. Resolving for X, X = 104/50 = 2.08. We remove people voting 10, measure "the real" rating and get that 2.08.

Now after some time suppose the real rating of the movie drops to 5, the ratio of the people voting 1-9 continues to be 50%, the ratio of the people voting 10 continues to be 50%, but of the latter 50% now 49% are fanboys. Since the real rating is 5, that 5 is composed from 50/51 of rating X from the group voting 1-9 and from 1/51 of the group who are voting 10. X = 245/50 = 4.9.

Nice, the real rating of the movie went down from 6 to 5, yet our measured rating after adjustment that should have supposedly improved it by removing fanboys, went up from 2.08 to 4.9.

GG

Moral: don't do things you don't understand.

[mauserr]

They probably think they did the best with what they had, but TBH the marketing was atrocious and so was the distribution. Go look up the way the movie was released in different countries all at different times. Pathetic in this day and age!

Then on the production side of things, we could argue, but the biggest thing that hurt this film was casting. All the human characters were straight up garbage actors.

Travis Fimmel a garbage actor. Okay, lmao.

[rda]

There are over 1700 reviews on Metacritic, and the average score is 8.6 (or 86/100) versus 32/100 from the critic ratings.

It's pretty obvious that the critics reviews don't remotely reflect the views of the public with this film, because IMDB, Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic all clearly show that viewers rated the movie as very good.

This often happens when there is a big fanbase, just so you know. It does not at all mean that the critics opinion is wrong, it just means that the fanbase is active enough.

Now, I agree, that critics aren't be-all and end-all, but the best approximation to that is just how many people bothered to go see the movie. Which returns us to "not even enough to make the movie pay for itself just yet".

[Solamon]

As someone who read many of the Warcraft books and comics, the movie was a dud for me.
It was a poor man's LotR and whatever douche directed the movie obviously had no interest in the lore itself.

The entire thing felt half-assed and mediocre, although it did make me start re-reading some of the WC books again.

That "douche" who directed the movie has been a fan of the game and the series since he was a child. The lore differences were done for simplicity's sake, and worked, in my opinion. They had a prequel novel released, written by Christie Golden, that set up the events that lead into the movie itself, and she also wrote the novelization for the movie. All of them work well together. They'd been up front for some time that the movie lore would be different from the lore we know, and I suppose you just missed out on that.

I would read the prequel novel, watch the movie again, and then read the novelization. It might change your opinion.

[unfilteredJW]

My favorite part of the movie was the dude sitting in front of me and my buds. Guy had never heard of Warcraft, and was enjoying the shit out of it.

I thought it was 6/10 but it was fun to watch the guy go "Holy shit, what's the thing!" and "Why does that eagle have claws?!"

[The3rdCatalyst]

I wouldn't call Warcraft much of a flop at all. It doubled its production cost and had a decent review, once people saw it. I do not feel it was a great movie, but it was better than most movies, especially for a video game adaptation. I feel a lot of the early reviews and people who were calling it bad wanted it to be bad because it was overhyped and did not live up to the hype and people feel some hatred or betrayal from Blizzard (poor quality of game from WoW) and was their way 'in your face!' moment. Really, it is a pretty good movie.

http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=warcraft.htm

[Auxora]

I wouldn't call Warcraft much of a flop at all. It doubled its production cost and had a decent review, once people saw it. I do not feel it was a great movie, but it was better than most movies, especially for a video game adaptation. I feel a lot of the early reviews and people who were calling it bad wanted it to be bad because it was overhyped and did not live up to the hype and people feel some hatred or betrayal from Blizzard (poor quality of game from WoW) and was their way 'in your face!' moment. Really, it is a pretty good movie.

http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=warcraft.htm

The 2 problems are that supposedly the movie needed $500M to break even, which it will get in the neighborhood of (maybe $425M-$450M) but not reach. Keep in mind the cost was $160M and that revenue is just ticket receipts. The studio will just get a portion of that. BTW, I loved the movie...by flop I'm not talking about critic reviews which is a whole separate topic, I'm just talking flop in terms of revenue. Revenue is pretty important since that will determine whether we see a Warcraft 2, which I would love to see but at this point would kind of bet against.

The big issue is that it's almost done in NA theaters and took in less than $40M domestically. A $160M budget movie that takes in under $40M domestically isn't just a flop, it's a complete Waterworld-esque disaster. Thankfully the Chinese theaters were the complete opposite and ~89% of the revenue has come from there for the movie. If Warcraft had even a semi-good turnout in the US I think we'd have been guaranteed a Warcraft 2. Heck Pitch Perfect 2 by comparison made over $100M domestically. But I'd be surprised if the studio opts to do a Warcraft 2 knowing that they'd be nearly completely relying on it being a hit in China. It's quite disappointing. If even 10M former and/or current wow players alone went to the movie in the US it would have broken $100M, without any non-wow gamers going to it. It's reflection on how so many former wow players have moved on and completely lack interest in wow in the US now.

[kamil84]

Something to keep in mind:

If you define flop as not getting your money back. Then it is not a flop.

If you define flop as something that is not succesful. Then yes it is a flop.

Because althought it succeded in China, failing so bad on the US which is a big market has contributed for it to not make much or barely do revenue.

Numbers do not lie, I already posted them.

[Vitrino]

Thankfully the Chinese theaters were the complete opposite and ~89% of the revenue has come from there for the movie.

53% of the total worldwide box office is from China. 10% from the U.S. 37% from the rest of the world (Still hasn't been premiered in Japan and SouthAmerica).

[Gadzooks]

That "douche" who directed the movie has been a fan of the game and the series since he was a child. The lore differences were done for simplicity's sake, and worked, in my opinion. They had a prequel novel released, written by Christie Golden, that set up the events that lead into the movie itself, and she also wrote the novelization for the movie. All of them work well together. They'd been up front for some time that the movie lore would be different from the lore we know, and I suppose you just missed out on that.

I would read the prequel novel, watch the movie again, and then read the novelization. It might change your opinion.

If you're trying to argue quality, Christie Golden is not the best choice to use. Just sayin'...

[Auxora]

53% of the total worldwide box office is from China. 10% from the U.S. 37% from the rest of the world (Still hasn't been premiered in Japan and SouthAmerica).

True thanks for the correction. Either way ~90% from outside the US, and less than $40M from the US likely meaning Warcraft 2 not looking very much in the cards. Investors for a 2nd movie would have to totally bet on International receipts. I suppose if they went in assuming a 2nd movie and started work on it already like how they did the Pirates of the Caribbean movies (filming 3 at a time and then just spreading out the releases), that would drop the cost at least.

On the good side, it looks like Warcraft did make it on next weeks schedule at least at local theaters.

[kamil84]

53% of the total worldwide box office is from China. 10% from the U.S. 37% from the rest of the world (Still hasn't been premiered in Japan and SouthAmerica).

There is some money there but the big markets already opened. And it is not all of SouthAmerica, it is Chile and Argentina the only ones missing.

[Jibjub]

If you're trying to argue quality, Christie Golden is not the best choice to use. Just sayin'...

Truth. The prequel was very, very poorly written. I haven't read her other books, but the prequel was not good. If you want the story, it's worth reading ... but if you are looking for anything even resembling literature, look elsewhere.

[Vitrino]

~90% from outside the US, and less than $40M from the US likely meaning Warcraft 2 not looking very much in the cards.

Yes. The really bad numbers in the biggest market of the world are a real problem. Let's see how it ends.


PD: Here hoping for a sequel.

[kamil84]

lol

https://www.theguardian.com/film/sho...er-of-all-time