I KNEW the movie would flop

[Nathreim]

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.

Its was mostly funded by Chinese companies so they will make their money back.

Also you have to figure for "Movie Accounting"

Its a trick so movie studios can write off the movie as a loss so they can avoid taxes on all of it. Basically they pay themselves to market the movie, they pay themselves the interests costs for borrowing money from themselves to make the movie, and pay themselves the distribution costs.

They don't actually spend the money they say they do so by the end they are in the "red" on paper allowing them to write off the movie as a loss and pay no taxes on anything. Meanwhile they are actually laughing all the way to the bank. Its technically illegal but most countries including the US and China let it slide because they get a taste.

The Lord of the Rings Trilogy made 2.9 billion but still "officially" showed a loss. Which is funny cause Jackson and the Tolken family were to be largely paid from the profits. When they didn't get anything some lawsuits went to court and Newline suddenly "found" some money to pay them (mostly because they wanted the rights to the Hobbit).

In reality the Warcraft and other movies only cost half what studios say they do.

[Aeriedk]

The movie isn't even remotely about WoW. It's about Warcraft, which as a property is as strong as ever. Apparel and cosplay and cons geek-life in general have never been more popular.

Warcraft as a whole is tied in with WoW. Warcraft is all inclusive when it comes to the warcraft universe which includes WoW. So with that said. To say that the movie isn't about WoW is simply obtuse. People inherently link WoW and Warcraft together now, they're family, and you can never get away from family no matter how much you want to.

[kamil84]

Its was mostly funded by Chinese companies so they will make their money back.

Also you have to figure for "Movie Accounting"

Its a trick so movie studios can write off the movie as a loss so they can avoid taxes on all of it. Basically they pay themselves to market the movie, they pay themselves the interests costs for borrowing money from themselves to make the movie, and pay themselves the distribution costs.

They don't actually spend the money they say they do so by the end they are in the "red" on paper allowing them to write off the movie as a loss and pay no taxes on anything. Meanwhile they are actually laughing all the way to the bank. Its technically illegal but most countries including the US and China let it slide because they get a taste.

The Lord of the Rings Trilogy made 2.9 billion but still "officially" showed a loss. Which is funny cause Jackson and the Tolken family were to be largely paid from the profits. When they didn't get anything some lawsuits went to court and Newline suddenly "found" some money to pay them (mostly because they wanted the rights to the Hobbit).

In reality the Warcraft and other movies only cost half what studios say they do.

I agree on this, but there is no way LotR was red on paper.

[Shudder]

They talk about the warcraft franchise? and what's with you whiteknighting. Even if it is as you said, do you only want to read reviews and articles from WoW fanboys? Do you expect WoW fanboys to be the movie critics? Cause other than Kotaku, IGN and Gamespot ppl critics have not played Warcraft games, therefore the bad ratings and it bombing in the US.

I liked the movie, for me it is an 8, but If I knew nothing about Warcraft, I would have given it a 4 and this is for the CGI.

- - - Updated - - -

Yea sure, the Guardian is a yellow sensasionalist now.

Again, the article is not talking about the warcraft franchise they specifically said WORLD OF WARCRAFT and then went on to talk about subscription numbers. Nowhere does it state it was an RTS, this is not a fucking world of warcraft movie nowhere in the fucking game have the events in the movie happened. This is a Warcraft movie based on the RTS and you are obviously baiting me into attacking you to get infracted because there is no fucking way you could be this dense.

[Nathreim]

I agree on this, but there is no way LotR was red on paper.

https://www.cinemablend.com/new/Here...ted-40760.html


Like many quarrels in Hollywood, the Tolkien/Warner Bros. spat can be narrowed down to an argument about money. Part of the author’s estate’s contract with the film studio said that a percentage of the profits from any adaptation of Tolkien’s work would go back to them, and it became a bit of a controversy following the release of The Lord of The Rings trilogy. The three movies made a reported $2.9 billion at the global box office, but when those box office totals were combined with project’s expenses, the studio claimed that the movie didn’t make a profit – thus reportedly shortchanging the Tolkien estate. In an interview with Le Monde back in 2012, Tolkien Estate lawyer Cathleen Blackburn recounted, "These hugely popular films apparently did not make any profit! We were receiving statements saying that the producers did not owe the Tolkien Estate a dime."

[Zaqwert]

No a flop would be it loosing money, if it breaks even, that is not a flop.

They didn't spend hundreds of millions of dollars and several years to break even. I can assure you nobody who had an financial interest in this movie is celebrating breaking even.

[Aquinan]

They didn't spend hundreds of millions of dollars and several years to break even. I can assure you nobody who had an financial interest in this movie is celebrating breaking even.

Breaking even hopefully means there will be sequels that dig in to the realm of better story.

[Drutt]

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.

No, it doesn't. There are always fanboys, but the truth always comes out in the end.

Furthermore, there are always haters too. By your logic, we should be automatically writing off all the negative reviews, including those of the critics, because some people have agendas.

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".

That's completely inaccurate. You can't judge the quality of a film based on how many people went to see it. There have been plenty of excellent movies which did not do well in the box office and became regarded as cult films classics much later.

If you don't go to see something, you can't hold an opinion on it. Using people who haven't seen a movie as a yardstick for its quality is farcical. The only thing that tells you is how well marketed something is, or how wide its appeal was. It's certainly no measure of how good something is.

[Deleted]

Again, the article is not talking about the warcraft franchise they specifically said WORLD OF WARCRAFT and then went on to talk about subscription numbers. Nowhere does it state it was an RTS, this is not a fucking world of warcraft movie nowhere in the fucking game have the events in the movie happened. This is a Warcraft movie based on the RTS and you are obviously baiting me into attacking you to get infracted because there is no fucking way you could be this dense.

How very odd for Blizzard to give away copies of the "World of Warcraft" game to people watching a film that has nothing to do with the World of Warcraft.

Maybe they should have given away a copy of "Warcraft " instead.

[Mormolyce]

Warcraft as a whole is tied in with WoW. Warcraft is all inclusive when it comes to the warcraft universe which includes WoW. So with that said. To say that the movie isn't about WoW is simply obtuse. People inherently link WoW and Warcraft together now, they're family, and you can never get away from family no matter how much you want to.

I think this is one of the problems the movie had - it's strictly a movie adaptation of Warcraft 1, but most modern fans are much more familiar with WoW or Warcraft 3.

How very odd for Blizzard to give away copies of the "World of Warcraft" game to people watching a film that has nothing to do with the World of Warcraft.

Maybe they should have given away a copy of "Warcraft " instead.

They'd have to release one that runs on modern Windows systems first!

[Shudder]

How very odd for Blizzard to give away copies of the "World of Warcraft" game to people watching a film that has nothing to do with the World of Warcraft.

Maybe they should have given away a copy of "Warcraft " instead.

Smarter move would have been releasing Warcraft 4 along with the movie.

[Sierra85]

I think this is one of the problems the movie had - it's strictly a movie adaptation of Warcraft 1, but most modern fans are much more familiar with WoW or Warcraft 3.

which is probably why they went with a world building / franchise building opening storyline. TBH alot of the movie felt like it was just trying to set up future movies.

- - - Updated - - -

Travis Fimmel a garbage actor. Okay, lmao.

i've seen more convincing acting from a packet of biscuits than what Travis Fimmel can produce.

[Deleted]

Flop?the movie is doing great.there is a world outside the us of a you know.

[Soulwind]

i've seen more convincing acting from a packet of biscuits than what Travis Fimmel can produce.

Not everything that isn't great is terrible.

Jai Courtney, Adam Sandler, Sylvester Stallone. Those are garbage actors. They don't just "play themselves", which works for some people, they are consistently the dullest in everything they do. They're not believable, not even for the kind of movies they make.

Travis Fimmel is an OK actor who relies a lot on quirk. If you like what he does, he's fine, if you don't, you probably find him annoying. Same as Johnny Depp or Jesse Eisenberg. They obviously lack subtlety and nuance, but that's fine for the roles they play. I don't need Tom Hanks or Daniel Day-Lewis for Warcraft, do you?

[karzal]

Not everything that isn't great is terrible.

Jai Courtney, Adam Sandler, Sylvester Stallone. Those are garbage actors. They don't just "play themselves", which works for some people, they are consistently the dullest in everything they do. They're not believable, not even for the kind of movies they make.

Travis Fimmel is an OK actor who relies a lot on quirk. If you like what he does, he's fine, if you don't, you probably find him annoying. Same as Johnny Depp or Jesse Eisenberg. They obviously lack subtlety and nuance, but that's fine for the roles they play. I don't need Tom Hanks or Daniel Day-Lewis for Warcraft, do you?

Honestly, lots of people have been comparing Lothar to Ragnar. I haven't seen Vikings (I will soon though), so I can't make that comparison and I thought he did just fine. Not great, but it was ok.

[Soulwind]

Honestly, lots of people have been comparing Lothar to Ragnar. I haven't seen Vikings (I will soon though), so I can't make that comparison and I thought he did just fine. Not great, but it was ok.

He does a very similar thing, yes. It's not a bad thing, but not everyone is going to like it.

[Lunaprika]

Well, Travis' acting is kinda like the same on every situation or character he plays. Everytime the same half smile which you don't know if he is about to laugh or not.

[karzal]

He does a very similar thing, yes. It's not a bad thing, but not everyone is going to like it.

*snip*

Ah, I see. Ah well, I think it doesn't have to be a bad thing if an actor can only act a certain way. If the character of Ragnar is similar to Anduin Lothar it should be just fine, even if that results in people not being able to differentiate the character.

I'm not yet sure about all the acting skills though, I'll have to watch it once again in order to properly judge that. Only seen it once so far and I'll probably go again in the upcoming weeks.

[Sierra85]

I don't need Tom Hanks or Daniel Day-Lewis for Warcraft, do you?

i just dont find fimmel believable (at all). Theres plenty of actors that i do, even TV actors. I felt the movie as a whole suffered due to casting choices.

[Soulwind]

Well, Travis' acting is kinda like the same on every situation or character he plays. Everytime the same half smile which you don't know if he is about to laugh or not.

Ah, I see. Ah well, I think it doesn't have to be a bad thing if an actor can only act a certain way. If the character of Ragnar is similar to Anduin Lothar it should be just fine, even if that results in people not being able to differentiate the character.

I'm not yet sure about all the acting skills though, I'll have to watch it once again in order to properly judge that. Only seen it once so far and I'll probably go again in the upcoming weeks.

Plenty of actors do that. Some even play themselves, like Robert Downey Jr. or even Morgan Freeman, and it works just fine. As long as it fits the character.

Lothar was an empty canvas, he was one-dimensional and boring. Anyone could have played that. And almost anyone could have improved upon it by adding their style. Fimmel has added his quirk, his "Ragnar", and that's fine. I understand why some people don't like it, but that doesn't make it poor acting or a bad choice.

i just dont find fimmel believable (at all). Theres plenty of actors that i do, even TV actors. I felt the movie as a whole suffered due to casting choices.

I found him believable enough for a world of magic and fantasy. A veteran soldier who dislikes magic and likes women a bit too much. He cares for his son, but he's willing to survive his death as long as he can protect the kingdom.

He's human enough for a movie, but unrealisticly enough for Warcraft.

Would I have liked some other actor more? I don't know, I've only seen him play Lothar. I wouldn't dare try to fit an Aragorn or some other kind of character into the same movie, that's not how writing works. There are a few consistent themes in this movie, and not being too serious was one of them.