[Movie] Warcraft (June 2016)

[Plehnard]

What audience? The critic reviews who were made to watch the movie were uniformingly bad, across the globe.

That's wrong. The reviews in Germany were mostly positive and I wouldn't be shocked if that was the case in other non English speaking markets as well.

[quras]

He just says not possible at this time.

Actually he said in that same twitter post:

Duncan Jones ‏@ManMadeMoon Jul 28

@Dracodeer @perculia I am the director. I am telling you, there will BE NO DIRECTORS CUT. Got it?

It ain't happening. It's like he said long ago. It all depended on money and it just didn't make it for a DC.

[McNeil]

That pretty much killed my interest in buying the Blu-Ray, I guess I might aswell torrent the thing somewhere. But the possibility for a sequel now also looks very grim. This movie can barely be called average to me, there were a lot of things they needed to do better and they might've been able to do so in a proper sequel. but if they are lucky enough to make a sequel then they'd have to do it with a much smaller budget, without a theatrical release.

I guess the marketing and early bad reviews can be summed as the main reasons that the movie didn't do so well, but I also think that the movie came out way to late and at a very bad time. This is simply not an era where WoW is nearly as popular as it used to be, if they released the movie during early WotLK-early Cata then it might've done a lot better. WotLK was pretty much stabilising at 11.5-12 million subs, now the game has only 5 million (probably a lot less than that by now). And it doesn't help that WoD is a terrible expansion, leaving a bad taste to its playerbase while the game is in a huge content drought.

[Zulkhan]

I guess the marketing and early bad reviews can be summed as the main reasons that the movie didn't do so well, but I also think that the movie came out way to late and at a very bad time.

Assuming that's the case, it still remains the minor factor by a long margin. The utterly failed marketing campaign and bad reviews are what killed the Warcraft performance in the USA specifically, where the movie tanked spectacularly compared to most other countries where it either did good or decent. With just a more respectable amount of money gathered in the US now we would talk of a decently profitable product instead of a movie that "made money but not enough".

[Tornwar]

Most viewers were fans who gave it ridiculous scores like 9/10, and general audience didn't watch it at all.

And where is your proof? Your source of your statement?

Me, on the other hand, have already previously provided a ton of proof that the general audience watched AND enjoyed the movie! Yes people have also said it was bad, but a lot of people have said they liked the movie. Especially people who have never played the games before or know the story!

Do I need to remind you that on sites like Metacritic, IMDB, RottenTomato and more (Kino.dk) had a much higher USER rating score than the critics? Are you seriously saying that THAT score is manipulated by fans? Everywhere?

[tangocash]

That pretty much killed my interest in buying the Blu-Ray, I guess I might aswell torrent the thing somewhere.

I have a lot of disinterest in people like you. You probably didn't go see it. You'll torrent it. You also say it came out too late(as if LOTR came out 50 years too late) You say the possibility of a sequel now looks very grim, but you probably didn't go see it. A lot of us did go see it and it did make a lot of money despite the shit marketing and critics bashing it(while praising another franchise I love, and a shitty reboot of Ghostbusters which made less money and is still getting a sequel)

The movie was not about WoW.
So stop your WoW tangent.

[McNeil]

I have a lot of disinterest in people like you. You probably didn't go see it. You'll torrent it. You also say it came out too late(as if LOTR came out 50 years too late) You say the possibility of a sequel now looks very grim, but you probably didn't go see it. A lot of us did go see it and it did make a lot of money despite the shit marketing and critics bashing it(while praising another franchise I love, and a shitty reboot of Ghostbusters which made less money and is still getting a sequel)

The movie was not about WoW.
So stop your WoW tangent.

I did actually see the movie in the cinema, thats where I rated it as average. But I would've bought the blu-ray to see the extra 40 minutes that could've made the movie a lot better than when I saw it. But without the DC its not worthy buying, not to say I wouldn't watch the movie again some time.

[Tackhisis]

And where is your proof? Your source of your statement?

Abysmal box office in USA and Europe. Abnormal decrease of interest (-70% per week, instead of usual 50-60). It was a niche movie, and that niche became saturated in few weeks.

USER rating score than the critics? Are you seriously saying that THAT score is manipulated by fans? Everywhere?

It is quite obvious if you see a detailed chart: usually there is about 50% of 10/10 or whatever voices that doesn't conform to the expected normal distribution. The general consensus put the actual score between 6 and 7.

[Lethora]

The general consensus put the actual score between 6 and 7.

So the movie wasn't bad then. Great, you just confirmed it.

[Tackhisis]

So the movie wasn't bad then.

$47M domestic box office.
$165M foreign box office.

$160M budget.

It was not a good movie as mostly fans watched it, and even they (!) rated it low.

[zorkuus]

Do I need to remind you that on sites like Metacritic, IMDB, RottenTomato and more (Kino.dk) had a much higher USER rating score than the critics? Are you seriously saying that THAT score is manipulated by fans? Everywhere?

Imdb had ratings available before anyone had seen the film. So yes indeed manipulated.
Don't know about the other sites.

[Plehnard]

Imdb had ratings available before anyone had seen the film. So yes indeed manipulated.
Don't know about the other sites.

Those are filtered out, as well as those people that created their account just to rate very high/low.
Weighted rating is 7.4 the unfiltered one is 7.8, so the user rating on IMDB is pretty much legit.

[Tornwar]

Imdb had ratings available before anyone had seen the film. So yes indeed manipulated.
Don't know about the other sites.

The trolls voted 1. The fanboys voted 10 to deflect the trolls. What is left, which is the current score, is in fact a legit score now.

[Tackhisis]

it got an audience score of 77%.

If it got high audience score, where is the word of mouth? Why is the box office 29% of the budget in USA and 103% overseas? It failed as a tentpole movie, and its audience is not numerous enough to ensure $160M blockbusters.

[Crillam]

That's wrong. The reviews in Germany were mostly positive and I wouldn't be shocked if that was the case in other non English speaking markets as well.

Yeah the reviews on RT are like only american critics. And in murica you listen to critics and does not see the movie yourself and decide.
The reviews were also mediocer in sweden.
(Remember that the same studio did Pacific Rim which did not do well in the BO and here we are getting a sequel)
The thing is that if there will be a second movie it has to appeal to a broader audience. Maybe work more on some effects. The majority were looking good but there were some that were bad.
Also dont write a script that fits in a 3-4h movie if you can not make such long movie. So many things were cut in Warcraft and it does hurt the movie. Just like it did hurt BvS.

[Zulkhan]

Any sequel would have a smaller budget.

It would have had a smaller budget either way, since at this turn all the effects and set material had to be crafted by zero. Unless, of course, they had the intention to direct the money to recruit a bigger cast, something that wouldn't definitely happen now.

[Biomega]

Finally watched the movie, and was not impressed.

It's weird, it turned out to be exactly the opposite of what I expected: the story turned out to be fine, logically and lore-wise consistent and told well; but the visuals were just a huge turn-off for me. Don't get me wrong, the fidelity is great. Quality work by the CGI team, no question. But it's just too... colorful. Many scenes look way too artificial as a result, and some aspects are downright ridiculous (glowing eyes on Dalaran mages, purple-toothed elves). I get that WoW is a colorful game and all, but it just didn't work well in the movie for me.

And then there's Garona.

She is one thing above all else: a caricature. She is the living, breathing sexy-female-<alien/monster/whatever> meme. The other orc females (and, of course, the draenei) are fine; but Garona? Come. On. Huge turn-off in every respect, and her pseudo-seductive antics didn't help. Ridiculous beyond belief. I love the character and the role she has to play in events, but visually they just completely failed in my book. Painting a model green and sticking peanuts in her teeth is how you did these things in 1960.

But aside from that it was mostly fine. Of course they took some liberties with the lore here and there and there is a lot of exposition and theatrics, but that's normal for any film of that type. This isn't an Oscar-bait drama, after all.

One very minor gripe I had was with the golem Medivh is building (why is he doing that, exactly?). Its design is just NOTHING like any golem or construct we have ever seen in WoW, and I cannot for the life of me figure out why. You already have a huge golem in the right location ready to go (The Curator), you could even have given it some funny lines in its funny voice; there's even evidence that golems of such type can become fel-corrupted (see Sunwell/MGT) which would fit with the plot of the movie. But NO... Medivh has to dabble in pottery, and make the only clay golem ever seen in WoW like it was a 1975 D&D revival. But okay, that's just a minor rant.

Also, it's of course unfortunate that so many races are missing, due to the time/place of the setting. Can't help it given the story, but I personally just have it up to here with Orcs vs. Humans all the friggin' time. Not the movie's fault, I suppose, but it does raise a question of why they had to choose WC1 as the setting and not WC3. Arthas and friends would, in my opinion, have made for a much better story and sequel than the opening of the dark portal... oh well.

[Tackhisis]

Yeah the reviews on RT are like only american critics.

There are plenty of foreign reviews on IMDB. Try to find some positive ones there, I dare you.

Painting a model green and sticking peanuts in her teeth is how you did these things in 1960.

(Those were real fake teeth commissioned from a local dentist) They couldn't do her character with mocap as it is constantly in scenes with other actors. A CGI character would stuck too much.

Why did they chose an actress who is visibly in her 40s, I cannot say.

[Doffen]

There are plenty of foreign reviews on IMDB. Try to find some positive ones there, I dare you.
(Those were real fake teeth commissioned from a local dentist) They couldn't do her character with mocap as it is constantly in scenes with other actors. A CGI character would stuck too much.

Why did they chose an actress who is visibly in her 40s, I cannot say.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0803096/...?ref_=tt_ov_rt

I dare you.

You make my day, every day. You are as bad and funny as Paula Patton as Garona

[Biomega]

(Those were real fake teeth commissioned from a local dentist)

Yes, I was being entirely literal with my peanut comment. Next you'll tell me it's not green paint, because it's "a sophisticated colored makeup and paint is something used for walls". Helpful.