warcraft movie and lord of the rings

[Proskill]

i just finished watching LOTR trilogy again after over a decade. its just great. i loved it as a kid, and just as much i loved it now.
same thing with warcraft movie. as a long fan of that universe i enjoyed it very much.
so what went wrong ? reviews werent too positive, even warcraft players were cold about it.

what made LOTR truly a legendary movie while warcraft is somewhere above mediocre ?

[jackofwind]

LotR had these things going for it:

Excellent casting
Excellent pacing
Excellent prop/set design
Not reliant on CG
Phenomenal performances (career-defining) by a number of actors
A better story

[Puupi]

Lotro was "first of it's kind". The cinematography was gorgeous and a bit head of its time. It was also a legendary epic fantasy story.

Warcraft was none of these.

Some of the Lotro movies was on TV some time ago and it was running on my laptop on the table. I think it really hasn't withstood the test of time well. It was good then, not anymore.

[Darkeon]

Not too keen on LoTR movies now as I was when I first saw them for the first time way back. Frodo-Sam relationship so cringey..

[Wolfman31]

Well, let's see. LOTR was created by J.R.R. Tolkien, an esteemed Oxford professor who created entire languages from scratch whereas much of Warcraft's story was created by Chris Metzen, a drifter artist type who accidentally ended up at Blizzard thinking it was a graphic design studio instead of a video game developer. So for me, it begins and ends with the source material. Also, a good story needs a beginning, a middle, and an end, and Warcraft's story never got an end because of the video game format. Tolkien's work has plenty of middle, but it is within a guiding arc of "hobbit finds evil ring; hobbit destroys ring". Once the ring is gone, it's over. Warcraft gets lost in its middle because video game stories tend to always end with "To be continued" so there's room for a never ending series of sequels. This doesn't work in movies.

Warcraft never ends. Even if Sargeras is killed, then there will be the Void Lords or Old Gods or whatever because the cash cow has to keep on mooing. This doesn't translate well into a movie. And the Warcraft movie failed especially hard because they tried to cram too much into one movie and it didn't leave any room for character development. The script felt rushed like a cliff notes version of the story. And where they changed the story, they punctured holes in the plot logic. For example, in the lore, Garona is half orc and half Draenei. But in the movie, she was made half orc-half human and it was never addressed despite the fact that draenei were shown in the movie so they could've got her background right. They just wanted Paula Patton to keep her hot looks so Travis Fimmel could have a love interest in her that his character never had because the two hottest people in a movie always have to hook up, right? Then we look at the companion novel for the movie that confirms Garona is Medivh's daughter. Okay, WTF? Are you serious? That's just wrong on so many levels and only leaves more gaping holes in the movie's story. Plus Garrona also managed to learn perfect English five minutes after she came through the portal.

And that's just one character. The rest of the Warcraft movie was just a hot mess from beginning to end. What I would've done is ended the movie with the orcs opening the portal for the first time, rolling the credits right after they rush through. The rest of the movie would've been spent establishing these characters on both sides of the portal so that when they finally do a collide, there's background and motivational depth to their actions. Duncan Jones was way over his head with the movie and it's not surprising it didn't sell well in the States, but it did do very well internationally and that might lead to Jones getting another crack at the IP with a sequel. It comes down to whether the studio wants to risk it, seeing as how the first movie has been lambasted by virtually every reputable critic and rightfully so. I could get into why the LOTR trilogy was much better but if you take pretty much everything I said about Warcraft and apply the opposite to LOTR, you can pretty much figure it out.

[the game]

There's no pleasing the people who play warcraft. Or wow for that matter. It's why every ranged class now has a pet and every class has a class mount now.

[Sky High]

LotR had these things going for it:

Excellent casting
Excellent pacing
Excellent prop/set design
Not reliant on CG
Phenomenal performances (career-defining) by a number of actors
A better story

There was so much attention to detail poured into those movies it should be considered a watermark of how to adapt a property on that alone. Warcraft? Siiiiiigh. So much lost potential over such small and rather baffling changes to the story.

[Tackhisis]

They have a solid source and didn't rely on CGI to generate all the imagery.

In Warcraft, it is painfully obvious that CGI characters are just overlaid on the screen and backgrounds are totally fake. Yes, sets are visually larger than in lower budget movies, but it still obvious. They also chose Canada actors which are much worse then ANZ ones.

- - - Updated - - -

For example, in the lore, Garona is half orc and half Draenei. But in the movie, she was made half orc-half human

Why do you think that the WotLK retcon is better than the movie one?

[Fencers]

what made LOTR truly a legendary movie while warcraft is somewhere above mediocre ?

Everything basically.

LOTOR had better directing, script, acting, production values, cinematography, editing, sound design, sound editing, location shooting, second unit shooting, practical effects and marketing. This is all pretty clearly so- LOTR is a more technically accomplished film (s). Some areas are objectively so, and many others are simply displaying more technical know-how in line with many principles of film making post-70s revolution.

Warcraft, which I did enjoy, is nowhere near the same artistic accomplishment or craftsmanship. That's all there is too it- it may be a "fun" movie, it is not a "good" movie. It's not really a film, so to speak.

[I Push Buttons]

Because LotR already had good writing and good characters... Which lent itself well to a good screenplay. Not to mention it was stretched over a trilogy to do it justice.

Warcraft had some garbage tier writing and laughable characters, which is fine for a video game that doesn't take itself seriously. And then it was haphazardly written into a screenplay with even more laughable writing and the already laughable characters made even more laughable, all while taking itself very seriously. And it crammed several different incoherent plots into a single movie. And it was all based on the weakest (story wise) entry of a series that overall has a pretty weak story, with some high points; Warcraft 3 for example.

[ItachiZaku]

Not too keen on LoTR movies now as I was when I first saw them for the first time way back. Frodo-Sam relationship so cringey..

Well, i mean...

[Puupi]

Well, i mean...

Clerks 2 is so great.

[Lazuli]

LotR had these things going for it:

Excellent casting
Excellent pacing
Excellent prop/set design
Not reliant on CG
Phenomenal performances (career-defining) by a number of actors
A better story

this10charslawl

[Jotaux]

Lotr had a lot more time to tell its story while warcraft had to cram it all into one movie.

[Shiny212]

LOTR trilogy is just better. It's got better cinematography, better casting, better acting, direction, especially writing and superior source material.

I consider it the best film ever.

[Pachycrocuta]

Lord of the Rings had more going for it. A director/producer (was he both? Don't know don't care) that was passionate about the material, being filmed all at once, great movie actors, better production and post production team, and better budget (I am sure, don't feel like looking it up. It's too early). Warcraft didn't seem to have any of that. I enjoyed the Warcraft movie quite a lot, as I enjoy the Warcraft universe. But it's not comparable to Lord of the Rings.

Honestly, if they would have actually reproduced the established lore, instead of changing things around (Orgrim being a Frostwolf, them being infused with life-stealing energy instead of drinking demon blood, how Durotan and Draka died, etc), as well as taking its time a bit more and being more focused, I think it could have been a pretty good fantasy movie, instead of a "good for being a video game movie" movie.

[Gamer8585]

LotR was the better movie(s) overall. Its direction, characters, pacing, and history was better. And it had a clearer vision where it wanted to go.

Overall I enjoyed the Warcraft movie. It got the Orc's side right with some tense plot threads, relateable characters, and real grounded drama. However the Human side was a mess. While each individual scene worked, but as a whole it was jumping allover the place. I didn't think a film could have ADD, but I was ready to throw some Ritalin at the screen midway though. In many ways it felt like a season of a TV show that someone cut together for a 2hour movie.

Some changes I would have made:
1) Cut the entire sub-thread involving Khadgar's "investigation" of Medivh or at least kept it as a side note as a part of other scenes. It was ultimately an excuse for the movie to go to Dalaran, but even there nothing of any actual import happend. They could have held off on Dalaran and Alodi for the squeal.

2) Cut Callum. He was a cheap and unnecessary plot device that didn't work. He was new so fans weren't attached. The movie didn't establish him enough for anyone to get attached. Tons of things could have given Lothar motivation "Fridging" Callum was a complete waste.

3) Extend the movie by 30-60min. One of the biggest problems was that you had about 12 important human characters and I think they each got 5min of actual character development. Give everyone some room to breathe and let the audience actually become emotionally invested.

4) Extend the duel between Blackhand and Lothar. We really didn't get a sense of Blackhand's power, and it ended so quickly it made him look like a chump. Have him rut around and pose an actual threat. Have Lothar on the defensive and inches away from death for a couple of minutes...then do the final charge where Lothar splits Blackhand's coin purse.

Ultimately it needed either more time or less stuff.

[Soulwind]

Warcraft tried to do in 3 hours what LotR did in 9.

Then they cut a third in editing, turning it into a fast-paced 2 hours fantasy war movie with four protagonists, none of which got nearly enough screentime to justify being protagonists. The fantasy wasn't explained, the war didn't feel like a war, and the audience left the theater with more questions than when they arrived.

A more focused script and less pressure from the studio would have done wonders.

Also some of the actors (mainly, Fimmel and Cooper) didn't seem to take the movie seriously at all.

I very much liked what they tried to do. And Duncan Jones, Toby Kebbel, Rob Kazinsky, even Ben Schnetzer did a very good job. But the result wasn't spectacular.

[Faroth]

For my perspective:

Warcraft split the narrative to try and make orcs heroic, sympathetic good guys that they absolutely were not by a majority in the First War. As others said, bouncing back and forth trying to make both sides seem like good guys made things a bit disjointed and you never got to really connect with anyone.

I still feel they should have stayed focused on the Alliance side with the Horde side seeming like evil monsters. Let Durotan & Drakka's concerns be glimpsed early and a full revelation for the halfway point with the Frostwolf clan leaving the Horde just before the third act. Wrap up the film with the orcs razing Stormwind and the survivors, who we've gotten to know more closely over the film, narrowly escape the city on the ships heading north.

You'd get a tighter narrative, more focused character development and a better chance of drawing people in to care enough to really want a sequel to see what happens to the refugees who lost their home (sorry, general movie goers, they mostly all die in the sequel mwahahah).

I know that gives the film a heavier Alliance slant, but to draw in a non-gaming audience, it's the safest choice. My biggest gripe with the orcs is that the Frostwolves didn't seem special at all. It seemed like all the orcs, even the ones who drank the blood, were against Guldan at the end. Durotan should have been more and more alienated among his own kind as they grew more bloodthirsty. He should have been the sole link for the audience to see some hope for redemption in the orcs.

I also think they went overboard with the orcs seeming too cartoony when they were going for live action. They were too big, more akin to ogres at times. The palm of their hands looked like it would cover a man's entire face. Yeah, the orcs are larger, but not THAT large. As a result, the battles didn't feel like they had quite the right weight and physicality when human and orc clashed.

- - - Updated - - -

Warcraft tried to do in 3 hours what LotR did in 9.

Then they cut a third in editing, turning it into a fast-paced 2 hours fantasy war movie with four protagonists, none of which got nearly enough screentime to justify being protagonists. The fantasy wasn't explained, the war didn't feel like a war, and the audience left the theater with more questions than when they arrived.

A more focused script and less pressure from the studio would have done wonders.

Also some of the actors (mainly, Fimmel and Cooper) didn't seem to take the movie seriously at all.

I very much liked what they tried to do. And Duncan Jones, Toby Kebbel, Rob Kazinsky, even Ben Schnetzer did a very good job. But the result wasn't spectacular.

I do think the original cut's length might have gone a long way in helping the film, that editing cut definitely seems like it hurt it.

[Puupi]

Warcraft tried to do in 3 hours what LotR did in 9.

2 hours. Not even 3.