I KNEW the movie would flop

[Sentynel]

The guy I quoted brought up BvS, not me.

All I'm doing is offering a pragmatic opinion about the movie's sequel potential. Warcraft is definitely in a weird spot since it's a film which objectively was designed by a western film team for a western audience yet failed in the market for which it was designed. On those merits alone, it would never be considered for a sequel. However, its glowing international success -- particularly in the eastern (Chinese) box office -- may still give the film the necessary remunerations to warrant a sequel. (Pacific Rim's sequel is in development hell for this very reason.) We won't know with any amount of certainty until the film's full domestic and international cume has been settled.

In the meantime, I think it's a very weak argument to say it deserves a sequel simply because other films which were received poorly by critics also received sequels. BvS earned more in its three-day opening weekend than Warcraft stands to make in the domestic box office for its entire theatrical run. What I'm saying is that for a western film objectively designed for a western audience, that does not bode well for a sequel.

What do you mean by saying "west"? As far as I am aware, Europe is considered west too and the movie did (and still doing) well there.

Again, you're comparing a well established brand to a fairly new one. Of course BvS made more money because people know what to expect in a movie like that and they'll more likely buy tickets for it.

[Tackhisis]

Well, they couldn't make Garona a CGI character, as she is often in focus and interacts with other humans. CGI model would look too fake. Still, her ears and tusks are fake as hell, and coloration is way off (you can see inexplicable red and pink blotches on her face in the last scenes).

[Relapses]

What do you mean by saying "west"? As far as I am aware, Europe is considered west too and the movie did (and still doing) well there.

Again, you're comparing a well established brand to a fairly new one. Of course BvS made more money because people know what to expect in a movie like that and they'll more likely buy tickets for it.

I suppose the term western is a bit off-putting since in the example I provided excludes the European markets in which the film performed well.

But on that note, I'd even go so far as to say the Warcraft brand being unfamiliar to audiences is exactly why the poor RT scores have negatively impacted the film's performance in America. Video game movies have plagued the American box office for the last decade and if you're a person who's never played Warcraft before you may consult a review before shelling out the cash to see it. Seeing almost universally poor critical reviews, you may then make the very easy association that Warcraft is just yet another dismal failure of a video game adaptation which Hollywood has repeatedly attempted to coerce moviegoers into watching. This didn't happen in China where gaming is far, far more mainstream and even seen as a cultural phenomena (stadiums are frequently filled to brim with eSports fans over there), so it makes sense that Warcraft would perform better there.

It's still too early to say with any certainty what this means for a sequel but I don't think it's as cut and dry as "well the movie did well in China so it'll surely get a proper sequel."

[Grenzstein]

Flop ? The movie is doing really well atm and has a pretty good user score on IMDB, RT and Metacritic. Only the critics hated it. It made 286M so far.

[nacixems]

Being an art critic is generally fallacious. Art is by definition subjective hence by definition giving a deterministic mathematical answer (X over 10) to subjectivity is automatically wrong. The true or best way to look for movies is to ignore the self-proclaimed experts in rating art and do by what people think, and nowadays that means to go by sites that allow the common folk to vote.

thanks, I'm not as good at wording stuff, thats a great way to put it.

[access5]

No it makes them successful and it means that a ton of people enjoyed the books/movies. Thus they were not "flops" as the original poster claims Warcraft to be. Frankly I don't care if the movie is oscar-worthy. I just want an fantasy-action movie that's entertaining to watch as long as you dont think too hard. Along the lines of Transformers.

LOL. The Transformers movies were so abhorrent that it truly amazes me you would even mention them in the same breath as what you would want out of a Warcraft movie.

If that really is your standard then it's no wonder you thought this movie was good.

[partshark]

Troll thread is troll. $286,100,000 is not a flop.

[Tackhisis]

Troll thread is troll. $286,100,000 is not a flop.

That's about John Carter's box office, and there are much less people who read Burroughs novels than those who played Warcraft/WoW.

[MOEEEE]

The movie was bloody brilliant. Albeit very Alliance orientated, it was bloody great. I can't wait for the next one.

[Deleted]

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?

What was the point of this thread? Cos you jumped the gun man, movie didn't flop, its raking in money and fans left and right, hahahaha.

[velde046]

Finally got to see the movie and I the critics were off. I went to see it with my wife who had no idea what Warcraft really was about and she also enjoyed the movie.
I think that with this movie a good base has been set for follow up movies really. The first one is hard as you need to introduce a lot of characters. The amount of characters that were introduced makes it hard to do a deep background story.
Now that characters are somewhat established I bet that with the next movie people will feel more connected to the whole thing.
I really enjoyed seeing Azeroth come to live on the big screen and how they translated the game to the big screen. There was a plethora of small details to enjoy for the fans of the game. I chuckled when Khadgar sheeped the guard and mention it only lasts a minute or so...
But stll apparently there was enough to enjoy for non-fans as my wife did enjoy it really (something I wasn't sure about going in).
It's a nice clash of Harry Potter vs. Lord of the Rings vs. Shrek. And the CG Orcs were awesome and sometimes outdid the actual actors. The world was lovingly recreated in my opinion. I can understand why some thing were done unrealitically like the armor, so they still make you feel like you're watching the game.

All in all this was worth 4 out of 5 stars for me, especially considering how often translations of games to the big screen do not work out well.

[Luckx]

Movie could be much better and much more succeful if they used WOTLK Cinematic animation style and different story, instead of actors

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...grossing_films

Titanic made about $2,186,772,302 in 1997

Warcraft movie costed 160m $ and got 286m $ , only 126m more than it was invested in it, and also currency changes today 100m dollars is like 30m dollars 15years ago. Its not that much.

And money also doesnt mean that movie is good or bad, some movies that gived alot money was really great,some was average and some of them was pretty bad.

Im pretty sure that Blizzard/Activision makes much more money then 126m dollars, in 1year with PC games like WOW/Hearthstone/Overwatch/ even without movie

Already a thread on this, but rotten tomatoes is a garbage site, they gave the witch a 91% have you seen that horrible pos? They have no clue. Here's a fun idea people should grow a brain watch it themselves and form their own opinion~!

movie have 7.7 rating on IMDB, thats not much that since most cinema movies have 6-8 rating at imdb

[Aoyi]

I don't think I'd consider it a flop. Its doing relatively well at the $286,000,000 figure and it has a good rottentomatoes score for the audience (currently 83%). I enjoyed the movie. It wasn't the most amazing movie I've ever seen, but I liked it. I feel like I got my money's worth going to see it yesterday. My wife was quite happy with it too, so no complaints there. I think people might have just set their expectations a little too high and are only disappointed based on that. If you haven't seen it yet, check it out.

[klaps_05]

saw it, i love lore and wow and have been playing since wc1, read lots of books, etc. but orcs on screen just dont work. it looks like such a cheap production, this 160 million budget was spent making the potions on the market in SW or the hair software they created.

[kaamila]

Its a flop domestically only making 24 mil. it got beat by a horror film which is a genre that usually doesnt make much initially. not saying its good or bad but money wise, with the amount they put into it for production and adverts, i read it needs to make at least 400-450 mil to break even.

[Osmeric]

and also currency changes today 100m dollars is like 30m dollars 15years ago

You greatly overstate the rate of inflation over that time. It's more like 100m dollars today = 75m dollars then.

[Drilnos]

I finally saw it last night. I quite enjoyed it. I went with my brother, who hasn't played a Warcraft game in at least seven years, and he had issues with the pacing in some places, but his other nitpicks were mostly along the lines of "why is there suddenly a gryphon," "why are their hands so big" and "where are they getting all the giant tusks and bones for their towers?" He still liked it though. The movie apparently is 40 minutes shorter than Duncan Jones wanted it. I'd like to know what's in those 40 minutes.

[Relapses]

I'd like to know what's in those 40 minutes.

Gnomes in bikinis.

[Varaben]

Who would bet that a video game movie WOULDNT flop? Not sure who funds these types of movies, but video game movies never do well.

[Aquinan]

Who would bet that a video game movie WOULDNT flop? Not sure who funds these types of movies, but video game movies never do well.

Just saw it and it was pretty good, some odd plot tweaks, but lots of small things only fans would get (Murloc cameo). Def not the worst game adaption been made.