Page 1 of 1

Warcraft

Posted: Fri Nov 06, 2015 8:16 pm UTC
by charliepanayi
Here's a trailer. I hope it's as good as all those other movies based on video games!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Rxoz13Bthc

Re: Warcraft

Posted: Sat Nov 07, 2015 8:09 am UTC
by raudorn
charliepanayi wrote:Here's a trailer. I hope it's as good as all those other movies based on video games!

Poe's law strikes again. I can honestly not tell if you're serious or not...

Nevertheless, the trailer looks nice. Not overwhelming, but definitely worth watching the movie over. Though I highly doubt they will simply tell the plot as it happens in the games/novels. They must know that a sequel is not guaranteed and they can't rely on it to wrap the story up. So everything has to happen in one movie. Given the clusterfuck that is Azerothian history around the orc invasion, I suspect a hefty rewrite and compression. Still, it's probably going to be at least a decent movie.

Re: Warcraft

Posted: Sat Nov 07, 2015 10:51 am UTC
by Xenomortis
My first thought when watching that was "that CGI is hardly any better than a video game cinematic".

Re: Warcraft

Posted: Mon Nov 09, 2015 1:33 pm UTC
by Zohar
I don't mind the orcs but the humans fall into some really troubling uncanny valley.

Re: Warcraft

Posted: Mon Nov 09, 2015 4:36 pm UTC
by Whizbang
I found the humans astonishingly detailed. Their speech didn't sync quite right with the sound, though, which may have been an issue with Youtube, the browser, or just the way the scenes were cut.

The main human hero looks like Ragnar Lothbrok from Vikings.

Re: Warcraft

Posted: Mon Nov 09, 2015 4:53 pm UTC
by Zohar
Yes, they're very well done, but still, something was a bit eerie. Maybe I should watch it again.

Re: Warcraft

Posted: Mon Nov 09, 2015 8:03 pm UTC
by PolakoVoador
I hope this movies gets a ton of money and Blizzard keeps doing more of then. A movie about Arthas? Yes please.

Re: Warcraft

Posted: Wed Nov 11, 2015 1:14 pm UTC
by maybeagnostic
Whizbang wrote:The main human hero looks like Ragnar Lothbrok from Vikings.

Well, it is the same actor.

Re: Warcraft

Posted: Wed Feb 17, 2016 3:44 am UTC
by kiniget
I know absolutely nothing about the Warcraft universe, but I have high hopes for it to bring in an era of video game movies that don't suck

here's hoping

Re: Warcraft

Posted: Fri Feb 19, 2016 10:56 pm UTC
by LaserGuy
kiniget wrote:I know absolutely nothing about the Warcraft universe, but I have high hopes for it to bring in an era of video game movies that don't suck

here's hoping


Well, if nothing else, the movie is actually being produced by Blizzard itself, who has a rather strong vested interest in the movie being successful. Gives it a better chance to succeed than the IP just being pawned off to whomever wanted it.

Re: Warcraft

Posted: Wed May 25, 2016 4:36 am UTC
by Dark567
First reviews are in!
Imagine “Battlefield Earth” without the verve, or the unintentional comedy, and you’ve got “Warcraft.”"
“Warcraft” promises, or threatens, sequels, but then so did “Super Mario Bros.” And come to think of it, if forced to watch either of these video-game movies a second time, I’d probably vote for the plumbers."
"'Finally an absolutely great video game movie' is absolutely what no one is saying"

:shock: think I will pass on this one.

Re: Warcraft

Posted: Wed May 25, 2016 11:30 pm UTC
by Felstaff
Eh, I read that review, and I can't say I respect the critic very much, after reading a few random articles. How he gets a 'top critic' spot on rotten tomahtoes is beyond me. Unless of course they give that out based on output, as he's a fairly high-churn superblogger. He seems content with replacing wit with jejune sardonicism in his reviews, and they're not well-written at all. It would make a C- blog post at best, so I haven't really attached much weight to it. (I feel this way about all snoop bloggy blogsites masquerading as genuine criticism).

It seems the more respectable critics are [so far] letting it bob to just above the 2-star waterline, so okay-ish and probably forgettable for those that don't care about the world of Warcraft, but that bumps up to 3+ stars if you've ever spent many an evening wiping in the Timesink Caverns. I'm a huge Duncan Jones fan, and I played WoW from 2004-2008ish, so I'm looking forward to a middling, perhaps above-average video-game-movie-thing.

I do dislike films that forget the irony of allowing heavy CGI to create weightless spectacle, so I'm lowering my expectations pretty far in the hope that some Zowie Bowie magic can uplift them again.

Here's some better criticism from better critics:
The Guardian wrote:That’s part of the problem with Warcraft: there’s a lot going on and yet we’re never quite engaged with it... Much processing power has been put in the service of spectacular, bludgeoning combat, but the images are somehow insubstantial, and we rarely feel the heat of the battle.


The Telegraph wrote: If you take delight in names like "Orgrim Doomhammer" and have a high tolerance for randomly scattered apostrophes and superfluous "h"’s, it could be your film of the summer.

If The Lord Of The Rings aesthetic was a restrained, almost elegiac depiction of a decaying world, this is a civilisation in full flower, bathed in sunshine broken only by the shadow of the odd passing griffin.

The pristine setting never meshes with Jones’s efforts to give emotional reality to his army of characters, who cannot escape their tropes: leader, hero, warrior woman, mystic.


Variety wrote:So good at making the most outlandish elements of his first two films seem completely credible, Jones can’t find a way to get this cartoony spectacle to soar. His heartfelt approach to the material only underlines the silliness.


I think there's a campy silliness to the chunky cartoon graphics that define the Warcraft games, and I'm not sure whether it's such a bad thing that this has been transferred to the silver screen. I mean, Uwe Boll ramped both those elements up, and everything he's ever done is terrible forever, but D-Jonez is a great director, and three films away from an auteurship. I guess I'll find out when I go and see it.

Re: Warcraft

Posted: Fri May 27, 2016 8:55 am UTC
by Lucrece
Don't care about critics, they're usually pretty trash at pinpointing what actually matters to me. Most of them just seem to regurgitate that dreadful literary criticism approach taught in most undergraduate humanities courses.

I place far greater value on the Popcorn Bag score (the audience score, people like me) in RottenTomatoes than that of the tomato score.

I'm not expecting it to be great either, just middling. Because honestly, the Warcraft story is among the worst of most RPG's. I'd be far more interested in an Elder Scrolls or Final Fantasy movie.

World of Warcraft was great for its gameplay at the time and immersive world building. The story is full of plotholes and cardboard stereotypes.

Looking at the movie, I'm not remotely impressed by the armor and regalia on most humans. It looks like cheap plastic. The CGI orcs look more realistic than the humans themselves.

I'm also not sold on their casting for Khadgar. They make him look like a fool, and they're really overselling Travis Fimmel's Lothar. Fimmel shows his lack of range here by basically coming off as Ragnar on Azeroth; he even has that same strange accent from Vikings.

Re: Warcraft

Posted: Fri May 27, 2016 12:43 pm UTC
by Zohar
Lucrece wrote:I'm not expecting it to be great either, just middling. Because honestly, the Warcraft story is among the worst of most RPG's. I'd be far more interested in an Elder Scrolls or Final Fantasy movie.

Ah yes, because that worked so well in the past :)

Re: Warcraft

Posted: Fri May 27, 2016 12:44 pm UTC
by Whizbang
I thought we all agreed never to mention that again.

Re: Warcraft

Posted: Sat May 28, 2016 9:39 am UTC
by Lucrece
Zohar wrote:
Lucrece wrote:I'm not expecting it to be great either, just middling. Because honestly, the Warcraft story is among the worst of most RPG's. I'd be far more interested in an Elder Scrolls or Final Fantasy movie.

Ah yes, because that worked so well in the past :)



Please, look at the production values of that crap. I'm talking a properly funded movie with actual talent.

There's no arguing IP like Elder Scrolls has much better mythology to draw from than Warcraft, which is either about slaves/ my brother took my girlfriend and now I'm mad/ I killed my father for a crown under bad influence/ I miss the glory days of the orcs so I became orc Hitler and meanwhile the other one became orc Moses.

Re: Warcraft

Posted: Sat May 28, 2016 9:19 pm UTC
by raudorn
To be fair, there is some nice lore in Warcraft, but they just had to start with the original orc invasion, which is clichéd as hell (you know, RTS plot style) and had to be retconned again and again just to make some sense with the other stuff. Originally, nobody cared where the orcs came from, what they wanted and why they all bow down to some sick looking orc dude. The other problem is, that the "good lore" in Warcraft is kinda pick and choose. Tons and tons of crap and some golden nuggets.

Re: Warcraft

Posted: Sat May 28, 2016 11:26 pm UTC
by Lucrece
I think Arthas and the night elf lore is some of the better parts of it. Most crap dealing with orcs is just awful, but they're really fond of their Green Moses (aka Thrall).

The game has a variety of races but the storytelling has always been Humans, Orcs, and Company (where the dwarves/gnomes/night elves get the shaft as well as Tauren/Trolls/Forsaken in Horde side; and I made a point to exclude the more recent blood elves and draenei).

Re: Warcraft

Posted: Sun May 29, 2016 8:14 pm UTC
by Dark567
Lucrece wrote:
Zohar wrote:
Lucrece wrote:I'm not expecting it to be great either, just middling. Because honestly, the Warcraft story is among the worst of most RPG's. I'd be far more interested in an Elder Scrolls or Final Fantasy movie.

Ah yes, because that worked so well in the past :)



Please, look at the production values of that crap. I'm talking a properly funded movie with actual talent.
Errrr... At the time it was one of the most expensive movies ever and had big names like Alec Baldwin and Steve Buscemi, I think its production values are probably the one thing going for it!

Re: Warcraft

Posted: Mon May 30, 2016 3:25 am UTC
by Lucrece
Dark567 wrote:
Lucrece wrote:
Zohar wrote:
Lucrece wrote:I'm not expecting it to be great either, just middling. Because honestly, the Warcraft story is among the worst of most RPG's. I'd be far more interested in an Elder Scrolls or Final Fantasy movie.

Ah yes, because that worked so well in the past :)



Please, look at the production values of that crap. I'm talking a properly funded movie with actual talent.
Errrr... At the time it was one of the most expensive movies ever and had big names like Alec Baldwin and Steve Buscemi, I think its production values are probably the one thing going for it!



For 2001 it looks like it was animated in the Dark Ages.

Re: Warcraft

Posted: Mon May 30, 2016 6:13 am UTC
by maybeagnostic
Lucrece wrote:For 2001 it looks like it was animated in the Dark Ages.

At the time of release it was hailed as a great achievement in computer animation.

Re: Warcraft

Posted: Mon May 30, 2016 2:40 pm UTC
by Zohar
Yeah, people were pretty amazed at the quality of it when it came out.

Re: Warcraft

Posted: Tue May 31, 2016 9:23 pm UTC
by freezeblade
+1 on "at the time, the graphics were impressive." I even remember what program it was done in, Maya, the "hair" and "fur" rendering was especially impressive at the time.

Re: Warcraft

Posted: Thu Jun 02, 2016 3:04 pm UTC
by Felstaff
So I watched Warcraft in 3D on Monday, and it was more fun than I expected. The lore is, certainly, silly. But then WoW had characters like Spitney Brears and other sledgehammer-cum-pop-culture references. As such, the film is silly, too. You kind of have to know the lore of Azeroth to understand what's going on. I went with a friend who had never played the games. His review was that it was around a 2-3 star film, and he only really sympathised with the orc Duratan and his family, and thought the human characters were miscast. He frequently didn't know what was going on, but 'went along with it' all the same.

I agreed to a certain extent; I thought the mage apprentice was pretty magey, but King Llane was a bit of a wet tissue, and not very kingy at all.

I don't think Duncan Jones has much experience with sweeping epics, kind of the opposite actually, if you think just how minimalist Moon was. I think the main problem was him trying to pack the entire universe into one film, something which LotR avoided magnificently, by starting in the cosy Shire, and gradually introducing us to Middle-earth, over well-paced time, until one gets the true magnitude and scope of the universe they're being immersed into. Watching Warcraft with no playing experience is kind of like watching/reading Return of the King without watching/reading the first two books/films, and not knowing anything about Tolkien, other than it 'has elves' in it. You're expected to care about all these legendary characters, but you simply don't. I was explaining to Mrs. Felstaff that Duratan's friend was named 'Orgrim Doomhammer', when her eyes glazed over and she said 'oh, it's one of those films, then'.

I really like the attention to detail, with Stormwind and Ironforge (criminally underused) replicated in pixel-perfect detail (for comparison). It was pure fanservice; even the Stormwind Paladin armour was recreated with almost zealous precision. Every mage spell was graphically identical to WoW--from teleporting to arcane missiles to polymorphing--and the mage Tower in Elwynn Forest was identical in architecture and structure, right down to the elaborately twisting staircases and shelves crowded with dusty old tomes.

However, there was too much attempt at shoehorning in the vast worlds of Warcraft into it, and no time was left to soak in the atmosphere and smell the Arthas' tears along the way, which left it feeling a little hollow. There was no sense of magnitude, as we jumped from lush forest (Elwynn) to ravaged desert canyon (Burning Steppes) instantly. I know mages can teleport, and griffins get you from A to B in double-quick time, but it's like these two different landscapes were as far away from each other as the local shops. "I'll meet you at the Blackrock Mountain at noon tomorrow" is a bit like saying to Elrond "let's have lunch at Orthanc tomorrow, and then take a stroll through Mirkwood before stopping for tea at Minas Tirith".