I think another problem was that the movie had the lore of a game that really should have been skipped over as its basis. The first Warcraft game was very light on story and background, and it was retcons from later games and the expansion of lore by books that actually made it relevant to the rest of the cannon.
They should have just hired Peter Jackson to direct
I disagree. Jackson in my eyes has lost his touch, which was why while the LotR trilogy was a masterpiece, the Hobbit trilogy was a train-wreak. I actually enjoyed Warcraft more then the Hobbit movies despite all its faults and problems.
Michael Bay best director confirmed. Citizen Kane worst movie. Also, weren't you the one defending the director, saying his dad died of cancer? And I thought this film made money?
Honestly, it's hard enough to adapt a game, much less an MMO, to film. It was about as bad as I thought it would be, and while I think any story can potentially be good, at least part of the blame lies with the source material, which isn't really suited for film.
Zontar said:
I think another problem was that the movie had the lore of a game that really should have been skipped over as its basis. The first Warcraft game was very light on story and background, and it was retcons from later games and the expansion of lore by books that actually made it relevant to the rest of the cannon.
They should have just hired Peter Jackson to direct
I disagree. Jackson in my eyes has lost his touch, which was why while the LotR trilogy was a masterpiece, the Hobbit trilogy was a train-wreak. I actually enjoyed Warcraft more then the Hobbit movies despite all its faults and problems.
Had I watched the film after LotR, I would have hated it. However, I was able to enjoy both this and Snow White by comparing them to The Hobbit. People should embrace Warcraft for the pulpy nonsense it is. I suspect it may build a cult following in the coming years.
Most of us can, but actually putting it on screen tends to be pretty difficult.
I don't know. I can't blame you for being upset. I was pretty irate after Jackson butchered The Hobbit. Hiring a young, idealistic, art director is actually a pretty good idea. It just didn't work out this time. Hopefully they'll improve the sequel, so that fans will be satisfied. I feel your pain.
I think another problem was that the movie had the lore of a game that really should have been skipped over as its basis. The first Warcraft game was very light on story and background, and it was retcons from later games and the expansion of lore by books that actually made it relevant to the rest of the cannon.
They should have just hired Peter Jackson to direct
I disagree. Jackson in my eyes has lost his touch, which was why while the LotR trilogy was a masterpiece, the Hobbit trilogy was a train-wreak. I actually enjoyed Warcraft more then the Hobbit movies despite all its faults and problems.
Michael Bay best director confirmed. Citizen Kane worst movie. Also, weren't you the one defending the director, saying his dad died of cancer? And I thought this film made money?
Honestly, it's hard enough to adapt a game, much less an MMO, to film. It was about as bad as I thought it would be, and while I think any story can potentially be good, at least part of the blame lies with the source material, which isn't really suited for film.
Zontar said:
I think another problem was that the movie had the lore of a game that really should have been skipped over as its basis. The first Warcraft game was very light on story and background, and it was retcons from later games and the expansion of lore by books that actually made it relevant to the rest of the cannon.
They should have just hired Peter Jackson to direct
I disagree. Jackson in my eyes has lost his touch, which was why while the LotR trilogy was a masterpiece, the Hobbit trilogy was a train-wreak. I actually enjoyed Warcraft more then the Hobbit movies despite all its faults and problems.
Had I watched the film after LotR, I would have hated it. However, I was able to enjoy both this and Snow White by comparing them to The Hobbit. People should embrace Warcraft for the pulpy nonsense it is. I suspect it may build a cult following in the coming years.
Most of us can, but actually putting it on screen tends to be pretty difficult.
I don't know. I can't blame you for being upset. I was pretty irate after Jackson butchered The Hobbit. Hiring a young, idealistic, art director is actually a pretty good idea. It just didn't work out this time. Hopefully they'll improve the sequel, so that fans will be satisfied. I feel your pain.
Oh well, sometimes these things just don't pan out. Maybe this will serve as a cautionary tale to bright-eyed film fanatics and would-be directors that even if that one dreamboat visionary offbeat indie director you love is chosen to direct that next summer blockbuster, it still won't guarantee success, or that it will even be good. Sorta makes me wonder who's the most at fault here: the studio for cutting a quarter of the movie's runtime, or Jones for being too enamored with the franchise.
The title of this thread (and the Forbes article in fact) is tremendously misleading. Warcraft made $430 million, on a budget of $160 million. Calling it a "430 million flop" makes is sound as if the production cost of the film was 430 million dollars, when in fact it made back more than twice its budget.
The article paints a painfully negative picture of the film's performance, but all told, making back twice what you spent on a movie isn't a loss and it certainly isn't a flop. I think the article considered it a failure mainly on the "BvS" metric, where everyone expected it to make a billion dollars and it ended up making a disappointly modest profit. Or, more credibly, on its failure to jump-start a new fantasy franchise. Here:
Forbes said:
I appreciate the ambition that went into Duncan Jones?s picture, both in terms of jaw-droppingly good special effects and the ?throw you in the deep end? fantasy storytelling. But the plotting didn?t flow and the characters, especially the human characters, didn?t inspire fandoms. Even with a bigger-than-expected $430 million global gross, this video game adaptation is a bullet dodged, not a franchise born. To make a sequel, even under potentially ideal circumstances (a smaller budget, a production more tilted towards China) would be akin to rebooting and starting from scratch. The Warcraft that we got this summer is not the beginning of a successful franchise. The film will lose money, and it failed at creating a cinematic franchise. In its present form, it?s game over for Warcraft.
I haven't seen the film, so I can't speak as to its quality one way or another, but the title post and, I dare say, the Forbes article itself are both very misleading. Even that paragraph I just quoted makes it seem as if the Warcraft film "will lose money" (which is nonsensical, it's already made the money) when it fact it's talking about the feasibility of a hypothetical sequel.
The title of this thread (and the Forbes article in fact) is tremendously misleading. Warcraft made $430 million, on a budget of $160 million. Calling it a "430 million flop" makes is sound as if the production cost of the film was 430 million dollars, when in fact it made back more than twice its budget.
You need to remember that the $160 million budget doesn't include marketing and advertising costs and that about half of the box office revenue goes to the studio (less in China were Warcraft made most of its money). We won't truly know how much the studio got back but when you account for these things it making enough of a profit for the studio to risk a sequel seems unlikely. It's sad but maybe they'll again with animated films.
Useful article on box office: http://www.wsj.com/articles/for-hollywood-not-all-box-office-dollars-are-equal-1409241925
Paul Hirsch of Empire Strikes Back fame probably cut too much from this movie. Heck the finale of the movie reminded me of Empire in that it cuts between 2 events. And that was one of the thigns no one liked in Empire Strikes Back so why is he repeating his mistake?
Forget the rest of this thread, I'm more interested in what's going on here.
Since when has this been a thing? I'm sure "no one" was hyperbole, but considering I have never once heard this criticism in my entire life I'm rather skeptical of how true this is.
The title of this thread (and the Forbes article in fact) is tremendously misleading. Warcraft made $430 million, on a budget of $160 million. Calling it a "430 million flop" makes is sound as if the production cost of the film was 430 million dollars, when in fact it made back more than twice its budget.
You need to remember that the $160 million budget doesn't include marketing and advertising costs and that about half of the box office revenue goes to the studio (less in China were Warcraft made most of its money). We won't truly know how much the studio got back but when you account for these things it making enough of a profit for the studio to risk a sequel seems unlikely. It's sad but maybe they'll again with animated films.
Useful article on box office: http://www.wsj.com/articles/for-hollywood-not-all-box-office-dollars-are-equal-1409241925
I remember reading somewhere that Warcraft needed to make $450m to break even, which means the advertising and marketing budget was almost double what it cost to actually make the film!
They could've made a far bigger profit by cutting back on marketing a bit - I think we all remember being bombarded with far more ads for Warcraft than we needed to see.
The title of this thread (and the Forbes article in fact) is tremendously misleading. Warcraft made $430 million, on a budget of $160 million. Calling it a "430 million flop" makes is sound as if the production cost of the film was 430 million dollars, when in fact it made back more than twice its budget.
The article paints a painfully negative picture of the film's performance, but all told, making back twice what you spent on a movie isn't a loss and it certainly isn't a flop. I think the article considered it a failure mainly on the "BvS" metric, where everyone expected it to make a billion dollars and it ended up making a disappointly modest profit. Or, more credibly, on its failure to jump-start a new fantasy franchise. Here:
Forbes said:
I appreciate the ambition that went into Duncan Jones?s picture, both in terms of jaw-droppingly good special effects and the ?throw you in the deep end? fantasy storytelling. But the plotting didn?t flow and the characters, especially the human characters, didn?t inspire fandoms. Even with a bigger-than-expected $430 million global gross, this video game adaptation is a bullet dodged, not a franchise born. To make a sequel, even under potentially ideal circumstances (a smaller budget, a production more tilted towards China) would be akin to rebooting and starting from scratch. The Warcraft that we got this summer is not the beginning of a successful franchise. The film will lose money, and it failed at creating a cinematic franchise. In its present form, it?s game over for Warcraft.
I haven't seen the film, so I can't speak as to its quality one way or another, but the title post and, I dare say, the Forbes article itself are both very misleading. Even that paragraph I just quoted makes it seem as if the Warcraft film "will lose money" (which is nonsensical, it's already made the money) when it fact it's talking about the feasibility of a hypothetical sequel.
Paul Hirsch of Empire Strikes Back fame probably cut too much from this movie. Heck the finale of the movie reminded me of Empire in that it cuts between 2 events. And that was one of the thigns no one liked in Empire Strikes Back so why is he repeating his mistake?
Forget the rest of this thread, I'm more interested in what's going on here.
Since when has this been a thing? I'm sure "no one" was hyperbole, but considering I have never once heard this criticism in my entire life I'm rather skeptical of how true this is.
Paul Hirsch of Empire Strikes Back fame probably cut too much from this movie. Heck the finale of the movie reminded me of Empire in that it cuts between 2 events. And that was one of the thigns no one liked in Empire Strikes Back so why is he repeating his mistake?
Forget the rest of this thread, I'm more interested in what's going on here.
Since when has this been a thing? I'm sure "no one" was hyperbole, but considering I have never once heard this criticism in my entire life I'm rather skeptical of how true this is.
Josh Whedon's criticized it retroactively, pointing out that if TESB was released today, then reception would be a bit iffy about the ending. Also, I do know that the film grossed lower than the other Star Wars films at the time it was released, even though it's now the critical darling of the series.
Edit: Wait, nevermind, he was talking about the cliffhanger, not the events leading up to it.
Samtemdo8 said:
Worgen said:
It was doomed to be bad since the plot of warcraft is stupidly convoluted and bad.
-Overuse of certain tropes (e.g. corruption and mortals coming into their own)
-Illidan being brought back
-Muradin being brought back
-Time travel/dimension hopping to "Draenor B"
-The plot of Warcraft I
-The Void lords
And whatever else is on your milage (people take umbrage to pandarens for some reason)
I like Warcraft, but I won't deny it has flaws. A lot of its strengths come from worldbuilding, and while I wouldn't call its plot bad, it's far from a shining example of fantasy writing.
Samtemdo8 said:
FirstNameLastName said:
Samtemdo8 said:
...
Paul Hirsch of Empire Strikes Back fame probably cut too much from this movie. Heck the finale of the movie reminded me of Empire in that it cuts between 2 events. And that was one of the thigns no one liked in Empire Strikes Back so why is he repeating his mistake?
Forget the rest of this thread, I'm more interested in what's going on here.
Since when has this been a thing? I'm sure "no one" was hyperbole, but considering I have never once heard this criticism in my entire life I'm rather skeptical of how true this is.
I'm not sure if any of that is bad though. Come Phantom Menace, it jumps around a bit (well, more than a bit), but I was fine with RotJ - I thought it worked better than the ending sequence to TESB, where we have a great duel coupled with anemic gunplay.
I disagree with Warcraft having one climax though. Two sequences of events work just fine, as it balances a large scale battle with more intimate events. Lord of the Rings pulled this off excellently after all.
Paul Hirsch of Empire Strikes Back fame probably cut too much from this movie. Heck the finale of the movie reminded me of Empire in that it cuts between 2 events. And that was one of the thigns no one liked in Empire Strikes Back so why is he repeating his mistake?
Forget the rest of this thread, I'm more interested in what's going on here.
Since when has this been a thing? I'm sure "no one" was hyperbole, but considering I have never once heard this criticism in my entire life I'm rather skeptical of how true this is.
I've never really seen that comment as being a criticism of Empire Strikes Back, so much as just stating facts that the endings kept adding threads until it became too much in the Phantom Menace. To me it seems the implication is that four is too many, but I never got the impression that two is also too much.
I'm not sure one person's critique of the prequels counts as proof that no one liked the dual stories in the Empire Strikes Back.
Empire's always been my favorite Star Wars film, and I feel the whole cloud city part was masterfully done. Furthermore, given that the plot centered around two main stories that came together on cloud city, I don't see how the editor could have cut the finale as one unbroken sequence. The pacing would have been pretty weird if we watched the Leia and Chewie escape in its entirety first and only then cut back to Luke first meeting Vader, their subsequent battles, and his eventual rescue.
So if you disliked the way the end of the movie was set up, I suspect the blame lies with the writers, not the editor.
I haven't seen the Warcraft movie, so I can't comment on how well it works in there.
1. I truly think the game's are now gonna retcon him judging from the Harbingers trailer and Khadgar wielding Ateish.
2. I never noticed that relationship in game and how is it badly done?
3. Well all I can say is some franchises have their themes. Corruption is one of them.
4. He will be become the Kerrigan of the Warcraft universe.
5. I thought that was handled well enough I mean his "death" felt to quick like do we see him get fatally stabbed? And besides him surviving also added another interesting plot development with the Council of Three Hammers.
6. If more movies ever come I doubt they are gonna recreate that part of the lore
7. Well how would you do it?
8.I actually like the Void Lords in concept and it definately explains the existance of the Old Gods. I am curious to see what a fully manifested Void Lord looks like.
That's not how it works. The Forbes article is correct. You are conflating the [box office take] with the [studio's cut of said takes]. The raw number on BoxOfficeMojo is nowhere near the amount of money the companies making the film get from it. That's what the whole "movies need to make 3 times their budget" idea comes from, it isn't 'those dastardly suits expected 4 yachts worth of money and got only 2 so the movies a failure', it's literally just the required money for a movie to reach net 0.
So yeah, the article is being negative for a very good reason.
(Same with BvS, you're wrong on that one too, it wasn't that it made only a small profit, that movie literally didn't make any money because of its bloated marketing and production budget being around 400 million dollars, which would require the movie to make close to 1 billion at the box office just to break even)
Doesn't the studio take a 90% cut of first-week ticket sales? I thought that was why cinemas had to charge fifteen dollars for a soda.
The situation may well be different in China, in which case you've got a point, but as far as I was aware the theatres get a very small percentage of the box office haul during opening week. Which, for the two movies we're mentioning (Warcraft and BvS) is basically all the money they made.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
