Box Office: 'Warcraft' Is A $430 Million Flop

[Saelune]

It earned over twice it cost to make...that...doesn't sound like a flop. A flop is well, a movie that doesn't make back its earnings.

According to Hollywood, if it doesn't make MCU money, it's a flop.

According to common sense, if it doesn't even break even, it's a flop. Exhibit A: Warcraft. This has been said like 8 different times in this thread already.

I advise reading the article in the OP. And the one it is based on.

Anyway on Warcraft. It is currently 10th on the World wide box office charts. IF this is under-profit, then they must have simply ludicrous exceptions.

Nothing ridiculous. It's just the reality of how much money big budget movies need to make before the studio even manages to profit off of them. As it stands, Warcraft is 15 million dollars shy of breaking even.

430mill(earnings) - 160mill(cost) = 270mill (profit).

That is literally not how it works. 430 mill is gross ticket sales. Every party involved with the movie gets paid from that. Currently, the amount of money the studio made from it resulted in them being 15 million dollars short of breaking even. Ie, they lost 15 million dollars on the project. (Production budget for it was 160 mill, with an undisclosed marketing budget that could range from 50 to 100 mill, which is the standard range for most summer blockbusters.)

What I don't understand, and this isn't unique to you, is why people keep making this mistake. I'm not saying people should be aware of the exact distribution of box office takes per country, but they should atleast understand that the theaters showing the movie make money off of showing said movies. I mean, seriously, do people think theater chains are doing favours for Disney, Warner, etc.? And on top of this, these misinformed (uninformed(?), it's not like this train of thought is based on something factual, otherwise it wouldn't exist) people are usually those who are the condescendingly snarky ones waxing lyrical about how studios are unreasonable and greedy when in actuality movies like Warcraft literally result in them losing money.

When businesses don't make it clear how they work, people don't know it. All we hear is how much it cost and how much was earned. If that's all we get, it is not my fault that that is the info I use.

Can we be fair here? When they are talking about box office earnings that is what the ticket take at the door is. That is no different than when you pay 10.00 for a burger the restaurant does not pocket 10.00 in profit. People need to be paid. This burger is cooked by people who need to be paid, it is made from food purchased from someone who needs to be paid and done at a site that has utilities that need to be paid and maintained by people who need to be paid. Sensible people know that a businesses gross revenue is not their profit so my question now is as follows. Why even after the formula has been explained multiple times in this thread is it not understood that costs have exceeded revenue here? At least 8 times it has been explained in this thread and very very clearly explained in the article the OP cited.

I enjoyed Warcraft as a good popcorn movie. But it's a flop that will only make money if it does well in home video sales. the math is irrefutable.

Because I didn't read every post here, I don't generally follow movie profits, and I also don't think its unreasonable to assume the "cost" of a film might actually include...the whole cost of the film.

I'm not an idiot. I know that more than the film makers get the profit, but I'm not a film accountant, nor do I really care to be. Just because I may be unfamiliar with such specifics doesn't mean you should be so arrogant about it.

Fair enough, but did you not care enough about the topic to read the article included in the OP? Actually getting sufficient context from the OP strikes me as good policy when replying to a topic. It cuts down on a lot of meaningless blather. So instead of saving time for yourself you actually wasted it.

I was not being arrogant. you were however being ignorant. That is not an insult. just a statement that you were posting without so much as bothering to learn about it first.

The link directs me to a directory thing that made me think it didn't link to the article. A second look I saw a button to actually go to the article. I don't like Forbe's site, since this has happened before.

And the constant "Warcraft is a huge failure" thing is something that has perplexed me for awhile, as have the idea of movies that seem to profit being considered unprofitable.

And I do consider my initial post questioning the money math to be me looking to inform myself, which I have been. Not like I continue to defend that Warcraft wasn't a money flop. I do now have even more distaste for the business behind movies though.

 

[jklinders]

It earned over twice it cost to make...that...doesn't sound like a flop. A flop is well, a movie that doesn't make back its earnings.

According to Hollywood, if it doesn't make MCU money, it's a flop.

According to common sense, if it doesn't even break even, it's a flop. Exhibit A: Warcraft. This has been said like 8 different times in this thread already.

I advise reading the article in the OP. And the one it is based on.

Anyway on Warcraft. It is currently 10th on the World wide box office charts. IF this is under-profit, then they must have simply ludicrous exceptions.

Nothing ridiculous. It's just the reality of how much money big budget movies need to make before the studio even manages to profit off of them. As it stands, Warcraft is 15 million dollars shy of breaking even.

430mill(earnings) - 160mill(cost) = 270mill (profit).

That is literally not how it works. 430 mill is gross ticket sales. Every party involved with the movie gets paid from that. Currently, the amount of money the studio made from it resulted in them being 15 million dollars short of breaking even. Ie, they lost 15 million dollars on the project. (Production budget for it was 160 mill, with an undisclosed marketing budget that could range from 50 to 100 mill, which is the standard range for most summer blockbusters.)

What I don't understand, and this isn't unique to you, is why people keep making this mistake. I'm not saying people should be aware of the exact distribution of box office takes per country, but they should atleast understand that the theaters showing the movie make money off of showing said movies. I mean, seriously, do people think theater chains are doing favours for Disney, Warner, etc.? And on top of this, these misinformed (uninformed(?), it's not like this train of thought is based on something factual, otherwise it wouldn't exist) people are usually those who are the condescendingly snarky ones waxing lyrical about how studios are unreasonable and greedy when in actuality movies like Warcraft literally result in them losing money.

When businesses don't make it clear how they work, people don't know it. All we hear is how much it cost and how much was earned. If that's all we get, it is not my fault that that is the info I use.

Can we be fair here? When they are talking about box office earnings that is what the ticket take at the door is. That is no different than when you pay 10.00 for a burger the restaurant does not pocket 10.00 in profit. People need to be paid. This burger is cooked by people who need to be paid, it is made from food purchased from someone who needs to be paid and done at a site that has utilities that need to be paid and maintained by people who need to be paid. Sensible people know that a businesses gross revenue is not their profit so my question now is as follows. Why even after the formula has been explained multiple times in this thread is it not understood that costs have exceeded revenue here? At least 8 times it has been explained in this thread and very very clearly explained in the article the OP cited.

I enjoyed Warcraft as a good popcorn movie. But it's a flop that will only make money if it does well in home video sales. the math is irrefutable.

Because I didn't read every post here, I don't generally follow movie profits, and I also don't think its unreasonable to assume the "cost" of a film might actually include...the whole cost of the film.

I'm not an idiot. I know that more than the film makers get the profit, but I'm not a film accountant, nor do I really care to be. Just because I may be unfamiliar with such specifics doesn't mean you should be so arrogant about it.

Fair enough, but did you not care enough about the topic to read the article included in the OP? Actually getting sufficient context from the OP strikes me as good policy when replying to a topic. It cuts down on a lot of meaningless blather. So instead of saving time for yourself you actually wasted it.

I was not being arrogant. you were however being ignorant. That is not an insult. just a statement that you were posting without so much as bothering to learn about it first.

The link directs me to a directory thing that made me think it didn't link to the article. A second look I saw a button to actually go to the article. I don't like Forbe's site, since this has happened before.

And the constant "Warcraft is a huge failure" thing is something that has perplexed me for awhile, as have the idea of movies that seem to profit being considered unprofitable.

And I do consider my initial post questioning the money math to be me looking to inform myself, which I have been. Not like I continue to defend that Warcraft wasn't a money flop. I do now have even more distaste for the business behind movies though.

Same problems as in games really. Many mouths to feed. Retailers, marketing, lawyers et al. I'm not sure really why marketing is always rated separate from the other costs but the evil imp on my shoulder is whispering tax purposes. I seem to remember hearing that years back theaters never got a cut of the ticket sales. that's why smuggling food in was a hanging offense. people did it anyway though because shit, no one except my wife likes to shell out 5.00 for .05 of popcorn. So now they get a slice too.

But the real problem is that the biggest chunk of sales in this case was in China. In China the theaters keep 75% of sales rather than the usual 50%. So effectively all the sales in China counted as only .25 on the dollar. China will probably always be the biggest market at this rate so the budget needs to be lowered or a broader appeal is needed.

Shame. I wanted an Arthas/Thrall storyline in movies and that is very unlikely to happen at this point.

 

[Denamic]

Is this an actual flop or a hollywood accounting "flop"? I can't imagine the immense number of people who watched it didn't draw in any profits.

 

[Saelune]

It earned over twice it cost to make...that...doesn't sound like a flop. A flop is well, a movie that doesn't make back its earnings.

According to Hollywood, if it doesn't make MCU money, it's a flop.

According to common sense, if it doesn't even break even, it's a flop. Exhibit A: Warcraft. This has been said like 8 different times in this thread already.

I advise reading the article in the OP. And the one it is based on.

Anyway on Warcraft. It is currently 10th on the World wide box office charts. IF this is under-profit, then they must have simply ludicrous exceptions.

Nothing ridiculous. It's just the reality of how much money big budget movies need to make before the studio even manages to profit off of them. As it stands, Warcraft is 15 million dollars shy of breaking even.

430mill(earnings) - 160mill(cost) = 270mill (profit).

That is literally not how it works. 430 mill is gross ticket sales. Every party involved with the movie gets paid from that. Currently, the amount of money the studio made from it resulted in them being 15 million dollars short of breaking even. Ie, they lost 15 million dollars on the project. (Production budget for it was 160 mill, with an undisclosed marketing budget that could range from 50 to 100 mill, which is the standard range for most summer blockbusters.)

What I don't understand, and this isn't unique to you, is why people keep making this mistake. I'm not saying people should be aware of the exact distribution of box office takes per country, but they should atleast understand that the theaters showing the movie make money off of showing said movies. I mean, seriously, do people think theater chains are doing favours for Disney, Warner, etc.? And on top of this, these misinformed (uninformed(?), it's not like this train of thought is based on something factual, otherwise it wouldn't exist) people are usually those who are the condescendingly snarky ones waxing lyrical about how studios are unreasonable and greedy when in actuality movies like Warcraft literally result in them losing money.

When businesses don't make it clear how they work, people don't know it. All we hear is how much it cost and how much was earned. If that's all we get, it is not my fault that that is the info I use.

Can we be fair here? When they are talking about box office earnings that is what the ticket take at the door is. That is no different than when you pay 10.00 for a burger the restaurant does not pocket 10.00 in profit. People need to be paid. This burger is cooked by people who need to be paid, it is made from food purchased from someone who needs to be paid and done at a site that has utilities that need to be paid and maintained by people who need to be paid. Sensible people know that a businesses gross revenue is not their profit so my question now is as follows. Why even after the formula has been explained multiple times in this thread is it not understood that costs have exceeded revenue here? At least 8 times it has been explained in this thread and very very clearly explained in the article the OP cited.

I enjoyed Warcraft as a good popcorn movie. But it's a flop that will only make money if it does well in home video sales. the math is irrefutable.

Because I didn't read every post here, I don't generally follow movie profits, and I also don't think its unreasonable to assume the "cost" of a film might actually include...the whole cost of the film.

I'm not an idiot. I know that more than the film makers get the profit, but I'm not a film accountant, nor do I really care to be. Just because I may be unfamiliar with such specifics doesn't mean you should be so arrogant about it.

Fair enough, but did you not care enough about the topic to read the article included in the OP? Actually getting sufficient context from the OP strikes me as good policy when replying to a topic. It cuts down on a lot of meaningless blather. So instead of saving time for yourself you actually wasted it.

I was not being arrogant. you were however being ignorant. That is not an insult. just a statement that you were posting without so much as bothering to learn about it first.

The link directs me to a directory thing that made me think it didn't link to the article. A second look I saw a button to actually go to the article. I don't like Forbe's site, since this has happened before.

And the constant "Warcraft is a huge failure" thing is something that has perplexed me for awhile, as have the idea of movies that seem to profit being considered unprofitable.

And I do consider my initial post questioning the money math to be me looking to inform myself, which I have been. Not like I continue to defend that Warcraft wasn't a money flop. I do now have even more distaste for the business behind movies though.

Same problems as in games really. Many mouths to feed. Retailers, marketing, lawyers et al. I'm not sure really why marketing is always rated separate from the other costs but the evil imp on my shoulder is whispering tax purposes. I seem to remember hearing that years back theaters never got a cut of the ticket sales. that's why smuggling food in was a hanging offense. people did it anyway though because shit, no one except my wife likes to shell out 5.00 for .05 of popcorn. So now they get a slice too.

But the real problem is that the biggest chunk of sales in this case was in China. In China the theaters keep 75% of sales rather than the usual 50%. So effectively all the sales in China counted as only .25 on the dollar. China will probably always be the biggest market at this rate so the budget needs to be lowered or a broader appeal is needed.

Shame. I wanted an Arthas/Thrall storyline in movies and that is very unlikely to happen at this point.

I think they should just be a bit smarter with future films. Again, as someone who is not versed in this, here is my layman ideas, but the IP is known now. You shouldn't need so much marketing since you already got people who will want to see what happens next. I, as a non Warcraft games fan, would feel obligated to see the series through now, and you got fans who will want to see the other games portrayed, and even cynical ones who will be like "Maybe they will get it right THIS time". And plus, Warcraft III would be the big deal, since that's the non-WoW game most played and known. So really its just a matter of if they aren't big enough wussies to keep trying.

 

[jklinders]

It earned over twice it cost to make...that...doesn't sound like a flop. A flop is well, a movie that doesn't make back its earnings.

According to Hollywood, if it doesn't make MCU money, it's a flop.

According to common sense, if it doesn't even break even, it's a flop. Exhibit A: Warcraft. This has been said like 8 different times in this thread already.

I advise reading the article in the OP. And the one it is based on.

Anyway on Warcraft. It is currently 10th on the World wide box office charts. IF this is under-profit, then they must have simply ludicrous exceptions.

Nothing ridiculous. It's just the reality of how much money big budget movies need to make before the studio even manages to profit off of them. As it stands, Warcraft is 15 million dollars shy of breaking even.

430mill(earnings) - 160mill(cost) = 270mill (profit).

That is literally not how it works. 430 mill is gross ticket sales. Every party involved with the movie gets paid from that. Currently, the amount of money the studio made from it resulted in them being 15 million dollars short of breaking even. Ie, they lost 15 million dollars on the project. (Production budget for it was 160 mill, with an undisclosed marketing budget that could range from 50 to 100 mill, which is the standard range for most summer blockbusters.)

What I don't understand, and this isn't unique to you, is why people keep making this mistake. I'm not saying people should be aware of the exact distribution of box office takes per country, but they should atleast understand that the theaters showing the movie make money off of showing said movies. I mean, seriously, do people think theater chains are doing favours for Disney, Warner, etc.? And on top of this, these misinformed (uninformed(?), it's not like this train of thought is based on something factual, otherwise it wouldn't exist) people are usually those who are the condescendingly snarky ones waxing lyrical about how studios are unreasonable and greedy when in actuality movies like Warcraft literally result in them losing money.

When businesses don't make it clear how they work, people don't know it. All we hear is how much it cost and how much was earned. If that's all we get, it is not my fault that that is the info I use.

Can we be fair here? When they are talking about box office earnings that is what the ticket take at the door is. That is no different than when you pay 10.00 for a burger the restaurant does not pocket 10.00 in profit. People need to be paid. This burger is cooked by people who need to be paid, it is made from food purchased from someone who needs to be paid and done at a site that has utilities that need to be paid and maintained by people who need to be paid. Sensible people know that a businesses gross revenue is not their profit so my question now is as follows. Why even after the formula has been explained multiple times in this thread is it not understood that costs have exceeded revenue here? At least 8 times it has been explained in this thread and very very clearly explained in the article the OP cited.

I enjoyed Warcraft as a good popcorn movie. But it's a flop that will only make money if it does well in home video sales. the math is irrefutable.

Because I didn't read every post here, I don't generally follow movie profits, and I also don't think its unreasonable to assume the "cost" of a film might actually include...the whole cost of the film.

I'm not an idiot. I know that more than the film makers get the profit, but I'm not a film accountant, nor do I really care to be. Just because I may be unfamiliar with such specifics doesn't mean you should be so arrogant about it.

Fair enough, but did you not care enough about the topic to read the article included in the OP? Actually getting sufficient context from the OP strikes me as good policy when replying to a topic. It cuts down on a lot of meaningless blather. So instead of saving time for yourself you actually wasted it.

I was not being arrogant. you were however being ignorant. That is not an insult. just a statement that you were posting without so much as bothering to learn about it first.

The link directs me to a directory thing that made me think it didn't link to the article. A second look I saw a button to actually go to the article. I don't like Forbe's site, since this has happened before.

And the constant "Warcraft is a huge failure" thing is something that has perplexed me for awhile, as have the idea of movies that seem to profit being considered unprofitable.

And I do consider my initial post questioning the money math to be me looking to inform myself, which I have been. Not like I continue to defend that Warcraft wasn't a money flop. I do now have even more distaste for the business behind movies though.

Same problems as in games really. Many mouths to feed. Retailers, marketing, lawyers et al. I'm not sure really why marketing is always rated separate from the other costs but the evil imp on my shoulder is whispering tax purposes. I seem to remember hearing that years back theaters never got a cut of the ticket sales. that's why smuggling food in was a hanging offense. people did it anyway though because shit, no one except my wife likes to shell out 5.00 for .05 of popcorn. So now they get a slice too.

But the real problem is that the biggest chunk of sales in this case was in China. In China the theaters keep 75% of sales rather than the usual 50%. So effectively all the sales in China counted as only .25 on the dollar. China will probably always be the biggest market at this rate so the budget needs to be lowered or a broader appeal is needed.

Shame. I wanted an Arthas/Thrall storyline in movies and that is very unlikely to happen at this point.

I think they should just be a bit smarter with future films. Again, as someone who is not versed in this, here is my layman ideas, but the IP is known now. You shouldn't need so much marketing since you already got people who will want to see what happens next. I, as a non Warcraft games fan, would feel obligated to see the series through now, and you got fans who will want to see the other games portrayed, and even cynical ones who will be like "Maybe they will get it right THIS time". And plus, Warcraft III would be the big deal, since that's the non-WoW game most played and known. So really its just a matter of if they aren't big enough wussies to keep trying.

*shrug*

big set of dice to roll. If Blizzard were still their own thing that would be one thing, but Activision is not really known for taking chances lately. It would take a lot of Actiblizzard's money to get a sequel greenlit, and I just don't see the suits at Activision saying "sure we'll shell out another 160 million for another money loser."

*shrug* I've been wrong before and i'd love to be wrong here. Here's hoping.

 

[Too Many Secrets]

I think that "Flop" is needlessly hyperbolic. It failed to perform as intended, it didn't make a profit, but it didn't lose anyone money either. Movies are a risky investment, so this is definitely not a good outcome, but when I hear "flop" I assume that people were taken to the cleaners, not just that they broke even. If we were in some kind of bull market then you could make the argument for lost interest on principle invested, but you could have easily lost this money some other way.

It was a dreadful movie though, as a movie, and a critical failure at least.

Is this an actual flop or a hollywood accounting "flop"? I can't imagine the immense number of people who watched it didn't draw in any profits.

It's going to make SOME money on video presumably too, and with merch. It's still falling short of expectations though.

 

[Mangod]

Is this an actual flop or a hollywood accounting "flop"? I can't imagine the immense number of people who watched it didn't draw in any profits.

430 million dollars in box office gross.

Of which the studio only sees half, so 215 million dollars in profit for the studio.

Minus the production cost of the movie, which is stated to be 160 million dollars, leaving us with 55 million.

Minus the unstated marketing budget, which we can probably safely estimate to be at least 50 million (and that's lowballing it), which would leave the studio with 5 million dollars in profit.

Which is enough to produce another Jem and the Holograms movie [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jem_and_the_Holograms_(film)].

The movie more than likely has, at best, made a very modest profit, and according to The Hollywood Reporter [Those close to the $160 million-budgeted video game adaptation say the loss will be only about $15 million.], the movie is still 15 million dollars in the red.

I think that "Flop" is needlessly hyperbolic. It failed to perform as intended, it didn't make a profit, but it didn't lose anyone money either. Movies are a risky investment, so this is definitely not a good outcome, but when I hear "flop" I assume that people were taken to the cleaners, not just that they broke even. If we were in some kind of bull market then you could make the argument for lost interest on principle invested, but you could have easily lost this money some other way.

It was a dreadful movie though, as a movie, and a critical failure at least.

Apparently, it has lost people money, so calling it a flop at the moment seems fair. I'll see if I can find the link for it.

Edit: Found it. According to The Hollywood Reporter [http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/box-office-analysis-warcraft-avoids-910268] "Those close to the $160 million-budgeted video game adaptation say the loss will be only about $15 million."

 

[wizzy555]

I wonder if blizzard subsidised any costs. They could have intended it to be a loss-leader to get people back into WoW.

I still find it strange it has managed to reach 10th on the world wide box office and is still a failure. Was it a wild shot in the dark to compete with Marvel?

 

[Samtemdo8_v1legacy]

I think that "Flop" is needlessly hyperbolic. It failed to perform as intended, it didn't make a profit, but it didn't lose anyone money either. Movies are a risky investment, so this is definitely not a good outcome, but when I hear "flop" I assume that people were taken to the cleaners, not just that they broke even. If we were in some kind of bull market then you could make the argument for lost interest on principle invested, but you could have easily lost this money some other way.

It was a dreadful movie though, as a movie, and a critical failure at least.

Is this an actual flop or a hollywood accounting "flop"? I can't imagine the immense number of people who watched it didn't draw in any profits.

It's going to make SOME money on video presumably too, and with merch. It's still falling short of expectations though.

It could have done better justice.

I have the right vision to make a better Warcraft movie than what came to be.

I have a vision for better marketing even for trailers.

I have vision for how I would "retcon" this universe to make it more accessible because even I understand this franchise has some fat that narritively needs to be trimmed if needs to work as a movie. (The Pandas, certain areas in Azeroth that in the end are inconsiquential, certain races, etc.)

 

[Vahir]

It could have done better justice.

I have the right vision to make a better Warcraft movie than what came to be.

I have a vision for better marketing even for trailers.

I have vision for how I would "retcon" this universe to make it more accessible because even I understand this franchise has some fat that narritively needs to be trimmed if needs to work as a movie. (The Pandas, certain areas in Azeroth that in the end are inconsiquential, certain races, etc.)

I... doubt it. More cliches and more unironic cheese wouldn't have made the franchise any better. Given the source material, I'm frankly surprised they were able to cobble together a plot that broke even at all.

It's almost certainly because of the fandom and name recognition around it. If the movie didn't have the Warcraft branding, it would have never have gotten even the small success it did.

 

[Samtemdo8_v1legacy]

It could have done better justice.

I have the right vision to make a better Warcraft movie than what came to be.

I have a vision for better marketing even for trailers.

I have vision for how I would "retcon" this universe to make it more accessible because even I understand this franchise has some fat that narritively needs to be trimmed if needs to work as a movie. (The Pandas, certain areas in Azeroth that in the end are inconsiquential, certain races, etc.)

I... doubt it. More cliches and more unironic cheese wouldn't have made the franchise any better. Given the source material, I'm frankly surprised they were able to cobble together a plot that broke even at all.

It's almost certainly because of the fandom and name recognition around it. If the movie didn't have the Warcraft branding, it would have never have gotten even the small success it did.

Must everything be a cliche to you? When does cliche = mediocre?

Its cliche but at its best its done fantaistically and immersive. The locations, the music, the characters.

The lore has an auidiance. Just because Tolkien exists does not mean all other variations (even though they are not exactly the same)

Guardians of the Galaxy was cheesy and cliche as fuck and people enjoyed it regardless if its been done before.

So long as its done well its good. And in this case Duncan Jones has not done it well enough. I think he tried too hard to make the orcs not complete badguys which only gives us more charcaters to deal with.

He should have made this entirely about the humans and only reveal the Orcs being deeper charcaters later.

 

[Samtemdo8_v1legacy]

And also name a Tolkien esque Fantasy setting in Movies that have Lovecraftian Old-Gods:

Alien worlds:

https://i.ytimg.com/vi/P6SwU3C9cyc/maxresdefault.jpg

http://www.innerwarcraft.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/WoWScrnShot_040815_211805.jpg

And Demons with Spaceships:

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-GPYI33g-ydU/VlOzVYFUMTI/AAAAAAAAWxU/eBvl3sZdpNA/s1600/better_spaceship.png

Stop looking at the castles and orcs and dragons and look deeper.

 

[bificommander]

I went and saw it with my colleague's. Most of us found it bad. Only one guy really liked the little details like apparently flying into Stormwind from the same direction as in WoW or something? I dunno.

The movie's story jumped all over the place, going from one plot point to the next with nary a rest, yet with big build-up scenes like the big Orc duel rendered absolutely moot in seconds. It seems they tried to cram too much of the timeline into one movie, and didn't have time left to properly connect all the bits and make us care for them.

I think they could've made a better movie from just the human campaign from WC3 (perhaps with a bit of teasers from the Scourge). That had a good, solid story that still leaves plenty of time for proper character scenes.

 

[Vahir]

Must everything be a cliche to you? When does cliche = mediocre?

Its cliche but at its best its done fantaistically and immersive. The locations, the music, the characters.

The lore has an auidiance. Just because Tolkien exists does not mean all other variations (even though they are not exactly the same)

Guardians of the Galaxy was cheesy and cliche as fuck and people enjoyed it regardless if its been done before.

There's nothing inherently wrong with having cliches. Tropes Are Tools, after all. But a cliched story is a forgettable story. Forgettable stories are perfectly fine in video games, because you're mainly there for the gameplay in those cases and it helps put you into a familiar context, but if you're depending purely on the narrative, such as with a movie, you need to have a story that holds up on its own, that stands out. And Warcraft definitely does not.

And also name a Tolkien esque Fantasy setting in Movies that have Lovecraftian Old-Gods:

Alien worlds:

https://i.ytimg.com/vi/P6SwU3C9cyc/maxresdefault.jpg

http://www.innerwarcraft.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/WoWScrnShot_040815_211805.jpg

And Demons with Spaceships:

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-GPYI33g-ydU/VlOzVYFUMTI/AAAAAAAAWxU/eBvl3sZdpNA/s1600/better_spaceship.png

Stop looking at the castles and orcs and dragons and look deeper.

All fantasy worlds are /by definition/ alien worlds, because they're not earth. And if floating crystals and old gods are your examples for what makes your setting stand out among other fantasy ones, you don't have a very good case. (Every sufficiently expansive fantasy setting will include eldritch beings, after all.)

Demons and the Light IN SPACE is a bit out there for the genre, yeah, but it's hardly unprecedented (40k says hey).

 

[Samtemdo8_v1legacy]

Must everything be a cliche to you? When does cliche = mediocre?

Its cliche but at its best its done fantaistically and immersive. The locations, the music, the characters.

The lore has an auidiance. Just because Tolkien exists does not mean all other variations (even though they are not exactly the same)

Guardians of the Galaxy was cheesy and cliche as fuck and people enjoyed it regardless if its been done before.

There's nothing inherently wrong with having cliches. Tropes Are Tools, after all. But a cliched story is a forgettable story. Forgettable stories are perfectly fine in video games, because you're mainly there for the gameplay in those cases and it helps put you into a familiar context, but if you're depending purely on the narrative, such as with a movie, you need to have a story that holds up on its own, that stands out. And Warcraft definitely does not.

And also name a Tolkien esque Fantasy setting in Movies that have Lovecraftian Old-Gods:

Alien worlds:

https://i.ytimg.com/vi/P6SwU3C9cyc/maxresdefault.jpg

http://www.innerwarcraft.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/WoWScrnShot_040815_211805.jpg

And Demons with Spaceships:

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-GPYI33g-ydU/VlOzVYFUMTI/AAAAAAAAWxU/eBvl3sZdpNA/s1600/better_spaceship.png

Stop looking at the castles and orcs and dragons and look deeper.

All fantasy worlds are /by definition/ alien worlds, because they're not earth. And if floating crystals and old gods are your examples for what makes your setting stand out among other fantasy ones, you don't have a very good case. (Every sufficiently expansive fantasy setting will include eldritch beings, after all.)

Demons and the Light IN SPACE is a bit out there for the genre, yeah, but it's hardly unprecedented (40k says hey).

Nothing with Warcraft is forgettable once you actually experiance it.

I remember Grom's Sacrifice.

I remember Arthas killing his father and become the Lich King.

I remember the ending of Wrath of the Lich King word for word.

I remember some of the patch trailers word for word

What makes Warcraft special is how much of its lore is visualized and given motion and sound and voice.

I mean all the lore stuff you get in Warhammer Fantasy is in only in text. We are told about the End Times, but never actually shown.

We see the battle against the Lich King

We See the expidition to Outland

And we have compelling chararcters to follow.

I mean for pete's sake did no one play Warcraft 3 when it came out? Was I the only one?

 

[Vahir]

Nothing with Warcraft is forgettable once you actually experiance it.

Speaking as someone who experienced it, I politely disagree.

I remember the ending of Wrath of the Lich King word for word.

I remember some of the patch trailers word for word

That's proof of your obsession, not the quality of the work.

What makes Warcraft special is how much of its lore is visualized and given motion and sound and voice.

I... this is a very strange thing to hear in 2016.

I mean all the lore stuff you get in Warhammer Fantasy is in only in text. We are told about the End Times, but never actually shown.

The implication being that video games and movies are inherently better than books. We should of burned em all decades ago, amirite?

We see the battle against the Lich King

We See the expidition to Outland

I'll admit I was too busy skipping over quest text and clicking "Accept" to give much of a toss about those, but then again that says a lot about their interest in general.

And we have compelling chararcters to follow.

I'll tell you when I see one.

I mean for pete's sake did no one play Warcraft 3 when it came out? Was I the only one?

Yup. It was just you and a pidgeon that landed on someone's keyboard on Bnet on day one.

 

[Samtemdo8_v1legacy]

Nothing with Warcraft is forgettable once you actually experiance it.

Speaking as someone who experienced it, I politely disagree.

I remember the ending of Wrath of the Lich King word for word.

I remember some of the patch trailers word for word

That's proof of your obsession, not the quality of the work.

What makes Warcraft special is how much of its lore is visualized and given motion and sound and voice.

I... this is a very strange thing to hear in 2016.

I mean all the lore stuff you get in Warhammer Fantasy is in only in text. We are told about the End Times, but never actually shown.

The implication being that video games and movies are inherently better than books. We should of burned em all decades ago, amirite?

We see the battle against the Lich King

We See the expidition to Outland

I'll admit I was too busy skipping over quest text and clicking "Accept" to give much of a toss about those, but then again that says a lot about their interest in general.

And we have compelling chararcters to follow.

I'll tell you when I see one.

I mean for pete's sake did no one play Warcraft 3 when it came out? Was I the only one?

Yup. It was just you and a pidgeon that landed on someone's keyboard on Bnet on day one.

Do you say this as person that has immersived himself in EVERY fantasy genre?

Are you well versed in Narnia, Everquest, Ultima, Might and Magic, Dragon Age, Warhammer Fantasy, etc?

 

[Vahir]

Do you say this as person that has immersived himself in EVERY fantasy genre?

Are you well versed in Narnia, Everquest, Ultima, Might and Magic, Dragon Age, Warhammer Fantasy, etc?

Of course not, yes, no, no, no, yes, yes. Not really seeing the relevance?

 

[Dalisclock]

Still not what happened here. Reading the Forbes article and the Hollywood Reporter article it is based would have explained that to ye. Film is 15 million dollars in the red.

Never claimed that. I wasn't commenting on Warcraft in particular, just on the sometime tendency where otherwise succesful products are still considered flops if other (similar) products end up even more successful.

Jim Sterling neatly summed this up: Some people aren't content with making money. They want to make ALL the money, and consider it a failure if they don't.

 

[Lykosia_v1legacy]

Before you declare Warcraft movie a flop, you should wait for DVD/Blu-Ray sales, TV rights sales etc. Those can make a box office flop into a profitable movie. Waterworld is a great example.