Warcraft reviews not looking great

[Samtemdo8_v1legacy]

Well let's see when movie comes officially.

Nah, I'd rather not piss my money away, thanks. :3

To be fair, it's 100% true that a shitty trailer does not lead to a shitty movie...however Batman v Superman stands as a firm reminder that somethings a shitty trailer DOES lead to a shitty movie.

What I saw in the trailers suggests that they're taking this movie way too seriously, and judging from the reviews this notion has been confirmed. WC is not a franchise meant to be taken with Game Of Thrones levels of seriousness. Indeed, as Kotaku points out: we're talking about a game where the most powerful spell is turning an enemy into a sheep. We're talking about a franchise that has drunken pandas doing kung fu. We're talking about a franchise where one of the biggest antagonists in the lore is a direct point-for-point rip-off of Anikin Skywalker. One need only look at Hearthstone to see how seriously this franchise takes itself...which is to say: not at all.

And there's nothing wrong with that, that's what makes the series charming and fun.

As I said: it's just too bad none of this stuff made it into the movie, as seen via that trailers and confirmed via these reviews.

First off Arthas is NOT like Darth Vader he is litirally the evil opposite of King Arthur himself. If Arthas is Darth Vader then where is his Luke Skywalker?

Anyway you find that you cannot take it seriously because of the art style. Just because its more cartoony means it cannot be taken seriously? And besides even the Pandas were not completely goofy:


But I guerrentee you they are gonna be retconned in this movie universe. Also Harry Potter has spells that turns people into animals so how is this different?

And the franchise may have its silly moments {mostly from Goblins, Dwarves, and Gnomes) but there were also moments where it takes itself genuinenly seriously:

 

[Silentpony_v1legacy]

I love this! I always thought I was the only cynical person on the forums who knew Geek culture had been infected with a Borg like virus called 'Commercialism'.

Oh my children, you do me proud.

 

[shrekfan246]

WC3(nearly 2 decades ago)

I feel like 14 years is still below the threshold for "nearly 2 decades".

Assassin's Creed has Fassbender, so it'll have to struggle to be worse than mediocre.

I mean... have you seen the quality of the stories in the actual games, especially over the past few years?

I don't think any cast could be strong enough to make that good.

Particularly if they want to focus on modern-day stuff like they've said.

OT: Considering how often my opinions on films don't line up with the majority of internet users (see: I liked The Dark Knight Rises and Man of Steel), I've got a feeling I'd probably enjoy this anyway. Not that it makes too much of a difference since I rarely go to the cinema in the first place, but I'll likely watch it eventually once it's out on DVD or whatever.

 

[anthony87]

I liked Man of Steel

...I thought I was the only one.

 

[Chanticoblues]

It looked like balls, so I can't say I'm surprised.

 

[Samtemdo8_v1legacy]

It looked like balls, so I can't say I'm surprised.

Then how would you make it not look like balls and treat the franchise with the justice and respect it derserves?

And don't write it off as nothing.

People thought there was nothing with Iron Man and look how he ended up

 

[09philj]

No Duncan! You were the chosen one...!

 

[Chanticoblues]

Then how would you make it not look like balls and treat the franchise with the justice and respect it derserves?

And don't write it off as nothing.

People thought there was nothing with Iron Man and look how he ended up

I feel like a smaller story would have helped instead of making it a racial epic. The mix of CG characters and actors looks really garish as well.

I get that Warcraft asks for a big, portentous story about massive battles, but that's a hard thing to earn when it isn't based on our own history, and it's a hard thing to make feel weighty with so much computer generated assets and photography. Maybe a unique style of animation would've been the way to go.

I haven't seen the movie or even read the reviews, but I have seen it completely fail to make even the slightest impression on anyone who isn't already familiar with the franchise.

 

[thewatergamer]

Thats disappointing, I had some hope for this one...oh well, throw it on the pile of mediocre game adaptations I suppose

 

[shrekfan246]

I liked Man of Steel

...I thought I was the only one.

(That was, in fact, the only image in a quick search that wasn't people angrily rebuking the idea.)

I readily admit that I'm not overly-critical of films in general, though. They don't typically need to do much for me to enjoy them.

 

[Samtemdo8_v1legacy]

Then how would you make it not look like balls and treat the franchise with the justice and respect it derserves?

And don't write it off as nothing.

People thought there was nothing with Iron Man and look how he ended up

I feel like a smaller story would have helped instead of making it a racial epic. The mix of CG characters and actors looks really garish as well.

I get that Warcraft asks for a big, portentous story about massive battles, but that's a hard thing to earn when it isn't based on our own history, and it's a hard thing to make feel weighty with so much computer generated assets and photography. Maybe a unique style of animation would've been the way to go.

I haven't seen the movie or even read the reviews, but I have seen it completely fail to make even the slightest impression on anyone who isn't already familiar with the franchise.

The problem is the Orcs need to be CGI because its quite difficult if not impossible making a man look like this with make-up:


And the battles feel weighty if you ask me:

 

[Samtemdo8_v1legacy]

I liked Man of Steel

...I thought I was the only one.

(That was, in fact, the only image in a quick search that wasn't people angrily rebuking the idea.)

I readily admit that I'm not overly-critical of films in general, though. They don't typically need to do much for me to enjoy them.

I did not think Man of Steel was that bad of a movie. And I am speaking this as person who have seen worse Superman THINGS.

 

[wizzy555]

How many reviews need to be out before we can say the critic consensus is reached?

 

[Torgo Nudho]

How many reviews need to be out before we can say the critic consensus is reached?

A lot, however some publications are more reliable benchmarks than others. Variety for instance, tends to be as positive as it can be given the circumstances. What's Variety saying about this movie?

 

[Chanticoblues]

The problem is the Orcs need to be CGI because its quite difficult making a man look like this with make-up:

?vid

And the battles feel weighty if you ask me:

?vid

I'm not sure what the solution is for fixing the orcs other than getting rid of them, turning to animation, or spending a hell of a lot more money on the CGI itself. The way it is in the film just looks bad in my eyes. They look plastic-y.

As for the battle scene... I mean there are neat ideas in it. The guy getting crushed by the hammer, the horse being thrown, those are compelling things to happen, but the way they're executed don't make them compelling to watch because, well, it just looks like CGI to me.

Also your video has what bothers me most about CGI vs real people. There IS a lack of weight, which is why so many cuts are on or just after the action. @ 30 the actor looks terrible moving in his armor and has almost nothing behind his swing, and at the end he pushes a (400 pound?) orc off of someone else without leaning into his leg. It looks like wire work and digital beings to me, which is what it is.

 

[wizzy555]

How many reviews need to be out before we can say the critic consensus is reached?

A lot, however some publications are more reliable benchmarks than others. Variety for instance, tends to be as positive as it can be given the circumstances. What's Variety saying about this movie?

Variety didn't like it. Rotten tomatoes is moving about 50% as reviews come out.

 

[Zhukov]

Assassin's Creed has Fassbender, so it'll have to struggle to be worse than mediocre.

I dunno man, they seem to be putting in a truly heroic effort to make it suck.

I mean, 65% of the movie in the future parts. That's an uphill battle if ever I saw one.

 

[Samtemdo8_v1legacy]

The problem is the Orcs need to be CGI because its quite difficult making a man look like this with make-up:

?vid

And the battles feel weighty if you ask me:

?vid

I'm not sure what the solution is for fixing the orcs other than getting rid of them, turning to animation, or spending a hell of a lot more money on the CGI itself. The way it is in the film just looks bad in my eyes. They look plastic-y.

As for the battle scene... I mean there are neat ideas in it. The guy getting crushed by the hammer, the horse being thrown, those are compelling things to happen, but the way they're executed don't make them compelling to watch because, well, it just looks like CGI to me.

Also your video has what bothers me most about CGI vs real people. There IS a lack of weight, which is why so many cuts are on or just after the action. @ 30 the actor looks terrible moving in his armor and has almost nothing behind his swing, and at the end he pushes a (400 pound?) orc off of someone else without leaning into his leg. It looks like wire work and digital beings to me, which is what it is.

Regarding the human and orc fight and the weightlessness. This has been a complaint ever since the Warcraft 3 cinematic and the MOP cinematic desptie the fact they are completely cgi cinematics like how can a Human even fight with an Orc that is bigger and heavier and stronger then them? I mean in the MOP cinematic as an Orc jumps on a guy the other guy manages to throw him off despite the cartonnier animation it still bullshit.

And again how is it not compelling to watch because it looks like CGI, I don't that it is CGI, I care what the CGI is USED for.

That is the problem I have with people's complaints about CGI they never even realize mention what they used it for. I mean the whole battle of new york in Avengers is CGI up the ass and no one complains because it was awesome

 

[wizzy555]

The Guardian is Guardianing:

That?s part of the problem with Warcraft: there?s a lot going on and yet we?re never quite engaged with it. In The Lord of the Rings, we had the Shire, the Hobbits? idyllic pastoral realm, as an image of what everyone was fighting for ? one that 20th-century Europeans could easily relate to. Here, we barely see Azeroth outside the royal castles and wizards? towers and epic battlegrounds. The heavy use of CGI, and its occasionally awkward interactions with the live-action elements, only serves to distance us even more.

Without a connection to the proletariat there is no true emotion!

The prospect of a predominantly white, European realm being invaded by foreign, primitive, darker skinned hordes (they are actually called the Horde) might set alarm bells ringing in our current climate of immigration anxiety. Is this a veiled Ukip broadcast? Or a pro-Trump one?

Well if Azeroth had a post-colonial benefits system we wouldn't need to craft war.

 

[DefunctTheory]

Assassin's Creed has Fassbender, so it'll have to struggle to be worse than mediocre.

I dunno man, they seem to be putting in a truly heroic effort to make it suck.

I mean, 65% of the movie in the future parts. That's an uphill battle if ever I saw one.

To be fair, it makes sense from a narrative stand point. While a huge portion of the Assassin's Creed games take place in the historical sections, that's because the gameplay relies on it. From a story perspective, it makes sense to put focus on the 'future' time frame.

Of course, I think this just makes the core problem more pronounced - Assassin's Creed simply isn't a very good game to make a movie out of. There seems to be a strange notion that if you want to make a video game movie, you have to take one of the more 'complex' games to make it work. This is the exact opposite of what they should be doing - When you're making a movie that's only 100 minutes long, you should be picking the games with simpler stories and themes. More Metroid (Space bounty hunter fights aliens. Simple), less Assassin's Creed (Future Corps exploits 'Memory DNA' to abuse hapless dumbass to travel through time to explore conflict between two historical secret societies, plus the complexity of whatever time frame this particular section of the story happens to take place in, multiplied by however many time frames the inevitable sequels go through. Fuck, come on).