Honestly, I'll probably still see it at some point. I've heard a decent amount of not-shit (and good) things said about it to give it a fair shot.
From a youtube reviewer:AccursedTheory said:Samtemdo8 said:AccursedTheory said:...And?Samtemdo8 said:AccursedTheory said:That is the exact same argument I used when critics trashed Dawn of Justice, before release.LostGryphon said:I'm aware, sir.mduncan50 said:No, but critics have seen early viewings.
As I said previously, however, the opinions of those critics, especially with the way they've come at the film, mean less than nothing at this point.
YMMV, but whatever.
Good luck to you. Hope you fare better with it on Warcraft then I did on DoJ.
http://variety.com/2016/film/news/box-office-warcraft-opens-international-1201784457/
I'm curious exactly how a Variety article about how Warcraft had a decent foreign opening, but is on track for a merely 'ok' domestic opening, has any bearing on how my opinion that the critics were wrong about Dawn of Justice fell apart Day One, and my well wishes that it's not the same for someone else on a movie they want to see.
No I dis not post that to make a point I am just showing you this to know your thoughts on it.
until regular viewer reviews
For future reference, I'm just going to ignore any post where you quote me, or otherwise try to get me to say something, unless you can be bothered to use full sentences and provide some sort of context besides 'Here.'Samtemdo8 said:From a youtube reviewer:AccursedTheory said:Samtemdo8 said:AccursedTheory said:...And?Samtemdo8 said:AccursedTheory said:That is the exact same argument I used when critics trashed Dawn of Justice, before release.LostGryphon said:I'm aware, sir.mduncan50 said:No, but critics have seen early viewings.
As I said previously, however, the opinions of those critics, especially with the way they've come at the film, mean less than nothing at this point.
YMMV, but whatever.
Good luck to you. Hope you fare better with it on Warcraft then I did on DoJ.
http://variety.com/2016/film/news/box-office-warcraft-opens-international-1201784457/
I'm curious exactly how a Variety article about how Warcraft had a decent foreign opening, but is on track for a merely 'ok' domestic opening, has any bearing on how my opinion that the critics were wrong about Dawn of Justice fell apart Day One, and my well wishes that it's not the same for someone else on a movie they want to see.
No I dis not post that to make a point I am just showing you this to know your thoughts on it.
until regular viewer reviews
From a WOW player:
I offered a defense of Fan4stic awhile ago.Samtemdo8 said:i have not heard a single positive thing or anyone defending Fant4stic
I want that! One man vs. the entire Warcraft fanbase! If you win you'd be a legend, might even be made into a movie!AccursedTheory said:Since I'm here now, that's a review from a youtube critic and a singular single Warcraft fan. The fuck do you want me to do with two opinions? Or do you want me to take on every single person who will ever say anything good about this movie? The only alternative, presumably, being my admission of defeat?
Metacritic is pretty useless for movie scores because they only include about 1/10 of the reviews that Rotten Tomatoes does. I'm not sure what you expect from critics. It is their job to try to judge the quality of a movie, and yes part of that is would be expecting character depth. Even though from the tone of writing it sounds like this reviewer was very much trying to get into the spirit of things, rather than being a snooty "Bah, video games!" kind of critic. As for your defense that basically comes down to "They shouldn't have been expecting a good movie, it's only about fights", one does not preclude the other, so if they were unable to have a good story and good action, then that's their fault, not the reviewer who dared judge a movie based simply on whether or not it was good.PFCboom said:tl'dr didn't read a damn thing.
I looked at Metacritic. The ratings there weren't fantastic either. Then again, it looks like Zootopia averaged a 78 - nothing to sneeze at, but it seems a tad low. And Civil War gets a 75. Conclusion: This is an aggregate score site that should be taken with a grain of salt.
I then looked at Rotten Tomatoes, and so far it has a 22%, with the average score being 4.4/10, or "a little below average." Okay, fair enough, that sounds kinda accurate. But then I looked at a couple of the reviews, and... I can't help feeling like a few of these fellows have their heads up their asses.
My favorite (that is, the funniest) review summarizes their opinion thusly: "Warcraft provides thunderous spectacle, but when performing the alchemy of transforming genre archetypes into characters with soul, the magic fizzles out." One, WHO TALKS LIKE THAT?! And two, even though the final score was pretty much a "meh" there were still rumblings of desire for character depth. From the Warcraft movie.
I really can't help feeling like these critics were looking for things that were never promised. Watch the trailers, and for all the posing and drama, the only thing that's really advertised is that there's gonna be lots of fighting, both on personal levels and epic scales.
MrCalavera said:Welp, this sucks. I wasn't hoping for something that would knock my socks off or MOON levels of good(previous Jones' movie). I expected kind of a lighter fantasy adventure with a side of epic, something like Hobbit, but y'know, pleasant to watch. That also probably means we're not gonna see the Lich King on a silver screen.
Tsk tsk. Glass houses and all that... You're lauding Warcraft's oh-so-unique setting by comparing it to Might and Magic? I can't say much about Wizardry, but M&M mixed fantasy and sci-fi way before anyone in Blizzard thought about adding space goats to the mix. Here's the ending to M&MIII, a game released in '91.Samtemdo8 said:Warcraft has more personality and identity then something like say Might and Magic and Wizardry![]()
[/spoiler][/quote]
Ultima 1, 2, and 3 have done it aswell, it was made during a time when RPGs were COMPLETELY INSANE!!!
Ulitma 4 made everything sensible.
Or Game of Thrones. Or Lord of the Rings. Or Grave of the Fireflies. Or any number of dozens of great war films, both fictional and based on real wars.slo said:No, it probably means that you should not expect a character driven drama from a movie that is essentially about war and power shifts. Othrewise you'd get War and Peace, which is a timeless classic, but also is a tedious boring shit that's imporssible to stomach and isn't worth it anyway.mduncan50 said:As for your defense that basically comes down to "They shouldn't have been expecting a good movie, it's only about fights", one does not preclude the other, so if they were unable to have a good story and good action, then that's their fault, not the reviewer who dared judge a movie based simply on whether or not it was good.
Game of Thrones is only loosely, LOOSELY, based on the War of the Roses and the difference is that a Stark (in this case a York) was not killed in a Wedding.mduncan50 said:Or Game of Thrones. Or Lord of the Rings. Or Grave of the Fireflies. Or any number of dozens of great war films, both fictional and based on real wars.slo said:No, it probably means that you should not expect a character driven drama from a movie that is essentially about war and power shifts. Othrewise you'd get War and Peace, which is a timeless classic, but also is a tedious boring shit that's imporssible to stomach and isn't worth it anyway.mduncan50 said:As for your defense that basically comes down to "They shouldn't have been expecting a good movie, it's only about fights", one does not preclude the other, so if they were unable to have a good story and good action, then that's their fault, not the reviewer who dared judge a movie based simply on whether or not it was good.
Who said anything about real wars? I was replying to someone that said you should not expect anything beyond a bunch of battle scenes when a movie is about war and power shifts, and I just gave a few examples of the many such great movies/shows that have been made.Samtemdo8 said:Game of Thrones is only loosely, LOOSELY, based on the War of the Roses and the difference is that a Stark (in this case a York) was not killed in a Wedding.mduncan50 said:Or Game of Thrones. Or Lord of the Rings. Or Grave of the Fireflies. Or any number of dozens of great war films, both fictional and based on real wars.slo said:No, it probably means that you should not expect a character driven drama from a movie that is essentially about war and power shifts. Othrewise you'd get War and Peace, which is a timeless classic, but also is a tedious boring shit that's imporssible to stomach and isn't worth it anyway.mduncan50 said:As for your defense that basically comes down to "They shouldn't have been expecting a good movie, it's only about fights", one does not preclude the other, so if they were unable to have a good story and good action, then that's their fault, not the reviewer who dared judge a movie based simply on whether or not it was good.
And I do not see any allusions to real world wars in Lord of the Rings, besides didn't Tolkien himself said he dislikes allegory? (Or anything similar to it?)
Well if you read the lore in WOW there are an element of politics and powershifts involed especially during the Third War and most of World of Warcraft.mduncan50 said:Who said anything about real wars? I was replying to someone that said you should not expect anything beyond a bunch of battle scenes when a movie is about war and power shifts, and I just gave a few examples of the many such great movies/shows that have been made.Samtemdo8 said:Game of Thrones is only loosely, LOOSELY, based on the War of the Roses and the difference is that a Stark (in this case a York) was not killed in a Wedding.mduncan50 said:Or Game of Thrones. Or Lord of the Rings. Or Grave of the Fireflies. Or any number of dozens of great war films, both fictional and based on real wars.slo said:No, it probably means that you should not expect a character driven drama from a movie that is essentially about war and power shifts. Othrewise you'd get War and Peace, which is a timeless classic, but also is a tedious boring shit that's imporssible to stomach and isn't worth it anyway.mduncan50 said:As for your defense that basically comes down to "They shouldn't have been expecting a good movie, it's only about fights", one does not preclude the other, so if they were unable to have a good story and good action, then that's their fault, not the reviewer who dared judge a movie based simply on whether or not it was good.
And I do not see any allusions to real world wars in Lord of the Rings, besides didn't Tolkien himself said he dislikes allegory? (Or anything similar to it?)
I think he just meant that reviewers were going into the movie with high expectations, and it interfered with their reviews. Like they thought it was going to elevate video game adaptations to another level or something.mduncan50 said:snip
Still has nothing to do with what either he nor I was saying. And if there are those kinds of allegories one would think it would be easier to translate to a movie rather than just being about big fights.Samtemdo8 said:Well if you read the lore in WOW there are an element of politics and powershifts involed especially during the Third War and most of World of Warcraft.mduncan50 said:Who said anything about real wars? I was replying to someone that said you should not expect anything beyond a bunch of battle scenes when a movie is about war and power shifts, and I just gave a few examples of the many such great movies/shows that have been made.
I think it can safely be said that the only people with that expectation was Warcraft fans.Glongpre said:I think he just meant that reviewers were going into the movie with high expectations, and it interfered with their reviews. Like they thought it was going to elevate video game adaptations to another level or something.mduncan50 said:snip