Henry Cavill back again as Superman! Oops, nevermind.

[CriticalGaming]

Henry Cavill had original hung up his cape in order to dedicate time to Netflix's The Witcher. However the writers bum fucked the shit out of that show and it got 1 and a half decent seasons before losing its mind. Henry is an avid nerd and gamer (mad love for that) who based his acting on The Witcher 3 because he genuinely had a love and passion for the project. However he saw the writing on the wall, and script, and back out.

This left him free to play Superman again. And it was confirmed he would return to the role......until today


Of course fans are pissed, and I sort of understand why. I'd be upset the first time anyone other than Hugh Jackman came out to play Wolverine. But so long as the new actor does a good job it isn't really a big deal. Henry not being Superman is really not that important especially if the new movie isn't good anyway.

It's fine to have favorite actors but many people have worn the cape and they all did great with the role. Henry arguably was the WORST Superman because while he was perfect in the role, the movies were fucking bad. So he is a bright spot in a trilogy of shit films.

And frankly Henry returning to the cape wouldn't mean anything until Warner got new writers and people behind the project who actually gave a shit. Without a foundation for a project you're just gonna get a shit product in the end.

Also Henry should play Arthas in Warcraft 2 though.

 

[meiam]

Also Henry should play Arthas in Warcraft 2 though.

I still can't believe the warcraft movie was about orc and shit, like obviously if you're going to make a warcraft movie you make it about warcraft 3 storyline, the one that actually had a story (as oppose to slow text crawl with no relation to the game), the one that was played the most, the one that launched one of the most successful video game of all time and where almost every major character a decade later were still warcraft 3 character.

Almost as bad of an idea as hiring people that hate witcher to make a witcher TV show.

OT, I haven't really watched anything with him (I mostly know him for his disappearing mustache tbh), is he actually a good actor or just beloved because he seem like a real nerd rather than a "market research says the nerd demographic is very profitable so say nerdy shit in interview" nerd?

 

[CriticalGaming]

OT, I haven't really watched anything with him (I mostly know him for his disappearing mustache tbh), is he actually a good actor or just beloved because he seem like a real nerd rather than a "market research says the nerd demographic is very profitable so say nerdy shit in interview" nerd?

He's a good but not great actor. But he does mostly action stuff so it's hard to tell. I thought he was fantastic as Geralt tbh, and you can tell he really loves the character. Otherwise he was in Mission Impossible and he was a cool bad guy in that. And honestly, he was pretty good AS Superman, the only problem is that the rest of the movies around his Superman were fucking trash.

 

[Gordon_4]

I still can't believe the warcraft movie was about orc and shit, like obviously if you're going to make a warcraft movie you make it about warcraft 3 storyline, the one that actually had a story (as oppose to slow text crawl with no relation to the game), the one that was played the most, the one that launched one of the most successful video game of all time and where almost every major character a decade later were still warcraft 3 character.

Almost as bad of an idea as hiring people that hate witcher to make a witcher TV show.

OT, I haven't really watched anything with him (I mostly know him for his disappearing mustache tbh), is he actually a good actor or just beloved because he seem like a real nerd rather than a "market research says the nerd demographic is very profitable so say nerdy shit in interview" nerd?

He’s got a certain presence about him, and when he’s directed ably he can be incredibly charming, cheeky even. Like Geralt is a stoic, scowls badass with a hidden heart of gold who he plays like a champ. But compare that to Napoleon Solo in The Man from UNCLE and its night and day. And when he’s allowed to be Superman, he’s great.

So he’s no thespian - yet - but he’s capable and dedicated.

 

[BrawlMan]

Mr. Cavill, you did an excellent job as the Man of Steel. Don't let any of these assholes and bitches tell you differently. My family and I still love you.

WB/DC...fuck off! My original plan is still on track. See Shazam and I won't be touching your new stuff. I don't care James Gunn is on board.

 

[Dirty Hipsters]

It's fine to have favorite actors but many people have worn the cape and they all did great with the role. Henry arguably was the WORST Superman because while he was perfect in the role, the movies were fucking bad. So he is a bright spot in a trilogy of shit films.

And frankly Henry returning to the cape wouldn't mean anything until Warner got new writers and people behind the project who actually gave a shit. Without a foundation for a project you're just gonna get a shit product in the end.

I actually don't think there's ever been a bad Superman actor. There have been bad Superman movies, but all the actors who have ever played Superman have embodied the role pretty well.

I don't think there's ever been a great live action Batman/Bruce Wayne, but I don't think I've ever had anything negative to say about any of the live action Supermen. They each stand out in their own way but I don't think any of them haven't lived up to being Superman.

But yes, I honestly don't care about Henry Cavill not coming back. He was good in the role but the writers for the entire DC live action universe have been uniformly terrible (with the one exception of The Suicide Squad and Peacemaker) and have ruined his performance of the character to the point where it probably wasn't worth reviving. It's better to just scrap the whole thing and start over.

I'd love to see Cavill come back in another role in the DC Universe or Marvel, or something else (hey Netflix, how about we forget that Altered Carbon season 2 happened and make a season 3 with Henry Cavill?)

I've legitimately liked him in most of the things I've seen him in, and he seems like a cool dude.

 

[Thaluikhain]

I still can't believe the warcraft movie was about orc and shit, like obviously if you're going to make a warcraft movie you make it about warcraft 3 storyline, the one that actually had a story (as oppose to slow text crawl with no relation to the game), the one that was played the most, the one that launched one of the most successful video game of all time and where almost every major character a decade later were still warcraft 3 character.

Eh, makes sense for the first movie in your franchise you are definitely going to make would be able the first game.

And, I liked that film. It wasn't great, or epic or anything, but it was close enough.

 

[Thaluikhain]

Oh:

Henry Cavill’s Next Play: Warhammer 40,000 Series for Amazon

The streaming giant has closed a deal for the rights to the miniature war game.

www.hollywoodreporter.com

Though, Amazon, booo!

 

[Hawki]

So I keep seeing this argument that the Warcraft movie should have adapted WC3, based on claims that it has the most story, that it was the bestselling, that its characters are the most iconic, etc. I agree with all of those sentiments, but I don't agree with the premise that a Warcraft film series should have skipped to WC3, in that:

-You're basically relegating everything else to prequel status, or not addressing it at all. Unlike WC3, you can't have a manual in a film that summarizes everything that came up to it. It's possible, true, but you're already shooting yourself in the foot.

-The early games are easier to adapt, in that you could have WC1, 2, BtDP, and LotC as one film each (I know LotC was never released, but I'm counting it in that its events are vital to bridging WC2&3, hence why it ended up in novel format). Doing any of these stories would be easier than adapting WC3. And speaking of which:

-Adapting WC3 would be a massive undertaking. If you really wanted to do it justice, you'd need five films to cover the five campaigns. Or, if you were creative, maybe compress things down to three films (I could lay out how it would work, but that's drifting off-topic), but there's no way you could cover WC3 in a single film. Even disregarding the length, the campaign structure really prevents this from happening, given the story structure (acts), plus the shifts in protagonist/POV. This isn't new for RTS games, Blizzard started it with StarCraft, but it does make adapting WC3 into a single film practically impossible. And even if you somehow squashed it down to 3 films, that's still a risky endeavour. Yeah, sure, Jackson got his LotR trilogy instead of a duology, but while I love both IPs, Warcraft isn't LotR. There's a reason why the planned films following the 2016 film were going to do their own thing, incorporating elements from WC3 rather than adapting it directly.

-There's also the personal question as to whether WC3 needs adapting? I mean, its story is already solid, if you're going to adapt a Warcraft RTS property, why not do one where the story would be improved overall by a cinematic adaptation? Heck, WC1/2/2X form a trilogy of their own. Even Lord of the Clans would work better as a stand-alone, since you could cover its events in a single film, and if Planet of the Apes has shown anything, it's that non-human protagonists can still carry films, especially when the humans in them are being dicks.

 

[Casual Shinji]

Well, I hear they're going forward with a God of War series, so...

 

[Gordon_4]

Oh:

Henry Cavill’s Next Play: Warhammer 40,000 Series for Amazon

The streaming giant has closed a deal for the rights to the miniature war game.

www.hollywoodreporter.com

Though, Amazon, booo!

Man, I'm never gonna be able to even casually watch it without hearing the voices from 'If the Emperor had a Text to Speech Device' in my head. I'm ruined for it XD

 

[meiam]

So I keep seeing this argument that the Warcraft movie should have adapted WC3, based on claims that it has the most story, that it was the bestselling, that its characters are the most iconic, etc. I agree with all of those sentiments, but I don't agree with the premise that a Warcraft film series should have skipped to WC3, in that:

-You're basically relegating everything else to prequel status, or not addressing it at all. Unlike WC3, you can't have a manual in a film that summarizes everything that came up to it. It's possible, true, but you're already shooting yourself in the foot.

-The early games are easier to adapt, in that you could have WC1, 2, BtDP, and LotC as one film each (I know LotC was never released, but I'm counting it in that its events are vital to bridging WC2&3, hence why it ended up in novel format). Doing any of these stories would be easier than adapting WC3. And speaking of which:

-Adapting WC3 would be a massive undertaking. If you really wanted to do it justice, you'd need five films to cover the five campaigns. Or, if you were creative, maybe compress things down to three films (I could lay out how it would work, but that's drifting off-topic), but there's no way you could cover WC3 in a single film. Even disregarding the length, the campaign structure really prevents this from happening, given the story structure (acts), plus the shifts in protagonist/POV. This isn't new for RTS games, Blizzard started it with StarCraft, but it does make adapting WC3 into a single film practically impossible. And even if you somehow squashed it down to 3 films, that's still a risky endeavour. Yeah, sure, Jackson got his LotR trilogy instead of a duology, but while I love both IPs, Warcraft isn't LotR. There's a reason why the planned films following the 2016 film were going to do their own thing, incorporating elements from WC3 rather than adapting it directly.

-There's also the personal question as to whether WC3 needs adapting? I mean, its story is already solid, if you're going to adapt a Warcraft RTS property, why not do one where the story would be improved overall by a cinematic adaptation? Heck, WC1/2/2X form a trilogy of their own. Even Lord of the Clans would work better as a stand-alone, since you could cover its events in a single film, and if Planet of the Apes has shown anything, it's that non-human protagonists can still carry films, especially when the humans in them are being dicks.

Ehhhhh you could maybe have something resembling half a leg to stand on if it was before the movie came out, but it came out and bombed hard (except in china, but they also loved the Bay transformer) so we know the story full of orc is not the way to go.

1: You don't need to address it, like at all. WC3 was played by far the most of any of them, so most people went in without even knowing anything about 1/2 and they still liked the story.

2: We choose to go to adapt WC3 in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard. Or w/e, who care about how easy something is to adapt, what matter is how good the finished product will be and how likely people are to see it, "see this prince fall to the dark side" is a lot easier to market than "so there's these orcs from another plan of existence and..."

3: Trilogy, first movie is about Arthas (duh), self contained story, ending with him getting Frostmore, good point to stop and get people hyped for what's next, more importantly, you don't need lots of exposition. Second movie, start setting up Orc/NE side (Thrall will make a good protagonist, but importantly you don't start with green orc prtoag, just like the first planet of the apes didn't star the ape as protag) while showing undead Arthas, finish with him summoning Archimonde, second movie are darker and end on a dire note, perfect. Third movie, wrap up everything and kill him, maybe end on sequel bait with Arthas commenting on needing to do more. Super easy to do, sell itself, used recognizable character so that even WoW player who haven't played WC3 will still be hyped. It prints money, somehow hollywood managed to fuck that up.

4: You don't adapt stuff because you can improve the base story, you adapt stuff because its a recognizable name. LoTR books are pretty much perfect, yet they still made a movie adaptation that went on to print money (oh and adapting WC 1/2 is the equivalent of adapting the hobbit and make it into a trilogy, except even that made more sense since they did after the LoTR trilogy, not before).

 

[Hawki]

Ehhhhh you could maybe have something resembling half a leg to stand on if it was before the movie came out, but it came out and bombed hard (except in china, but they also loved the Bay transformer) so we know the story full of orc is not the way to go.

That's spacious reasoning. We can agree that the first film didn't do well, it's another thing to say it's because of the orcs. If anything, most people seemed to like the orc characters more than the human ones.

1: You don't need to address it, like at all. WC3 was played by far the most of any of them, so most people went in without even knowing anything about 1/2 and they still liked the story.

I'm certainly one of those people who played WC3 before 1/2, but the difference is that WC3 came with a manual summarizing what had happened up to that point. The game itself doesn't do that much recapping.

There's ways around this, sure - Lord of the Rings begins with a recap of the War of the Last Alliance - but you're already hobbling yourself when the actual stories WC1-LotC are there to be told.

2: We choose to go to adapt WC3 in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard. Or w/e, who care about how easy something is to adapt, what matter is how good the finished product will be and how likely people are to see it, "see this prince fall to the dark side" is a lot easier to market than "so there's these orcs from another plan of existence and..."

That's highly dubious. "Fall to the dark side" is a well-worn trope, not to mention that Arthas is already borrowing from Arthurian legend, if subverted in some regards (getting the magic sword makes him 'king,' just also makes him a dick). "Orcs from another dimension" is unique, at least, even if orcs aren't. So in a world where Star Wars is dominant, and where everyone and their mother knows at least the basics of King Arthur, Arthas's story might feel rote.

3: Trilogy, first movie is about Arthas (duh), self contained story, ending with him getting Frostmore, good point to stop and get people hyped for what's next, more importantly, you don't need lots of exposition. Second movie, start setting up Orc/NE side (Thrall will make a good protagonist, but importantly you don't start with green orc prtoag, just like the first planet of the apes didn't star the ape as protag) while showing undead Arthas, finish with him summoning Archimonde, second movie are darker and end on a dire note, perfect. Third movie, wrap up everything and kill him, maybe end on sequel bait with Arthas commenting on needing to do more. Super easy to do, sell itself, used recognizable character so that even WoW player who haven't played WC3 will still be hyped. It prints money, somehow hollywood managed to fuck that up.

If we're discussing trilogies, I did mention above that maybe you could compress WC3 into a trilogy, but you're already shooting yourself in the foot by compressing what should be five films into three (or maybe you could do it in four films). I actually tried doing something similar to what you did above, but the amount of compression you'd have to do is dire. Film 1 ending with the end of the Alliance campaign is pretty clear cut, Film 3 ending with the Battle of Mount Hyjal is also self-explanatory. But then you have to cover an entire two campaigns, both of which have clear cut-off points at their respective endings (Archimonde destroying Dalaran, Grom killing Mannaroth). For instance, you mention the second movie ending with Archimonde's emergence, but then, presumably, you have to slot in Mannaroth's death in the third film, plus an entire campaign afterwards, unless you're mixing and matching.

4: You don't adapt stuff because you can improve the base story, you adapt stuff because its a recognizable name. LoTR books are pretty much perfect, yet they still made a movie adaptation that went on to print money (oh and adapting WC 1/2 is the equivalent of adapting the hobbit and make it into a trilogy, except even that made more sense since they did after the LoTR trilogy, not before).

I'd argue that adapting WC1-2 into a trilogy makes more sense than The Hobbit, since you have three games (1, 2, 2X) to form a trilogy from. And if we're talking about name recognition, I say "Warcraft," people are probably going to recognize the name (even if they think more of WoW), so really, as far as name recognition goes, adapting the earlier games has as much recognition as adapting WC3.

The ultimate crux, from where I'm standing, is that it's much easier to adapt the earlier games than WC3. You have three games, each of which could fit reasonably into a single film, and an ending that can stand on its own, and if you want, then start adapting WC3 (ideally Lord of the Clans first). Adapting WC3, on the other hand, is much more difficult, in that you either need more movies to do it justice, or you need to do a whole lot of compression. And that's not even starting on Frozen Throne, which ironically, is better suited to be a trilogy, yet good luck adapting that before Reign of Chaos.

Of course, a lot of this is academic, given what we know of the supposed second WC film/soft reboot, but writing this, I'm beginning to wonder if any Warcraft film might be better off having a self-contained story taking place in the WoW era. Certainly DnD is taking that route.

 

[meiam]

That's spacious reasoning. We can agree that the first film didn't do well, it's another thing to say it's because of the orcs. If anything, most people seemed to like the orc characters more than the human ones.



I'm certainly one of those people who played WC3 before 1/2, but the difference is that WC3 came with a manual summarizing what had happened up to that point. The game itself doesn't do that much recapping.

There's ways around this, sure - Lord of the Rings begins with a recap of the War of the Last Alliance - but you're already hobbling yourself when the actual stories WC1-LotC are there to be told.



That's highly dubious. "Fall to the dark side" is a well-worn trope, not to mention that Arthas is already borrowing from Arthurian legend, if subverted in some regards (getting the magic sword makes him 'king,' just also makes him a dick). "Orcs from another dimension" is unique, at least, even if orcs aren't. So in a world where Star Wars is dominant, and where everyone and their mother knows at least the basics of King Arthur, Arthas's story might feel rote.



If we're discussing trilogies, I did mention above that maybe you could compress WC3 into a trilogy, but you're already shooting yourself in the foot by compressing what should be five films into three (or maybe you could do it in four films). I actually tried doing something similar to what you did above, but the amount of compression you'd have to do is dire. Film 1 ending with the end of the Alliance campaign is pretty clear cut, Film 3 ending with the Battle of Mount Hyjal is also self-explanatory. But then you have to cover an entire two campaigns, both of which have clear cut-off points at their respective endings (Archimonde destroying Dalaran, Grom killing Mannaroth). For instance, you mention the second movie ending with Archimonde's emergence, but then, presumably, you have to slot in Mannaroth's death in the third film, plus an entire campaign afterwards, unless you're mixing and matching.



I'd argue that adapting WC1-2 into a trilogy makes more sense than The Hobbit, since you have three games (1, 2, 2X) to form a trilogy from. And if we're talking about name recognition, I say "Warcraft," people are probably going to recognize the name (even if they think more of WoW), so really, as far as name recognition goes, adapting the earlier games has as much recognition as adapting WC3.

The ultimate crux, from where I'm standing, is that it's much easier to adapt the earlier games than WC3. You have three games, each of which could fit reasonably into a single film, and an ending that can stand on its own, and if you want, then start adapting WC3 (ideally Lord of the Clans first). Adapting WC3, on the other hand, is much more difficult, in that you either need more movies to do it justice, or you need to do a whole lot of compression. And that's not even starting on Frozen Throne, which ironically, is better suited to be a trilogy, yet good luck adapting that before Reign of Chaos.

Of course, a lot of this is academic, given what we know of the supposed second WC film/soft reboot, but writing this, I'm beginning to wonder if any Warcraft film might be better off having a self-contained story taking place in the WoW era. Certainly DnD is taking that route.

The movie bombed because it was adapting part of the story that almost no one cared about, filled with character no one knew and they happen to all be orc, so not a lot of people were interested in the first place.

Nobody read the manual of WC3 before starting it, more than that, the 1/2 story is almost completely irrelevant to the event of 3. All you need to cover is that the demon send the orc over, but that's only relevant for Grom part of the story and can be covered in movie 2 (in like a 5 min scenes) so you don't need to start with exposition for the first movie.

I don't think anyone is going to see Arthas story and think its rote, few movie have the good guy fall to the dark side by genociding a city in a sort morraly grey move.

WC3 story can be easily adapted to a trilogy, I don't know where your getting 5 movie from, but honestly there's barely enough for 3. The orc campaign doesn't have that much happening, it can be almost entirely covered in movie 2 (just save Grom/Mannaroth for the start of movie 3) along the undead campaign and starting to setup the NE. Movie 3 is Tyrande/Illidan, finishing with Archemon fight (honestly movie 3 is kinda empty, might need to save more of the orc campaign by covering more of the fluff stuff in movie 2, maybe ending with Grom killing the centaur dude).

 

[Thaluikhain]

2: We choose to go to adapt WC3 in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard. Or w/e, who care about how easy something is to adapt, what matter is how good the finished product will be and how likely people are to see it, "see this prince fall to the dark side" is a lot easier to market than "so there's these orcs from another plan of existence and..."

Dunno about that, they could have run with the "aliens invade, but everyone's medieval" thing more.

Now, sure, the movie was a commercial failure, but I don't think it was because they went for WC instead of WC3, it just didn't come together well as lots of movies don't.

 

[Baffle]

He’s got a certain presence about him,

I think they call those pecs.

 

[Zykon TheLich]

Well, I've never seen Henry Cavill in anything, and honestly I am generally a bit cautious about any sort of official Warhammer forays into media as the unofficial fan stuff has always run rings around it, but I probably would be willing to renew my prime subscription if there's a 40K live action on Amazon.

 

[SilentPony]

I'd high recommend steering clear of stories about "regular" humans. If you want to waste the premise of 40k and bore the shit out of your target audience, do a Guard story or an Inquisitor.

If you want to reach new people who might get into the hobby and entertain the current fanbase, you have to do Space Marines. They are the poster boys. A lot of fans don't like that fact, but its true. GW hasn't been growing the IP off the back of Eisenhorn or Gaunt's Ghosts. They've been growing with genetically engineered super human werewolf space Vikings with magic ice swords. That's the treat. That's what gets new players into the store.

Look at the most successful of their games - Dawn of War, and Space Marine. What are they about? Space Marines.

Bolter porn sells. Bolter porn gets renewed for a second season. You'll never get away with an Inquisitor's story. Imagine green lighting a movie or TV show that's essentially Schindler's List, from the point of view of the Nazis.
Stick with Space Marines.

 

[The Rogue Wolf]

If you want to reach new people who might get into the hobby and entertain the current fanbase, you have to do Space Marines. They are the poster boys. A lot of fans don't like that fact, but its true. GW hasn't been growing the IP off the back of Eisenhorn or Gaunt's Ghosts. They've been growing with genetically engineered super human werewolf space Vikings with magic ice swords. That's the treat. That's what gets new players into the store.

They'd have to be careful who they face those Space Marines up against. Astartes, while a technically fantastic fan film, was also a case study in Invincible Hero and just how boring that can be.

 

[SilentPony]

They'd have to be careful who they face those Space Marines up against. Astartes, while a technically fantastic fan film, was also a case study in Invincible Hero and just how boring that can be.

Eh make them Deathwatch Marines and given them a new mission every episode for a 10-run miniseries. Tau Crisis suits are fully capable of blowing apart a Marine. Bigger Orks and Tyranids can easily take a marine one-on-one, not to mention Eldar and Necrons. Throw in a few Chaos Marine twists, and you've got a pretty good mini series.