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

[jklinders]

Budget for the movie was too high for what it was. It was a campy, fun guilty pleasure kind of movie.

Full thoughts? Well starting off from the first RTS was probably a bad idea. It was the lightest in story and arguably least played in the franchise. They could have done a whole prologue thing and covered it and started with the second game which may have segwayed well into covering Warcraft 3 as a sequel. Covering Arthas' fall and Thrall's rise could have been something to see.

I was not bothered by the actor's performances at all. Travis Fimmel may not be hugely well known but I really enjoy his work in Vikings. But I see a little too much of Ragnar Lothbrok in him and not Lothar at all. All and all I think he squeezed his film time for Warcraft in between seasons of shooting for Vikings.

I'll watch nearly anything that has Clancy Brown in it no matter how shitty it looks. He is one of the most enjoyable actors to watch play a villain I have ever seen. Not high art mind you but he clearly enjoys the shit out of what he does.

Both of the mage characters were bland. They took most of the movie's focus and I think that where the movie fell flattest. I left the theater wanting more, but not for this movies sake, but for the potential it has in future installments. As it stands, unless Blizzard wants to put out more of it's own money, this will likely be it.

 

[Chimpzy_v1legacy]

So making a profit now constitutes a "flop"?

Well, to be fair, sometimes it feels like the various big movie houses, game publishers and whatnot really do consider A profit a failure. Because they didn't make THE profit. Making big bank is not enough, it needs to be Avengers or Call of Duty money or (preferably) better to satisfy.

Or that might just be my cynic self seeing things that aren't there.

 

[Samtemdo8_v1legacy]

Huh.

Guess even the Chinese rescue wasn't enough. Apparently they dropped it like a hot rock after an initial surge of interest.

Also, Samtendo, weren't you championing the shit out of this movie when it released?

In the vain hopes of a better sequal with Arthas

Soo... you're telling me you were presenting an insincere opinion of a crummy movie in the hopes that the movie would be successful enough to spawn sequels.

Wow. That's not quite the definition of shilling, but damn if it isn't getting awfully close.

I truly hoped a better sequal would spawn.

I mean I Iron Man 1 and 2 were crummy movies, Hulk and Thor was boring, but than BAM we got the Avengers.

I was hoping for that "Avengers" movie to happen for Warcraft.

 

[laggyteabag]

I havent watched the film, but from what I can gather, the film was a massive commercial success, especially in China, it was critically panned up the wazoo, but got a good response from fans of the franchise.

I'd say it did pretty well.

 

[Chimpzy_v1legacy]

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.

 

[Mangod]

I havent watched the film, but from what I can gather, the film was a massive commercial success, especially in China, it was critically panned up the wazoo, but got a good response from fans of the franchise.

I'd say it did pretty well.

Well, the movie had a 160 million dollar budget, plus an undisclosed marketing budget, though presumably on par with, let's say Megamind, so that's an additional 65 million dollars.

So, we take the box office (430), and since the studio only gets half of that, we divide it by two (215), and then we subtract the total budget (160+65=225), which leaves the studio with!... ten million dollars short of making back its own budget.

I don't think that qualifies as "(doing) pretty well."

 

[Fox12]

I think another problem was that the movie had the lore of a game that really should have been skipped over as its basis. The first Warcraft game was very light on story and background, and it was retcons from later games and the expansion of lore by books that actually made it relevant to the rest of the cannon.

They should have just hired Peter Jackson to direct

I disagree. Jackson in my eyes has lost his touch, which was why while the LotR trilogy was a masterpiece, the Hobbit trilogy was a train-wreak. I actually enjoyed Warcraft more then the Hobbit movies despite all its faults and problems.

Box Office numbers and rotten tomatoes disagrees:

https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/the_hobbit_an_unexpected_journey/

https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/the_hobbit_the_desolation_of_smaug/

https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/the_hobbit_the_battle_of_the_five_armies/

Box office numbers?

Michael Bay best director confirmed. Citizen Kane worst movie. Also, weren't you the one defending the director, saying his dad died of cancer? And I thought this film made money?

Honestly, it's hard enough to adapt a game, much less an MMO, to film. It was about as bad as I thought it would be, and while I think any story can potentially be good, at least part of the blame lies with the source material, which isn't really suited for film.

I think another problem was that the movie had the lore of a game that really should have been skipped over as its basis. The first Warcraft game was very light on story and background, and it was retcons from later games and the expansion of lore by books that actually made it relevant to the rest of the cannon.

They should have just hired Peter Jackson to direct

I disagree. Jackson in my eyes has lost his touch, which was why while the LotR trilogy was a masterpiece, the Hobbit trilogy was a train-wreak. I actually enjoyed Warcraft more then the Hobbit movies despite all its faults and problems.

Had I watched the film after LotR, I would have hated it. However, I was able to enjoy both this and Snow White by comparing them to The Hobbit. People should embrace Warcraft for the pulpy nonsense it is. I suspect it may build a cult following in the coming years.

It can be with the right direction and the right vision.

I can imagine a better movie than Duncan Jones.

Most of us can, but actually putting it on screen tends to be pretty difficult.

I don't know. I can't blame you for being upset. I was pretty irate after Jackson butchered The Hobbit. Hiring a young, idealistic, art director is actually a pretty good idea. It just didn't work out this time. Hopefully they'll improve the sequel, so that fans will be satisfied. I feel your pain.

*shudders at the thought of the CG Berserk films*

Peter Jackson did the Hobbit movie better justice and I have read the book before hand. And I geniuenely enjoy the Hobbit movies and book equally.

I mean scenes like this tells me this is not a bad movie:

Peter Jackson butchered the source material. He created new plot holes in his own fiction that didn't exist in the books. He shoehorned in his own fan fiction characters and scenes. Hell, he didn't even enjoy making the movie. Ian Mckellen hated it so much that he broke down crying, and said he wanted to quit acting. I'm not sure by what standard you're measuring quality, but that film trilogy was awful. Awful, and I'm sorry to say, very disrespectful. The Hobbit films were amongst the worse I've ever seen.

Good acting, good set pieces, memroable charcaters, a story that is compelling, good immersive athmosphere, I can go on.

The Hobbit movies succeeds on those fronts for me. And I also like the book aswell (heck I own ALL the Tolkien books)



Another thing I want to mention I thought there was a thing called "Art from Adversity" heck Plinkett and his fans says the Original Star Wars movies were great because it was a pain to make, so they had to fight through the pain to make the movie as best as possible. And the Prequals suck because Lucas had full control to make it.

But if you dislike the Hobbit movies than that proves "Art from Adversity" is bullshit

You act like Art From Adversity is some kind of scientific law. Sometimes great pieces of art come out of adversity, because they can force the team to get creative. Other times it just leads to a steaming pile. Kubrick famously enjoyed total control over his films, and he's considered one of the greatest directors of all time. Besides, the only adversity the hobbit cast faces was the fact that none of them wanted to make that movie, and the ones that did quickly had their spirits crushed.

In any case, I don't consider a plot hole ridden, poorly paced film series with bad CGI and directing to be good. Peter Jackson could have relieved himself on Tolkiens novels, and it would have been more respectful then The Hobbit trilogy.

OK explain to me the plot holes and I will fill them up for you.

In The Lord of the Rings films, everyone assumes Sauron is dead. He hasn't been seen in thousands of years, since he was defeated by Isuldur. In The Hobbit, however, not only do the most powerful people in Middle Earth meet him, and fight him, they make it very clear that they know it's Sauron. These two facts do not fit one another.

When Bilbo meets Gollum, Bilbo tells him his name his Baggins, but not that he's from the Shire. Later, Gollum knows this information, and tells it to Sauron, which is the entire impetus of the Fellowship film. This is never explained in the film.

In The Hobbit, the dwarves are able to escape Mirkwood inside barrels because the Elven guards are drunk. In The Return of the King film, Legolas beats Gimli in a drinking game, doesn't get drunk, and treats drunkeness as a kind of strange foreign concept.

At the end of the last Hobbit film, Legolas is told about a ranger named strider. This is Aragorn. Legolas leaves in search for him. Except that Aragorn is only known as Strider in the area around Bree, and more importantly, during the events of the Hobbit he wouldn't be a ranger yet, since he'd be ten years old...

In the Lord of the Rings books and films, Mirkwood is labeled on all the maps as Mirkwood. It has been a dark and dangerous place for an enormous amount of time. However, in the Hobbit films it's implied that Mirkwood had another name, and only turned evil recently, presumably as a result of the Necromancer (Sauron). This evil would have presumably disappeared after Saurons defeat.

Also, stupid things that happen:

*Legolas being able to jump up falling rocks.

*Legolas jumping across floating barrels during an elongated fight scene

*Any scene with Legolas

*The implied romantic interest between Galadriel, who is married, and Gandalf, who is basically an angel and shouldn't be feeling romantic love for anyone.

*At the end of Desolation, Bilbo and several of the dwarves are separated from the army by several hundred orcs. Their response? No problem! Kills dramatic tension.

*Why didn't Sauron just kill Gandalf, instead of capture him?

And that's off the top of my head.

 

[Samtemdo8_v1legacy]

I think another problem was that the movie had the lore of a game that really should have been skipped over as its basis. The first Warcraft game was very light on story and background, and it was retcons from later games and the expansion of lore by books that actually made it relevant to the rest of the cannon.

They should have just hired Peter Jackson to direct

I disagree. Jackson in my eyes has lost his touch, which was why while the LotR trilogy was a masterpiece, the Hobbit trilogy was a train-wreak. I actually enjoyed Warcraft more then the Hobbit movies despite all its faults and problems.

Box Office numbers and rotten tomatoes disagrees:

https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/the_hobbit_an_unexpected_journey/

https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/the_hobbit_the_desolation_of_smaug/

https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/the_hobbit_the_battle_of_the_five_armies/

Box office numbers?

Michael Bay best director confirmed. Citizen Kane worst movie. Also, weren't you the one defending the director, saying his dad died of cancer? And I thought this film made money?

Honestly, it's hard enough to adapt a game, much less an MMO, to film. It was about as bad as I thought it would be, and while I think any story can potentially be good, at least part of the blame lies with the source material, which isn't really suited for film.

I think another problem was that the movie had the lore of a game that really should have been skipped over as its basis. The first Warcraft game was very light on story and background, and it was retcons from later games and the expansion of lore by books that actually made it relevant to the rest of the cannon.

They should have just hired Peter Jackson to direct

I disagree. Jackson in my eyes has lost his touch, which was why while the LotR trilogy was a masterpiece, the Hobbit trilogy was a train-wreak. I actually enjoyed Warcraft more then the Hobbit movies despite all its faults and problems.

Had I watched the film after LotR, I would have hated it. However, I was able to enjoy both this and Snow White by comparing them to The Hobbit. People should embrace Warcraft for the pulpy nonsense it is. I suspect it may build a cult following in the coming years.

It can be with the right direction and the right vision.

I can imagine a better movie than Duncan Jones.

Most of us can, but actually putting it on screen tends to be pretty difficult.

I don't know. I can't blame you for being upset. I was pretty irate after Jackson butchered The Hobbit. Hiring a young, idealistic, art director is actually a pretty good idea. It just didn't work out this time. Hopefully they'll improve the sequel, so that fans will be satisfied. I feel your pain.

*shudders at the thought of the CG Berserk films*

Peter Jackson did the Hobbit movie better justice and I have read the book before hand. And I geniuenely enjoy the Hobbit movies and book equally.

I mean scenes like this tells me this is not a bad movie:

Peter Jackson butchered the source material. He created new plot holes in his own fiction that didn't exist in the books. He shoehorned in his own fan fiction characters and scenes. Hell, he didn't even enjoy making the movie. Ian Mckellen hated it so much that he broke down crying, and said he wanted to quit acting. I'm not sure by what standard you're measuring quality, but that film trilogy was awful. Awful, and I'm sorry to say, very disrespectful. The Hobbit films were amongst the worse I've ever seen.

Good acting, good set pieces, memroable charcaters, a story that is compelling, good immersive athmosphere, I can go on.

The Hobbit movies succeeds on those fronts for me. And I also like the book aswell (heck I own ALL the Tolkien books)



Another thing I want to mention I thought there was a thing called "Art from Adversity" heck Plinkett and his fans says the Original Star Wars movies were great because it was a pain to make, so they had to fight through the pain to make the movie as best as possible. And the Prequals suck because Lucas had full control to make it.

But if you dislike the Hobbit movies than that proves "Art from Adversity" is bullshit

You act like Art From Adversity is some kind of scientific law. Sometimes great pieces of art come out of adversity, because they can force the team to get creative. Other times it just leads to a steaming pile. Kubrick famously enjoyed total control over his films, and he's considered one of the greatest directors of all time. Besides, the only adversity the hobbit cast faces was the fact that none of them wanted to make that movie, and the ones that did quickly had their spirits crushed.

In any case, I don't consider a plot hole ridden, poorly paced film series with bad CGI and directing to be good. Peter Jackson could have relieved himself on Tolkiens novels, and it would have been more respectful then The Hobbit trilogy.

OK explain to me the plot holes and I will fill them up for you.

In The Lord of the Rings films, everyone assumes Sauron is dead. He hasn't been seen in thousands of years, since he was defeated by Isuldur. In The Hobbit, however, not only do the most powerful people in Middle Earth meet him, and fight him, they make it very clear that they know it's Sauron. These two facts do not fit one another.

When Bilbo meets Gollum, Bilbo tells him his name his Baggins, but not that he's from the Shire. Later, Gollum knows this information, and tells it to Sauron, which is the entire impetus of the Fellowship film. This is never explained in the film.

In The Hobbit, the dwarves are able to escape Mirkwood inside barrels because the Elven guards are drunk. In The Return of the King film, Legolas beats Gimli in a drinking game, doesn't get drunk, and treats drunkeness as a kind of strange foreign concept.

At the end of the last Hobbit film, Legolas is told about a ranger named strider. This is Aragorn. Legolas leaves in search for him. Except that Aragorn is only known as Strider in the area around Bree, and more importantly, during the events of the Hobbit he wouldn't be a ranger yet, since he'd be ten years old...

In the Lord of the Rings books and films, Mirkwood is labeled on all the maps as Mirkwood. It has been a dark and dangerous place for an enormous amount of time. However, in the Hobbit films it's implied that Mirkwood had another name, and only turned evil recently, presumably as a result of the Necromancer (Sauron). This evil would have presumably disappeared after Saurons defeat.

Also, stupid things that happen:

*Legolas being able to jump up falling rocks.

*Legolas jumping across floating barrels during an elongated fight scene

*Any scene with Legolas

*The implied romantic interest between Galadriel, who is married, and Gandalf, who is basically an angel and shouldn't be feeling romantic love for anyone.

*At the end of Desolation, Bilbo and several of the dwarves are separated from the army by several hundred orcs. Their response? No problem! Kills dramatic tension.

*Why didn't Sauron just kill Gandalf, instead of capture him?

And that's off the top of my head.

Gollum: I would say let us assume Gollum still remembers the Shire because he was a Hobbit himself and seeing Bilbo might have resurfaced his memories.

Dwarves escaping because of drunk elves, Nitpicky. Since it's only Legolas, We don't know if all Elves are immune to Drunkness.

Legolas has done bullshit things in the Lord of the Rings movie aswell.

Galadriel acted that way with Frodo aswell.

Bilbo and Dwarves seperated by army of orcs at desolation? What do you mean?

If I have to assume he captured Gandalf to draw out the other members of the White Council like Gandalf's capture sealed Saruman's fate of being corrupted as implied when Saruman mentions "Leave Sauron to me"

 

[hermes]

I think another problem was that the movie had the lore of a game that really should have been skipped over as its basis. The first Warcraft game was very light on story and background, and it was retcons from later games and the expansion of lore by books that actually made it relevant to the rest of the cannon.

They should have just hired Peter Jackson to direct

I disagree. Jackson in my eyes has lost his touch, which was why while the LotR trilogy was a masterpiece, the Hobbit trilogy was a train-wreak. I actually enjoyed Warcraft more then the Hobbit movies despite all its faults and problems.

Box Office numbers and rotten tomatoes disagrees:

https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/the_hobbit_an_unexpected_journey/

https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/the_hobbit_the_desolation_of_smaug/

https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/the_hobbit_the_battle_of_the_five_armies/

Box office numbers?

Michael Bay best director confirmed. Citizen Kane worst movie. Also, weren't you the one defending the director, saying his dad died of cancer? And I thought this film made money?

Honestly, it's hard enough to adapt a game, much less an MMO, to film. It was about as bad as I thought it would be, and while I think any story can potentially be good, at least part of the blame lies with the source material, which isn't really suited for film.

I think another problem was that the movie had the lore of a game that really should have been skipped over as its basis. The first Warcraft game was very light on story and background, and it was retcons from later games and the expansion of lore by books that actually made it relevant to the rest of the cannon.

They should have just hired Peter Jackson to direct

I disagree. Jackson in my eyes has lost his touch, which was why while the LotR trilogy was a masterpiece, the Hobbit trilogy was a train-wreak. I actually enjoyed Warcraft more then the Hobbit movies despite all its faults and problems.

Had I watched the film after LotR, I would have hated it. However, I was able to enjoy both this and Snow White by comparing them to The Hobbit. People should embrace Warcraft for the pulpy nonsense it is. I suspect it may build a cult following in the coming years.

It can be with the right direction and the right vision.

I can imagine a better movie than Duncan Jones.

Most of us can, but actually putting it on screen tends to be pretty difficult.

I don't know. I can't blame you for being upset. I was pretty irate after Jackson butchered The Hobbit. Hiring a young, idealistic, art director is actually a pretty good idea. It just didn't work out this time. Hopefully they'll improve the sequel, so that fans will be satisfied. I feel your pain.

*shudders at the thought of the CG Berserk films*

Peter Jackson did the Hobbit movie better justice and I have read the book before hand. And I geniuenely enjoy the Hobbit movies and book equally.

I mean scenes like this tells me this is not a bad movie:

Peter Jackson butchered the source material. He created new plot holes in his own fiction that didn't exist in the books. He shoehorned in his own fan fiction characters and scenes. Hell, he didn't even enjoy making the movie. Ian Mckellen hated it so much that he broke down crying, and said he wanted to quit acting. I'm not sure by what standard you're measuring quality, but that film trilogy was awful. Awful, and I'm sorry to say, very disrespectful. The Hobbit films were amongst the worse I've ever seen.

Good acting, good set pieces, memroable charcaters, a story that is compelling, good immersive athmosphere, I can go on.

The Hobbit movies succeeds on those fronts for me. And I also like the book aswell (heck I own ALL the Tolkien books)



Another thing I want to mention I thought there was a thing called "Art from Adversity" heck Plinkett and his fans says the Original Star Wars movies were great because it was a pain to make, so they had to fight through the pain to make the movie as best as possible. And the Prequals suck because Lucas had full control to make it.

But if you dislike the Hobbit movies than that proves "Art from Adversity" is bullshit

It is... and they are bad movies. Almost every single thing that you mention were established in the far superior original trilogy. Almost every thing they added that was not from the books fell flat on they ass.

As if the books were superior which again I have read?

The exploring of Mirkwood in the books dragged on for too long. Some characters were under developed like the Elf King and the Lake Town Master.

And there is a reason for that... NOBODY CARED !!! They filled their part of the plot being simple archetypes.

There is a reason why Lord of the Rings was divided into a trilogy of books, but the Hobbit is still a single one, you know? It is not that book editors dislike money... You can think it was because the plot of the Hobbit could not be given justice with a single movie, not because executive meddling wanted the next Tolkien project to be another money making trilogy... in which case, I have a bridge to sell you.

If you are telling me the movie is so desperate for content to justify a 9 hours movie that they try to focus on even secondary characters from the book and give them more screen time, I would agree with you. But that doesn't make it a good movie, just a longer one. And if all the best screen time they can think of is slapstick comedy with the Town Mayor, action sequences that drag for far too long, or the worst romantic scenes since Attack of the Clones, I would prefer they didn't bother.

 

[deadish]

Wait, it made money no? How is that a flop?

Don't get me wrong. Based on the quality of it's source material, I expected it to be horrible. For most part, based on reviews I have read, I was on the money.

Still, "flops" = "failure to recover money invested", no?

 

[Mangod]

Wait, it made money no? How is that a flop?

Don't get me wrong. Based on the quality of it's source material, I expected it to be horrible. For most part, based on reviews I have read, I was on the money.

Still, "flops" = "failure to recover money invested", no?

I repeat myself. Ahmmm...

Well, the movie had a 160 million dollar budget, plus an undisclosed marketing budget, though presumably on par with, let's say Megamind, so that's an additional 65 million dollars.

So, we take the box office (430), and since the studio only gets half of that, we divide it by two (215), and then we subtract the total budget (160+65=225), which leaves the studio with!... ten million dollars short of making back its own budget.

I don't think that qualifies as "(doing) pretty well."

Now, this is both rather simplistic, and the marketing budget is just a guess based on another movie with a similar production budget, but still, the movie probably has barely broken even, and in the worst case is still in the red.

 

[deadish]

Wait, it made money no? How is that a flop?

Don't get me wrong. Based on the quality of it's source material, I expected it to be horrible. For most part, based on reviews I have read, I was on the money.

Still, "flops" = "failure to recover money invested", no?

I repeat myself. Ahmmm...

Well, the movie had a 160 million dollar budget, plus an undisclosed marketing budget, though presumably on par with, let's say Megamind, so that's an additional 65 million dollars.

So, we take the box office (430), and since the studio only gets half of that, we divide it by two (215), and then we subtract the total budget (160+65=225), which leaves the studio with!... ten million dollars short of making back its own budget.

I don't think that qualifies as "(doing) pretty well."

Now, this is both rather simplistic, and the marketing budget is just a guess based on another movie with a similar production budget, but still, the movie probably has barely broken even, and in the worst case is still in the red.

Damn if they are giving half to Blizzard ...

They took all the risk financially. Half of the revenue is crazy.

 

[Mangod]

Wait, it made money no? How is that a flop?

Don't get me wrong. Based on the quality of it's source material, I expected it to be horrible. For most part, based on reviews I have read, I was on the money.

Still, "flops" = "failure to recover money invested", no?

I repeat myself. Ahmmm...

Well, the movie had a 160 million dollar budget, plus an undisclosed marketing budget, though presumably on par with, let's say Megamind, so that's an additional 65 million dollars.

So, we take the box office (430), and since the studio only gets half of that, we divide it by two (215), and then we subtract the total budget (160+65=225), which leaves the studio with!... ten million dollars short of making back its own budget.

I don't think that qualifies as "(doing) pretty well."

Now, this is both rather simplistic, and the marketing budget is just a guess based on another movie with a similar production budget, but still, the movie probably has barely broken even, and in the worst case is still in the red.

Damn if they are giving half to Blizzard ...

They took all the risk financially. Half of the revenue is crazy.

Half the revenue actually gets taken by the theaters, since a whole bunch of theater chains went bust in the early 2000s, when it turned out that the money from selling concessions (popcorn, soda, M&Ms) wasn't enough to keep the theaters running. So these days, they get to keep half the ticket price.

I don't think Blizzard is getting any of the box office, though; it's more likely they got paid a flat fee for the use of the Warcraft license. But if we assume that they're getting an equal split of the box office, once the theaters have taken their share, that'd leave the studio and Blizzard each with one quarter of the total revenue.

430/4=107.5
107.5-160=-52.5.

Simply put, if Blizzard gets an equal share of the box office, then Universal would be looking at a 52.5 million loss from this movie, and that's without taking any of the marketing budget into consideration.

 

[Trunkage]

I think another problem was that the movie had the lore of a game that really should have been skipped over as its basis. The first Warcraft game was very light on story and background, and it was retcons from later games and the expansion of lore by books that actually made it relevant to the rest of the cannon.

They should have just hired Peter Jackson to direct

I disagree. Jackson in my eyes has lost his touch, which was why while the LotR trilogy was a masterpiece, the Hobbit trilogy was a train-wreak. I actually enjoyed Warcraft more then the Hobbit movies despite all its faults and problems.

LotR were passable movies. Still better than the Hobbit by a long shot

Avengers was passable too.

 

[elvor0]

Its got a bad plot, but I am way to lazy at the moment to bother going through everything about it that is weaksauce.

Well I'm not so much arguing with you about whether or not the plot is bad(even if I do disagree with you), as I am criticizing the way you've presented your argument and that if you can't defend the point you've made, don't make it. Even if I did agree with you, the way you've presented your argument is still deliberately misrepresentative.

It's pretty much just a rehash of starcrafts plot and everything they add to it just makes it more convoluted.

No, it isn't. There /are/ similarities between Starcraft 2(which came later) and Warcraft 3, but not the other way around. Don't blame your own lack of paying attention or non recollection on the plot being convoluted, when you self admittedly don't remember it properly. Obviously here I am defending the plot itself as an entity(but not the quality, which if you're not willing to go into we'll have to agree to disagree), but it isn't convoluted, you've just chosen to purposefully present your own non recollection as proof of the plot being convoluted.

See the tentacle face people who I am to lazy to look up the name of at the moment. I don't feel the need to spent an hour refreshing myself on the plot just to argue on the internet.

Who...bear no similarity to anything in Starcraft 1. You could argue the Old Gods are similar to the Xel'naga from SC2, but again that came after Warcraft, not the other way around. You even admit here that you don't really remember anything about them, and again are presenting your own non recollection as an argument.

Ugh, dude, they took the plot of diablo 2, made it the plot of warcraft then made the plot of starcraft. They have just been recycling almost the same plot between all of their games... minus overwatch.

Also, as I said before, for me to make a really coherent argument, I would have to refresh myself on the plots, which would take much too much time and effort. So this is what you get, enjoy.

"ugh dude" you just displayed you don't even vaguely know what the plot of D2 or Warcraft is, let alone be in a position to argue its similarities. You might as well be arguing Fight Club has the same plot as Lord of the Rings at this point just because Gollum and Tyler Durden are split personalities. You're not even having an argument here or touting a point, you're just making stuff up.

If you don't like the plots of the games fine, that's your right, but don't try and argue the toss when you self admittedly and demonstratively don't know even the basic story outlines. At this point, one could suspect you haven't even played some of these games.

 

[Fox12]

I think another problem was that the movie had the lore of a game that really should have been skipped over as its basis. The first Warcraft game was very light on story and background, and it was retcons from later games and the expansion of lore by books that actually made it relevant to the rest of the cannon.

They should have just hired Peter Jackson to direct

I disagree. Jackson in my eyes has lost his touch, which was why while the LotR trilogy was a masterpiece, the Hobbit trilogy was a train-wreak. I actually enjoyed Warcraft more then the Hobbit movies despite all its faults and problems.

Box Office numbers and rotten tomatoes disagrees:

https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/the_hobbit_an_unexpected_journey/

https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/the_hobbit_the_desolation_of_smaug/

https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/the_hobbit_the_battle_of_the_five_armies/

Box office numbers?

Michael Bay best director confirmed. Citizen Kane worst movie. Also, weren't you the one defending the director, saying his dad died of cancer? And I thought this film made money?

Honestly, it's hard enough to adapt a game, much less an MMO, to film. It was about as bad as I thought it would be, and while I think any story can potentially be good, at least part of the blame lies with the source material, which isn't really suited for film.

I think another problem was that the movie had the lore of a game that really should have been skipped over as its basis. The first Warcraft game was very light on story and background, and it was retcons from later games and the expansion of lore by books that actually made it relevant to the rest of the cannon.

They should have just hired Peter Jackson to direct

I disagree. Jackson in my eyes has lost his touch, which was why while the LotR trilogy was a masterpiece, the Hobbit trilogy was a train-wreak. I actually enjoyed Warcraft more then the Hobbit movies despite all its faults and problems.

Had I watched the film after LotR, I would have hated it. However, I was able to enjoy both this and Snow White by comparing them to The Hobbit. People should embrace Warcraft for the pulpy nonsense it is. I suspect it may build a cult following in the coming years.

It can be with the right direction and the right vision.

I can imagine a better movie than Duncan Jones.

Most of us can, but actually putting it on screen tends to be pretty difficult.

I don't know. I can't blame you for being upset. I was pretty irate after Jackson butchered The Hobbit. Hiring a young, idealistic, art director is actually a pretty good idea. It just didn't work out this time. Hopefully they'll improve the sequel, so that fans will be satisfied. I feel your pain.

*shudders at the thought of the CG Berserk films*

Peter Jackson did the Hobbit movie better justice and I have read the book before hand. And I geniuenely enjoy the Hobbit movies and book equally.

I mean scenes like this tells me this is not a bad movie:

Peter Jackson butchered the source material. He created new plot holes in his own fiction that didn't exist in the books. He shoehorned in his own fan fiction characters and scenes. Hell, he didn't even enjoy making the movie. Ian Mckellen hated it so much that he broke down crying, and said he wanted to quit acting. I'm not sure by what standard you're measuring quality, but that film trilogy was awful. Awful, and I'm sorry to say, very disrespectful. The Hobbit films were amongst the worse I've ever seen.

Good acting, good set pieces, memroable charcaters, a story that is compelling, good immersive athmosphere, I can go on.

The Hobbit movies succeeds on those fronts for me. And I also like the book aswell (heck I own ALL the Tolkien books)



Another thing I want to mention I thought there was a thing called "Art from Adversity" heck Plinkett and his fans says the Original Star Wars movies were great because it was a pain to make, so they had to fight through the pain to make the movie as best as possible. And the Prequals suck because Lucas had full control to make it.

But if you dislike the Hobbit movies than that proves "Art from Adversity" is bullshit

You act like Art From Adversity is some kind of scientific law. Sometimes great pieces of art come out of adversity, because they can force the team to get creative. Other times it just leads to a steaming pile. Kubrick famously enjoyed total control over his films, and he's considered one of the greatest directors of all time. Besides, the only adversity the hobbit cast faces was the fact that none of them wanted to make that movie, and the ones that did quickly had their spirits crushed.

In any case, I don't consider a plot hole ridden, poorly paced film series with bad CGI and directing to be good. Peter Jackson could have relieved himself on Tolkiens novels, and it would have been more respectful then The Hobbit trilogy.

OK explain to me the plot holes and I will fill them up for you.

In The Lord of the Rings films, everyone assumes Sauron is dead. He hasn't been seen in thousands of years, since he was defeated by Isuldur. In The Hobbit, however, not only do the most powerful people in Middle Earth meet him, and fight him, they make it very clear that they know it's Sauron. These two facts do not fit one another.

When Bilbo meets Gollum, Bilbo tells him his name his Baggins, but not that he's from the Shire. Later, Gollum knows this information, and tells it to Sauron, which is the entire impetus of the Fellowship film. This is never explained in the film.

In The Hobbit, the dwarves are able to escape Mirkwood inside barrels because the Elven guards are drunk. In The Return of the King film, Legolas beats Gimli in a drinking game, doesn't get drunk, and treats drunkeness as a kind of strange foreign concept.

At the end of the last Hobbit film, Legolas is told about a ranger named strider. This is Aragorn. Legolas leaves in search for him. Except that Aragorn is only known as Strider in the area around Bree, and more importantly, during the events of the Hobbit he wouldn't be a ranger yet, since he'd be ten years old...

In the Lord of the Rings books and films, Mirkwood is labeled on all the maps as Mirkwood. It has been a dark and dangerous place for an enormous amount of time. However, in the Hobbit films it's implied that Mirkwood had another name, and only turned evil recently, presumably as a result of the Necromancer (Sauron). This evil would have presumably disappeared after Saurons defeat.

Also, stupid things that happen:

*Legolas being able to jump up falling rocks.

*Legolas jumping across floating barrels during an elongated fight scene

*Any scene with Legolas

*The implied romantic interest between Galadriel, who is married, and Gandalf, who is basically an angel and shouldn't be feeling romantic love for anyone.

*At the end of Desolation, Bilbo and several of the dwarves are separated from the army by several hundred orcs. Their response? No problem! Kills dramatic tension.

*Why didn't Sauron just kill Gandalf, instead of capture him?

And that's off the top of my head.

Gollum: I would say let us assume Gollum still remembers the Shire because he was a Hobbit himself and seeing Bilbo might have resurfaced his memories.

We shouldn't have to make assumptions, the film should clear this up for us. The book actually bothered to answer this question, but the movies should be able to stand on their own merits. You shouldn't need knowledge from the book. Furthermore, the shire wouldn't have existed in the time of Gollum. We don't know exactly where he lived, and we don't even know for a certainty if he was a Hobbit.

Dwarves escaping because of drunk elves, Nitpicky. Since it's only Legolas, We don't know if all Elves are immune to Drunkness.

Call it whatever you want, it's still a silly inconsistency. I'm not sure why Legolas would treat alcohol and drunkeness like some strange foreign concept when his people drink it, brew it, and export it.

Legolas has done bullshit things in the Lord of the Rings movie as well.

Those were, incidentally, the worst parts of their respective films. Still, it wasn't really bad until Return of the King. The Hobbit simply took the worst excesses of TLotR and hyped them up, while also removing the good parts.

Galadriel acted that way with Frodo as well

Debatable, I suppose, but I would argue that there was a definite romantic aspect to her behavior towards Gandalf that certainly wasn't there with Frodo.

Bilbo and Dwarves seperated by army of orcs at desolation? What do you mean?

The finale of the film? I can't blame you for forgetting it. It was quite bad. The Dwarves definitely mentioned killing a hundred orcs each as if they were strolling through the park.

If I have to assume he captured Gandalf to draw out the other members of the White Council like Gandalf's capture sealed Saruman's fate of being corrupted as implied when Saruman mentions "Leave Sauron to me"

Again, you shouldn't have to make blind assumptions in order to try and fill plot holes. There's absolutely no advantage to Sauron revealing himself to the most powerful people in Middle Earth while he's at his absolute weakest, and supposedly in hiding. He couldn't even defeat Galadriel, let alone the whole council. Besides, Sauron didn't need an excuse to meet Saroman. He was manipulating him through the palantir, the same way he was manipulating Denethor. There's no explanation for why they didn't just gut Gandalf when they had the chance.

 

[wizzy555]

Again, you shouldn't have to make blind assumptions in order to try and fill plot holes. There's absolutely no advantage to Sauron revealing himself to the most powerful people in Middle Earth while he's at his absolute weakest, and supposedly in hiding. He couldn't even defeat Galadriel, let alone the whole council. Besides, Sauron didn't need an excuse to meet Saroman. He was manipulating him through the palantir, the same way he was manipulating Denethor. There's no explanation for why they didn't just gut Gandalf when they had the chance.

He didn't reveal himself, his cover was already blown. You can ask why didn't he just kill Gandalf, there could be a few reasons for this. He may have wanted to corrupt him, he may have thought it futile (after all gandalf comes back anyway). It may have been some aspect of respect from Maiar to Maiar.

 

[Fox12]

Again, you shouldn't have to make blind assumptions in order to try and fill plot holes. There's absolutely no advantage to Sauron revealing himself to the most powerful people in Middle Earth while he's at his absolute weakest, and supposedly in hiding. He couldn't even defeat Galadriel, let alone the whole council. Besides, Sauron didn't need an excuse to meet Saroman. He was manipulating him through the palantir, the same way he was manipulating Denethor. There's no explanation for why they didn't just gut Gandalf when they had the chance.

He didn't reveal himself, his cover was already blown. You can ask why didn't he just kill Gandalf, there could be a few reasons for this. He may have wanted to corrupt him, he may have thought it futile (after all gandalf comes back anyway). It may have been some aspect of respect from Maiar to Maiar.

I mean, he could have wanted to play poker on Saturday, but we'll never know because they don't even attempt to give a reason. We know why sauroman took Gandalf hostage in LotR, because there are scenes showing them talk. We aren't given any explanation in Hobbit other then plot convenience.

 

[wizzy555]

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.

 

[Samtemdo8_v1legacy]

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.

Mabye the Forbes and Hollywood Reporter articles