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

[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.

 

[Samtemdo8_v1legacy]

They should have just hired Peter Jackson to direct.

Dear sir, I believe you have misspelled "Guillermo Del Toro". Common mistake, I know.

If Pacific Rim is an indicator of the man's capabilities no fucking thank you.

 

[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/

Rotten tomatoes can fuck off. The Hobbit movies were objectively horrible in just about every single way and if you disagree with this you are an objectively horrible person, maybe even as bad as Hitler.

In fact, according to this article: http://www.pajiba.com/box_office_round-ups/nearly-11-million-north-americans-watched-the-hobbit-this-weekend-which-is-not-as-impressive-as-it-sounds.php 11 million people saw The Hobbit just after release in NA alone. Assuming that more people went to see it later, and that it was a popular movie-goers choice around the world, we can with utter certainty say that more people suffered through The Hobbit movies than were put into concentration camps. Coupled with Lovely Bones these figures confirm that Peter Jackson is literally worse than Hitler. Really makes you think huh?

No, seriously. They were terrible. Theres a popular youtube channel which picks apart movies for "movie sins" in rapid fire fashion and the amount of fuck ups in The Hobbit movies was staggering. And don't get me started on the ULTRA SHAKY CAM in fight scenes.

I am not gonna even dignify that Hitler comparison with a response

 

[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

 

[Samtemdo8_v1legacy]

Well I know I certainly never would have gone if the ticket hadn't been bought for me...

I'll never understand the notion that this was "made for the fans." Do the fans like a crappy story and awful acting (that Kadgar fellow was particularly bad)? Even the action was pretty uninspiring. The only thing that surprised me was that the orcs somehow managed to be the best part. When I first heard that it was made for the fans, I thought that maybe it was too confusing for people who'd never played any of the games, but the story is incredibly easy to follow and takes on the standard tale of evil force makes people evil. None of the villains have interesting motivations aside from, "I am evil now and will do evil things, my eyes are green so you know I'm serious." It wasn't quite as bad as critics said and I did kind of like the ending, but all in all, I'm glad I didn't have to fork over my own money to see it.

Maybe Warcraft just has an awful plot in the first place. My only experience with it is playing custom games in Frozen Throne.

When a huge film like this can't even make its money back, it's pretty doubtful that we'll see more of it. Sucks for the "true fans" I guess, but I won't bat an eye.

The stories at it's best is one of the things everyone likes.

I mean just watch Warcraft 3 campaign's on youtube to at least understand.

 

[Tomeran]

Its probably been mentioned already, but this thread is plain wrong and misleading.

The warcraft movie didnt flop, it earned more then twice its cost back. That's a success, not a "flop".


...mind you I still think the movie sucked. That wasnt a surprise at all, just about 90% of all videogame adaptation movies suck and this one didnt really stand out. But to call it a financial "flop" is just plain out inaccurate.

If your definition of a "flop" is in it failed to present a quality product then you're spot on, but again, anyone that expected that out of this was sorta fooling themselves. But alas, hollywood doesnt need to deliver "quality" in order to reap in the big bucks. People saw the movie despite the fact that it sucked and the cash was hoarded in anyway. Nothing new under the sun there.

 

[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

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 Bard thr Bowman

 

[RedDeadFred]

Its probably been mentioned already, but this thread is plain wrong and misleading.

The warcraft movie didnt flop, it earned more then twice its cost back. That's a success, not a "flop".


...mind you I still think the movie sucked. That wasnt a surprise at all, just about 90% of all videogame adaptation movies suck and this one didnt really stand out. But to call it a financial "flop" is just plain out inaccurate.

If your definition of a "flop" is in it failed to present a quality product then you're spot on, but again, anyone that expected that out of this was sorta fooling themselves. But alas, hollywood doesnt need to deliver "quality" in order to reap in the big bucks. People saw the movie despite the fact that it sucked and the cash was hoarded in anyway. Nothing new under the sun there.

It was already explained that the title is NOT misleading. That's the total money the movie brought in. The amount that went to the studio that produced it ended up giving them a loss of 15 million dollars. A flop.

 

[Samtemdo8_v1legacy]

Its probably been mentioned already, but this thread is plain wrong and misleading.

The warcraft movie didnt flop, it earned more then twice its cost back. That's a success, not a "flop".


...mind you I still think the movie sucked. That wasnt a surprise at all, just about 90% of all videogame adaptation movies suck and this one didnt really stand out. But to call it a financial "flop" is just plain out inaccurate.

If your definition of a "flop" is in it failed to present a quality product then you're spot on, but again, anyone that expected that out of this was sorta fooling themselves. But alas, hollywood doesnt need to deliver "quality" in order to reap in the big bucks. People saw the movie despite the fact that it sucked and the cash was hoarded in anyway. Nothing new under the sun there.

The movie just needed more capable hands because again the screenwriter and the casting of the humans were mediocre.

 

[COMaestro]

They should have just hired Peter Jackson to direct.

Dear sir, I believe you have misspelled "Guillermo Del Toro". Common mistake, I know.

If Pacific Rim is an indicator of the man's capabilities no fucking thank you.

Try Pan's Labyrinth, Hellboy 2 or even Blade 2, which was the best of that trilogy.

 

[BloatedGuppy]

Try Pan's Labyrinth, Hellboy 2 or even Blade 2, which was the best of that trilogy.

Pan's Labyrinth was an excellent film. The rest of his offerings have ranged from mediocrities to flailing messes.

I like Del Toro alright, but he's reaching Blomkamp levels of hype vs ability.

 

[Zontar]

In fact, according to this article: http://www.pajiba.com/box_office_round-ups/nearly-11-million-north-americans-watched-the-hobbit-this-weekend-which-is-not-as-impressive-as-it-sounds.php 11 million people saw The Hobbit just after release in NA alone. Assuming that more people went to see it later, and that it was a popular movie-goers choice around the world, we can with utter certainty say that more people suffered through The Hobbit movies than were put into concentration camps. Coupled with Lovely Bones these figures confirm that Peter Jackson is literally worse than Hitler. Really makes you think huh?

You good sir have earned some Reddit Silver with that post.

I'm not going to lie, that was the most hilarious thing I've seen all week.

 

[Worgen]

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.

 

[Samtemdo8_v1legacy]

They should have just hired Peter Jackson to direct.

Dear sir, I believe you have misspelled "Guillermo Del Toro". Common mistake, I know.

If Pacific Rim is an indicator of the man's capabilities no fucking thank you.

Try Pan's Labyrinth, Hellboy 2 or even Blade 2, which was the best of that trilogy.

Pan's Labyrinth: Have not seen it but I have a feeling it may suffer from being Over-Hyped to dissipointment for me.

Hellboy 2, Saw it eh not that impressed heck I forgot most of the movie.

Only seen Blade 1 and that has one of the best scenes I have ever saw as kid:

 

[Smithnikov_v1legacy]

So making a profit now constitutes a "flop"?

EDIT: Apologies, assessed that wrong. Yea, it apparently was. Glad I wasn't invested in any shape to it. My wife bragged on it though.

 

[Vuliev]

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.

h...huh?? Bruh, D2 came out after Warcraft, Starcraft, Warcraft 2, and the WC2 expansion. If there are any similarities between D2 and those games, then it was them putting things into D2 and not the other way around. And if you're thinking of WC3/WC3:FT and SC2, their plots are very different from D2.

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.

So clearly you need to shut it, because you can't even be arsed to take the 10 seconds to check Blizzard's release history on Wikipedia, let alone the 5-10min to skim the relevant plot synopses from the links so handily provided on said Wikipedia page.

 

[RJ 17]

Name one man just tell me one.

Because not all the plots are bad.

The primary issue - from my understanding - that most people had with the movie was the fact that there were so many characters it was difficult to keep track of who was who and who was doing what. If you were a fan of the franchise and knew the lore before hand then you recognized the names and already knew the person's place in the world...I'd imagine most people that saw the movie and thought it sucked were not fans of the franchise.

This brings up the next issue of where else you would start if not at the beginning of the story. Jumping ahead in the story to, say, WCIII's plot would just have even more characters and backstory that non-fans would be completely oblivious to.

 

[Imperioratorex Caprae]

And the reason the movies were "flawed" is because Peter had to redo the whole movie from scratch.

In terms of why the Hobbit movies weren't nearly as good (not financially speaking) as LOTR, Jackson was burnt the fuck out and didn't want to do the Hobbit. The studio had to more or less goad him into taking over and it shows. There's none of the love that Peter gave to LOTR in the Hobbit. Its nowhere near as wonderful or magical and just feels like a studio's attempt to bottle lightning.
Jackson conceivably could make a good Warcraft movie, but he'd also have to have the love and care for the IP to do so and I'm not sure he actually does. I'm not saying Peter didn't love the Hobbit, just that he was so burnt out from doing 3 epic scale movies that the prospect of turning a book not even 2/3 the size of Fellowship into another trilogy had to be maddening. I'd not be surprised if Jackson takes a long hiatus from moviemaking after that.