Warcraft reviews not looking great

[Hawki]

And I do not see any allusions to real world wars in Lord of the Rings, besides didn't Tolkien himself said he dislikes allegory? (Or anything similar to it?)

Lord of the Rings is widely theorized to have been inspired by World War I. We have the green landscape of the Shire in the west, representing England - gardens, fields, traditional values, etc. To the east we have Mordor, a nightmarish landscape of industry (said industry also being mimicked by Isengarde), mimicking the battlefields of the Western Front, and the industrialization of war. We then have a war between east and west, which ends with Frodo and co. going back to the Shire, Frodo not only dealing with the equivalent of PTSD, but finding that the home he left is not the home he returned to (mimicking many a soldier's return).

Tolkein dismissed the analogy, but while some side with authoritorial intent, there's also the concept of "death of the author." Also, even if you don't intend something to be analogous, we're all shaped by our experiences, and this comes across in writing.

Well if you read the lore in WOW there are an element of politics and powershifts involed especially during the Third War and most of World of Warcraft.

Except is it in the movie? Also, I would have thought that the Second War would have far more powershifts than the second - what occurred in the Third War that was the equivalent of Alterac selling the Alliance out for instance?

Actually, why are power shifts even being discussed in this at all? A Warcraft fan shouldn't expect them because the First War was pretty stable, bar Orgrim overthrowing Doomhammer, and since this is in an alternate timeline, all bets are off in regards to the outcome. Nothing in the trailers suggested that either, so the average moviegoer shouldn't expect them either. There's plenty of good to great war films out there that don't deal with power shifts at all that are still praised.

That this thread is even eight pages long is a mystery because as far as I can see, only a few people have actually seen the film.

GoT is mostly about intrigues and stuff, Lord of the Rings is about a guy trying hard to destroy his wedding ring and Grave of the Fireflies is a Ghibli anime.

Um...

Game of Thrones is ultimately a story of politial intrigue, but the use of war as a means of furthering that intrigue and/or resulting from said intrigue is well established in the setting - even more so in the novels. You can't discount one without discounting the other.

Lord of the Rings...see my above points. If you're talking about the film, then yes, that's Frodo's goal, but the films combined great battles with great characters.

Haven't seen Grave of the Fireflies, but from what I know, I'm curious as to your assertion about it not being about war, considering that it's set during WWII, shows the effects of WWII, and is based on its protagonists trying to survive said war. I've seen the interpretation that the film is ultimately about the "generational divide" between those who lived in WWII, and the generations that came afterwards, but I would have thought that most would agree that GotF is a war film. Certainly it's classified as a war drama.

 

[mduncan50]

These aren't about war.
GoT is mostly about intrigues and stuff, Lord of the Rings is about a guy trying hard to destroy his wedding ring and Grave of the Fireflies is a Ghibli anime.

1. Game of Thrones is about shifting power, which is why I included it.
2. Lord of the Rings has the best fantasy battles ever put in a movie.
3. If you dismiss Grave of the Fireflies as "just" a Ghibli anime, then you have my sympathies.

 

[Falling_v1legacy]

Well, at the very least Mark Kermode is on board, so that's good enough for me.
"I found myself actually being emotionally engaged."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QC-8ghk9ojk

He is self-professed ignorant of Warcraft specifically and games and gamers generally.
This is good news for the sort of taste in film I have as I generally like his analysis in films. (Even if he can get a little sniffy about fantasy films: "having an aversion to the blingy, blongy, and hithery froth." ...those Britishism, or are they Kermodeisms?)

On the other gaming website I hang out on, people are observing that on the whole America is giving really low reviews, but Europeans are placing it as a decent film. We are starting to get people from around the world trickling in and giving their impressions, and most went in with pretty low expectations (trailer was pretty bad), but came out enjoying the film. So there is that. I wonder if some critics were wanting to get out front of everyone else doing a hatchet job to the latest video game adaptations.

 

[mduncan50]

Well, at the very least Mark Kermode is on board, so that's good enough for me.
"I found myself actually being emotionally engaged."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QC-8ghk9ojk

He is self-professed ignorant of Warcraft specifically and games and gamers generally.
This is good news for the sort of taste in film I have as I generally like his analysis in films. (Even if he can get a little sniffy about fantasy films: "having an aversion to the blingy, blongy, and hithery froth." ...those Britishism, or are they Kermodeisms?)

On the other gaming website I hang out on, people are observing that on the whole America is giving really low reviews, but Europeans are placing it as a decent film. We are starting to get people from around the world trickling in and giving their impressions, and most went in with pretty low expectations (trailer was pretty bad), but came out enjoying the film. So there is that. I wonder if some critics were wanting to get out front of everyone else doing a hatchet job to the latest video game adaptations.

You left out the part where right before he said he found himself emotionally engaged when he said the movie reminded him of John Carter.

And while I'm not going to search the net for every review about it, the Rotten Tomatoes reviews seem to be mostly from the UK.

 

[mduncan50]

These aren't about war.
GoT is mostly about intrigues and stuff, Lord of the Rings is about a guy trying hard to destroy his wedding ring and Grave of the Fireflies is a Ghibli anime.

1. Game of Thrones is about shifting power, which is why I included it.
2. Lord of the Rings has the best fantasy battles ever put in a movie.
3. If you dismiss Grave of the Fireflies as "just" a Ghibli anime, then you have my sympathies.

You know what, this is a wrong discussion to have. Yes there ARE character based dramas that somehow include war, mostly from a bystander's perspective. But I'd never want that in a Warcraft movie and I can't imagine why someone would.
I've been rewatching the full history of Warcraft 1-3 recently and it is already crazy complicated with all the clans and the races and the demons and the titans et cetera. Why would I ever want it filled with characters having internal struggles all the time? Especially since there are A LOT of them. Like, there are really tons of characters and the only relief is that they sometimes get killed off and you finally have one less Raz'al'gul to worry about.
For all the Warcraft books I've read, I have always enjoyed somewhat simplistic characters, because the thing they're in is already complicated enough. And anything that's actually is a part of Warcraft universe would end up in the same position. There is always this bigger picture that mirrors and affects all things that happen. You always have to take it into account. There is always this war that lives it's own life.
If someone did rework Warcraft into some LOTR-like thingie were some Frodo Baggins finally catches the golden snitch and gets love and peace for all the world, I'd hate it. Even if all of the critics orgasmed in unison.
I hate this idea that video games are somehow inferior and need to be butchered by some prick that never even touched the source material to "adapt" them. I think that video games can stand on their own. Even as movies. They might not look like you expect movies to look, and they might not be what you expect movies to be, but the truthful adaptation is possible and Warcraft movie achieves that. And that's why it is good. Granted, it isnt LOTR or GOT or Star Wars, but the thing is, it shouldn't be.
It isn't the only way to make a good video game movie. But this is one of the two that actually work.

Nobody is saying it has to be anything like those movies, but that doesn't mean that it can't be a movie about war while ALSO having a decent story and characters, which is what nearly all of the critics are complaining about. Well, that and terrible CG. But you have to keep something in mind, my friend. You know all of that lore, and you are able to watch this movie and fill in the gaps with your experience with the books and games, while your standard critic can only judge it based on its own merits as a movie. If it doesn't hold up as a movie on its own without all that other knowledge then it is their job to critique it accordingly.

 

[Hawki]

You left out the part where right before he said he found himself emotionally engaged when he said the movie reminded him of John Carter.

I'm not sure if being compared to John Carter is a bad thing. I haven't seen it, but I was under the impression that response to it was polarized rather than negative, even if it flopped at the box office. Certainly its RT score suggests that.

You know what, this is a wrong discussion to have. Yes there ARE character based dramas that somehow include war, mostly from a bystander's perspective. But I'd never want that in a Warcraft movie and I can't imagine why someone would.
I've been rewatching the full history of Warcraft 1-3 recently and it is already crazy complicated with all the clans and the races and the demons and the titans et cetera. Why would I ever want it filled with characters having internal struggles all the time?

Because most stories succeed or fail based on the strengths of their characters. Sure, exceptions exist (e.g. 2001: A Space Odyssey), but as I said, they're the exception. Not to mention that the movie does suggest it's character-driven, even if Orcs and Humans wasn't. Even if I knew nothing of Warcraft, I could guess that "the big brown guy" (Durotan) and "the human with a beard" (Lothar) were the core protagonists. Also, speaking personally, a large reason for me being invested in the setting are the characters - there's a reason why the characters of Warcraft III are still remembered fondly, whereas in previous games, you had next to nothing. Even when characters made their debut in earlier games (Medivh, Uther, Grom, etc.), it's the Warcraft III versions that everyone remembers.

I hate this idea that video games are somehow inferior and need to be butchered by some prick that never even touched the source material to "adapt" them. I think that video games can stand on their own. Even as movies. They might not look like you expect movies to look, and they might not be what you expect movies to be, but the truthful adaptation is possible and Warcraft movie achieves that. And that's why it is good. Granted, it isnt LOTR or GOT or Star Wars, but the thing is, it shouldn't be.
It isn't the only way to make a good video game movie. But this is one of the two that actually work.

No-one is saying that videogames are inferior to film (well, I'm not at least, I doubt many people on this site would either). But similarly to people complaining about games being too much like movies, I think the opposite is true. If I'm seeing a movie, I expect it to function as a movie. There's also a difference between being a good adaptation and being outright "good" in your own right, as I've pointed out many times.

When I say "about war", I mean that the movie is focused on key figures and events of said war. Not on some Scarlett O'Hara in a nearby household.

Which both Lord of the Rings and Game of Thrones/A Song of Ice and Fire fall into. If you don't like LotR, fine, but it's meeting the above criteria.

 

[mduncan50]

I hate this idea that video games are somehow inferior and need to be butchered by some prick that never even touched the source material to "adapt" them. I think that video games can stand on their own. Even as movies. They might not look like you expect movies to look, and they might not be what you expect movies to be, but the truthful adaptation is possible and Warcraft movie achieves that. And that's why it is good. Granted, it isnt LOTR or GOT or Star Wars, but the thing is, it shouldn't be.
It isn't the only way to make a good video game movie. But this is one of the two that actually work.

No-one is saying that videogames are inferior to film (well, I'm not at least, I doubt many people on this site would either). But similarly to people complaining about games being too much like movies, I think the opposite is true. If I'm seeing a movie, I expect it to function as a movie. There's also a difference between being a good adaptation and being outright "good" in your own right, as I've pointed out many times.

So much this, thank you. I mean, if you're argument is that the movie should be like the game, then what was the point of making it into a movie to begin with?

I'm done arguing with slo though. Apparently all critics are corrupt and rotten to the core, so what's the point. I do find it funny though that he keeps referring to critics that liked it to bolster his own stance.

 

[Maphysto]

TL;DW: Critics are just people and can be wrong about things. Watch the movie and form your own opinions.

 

[Hawki]

Jaina is still a nerdy mage with a moral compass, like was from the start.

Wait, what? Jaina? As in, Jaina, once a pleasant girl who sought peace between the Alliance and Horde, who was scarred both figuratively and psychologically by the fall of Theramore, who fell out with Varian over Vol'jin, who refuses to work with the Horde against the Burning Legion after Varian's death...is the same girl?

Um, okay. 0_0

Some do. There's this opinion floating in the air, that Warcraft should have been more movie like. That it shouldn't have been Warcraft, but "a good movie" instead. I oppose this. A Warcraft movie should be a Warcraft movie to be good.

Huh?

Okay, I don't doubt that a lot of people are going to look down on Warcraft by virtue of it being a VG-based movie. But "that Warcraft should have been more movie like?" That "it shouldn't have been Warcraft, but "a good movie" instead? That "A Warcraft movie should be a Warcraft movie to be good?" What kind of standards are these?

Make no mistake, this isn't just for Warcraft - I've seen people defending X-Men Apocalypse to me on the basis that "well, it's like that in the comics." But if your standards for quality are simply based on how well an adaptation meets its source material, then you have to realize that it's a standard that the average viewer isn't going to share. And it makes any discussion of the end product's quality/lack of it academic.

Does it? From books I only remember war being some vague background to what the fellowship does.

Fellowship of the Ring is bereft of war. In The Two Towers, war takes up the entirety of the first section of the book from Edoras onwards, and in Return of the King, war takes up the entirety in its...well, entirety in the first section, and branches off into the aftermath of war in the Scouring of the Shire section.

I'm done arguing with slo though. Apparently all critics are corrupt and rotten to the core, so what's the point. I do find it funny though that he keeps referring to critics that liked it to bolster his own stance.

Don't forget, I said American critics. I'm Russian and there's no reason for me to trust anything American at all.

Are we really playing that card? I'm Australian, does that mean I'm obliged to think that no-one bar my own nationality is worth trusting?

I don't doubt that some nationalities may be more reciprocal to types of films than others (e.g. US critics might be more reciprocal to Westerns, while those from Europe would be more reciprocal to high fantasy), but usually, a good film is a good film, regardless of boundaries. Speaking personally, for both 2015 and '16, non-English/Western films were in my top 10 lists by virtue of being good films regardless of their nation of origin.

 

[Samtemdo8_v1legacy]

These aren't about war.
GoT is mostly about intrigues and stuff, Lord of the Rings is about a guy trying hard to destroy his wedding ring and Grave of the Fireflies is a Ghibli anime.

1. Lord of the Rings has the best fantasy battles ever put in a movie.
2. If you dismiss Grave of the Fireflies as "just" a Ghibli anime, then you have my sympathies.

1. I would call that into question for certain battles because well while the Battle of Helm's Deep was certainly epic, it really was not very "fantasy" I mean compare the battle to say the Siege of Jerusalem in Kingdom of Heaven and you get the same result:

Kingdom of Heaven:


Battle of Helm's Deep:


Warcraft includes guns, warmachines like Steam Tanks and Gyrocopter and much more use of Magic in combat.

2. Grave of the Fireflies is just blatent manipulation.

 

[mduncan50]

I'm done arguing with slo though. Apparently all critics are corrupt and rotten to the core, so what's the point. I do find it funny though that he keeps referring to critics that liked it to bolster his own stance.

Don't forget, I said American critics. I'm Russian and there's no reason for me to trust anything American at all.

Drink the Kool-Aid man. We know everything is tip top above board over there.

 

[Hawki]

I'm done arguing with slo though. Apparently all critics are corrupt and rotten to the core, so what's the point. I do find it funny though that he keeps referring to critics that liked it to bolster his own stance.

Don't forget, I said American critics. I'm Russian and there's no reason for me to trust anything American at all.

Drink the Kool-Aid man. We know everything is tip top above board over there.

Oh boy, now you've done it...

Abandon Thread!

 

[mduncan50]

I'm done arguing with slo though. Apparently all critics are corrupt and rotten to the core, so what's the point. I do find it funny though that he keeps referring to critics that liked it to bolster his own stance.

Don't forget, I said American critics. I'm Russian and there's no reason for me to trust anything American at all.

Drink the Kool-Aid man. We know everything is tip top above board over there.

Oh boy, now you've done it...

Abandon Thread!

Elves and gnomes first!

 

[Amaror]

It is character driven. It's just it is not a character driven drama. All of the events in all of the Warcraft wars are driven by certain characters, yet it isn't about the characters themselves undergoing some character development, but about what they do. And they mostly do what they do because of what they are. We do see them from a different side every once in a while, but they don't really change. Well, except for when their personality is hijacked by some magic artifact. Jaina is still a nerdy mage with a moral compass, like was from the start.

Except they do change. Have you played warcraft 3 at all. Arthas character slowly changes from a Commander risking everything to keep his people save to a warlord hungry for power. Grom tries to change for the good of the horde but fails to do so. Illidan also tries to do good and be a better person for the women he loves.
And this is just from the top of my mind and I haven't played the games in years. I could most likely come up with quite a bit of characer development more if they were fresh in my mind.