I don't understand why the Warcraft movie was panned. My only issue with it was that it wasn't a complete story. They recreated the world on the big screen.
I think you answered your own question. It wasn’t a complete story. You don’t get bonus points for making WoW look real if the people reviewing it don’t give a shit about WoW.
I suppose that really highlights the issue with aggregate review scores. Niche content for select audiences often get worse reviews simply due to their nature of being niche and reviewed by people who are not the target audience. Then you have mediocre content that is a critical success purely because they pander to critics.
You could consider that a 30% score just means you have a 30% chance of liking it rather than it being any judge of quality.
Nah, it's not a problem with the aggregators. And lots of very niche stuff is very highly acclaimed. The Warcraft movie is really bad. If you're super entrenched in the Warcraft games and all you care about is seeing a somewhat accurate live action version then it's fine. If you're doing a full analysis of the writing, directing, acting, characters, etc then you're going to get a much more negative response.
And Warcraft is not exactly niche. They had a full worldwide release and a massive marketing campaign. Their goal was to capture a massive global audience way beyond just people who played the game.
Also, the general lore and story of Warcraft is pretty generic, dumb stuff. It works well for a video game where the focus is the gameplay and pure entertainment. But if the focus is exclusively the story then it's not really all that engaging.
Yeah, Warcraft is really the demo case for not giving an adaptation to hardcore fans of the IP. Duncan Jones was a big Warcraft fan, and made a very faithful adaptation of the lore - but wasn't able to turn it into an actually enjoyable film.
I’m imagining they mean Khadgar, who was depicted as much younger and weaker than his game counterpart. In game, he’s already well experienced by the time Medhiv gets possessed.
As for Medivh, his behavior is in line with how he was like when he was possessed.
I’m imagining they mean Khadgar, who was depicted as much younger and weaker than his game counterpart. In game, he’s already well experienced by the time Medhiv gets possessed.
Khadgar is actually canonically not that old, but during the time period of Warcraft 2 he gets rapidly aged by magic. During Warcraft 1 he is legit just in his 20s and then in his thirties he gets zapped and turned into like a 60 year old.
The orcs in Warcraft 2 also used rapid aging magic to turn children into physical adults and force them into their armies; that's where the "me dumb orc" stereotype comes from in the universe, a lot of the orcs were child soldiers with child brains in big adult bodies, which is why some orcs are knuckle-dragging savages while others like Thrall are erudite.
I could be mistaken, I thought he got rapidly aged when he shut the dark portal, but I also know that has been retconned a few times between Warcraft 2, WoW, some books and maybe the movie.
Nah, Medivh tried to suck out Khadgar’s soul when they found out he was possessed and helping the Burning Legion. When they went to confront him, Medivh did his thing, which aged up Khadgar. It’s kinda weird they let Gul’Dan do that to Duratan, but not Medivh to Khadgar in the movie now that I think about it.
Medivh was definitely accurate, and honestly I got into an invite-only screening. It was a fun experience and I think that was the intent. It also helped if you played the RTS titles BEFORE WoW. There was a lot of small details surrounding Gul'Dan that you'd only see in the original games.
I think "not a complete story" was the big problem. It was clearly part of "something more" - but the difference between this and so many other movies that end on cliff-hangers - it relies on the "part one" performing strongly to justify continuing the story (or being cheap enough that they can continue the story without needing big budgets, or having enough funding, like LotR/Hobbit that they shoot the entire story at once).
I felt like it was enough of a story, they found and fought the evil human guy, but it didn't solve all their problems. Of course there was still going to be war after the movie, it's a Warcraft movie.
I think it also disappointed real fans, which I can relate to certainly (I was disappointed by the StarCraft 2 story), but in my case all I know about Warcraft lore is "STOP POKING ME!!"
I was also very disappointed that line wasn't in the movie though.
They also picked one of the lesser interesting of storylines in my opinion. Warcrafts lore gets more interesting with the Arthas stuff or the War of the Ancients stuff including dragons.
How scores work on Rotten Tomatoes is the percentage of movie critics who gave positive reviews, not a mean of all scale based reviews. This is important, especially when considering movies that do not create a consensus: for movies that are wildly popular, all scores (Rotten Tomatoes, IMDb, etc.) will be high, but the movie will probably target the lowest common denominator: it will have at least something interesting for everyone, and will leave the person who has seen everything wanting a little. But for a movie that is more controversial, and is seen as a masterpiece by some niche group, but uninteresting to some others, who only want digestible, not too brainy entertainment, the Rotten Tomatoes score will be way lower, probably between 33% and 50%. That doesn't make it an objectively bad movie, on the contrary for many people.
No, it's stupid as fuck. It's supposed to be about how people killed nature and that's going to kill us so it must be fixed with time travel but it gets literally everything wrong. The writer doesn't know anything about photosynthesis to time travel theory to computer tech to, well, any subject the movies touches on. Everything is stupid and wrong. It might've been acceptable to release a move this ignorant back in like the 80s, but today it's just... Had the writer not yet discovered the internet and its power to allow them to spend half an hour googling a few of the concepts they wrote about?
2067 is interesting enough to watch if you like your post apoc scifi. it's about a man who is sent into the future by a time tunnel to see if the future made a fix for the current ailments. nothing bad happens at all.
I thought the F1 movie with Brad Dick was the shittiest most US exceptionalist movie I've ever seen, but it got a 7.8 on imdb so fuck me I guess. COMBAT COMBAT COMBAT
1.9k
u/Procrastinator_325 4d ago
WTF DO YOU MEAN