@smkfreak: Dude sounds you are the only one googling here for names. I mentioned in my first post that China has a tradition of deep thought provoking cinema, hence I named, Kar Wai, Zhangke, Hsiao Hsian, all of whom represent deep meaningful Chinese cinema. The names you came up with nothing to do with one another. Truffault and Kubrick couldn't be more different, Kiarostami and Almoldovar, again completely wildly different film makers., with Kiarostami being an almost experimental filmmaker who breaks tradition by not using trained actors or even blocking and cinematography, where as Almoldovar relies entirely on star power and traditional cinema narratives and techniques. And then you throw in Kurosawa, which shows right away that you know nothing about cinema, cause its the catch all answer that everyone uses to try to sound intelligent. You essentially named a bunch of pretentious directors that have nothing to do with one another, which the question have you even watched a single art film EVER? I think not.
And you keep insisting that people should watch films that they believe to be bad. WHY? Why would I pay 15 bucks to see a movie that to me looks retarded for a lack of better word. The movie looks juvenile, I can't find a better word to describe it.
And yes I do place Star Power as a criteria when paying to see an Hollywood movie in the theatres, because unlike an art film, I'm watching a Hollywood commercial film for different reasons. I would watch an Zhangke, Hsiao Hsian film without stars cause I'm watching for the art and depth, but when I watch a popcorn film, I expect my 15 bucks to pay for a movie star as well as an entertaining experience.
I may watch this movie one day on Netflix, or some such, but I certainly can't justify paying to see it, when I can watch similar popcorn films that are better rated, and have stars attached.
Learn to judge each and every film within their own context. When I watch a Michael Bay film I judge it as being a popcorn film, when I watch an Antonioni film I judge it as being an arthouse piece. But when a film doesn't deliver on either criterias then I won't watch it. For me Warcraft doesn't deliver on what I deem a good popcorn film, it has no stars, bad reviews, what looks to be cartoony CGI, and really uninspired story. Just like there are bad artfilms, there are bad commercial films.
P.S I think Abbas is a great example of counterfit arthouse. He's one of if not the worst arthouse film director of all time. I couldn't sit through his crap if he paid me.
@smkfreak: So, basically you are suggesting that I spend my hard earned money on a movie that is critically panned, has a trailer that looks like it was made for a six year old, and has a bunch of actors that I wouldn't watch for free, just so I can be sure that I don't like the movie? If everybody did that every movie ever made would be box office gold.
I watch a movie based on A) Star power, B) Story interest, C) Trailer Interest, D) Critics. This movie fails on every level. It has no stars, I couln't care less about Warcraft, Trailer looks like its for children, Critics hated it. There is no reason why I would spend a dime on this movie.
I pointed out that I like Michael Bay movies to point out that fact that I don't snob lowbrow cinema, I like anything that I find interesting, high brow and low brow. And in case you didn't know Michael Bay makes tons and tons of films with actors as opposed to CGI. "The Rock", "Bad Boys", "The Island", "Armageddon", "Pearl Harbor", "13 Hours", etc.
Also I got nothing against CGI, just the usage of it. In this case, they got real actors playing the humans, then they got real actors playing the female Orcs, then they got CGI for every other characters. Makeup your fcking mind, if your gonna have real actors playing the chick Orcs, why use CGI for the other Orcs. Its a fcking mess.
A finally 10-20 million for a big star in an 160 million movie is the norm, News flash, "Assassins Creed", 'X-Men", "Hunger Games", etc, etc. You telling that they couldn't make the film for 150 million and get the exact same results, they needed the extra 10-20 million so badly that they'd sacrifice star power just to stick a few more CGI Orcs up on screen. The film doesn't need more cheesy CGI Orcs, it needs someone that regular people like us who don't know or care for Warcraft would be willing to pay money to see up on the big screen. It needs star a hell of a lot more than it needs more CGI.
Cut the budget down to 140 million, and spend 20 million on a big name, and this movie may have done well. It would have made no difference in the final product, just a few less CGI Orcs on screen.
PS Don't name drop. Cause I can also name drop with Kar Wai, Hou Hsiao Hsian, Jia Zhangke, Kitano, Antonioni, Kieslowski, etc, etc, etc. Don't get pretentious with someone who's already pretentious.
@demioch124: That makes sense to a certain extent, but isn't that what acting is, to make you believe that they are someone else. When I see James Mcavoy as Xavier, I don't hey thats the dude from Wanted, when I see Jennifer Lawrence as Mystique I don't say, hey thats the Hunger Game chick, when I see Michael Fassbender as Magneto, I don't say hey look thats Steve Jobs dude.
It makes zero sense to spend 160million on a film with zero stars. Stars exist to pull audiences who don't give a fck about the franchise into the screens. Yes, all actors started out as no names, but you don't go from TV actor to 160million spectacle without getting some street cred and recognition from doing some Indies low budget films first.
Honestly the fact that this film has zero stars hurts this film badly. Because people like me who have idea or don't give a fck about the Warcraft world will not spend money to see a big movie with no stars.
Big CGI laden spectacles are a dime a dozen nowadays, why would I see this when I see Ben Afflect, Jennifer Lawrence, Michael Fassbender in the same kinda crap.
There is a reason Assassin's Creed hired Michael Fassbender and not a nobody.
@demioch124: You do realize that the Orc chick is played by a human in makeup right? And Iron Man, Captain America, Thor are all played by humans, not CGI. And they had Orcs in movies before CGI was invented.
If the chick Orc can be played by human actors, they can do the same for the rest.
@smkfreak: I may have gone and seen if it were pure CGI animation like the cutscenes in the game, I actually liked those CGI cutscenes, but the mix of CGI and Live action, makes the whole thing look a little juvenile for my taste.
Here's what I don't get. Why did they go half assed? If they were gonna go live action, they should have just done it all in live action, what's with the half CGI half live action crap.
Also, I don't see the point of them even going live action because they didn't bother hiring a single movie star. If they were live action, they might as well have hired a big name star to play the lead, like Tom Hardy or some such. But the actors they hired have zero box office draw, which begs the question why even bother hiring actors if you're gonna use no name TV actors?
@Dissentioncc: I said China's taste in cinema, Einstein, learn to read. People in China used to like intelligent films, nowadays they are dumber than the US market. Go figure.
As for myself, I like both intelligent and entertaining cinema. I actually love most of Michael Bay's films.
But honestly this movie looks too dumb even for me.
Yeah I had a feelin this was gonna be a turd when the trailer arrived. It looks like its neither a live action nor an animated feature, kind of a weird hybrid of CGI animated feature with some real actors, and whenever one of your leading men is an Orc, you got problems.
Surprising this turd is doing well in China, proves that China will watch any crap with CGI in it. There is absolutely no taste in cinema in the current China market, its a free for all, any film with CGI can make money in China. LOL God, its sad, cause China was once a beacon for intellectual cinema, not crap like The Mermaid leads the box office.
Another dead person back to life big surprise, rolls eyes, bringing dead people to back to life is just weak writing.
Characters sitting around and telling the audience what happened, while random dead characters come back to life. Can't wait for it to finally end. Probably one of the worst written shows on HBO.
kazeswen's comments