[ijedi42]

http://www.worldofwa...t.com/index.xml

[5TeN]

Thats wicked!

I hope they can truly make a good movie out of this! Nice to see they are going ahead on this

[Janichsan]

All this movie will have are enormous shoulder pads and purple painted chicks.

[the Battle Cat]

Janichsan, on July 23rd 2009, 12:19 AM, said:

All this movie will have are enormous shoulder pads and purple painted chicks.

But you'll see that only if you grind long enough in the lobby, else you won't have the rank to get a seat.

[teflon]

I don't see why they have to call it World of Warcraft. I mean WoW is set within the already fairly well fleshed out Wc universe, so, since its the first movie in what will presumably be a series, why not just call it Warcraft?
Its snappier, means that it doesn't necessarily have to stick to the story of WoW, yet maintains a lot of the brand recognition.

Unless, of course, its just about a group of kids from around the world that are united in the digital world which eventually threatens to take control of the normal world, and then they have to team up to defeat the big evil monster...

Oh wait, sorry, that's Digimon...

[Janichsan]

teflon, on July 23rd 2009, 06:17 PM, said:

I don't see why they have to call it World of Warcraft. I mean WoW is set within the already fairly well fleshed out Wc universe, so, since its the first movie in what will presumably be a series, why not just call it Warcraft?

Actually, that's exactly what that movie appears to be called.

[teflon]

In which case, why is everyone calling it the "World of Warcraft" movie?
And I just looked, it appears that Blizzard aren't calling it that, they call it "Warcraft Movie", yet a lot of the press Ive seen around this is screaming the "world of" part.

Glad its not explicitly WoW, means they can actually have a decent story in it.

[Atticus]

I predict that the movie will be horrible.

Considering the incredible cut-scene CGI that Blizz produces, an animated epic would've been a no-brainer. And CLEARLY, budget is not a impediment.

But instead, we'll get actors running around in....purple makeup and large shoulder pads. Ugh. I'm already cringing.

This coupled with the Mt. Dew/WoW ad campaign, and it's no wonder I quit. It has become the game you pick up at the register of your local 7-11--BUY A SLURPEE™ AND GET A WoW™ GAMEPLAY CARD! ONLY AT PARTICIPATING 7-11/CIRCLE K™ FRANCHISEES. OFFER SUBJECT TO RESTRICTIONS.

Atticus

[Tibur]

Granted, Blizzard's cutscenes are incredible, but that's all they are. Cutscenes. I imagine there's a big difference between doing cutscenes and making an ~2 hour feature film. I don't work in either industry, so I have no basis for my belief in this regard. Maybe someone who knows better can correct me.

Since the studios did a decent job with a live-action LOTR, I don't think it's a lock that this movie will be awful. Blending CGI and live-action seems to be working quite well these days. Heck, it worked pretty well in "Who Framed Roger Rabbit?" and that was made in the Dark Ages.

Besides, how big were the shoulderpads in Warcraft 2 and 3, anyway?

[The Liberator]

I do not know about the WarCraft story-line or anything, but I have a feeling that it might just be one long cut-scene. Also, not sure how LoTR relates too much to WarCraft.

Liberator.

[Atticus]

It's very true that animated films are more expensive and harder to produce, but alls I'm sayin' is that money and other resources are not an impediment for ANY of the companies involved--Legend, Warner, and Blizzard-Activision. If they wanted to make a feature-length animated movie, they could, and would. Heck, the slated movie already has an $100 million budget. These are not cash-starved mom-and-pop indie outfits.

I just don't think live-action WoW will translate well to the screen. Who is the intended audience? The 11 million WoW players around the world? If the producers are targeting a more general audience, how will they differentiate this film from any of the other swords-and-sorcerer movies that have been released in the past ten years? Are they going for geeks, or Average, you next-door neighbor?

Not to mention that I find WoW lore to be exceedingly fill-in-the-blank dull. "AND THUS DID [LOTHORAEN] TAKE THE [SWORD] NAMED [SHAFTLIGHT] AND KILLED HIS [FATHER'S COUSIN] WHOSE GHOST THEN SUMMONED AN [ARMY OF UNDEAD] blah, blah blah."

/shrug

/dance

Atticus

[Janichsan]

teflon, on July 23rd 2009, 08:12 PM, said:

In which case, why is everyone calling it the "World of Warcraft" movie?
And I just looked, it appears that Blizzard aren't calling it that, they call it "Warcraft Movie", yet a lot of the press Ive seen around this is screaming the "world of" part.

I guess the dumb masses do not know that WoW is just a continuation of an already existing franchise. Most people only recognise the word "Warcraft" with an "World of" in front of it. I've heard a couple of complaints from Warcraft III players that many people don't get that there's a difference between Warcraft the RTS and World of Warcraft the MMORPG. It's similar here, I assume.

[Tibur]

Atticus, on July 23rd 2009, 10:35 PM, said:

It's very true that animated films are more expensive and harder to produce, but alls I'm sayin' is that money and other resources are not an impediment for ANY of the companies involved--Legend, Warner, and Blizzard-Activision. If they wanted to make a feature-length animated movie, they could, and would. Heck, the slated movie already has an $100 million budget. These are not cash-starved mom-and-pop indie outfits.

I just don't think live-action WoW will translate well to the screen. Who is the intended audience? The 11 million WoW players around the world? If the producers are targeting a more general audience, how will they differentiate this film from any of the other swords-and-sorcerer movies that have been released in the past ten years? Are they going for geeks, or Average, you next-door neighbor?

Not to mention that I find WoW lore to be exceedingly fill-in-the-blank dull. "AND THUS DID [LOTHORAEN] TAKE THE [SWORD] NAMED [SHAFTLIGHT] AND KILLED HIS [FATHER'S COUSIN] WHOSE GHOST THEN SUMMONED AN [ARMY OF UNDEAD] blah, blah blah."

/shrug

/dance

Atticus

I think the reason they're making a live-action movie is to try and broaden the audience. If it was an animated movie, I would think that their audience would be limited to the 11 million WoW subscribers, and the other something-million Warcraft 1-3 players. You put big-name actors in a movie, people who don't play any of the games are more likely to go and see it. I would bet that lots of people who went to see Spiderman, Iron Man, X-Men, etc. never read the comics, let alone collected them.

Also, in the minds of most people, an animated movie is ipso facto a movie for "kids." I've heard from more than one person that they had no reason to go see the movie Up because their kids are now grown.

@Liberator - Do you really not see how LoTR and Warcraft relate to each other? Richly detailed storylines set in fantasy world with elves, dwarves, orcs, swords and sorcery? My point was that there were many elements in LoTR that could have looked ridiculous without CGI or really good makeup/costumes, e.g. Gollum, the Uruk-hai, the Ents, the Nazgul, etc. CGI is certainly much improved in the years since, so I don't think that it is a given that the night-elves will look ridiculous in Warcraft (and since I've heard the story is set between Warcraft 2 and 3, there's no need to make draenei).

Ultimately, I suppose the proof is in the pudding. The movie might well be awful - but I think if it is, it will be due to the script or the story, rather than it being live-action instead of animated.

[The Liberator]

Yeah, I guess so. I do know one thing, the film will need easily more than just the 11 million WoW players and 3 million WC players to get anything near to breaking even on their budget.

Liberator.

[Tesseract]

Tibur, on July 24th 2009, 07:51 AM, said:

Blending CGI and live-action seems to be working quite well these days. Heck, it worked pretty well in "Who Framed Roger Rabbit?" and that was made in the Dark Ages.

So much so that it doesn't actually contain any CGI…

[Frost]

Tesseract, on August 24th 2009, 01:42 PM, said:

So much so that it doesn't actually contain any CGI…

Oh snap!

[Tibur]

Tesseract, on August 24th 2009, 06:42 PM, said:

So much so that it doesn't actually contain any CGI…

As I said, the Dark Ages, when "CGI" stood for ... um ... "Crayon-generated Imagery."

Otherwise, substitute "The Abyss" or "Jurassic Park" for "Who Framed Roger Rabbit" in my original post. Curse my aging brain.

[Eric5h5]

Tibur, on August 25th 2009, 03:07 PM, said:

As I said, the Dark Ages, when "CGI" stood for ... um ... "Crayon-generated Imagery."

Nice save...I give it a 8/10.

--Eric

[Rev-O]

Tibur, on August 25th 2009, 01:07 PM, said:

"Crayon-generated Imagery."

[Sneaky Snake]

Tibur, on August 25th 2009, 03:07 PM, said:

As I said, the Dark Ages, when "CGI" stood for ... um ... "Crayon-generated Imagery."

+1 for that