Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

More Details on The Warcraft Movie

Zonk posted more than 8 years ago | from the paladins-will-be-bit-players dept.

77

Gamespot had a talk with Paul Sams, Blizzard COO, and dug up some additional details on the Warcraft film. From the article: "We're not trying to take what we've done and...try to make a literal translation to the big screen. What we want to do is to make a great movie that happens to be set in a video game universe. That's a differentiator, and a key differentiator. A lot of it comes down to picking the right people. A lot of the other video game movies that have come out before this haven't had the budgets, the right people, and haven't had the right mindset. We and Legendary want to make a great film, an event picture, big-budget picture, that is a great stand-alone, fantasy-based movie that is good for you regardless of whether you're familiar with the Warcraft universe."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Already covered. (1, Funny)

hal2814 (725639) | more than 8 years ago | (#15352917)

"What we want to do is to make a great movie that happens to be set in a video game universe."

I think Tron already has this covered.

Re:Already covered. (3, Insightful)

Supurcell (834022) | more than 8 years ago | (#15353043)

Except Tron was a movie first and a video game later. It did not have to live up to anybody's expectations. It was a blank slate. Millions of people have played the Warcraft Series and many of them have something different that they really love, that probably wont be captured in the live-action movie version.

The style of Warcraft, and all other Blizzard games, is a big thing for me. The opening cinematic for World of Warcraft is damn near to photo-realistic and still captures their over-the-top style. I'm sure that there will be plenty of CGI orcs, trolls, etc. in the movie, so why not go all out and really wow us by giving the fans what we've wanted for years?

I hope they still make a great movie despite their choices, and that this wont just be a quick cash-in.

Re:Already covered. (1)

Coldeagle (624205) | more than 8 years ago | (#15354143)

...Me not that kind of Orc

Re:Already covered. (3, Insightful)

Ohreally_factor (593551) | more than 8 years ago | (#15354195)

I hope they still make a great movie despite their choices, and that this wont just be a quick cash-in.

If wishes were horses, we'd all be eating steak.

Seriously, how can this be anything other than an attempt to cash in on the game?

Re:Already covered. (1)

rehtonAesoohC (954490) | more than 8 years ago | (#15360207)

If wishes were horses, we'd all be eating steak.

What?! Who eats horses?!?! My horse-training girlfriend has a big beef with you.

See what I did there? =D

Re:Already covered. (1)

Supurcell (834022) | more than 8 years ago | (#15360950)

I like to think that there is a difference between making a movie because you truly believe in it, and milking something for all that it is worth.

Re:Already covered. (1)

slashrogue (775436) | more than 8 years ago | (#15354759)

When is the last time there was a blockbuster CGI movie whose intended audience was not largely children?

Re:Already covered. (1)

kthejoker (931838) | more than 8 years ago | (#15356579)

You mean Titanic, the #1 grossing movie of all time? The spiderman and x-men movies? The Lord of the Rings trilogy? King Kong? The Matrix movies? War of the Worlds? The Day After Tomorrow? The Planet of the Apes remake?

All of those movies are in the top 100 grossing movies of all time.

Re:Already covered. (1)

Joe the Lesser (533425) | more than 8 years ago | (#15353855)

Homer: Uh...it's like...did anyone see the movie "Tron"?
Hibbert: No.
Lisa: No.
Marge: No.
Wiggum: No.
Bart: No.
Patty: No.
Wiggum: No.
Ned: No.
Selma: No.
Frink: No.
Lovejoy: No.
Wiggum: Yes. I mean ... um, I mean, no.

Of course... (2, Informative)

Admiral Justin (628358) | more than 8 years ago | (#15352929)

The movie, we hope, will be more meaningful than 2 hours of blood elf dancing.

Or, of course, at least more meaningful than the Mario Bros. Movie. (if you notice your friend attempting to watch this film, please insert baseball bat into the front of the screen, as this is the only way to protect them)

Hey... (1)

cheap_tibet (964336) | more than 8 years ago | (#15354387)

I liked that movie!!

It won't be a Warcraft movie (5, Funny)

DoctaWatson (38667) | more than 8 years ago | (#15352933)

If it doesn't have a half dozen naked gnomes dancing in front of an auction house.

Re:It won't be a Warcraft movie (1)

Nesetril (969734) | more than 8 years ago | (#15353401)

No, it wouldn't be a Warcraft movie if it didn't need patching and balance changes right after the (rushed) release. Any beta-tester can tell you that.

Dammit! (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15353529)

I was hoping they'd be Night Elves!

* Pictures Ironforge ... *
ElfSlutGrrl21 chats '<3 spare a few silvers, hon? :) <3'
/dance

...as good as the Dungeons and Dragons movie? (0, Troll)

xxxJonBoyxxx (565205) | more than 8 years ago | (#15352934)

...as good as the Dungeons and Dragons movie?

Re:...as good as the Dungeons and Dragons movie? (1)

MustardMan (52102) | more than 8 years ago | (#15353257)

Which one? I found the second D&D movie to be pretty good, with a lot of subtle (and not-so-subtle) references to bits of game mechanics that only a D&D player would get.

Re:...as good as the Dungeons and Dragons movie? (1)

Pantero Blanco (792776) | more than 8 years ago | (#15355294)

He was probably talking about the first one, which had nothing to do with the game other than the name. It was horrible in every possible way...The plot was corny and the acting was some of the worst I've ever seen (seriously, I've seen schoolkids do better).

I guess no one involved was willing to point out that having a black actress play a wood elf was a mistake.

"Shouldn't she be trying to kill them?"
"Nah, dude, she's, like, a wood elf or something."
"But she's black..."
"What are you, a racist?!"

Hopefully, the Warcraft movie will turn out better, but...From what I've seen of movies based on fantasy games, I'm not expecting it to.

Mod Parent -1, Orc (1)

cheap_tibet (964336) | more than 8 years ago | (#15354415)

n/t

That is awesome... (4, Interesting)

JoeLinux (20366) | more than 8 years ago | (#15352937)

It's amazing how much people like it when you either stay true to the source material (LoTR, Punisher, Spiderman, etc.), or declare that "this is new, don't compare" (Battlestar Galactica, etc.).

I'm wondering though how they are going to be able to tell a story in a universe that has such a well-established time-line, story and characters. Will it be like "Signs", in which the main story is off playing elsewhere, while our characters are involved with their own struggles?

For that matter, WHAT THE HELL IS HAPPENING WITH THE METROID MOVIE? I mean, I'm glad Woo is off of it...I don't think I'd like to see white doves flying off while Samus fires in slow-motion.

However, seeing metroid attacking white doves would kick ass....hmm....what a quandry...

Re:That is awesome... (1)

mypalmike (454265) | more than 8 years ago | (#15353211)

I'm wondering though how they are going to be able to tell a story in a universe that has such a well-established time-line, story and characters.

LOTR had a well-established time-line, story, and characters. I'd hardly say the same about Warcraft. Don't get me wrong - one of my favorite games of all time was a Warcraft title. But, as with most game->movie conversions, it may be exactly the lack of a solid story that is the biggest hindrance to the writers and directors. Granted, there were some novels written in the Warcraft universe, but it appears that the filmmakers aren't planning to base the film on them.

Re:That is awesome... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15353499)

Warcraft has a well-established time-line, story, and characters. Just read the Warcraft III manual, or research how much Blizzard is involved with the novels to make sure they don't break any continuity.

Re:That is awesome... (1, Insightful)

MMaestro (585010) | more than 8 years ago | (#15355862)

Actually the Warcraft series has one of the most confusing, contradictory and undefined storylines in recent video gaming history. The change from Warcraft 2 to 3 alone added FOUR different sides (the Tauren, the Night Elves, the Naga and the Infernal). World of Warcraft added three more (Dwarves, Gnomes and Trolls) to the fray.

Warcraft 1 + 2 had a barebones backstory involving the Dark Portal and an Orc invasion. Then Warcraft 3 sudden talks about the Undead and a conspiracy to conquer the world, the Night Elves (and an entire continent being 'discovered'), the Tauren (who saw this coming), the Naga (wow, could they add anything more unexpected?), alien invaders from outer space (ok, I guess they can), the Orcs really being under the control of the alien invaders (now they're stretching it), Dwarves and Gnomes becoming their own unique playable races, Ogres breaking away from the Orcs, etc etc etc.

Seriously, if you step back and think about it Blizzard OVEREXTENDED themselves when it came to the storyline in Warcraft 3. World of Warcraft just makes things worse since it is considered to be a sequel of the Warcraft storyline the PvP/PvE server differences are contradictory. Technically theres a truce but on PvP servers its open war, on PvE servers its virtually a peace treaty and in Battlegrounds its a war zone. Not to mention Quest storylines that involve biological warfare, chemical warfare, kidnappings/rescue missions, invasions and assassinations on both sides.

(Not to mention the Blood Elves, the Draenei or the Pandarians, two of which are becoming new races in World of Warcraft so you can bump that number up to five.)

Re:That is awesome... (1)

Hoi Polloi (522990) | more than 8 years ago | (#15359772)

That's what happens when you start with a game and then write a story to justify it. Just like George Lucas created a few movies then tried to shoehorn a series of movies around it.

I'll stick to games with rational, clear storylines like Donkey Kong. "You are a plumber who runs up ramps avoiding flaming barrels thrown by a raging giant, princess kidnapping, gorilla."

Re:That is awesome... (1)

Edward Teach (11577) | more than 8 years ago | (#15353541)

You mean the BattleStar Galactica that damned near everyone says "kicks ass"?

Re:That is awesome... (1)

F_Scentura (250214) | more than 8 years ago | (#15354357)

He's saying that it can work as well, he wasn't knocking it.

Re:That is awesome... (1)

Gropo (445879) | more than 8 years ago | (#15354063)

Will it be like "Signs", in which the main story is off playing elsewhere, while our characters are involved with their own struggles?
This is exactly what I was hoping when I daydreamed about a potential Warcraft movie a couple months back. I hope they hinge the picture around intimate personalized struggles (Alliance AND Horde) to better convey the WoW experience rather than predominantly throw Ye Epic Tales at a mainstream audience... I mean, when I have trouble falling asleep I consider picking up the WoW manual and filling myself in on some more backstory...

I will be eternally impressed with Blizzard/Legendary if they work in an Orc/Human sex scene.

Re:That is awesome... (1)

Lord_Dweomer (648696) | more than 8 years ago | (#15354338)

"It's amazing how much people like it when you either stay true to the source material (LoTR, Punisher, Spiderman, etc.), or declare that "this is new, don't compare" (Battlestar Galactica, etc.)."

The problem with your examples is that Battlestar Galactica is not based off of a game. I think a better example of what happens when you take the feel of a game and make a "radical departure" would be the first Final Fantasy movie. Yeah...looked beautiful, good action, high budget, huge brand backing....and flopped like you wouldn't believe because fans were so disappointed.

So what did they do? They realized that holy crap...fans who are obsessive about a game want to actually SEE THE FUCKING GAME on the big screen. And I don't mean that literally...but I do mean that they want to see all the little quirks that made them love the game brought to life.

I can GUARANTEE you will not see that from this WoW movie. Which is quite unfortunate. Oh well...I know I'll at least download a DVD rip so I can see the eye candy. That opening trailer for the game is really cool, and I especially love the way they animated the mage's spellcasting...looks very "forceful" like a mage should be.

Lost In Translation (5, Funny)

ThePuceGuardian (898399) | more than 8 years ago | (#15352944)

"We're not trying to take what we've done and...try to make a literal translation to the big screen.

Good thing, too. Otherwise you'd stand in line outside the theatre for 2 hours - only to be randomly sent back outside to stand in line some more once you were seated.

... and the movie wouldn't start unless there were 40 people in the seats..

Re:Lost In Translation (5, Funny)

crerwin (971247) | more than 8 years ago | (#15353130)

And once it starts playing, it is 4 hours long and there's a 90% chance that at the end it turns out it wasn't the correct movie and you have to come back and do more "theater runs" until the right one plays. Of course if you don't have time for all of this, they don't care :p

Re:Lost In Translation (1)

Magic5Ball (188725) | more than 8 years ago | (#15357328)

You could always pay a plot farmer for the essential details instead...

Movie grinding (1)

Hoi Polloi (522990) | more than 8 years ago | (#15359810)

Then you have to make popcorn at the concessions stand, over and over again. Tons of it. Until you get a "Movie Viewer" skill level of 50. You could always just go out and pay a guy on Ebay to come and get a seat for you too.

Re:Lost In Translation (1)

Salty Moran (974208) | more than 8 years ago | (#15353160)

That would never be a problem because no matter how often somebody has seen it, they'd always back again and again on the offchance that this time it's a little bit different.

Man, this joke could go on for another two or three pages and still be relevant if people keep playing it up...

Re:Lost In Translation (2, Interesting)

arcanumas (646807) | more than 8 years ago | (#15353180)

I am sure the DVD will also feature leet-speak subtitles for the WOW fans :)

Re:Lost In Translation (1)

0racle (667029) | more than 8 years ago | (#15353556)

That would actually be a fantastic idea.

Re:Lost In Translation (1)

dazilla (647166) | more than 8 years ago | (#15353259)

And once you've actually seen the movie (assuming you got past the numerous 2 hour lines), you'll discover that it's mostly a black screen. The studio/theater will deny anything is wrong with it for several weeks. Then they'll release an "updated" version that has less black. This will continue until the 1080p HD DVD/Blu Ray release several years down the line.

Re:Lost In Translation (1)

dotHectate (975458) | more than 8 years ago | (#15353262)

In other news, commercial printing companies fear running out of purple ink as marketing companies plan a slew of "Epic" promotional items.

Re:Lost In Translation (4, Funny)

snuf23 (182335) | more than 8 years ago | (#15353336)

... and the movie wouldn't start unless there were 40 people in the seats..

Which means the theater lobby will be full of people shouting "LFG WoW Movie run!"
Once the theater is full the movie is likely to only run at about 5 frames per second.

Re:Lost In Translation (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15353492)

How about having two versions of the movie, one from the Alliance point of view and one from the Horde point of view.

Re:Lost In Translation (1)

nutznboltz2003 (832752) | more than 8 years ago | (#15353542)

Any bets on how long those 40 people wait only to have Leroy Jenkins exit before it starts, thus ruining it for all everyone else?

Re:Lost In Translation (4, Funny)

xutopia (469129) | more than 8 years ago | (#15353550)

Each time you get sent back to the back of the line it grows bigger each time. And when the movie starts the power goes out and someone yells "Leeroy!!! NOT AGAIN!!!"

Re:Lost In Translation (1)

rehtonAesoohC (954490) | more than 8 years ago | (#15360173)

Don't forget that if people left during the movie, they wouldn't be able to watch another movie for 15 minutes.

And of course, if enough people left the movie, it would pop up: "There are not enough people in this theater. This movie will stop playing in 5 minutes." once per minute until the projector shuts off.

like the FF movie but better? (1)

sk8dork (842313) | more than 8 years ago | (#15353011)

one of the best examples I can think of where a game turned movie like this was the Final Fantasy movie [not advent children]. personally i think the movie would have been a lot better if they did it live action with a decent budget. the lifelessness of the cgi killed it for me. it was pretty, but lifeless.

Re:like the FF movie but better? (1)

Buddy_DoQ (922706) | more than 8 years ago | (#15353601)

I don't think it was the CGI that killed the FF movie, I think the fact that it was a horrid telling of a bland story that killed it. It was never really going anywhere, it started up ok, but never really left the line. Advent Children, while not nearly as good looking, and even though it was campy as hell, was still a much better movie over all. But I thought Spirits was jaw-droping at the time, I didn't get the lifeless vibe when I first saw it. (note: I don't play console RPGs and have never played any of the FF games, so I'm only ranting from a movie and animation fan's pov.)

Re:like the FF movie but better? (1)

Amouth (879122) | more than 8 years ago | (#15353762)

when looking back on it today i can see that argument.. but given the date it came out 2001 i thought that it was quite well done.. cgi has improved leaps and bounds since then.. it took them years to render the first one..

now Advent Children.. that one i am quite impressed with. sure it was missing some ray tracing and all the skin was pale and chalky.. but the choreography was absoulty amazing and i have yet to see a movie that could match it.

Re:like the FF movie but better? (1)

sk8dork (842313) | more than 8 years ago | (#15354019)

i agree about advent children. my problem with the original final fantasy movie was that while the cgi was great as far as looking realistic, the movement and emotion was just not believable enough. any screen shot from the movie looks fantastic, almost real, but the animation was not quite there. i am not saying i could do any better, because i couldnt, i just mean that as a major motion picture, it didn't quite do it for me. as some cut scenes in a game, sure, that's fine.

Re:like the FF movie but better? (1)

Amouth (879122) | more than 8 years ago | (#15354184)

well see that is where it is hard for animators.. i know what your saying and i agree with you.. but when you look at when it was done and the fact that they couldn't see what it really looked like till days after i think they did a decent job.. (that is all i am saying...)

Right people... (5, Funny)

grub (11606) | more than 8 years ago | (#15353047)


A lot of it comes down to picking the right people.

That leaves Uwe Boll out of the picture...

Re:Right people... (1)

snuf23 (182335) | more than 8 years ago | (#15353392)

What are you talking about? Have you seen the Dungeon Siege trailer? Ninjas, zombies, ninja zombies, evil Ray Liotta and King Burt Reynolds? They even got Gimli in there and Ron Perlman!
How could you get more awesome-o then that?

hmmmm. nevermind.

Burt Reynolds appeared in Robot Chicken episode (1)

SlashdotTroll (581611) | more than 8 years ago | (#15353495)

I remember it fondly...

He's in a girly club, where he is accepting money for a car-race. He places the entry fee at 500,000 dollars. At the end of the race, him and his buddy award the winner a $50 gift certificate and a fruit baskette. L...O...L...

Google Video of episode is here [google.com]

Hrm... (1)

BigDork1001 (683341) | more than 8 years ago | (#15353108)

... I wonder if Peter Jackson is available. At least he did a fairly decent job with the LOTR movies. I'm sure he wouldn't butcher the WoW universe too bad. Of course if the writing and plot blow that won't help things at all.

Re:Hrm... (1)

amliebsch (724858) | more than 8 years ago | (#15353274)

Actually, he's probably (no joke) busy [bbc.co.uk] with the Halo movie...

Re:Hrm... (2, Informative)

sgant (178166) | more than 8 years ago | (#15353396)

But he's not directing it. And PJ is working on a MUCH smaller movie now with "The Lovely Bones" [imdb.com] ...not that being the executive producer on Halo isn't a big job, I don't blame him for taking a smaller film to direct after LOTR and Kong.

But, having said that, they still haven't found a director for Halo so who knows, he may just take it over himself which would be quite interesting.

Re: PJ not that great (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15353822)

I am a long time fan of Tolkien, but I don't think that PJ's job on LOTR was that great. I mean, if you liked the movie, it is probably because (1) the story, (2) the acting, or (3) the special effects. The director has little to do with the actual content of these, except in sequencing and editing, which I thought were bad. All the drawn out scenes, and slow motion, and camera movement, just made me bored. King Kong was the same way, great acting, great special effects, but drawn out scenes and camera movement that just made me lose interest from time to time. I think PJ should just retire, I'm sick of his dramatics.

Casting decision? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15353127)

Who will play the "Authenticating" screen? I see a Clint Howard, Brian Doyle-Murray type.

Just like every other movie (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15353135)

So what they're saying is that they are going to blow all their money on big name actors with no talent, and spend $20 on a script, and everyone will love it.

Heresy! (2, Funny)

Guppy06 (410832) | more than 8 years ago | (#15353214)

Any move that calls itself "WarCraft" that doesn't feature exploding sheep is no better than a "Doom" movie that doesn't involve space marines killing demons from Hell on Mars!

Re:Heresy! (1)

ClamIAm (926466) | more than 8 years ago | (#15354605)

If they don't work in some lines like "quit poking me!", I'm definitely not going.

Egad, man... (5, Insightful)

The-Bus (138060) | more than 8 years ago | (#15353328)

"A lot of the other video game movies that have come out before this haven't had the budgets..."


(Note: All numbers adjusted for inflation).

Ahh, yes, lack of money. Let's look at some video game movie budgets. Resident Evil: Apocalypse was $44MM. The recent Silent Hill was $50MM. The charming Super Mario Bros. was about $57MM. Oh, and we all liked that Doom movie: it cost $70MM. And who could forget Tomb Raider at a whopping $87MM.

Now, I've sat through most of these movies. At no point did I look into the screen and say... "Wow, if they only had more money, this would've been so much better."

 

Re:Egad, man... (1)

Amouth (879122) | more than 8 years ago | (#15353794)

yea anyone that thinks that throwing more money will make the movie better needs to have their head examined..

i could see having an amazing story line and needing more money to make the viewer see the detail to make them feel that they where there.. but you don't have to have that.

i think the amount of money they spend to make mediacore movies is crazy.. and i don't think it will help this movie.. as it is CGI all more money should do is give them more rendering time.. if it isn't in the heart of the animators and the story writers to make it right and put out something wonderful.. throwing more money at them isn't going to help.

Doom? Seemed ok to me. (2, Interesting)

Evil Pete (73279) | more than 8 years ago | (#15354061)

Actually I liked the Doom movie quite a lot. I took my sons to see it because "yeah it'll probably be bad but I juast have to see it". We were all very pleasantly surprised, thought it was great I recently hired the movie out as an over-nighter and it was still pretty good. Don't know why people complain about it.

As for "Resident Evil". Puke. I couldn't watch it for more than 5 minutes. Super Mario I liked, but mostly because it was just so pleasantly bizarre ... hilarious weirdness.

Step One (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15353344)

You don't base the movie on the game. If you do, you're already sunk because then the whole driving force becomes making the movie into a random smorgasboard of "bits" (gotta have character types X Y and Z, scenes with terrain types P D and Q, etc.) No. If you want to try for a serious fantasy movie you have to treat the game as something reflecting a 'reality' in game terms. You then base your movie on that imaginary universe. Make a movie that reflects that same reality in movie terms. Then you at least have a chance. You need a strongly imagined universe for this to work, but it just might work here. The warcraft background is reasonably well detailed. It's still one hell of a "might" though. I wish them luck.

Re:Step One (2, Interesting)

PFI_Optix (936301) | more than 8 years ago | (#15353594)

If you weren't posting AC (and I had mod points), I'd mod you up.

We don't expect our games to be realistic. Sure, we whine about them lacking realism both in appearance and mechanics, but in reality we all understand that we can't do everything in a game that we can do in real life. Like fire around a corner without exposing half our body in most FPS. But when we watch a movie, we expect to see as close to realism as we can get--without the tedium of real life. What is perfectly acceptable in a game is intolerable in a movie.

Re:Step One (2, Insightful)

patio11 (857072) | more than 8 years ago | (#15356855)

I love WoW, have wasted an unhealthy amount of my life in it, and think the "lore" (backstory) sucks. Its like every fantasy universe you've ever heard of, a pastiche of cliches which have been done better elsewhere (Quick sampling: missing king, corrupt advisor perverting kingdom to her own ends, about nobody with a personality which is more than a character archetype, etc etc. ). The thing that makes Warcraft and WoW exceptional is the gameplay set in that comfortably familiar fantasy universe. I don't see that translating well to the video screen: those of us who played it might get a kick out of "Hey, I saved that guy's farm once!" but everyone else will be like "Hmm, horde of undead beasties summoned up, threatening whole world, nations of world too busy with petty infighting to see the true threat... where have I heard this story before..."

ALL the details (0, Troll)

BoxSocial (945632) | more than 8 years ago | (#15353395)

I've got all the details you need about any Warcraft movie right here: 1. It will be shit. 2. Only losers will go and see it.

Re:ALL the details (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15353500)

Great! We'll see you there then!

Re:ALL the details (1)

BoxSocial (945632) | more than 8 years ago | (#15353730)

Probably.

WOW! a movie!!! (1)

irablum (914844) | more than 8 years ago | (#15353476)

I hope they get Danny DeVito to play my Gnome Warrior. And think of Jennifer Connolly as a Night Elf Mage.

Ira

Re:WOW! a movie!!! (1)

dazilla (647166) | more than 8 years ago | (#15353841)

Night Elf Mage? You haven't played much WoW at all, have you?

Re:WOW! a movie!!! (2, Funny)

irablum (914844) | more than 8 years ago | (#15353955)

ugh. I meant druid. night elf druid. bleh. Not played much WOW. damnit, I'm tired and working. My Gnome Warrior hit 59 last night. so there.

Re:WOW! a movie!!! (1)

Supurcell (834022) | more than 8 years ago | (#15353934)

We can't leave out Marlon Wayans. He would make the perfect human rogue.

Peons are excellant loggers... (1)

creimer (824291) | more than 8 years ago | (#15353597)

I hope they get the peons right. In Warcraft 2, I put a peon on an large island to harvest trees overnight, and the whole island was naked of trees when I resume playing game the next morning. Not exactly environmentally friendly but I had enough trees to build war fleet. :)

Generation Loss (1)

SpaceToast (974230) | more than 8 years ago | (#15353603)

I don't want to be dismissive, but this reads like the sort of Popularity = Box Office thinking that's gotten so many good people into so much trouble. Blizzard has been very industrious over the last decade, but Warcraft is still basically an homage to "The Lord of the Rings." What can this team hope to accomplish that Peter Jackson's hasn't already, and at what's almost guaranteed to be a lower per-minute budget? The most successful videogame movie so far is probably "Mortal Kombat," an unimpressive high water mark that gets by on simple cut-to-the-action unpretentiousness. Maybe that is the way to go: one hour of buildup and one hour of reasonably well blocked battle sequences. The trouble is, no matter how well it's done, it's still just an homage going up against its original.

Re:Generation Loss (1)

Evangelion (2145) | more than 8 years ago | (#15353712)


Correction, it's a homage to Warhammer.

Which is a homage to Lord of the Rings.

Re:Generation Loss (1)

Erbo (384) | more than 8 years ago | (#15354168)

Let's just say that it's this sort of news that makes me try to push the popularity of the article tag "hollywoodisoutofideas"...

Not All Fantasy is LotR (1)

cheap_tibet (964336) | more than 8 years ago | (#15354453)

Although I acknowledge that Blizzard did draw some ideas from Lord of the Rings, I don't think it's the direct correspondence you make it out to be. WarCraft lore is distinctive in itself. Just because they both have elves, orcs, and humans doesn't mean the WarCraft movie won't have anything new to offer.

There are a lot of compelling stories that take place in the WarCraft universe - the destruction of the Well of Eternity, the opening of the Dark Portal, and the death of Archimonde, to name a few. None of these have parallels in Lord of the Rings that I can recall.

Re:Generation Loss (1)

svip (678490) | more than 8 years ago | (#15356557)

Actually it's Games Workshop's Warhammer Fantasy universe that became Warcraft. Of course Tolkien started it all though.

All I want to know is... (0, Redundant)

paco3791 (786431) | more than 8 years ago | (#15354099)

do the sheep explode or what.
Check for New Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?