Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×

More Details on The Warcraft Movie 77

Posted by Zonk from the paladins-will-be-bit-players dept.
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."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

More Details on The Warcraft Movie More

More Details on The Warcraft Movie

Comments Filter:
  • "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. (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Supurcell ( 834022 ) on Wednesday May 17, 2006 @03:01PM (#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.
    • 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... (Score:2, Informative)

    by Admiral Justin ( 628358 )
    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)

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

    by DoctaWatson ( 38667 ) on Wednesday May 17, 2006 @02:48PM (#15352933)
    If it doesn't have a half dozen naked gnomes dancing in front of an auction house.
    • 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! (Score:1, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward
      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?

  • That is awesome... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by JoeLinux ( 20366 ) <joelinux@gma[ ]com ['il.' in gap]> on Wednesday May 17, 2006 @02:48PM (#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...
    • 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 novel
    • You mean the BattleStar Galactica that damned near everyone says "kicks ass"?

    • 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 W

    • "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 fl

  • Lost In Translation (Score:5, Funny)

    by ThePuceGuardian ( 898399 ) on Wednesday May 17, 2006 @02:49PM (#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..

  • 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.
    • 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
    • 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.
      • 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.
        • 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... (Score:5, Funny)

    by grub ( 11606 ) <slashdot@grub.net> on Wednesday May 17, 2006 @03:02PM (#15353047) Homepage Journal

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

    That leaves Uwe Boll out of the picture...
    • 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.
  • ... 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.
    • Actually, he's probably (no joke) busy [bbc.co.uk] with the Halo movie...

      • Re:Hrm... (Score:3, Informative)

        by sgant ( 178166 )
        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.

  • Heresy! (Score:2, Funny)

    by Guppy06 ( 410832 )
    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!

  • Egad, man... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by The-Bus ( 138060 ) on Wednesday May 17, 2006 @03:35PM (#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."

     
    • 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 anim

    • 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 (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward
    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 le

    • Re:Step One (Score:3, Interesting)

      by PFI_Optix ( 936301 )
      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 into

    • Re:Step One (Score:3, Insightful)

      by patio11 ( 857072 )
      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
  • I hope they get Danny DeVito to play my Gnome Warrior. And think of Jennifer Connolly as a Night Elf Mage.

    Ira
  • 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. :)

  • 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 hi


    • Correction, it's a homage to Warhammer.

      Which is a homage to Lord of the Rings.
    • Let's just say that it's this sort of news that makes me try to push the popularity of the article tag "hollywoodisoutofideas"...
    • 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
    • Actually it's Games Workshop's Warhammer Fantasy universe that became Warcraft. Of course Tolkien started it all though.

Slashdot Top Deals

Understanding is always the understanding of a smaller problem in relation to a bigger problem. -- P.D. Ouspensky

Close