Duncan Jones' Warcraft - Part 3

Yeah the editing and way that the narrative flow often doesn't allow you time to get invested in things/characters. They begin and end at weird moments, characters are introduced and then disposed of very quickly, so you don't really care. A lot of the dialogue isn't particularly great, etc.

I wonder if some of this isn't down to Duncan Jones being inexperienced with this kind of grand-scale "epic" fantasy blockbuster material? His previous films, aside from being more sci-fi and not fantasy, were smaller in scale and more character-focused. So perhaps there's some growing pains here.
 
I think it might be less genre and more scale - that seems to have been Trank's problem; he was a small indie guy that was suddenly given a potential tentpole. Bringing SF sensibilities to fantasy can't hurt - you can drop the pastoralism, the pseudo old English faux European feel in favor of the anger and urgency you get from a good SF flick.
 
I think you can't narrow down Warcraft's problem to any one thing. I think part of it is probably that maybe this is a case of Jones loving the material and wanting to venerate and revere it too much.

Sometimes fandom isn't enough. Also this:

I mean nothing Durotan does really matters or is really important in the overall scheme of the plot. Also, Orgrim and Durotan, two of the film's more interesting characters are completely removed from the story before the final act.

Khadgar was a terrible character and Schnetzer's performance was bland as hell. It was Nicholas Hoult as Beast bland.
 
I think the lesson with Jones and Trank is just because these directors kill it when it comes to small and mid-budget films doesn't mean that they are going to ace the blockbuster movie test. Also directors aren't perfect, sometimes even the best director's produce duds quality wise.

I feel more comfortable when these directors have strong producers surrounding them.
 
Durotan's ultimate ineffectiveness is one of the more bizarre plot points. Multiple times they build up the importance of honor fights and then disregard them.

I don't know if I'd really necessarily compare Jones to Trank as he at least had more than one film. Source Code had 6 times the budget of Moon. I think he's more than proved that he can make a movie without having a complete nervous breakdown.

At some point with this project some major miscalibrations were made.

I knew there would be problems as soon as "boomstick" was said with a completely straight face. Even in the games that term is a jokey reference. Here it is a matter of fact.
 
Also Serkis is of course a pioneer but Toby Kebbell has been fantastic in all of his mocap roles. Between this, his work as Koba in Dawn of the Planet of the Apes and also his episode of Black Mirror, I've grown to be a big fan.

Fant4stic was an unfortunate disaster all around though.
 
Last edited:
True, and he's a good actor. Pity then that he got stuck playing "crash test dummy/glowing sex doll" Not-Doctor Doom in that other movie.
 
Durotan's ultimate ineffectiveness is one of the more bizarre plot points. Multiple times they build up the importance of honor fights and then disregard them.

I don't know if I'd really necessarily compare Jones to Trank as he at least had more than one film. Source Code had 6 times the budget of Moon. I think he's more than proved that he can make a movie without having a complete nervous breakdown.

At some point with this project some major miscalibrations were made.

I knew there would be problems as soon as "boomstick" was said with a completely straight face. Even in the games that term is a jokey reference. Here it is a matter of fact.
I wasn't implying that Jones was exactly like Trank, obviously he is not.
 
That was me. I'd never heard of either, so I pegged Jones as something of an indie director.
 
I mean he made Source Code, which is sort of an "in-between" type of film. So he's not strictly an indie director. But yeah, even that is nowhere near as big a project as this movie was.
 
To me they went the right route. Orcs vs Humans, focusing on both sides of the conflict and highlighting a few select characters like Durotan, Garrona, Lothar and Khadgar. I think they did the right thing. It's in the execution. I think another 30 minutes would have helped, especially if we got more character development, but then again, 2 hours should be enough. They could have taken all of the Lothar's son stuff out, because to me he didn't need more emotional investment than saving his world from the Orcs. His son felt too cliché.
 
Duncan Jones had a rough couple of years in his personal life.

During the preproduction of Warcraft, his girlfriend found out she had breast cancer. During her treatment, he preposed to her and got married. Then during post-production, his famous father David Bowie died of cancer.

Then his movie gets panned and will bomb in the US. While it's nice to break even internationally, it's still not a solid hit.

If there is a silver lining though, his girlfriend beat cancer and they (by chance) just had their kid near the premiere of Warcraft.
 
Jones is finally doing his dream project mute. I think he will be fine. Warcraft isn't so bad that he won't get more studio movie offers in the future. His reputation hasn't taken a hit like trank's did.
 
Sounds like Warcraft is one of those projects where they were holding back some things for the sequels.

Personally, I wish that they had just left it all on the field.
 
So I'm not a Warcraft guy at all but I remember when they announced they were officially starting production that a Warcraft movie could be cool. Some of the first promotional materials showed a lot of promise, but then with each trailer I got more and more discouraged. By the time the release came around I didn't plan on seeing it. However, a good friend of mine, who used to love WoW, had a spare ticket when our group of friends were gonna go. So I went with pretty low expectations and it turned out basically like I thought it would...very 'meh'.

My brief summary is that it reminds me a lot of the Dungeons and Dragons movie. Both are noble attempts at turning beloved fantasy RPG games into movie franchises, but both films have too many problems that prevent them from being truly enjoyable experiences.

There is a lot to enjoy in Warcraft for sure. Awesome visuals, epic music, solid action, and a couple stand out performances. But there are just too many "noob" mistakes in the film and I think a lot of that is due to the fact that not all indie directors are meant to take on huge blockbuster films after their initial success. Colin Trevorrow was able to do it, but even Jurassic World has flaws that are indicative of a blockbuster franchise being handed to an indie filmmaker.

I could really go into detail on everything that doesn't work but I'll hit on the biggest and most glaring issue in my eyes...the way the characters are portrayed. And I don't mean that in the sense of whether they were faithful enough to their game counterparts, I mean how genuine and interesting each character feels. I can honestly say that Durotan is the only character in the film that I felt any sort of connection to....and you know the film has a problem if the most interesting character is the typical leader type that has very little personality.

You also know a film is in trouble when all your CG characters feel more human than any of the human characters. There's one particular scene that comes to mind that almost ruins the entire movie for me...and that's when [BLACKOUT]Lothar's son dies.[/BLACKOUT] There was plenty of emotion from Lothar leading up to that event, but once it happens and they cut to what's supposed to be his reaction.....there's nothing. They could have created a CG model of Travis Fimmel and gotten more emotion from that! Now some people might say "he's emotionless because he's dead inside" or whatever...and I get that argument, I really do....but I don't buy it. That should've been saved for the scenes that followed. That entire scene should have been so gut wrenching but it was just eye rolling and borderline laughable. It feels like a cutscene from a video game....and not because of the CG, but because there's almost no emotion. It's just bad...really bad...and I pretty much clocked out for the rest of the movie.

The humans also feel miscast. I'm not sure exactly what the characters are like in the games but Travis Fimmell did not feel like a natural warrior. I think they were trying to feel kind of like a dastardly, rebel...which he sort of does, but he doesn't feel like a fighter. He also has a really weird look, something in his eyes, that makes him feel not so honorable. Khadgar was about the least uninspired look and feel for a character...ever. King Llane was just spouting lines and trying to look stoic. Ben Foster would've made a better Khadgar than Medivh. He looks too young and didn't feel majestic or authoritarian enough. And Garona.....*sigh* bless Paula Patton's heart but I don't think she's a good actress. She's very pleasing to look at, but her acting is so transparent in this movie it hurts, particularly when she first gets to speak after she's captured. Her body language throughout the whole movie feels very staged. I remember one particular shot at the end of the film when they're near the portal and King Llane is telling everyone to free the prisoners. They cut to Garona and she's holding her sword straight up in the air by her side like a kid could hold an ice cream cone. It totally took me out of the movie.

Another huge problem with the human characters is that...THERE'S NO CHEMISTRY!! Not once did I ever believe that any of the humans knew each other before the events in this film. The ONLY time I felt any kind of chemistry was when Lothar trolled Khadgar when he acted like he was gonna help him up. The film tries to force a romance between Lothar and Garona but there's no connection. Same with Lothar and his son, which is one of the reasons why [BLACKOUT]I didn't feel anything when his son got killed.[/BLACKOUT] There's nothing worse than having no chemistry between the actors. 2 actors can be the most bland and dull actors in the world, but if there's a good connection and good chemistry you'll be able to feel it through the camera and the same goes for little or no chemistry.

Anyway, summing up my rant. The film's biggest problem is the handling of the human characters: the miscasting, failing to portray them as interesting people, failing to provide them with proper motivation and the lack of any kind of chemistry. The best visual effects in the world can't save a film from a lack of interesting characters...and that's why, despite the more primitive effects, any one of the LOTR movies far surpasses Warcraft.
 
Last edited:
It's kind of funny that you mention the D&D film (although I still get some enjoyment out of that, if only for Jeremy Iron's hilariously hammy performance). Because both that movie and this one, were made by filmmakers who were big fans of the source material. I guess that it shows that "being a fanboy" doesn't guarantee that you'll be able to make a good movie adaptation.

And in regards to Fimmel, one of the cool things about his role on Vikings is that Ragnar Lothbrok ISN'T just your generic "stoic warrior." He's flawed, he screws up, he can be honorable and compassionate at times, but also ruthless and brutal at others. And he's at his best when there's an element of mischief about him and you really don't know what he's thinking or planning (because he's usually 2 or 3 steps ahead) until he actually reveals it, and so on. Fimell plays that part brilliantly.

Maybe he's just not suited to playing a more traditional "heroic warrior."
 
So the film made 156 million in China in 5 days and opened with 24.3mil here in North America. Terrific opening, terrible opening.
 
I think Warcraft is vastly better production quality-wise, than D&D. This film is one of those cases, when fanboy enthusiasm got in the way of rational thinking. I still don't get what they tried to achieve with this cast... Orcs were fantastic (outside maybe being TOO huge) and had really cool character moments, I wish the Alliance side was just as good.

Garona was a pleasure to look, at least. Gorgeous woman, even green and with baby tusks.
 
Paula Patton boy.....she don't crack. One plot point that is a spoiler, but if you've seen it it showcases how she really does not look her age at all and it's totally plausible how she could be that character's daughter.
 
With director's I think it's more important that they are able to engage with the material and find an angel they want to explore rather than being superfans.

My number one example is Nicholas Meyer. Meyer was not a Star Trek fan. He had not even seen much of the show but when a job opening came up his wife urged him to pursue it. While Meyer didn't have an encyclopedic knowledge of Trek he began watching it. He spoke with other writers and the actors and got a feel for the characters and the world...and then he introduce a completely new aesthetic to the franchise, making it much more militaristic while at the same time adding much more depth to the characters and their relationships. He helped define the tone and look of Star Trek for almost a decade and created some of the franchise's most iconic moments.

He was an outsider who found an in.
 
It's kind of funny that you mention the D&D film (although I still get some enjoyment out of that, if only for Jeremy Iron's hilariously hammy performance). Because both that movie and this one, were made by filmmakers who were big fans of the source material. I guess that it shows that "being a fanboy" doesn't guarantee that you'll be able to make a good movie adaptation.
The other side of the coin is that J.J. Abrams and Peter Jackson were both huge fans of their respective franchises before they made their films. It's always great when the director is a fan of the franchise. But you're right...that doesn't guarantee a good adaptation. After all, Zack Snyder is a big Dark Knight Returns fan and Bryan Singer is a big Donner Superman fan, etc.

And in regards to Fimmel, one of the cool things about his role on Vikings is that Ragnar Lothbrok ISN'T just your generic "stoic warrior." He's flawed, he screws up, he can be honorable and compassionate at times, but also ruthless and brutal at others. And he's at his best when there's an element of mischief about him and you really don't know what he's thinking or planning (because he's usually 2 or 3 steps ahead) until he actually reveals it, and so on. Fimell plays that part brilliantly.

Maybe he's just not suited to playing a more traditional "heroic warrior."
I haven't watched Vikings and I have no doubt he portrays his character in that series well but he doesn't feel right for this part. I think maybe someone along the lines of Karl Urban would've been more ideal.
 
It works either way, it just depends on the director's ideas. It comes down to the right person understanding it and making the right fundamental decisions. You can have a fan like Sam Raimi direct Spider-Man where it works or someone like Richard Donner who along with the writers knew how to synthesize the mythic qualities of Superman for a modern day audience to accept. Or you get Joel Schumacher who says, "They're called comic books, not drama books."
 
^That was my point, Fimmel doesn't fit this type of role. Also
Removing your most interesting character from the film BEFORE the climax, was a really bad move.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"