Duncan Jones' Warcraft - Part 3

^ Which is sad because I'd love to see more faithful representations of Conan:The Cimmerian on screen.....Like an Adaptation of Tower of The Elephant or The Scarlet Citadel
 
Unsure if we'd get that or ever get that. Mainly because of two things. Studios tend to stick to a cinematic version audiences are already familiar with because they can sell nostalgia, although truer to book adaptations after an original film do happen (I think); that would heavily rely on fantasy books doing really well (which could happen again, easier to sell than fantasy games due to the video game stigma). And secondly because Arnold is developing a new Conan movie currently - if there is a new Conan movie with Arnold and it flops, studios will either see it as flopping because Arnold is old and will recast in the future OR they will see it as that form of it not working, this would be your saving grace - if fantasy films come back due to a popular rise in fantasy book adaptations at the same time that film comes out and if it does horribly studios would then consider going back to the books a lot.

Suits are typically a fickle and easily predictable bunch that can't see much beyond. If Warcraft was a movie that was made for the masses and got a positive mass reception, that would help (unsure how many thought the film was gonna be that after it's first footage at comic con though). But it doing poorly is only seen as reflective of video game films, not the fantasy genre. Hobbit films (made money, but the studio was hoping for more of a LOTR turn out) put studios at bay in regards to the fantasy genre. Harry Potter, the next Thor and Dr. Strange performing well might inspire more fantasy driven risks based off of a more solid source to studios - books and older films. This is because of the video game stigma/curse, all will be placed on that in the states.

The funny thing is if it did well in the states that would probably confuse the hell out of suits, being unable to really determine if it was due to video game films becoming suddenly popular or if fantasy was back.

Should note it's not suits being narrow minded, just their jobs are on the line forcing it to be looked at from a financial standpoint thus needing to be as safe as possible.
 
Last edited:
pr0xyt0xin said:
My biggest problem with the reviews for this movie is that they are lower than that of the Prince of Persia movie, the first Hitman movie, the Max Payne movie, etc.

This just completely baffles me.
Click to expand...

Prince of Persia is horrid adaption of the games, and every copy of that film belongs in a dumpster fire. Newell neutered so much of the world and clearly wasn't adapting the games so much as he was making his own ****** film and capitalizing on the POP brand name. But I don't think critics care about that.
 
Kyle said:
Unsure if we'd get that or ever get that. Mainly because of two things. Studios tend to stick to a cinematic version audiences are already familiar with because they can sell nostalgia, although truer to book adaptations after an original film do happen (I think); that would heavily rely on fantasy books doing really well (which could happen again, easier to sell than fantasy games due to the video game stigma). And secondly because Arnold is developing a new Conan movie currently - if there is a new Conan movie with Arnold and it flops, studios will either see it as flopping because Arnold is old and will recast in the future OR they will see it as that form of it not working, this would be your saving grace - if fantasy films come back due to a popular rise in fantasy book adaptations at the same time that film comes out and if it does horribly studios would then consider going back to the books a lot.
Click to expand...

It's been said that Legend of Conan will be his Unforgiven; his last ride(have to assume). So, once that is done, a reboot closer to Howard's roots can finally occur. Speaking of Robert E. Howard, Kull is another of his properties that could be apt for a reboot. If not cinema, maybe Netflix or HBO.
 
rogue trooper said:
It's been said that Legend of Conan will be his Unforgiven; his last ride(have to assume). So, once that is done, a reboot closer to Howard's roots can finally occur. Speaking of Robert E. Howard, Kull is another of his properties that could be apt for a reboot. If not cinema, maybe Netflix or HBO.
Click to expand...

Depends on studio outlook, not Arnold's. The tried and proven over the untested. Imagine you're a studio exec and try not to think like a Conan fan. You're making a Conan film, your job is on the line and you can be fired if it doesn't succeed. Do you use the tried and proven formula from the past that people are familiar with and just recast a current young action hero like Tom Hardy? Or do you take a risk, not go the tried and proven, and bring audiences a version of Conan that has yet to be tested if your job is on the line?

Didn't mean to say, if you took it that way, it relied around Arnold. It relies around suit hesitation to taking risks. We all know the keep the old hero, just recast younger, like the back of our hand. The Arnold complication is this - whereas his Conan version used to be old, 30 years or something from the past - meaning it makes it untested among audiences that have come since then, with a new version if that does well - it becomes the version audiences are familiar with again and if that does well, it becomes a modern day tried and proven approach. With it being old there's a level of uncertainty attached to it (but the most certain form to suits) with it being new and working again - it reignites that old approach as being seen as "safe because that made bank today."

The best recent fan example of seeing that in play is 'Superman Returns.' They could have given us all an awesome Superman film that's original, a new and daring take that relies on the comics that so many love. Their thoughts went to "how can we make this more like Burton's Batman?" and when that didn't work out "can we remake Donner?" They had a lot of new places they could go because of the comics, instead they chose to go the way that had worked in the past - it took seeing that mistake with Superman to bring about a film that wasn't connected to the past. For Singer that approach came from love for the original, for the guys paying for it - that approach came from seeing the dollar signs from the past coming back.

(this is why a lot of people, especially creatives, hate suit notions (or rather hate financial notions and stats) - although, from having worked alongside them - they are more than understandable as well because their job is on the line with it. So, they are forced to look at the financial and numbers side of it not the creative one. And comically yes, they do go back and reshoot some titling shower scenes of their hot actresses to draw crowds in, one of which I can say they reshot because they needed something like that for a comic-con trailer to draw you guys in (Peter Jackson's hilarious commentary on the studio system in 'King Kong' is spot on a comedic caricature)).
 
Last edited:
^what a dick lol "were you the right man to write the script" i would of slapped him just for that
 
Logan0327 said:
^what a dick lol "were you the right man to write the script" i would of slapped him just for that
Click to expand...

I hope that guy is not a profesional critic cause if those are type of critics on RT there is question of intelligence and profesionalism and overall culture behavior where you sing praises or s**t on someones work.
 
Implying that because one critic is a *****e means that they all are is bizarre.

I'm used to hyperbolic statements from the "I hate critics because they didn't like my pet movie" crowd though.
 
the man can dislike the film all he wants but duncan is promoting Warcraft and you have the privilege of interviewing him for his movie ,this is not the place or time to be criticizing his film to his face a total lack of class and professionalism.

duncan's reaction when he just got up and left was priceless he handled this guy quite professionally
 
Last edited:
I've yet to see the film. ALSO I've never played the Game, so in a way I'm going in like most of the general audience except I DO play that type of RPG.
I'll let you guys know what I think
 
Me during the movie:

qrxiz9.jpg
 
What an ass. My God, you can tell in those last seconds he tried to go in trying to confound the actual storyteller behind the story and then got up and acted like a childish sore loser. Looked like a knee jerk flight response to a man who had a plan and then was foiled. Those are just the types of critics that give the rest a bad name.
 
Last edited:
From what it sounds like, as with most Press Junket interviews, they only had 'x' amount of time (it's been said this one was 6 minutes) and that he'd been given the signal that he needed to wrap up.

HOWEVER, needing to wrap up or not, he didn't have to just get up and leave the way he did (making it so abrupt) and leave Duncan confounded. Could have just as easily clearly said, "Looks like my time is up, thank you for sitting down with me." As it was - the abrupt standing up (and some mumbled 'thanks'), it does indeed look like he was a sore loser/upset that he didn't get the response he wanted out of Duncan.

And yeah, the questions... kudos to Duncan for remaining calm and a professional.
 
Silvermoon said:
From what it sounds like, as with most Press Junket interviews, they only had 'x' amount of time (it's been said this one was 6 minutes) and that he'd been given the signal that he needed to wrap up.

HOWEVER, needing to wrap up or not, he didn't have to just get up and leave the way he did (making it so abrupt) and leave Duncan confounded. Could have just as easily clearly said, "Looks like my time is up, thank you for sitting down with me." As it was - the abrupt standing up (and some mumbled 'thanks'), it does indeed look like he was a sore loser/upset that he didn't get the response he wanted out of Duncan.

And yeah, the questions... kudos to Duncan for remaining calm and a professional.
Click to expand...

Exactly!
 
The problem with the interviewer is that, he's calling out Duncan with his personal views on the film, instead of interviewing him. Duncan is not there for that. He's there to promote the film, and the interviewer was not only snobby, but abrasive. "My issue with the character of.."...no don't do that.

It was uncomfortable and i'm glad Duncan handled it well.
 
OMG the interviewer just walks off, while Duncan is just baffled.
 
The problem is that the interviewer was really condensecnidng and really passive aggressive. HE wanted Duncan to admit that the movie was akin to his own personal negative opinion. Instead of getting mad, Duncan gave great answer in a positive way.

That in turn, mad the interviewer mad, and walked off.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

T
  • Locked
Duncan Jones' Warcraft - Part 2
39 40 41
Replies
1K
Views
87K
Thread Manager
T
T
  • Locked
Duncan Jones' Warcraft - Part 1
39 40 41
Replies
1K
Views
52K
Thread Manager
T
T
  • Locked
Indiana Jones V - Part 1
39 40 41
Replies
1K
Views
48K
Thread Manager
T
T
  • Locked
Ghostbusters 3 - Part 3
39 40 41
Replies
1K
Views
79K
Thread Manager
T
T
  • Locked
Interstellar - Part 3
39 40 41
Replies
1K
Views
28K
Thread Manager
T

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Staff online

Members online

Total: 2,628 (members: 22, guests: 2,606)

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
202,310
Messages
22,083,439
Members
45,883
Latest member
marvel2099fan89

Share this page

Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"