The Warcraft Movie Trailer Has Orc Babies

Here's The Warcraft Movie Trailer

Video: Showcased at Blizzcon today, here's the trailer for the upcoming Warcraft movie, which will debut in June. There are orc babies. Also some war.


Comments

    Looked pretty typical to me.
    I hope the movie is more interesting.

    Last edited 07/11/15 8:07 am

      Yeah and there seems to be waaaay too much CGI in this. Never a good sign. Looked too much like Avatar with a Warcraft skin.

        Because avatar was terrible?

          Yeah? You don't need me to tell you that, right?

          Formulaic plot, terrible acting from Sam Worthington (he was actually engaging before Hollywood swallowed him up, like in Getting Square), CGI action over character development, etc. If you've seen Fern Gully or Pocahontas, it's the same story. Everything around Avatar was interesting, the development, the hype, the technology, etc. But the movie itself was completely lacklustre.

            Highest grossing film of all time...

            Must have been bad...

              Popular = Good is a risky argument. It's often true, but it's also a very reductionist way of looking at things that doesn't tell the whole story.

              Also consider the fact that highest grossing means seen in cinemas on day one. Most people don't see a movie at the cinemas more than once. So the majority of that money would have been made from people watching a film they hadn't seen before and therefore wouldn't know whether they liked it or not. Couple that with the, as I said, huge hype for the film and another James Cameron film, and you've got a recipe for a box office smash. Money was being made whether the people watching liked it or not, that's the deal with those numbers.

              You're allowed to like Avatar. I like lots of films and can't explain why. Sometimes something doesn't need to be objectively or even subjectively good for you to get something out of it. But if you think that Avatar's critical success matched its commercial success, that's a hard argument to make.

              Last edited 07/11/15 11:45 am

                No its not a hard argument to make.
                Avatar's Critical success did nearly match its Commercial success.
                The film was getting very good reviews on release. Regardless of your opinion on metacritic, Avatar had a score of 83 which does mean something.
                Everyone I know likes the movie.

                But have some brains. A movie does not make $2.7 billion based on it's hype, technology and actors/directors involved. A movie makes $2.7 billion because people loved the movie, very good word of mouth and because it a good movie, and Avatar was a very good movie, whether you enjoyed the movie or not, it was a well done story.

                Regarding its copy and paste storyline, its basis is a common theme throughout history. The spanish arriving in America and what they did to the aztec and The war on American Native Indians.

                The Logic in your argument is off.

                  Everyone I know likes the movie.

                  Cool. How many people is that? What are their credentials? What other kinds of movies do they like?

                  And metacritic is a good barometer for the gist of a film's quality, but it's often way off. Certain films are critic bait (like 12 Years A Slave, The Hurt Locker, and yes, Avatar), certain films are hated by critics. Step Brothers is a comedy that is well loved and considered one of the better ones in recent years by most generation Y people, but it's sitting on a 51. There's countless examples of this.

                  But have some brains. A movie does not make $2.7 billion based on it's hype, technology and actors/directors involved.

                  I think maybe you're the one who really needs to think about the true nature of hollywood. If you think it's some utopian meritocracy I point you to @spizza 's comment below regarding how much Transformers made.

                  Better yet, I can point you to something a little more relevant to this website, Call Of Duty. These are extremely well made games, with all the bells and whistles that come with that. They sell in obscene quantities and make money hand over fist. But I think many people here would agree that they are not mentally or emotionally stimulating games. They don't push the medium forward in any meaningful way outside of technical features or multiplayer trends. That's fine if you like your games that way, and it doesn't invalidate your experience if you enjoy Call Of Duty, but you put it next to a game like The Last Of Us or the earlier Halos (or any other favourite game you have) and there's a clear disparity there between a well made game and a great game.

                  Avatar is a well made film. It is not a great film.

              Highest grossing film of all time doesn't have anything to do with how good the movie ACTUALLY was.
              Avatar wasnt the worst movie, but aside from the technical aspect it was nothing special.

              Transformers: Age of Extinction was the only movie of 2014 to earn over 1 billion at the box office world wide
              Yet the reviews are completely atrocious - and they're still planning on making another. Why? Because it brings in money.

              Hype and marketing are bigger factors as to how a movie will do at the box office.

              I'll put my money on the warcraft movie being pretty bad. It's being made solely because it WILL make a lot of money, there's no passion behind it. Slap a well established name onto a run of the mill formulaic plot with some average acting and it will sell.

                "Avatar wasnt the worst movie, but aside from the technical aspect it was nothing special."

                Kind of like how Usain Bolt isn't the worst athlete but aside from his running ability he's nothing special?

                That may be a poor example, but my point is that it's all too easy to say that anything is "nothing special" if we ignore the most special aspects of it.

                Honestly, when I saw Avatar, I was far more interested by the technical aspect than anything else. The story didn't engage me nearly as much as the world did, yet I still enjoyed it immensely. I'd love to be able to watch it again in a cinema and just hit pause whenever I wanted to so that I could really take in the visuals in their entirety. It was the first (and remains the only) movie that made me feel this way about a fictional world - and I'm certain that I'm not alone in this regard.

                I feel like we often have similar debates about what makes for a "good" game. At the end of the day there are far more factors involved than we could consider for the sake of a simple review, and everybody has their own opinions about this sort of thing.

                  The thing is, I believe the technical aspect is somewhat secondary to the core fundamentals of what makes a movie great. Just like graphics in a game. However, I guess how much everything matters is debatable like you said.

                  But the point I was making is that whilst Avatar is the highest grossing movie to date, it isn't the best movie to date. Further backed up with the transformers example, box office grossing is not a good indication of how good a movie is.

        Yeah, why didn't they just film real orcs and gryphons?!?!

          Nah CGI Orcs is fine, if anything, go the whole way and CGI the humans! It's this half measure stuff I don't like. I think the problem is that even most of the backgrounds looked CGI as well, in a Revenge Of The Sith sort of way. Like, those footmen getting attacked by an orc at 0:28 looked CGI as well. What is the point of that? They could have easily been real people in armour responding to some CGI stand in, you know?

          CGI has some really really awesome applications and I get that it's a necessary thing in modern filmmaking, but this seems like really heavy-handed execution that doesn't look convincing enough to fill me with confidence.

          You're obviously being sarcastic
          But the orcs in the Lord of the Rings weren't CGI and they looked a hell of a lot better than the ones in the Hobbit.

          Orcs don't look like orcs on film. You gotta use horses.

    I thought this looked pretty boring compared to the Legion cinematic trailer.

    Looks like fun!

      Exactly what I thought, even if the story seems dull and derivative.

      And there's that guy again.... who's in everything lately. From Sanctuary to Falling Skies to Arrow...

    Oh wow, actually looks pretty awesome. Am keen to see more.

    Those Orcs... look amazing!

    SPOILER: Durotan and Draka are murdered by Gul'dan's lackeys, Garona assassinates King Llane AND there is a war between humans and Orcs.

    Who cares if it has heaps of CGI, some of you complaing are simply entitled little pricks. Get over it, Duncan Jones is directing it, he is an extremely good Director.

    CGI will not in any way affect the movies quality. Gamers can't wait for gaming Graphics to be CGI quality graphics, but a Movie uses CGI and people scream.
    If you can find real orcs, gryphons and real life locations from Warcraft, then you can complain.

      I believe he's also a big WoW player. I've been a fan of his earlier work so I'm happy to suspend my skepticism until the movie is out.

      I'd prefer it if the movie looked more cartoony, like the game but I guess I'll have to make do with crappy realism .

    Howie scream at 1:55?

    So it's.... Pocahontas, but with Orcs instead of Native Americans?

    I can live with this.

Join the discussion!