[Boards: 3 / a / aco / adv / an / asp / b / biz / c / cgl / ck / cm / co / d / diy / e / fa / fit / g / gd / gif / h / hc / his / hm / hr / i / ic / int / jp / k / lgbt / lit / m / mlp / mu / n / news / o / out / p / po / pol / qa / r / r9k / s / s4s / sci / soc / sp / t / tg / toy / trash / trv / tv / u / v / vg / vp / vr / w / wg / wsg / wsr / x / y ] [Home]
4chanarchives logo
Warcraft
Images are sometimes not shown due to bandwidth/network limitations. Refreshing the page usually helps.

You are currently reading a thread in /tv/ - Television & Film

Thread replies: 27
Thread images: 3
File: WCMTw03[1].jpg (213 KB, 1920x792) Image search: [Google]
WCMTw03[1].jpg
213 KB, 1920x792
>100 million USD budget
>Dwarf looks worse than the CG dwarf from WoW's 2004 trailer
>>
Why didn't they just do it like LOTR?
>>
>>67238243
Anyone got the link?
>>
>>67238250
I don't know , I was wondering this myself.

Also, the armor in this movie looks plastic as fuck
>>
>>67238307

http://www.mmo-champion.com/content/

first post of that website
>>
>>67238348
thanks but for some reason it said your link was a phishing site?
>>
>>67238243
Lel that fucking Dwarf.
>>
File: Llane-film[1].jpg (355 KB, 1896x1044) Image search: [Google]
Llane-film[1].jpg
355 KB, 1896x1044
Jee...
>>
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_-d69ysKO4E
>>
>>67238388
dude its mmo champion....

anyway try this then

https://twitter.com/warcraftmovie/status/711271755629748224
>>
>>67238432
Llane?
>>
>>67238440
thx
>>
>>67238468
what about it?
>>
>>67238468
That's a big pauldron
>>
>>67238307
the filmmaker's erased it from existence
kek
>>
>>67238243
I have yet to hear some real criticism about the dwarf
You're all just anti-CGI ledditors
>>
>>67238440
>this was 20 years old
>>
>>67239339
Got something new today?
Or will you just say ILM knows more about CGI so its the best
>>
>literally dubstep
>>
>>67239407
eh?
>>
>>67239387
>Claim I've yet to hear any real criticism
>Doesn't come with any real criticism
Thanks for proving me right
>>
File: 1457403328687.jpg (20 KB, 383x384) Image search: [Google]
1457403328687.jpg
20 KB, 383x384
>>67239387
I'll take this bait.
Your point is pointless really, and childish much like the debate of practical vs CGI. You never hear anyone debating watercolours against ink.

>Practical effects stay watchable.
Well King Kong, Total Recall or Jason and the Argonauts are 100% practical vfx (yes except the X-ray scene in TR I know). I refuse to believe you think they are still watchable if by watchable you mean perfect photorealism. They have aged. Everything does. And not only that, but the vision of audiences have improved too. A century ago when the Brothers Lumière were showcasing a train heading towards the camera on a movie screen, audiences would stand and leave in fear to be crushed by it. Nowadays you need a mass shooter in America to achieve that inside a theatre.

>CGI is JUST tier after a few years.
As opposed to practical? Robocop 2 was the last big budget practical VFX movie before CGI came into play in a significant manner in Hollywood. You will not convince anyone that it has aged gracefully. Yet technically this was some of the best stop-motion capture ever put on film. Don't you worry, your precious Nolan movies will get there too. It has already begun. It's the rate of ageing that differs between CGI and practical. But entropy is inescapable in our universe. You just wait.

Here's the thing: a movie is 24 lies a second. Nothing is ever real in a movie. It's all an illusion, a trick. You have tools to trick the audience's brains. What matters is not the tools you use. What matter is how you use them to achieve the trick. Fury Road is the last good example of this. Practical and CGI both used with a complete expertise, to such a degree one would have a hard time telling what is CG what is practical. Suspension of disbelief achieved. The trick worked.

Who cares how it worked? It never matters how you get there as long as you get there.
>>
>>67239645
>I don't like it
>Well I don't like that you don't like it
I have yet to hear any real criticism about that criticism.
>>
>>67238243
Why does everything in this movie look so goddamn ugly? Why keep the orcs and dwarves looking exactly like their exaggerated game counterparts but then do the humans in live action? The combination of the two is just a hideous mess.

They should've either gone the LotR route and had the non-human races just be people in make-up to look more natural, or just do full CG animation.
>>
>>67239717
If you think it looks ugly, that's fine. What I don't understand however is why you fags constantly compare it to LotR
It's two different franchises with different artstyles.
>just be people in make-up to look more natural
Impossible
>full CG animation
Not good for the box office
>>
>>67238243
kekers.

That dwarf looks awful.
>>
>>67239339
>I have yet to hear some real criticism about the dwarf

that's because there isn't any. its the same retard same fagging himself over and over again parroting the same brainless shit he always does. the dwarf looks perfect and just fine for a warcraft dwarf.
Thread replies: 27
Thread images: 3

banner
banner
[Boards: 3 / a / aco / adv / an / asp / b / biz / c / cgl / ck / cm / co / d / diy / e / fa / fit / g / gd / gif / h / hc / his / hm / hr / i / ic / int / jp / k / lgbt / lit / m / mlp / mu / n / news / o / out / p / po / pol / qa / r / r9k / s / s4s / sci / soc / sp / t / tg / toy / trash / trv / tv / u / v / vg / vp / vr / w / wg / wsg / wsr / x / y] [Home]

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.
If a post contains personal/copyrighted/illegal content you can contact me at [email protected] with that post and thread number and it will be removed as soon as possible.
DMCA Content Takedown via dmca.com
All images are hosted on imgur.com, send takedown notices to them.
This is a 4chan archive - all of the content originated from them. If you need IP information for a Poster - you need to contact them. This website shows only archived content.