Will it beat Avatars box office?
no way in hell
we'll be lucky if it's a solid 7/10 flick, let alone a box office hit
>>66822032
it will beat star wars for sure. just imagine china
>>66822032
>not even gonna break your moms box office xD
A solid example of autism-fantasy genre.
>>66822032
It won't beat Scooby Doo at the box office.
>>66822032
Give me a single reason to even show an interest in this piece of autist shit?
Haha no adults don't play videogames
People need to take their nostalgic shader off and their head out of the gutters.
There's no reason this movie cannot be successful, because "all past game movies sucked" is a BS argument.
>>66825714
It's based on a game no one cares about anymore, competing with big-name capeshit, and lacking in a story more interesting than LotR.
It's fucking expensive and relies entirely on a niche audience. It features no GRRRL POWER, no DIVERSITY, no ART, no big names like James Cameron. It's a ludicrously expensive movie gambling on nerd appeal. It's Pacific Rim all over again.
>>66822032
>Will it beat Avatars box office?
No. I honestly don't think it'll break $400 mil worldwide.
1) We're WAY past the era of WoW being a cultural norm. It used to be common to know multiple people (friends, family, coworkers, etc.) who played. Now, most people probably don't even know one person who plays.
2) Because the only people likely to see it are fans, former fans, and people who like nerdy shit like LoTR and Star Wars, you likely aren't going to draw in people who see it just because everyone else is. That happens all the time with box office record breakers (Avatar, Star Wars, Deadpool, etc.) But since it'll already have a hard time breaking records, it's less likely to draw in people who wouldn't otherwise have seen it.
I'm not saying it's impossible for this to do great. I still think it has a chance to break records. But it seems more likely that it won't.
>>66825872
>lacking in a story more interesting than LotR.
Warcraft is literally the paper thin personal layer of the Lord of the Rings universe that actually managed to partially make its way onto the Jackson films.
Lord of the Rings has a lot going for its story, but don't fucking kid yourself and say that the success of those movie had anything to do with it. They reflected nothing of it and concentrated purely on the momentary fluff.
That, Warcraft has a lot of.
The only thing Warcraft will be missing compared to Lord of the Rings, is the whole "This is the original fantasy epic" paper star badge.
People who go to see grand visuals, overplayed themes and big action set pieces (which is the crowd that made Avatar, Lord of the Rings and TFA popular regardless of their quality or lack thereof as stories) are probably going to get their fill on Warcraft.
Or, maybe it will flop massively and you're right about what the audience actually wants.
>>66826169
lotr was a shit adaptation but it was still an adaptation of a pretty good story
>>66822032
no it will not beat Avatar, but it will be a good movie and make quite a lot of money
>>66826264
A pretty good story that barely anyone from the massive audience bothered to read.
Which means it had nothing to do with the movie's success, as again, the movie had about as much to do with Lord of the Rings, as the 5 page summary of Huckleberry Finn that every American school kid reads during the summer instead of the actual book for their report, has to do with Huckleberry Finn.
Going to be a box office bomb for sure.Production cost-100$ million so it will perform lower than 100 m $
>>66825872
Your argument is full of BS.
>>66826169
This, if anyone's been keeping up with production of this movies, they know why it has little reason to fail.
>>66826437
More or less, nobody, except for nerds who were hardcore Tolkein's fans knew about LotR, bothered with it, until movie adoptation.
>>66826716
>More or less, nobody, except for nerds who were hardcore Tolkein's fans knew about LotR, bothered with it, until movie adoptation.
This is true, but one of its main selling points was that it's bringing to the big screen "one of the biggest, most influential books of all time".
People jump at that.
It's a way to get a few people interested in it on account of them getting to pretend like they're "cultured" and are "in the know" with the big important things of the past, while knowing nothing about it, and once those people are hooked, and they get something that is actually made for them (because surely the Tolkien nerds were coming to watch the big action set pieces with CGI trolls and hordes of orcs), they will drag more people with them who didn't get hooked on the "Come pretend you're part of this world" angle, but are totally down with "come watch this kick-ass movie" angle.
>>66826169
Jesus Christ, every time you idiots reply with the same shit
NO ONE CARES ABOUT YOUR FUCKING LORE
Do you understand this? Is this getting through to you? THE STORY DOESN'T FUCKING MATTER IF NO ONE WATCHES IT.
Watch that trailer again. Are you watching it? Are you paying attention to it? Here is the trailer:
>Hurr green savage
>Hurr asshole humans
>Hurrrr racism bad
THERE IS NO FUCKING ARTHAS IN THAT TRAILER TO IMPRESS THE NORMIES
THERE IS NO FUCKING STORY IN THAT TRAILER
NO ONE WANTS TO WATCH THAT SHIT WHO DOESN'T ALREADY FUCKING KNOW THE LORE
>>66826955
>THERE IS NO FUCKING STORY IN THAT TRAILER
Yes, because every single movie will have detailed story in the 1st trailer....
>>66826955
Hahahah jesus christ, the anti-Warcraft shills are really in full force today
I bet you don't even know the story you fucking retard
>>66826955
So what you're saying is that you can't process information you read?
Try and understand that the entire point of the comment you replied to, is that story and lore has nothing to do with the success of a movie.
No one's going to give a shit about the deep engaging lore of Warcraft, but no one gave a shit about the deep engaging lore of Lord of the Rings either, because there was none of it in Lord of the Rings and it was still a success.
Warcraft is a lot better at the surface stuff though, keeping up appearances.
Here's the first trailer for Lord of the Rings by comparison: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kMD16QImEBI
This is just chock full of story for those who don't already know the lore, isn't it?
>>66827095
Considering the only thing he said related about Warcraft is "Arthas", it's safe to say no.
>>66827119
>there was none of it in Lord of the Rings and it was still a success.
"in the Lord of the Rings movies" is what I meant to write.
Non-amerifriend here, I never saw any ads or hype for this movie, is there any in the US at least?
Sounds like they invested nothing on marketing
>cgi green monster as the main character in a non comedy genre
flopped even before goign out the door
>>66827379
It's likely gonna happen this March, since BvS is a big thing and every superhero fan will go see it, so it's a perfect timing for 2nd trailer.
Hint on that is that the studio allowed Duncan Jones (director of the movie) to post the behind the scene shots on twitter.
>>66827407
6/10 of the top 10 box office blockbusters have cgi monsters in them
>>66827511
not as main characters in a non comedy role
>>66822032
A runescape film would outsell this. Besides neckbeards nobody gives a fuck about wow. Extremely niche appeal with a non name cast, besides Ragnar.
>>66827537
Let's look at that statement!
>1. Avatar - CGI monsters as main characters
>3. SW7 - CGI monsters as side characters, non CGI "monster" as main character
>4. Jurassic World - CGI monsters are central part of the entire movie plot
>5. Avengers - CGI monster as main character
>7. Avengers 2 - CGI monster as main character
>8. HP8 - partually CGI monster as main character, many more CGI monsters as fairly big characters in the movie
Look at how wrong and delusional you are
>>66827537
>Avatar - Giant Green Alien
>Titanic - Clean
>Star Wars TFA -inb4 >FinnClean
>Jurassic World - Depends on how you treat main character's "pack"
>Avengers - Hulk (He might not be always a CGI monster, but the effect is the same. He's a goofy concept, but works)
>Furius 7 - Clean (I'm assuming)
>Ultron - Hulk, Ultron, Vision (You might call Ultron comedic, but the other two are still there)
>Harry Potter - Voldemort
>Frozen - Comedic
>Iron Man 3 - Clean
Also fuck, >>66827709 beat me to it.
>>66827709
you are wrong and delusional
except for avatar and avengers, who had main characters as human/monsters double personalities, none of the other ones are true
>>66827975
How is JW not true?
SW has side characters that are CGI monsters. Then of course we have Chewbacca, but he isnt CGI
HP8 has voldemort and many other monsters
So how exactly am I wrong?
>>66828213
dinosaurs arent main characters
sw didnt have cgi main characters. chewbacca is not even a monster at this point
hp8 has no monster main characters. voldermort is not a main character
>>66828345
>dinosaurs arent main characters
Are you seriously suggesting that dinosaurs werent an importnat role in JW? lol
>sw didnt have cgi main characters. chewbacca is not even a monster at this point
Not main but side characters and creatures that play a big role in the SW universe. Chewbacca is more of a monster than the orcs in Warcraft
>hp8 has no monster main characters. voldermort is not a main character
Is this a joke?
>>66823430
Good joke, anon. Nothing this year is topping Star Wars box office.
>>66828448
are you retarded?
dinosaurs are not main characters faget, they are plot devices. blue at best is a side character and even then it is more like the main characters pet
chewbacca is not a monster, eveyone knows who the fuck chewbacca is for fucking 40 years. hes also not a main character.
voldermort gets 15? mins screentime in a franchise spaning 8 movies. not a main fucking character
>>66828533
>dinosaurs are not main characters faget
Are you fucking retarded? I never stated that they were main characters
>chewbacca is not a monster
He is definitely as much of a monster as the orc in Warcraft, and he looks sillier
>voldermort gets 15? mins screentime in a franchise spaning 8 movies. not a main fucking character
Thank for proving that you're retarded. Have you even seen the last HP movie?
>>66828686
>I never stated dinosaurs were main characters
so its irrelevant, since my argument is about main characters
>chewbacca
still not a main character
>have you seen the last hp movie
nope, cos the 7th was shit. but hes not a main character anyway because only a tiny part of the series of 8 movies and hes basically a really ugly human, barely even a monster
OK Duncan confirmed we're getting the 2nd trailer this month.
