Warcraft movie trailer debuts at Blizzcon 2015
Director Duncan Jones took the Blizzcon stage to unveil the first full movie trailer for Warcraft.
Continuing this year's Blizzcon keynote address, Blizzard CEO Mike Morhaime welcomed in director Duncan Jones to reveal the first full Warcraft trailer.
No words need to be said. Just watch and enjoy the grand conflict between the humans and the orcs for now. Analysis can come later.
-
Shacknews
replyOzzie Mejia posted a new article, Warcraft movie trailer debuts at Blizzcon 2015
-
[deleted]
-
-
Nein. It's not WoW. It's Warcraft. There is a difference.
-
-
-
-
It looks like a cartoon, but I bet it is a fun watch
-
It's Warcraft - a property that fully embraces over-the-top fantasy.
-
Some people want it to not look like a cartoon, some people do. I'm in the camp of not wanting it to look like a cartoon but that doesn't matter now.
I hope the movie is good. I will watch it. But TBH, the trailer wasn't really that compelling. Romeo and Juliet type thing going on. Social commentary on racial bigotry. Generic LOTR feel. Hopefully I'm wrong, but it doesn't seem like it's going to be awesome.
-
-
-
Are they not showing a large part of the movie? I'm guessing so, there are hints of the dark gate? black gate? green gate? I have no idea what to call those. Looks like it's going to go the route of burning crusade because having two 'races' of orcs from the new expansion would make no sense . I don't know is there even a story anymore in WoW?
-
[deleted]
-
This is based on the story that underpinned the original Warcraft games - when the Orcs first arrive on Azeroth and come into conflict with the humans of Stormwind.
-
-
Meeeeeeeeeeh
-
Ugh, looks like Pathfinder. Generic yawnfest.
-
-
others being Warhammer?
-
-
-
-
-
-
[deleted]
-
-
-
Damn, the orcs look really bad.
-
-
-
More like Rob Lotar - amirite
-
-
Edgy Shreks
-
-
-
-
I think those character designs look increasingly bad the more detailed and realistic they get.
https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/da/69/38/da69385dc9fdb9925cc2efd60df59787.jpg
http://www.cartoonbrew.com/wp-content/uploads/realhomer.jpg
I would imagine the proportions were exagerrated in the first place so that they'd read well as low detail sprites and early 3d models, and maybe they'd look better if they were toned down now that we can present them in high detail.
I also think the tooth piercings are a really dumb idea that doesn't make much sense. It reminds me of people joking about Final Fantasy character designers going apeshit putting zippers everywhere, or Rob Liefield and his pouch obsession.
I'm not sure why orc women are waifish actresses and models, while orc men are 10 ft walls of impenetrable muscle.
Still, this trailer made the movie look a lot better than the leaked trailer did. I still think it looks pretty cheesy, but I'm impressed by how much less dismal my reaction was to this than it was earlier this year.-
haha that's exactly it and I couldn't pin the proper example. Those "realistic" Homer and Mario pieces are why they look terrible to me. It's that they kept the cartoonish anatomy and basically covered it in realistic effects and texture.
-
that's hilarious, i see your point, too.
although, the only orc waif i saw was the one played by Paula Patton, who is half-orc, half-human. the other orc chick, Draka, seemed (sitting in the tent, standing the river) seemed pretty ripped. i mean, still not as a ridiculously giant as Durotan and the other orc dudes, but yeah
-
-
-
[deleted]
-
[deleted]
-
Sorry - I should clarify. They just look out of place. Uncanny valley territory.
They look great from an art quality and design perspective, though! -
For giant green men with huge oversized teeth, they look pretty damn good to me.
-
-
[deleted]
-
-
-
Looks like a compilation of Peter Jackson's worst impulses.
-
I was thinking the same thing. Piss poor studio lighting everywhere, terrible live action integration, digital sets done wrong. There's a LOT of work to do based on that trailer but I suspect it will be very cartoony and live in a stylistic uncanny valley.
-
lol, thats pretty good
-
Update, still laughing at this.
-
-
-
CGI was a little weird at first, offputting, but I got used to it during the trailer. It looks pretty typical, but exciting nonetheless
-
-
-
Probably because that's a bigger budget film and also because starting at the beginning gives them more story material if success allows them many sequels
-
-
-
-
-
looks pretty generic, also where's frodo
-
Hobbit 4: The Untold Story
-
-
I think my only issue is the music. It sounds very safe generic music instead of amazing https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9uDM8GJa53c&list=PL6DE187CED235E844&index=8
-
i thought it was cool he jumped barefoot onto a gyphon
-
Looks like it'll be a lot of fun. I'm glad they're doing the story starting with the original game's setting (Orcs vs Humans).
I hope this does really well and we get a Starcraft movie next.-
-
The Orcs vs Human is interesting IMHO. I loved the original game.
-
-
-
I haven't played a Warcraft game since Warcraft 2 so I don't really have any attachment but that looked kinda silly
-
Oh boy, another CGI shitfest.
-
"CGI shitfest" has become a meaningless phrase around here. People seem to use it to describe pretty much any movie that isn't Mad Max. I just don't know what it means or what the implication is supposed to be. Is the complaint that the CG looks terrible? It was made by one of the premier effects companies on the planet. Is the complaint that they used CG at all? Of course they fucking did, they're bringing Azeroth to life.
You know what's bad? Bad movies. Bad movies are bad. The usage of CG does not directly correlate to the overall quality/dramatic impact of a movie. So far, I would venture to say that we haven't seen enough to really know how well Jones has executed the story and delivered on good characters. Maybe those elements of the movie will be bad, but that's kinda the the point - neither of us have seen it. Complaining about the fact that that a movie about orcs and wizards appears to have lots of CG in it strikes me as the whiniest thing ever.-
Cgi shitfest as in this looks cartooney and obviously fake (as in computery generatey looking). No real set pieces or costumes. No deeper interpretation than that.
-
"No real costumes"
https://media0.giphy.com/media/LFctgMN2VUc/giphy.gif-
You must have stock in this movie's success or something. Wow.
-
-
-
-
[deleted]
-
I fucking loved that instruction manual! It definitely had an influence on me, I was constantly trying to copy the pictures.
-
-
-
Yes. Durotan and Garona both in the movie. Being green is also a big hint.
That little baby doesn't know what is in store for his crazy upcoming life. Fucking man-cows, zombies, elves, multiple (but same) legions of demons attacking him and both planets he's ever had anything to do with, dragons, time travel, trolls, good AND bad dwarves, being a slave to humans, then working with humans, working side by side with his future-past parents to save the planet but them not knowing it's their son while also fighting off an alternate reality version of a Draenor warchief returning to his home world to convince his dad to fight some space goats and then go BACK through a portal to try again at taking Azeroth.
Just a lot of shit Thrall, a lot. Heads up. -
-
-
Actually i thought thatr looked fine. I mean it could be a whole lot worse. Hopefully the actual movie is at least decent because the warcraft universe has a shit ton of awesome characters and storylines that could be mined for future movies.
Plus there needs to be tauren. -
Lol that looks really bad!
-
The talking Orcs with the teeth like that just seems weird. The mouth movement is throwing me off.
-
Also the humans seem too 'clean' unlike what you would see in game of thrones; dirty and gritty from battle. Not sure how I feel about the movie.
-
Dirty - http://chattypics.com/files/ScreenShot20151106at71458PM_r6vql0iuwa.png
Dirty - http://chattypics.com/files/ScreenShot20151106at71344PM_y06v3hmyx1.png
Dirty - http://chattypics.com/files/ScreenShot20151106at71314PM_o9g0jt83w0.png
I'm not sure what you're talking about - that King Llane isn't all grubby? Neither was Joffrey.
Also, it's not as if we haven't see orcs in high fidelity talking before http://orig15.deviantart.net/814a/f/2014/230/d/a/we_will_never_be_slaves_by_monawolt-d7vnk2q.gif
You guys find some of the strangest things to complain/worry about.-
Your captures make me agree with him, not you.
-
...because you're a blind person? They're dirty. There's literal dirt on their faces. I'm not sure what the complaint is.
-
they look like recently scrubbed people with some discrete dabs of makeup dirt. It's not something I'd complain about either but yeah your pics make me agree with him too haha
-
You guys are strange.
-
this must be so frustrating. All the plebs who don't know WTF have a different opinion. Can't you see???
-
I just think the argument is poorly articulated and makes little sense.
-
They lool like theyre on a movie set. Clean doesnt just mean having a little dirt, there's a whole feeling to it. They almost look like angels that have been fighting.
-
-
-
-
-
-
"Well groomed men"
http://chattypics.com/files/ScreenShot20151106at71314PM_o9g0jt83w0.png
Uh-huh. On a spectrum from James Bond to The Dude, ol' Lothar there is leaning towards the "Dude" end of it.-
You seem to have a really heavily skewed version of what someone who's unkempt and dirty would look like. It's sorta amusing. That guy is absolutely ridiculously well groomed and everyone you've shown is ridiculously clean compared to even a modern day blue collar worker at the end of a shift, much less someone in the kind of environment this is portraying.
-
I never ever claimed he was the dirtiest ever or that he looks just like a coal miner coming off shift. I just disagree, with some evidence for justification, that he looks "freshly scrubbed" or "well kempt".
-
He does indeed look both freshly scrubbed and well kempt. His beard is perfectly cut and his hair is tossed just so but without being so wild that it actually looks at all bad. It's the perfect example of hollywood trying to make someone look realistic without actually affecting their appearance in a meaningful way.
-
It's like when people spend a bunch of time and work really hard to make their hair look just the right amount like bed head but not so much that people think they're slobs.
Compare also with trimming your stubble so you have just the right amount so you look like you don't care, but you really actually do care and there's nothing at all spontaneous about it. -
His face is dirty.
http://chattypics.com/files/shackbrowseUpload_13xnpmadkd.jpg
Of course he's not gonna look like a complete fucking hobo. That's not what I'm trying to say. He's a Paladin living in a cultured society who just happens to be dirty. But you guys are making it sound as if these images look like Azeroth: Glamour Shots Edition, and frankly I don't think the evidence supports that implication.-
I've literally seen glamour shots with more dirt on the models than that.
-
Whatever. Dig in and double-down with the absurd anecdotes of your choosing. The fact remains that his face is dirty in that image. See how nice and clean and unblemished he normally looks by comparison - http://images.starpulse.com/pictures/2013/03/31/previews/Travis%20Fimmel-GHR-000417.jpg ? I don't even know why we have to argue about it. It's like arguing whether or not water boils at 212 degree Fahrenheit.
-
All I said was your idea of what a dirty and unkempt face should look like is amusing because the slightest amount of makeup is apparently so dirty to you that it's ridiculous for anyone to suggest he's too clean and well groomed.
-
I guess I just get hung up on what a super-vague phrase like "too clean" is supposed to mean. Too clean for what? Says who? On what authority? What's the minimum threshold of dirt he needs on his face for the effect to be convincing to you? Why? I understand that a comparison has been made to stuff like Game of Thrones or LOTR, but I don't find those particularly illustrative for various reasons that I've already stated.
Plus, I have to admit to being a teeny bit elitist when it comes to evaluating visual information - I'm an artsy-fartsy guy and it's the kind of thing I do for a living. I once got into a protracted discussion here (much like this one tonight) with a guy that was convinced that the look of the Hulk in the 2008 Incredible Hulk movie was intended to mimic Edward Norton's face (who played Bruce Banner in that film). I didn't agree with him at all, and I argued as such. The guy never really let go of his position, even when articles were shared wherein the producers flat-out stated that Norton's likeness was not used at all in the creation of the CG Hulk. So, even though I know this is the kind of thing that is very often frowned upon because everyone can have an opinion - I simply think you're wrong. I think the group of you that are claiming that these people look "freshly scrubbed" are mind-boggingly mistaken in your evaluation of what you're seeing, or you don't know how to articulate the problem that you're having.-
I think "too clean" is meant to mean "too clean for the situation being portrayed". On what authority? The person with the opinion. Opinions are weird, man, sometimes they're different from yours.
What's funny to me about this whole thing is how little dirt on a face and how little tousling of hair it takes to make you think it's clearly obvious that these people can't be too clean. Because really, the people in those photos have just the barest amount of dirty makeup.-
"too clean for the situation being portrayed" seems absurdly arbitrary to me, as if there's some obvious standard/minimum level of dirt that people need to have on them in order for all of us to find the portrayal acceptable. And I understand that this is your opinion, but I'm not one of those guys that holds the all-opinions-are-valid view of the world, because saying they're all valid is like saying that none of them are valid. Opinions are worth listening to when they're well-founded, and I don't really see a lot of the merit behind yours, for reasons I've already discussed but will reiterate here -
1. You guys seem to be making the comparison to stuff like this - http://goo.gl/NUIQKt as your baseline, which I think is an absurd comparison. Aragorn was a ranger who, both as a lifestyle and in the story of the movie, was spending days upon days living in the wilderness. Lothar is a Knight who lives in a huge city. He probably slept on a feather bed the night before and then did have a bath this morning before going out on patrol or whatever - so what? Why is that a problem?
2. Warcraft is elevated, high fantasy. This means the stylistic approach is going to be different from something like LOTR or films like Gladiator. That means bright colors, stylized armor, and dudes that don't have to look like they've been sleeping in dirt for a week. Like I stated earlier, you seem to be complaining that this apple is not an orange, when the apple is like "wtf dude, I never meant to be anything other than an apple".
3. I think what you are actually reacting to is the way the cinematography is making their skin tones look, which is fine, because it is indeed different from the approach most films like this have taken lately. But I thinks it's a mistake to attribute that look to the filmmakers not making the characters "dirty enough". And yes, I can plainly see that the characters could technically be much dirtier than they are, I just don't agree that it's a problem.
So yeah, I think the assertion that these characters look "too clean" is absurdly misplaced and baseless, and I've articulated why. Your only argument seems to be to keep pointing out that the level of dirt is somehow insufficient, but you haven't really given a thorough justification for that, or said anything that refutes the points I make above.
And look, I understand that you don't like it. That's totally okay. I'm not trying to make you like it. I just think you don't understand the nature of your own complaint.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
[deleted]
-
-
Lol I can't dispute the hard evidence it's just what I felt watching it. They seemed too clean cut. Not sure how to better explain it
-
The thing to remember is that the Warcraft universe is what's often referred to as "high fantasy" (whereas Game of Thrones is "low fantasy"). High fantasy is larger-than-life. It doesn't typically shy away from either exaggerated visuals (like huge orcs and really shiny armor) or broad, operatic concepts (a demon corrupts a whole race of beast-like men who pass through an interdimensional portal). Why are we comparing that to Game of Thrones? Becuase both feature beards and swords? That's all just the window dressing aspect of it. Warcraft at its heart has always been bombastic. If anything, this movie tones down the thematic approach that Blizzard tends to use with the franchise.
For a music analogy, if Game of Thrones is Opeth, then Warcraft is GWAR (I hope you get that reference)-
Okay then let's compare to lord of the rings which WoW is loosely based off of.
http://cdn.collider.com/wp-content/uploads/the-lord-of-the-rings-image.jpg
Look how gritty all of the soldiers and characters look? The hair. The costumes. Seems much more believable.
In the WoW trailer it looks like the actors just came out of the shower and got their hair blow dried lol-
Warcraft is only very "loosely based off" LOTR in the sense that Tolkien's LOTR novels influenced almost every post-WWII high-and-low fantasy world. More directly, Warcraft is influenced by Warhammer, which is much larger and goofier than LOTR. As a reflection of that, the stylistic approach in LOTR was intentionally pretty low-fantasy overall -c olors are desaturated, everything looks worn and grimy, and no one is really carrying around an absurdly huge sword (ok, Narsil is pretty long, it still doesn't look like this - http://img1.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20090105000025/wowwiki/images/e/ec/Fordring_Ashbringer.jpg ).
So, basicaly it seems that you're complaining that Wacraft is being Warcraft. And hey, maybe you just don't like Warcraft - that's totally okay. But it strikes me as an error to misplace your dissatisfaction by claiming that an apple is failing at being an orange, when the apple never intended to be an orange. -
Also, I hate to keep refuting you with direct evidence from the exact same trailer that we're both watching, but - http://chattypics.com/files/ScreenShot20151106at81921PM_d500qyc6br.png - that doesn't look like he just got his hair did. He looks more like he's been couch-surfing for a week without a shower.
Something bugs you about the way the movie looks - that's fine. You're allowed to feel that way. But I think you're doing a really poor job of articulating or even understanding your own complaint.-
I'm typing on my phone and don't feel like typing out a ton of text. Just was browsing reddit and here is one of the top comments. I know I'm not the only one to thinks this:
'Personally I think the Orcs looked fantastic but was dissapointed in the Humans. Unfinished CGI aside, the Humas looked to be wearing cardboard armor and looked like they just came out of a warm bath. A bit too clean basically.'-
So - your argument is to basically show me someone else saying the same things that you already said, and specifically them saying things that I've already directly refuted or addressed in some fashion.
Okay.-
My argument is that the humans look out of place. That's all. It's fine if you disagree, I'm not trying to argue with you. It's just my general observation of what I saw in the trailer. I've played WoW off and on for 11 years now so I am looking forward to the movie but I'm a bit disappointed in what I saw. I hope the final film is better than what I saw in the trailer.
-
-
-
I can see what they are saying even in that photo. He looks like he recently got out of the shower. Fresh pink face. I wonder if the lighting is part of it.
-
Maybe it's because you guys have become so accustomed to movies these days being so heavily color-graded, that film with somewhat "normal" saturation levels is now suddenly striking or odd-looking. For the past 15-ish years, it has been pretty standard for movies to do do some pretty heavy digital color grading, and the "in" look has been to strip out a lot of the color and push everything towards bluish, greenish, or grayish monochrome. Just have a look at this small sample -
https://diogocam.files.wordpress.com/2011/10/children_of_men_war.jpg
https://qph.is.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-866743b4bbeef06b35fdbf92d398b108?convert_to_webp=true
http://aaronwilliams.tv/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/Gran-Torino.jpeg
http://33.media.tumblr.com/cc15518472b82dcfddc9c3d83ba7e14f/tumblr_inline_msm95zEU221qz4rgp.png
http://www.homecinemachoice.com/sites/18/images/article_images_month/2014-03/catching%20fire%2002.jpg
http://images4.fanpop.com/image/photos/18600000/neo-the-matrix-18669627-1600-900.jpg
This is slowly changing. Some movies have reintroduced a lot of color in certain ways. Cinematography hero Roger Deakins made Skyfall look gorgeous without shying away from color. And maybe this is what's at the heart of the complaints - Warcraft's cinematographer (someone named Simon Duggan, apparently) probably just isn't as talented as guys like Deakins, Janusz Kaminski, Thomas Siegel or the late, great Conrad Hall. I think that's one area where we can probably agree - I don't think the Warcraft movie looks like it has the best-ever photography and that's probably why it's been so hard for you guys to articulate what it is that you don't like about the way the humans look, because cinematography is kind of a nebulous, hard-to-nail-down thing at times, like film editing.-
I think I've discussed CG pulling me out of immersion and some other stuff with you before. Sometimes I can't define what the issue is, I just know that there's something that doesn't seem right. This is one of those times I can't quite articulate it perfectly.
Still, the trailer gave me some serious nostalgia for warcraft and I'm hoping the movie is good.-
But yeah I think you are right.
-
-
-
-
Is that the guy who plays Ragnar on Vikings?
-
[deleted]
-
I never claimed that the look of the film was soaked in earthy, gritty realism (I'm almost arguing the opposite). I just illustrated the plainly obvious fact that the characters at least do not look like pristine mannequins 100% of the time. So no, I don't see how it applies to me.
-
-
-
-
Warcraft isn't high fantasy, it's a parody of high fantasy.
-
And that changes my argument how?
-
Because there is a genre of high fantasy that you are missing. Warcraft is a video game approach to high fantasy that results in a parody of the genre. Much like Starcraft is a tertiary product of sci fi marines in space. These are aren't original ideas. They aren't even stolen ideas. They are cliches.
-
That still doesn't mean warcraft would be any more "grounded" looking, if anything it's an excuse for the movie to look even more absurd. So I really fail to see your point.
-
-
Way too much whining in this thread.....
-
-
-
-
-
-
I know what type of dirty they're referring to, and I've stated elsewhere why I feel like that is both an arbitrary standard as well as a misapplied expectation.
No, I did not work on this movie.
-
-
-
It's the color grading and lighting.
Trailer: https://i.imgur.com/2kAC5aZ.jpg
Messed with: https://i.imgur.com/0mmoNPl.jpg
It's too bright and clean and the CGI looks dreadful as a consequence. Look at this one: https://i.imgur.com/A4HyCYR.png This is Episode One-like.-
-
Also, "too bright"? Don't you know what the source material looks like?
-
-
-
-
[deleted]
-
There's so much cg in there (the trailer at least), that the human actors actually seem out of place. Kind of an achievement actually.
-
Wow, they should just send it directly to rental.
-
-
They should have used some trained griffins in some scenes to make it look more authentic.
-
-
As an old school Warcraft fan, that looks epic as hell
-
-
WOOPS wrong link LOL
http://imgur.com/Zhwtx4b
-
-
