Watch The Warcraft Movie Trailer

So in among the anniversary congrats and the esports chat of the opening BlizzCon ceremony Blizzard has unveiled the trailer for its Warcraft movie, Warcraft: The Beginning.

You can watch it after the jump:

My main response upon first watching was that the biggest problem with videos nowadays is they keep starting with eagles and other winged things soaring over mountains and then NOT becoming the video for Kanye’s Bound 2. Disappointing.

Why would you do that?

ANYWAY. It seems I was wrong about the movie being a rom com and it’s more about orcs and humans and trying to get along but maybe also not getting along. WORLDS WILL COLLIDE and so forth and there’s a lot of CGI. The latter seems decent(??)* in general but this particular scene is really bothering me:

What do you reckon? Are you going to go watch it?

Also here’s Bound 2. It’s NSFW:

*the more I watch it the more patchy it looks


  1. SAeN says:

    It looks like something produced by the Syfy channel.

    • Stardog says:

      Haha, yeah. It looks like Chronicles of Narnia 4 or something. The awful lighting makes it look really cheap.

    • Captain Deadlock says:

      That was my thought within about 5 seconds of it starting and then I scroll down and see it was the first comment.

      You would literally have to pay me to go to a cinema for this.

    • Disgruntled Goat says:

      I agree. Wall to wall cliches and orcs that look like bad cosplay.

    • Nucas says:

      we weren’t really expecting better, were we?

      thank science hollywood never got it’s claws into a franchise i actually give a shit about.

    • slerbal says:

      Heh, yeah the overkill on poor lighting and weak CGI and direction in the trailer doesn’t exactly inspire confidence.

  2. Frings says:

    I think there was a bit of a problem with the jump there, Pip. :)
    The article is in its whole on the front page.

    • Premium User Badge

      Philippa Warr says:

      Should be in there. I’ve re-edited and refreshed and it’s showing up fine on the front page for me. If it continues for you let me know :/

  3. Dorga says:

    The cgi looks surprisingly bad

    • Villephox says:

      It’s especially bad when there are humans in the scene. They make everything look so fake. Had this been entirely animated, humans and orcs both, it would probably look a million times better, but even then, probably not great.

      The story just seems so cheesy, though.

    • TillEulenspiegel says:

      Normally I’d rant about the (current) impossibility of realistic CGI, but this particularly cheap.

      Also, that fucking armor. Seriously. What the hell.

      • Xzi says:

        I don’t know, Guardians of the Galaxy managed to do realistic (enough) CGI. Seems like Blizzard maybe started working on this too long ago? If you’re going with heavy CGI, you have to finish everything up in 2-3 years or technology gets ahead of you and movies end up looking terrible for the year they’re released.

        • TillEulenspiegel says:

          Guardians of the Galaxy is deliberately cartoonish. It works because it embraces that.

          There are no believably realistic CGI characters. None.

          • Xzi says:

            Depends on how well you can suspend disbelief, which is paramount to the genres of sci-fi/fantasy.

          • liquidsoap89 says:

            Davey Jones from Pirates of the Caribbean 2 disagrees.

          • Blastaz says:

            Surely wow is the franchise that has always embraced the cartoon.

            The fact that it pretty much looks OK a decade later is because it’s cartoon art direction is so strong…

          • Samwise says:

            I think you are forgetting Gollum

          • sweenish says:

            I am still impressed by Caesar.

      • Xerophyte says:

        There’s a ton of realistic CG in maybe 70% of the movies you see in the cinema, you just don’t notice because … it’s realistic. For instance: Gravity is a CG movie with Sandra Bullock and George Clooney’s faces occasionally pasted on top.

        Basically, it’s a lot cheaper to do it in CG than build a set for 90% of the things that movie studios would previously build sets for.

        • Unclepauly says:

          Cheaper and shittier for it.

        • melnificent says:

          My favourite example of modern CGI is in The Wolf of Wall Street. I didn’t even realise there was as much as there is.

          • vlonk says:

            Game of Thrones. I am not talking dragons and wolves here, I am talking about the cities, the backdrops, valleys and long distance shots. So much CGI, almost all of it is spot on perfect.

          • Xerophyte says:

            Yeah, my point is that there’s a lot of CG around that you just don’t realize because it actually is realistic. Most of Atlantic City (and some of the facial make-up) on Boardwalk Empire is also CG, for instance, yet people rarely complain about it because watching the show you have no idea that this is the case.

          • socrate says:

            Wow and this goes to show how much people know about actual CGI…what you 2 are talking about is VFX(visual effect) and not CGI(computer generated imagery)…an easy thing is the original non remastered first 3 star wars movie were basically all VFX and the new one are CGI…

            Its really that easy think of a real thing being transplanted into a scene(skybox,background,animal or a crowd) and its VFX and not CGI also(like skybox or texture for most game are usually not CGI,makes you think)…both have their advantage and disadvantage usually VFX still beat it but CGI is really new while VFX as been around forever now compared to CGI but its getting better and better…

            usually when you least notice CGI is when almost everything is CGI or very very subtle and quick its your eyes and brain actually assimilating this as something viable and you actually need to let go of reality a bit…because usually its really obvious compared to reality.

    • steves says:

      Do. Or do not. There is no CGI.

      Except there obviously is, and it’s right there in uncanny valley.

      LoTR managed to make this almost seamless a decade ago…how can things have got worse?

      • FriendlyFire says:

        To a certain extent, it’s more that we’ve become more exacting to CGI rather than LOTR being so much better. Granted, they did an excellent job, but if you look back at the films you can see many scenes where the CGI is rather obviously CGI.

      • Arctem says:

        LotR CGI worked well because they did two key things: they didn’t let you see it too closely (stuff like the cave troll in Fellowship was generally kept in the dark so you couldn’t see how bad the CGI actually was, plus the takes were short so you couldn’t focus on them for long anyway) and they avoided showing both CGI and people in the same frame. When you saw the Balrog it was only the Balrog but when you saw the troll fighting Legolas both of them were CGI so there was no obvious difference in quality.

      • TillEulenspiegel says:

        Go back and actually look at Gollum. Objectively, he’s a ridiculous piece of crap that looks incredibly fake. It only works because we suspend disbelief.

      • Xzi says:

        I wouldn’t say things really have gotten worse. The Martian had some excellent and seamless CGI. It’s just a different story when mixing real actors and CGI actors, real worlds and CGI worlds…the contrast becomes clear.

        Personally I thought the trailer was impressive, but then perhaps I didn’t have my expectations set as high as some.

      • suibhne says:

        The “uncanny valley” doesn’t mean what you think it means. This clip isn’t even on the same continent as said valley.

      • socrate says:

        Again il repeat myself but i hate when people have no knowledge of that…VFX and CGI are completely different and LoTR was seen as better CGI because people don’t know CGI and VFX which in the case of LoTR used both

        CGI is just used by everyone now even in the case of VFX and its the problem…alots of director,actor,etc…who have no idea wtf they are talking about are spreading stupidity…and internet always being the biggest offender in the case of rendering people more stupid also and spreading misinformation.

        • chakraist says:

          I left a reply down a little further but you actually don’t seem to know what you’re talking about – SFX is maybe what you are referring to when you say VFX:

          VFX – compositing and incorporating CGI into filmed footage
          SFX – models and makeup and stuff

    • FriendlyFire says:

      It’s weird; they kept the Orcs to look almost exactly as they do in Warcraft cutscenes, but they use regular humans instead of the obviously cartoony humans of Warcraft cutscenes. The contrast is not particularly good.

    • Thankmar says:

      Well, I thought that about The Hobbit (3rd part) as well. In the theater, in 3D and HDR, it got a different quality, something that you have to get used to, but it worked extremely well for me. If this is in HDR, I wait till I saw it in the theatre before judging.

  4. kool says:

    It seems absolutely insane (in a bad way). Looks like a 2min WoW-cinematic dragged out for 2 hours.

    • Sgt_Big_Bubbaloola says:

      Nah! WoW cinematics look MUCH better.

      • socrate says:

        yeah i though the same thing…blizzard is just getting worst and worst…first blizzard north…then activision…now this…yuk

        guess money over everything else at this point.

  5. Aldehyde says:

    The view from above at 0:25 makes me think of the RTS games.

    I don’t know, I will probably enjoy watching it as much as other generic action movies. Have a lot of fond memories from all of the Warcrafts as well so anything Warcraft makes me at least a bit interested.

  6. ProcrastinatingSod says:

    I am still rather optimistic about this, as Jones seems like a smart fella who knows what this adaptation needs, and the franchise itself has quite the potential.

    But damn, visually it really doesn’t speak to me.

    I thought from the start that this should have been full animation. The cartoony aesthetic of Warcraft (which I am a fan of) looks like crap
    when applied to live action. Actors wearing those over the top costumes and suits of armour, look more like cheap comic-con cosplayers or extras from Uwe Boll’s D&D adaptation. And it’s quite jarring when they’re contrasted with the CGI world of Orcs. The whole trailer had that look of cheap fantasy to it. Like a slightly more epic Seventh Son.

    • Premium User Badge

      DelrueOfDetroit says:

      Source Code was garbage so I’m still on the fence as to whether Duncan Jones will be remembered for Moon and nothing else.

    • Zenicetus says:

      Looks like a stinker of a movie, but it’s still promotion for the Warcraft IP. Maybe that’s all Blizzard was trying to get out of this; a huge advertisement for the franchise that might eventually pay for itself. It sure doesn’t look like they were aiming much higher than that.

    • Danarchist says:

      I am going to watch this, along with I am guessing a few million other people, for two simple reasons:
      1. Closure on years of wasted life
      2. the potential for Jana Proudmoore side-boob

      I am a bit depressed that I didn’t see one gnome or tauren in that entire thing. I am guessing it is based of the RTS and not wow itself.
      For all the neckbeard hate this is bound to attract, I am willing to bet those same people will be in the theater next to me ;)

      • Xocrates says:

        My warcraft lore isn’t great, but I think you’re messing the timelines. This is set during the original Warcraft: Orcs and Humans. Which is too early for Jaina to be in it, and the Tauren didn’t show up until Warcraft 3 as they are based on a completely different continent.

        I believe the baby orc to the Thrall, as a point of reference.

    • SAeN says:

      Jones is a great director, but I have doubts as to how much control he had over this project.

      • liquidsoap89 says:

        That right there is the big concern here. For a movie of this size, you know damn well the producers want to get their hands all up in there. If Duncan Jones was given the freedom he needed to make this to the best of his abilities then there is potential for this to be great. If he was working under a committee that made all the decisions for him then there is no hope.

  7. Kefren says:

    Trailer used they cliche bass thump sound effect about 10 times. Probably doesn’t bode well for the film’s originality.

  8. colw00t says:

    Generic Post Lord Of the Rings Fantasy Movie: The Movie

  9. RedViv says:

    This looks rubbish and amazing. I’m in.

    • LexW1 says:

      Yeah that’s where I’m at it. It looks completely awful. But I really want to watch it.

    • Jekadu says:

      It looks amazingly awkward. I want to see it. It’s hitting some kind of forbidden sweet spot of awesomeness and awfulness.

    • Turkey says:

      Yup. This is unintentional comedy territory. I’m sold.

    • El_MUERkO says:

      it’s going to be a monumental flop

      still going to see it and buy a barrel of popcorn

  10. Freud says:

    An unorthodox take on My Fair Lady.

    • Moroten says:

      Is Pygmalion with Orcs the next Pride and Prejudice and Zombies?

  11. TTex says:

    I think the problem is that this took too long to come out. Will I watch the movie? Yeah more than likely. Eventually. I won’t be going to the theater for it though.

    The prime time to release it seems to have come and gone. I certainly know I’m well past the point when I would have been really enthusiastic to see it.

  12. bad_cluster says:

    You know what else does not help this trailer?
    It’s the fact that they are using recycled soundtrack from 300 Rise Of An Empire, Marathon track to be precise. Starts at about 1:15 in the trailer, and 2:20 in the original.
    This is incredibly cheap, for such a movie, especially based on a franchise that has its own epic and memorable music tracks. Why not play on that? That boggles my mind.

    • Premium User Badge

      DelrueOfDetroit says:

      Lots of movies use other movie’s soundtracks for their trailer because the OST hasn’t been finished before the trailer comes out.

      For example, Return of the King had music from Reqium For A Dream in it for this reason.

      Don’t know if that is the case here, but it happens.

      • bad_cluster says:

        That could be the case, could be also that no Warcraft themes could match that cliche bass thump (everyone uses in their trailers) without heavy editing. Then again, expecting originality from Blizzard, is setting yourself up for disappointment, my bad I guess.

        • bad_cluster says:

          That could be the case, could be also that no Warcraft themes could not match that cliche bass thump (everyone uses in their trailers) without heavy editing.
          Sorry, typos, no edit option hurts. =(

          • bad_cluster says:

            Oh my, did it right the first time, instead of fixing one thing, i messed it up even more.
            That could be the case, could be also that no Warcraft theme could match that cliche bass thump (everyone uses in their trailers) without heavy editing.

            Third time’s the charm.

        • mrbright01 says:

          The music from the WoW login screen could easily have filled in. The thumps would just be in a different place.

    • Skabooga says:

      It’s a lost opportunity that the trailer wasn’t set to this track from the Warcraft 2 soundtrack: link to

      • mukuste says:

        Holy fuck. Nostalgia overload. Mustn’t have heard that in, well, 18 years or so?

        • Marblecake says:

          Someone hasn’t played Hearthstone yet. It makes heavy use of the WC2 soundtrack for its loading screens.

    • Nucleus says:

      A lot of the time, pre-made library music is used for trailers, as it’s clearly the case here.

    • Marblecake says:

      Surprised me as well. Why not use one (or several) of the myriad easily recognizable Warcraft themes? I honestly expected A Call to Arms to be used for the trailer. This really felt like dropping the ball in a big way.

  13. LexW1 says:

    I just wanted to say that I felt kind of bad that I played so much WoW that I instantly recognised Dalaran by it’s general location, despite the fact that in WoW it consists now of a big hole in the ground (where it was) and a floating city (OMG SPOILERS I guess, because I bet that happens in the movie).

  14. Marblecake says:

    My first thought was that this looked absolutely terrible. I’m going to be there on opening day. Probably watch it twice.

  15. Koozer says:

    The live action mixed with computer graphics makes the CGI look cartoony and the real actors like Power Rangers.

    • Spacewalk says:

      Shoulda gone all CGI like Beowulf which is what I was expecting they would do.

  16. Janichsan says:

    The shoulder pads are far too small.

  17. Sinjun says:

    Looks even worse than I imagined. I guess that seals it that Duncan Jones was just a hired hand on this, too bad he had to give up 5 fucking years for it. He’s way too talented. What’s astonishing is that the films entire meal ticket – it’s visuals – are basically SyFy movie quality outside of some close ups of the Orcs. The writing sounds like it was done entirely by Metzen, AKA complete trash, and even Travis Fimmel (who’s fantastic in Vikings) is obviously miserable trying to green screen act. This is going to bomb.

    • Rizlar says:

      Yeah, that dialogue is just flwarighglag. Who writes this absolute shit? Answer: Chris Metzen.

      • mvar says:

        Bad writing with cheesy dialog and generic the-chosen-one-hero storyline: That’s like 80% (or more) of Hollywood fantasy/action movies nowadays. I wouldn’t expect anything more from something based on WoW. We’re talking about a game that features Pandas from a company that after the awesomeness of SC1 & the first two Diablos went on to make WC3 & D3 (good games both but the writing in there, *oh*my*god*).

    • El Mariachi says:

      Viking Jax Teller is great at the enigmatic simmer, but it doesn’t look like this movie is playing to that strength. At all.

  18. Premium User Badge

    Phasma Felis says:

    WoW always had completely different proportions for male and female orcs, but at least the females were still large and muscular relative to humans. Here, the males are CGI monsters the size of a horse, and the females are willowy supermodels with tusks (e.g. 1:33). What?

    • Bostec says:

      I can’t get over the hands. Look at those HANDS!

    • Rizlar says:

      You forget that women aren’t just people, they are also objects, and therefore must look like Object Women! See also: WoW’s trolls, Diablo 3’s witch doctors, Wildstar’s draken, pretty much any beast race in computer games. This is a pet peeve of mine, it’s especially prominent in MMOs, perhaps because of how closely people relate to their characters and how that brings gendered ideas of body image to the fore.

      BUT… having said all that the character at 1:33 is almost definitely Garona, a half-orc, half-human. Yes I played WoW in my youth, no I don’t know why I retain all this stuff.

    • mrbright01 says:

      Pause at 1:06(ish). That first orc that runs by is female, and it is certainly not willowy. Personally, I would add a little more muscle definition, but honestly, it looks about right when compared to an in-game model.

    • Muffintop says:

      I would assume that is Garona, who is half-human, so it makes sense she’d be a bit different to an ordinary female orks.

      • Asurmen says:

        Garona being half-human didn’t make sense in the game and was retconned years ago. The same issue applies to the film. How could there possibly be a half breed in the time span?

  19. Sinnorfin says:

    Xardas is there on that picture.

  20. Stevostin says:

    Ooooh this looks terrible. Terrible.

  21. KillahMate says:

    I stand behind my opinion that this is the most faithful live-action video game adaptation I’ve ever seen. In every way. Including the kitschy visuals and fanfic-level writing. If Blizzard is really planning to remake their older games as rumored, they could easily and cleanly slot this in as a Warcraft 1 cutscene.

  22. Bostec says:

    What a shitty trailer. Who are these wooden actors? I’v seen more emotion on a cabbage. “Something is coming” Said Mr Deadpan. Yes this film unfortunately. Pff The Revenant will be my next film I go and see! Trailer was better then Spectre.

  23. tomimt says:

    Surely it must be better than the actual game? I mean that one is boring as hell.

  24. EhexT says:

    It looks utterly awful. This is Warhammer 40k: Ultramarines level bad CGI. It looks like a really dedicated fan project not an actual movie made by a movie studio and a game publisher with more money than is sane.

  25. Xyviel says:

    So I got that the plot was about moderates trying to live peacefully together while extremists want to go and have at it.


  26. piiskarotta says:

    Those “live action” people look really out of place. Why didn’t they make this a animated movie like those WOW expansion trailers. Those trailers looked freaking awesome.

  27. Laurentius says:

    This looks very, very bad. I will say that as a huge Warcraft 2 fan. Quality of writing is on the level of StarCraft2, that means incredibly cheesy and cringewrothy. It’s already grating in videogame but at least you are doing missions and rts-ing for the most poart but in the movie it looks like it will be unbearable.

  28. Flea says:

    I don’t know. The older I get, the less tolerance I have for CGI and it rarely impresses me. Especially when the movie is basically 90% CGI, like this one. Everything, from characters to scenery is computer generated and it looks so unreal and difficult to watch. Makes you wonder why they didn’t just animate humans as well, it would probably be less expensive than paying the actual actors. It’s basically two hours of animated Blizzard cutscenes. In-game I can accept them and they add to the atmosphere, here they don’t.

    • Jackablade says:

      The compositing looks unfinished, but that’s not unusual for an early trailer. It’ll probably always look a bit fake, but it’s likely to improve markedly before the movie hits.

  29. Asurmen says:

    Looks fine, just not amazing must see at cinema.

  30. Skabooga says:

    Well, in addition to all the comments above, I’m particularly cross to see that the brief clips of the actions scenes always have the camera shake just as somebody is hitting somebody else. I get that this is done in live-action movies because most actors can’t fight well and you gotta protect their pretty faces, but surely Warcraft is CGI enough to let us see a blow land?

    • Jackablade says:

      It’s a classification thing as much as anything. If you see someone get chopped in half by a big orc sword, you lose your PG13 rating.

  31. Shadow says:

    I remember WarCraft 1 being darker, featuring no good orcs, and Medivh being nuts. Why must there be orcs who fight alongside humans when it’s a pretty legitimate reason for the former to invade the latter’s land because they’re losing their own?

    Bah, maybe some of us just aren’t the target audience anymore. I’m sure I’d be far more thrilled about this if I were 13.

    • Det. Bullock says:

      Well, it seems heavily inspired by Warcraft III, remember that the big bad orcs have already been done by LOTR in movies.

      • Shadow says:

        Sure, but those were purely evil orcs. Only a step shallower than purely evil orcs fighting humans and goody orcs. Might’ve been more interesting to show some depth in a race with a singular objective (which as I’ve said is legitimate) yet several shades of grey. Could’ve been more than a good vs. evil war.

        But who knows. I might be getting ahead of myself. No hype, but I’ve seen worse.

  32. Guiscard says:

    Ragnar Lothbrok? What are you doing in this?

  33. mrbright01 says:

    Well, it’s time for at least one person to go all “Unpopular Opinion Puffin” in this place.

    I liked it. Here is why.

    1) Originality: No, it does not have any. It’s a property retelling a story from a game released in 1994. What exactly did you expect? It’s a canon retelling. It’s not supposed to be original, because it was original 20 years ago. People bring up LOTR a lot in their posts. Bad news: If you cracked a book before the movie, that wasn’t original either.

    2) CGI: Have we all become so jaded that this is considered bad CGI? I see people comparing this movie to LOTR in a negative way… but LOTR CGI is terrible on anything involving movement or non-evil humanoids. And the close ups of the main characters are incredible. The only problem I see in any of this is the super-heavy use of artificial motion blur, but to be honest, almost any CG laden film now days does the same, unless they instead do gratuitous slow-motion and pausing. And then people say it’s SyFy Channel quality… really? 0:40 looks less real than Sharknado?

    3) Uncanny Valley. I’ve seen this crop up a few times, and I reply with a resounding “No, really?” They are orcs, not humans. Uncanny valley is the entire point. If you look at an entirely new species that is based on a humanoid frame and don’t get that feeling, it’s not a new species, it’s a dude with some heavy prosthetics.

    Is this movie going to blow us out of the water? Hell no! It’s a 20 year old video game story, and because it is so heavy in brightly colored CGI, it will always look fake no matter how good, at least if they avoid the cheap workaround of making everything dark and gritty so you can pretend those orcs in LOTR don’t look fake as all get out.

    I have never seen a group of people teabag so gleefully on a movie based off of a 2 minute trailer using arguments about the WRITING. It’s a trailer for an action fantasy, it’s going to be cheesy. It’s a bright and colorful CGI movie, it’s going to look fake. Good lord, it’s like going to a Starbucks that’s holding a poetry reading. Not every poem is going to be Poe or Shakespeare, so why do you expect otherwise?

    Yes, it is a two hour WoW cutscene. Why on earth would you expect any different? Grab some popcorn, have a seat, and repeat to yourself, “It’s just a show, you should really just relax.”

    • Rizlar says:

      Gleeful is the word! Just to be clear: I think this looks fucking awful and I love it. If you were to put the new Star Wars film and this in front of me I would probably watch this. Seems like noone expects any more or any less than ‘utterly terrible’ and it will live up to their every expectation.

    • satan says:

      I guess when I was imagining Warcraft as a movie as a teenager I was more thinking about the locations they’d need to fly to to film scenes and which actors would play which characters, and would orcs end up looking like Gamorreans? (Star Wars pig-men)

      I want to be clear that I’m sick to death of the trend of the last 15+ years of ‘handful of people in front of a green screen grimacing at the camera for 90 minutes’, and perhaps that is why I get so much enjoyment out of Game of Thrones, because they *gasp!* film on location and build sets.

      • ButteringSundays says:

        As others have said about TV and film in general the issue isn’t the presence of CGI, it’s that it’s bad.

        You’re kidding yourself if you don’t think GOT isn’t full of CGI. Crowds, altered environments (of which have like 2 locations), enhanced characters.There are dragons too in case you forgot ;)

        Vikings, mentioned due to the leads role in the series, is also chock full of CGI – there’s a great YT video somewhere showing before and afters.

        Oh and if the guy up-thread harping on about the differences between VFX and CGI comes along, just stop. It’s all computer generated imagery, your pedantry is not necessary nor wanted, nobody cares. And this is coming from someone with a bachelor of science in the field.

        • El Mariachi says:

          What’s funny is that one of the more ornate castles on GoT, the Dornish Water Gardens, is an actual Moorish castle in Seville. There’s still CGI involved of course, but a surprising amount of the scenery is real.

    • Dances to Podcasts says:

      RPS readers are snobs who don’t know their CG from their I. I hope none of the ILM people read this. Or maybe I do. :P

    • Jackablade says:

      As long as it manages to be fun and not tiresome (and it could go either way at this point) I’ll be down like a… thing that rhymes with down that is particularly down with other things.

    • Sinjun says:

      “What did you expect?” is a cop-out justification for garbage writing and should never be used. The fact that it’s based on an established IP doesn’t mean it can’t be original or done with taste. That makes no sense. James Bond has been around for decades and still finds ways to innovate. The simple truth is that for the last 5 or 10 years, Blizzard has stripped their properties of any personality or edge in order to target the widest possible audience. Their art department is still given a little bit of room to be creative, but that’s pretty much it. Look at the ridiculously dark cinematic storytelling in Diablo 2 and look at Blizzard today, tell me they haven’t changed dramatically as a company.

      • Asurmen says:

        Way to miss the context. It’s a retelling of the story. That’s what they’re asking “What did you expect?”. Wasn’t anything to do with the quality.

    • Premium User Badge

      Ninja Dodo says:

      This seems about right. The CG is fine, great even. It’s just that the contrast with the live action humans makes it feel a bit like Red Alert. When people on the internet say “bad CG” what they really mean is “I don’t like the aesthetic choices” or “the compositing/animation on this one shot maybe wasn’t perfect but I am blissfully unaware that 90% of the rest was CG as well”…

    • vlonk says:

      Warcraft never was a truly original IP. It always was derivative of GW Warhammer and Tolkiens LOTR of D&D and plain old Heavy Metal. It did not set trends, it followed them.

      But that does not mean, it cannot be original, inspiring, creative work, can expand on its background and tell its own stories in its own words.

      From this trailer already we can see a glimpse of what is to come. May the story be a retelling of an unique creative work, the words it uses are… flat. Flat, pure cliche, “exposition in your face”. That might be a trailer that does the original material a disservice. It might be representative of the shlock to come. I assume it is the latter, because Blizzard lost there guts to be unique. I remember Diablo 1 which had voice-overs for prayers to the devil. I remember the WC2 manual with an Orc rocking out with a head of a decapitated human in one hand and making the sign of the horns with the other. Nowadays every plotpoint gets spelled out by every guy in the room to make sure, that nobody misses the point… Even my teenage self would skip this direct-to-dvd drivel.

    • derbefrier says:

      so much this.

    • Stevostin says:

      You make very good points on a lost cause.

      I think basically rule#1 for every movie production is that people have to at least think it might be good. Feedback here is that no one think it can. No way it can look good. No way it can be a good story. No way it can be good acting.

      And I was amongst the ppl really wanting blizzard to make movie, especially after Starcraft 1 movies (that intro! link to !)

      But one thing they were doing back then is actually avoid photorealism. The minute they go for live actors here they’re completely wrong and driving fast onto a wall. It’s a bit like when Zenimax announceds a TES:MMO. Very wrong understanding of the license.

  34. Danny says:

    It says enough that I prefer Bound 2 over Warcraft’s trailer.

  35. Captain Deadlock says:

    Basically this is a mash-up between Shrek and West Side Story.

    • TillEulenspiegel says:

      So you’re saying it’s definitely a musical.

      • Turkey says:

        Haaaalf breeed
        They call me haaalf breed
        Not quite human not quite orc
        Despised by both
        Why can’t they see
        My heart is as big as my haaaaands

      • rustybroomhandle says:

        Muh muh muh myyyyy Garona…

      • Turkey says:

        *Whistle Blows*

        *Orcs start chanting in unison*

        “Job’s done! Job’s done! Job’s done! Job’s dooooone!”

  36. satan says:

    Looks more like an early/leaked trailer with the obvious… sore-thumbiness? (as in stands out like a) of the CGI.

  37. rustybroomhandle says:

    Pfff, such scoffery. Mark my words, this film will be liked by critics and audiences alike. It will hover around 80% on Rotten Tomatoes.

    Plus, unlike most modern blockbusters, this one is actually in colour.

  38. racccoon says:

    Its seems kayne west is drunk or he has a middle ear infection. & another thing there are bucket loads of these songs out every second for ten+ years now, they all sound the same and are mundane. bitch.twitch.mobilephone gotta ya man he gotta bone and gonna smash your phone. yo! lol..why.
    Anyhow the video come game MOVIE looks fair.
    I can see about ten or twelve people in the pictures munching on popcorn, coke and a ice cream, with another couple of people rustle through a bag of chips and annoying the fuck out of that’s it.
    My two penneth done, current bun, buttered by my mum.bitch.

    • Unclepauly says:

      You just enriched my life. Not as much as the music video but who could hope to achieve that loftiness?

  39. rollermint says:


    …for bad CGI and plastic armor.

  40. Doghaus says:

    Oh dear, it looks dreadful.

  41. Hmm-Hmm. says:

    Hehe. Yeah, I agree that it’ll probably be pretty bad. I still want to go see it in a cinema though.

  42. BlueTemplar says:

    So some people are saying it’s based on Warcraft 1. But is it? Feels more of someone that imagined what Warcraft 1 (2?) was about, while being firmly set in the general design of WC3/WoW.

    One way to test this theory would be :
    What in this film is consistent with Warcraft 1 and inconsistent with Warcraft 2, 3 and WoW?
    (Including story, but also units, places, design, etc…)
    What is consistent with Warcraft 2, but not WC1,3& WoW?
    WC3 but not WC1,2,WoW?
    WoW but not WC1,2,3?
    Then compare these lists.

  43. Rich says:

    It’s hardly Michael Bay bad is it?
    Still, needs more dakka!

  44. LennyLeonardo says:

    This looks very silly, which is good. Like Warcraft/WoW.
    If they don’t work in at least 20 Warcraft 2 unit select quotes I will cry:

  45. RayEllis says:

    The problem with any CGI is that, when mixed with live action, it will always stand out.
    Folks might want to contrast the movie trailer with the cinematic for the games new expansion, Legion, due out next year. The cinematic is all CGI, and whilst it looks like CGI, it at least has consistency for everything that you see. Just google “wow legion cinematic” and you’ll find it.
    Starting to think that Warcraft, which has always had a cartoonish quality to it, would be better served with a purely CGI animated movie.

  46. Text_Fish says:

    Sub-Scorpion King CGI.

  47. BlueTemplar says:

    This article about how the concept of “mana” ended up in video games also tells us about the history of Warcraft :
    link to

    “Blizzard made history in 1994 with the release of the computer game Warcraft: Orcs & Humans.”
    “Spell-casting units in Warcraft used a spell point mechanic, and their magical energy was measured by a green bar. What kind of magical energy was it? No one seems to be sure. Apparently the developers had never developed a backstory for their game deeper then “orcs and humans fight.” The reasons why were made up by one employee, who made up the backstory as he went along.

    Warcraft II, released in 1995, changed all that. Now there was a guy whose whole job was to create worlds for the game to take place in. In this game, mana was the official unit of magical energy and the bar that measured it had turned blue. In 1996, Blizzard North produced the first Action-RPG, Diablo. Diablo had even less backstory than Warcraft (“everyone wants to hit a zombie with a club,” opined Blizzard North founder Max Schafer, “but not everyone wants to read badly written fantasy text.”), but it did have a large blue orb that measured mana. Mana was now part of Blizzard’s lexicon.

    Soon whole fantasy universes sprung up around Diablo and Warcraft. More games came out: Warcraft III and its expansion Warcraft III: The Frozen Throne. The racial confrontation of orcs versus humans mutated into a confrontation between two multi-species alliances: Horde versus Alliance. More factions joined—now you could play elves and dwarves. The cut scenes grew elaborately beautiful and featured realistic three-dimensional characters fighting in battles recorded with jerky, cinema verité camera style. When the first Infernals of the Burning Legion land on Azeroth, it looks like the event was filmed by a TV crew afraid for their lives. The stories connecting the battles became almost belle lettristic—half grudge match, half soap opera, as the plots and character from games written years apart turned into a world, a legend, an ethos. By the time that World of Warcraft launched in 2004—on the tenth anniversary of the release of Warcraft I—Warcraft had become an elaborate mythic world the size of the Iliad and a profitable franchise rivaling McDonalds. Mana was an inseparable part of it.

  48. Premium User Badge

    Ninja Dodo says:

    On the topic of “bad CG” rants, I’ll just leave this here:

    • socrate says:

      again all shown here is VFX not CGI…ffs i know the general intelligence of the human race is crashing hard…but seriously.

      THIS is why people are seen as moron in general…not understand and spreading misinformation…anyway read my post up there and do some real research for a change and stop listening to dumb propaganda of other dumb people on youtube that helps alots also.

      • LennyLeonardo says:

        You’re weirdly irate about a semantic point. But the way I see it, modern VFX often incorporate so much CGI that only someone with a real chip on their shoulder would rant about the distinction.

      • Premium User Badge

        Ninja Dodo says:

        Haha, wow… How to even begin to respond to this? Looking at your other post I think your tenuous grasp of punctuation is stronger than your understanding of VFX and computer graphics.

      • Xerophyte says:

        Hi, strangely angry man. I am a software engineer, I work at a major CAD and 3D modeling company. I mostly work on global illumination rendering, primarily path tracing. I’m reasonably confident in my general knowledge about the use of CG in movies, although I confess the VFX industry isn’t my primary focus. I am definitely comfortable in my technical knowledge about how CG imagery is composited into pre-existing footage, since I’ve written a bunch of code that does digital matting for CG renders.

        I am not entirely sure what you think the distinction between VFX and CGI is and why it’s very important.

        VFX means visual effects and generally refers to special effects in non-animated feature films. This is not limited to computer-generated effects, but also includes “practical” effects like scale models and so on. The original Star Wars definitely featured VFX, as does the prequels. However, one would probably not refer to Inside Out as VFX, even if many similar concepts apply.

        CGI means computer-generated imagery. This is an umbrella term for any image generated by a computer and would technically include things like digital matting and color grading. Casual use in the VFX industry seems to mostly use it for renderings, though I don’t know if that’s just my read on it. Most VFX work nowadays involves some form of CGI as the assorted VFX houses specialize in digitally compositing pre-existing film footage with rendered or otherwise computer-generated details. All the examples in that youtube clip are undoubtedly CGI: computer-generated data is being digitally composited with real footage.

        • chakraist says:

          I wanted to reply as well after I saw a number of posts by the (well put) strangely angry man. I am no expert on rendering as you clearly are but I think what the guy has done is confuse SFX and VFX.

          SFX is the stuff with physical objects, models, etc. They’re filmed and sometimes keyed into other shots (green screen type thing). This would be a combination of SFX and VFX.

          VFX is visual effects of which CG, when talking about film, videogames etc. is a wholly contained subset. You have a few different types (levels) of VFX:

          -Straight compositing. This is using After Effects, NUKE or Fusion (basically those are the big three) to do things like key footage, overlay things, rotoscope people (cutting them out, not like A Scanner Darkly), add pixel effects like blurs, glows, color correction, etc. This can include putting other clips like filming an explosion in real life and putting it in another shot, then color grading it to match and masking out the foreground. This is 2.5D compositing and can be basic and simple.

          -The next level of VFX is compositing using basic 3D objects still in compositing software. Fusion, NUKE and AE all have their own render engines–and NUKE has just integrated Vray which is awesome–so if you want to put in some simple particle effects, there’s engines there for it. This is 3D compositing in a basic sense. This is your kind of intermediate level.

          -The level above this is a matchmove incorporating CG objects. Render as EXRs with multiple channels (AO, Shadow, Diffuse, Specular, Emit, Environment are my go-tos, plus obv RGBA) or export an FBX scene, or a few OBJs, then bring them into your compositor, then bring in a point cloud generated from a 3D matchmove program like Syntheyes, PFTrack or Boujou, put them all together and you have your CG objects in a scene. Good color grading and strong 2.5D compositing skills will transfer here allowing you to create seamless effects – plus your render should be lit by an HDRI preferably taken from the shoot, and your matchmove has to be on point too. It’s difficult, and the hardest bit. Most jobs in the industry will be doing one of these things – lighting TD (technical director), render TD, texture artist, matchmove/rotoscope artist, blablabalblabla.

          So – there is literally no real distinction between true, high-level VFX and CGI. You need CGI to do any kind of VFX – and even a simple blur is still a manipulation of an existing image by computer, giving you a… computer generated image at the end of it.

  49. Werthead says:

    Modern VFX is practically now just CGI anyway. What you are talking about is matting or moving one really-existing thing into a shot with another really-existing thing (like putting two separately-shot TIE Fighters in the same scene in the original Star Wars, or the use of bigatures in LotR), but that’s pretty rare now. The above video shows cars being put into shots, but the cars are actually CG: they don’t exist in the first place, they are wholly CG creations. So is Iron Man’s armour in pretty much every single shot of every single Marvel film he’s in, even when he’s just standing around talking. The crowds in the Game of Thrones shots shown in the video aren’t just people matted into the long shots, the actual people theselves are CG.

    The point the video makes is that enormous amounts of CG are present in films and TV shows where people don’t think there’s a single CG shot in the whole thing, and it’s startling how much the modern film industry relies on them. The industry is awash with it, even in supposedly “retro” films that use lots of practical effects like Mad Max: Fury Road.

  50. Jenks says:

    This looks good to me visually, like Avatar – clearly fake/cartoony but still good. This comment section is pretty much the most negative I’ve come across for this trailer, but that’s to be expected of RPS.