Amph Son of Bowie to direct World of Warcraft film

Looks like Avatar without James Cameron. And the worst part of Avatar's CG was whenever the humans had to interact directly with the aliens because it still looks like Space Jam. Their orcs don't look bad, but they don't look real -- might as well make the whole thing animated, humans included. Because the second they need to use gnomes or elves or tauren they're going to have to resort to the CG again and the humans will only look more like outliers by comparison.

 

I would have preferred actors in costumes instead of so much cgi. Oh well.

 

I think the whole thing looks amazing, and I frankly don't understand the anti-CGI stance. In the 70s and 80s we had prosthetic make-up effects, puppetry and stop-motion animation (I'm thinking Harryhausen's Sinbad and Greek myth films, here, or the Henson/Oz epics), all of which effects looked fake, even to children -- but we accepted them because 1) we could recognize the artistry, 2) we willingly suspended out disbelief to have a good time at the movies, and 3) well, it was all we had to tell this kind of story. CGI is far more photorealistic than any of those earlier techniques, and requires just as much (if not more) artistic skill and man-hours of research and effort to produce. Why does it matter if it doesn't look 100% photo-real? No effects technique does. It's the best set of tools we have to tell fantasy stories.

 

It also makes producing sci-fi, fantasy and comic book movies a lot easier, which is why we've had a huge glut of these movies over the past 15 years in the first place, since the things are in the directors' heads are a lot more easily achievable, or maybe even achievable at all, with computers.

\

The first task in the Triwizard Tournament is a good example There are over 300 special effects shots in this one sequence alone. In many cases everything including the actors, was done entirely in the digital medium. This was great action sequence in a franchise filled with topnotch action and special effects. Could you imagine trying to do something like this with models and puppets?

 

Agreed. It's like they're aesthetically torn between a desire to replicate the somewhat cartoony palette of the games and a strive towards realism to blend the effects better with the live actors, and consequently it didn't land in a good place.

 

Yeah, spot on. It feels like Ray Harryhausen effects in a Sergio Leone movie.

 

It just seems like another generic, run of the mill fantasy movie. I'm getting a Hobbit vibe from it too unfortunately.

 

I think it looks great.

But it also depends on the whole movie and actually seeing it on a non-digital medium like a movie screen.

 

The Good, the Bad and the Kraken? I would watch this in an instant.

Generic and run of the mill? It's incredibly unique visually and thematically, and has phenomenal artistry on display. There's never been a fantasy film exploring issues of racism or xenophobia between orcs and humans, which is what I gather the plot is from this trailer. You're right to cite The Hobbit as a similar work, since WoW is derived from or inspired by D&D, which was in turn inspired in part by Tolkien's works. But how that might translate into similar flaws in the cinema is something you'll have to clarify, since the writers, director and production team are totally unrelated to the Peter Jackson group.

 

Not really. WoW is reskinned Warhammer Fantasy, with just a few strands from D&D. But anyway, this is faithful to the Warcraft art style, that's not the problem. Nor is the use of CGI, which is fantastic if not vomited on screen, just like any other SFX.

It's the use of subpar CGI (seriously, this is cheap) and the shoddy integration of it with live actors.

 

This right here is what I mean when I say it reminds me of The Hobbit.

 

Well, we can argue if you like about the influence D&D had on all fantasy RPGs to follow, including Warhammer. But that's an aside. If you deem the CGI in this incredibly beautiful and artfully presented trailer to be "subpar" and "shoddy", then I can't respond to that with anything beyond a typical Lebowski "That's just, like, your opinion, man." I think it's gorgeous.

 

I agree, they could have made it really cartoony looking, but they seem to have struck a good balance between Blizzard's visual aesethic, which to be fair is slightly cartoonish, and the more realistic elements.

 

Duh.

 

This is the problem: there's absolutely nothing wrong with CG. CG is great. It's amazing. You see it in literally every single movie and tv show you watch constantly in almost every scene and usually have probably no idea you're seeing it. The problem is when you run into a giant project with a not well constructed artistic decision (live action interacting with full CG characters), it's not going to be enough to work. There are times when CG can stand alone, we *could* make a movie on this scale nowadays and have fully realistic CG everything. But that would take an excessive amount of time and resources, something no film project has. The best looking films out there for fantasy/sci fi are always the ones that know how to combine CG on top of practical effects, because it factors in the time limit and money of the project. I think a lot of people treat it like a bandaid - oh, do it in post. We'll fix it in post. Just do it in CG. But CG is just another tool to getting a job done, and like all tools you need to know how to..... there's a joke here but I can't think of it.

Anyways yeah they should have decided between doing the entire movie like a blizzard cinematic or the whole thing in more live action/not fully 100% cg characters. It's weird because the Legion trailer was shown the same day, and that looked SO MUCH BETTERRRR. Granted they had the same timeframe this movie was being made to make a 3 minute trailer but dayum.

Anyways the point is, don't hate on the CG, hate on the bigwig producer or whoever in charge decided that this movie should be made this way without making up its mind on what style it is.

 

So you're basically saying hate on Blizzard? You better hide, I think I hear the Warcrack geeks sharpening their pitchforks

 

The decision on the style looks pretty clear to me. Lifelike photorealism with a penchant for cartoonish exaggeration in the design. No need to "hate" anyone for making that choice.

 

Well, as derivative and unoriginal as it is, I've been a fan of Warcraft lore since Warcraft II, so I will probably see this. I can't wait to see if they're going to pull out Thorin Oakenshield smooching with Princess Fiona, but this trailer doesn't make me any hopeful.

 

Naw far from it, I love Blizzard and I'll be seeing the movie and loving it regardless. I'm sure the rest of it is great. I also don't blame Blizz for this because they're not a movie studio, the film has just been passed between a million different studios.

So what, only you're allowed to have an opinion? I'll just take my CG opinions and go home. It's not like I have any idea what I'm talking about anyways.

 

Who says you're not allowed? We're all expressing opinions here. Hence the "discussion" part of "discussion forum".

 

Bee in your bonnet.

 

I think the other thing to keep in mind is that they have about eight more months to work on all that CGI. As with the Jurassic World trailers, the closer we get to the release, the better everything is going to look.

 

No idea what that means.

 

Her opinion is informed, though. That's why I tagged her in this thread, to hear her take on it.

 

On what account do you believe that mine isn't informed? This seems like another culture war, in which the people who have decided that something sucks pretend that their opinion is smarter or better than those who enjoy the disputed thing, or find value in it that the others can't see.