More Details on The Warcraft Movie

Gamespot had a talk with Paul Sams, Blizzard COO, and dug up some additional details on the Warcraft film. From the article: "We're not trying to take what we've done and...try to make a literal translation to the big screen. What we want to do is to make a great movie that happens to be set in a video game universe. That's a differentiator, and a key differentiator. A lot of it comes down to picking the right people. A lot of the other video game movies that have come out before this haven't had the budgets, the right people, and haven't had the right mindset. We and Legendary want to make a great film, an event picture, big-budget picture, that is a great stand-alone, fantasy-based movie that is good for you regardless of whether you're familiar with the Warcraft universe."

Comments

It won't be a Warcraft movie

[DoctaWatson]

If it doesn't have a half dozen naked gnomes dancing in front of an auction house.

That is awesome...

[JoeLinux]

It's amazing how much people like it when you either stay true to the source material (LoTR, Punisher, Spiderman, etc.), or declare that "this is new, don't compare" (Battlestar Galactica, etc.).

I'm wondering though how they are going to be able to tell a story in a universe that has such a well-established time-line, story and characters. Will it be like "Signs", in which the main story is off playing elsewhere, while our characters are involved with their own struggles?

For that matter, WHAT THE HELL IS HAPPENING WITH THE METROID MOVIE? I mean, I'm glad Woo is off of it...I don't think I'd like to see white doves flying off while Samus fires in slow-motion.

However, seeing metroid attacking white doves would kick ass....hmm....what a quandry...

Lost In Translation

[ThePuceGuardian]

"We're not trying to take what we've done and...try to make a literal translation to the big screen.

Good thing, too. Otherwise you'd stand in line outside the theatre for 2 hours - only to be randomly sent back outside to stand in line some more once you were seated.

... and the movie wouldn't start unless there were 40 people in the seats..

Re:Lost In Translation

[crerwin]

And once it starts playing, it is 4 hours long and there's a 90% chance that at the end it turns out it wasn't the correct movie and you have to come back and do more "theater runs" until the right one plays. Of course if you don't have time for all of this, they don't care :p

Re:Lost In Translation

[snuf23]

... and the movie wouldn't start unless there were 40 people in the seats..

Which means the theater lobby will be full of people shouting "LFG WoW Movie run!"
Once the theater is full the movie is likely to only run at about 5 frames per second.

Re:Lost In Translation

[xutopia]

Each time you get sent back to the back of the line it grows bigger each time. And when the movie starts the power goes out and someone yells "Leeroy!!! NOT AGAIN!!!"

Right people...

[grub]

A lot of it comes down to picking the right people.

That leaves Uwe Boll out of the picture...

Egad, man...

[The-Bus]

"A lot of the other video game movies that have come out before this haven't had the budgets..."

(Note: All numbers adjusted for inflation).

Ahh, yes, lack of money. Let's look at some video game movie budgets. Resident Evil: Apocalypse was $44MM. The recent Silent Hill was $50MM. The charming Super Mario Bros. was about $57MM. Oh, and we all liked that Doom movie: it cost $70MM. And who could forget Tomb Raider at a whopping $87MM.

Now, I've sat through most of these movies. At no point did I look into the screen and say... "Wow, if they only had more money, this would've been so much better."