Talk:Warcraft (film)

Accolades

I've just noticed that Warcraft has been nominated for two Annie Awards:

http://annieawards.org/nominees/#11

http://annieawards.org/nominees/#14

Should these be included in the article? 197.88.132.236 (talk) 20:47, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Home Media Section

So, what hasn't been mentioned in the article yet is that the DVD/Blu-Ray releases for the film are already on pre-order though they haven't been released yet. Should a section for home media be added to the article? It can be updated when they are released in October. 197.88.9.65 (talk) 19:58, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Addition of plot

Could I please request that the plot not be added yet, and that I write up the plot after June 16 when the film is released in Australia? I'm planning on seeing the movie on its opening night here, but I don't want to remove the article from my watchlist to avoid spoilers such a long way out from when I can see the movie, as I want to keep contributing to the article up until then. It would be unfair to put it in now, especially as it hasn't even been released domestically yet. Thanks. 4TheWynne^{(talk)(contribs)} 08:16, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

What a silly thing to ask. See WP:SPOILER. Wikipedia does not stop just because some people have not seen the movie yet. In fact, there are some people who came here to see the story to see if they want to see the movie or not. I'm disappointed that it's not here to be honest and I hope that it's not because of one editor. MisterShiney ✉ 09:52, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Sorry about that – it was a harmless question, and I didn't know about the guideline. I didn't think about it that way. However, I am not actually preventing anyone from editing the section, even if some people are venting their anger for coming here and not finding an actual plot. It seems silly to say that people come here to read the plot just to see if they want to see the movie, because I don't agree that that's what the section is for. Again, though, my apologies. 4TheWynne^{(talk)(contribs)} 11:47, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Don't fret it. No request is too silly. Hope you enjoy the movie as much as I did. MisterShiney ✉ 13:42, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Some unregistered user removing parts of links

There is an unregistered user (comes up as "2601:584:c500:192b:55b4:b032:2e32:f48b") that keeps removing parts of the article, and is removing part of a link whilst keeping the rest of the link intact. I have reverted the page twice, but someone might have to keep an eye on things. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.168.232.229 (talk) 12:07, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

The user has been warned. Hopefully the issue will not surface again. 4TheWynne^{(talk)(contribs)} 13:42, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

By the way, there was previously a mention that Mark Kermode gave it a positive review. Why was that removed? Can someone revert that edit to put it back? It's still valid. 197.88.132.214 (talk) 15:35, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Excessively long plot summary

This edit was what expanded the plot summary, which I previously constrained within 700 words when I wrote the original one. There have been other edits to the plot summary since then, so I'm not going to revert it outright, but here is the original, shorter plot summary, in case someone wants to take a shot at shortening the current one. - Sikon (talk) 07:08, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Don't worry – once I get a chance to see the film in a week's time, I'll have a look at the plot and it will be fixed/shortened. 4TheWynne^{(talk)(contribs)} 07:23, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Critics vs Audiances

Should we add some more notes about the positive response of audiences in the review area or is that reserves mainly for critics and disregarding audience opinions? 63.225.80.36 (talk) 21:08, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

User reviews are viewed as unsuitable/unreliable per WP:USERG. If there's reliable sources that are discussing the disparity in some detail it might be appropriate to note. But the user reviews from the public on Metacritic and Rotten Tomato cannot be directly used. Too often these sites are influenced by social media or other campaigns that direct users to up vote or down vote and overwhelm legitimate users who are trying to leave objective reviews. -- ferret (talk) 21:11, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Ahh, so I assume that Cinemascore thing with the B+ from audiences is more like a Gallup Poll or something, as they took a bunch of people who weren't predisposed to it and asked them or something. Ok, no random people reviews it is! Though I won't agree with you that paid (or unpaid) "critics" are objective :D 63.225.80.36 (talk) 05:14, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

A viewer rating at whatever website is based on a self-selected sample of people with internet access who use that particular site and decided to look the movie up after seeing it (or, in some cases, not seeing it) to rate it. (Hate Kirk Cameron? Go to Rotten Tomatoes and give his latest film zero stars. Love Kirk Cameron? Listen to his pleas to go to Rotten Tomatoes and give it 5 stars.) Cinemascore is a bit better, using a selection of people who saw the film at a number of theaters to satisfy their statistical guidelines. It's still going to be biased by who went to see the film. High audience scores for a Kirk Cameron film would tell you that people going to see films aimed at Evangelical Christians like films aimed at Evangelical Christians. That high rating for the Justin Bieber film doesn't mean that Joe Sixpack would like it (though his 11 year old daughter might). - SummerPhD^v2.0 14:22, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

You're comparing religious people with video gamers? Did you know warcraft players are very diverse, are 50-50 male-female, have an average age of about 40 and live in all countries? and guess what, those kinds of people arent similar like brainwashed cultists could ever be. In fact, brainwashed cultists are the least representative group, theyre white, stupid and come from poor rural states. Horrible comparison is horrible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.53.131.154 (talk) 01:10, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Okay, so now who added the audience score from Rotten Tomatoes to the article now? I agree with the above poster that including audience scores from aggregator websites can be a bit dicey and possibly skewed. While the audience scores are dropping very slowly, it's possibly because it's mostly fans of the game that are going to see the movie as well as enjoying but that doesn't have much bearing on how the general audience will view it and they don't even seem to attracted to it in large numbers given that the movie not only opened very poorly domestically in the US but also that ticket sales seem to be dropping quite dramatically all over the world despite it opening in first place in most of them. That said, there is a discrepancy between audience opinions and critic opinions even if it's mostly past and present Warcraft fans going to see it but I think that just showing the rating from CinemaScore is sufficient to show that. 197.82.206.70 (talk) 15:05, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

That was Perhelion. I've removed it, with an edit summary referring the editor to this talk page. - SummerPhD^v2.0 16:42, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Could we change the sentence "The film received mostly negative reviews and has grossed over $306 million." to "Although the film received mostly negative reviews, it has grossed over $306 million."? Seems like this would better reflect the difference between critical and audience reactions without explicitly citing audiences as an objective source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.33.89.248 (talk) 01:13, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

 Done. 4TheWynne^{(talk)(contribs)} 01:26, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

There is an huge discrepancy between Critics vs Audiances (~30% vs. >+80%) not only one page, this should be mentioned in the article. To remove this is any other than objective. Opinions are manipulated by a few, so do not be deciding the common people. Let's make Wikipedia. Have you another example for such huge discrepancy? PS: The argument WP:USERG don't apply really, because it are the same reliable source pages and this is not direct user content, it is an fully notable vote statistic. → User: Perhelion 17:14, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Yes, there is a large discrepancy between critics and audiences. Critics rate all films, with an eye toward helping people decide if they will enjoy the film. Audience scores are typically from people who go to see the film in the first weekend or so. In the present case, this would be mostly fans of the game. Discrepancies of this type are common.

Audience ratings on Rotten Tomatoes, IMDb and similar are subject to deliberate spoofing, with Kirk Cameron's films being an example. When critics' scores were quite low, Cameron took to the web to cry foul, asking his defenders to flood the site with positive votes. When word of this spread, his critics (likely including many who had not seen the film) flooded the site with negative votes.

Additionally, such sites do not reflect the demographics of the general population, skewing heavily toward males, under 30s and the middle class and above.

As the audience score is generated by votes on the site, that score is clearly subject to WP:USERG. - SummerPhD^v2.0 19:02, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Ok lets stop talking about political correctness and wikipedia guidelines for a second. This movie is clearly a hate or love movie, and the critics clearly hates it and audiences like it in general, and this wikipedia community on this article are doing their best to hide this fact. The video game community, social media and even general audiences are almost unanimous into thinking the critics are too harsh. It even seems as if the negative-hungry critic industry jumped on the occasion to write the most scathing reviews possible, because that attracts readership(and to that I allow to say to myself, DUH). I have no idea about wikipedia guidelines, but this movie will definitely grow into a cult movie following, which all other cult movies have NO TROUBLE writing in their article. There is no reason this side to the reaction should be CENSORED. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.53.131.154 (talk) 00:39, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

ok I also have to add that blade runner had mixed reviews when it first came out. thats proof if anything is that critics can be wrong. why is wikipedia made in such a way as to obfuscate this fact as much as possible? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.53.131.154 (talk) 01:01, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Listen, I'm a fan of the Warcraft games and the movie. You can't include user reviews because they are not objective and most people who went to see the movie are already fans of the game and those are the people voting on there. The audience score on Rotten Tomatoes is even dropping slowly, it's now at 79%. 197.88.132.9 (talk) 09:31, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

The sections above (and the other below) already discuss the Wikipedia policies in play. We're not going to ignore them just because fans of the movie post push for inclusion of user reviews. A movie isn't a "cult movie" right off the bat. Those other cult movie articles are backed by reliable sources that proclaim them as such. When there are reliable sources discussing the cult status of the Warcraft movie and how it gained a cult following, we'll GLADLY add them. I don't believe any reliable sources exist for that currently, but if you know of any, please, feel free to list them here. Again, note that generally anything that accepts user submitted reviews is not reliable. We need reliably secondary sources discussing it. -- ferret (talk) 02:26, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 June 2016

At the end of the critic reception section, add this:

Mark Kermode also gave a positive review of the film on the BBC Radio 5 Live show Kermode and Mayo's Film Review, praising the extent to which the director Duncan Jones (whom he rates highly) was able to give his own feel to the 'juggernaut' of the Warcraft franchise and showing surprise at his own emotional engagement with the film and the characters.

197.88.132.214 (talk) 15:59, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template.  ^B E _C K ^Y _S A ^{Y L} E _S  23:37, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm not that familiar with Wikipedia rules. How do I establish consensus? Should I start a discussion about it? I'd like to hear about the pros and cons of doing it. The main reason why I wanted to add it back there was because it was in the article before and I don't see any reason to remove it. When a movie is getting mostly negative reviews it's sometimes helpful to include a counter-example, though I see that the article has kept the one from Crash Landed. 197.82.206.70 (talk) 18:20, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

References

Semi-protected edit request on 13 June 2016

The movie premiered in Paris and was out in France before the US. Change the date of release, the location and also the text that states that it premiered June the 6th because it's bullcrap...

https://blizzheart.com/en/wow/world-premiere-of-the-warcraft-movie-at-the-grand-rex/ 82.224.169.51 (talk) 12:17, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

 Not done – I think you're getting the meaning of "premiere" wrong. The world premiere of the film (which was sourced at the time prior to its international release) was at the TCL Chinese Theatre in Los Angeles on June 6, after several of the international release dates. The article that you've provided gives details for the French premiere. "Premiere", in this case, does not mean the earliest release of the film. 4TheWynne^{(talk)(contribs)} 12:34, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 June 2016

Respectfully request an edit of information in the critical reception section of this article. "Although the critics reception has been primarily negative, the audience score has been overwhelmingly positive. Audience score on metacritic and rotten tomato's is 8.6 and 8.3 respectively."

As well as another edit below when mentioning the article written by Mr. Berkshire of Variety Magazine. The edit I would like to take place mentions how the article authored by Mr. Berkshire has been widely criticized for being inaccurate and bias. Here is a comment written by a reader "After reading this, and a few other of Mr. Berkshire’s literary works of art, it is clear to me that he is deeply and madly in love with his own voice. Drowned in cynisism and chalk full of a “word of the day calendar” volcabulary, Mr. B attempts to poo-poo on anything he is unfamiliar with. Case and point, his total lack of imagination and the diminishing attention span (due to years of trying to figure out how Twitter works) has lead him to write a piece on the film, “Warcraft.” The article, composed almost entirely of buzz words is begging to be picked up by CNN and reported as fact. However, the only fact is that Mr. B’s article seems to be fabricated entirely from bullshit, and lacks any sincerity or depth. The only conclusion that can be drawn from this is that Berkshire has never actually seen the film. If I had to guess the source of his information, it was most likely derived from bits and pieces of other articles that had been written by the likes of The NY Times and Forbes. The latter of which also wrote a review of the “Warcraft” film without even seeing the movie first. Either that, or he sent an intern who happens to be a 23 year old vegan social justice warrior to see the movie in lieu of himself, who undoubtedly came back “offended” after seeing it. Either way, writing an article criticizing anything that doesn’t fit into your pseudo- Bohemian existence is lame. Maybe you should leave movie reviews to Jeremy, the sandwich cart guy"

Stefann Miles (talk) 22:11, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Not done: We do not include user reviews, as has already been explained above in #Critics vs Audiances. -- ferret (talk) 22:22, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

References

Proposed: additional critic section

I do strongly propose another critic section in contrast to the "reputative" criticals. The "Reaction of the fans" differs completely, it is mainly strong positive, and that is the main target-group.

The audience gives a rating of 82% (of 44,219 ratings). Rotten Tomatoes Metacritic: 86% (of 1,662 ratings) IMDb: 76% (of 70.625 ratings)^[1] → User: Perhelion 17:44, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

References

As discussed above, these scores are user generated content. We cannot use them, let alone base a section on them. - SummerPhD^v2.0 19:35, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Agree with SummerPhD. This is a common occurrence with both film and video games, as the scores on these sites are easily manipulated. For anything like this to be included, you need a reliable secondary source that is directly discuss the discrepancies. The scores themselves do not provide this. -- ferret (talk) 20:49, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 June 2016

Add {{Pp-semi}} template.

--186.84.46.227 (talk) 20:53, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Done -- ferret (talk) 21:13, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Loosely based on the first game

Duncan Jones stated the film is based on the first game (I could search for the interview if there is no such source here right now). I think we could declare in the article that the film is loosely based on the first game because it sure don't base directly on WC 2,3 or WOW (Though it borrow elements from WC2+3). Ben-Yeudith (talk) 12:59, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Ben-Yeudith, without a source, there's no way we can simply "declare in the article" anything. At the moment, there is none. 4TheWynne^{(talk)(contribs)} 07:46, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Actually, Duncan Jones and Chris Metzen said in interviews that it's loosely based on the first game. All we have to do is find them and link to them. 154.117.181.194 (talk) 10:33, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

These sources might use for that:

http://io9.gizmodo.com/director-duncan-jones-answers-all-your-burning-question-1781663557

http://collider.com/warcraft-duncan-jones-interview/

http://www.pcgamer.com/duncan-jones-on-pc-gaming-and-warcraft/

He admits it more clearly in some Youtube interviews (at least 2 I think); If I'll bump into them I might put it here. Ben-Yeudith (talk) 06:24, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

The relationship between Garona and Anduin

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I added the following sentence to the plot section:

Medivh is severely weakened, and Garona and Khadgar take him back to Karazhan to recover. While recovering, Medivh tells Garona how he understands what it is like to be a foreigner in a far a way land, and gifts her with a portal transport to Anduin so that she could comfort (and mate with) him. Meanwhile, after noticing Medivh's eyes shine green, showing that he is infected by fel magic, Khadgar returns to his former home, Dalaran, to seek help from the Kirin Tor, the authority of human and high elven mages.

It appears that user:4TheWynne reverted the edit saying "not as relevant to the plot as the information around it, as well as being poorly written". In order to avoid an edit war, I would like to have this discussed here instead.

From my perspective, the existence of Garona (a half orc half human in a realm that has no humans) is a mystery. Medivh's description of his travels is the only clue in the movie for how Garona might have come to be. Also, him sending her to Anduin is important to demonstrate her connection with humans (and the relationship Anduin has for her). So I would argue that this is quite important for the plot (even if not as the two sentences surrounding it). And if this is poorly written, I would appreciate a re-write instead of just reverting.

With regards, Tal Galili (talk) 17:07, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Alright, let's look at this in detail – apologies for not trying to discuss this earlier.

Firstly, "comfort (and mate with) him". Comfort, yes, but I think that's as far as it goes. Where do you get any sort of inclination that she has been sent back to mate with him? Yes, they share an intimate moment, but that's just Garona trying to comfort him while he's telling her stories about his son. She's not trying to seduce him or anything.

Secondly, "Medivh tells Garona how he understands what it is like to be a foreigner in a [faraway] land". While this is a slightly better version of the phrase than what you had implemented before, and while it might hold some relevance (if at all), importantly, nowhere in the film is it explicitly stated or even hinted at that she has any connection or relation to Medivh (and/or that she is half-human), and there is no explicit hint given in this particular instance.

Thirdly, furthermore, Talgalili, you say, "Medivh's description of his travels is the only clue in the movie for how Garona might have come to be. Also, him sending her to Anduin is important to demonstrate her connection with humans (and the relationship Anduin has [with] her)". He's telling her his personal story! Medivh doesn't talk about Garona or even hint at anything to do with her in this story – you think there's something going on just because he's talking to her and her alone? And none of this, even her being sent back to Stormwind, has nothing to do with "the relationship Anduin has for her". There is no evidence to support any of this.

While I hate to sound like a killjoy, and I apologise again for not going about it the right way sooner, I've seen the movie three times in the cinemas and at no stage have I ever had any reason to believe any of this. I think that for the above reasons (and the fact that we don't always have to explicitly state what every character says, as it takes away from the plot), I don't think that this should be added. These reasons aren't opinions; this is what I gather to be the facts. 4TheWynne^{(talk)(contribs)} 00:58, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Dear user:4TheWynne,

I don't have the movie in front of me, but I have a vague recollection that Medivh said to Garona that Anduin would be a good mate. But perhaps I am mistaken.

I accept your criticism that the movie is not explicit about who is Agrona's father.

It still remains to decide if having Garona comfort Anduin (with or without intimate action) is relevant to the plot line. Since they are both key figures in the plot, I would say that this is an important aspect of their relationship (for example, for helping us understand the level of betrayal Anduin must feel when discovering Garons dagger). Wouldn't you agree? Tal Galili (talk) 07:44, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Not necessarily. I don't see how it's a significant action, nor do I think that it in any way substantiates "the level of betrayal Anduin must feel" when we discovers Garona's dagger in King Llane's neck. She's just trying to comfort him – and not because Medivh asked her to. 4TheWynne^{(talk)(contribs)} 23:00, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Here is the dialog between Garona and Medich:

Garona: "I argued for the meeting, Lothar will hate me"

Medivh: "this upsets you?"

Garona: "he is a great warrior, he defends his people well."

Medivh: "A good mate for an orc."

Garona: "I am no orc. I am no human either."

Medivh: "When I was younger,

I used to feel apart from my

I traveled far and wide,

looking for... wisdom.

Feel a connection with all the souls

I was charged with protecting.

On my travel, I met

a strong and noble people.

Among them, a female,

who accepted me for what I was.

Who loved me.

It was not a life

I was fated to have,

but it taught me something.

If love is what you need,

you must be willing to travel

to the end the world to find it.

You left your mate.

Go find Lothar.

Step inside the circle.

This... is my gift to you,

Garona."

Are you sure you wish to keep your position in this matter? Tal Galili (talk) 11:25, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

OK, so you just threw in a bunch of dialogue from the scene in question. What are you trying to prove? 4TheWynne^{(talk)(contribs)} 11:49, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

I think that Garona is in love with Anduin, and that it is not unlikely that she did not just comfort him as a "friend", but more likely as a lover. For example, the symbol for the transport magic Medivh was a flower. It felt to have been more about romance than about friendship. Currently, there is nothing in the plot text to suggest a romantic relationship between the two, although it appears to be strongly hinted (both through the discussion of how orc mating is like, in an earlier section - as well as in this scene and of how she kissed Anduin, and not just hugged him as a friend). So to say that just because we didn't see a ring, or an explicit mention of an affair that it is not likely, is (IMHO) a simplistic interpretation of the scene. I think it should somehow be added to the plot section, and since you suggest my addition was not well written - I'll appreciate to see a suggestion by you (assuming you agree with my argument).

Tal Galili (talk) 13:03, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

You are very much entitled to your opinion – we all are – but unfortunately, that's all that it is. We are not writing up a plot section for a film in order to speculate. You might think that something is strongly hinted at in this scene, but somebody else will look at the film and have a completely different outlook on the situation. That, in particular, is why the proposed addition of said text (or whatever it is that you want to add) can't be decided by just two people, one of whom agrees and one who disagrees. And if nobody else has contributed to this discussion in the four days since it was added, then this either needs to be turned into an RfC, or dropped entirely, as there has been no consensus reached to add the text. In my opinion, I think you have misinterpreted several aspects of the aforementioned scene, and your proposed argument very much appears to me like an exaggeration of what is actually happening in the film. And in case I haven't already made it clear enough, I strongly disagree with your argument. 4TheWynne^{(talk)(contribs)} 11:08, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

It's now been three days since there's been any discussion, and four days since you last added your opinion, so I'm closing this discussion as no consensus. Like I said, you're more than welcome to start an RfC, but either way, you will have to continue this discussion in a new section. 4TheWynne^{(talk)(contribs)} 05:03, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Languages

What fictional languages are talked in the film? Orkish and human ones, what are they? --Infovarius (talk) 20:33, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

@Infovarius: The human language is Common and the orcish language is Orcish. Please observe WP:NOTFORUM. --Izno (talk) 22:43, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the links. I was just wondering why isn't there information about it in this article (but I suppose it should be). --Infovarius (talk) 10:50, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

@Infovarius: I have trouble understanding how which exact languages they're speaking would be anything but WP:TRIVIAL, and certainly unnecessary for the plot section (if that's where you think that would go). No other sections would appropriately hold that information, so I might suggest it's not appropriate for the article. --Izno (talk) 12:44, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

How about infobox? @Izno: --Infovarius (talk) 15:45, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

@Infovarius: Not entirely what you are referencing. --Izno (talk) 15:51, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, I could not parse your sentence. I propose to add these languages to "English" in infobox, as they are spoken in the film. --Infovarius (talk) 14:03, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

@Infovarius:I flubbed a word. I would disagree with their addition per WP:WAF, but you are welcome to invite participation from WT:FILM to see if they have an opinion. --Izno (talk) 14:06, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Warcraft: The Beginning

I was thinking that in the event Blizzard opts to release more films following up on the storyline of this one, then wouldn't it make sense to include the whole title as a means of differentiating it from other titles? Especially with regards to the first game, which is still titled as Warcraft. Simply put, I'm asking if we can change the article name to Warcraft: The Beginning so that interested will find it easier to differentiate from other titles in the series. Zach (talk) 03:12, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

@Sapphirewhirlwind: That would requires a crystal ball to foresee such which additionally is not particularly conformant to our policy on article titles. --Izno (talk) 12:23, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Break even

It's better clarify the meaning of "The Hollywood Reporter reported the film needed to earn at least $450 million to break-even.". The first thought of "break-even" is $160 million. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 185.124.154.124 (talk) 18:02, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for your suggestion. When you believe an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the edit this page link at the top.
The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold in updating pages. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes—they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome. You don't even need to log in (although there are many reasons you might want to). —♦♦ AMBER^(ЯʘCK) 14:54, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Films have other costs besides the production budget such as the marketing costs. Also the box office gross is split between the studios and the theaters. The introduction to the article List of box office bombs explains it further but as a rule of thumb a film needs to make back double the budget before it breaks even. -- 109.79.180.20 (talk) 19:53, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Warcraft (film)/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: P,TO 19104 (talk · contribs) 20:19, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Lots of citations. Article is very pleasing passes all the following catergories

Well written: yes -- presents lots of comparisons

Verifiable with no original research: yes -- lots of citations

Broad in its coverage: yes

Neutral: yes -- seems so Stable: yes Illustrated: yes

Problematic review

This review was conducted by a new Wikipedian, taking about 20 minutes and clearly not following nor understanding the specific GA criteria. In a quick glance-through, I found grammatical issues, some places where concision and reorganization would help, and while I haven't checked the individual citations, it's clear that the reviewer did not either (nor did they check for close paraphrasing or copyvio), or the review would have taken far longer to do. It's clear that "no original research" isn't understood, either, if "lots of citations" is considered to be proof against it. I have removed the incorrectly placed templates on this page, and the nomination remains open. It is clear that a new reviewer will be needed. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:22, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

@Rusted AutoParts and BlueMoonset: Hi guys, dropping by to give a second opinion on this article. I agree that the initial review is problematic, and the previous review for this article also doesn't seem that helpful. In my opinion, there is quite a bit of work needed to be done here to get this article up to scratch. As far as production information goes I frankly don't feel that there is broad enough coverage to pass a GA review. Especially for a film as big as this where there is surely far more information out there about how it was made. The box office section seems like overkill, and the critical response section is really just the bare minimum. The cast list could probably do with a re-write, it looks like it has been copied from a press release. My suggestion would be to fail this review, give Rusted a good amount of time to research and expand the article, then request a full copy edit before nominating the article for GA review again, but I won't make any decisions about the review until you guys have responded since I'm not the actual reviewer. - adamstom97 (talk) 23:38, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

I have to agree. At a first reading, lots of flags show: the lead jumps right into detail about the game scenario as if the reader knows this; the plot section is on the long side; the filming section is short enough and the music section seemingly unnecessary enough that the latter can be removed and the production section rid of sub-headings; the box office section is the longest part of the page, 6 paragraphs longer than the release section... that's not good... the box office section should never be that long normally, let alone in an article that skimps on details everywhere else; why talk about a sequel that is not happening? These things at least would be nice to fix before a GA nom, and should certainly be brought up during. Kingsif (talk) 04:03, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Little is done since the last time anyone commented here. I wonder what's next... I^,,_.iasO 05:04, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

I'll ping nominator Rusted AutoParts, he's probably willing to work on the article. Kingsif (talk) 11:46, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

If the feeling is there's still much to be done before a GA, then I'd say go ahead and fail. Rusted AutoParts 20:46, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

@Adamstom.97: I'll leave it to you. Kingsif (talk) 12:57, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Very well, I have failed the review per consensus here. There are comments above as to what needs to be improved before the article should be nominated again. Good luck! - adamstom97 (talk) 20:25, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

How to handle rumours of sequel development

So there is some rumour news recently that a sequel could be in development afterall. My source on this is WoWhead (Community-run site. No official association with Blizzard), who cite a tweet from Chris Metzen, who based his news on this article by MovieWeb. Given the heading in the article is "Possible Sequel", I feel that we cannot not post rumours (obviously depending on level of reliability). We should either be able to provide this news, or change the section heading to something that does not attract said news. I'm more than happy to help filter out weightless gossip, but I'd argue the section's current heading is not appropriate. -- Tytrox (talk) 06:45, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

The way to handle this is by not handling it. The information is not from a reliable source. Movieweb is citing someone they themselves call “relatively reliable“. Not exactly a great vote of confidence. Anyway the link to that source is on Patreon, and unless you financially support him you don’t see the scoop. So all we see is “according to this one dude on Patreon, who can be reliable at time, a sequel is in development”. It’s not strongly verified enough to justify inclusion. Rusted AutoParts 07:25, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

Adding a little more on in regards to Metzen; as he’s retired from Blizzard, and his Twitter isn’t verified, I wouldn’t put much water in the tweet either. Metzen (if it’s even him) going “hmmm” doesn’t corroborate the report. Rusted AutoParts 07:27, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

@Rusted AutoParts: Yep, OK. Good call. I'll leave it at that. -- Tytrox (talk) 15:46, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

"Warcraft(Film)" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Warcraft(Film) and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 March 25#Warcraft(Film) until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Steel1943 (talk) 17:56, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

Well, it seems that this is soon going to be overthrown

By the Mario Movie Serouj2000 (talk) 18:33, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

Break-even

@Midwood123 The citations aren't in the lead, as per WP:LEADCITE. They are in Warcraft (film)#Box office, in the second sentence. Remember that the lede summarizes the article body. Usually the citations are in the body where the content is discussed. All three sources explicitly mention break even and quote "industry sources". This is very typical sourcing and appropriate. -- ferret (talk) 21:52, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

I don't see anything in WP:LEADCITE explicitly preventing us from citing something that is also cited in the body. I think citing at least one of the three in the lead and then reusing the citation in the body would make sense. Regarding the text itself, it didn't say what it does in the body or the articles. The lead I removed said "However, it failed to reach its break-even point of $500 million after global marketing and distribution, thus making it a box-office bomb" while the body said "Given its $160 million production budget and additional $110 million spent on promotions, the film needed to earn $450–500 million in order to break-even." It's already a big difference because "$450-500 million" is not the same as "500 million". I also looked at the three sources you mentioned. The Hollywood Reporter one says "it’s not clear whether the movie will break-even", the Deadline one says "Deadline hears that Warcraft could end its run in the Middle Kingdom with $200M-$250M. In total a $500M global tally gets this ambitious humans vs. orcs story at break-even." and then the second Hollywood Reporter one says "Costing $160 million to make, Warcraft needs to earn $450 million or more to break-even." So, there is no consenses that it is $500 million or $450 million. Even Deadline says that $500M "gets this" to break-even, not that $499M wouldn't. Also, the text jumped to conclusions saying that made it a box office bomb, which is also not a word that was used in these three sources. Typically, if a movies makes twice its budget it is not a bomb (even if it didn't earn a profit). It made $439 million. Let's say it also made money in streaming and sales. That means it could have hit the $450 million break-even and that it was not a bomb (which is a word more reserved for highly unsuccessful movies and not movies that slightly missed the mark but still grossed over $400 million). My suggestion for a lead sentence would be the following: "The break-even point was estimated at $450-500 million dollars." and as a citiation we could use the second Hollywood Reporter article. What do you think? Midwood123 (talk) 22:26, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

I don't believe we need a cite in the lead here. This really isn't controversial. That said, simplifying that it did not make it's estimated break-even point is fine. That said, "flop" and "bomb" can easily be sourced, with justa fewquick examples. I don't think it needs high-lighted, but to say it can't be sourced is a bit off. -- ferret (talk) 01:58, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

"Warcraft(film)" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Warcraft(film) has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 November 20 § Warcraft(film) until a consensus is reached. Steel1943 (talk) 22:31, 20 November 2023 (UTC)