How is this 7.0?
This movie was god awful!
shareI've asked that of everyone who claimed that that the movie didn't have a good audience reception. They didn't have an answer.
share
MovieChat Forums > Warcraft (2016) Discussion > How is this 7.0?
Weird as this may sound, "god awful" is in the eye of the beholder.
shareYeah... it deserves even little bit higher rating.. 7.3/10
I think most people either didn't watch it at all, or watched it then didn't care for it and forgot about it. These people likely wouldn't go to the trouble of finding and rating it online, so this leaves only the people who did like it as the ones who bothered to rate it. Hence the relatively high score.
shareBy that logic, then no movie on IMDb should have a rating lower than 5. Yet they exist. Yes, most people don't bother to rate movies online in general but the people who do should at least represent a decent sample.
In principle, a high score should encourage more people to watch the movie and if they don't like it, then at least some of them should down vote it, thus mitigating any skewing of the ratings over time.
I don't want to get too far into this as I'm not an expert in how the voting system works, but I do think a film is a little more likely to be sought out online by someone who likes it than someone who doesn't.
There's also the fact that the film was released recently and ratings can drop over time. For instance, Avatar was in the top 250 for a while after its release but has long since left.
And the movie isn't yet playing on TV, which (being viewed at home) allows people to look it up online immediately after viewing it, whether or not they liked it.
There is a simpler explanation than your theory: the film, for all its flaws, is a very loyal adaptation of the Warcraft lore. As the main audience was the games' fans, they easily overlooked the minor flaws and the weaker human performances. Thus the score not so much the score of the film but of the "Warcraft" film (I don't know if the distinction is clear, you'll tell me.)
To me it's simple as that: when the target audience is respected, the score is high.
Yeah, I only wish that could of helped a bit more at the box office so that it could of been a genuine hit. The problem is that the while the fans are the target audience, it needs to actually satisfy 2 audiences to really be successful, the other one being the non-fan but casual moviegoer. It might of alienated a lot of that second audience or at the very least, they ignored it in theatres, now the state of a possible sequel for us is in doubt because of that ): .
shareOh, I agree.
And I believe that if the execs hadn't forced cuts equating to nearly a third of the movie's script, it would have worked much better for general audiences. When you cut the explanations, familiar fans probably won't mind but others...
Also, if the trailers had been good, and hadn't used dubstep. Because we all know Warcraft = Dubstep. Just like Assassin's Creed = Kanye West. Obviously.
Id give it a 6. Wasn't bad, but had very little original elements. I would watch a sequel of ot was made however.
share