Talk:Warcraft (film)

From Wowpedia
Jump to: navigation, search

BlizzCon

Seems like we are going to get more information about this at August 4th 2007, between 12pm to 1pm (BlizzCon). Can't wait! Source: http://www.worldofraids.com/news/blizzcon-schedule.jpg

--Ragowit {talk · contr · qt eu} 19:48, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Comic parallel?

The kick-ass human and other minor details seem to be what the comic is about. It is a long shot.--SWM2448 00:51, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

At blizzcon 2007 movie panel in the Q&A section sameone asked Chris Metzen if the new human character in the movie was the same as in the comic and Metzen said that it was not. Zakolj 01:02, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
Here is the link [[1]] Zakolj 01:06, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
Oh.--SWM2448 01:08, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Trilogy?

User Aseh, what is the source of this information? ~ User:Nathanyelŋɑϑ 11:42, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

It is also known from selected sources that the Warcraft Movies will be a trilogy[citation needed] . The names[citation needed]  of each of the movie are listed here in order :

The Fall of Quel'Thalas,
The Caverans of Time,
The Battle of Mount Hyjal

I moved this here until (if) a citation is found. Zakolj 12:19, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Ok, this is clearly wrong, as not only are the events of the movie completely unrelated to these titles, but he didn't even spell "Caverns" of Time correctly. Blizzard has also gone on record (at Blizzcon I believe) to say a trilogy is NOT planned - they are waiting to see how well the first movie does before they even think about sequels.--WarlockSoL 19:32, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
Lol what a crock. Why do people like posting made up stuff? -- Raze 10:26, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
To see their name next to it, say the alleged "insider info". ~ User:Nathanyelŋɑϑ 14:13, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Warlock, I read it as "Caravans" first time :P Kirkburn  talk  contr 18:24, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Honestly, making things up is just stupid, because you are going to be found out sooner or later, and then everyone will hate you o_0 -Troy Frostwind 01:29, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
It would also be very interesting to make a film from the War of the Ancients novel..Rohnin and Brox going back in time fighting along side the NE and the Demogods...Dedokire (talk) 12:36, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Hopes

I hope that:

-it will not be an LotR clone, and that it won't be seen as such.
-the Horde races will be portrayed fairly and heroicly.
-the acting doesn't suck.
-there is good action.
-the plot isn't crap.

I am rather annoyed that they did not do what seems (to me) like the most logical course for a plot: set it DURING World of Warcraft and have it be about the Alliance and Horde having to overcome their differences in order to defeat a greater foe, the Burning Legion. That way there would be no risk of it becoming "noble humans & company slaughter barbaric orcs, trolls, cow-men, and evil zombies guys". Kraas 15:05, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

And what is the editorial value of this discussion? --Ragestorm (talk · contr) 15:40, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
I would have loved that idea. When the movie came out, there could have even been a world event like the two "put aside their differences" for a month or so and can go to either cities (pwnage, i could get a nightsaber) and not be attacked. Alliance 15.gif ?? Quest Giver Troy Frostwind, High Elf 15:37, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
But who cares? This section bears the beautiful name of "Hopes", and merely contains a blunt and premade critic of the movie when its plot has not yet even been revealed. You may talk here about what is important for the article itself, and put on your talk page or user page what you think about stuff, just like everyone else.--K ) (talk) 00:27, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
  • I hope that:
  • It is not too comical
  • The Horde is not evil
  • The Actors are good
  • Iconic Characters appear such as Mannaroth
  • We finally see Gnomes in media.

Personally I hope that it will be as good, if not better, as lotr. But the style should be different and wow should be plotwise not just a setting. I wonder if Illidan would be good for it. BobNamataki (talk) 21:20, October 19, 2009 (UTC)

Pre creation criticism

I've heard a lot of complaints about the film being Alliance favoring or selling out. Should this be given a small mention? Zarnks 23:21, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

No. Because for one thing speculation of that type isn't allowed, and fan opinions of Horde vs. Alliance are not allowed.Baggins 23:34, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I never said I agreed with the complaints but there a few boos at Blizzcon. Zarnks 23:38, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Again, fan opinions just aren't allowed. Discuss it here in the talk page all you like, but opinions from fans will stay out of the article for neutrality's sake.Baggins 23:40, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Heh, I hadn't even read that section when I answered to Troy above. Great job Baggins, don't let'em overwhelm us.--K ) (talk) 00:31, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I suspect the Alliance bias may be more based on cost than preference. It would be quite a bit more expensive to render lots of Horde characters (orcs, tauren, and trolls) than Alliance, especially if they're mostly human and night elf. If they have dwarves it will be interesting how they do it, but I doubt we'll see many gnomes. --Gengar orange 22x22.png Fandyllic (talk · contr) 4:34 PM PST 23 Feb 2009

Crash burn lets hope not....

In this movie i dont see how they could make a good plot i mean heck lets abmit it there is no story line to any online mmorpg wuth this they could use previous games like Warcraft orcs and humans or one of the books. i think also they are going to have a hard time with this and CG charecter such as the orcs no Dull looking charecters short on detail and if you have such a large fan base like WoW then you have to fufil over 10 milllion people. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Gamer3 (talk · contr).

First of all, that is not how you sign a post. Second, I'm afraid we don't care what you think. If you want to edit articles and contribute, welcome. If you just want to whine, goodbye. --Ragestorm (talk · contr) 03:29, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
There is a story if you don't just right click on quest giver and then instantly hit accept... ^_^ yea tricky little blizzards aren't they, you have TO READ!... Anyways the plot I have seen tossed around in interviews here and there is War of the Ancients which is an excellent selection to go for, atleast first movie wise... The books sold great and the story by Richard was and still is brilliant... In the future I see them doing the same as they have been doing with the books and pre-release content on the books before the content comes out on the game. IE... Sunwell was done on the Manga and before all the gates were opened all three issues has come out, it just opens that door so that people who are not hardcore raiders can see and feel the content and I am loving it. ^_^ Anyways, this will not crash in burn... --Kkotd (talk) 18:51, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
This comment by gamer3 ended up being a valid point. It's been 2 years and writing the script has halted production. Just speculating, Medivh seems to be central to Warcraft 1 and 3, its a shame they couldn't center a movie on him.--Canalguy (talk) 1:10, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Andruin?

I noticed on the actors page (in the silly category??) there was now Andruin Wyrnn, why is that, if the main charecter is human, then why isn't the king in it? Apollo579 (talk) 23:30, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Varian Wrynn?

blizz said that the movie will follow a "kick ass" human, which kinda raises the possibility that the comic will probably be tied in to the movie, but at some point in a blizzcon, they mentioned that the lead character in the comic won't be the same as the one in the movie, but anyway a lot of things are probably subject to change, and I'm kinda getting the hopes of seeing Varian as the lead character in the movie.. what do you guys think?--—The preceding unsigned comment was added by JoetheHoe (talk · contr).

You might very well think that, but we couldn't possibly comment. This is not a forum, we officially don't care. --Ragestorm (talk · contr) 13:44, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I personally think JoetheHoe is right in one of his assumptions. Metzen stated that this bad-ass character was going to be like a "Thrall of the Alliance" which suites Varian Wrynn perfectly as, similarly to Thrall, he was found and trained as a gladiator by the Orcs (under the Alias Lo'gosh) and just one look at him points him out to be a seriously hordey kind of guy. --Azkera 20:56 20 October 2008

I repeat, we don't care, this is not a forum. --Ragestorm (talk · contr) 00:36, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
While not really caring, this was debunked above.--SWM2448 01:05, 21 October 2008 (UTC)


Release Date

Given that almost nothing about this movie has been released, it's starting to appear increasingly unlikely that the movie will be released in 2009, not a single poster, production photo, or significant plot detail has been released and we're only a year away, for a movie stated to have a budget of over $100 million dollars, this is very unusual. Even worse, there hasn't been a director named, nor a specific release date, which have mostly been taken up for the spring-summer of 2009 already. Remember the Halo movie? Details about that film which is currently languishing in development hell were released shortly after it was announced. I imagine the writers strike has messed up the production schedule and Blizz and Legendary are being very reluctant to admit it to fans. Either Blizzard and Legendary are being incredibly secretive or this movie is having a hard time getting made. Lckyluke372 (talk) 04:43, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Would be nice to have the surprise login screen message: "Oh and btw, the movie's in theaters now. Go out and watch it." ~ Nathanyel (talk) 12:38, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
The movie is definitely not gonna make release in 2009. IMBD currently shows 2011. Unless Blizzard can keep up the WoW mojo, it will be increasingly hard to justify to the movie studios that a $100 million budget should be spent after the 2011 time-frame, especially if the franchise starts to fade. However, if a Warcraft movie can do anything near the Tomb Raider movies returns (and it should), at least one sequel will probably happen. --Gengar orange 22x22.png Fandyllic (talk · contr) 4:40 PM PST 23 Feb 2009

if something doesnt come up at Blizzcon 09 about the Warcraft Movie then i believe people are gonna give up on it. it would only make senses to announce news on a big motion picture aka movie at a great gathering of fans.--IconSmall DrakonidBlue.gifMaelstrong 00:48, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Brolls actor

Since it appears that Varian will be the star of the movie, and his and valeera actors have been named, it can be presumed that broll is up next. Noabr (talk) 03:57, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm wondering more about the Wrynn/Sanguinar announcements: Who is Mark Hildebrandt? Imdb (non-pro) only states he appeared in one episode each of Dark Angel and Enterprise. Google can only find, besides various German people on facebook etc., a turkish gaming news article from 2008 (cached, the page apparently changed to an Aion news site) and even Wikipedia only quotes another turkish page, the link doesn't give any info at all. Damn, why doesn't babelfish support turkish.
Along with a black actress for a Blood Elf, this pretty much smells like a hoax. ~ Nathanyel (talk) 11:10, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
Honestly, imdb is more like a wiki without an edit history (afaik) than a reliable news source. Note how Valeera has the last name "Sanguilara". Can someone provide an independent source for those two actors associated to the movie? If nothing comes in the next days, I suggest to remove that part for now. ~ Nathanyel (talk) 14:13, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
Imbd now claims that she is rumored and has removed varians current actor, so its safe to assume that the final details will be announced at Blizzcon. [2] Noabr (talk) 02:27, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
Twellings, do not delete other users' posts on talk pages. Those are personal statements separate from the actual article that are not open for editing by other people. Also, do not re-add/delete something when your previous try was already reverted. Use talk pages like this to discuss why your change should be correct. About your "agent" theory, that someone has a "high end agent" doesn't mean a thing, by that logic I could claim Jaina would be played by Samuel L. Jackson! ~ Nathanyel (talk) 08:46, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
Ooook, so Twellings sent me some very, veeeery weird mails this morning... I'm still not really getting his point though. It seems though that he agrees the two mentioned people are not actually verified as actors in the movie. Not that I'd need that kind of justification for doing this, as no one opposed, I'll remove them from the article until real verification for actors comes in. ~ Nathanyel (talk) 20:34, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

No, I was simply saying that you published on a public forum something I wrote when the prompt "reason for change" or whatever came up. I was under the impression the initial "Reason for Change" was private information. Do you have administrative privlidges seeing what I wrote? Even if you do it is not really cool to write it, as it doesn't pertain to you, and you most definately don't know anything about the casting of this film, as I don't. I did say it is not cool to paint actors that may or may not be in the film a certain way. Warcraft has a large fan base, so whoever plays what role is going to be under heavy scrutinization. Imagine if someone was writing about you all over the internet? Just like you I have no idea who is in this film, but those are the only two actors I have seen associated with it.

Also, I did say I don't care if you remove them. I think my basic point is that you got into a tizzy when I changed something, but you carte blanch went around changing things yourself. Wow, I hope you are not officially associated with this wiki. You said above," It seems though that he agrees the two mentioned people are not actually verified as actors in the movie. Not that I'd need that kind of justification for doing this, as no one opposed, I'll remove them from the article until real verification for actors comes in. ~ [[User:Nathanyel|Nathanyel]" Are you running this website? You need to be given justification lol? You are casting the film and are in charge of the website. I have no idea as you don't. I only said about the actors they may not want their name pasted everywhere. I simply asked you to take something I said in a private message off, and like a little weasel you post it. Man, no one say anything to this guy. And this is Twellings, I do not know how to do the signature thing.

kick-ass human

I think the kick ass human deserves his own silly article. what do you think?

Dr.M.Ginius (talk) 12:30, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Why?--SWM2448 22:36, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
Simply he´s name. And "pillowfightcraft" can easily be hilarous. However, im not "asking" for those articles, just suggesting them. Dr.M.Ginius (talk) 01:48, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Film?

Really guys, why is this article even called "Warcraft (film)", there isn't anything that supports it.

  • Blizzard ALWAYS calls it "Warcraft movie".
  • It isn't even told that it's called warcraft, it is just told that it will be a movie of warcraft. (Correct me if I'm wrong)

I suggest moving it back to "Warcraft movie". Benitoperezgaldos (talk) 01:33, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Warcraft II: Tides of Darkness
Warcraft II: Behind the Dark Portal
Warcraft III: Reign of Chaos
Warcraft III: The Frozen Throne
World of Warcraft: The Burning Crusade
World of Warcraft: Wrath of the Lich King
Even without that, a "Warcraft" somewhere in the title is highly likely for reasons of brand recognition. It won't be just called "The glorious tale of [whatever the hero's name is], but "Warcraft: [something]". The main title is Warcraft. ~ Nathanyel (talk) 06:53, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
Maybe they will just stay with the title Warcraft? Rolandius Paladin.gif (talk - contr) 07:23, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
I didn't explicitly mention that, but that could also be the case. Might sound even better to viewers not familiar with the series, it hints at telling the story of "Warcraft" even to non-fans, rather independently from the games, while "Warcraft: Wrath of the Raimi" could imply it to be similar to tie-in films like the ones for SG-1 or Babylon 5, which continue the story, though new viewers might not have enough information to fully understand the characters' doings... hope you get what I mean Tongueout.gif ~ Nathanyel (talk) 10:26, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
IMDB.com has the title as Warcraft at this point. It could change even before filming begins. Rolandius Paladin.gif (talk - contr) 10:34, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
imdb probably uses that title for the same reasons we do: It's a movie about/taking place in the Warcraft universe, and there's no official title announced yet. ~ Nathanyel (talk) 10:39, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
Ok, I think I underestand now, we keep that it's named "Warcraft" because IMDB has that title. Also I know that it's likely to be called "Warcraft: something", but what I still don't understand why does we call it "film" when Blizzard always use the word "movie". Benitoperezgaldos (talk) 19:31, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
Film / Movie are synonomous to each other: "I want to see the film Warcraft" and "I want to see the movie Warcraft" are the same thing - or as the saying goes "toe-may-toe" / "toe-mah-toe", It all depends on where you live. -- (M o r p hJames E. Rooks, Jr. aka: Morph
Morphgnome & Morphdraenei
| C | TLeave me a message on my Discussion/Talk Page) IconSmall Gnome Male.gifMorphgnomeIconSmall Draenei Male.gifMorphdraenei 19:52, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
But shouldn't it be better if we use the exact term used by Blizzard instead of a synonomous? Benitoperezgaldos (talk) 20:11, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
As the WoWWiki contributor who changed the title of this page, I feel it's my responsibility to support my decision. Wikipedia, which has very high standards for their articles nowadays, regards the film as Warcraft (film), due to the professional appeal and enigmatic nature of the Warcraft motion picture adaptation. Although IMDb may not be the most official website in the world, it still regards it as Warcraft, and until Blizzard gives it their title, I feel we should do it the same way. Blizzard does entitle their press release as "Blizzard Entertainment and Legendary Pictures Sign Sam Raimi to Direct Upcoming Warcraft Movie", however, in all likelihood, this is used to bring in mainstream attention. Calling a product Warcraft: The Movie seems less serious than other potential titles, only after a movie has been released. With the recent traffic of sudden information of the Warcraft motion picture, I feel my change has been strongly justified by Blizzard and its supported fan sites.
So in conclusion, I strongly endorse the current state of the page. If need be, we can change the title of the page when Blizzard and Legendary announce the official title.
DarthBotto talkcont 16:53, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

I'd say time has shown this was a good choice! ;) MightyBotto (talk) 17:19, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Well, we can sleep easy knowing that...

Uwe Boll attempted to apply for the job of director, from which Blizzard CEO Paul Sams replied "We will not sell the movie rights, not to you…especially not to you."

As they would have said on The Sopranos, "OH!" ;) DacianWarlord (talk) 03:35, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but welcome to last year. ~ Nathanyel (talk) 09:53, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
meh. Was just making an observation, no need to get snarky. DacianWarlord (talk) 02:14, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Character Articles

It'll be a long time before this becomes relevant, but maybe it's okay to start now. Basically, as I understand it, the film is an alternate take on WC1 (per Metzen's "Ultimates" line). Assuming that's the case, would it be a good idea to create alternate character articles in the same vein as WoD? Such as, "Llane Wrynn (movie)" and whatnot?--Hawki24101 (talk) 12:47, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

I would think so, but let's hold off until we actually have some details about the movie's storyline so as to avoid having a bunch of pages with no significant content. -- DarkTZeratul (talk) 17:22, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
So, in light of there being two novels and a graphic novel tying in with the movie, think there's enough basis now?--Hawki (talk) 08:56, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Separate vs. non-canon

Basically we know (and has been confirmed by Neilson) that it will be separate from the game continuity. Does it necessarily mean the movie will be non-canon? (tbh, personally, that's what I thought) but the recent edit made me think again. Blizzard, so far, hasn't used the word non-canon, right?--Mordecay (talk) 08:35, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

I'd consider it canon to the Warcraft Cinematic Universe (WCU), which includes the other comic and novel. But as you said, this is separate from the game canon that includes everything else (minus RPG). Maybe Blizzard will place the RPG as its own separate continuity, which it basically is if you're playing it. --Aquamonkeyeg (talk) 17:25, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
Maybe we'll need a certain tag, like the The RPG Icon 16x36.png and Icon-TCG.png ones, to differentiate between main canon and WCU once we get closer to the release of the movie + comic + novel. -- IconSmall TrollDeathKnight Male.gif DeludedTroll (talkcontribs) 17:41, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
Yep, I was wondering if there's a chance that the film's canon can be somehow canon for the gameverse but it just seem not possible for me :D Oki, and the term "Warcraft Cinematic Universe" was used officially or only by fans? Coz that would be a nice name for the movieverse. Micky Neilson so far used Movie canon. And agreed, a new tag is needed. And a template as previously asked for.--Mordecay (talk) 18:20, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
As far as I know the term "Warcraft cinematic universe" hasn't been directly used by Blizzard to any great extent. Although, IMHO "WCU" is a pretty handy abbreviation (better than having to spell out "movie canon" every time, anyway), and since Metzen compared the thole thing to Marvel's Ultimate line... -- IconSmall TrollDeathKnight Male.gif DeludedTroll (talkcontribs) 15:05, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
Cinematic? Metzen said Ultimate line. Is that the same thing?--Mordecay (talk) 15:16, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
No, the Ultimate line was a separate comic continuity created by Marvel that ran alongside its main series, while the MCU refers to the film series continuity and its own tie-in materials. Basically all canon to the overall Marvel multiverse, but in separate realities.--Hawki (talk) 08:56, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Kingdom of Stormwind vs. Kingdom of Azeroth

Which one is in the movieverse? --Mordecay (talk) 17:58, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

I don't actually know for certain, but I imagine they'll go with "Stormwind" just to avoid confusing people who are familiar with the franchise but aren't aware of the original meaning of the name "Azeroth". -- IconSmall TrollDeathKnight Male.gif DeludedTroll (talkcontribs) 18:02, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
Yea probably but I just noticed that Official Movie Novelization calls it the realm of Azeroth. --Mordecay (talk) 18:17, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Icons

So I'm finishing the initial character pages and a thought hit me. Will we be keeping the Alliance / Horde icons since they redirect to the game universe counterparts? Or probably make new ones? --Mordecay (talk) 20:24, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Races

Do we need separate pages for races? Orc (movie), Human (movie), Wolf (movie), Horse (movie), Dwarf (movie), High elf (movie), draenei (movie), etc...? --Mordecay (talk) 21:52, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Nah, I wouldn't think so. We didn't make new alternate universe pages for orcs, draenei, ogres or arakkoa during WoD, after all. -- IconSmall TrollDeathKnight Male.gif DeludedTroll (talkcontribs) 07:25, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
Yea, I just thought that since the film is its own thing unlike WoD but I'm not a fan of creating them too unless really necessary. --Mordecay (talk) 07:29, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Film vs Official Movie Novelization

How should we handle the different versions of events shown in these two different sources, as far as lore/wiki content goes? Is there a precedent here or is this a 'novel' situation? I guess it's similar to the situation with early games vs books, but the games were pretty rudimentary, while the film depicts scenes in great detail.

I don't yet own the novelization, but I've seen excerpts which contain events/dialogue which clearly are not in the film. A neat example is Medivh's fathering of Garona, something that is only hinted at in the film, but is apparently explicitly stated in the novelization. The novel will doubtless clarify a ton of questions, and add a lot of dialogue and additional detail.

As far as the film page itself goes, do we include information from the novel version of the film here, or just from the film itself? More importantly, what about for the rest of the wiki, eg Medivh or Durotan? Instinctively I would say the film should be the main source, since the novel is obviously based upon that, but the latter will contain far more content. -- Taohinton (talk) 00:53, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Lore conflicts aside, the two sources also makes it tricky to collaborate on edits without being able to consult both; it's unclear if certain edits make large assumptions and incorrectly describe characters reactions, etc, or if they are simply adding extra content and alternative depictions as found in the novel. -- Taohinton (talk) 01:11, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

I may be wrong (I haven't read it all, just several paragraphs), but I don't think the film and novelization have "different versions of events". It is also likely that the missing parts aka Garona's parenthood will be included in director's cut. Anyway, I imagine, at least for now, that both sources should be combined within once section if possible? --Mordecay (talk) 10:30, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
The summary should reflect the film. Any notable differences between it and the novel should go in a separate section at the bottom of the page. -- DarkTZeratul (talk) 16:58, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
Yeah, I didn't mean that in a dramatically different events kind of way, but I imagine for example there will be many extra lines of dialogue exchanged during scenes we saw in the film, probably including altered versions of lines spoken in the film, etc. There will likely also be extra scenes, maybe even minor characters, although that's just speculation. It would be nice if they integrated all the important stuff into a director's cut (assuming they do actually make one), but I strongly doubt they'll include all the dialogue from the book. Canon objective descriptions of characters' thoughts and feelings will probably also be quite a contrast to viewer assumptions based on actors' facial expressions, etc; e.g. spelling out that a character blames themselves, instead of the actor just frowning for half a second, which many viewers might interpret quite differently. Likewise a lot of viewers missed the Garona hint, and others might think Medivh is uncertain or just being avuncular; whereas the book apparently spells out that he at least feels certain.
I'd be happy if I'm wrong - that would be a lot simpler! However, even if the divergences are pretty minor, we will still have two separate depictions, which could lead to edit clashes as I say. I guess we'll have to see what the book brings. -- Taohinton (talk) 21:34, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Kilrogg?

Could the orange (or brown, dunno)-haired orc be Kilrogg? --Mordecay (talk) 20:47, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

I thought it was kinda obvious, but it's been some time since I saw the movie and I don't remember -why- it was obvious Xporc (talk) 02:04, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
Well, he doesn't have left eye, for example :D Also there's a concept art named Kilrogg that strongly resembles the character so I think I will create the film universe page for Kilrogg. --Mordecay (talk) 10:22, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Name

"Warcraft: The Beginning" is an official name of the movie in the european region, if I am correct. "Warcraft" is the name for the America region. Personally, I'd prefer to use the european title as that is a unique name other than the Warcraft one needing a disambiguation tag. The disambig tag can be a redirect, nonetheless. — Surafbrov T / C / P 15:22, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Good to go for me. --Ryon21 (talk) 16:42, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
I'm not sure, to be honest. I almost feel like we should stick to the original title used in the country of origin, since Blizzard is based in the United States and it's an American-made film (same reason as WP:MOS#Dialect), but moving the article wouldn't really bother me that much either way. -- IconSmall TrollDeathKnight Male.gif DeludedTroll (talkcontribs) 16:52, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
Same as DeludedTroll. Xporc (talk) 17:12, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
Same as DeludedTroll. --Mordecay (talk) 17:53, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
Ditto. -- Alayea (talk / contrib) 02:53, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
I concur. Aliok (talk) 05:16, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

I've decided against my proposal for this change for multiple reasons:

  1. Warcraft (film) is the same article title as on Wikipedia
  2. WoWWiki already has this article as "Warcraft: The Beginning" which I'm against copying from there
  3. "warcraft film" is searched more often when compared to "warcraft the beginning"

Although the confusing part to all of this, IMDb lists the Warcraft title as the "original". -— Surafbrov T / C / P 01:18, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Galleries seem excessive

This article currently loads 7MB of stuff -- mostly image thumbnails (220+ of those). Is there any reason to attempt to include every single applicable piece of press kit or concept art on this page, versus just selecting a few images? — foxlit (talk) 19:08, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

No. One could probably move the majority of the art to the character pages and keep images like the promotional items, productions, etc. on this article. — Surafbrov T / C / P 19:14, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
Maybe we could make the gallery sections collapsible, so the page only loads what the viewer wants to expand. -- MyMindWontQuiet 20:16, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
They will still be loaded regardless unless it is handled like the achievements lists. Either way, that would not seem appealing. — Surafbrov T / C / P 20:22, 24 November 2018 (UTC)