Warcraft flop confirmed

>veteran film execs put the red ink in the $30 million to $40 million range

red ink = money lost btw

hollywoodreporter.com/news/box-office-analysis-warcraft-avoids-910268

This flick was fucking terrible. I want my money back. Thank God it flopped.

Nooo..really?

>Box-Office Analysis: 'Warcraft' Avoids "Utter Failure" But Will Still Lose Money
>flop

Was it really that bad? If I like Jones other movies but don't know anything about warcraft will I hate it?

The sequel will save the franchise. The orcsvhumies story is trash, there's more interesting material to work with now.

The movie was great and the article you linked states it'll probably lose less than $15 million, which after being distributed among all investor parties will pretty much amount to peanuts.

Warcraft was a success, and rightly so.

I can't wait for the sequel.

>lost money
>getting a sequel

Not how this works.

>We didn't make any money from the first time around but sure try again!

THANKS METZEN

>sequel
Blizzdrones truly are next level retards.

Pay attention to how the industry works

It was bad but considering Jones' other work something screwy had to happen behind the scenes for it to end up like this.

they wouldn't have made it if they didn't know for certain they would make money off of it

them saying they lost 15 million is basically just the studio doing their mandatory acting in front of the IRS

If DC can keep making movies then so can Warcraft, I guess.

I WANT MY FUCKING LICH KING MOVIE

but not by Jones

I actually really enjoyed this movie. It makes sense that critics panned it because they're normies who noGaem

Legendary pictures.

Name a single movie that didn't make the studio any money but still got a sequel.
>they wouldn't have made it if they didn't know for certain they would make money off of it

There would be no flops ever if studios thought that way

>$430.1 million global gross
>didn't make any money

You do understand that when we're talking about loss, we're essentially referring to the fact that the film didn't exceed a set goal, right?
For example if a film costs $100 million to produce, then ideally it has to make at least 3 times that to be considered a success.
Failing to do so doesn't necessarily mean that it flopped.

>SPeculation
>Not the company stating if it's a success or not
Nah fuck you m8. Stop clickbaiting.

Without humans: 9/10
With humans: 5/10

>estimated to be 15-40 mil in the red
>still made money

Ok

You realize that gross revenue and net profit are different things?

The one hope warcraft had at turning a profit was the idea wanda/china would funnel the foreign trade tarrifs back into legendary or waive them entirely, thus giving warcraft the highest cut of china's box office any non-chinese movie has ever had. Instead wanda/china just pocketed that money. So despite grossing about 200m in china, legendary's net was only about 40m. Then, on average, legendary got about 40% of the rest of the movie's gross. So that's about 100m, net. So, net, not counting marketing, legendary got about 140m, conservatively, from warcraft. And warcraft cost them 160m.

So, no, this is not a case of "it didn't meet a goal," this is a case of "it didn't break even."

blizzkeks on suicide watch

In corporate culture, silence means failure. If legendary could spin warcraft as successful in any way, shape, or form, they would be trumpeting it up and down, inside and out. If it failed utterly, and they said as much, they'd lose even more money as investors dumped stock.

So, they're silent. Because if they lie, investors dump stock, if they tell the truth, investors dump stock.