WoW Moviewatch: Tales of the Past III
by Michael Gray 
Mar 28th 2012 at 6:00PM
Tales of the Past is a three-part series involving some of the most core, sweeping moments in WoW history, a huge treat for machinima fans. To many people, Tales of the Past represents the definitive fan film experience. While that might seem like high praise, take the time to check out the third installment above. You'll see how it became so influential.
Click here to see it on WarCraftMovies.com.
Interested in the wide world of machinima? We have new movies every weekday here on WoW Moviewatch! Have suggestions for machinima we ought to feature? Toss us an email at moviewatch@wowinsider.com.Filed under: WoW Moviewatch
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
Talmar Mar 28th 2012 6:08PM
Is there a Tales of the Past I and II that we should watch first? Is there an overall order to these we should experience them in?
Looking forward to watching it when I get home.
xrarndx Mar 28th 2012 6:30PM
Yes, there is a Tales of the Past I and II but Tales of the Past III kind of tells it's own story enough that you don't need to watch the previous ones (I haven't). There are a couple of things that you perhaps won't necessarily understand (something about a good gnome is something I was lost about) but the machinima-making quality of this movie is absolutely amazing, especially considering how old this machinima is now. It's truly a fantastic machinima and by far my favourite. The story telling is fantastic, the "animation" (if you can call it that? The way the maker uses the models in their setting) is pretty much spot on and the whole feel of the movie is very immersive and keeps you interested throughout. Very impressive and my favourite machinima. I doubt I'll ever prefer any machinima over this.
TL:DR;
Yes there are, no you don't have to because it's just plain good.
Draol Mar 28th 2012 7:00PM
I'd at least recommend giving 2 a view. 1 isn't necessary, in my opinion, as It doesn't really have much plot and (to my recollection, haven't watched it in years) is more of a guild trailer than a video.
Mattimus Mar 28th 2012 7:07PM
Sometimes I feel like I'm the only person that doesn't like Tales of the Past. A lot of the writing and dialogue doesn't seem to mesh well with the Warcraft universe, and the main character, Blazer, just screams Mary Sue.
I'm not saying it's not a great -technical- achievement, but actually watching it is a pretty grueling experience for me.
Dude Mar 28th 2012 7:21PM
A very decent alternative storyline. And how things should be in the Horde, i.e. Thrall is the warchief!
Austin Mar 28th 2012 7:44PM
Ya, the story is probably the most wack-est thing I've ever seen. It literally takes every lore character and twists them to make these player characters the masters of the universe. Alot of it looks like it was made pre-wrath of the Lich King, so maybe he didn't know the lore of Mograine.
But what the hell is Rexxar doing in Ironforge, a dwarf in Orgrimmar and Arthas himself in Feralas.
So yah Matt, I agree with you. The story makes me cringe.
However, the animation, scale and quality seem great. The story is just the wackest thing in the world. It also reminds me a of a guy on my RP server named BlazerJr who is a major mary sue. Oy vyey
razion Mar 28th 2012 11:50PM
It was indeed created before Wrath's inception.
Patrick Mar 28th 2012 8:01PM
I personally can't stand this type of Machinima. If you're going to make a Machinima about the lore, great! Just take care to be canon about it. There is a FANTASTIC story in the Warcraft universe, and these movies degrade it by twisting it around to their own ends.
It would be the equivalent of me rewriting the Lord of the Rings trilogy so that I could become the new king instead of Strider. It's sickening.
razion Mar 28th 2012 11:58PM
At the time Tales of the Past was created, they were not twisting existing lore, but rather adding onto lore that hadn't been extended upon. The only lore that Scourge had at this point in the game was really the odd dungeon in Scholomance and Stratholme (and Naxx, if you were of the 0.3% of the population that saw any piece of it). The machinima was made to put an end to a story arc that frankly wasn't seeing a resolution at the time. It's typical to see RP groups try and tie loose ends in the story by going about it in your own way, and indeed this is how the story starts (with the corruption of nobles in Stormwind that, previously, was never addressed so early in the game [or, rather, finalized]).
Reviews at the time praised the story for revisiting old content that otherwise wasn't being addressed. It would be like making a machinima now of, say, the missing General Turalion and explaining where he was or what he was doing, or of a maybe possible surviving Illidan that could have stored his Soul Stone somewhere no one knew about. There isn't current lore that was being meddled with, just additions or resolutions addressed where there otherwise weren't any.
To use your example, it would be like writing a sequel to the second Lord of the Rings book before the third was released as fanfiction, trying to resolve the story where there was no real resolution. Keep in mind that the machinima is very old, and was created a long time ago, much before Wrath came about.
Mattimus Mar 29th 2012 1:09AM
@razion
I dunno, the references to a monotheistic entity of God (and named God) really stick out no matter when the machinima was made.
http://www.wowpedia.org/Tales_of_the_Past#Contradictions_to_lore
Wowpedia has a list of problems with it. Some are a result of its taking freedom with the lore, and some are outright wrong even by just vanilla.
Mattimus Mar 29th 2012 1:11AM
http://www.wowpedia.org/Tales_of_the_Past#Contradictions_to_lore
There are quite a few problems with it beyond just when it was made and the liberties taken with the lore -- there are references to a monotheistic God named God that's clearly a Judeo-Christian thing that Warcraft just doesn't support. Putting aside the whole Mary Sue character development, it was still pretty sloppy writing at best.
razion Mar 29th 2012 2:20AM
I will agree that there requires a lot of suspension of disbelief when it comes to some things (like needing player models for some scenes, and them carrying tabards that clearly shouldn't be worn at those time periods) in order to make the story flow eitiher at all or in some cases smoother. It wouldn't have quite the same build-up, for example, in the fight between Blazer and the Lich King if the Lich King was constantly in a state of full-power, without having to put on his helm to indicate he is now being serious. As an aside, a lack of restraint in a King, particularly one after world conquest, isn't quite something that follows through when looking at the history of the Scourge and more specifically Arthas' development.
I am, however, interested in your notion of Blazer being a Mary Sue. Sure, he's powerful (and after all, there must always be a strongest individual,) but he has plenty of character flaws: pride, arrogance and an unwillingness to accept help from his allies and work together during combat (even when they pointed it out to him specifically). He suffers from fear (more prominent in the first two, certainly, but then again he develops as the story progresses) as well as guilt, so much so that it impairs his ability to make good decisions, such as his error in the past that lead the book -and eventually nearly the world- to the hands of the enemy at the end of the film. Most importantly, Blazer certainly isn't immune to death, and couldn't even accomplish the one thing he really wanted to do (bring back his friend, although he does save his soul. Sort of a compromise victory).
Heroes are interesting to see from a character development stand-point. They're compelling because they rise above what normal people do, but at the same time they are not exempt from every fault and not everything can go their way. An average Joe can be compelling in a 'slice of life' sort of way, but heroes are compelling in a motivational way. Their status is one that is obtainable -they do things that most anyone can do with a change of character- and yet it remains uncommon (some would say rare even). Is that, what Blazer is then, as a hero, character-wise, what makes him a Mary Sue, or is it the leading events during his rise to power to stop the quote-unquote Ultimate Evil (and those were, in respect, quite tragic)?
If the definition of Mary Sue, then, has changed from a person as a sort of living perfection to "someone who's simply uncommonly to the point of unbelievably better than most people," (whether it be through character or prowess) then that would put anyone who has ever done anything heroic or achieved anything unique square in that category. I think there needs to be a bit of a re-assessment of his character (that, to me, does appear to have enough flaws to at the least not warrant a Mary Sue label).
But then again I was quite wrong in regards to my view that the lore wasn't as manipulated as I thought, perhaps I'm wrong on this account as well. But from where I stood several years ago and going forward, I fail to see much of a 'Mary Sue problem' with his character.
Tri Mar 29th 2012 8:30AM
i've always loved the Tales of the Past series. Sure it may not 100% follow the current lore, but really, it was made back when TBC was new and Wrath was definately nowhere near ready, so there was a lot of lore that was later done much differently in the actual game lore.
Just remember that it is a 100% fan made movie, which only started as a guild / RP scenario video. I think it's amazing what they managed to do with it. Imagine if you had to make 2 hours worth of movie like that..!
Jabadabadana Mar 29th 2012 10:52PM
Tales of the Past is Lore the way the creators Wanted it. And to be honest, much of it is lore the way a lot of the people watching it wanted it.
It's not cannon, and inconsistencies occur, but this is still one of the all time great WoW machinimas out there.
PS. I'm sorry people get offended by the mention of God. When Warcraft originally came out, demons were from Hell. Lore changed, and continues to change.