Diablo 2: Resurrected - Act V Lord of Destruction Intro Cinematic 

Ah you know, they thought Baal is the voice of reason lol

I was thinking the same exact thing.

They still would have connected the bridge

Just another story to show everyone where trying to debate in the marketplace of ideas leads lol.

You forget Nihlathak was secretly conspiring with Baal?

So how baal got an full army of monsters from?

@@brentdye1504 demons were scattered across all of scantuary. Or diablo opened a portal from hells and send him his army. Lol

They rush in at the same time watch them side by side wtf

@@HeyYoFabels same times yes but in this version he gives a more visual queue to attack

I like that too. Small detail but it shows how he's the boss, the guy in charge.

Some of the Kotor scenes aRe up their

wrg

They were there in the original

i cant find it... i think those are metal faces because are on both sides

@@aguborda He is talking about the white of Baal's face, look back from the white stretched skin, there is little metal fasteners holding Tal Rasha's skin to his head.

Baal certainly looked like he was having more fun in the original

They changed a lot of his movements that DEFINED Baal as a formidable and terrifying villain. He feels so bland and unremarkable.

He's movements are more subtle because much of the character is conveyed through facial expressions which could not be done so well back in the day. Both do their job exveptionally well

I won't lie I like the new design and his facial expressions but I don't like his new hand movements I mean in the old one you can see Baals hand gesture to silence his echo

​@@caincorn you're more of a diva than baal

check the original cinematic, they removed the minotaurs and put those monsters with spikes on their backs.... why they did that?

@@aguborda Because the Death Maulers are a LOT more common than the Blood Lords.

one must always throw shade on blizzad, this cinematic is damaging to the brand as a whole and adds to characters in a way that is not cannon.

@@seanreilly6618 if ur a nerd with no life maybe christ i hope ur joking. U could hardly see shit in the old one except the 2. I know its fun to shit on them and they deserve it. But for this? lol

@@SilentSpringz I mean was baal a finger waving dunce in the original, the second blizzard get any kind of creative license they fuck it up, thats all im saying.

@@seanreilly6618 Though I share not the sentiment toward D2R, I understand your critics on the details regarding Baals gestures. I agree that I liked the notion of Baal just using his little finger. But after rewatching both versions, seeing my memories to be in accurate, I see no problem with that new one. To be honest, what makes me really hesitating to buy D2R is the fact of ActivBlizz engagement of anti-unionist practices.

And then, they screw everything up in Diablo 3... Hope, Diablo 4 can restore and create a major plot twist that Malthael is secretly a pawn to something even greater threat to Prime Evil.

well hes not supposed to make you confortable hes a demon afterall

Wait thats why he looks so grotesque?

That's a thing?

He is not a demon but a god.

@@leonardofreitas4650 he's not a god. God's don't require child sacrifice

@@1000WintersMedia you’d better re-read that book of numbers, dude

That's pretty sick but cool to realize lol 😂

You could see the same exact thing in the original.

@@lastwarning1 not quite. I the old one it looks like his face is more bonelike and fused with his tendrils and horns in the back. This new version looks much more "fleshy"

@@filipvadas7602 WTF do you mean "not quite"? Why are you trying to be Professor Diablo telling everyone whose face it was when they know? Who if they cared could not see the nails keeping his face in place? Stop talking for dopamine release like a guy who cries for Star Wars trailers

Damn, I didn't realize it! that's cool AF

I agree, they make him look like a fidgety child.

@@blakerackley8874 What he moves his hands more in the original, cry about it boomer

@@HeyYoFabels No one is crying...are you? Am I a boomer for thinking the choreography is off in general? Didn't know the two went hand in hand, but I guess anything is possible when you look at things defensively...

Yea he’s a lot less memorable without those his iconic movements! Graphics are great tho

​@@HeyYoFabelsahhh is the little child trying to be big and tough 😂 it's kinda like a chihuahua 😂😂

this barbarian is clearly too much of a badass to run from anything

I've just come from original, Barbarian never tries to run for it. In the original he is even less scared, more like disappointed.

Gary Oldman as live action Baal ftw

What do you mean "everyone"?

I just just now realized that scream is me trying to log into d2r in vain

I'm a hard purist with 20k+ hours into the game and I think they did a great job with these recreations overall.

@@soulshackles2242 I do to, there are simply things I've noticed that were changed, but that's just because i've seen them so dang much. I was just taking a shot at those who do care about small details like that.

And the change makes sense when you encounter dearh maulers much more in act V

Maybe theyd rather fight than getting sieged. Getting sieged is probably worse. Having the bridge lowered makes the fight into a choke point.

Yeah I was thinking the same thing

Some of the barbarians are conspiring with Baal, and also even if they didn't lower the bridge Baal would still find a way

You really think that would've stopped someone as powerful as Baal for long?

@@nicholasng9814 Why do they have a draw bridge if they do not want to use it as such?

Nihlathak tho

They were barbarians. Realistically I doubt they would have enough food to last a siege and lowering the bridge gives them the chance to fight in a tight area

@@nicholasng9814 Baal loosing most of his army to archers, axe throwers and boilding oil or tar and then afterwards connecting the bridge would still give them the chance to fight in a tight area but with less enemies.

When I played the game during my childhood, I always thought that it was Baal and his magic who extended the bridge, and also the one who closed the door when the emissary is in the outside.

@@philipschroeder5427 Yes but that might be considered cowardly by their standard There's a reason you don't see too many barbarian archers with the only ranged weapons they use all weapons that can also be used in close range combat As a culture they crave honorable and brutal combat and have remained unconquered For literally eons Also note that the Demon Army has magical sentient catapults that are capable of launching projectiles Hundreds of yards so playing a siege game is a bad idea they probably wouldn't even get the chance to use any ranged weapons because they would simply be outraged

He looks like Ronald McDonald with a closer look 🤣🤣🤣

🤣🤣 Is the coagulated blood of his enemies.

He lost all his charisma in this version of the cinematic.

@@Nyarurin sure bob.

@@Nyarurin he is the lord of destruction , having a more deranged looks suits him.

@@BaldyAngry nuh. it's tasteless. He looks like a regular demon now, and not like a LORD of anything.

He uses this spell in the final fight against players. The emissary was just too low lvl to take the hit.

Magic resistance % by the time you get to act V

@@asockorsomething335 the emissary is only level 4

Actually, when the game was out, before all the patches changes, I recall Baal using that skill to One shot everything lining in front of him, if it stayed too close and too long, plus the harder the difficulty of the game the longer the range. Damn, how OP it was ! It was so fun watching your friends instantly dying with that when you were safely out of range. But Blizzard killed the fun and changed it so this skill only burns your mana instead.

@@asockorsomething335 The emissary was probably a noob player who didnt add 3 points in vitality and kept stacking points in strength every level to wear that sexy gothic armor

Hell yeah

I agree

I agree. My Biggest problem is with back of the head though, this barin-like structure makes whole design really over the top.

So it's not cool he wears the face of Tal Rasha?

@@jamesnetherian4981 The face is alright the meatloaf around is ehh

Also, the metal "stitches" give me some "gotham's jerome vibe", together with Joker-like mouth make the design look so gory that silly

That was never a thing bruh.

Good. How about trying to turn your over analytical brain off for a second and try to enjoy the cinematic.

I don't think a chasm is gonna stop a prime evil plus he can teleport

Was thinking the same thing! Connecting the bridge wasnt a sound tactic, unless it was baals power forcing the mechanisms to work and they already lost control

@@JR-sz7dw Did that long time ago since I watched this same scene for 20 years. The question came after about 3 months, quite enough time for artistic appreciation in my standard.

@@paxonite-7bd5 I know, and he probably can control them just like he control the gate. But anyway there's no reason for the barbarians to connect the bridge even they knew Baal can do that. They are not considering surrender anyway...or...perhaps they did considered that for a moment?!

Frankly, that's how he looked in the original. Perhaps they were too faithful to it for your liking?

nah, the “realistic” skin this time around emphasized it further, old cinematic had more white, not to worry though since he was designed with a somewhat toilet-sitting look, so no problems there.

His facial expressions were totally lost in this remake too. Old Baal was effeminate, pursed his lips and had this sociopathic humor about him. This baal is flat and robotic looking.

Because Diablo 3 was essentially made for children. The artwork, the design, the difficulty; all of it made 'easier'. People rightly complained and now Diablo 4 is returning to what the game should be in spirit.

@@persona-non-grata Eh, not for children. It’s less grainy but still fairly brutal in what it depicts even if the artstyle is less dark.

He does look a bit like a clown. In the og I don't remember him wearing tal rasha's face though or did he? still say og was creepier to

yeah the old one had class. This one seems de-aged and stiff. Funny, cus the characters got aged and stiffed. Why should i pay 40 bucks just to have a win10 easy running 20 year old game tho. Because id play with the old graphics, this shit is disguisting, whoever plays it surely prefers to have the bar somewhere in the cellar.

@@DjTrustNo.1 Enjoy your old graphics then mate. As a veteran of diablo2 myself, I am very much enjoying the new graphics and embrace the artistic liberty that Vicarious Visions has taken with a few things. Funny how people can have different opinions isn't it?

He stil smiles u dolt. Must everything have cartoony expressions?

@@Majorfuckinghero they just cry to get nostalgia point and blizzard haters. Forgotten the old one was cartoony and over expression. Like in real life u have a big smile on your face when ur little amused. Yea blizzard sucks now but these purest go to far.

as much as I like the game, there's some real head scratching moments in this game.

Many a Diablo 2 run ended in Viet-Kurast

They should have just overlayed the new graphics over the old cgi this feels and acting is shit

He did do the hand gesture in the previous one, but there he also yelled in the same way he does here. I think it just happens that people remember things the way they want to rather than the way it was, it happens. I kind of like this design, the way Tal'Rasha's face is stitched over his own, a sort of a Cenobite vibe going for it.

@@Azjenco I actually went and rewatched the cinematic for this specific purpose - and no, it's very much different. In the original he does the hand thing, and just sorta swings his head to the side; clearly to convey irritation, or annoyance rather than uncomposed anger. In this one he throws himself forward which clearly conveys the opposite.

@@6Theories I dunno, to me they convey the same idea. In both they make this leaning forward gesture that conveys anger to me, but to me the older one's graphics wasn't too advanced at displaying facial features, which was why they used the hand gesture. I think it's just the lack of technology that makes me get the same feeling from both, my mind colored it that Baal was furious, which I got from the tone in his voice. That's the great thing though, scenes hit different people in different ways so we can appreciate it in our own way.

@@Azjenco Well, he's obviously frustrated in both, but he's still somehow more composed(?) in the original. It's the difference between "Enough! You're annoying me" and "Enough! Shut up, SHUT UP!" Like I wrote earlier, I prefer the first because I always interpret it as Baal's voice alone can physically hurt people and/or blow out their ears when he doesn't make a concious effort to manage and compose himself. It's truly befitting his namesake - the lord of destruction. In the remake you can tell he's clearly making an effort to shout at the top of his lungs, so it makes it somehow less... impressive I guess?

Ikr, but they put those parasite inserting monstrosities, I mean what demon wants to stand in ranks with that. Lol.

Trueeeee

Yep as long as you get the magic not from demons, just earned XD

you can visit him in d3

@@seckinhamsioglu611 You mean the barbarian emissary is an NPC? Where?

@@federicoedoardomariabarber3598 Nope. On the floor big red splashed spot in entrance of Ruins of Sescheron map. The man who explode D2 Lord Of Destruction opening cinematic.

Thank you!

Inexplicable!

Is it me or Baal kinda reminds me of a version of lite Freiza in Diablo??

Because he wears Tal Rashas face

It is not as menacing as the original.

it's tal rasha's skin