|
Just watched the trailer and... Umm.... Wow....
I'm torn. I love zombie flicks of all quality and would usually rush to watch this even if its just another crappy zombie flick.
I'm kind of offended that they used the WWZ title and don't even have the courtesy to use actual dead zombies so I don't knowif I can even watch it...
|
i dont like the digital camera look here, i think visually zombies needs to be gritty like the 28 days later series, this looks like a cleaner I am legend... idk. trailers often do the movie a disservice, so lets hope for the best.
|
The only way they could have done the book justice is an ensemble cast movie. Basically, its a typical one-man protagonist movie... Not saying its going to be bad, but its not really based on the book.
|
Havent read the book, but I dont care. This movie looks entertaining and I think that most of the time Brad Pitt picks good movies.
|
So how exactly are the zombies moving like army ants?
|
On November 10 2012 11:02 Retgery wrote: So how exactly are the zombies moving like army ants?
Maybe like ants as you say, by chemical signals and stuff.
|
I don't think it's an actual remake of the movie. Brooks would kill them for misrepresenting his zombies, but he's probably rolling around in all the cash. Jump aboard the zombie train.
That being said, this actually looks legitimately interesting, even though the zombies seem to be defying everything Brooks wrote.
Money versus your ideas.
|
Huh... it looks interesting, though not much like the book. The book was absolutely amazing.
I can sort of maybe see how they could incorporate aspects of the book into this, for example + Show Spoiler +Brad Pitt may be a leader of the American defense, he could get briefed or better yet do a flyover of the South African effort (which was amazing writing), he could talk to the Russians about their religious war, etc. (none of the above are major spoilers)
Also, did anybody else think it was hilarious that the Americans had this amazing "one bullet one kill" program? Brooks must have been talking about some other American military that nobody's ever heard of.
|
On November 10 2012 06:10 Hot_Bid wrote:Show nested quote +On November 10 2012 06:01 D10 wrote: Still, do you agree with me that even Max Brooks zombies would be easily eliminated by whatever remained for lets say.. the US military forces. It's all explained quite well in the books, I thought this too before reading it. Basically the infection spreads realistically, most of the world doesn't even believe the virus exists until it's relatively widespread, and even then the government tries to cover it up to stop mass panic. The issue with "fighting" the zombies is that there really isn't anything to fight. You're fighting ghosts and tiny infections. It'd be a logistical nightmare, having to inspect all potentially infected people. Brooks also explains through placebo drugs, fake infections, organ transplants, and the natural delay between bite and full blown infection, it's very difficult to fully eradicate the virus even in a localized area. To have a large scale military battle, it would mean the outbreak has already reached a point where it is taking over a large percentage of the country. In Brooks' universe the issue is not that our weapons couldn't kill the zombies, obviously fighter jets and nukes can kill zombies. It's that you can't properly distinguish infected from uninfected. The manpower required to do this as well as to redistribute the US to a wartime economy/production (think of all the accountants, lawyers, etc who are useless in a zombie war) make the country entirely unprepared for it. Imagine if a zombie outbreak happened today, a lot of people would simply not believe it's occurring until they saw actual evidence of it. Misinformation, denial, etc would be much more likely than everyone boarding up their homes and buying weapons. Nobody would believe it, and the way its portrayed in WWZ the book makes it quite believable. TLDR; You're never going to find a place to nuke because most of the time, a city is 20% infected and the 80% healthy humans are running for their lives.
This is exactly why you must eradicate the non-infected and infected of an area. There is no "pick and choose" after a point, you must do what you must do to insure humanities survival.
|
Looks like a pretty poor movie as far as story depth and such goes but I will watch it any way. Zombies are cool and I don't mind the fast zombies and the behavioural stuff they are playing around with Re: the spoiler in the OP seems like it could be interesting and if nothing else it should make for an interesting precedent for other films in the future.
PS. Names of movies/TV adaptions are fairly pointless these days a la the walking dead etc. Watch the movie with moderate expectations (it is a zombie flick) and everyone should be fairly satisfied. Game of Thrones and Lord of the Rings wander a very long way from their respective books but the still make for great films.
|
I love when zombies can run. This movie looks sick.
|
Awh, there's a kid in it? Meh..
|
|
Oh, wait, one big issue: why the eff does is start in New York? That's like every zombie movie ever, not at all like the book + Show Spoiler +in which it started in China and slowly spread
|
On November 10 2012 11:19 NeMeSiS3 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 10 2012 06:10 Hot_Bid wrote:On November 10 2012 06:01 D10 wrote: Still, do you agree with me that even Max Brooks zombies would be easily eliminated by whatever remained for lets say.. the US military forces. It's all explained quite well in the books, I thought this too before reading it. Basically the infection spreads realistically, most of the world doesn't even believe the virus exists until it's relatively widespread, and even then the government tries to cover it up to stop mass panic. The issue with "fighting" the zombies is that there really isn't anything to fight. You're fighting ghosts and tiny infections. It'd be a logistical nightmare, having to inspect all potentially infected people. Brooks also explains through placebo drugs, fake infections, organ transplants, and the natural delay between bite and full blown infection, it's very difficult to fully eradicate the virus even in a localized area. To have a large scale military battle, it would mean the outbreak has already reached a point where it is taking over a large percentage of the country. In Brooks' universe the issue is not that our weapons couldn't kill the zombies, obviously fighter jets and nukes can kill zombies. It's that you can't properly distinguish infected from uninfected. The manpower required to do this as well as to redistribute the US to a wartime economy/production (think of all the accountants, lawyers, etc who are useless in a zombie war) make the country entirely unprepared for it. Imagine if a zombie outbreak happened today, a lot of people would simply not believe it's occurring until they saw actual evidence of it. Misinformation, denial, etc would be much more likely than everyone boarding up their homes and buying weapons. Nobody would believe it, and the way its portrayed in WWZ the book makes it quite believable. TLDR; You're never going to find a place to nuke because most of the time, a city is 20% infected and the 80% healthy humans are running for their lives. This is exactly why you must eradicate the non-infected and infected of an area. There is no "pick and choose" after a point, you must do what you must do to insure humanities survival. That would probably do nothing but start a civil war that would only bring about the collapse of our civilization sooner than the zombies would.
|
On November 10 2012 11:54 Neeh wrote: Awh, there's a kid in it? Meh.. you must've loved War of the Worlds, amirite?
|
On November 10 2012 11:19 NeMeSiS3 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 10 2012 06:10 Hot_Bid wrote:On November 10 2012 06:01 D10 wrote: Still, do you agree with me that even Max Brooks zombies would be easily eliminated by whatever remained for lets say.. the US military forces. It's all explained quite well in the books, I thought this too before reading it. Basically the infection spreads realistically, most of the world doesn't even believe the virus exists until it's relatively widespread, and even then the government tries to cover it up to stop mass panic. The issue with "fighting" the zombies is that there really isn't anything to fight. You're fighting ghosts and tiny infections. It'd be a logistical nightmare, having to inspect all potentially infected people. Brooks also explains through placebo drugs, fake infections, organ transplants, and the natural delay between bite and full blown infection, it's very difficult to fully eradicate the virus even in a localized area. To have a large scale military battle, it would mean the outbreak has already reached a point where it is taking over a large percentage of the country. In Brooks' universe the issue is not that our weapons couldn't kill the zombies, obviously fighter jets and nukes can kill zombies. It's that you can't properly distinguish infected from uninfected. The manpower required to do this as well as to redistribute the US to a wartime economy/production (think of all the accountants, lawyers, etc who are useless in a zombie war) make the country entirely unprepared for it. Imagine if a zombie outbreak happened today, a lot of people would simply not believe it's occurring until they saw actual evidence of it. Misinformation, denial, etc would be much more likely than everyone boarding up their homes and buying weapons. Nobody would believe it, and the way its portrayed in WWZ the book makes it quite believable. TLDR; You're never going to find a place to nuke because most of the time, a city is 20% infected and the 80% healthy humans are running for their lives. This is exactly why you must eradicate the non-infected and infected of an area. There is no "pick and choose" after a point, you must do what you must do to insure humanities survival.
Riiiighttt..... The amount of lives you take away in order to kill the infected would be astronomically higher than those killed by the zombies.
|
If they're basing it off the book they're doing a really bad job. World War Z was roaming dead bodies and was really more of a documentary/historical text. This is an action movie, with fast zombies.
However, if you discount the source material and look at it as a (very) loosely based action movie, it looks really awesome.
Still disappointing given how incredible the book is. =(
|
On November 10 2012 14:09 BlackPaladin wrote:Show nested quote +On November 10 2012 11:19 NeMeSiS3 wrote:On November 10 2012 06:10 Hot_Bid wrote:On November 10 2012 06:01 D10 wrote: Still, do you agree with me that even Max Brooks zombies would be easily eliminated by whatever remained for lets say.. the US military forces. It's all explained quite well in the books, I thought this too before reading it. Basically the infection spreads realistically, most of the world doesn't even believe the virus exists until it's relatively widespread, and even then the government tries to cover it up to stop mass panic. The issue with "fighting" the zombies is that there really isn't anything to fight. You're fighting ghosts and tiny infections. It'd be a logistical nightmare, having to inspect all potentially infected people. Brooks also explains through placebo drugs, fake infections, organ transplants, and the natural delay between bite and full blown infection, it's very difficult to fully eradicate the virus even in a localized area. To have a large scale military battle, it would mean the outbreak has already reached a point where it is taking over a large percentage of the country. In Brooks' universe the issue is not that our weapons couldn't kill the zombies, obviously fighter jets and nukes can kill zombies. It's that you can't properly distinguish infected from uninfected. The manpower required to do this as well as to redistribute the US to a wartime economy/production (think of all the accountants, lawyers, etc who are useless in a zombie war) make the country entirely unprepared for it. Imagine if a zombie outbreak happened today, a lot of people would simply not believe it's occurring until they saw actual evidence of it. Misinformation, denial, etc would be much more likely than everyone boarding up their homes and buying weapons. Nobody would believe it, and the way its portrayed in WWZ the book makes it quite believable. TLDR; You're never going to find a place to nuke because most of the time, a city is 20% infected and the 80% healthy humans are running for their lives. This is exactly why you must eradicate the non-infected and infected of an area. There is no "pick and choose" after a point, you must do what you must do to insure humanities survival. Riiiighttt..... The amount of lives you take away in order to kill the infected would be astronomically higher than those killed by the zombies.
Not true. The only way this would be ineffective is if it is an airborn disease.
You close off the populated area, you try to evacuate as many as you can while setting them up in quarintine for an estimated time (generally 5x longer than it usually takes to mutate/change) and when the virus begins to manifest worse and worse in that populated area and you can't safely evacuate the civilians you lock it down and blow the city. What is the other option? Wait till it spreads? I'd rather kill 100,000 then lose a few billion and that is if I had to be one of that 100,000.
|
On November 10 2012 23:13 NeMeSiS3 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 10 2012 14:09 BlackPaladin wrote:On November 10 2012 11:19 NeMeSiS3 wrote:On November 10 2012 06:10 Hot_Bid wrote:On November 10 2012 06:01 D10 wrote: Still, do you agree with me that even Max Brooks zombies would be easily eliminated by whatever remained for lets say.. the US military forces. It's all explained quite well in the books, I thought this too before reading it. Basically the infection spreads realistically, most of the world doesn't even believe the virus exists until it's relatively widespread, and even then the government tries to cover it up to stop mass panic. The issue with "fighting" the zombies is that there really isn't anything to fight. You're fighting ghosts and tiny infections. It'd be a logistical nightmare, having to inspect all potentially infected people. Brooks also explains through placebo drugs, fake infections, organ transplants, and the natural delay between bite and full blown infection, it's very difficult to fully eradicate the virus even in a localized area. To have a large scale military battle, it would mean the outbreak has already reached a point where it is taking over a large percentage of the country. In Brooks' universe the issue is not that our weapons couldn't kill the zombies, obviously fighter jets and nukes can kill zombies. It's that you can't properly distinguish infected from uninfected. The manpower required to do this as well as to redistribute the US to a wartime economy/production (think of all the accountants, lawyers, etc who are useless in a zombie war) make the country entirely unprepared for it. Imagine if a zombie outbreak happened today, a lot of people would simply not believe it's occurring until they saw actual evidence of it. Misinformation, denial, etc would be much more likely than everyone boarding up their homes and buying weapons. Nobody would believe it, and the way its portrayed in WWZ the book makes it quite believable. TLDR; You're never going to find a place to nuke because most of the time, a city is 20% infected and the 80% healthy humans are running for their lives. This is exactly why you must eradicate the non-infected and infected of an area. There is no "pick and choose" after a point, you must do what you must do to insure humanities survival. Riiiighttt..... The amount of lives you take away in order to kill the infected would be astronomically higher than those killed by the zombies. Not true. The only way this would be ineffective is if it is an airborn disease. You close off the populated area, you try to evacuate as many as you can while setting them up in quarintine for an estimated time (generally 5x longer than it usually takes to mutate/change) and when the virus begins to manifest worse and worse in that populated area and you can't safely evacuate the civilians you lock it down and blow the city. What is the other option? Wait till it spreads? I'd rather kill 100,000 then lose a few billion and that is if I had to be one of that 100,000. You should really actually read World War Z, they cover this exact situation at one point, if I remember right. It doesn't end well for those making the decision.
|
|
|
|