Never mind found it. Some other book movie called Mutant chronicles
[M] World War Z - Page 17
Forum Index > Media & Entertainment |
TheMooseHeed
United Kingdom535 Posts
Never mind found it. Some other book movie called Mutant chronicles | ||
Capped
United Kingdom7236 Posts
| ||
FoxShine
United States156 Posts
On May 31 2013 22:49 CrimsonLotus wrote: Then why call the movie World War Z? Just call it the zombie wave or "generic zombie movie number 37" and nobody would complain about that. But they take a book, adapt it to a movie and then make it the polar opposite of the book. It's possible to make good adaptations, of course you have to cut a lot specially for a movie, but you can still keep the themes and the overall feel of the story. Just look at Game of Thrones. All-in-all i agree. I mean the only reason i can think of that he kept the name; he was inspired by it and the world wide theme of world war z. Another poster mentioned Final Fantasy. I really liked that movie but it was nothing to do with final fantasy lol. Game of thrones i feel like they have more room because its a show where they can fit many hours. They already had like 25+ hours to fit content. Not to mention that for the masses who haven't read the book, the title world war z is really self explanatory. He just wanted to attract attention from everyone who has read or heard of the book, and the fact that the title is so great was a bonus. It was a ballsy move that's no doubt back firing a bit. It's pretty lame, but it looks like it will be at least a good zombie flick. | ||
Vaporized
United States1471 Posts
as for the movie, im glad i didn't pay for it, and wouldnt recommend it. i was curious how it turned out because i've read for the last year about what a trainwreck the production was, the movie is relatively coherent and watchable, but it was totally predictable and lacked anything resembling an interesting story. it was basically an excuse to run from zombies for 2 hours and little else. james badge dale had a small role but continued to be awesome in everything ive seen him in. i havent read the book so i cant comment on the strength of the adaptation, but the direction and screenplay were both uninspired (okay there was one 1 minute long section that was well-framed and executed, but i wont spoil it here, and frankly it felt like it came from a different, much better movie). edit: just read the last page with the post about the blink monk. that was not in the movie. | ||
AUFKLARUNG
Germany245 Posts
| ||
weishime
65 Posts
+ Show Spoiler + It was cool that Pitt was just an investigator rather than invincible action hero. His lack of mass shooting made it all the more tense. The bit about North Korea sounded insane. Also this is the first movie I think I've seen where the Jerusalem military are depicted as badasses. Other movies that I recall have kind of just had them as support to the Americans who do all the real gunning. | ||
LlamaNamedOsama
United States1900 Posts
On June 02 2013 09:35 FoxShine wrote: All-in-all i agree. I mean the only reason i can think of that he kept the name; he was inspired by it and the world wide theme of world war z. Another poster mentioned Final Fantasy. I really liked that movie but it was nothing to do with final fantasy lol. Game of thrones i feel like they have more room because its a show where they can fit many hours. They already had like 25+ hours to fit content. Not to mention that for the masses who haven't read the book, the title world war z is really self explanatory. He just wanted to attract attention from everyone who has read or heard of the book, and the fact that the title is so great was a bonus. It was a ballsy move that's no doubt back firing a bit. It's pretty lame, but it looks like it will be at least a good zombie flick. "Game of thrones i feel like they have more room because its a show." Exactly. Anyone who's read WWZ can agree that a show/miniseries format would hands down be the best film adaptation of WWZ, I really wish they had gone and done that. Hell, even the zombies don't match the books' zombies - Max Brooks (who also authored the Zombie Survival Guide) employs the Romero zombies of slow, lumbering but overwhelming zombies. | ||
RowdierBob
Australia12659 Posts
It has nothing to do with the book from what I remember reading. It's not really a horror but more of an action/thriller type show (there really isn't any gore--it's toned down a tad in terms of any really confronting scenes to appeal to a broader audience from a rating standpoint). It's more 28 Days Later than Dawn of the Dead. I think plenty of the hardcore fanboys will be disappointed with this movie but I liked it. 7.5/10. Go watch, don't take it too seriously and you'll like it. | ||
On_Slaught
United States12190 Posts
On June 02 2013 09:04 TheMooseHeed wrote: Whats that zombie film with the giant machine underground that turns everyone into zombies and has the guy from hellboy? Could've sworn that was called world war z or something like that. Never mind found it. Some other book movie called Mutant chronicles Late response here but... Mutant Chronicles. 3rd best movie they show on Scifi (imo), behind Serenity and Equilibrium. As for WWZ, I expect nothing beyond some good action and gaping plot holes. Though it should be fun. | ||
elt
Thailand1092 Posts
+ Show Spoiler + My main beef I think comes from the virus. Reanimation takes place in... 12 seconds? Then we're told of people being reanimated 5-10 minutes after? Some consistency would be nice. But that's besides the point. If reanimation was so fast it shouldn't have been able to spread the way they mention through international air travel. In WWZ reanimation takes 2-3 days after about a day of fever before a coma which meant people could actually travel as carriers looking for a cure thereby spreading the virus. Somehow I don't see Mr Fast as Fuck zombie boarding a plane (commercially at any rate). My second problem is the disjoint between the zombies being depicted as 'undead' but having a supernatural hivemind. Not to mention how on earth are they supposed to detect a fatal disease? Like yeah, cool, you get cool Fall of Jerusalem shit but... Meh. I guess it's my problem with having read the book and everything is treated consistently and 'scientifically' with no random deus ex machina. | ||
EatThePath
United States3943 Posts
On June 21 2013 00:15 elt wrote: Just saw it. I went into the movies knowing it had nothing to do with the book, and tried to judge it in itself, but just couldn't help lamenting how a decent movie could have been something a lot better. In the end I thought it was pretty formulaic, standard summer blockbuster material. + Show Spoiler + My main beef I think comes from the virus. Reanimation takes place in... 12 seconds? Then we're told of people being reanimated 5-10 minutes after? Some consistency would be nice. But that's besides the point. If reanimation was so fast it shouldn't have been able to spread the way they mention through international air travel. In WWZ reanimation takes 2-3 days after about a day of fever before a coma which meant people could actually travel as carriers looking for a cure thereby spreading the virus. Somehow I don't see Mr Fast as Fuck zombie boarding a plane (commercially at any rate). My second problem is the disjoint between the zombies being depicted as 'undead' but having a supernatural hivemind. Not to mention how on earth are they supposed to detect a fatal disease? Like yeah, cool, you get cool Fall of Jerusalem shit but... Meh. I guess it's my problem with having read the book and everything is treated consistently and 'scientifically' with no random deus ex machina. Thank you for the post; I am convinced there's no reason for me to see this movie. ^^ | ||
teapot
United Kingdom266 Posts
My heart sank when I saw Piers Moron's newsfeed cameo. Then I saw Damon Lindelof's name on the screenwriters and I groaned out loud. Very bad. | ||
On_Slaught
United States12190 Posts
I don't understand the problem people are having with the time-table on the reanimations. They point out MULTIPLE times that they effect different people differently. The clearly said that some people could get infected and not turn, which explains how they crossed in planes (exactly like we saw in 28 weeks later). Personally I think they wrapped up the movie pretty well considering what it was about. To the point where if they weren't going to make another one (I assume they are?) that this could stand on its own. Having said that it still had a lot of the predictable stuff you expect in any movie of this genre. And they don't fully explain how the virus works, where it started or how the zombies can tell if you aren't infected. Just because they don't explain the mechanics of it doesn't mean they don't at least have some explanation in general. Random thing... I wonder how intentional it was that what caused the fall of Israel and Jerusalem was a bunch of Palestinians singing. Sounds like something that would be intentional coming from Hollywood and their anti-Israel (correction Anti-muslim stuff) stuff. | ||
TheRabidDeer
United States3806 Posts
On June 21 2013 00:15 elt wrote: Just saw it. I went into the movies knowing it had nothing to do with the book, and tried to judge it in itself, but just couldn't help lamenting how a decent movie could have been something a lot better. In the end I thought it was pretty formulaic, standard summer blockbuster material. + Show Spoiler + My main beef I think comes from the virus. Reanimation takes place in... 12 seconds? Then we're told of people being reanimated 5-10 minutes after? Some consistency would be nice. But that's besides the point. If reanimation was so fast it shouldn't have been able to spread the way they mention through international air travel. In WWZ reanimation takes 2-3 days after about a day of fever before a coma which meant people could actually travel as carriers looking for a cure thereby spreading the virus. Somehow I don't see Mr Fast as Fuck zombie boarding a plane (commercially at any rate). My second problem is the disjoint between the zombies being depicted as 'undead' but having a supernatural hivemind. Not to mention how on earth are they supposed to detect a fatal disease? Like yeah, cool, you get cool Fall of Jerusalem shit but... Meh. I guess it's my problem with having read the book and everything is treated consistently and 'scientifically' with no random deus ex machina. + Show Spoiler + Reanimation only took ~12 seconds after the virus had spread a good deal already. Which means it could have easily been mutating to be more efficient. In the beginning it took a chunk of time for the infected person in South Korea to succumb to it, and the amount of time it takes was disputed among the soldiers and the CIA agent. Earlier cases take longer -> Later cases are more quick. Considering they still dont know the origin of it or the nature of it, not getting an explanation on the incubation period or anything seems reasonable for the movie. Like any movie, it does require suspension of disbelief though. I haven't read the book, but it likely requires the same. I enjoyed it, it is kind of like an adventure 28 days later kind of thing for me. | ||
FeUerFlieGe
United States1193 Posts
Also... dat Pepsi ad placement! | ||
Quakecomm
United States344 Posts
| ||
Assault_1
Canada1950 Posts
On June 22 2013 01:34 teapot wrote: World War Z is zombie movie equivalent of a Dan Brown book. My heart sank when I saw Piers Moron's newsfeed cameo. Then I saw Damon Lindelof's name on the screenwriters and I groaned out loud. Very bad. Dan Brown is good, not sure what ur getting at | ||
sambo400
United States378 Posts
| ||
xXxUnseenxXx
United States230 Posts
| ||
.SCATesteR
United States148 Posts
| ||
| ||