But yeah I did wonder if it was only me seeing something wrong with the cop getting hit by car bit. I don't know where all those other cars. I'll rate the trailer 6.5/10. It leaves enough intrigue to make me want to see it.
[M] World War Z - Page 4
Forum Index > Media & Entertainment |
Ludrik
Australia523 Posts
But yeah I did wonder if it was only me seeing something wrong with the cop getting hit by car bit. I don't know where all those other cars. I'll rate the trailer 6.5/10. It leaves enough intrigue to make me want to see it. | ||
killa_robot
Canada1884 Posts
Only thing that looks kind of interesting is how they all kind of merged to become some sort of entity comprised of them (they acted as one thing). Certainly won't think of them as zombies (as they aren't), but the former idea I mentioned seems decent enough to give it a chance. Granted, I was still completely fucken confused as to what the trailer was supposed to show us. | ||
iKill[ShocK]
Vietnam3530 Posts
| ||
white_horse
1019 Posts
| ||
cLAN.Anax
United States2847 Posts
On a lighter note, kind of odd to see Brad Pitt with longer hair, lol. | ||
Hrrrrm
United States2081 Posts
| ||
Chairman Ray
United States11903 Posts
| ||
SigmaoctanusIV
United States3313 Posts
On November 09 2012 14:51 Hrrrrm wrote: I think it'll be a solid movie. Pitt doesn't attach himself to shit so at the very least it'll be a fun movie. I'm not going in expecting some deep film. It's the world vs zombies, lots of dead zombies and shit blowing up. thats the problem the book had some pretty deep shit in it. Brought up a lot of questions and had a pretty original and detailed world it explored. This looks like a clichéd Blockbuster action flick. | ||
peekn
United States1152 Posts
On November 09 2012 14:41 white_horse wrote: I wouldn't be surprised if it did well at the box office. People these days enjoy watching shitty films with nothing but eye candy and shiny CGI (think total recall remake, tron: legacy, transformers 2 and 3, etc etc) and so film directors are going to happily continue making them. So unless the general public (which includes everyone here) starts demanding movies with more substance, nobody will ever really make a well-crafted zombie movie. I only go to the theater if the critic rating is over 90%, but then again how well can you trust main stream critics... Quality movies are few are far between, but then again if you only had good quality movies, then none of them would be good. | ||
nkr
Sweden5451 Posts
On November 09 2012 14:41 white_horse wrote: I wouldn't be surprised if it did well at the box office. People these days enjoy watching shitty films with nothing but eye candy and shiny CGI (think total recall remake, tron: legacy, transformers 2 and 3, etc etc) and so film directors are going to happily continue making them. So unless the general public (which includes everyone here) starts demanding movies with more substance, nobody will ever really make a well-crafted zombie movie. To be fair I thought the dawn of the dead remake of 2004 was an excellent zombie movie, but maybe that doesn't count as "these days" there's still hope tho! | ||
Luminox
France223 Posts
As always when there is a film adaptation of a book, people complain that it's not "the same". Get over it, of course it's not the same, it's not the same genre for starters. And trying to translate the "World War Z" book into a movie would be... well... stupid. Stupid as in "noone would like to see a documentary where you only see people talking about zombies". It would be better suited as a series, but then again, knowing each episode would a story of some survivors, the tension would be barely felt. You have to remember films are meant to be enjoyed, not to be an exact depiction of the book they're inspired from. I don't mind them changing the whole picture in order to make a watchable film. The only thing I guess I could have a little beef about is that they took the "War Z" title, suggesting it has a connection with the book, which, as we can see, is nonexistant, but then again, if Max Brooks agreed to it, I don't see why we should be angry at Marc Forster for directing it. | ||
BlackPaladin
United States9316 Posts
On November 09 2012 12:23 Microsloth wrote: Fast zombies with animal-like instincts making zombie towers to get over walls and such.... compared to to slow, persistent, unthinking ghouls? You think the slow ones are more scary? That's just...wrong on so many levels. The zombies in this film are exactly like the book zombies except MORE dangerous because of their speed. How is this not just common sense? The reason slow zombies, while realistically they might be "less dangerous" to someone, they set a tone of general fear. Their slowness actually allows that fear to set in, and for you to really appreciate the real doom of them biting you = you become one of them. Them being reanimated corpses, their bodies rotting off their very bones....just their look gives you a really dark and doomed feeling. They ARE human decay....what you could become. They're mainly used as a plot device to show how far civilization can fall. With fast zombies, they're essentially just predators. They're like a lion hunting you. They're smart. They can actually catch you just by running. They're actually living beings. Sure they're fast, and scary, but it's more or less an action packed sort of deal where you're running instead of thinking. You just are trying to get away, rather than letting the idea and fear of them biting you set in. Slow zombies are generally a more artistic thing. They're used more for symbolism and to depict a general sense of fear and decay in the world. They're manageable for society because they're stupid, but at the same time they're so dangerous because they're tireless and so numerous. Fast zombies are more realistic, as they're no longer magically reanimated corpses slowly meandering towards you, but actually quick predators hunting you. They're more what a ZA would be like in the real world, but normally fast zombies make a less deep story. It goes away from the normal zombie genre of slow moving and symbolic to just fast moving living predators. That's not really what a zombie is to most people. | ||
Aerisky
United States12128 Posts
I do see the possibility for an AMAZING film but...well...the trailer doesn't make the movie seem like it'll be very great, either as a standalone or as an adaptation, boo. | ||
Hashbaz
United States340 Posts
On November 09 2012 14:03 Dfgj wrote: The horror of zombies was never in their physical threat, but in how they were a twisted, relentless mockery of humanity. The dread, and feeling of wrongness. This. ^^ Fast zombies are not really zombies IMO. This trailer looks interesting, but it doesn't look like WWZ. I'll see it and I'll probably like it as its own, separate thing, but I'm disappointed that it's not looking like it's going to capture what I loved about the book. A friend of mine and I were discussing this earlier and he mentioned that HBO should have done WWZ as a miniseries. How sick would that have been? :-/ | ||
Leth0
856 Posts
| ||
Disengaged
United States6994 Posts
lol that was a little stupid | ||
zalz
Netherlands3704 Posts
| ||
where_
Australia53 Posts
On November 09 2012 15:38 Leth0 wrote: Looks like a pretty good zombie movie to me. What's with all the snobby comments? No need to insult people just because they might enjoy something that you might not. Most of the responses have been pretty reasonable so far. People seem to be attacking the film more than each other. And the reason they're doing that is that while it might be a 'pretty good zombie movie', the book it's rather loosely adapted from approached a tired genre from an interesting angle, but the film doesn't appear to do that, which is a shame. Might have been better as a series instead of a film, but I guess it'll make more money this way. | ||
ssxsilver
United States4409 Posts
| ||
imallinson
United Kingdom3482 Posts
| ||
| ||