Personally, I think it looks really bad if you compare it to the book it is "loosely adapted from".
For those who don't know, World War Z is a really famous zombie book by Max Brooks which tells the story of a reporter that interviews different people on how the zombie breakout happened, how they managed to survive and how they got "rescued".
According to this interview, the writers opted for the "Romero" style of zombies, that follow animal instincts instead of the usual "roaming dead body" we are used to seeing: + Show Spoiler +
Visual effects supervisor John Nelson (Iron Man) said World War Z’s zombies lean more toward sci-fi transformation victims rather than supernatural resurrection subjects. That led to a lot of research into animal behavior, especially for creatures under the amok-time sway of predator appetite or spawning urge.
“They are like predatory animals that can’t control themselves,” Nelson said. “I worked with tigers [while shooting Gladiator], and if you watch them when a horse goes by they go batty, even if they know they can’t reach it. When Zs see humans they do same thing, they activate. They launch themselves.”
He went on to add: “There are a lot of things in nature we’re mining as references. They move like birds or school of fish, too, in reactive formations, and it’s not because they have a higher level of [shared] thinking or communication – it’s about their nature and the fact that their instinct to infect is so basic, efficient, and overpowering. They will go through anything. If they lose both legs, they will walk on their hands. They lock in and they’re like salmon going upstream or sperm swimming to be the first to egg.”
Unlike most fresh-water fish or spermatozoa, the zombies in the movie are resourceful when it comes to helicopter attacks. At one point in the film, a surging crowd of Zs climb up and over each other to create a writhing, wobbling column of infected flesh. “Everyone has seen everything in this genre,” Nelson said. “So of course we looked to try to find something new. And we have some."
Ugh, looks like they scraped the idea of following the book entirely. That really sucks because the book was amazing and had some really awesome scenes. This looks like another generic zombie movie :\
Looks like its going to take a different route then the book. Thats ok by me the way the book tells the story could get a little confusing in a film. Not sure how i feel about running zombies though not really my cup of tea so to speak.
To me the clips they have remind me of: The day after tomorrow for the disaster aspects, battle star galactica for the 'evacuate out to sea aspects', a questionable choice to portray Israel and their barrier walls [Sure in the book its South Africa and a white guy thinks of the plan but Apartheid has been gone for almost 20 years now. The Israeli wall issue is going on today] and then with the fast movement of the zombies it looks like I am Legend.
And in all these movies, no one has once shown what would happen to a horde of humans when they faced armored tanks.
Awesome. As a fan of both Brad Pitt and Zombies, I've been waiting for this movie for a loooooong time, and so far it looks quite entertaining. I don't know anything about the book so please don't flame.
Anyway gotta love the fact that despite the movie being basically done, we'll have to wait more than 6 months in order to watch it.
On November 09 2012 11:34 Coagulation wrote: looks fucking sweet to me. and yes I have read the book. And the survival guide. Im not hard to please.
Yes, we can see that.
Well to be honest man the book was good but it wasnt that good (its not like its hallowed ground that Im offended if people change shit about it). Like the only thing it really had going for it was that it was breaking new ground in a stale zombie genre.
Man...When I first heard about this on IMDB it seemed like it would be a good zombie movie. Now that I have seen the trailer and it looks like another boring 28 day later zombies movie kinda makes me sad =/
(note, I liked 28 days later, but it have birth to the whole fast moving "zombies" which I really dislike)
I love brad pitt but I dunno. At least its a zombie movie. Havent seen one of those in a long time.
The way the zombies were swarming looked pretty ridiculous. Also that one zombie that busted through the door didnt even look like one. Looks like a more realistic version of how a zombie apocalypse would actually happen though.
The whole idea about animal like zombies excites me! it's scares the fuck out of me as well, if a virus every did come along that was like the one in the film then we are fucked.. a zombie horde that are so hungry to spread the virus they literally climb over each other and create a "wave" or "tower"..
Yeah.. I'm terrified!
Edit: Oh yeah I read the book, great book.. Personally I think it would of made a very slow film though, personal opinion.
What the fuck at 0:38 the policeman is driving between two lanes full of cars, telling Brad Pitt to go back in his car, and two seconds later the cars are magically gone and replaced by a truck going at 60mph?
Looks like an alright movie but nothing like the source material. I wish they would just drop the name entirely because it's just going to cause unnecessary sadness from people showing up expecting the vignette-like attitude of the book, which wouldn't translate very well to a movie anyways I guess.
I think if the writers had instead opted for a movie of flashbacks (ala Titanic), it would have been much more interesting to me.
Think about it, if they simply did a direct adaptation of events told in the book (such as Yonkers, India/Pakistan, Japanese monk/otaku guy, etc) it would have led to a much more fulfilling (to me) film. Also fast zombies, just no. Having fast raging zombies in WWZ takes away from the horror of zombies depicted in the books; the persistent, unthinking ghoul with no goal but to destroy humanity (and human response to this, z-shock). Instead you have these raging monkeys that invoke the feeling of an unruly, angry mob.
Also woulda been fun to see quislings, and wars with secessionist states in the USA
This looks awesome, I love dystopian films. I haven't read the book and I don't care about it being similar to the book. Probably going to watch it, will watch it when it comes out of DVD if anything.
On November 09 2012 12:04 KtheZ wrote: I think if the writers had instead opted for a movie of flashbacks (ala Titanic), it would have been much more interesting to me.
Think about it, if they simply did a direct adaptation of events told in the book (such as Yonkers, India/Pakistan, Japanese monk/otaku guy, etc) it would have led to a much more fulfilling (to me) film. Also fast zombies, just no. Having fast raging zombies in WWZ takes away from the horror of zombies depicted in the books; the persistent, unthinking ghoul with no goal but to destroy humanity (and human response to this, z-shock). Instead you have these raging monkeys that invoke the feeling of an unruly, angry mob.
Also woulda been fun to see quislings, and wars with secessionist states in the USA
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.
Looks like it's going to be one of those movies. You know, the movies that pretend to be based on something for more publicity? This is going to be absolutely nothing like the novel. Granted, that may not be a bad thing. The large-scale zombie assaults look interesting. They definitely did something unique with their movements. I guess it all depends on how good the movie is. Odds are, it's just going to be another terrible zombie movie that used a good book as a crutch to get more sales. It still has a fairly good chance to do something right, though, and create a genuinely good movie.
I know that its hard to illustrate the danger of the 'slow' zombie - but if anyone had nailed it it was Max Brooks. Sad to see they didn't run with it and went with the 'I am Legend' style super-human.
I'll still watch it and probably enjoy it but they should change the name imo
If we ignore the fact that this is "based" on World War Z and that it's basically ignoring all of it's source material, it actually looks kind of interesting. The director is right that there aren't a lot of ways to do a new take on zombie movies, but this looks like they're actually trying to do something different. Who knows how successfully they'll pull it off, but it's doesn't look terrible at first glance.
But yes, it's a shame that they put the name "World War Z" on it.
The reason why World War Z was good was because it was a good and unique way to deliver a zombie story. It is also not suited, at all, for a movie screenplay. I just don't get how keeping it the way it was would have been in anyway a good idea. A movie with no main character? No thanks.
I am glad that this is an interpretation off World War Z, and not a direct port
1) It's a new story, so it isn't like im reading the book again in Audio-Video format. 2) It's written by Max Brooks. If you liked World War Z and Survivor's Guide, then this should be very similar in spirit.
I don't get what the point of having book ports is. Get an imagination (or your favorite recreational drug) and read the book again. I for one am glad that it is a different take on the World War Z story, with a focus that is reasonable for a motion picture.
On November 09 2012 12:04 KtheZ wrote: I think if the writers had instead opted for a movie of flashbacks (ala Titanic), it would have been much more interesting to me.
Think about it, if they simply did a direct adaptation of events told in the book (such as Yonkers, India/Pakistan, Japanese monk/otaku guy, etc) it would have led to a much more fulfilling (to me) film. Also fast zombies, just no. Having fast raging zombies in WWZ takes away from the horror of zombies depicted in the books; the persistent, unthinking ghoul with no goal but to destroy humanity (and human response to this, z-shock). Instead you have these raging monkeys that invoke the feeling of an unruly, angry mob.
Also woulda been fun to see quislings, and wars with secessionist states in the USA
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?
Its not scary in any way. It will only lead to the usual jump scares of they "almost" catching you. Its cheap and not exciting in any way. Its like people with low attention spand needs non stop action, so slow zombies will make them fall asleep, because they need constant stimulation.
The slow moving zombies were and will always be the best IMO. Them moving fast kinda takes the zombie out of them. They are meant to be slow mindless ghouls that swarms and eat your flesh. I think its the reason why the 28 day series made the term "rage virus" because they werent actually zombies. People just think of them as, because they were biting etc.
Its like Twillight with vampires. they are supposed to be dark soulless being that suck your blood, but now they sparkle. And the zombies are now angry people on steroids that can run faster then Usain Bolt.
The point of the book seemed to be that zombies are a lot harder to kill than one thinks. That's why even though they were slow in the book, they managed to defeat armies and for a while take over the world. This movie seems to be deviating away from that, which slightly disappoints me, I've seen way to many shoot em up fast zombie movies.
On November 09 2012 12:04 KtheZ wrote: I think if the writers had instead opted for a movie of flashbacks (ala Titanic), it would have been much more interesting to me.
Think about it, if they simply did a direct adaptation of events told in the book (such as Yonkers, India/Pakistan, Japanese monk/otaku guy, etc) it would have led to a much more fulfilling (to me) film. Also fast zombies, just no. Having fast raging zombies in WWZ takes away from the horror of zombies depicted in the books; the persistent, unthinking ghoul with no goal but to destroy humanity (and human response to this, z-shock). Instead you have these raging monkeys that invoke the feeling of an unruly, angry mob.
Also woulda been fun to see quislings, and wars with secessionist states in the USA
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?
Although common sense dictates that having more life-threatening situations is scarier, having fast zombies cheapens the zombie genre by simply degenerating the zombie ideal. It defeats the purpose of the zombie in its representation of death and the inevitability of human mortality, creeping slowly and catching up to humans. The concept of having a slow, lumbering, and completely calm entity that only exists to exterminate living life is, to me, the most important part of zombies.
Also, it makes no fuckin sense unless they are some virus infected humans, and still, having limbs bitten and torn off really doesnt help much with mobility.
On November 09 2012 12:04 KtheZ wrote: I think if the writers had instead opted for a movie of flashbacks (ala Titanic), it would have been much more interesting to me.
Think about it, if they simply did a direct adaptation of events told in the book (such as Yonkers, India/Pakistan, Japanese monk/otaku guy, etc) it would have led to a much more fulfilling (to me) film. Also fast zombies, just no. Having fast raging zombies in WWZ takes away from the horror of zombies depicted in the books; the persistent, unthinking ghoul with no goal but to destroy humanity (and human response to this, z-shock). Instead you have these raging monkeys that invoke the feeling of an unruly, angry mob.
Also woulda been fun to see quislings, and wars with secessionist states in the USA
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 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.
That Trailer was horrible T_T those zombies look really bad I loved the book but this looks like it has nothing to do with the book. Kind of sad that they get to call it World War Z...
This shit looks fucking sick, man i am a zombie fanatic but realism is something that always takes my breathe away, but the way the zombies all collided and flowed like a liquid was just spectacular made chills go up my spine...
I don't think filmmakers know that zombies simply aren't supposed to be scary. Zombies aren't antagonists, they're an impersonal force of nature. Sometimes they're even pathetic cosmic playthings, like in the original Dawn of the Dead.
It's the humans in a zombie movie that make it scary. Or rather, how humans react to the effects of a zombie apocalypse. That's why World War Z was such a good book, it focused on the human reaction to adversity.
This looks like it will be a mediocre "zombie" movie, even if it was a standalone. Taking into consideration that it is supposed to be an adaptation of the novel, it actually pisses me off that they screwed it up so bad. Fucking idiots.
Will not see. If you see this you are a bad person and you should feel bad.
I was excited with the way it began with the random chaos where you have no idea what's going on, but I couldn't even tell they were zombies. At first I thought people were just running from them throughout the movie, then it hit me.
On November 09 2012 14:18 Myrkskog wrote: This looks like it will be a mediocre "zombie" movie, even if it was a standalone. Taking into consideration that it is supposed to be an adaptation of the novel, it actually pisses me off that they screwed it up so bad. Fucking idiots.
Will not see. If you see this you are a bad person and you should feel bad.
If you don't see this you are a bad person and you should feel bad.
Oh wait, only "fucking idiots" say shit like that.
I don't know, could still be good. Remember the trailer is supposed to pander to the people who haven't read the book... Plus Brad Pitts a pretty good actor, eh who knows
haha i think this looks awesome!! who cares if its not exactly like the book? just take it as its own thing, its fine. also, i cant remember the last bad movie brad pitt was in....this will probably be good also. and i like "romero" style zombies....28 days later? 28 weeks later? awesome movies.
On November 09 2012 14:18 Myrkskog wrote: This looks like it will be a mediocre "zombie" movie, even if it was a standalone. Taking into consideration that it is supposed to be an adaptation of the novel, it actually pisses me off that they screwed it up so bad. Fucking idiots.
Will not see. If you see this you are a bad person and you should feel bad.
If you don't see this you are a bad person and you should feel bad.
Oh wait, only "fucking idiots" say shit like that.
If you think this movie deserves anything but negative attention for how badly it has butchered the source material while still calling itself World War Z then I don't know what you tell you...
On the other hand, you sound like someone who probably howls and cheers like a chimpanzee about every Uwe Boll adaptation.
I try to be open minded about these things, but it just looks like another standard disaster movie.
And what the fuck is with the sprinting, wall climbing zombies? Even in the WWZ books they were like, power walking speed at best, not running through the streets and crawling up walls with the speed of a thousand cheetahs.
Having never read (or even heard of) the book the trailer looked alright to me. I doubt it will be as bad as many in hear are proclaiming.
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.
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.
Thought this had to do with Day Z. Upon watching the trailer, I couldn't help but think of "The Matrix Revolutions," when all the bots spill out of the hole into the base.
On a lighter note, kind of odd to see Brad Pitt with longer hair, lol.
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.
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.
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.
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!
After watching the trailer, i can say I'd like to watch the movie, seems pretty sweet.
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.
On November 09 2012 12:04 KtheZ wrote: I think if the writers had instead opted for a movie of flashbacks (ala Titanic), it would have been much more interesting to me.
Think about it, if they simply did a direct adaptation of events told in the book (such as Yonkers, India/Pakistan, Japanese monk/otaku guy, etc) it would have led to a much more fulfilling (to me) film. Also fast zombies, just no. Having fast raging zombies in WWZ takes away from the horror of zombies depicted in the books; the persistent, unthinking ghoul with no goal but to destroy humanity (and human response to this, z-shock). Instead you have these raging monkeys that invoke the feeling of an unruly, angry mob.
Also woulda been fun to see quislings, and wars with secessionist states in the USA
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.
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.
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? :-/
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.
Just for the record. Most of those action scenes seem to all from two similar settings. One in (I think) Israel, and the other in New York. It is possible this trailer just clipped the action-y parts to get a bigger audience slice.
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.
Well, that was disappointing. This was an opportunity to make a film with a different take on the zombie apocalypse. Then again expecting Hollywood to make a fake documentary is probably expecting too much.
Personally, I think it looks really bad if you compare it to the book it is "loosely adapted from".
For those who don't know, World War Z is a really famous zombie book by Max Brooks which tells the story of a reporter that interviews different people on how the zombie breakout happened, how they managed to survive and how they got "rescued".
According to this interview, the writers opted for the "Romero" style of zombies, that follow animal instincts instead of the usual "roaming dead body" we are used to seeing: + Show Spoiler +
Visual effects supervisor John Nelson (Iron Man) said World War Z’s zombies lean more toward sci-fi transformation victims rather than supernatural resurrection subjects. That led to a lot of research into animal behavior, especially for creatures under the amok-time sway of predator appetite or spawning urge.
“They are like predatory animals that can’t control themselves,” Nelson said. “I worked with tigers [while shooting Gladiator], and if you watch them when a horse goes by they go batty, even if they know they can’t reach it. When Zs see humans they do same thing, they activate. They launch themselves.”
He went on to add: “There are a lot of things in nature we’re mining as references. They move like birds or school of fish, too, in reactive formations, and it’s not because they have a higher level of [shared] thinking or communication – it’s about their nature and the fact that their instinct to infect is so basic, efficient, and overpowering. They will go through anything. If they lose both legs, they will walk on their hands. They lock in and they’re like salmon going upstream or sperm swimming to be the first to egg.”
Unlike most fresh-water fish or spermatozoa, the zombies in the movie are resourceful when it comes to helicopter attacks. At one point in the film, a surging crowd of Zs climb up and over each other to create a writhing, wobbling column of infected flesh. “Everyone has seen everything in this genre,” Nelson said. “So of course we looked to try to find something new. And we have some."
shit like this is so rage inducing on SO many levels. the only way ima watch this is if his whole family dies including the shit child actor. another herp derp zombie movie that is LOOSELY based on the book it is portraying on top of using the cliche as shit "ENTIRE WORLD DIES EXCEPT FOR MAIN ACTORS FAMILY THAT HE IS PROTECTING".
let me stop before my rage meter fills to new unforseen levels.
I don't understand the amount of hate that's going on here. It doesn't look too bad. Might be fun to watch with friends, pizza and alcohol when it comes out on dvd. ;D
I may think Brooks is an overrated hack, but at least his book had some good points and interesting characters. This shit is just I Am Legend meets 2012. I am severely disappointed.
On November 09 2012 16:34 Dosey wrote: What the... I don't even... no... Just No
I may think Brooks is an overrated hack, but at least his book had some good points and interesting characters. This shit is just I Am Legend meets 2012. I am severely disappointed.
no, i am legen was a good movie. this movie is more like 2012 with zombies added. zombies that are NOT ZOMBIES btw. romero style "zombies" are not zombies nor will i ever consider them to be. there just infected normal humans with a rage virus. the same virus i got infected with after seeing this trailer.
Is it me or I really have no clues about zombies after watching the trailer. Thought it was literally about some future world war (4 billion killed zomg) with shit like air fighters, tanks, atomic bombs etc.
On November 09 2012 16:34 Dosey wrote: What the... I don't even... no... Just No
I may think Brooks is an overrated hack, but at least his book had some good points and interesting characters. This shit is just I Am Legend meets 2012. I am severely disappointed.
no, i am legen was a good movie. this movie is more like 2012 with zombies added. zombies that are NOT ZOMBIES btw. romero style "zombies" are not zombies nor will i ever consider them to be. there just infected normal humans with a rage virus.
Hoping this is a typo. Romero style zombies is pretty much THE definition of a zombie.
On November 09 2012 16:34 Dosey wrote: What the... I don't even... no... Just No
I may think Brooks is an overrated hack, but at least his book had some good points and interesting characters. This shit is just I Am Legend meets 2012. I am severely disappointed.
no, i am legen was a good movie. this movie is more like 2012 with zombies added. zombies that are NOT ZOMBIES btw. romero style "zombies" are not zombies nor will i ever consider them to be. there just infected normal humans with a rage virus.
Hoping this is a typo. Romero style zombies is pretty much THE definition of a zombie.
edit: my bad, i was getting him confused with another director.
even still tho my point remains the same. i hate what modern day zombies have become. if you like them thats fine, but i personally do not.
Dawn (2004) wasn't released until AFTER 28 Days later, where people expressed undying love for the new fast, intense "zombie", causing everyone to adapt to the new fast zombie take.
Romero style Zombies are arguably the definition of zombies. The slow walking, stumbling lacking intelligence zombies are what defines zombies....Zombies that function on instinct alone/
Rage virus zombies was NOT romero. That was Danny Boyle in 28 days later.
Nothing in common between the book and the movie except the name. I really liked the book, and it would be awesome to see the movie following the book more-or less closely. IMHO you don't even need a big budget for this, World War Z is great book to adopt for an indie.
Dawn (2004) wasn't released until AFTER 28 Days later, where people expressed undying love for the new fast, intense "zombie", causing everyone to adapt to the new fast zombie take.
ya read my edit, i admit i was dead wrong and do not know my directors well, but my main point still stands. i really hate the more modern day "fast and intelligent" zombies that have showed up in more recent films and even some games (resident evil starting with 4 for example). i cannot possibly see how a literally brain dead animated being is intelligent even if its in a animalistic way. and the zombies in this movie look more like 28 days later zombies than anything else.
Dawn (2004) wasn't released until AFTER 28 Days later, where people expressed undying love for the new fast, intense "zombie", causing everyone to adapt to the new fast zombie take.
ya read my edit, i admit i was dead wrong and do not know my directors well, but my main point still stands. i really hate the more modern day "fast and intelligent" zombies that have showed up in more recent films and even some games (resident evil starting with 4 for example). i cannot possibly see how a literally brain dead animated being is intelligent even if its in a animalistic way. and the zombies in this movie look more like 28 days later zombies than anything else.
The sad thing is that Brooks' zombies are pretty much identical to Romero's zombies in his books. I honestly don't understand what was going through his mind when he agreed to this nonsense, and his decision pretty much solidifies my already very poor opinion about him.
On November 09 2012 11:40 Sub40APM wrote: To me the clips they have remind me of: The day after tomorrow for the disaster aspects, battle star galactica for the 'evacuate out to sea aspects', a questionable choice to portray Israel and their barrier walls [Sure in the book its South Africa and a white guy thinks of the plan but Apartheid has been gone for almost 20 years now. The Israeli wall issue is going on today]
It's from the book though. Israel is pretty much the first country to react. They draft the initial containment plan (the South African one was a war plan after containment has failed). And when nobody goes along with their recommendations, Israel goes into quarantine, sealing themselves off with walls.
Sad. For me they could have changed everything apart from the zombies.
Sure fast zombies make for awesome action scenes but if I wanted that I'd go watch RE or 28 or something.Seems like a shame, to throw away or not try to present that sense of latent terror and horror that WWZ had in the sense that no one really knew how big the problem was and it was just mushrooming. Nothing captured like that like the ending notes for North Korea in my opinion.
It will obsviously be a pretty good movie with all the money and brad pitt and i will go watch it, i just dont get it why they needed to name at after the book when it has nothing to do with it. It transformed a documantary about survival of the species into a action packed hero-central loud noise fest.
On November 09 2012 11:57 McBrungus wrote: Jesus fucking Christ. How did they turn that book into that movie?!
My second thought was, wow they didn't stick to the format of the book at all (a series of interviews). Makes sense though, far fewer people want to watch a documentary than a zombie slaughter flick.
Edit: They really should have titled the movie "Left For Z" or something.
It really is the family card here that rubs me the wrong way. The movie looks visually great in my opinion and I absolutely love the zombie swarming and movement but the needless hollywood family drama is just tiresome.
If this was a random zombie movie I'd happily go see it, if it was focussed on the grit instead of the family bullshit I'd actually be thrilled but keeping in mind the book this is based on it looks like a travesty.
They really should have made a one or two season series out of this to be honest. The whole setup of the book is just made for it.
On November 09 2012 19:43 Nyovne wrote: It really is the family card here that rubs me the wrong way. The movie looks visually great in my opinion and I absolutely love the zombie swarming and movement but the needless hollywood family drama is just tiresome.
If this was a random zombie movie I'd happily go see it, if it was focussed on the grit instead of the family bullshit I'd actually be thrilled but keeping in mind the book this is based on it looks like a travesty.
They really should have made a one or two season series out of this to be honest. The whole setup of the book is just made for it.
Although I dread the Hollywood family shit too, I must point out that the book had plenty of family stories. Hopefully this trailer simply omitted a lot of other characters/storylines and included this one because of Brad Pitt.
On November 09 2012 19:43 Nyovne wrote: It really is the family card here that rubs me the wrong way. The movie looks visually great in my opinion and I absolutely love the zombie swarming and movement but the needless hollywood family drama is just tiresome.
If this was a random zombie movie I'd happily go see it, if it was focussed on the grit instead of the family bullshit I'd actually be thrilled but keeping in mind the book this is based on it looks like a travesty.
They really should have made a one or two season series out of this to be honest. The whole setup of the book is just made for it.
Although I dread the Hollywood family shit too, I must point out that the book had plenty of family stories. Hopefully this trailer simply omitted a lot of other characters/storylines and included this one because of Brad Pitt.
Family stories are absolutely no problem for me and the fact that the book was drama oriented with a small horror tad thrown in for good measure was what made it so enjoyable for me. If they are however going with a story driven drama/tension experience I might go with it. If they opt for an action driven story and cram in the obligatory family saving hysterics I'm out though .
So yeah, hope you're right good sir! Still think this would serve better as a short run series.
On November 09 2012 12:00 Matoo- wrote: What the fuck at 0:38 the policeman is driving between two lanes full of cars, telling Brad Pitt to go back in his car, and two seconds later the cars are magically gone and replaced by a truck going at 60mph?
man the whole story of the original book would've been so good for a movie, what a waste that they just threw it out of the window and made it another generic zombie apocalyptic hollywood movie
WHY. The whole thing that made WWZ good was its depth, you actually felt the human cost of the conflict, and it went into so much detail about how its spread, why all the modern military wasnt able to stop it, how people adapted and fought back. This is just HURR ZOMBIES RUN! I get that no one wants to sit and watch interviews for 2 hours, but there was so many possible flashback action scenes they could do, zombie in the transplant guys hospital, yonkers, indian breakers yard, berlin, russian decimations, pass in the rockies, battles as they fight back across NA, etc. All they would need is a director who actually understands pacing to get the right balance between action and story and it could be great. They should ditch the WWZ name, it clearly doesnt have anything to do with the book and that way it wouldnt raise copyright issues if someone wants to make a decent film out if it down the line. As someone mentioned, a HBO miniseries would be sick. Ah well.
On November 09 2012 21:41 RowdierBob wrote: The book would have been too hard to translate into a movie given how it was written.
hard but not impossible, coulda done it in a fake docu kind of way, problem was probably it wouldn't be interesting for a large part of the movie going audience (or mabye it would but the dudes with the money don't believe so)
On November 09 2012 21:41 RowdierBob wrote: The book would have been too hard to translate into a movie given how it was written.
hard but not impossible, coulda done it in a fake docu kind of way, problem was probably it wouldn't be interesting for a large part of the movie going audience (or mabye it would but the dudes with the money don't believe so)
There were too many stories running in the original to translate into a 2 hour film.
They perhaps could have extrapolated some of the major chapters into a full length feature, but a somewhat direct translation would be too all over the shop for me.
I'm not willing to write this movie off after a two minute clip--there's a lot to work with there (although I agree with everyone that it looks like it has nothing to do with the book. War Z in name only!)
Introduction of Good Guy Brad in normal life NYC, news of rabies coming in NYC catastrophe, including the battle from in the Bronx that the army fucked up Narrow escape of Good Guy Brad and family against all odds (possibly leaving wife or kids behind) Goes to join US military and provides some sort of intel for them Action to retake the country with new intel (Possibly dramatic rescue and reunification with lost family member) The End.
Goddamnit, the original script leaked in 2008 written by j.m. straczynski and was awesome.. this looks completely re-written and a generic summer action movie.
On November 09 2012 21:41 RowdierBob wrote: The book would have been too hard to translate into a movie given how it was written.
hard but not impossible, coulda done it in a fake docu kind of way, problem was probably it wouldn't be interesting for a large part of the movie going audience (or mabye it would but the dudes with the money don't believe so)
There were too many stories running in the original to translate into a 2 hour film.
They perhaps could have extrapolated some of the major chapters into a full length feature, but a somewhat direct translation would be too all over the shop for me.
I'm not willing to write this movie off after a two minute clip--there's a lot to work with there (although I agree with everyone that it looks like it has nothing to do with the book. War Z in name only!)
There's no way the could do a 1-1 translation of the film, that's not the point.
The point is that what made the book interesting was that it was "realistic", detailing how the whole event would develop and how the world reacted to it.
From this trailer we can see a few things:
1) Brad Pitt. 2) Brad Pitt's family who will somehow all survive in the end. 3) Zombies that don't look like zombies, run like Usain Bolt and are able to form zombie ladders.
Now, if this was named "generic zombie movie 83" then it would be ok, I would probably watch it, but calling it WWZ just ruins the name of the book.
hmm... these running in horde zombies give a different feeling than the zombies of The Walking Dead (for example)... in TWD or Zombie Games you usually question the Zombie Apocalypse (If he can kill 20 zombies so easily, why the fuck couldnt trained soldiers not stop the outbreak? etc). WWZ Zombies are smarter(instinctively) than that, even though it sometimes looks rly stupid (undead ladder? wtf?). But what I dislike the most about this trailer(and probably the film) is that the Zombies are computer generated only(?), you dont see any detail (like in TWD). :<
We don't actually know much from this trailer in terms of what elements of the WWZ vignettes will be included (for instance, we briefly saw what could be the ship convoy from the book). All we know for sure is that the zombies are definitely not the same. I'm sure it will still contain the overarching story of outbreak, denial, overconfidence, defeat, and scrappy comeback. It could still be good you guys!
As long as the family drama is just about the initial outbreak and the question of whether Brad will survive to see them again, I'm ok with it. If the central conflict of the movie shifts from man's global struggle against the zombies to Brad's quest to save his family from some overrun location, I will be very disappointed.
On November 09 2012 22:29 Daumen wrote: hmm... these running in horde zombies give a different feeling than the zombies of The Walking Dead (for example)... in TWD or Zombie Games you usually question the Zombie Apocalypse (If he can kill 20 zombies so easily, why the fuck couldnt trained soldiers not stop the outbreak? etc).
Would you believe someone saying "There's a zombie outbreak!!"? Another problem are infected humans (before they're zombies) which move to multiple locations and leading to another outbreak there. So an early strike is quite difficult.
On November 09 2012 22:03 zatic wrote: The story line will be:
Introduction of Good Guy Brad in normal life NYC, news of rabies coming in NYC catastrophe, including the battle from in the Bronx that the army fucked up Narrow escape of Good Guy Brad and family against all odds (possibly leaving wife or kids behind) Goes to join US military and provides some sort of intel for them Action to retake the country with new intel (Possibly dramatic rescue and reunification with lost family member) The End.
I would probably like that more as a generic zombie movie than as a project with the name "World War Z" attached to it. Guess we'll see how it turns out when we have more to judge by.
On November 09 2012 12:00 Matoo- wrote: What the fuck at 0:38 the policeman is driving between two lanes full of cars, telling Brad Pitt to go back in his car, and two seconds later the cars are magically gone and replaced by a truck going at 60mph?
I thought the exact same thing.
Not really a fan of running zombies. I likes 'da slow ones. Did I say running? I meant hauling booty. Judging by the trailer, I'm not even sure I could keep up with them, and I ran track/cross country. (still run)
On November 10 2012 02:21 Butterednuts wrote: Fun fact: This game was originally called World War. After the success of DayZ, this game tacked on a Z at the end of their title.
I think you may be a little confused. It's a movie based on a book of the same name. It has nothing to do with games.
Why do people think it's going to be so bad? Finally a zombie movie where the government actually does something. Even if it's bad I have to watch it, I loooove me some zombie movies.
On November 10 2012 02:21 Butterednuts wrote: Fun fact: This game was originally called World War. After the success of DayZ, this game tacked on a Z at the end of their title.
I think you may be a little confused. It's a movie based on a book of the same name. It has nothing to do with games.
oh shit, I did get it confused. There's a game that's coming out that isn't related to this at all.
The book would be impossible to storyboard into a movie as it was, I know that. But the overall plot, the war itself, the stories told, that could all be adapted into a movie. Its next to impossible to even try and preserve the plot of the book with fast zombies like this. I guess we won't be seeing any adaption of the battle of Yonkers, or the Battle of Hope. Or any of the other conflicts depicted in the book. Oh well.
On November 10 2012 02:29 Sentenal wrote: The book would be impossible to storyboard into a movie as it was, I know that. But the overall plot, the war itself, the stories told, that could all be adapted into a movie. Its next to impossible to even try and preserve the plot of the book with fast zombies like this. I guess we won't be seeing any adaption of the battle of Yonkers, or the Battle of Hope. Or any of the other conflicts depicted in the book. Oh well.
What makes you so certain the mockumentary style won't work as a movie? District 9 did it pretty good job and replacing the alien/apartheid reference with a zombie apocalypse basically gives you WWZ. Obviously they wouldn't be able to do a direct carry-over, but it was the presentation of key events (Yonkers) through a series of interviews that made the book different from every zombie-related media. This "adaptation" largely ignores that.
On November 10 2012 02:29 Sentenal wrote:The book would be impossible to storyboard into a movie as it was, I know that....
I don't think it would be at all.
The audio-book for WorldWarZ was great(Mark Hamill and Henry Rollins!) and they could use a similar method for the movie. Follow a reporter interviewing different survivors telling their story and for each one have a flashback/cut to the persons story happening in real time. That way you wouldn't have to just listen to these people tell their stories, you could have all the action and whatnot being shown while allowing the story line to jump around between the different characters with the help of the interviewer or "narrator". Also, while following the reporter as he is traveling from interview to interview, you could see the effects the whole war had on different countries and cities.
This is one of those movies that would be amazing if it was made independently instead of by a huge studio with tons of CGI and Brad Pitt (nothing against him, great actor, but not for this).
On November 10 2012 02:29 Sentenal wrote:The book would be impossible to storyboard into a movie as it was, I know that....
I don't think it would be at all.
The audio-book for WorldWarZ was great(Mark Hamill and Henry Rollins!) and they could use a similar method for the movie. Follow a reporter interviewing different survivors telling their story and for each one have a flashback/cut to the persons story happening in real time. That way you wouldn't have to just listen to these people tell their stories, you could have all the action and whatnot being shown while allowing the story line to jump around between the different characters with the help of the interviewer or "narrator". Also, while following the reporter as he is traveling from interview to interview, you could see the effects the whole war had on different countries and cities.
exactly my thoughts if they were to make a world war z show
I really wouldn't be hard to adapt the novel at all, but like I said earlier. Everything is described in the interviews. It's going to be an action movie with ridiculous sequences.
I personally don't know the book, so I can't judge it that way. But just by looking at it as a normal movie I think it isn't good. I've seen many zombie-(ish) movies in my life and this one doesn't seem to have stunning special effects nor an original story (as far as the trailer tells me). I might go a step too far on this but I think Brad Pitt might be the only thing that makes it worth watching. Replace Brad with unknown actor X and this movie would never ever make it into TL as a thread even. Seems very bad.
On the other hand... Brad Pitt seems to actually care about the movies he does (at least he cared in the past) since he was an active part of giving us the end of Fight Club (sidenote: that trailer for Fight Club also sucked dick but the movie itself was brilliant) where the movie ending was way cooler than the book ending. And all his movies in the last few years have been - at least - entertaining. So World War Z might actually be entertaining or even good despite the shitty trailer.
On November 10 2012 03:21 Fleshcut wrote: I personally don't know the book, so I can't judge it that way. But just by looking at it as a normal movie I think it isn't good. I've seen many zombie-(ish) movies in my life and this one doesn't seem to have stunning special effects nor an original story (as far as the trailer tells me). I might go a step too far on this but I think Brad Pitt might be the only thing that makes it worth watching. Replace Brad with unknown actor X and this movie would never ever make it into TL as a thread even. Seems very bad.
On the other hand... Brad Pitt seems to actually care about the movies he does (at least he cared in the past) since he was an active part of giving us the end of Fight Club (sidenote: that trailer for Fight Club also sucked dick but the movie itself was brilliant) where the movie ending was way cooler than the book ending. And all his movies in the last few years have been - at least - entertaining. So World War Z might actually be entertaining or even good despite the shitty trailer.
Brad Pitt is just stuck getting the movie done. It was supposed to be completely different from what it is now. I doubt he would have signed with the current script.
Hipster TL posters, claiming the movie will be bad but somehow brad pitt will redeem it. Please remember he was also in the movie Inglorious bastards.
Personally this movie looks really good, as much as some people seem to hate the idea of fast zombies, I like that there is a variety of styles that people approach this genre with (hell I think it would be cool if someone took the L4D approach and just went all out with special infected ect. ect.). Not to mention the fact that this is the only time I've seen an ad for a zombie movie that shows an insurmountable flood of people endlessly pouring over each other.
Looks good to me. Granted I didn't read the book, it's in my backlog. Was getting really sick of the slow shambling zombies, so this should be refreshing.
On November 10 2012 03:21 Fleshcut wrote: I personally don't know the book, so I can't judge it that way. But just by looking at it as a normal movie I think it isn't good. I've seen many zombie-(ish) movies in my life and this one doesn't seem to have stunning special effects nor an original story (as far as the trailer tells me). I might go a step too far on this but I think Brad Pitt might be the only thing that makes it worth watching. Replace Brad with unknown actor X and this movie would never ever make it into TL as a thread even. Seems very bad.
On the other hand... Brad Pitt seems to actually care about the movies he does (at least he cared in the past) since he was an active part of giving us the end of Fight Club (sidenote: that trailer for Fight Club also sucked dick but the movie itself was brilliant) where the movie ending was way cooler than the book ending. And all his movies in the last few years have been - at least - entertaining. So World War Z might actually be entertaining or even good despite the shitty trailer.
Brad Pitt is just stuck getting the movie done. It was supposed to be completely different from what it is now. I doubt he would have signed with the current script.
I don't think/hope that Brad would actually let his career get hurt because of that. He has enough power in Hollywood to actually change peoples decision and he could have done it this time. But you might be right and he let himself go. Who knows.
On November 10 2012 02:52 Prime Directive wrote: Marc Forester is a terrible director (see Quantum of Solace). After reading about the multiple re-shoots / re-writes I have no faith in this movie.
He isn't a terrible director he just can't shoot action scenes and Brad Pitt actually hand selected him to direct the movie so that should say something. The thing that worries me most is the re-writes, especially the ending in which they actually brought in Drew Goddard to write... yes Prometheus screen writer Drew Goddard.
Edit: This would have been a GREAT HBO/Showtime series.. hopefully that can happen sometime in the future.
On November 10 2012 03:31 mememolly wrote: that actually looks really really bad, dang, Pitt hasn't stop falling since fight club
having said that the wall scene near the end was kind of cool and fucked up
OFF TOPIC
You may forget some of the movies he's made since then. Its all a matter of personal taste ofcause.
Fight club 1999 Snatch 2000 Babel 2006 The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford 2007 The Tree of Life 2011 Moneyball 2011 (Killing Them Softly) 2012 - looking forward to it.
Its offcause not ALL the movies he's made since fight club that on the little list I made, but I personally think its some of the best he's ever made or been in.
If you havent seen them, I can recommend them. Espacailly Moneyball and Jesse James. Best performance ever.
In the book(s), it wasn't the strength of an individual zombie that was scary, it was their numbers and the fact that they only died when their brains ceased functioning. This made it more likely for people who took their time, played it safe, and aimed at the head only to survive. Fast zombies that look like they can even die without being shot in the head (don't know about this quite yet though) completely kill that aspect of the book.
On November 10 2012 03:27 MVega wrote: Looks good to me. Granted I didn't read the book, it's in my backlog. Was getting really sick of the slow shambling zombies, so this should be refreshing.
Where have you been the past 6 years? Fast zombies are all the rage these days to the point of being ridiculous. Give me slow classic zombies any day.
^The article i linked goes into great length about the production problems the movie has faced since being announced.
All doesn't seem well with this one but I'm going to reserve judgement until i see I suppose.
Wow that does sound like a huge fuckup.
Just watched the trailer. Not quite as bad as I expected from reading this thread, but still.... The family story line is going to completely kill anything that could have been a good WWZ adaptation
On November 10 2012 03:27 Leth0 wrote: Hipster TL posters, claiming the movie will be bad but somehow brad pitt will redeem it. Please remember he was also in the movie Inglorious bastards.
Personally this movie looks really good, as much as some people seem to hate the idea of fast zombies, I like that there is a variety of styles that people approach this genre with (hell I think it would be cool if someone took the L4D approach and just went all out with special infected ect. ect.). Not to mention the fact that this is the only time I've seen an ad for a zombie movie that shows an insurmountable flood of people endlessly pouring over each other.
Hipster TL poster, calling others hipsters for having a negative opinion but supporting an actor.
ONTOPIC: This is the type of movie I like, I have zero expectations for it, I don't think it'll be all that good but it could be awesome! Meaning that there is no hype and only reward. It was likke the Avengers, I went in expecting a relatively bad movie and I got a relatively good movie that seemed amazing just because I thought it was going to be bad. I like this kinda-placebo effect it holds on me.
This article by Simon Pegg (of Shaun of the Dead fame) does a great job of explaining why slow, ambling zombies made such great horror villains and why the fast/rage zombies are sort of a cop out:
Well the first thing I thought of when I saw this was War Z too lol, I would actually like to see this movie after playing War Z, I am like obsessed with the Zombie Apocolypse lol.
Am I the only one that thinks Zombies wouldn't stand a chance in ANY society? Maybe small communities or islands but large cities and other just seem very unlikely. There's just so many ways to kill a zombie and would seem very weak to any sort of napalm(From the military) or home made fiery explosive. Blah blah blah disease spreading to other humans, be it contact or airborne, there's just so many things you can do to prevent an outbreak.
On November 10 2012 04:43 KoKoRo wrote: Am I the only one that thinks Zombies wouldn't stand a chance in ANY society? Maybe small communities or islands but large cities and other just seem very unlikely. There's just so many ways to kill a zombie and would seem very weak to any sort of napalm(From the military) or home made fiery explosive. Blah blah blah disease spreading to other humans, be it contact or airborne, there's just so many things you can do to prevent an outbreak.
That was the whole point of the book. A "realistic" scenario of how a zombie outbreak would happen. Long story short, many countries get overruned because too many people panic and political/military leaders are way too rigid and arrogant to adopt their tactics against a very different enemy.
But in the end the zombies can't simply overrun everywhere and the human race adapts and fights back.
On November 10 2012 04:43 KoKoRo wrote: Am I the only one that thinks Zombies wouldn't stand a chance in ANY society? Maybe small communities or islands but large cities and other just seem very unlikely. There's just so many ways to kill a zombie and would seem very weak to any sort of napalm(From the military) or home made fiery explosive. Blah blah blah disease spreading to other humans, be it contact or airborne, there's just so many things you can do to prevent an outbreak.
There are several instances where an "outbreak" could happen and affect millions
But regardless of how many die, its really silly to think that the armies of the world will be unable to deal with it.
We have more than enough firepower and technology to coordinate an extermination effort much more effectively than the zombies are capable of exterminating us.
Unless its an extremelly aggressive airborne virus that affects the entire world in a few days, I dont see how zombies stand a chance.
They are the dream enemy from a military POV, extremelly predictable, extremelly inferior combat capacities, extremelly easy to destroy.
The US alone has guns and ammo enough to survive a few zombie apocs
edit: Think about Cortez and the aztecs, but "cortez" has infinitely better guns, and the aztects are a bunch of naked weaponless dudes who cant even communicate beyond "swarming this, you dig?"
On November 10 2012 02:29 Sentenal wrote: The book would be impossible to storyboard into a movie as it was, I know that. But the overall plot, the war itself, the stories told, that could all be adapted into a movie. Its next to impossible to even try and preserve the plot of the book with fast zombies like this. I guess we won't be seeing any adaption of the battle of Yonkers, or the Battle of Hope. Or any of the other conflicts depicted in the book. Oh well.
What makes you so certain the mockumentary style won't work as a movie? District 9 did it pretty good job and replacing the alien/apartheid reference with a zombie apocalypse basically gives you WWZ. Obviously they wouldn't be able to do a direct carry-over, but it was the presentation of key events (Yonkers) through a series of interviews that made the book different from every zombie-related media. This "adaptation" largely ignores that.
If you guys go back and reread the very first part of the novel, the preface the "Interviewer" wrote at the very beginning, you will see why they can't do it like the book. His purpose was to be as transparent as physically possible, and let the interviewees tell the entire story, with his "questions" just serving for things the reader might want to ask. With that in mind, how exactly would you make a movie, with a scale that dwarfs District 9, with many interviews that are nothing but world building, with a "main" character who is supposed to be practically invisible to the story? It can't be done. Unless you are watching the history channel with zombies. The stories told by the interviewees can be told, but for a theatrical movie, it can't be done the way the book does it.
On November 10 2012 04:43 KoKoRo wrote: Am I the only one that thinks Zombies wouldn't stand a chance in ANY society? Maybe small communities or islands but large cities and other just seem very unlikely. There's just so many ways to kill a zombie and would seem very weak to any sort of napalm(From the military) or home made fiery explosive. Blah blah blah disease spreading to other humans, be it contact or airborne, there's just so many things you can do to prevent an outbreak.
There are several instances where an "outbreak" could happen and affect millions
But regardless of how many die, its really silly to think that the armies of the world will be unable to deal with it.
We have more than enough firepower and technology to coordinate an extermination effort much more effectively than the zombies are capable of exterminating us.
Unless its an extremelly aggressive airborne virus that affects the entire world in a few days, I dont see how zombies stand a chance.
They are the dream enemy from a military POV, extremelly predictable, extremelly inferior combat capacities, extremelly easy to destroy.
The US alone has guns and ammo enough to survive a few zombie apocs
edit: Think about Cortez and the aztecs, but "cortez" has infinitely better guns, and the aztects are a bunch of naked weaponless dudes who cant even communicate beyond "swarming this, you dig?"
"Realistically"
Bacteria, Insects, Fungus, mold and just plain old animals would wipe out the zombies within a few weeks.
An outbreak of zombies infecting humans is likely to be disastrous, unless extremely aggressive tactics are employed against the undead. While aggressive quarantine may eradicate the infection, this is unlikely to happen in practice. A cure would only result in some humans surviving the outbreak, although they will still coexist with zombies. Only sufficiently frequent attacks, with increasing force, will result in eradication, assuming the available resources can be mustered in time.
This looks absolutely terrible. After reading the book a few years ago I was excited when I heard there was a movie in the works. And *this* is what they make of it? Sigh.
On November 10 2012 02:29 Sentenal wrote: The book would be impossible to storyboard into a movie as it was, I know that. But the overall plot, the war itself, the stories told, that could all be adapted into a movie. Its next to impossible to even try and preserve the plot of the book with fast zombies like this. I guess we won't be seeing any adaption of the battle of Yonkers, or the Battle of Hope. Or any of the other conflicts depicted in the book. Oh well.
What makes you so certain the mockumentary style won't work as a movie? District 9 did it pretty good job and replacing the alien/apartheid reference with a zombie apocalypse basically gives you WWZ. Obviously they wouldn't be able to do a direct carry-over, but it was the presentation of key events (Yonkers) through a series of interviews that made the book different from every zombie-related media. This "adaptation" largely ignores that.
If you guys need to go back and reread the very first part of the novel, the preface the "Interviewer" wrote at the very beginning, you will see why they can't do it like the book. His purpose was to be as transparent as physically possible, and let the interviewees tell the entire story, with his "questions" just serving for things the reader might want to ask. With that in mind, how exactly would you make a movie, with a scale that dwarfs District 9, with many interviews that are nothing but world building, with a "main" character who is supposed to be practically invisible to the story? It can't be done. Unless you are watching the history channel with zombies. The stories told by the interviewees can be told, but for a theatrical movie, it can't be done the way the book does it.
Well, you don't include every single interview. The movie would last 10 hours. But there were plenty of action packed stories and some others with heavy emotional content, other were just simply interesting.
But that would break the Hollywood structure of "handsome guy, bad stuff happens, h. guy struggles, h. guy finds a solution, everything ends up fine and dandy".
HBO should have made a series out of the book. It would have kicked TWD's ass all day long.
On November 10 2012 04:55 Talack wrote: "Realistically"
Bacteria, Insects, Fungus, mold and just plain old animals would wipe out the zombies within a few weeks.
You need to read the book then. All of this is very convincingly explained.
Basically the virus takes over the frontal lobe of the brain, and the rest of the brain dies. It infects the tissue of the zombie so that its flesh is abhorrent to all living things, hence their immunity to bacterial decay and other larger predators..
The virus also greatly reduces the decay rate of the corpses and dries their bodies out, almost like living mummies. The fact that their bodies are dry, with little fluid makes weapons that rely on concussion to mess up the human body (such as bombs, grenades and other explosives) pretty useless.
Only a direct wound to the front of the head will kill a Max Brooks Zombie. There are scenes in the book where soldiers get headshots, but miss the frontal lobe and then freak out because it seems to them the zombies are invincible.
They also never stop hunting prey and when they see prey they make moaning noises which attracts other zombies. Soon huge hordes of them show up because they respond to each others moans and it takes on a ripple effect.
From looking at this trailer, the very fact that the zombies run does not bode well for this project. It means they have gone too far from the source material, abandoned the books basic rules. They clearly don't understand the horror of the shambling dead, going for the cheap scares instead.
I don't mind movies departing from the details of the events of a book if they get the basic rules of the book correct. For example, Lord of the Rings. There were details they left out of the movies or changed a bit, but the movies stayed true to the basic rules of the books, and captured the feel of the books perfectly, imo.
I hope I'm wrong and the movie turns out to be good, but it doesn't seem to do justice to the book already and they should just call it something else.
At least maybe it will get a few more people to read the book.
For a trailer looks good. But damn been hearing so much good about the book, and from the looks of things guess they butchered the book to make the movie (dammit I hate when they do that).
Time to go hunt me the book and start hacking away at the pages :D.
On November 10 2012 05:21 ticklishmusic wrote: I don't know... it seems like all it keeps is the scenario. It could be basically any zombocalypse movie.
Yeah the only thing that excites me is every zombie movie ever either starts with a guy waking up after everything has collapsed or a group hide away while it does. Either way you never get to see the government response or what the world looks like. While this movie might deviate from the book in several ways i'm just excited to see how the film makers portray the global response. It has to potential to be a really good and creative movie even if it isn't a shot for shot make of the book.
On November 10 2012 04:55 Talack wrote: "Realistically"
Bacteria, Insects, Fungus, mold and just plain old animals would wipe out the zombies within a few weeks.
You need to read the book then. All of this is very convincingly explained.
Basically the virus takes over the frontal lobe of the brain, and the rest of the brain dies. It infects the tissue of the zombie so that its flesh is abhorrent to all living things, hence their immunity to bacterial decay and other larger predators..
The virus also greatly reduces the decay rate of the corpses and dries their bodies out, almost like living mummies. The fact that their bodies are dry, with little fluid makes weapons that rely on concussion to mess up the human body (such as bombs, grenades and other explosives) pretty useless.
Only a direct wound to the front of the head will kill a Max Brooks Zombie. There are scenes in the book where soldiers get headshots, but miss the frontal lobe and then freak out because it seems to them the zombies are invincible.
They also never stop hunting prey and when they see prey they make moaning noises which attracts other zombies. Soon huge hordes of them show up because they respond to each others moans and it takes on a ripple effect.
From looking at this trailer, the very fact that the zombies run does not bode well for this project. It means they have gone too far from the source material, abandoned the books basic rules. They clearly don't understand the horror of the shambling dead, going for the cheap scares instead.
I don't mind movies departing from the details of the events of a book if they get the basic rules of the book correct. For example, Lord of the Rings. There were details they left out of the movies or changed a bit, but the movies stayed true to the basic rules of the books, and captured the feel of the books perfectly, imo.
I hope I'm wrong and the movie turns out to be good, but it doesn't seem to do justice to the book already and they should just call it something else.
At least maybe it will get a few more people to read the book.
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.
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.
Seriously, if you're into the zombie apocalypse stuff, do yourself a favor and go buy the book!!!!!
That being said, regardless of how little the movie relates, I'll probably go see it (unless it gets terrible reviews). Hopefully it's at least a good apocalyptic thriller/action movie on its own.
What in the fuck man, how can they even call this WWZ when it changes one of the most important aspects of it, THE ZOMBIES. If it didn't have WWZ plastered on it, it's fine. But wtf Hollywood.
The one thing that most people forget is that in zombie mythos, the idea of a "zombie" doesn't exist. So "just shoot them in the head" isn't a thing for these people.
One of the things that comes up in the WWZ book is that military training instructs you to aim for the center of mass, because landing headshots is more difficult (among other reasons). The military got fucked for the first few months/years because they couldn't figure it out for the longest time. It's not like Zombies walk around with big red targets on their heads, if you didn't know the stories and watch the movies about them, you'd likely not figure it out just by looking at them either.
On November 10 2012 04:55 Talack wrote: "Realistically"
Bacteria, Insects, Fungus, mold and just plain old animals would wipe out the zombies within a few weeks.
You need to read the book then. All of this is very convincingly explained.
Basically the virus takes over the frontal lobe of the brain, and the rest of the brain dies. It infects the tissue of the zombie so that its flesh is abhorrent to all living things, hence their immunity to bacterial decay and other larger predators..
The virus also greatly reduces the decay rate of the corpses and dries their bodies out, almost like living mummies. The fact that their bodies are dry, with little fluid makes weapons that rely on concussion to mess up the human body (such as bombs, grenades and other explosives) pretty useless.
Only a direct wound to the front of the head will kill a Max Brooks Zombie. There are scenes in the book where soldiers get headshots, but miss the frontal lobe and then freak out because it seems to them the zombies are invincible.
They also never stop hunting prey and when they see prey they make moaning noises which attracts other zombies. Soon huge hordes of them show up because they respond to each others moans and it takes on a ripple effect.
From looking at this trailer, the very fact that the zombies run does not bode well for this project. It means they have gone too far from the source material, abandoned the books basic rules. They clearly don't understand the horror of the shambling dead, going for the cheap scares instead.
I don't mind movies departing from the details of the events of a book if they get the basic rules of the book correct. For example, Lord of the Rings. There were details they left out of the movies or changed a bit, but the movies stayed true to the basic rules of the books, and captured the feel of the books perfectly, imo.
I hope I'm wrong and the movie turns out to be good, but it doesn't seem to do justice to the book already and they should just call it something else.
At least maybe it will get a few more people to read the book.
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.
Yes, I do agree, and in fact this does happen eventually in the book. What is left of US forces gets their shit together and organizes a nation-wide extermination of the zombies. Only after adjusting their tactics does this become possible and they take some serious lumps at the beginning, stubbornly sticking to modern combat tactics (see Battle of Yonkers).
By that point though, probably 90% of the US is overrun and its a matter of reclaiming the country. It's not just told from the US perspective either. Every country handles it differently and in the end the entire global and political landscape changes. Some countries just cease to exist, others adapt and survive... even thrive.
This global perspective and how it is told is what makes the book so good. Read the book man, its a treat if you like this kind of stuff!
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.
I'll tell you, Brad. It's a cheap cash-in. As others have said in this thread, the book was great. It was very original and a completely believable look at how the world would react to a zombie outbreak (and asks that question we all dread - are we prepared?! Are we!? Ahem...). This....well, it might be a good zombie film, and I give it credit for looking at the problem in a larger scale than we are used to. Think about the zombie films you've seen, most are centred on one location - a mall, a house, a farm, whatever. This film looks like it is trying to look at something like this in a truly global scale, although obviously this isn't particularly original, since we've had the book and games like Resident Evil explore this numerous times.
What annoys me in particular is the use of the name World War Z. Why use the name, and say it's based on the book, when you approach the subject in a completely different way? When you create a narrative and focus it on one person when the book was so successful in avoiding that? I loved the documentary feel of the outbreak and subsequent changes it wrought on humanity. I was looking forward to something similar in this film - imagine it being survivor interviews, found footage, people discussing the merits and drawbacks of what was done and what they can do for the future.
I don't know, I mean the trailer was pretty damn vague, and we see Pitt running around a lot with no weapon alongside the army guys. They might try to spin it as he's the reporter from WWZ, but instead of being the stories afterwards, he's going around and gathering information/talking to survivors during the outbreak.
But that's probably wishful thinking. Also doesn't make up for the fast zombies.
Good thing they made the zombies fast! One of the big things I have never bought in zombie fiction is how slow zombies could ever make society collapse. It's just too easy to form multiple well-defended positions against them, even if outnumbered heavily. Even if the virus (or whatever it is) happened around the globe at the same time, military force would very quickly beat it into the ground whereever they went. If they should fail at that, they could form fortified positions and kill anything coming their way weathering the most chaotic parts out. (still doesnt explain why tanks are never employed in numbers to defend positions and clean out areas.
On November 10 2012 06:26 JKM wrote: Good thing they made the zombies fast! One of the big things I have never bought in zombie fiction is how slow zombies could ever make society collapse. It's just too easy to form multiple well-defended positions against them, even if outnumbered heavily. Even if the virus (or whatever it is) happened around the globe at the same time, military force would very quickly beat it into the ground whereever they went. If they should fail at that, they could form fortified positions and kill anything coming their way weathering the most chaotic parts out. (still doesnt explain why tanks are never employed in numbers to defend positions and clean out areas.
I am easily satisfied with many movies, i dont compare them to books, i dont compare them to sequels, i just sit watch and enjoy the movies for what they are, i dont watch sci fi movies and sit there to pick apart all the scientific inaccuracies.
I feel there are TONS of movies that i really like that most people would vomit over
On November 10 2012 05:44 FlyingToilet wrote: If the zombies are so fast how will the film portray fat infected, not as fast with stubby feet since they never get exhausted?
They drive around on solar battery powered scooters.
On November 10 2012 06:33 LOLingBuddha wrote: I am easily satisfied with many movies, i dont compare them to books, i dont compare them to sequels, i just sit watch and enjoy the movies for what they are, i dont watch sci fi movies and sit there to pick apart all the scientific inaccuracies.
I'm like you... usually I don't care too much that movies are close to the books. But WWZ is an exception because it is just so damn good. I've read the book 5 times now, (its become a Halloween tradition :-), and it still gives me the heeby-jeebies.
The thought that they may have caved to some suit in a studio office whos never read the book and says 'we cant sell shambling zombies' is a wasted opportunity to do a great book justice.
On November 10 2012 06:26 JKM wrote: Good thing they made the zombies fast! One of the big things I have never bought in zombie fiction is how slow zombies could ever make society collapse. It's just too easy to form multiple well-defended positions against them, even if outnumbered heavily. Even if the virus (or whatever it is) happened around the globe at the same time, military force would very quickly beat it into the ground whereever they went. If they should fail at that, they could form fortified positions and kill anything coming their way weathering the most chaotic parts out. (still doesnt explain why tanks are never employed in numbers to defend positions and clean out areas.
You're working under the colossal assumption that society is militarized and targets are all marked, a direct us-vs-them confrontation. This is unrealistic.
What actually would happen is far more like any disease outbreak - it would be spread around before anyone even started dying from it, and it would take time for news to get around/be believed, all the while people don't understand what is going on and are spreading it even before becoming full-blown zombies.
The CGI on the zombie herd looks bad. I dig the concept of a massive and sort of liquidish herd of raging zombies but the execution doesn't look great.
I know this doesn't seem like the book, but I think they could still explore some concepts from the book like the changing dynamic in the workforce and such (in the trailer, the government said they needed Brad Pitt's character for something, after all).
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.
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.
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 06:01 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.
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 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 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 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.
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.
No matter how a book goes what other choice is there? I don't see how this is any error whatsoever. Sure they might face political reprecussions but the fact is if you can contain the outbreak quickly and effectively and it IS NOT air born then it should be a task of quick clean. The issue is trying to save lives, not exterminate the virus. Get the virus, fuck the lives. Better we anhilate 5 billion of the 7 billion then let all humanity go exinct and im only really talking about a few hundred thousand.
I think it could be ok, as long as you pretend it only has the same name as a certain zombie book through pure coincidence. If there's any reason it sucks, it'll be because of the kid and wife.
The trailer didn't really intrigue me that much honestly. Looks like too much action, which makes me feel like it would be short on character development. Also, I prefer zombie stories that follow a small group of characters trying to survive rather than military involvement and large operations. Guess I'll just have to wait and see what the reviews say when it comes out, but right now my hopes aren't high.
I have the book sitting at home, I need to get around to reading that too. Even though it sounds like it's supposed to be a lot different than the what this movie looks like
For me, the book started off very strong. I really enjoyed the ethnographic form of it (especially as an academic). It helped create the impression of seeing a world post-zombie apocalypse through a very realistic perspective. Not realism in terms of looking real, but real in terms of being sort of mundane and banal, the basic ways that people survive in communities. Towards the end I lost interest however. For me the researcher's commentary on how the world fell apart was very interesting and fun to read, but the commentary on how the world got put back together wasn't as much fun.
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.
TL general throws a fit at every bit of violence-against-citizens bit of news, imagine the public reaction to something like this. You also can't quickly evacuate civilians, people that need to be thoroughly medically screened to identify if they might be bearing an infection - who knows how long it can lie dormant or how it spreads? More importantly, during that time panic may already be beginning, because evacuations are not a small matter.
Uggghhhh, this looks nothing like max brooks' style of Zombie, I haven't read WWZ but i have read the survival guide, and this is not like anything he described in there. It looks like 2012 mixed with zombies, except with less destruction porn, so basically, it look like shit
Yeah that's exactly how you have to look at it. If you want a movie to be like the book you're going to be disappointed 100% of the time. I'm sure the movie will be okay and maybe it'll be good. Not great like the book but it'll probably be hard to make something really terrible with such a fertile source to draw from.
That's modern cinema. Come out with a great movie once every 5 years, remake great movies or rip off books the rest of the time.
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.
No matter how a book goes what other choice is there? I don't see how this is any error whatsoever. Sure they might face political reprecussions but the fact is if you can contain the outbreak quickly and effectively and it IS NOT air born then it should be a task of quick clean. The issue is trying to save lives, not exterminate the virus. Get the virus, fuck the lives. Better we anhilate 5 billion of the 7 billion then let all humanity go exinct and im only really talking about a few hundred thousand.
Again, that would do nothing but cause civil unrest and possibly a war. Plus the fact that containment is never 100% fool proof. You have bribes running, smugglers, people who get transplants and show no symptoms whatsoever. By the time you identify how exactly the disease spreads, it's infested in 90% of the nations highest populated areas. Then you start bombing the cities? Aside from the site of the initial impact, you wouldn't do much to the zombies except make them irradiated piles of walking flesh eating undead, and those of us who have played Fallout know how much more dangerous those ass holes are than normal walking flesh eating undead. So by dropping a bomb, you've successfully established civil unrest, failed to contain the disease 100%, made your enemy more dangerous to the rest of the nation, and wiped out an innocent population that could potentially serve to reclaim the nation later down the line. Well done.
Not a big fan of fast zombies. At all. I have yet to see a film where I thought the slower, impending, and impersonal doom wouldn't have been far better then the cheap flight or fight scare tactics.
Night of the Dead and Last Man on Earth (technically not zombies, but a pretty good pre-cursor to Romero's) are a couple that get it. Most everything else loses the chilling atmosphere and the feeling of inevitable defeat and replaces it with gore and action.
(Never read the book- this is just a general hate for fast "zombies.")
Yet another great book turned into brainless entertainment for the plebs. Also fast romero style zombies are lame they should be slow, numerous and deceptively sneaky.
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.
No matter how a book goes what other choice is there? I don't see how this is any error whatsoever. Sure they might face political reprecussions but the fact is if you can contain the outbreak quickly and effectively and it IS NOT air born then it should be a task of quick clean. The issue is trying to save lives, not exterminate the virus. Get the virus, fuck the lives. Better we anhilate 5 billion of the 7 billion then let all humanity go exinct and im only really talking about a few hundred thousand.
The error is that at the point people realize it's about survival of humanity, the infection has spread so far that it is already impossible to contain it. That is what is explained quite well in the book.
Sure, if you have only one infected city and everyone knew don't let it spread or humanity will vanish the issue is real simple. But that's not how it works.
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.
No matter how a book goes what other choice is there? I don't see how this is any error whatsoever. Sure they might face political reprecussions but the fact is if you can contain the outbreak quickly and effectively and it IS NOT air born then it should be a task of quick clean. The issue is trying to save lives, not exterminate the virus. Get the virus, fuck the lives. Better we anhilate 5 billion of the 7 billion then let all humanity go exinct and im only really talking about a few hundred thousand.
Just read the book dude, you clearly haven't put much thought into this. I mean come on. Just off the top of my head, + Show Spoiler +
Even when you ignore the public outrage and the moral dilemmas, you can't have 100% compliance within your own military. There are only so many innocent lives a person is going to be able to kill before they can't do it anymore. And all it takes is 1 breach, and you effectively just killed hundreds of thousands of innocent lives for literally no gain. You're gambling that many lives on the tiny tiny chance that you will be able to secure and eradicate the virus from a small localized area.
At which point, you are faced with the impossibly difficult problem of securing your borders. Infected blood and organ donations that are already in storage, unregulated medical operations, smuggled refuges, actual refuges, not even counting the infected who will just walk in. Or the infected that are washed in by a river and dumped into a marsh or estuary, etc. All while trying to control the massive number of riots and civil unrest from your massacre of innocents. Family members who can't return home because you closed off your borders, soldiers who abandon their post to save their loved ones, people attacking government offices effectively shutting down any sort of rapid transmission of orders, etc etc.
Unless you're imagining that it's like a video game and one city becomes heavily infected while the rest of the world is untouched. "Man eats police officer in Washington after being shot repeatedly". Do you instantly quarantine Washington? "Small village in rural South America attacked by cannibals". Do you blow up the surrounding wilderness? Realistically, by the time you realized and convince enough people what the hell is going on, it's already an international problem.
I don't think people are realizing how different the book and this trailer are. We're not angry because it looks awful, we're angry because it's like announcing a Harry Potter movie but with no magic.
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.
No matter how a book goes what other choice is there? I don't see how this is any error whatsoever. Sure they might face political reprecussions but the fact is if you can contain the outbreak quickly and effectively and it IS NOT air born then it should be a task of quick clean. The issue is trying to save lives, not exterminate the virus. Get the virus, fuck the lives. Better we anhilate 5 billion of the 7 billion then let all humanity go exinct and im only really talking about a few hundred thousand.
Just read the book dude, you clearly haven't put much thought into this. I mean come on. Just off the top of my head,
Unless you're imagining that it's like a video game and one city becomes heavily infected while the rest of the world is untouched. "Man eats police officer in Washington after being shot repeatedly". Do you instantly quarantine Washington? "Small village in rural South America attacked by cannibals". Do you blow up the surrounding wilderness? Realistically, by the time you realized and convince enough people what the hell is going on, it's already an international problem.
Yepp, that's the entire problem with the full on military action idea.
Fighting a zombie apocalypse is exactly like fighting a plague. By the time you know for certain it's a threat, it's already too late.
That's why, in real life, organizations pertaining to disease control tend to react with overwhelming and excessive force every time a new pathogen even hints at being a threat...the recent H1N1 scare comes to mind. Because one error in judgment could let a disease become the next Spanish Flu or Black Death.
Most zombie apocalypses are basically that one error. Or a particularly exceptional virus.
People take all those zombie apocalypse way too seriously. Like everything the guy wrote in world war Z is well thought out and describe the potential reality to the best extend - if a zombie breakout happens. It's all full of shit, and the metaphore behind the breakout is also really dangerous and oriented politically (only Izrael react the good way against the break out ? Iran and Pakistan nuking their shit ? What is the teaching ? we should close our boarders ? Arabs are nuts ? The state is inapt to do anything because of corruption and whatnot ? People refuse to accept the reality and the necessity that goes with it ? Really ?).
People needs to take distance with what they read and use their critical skills. I'm not saying all is wrong, there are some question that the books ask that are really interesting and well thought out, but people need to stop thinking it's like the best description ever of how a zombie / plague / anything "apolcalypse" would happen. I have to note that the incubation period, the way the disease spread, etc. is all completly imaginated and far from what the reality of virus is - think about how a virus would mutate going through billions of people, and the time it takes for real life virus to kill / take effect.
On November 12 2012 18:54 Xenocide_Knight wrote: We're not angry because it looks awful, we're angry because it's like announcing a Harry Potter movie but with no magic.
This, precisely. Thank you for this excellent comparison. I will use it in future arguments.
On November 12 2012 22:59 WhiteDog wrote: People take all those zombie apocalypse way too seriously. Like everything the guy wrote in world war Z is well thought out and describe the potential reality to the best extend - if a zombie breakout happens. It's all full of shit, and the metaphore behind the breakout is also really dangerous and oriented politically (only Izrael react the good way against the break out ? Iran and Pakistan nuking their shit ? What is the teaching ? we should close our boarders ? Arabs are nuts ? The state is inapt to do anything because of corruption and whatnot ? People refuse to accept the reality and the necessity that goes with it ? Really ?).
People needs to take distance with what they read and use their critical skills. I'm not saying all is wrong, there are some question that the books ask that are really interesting and well thought out, but people need to stop thinking it's like the best description ever of how a zombie / plague / anything "apolcalypse" would happen. I have to note that the incubation period, the way the disease spread, etc. is all completly imaginated and far from what the reality of virus is - think about how a virus would mutate going through billions of people, and the time it takes for real life virus to kill / take effect.
Neither Iran nor Pakistan are Arab countries.
And it isn't that crazy to think that a nation that is perpetually obsessed with its own survival, would be the most adapt at responding and surviving to zombie outbreak.
Regardless, not all of WWZ is political satire, though a good chunk of it is. A good portion of it is just your basic zombie story. Not all of it is as satire-heav as the celebrity chapter.
Some nations die, some nations flourish, it's the story of the author. If you take off the political goggles, you might realize that it isn't a covert white-power novel, but just a zombie story with some political commentary that should be taken as seriously as the political views of a zombie author ought to be.
On November 12 2012 18:54 Xenocide_Knight wrote: We're not angry because it looks awful, we're angry because it's like announcing a Harry Potter movie but with no magic.
This, precisely. Thank you for this excellent comparison. I will use it in future arguments.
The comparison is bad. Following his logic it would be more like world war z didn't have zombies. Which is false.
And the book is not exactly the lord of the rings.
Reading this thread you would think that someone took the lord of the rings and turned it into a space sci fi movie. The book was mediocre at best, it wasn't as good as some people in this thread might have others believe. A lot of the dialogue in the book is downright laughably bad from the characters, it touches on a lot of points but only as if to say "this is bad mkay" , government cover ups (bad mkay) , black market body parts (bad mkay) ect ect. But it never really delves into these issues beyond that simple pointing of the finger before it jumps on to the next character.
TLDR . Mediocre book being made into a what looks like a mediocre movie.
The issue isn't that the book was the most brilliant piece of literature, it's that it was very unique in the style it was written, as a post-post apocalyptic story with the reporter jumping between generally likeable characters. Instead, the movie looks like a boring, generic action flick that only gets the nametag because the main character is named the same and there are zombies. It looks like it lost the human-focused imagery and storytelling to get more big zombie horde action sequences with Brad Pitt looking rugged.
It's not a masterpiece, but was different and enjoyable, not just blockbuster blasé. I'll happily eat my words if it turns out to keep the spirit of the book, but I won't be holding my breath.
On November 12 2012 18:54 Xenocide_Knight wrote: We're not angry because it looks awful, we're angry because it's like announcing a Harry Potter movie but with no magic.
Damn, that's the greatest one liner I've seen in awhile.
On November 09 2012 21:40 Blacktion wrote: WHY. The whole thing that made WWZ good was its depth, you actually felt the human cost of the conflict, and it went into so much detail about how its spread, why all the modern military wasnt able to stop it, how people adapted and fought back. This is just HURR ZOMBIES RUN! I get that no one wants to sit and watch interviews for 2 hours, but there was so many possible flashback action scenes they could do, zombie in the transplant guys hospital, yonkers, indian breakers yard, berlin, russian decimations, pass in the rockies, battles as they fight back across NA, etc. All they would need is a director who actually understands pacing to get the right balance between action and story and it could be great. They should ditch the WWZ name, it clearly doesnt have anything to do with the book and that way it wouldnt raise copyright issues if someone wants to make a decent film out if it down the line. As someone mentioned, a HBO miniseries would be sick. Ah well.
I love how you, and 90% of the posters here generalize this movie into a "hurr zombies run!" From a two minute trailer............ Not saying it isn't, but how could you possibly know?
On November 09 2012 21:40 Blacktion wrote: WHY. The whole thing that made WWZ good was its depth, you actually felt the human cost of the conflict, and it went into so much detail about how its spread, why all the modern military wasnt able to stop it, how people adapted and fought back. This is just HURR ZOMBIES RUN! I get that no one wants to sit and watch interviews for 2 hours, but there was so many possible flashback action scenes they could do, zombie in the transplant guys hospital, yonkers, indian breakers yard, berlin, russian decimations, pass in the rockies, battles as they fight back across NA, etc. All they would need is a director who actually understands pacing to get the right balance between action and story and it could be great. They should ditch the WWZ name, it clearly doesnt have anything to do with the book and that way it wouldnt raise copyright issues if someone wants to make a decent film out if it down the line. As someone mentioned, a HBO miniseries would be sick. Ah well.
I love how you, and 90% of the posters here generalize this movie into a "hurr zombies run!" From a two minute trailer............ Not saying it isn't, but how could you possibly know?
Eh, then it's poor advertising on their part. If you didn't know the comic source, how would you know Hulk was about a giant monster superhero (antihero, whatever) if the trailer was 2 and a half minutes of Banner sitting in a lab mixing test tubes and then going home and having dinner?
Just making them fast zombies with animalistic instincts already destroys the feel of the slow moving zombies genre, which is imo what a real zombie in the zombie genre should be about.... x_x
On November 25 2012 11:55 BlackPaladin wrote: Just making them fast zombies with animalistic instincts already destroys the feel of the slow moving zombies genre, which is imo what a real zombie in the zombie genre should be about.... x_x
Yea, the only movie series i liked with fast zombies was the "28" (days/weeks) but i know a lot of people didn't like those themself.
Personally I felt that the book was more a story about modern society. It was a commentary on how we collectively deal with crisis.
The fact that the zombies were "slow" only served to highlight the point. They weren't actually threatening if you have the knowledge and organization to deal with them. Even the book mentions this and says that the fictional US Army's rank of "most dangerous" put the zombies at the bottom.
By making the zombies themselves more dangerous, the film undermines its ability to make the statement that our own incompetence will be our downfall. I'm still hopeful that the film will be enjoyable, but I doubt it will send the same kind of message that made the book so good.
On November 25 2012 08:43 xsnac wrote: i find the way the made zombies all pixels and very fast .. very very stupid and awkward . zombies are slow right ? RIGHT ??
I won't mind the zombies being fast. Slow zombies are a bit boring right now, the only dangerous point about them is the swarm number and unexpected locations. Looking at the tv drama, the walking dead, slow zombies are very easily containable. It's just hard to get food and supplies to keep it going.
28 days later had fast zombies and it was quite good. Dawn of the dead was really awesome for me but that's mostly because they were hiding inside a shopping mall
I don't get why zombies should be slow moving as well, I get it that their body is decaying and not everyone of them get good energy intake. But seeing how much and how high blood still can spill out, it's obvious they can pump blood and get those muscle moving. A mind filled with nothing but spreading disease and eating should run when they see food, unlike zombie ants where their mind is infested and is being controlled out of their will. their method of spreading the disease is different too
On November 12 2012 18:29 schaf wrote: I'm glad I didn't read the book, then :D
no seriously, this looks like an okay fast-paced zombie movie with brad pitt. Nothing wrong there for a little entertainment.
Go ahead and read the book, it's good and it wont ruin the movie for you.
People are going to complain about book-movie adaptations no matter what happens, trying to sell this movie based on the book-style of writing instead of the action-based side of the book would result in a total loss of revenue.
Nobody goes into zombie movies looking for deep insights into human behavior and social functionality.
On November 12 2012 18:29 schaf wrote: I'm glad I didn't read the book, then :D
no seriously, this looks like an okay fast-paced zombie movie with brad pitt. Nothing wrong there for a little entertainment.
Go ahead and read the book, it's good and it wont ruin the movie for you.
People are going to complain about book-movie adaptations no matter what happens, trying to sell this movie based on the book-style of writing instead of the action-based side of the book would result in a total loss of revenue.
Nobody goes into zombie movies looking for deep insights into human behavior and social functionality.
Actually they do. Just look att the Walking Dead's thread and how much people complain that the series are not realistic enough, even though no one knows anything about "real" zombies.
On November 12 2012 18:29 schaf wrote: I'm glad I didn't read the book, then :D
no seriously, this looks like an okay fast-paced zombie movie with brad pitt. Nothing wrong there for a little entertainment.
Go ahead and read the book, it's good and it wont ruin the movie for you.
People are going to complain about book-movie adaptations no matter what happens, trying to sell this movie based on the book-style of writing instead of the action-based side of the book would result in a total loss of revenue.
Nobody goes into zombie movies looking for deep insights into human behavior and social functionality.
Actually they do. Just look att the Walking Dead's thread and how much people complain that the series are not realistic enough, even though no one knows anything about "real" zombies.
The thread is full of people arguing about lori making stupid decisions 24/7 and talking about inconsistencies in the zombies strength/ability. Realism is not a main discussion point in that thread, it's just "why the hell would they let Carl run around doing w/e the hell he wants all the time" or "so suddenly zombies are able to rip a person in half when they couldn't even get themselves out of the mud before?"
The difference between a tv show for character development and a movie is that you get x10-20 more hours of time to do it in, a movie has to be entertaining and marketed as such while still fitting into a 1.5-2.5 hour time frame.
On November 09 2012 21:40 Blacktion wrote: WHY. The whole thing that made WWZ good was its depth, you actually felt the human cost of the conflict, and it went into so much detail about how its spread, why all the modern military wasnt able to stop it, how people adapted and fought back. This is just HURR ZOMBIES RUN! I get that no one wants to sit and watch interviews for 2 hours, but there was so many possible flashback action scenes they could do, zombie in the transplant guys hospital, yonkers, indian breakers yard, berlin, russian decimations, pass in the rockies, battles as they fight back across NA, etc. All they would need is a director who actually understands pacing to get the right balance between action and story and it could be great. They should ditch the WWZ name, it clearly doesnt have anything to do with the book and that way it wouldnt raise copyright issues if someone wants to make a decent film out if it down the line. As someone mentioned, a HBO miniseries would be sick. Ah well.
I love how you, and 90% of the posters here generalize this movie into a "hurr zombies run!" From a two minute trailer............ Not saying it isn't, but how could you possibly know?
Because based on the 2minute trailer, the zombies run.
On November 09 2012 21:40 Blacktion wrote: WHY. The whole thing that made WWZ good was its depth, you actually felt the human cost of the conflict, and it went into so much detail about how its spread, why all the modern military wasnt able to stop it, how people adapted and fought back. This is just HURR ZOMBIES RUN! I get that no one wants to sit and watch interviews for 2 hours, but there was so many possible flashback action scenes they could do, zombie in the transplant guys hospital, yonkers, indian breakers yard, berlin, russian decimations, pass in the rockies, battles as they fight back across NA, etc. All they would need is a director who actually understands pacing to get the right balance between action and story and it could be great. They should ditch the WWZ name, it clearly doesnt have anything to do with the book and that way it wouldnt raise copyright issues if someone wants to make a decent film out if it down the line. As someone mentioned, a HBO miniseries would be sick. Ah well.
I love how you, and 90% of the posters here generalize this movie into a "hurr zombies run!" From a two minute trailer............ Not saying it isn't, but how could you possibly know?
Producers already said that they wanted a different style of zombies that follow "animal" instincts. They run around and move in a flock, like was shown in the trailer.
That's exactly what they wanted to show in the trailer and 90% of the people in this thread got it right.
On November 25 2012 12:27 titanicnewbie wrote: Personally I felt that the book was more a story about modern society. It was a commentary on how we collectively deal with crisis.
The fact that the zombies were "slow" only served to highlight the point. They weren't actually threatening if you have the knowledge and organization to deal with them. Even the book mentions this and says that the fictional US Army's rank of "most dangerous" put the zombies at the bottom.
By making the zombies themselves more dangerous, the film undermines its ability to make the statement that our own incompetence will be our downfall. I'm still hopeful that the film will be enjoyable, but I doubt it will send the same kind of message that made the book so good.
The thing is, it's a movie. It's 2 hours. What did you seriously expect ?
On November 09 2012 21:40 Blacktion wrote: WHY. The whole thing that made WWZ good was its depth, you actually felt the human cost of the conflict, and it went into so much detail about how its spread, why all the modern military wasnt able to stop it, how people adapted and fought back. This is just HURR ZOMBIES RUN! I get that no one wants to sit and watch interviews for 2 hours, but there was so many possible flashback action scenes they could do, zombie in the transplant guys hospital, yonkers, indian breakers yard, berlin, russian decimations, pass in the rockies, battles as they fight back across NA, etc. All they would need is a director who actually understands pacing to get the right balance between action and story and it could be great. They should ditch the WWZ name, it clearly doesnt have anything to do with the book and that way it wouldnt raise copyright issues if someone wants to make a decent film out if it down the line. As someone mentioned, a HBO miniseries would be sick. Ah well.
I love how you, and 90% of the posters here generalize this movie into a "hurr zombies run!" From a two minute trailer............ Not saying it isn't, but how could you possibly know?
Because based on the 2minute trailer, the zombies run.
On November 09 2012 21:40 Blacktion wrote: WHY. The whole thing that made WWZ good was its depth, you actually felt the human cost of the conflict, and it went into so much detail about how its spread, why all the modern military wasnt able to stop it, how people adapted and fought back. This is just HURR ZOMBIES RUN! I get that no one wants to sit and watch interviews for 2 hours, but there was so many possible flashback action scenes they could do, zombie in the transplant guys hospital, yonkers, indian breakers yard, berlin, russian decimations, pass in the rockies, battles as they fight back across NA, etc. All they would need is a director who actually understands pacing to get the right balance between action and story and it could be great. They should ditch the WWZ name, it clearly doesnt have anything to do with the book and that way it wouldnt raise copyright issues if someone wants to make a decent film out if it down the line. As someone mentioned, a HBO miniseries would be sick. Ah well.
I love how you, and 90% of the posters here generalize this movie into a "hurr zombies run!" From a two minute trailer............ Not saying it isn't, but how could you possibly know?
Producers already said that they wanted a different style of zombies that follow "animal" instincts. They run around and move in a flock, like was shown in the trailer.
That's exactly what they wanted to show in the trailer and 90% of the people in this thread got it right.
Sigh. He isn't referring to the fact that the zombies can run.
On November 09 2012 21:40 Blacktion wrote: WHY. The whole thing that made WWZ good was its depth, you actually felt the human cost of the conflict, and it went into so much detail about how its spread, why all the modern military wasnt able to stop it, how people adapted and fought back. This is just HURR ZOMBIES RUN! I get that no one wants to sit and watch interviews for 2 hours, but there was so many possible flashback action scenes they could do, zombie in the transplant guys hospital, yonkers, indian breakers yard, berlin, russian decimations, pass in the rockies, battles as they fight back across NA, etc. All they would need is a director who actually understands pacing to get the right balance between action and story and it could be great. They should ditch the WWZ name, it clearly doesnt have anything to do with the book and that way it wouldnt raise copyright issues if someone wants to make a decent film out if it down the line. As someone mentioned, a HBO miniseries would be sick. Ah well.
I love how you, and 90% of the posters here generalize this movie into a "hurr zombies run!" From a two minute trailer............ Not saying it isn't, but how could you possibly know?
Because based on the 2minute trailer, the zombies run.
On November 09 2012 21:40 Blacktion wrote: WHY. The whole thing that made WWZ good was its depth, you actually felt the human cost of the conflict, and it went into so much detail about how its spread, why all the modern military wasnt able to stop it, how people adapted and fought back. This is just HURR ZOMBIES RUN! I get that no one wants to sit and watch interviews for 2 hours, but there was so many possible flashback action scenes they could do, zombie in the transplant guys hospital, yonkers, indian breakers yard, berlin, russian decimations, pass in the rockies, battles as they fight back across NA, etc. All they would need is a director who actually understands pacing to get the right balance between action and story and it could be great. They should ditch the WWZ name, it clearly doesnt have anything to do with the book and that way it wouldnt raise copyright issues if someone wants to make a decent film out if it down the line. As someone mentioned, a HBO miniseries would be sick. Ah well.
I love how you, and 90% of the posters here generalize this movie into a "hurr zombies run!" From a two minute trailer............ Not saying it isn't, but how could you possibly know?
Producers already said that they wanted a different style of zombies that follow "animal" instincts. They run around and move in a flock, like was shown in the trailer.
That's exactly what they wanted to show in the trailer and 90% of the people in this thread got it right.
Sigh. He isn't referring to the fact that the zombies can run.
The problem is, you haven't seen the movie. What if making the zombies fast is what achieves the right pacing for the movie ?
On November 09 2012 21:40 Blacktion wrote: WHY. The whole thing that made WWZ good was its depth, you actually felt the human cost of the conflict, and it went into so much detail about how its spread, why all the modern military wasnt able to stop it, how people adapted and fought back. This is just HURR ZOMBIES RUN! I get that no one wants to sit and watch interviews for 2 hours, but there was so many possible flashback action scenes they could do, zombie in the transplant guys hospital, yonkers, indian breakers yard, berlin, russian decimations, pass in the rockies, battles as they fight back across NA, etc. All they would need is a director who actually understands pacing to get the right balance between action and story and it could be great. They should ditch the WWZ name, it clearly doesnt have anything to do with the book and that way it wouldnt raise copyright issues if someone wants to make a decent film out if it down the line. As someone mentioned, a HBO miniseries would be sick. Ah well.
I love how you, and 90% of the posters here generalize this movie into a "hurr zombies run!" From a two minute trailer............ Not saying it isn't, but how could you possibly know?
Because based on the 2minute trailer, the zombies run.
On November 25 2012 14:20 Hoon wrote:
On November 25 2012 09:19 mprs wrote:
On November 09 2012 21:40 Blacktion wrote: WHY. The whole thing that made WWZ good was its depth, you actually felt the human cost of the conflict, and it went into so much detail about how its spread, why all the modern military wasnt able to stop it, how people adapted and fought back. This is just HURR ZOMBIES RUN! I get that no one wants to sit and watch interviews for 2 hours, but there was so many possible flashback action scenes they could do, zombie in the transplant guys hospital, yonkers, indian breakers yard, berlin, russian decimations, pass in the rockies, battles as they fight back across NA, etc. All they would need is a director who actually understands pacing to get the right balance between action and story and it could be great. They should ditch the WWZ name, it clearly doesnt have anything to do with the book and that way it wouldnt raise copyright issues if someone wants to make a decent film out if it down the line. As someone mentioned, a HBO miniseries would be sick. Ah well.
I love how you, and 90% of the posters here generalize this movie into a "hurr zombies run!" From a two minute trailer............ Not saying it isn't, but how could you possibly know?
Producers already said that they wanted a different style of zombies that follow "animal" instincts. They run around and move in a flock, like was shown in the trailer.
That's exactly what they wanted to show in the trailer and 90% of the people in this thread got it right.
Sigh. He isn't referring to the fact that the zombies can run.
The problem is, you haven't seen the movie. What if making the zombies fast is what achieves the right pacing for the movie ?
On November 09 2012 21:40 Blacktion wrote: WHY. The whole thing that made WWZ good was its depth, you actually felt the human cost of the conflict, and it went into so much detail about how its spread, why all the modern military wasnt able to stop it, how people adapted and fought back. This is just HURR ZOMBIES RUN! I get that no one wants to sit and watch interviews for 2 hours, but there was so many possible flashback action scenes they could do, zombie in the transplant guys hospital, yonkers, indian breakers yard, berlin, russian decimations, pass in the rockies, battles as they fight back across NA, etc. All they would need is a director who actually understands pacing to get the right balance between action and story and it could be great. They should ditch the WWZ name, it clearly doesnt have anything to do with the book and that way it wouldnt raise copyright issues if someone wants to make a decent film out if it down the line. As someone mentioned, a HBO miniseries would be sick. Ah well.
I love how you, and 90% of the posters here generalize this movie into a "hurr zombies run!" From a two minute trailer............ Not saying it isn't, but how could you possibly know?
Because based on the 2minute trailer, the zombies run.
On November 25 2012 14:20 Hoon wrote:
On November 25 2012 09:19 mprs wrote:
On November 09 2012 21:40 Blacktion wrote: WHY. The whole thing that made WWZ good was its depth, you actually felt the human cost of the conflict, and it went into so much detail about how its spread, why all the modern military wasnt able to stop it, how people adapted and fought back. This is just HURR ZOMBIES RUN! I get that no one wants to sit and watch interviews for 2 hours, but there was so many possible flashback action scenes they could do, zombie in the transplant guys hospital, yonkers, indian breakers yard, berlin, russian decimations, pass in the rockies, battles as they fight back across NA, etc. All they would need is a director who actually understands pacing to get the right balance between action and story and it could be great. They should ditch the WWZ name, it clearly doesnt have anything to do with the book and that way it wouldnt raise copyright issues if someone wants to make a decent film out if it down the line. As someone mentioned, a HBO miniseries would be sick. Ah well.
I love how you, and 90% of the posters here generalize this movie into a "hurr zombies run!" From a two minute trailer............ Not saying it isn't, but how could you possibly know?
Producers already said that they wanted a different style of zombies that follow "animal" instincts. They run around and move in a flock, like was shown in the trailer.
That's exactly what they wanted to show in the trailer and 90% of the people in this thread got it right.
Sigh. He isn't referring to the fact that the zombies can run.
The problem is, you haven't seen the movie. What if making the zombies fast is what achieves the right pacing for the movie ?
On November 25 2012 08:43 xsnac wrote: i find the way the made zombies all pixels and very fast .. very very stupid and awkward . zombies are slow right ? RIGHT ??
I won't mind the zombies being fast. Slow zombies are a bit boring right now, the only dangerous point about them is the swarm number and unexpected locations. Looking at the tv drama, the walking dead, slow zombies are very easily containable. It's just hard to get food and supplies to keep it going.
28 days later had fast zombies and it was quite good. Dawn of the dead was really awesome for me but that's mostly because they were hiding inside a shopping mall
I don't get why zombies should be slow moving as well, I get it that their body is decaying and not everyone of them get good energy intake. But seeing how much and how high blood still can spill out, it's obvious they can pump blood and get those muscle moving. A mind filled with nothing but spreading disease and eating should run when they see food, unlike zombie ants where their mind is infested and is being controlled out of their will. their method of spreading the disease is different too
Its pointless to argue about the science behind zombies. Its supposed to be supernatural. Its okay for zombie/vampire movies not to explain anything behind them, since they are the unknown. Zombies dont move slow because they are corpses and have less muscle, then the logic would be they shouldnt be able to move at all, since well, they are DEAD.
They move slow because they represent the slow death we all face at some point. Its unavoidable. Its scary and horrorfying seeing the remnants of dead people slowly moving towards you with no fear, and no intention other then kill you. The fact that they swarm and slowly creeps up on you, shows how pointless living really is. No matter where you hide and how far you run, they will slowly catch up to you.
Its only in modern movies we see the fast moving zombies, and offcause people cant understand it, so they try to explain the "science" behind it. Like the Rage virus in 28 days later. For me its okay and perfectly fine that movies dont explain certain things. Stuff like vampires and zombies should never have a scientific explanation. To me its just so stupid...c'mon...rage virus..really?
Why cant it be something, dark, twisted and unnatural as zombies. Not some virus that somehow make them rise and angry.. Its an alternative way of making them, I agree. But its just not real zombies. Its the hollywood makeover. Anyways. just my thought on it.
On November 25 2012 08:43 xsnac wrote: i find the way the made zombies all pixels and very fast .. very very stupid and awkward . zombies are slow right ? RIGHT ??
I won't mind the zombies being fast. Slow zombies are a bit boring right now, the only dangerous point about them is the swarm number and unexpected locations. Looking at the tv drama, the walking dead, slow zombies are very easily containable. It's just hard to get food and supplies to keep it going.
28 days later had fast zombies and it was quite good. Dawn of the dead was really awesome for me but that's mostly because they were hiding inside a shopping mall
I don't get why zombies should be slow moving as well, I get it that their body is decaying and not everyone of them get good energy intake. But seeing how much and how high blood still can spill out, it's obvious they can pump blood and get those muscle moving. A mind filled with nothing but spreading disease and eating should run when they see food, unlike zombie ants where their mind is infested and is being controlled out of their will. their method of spreading the disease is different too
Its pointless to argue about the science behind zombies. Its supposed to be supernatural. Its okay for zombie/vampire movies not to explain anything behind them, since they are the unknown. Zombies dont move slow because they are corpses and have less muscle, then the logic would be they shouldnt be able to move at all, since well, they are DEAD.
They move slow because they represent the slow death we all face at some point. Its unavoidable. Its scary and horrorfying seeing the remnants of dead people slowly moving towards you with no fear, and no intention other then kill you. The fact that they swarm and slowly creeps up on you, shows how pointless living really is. No matter where you hide and how far you run, they will slowly catch up to you.
Its only in modern movies we see the fast moving zombies, and offcause people cant understand it, so they try to explain the "science" behind it. Like the Rage virus in 28 days later. For me its okay and perfectly fine that movies dont explain certain things. Stuff like vampires and zombies should never have a scientific explanation. To me its just so stupid...c'mon...rage virus..really?
Why cant it be something, dark, twisted and unnatural as zombies. Not some virus that somehow make them rise and angry.. Its an alternative way of making them, I agree. But its just not real zombies. Its the hollywood makeover. Anyways. just my thought on it.
People want an explanation on why things are the way they are. It is back-story that brings you up to speed so that you can move along with the movie and know what the characters in the movie know.
I enjoy fast zombies more because there is a more immediate threat at any given time. To me, slow zombies arent much of a threat unless you are dumb and corner yourself inside of a building and can be attacked through walls.
Only one man can save the world from hordes of fast moving zombies.. and that man is Brad Pitt. He alone will stop the onslaught and make the world beautifull again.
A new trailer for this has come out just recently. I've read the book and was a bit disapointed after the first trailer, and while I'm still not convinced this is going to be any good this new trailer makes it seem a little better.
The CGI work still looks atrocious lol. Makes you think about the stuff Lysenko mentioned about companies cutting costs dramatically by massively underpaying the guys that do these. It's really a shame, because modern cinema is so heavily reliant on CGI to set the scene (some would say too reliant, but that's something else altogether).
On March 26 2013 10:46 Smokincoyote wrote: A new trailer for this has come out just recently. I've read the book and was a bit disapointed after the first trailer, and while I'm still not convinced this is going to be any good this new trailer makes it seem a little better.
It looks like such a Hollywood-ized movie that I don't think I'll enjoy it, even for the zombies. Obviously cliche characters and stereotypical archetypes are going to ruin it for me.
I wish this movie had the traditional zombies instead of the runners. I have no expectations for this movie, but I will watch it anyways since it can be a fun summer movie to watch.
On March 26 2013 12:16 ETisME wrote: CGI everywhere wow but the biggest problem for me is the trailer is showing the main character is very one dimensional.
The trailer also already shows him saving his entire family, so the tension in the beginning of the movie is going to be much much less than it could be.
Looks like it will be very entertaining as an action movie, but it is clear it wont stay true to the book. I wish they didn't use the book's name and made up some generic zombie movie title. Also, I can't get over the sprinting zombies.
It may be entertaining in it's own right, but they really wasted the World War Z license. Using that title only seems like a negative, since those that read the book are going to be disappointed, and those who haven't probably never heard of World War Z before. Based on the trailers, it looks like if I saw this movie and didn't know the title, I would never guess what book it was based off of.
Strangely enough, it is so far removed from the book, that I will be able to judge it on it's own merits easier. Most adaptations there are parts that are fairly faithful to the source material and other stuff that is not and often the changes stick out if they are poorly done. But here everything will be changed so there really won't be anything to compare the two other than whether the movie is good or not.
It's just too bad that the license for the story is going to be tied up here instead of in an HBO mini series or something where it could have been given a much more faithful adaptation.
On March 26 2013 10:49 Aerisky wrote: The CGI work still looks atrocious lol. Makes you think about the stuff Lysenko mentioned about companies cutting costs dramatically by massively underpaying the guys that do these. It's really a shame, because modern cinema is so heavily reliant on CGI to set the scene (some would say too reliant, but that's something else altogether).
Can't remember which movie exec said it but there's a quote along the lines that "If i dont take atleast one VFX company out of business per production i'm not doing my job right". They have no union and work like it´s crunch time pretty much for an entire movie sometimes. And also get paid less and less.
On March 26 2013 12:51 zoLo wrote: I wish this movie had the traditional zombies instead of the runners. I have no expectations for this movie, but I will watch it anyways since it can be a fun summer movie to watch.
For my money 28 days later was the best zombie movie (let's have no 'it wasn't a zombie movie' malarky), and I feel that the slow shambling zombies ran their course back after the insane plot of day of the dead.
The problem with shamblers is that the plot will always be forced when trying to make them dangerous. It usually involves characters acting insanely stupidly and illogically, which breaks the immersion for me. The Walking Dead is the biggest perpetrator right now. In 28 days, stupidity was not required, the zombies were lethal and way more frightening, and it gives a much more realistic result in terms of the human behaviour.
I agree that shambling zombies are more difficult to make threatening, which is part of the brilliance of World War Z the book, in showing why they could be.
On March 26 2013 12:51 zoLo wrote: I wish this movie had the traditional zombies instead of the runners. I have no expectations for this movie, but I will watch it anyways since it can be a fun summer movie to watch.
For my money 28 days later was the best zombie movie (let's have no 'it wasn't a zombie movie' malarky), and I feel that the slow shambling zombies ran their course back after the insane plot of day of the dead.
The problem with shamblers is that the plot will always be forced when trying to make them dangerous. It usually involves characters acting insanely stupidly and illogically, which breaks the immersion for me. The Walking Dead is the biggest perpetrator right now. In 28 days, stupidity was not required, the zombies were lethal and way more frightening, and it gives a much more realistic result in terms of the human behaviour.
I don't think you read World War Z because the whole reason it was so good was because it managed to show, quite believably, how slow zombies could be dangerous.
The biggest issue I have with first impression of the movie (via trailer) is the ant-like behavior (and skill/capability) of the zombies in some scenes where they're just stacked upon eachother. Humans simply aren't fit to trample over each-other, let alone decaying, injured, and disabled humans. I guess it hasn't really been done before (at least with zombies), but that doesn't mean it should be.
I for one is looking forward to seeing this movie. But i have no experiance with the comic book thingy so i cant relate to what you dudes are talking about. I like the idee of a zombie swarm that just pilling up on each other.
It's based on a book, not a comic (Walking Dead was based on a comic). Like I said it could be a good movie, there just doesn't seem to be any point in using the World War Z license and then change it so much that the only similarities are things that every zombie end of the world movie shares.
Even if you aren't a big reader, the audio book version is worth checking out.
On March 28 2013 21:37 karazax wrote: It's based on a book, not a comic (Walking Dead was based on a comic). Like I said it could be a good movie, there just doesn't seem to be any point in using the World War Z license and then change it so much that the only similarities are things that every zombie end of the world movie shares.
Even if you aren't a big reader, the audio book version is worth checking out.
Note that the audiobook version is an Abridged version, so you dont get the complete story, id urge people to get the book instead for that reason. If you really cant stand reading its ok, all the main stories are there, and it does a good job of keeping the feeling that made the book great, but you miss out on some really interesting parts of the story. Voice acting is pretty good.
Just watched the second trailer. Wow. I thought a lot of things when i saw Snakes on a plane, but "this film needs more zombies" just wasn't one of them. Looks trash.
This movie isn't just "not World War Z", it's basically the antithesis for every message and theme that the book tried to communicate. The only way this movie gets salvaged for me is if at the end Brad Pitt fails at whatever task he's being put on to save the world, and they all come to the realization that the one-man-army will never work and that the only way they'll overcome the zombie threat is through grueling effort, sacrifice, and a complete abandonment of whatever shreds of humanity they have left. And then Brad Pitt gets his face eaten.
This movie looks pretty cool to me. It's been a while since we've had a good Zombie movie.. the best one for me is Dawn of the Dead - none of the other movies can really touch it in comparison.. but to each his own.
Alot of people are complaining how its not like the book or whatever. They said that the only thing they took from the book was pretty much the title and the fact that there are zombies everywhere. Its pretty clearly stated that it ISN'T like the book.
The zombie swarming looked pretty fucking cool to me. In different zombie movies they have always moved different. Some walked slow kinda broken and moaning. Dawn of the Dead, the main reason i liked that movie is they fuckin RAN. The zombies in Dawn were mean and wanted to kill you. The walkers in Walking Dead are nothing in comparison. Finally there is another movie where they are even more menacing than Dawn. Someone mentioned that they didn't think zombies would do that.. I don't know how you think you know zombie physiology or psychology but it's pretty much up to the discretion of the minds behind the movie.
I was watching Star Trek in 3D and i saw the preview for it. It looks pretty fuckin awesome seeing all the bodies like fly around and just be destroyed while they are swarming. It's totally feasible too that zombies with whatever unholy strength and speed would just trample and run over each other in a blood lust, and climbing like that just adds another dimension to how deadly these zombies actually are. Whatever transformed them into zombies, effectively turned them into a swarm subhuman death machines.
In any case it probably won't be a GREAT movie. but i imagine it'll be entertaining, and who knows it may surprise us.
edit: sucks it won't be an adaptation of the book, but atleast it won't be ruined by trying to be like it and failing. Its dangerous making something after a book cause, not only is it impossible to fit everything in a 2 hour movie, if done wrong everybody throws a tantrum.
It's one thing to try to be like a book and fail (and get the hate from that). It's another thing entirely to name your movie after a famous book, and then publicly state that your movie has nothing to do with the book. Other than having zombies in it. Why would you use the book's name if your intent is to make the movie have nothing to do with the book? For brand recognition?
Reminds me of that awesome Final Fantasy movie about soul eating ghost monsters.
I'll still watch it 'cause I can set aside my love for the book and enjoy rampaging swarm zombies. I'll just imagine they're Zerglings and I'm watching a Zerg invasion or something ;D
edit: I don't know if they actually stated that the movie has nothing to do with the book. I'm just blindly trusting the above post. In any event, I loved the book. And I don't know anything about the movie but I'll enjoy it too.
On May 31 2013 14:04 YumYumGranola wrote: This movie isn't just "not World War Z", it's basically the antithesis for every message and theme that the book tried to communicate. The only way this movie gets salvaged for me is if at the end Brad Pitt fails at whatever task he's being put on to save the world, and they all come to the realization that the one-man-army will never work and that the only way they'll overcome the zombie threat is through grueling effort, sacrifice, and a complete abandonment of whatever shreds of humanity they have left. And then Brad Pitt gets his face eaten.
Wow that gave me the first hope I've had for this movie, I could really go for that. I mean to the extent that it would assuage my disappoint enough to leave me ambivalent.
a blind samurai-monk zombie slayer 30-minute forest interlude
.
The book, while great, suffered a little for inexpert writing, but it had wonderful spirit and vision and some cool ideas. So a hollywood version almost necessarily cannot come close.
On May 31 2013 15:08 MountainDewJunkie wrote: American film industry today: - superheroes - zombies - post apocalyptic anything - something in space
I wouldn't care for this at all, but every single fucking movie follows the same cliches, the same ideas, the same taglines, the same rules. All creativity is in the presentation and the setting, nothing goes towards story or lore. Can't wait for these "meh" movies to evolve
On May 31 2013 14:15 FoxShine wrote: This movie looks pretty cool to me. It's been a while since we've had a good Zombie movie.. the best one for me is Dawn of the Dead - none of the other movies can really touch it in comparison.. but to each his own.
Alot of people are complaining how its not like the book or whatever. They said that the only thing they took from the book was pretty much the title and the fact that there are zombies everywhere. Its pretty clearly stated that it ISN'T like the book.
The zombie swarming looked pretty fucking cool to me. In different zombie movies they have always moved different. Some walked slow kinda broken and moaning. Dawn of the Dead, the main reason i liked that movie is they fuckin RAN. The zombies in Dawn were mean and wanted to kill you. The walkers in Walking Dead are nothing in comparison. Finally there is another movie where they are even more menacing than Dawn. Someone mentioned that they didn't think zombies would do that.. I don't know how you think you know zombie physiology or psychology but it's pretty much up to the discretion of the minds behind the movie.
I was watching Star Trek in 3D and i saw the preview for it. It looks pretty fuckin awesome seeing all the bodies like fly around and just be destroyed while they are swarming. It's totally feasible too that zombies with whatever unholy strength and speed would just trample and run over each other in a blood lust, and climbing like that just adds another dimension to how deadly these zombies actually are. Whatever transformed them into zombies, effectively turned them into a swarm subhuman death machines.
In any case it probably won't be a GREAT movie. but i imagine it'll be entertaining, and who knows it may surprise us.
edit: sucks it won't be an adaptation of the book, but atleast it won't be ruined by trying to be like it and failing. Its dangerous making something after a book cause, not only is it impossible to fit everything in a 2 hour movie, if done wrong everybody throws a tantrum.
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.
I hate zombie movies. I don't like stupid cheap zombie scare tactics in movies. If I saw a zombie in real life I'd punch him in the face.
This movie looks awesome and I'm totally going to see it with everyone I know, and everyone is hyped to go see it. It actually looks like a realistic depiction of how society would break down in the case of a zombie attack, which is something I haven't seen realistically depicted in movie format before
On May 31 2013 23:54 KhrisKruel wrote: I hate zombie movies. I don't like stupid cheap zombie scare tactics in movies. If I saw a zombie in real life I'd punch him in the face.
This movie looks awesome and I'm totally going to see it with everyone I know, and everyone is hyped to go see it. It actually looks like a realistic depiction of how society would break down in the case of a zombie attack, which is something I haven't seen realistically depicted in movie format before
I thought 28 Days Later, 28 Weeks Later, and Land of the Dead had good post-apocalyptic societies.
On May 31 2013 14:15 FoxShine wrote: This movie looks pretty cool to me. It's been a while since we've had a good Zombie movie.. the best one for me is Dawn of the Dead - none of the other movies can really touch it in comparison.. but to each his own.
Alot of people are complaining how its not like the book or whatever. They said that the only thing they took from the book was pretty much the title and the fact that there are zombies everywhere. Its pretty clearly stated that it ISN'T like the book.
The zombie swarming looked pretty fucking cool to me. In different zombie movies they have always moved different. Some walked slow kinda broken and moaning. Dawn of the Dead, the main reason i liked that movie is they fuckin RAN. The zombies in Dawn were mean and wanted to kill you. The walkers in Walking Dead are nothing in comparison. Finally there is another movie where they are even more menacing than Dawn. Someone mentioned that they didn't think zombies would do that.. I don't know how you think you know zombie physiology or psychology but it's pretty much up to the discretion of the minds behind the movie.
I was watching Star Trek in 3D and i saw the preview for it. It looks pretty fuckin awesome seeing all the bodies like fly around and just be destroyed while they are swarming. It's totally feasible too that zombies with whatever unholy strength and speed would just trample and run over each other in a blood lust, and climbing like that just adds another dimension to how deadly these zombies actually are. Whatever transformed them into zombies, effectively turned them into a swarm subhuman death machines.
In any case it probably won't be a GREAT movie. but i imagine it'll be entertaining, and who knows it may surprise us.
edit: sucks it won't be an adaptation of the book, but atleast it won't be ruined by trying to be like it and failing. Its dangerous making something after a book cause, not only is it impossible to fit everything in a 2 hour movie, if done wrong everybody throws a tantrum.
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.
Exactly. The only reason they have for using that title would be to try and con fans of the book into seeing the movie. It's basically false advertisement. And nobody can now make an adaptation that's true to the novel, which is a damned shame because I think it'd make a fine TV series. Apparently they had an original script that was very true to the novel, but did a last minute rewrite and re-shoot to turn it into generic "Man saves world/family" movie because Hollywood doesn't think very highly of our collective intelligence.
To me it's almost like if somebody tried to sell me a burrito but then handed me a pizza. And then when I (for obvious reasons) complain about this they patronize me by insisting that because they both have cheese and meat in them and can be eaten with my hands it's basically the same thing. Except it's even worse than that, because not only did they not sell me a burrito, but they bought the exclusive rights to selling burritos, so now NOBODY can sell me a burrito.
It's not the fucking same, and whether or not they introduce some cool zombie graphics doesn't make up for the fact that they're basically just trying to extract money from fans of the book by lying to us about what's in the movie. As I said in an earlier post, only way that this movie can be redeemed for me is if Brad Pitt fails at whatever he's being sent off to do and gets horribly ripped apart at the end of the movie. What's the chances of that happening?
Having recently read the book and comparing it to the trailers leaves me with a shallow feeling regarding the movie. I will not judge the movie until I have seen it (or someone I know has), but my expectations are low.
Probably it is going to be a proper situation to use the term "potential: wasted".
when I read the OP and saw "cast: brad pitt" I imagined how fucking amazing this movie would be if every roll was played by brad pitt. All of the living characters, male and female, and all the zombies are Brad Pitt. I would love to see that movie.
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
On May 31 2013 14:15 FoxShine wrote: This movie looks pretty cool to me. It's been a while since we've had a good Zombie movie.. the best one for me is Dawn of the Dead - none of the other movies can really touch it in comparison.. but to each his own.
Alot of people are complaining how its not like the book or whatever. They said that the only thing they took from the book was pretty much the title and the fact that there are zombies everywhere. Its pretty clearly stated that it ISN'T like the book.
The zombie swarming looked pretty fucking cool to me. In different zombie movies they have always moved different. Some walked slow kinda broken and moaning. Dawn of the Dead, the main reason i liked that movie is they fuckin RAN. The zombies in Dawn were mean and wanted to kill you. The walkers in Walking Dead are nothing in comparison. Finally there is another movie where they are even more menacing than Dawn. Someone mentioned that they didn't think zombies would do that.. I don't know how you think you know zombie physiology or psychology but it's pretty much up to the discretion of the minds behind the movie.
I was watching Star Trek in 3D and i saw the preview for it. It looks pretty fuckin awesome seeing all the bodies like fly around and just be destroyed while they are swarming. It's totally feasible too that zombies with whatever unholy strength and speed would just trample and run over each other in a blood lust, and climbing like that just adds another dimension to how deadly these zombies actually are. Whatever transformed them into zombies, effectively turned them into a swarm subhuman death machines.
In any case it probably won't be a GREAT movie. but i imagine it'll be entertaining, and who knows it may surprise us.
edit: sucks it won't be an adaptation of the book, but atleast it won't be ruined by trying to be like it and failing. Its dangerous making something after a book cause, not only is it impossible to fit everything in a 2 hour movie, if done wrong everybody throws a tantrum.
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.
i went to the aintitcoolnews (http://www.aintitcool.com/node/62678) screening tonight. harry was rambling on about zombie movies for a good 10 minutes, and then out of nowhere was like 'ladies and gentlemen the biggest star in the world: brad pitt'. and brad pitt came out and introduced the movie. that was cool i guess. people lost their shit.
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.
Just came back from seeing this. Haven't read the book and don't imagine it is anything like it. As a movie the thing was surprisingly good. Went in expecting a disaster but it passed. Would recommend if you were into 28 Days Later kind of intensity.
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.
On May 31 2013 14:15 FoxShine wrote: This movie looks pretty cool to me. It's been a while since we've had a good Zombie movie.. the best one for me is Dawn of the Dead - none of the other movies can really touch it in comparison.. but to each his own.
Alot of people are complaining how its not like the book or whatever. They said that the only thing they took from the book was pretty much the title and the fact that there are zombies everywhere. Its pretty clearly stated that it ISN'T like the book.
The zombie swarming looked pretty fucking cool to me. In different zombie movies they have always moved different. Some walked slow kinda broken and moaning. Dawn of the Dead, the main reason i liked that movie is they fuckin RAN. The zombies in Dawn were mean and wanted to kill you. The walkers in Walking Dead are nothing in comparison. Finally there is another movie where they are even more menacing than Dawn. Someone mentioned that they didn't think zombies would do that.. I don't know how you think you know zombie physiology or psychology but it's pretty much up to the discretion of the minds behind the movie.
I was watching Star Trek in 3D and i saw the preview for it. It looks pretty fuckin awesome seeing all the bodies like fly around and just be destroyed while they are swarming. It's totally feasible too that zombies with whatever unholy strength and speed would just trample and run over each other in a blood lust, and climbing like that just adds another dimension to how deadly these zombies actually are. Whatever transformed them into zombies, effectively turned them into a swarm subhuman death machines.
In any case it probably won't be a GREAT movie. but i imagine it'll be entertaining, and who knows it may surprise us.
edit: sucks it won't be an adaptation of the book, but atleast it won't be ruined by trying to be like it and failing. Its dangerous making something after a book cause, not only is it impossible to fit everything in a 2 hour movie, if done wrong everybody throws a tantrum.
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.
"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.
Just saw this. It's silly and has plenty of plot holes but it's good fun and worth a watch.
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 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.
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.
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.
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.
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. ^^
I actually liked it a lot more than I expected. Much more like 28 days later than Resident Evil, which is a great thing in my book. I'm also glad that Brad Pitt wasn't some killing machine.
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.
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.
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.
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.
i saw this and honestly the movie, the way they told it i thought was amazing, over all i give this movie a 8/10. if your a hardcore zombie gore fan, i dont recommend it but if you like action, yes
My main problem with this movie is how the zombies are supposed to detect some fatal disease. Wtf, why wouldn't they just infect everything that moves? Who the hell cares if a person is diseased or not, infect them anyways. I also feel that the ending was too quickly wrapped up. As soon as Brad Pitt gets through the charging horde of zombies, the movie pretty much ends.
The separate locations around the world were kinda interesting I suppose, but I feel they added little to the plot. I mean, going to South Korea, getting nothing, and then going to Israel on a tip from some whackjob is pretty far out there on the reality scale.
Anyone else laugh when the doctor tripped and shot himself?
On June 22 2013 05:45 On_Slaught wrote: I actually liked it a lot more than I expected. Much more like 28 days later than Resident Evil, which is a great thing in my book. I'm also glad that Brad Pitt wasn't some killing machine.
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 stuff.
Wait, that actually happens in the movie? Way to be the polar opposite of what happened in the book, I guess Hollywood couldn't help itself...
Just saw the movie, overall very well done and keeps you on the edge of your seat. Some issues with some parts but meh who cares! Overall it was an engaging movie that kept you guessing until the end. 8/10
On June 22 2013 05:45 On_Slaught wrote: I actually liked it a lot more than I expected. Much more like 28 days later than Resident Evil, which is a great thing in my book. I'm also glad that Brad Pitt wasn't some killing machine.
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 stuff.
Wait, that actually happens in the movie? Way to be the polar opposite of what happened in the book, I guess Hollywood couldn't help itself...
It's actually pretty hilarious how little resemblance the movie had with the book. I think the only thing actually WWZ was the building of the wall and the virus "origins." I heard the production company had a bit of a bidding war so it's a bit confusing when all they're paying for was the title.
That said, I enjoyed it quite a bit. Pretty action-packed throughout and it's been quite some time since there's been a good zombie flick. Brad Pitt obviously has plot-armor, but there was a good deal of tension with the supporting characters.
On June 22 2013 05:45 On_Slaught wrote: I actually liked it a lot more than I expected. Much more like 28 days later than Resident Evil, which is a great thing in my book. I'm also glad that Brad Pitt wasn't some killing machine.
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 stuff.
Anti Israel stuff? I assume mean the intense never ending hatred of all Muslims and particularly Arabs in Hollywood. I am not surprised at all that they would blame the fall of Israel to the pals singing. Was a master bit of propaganda, Israel is risking itself to save everyone, Israel only country to reject indifference and disbelief because of the holocaust, and eventually brought down by the Muslims who were being rescued.
On June 22 2013 05:45 On_Slaught wrote: I actually liked it a lot more than I expected. Much more like 28 days later than Resident Evil, which is a great thing in my book. I'm also glad that Brad Pitt wasn't some killing machine.
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 stuff.
Anti Israel stuff? I assume mean the intense never ending hatred of all Muslims and particularly Arabs in Hollywood. I am not surprised at all that they would blame the fall of Israel to the pals singing. Was a master bit of propaganda, Israel is risking itself to save everyone, Israel only country to reject indifference and disbelief because of the holocaust, and eventually brought down by the Muslims who were being rescued.
You're right I got it backwards. I originally wrote that and switched it for some reason after questioning myself. That makes more sense since they would think the Palestinians will destroy Israel.
On June 22 2013 05:45 On_Slaught wrote: I actually liked it a lot more than I expected. Much more like 28 days later than Resident Evil, which is a great thing in my book. I'm also glad that Brad Pitt wasn't some killing machine.
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 stuff.
Anti Israel stuff? I assume mean the intense never ending hatred of all Muslims and particularly Arabs in Hollywood. I am not surprised at all that they would blame the fall of Israel to the pals singing. Was a master bit of propaganda, Israel is risking itself to save everyone, Israel only country to reject indifference and disbelief because of the holocaust, and eventually brought down by the Muslims who were being rescued.
Probably anti-both, considering that light. They went from "Israel's polices leads them to be one of the only countries to effectively deal with the plague" to getting overrun and collapsing. Like they couldn't stomach Israel winning, and couldn't stomach not making the Muslims at fault for it.
On June 22 2013 05:45 On_Slaught wrote: I actually liked it a lot more than I expected. Much more like 28 days later than Resident Evil, which is a great thing in my book. I'm also glad that Brad Pitt wasn't some killing machine.
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 stuff.
Anti Israel stuff? I assume mean the intense never ending hatred of all Muslims and particularly Arabs in Hollywood. I am not surprised at all that they would blame the fall of Israel to the pals singing. Was a master bit of propaganda, Israel is risking itself to save everyone, Israel only country to reject indifference and disbelief because of the holocaust, and eventually brought down by the Muslims who were being rescued.
Probably anti-both, considering that light. They went from "Israel's polices leads them to be one of the only countries to effectively deal with the plague" to getting overrun and collapsing. Like they couldn't stomach Israel winning, and couldn't stomach not making the Muslims at fault for it.
During the scene where they are flying from Korea towards Jerusalem they see a nuke go off in the distance. Considering they would be flying over that region that is certainly what it was referencing.
Let me start by saying I know nothing of the book.
World War Z was basically exactly what you might expect going in, a basic zombie movie with a serious budget and cast. The plot is pretty generic, zombie outbreak confounds national governments and forces survivors to gather together and fortify whatever positions they can hold while searching for a cure. They were able to visit a nice variety of sets from U.S. city centers to army bases, from Jerusalem to laboratories. There were some pretty cool visuals of zombie masses as well as a few explosions. The performances were reasonably good, nothing too stand out.
On the other hand, there was nothing really remarkable anywhere in the movie. The plot is standard zombie fare with no real new ground covered. The character relationships as well as the individual characters are all static. Indeed, Brad Pitt's character splits from his family early on and then has relatively little interaction with them. They serve as motivation for his character but don't add anything else.
Overall the movie is enjoyable, especially if you're a fan of zombie flicks and want to see it done on the big stage, but it's nothing all that special.
I have read the book several times and love it, it's a fun read and it's quality writing for its subject material.
I enjoyed the movie a great deal as well. It's not World War Z shot for shot, and it's not meant to be. It loosely interprets the book's story and focuses it around Pitt's character and does well to create tension and a sense of fear.
You can't really adapt the book to a film and expect it to be shot for shot identical, the book is not in a format that is particularly conducive to a typical Hollywood blockbuster. a TV show or something would work better. That said, it's a quality Zombie movie with some pretty great visuals at times and it's worth seeing if you're looking to enjoy a well-produced zombie action horror movie with a nice global sense to it (it's not a limited, look at 5 people trapped in a hotel or hospital sort of movie).
Definitely worth seeing, just don't expect a book translation word for word or some epic Citizen Kane shit. It sells itself as a zombie action movie, and that's what you get.
The movie was pretty good but I still can't get over the fact that something like this cannot go long. Dead people can't move dammit. You need blood flowing with energy and nutrients to keep something moving, let alone run around and make men-towers to climb meters high walls.
A World War Z adaptation deserved better than this...thing.
Never mind, it's shouldn't be called an adaptation. It's a generic zombie movie that has "World War Z" pasted to the title. And "generic" means "terrible". Characterization was bad, and the routine incompetence necessary to progress the plot was cringeworthy.
Maybe it's that I recently played a The Last of Us and had unrealistic expectations. Or something.
How did the entire world miss Israel building a 100-foot concrete wall around its borders? Someone really needed a rogue CIA analyst to point that out to them?
And why the hell would evolution of whatever forsaken god the zombie virus originated from select for camouflage a condition that is completely irrelevant for the undead?
These zombies would be really good for diagnosing life threatening illnesses.
BTW I was distracted during Brad Pitt's ride around Israel. What was the gist of the conversation? Jews died in the holocaust Jews died at Olympic games, last 9 Jews were wrong, and I'm the 10th man? so we are building a fuckoing huge wall around our borders because we intercepted an Indian army transmission of some mystic undead shit? Could someone clear that part up for me. Thanks.
On June 22 2013 13:36 SergioCQH wrote: It was a great movie but the ending was rather weak.
That's what happens when you throw out your original ending after shooting the whole film! Seriously, the production boondoggle that went into this film is about as much fun as the movie itself.
On June 23 2013 07:06 XenOmega wrote: Its a decent movie, lots of things that made no sense.
More "action" than survival though.
EDIT : Someone mentioned mutan chronicles as the 3rd best sci-fi... Really? Its got a 5.2/10 on IMDB.... should I watch iT?
3rd best movie they regularly show on the Scifi channel is what I meant. I think it is an above average movie for the genre. Surprisingly brutal movie and it's steampunk.
On June 23 2013 07:22 hummingbird23 wrote: World War Z's (the book) magic was in its ability to bring ALL the facets of human nature to light, the good, the bad, the ugly and the heroic.
The film is decent, but it's Just Another Zombie Flick.
From the sound of things, the book wouldn't be possible for a movie. At least not one that is only 2 hours long.
On June 23 2013 07:22 hummingbird23 wrote: World War Z's (the book) magic was in its ability to bring ALL the facets of human nature to light, the good, the bad, the ugly and the heroic.
The film is decent, but it's Just Another Zombie Flick.
From the sound of things, the book wouldn't be possible for a movie. At least not one that is only 2 hours long.
I agree, which is why I wasn't too disappointed. I wouldn't call it impossible, but it would take a VERY talented director and some cherry picking of particularly iconic characters to do the book any justice in that respect. Either that, or some strategic splitting of the book into a trilogy, each focusing on 1-3 major events. It would be epic beyond words, but also quite wishful thinking.
Come to think of it, if there was one word that could be used to sum up the book, it would be Choices. Everyone had a reason for what they chose, and you could see why they made those hard choices, even if you disagreed. It's hard to do that in a film when the action keeps moving.
I love reading all the comments from people who read the books. You people are just never pleased with movies. Why go watch them?
This was a great movie. Probably one of the better zombie movies to date. I would give it a 8/10 for your standard blockbuster movies these days. If you haven't read the books, go in and enjoy. No idea what to tell you butthurt book readers
wow i watched the trailer, and the zombies behavior really remind me of the ones in the manga Apocalypse no Toride (the "bee" ones when they are in berserk mode, not the "dog" ones) Like how they act like a living wave with the car roll barrelling, or when they pile, and they climb the wall.
On June 23 2013 08:12 jeremycafe wrote: I love reading all the comments from people who read the books. You people are just never pleased with movies. Why go watch them?
This was a great movie. Probably one of the better zombie movies to date. I would give it a 8/10 for your standard blockbuster movies these days. If you haven't read the books, go in and enjoy. No idea what to tell you butthurt book readers
I love reading all the comments from the butt hurt idiots that lack the intelligence and attention span to pick a book up once in their life and enjoy a story the way it was meant to be enjoyed.
On June 23 2013 08:12 jeremycafe wrote: I love reading all the comments from people who read the books. You people are just never pleased with movies. Why go watch them?
This was a great movie. Probably one of the better zombie movies to date. I would give it a 8/10 for your standard blockbuster movies these days. If you haven't read the books, go in and enjoy. No idea what to tell you butthurt book readers
I love reading all the comments from the butt hurt idiots that lack the intelligence and attention span to pick a book up once in their life and enjoy a story the way it was meant to be enjoyed.
I don't think he's butthurt at all, he enjoyed himself an entertaining movie
On June 23 2013 08:12 jeremycafe wrote: I love reading all the comments from people who read the books. You people are just never pleased with movies. Why go watch them?
This was a great movie. Probably one of the better zombie movies to date. I would give it a 8/10 for your standard blockbuster movies these days. If you haven't read the books, go in and enjoy. No idea what to tell you butthurt book readers
On June 23 2013 08:12 jeremycafe wrote: I love reading all the comments from people who read the books. You people are just never pleased with movies. Why go watch them?
This was a great movie. Probably one of the better zombie movies to date. I would give it a 8/10 for your standard blockbuster movies these days. If you haven't read the books, go in and enjoy. No idea what to tell you butthurt book readers
I love reading all the comments from the butt hurt idiots that lack the intelligence and attention span to pick a book up once in their life and enjoy a story the way it was meant to be enjoyed.
I don't think he's butthurt at all, he enjoyed himself an entertaining movie
Exactly
@Juggernaut447 I enjoy movies, you enjoy books. Stop going to movies if all you are going to do is rage on forums about how bad they are. Everyone has their preference. I prefer to leave it to the professional the create amazing scenes rather than count on my brain to do it. I spend all day staring at code. The last thing I want to do is go home and stare at more text.
Movie was fun, reminded me of recent Resident Evil movies. Not too intelligent, but action-y, good production, etc. Slow at parts, forced at parts, but ok. 7/10, would watch again but probably not own or go see in theaters again.
As a book reader: fuck Brad Pitt and everyone associated with this. It's literally not related to the book in any way shape or form. No characters, no set pieces, really no settings. This is any generic zombie movie with a million dollar title attached to it. Fuck whoever decided that it was ok to ruin the title of one of my favorite books with this. The end.
On June 23 2013 08:12 jeremycafe wrote: I love reading all the comments from people who read the books. You people are just never pleased with movies. Why go watch them?
This was a great movie. Probably one of the better zombie movies to date. I would give it a 8/10 for your standard blockbuster movies these days. If you haven't read the books, go in and enjoy. No idea what to tell you butthurt book readers
I love reading all the comments from the butt hurt idiots that lack the intelligence and attention span to pick a book up once in their life and enjoy a story the way it was meant to be enjoyed.
I don't think he's butthurt at all, he enjoyed himself an entertaining movie
Exactly
@Juggernaut447 I enjoy movies, you enjoy books. Stop going to movies if all you are going to do is rage on forums about how bad they are. Everyone has their preference. I prefer to leave it to the professional the create amazing scenes rather than count on my brain to do it. I spend all day staring at code. The last thing I want to do is go home and stare at more text.
Seems like I struck a nerve mr book reader
Well, you were trying to be a dick. I doubt anyone is surprised that you were able to succeed. No need to gloat over it.
On June 23 2013 08:12 jeremycafe wrote: I love reading all the comments from people who read the books. You people are just never pleased with movies. Why go watch them?
This was a great movie. Probably one of the better zombie movies to date. I would give it a 8/10 for your standard blockbuster movies these days. If you haven't read the books, go in and enjoy. No idea what to tell you butthurt book readers
I love reading all the comments from the butt hurt idiots that lack the intelligence and attention span to pick a book up once in their life and enjoy a story the way it was meant to be enjoyed.
I don't think he's butthurt at all, he enjoyed himself an entertaining movie
Exactly
@Juggernaut447 I enjoy movies, you enjoy books. Stop going to movies if all you are going to do is rage on forums about how bad they are. Everyone has their preference. I prefer to leave it to the professional the create amazing scenes rather than count on my brain to do it. I spend all day staring at code. The last thing I want to do is go home and stare at more text.
Seems like I struck a nerve mr book reader
Well, you were trying to be a dick. I doubt anyone is surprised that you were able to succeed. No need to gloat over it.
What he said is generally true, even if it is mostly because when people read a book they create their own images in their head and often these images drastically differ from what anybody else would create. It is extremely difficult to be happy with a movie loosely based on a book you love (moreso if the book has any kind of complexity)
I think this movie was great IF you can get over the fact that its not the book There are some really funny parts and some good acting all around. The story they came up with was good and they explained it well and their solution was explained pretty decently. I give it a 8/10, just dont go thinking that it will be anything like the book
On June 23 2013 08:12 jeremycafe wrote: I love reading all the comments from people who read the books. You people are just never pleased with movies. Why go watch them?
This was a great movie. Probably one of the better zombie movies to date. I would give it a 8/10 for your standard blockbuster movies these days. If you haven't read the books, go in and enjoy. No idea what to tell you butthurt book readers
I love reading all the comments from the butt hurt idiots that lack the intelligence and attention span to pick a book up once in their life and enjoy a story the way it was meant to be enjoyed.
I don't think he's butthurt at all, he enjoyed himself an entertaining movie
Exactly
@Juggernaut447 I enjoy movies, you enjoy books. Stop going to movies if all you are going to do is rage on forums about how bad they are. Everyone has their preference. I prefer to leave it to the professional the create amazing scenes rather than count on my brain to do it. I spend all day staring at code. The last thing I want to do is go home and stare at more text.
Seems like I struck a nerve mr book reader
Well, you were trying to be a dick. I doubt anyone is surprised that you were able to succeed. No need to gloat over it.
What he said is generally true, even if it is mostly because when people read a book they create their own images in their head and often these images drastically differ from what anybody else would create. It is extremely difficult to be happy with a movie loosely based on a book you love (moreso if the book has any kind of complexity)
Certainly the experience you get when reading a book is unique to you and impossible to recreate in a movie, but that isn't really the point. There can and have been movie adaptations of novels that were well received, even by people who enjoyed the book.
Further, the phrase "for a standard blockbuster" implies we should have using low standards; somehow being a blockbuster should excuse a movie for not being particularly novel or thought provoking. This is a bad attitude to have. It lowers the bar for all movies. It is possible to have a widely accessible film that is interesting beyond the hour or two you spend watching it the first time.
I don't see how book readers have the monopoly on hating this film. I haven't read it and I thought the film sucked. It managed to suck all on its own, as well as apparently failing to be a good adaption.
I went into the movie with low expectations since I wasn't impressed with any of the trailers. I walked out satisfied and was entertained throughout the movie. The large outbreak started quite fast in the first 10 minutes or so, which caught me off guard a little. I thought the pacing was pretty wonky, but I was fine with it. I agree with those saying the lab portion of the movie was the best part. They did a nice job with that scene. This is probably the only zombie movie that I can think of that showed the military being competent instead of being overrun so quickly. Besides, what was Gerry's job in the United Nations anyways? I only caught that he was a skillful investigator.I thought it was humorous how he went MacGyver throughout the movie such as catching how long it took for an infected person to turn, using magazines as an arm and leg guard, putting the pieces together, etc. Overall, the movie was decent for PG-13. I thought the ending was kinda cool when they showed humans fighting back after being vaccinated. They can definitely make a sequel if they wanted to since the ending left it open.
On June 23 2013 08:12 jeremycafe wrote: I love reading all the comments from people who read the books. You people are just never pleased with movies. Why go watch them?
This was a great movie. Probably one of the better zombie movies to date. I would give it a 8/10 for your standard blockbuster movies these days. If you haven't read the books, go in and enjoy. No idea what to tell you butthurt book readers
I love reading all the comments from the butt hurt idiots that lack the intelligence and attention span to pick a book up once in their life and enjoy a story the way it was meant to be enjoyed.
I don't think he's butthurt at all, he enjoyed himself an entertaining movie
Exactly
@Juggernaut447 I enjoy movies, you enjoy books. Stop going to movies if all you are going to do is rage on forums about how bad they are. Everyone has their preference. I prefer to leave it to the professional the create amazing scenes rather than count on my brain to do it. I spend all day staring at code. The last thing I want to do is go home and stare at more text.
Seems like I struck a nerve mr book reader
Well, you were trying to be a dick. I doubt anyone is surprised that you were able to succeed. No need to gloat over it.
Not trying to be a dick at all. I honestly think its aggravating that the majority of discussions on these threads has to be about how the movie sucks compared to the book. Its how every movie topic goes here.
I just don't get the point of a book reader who is always disappointed going to movies. If you don't like the format, why go? I don't force myself to read books when I know I don't enjoy it.
Just came back from seeing it with a couple of mates, one who had just finished reading the book, the other not even knowing it was a zombie movie. Was good to see the mixed reactions.
For myself and my friend who hadn't read the book, it was a somewhat enjoyable movie, nothing spectacular but still got our moneys worth. Laughed especially hard at the Lil Wayne zombie in the glass cage and the teeth chattering of that one zombie. My mate who had just read the book however, blew the hell up. Complained all the way home about the inaccuracies of the movie compared to the book and how terrible the movie was.
Mixed reactions, but as someone who hadn't read the book, was quite enjoyable.
Also, the bit where he was walking down the skybridge was friggin awesome.
On June 23 2013 08:12 jeremycafe wrote: I love reading all the comments from people who read the books. You people are just never pleased with movies. Why go watch them?
This was a great movie. Probably one of the better zombie movies to date. I would give it a 8/10 for your standard blockbuster movies these days. If you haven't read the books, go in and enjoy. No idea what to tell you butthurt book readers
I love reading all the comments from the butt hurt idiots that lack the intelligence and attention span to pick a book up once in their life and enjoy a story the way it was meant to be enjoyed.
I don't think he's butthurt at all, he enjoyed himself an entertaining movie
Exactly
@Juggernaut447 I enjoy movies, you enjoy books. Stop going to movies if all you are going to do is rage on forums about how bad they are. Everyone has their preference. I prefer to leave it to the professional the create amazing scenes rather than count on my brain to do it. I spend all day staring at code. The last thing I want to do is go home and stare at more text.
Seems like I struck a nerve mr book reader
Well, you were trying to be a dick. I doubt anyone is surprised that you were able to succeed. No need to gloat over it.
Not trying to be a dick at all. I honestly think its aggravating that the majority of discussions on these threads has to be about how the movie sucks compared to the book. Its how every movie topic goes here.
I just don't get the point of a book reader who is always disappointed going to movies. If you don't like the format, why go? I don't force myself to read books when I know I don't enjoy it.
It isn't the format that is the problem. It isn't even that "the Movie isn't like the book" that is the problem. Its that the movie is painfully average, added to the fact that it just has the book's name plastered to it. You are trying to be a dick, going on about how "butthurt" people are because they didn't like the movie. Its clearly inflammatory. Get off your high horse.
On June 23 2013 22:54 Elerris wrote: Just came back from seeing it with a couple of mates, one who had just finished reading the book, the other not even knowing it was a zombie movie. Was good to see the mixed reactions.
For myself and my friend who hadn't read the book, it was a somewhat enjoyable movie, nothing spectacular but still got our moneys worth. Laughed especially hard at the Lil Wayne zombie in the glass cage and the teeth chattering of that one zombie. My mate who had just read the book however, blew the hell up. Complained all the way home about the inaccuracies of the movie compared to the book and how terrible the movie was.
Mixed reactions, but as someone who hadn't read the book, was quite enjoyable.
Also, the bit where he was walking down the skybridge was friggin awesome.
I read the book and enjoyed the movie. When I saw the trailer I was 100% sure it was going to be NOTHING like the book, and how could it? The book is a series of quasi-related events, narrated by different people, in different parts of the world, etc. Yeah you could make a movie like that but it would not be a great movie, it would have to be long and mostly boring, you would have no attachments to any character, etc.
So I think it's super silly to go into this expecting it to be similar to the book. That being said though, there are SOME parts that they could have kept similar, but chose not to. I guess they had a vision and decided that associating it with a well known name such as WWZ would bring in more people than just making Pitt a lead character. Obviously it worked.
The movie though, was not bad. Especially compared to other movies I've seen lately. The only thing I'd bitch about was how the ending was a bit anti-climactic. I also hate how they put 80% of the cool scenes in the trailer, but they do that with everything. The editing was good, some shots were really well made, Pitt was decent, the fighting was pretty "real", no Rambo-like action, etc. I'd give it a solid 7/10, just because the story wasn't that great.
Also, did anyone notice that people were doing relatively fine everywhere, until Pitt got there? Not to mention he was directly responsible for A LOT of deaths, rofl.
Yeah, you're right. The movie bombed so badly that they were moving along to creating a sequel and they are on track of making back their $200 million budget.
Yeah, you're right. The movie bombed so badly that they were moving along to creating a sequel and they are on track of making back their $200 million budget.
Breaking even is technically bombing for a brad pitt movie right?
I give him points for understanding the movie business.
On June 23 2013 08:12 jeremycafe wrote: I love reading all the comments from people who read the books. You people are just never pleased with movies. Why go watch them?
This was a great movie. Probably one of the better zombie movies to date. I would give it a 8/10 for your standard blockbuster movies these days. If you haven't read the books, go in and enjoy. No idea what to tell you butthurt book readers
I love reading all the comments from the butt hurt idiots that lack the intelligence and attention span to pick a book up once in their life and enjoy a story the way it was meant to be enjoyed.
I don't think he's butthurt at all, he enjoyed himself an entertaining movie
Exactly
@Juggernaut447 I enjoy movies, you enjoy books. Stop going to movies if all you are going to do is rage on forums about how bad they are. Everyone has their preference. I prefer to leave it to the professional the create amazing scenes rather than count on my brain to do it. I spend all day staring at code. The last thing I want to do is go home and stare at more text.
Seems like I struck a nerve mr book reader
Well, you were trying to be a dick. I doubt anyone is surprised that you were able to succeed. No need to gloat over it.
Not trying to be a dick at all. I honestly think its aggravating that the majority of discussions on these threads has to be about how the movie sucks compared to the book. Its how every movie topic goes here.
I just don't get the point of a book reader who is always disappointed going to movies. If you don't like the format, why go? I don't force myself to read books when I know I don't enjoy it.
It isn't the format that is the problem. It isn't even that "the Movie isn't like the book" that is the problem. Its that the movie is painfully average, added to the fact that it just has the book's name plastered to it. You are trying to be a dick, going on about how "butthurt" people are because they didn't like the movie. Its clearly inflammatory. Get off your high horse.
As far as zombies go the only one that is better to me is the 28 days/weeks series. He also never said people were butthurt.
On June 24 2013 07:19 Ubiquitousdichotomy wrote: To bad this movie completely bombed at the box office. It got beat by Monsters University LOL
You mean to tell me that a family movie that is wildly popular beat a zombie movie? SHOCK! Toy Story 3 is #11 on the all-time high box office releases (Monsters Inc is #89). Getting beat by Monsters University isn't really a bad thing. Family movies like that do well. They are entertaining for everybody. Zombie movies generally have a small fanbase.
Yeah, you're right. The movie bombed so badly that they were moving along to creating a sequel and they are on track of making back their $200 million budget.
Breaking even is technically bombing for a brad pitt movie right?
I give him points for understanding the movie business.
No, this is his highest box office debut so far. The fact that they are about to break even during its opening weekend is good.
And the guy just compared World War Z to a kids movie that the original was well received.
On June 23 2013 22:54 Elerris wrote: Just came back from seeing it with a couple of mates, one who had just finished reading the book, the other not even knowing it was a zombie movie. Was good to see the mixed reactions.
For myself and my friend who hadn't read the book, it was a somewhat enjoyable movie, nothing spectacular but still got our moneys worth. Laughed especially hard at the Lil Wayne zombie in the glass cage and the teeth chattering of that one zombie. My mate who had just read the book however, blew the hell up. Complained all the way home about the inaccuracies of the movie compared to the book and how terrible the movie was.
Mixed reactions, but as someone who hadn't read the book, was quite enjoyable.
Also, the bit where he was walking down the skybridge was friggin awesome.
I read the book and enjoyed the movie. When I saw the trailer I was 100% sure it was going to be NOTHING like the book, and how could it? The book is a series of quasi-related events, narrated by different people, in different parts of the world, etc. Yeah you could make a movie like that but it would not be a great movie, it would have to be long and mostly boring, you would have no attachments to any character, etc.
This was the only Zombie film I ever liked. It had plenty of action, actually not much of any gore. They cut out a lot of the bs that you tend to see in a lot of zombie films and shows.
On June 23 2013 08:12 jeremycafe wrote: I love reading all the comments from people who read the books. You people are just never pleased with movies. Why go watch them?
This was a great movie. Probably one of the better zombie movies to date. I would give it a 8/10 for your standard blockbuster movies these days. If you haven't read the books, go in and enjoy. No idea what to tell you butthurt book readers
I love reading all the comments from the butt hurt idiots that lack the intelligence and attention span to pick a book up once in their life and enjoy a story the way it was meant to be enjoyed.
I don't think he's butthurt at all, he enjoyed himself an entertaining movie
Exactly
@Juggernaut447 I enjoy movies, you enjoy books. Stop going to movies if all you are going to do is rage on forums about how bad they are. Everyone has their preference. I prefer to leave it to the professional the create amazing scenes rather than count on my brain to do it. I spend all day staring at code. The last thing I want to do is go home and stare at more text.
Seems like I struck a nerve mr book reader
Well, you were trying to be a dick. I doubt anyone is surprised that you were able to succeed. No need to gloat over it.
Not trying to be a dick at all. I honestly think its aggravating that the majority of discussions on these threads has to be about how the movie sucks compared to the book. Its how every movie topic goes here.
I just don't get the point of a book reader who is always disappointed going to movies. If you don't like the format, why go? I don't force myself to read books when I know I don't enjoy it.
It isn't the format that is the problem. It isn't even that "the Movie isn't like the book" that is the problem. Its that the movie is painfully average, added to the fact that it just has the book's name plastered to it. You are trying to be a dick, going on about how "butthurt" people are because they didn't like the movie. Its clearly inflammatory. Get off your high horse.
As far as zombies go the only one that is better to me is the 28 days/weeks series. He also never said people were butthurt.
On June 23 2013 08:12 jeremycafe wrote: I love reading all the comments from people who read the books. You people are just never pleased with movies. Why go watch them?
This was a great movie. Probably one of the better zombie movies to date. I would give it a 8/10 for your standard blockbuster movies these days. If you haven't read the books, go in and enjoy. No idea what to tell you butthurt book readers
On June 23 2013 08:12 jeremycafe wrote: I love reading all the comments from people who read the books. You people are just never pleased with movies. Why go watch them?
This was a great movie. Probably one of the better zombie movies to date. I would give it a 8/10 for your standard blockbuster movies these days. If you haven't read the books, go in and enjoy. No idea what to tell you butthurt book readers
I love reading all the comments from the butt hurt idiots that lack the intelligence and attention span to pick a book up once in their life and enjoy a story the way it was meant to be enjoyed.
I don't think he's butthurt at all, he enjoyed himself an entertaining movie
Exactly
@Juggernaut447 I enjoy movies, you enjoy books. Stop going to movies if all you are going to do is rage on forums about how bad they are. Everyone has their preference. I prefer to leave it to the professional the create amazing scenes rather than count on my brain to do it. I spend all day staring at code. The last thing I want to do is go home and stare at more text.
Seems like I struck a nerve mr book reader
Well, you were trying to be a dick. I doubt anyone is surprised that you were able to succeed. No need to gloat over it.
Not trying to be a dick at all. I honestly think its aggravating that the majority of discussions on these threads has to be about how the movie sucks compared to the book. Its how every movie topic goes here.
I just don't get the point of a book reader who is always disappointed going to movies. If you don't like the format, why go? I don't force myself to read books when I know I don't enjoy it.
It isn't the format that is the problem. It isn't even that "the Movie isn't like the book" that is the problem. Its that the movie is painfully average, added to the fact that it just has the book's name plastered to it. You are trying to be a dick, going on about how "butthurt" people are because they didn't like the movie. Its clearly inflammatory. Get off your high horse.
As far as zombies go the only one that is better to me is the 28 days/weeks series. He also never said people were butthurt.
On June 23 2013 08:12 jeremycafe wrote: I love reading all the comments from people who read the books. You people are just never pleased with movies. Why go watch them?
This was a great movie. Probably one of the better zombie movies to date. I would give it a 8/10 for your standard blockbuster movies these days. If you haven't read the books, go in and enjoy. No idea what to tell you butthurt book readers
I love reading all the comments from the butt hurt idiots that lack the intelligence and attention span to pick a book up once in their life and enjoy a story the way it was meant to be enjoyed.
I don't think he's butthurt at all, he enjoyed himself an entertaining movie
Exactly
@Juggernaut447 I enjoy movies, you enjoy books. Stop going to movies if all you are going to do is rage on forums about how bad they are. Everyone has their preference. I prefer to leave it to the professional the create amazing scenes rather than count on my brain to do it. I spend all day staring at code. The last thing I want to do is go home and stare at more text.
Seems like I struck a nerve mr book reader
Well, you were trying to be a dick. I doubt anyone is surprised that you were able to succeed. No need to gloat over it.
Not trying to be a dick at all. I honestly think its aggravating that the majority of discussions on these threads has to be about how the movie sucks compared to the book. Its how every movie topic goes here.
I just don't get the point of a book reader who is always disappointed going to movies. If you don't like the format, why go? I don't force myself to read books when I know I don't enjoy it.
It isn't the format that is the problem. It isn't even that "the Movie isn't like the book" that is the problem. Its that the movie is painfully average, added to the fact that it just has the book's name plastered to it. You are trying to be a dick, going on about how "butthurt" people are because they didn't like the movie. Its clearly inflammatory. Get off your high horse.
As far as zombies go the only one that is better to me is the 28 days/weeks series. He also never said people were butthurt.
On June 23 2013 08:12 jeremycafe wrote: I love reading all the comments from people who read the books. You people are just never pleased with movies. Why go watch them?
This was a great movie. Probably one of the better zombie movies to date. I would give it a 8/10 for your standard blockbuster movies these days. If you haven't read the books, go in and enjoy. No idea what to tell you butthurt book readers
On June 23 2013 08:12 jeremycafe wrote: I love reading all the comments from people who read the books. You people are just never pleased with movies. Why go watch them?
This was a great movie. Probably one of the better zombie movies to date. I would give it a 8/10 for your standard blockbuster movies these days. If you haven't read the books, go in and enjoy. No idea what to tell you butthurt book readers
I love reading all the comments from the butt hurt idiots that lack the intelligence and attention span to pick a book up once in their life and enjoy a story the way it was meant to be enjoyed.
I don't think he's butthurt at all, he enjoyed himself an entertaining movie
Exactly
@Juggernaut447 I enjoy movies, you enjoy books. Stop going to movies if all you are going to do is rage on forums about how bad they are. Everyone has their preference. I prefer to leave it to the professional the create amazing scenes rather than count on my brain to do it. I spend all day staring at code. The last thing I want to do is go home and stare at more text.
Seems like I struck a nerve mr book reader
Well, you were trying to be a dick. I doubt anyone is surprised that you were able to succeed. No need to gloat over it.
Not trying to be a dick at all. I honestly think its aggravating that the majority of discussions on these threads has to be about how the movie sucks compared to the book. Its how every movie topic goes here.
I just don't get the point of a book reader who is always disappointed going to movies. If you don't like the format, why go? I don't force myself to read books when I know I don't enjoy it.
It isn't the format that is the problem. It isn't even that "the Movie isn't like the book" that is the problem. Its that the movie is painfully average, added to the fact that it just has the book's name plastered to it. You are trying to be a dick, going on about how "butthurt" people are because they didn't like the movie. Its clearly inflammatory. Get off your high horse.
As far as zombies go the only one that is better to me is the 28 days/weeks series. He also never said people were butthurt.
i read the book and although the movie was completely inaccurate .. i actually enjoyed it .. it wasnt as bad as i expected .. it was worth the money .. expect too many claustrophobic scenes .. theres was a advertisement that was awesome
On June 23 2013 07:22 hummingbird23 wrote: World War Z's (the book) magic was in its ability to bring ALL the facets of human nature to light, the good, the bad, the ugly and the heroic.
The film is decent, but it's Just Another Zombie Flick.
From the sound of things, the book wouldn't be possible for a movie. At least not one that is only 2 hours long.
I agree, which is why I wasn't too disappointed. I wouldn't call it impossible, but it would take a VERY talented director and some cherry picking of particularly iconic characters to do the book any justice in that respect. Either that, or some strategic splitting of the book into a trilogy, each focusing on 1-3 major events. It would be epic beyond words, but also quite wishful thinking.
Come to think of it, if there was one word that could be used to sum up the book, it would be Choices. Everyone had a reason for what they chose, and you could see why they made those hard choices, even if you disagreed. It's hard to do that in a film when the action keeps moving.
I think the way you do it is something similar to Waltz with Bashir. Bits of interview type narration to lead into reconstructions of the events.
this movie was just another zombie movie. I kept wanting to play The Last of Us while I was watching it, cuz i frankly didn't care what happenned to the people in the movie. A zombie movie is only as good as the humans in it
Movie exceeded expectations from the studio, and had a huge opening for a new franchise. I dont think you actually read the article Or looked up anything related to the movie
The surprisingly strong opening is good news for Pitt, whose production company Plan B Entertainment is behind the movie. “World War Z” is now the 49-year-old actor’s biggest opening by far, followed by the $50.3-million debut of 2005’s “Mr. and Mrs. Smith,” on which he fell for his costar and now romantic partner Angelina Jolie
On June 23 2013 08:12 jeremycafe wrote: I love reading all the comments from people who read the books. You people are just never pleased with movies. Why go watch them?
This was a great movie. Probably one of the better zombie movies to date. I would give it a 8/10 for your standard blockbuster movies these days. If you haven't read the books, go in and enjoy. No idea what to tell you butthurt book readers
I love reading all the comments from the butt hurt idiots that lack the intelligence and attention span to pick a book up once in their life and enjoy a story the way it was meant to be enjoyed.
I don't think he's butthurt at all, he enjoyed himself an entertaining movie
Exactly
@Juggernaut447 I enjoy movies, you enjoy books. Stop going to movies if all you are going to do is rage on forums about how bad they are. Everyone has their preference. I prefer to leave it to the professional the create amazing scenes rather than count on my brain to do it. I spend all day staring at code. The last thing I want to do is go home and stare at more text.
Seems like I struck a nerve mr book reader
Well, you were trying to be a dick. I doubt anyone is surprised that you were able to succeed. No need to gloat over it.
Not trying to be a dick at all. I honestly think its aggravating that the majority of discussions on these threads has to be about how the movie sucks compared to the book. Its how every movie topic goes here.
I just don't get the point of a book reader who is always disappointed going to movies. If you don't like the format, why go? I don't force myself to read books when I know I don't enjoy it.
It isn't the format that is the problem. It isn't even that "the Movie isn't like the book" that is the problem. Its that the movie is painfully average, added to the fact that it just has the book's name plastered to it. You are trying to be a dick, going on about how "butthurt" people are because they didn't like the movie. Its clearly inflammatory. Get off your high horse.
As far as zombies go the only one that is better to me is the 28 days/weeks series. He also never said people were butthurt.
28 Days wasn't a zombie movie homie...
And 28 Weeks was just horrible. A crew of drunk chimpanzees would have acted smarter than the people in that movie, urgh <.<
On June 23 2013 08:12 jeremycafe wrote: I love reading all the comments from people who read the books. You people are just never pleased with movies. Why go watch them?
This was a great movie. Probably one of the better zombie movies to date. I would give it a 8/10 for your standard blockbuster movies these days. If you haven't read the books, go in and enjoy. No idea what to tell you butthurt book readers
I love reading all the comments from the butt hurt idiots that lack the intelligence and attention span to pick a book up once in their life and enjoy a story the way it was meant to be enjoyed.
I don't think he's butthurt at all, he enjoyed himself an entertaining movie
Exactly
@Juggernaut447 I enjoy movies, you enjoy books. Stop going to movies if all you are going to do is rage on forums about how bad they are. Everyone has their preference. I prefer to leave it to the professional the create amazing scenes rather than count on my brain to do it. I spend all day staring at code. The last thing I want to do is go home and stare at more text.
Seems like I struck a nerve mr book reader
Well, you were trying to be a dick. I doubt anyone is surprised that you were able to succeed. No need to gloat over it.
Not trying to be a dick at all. I honestly think its aggravating that the majority of discussions on these threads has to be about how the movie sucks compared to the book. Its how every movie topic goes here.
I just don't get the point of a book reader who is always disappointed going to movies. If you don't like the format, why go? I don't force myself to read books when I know I don't enjoy it.
It isn't the format that is the problem. It isn't even that "the Movie isn't like the book" that is the problem. Its that the movie is painfully average, added to the fact that it just has the book's name plastered to it. You are trying to be a dick, going on about how "butthurt" people are because they didn't like the movie. Its clearly inflammatory. Get off your high horse.
As far as zombies go the only one that is better to me is the 28 days/weeks series. He also never said people were butthurt.
On June 23 2013 08:12 jeremycafe wrote: I love reading all the comments from people who read the books. You people are just never pleased with movies. Why go watch them?
This was a great movie. Probably one of the better zombie movies to date. I would give it a 8/10 for your standard blockbuster movies these days. If you haven't read the books, go in and enjoy. No idea what to tell you butthurt book readers
On June 23 2013 08:12 jeremycafe wrote: I love reading all the comments from people who read the books. You people are just never pleased with movies. Why go watch them?
This was a great movie. Probably one of the better zombie movies to date. I would give it a 8/10 for your standard blockbuster movies these days. If you haven't read the books, go in and enjoy. No idea what to tell you butthurt book readers
I love reading all the comments from the butt hurt idiots that lack the intelligence and attention span to pick a book up once in their life and enjoy a story the way it was meant to be enjoyed.
I don't think he's butthurt at all, he enjoyed himself an entertaining movie
Exactly
@Juggernaut447 I enjoy movies, you enjoy books. Stop going to movies if all you are going to do is rage on forums about how bad they are. Everyone has their preference. I prefer to leave it to the professional the create amazing scenes rather than count on my brain to do it. I spend all day staring at code. The last thing I want to do is go home and stare at more text.
Seems like I struck a nerve mr book reader
Well, you were trying to be a dick. I doubt anyone is surprised that you were able to succeed. No need to gloat over it.
Not trying to be a dick at all. I honestly think its aggravating that the majority of discussions on these threads has to be about how the movie sucks compared to the book. Its how every movie topic goes here.
I just don't get the point of a book reader who is always disappointed going to movies. If you don't like the format, why go? I don't force myself to read books when I know I don't enjoy it.
It isn't the format that is the problem. It isn't even that "the Movie isn't like the book" that is the problem. Its that the movie is painfully average, added to the fact that it just has the book's name plastered to it. You are trying to be a dick, going on about how "butthurt" people are because they didn't like the movie. Its clearly inflammatory. Get off your high horse.
As far as zombies go the only one that is better to me is the 28 days/weeks series. He also never said people were butthurt.
If it isnt a zombie movie, and it has that on one of the pictures, then what is it?
A normal human being infected with a virus referred to as the "Rage Virus". They possess no super strength, die just as easily as normal humans, infect and turn instantly, need actual nourishment, etc... They have none of the basic zombie characterizations that would classify it as a zombie flick. If 28 is a zombie flick, then so is I Am Legend. I would actually say 28 is more similar to The Crazies rather than any actual zombie flick, just on a much larger scale.
On June 23 2013 09:40 Juggernaut477 wrote: [quote]
I love reading all the comments from the butt hurt idiots that lack the intelligence and attention span to pick a book up once in their life and enjoy a story the way it was meant to be enjoyed.
I don't think he's butthurt at all, he enjoyed himself an entertaining movie
Exactly
@Juggernaut447 I enjoy movies, you enjoy books. Stop going to movies if all you are going to do is rage on forums about how bad they are. Everyone has their preference. I prefer to leave it to the professional the create amazing scenes rather than count on my brain to do it. I spend all day staring at code. The last thing I want to do is go home and stare at more text.
Seems like I struck a nerve mr book reader
Well, you were trying to be a dick. I doubt anyone is surprised that you were able to succeed. No need to gloat over it.
Not trying to be a dick at all. I honestly think its aggravating that the majority of discussions on these threads has to be about how the movie sucks compared to the book. Its how every movie topic goes here.
I just don't get the point of a book reader who is always disappointed going to movies. If you don't like the format, why go? I don't force myself to read books when I know I don't enjoy it.
It isn't the format that is the problem. It isn't even that "the Movie isn't like the book" that is the problem. Its that the movie is painfully average, added to the fact that it just has the book's name plastered to it. You are trying to be a dick, going on about how "butthurt" people are because they didn't like the movie. Its clearly inflammatory. Get off your high horse.
As far as zombies go the only one that is better to me is the 28 days/weeks series. He also never said people were butthurt.
On June 23 2013 08:12 jeremycafe wrote: I love reading all the comments from people who read the books. You people are just never pleased with movies. Why go watch them?
This was a great movie. Probably one of the better zombie movies to date. I would give it a 8/10 for your standard blockbuster movies these days. If you haven't read the books, go in and enjoy. No idea what to tell you butthurt book readers
My bad, so he did.
On June 24 2013 09:27 Dosey wrote:
On June 24 2013 08:31 TheRabidDeer wrote:
On June 24 2013 06:55 Sentenal wrote:
On June 23 2013 20:32 jeremycafe wrote:
On June 23 2013 13:15 TrickyGilligan wrote:
On June 23 2013 10:08 jeremycafe wrote:
On June 23 2013 09:47 OneOther wrote:
On June 23 2013 09:40 Juggernaut477 wrote: [quote]
I love reading all the comments from the butt hurt idiots that lack the intelligence and attention span to pick a book up once in their life and enjoy a story the way it was meant to be enjoyed.
I don't think he's butthurt at all, he enjoyed himself an entertaining movie
Exactly
@Juggernaut447 I enjoy movies, you enjoy books. Stop going to movies if all you are going to do is rage on forums about how bad they are. Everyone has their preference. I prefer to leave it to the professional the create amazing scenes rather than count on my brain to do it. I spend all day staring at code. The last thing I want to do is go home and stare at more text.
Seems like I struck a nerve mr book reader
Well, you were trying to be a dick. I doubt anyone is surprised that you were able to succeed. No need to gloat over it.
Not trying to be a dick at all. I honestly think its aggravating that the majority of discussions on these threads has to be about how the movie sucks compared to the book. Its how every movie topic goes here.
I just don't get the point of a book reader who is always disappointed going to movies. If you don't like the format, why go? I don't force myself to read books when I know I don't enjoy it.
It isn't the format that is the problem. It isn't even that "the Movie isn't like the book" that is the problem. Its that the movie is painfully average, added to the fact that it just has the book's name plastered to it. You are trying to be a dick, going on about how "butthurt" people are because they didn't like the movie. Its clearly inflammatory. Get off your high horse.
As far as zombies go the only one that is better to me is the 28 days/weeks series. He also never said people were butthurt.
If it isnt a zombie movie, and it has that on one of the pictures, then what is it?
A normal human being infected with a virus referred to as the "Rage Virus". They possess no super strength, die just as easily as normal humans, infect and turn instantly, need actual nourishment, etc... They have none of the basic zombie characterizations that would classify it as a zombie flick. If 28 is a zombie flick, then so is I Am Legend. I would actually say 28 is more similar to The Crazies rather than any actual zombie flick, just on a much larger scale.
I think your definition of zombie is a bit too narrow (some people debate if fast zombies are zombies at all, if you want to take it to that extreme). Resident Evil is considered a zombie franchise yet they are infected people just like in 28 days later. Their needing of nourishment and death just seems to be a more realistic take on zombies (nothing can survive forever without nourishment, and why would they be stronger and more resistant to bullets?) I somewhat consider I Am Legend to be one, but at the same time perhaps not. For one they are mentioned as mutants, not zombies. They experience emotions, rats can be infected from the virus, they are weak to UV/sunlight and so only come out at night etc.
They are supposed to be Vampires in I Am Legend, although they are "zombie-like" in certain aspects. Resident Evil is a Zombie Franchise overall, but its not all Zombies. The enemies in like RE4 and RE5 aren't Zombies, and they even say as much in the games. But things like 'needing nourishment' and 'can die normally' are definitely 'not-zombie' qualities. Zombies are supposed to be undead. If its alive, it isn't a zombie.
On June 24 2013 13:49 Sentenal wrote: They are supposed to be Vampires in I Am Legend, although they are "zombie-like" in certain aspects. Resident Evil is a Zombie Franchise overall, but its not all Zombies. The enemies in like RE4 and RE5 aren't Zombies, and they even say as much in the games. But things like 'needing nourishment' and 'can die normally' are definitely 'not-zombie' qualities. Zombies are supposed to be undead. If its alive, it isn't a zombie.
Like I say, 28 days/weeks later is a more realistic approach to the zombie concept. Zombies in the form of undead are pretty much non-existent in film (especially modern times, how many true undead zombie films have their been that ever made it somewhat big?) and completely unrealistic to any extreme. A body needs energy to do anything. The body gets energy from being nourished. This applies to everything that moves.
I have never seen 28 days/weeks later classified as anything but zombie flicks (at least by the mainstream audience) and the only argument I had seen about zombies before this thread was that fast zombies dont count as zombies.
Saw it last night and i was entertained. I am glad i went, and i think the suspense was pretty good. Of course the story was not super amazing, but at the same time, it was not super obvious and not interesting either, i would put it at better than average. I am a fan i guess at "Zombie" Movies, and I liked this movie.
I of course did not read the book/know it even existed until i read this thread, so i cant say anything on that part, but for my personal opinion, it was good!
On June 24 2013 13:58 MaxField wrote: Saw it last night and i was entertained. I am glad i went, and i think the suspense was pretty good. Of course the story was not super amazing, but at the same time, it was not super obvious and not interesting either, i would put it at better than average. I am a fan i guess at "Zombie" Movies, and I liked this movie.
I of course did not read the book/know it even existed until i read this thread, so i cant say anything on that part, but for my personal opinion, it was good!
Well said man, I had a very similar experience. I also did not know of the book!
Brad Pitt also carries this movie fairly well given the fact that his character is quite one dimensional.
On June 23 2013 22:54 Elerris wrote: Just came back from seeing it with a couple of mates, one who had just finished reading the book, the other not even knowing it was a zombie movie. Was good to see the mixed reactions.
For myself and my friend who hadn't read the book, it was a somewhat enjoyable movie, nothing spectacular but still got our moneys worth. Laughed especially hard at the Lil Wayne zombie in the glass cage and the teeth chattering of that one zombie. My mate who had just read the book however, blew the hell up. Complained all the way home about the inaccuracies of the movie compared to the book and how terrible the movie was.
Mixed reactions, but as someone who hadn't read the book, was quite enjoyable.
Also, the bit where he was walking down the skybridge was friggin awesome.
I read the book and enjoyed the movie. When I saw the trailer I was 100% sure it was going to be NOTHING like the book, and how could it? The book is a series of quasi-related events, narrated by different people, in different parts of the world, etc. Yeah you could make a movie like that but it would not be a great movie, it would have to be long and mostly boring, you would have no attachments to any character, etc.
Sin City was like that and it was awesome.
More or less. Sin City had a few stories that were broken into segments and ran in parallel, sort-of. This would be say... 20-30 stories, each with its own "hero". It really wouldn't be the same. I get what you're saying, that it could work, and you may be right, but I think it would be a really hard thing to pull off.
its like roland emmerich zombie flick really. the scene in the hospital was good but everything else was so standard, safe and boring. I've read the book and have no issue with the movie completely diverging - its not really an adaptable book. Pitt just about carries the rest of the sleepwalking cast.
On June 24 2013 13:49 Sentenal wrote: They are supposed to be Vampires in I Am Legend, although they are "zombie-like" in certain aspects. Resident Evil is a Zombie Franchise overall, but its not all Zombies. The enemies in like RE4 and RE5 aren't Zombies, and they even say as much in the games. But things like 'needing nourishment' and 'can die normally' are definitely 'not-zombie' qualities. Zombies are supposed to be undead. If its alive, it isn't a zombie.
Like I say, 28 days/weeks later is a more realistic approach to the zombie concept. Zombies in the form of undead are pretty much non-existent in film (especially modern times, how many true undead zombie films have their been that ever made it somewhat big?) and completely unrealistic to any extreme. A body needs energy to do anything. The body gets energy from being nourished. This applies to everything that moves.
I have never seen 28 days/weeks later classified as anything but zombie flicks (at least by the mainstream audience) and the only argument I had seen about zombies before this thread was that fast zombies dont count as zombies.
The zombie concept itself is completely unrealistic, but zombies are still what they are: undead. If it is alive, it isn't a zombie, period. You can make zombie-like things, but that doesn't change them from "zombie-like" to zombies.
I enjoyed the movie, but wish that it had made up its mind in a way.
I found the book to be innovative but ultimately boring by the end. This film took elements of the book, but then completely abandoned them. The global/zombie mystery could have been explored more, I would have liked a little bit more global trotting and investigation. After visiting two spots that plot line was chucked.
It was like the movie 2012, except with zombies. The main characters are impervious to death and always narrowly escaping danger. There's also no blood, and the story kinda makes itself up as it goes along like a Michael Bay movie.
Worth seeing in theaters because there are some great wide shots, but don't bother seeing it in 3D, save your money.
On June 24 2013 13:49 Sentenal wrote: They are supposed to be Vampires in I Am Legend, although they are "zombie-like" in certain aspects. Resident Evil is a Zombie Franchise overall, but its not all Zombies. The enemies in like RE4 and RE5 aren't Zombies, and they even say as much in the games. But things like 'needing nourishment' and 'can die normally' are definitely 'not-zombie' qualities. Zombies are supposed to be undead. If its alive, it isn't a zombie.
Like I say, 28 days/weeks later is a more realistic approach to the zombie concept. Zombies in the form of undead are pretty much non-existent in film (especially modern times, how many true undead zombie films have their been that ever made it somewhat big?) and completely unrealistic to any extreme. A body needs energy to do anything. The body gets energy from being nourished. This applies to everything that moves.
I have never seen 28 days/weeks later classified as anything but zombie flicks (at least by the mainstream audience) and the only argument I had seen about zombies before this thread was that fast zombies dont count as zombies.
The zombie concept itself is completely unrealistic, but zombies are still what they are: undead. If it is alive, it isn't a zombie, period. You can make zombie-like things, but that doesn't change them from "zombie-like" to zombies.
Agree to disagree then, myself and many others consider it a zombie movie. http://www.toplessrobot.com/2008/10/the_10_greatest_zombie_films_of_all_time_with_evid.php "It’s been called a zombie movie without zombies, but that’s just purists being retarded. The zombies here may not be technically dead, but they sure act like zombies: chasing people, biting them and turning them into zombies. And it sure looks like a zombie movie, with its apocalyptic vision of London, its band of survivors desperate to escape and, in a significant nod to Romero’s Day of the Dead, an insane military that’s actually far more threatening than the zombies themselves."
On June 24 2013 13:49 Sentenal wrote: They are supposed to be Vampires in I Am Legend, although they are "zombie-like" in certain aspects. Resident Evil is a Zombie Franchise overall, but its not all Zombies. The enemies in like RE4 and RE5 aren't Zombies, and they even say as much in the games. But things like 'needing nourishment' and 'can die normally' are definitely 'not-zombie' qualities. Zombies are supposed to be undead. If its alive, it isn't a zombie.
Like I say, 28 days/weeks later is a more realistic approach to the zombie concept. Zombies in the form of undead are pretty much non-existent in film (especially modern times, how many true undead zombie films have their been that ever made it somewhat big?) and completely unrealistic to any extreme. A body needs energy to do anything. The body gets energy from being nourished. This applies to everything that moves.
I have never seen 28 days/weeks later classified as anything but zombie flicks (at least by the mainstream audience) and the only argument I had seen about zombies before this thread was that fast zombies dont count as zombies.
The zombie concept itself is completely unrealistic, but zombies are still what they are: undead. If it is alive, it isn't a zombie, period. You can make zombie-like things, but that doesn't change them from "zombie-like" to zombies.
Agree to disagree then, myself and many others consider it a zombie movie. http://www.toplessrobot.com/2008/10/the_10_greatest_zombie_films_of_all_time_with_evid.php "It’s been called a zombie movie without zombies, but that’s just purists being retarded. The zombies here may not be technically dead, but they sure act like zombies: chasing people, biting them and turning them into zombies. And it sure looks like a zombie movie, with its apocalyptic vision of London, its band of survivors desperate to escape and, in a significant nod to Romero’s Day of the Dead, an insane military that’s actually far more threatening than the zombies themselves."
So thats your argument? If you disagree, you are being retarded? If it isn't, I don't know why you would bother posting such a link. If someone made a movie about a bunch of people with Rabies running around and biting people, I wouldn't consider it a zombie movie. I don't consider Vampires to be zombies either, considering they run around, bite people, and turn them into vampires. Or werewolves for that matter, since they do it too.
On June 24 2013 13:49 Sentenal wrote: They are supposed to be Vampires in I Am Legend, although they are "zombie-like" in certain aspects. Resident Evil is a Zombie Franchise overall, but its not all Zombies. The enemies in like RE4 and RE5 aren't Zombies, and they even say as much in the games. But things like 'needing nourishment' and 'can die normally' are definitely 'not-zombie' qualities. Zombies are supposed to be undead. If its alive, it isn't a zombie.
Like I say, 28 days/weeks later is a more realistic approach to the zombie concept. Zombies in the form of undead are pretty much non-existent in film (especially modern times, how many true undead zombie films have their been that ever made it somewhat big?) and completely unrealistic to any extreme. A body needs energy to do anything. The body gets energy from being nourished. This applies to everything that moves.
I have never seen 28 days/weeks later classified as anything but zombie flicks (at least by the mainstream audience) and the only argument I had seen about zombies before this thread was that fast zombies dont count as zombies.
The zombie concept itself is completely unrealistic, but zombies are still what they are: undead. If it is alive, it isn't a zombie, period. You can make zombie-like things, but that doesn't change them from "zombie-like" to zombies.
Agree to disagree then, myself and many others consider it a zombie movie. http://www.toplessrobot.com/2008/10/the_10_greatest_zombie_films_of_all_time_with_evid.php "It’s been called a zombie movie without zombies, but that’s just purists being retarded. The zombies here may not be technically dead, but they sure act like zombies: chasing people, biting them and turning them into zombies. And it sure looks like a zombie movie, with its apocalyptic vision of London, its band of survivors desperate to escape and, in a significant nod to Romero’s Day of the Dead, an insane military that’s actually far more threatening than the zombies themselves."
So thats your argument? If you disagree, you are being retarded? If it isn't, I don't know why you would bother posting such a link. If someone made a movie about a bunch of people with Rabies running around and biting people, I wouldn't consider it a zombie movie. I don't consider Vampires to be zombies either, considering they run around, bite people, and turn them into vampires. Or werewolves for that matter, since they do it too.
Where did I say you were being retarded? I simply said agree to disagree and lots of people agree with me that 28 days later is a zombie movie, then I quoted a source with a list of zombie movies that agreed with me that it was a zombie movie (and he uses the same things to say TECHNICALLY it isnt a zombie movie, but since it so closely resembles a zombie movie it is one).
I am not going to argue with you anymore because your opinion is very clearly not going to change and neither is mine. So what is the point?
On June 24 2013 13:49 Sentenal wrote: They are supposed to be Vampires in I Am Legend, although they are "zombie-like" in certain aspects. Resident Evil is a Zombie Franchise overall, but its not all Zombies. The enemies in like RE4 and RE5 aren't Zombies, and they even say as much in the games. But things like 'needing nourishment' and 'can die normally' are definitely 'not-zombie' qualities. Zombies are supposed to be undead. If its alive, it isn't a zombie.
Like I say, 28 days/weeks later is a more realistic approach to the zombie concept. Zombies in the form of undead are pretty much non-existent in film (especially modern times, how many true undead zombie films have their been that ever made it somewhat big?) and completely unrealistic to any extreme. A body needs energy to do anything. The body gets energy from being nourished. This applies to everything that moves.
I have never seen 28 days/weeks later classified as anything but zombie flicks (at least by the mainstream audience) and the only argument I had seen about zombies before this thread was that fast zombies dont count as zombies.
The zombie concept itself is completely unrealistic, but zombies are still what they are: undead. If it is alive, it isn't a zombie, period. You can make zombie-like things, but that doesn't change them from "zombie-like" to zombies.
Agree to disagree then, myself and many others consider it a zombie movie. http://www.toplessrobot.com/2008/10/the_10_greatest_zombie_films_of_all_time_with_evid.php "It’s been called a zombie movie without zombies, but that’s just purists being retarded. The zombies here may not be technically dead, but they sure act like zombies: chasing people, biting them and turning them into zombies. And it sure looks like a zombie movie, with its apocalyptic vision of London, its band of survivors desperate to escape and, in a significant nod to Romero’s Day of the Dead, an insane military that’s actually far more threatening than the zombies themselves."
So thats your argument? If you disagree, you are being retarded? If it isn't, I don't know why you would bother posting such a link. If someone made a movie about a bunch of people with Rabies running around and biting people, I wouldn't consider it a zombie movie. I don't consider Vampires to be zombies either, considering they run around, bite people, and turn them into vampires. Or werewolves for that matter, since they do it too.
Where did I say you were being retarded? I simply said agree to disagree and lots of people agree with me that 28 days later is a zombie movie, then I quoted a source with a list of zombie movies that agreed with me that it was a zombie movie (and he uses the same things to say TECHNICALLY it isnt a zombie movie, but since it so closely resembles a zombie movie it is one).
I am not going to argue with you anymore because your opinion is very clearly not going to change and neither is mine. So what is the point?
The quote you decided to post from that article calls people think it isn't a zombie 'retarded', which is what I took offense to. Would have been more tactful to omit that part if it wasn't your intention to convey it. Anyway, yeah, I don't think either of us are going to change our opinions, so best to drop this line of discussion.
Besides the title, the movie had some nods to the book such as Israel, Patient Zero, etc. Although the nods weren't book accurate, it was something that fans of the book will notice.
As some of you know, the movie had a ton of production problems, which delayed the movie for some time. Some even thought they might have shelved the project. One of the problems was the rewrites. Apparently, this was the original ending, which I am glad they didn't used.
The plane Gerry and Segen board is bound for Moscow. Upon safely landing, everyone on board is rounded up by the military. The elderly and the sick are executed and the healthy people, including a very shaken Gerry, are immediately drafted into armed service, though not before one particularly nasty Russian soldier takes Gerry's cell phone. The story then jumps forward an unknown amount of time and we catch up with Gerry, who now has a full beard and has been a part of Russia's zombie-clearing squad at least long enough for it to have changed to winter. He looks almost dead inside, but the reality is that over this time he's become an experienced and ruthless zombie killer, and he's the leader of his own equally capable unit.
Gerry's unit is tasked with clearing subway tunnels of zombie hordes. This is the first time we see the Lobo, a perfected zombie-killing tool that's sort of a shovel/battle axe that would have been one of the few things from the book to make it into the movie. Gerry and his team use them to slice their way through every poor zombie that tracks them through the tunnels by following their sounds. It's all routine work for them, and when they're not in the tunnels killing, they're basically just preparing to go back in. During this downtime we see a bit of bonding between Gerry and another English-speaking friend, Simon. The two play a guessing game of what celebrities would have survived the outbreak.
We get a couple intense scenes of tunnel combat (at one point Gerry has to kill one of his own after being bitten), and eventually they emerge above ground and are right in the middle of The Battle of Red Square (pictured in the banner above, though this is likely not from the movie and was created just for marketing purposes). This is a much, much larger set piece that involves several different front lines constantly fighting the hordes. There's a kind of weird plot point of Gerry's team now getting re-assigned to different front lines based on what their religion is (Gerry and Simon are atheists), the logic being that people would fight harder alongside people of the same faith. But they're segregated and Gerry tries to convince the General in charge that his elite, tunnel-sweeping crew should be allowed to teach those other people how to fight with Lobos and makeshift shields and what not.
There's arguing with this Russian General, but eventually Gerry convinces him to let him teach some of the other front lines how to fight, but this involves having to go back into the tunnels with Simon so they can sneak past the zombies on the other side. It's there that Gerry notices the zombies are having a hard time dealing with the severe Russian winter by remembering just how fast they were in Jerusalem, and so it occurs to him that the way to defeat the zombies is to let their bodies freeze.
Gerry and Simon are now on a mission to inform the Russian command to extinguish all fires and move their battle lines so as to keep as many of the zombies in the cold as possible, but then they run into a generator room where the nasty Russian soldier who took his phone upon arrival in the country is boozing it up with some very reluctant girls. One of those girls is Segen. Gerry grabs a belt of grenades and tosses one into the room. He, Segen and Simon duck behind a couch to survive the blast before making a break for it.
Once again Gerry meets up with the General and convinces him to use Russia's cold to their advantage, as they have done in past homeland wars. This works and he orders everyone to extinguish all of their fires. Eventually this gives them the upper hand in the battle. Gerry takes this turn toward the offensive to retreat. He takes a couple of shots of vodka, then picks up the phone he retrieved from the soldier and calls his wife, Karin.
Even beyond the entire Russian battle sequence, it's this call to his wife that's the real game changer for the (aborted) tone of World War Z.
Gerry reaches Karin. He explains to her that the cold is the way they'll win battles, which does her no good because it just so happens she and the kids are in a refugee camp in the sweltering heat of the Everglades. They're in the type of camp where you have to have something to trade to survive, and it just so happens the one thing Karin had to trade was herself. She doesn't explicitly tell Gerry this, but after she hastily hangs up the phone we see that she's in some kind of reluctantly consensual relationship with the soldier who rescued them from the rooftop at the beginning of the movie.
Did you happen to notice that soldier on the helicopter was played by Matthew Fox? Did you wonder why they bothered to cast someone as recognizable as him in a role that was pretty inconsequential and had almost no lines? That's because his real payoff wasn't until the end.
Fox' parajumper soldier then calls Gerry back and explains to him that he should just stay wherever he is and start a new life like he and Karin have. Gerry refuses to accept this, though, and he embarks on a rage mission to get back to his wife and daughters. Trouble is the nearest port that won't be frozen is thousands of miles away, so there's a montage of Gerry, Simon and Segen crossing various terrain until they ultimately end up on a boat. They're now off of the Oregon Coast and they attack the American shore like it's D-Day. And that's how the movie ends. Not with Gerry having discovered a cure, but with him storming across the United States of America to get Karin back.
On June 25 2013 04:30 zoLo wrote: Besides the title, the movie had some nods to the book such as Israel, Patient Zero, etc. Although the nods weren't book accurate, it was something that fans of the book will notice.
As some of you know, the movie had a ton of production problems, which delayed the movie for some time. Some even thought they might have shelved the project. One of the problems was the rewrites. Apparently, this was the original ending, which I am glad they didn't used.
The plane Gerry and Segen board is bound for Moscow. Upon safely landing, everyone on board is rounded up by the military. The elderly and the sick are executed and the healthy people, including a very shaken Gerry, are immediately drafted into armed service, though not before one particularly nasty Russian soldier takes Gerry's cell phone. The story then jumps forward an unknown amount of time and we catch up with Gerry, who now has a full beard and has been a part of Russia's zombie-clearing squad at least long enough for it to have changed to winter. He looks almost dead inside, but the reality is that over this time he's become an experienced and ruthless zombie killer, and he's the leader of his own equally capable unit.
Gerry's unit is tasked with clearing subway tunnels of zombie hordes. This is the first time we see the Lobo, a perfected zombie-killing tool that's sort of a shovel/battle axe that would have been one of the few things from the book to make it into the movie. Gerry and his team use them to slice their way through every poor zombie that tracks them through the tunnels by following their sounds. It's all routine work for them, and when they're not in the tunnels killing, they're basically just preparing to go back in. During this downtime we see a bit of bonding between Gerry and another English-speaking friend, Simon. The two play a guessing game of what celebrities would have survived the outbreak.
We get a couple intense scenes of tunnel combat (at one point Gerry has to kill one of his own after being bitten), and eventually they emerge above ground and are right in the middle of The Battle of Red Square (pictured in the banner above, though this is likely not from the movie and was created just for marketing purposes). This is a much, much larger set piece that involves several different front lines constantly fighting the hordes. There's a kind of weird plot point of Gerry's team now getting re-assigned to different front lines based on what their religion is (Gerry and Simon are atheists), the logic being that people would fight harder alongside people of the same faith. But they're segregated and Gerry tries to convince the General in charge that his elite, tunnel-sweeping crew should be allowed to teach those other people how to fight with Lobos and makeshift shields and what not.
There's arguing with this Russian General, but eventually Gerry convinces him to let him teach some of the other front lines how to fight, but this involves having to go back into the tunnels with Simon so they can sneak past the zombies on the other side. It's there that Gerry notices the zombies are having a hard time dealing with the severe Russian winter by remembering just how fast they were in Jerusalem, and so it occurs to him that the way to defeat the zombies is to let their bodies freeze.
Gerry and Simon are now on a mission to inform the Russian command to extinguish all fires and move their battle lines so as to keep as many of the zombies in the cold as possible, but then they run into a generator room where the nasty Russian soldier who took his phone upon arrival in the country is boozing it up with some very reluctant girls. One of those girls is Segen. Gerry grabs a belt of grenades and tosses one into the room. He, Segen and Simon duck behind a couch to survive the blast before making a break for it.
Once again Gerry meets up with the General and convinces him to use Russia's cold to their advantage, as they have done in past homeland wars. This works and he orders everyone to extinguish all of their fires. Eventually this gives them the upper hand in the battle. Gerry takes this turn toward the offensive to retreat. He takes a couple of shots of vodka, then picks up the phone he retrieved from the soldier and calls his wife, Karin.
Even beyond the entire Russian battle sequence, it's this call to his wife that's the real game changer for the (aborted) tone of World War Z.
Gerry reaches Karin. He explains to her that the cold is the way they'll win battles, which does her no good because it just so happens she and the kids are in a refugee camp in the sweltering heat of the Everglades. They're in the type of camp where you have to have something to trade to survive, and it just so happens the one thing Karin had to trade was herself. She doesn't explicitly tell Gerry this, but after she hastily hangs up the phone we see that she's in some kind of reluctantly consensual relationship with the soldier who rescued them from the rooftop at the beginning of the movie.
Did you happen to notice that soldier on the helicopter was played by Matthew Fox? Did you wonder why they bothered to cast someone as recognizable as him in a role that was pretty inconsequential and had almost no lines? That's because his real payoff wasn't until the end.
Fox' parajumper soldier then calls Gerry back and explains to him that he should just stay wherever he is and start a new life like he and Karin have. Gerry refuses to accept this, though, and he embarks on a rage mission to get back to his wife and daughters. Trouble is the nearest port that won't be frozen is thousands of miles away, so there's a montage of Gerry, Simon and Segen crossing various terrain until they ultimately end up on a boat. They're now off of the Oregon Coast and they attack the American shore like it's D-Day. And that's how the movie ends. Not with Gerry having discovered a cure, but with him storming across the United States of America to get Karin back.
That 'ending' makes the final product seem like a masterpiece. I'm sort of glad they kept the two stories (book and movie) separate rather than make a frakenstein monster of both. Does explain the 'Russia is a black hole' line in trailers that was changed to 'India is a black hole'. I thought my memory was going at that point.
Trailer: Russia is a black hole Movie: India is a black hole ??????? They could've used either for the plot purposes, no reason to do anything stupid and change it from trailer to film.
you know i actually liked the movie. it might as well have been a chapter or two inside the book.
if you treat it as a story within the universe, it's actually pretty enjoyable. the WHO scenes were probably the strongest in the movie. that being said I am disappointed that the global aftermath and panic wasn't depicted very well.
On June 25 2013 13:58 Gamegene wrote: you know i actually liked the movie. it might as well have been a chapter or two inside the book.
if you treat it as a story within the universe, it's actually pretty enjoyable. the WHO scenes were probably the strongest in the movie. that being said I am disappointed that the global aftermath and panic wasn't depicted very well.
I thought they did a decent job showing the world gone to hell.They showed what was going on in the U.S. the most, but you got an idea what was going on in countries like Israel (Jerusalem trying to save as many people as possible), India (considered a black hole due to them having a large outbreak), North Korea (prepped by having the population's teeth pulled), and some other parts of the world was not hit as hard yet such as the lab in Wales. When the movie switched back to the U.S. navy ship, they had a large screen of the world showing the spread of the virus, which gave the viewers an idea how hard some countries were being hit. The aftermath's montage was too short. At least they showed us that the war on zombies was now in the human's favor by having scenes of civilians fighting the zombies.
On June 25 2013 04:30 zoLo wrote: Besides the title, the movie had some nods to the book such as Israel, Patient Zero, etc. Although the nods weren't book accurate, it was something that fans of the book will notice.
As some of you know, the movie had a ton of production problems, which delayed the movie for some time. Some even thought they might have shelved the project. One of the problems was the rewrites. Apparently, this was the original ending, which I am glad they didn't used.
The plane Gerry and Segen board is bound for Moscow. Upon safely landing, everyone on board is rounded up by the military. The elderly and the sick are executed and the healthy people, including a very shaken Gerry, are immediately drafted into armed service, though not before one particularly nasty Russian soldier takes Gerry's cell phone. The story then jumps forward an unknown amount of time and we catch up with Gerry, who now has a full beard and has been a part of Russia's zombie-clearing squad at least long enough for it to have changed to winter. He looks almost dead inside, but the reality is that over this time he's become an experienced and ruthless zombie killer, and he's the leader of his own equally capable unit.
Gerry's unit is tasked with clearing subway tunnels of zombie hordes. This is the first time we see the Lobo, a perfected zombie-killing tool that's sort of a shovel/battle axe that would have been one of the few things from the book to make it into the movie. Gerry and his team use them to slice their way through every poor zombie that tracks them through the tunnels by following their sounds. It's all routine work for them, and when they're not in the tunnels killing, they're basically just preparing to go back in. During this downtime we see a bit of bonding between Gerry and another English-speaking friend, Simon. The two play a guessing game of what celebrities would have survived the outbreak.
We get a couple intense scenes of tunnel combat (at one point Gerry has to kill one of his own after being bitten), and eventually they emerge above ground and are right in the middle of The Battle of Red Square (pictured in the banner above, though this is likely not from the movie and was created just for marketing purposes). This is a much, much larger set piece that involves several different front lines constantly fighting the hordes. There's a kind of weird plot point of Gerry's team now getting re-assigned to different front lines based on what their religion is (Gerry and Simon are atheists), the logic being that people would fight harder alongside people of the same faith. But they're segregated and Gerry tries to convince the General in charge that his elite, tunnel-sweeping crew should be allowed to teach those other people how to fight with Lobos and makeshift shields and what not.
There's arguing with this Russian General, but eventually Gerry convinces him to let him teach some of the other front lines how to fight, but this involves having to go back into the tunnels with Simon so they can sneak past the zombies on the other side. It's there that Gerry notices the zombies are having a hard time dealing with the severe Russian winter by remembering just how fast they were in Jerusalem, and so it occurs to him that the way to defeat the zombies is to let their bodies freeze.
Gerry and Simon are now on a mission to inform the Russian command to extinguish all fires and move their battle lines so as to keep as many of the zombies in the cold as possible, but then they run into a generator room where the nasty Russian soldier who took his phone upon arrival in the country is boozing it up with some very reluctant girls. One of those girls is Segen. Gerry grabs a belt of grenades and tosses one into the room. He, Segen and Simon duck behind a couch to survive the blast before making a break for it.
Once again Gerry meets up with the General and convinces him to use Russia's cold to their advantage, as they have done in past homeland wars. This works and he orders everyone to extinguish all of their fires. Eventually this gives them the upper hand in the battle. Gerry takes this turn toward the offensive to retreat. He takes a couple of shots of vodka, then picks up the phone he retrieved from the soldier and calls his wife, Karin.
Even beyond the entire Russian battle sequence, it's this call to his wife that's the real game changer for the (aborted) tone of World War Z.
Gerry reaches Karin. He explains to her that the cold is the way they'll win battles, which does her no good because it just so happens she and the kids are in a refugee camp in the sweltering heat of the Everglades. They're in the type of camp where you have to have something to trade to survive, and it just so happens the one thing Karin had to trade was herself. She doesn't explicitly tell Gerry this, but after she hastily hangs up the phone we see that she's in some kind of reluctantly consensual relationship with the soldier who rescued them from the rooftop at the beginning of the movie.
Did you happen to notice that soldier on the helicopter was played by Matthew Fox? Did you wonder why they bothered to cast someone as recognizable as him in a role that was pretty inconsequential and had almost no lines? That's because his real payoff wasn't until the end.
Fox' parajumper soldier then calls Gerry back and explains to him that he should just stay wherever he is and start a new life like he and Karin have. Gerry refuses to accept this, though, and he embarks on a rage mission to get back to his wife and daughters. Trouble is the nearest port that won't be frozen is thousands of miles away, so there's a montage of Gerry, Simon and Segen crossing various terrain until they ultimately end up on a boat. They're now off of the Oregon Coast and they attack the American shore like it's D-Day. And that's how the movie ends. Not with Gerry having discovered a cure, but with him storming across the United States of America to get Karin back.
I dunno, that seems like a pretty neat ending compared to + Show Spoiler +
magic zombie disease sense lets you save the day by giving everyone SARS/AIDS/etc.
Pretty shocking twists and turns, much better than a lot of what you see these days.
On June 25 2013 13:58 Gamegene wrote: you know i actually liked the movie. it might as well have been a chapter or two inside the book.
if you treat it as a story within the universe, it's actually pretty enjoyable. the WHO scenes were probably the strongest in the movie. that being said I am disappointed that the global aftermath and panic wasn't depicted very well.
I think the problem with that is the scope of it, especially as people are comparing it to the book. They got in 4 or 5 locales (2 in the US) plus the ships. They briefly mentioned Africa and some places, but I think it would've been difficult in movie-form to show the gravity of everything. I think Pitt mentioned that in one of the interviews, that they had to cut back the scope of it.
I thought the cure part was dumb, although I agree the WHO scenes were still well done. Also, the UN rah rah stuff was dumb, and I'd like to have seen more geo-political aspects. I guess the President died, but I still don't expect the UN and US to cooperate like that. Also, I wish the investigation had continued.
I don't mind fast zombies since slow zombies are just logistically not as good. I think the people who say the slow creep makes it more tense are wrong. Slow zombies are too easy against paramilitary and military forces, and the time element is important the same way it's an important distinction betwen Chess and Blitz Chess. Fine, slow zombies work against a small group of 5-10 people stuck in a house or mall, but once you start getting militaries and police forces involved, I think you need fast zombies. There's probably more bullets in the world than humans, so taking out slow zombies is just simple.
At least we didn't get a dog zombie. I was worried the plane thing would start because the dog licked the old bloody wraps and turned into a zombie dog or something.
My biggest disappointment was just how un-vicious the zombies were. I know they wanted to keep in PG-13 but that really took the legs out from under it. The close up zombie acting stuff was good, but they really should've been eating people/tearing people apart.
All that said, at least Pitt and his crew behaved more intelligently than the main people in just about every other zombie movie/show ever made. The grenade thing was ridiculous, but I don't know what else they could've done. It's essentially physically impossible to open an emergency hatch while a plane is in flight so how else can you clear out the zombies?
I liked the touch of using his axe to keep the door from closing and having to give up their best weapon. Yeah, there were accidental noises and the phone call, but those were the result of people making mistakes or being ignorant, not of simply ignoring logic like you see in most zombie movies/shows.
Not great and not quite the book, but a better attempt than anything else so far, imo. If they want to do the book (and maybe they should) it should be an HBO series. Hopefully they'd do it right, unlike AMC.
Did anyone else have a theatre where everyone kept laughing at the zombies when they were making noises or on the security camera video screen?
On June 27 2013 10:40 Firebolt145 wrote: My theatre laughed repeatedly at the black zombie who kept banging her head against the wall as well as the teeth-chattering zombie at the end.
After reading the alt ending, i am a bigger fan of how they changed it. Of course thinking about the movie more and more makes it seem a little more strange/unrealistic, but that being said, i still agree with my first post about how i am glad i saw it and it was a good movie.
On June 27 2013 10:40 Firebolt145 wrote: My theatre laughed repeatedly at the black zombie who kept banging her head against the wall as well as the teeth-chattering zombie at the end.
Better than I expected! The trailers made it look pretty dumb in my opinion. But I really had a lot of fun watching it. The pacing was a little odd, but i kind of liked that. It did some things that I didn't expect as well + Show Spoiler +
like killing the young scientist, which i thought was great.
. I'm glad they hopped around from location to location while changing the characters Brad Pitt interacted with. The script, dialogue, acting and cinematography were all good.
There were a few times where I questioned what the characters were doing, but for the most part i was able to overlook the subtle plot failures.
On June 27 2013 10:40 Firebolt145 wrote: My theatre laughed repeatedly at the black zombie who kept banging her head against the wall as well as the teeth-chattering zombie at the end.
I was laughing so hard at some of the zombie moves, especially when they showed the zombies in the second wing of the WHO building just poppin-n-lockin' it like pros. When I started laughing, lots of other people started laughing as well ^^
Same happened for the black zombie and teeth-chattering zombie :D
I liked the movie, I laughed so hard when the virologist shoots himself on accident - "shit happens". Pure gold.
Saw the movie yesterday and I feel it was a missed opportunity.
The true value of the movie was the comparison of humans to zombies, positing them as adversaries with rival strengths and weaknesses. Humans are capable of cooperation and thought while zombies are mindless. So the zombies, to be successful, have to use the strengths of the humans against them. As humans communicate via sound, the zombies were very alert to sound (it was a brilliant idea to have Jerusalem fall due to a happy song). It would have made this idea much stronger had the zombies been entirely quiet (even if they lose the eerie sounds in the process).
On the other hand, the zombies would quickly fail if they could not discern a human from a zombie as they'd just eat each other. The magic "not infected with a deadly disease" sense notwithstanding, the sound aspect would have been perfect to develop to its logical conclusion. The zombies kill creatures that speak... The trick to defeat them is to not say a word.
I agree with most of what you said but the problem with + Show Spoiler +
Jerusalem falling due to sound the way it did is how the fuck do you have a giant, anti-zombie wall and not put guard posts or cameras or anything on top of it.
On June 28 2013 22:47 Jibba wrote: I agree with most of what you said but the problem with + Show Spoiler +
Jerusalem falling due to sound the way it did is how the fuck do you have a giant, anti-zombie wall and not put guard posts or cameras or anything on top of it.
they did have non-stop helicopters flying around and caught on within 20 seconds. Why the built the wall without any climber stopper beats me. I made a graph of a climber stopper below.
I think they intended to build the strife between humans (as opposed to the unity of the zombies) into the UN building scene, hence the whole "who are you" waste of time in the beginning. But I don't think they ever made it work. The alternative ending emphasized the disunity of humans, and its sources (women).
For me, I enjoyed the movie... however the one major problem I had with the movie is when they get on the commuter jet....
Flagging down the plane, getting on, all fine and good.... however when was the last time that anyone got on a full flight and the open seat is in the front row with the extra feet room... you know that when the plane boards everyone wants the extra leg room and those would have been the first taken.
I thought this movie was very good, not amazing but I enjoyed myself. I haven't read the book though so I can't make any comparisons. The only part that bothered me was:
The fall of Jerusalem. I get that the Zombies were drawn to the noise of thousands of people singing, sure. The fact that they piled over the gigantic wall was a little bit of a stretch. But what bugged me was how they weren't noticed until it was already too late. No one was moving or evacuating until the Zombies were spilling over the wall. I mean surely one of the helicopter patrols would have spotted a giant undead horde a mile or two out, or maybe posting guards on the wall would have been a good idea.
On a side note, why is everyone putting the plot in spoilers? Its the world war z movie thread, if you open it without having seen the movie you deserve to be spoiled.
On June 28 2013 22:47 Jibba wrote: I agree with most of what you said but the problem with + Show Spoiler +
Jerusalem falling due to sound the way it did is how the fuck do you have a giant, anti-zombie wall and not put guard posts or cameras or anything on top of it.
they did have non-stop helicopters flying around and caught on within 20 seconds. Why the built the wall without any climber stopper beats me. I made a graph of a climber stopper below.
I didn't expect much but it was surprisingly ok for a zombie film - for a change one with a plot line which actually leads somewhere (in the greater scheme of things). Not as good as the DC of I am Legend but better than most serious zombie films I've seen.
My thoughts on this movie, which I saw like a week after reading the book, is that it tried to mimic the way things go bad in said book. Not to spoil, but a lot has to do with human stupidity/greediness/whatever. Hence the seemingly comical parts, which could be interpreted as quicker ways to say the same thing as the book. + Show Spoiler +
Like the dude in jerusalem that blows himself out of "heroism" and ends up opening the way for more zombies to come in
OKish movie, 6/10. Intro is awesome, so are the wide shots. Second half goes a bit sour to me. Although I think I understand what they were trying to achieve (as said above), I think it lacked imagination + Show Spoiler +
("Yeah ok Brad's buddies keep making noises, we get it, thank you")
On July 12 2013 21:21 HystericaLaughter wrote: On a side note, why is everyone putting the plot in spoilers? Its the world war z movie thread, if you open it without having seen the movie you deserve to be spoiled.
For people who havent seen the movie yet, but want to be informed, if its worth to spend money on it.
The response to this movie seems to be caught between just plain "bad" and "ah it was quite alright". I don't want to be uninformed or ignorant about the movie, so I'll give it a watch.
imo book is too big to fit into a movie. It'd be much better if discovery channel or national geographic made some fictional series based on stories in the book.
I dont understand the hate about this movie, I'm not a book reader so I enjoyed it for what it was. Considering the low reviews and my terrible expectations I gotta say I found the movie very enjoyable and intense despite being PG13.
I just watched it (720p) on YT, from movietube.co , It'll probably get taken down soon though. Good luck!
The movie was what I expected, bunch of special effects and camera tricks to create action and suspense. That is why I don't like the movie. Aside from that, I started to read the book years ago but it was boring as all hell so I never finished it. The story is kind of lame and unrealistic (as far as the way the gov't works and Bradd Pitts running around all over the world). The giant wall thing was silly, and it just reminded me of Whiskey Outpost on Planet P.