|
Zurich15240 Posts
On November 11 2012 01:31 NeMeSiS3 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 11 2012 00:45 Requizen wrote:On November 10 2012 23:13 NeMeSiS3 wrote:On November 10 2012 14:09 BlackPaladin wrote:On November 10 2012 11:19 NeMeSiS3 wrote:On November 10 2012 06:10 Hot_Bid wrote:On November 10 2012 06:01 D10 wrote: Still, do you agree with me that even Max Brooks zombies would be easily eliminated by whatever remained for lets say.. the US military forces. It's all explained quite well in the books, I thought this too before reading it. Basically the infection spreads realistically, most of the world doesn't even believe the virus exists until it's relatively widespread, and even then the government tries to cover it up to stop mass panic. The issue with "fighting" the zombies is that there really isn't anything to fight. You're fighting ghosts and tiny infections. It'd be a logistical nightmare, having to inspect all potentially infected people. Brooks also explains through placebo drugs, fake infections, organ transplants, and the natural delay between bite and full blown infection, it's very difficult to fully eradicate the virus even in a localized area. To have a large scale military battle, it would mean the outbreak has already reached a point where it is taking over a large percentage of the country. In Brooks' universe the issue is not that our weapons couldn't kill the zombies, obviously fighter jets and nukes can kill zombies. It's that you can't properly distinguish infected from uninfected. The manpower required to do this as well as to redistribute the US to a wartime economy/production (think of all the accountants, lawyers, etc who are useless in a zombie war) make the country entirely unprepared for it. Imagine if a zombie outbreak happened today, a lot of people would simply not believe it's occurring until they saw actual evidence of it. Misinformation, denial, etc would be much more likely than everyone boarding up their homes and buying weapons. Nobody would believe it, and the way its portrayed in WWZ the book makes it quite believable. TLDR; You're never going to find a place to nuke because most of the time, a city is 20% infected and the 80% healthy humans are running for their lives. This is exactly why you must eradicate the non-infected and infected of an area. There is no "pick and choose" after a point, you must do what you must do to insure humanities survival. Riiiighttt..... The amount of lives you take away in order to kill the infected would be astronomically higher than those killed by the zombies. Not true. The only way this would be ineffective is if it is an airborn disease. You close off the populated area, you try to evacuate as many as you can while setting them up in quarintine for an estimated time (generally 5x longer than it usually takes to mutate/change) and when the virus begins to manifest worse and worse in that populated area and you can't safely evacuate the civilians you lock it down and blow the city. What is the other option? Wait till it spreads? I'd rather kill 100,000 then lose a few billion and that is if I had to be one of that 100,000. You should really actually read World War Z, they cover this exact situation at one point, if I remember right. It doesn't end well for those making the decision. 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.
|
Haha guess somebody might watch this just because of Brad Pitt.. :D However horrible for those who did read the book
|
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.
|
On November 11 2012 01:31 NeMeSiS3 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 11 2012 00:45 Requizen wrote:On November 10 2012 23:13 NeMeSiS3 wrote:On November 10 2012 14:09 BlackPaladin wrote:On November 10 2012 11:19 NeMeSiS3 wrote:On November 10 2012 06:10 Hot_Bid wrote:On November 10 2012 06:01 D10 wrote: Still, do you agree with me that even Max Brooks zombies would be easily eliminated by whatever remained for lets say.. the US military forces. It's all explained quite well in the books, I thought this too before reading it. Basically the infection spreads realistically, most of the world doesn't even believe the virus exists until it's relatively widespread, and even then the government tries to cover it up to stop mass panic. The issue with "fighting" the zombies is that there really isn't anything to fight. You're fighting ghosts and tiny infections. It'd be a logistical nightmare, having to inspect all potentially infected people. Brooks also explains through placebo drugs, fake infections, organ transplants, and the natural delay between bite and full blown infection, it's very difficult to fully eradicate the virus even in a localized area. To have a large scale military battle, it would mean the outbreak has already reached a point where it is taking over a large percentage of the country. In Brooks' universe the issue is not that our weapons couldn't kill the zombies, obviously fighter jets and nukes can kill zombies. It's that you can't properly distinguish infected from uninfected. The manpower required to do this as well as to redistribute the US to a wartime economy/production (think of all the accountants, lawyers, etc who are useless in a zombie war) make the country entirely unprepared for it. Imagine if a zombie outbreak happened today, a lot of people would simply not believe it's occurring until they saw actual evidence of it. Misinformation, denial, etc would be much more likely than everyone boarding up their homes and buying weapons. Nobody would believe it, and the way its portrayed in WWZ the book makes it quite believable. TLDR; You're never going to find a place to nuke because most of the time, a city is 20% infected and the 80% healthy humans are running for their lives. This is exactly why you must eradicate the non-infected and infected of an area. There is no "pick and choose" after a point, you must do what you must do to insure humanities survival. Riiiighttt..... The amount of lives you take away in order to kill the infected would be astronomically higher than those killed by the zombies. Not true. The only way this would be ineffective is if it is an airborn disease. You close off the populated area, you try to evacuate as many as you can while setting them up in quarintine for an estimated time (generally 5x longer than it usually takes to mutate/change) and when the virus begins to manifest worse and worse in that populated area and you can't safely evacuate the civilians you lock it down and blow the city. What is the other option? Wait till it spreads? I'd rather kill 100,000 then lose a few billion and that is if I had to be one of that 100,000. You should really actually read World War Z, they cover this exact situation at one point, if I remember right. It doesn't end well for those making the decision. 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.
|
Zurich15240 Posts
On November 12 2012 18:54 Xenocide_Knight wrote:Show nested quote +On November 11 2012 01:31 NeMeSiS3 wrote:On November 11 2012 00:45 Requizen wrote:On November 10 2012 23:13 NeMeSiS3 wrote:On November 10 2012 14:09 BlackPaladin wrote:On November 10 2012 11:19 NeMeSiS3 wrote:On November 10 2012 06:10 Hot_Bid wrote:On November 10 2012 06:01 D10 wrote: Still, do you agree with me that even Max Brooks zombies would be easily eliminated by whatever remained for lets say.. the US military forces. It's all explained quite well in the books, I thought this too before reading it. Basically the infection spreads realistically, most of the world doesn't even believe the virus exists until it's relatively widespread, and even then the government tries to cover it up to stop mass panic. The issue with "fighting" the zombies is that there really isn't anything to fight. You're fighting ghosts and tiny infections. It'd be a logistical nightmare, having to inspect all potentially infected people. Brooks also explains through placebo drugs, fake infections, organ transplants, and the natural delay between bite and full blown infection, it's very difficult to fully eradicate the virus even in a localized area. To have a large scale military battle, it would mean the outbreak has already reached a point where it is taking over a large percentage of the country. In Brooks' universe the issue is not that our weapons couldn't kill the zombies, obviously fighter jets and nukes can kill zombies. It's that you can't properly distinguish infected from uninfected. The manpower required to do this as well as to redistribute the US to a wartime economy/production (think of all the accountants, lawyers, etc who are useless in a zombie war) make the country entirely unprepared for it. Imagine if a zombie outbreak happened today, a lot of people would simply not believe it's occurring until they saw actual evidence of it. Misinformation, denial, etc would be much more likely than everyone boarding up their homes and buying weapons. Nobody would believe it, and the way its portrayed in WWZ the book makes it quite believable. TLDR; You're never going to find a place to nuke because most of the time, a city is 20% infected and the 80% healthy humans are running for their lives. This is exactly why you must eradicate the non-infected and infected of an area. There is no "pick and choose" after a point, you must do what you must do to insure humanities survival. Riiiighttt..... The amount of lives you take away in order to kill the infected would be astronomically higher than those killed by the zombies. Not true. The only way this would be ineffective is if it is an airborn disease. You close off the populated area, you try to evacuate as many as you can while setting them up in quarintine for an estimated time (generally 5x longer than it usually takes to mutate/change) and when the virus begins to manifest worse and worse in that populated area and you can't safely evacuate the civilians you lock it down and blow the city. What is the other option? Wait till it spreads? I'd rather kill 100,000 then lose a few billion and that is if I had to be one of that 100,000. You should really actually read World War Z, they cover this exact situation at one point, if I remember right. It doesn't end well for those making the decision. 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.
Here, this is how the Zombie Apocalypse will look like initially: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=91981 Would you have carpet bombed the hell out of zxk3's city just in case?
Edit: Just read through the thread again, it's an amazing read in the zombie context. Recommended.
|
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.
|
I think the only reason I would see this movie is because of the zombie aspect, I always find that entertaining.
|
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.
|
I've downloaded the audio book for this. I only got it because it's read by Alan Alda, I'm totally a big fan of him after Mash =)
|
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 13 2012 17:46 Hashbaz wrote:Show nested quote +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.
|
I'll probably go see it cause it was filmed in Glasgow so I can be like 'hey look it's the pub!'
Other than that it just looks like a generic zombie film with Brad Pitt in it
|
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.
|
i find the way the made zombies all pixels and very fast .. very very stupid and awkward . zombies are slow right ? RIGHT ??
|
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 25 2012 09:19 mprs wrote:Show nested quote +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?
|
Trailer doesn't seem anything like the book. I'm a bit disappointed, hope my observation is wrong. I have been waiting for this for a long time.
|
|
|
|