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.