Footage Of World War Z Shambles Onto The Web

 Pages PREV 1 2
 

thaluikhain:
So...it looks like some new zombie movie might suck, and/or be exactly the same as previous zombie movies?

There's a surprise.

Hell, even the Resident Evil movies got fed up with zombies and had to move onto super-zombies and Las Palgos (sp?) because normal zombies aren't remotely interesting anymore.

It's best not to reference the Resident Evil films for anything ever. Unless it's like a..."Movies that took a shit all over the original IP" competition. In which case this would fit perfectly.

"Hey, lets take the title to get the original fans, then name-drop a few people/locations from the original property, but change everything else! Because I, Mr. Director McTightass have a vision and can't have my vision tainted by such things as being 'faithful' to an established franchise."

Blunderboy:
Did they actually read the source material at all?
This was my problem with The Walking Dead.
I'm sure it will be a perfectly adequate film, but they've taken the name of something I love, and then seemingly changed so many aspects that it might as well be named something else.
I'm not saying that I hate it when they change things, and I can see why they would make most of them, but still, why bother buying the rights only to change it completely?
Oh yeah, money.
It's a shame though, the book would make a great film if adapted faithfully.

You do realize that, apart from a few liberties (and episodes 5 and 6, which seemed to follow the overall theme of the graphic novels), we got something pretty close to the original story, in TWD, right?

Aptspire:

Blunderboy:
Did they actually read the source material at all?
This was my problem with The Walking Dead.
I'm sure it will be a perfectly adequate film, but they've taken the name of something I love, and then seemingly changed so many aspects that it might as well be named something else.
I'm not saying that I hate it when they change things, and I can see why they would make most of them, but still, why bother buying the rights only to change it completely?
Oh yeah, money.
It's a shame though, the book would make a great film if adapted faithfully.

You do realize that, apart from a few liberties (and episodes 5 and 6, which seemed to follow the overall theme of the graphic novels), we got something pretty close to the original story, in TWD, right?

Yeah I do, as I say, it's just really those changes that put something of a dampener on it for me.
Whilst the overall tone was pretty similar, I'd say there were rather a lot of changes. As I said though, most of them made a lot of sense when moving from comic books to TV. In comic books it is easy to do a lot of dialogue, whereas in television it can be pretty boring.
But yeah, that was a fairly poor example, but I'm sure you got my drift.

I'm surprised Max Brooks would sign off on something like this, considering how far removed from the source material it is...

The Zombie Survival Guide:
Zombies appear to be incapable of running. The fastest have been observed to move at a rate of barely one step per 1.5 seconds

(Hell, he even goes on to bash Hollywood for changing the details of Zombies to make them "more frightening"!)

Of course, considering the way WWZ is written, I can't say I'm terrible surprised it's not a good adaption... it just doesn't tend towards a Hollywood feature. If it were something like a TV series, each episode focusing on one of the different chapters, that'd probably be the only way it could work...

JWRosser:
I like Brad Pitt, and I haven't read the book

I lol'd. :D

Tbh Im all for directors taking their adaptations in different directions as this can sometimes work out for the best; a fresh take on an existing storyline can often bring more enjoyment while also slowing down on the amount of, "Bawww, but in the book...!" moments.

However this seems like someone has wanted to make a zombie film and decided to use the title of a popular cult book to help promote it. Ill still watch it however, if only to play "Spot the difference" in Glasgow (a hard task considering Glasgow on a normal day is filled with mindless morons attacking each other).

And now I'm sad :( As much as I've enjoyed rage zombies, I was looking forward to a decent, thought-through shambler flick with a decent budget and good people behind it. Max Brooks did good things for zombies, it's a shame to see that being thrown to the way-side.

On a side note, my uncle's an extra - awesome stuff ^_^ (though I doubt he'll be throwing down moves like that guy..)

So they didn't want the zombie movie of the year (if pulled of right)?

I'm tired of this bull. 28 Days really shook things up by popularizing the fast "zombie" in media. After that, not many people seemed to give a damn about the original, slow, stupid zombies. The Dawn of the Dead remake used them, heck, even Resident Evil found a way to throw fast non-zombies at the player.

It's a tired trend that needs to stop, especially since it undermines the source material. I want the slow zombie back!

Seriously? I was seriously looking forward to this movie. I remember thinking that the huge scale of it, the biting social criticism and political aspects of it combined with the overwhelming depth and complexity and thought process behind it would have made a perfect adaptation of World War Z into the zombie movie to end all zombie movies.

Why did studios look at that and decide:
"Hey, let's turn it into a standard zombie movie, the plot of whom is virtually identical to every other zombie movie ever made!"

This is just so sad, the potential for a smart and brilliant zombie movie lay before them and they decided not to even try. I'm seriously considering consuming three bottles of wine now that I've heard this.

WWZ in name only. Why even bother making a movie about a book when it has nothing to do with a book.All it will have is an interview at the start of the movie, then the movie, and then end with the end of the interview. Waste of time. Make WWZ as a tv series.

This movie could be good if judged on its own merits, but calling it "WWZ" spoils it and them having "based on the novel" at the start of the movie will make me laugh. When did "based" become to mean "nothing to do with"?

Wicky_42:
And now I'm sad :( As much as I've enjoyed rage zombies, I was looking forward to a decent, thought-through shambler flick with a decent budget and good people behind it. Max Brooks did good things for zombies, it's a shame to see that being thrown to the way-side.

On a side note, my uncle's an extra - awesome stuff ^_^ (though I doubt he'll be throwing down moves like that guy..)

Yeah I love running zombies too if only for the change of pace (HA!) but Max Brooks and the walking dead made slow zombies shit scary again. I never found slow zombies to be scary until I read both those books. Brooks really thought it out (pseudo)scientifically and figured out how to make them a real threat by relating them to current world situations. I still hold out hope that this movie could be good and hate judging something on a superficial point but it really does change the dynamic and whole point of the story. 1 zombie is not scary, 1 billion zombies are. And the only way 1 billion zombies could exist is due to human incompetence. Running zombies are always scary and unstoppable even if you have your shit together.

I liked 28 days later quite a bit, it was a pretty inteligent zombie flick that asked brought some interesting logic into the zombie-genre. But the whole point of World War Z was to present old school zombies, slow, headshots only, and only apply the logic to it's effects on the world. And while I can understand them moving away from the 'interview different survivors'-framework, they could've kept the plot intact. "Race against time to stop it" does not sound like WWZ. Most zombie flicks are about just after the apocalypse. WWZ was set during. This movie sounds like it's set before it. That doesn't make it a generic zombie movie, but does make an even more generic action movie with the hero stopping the virus, unless of course we see Brad Pitt fail and just watch the apocalypse happening around him. That could still be cool.

And I doubt the Battle of Yonkers was cut completely, it's probably THE defining scene of the book. I'm more worried that they butcher it and forget what it's about (the army being equiped for a PR battle, and the difference in tactics neccesary to fight zombies instead of people) than that they fail to include it. If they don't include it though, the movie is DoA.

bificommander:
snip

I saw the battle of Yonkers as a war on terror allegory. The same way Aliens summed up Americans in nam. The Yonkers scene could be a masterpiece of cinema if done well. Fighting the press and public opinion as much as the enemy. It was a truly chilling moment in the book and quite believable. All this high tech gear being utterly useless against an unshakable will. It was that moment you realised you could kill the enemy but could never truly "win"

TimeLord:
So this is going to be another '28 Days/Weeks Later'?

There goes all my interest in the movie. I wanted a true blue zombie movie.

Well, to be fair I think at least 28 Days Later was really good, and went beyond a simple action flick featuring 'zombies'.

But you're right, World War Z takes it in a completely different and very unique direction, and to see the movie totally ignore that is just heartbreaking. It could produce such an amazing (set of) film(s), buuuut noooo...

I also wouldn't call World War Z a 'true blue zombie movie', it takes a completely different direction than your archetypical George Romero-style zombie flick. And that's what makes it so damn interesting. To see the potential of it thrown away so much is just so damn sad.

Outlaw Torn:
zombies have been overdone so much

True, they've been spammend to (re)death, but that's the beauty about World War Z; technically, it ain't even about the zombies. The zombies provide a backdrop for an absolutely amazing story. To see that all go to waste in favour of a generic zombie-based action flick is a real shame.

This might be a silly question, but why did zombie transformation guy fall down?
Was he already being zombified when he was getting out of the car?
And if not, why does he fall over like that? If it's meant to look like he tripped, that's rather... not good.

I wonder which film will be a more thorough raping of its source material. This or Spike Lees remake of Oldboy (Rated R for Retards that cant deal with subtitles)

Change the mother fucking title before i round up a lynch mob to change it for you. WWZ is a good book and a faithful film adaptation wouldn't fail. That is not WWZ; either rename the movie or don't use the title to bait in fans with something they don't want.

*prepares his torch*

Don't make me.

Look guys don't be too worried that it's not going to be like the book at all.

They were shooting the film here in malta for a bit, and the scenes they did here were the Israel scenes (remember from the book).

So I'm pretty excited - as a fan of the book - for the film.

Let the direction move a little, as long as it isnt just for the IP.

Bummer, I was looking forward to a true adaptation that appealed to the fans rather than the general population. Oh, well, I enjoyed the 28 days/weeks later movies so i'll maintain my interest

wooty:
More zombies? Why more zonbies? The only thing thats rotting away and causing people to look on in horror is the severe lack of imagination and creativity in the modern entertainment industry

The zombie genre is only really filled with shallow adaptations of what the genre could explore. Seriously, look into the hardcore zombie genre fans/ authors can write.

Like World War Z for example. And I can say that this entire thing just upsets and pisses me off. There HAS to be a petition to sign, please. But at this point, can our displeasure really change anything now?

Damnit Hollywood.

wooty:
More zombies? Why more zonbies? The only thing thats rotting away and causing people to look on in horror is the severe lack of imagination and creativity in the modern entertainment industry

Basically, this is my thought on the whole thing. World War Z was good and all... but I reallydon't like zombies. They give me the jibblies.

Cowabungaa:
[
I also wouldn't call World War Z a 'true blue zombie movie', it takes a completely different direction than your archetypical George Romero-style zombie flick. And that's what makes it so damn interesting. To see the potential of it thrown away so much is just so damn sad.

Outlaw Torn:
zombies have been overdone so much

True, they've been spammend to (re)death, but that's the beauty about World War Z; technically, it ain't even about the zombies. The zombies provide a backdrop for an absolutely amazing story. To see that all go to waste in favour of a generic zombie-based action flick is a real shame.

As a side note, this is also the way 'The Walking Dead' went with things, as ultimately it is a story of human survival, predation and decadence... the zombies are truly only the background and cause of the fall of human civilization, and the story could have been very similar if it was another kind of disaster that had struck.

Tarkand:
As a side note, this is also the way 'The Walking Dead' went with things, as ultimately it is a story of human survival, predation and decadence... the zombies are truly only the background and cause of the fall of human civilization, and the story could have been very similar if it was another kind of disaster that had struck.

Ah, that's very good to hear. Here's to hoping that the TV show sticks to that format as well, and going by the first season I think that they will.

the book was a pioneer in for zombies in literature but at a movie. it's just like all the other garbage. i don't care if brooks wrote it or if pitt plays in it. it's just going to be average, nothing special, a popcorn movie. you'll forget it after seeing it. it's just gonna be another generic zombie movie.

 Pages PREV 1 2

Reply to Thread

Posting on this forum is disabled.