I actually agree with you here and think it's stupid. However the idea is that the books title, no matter how little is known about it, is still better known than whatever original title they come up with. Also there's the idea that if the movie is (or at least looks like) an adaptation then it will be guaranteed to make at least some money off of the original work's fanbase. This is one of the reasons why many popular movies/franchises are being remade/rebooted. I agree that it's stupid, cynical and nonsensical, but I can almost guarantee that it's what happened here. Heck when I was at University this was the standard MO for what they were teaching people in marketing.Blunderboy said:
World War Z (the movie) just isn't very good
- Thread starter Johnny Novgorod
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Yeah I mean look at Cloud Atlas. Six stories set in different time periods, of different genres woven together into a single narrative that works as a story. A book like World War Z could be done in keeping with the spirit of the book. I doubt they could have done the whole book in one movie but they could have told different stories set in that universe with a similar thematic feel to it.SonOfVoorhees said:
Captcha: Who are you
I am me.
Thats true. I guess its the difference between people that love the book and every one else. Everyone else wins out but if thats the case why use the WWZ book. Just release a zombie movie if the fans are not an issue, i like the new direction with the zombies, just that calling it WWZ is wrong and a waste of the book. Being that this movie has nothing to do with the book.AkatsukiLeader13 said:
We knew it would be bad the minute they showed Brad Pitt jumping off the building onto the helicopter, then the cheesy line about how he had to go back and help some people (trailer).
When they had that i knew instantly that it wouldnt capture what the book was trying to show, that is humanity as a whole and as individuals and how they react to what amounts to armageddon.
You get knights, presidents, scientists, priests, submariners, soldiers, suburban families, PTSD woman and so many more interviewed each showing a different facet of humanity. Its not as much a book about zombies but a social commentary on people and what defines humanity. The minute the trailer went all Bourne,James Bond etc i knew it wasnt bothered with potraying the book accurately but cared more about hopping on the WWZ bandwagon (i highly doubt any execs, directors or even the later writers even read the book).
Frankly the themes in the book were far too difficult for a movie to capture, a TV show or a mini-series maybe... but a movie? no.
When they had that i knew instantly that it wouldnt capture what the book was trying to show, that is humanity as a whole and as individuals and how they react to what amounts to armageddon.
You get knights, presidents, scientists, priests, submariners, soldiers, suburban families, PTSD woman and so many more interviewed each showing a different facet of humanity. Its not as much a book about zombies but a social commentary on people and what defines humanity. The minute the trailer went all Bourne,James Bond etc i knew it wasnt bothered with potraying the book accurately but cared more about hopping on the WWZ bandwagon (i highly doubt any execs, directors or even the later writers even read the book).
Frankly the themes in the book were far too difficult for a movie to capture, a TV show or a mini-series maybe... but a movie? no.
The beauty of Max Brooks' book is that not only does it have all the bits that make a book great- suspense, terror, uncertainty, and the macabre- but it also was thought provoking.
An entire section of the book was about how they rationalized industry and production to get the country back into some semblance of working order, and stabilized society to deal with the war. Seriously- name me a single other book which covered something so basic yet so important. And as I read it, I realized I hadn't even thought about it- yet it would be the difference between life and death for humanity in a zombie (or really any) apocalypse. Getting people back into something like their normal lives so that people could then gear up to take back the planet? Most movies/books would go the Terminator route, where everyone is either a professional rebel or a helpless refugee.
In World War Z, they formed Citizen Watch organizations to take care of stray zed, started salvaging materials from the cities, and did the *intelligent* things to get humanity on the road back to being on its feet.
I haven't even seen the movie yet, but the trailer terrified me. I remember my first thought being "Oh, a Resident Evil mov- what? That's what they did with World War Z?"
An entire section of the book was about how they rationalized industry and production to get the country back into some semblance of working order, and stabilized society to deal with the war. Seriously- name me a single other book which covered something so basic yet so important. And as I read it, I realized I hadn't even thought about it- yet it would be the difference between life and death for humanity in a zombie (or really any) apocalypse. Getting people back into something like their normal lives so that people could then gear up to take back the planet? Most movies/books would go the Terminator route, where everyone is either a professional rebel or a helpless refugee.
In World War Z, they formed Citizen Watch organizations to take care of stray zed, started salvaging materials from the cities, and did the *intelligent* things to get humanity on the road back to being on its feet.
I haven't even seen the movie yet, but the trailer terrified me. I remember my first thought being "Oh, a Resident Evil mov- what? That's what they did with World War Z?"
Funnily enough, I'm fairly sure Malta gets name-dropped and we see a map of the island. But it's one of those flash moments in a control room, it justs whisks past without really meaning anything. Anyway, Malta probably doubled for Israel in this movie.King of Asgaard said:
Actually they just wrote the third act (which would make a decent horror movie on its own). But in the grand scope of things it's just another random tonal shift the movie goes through in its final moments. Not a lot of redeeming value there. I appreciate the irony of employing the Lost blokes to make up a quick resolution on the spot for the big enigma.Dangit2019 said:
This is almost surely going to make it into my houses' bad movie night rotation at some point. In short there is no chance in hell that I'm paying money to see this in theaters. I also cannot remember the last time I saw a trailer, which I remind you is supposed to contain the non-spoiler highlights of a movie as a hook for potential viewers, that looked a shit as the ones for World War Z where the movie actually turned out to even be alright.
That was what I was thinking, When I saw the trailer with Brad Pit and all those CGI zombies I thought blahh I'll be skipping this one. I can't really see World War Z as a movie anyways. I think it would make a better T.V series too, considering it was more about the aftermath of the Zombie Apocalypse and retrospective rather then the Zombie apocalypses itself.idarkphoenixi said:
I liked how in the book it talks about how nations handle the whole mess and where they went wrong. Interviewing all those people and their take on it. One of my favorites was when he interviewed the girl and she talked about the community that lived in the Canadian wilderness, they didn't have to worry about the zombies, but ended turning on each other when resources started running scarce.
One of the key problems with this movie (which I didn't mention in the OP) is that it doesn't want to say anything particular about any nation. We get a few glimpses here and there - regarding North Korea and Israel, specifically - but that's about it. I read somewhere that the movie had a lot more scenes originally, involving the search for "patient zero" and the source of the infection. It was originally going to trace its way back to China, but since it was deemed to be politically unsound, they just scrapped the idea and forgot to replace it with anything else. A real shame.Mcupobob said:
There's not so much "cooperation" as collective animal instinct. They behave a lot like locust swarms. And they're of the hyper violent, hyper fast, hyper infectious (zombification takes a few secs) kind. Unfortunately they're never the center of attention (or the camera, for that matter). We get one measly close-up near the beginning, and for the rest of the movie they're just these CGI waves and waves of extras in costume. It's not until the very end when we see zombies face to face again.Pinkamena said:
How long and good is the first act? The disaster portion?Johnny Novgorod said:
My favorite part of ANY zombie flick is the CHAOS they cause on the world, and that's what I like to see. Shit like a baseball game going on and suddenly someone runs on to the field and bites the umpire.
SaneAmongInsane said:
Things escalate very, very quickly. We get about 5 minutes of everyday life (breakfast), the Pitt family gets stuck in a traffic jam, everybody wonder what the hell is going on and boom, zombies. The attack draws heavily on 9/11 imagery, you know, people fleeing amidst skyscrapers while disaster starts catching up from behind. It's also one of the few instances where we get to see zombies up close, and the Pitt character shows an amazing display of genre-savvy by 1) counting how long it takes for a person to become a zombie, 2) protecting his forearms from bites, 3) not being afraid to shoot both zombies and humans, 4) not being afraid to sacrifice himself if he were to become infected. Anyway, the day isn't over and the cops have already joined everybody else in looting stores and mugging people. Next thing we get some in-doors, poorly lit action and the characters get evacuated in a narrow escape. Overall, it's an OK start, though it's so fast and sudden we never really get the chance to meet or care for anyone in particular.
Later in the movie we also see how a city gets "infected" from scratch (in an incredibly, stupid way), which is one of the major set pieces of the movie.
Later in the movie we also see how a city gets "infected" from scratch (in an incredibly, stupid way), which is one of the major set pieces of the movie.
Incidentally, did you get the baseball scenario from The Crazies remake? It starts more or less that way.
I've yet to see the remake. Why does the remake have that?Johnny Novgorod said:
the infection from the scratch sounds interesting, but if that's whole big portion is the most we get to see of the chaos I'll wait for a video instead of seeing it in theaters.
What I want from any zombie film is... do you remember the begining of the Dawn Of The Dead remake? Girl drives home to her Norman Rockwell neighborhood. Theirs the neighbor hood girl skating. She goes to bed with her boyfriend.... then she wakes up in the morning and the little girl is ripping the jugular out of her boyfriend, she escapes through the bathroom and the world is just CHAOS! She sees her uninfected neighbor with a handgun and he's all "STAND BACK! KEEP AWAY FROM ME!" and she's all "FUCK IS GOING ON?!" and then homeboy gets hit with an ambulance.... then she takes off in the car, the radio is all emergency messages, and that one car crashes into the gas station?
I want a zombie movie that's just like, no plot. No characters. Just give me 2 hours of that, just the initial source of infection and the chaos that errupts from it.
Best Zombie movie ever made was probably that extra on the Dawn Of The Dead remake DVD, of the news anchor man delivering the news over two days.
I'm not sure what the hell to say about the movie.
I've read both Max Brook's Zombie Survival Guide, and World War Z, both being a zombie fan's bread and butter, IMO, and the instant I saw running zombies in the trailer I facepalmed, and realized they pretty much ruined it.
Then I remembered a section out of the Zombie Survival Guide:
That bit of spoiler from Max Brook's ZSG kinda smooths it over... for some, I guess. Not too much for me. Some, but not a lot.
But seriously, It would've been realy nice if they approached it another way. I still sorta feel betrayed with the movie screwing with the lore of the books the way it did.
World War Z really nailed the threat of the -slow- zombie, my favorite kind of zombie. The Zombie Survial Guide helps explain how it can get that out of hand.
Still, some of the set pieces are pretty awesome. Largely the previously never really seen before zombie pile up swarms. I still wanna see the movie, but not terribly badly knowing the lore's been trampled by a sea of running zombies. <.<
At the least, I can see the movie knowing I'll be dissapointed by some aspects.
Yeah, yeah, I know i need to see the movie before I can actually talk about it, but honestly, it doesn't take more than a trailer to know what it's going to be like.
I've read both Max Brook's Zombie Survival Guide, and World War Z, both being a zombie fan's bread and butter, IMO, and the instant I saw running zombies in the trailer I facepalmed, and realized they pretty much ruined it.
Then I remembered a section out of the Zombie Survival Guide:
THE HOLLYWOOD ZOMBIE
Since the living dead first stepped onto the silver screen, their greatest enemy has not been hunters, but
critics. Scholars, scientists, even concerned citizens have all argued that these movies depict the living
dead in a fantastic, unrealistic fashion. Visually stunning weapons, physically impossible action sequences,
larger-than-life human characters, and, above all, magical, invincible, even comical ghouls have all added
their colors to the controversial rainbow that is ?the Zombie Movie.? Further criticism argues that this
?style over substance? approach to somnambulist cinema teaches human viewers lessons that may get
them killed in a real encounter. These serious charges demand an equally serious defense. While some
zombie movies are based on actual events*, their goal, indeed the goal of almost every movie in every
genre, has always been, first and foremost, to entertain. Unless we are discussing pure documentaries
(and even some of those are ?sweetened?), moviemakers must take some artistic license to make their
work more palatable to the audience. Even movies that are based on actual events will sacrifice pure
reality for good storytelling. Certain characters will be an amalgam of real-life individuals. Others may be
purely fictional in order to explain certain facts, facilitate the plotline, or simply add flavor to the scene.
One might argue that the role of the artist is to challenge, educate, and enlighten her audience. That may
be true, but try imparting knowledge to an audience who has either left or fallen asleep within the first ten
minutes of the picture. Accept this basic rule of moviemaking and you will understand why Hollywood
zombie films stray, in some cases wildly, from the reality on which they are based. In short, use these
photo-plays as their makers intended: as a source of temporary, lighthearted entertainment and not a
visual aid to your survival.
Since the living dead first stepped onto the silver screen, their greatest enemy has not been hunters, but
critics. Scholars, scientists, even concerned citizens have all argued that these movies depict the living
dead in a fantastic, unrealistic fashion. Visually stunning weapons, physically impossible action sequences,
larger-than-life human characters, and, above all, magical, invincible, even comical ghouls have all added
their colors to the controversial rainbow that is ?the Zombie Movie.? Further criticism argues that this
?style over substance? approach to somnambulist cinema teaches human viewers lessons that may get
them killed in a real encounter. These serious charges demand an equally serious defense. While some
zombie movies are based on actual events*, their goal, indeed the goal of almost every movie in every
genre, has always been, first and foremost, to entertain. Unless we are discussing pure documentaries
(and even some of those are ?sweetened?), moviemakers must take some artistic license to make their
work more palatable to the audience. Even movies that are based on actual events will sacrifice pure
reality for good storytelling. Certain characters will be an amalgam of real-life individuals. Others may be
purely fictional in order to explain certain facts, facilitate the plotline, or simply add flavor to the scene.
One might argue that the role of the artist is to challenge, educate, and enlighten her audience. That may
be true, but try imparting knowledge to an audience who has either left or fallen asleep within the first ten
minutes of the picture. Accept this basic rule of moviemaking and you will understand why Hollywood
zombie films stray, in some cases wildly, from the reality on which they are based. In short, use these
photo-plays as their makers intended: as a source of temporary, lighthearted entertainment and not a
visual aid to your survival.
That bit of spoiler from Max Brook's ZSG kinda smooths it over... for some, I guess. Not too much for me. Some, but not a lot.
But seriously, It would've been realy nice if they approached it another way. I still sorta feel betrayed with the movie screwing with the lore of the books the way it did.
World War Z really nailed the threat of the -slow- zombie, my favorite kind of zombie. The Zombie Survial Guide helps explain how it can get that out of hand.
Still, some of the set pieces are pretty awesome. Largely the previously never really seen before zombie pile up swarms. I still wanna see the movie, but not terribly badly knowing the lore's been trampled by a sea of running zombies. <.<
At the least, I can see the movie knowing I'll be dissapointed by some aspects.
Yeah, yeah, I know i need to see the movie before I can actually talk about it, but honestly, it doesn't take more than a trailer to know what it's going to be like.