Ugh....If you were expecting an "adaptation" of the novel you will instead get a zombie tsunami....
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The film is based on Max Brooks' novel World War Z: An Oral History of the Zombie War, the story revolves around United Nations employee Gerry Lane (Pitt), who traverses the world in a race against time to stop the Zombie pandemic that is toppling armies and governments and threatening to decimate humanity itself.
And in one sentence he has confirmed that neither he nor the filmmakers have actually read the book.
I cringe to think what they will do with the whole "Redeker Plan"...
When I first started the book, I was aware that a film version was in the works. All I could think of was "How is this book supposed to make a good film?" It wasn't until the latter half that I started seeing scenarios that would work, but became convinced that they could make a stirring film using vignettes from the later chapters, something creepy that would keep you on the edge of your seat, but be cerebral at the same time.
Instead, they apparently decided to go with a summer blockbuster full of fast CGI zombies and explosions and Brad Pitt.
*sigh*
Saw a trailer today.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HcwTxRuq-uk
It is disappointing that it isn't documentary-style like the book, but on the other hand it gets points for not being another, "idiots hole up in a mall" zombie flick. Showing the government and military actually responding to a zombie apocalypse hasn't been done (or at least done well) in any of the zombie films I've seen.
Check out 28 Months Later, Son. Great film.
I don't know what happened here. I heard that the movie was going to follow the book rather closely- in fact that's why I didn't read the book- but now I don't know. I'm thinking someone knuckled under in negotiations with the producers.
I love me some "Holin' up in a mall" zombie movies- without those, we wouldn't have World War Z as a change of pace. Or the various "How to survive a zombie apocalypse" type stuff.
I soooo wanted to look forward to this but they have ruined everything that was good about this book.
Should have turned it into a TV show (ala walking dead) for HBO or Showtime. Would have been the greatest thing ever.
Indeed, this should be a TV show, not a movie- that should have been the first sign things were going wrong. However, I'll at least check it out, I love zombie movies, even bad ones.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm sure one of the screenwriters read a line the books like, "waves of zombies coming", and they interpreted that as literally zombies in a wave form coming.
Check out 28 Months Later, Son. Great film.
28 Weeks Later, but yeah, definitely shows the government getting a handle on things...sorta.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm sure one of the screenwriters read a line the books like, "waves of zombies coming", and they interpreted that as literally zombies in a wave form coming.
Zombies are like light, they move as both waves and particles.
28 Weeks Later, but yeah, definitely shows the government getting a handle on things...sorta.Check out 28 Months Later, Son. Great film.
When I was watching the movie I kept saying, "All of these people deserve to die." Every single one was making horrible decisions, everyone.
When I was watching the movie I kept saying, "All of these people deserve to die." Every single one was making horrible decisions, everyone.28 Weeks Later, but yeah, definitely shows the government getting a handle on things...sorta.Check out 28 Months Later, Son. Great film.
I'm gonna need some insight here. I think it showed how amazing things like
I'm sure one of the screenwriters read a line the books like, "waves of zombies coming", and they interpreted that as literally zombies in a wave form coming.
Possible.
Another possibility is that the studio picked up the title to make a completely different movie in order to keep a rival from putting a movie closer to the original work out. This is a business, after all, and dirty moves are often profitable ones.
So what is their plan for a sign of infection. Lock everyone in a single room. WTF? Why not have reinforced doors for each apartment and they go on autolock. So people are trapped, but safely separated in their apartments, so you can minimize and contain the infection. Nope, put everyone in a single room so that everyone gets infected.
Let's not even go into the guy that goes and gets himself infected from his carrier wife, and the military guys that knew they weren't suppose to take survivers or whatever. The whole thing was a total clusterfrak.
It wasn't until the latter half that I started seeing scenarios that would work, but became convinced that they could make a stirring film using vignettes from the later chapters, something creepy that would keep you on the edge of your seat, but be cerebral at the same time.
One throwaway line in the book,
I soooo wanted to look forward to this but they have ruined everything that was good about this book.
Should have turned it into a TV show (ala walking dead) for HBO or Showtime. Would have been the greatest thing ever.
This, a thousand times this! That would have been the greatest! So many good scenes are going to be cut that would have made Amazing stand-alone episodes.
Meh. The book wasn't that good anyway.
Hopefully, the movie coming out will get more people to read the book.
I can also highly recommend the audiobook version. Really great stuff.
I gotta admit, I just started turning into one of the rage virus infected after watching the trailer. The books, but especially the survival guide, go into a fair bit of detail about the zombies, what they are and how they aren't fast. To see that just hurled out the window...hell, the zombies don't even look to be zombie. Look at the scene where Brad is mightily holding a door shut against zombies. It's a guy. He's a bit angry. Not as angry as me, I admit, but...
It depresses me that not only is this getting made rather than the J. Michael Straczynski version written three years or so back, complete with glorious artwork of Yonkers, but this version will almost certainly make a heap of money that would bury my house.
Then again, I should be used to it. I'm a (old, old) Resident Evil fan, and look what the movies we got for that are like...(in fairness, the first one is watchable - but the second, third, forth and fifth are just hideous, remorseless turds).
|
.......but this version will almost certainly make a heap of money that would bury my house.
I for one hope it doesn't. That way maybe those a%~&$#$s in Hollywood will finally get it through their thick skulls that people like book adaptations that actually follow the book.
Aah, what am I saying? This is hollywood we're talking about.
That another version was made and not released points more to politics than Hollywood not "getting" anything. Reminds me of the old versions of the spider man and fantastic four movies that were made but never released.
.......but this version will almost certainly make a heap of money that would bury my house.I for one hope it doesn't. That way maybe those a$$@$$&s in Hollywood will finally get it through their thick skulls that people like book adaptations that actually follow the book.
Aah, what am I saying? This is hollywood we're talking about.
I'd love to be wrong but, again, I'm a Resident Evil fan. Paul Anderson is currently rolling around in a swimming pool full of money thanks to his horrible, horrible movies. And strange desire to have his wife flash the audience...
loved re: apocalypse. didnt care for the others .
frustrated and sad after seeing the trailer.
Sorta like The Postman novel vs The Postman movie...but worster.:(
Greg
frustrated and sad after seeing the trailer.
Sorta like The Postman novel vs The Postman movie...but worster.:(
Greg
I actually liked that movie, but I've never had a chance to check out the book.
For those who say "yeah but it will make a ton of money..." I say FIRST, monetary gain should not be the measure by which a piece of art is judged.
And SECOND, no actually it won't.
It's been through multiple re-shoots already, and is now in yet another round of re-shoots.
So not only is it mishandling the adaptation of the book, its mishandling basic production techniques...reshooting after your trailer is released....yikes.
For those who say "yeah but it will make a ton of money..." I say FIRST, monetary gain should not be the measure by which a piece of art is judged.
And SECOND, no actually it won't.
It's been through multiple re-shoots already, and is now in yet another round of re-shoots.
So not only is it mishandling the adaptation of the book, its mishandling basic production techniques...reshooting after your trailer is released....yikes.
If the last picture is any indication they've felt the need to add in a giant vampire zombie.
If the last picture is any indication they've felt the need to add in a giant vampire zombie.
Of course!
They need and end boss for when it's a video game...
This movie wasn't bad, but it wasn't great either. Zombie fans can skip this one (but probably won't).
I guess I just don't like zombies that are faster than people (28 Days Later is the max speed I like), viruses that can kill (and transform) in 12 seconds, and breaking the laws of physics. Also, I don't think the director knows how cell phones really work, someone should tell him.
Ive heard good reviews for movie.
Maybe it was just me but i hated the book. As a horror book i would rate it a 2 out of 10. I didnt like the style, much better zombie novels out there, much better thrillers, etc.
I hope the movie does well and since it seems to stray from the book i will probably see it.
On a scale of Absolutely to LOL No, how faithful was the final film to the book?
I haven't seen it yet, but Max Brooks is on record as saying that the title is the only thing his book and the movie share.
Sorry, I haven't read the book. From what I hear (from some of the people in the audience), not much like the book.
Pretty typical "Hollywood" popcorn movie, if you like that kind of thing. Which I don't. I LOVE zombie movies (Dawn of the Dead, 28 Days Later, Walking Dead, etc) and I just thought it was "OK" / meh.
Maybe it was just me but i hated the book. As a horror book i would rate it a 2 out of 10.
Not to be overly critical, but if you are reading World War Z for the horror aspect, I think you are missing what Brooks was writing about.
Zombie apocalypse is just the conceit to satirize a lot of political issues - particularly those issues apparent in the early 2000's. The problems with disaster relief (related to Hurricane Katrina especially); the Bush administration, Iraq War, and American isolationism; the Israeli/Palestinian conflicts; and China's rise to power and modernity in the 21st century. There's also the more general commentary on the social issues of consumerism; ecology management; technology dependence; and modern living.
Like shows such as Walking Dead, there's the "how do you humans cope" with survialism element as well. That's become such a common theme in the zombie genre that it almost seems cliché now. But when Brooks wrote the book in 2006, that theme was less prevalent - especially when trying to frame it in a global scale.
And therein lies the problem with World War Z - the movie - as it relates to the novel. Trying to encapsulate those numerous themes in a blockbuster summer movie makes for a difficult task. Some of the political parts would seem dated or lost on your audience. Social satire/commentary might come off as either harsh or unfunny in a dramatic context. So you have a movie that is really only similar to the novel in on the general theme of zombie outbreak.
So it focuses on the crisis element; how people cope; and the zombies. The movie to me is less like Dawn of the Dead or 28 days and more like Contagion or Outbreak. So, love or not, depends on what you expect from your zombie movie.
|
The movie was fine for what it had to work with. If they had been completely faithful to the book it would've flopped. I can't imagine many people would want to watch Brad Pitt interviewing people.
The were hardly anything that was from the book, save the name and that there are zombies. Several of the action scenes were pretty cool, though I also had problems with the physics of it.
The thing that bothered me the most sadly was the C-130 taking off from an aircraft carrier. I suppose they could. I just don't have any idea how it would be able to take off without landing in the water. Or how it got onto the carrier in the first place.
I was just listening to the WWZ radio drama when I saw this post.
Has anyone else listened to it? It's very good.
-MD
The movie was fine for what it had to work with. If they had been completely faithful to the book it would've flopped. I can't imagine many people would want to watch Brad Pitt interviewing people.
The were hardly anything that was from the book, save the name and that there are zombies. Several of the action scenes were pretty cool, though I also had problems with the physics of it.
The thing that bothered me the most sadly was the C-130 taking off from an aircraft carrier. I suppose they could. I just don't have any idea how it would be able to take off without landing in the water. Or how it got onto the carrier in the first place.
Largest aircraft to land and take off from carrier The plane that did the landings and take-offs (over 20 of each!) from the carrier back in the early 60s was, in fact, a C-130.
Back in WW2 Jimmy Doolittle proposed launching a fleet of bombers from an early WW2 AC to bomb Japan in retaliation for Pearl Harbor and to force Japan to defend against potential future attacks.
Many, if not most, naval officers thought he was insane. But he persevered, ran the mission and won a medal and was promoted for his heroics.
That was before rocket assisted takeoff and steam catapults to throw planes into the air existed. Also carriers are much bigger and much faster today than then. To make the takeoff the carrier steamed directly into a stiff wind, and the bombers took off relatively easily.
The scene is striking but it is completely plausible. Remarkable, counter-intuitive, but plausible.
Maybe it was just me but i hated the book. As a horror book i would rate it a 2 out of 10.Not to be overly critical, but if you are reading World War Z for the horror aspect, I think you are missing what Brooks was writing about.
*snip*
To tack on to what he said, if you approach the book as being a "documentary", it is much more enjoyable.
The movie was fine for what it had to work with. If they had been completely faithful to the book it would've flopped.
Which is why they shouldn't have gone for the big-budget, Hollywood blockbuster with it. It should have been a low-budget release at some time other than when all the big summer explosion-fests are hitting the screen. It doesn't have to be just interviews, either. Have each scene start and end with the interview, and a sentence or 2 in transition to a flashback to the actual event.
The problem with flashbacks is that you know the person recounting the event survived to tell the story.
I haven't read the book. I'm not really a great fan of zombies anyway. When I think of zombies as they are typically portrayed in fiction, my immediate reaction isn't OMG RUN!, my immediate reaction is "wow, catch some of those things and put them in a hamster cage with some raw brains just outside of their reach. Infinite power supply! Our energy problems are solved!"
Yay zombies!
So it focuses on the crisis element; how people cope; and the zombies. The movie to me is less like Dawn of the Dead or 28 days and more like Contagion or Outbreak. So, love or not, depends on what you expect from your zombie movie.
I thought the investigation and story elements of Outbreak were much stronger than WWZ. Outbreak is a good movie.
So yeah, the investigation, action, story, and drama elements have been done much better in other zombie and outbreak movies. Which makes this movie forgettable.
The problem with flashbacks is that you know the person recounting the event survived to tell the story.
I haven't read the book. I'm not really a great fan of zombies anyway. When I think of zombies as they are typically portrayed in fiction, my immediate reaction isn't OMG RUN!, my immediate reaction is "wow, catch some of those things and put them in a hamster cage with some raw brains just outside of their reach. Infinite power supply! Our energy problems are solved!"
Yay zombies!
Yes you know they survived, but you know that just from the nature of the book. It is a series of interviews with survivors of the zombie war, and what happened to them during it.
Yes you know they survived, but you know that just from the nature of the book. It is a series of interviews with survivors of the zombie war, and what happened to them during it.The problem with flashbacks is that you know the person recounting the event survived to tell the story.
I haven't read the book. I'm not really a great fan of zombies anyway. When I think of zombies as they are typically portrayed in fiction, my immediate reaction isn't OMG RUN!, my immediate reaction is "wow, catch some of those things and put them in a hamster cage with some raw brains just outside of their reach. Infinite power supply! Our energy problems are solved!"
Yay zombies!
Sure, but reading a book and watching a movie are two different mediums and what works for books doesn't always work for movies.
As the director and producer of this one seemed to think.
I was just listening to the WWZ radio drama when I saw this post. Has anyone else listened to it?
-MD
Yes. I think they picked a good set of voices to capture some of the characters. I've only heard the original abridged edition, but I understand that there's a new version with additional chapters and voices included that just came out in June. Apparently, it was done as a movie tie-in.
I don't know if the new material comes from the book or is completely new stuff. I suspect listening to a novel's translation is easier than actually watching a movie trying to copy the same thing.
Maybe if you wanted to stay faithful to the novel, a TV series or miniseries might have worked better. Much of the novel is very episodic in nature and would fit that kind of format better than a 2 hour movie.
I haven't read the book. I'm not really a great fan of zombies anyway. When I think of zombies as they are typically portrayed in fiction, my immediate reaction isn't OMG RUN!, my immediate reaction is "wow, catch some of those things and put them in a hamster cage with some raw brains just outside of their reach. Infinite power supply! Our energy problems are solved!"
Yay zombies!
You might liek the movie FIDO.
Sort of like post Sean of the Dead world, zombies as entertainment / servants / pets.