World War Z! From book to movie trailer...

[Mathim]

As some of you may know, Max Brooks, the son of Mel Brooks, has written two books on the subject of flesh-eating ghouls, namely the Zombie Survival Guide, and World War Z. The former, intended to be humorous, blossomed into a gritty, hardcore sequel that Brad Pitt won the rights to do a film adaptation of. The trailer was just released and I couldn't have been more crestfallen to find out that the zombies are the running variety. Not only is that the polar opposite of what his books describe the zombies as being, but the story looks like it couldn't have less to do with the book and is related to it in name only.

I know books and movie adaptations of them often differ but frankly this is utterly ridiculous. I know many people who haven't read the book say the trailer looks intriguing but it just lacks the spirit Brooks put into every page. To make a slow-moving drone scary is difficult but he pulls it off with aplomb, while Hollywood is so quick to go with what seems to be the more appealing, modern representation of the running, not walking, dead.

So, rant over. I just wanted to get that off my chest and see if anyone cares enough to comment. Anyone who's read the book, and/or seen the trailer, please tell us what your opinion is. Also, feel free to give your two cents on the shambling, stiff zombie versus the more 'alive but infected and running' variety. Cheers!

World War Z - Official Trailer (HD)

[Stella]

I watched it last night. I spent a good deal of time wondering wtf was going on, because it looked like a pretty cool zombie movie - just not WWZ. The bit with the zombies toppling the bus, seriously, that looked great.

But it's nothing like the WWZ zombies! And this plot with Brad Pitt looking for a cure or something, what is that? It looks like a lazy departure from the book to tie all the plots together. That's if they keep all those survivor stories.

I think if I'm going to enjoy this movie I will have to forget it is supposed to be based on WWZ.

[Callie Del Noire]

Some of it I can get.. the toppling of the bus for example..and the literal WAVES of zombies I can see.. but the speed they move at kills it for me.

I enjoyed WWZ the book.. the format was awesome and helped spread the experience over years and showed how the world changed.. big and small in response to the book. I mean.. you had how the Isrealies literally finally settled the Palenstine issue.. only to deal with TERRORISM from the jewish side of things. The man who came up with the plan to survive this. He knew he had to become a monster to come up with the solution. You have out takes from survivors. You see how the world went low tech to face the zombie.. lots of stories.

The trailer.. I'm.. meh. You're right though.. it's NOT World War Z

[Mathim]

Cool, I'm not alone in this. The thing about WWZ for me was how Brooks was able to make it go from patient zero to full-blown swarms of the slow-moving variety without anyone noticing and taking action until it was too late-that speaks volumes about human nature which is what the book was all about, whereas with these charging hordes, you lose all the feeling the book generated and there's too great a sense of urgency so the suspense wears down. I can't believe Brooks actually said in an interview that he thought the writer of the screenplay actually did a good job. I don't want to think of Brooks as a sellout, but...

[Callie Del Noire]

Cool, I'm not alone in this. The thing about WWZ for me was how Brooks was able to make it go from patient zero to full-blown swarms of the slow-moving variety without anyone noticing and taking action until it was too late-that speaks volumes about human nature which is what the book was all about, whereas with these charging hordes, you lose all the feeling the book generated and there's too great a sense of urgency so the suspense wears down. I can't believe Brooks actually said in an interview that he thought the writer of the screenplay actually did a good job. I don't want to think of Brooks as a sellout, but...

Depends.. did he mean a 'good and accurate adaptation of my book' or a 'good movie using my book as a foundation to build upon.'

[Shjade]

Well, yeah, WWZ the book takes place after the war, so obviously any movie taking place during the war isn't going to be the book regardless of the speed of the zombies. The book doesn't provide enough insights into "wartime" to produce a coherent narrative going just off the book's content: you'd get some Yonkers, some of General There'snowayinhellI'llrememberhowtospellhisname's square-formation last stand, some of the Russian rebellions and the general military pulling out to ditch refugees to die, but you'd be all over the place and never have a worthwhile linear story to follow. (Unless you set a movie in that college fortress, maybe. You know the one, the place where they made that movie on how the students held out for however long it was they held out in there, a year or something? That could be enough for a stand-alone movie.)

So it doesn't surprise me that they decided to insert a different plot for the movie to follow within that general setting. What does surprise me is the running zombies. Everything else seems fine, but that one detail changes everything. It's more like a global 28 Days Earlier than a WWZ adaptation. :|

[Lux12]

We live in an age when humans no longer consider slow zombies all that threatening I mean sure people might be slower to catch on, but it would be so much more easily handled by the powers that be. I'm not saying it couldn't be potentially damaging, but people just aren't scared by slow zombies all that much anymore. They feel more threatened by faster things that want to kill or infect them.  It's the difference between being chased by a man sized carnivorous slug and a tiger.

[Oniya]

There was a comedian who had a line in one of his routines:

'Yeah, if the Mummy was comin' after me, I'd run... but I'd pack first!'

[TemperSet]

I kind of think they'll just make the zombies run fast and have Mark Brooks on to maybe add some new tactics accordingly? They definitely pulled alot from the book as far as I can tell.

[Shjade]

I'm trying to think of how to make a movie about a slow-moving zombie epidemic as opposed to the fast type. The only ones I can think of are just post-outbreak, not during.

I'm thinking it would have to be more procedural/mystery than either action or thriller. This kind of thing doesn't spread because we're incapable of stopping it; it's because no one realizes there's anything to stop until it's already branched out beyond the bounds of reasonable containment. Probably wouldn't be much in the way of visible on-screen zombies until well into the movie, just aftermath. Unusual murders, unexplained infections, lots of visits to the morgue until the morgue gets trashed, etc. ...I dunno, it'd be rough. Or maybe it just seems rough because I'm not a movie writer.

Fast zombies are easier because a fast zombie outbreak movie can play like 99% of disaster movies: core family unit you follow as they try to survive the earthquake/hurricane/volcano eruption/tidal wave/end of the world/whatever that's throwing everything to hell all around them. Slow zombie outbreak is more...methodical. Slower paced, obviously. Less "run from panic event X in setpiece Y!" and more "lots of evacuation and panic about something we can't even see," since in all likelihood if you're seeing the horde coming in the case of the slow outbreak you're pretty much already at the end of your rope.

Probably end up more like the Walking Dead, I guess: mostly drama between survivors, not much interaction with the zombies after using them to create the setting.

[Avis habilis]

There's something about the wall segment in the trailer that says "World War Starship Troopers" to me. These Zs act more like a swarm of army ants, climbing over the bodies of their fallen fellows to get to the top, chasing Brad Pitt even after he's flying away in a chopper so they just fall off the building one after the other.

[Moraline]

I'm trying to think of how to make a movie about a slow-moving zombie epidemic as opposed to the fast type. The only ones I can think of are just post-outbreak, not during.

I'm thinking it would have to be more procedural/mystery than either action or thriller. This kind of thing doesn't spread because we're incapable of stopping it; it's because no one realizes there's anything to stop until it's already branched out beyond the bounds of reasonable containment. Probably wouldn't be much in the way of visible on-screen zombies until well into the movie, just aftermath. Unusual murders, unexplained infections, lots of visits to the morgue until the morgue gets trashed, etc. ...I dunno, it'd be rough. Or maybe it just seems rough because I'm not a movie writer.

Fast zombies are easier because a fast zombie outbreak movie can play like 99% of disaster movies: core family unit you follow as they try to survive the earthquake/hurricane/volcano eruption/tidal wave/end of the world/whatever that's throwing everything to hell all around them. Slow zombie outbreak is more...methodical. Slower paced, obviously. Less "run from panic event X in setpiece Y!" and more "lots of evacuation and panic about something we can't even see," since in all likelihood if you're seeing the horde coming in the case of the slow outbreak you're pretty much already at the end of your rope.

Probably end up more like the Walking Dead, I guess: mostly drama between survivors, not much interaction with the zombies after using them to create the setting.

I grudgingly have to agree with all of this.

I think slow moving zombies are infinitely more terrifying personally but zombie movies these days are more about action then horror. Which I'm actually thankful for because I prefer the action. I find horror a bit dull.

On the specific subject of the trailer - I thought it was great. The zombie hordes appear to have a mass ant colony like vibe to them, just spilling out over everywhere in waves, using each other as ladders. I like it.


*edit: Avis beat me to the Ant comparison but i'm glad I'm not the only one that sees it.

Also, I really don't find fast moving zombies terrifying. Fast zombies ends up equaling fast action which negates the terror effect. Sure in real life I'd be more frightened but in a cinema/movie it's no where near as scary.

[Oniya]

There's something about the wall segment in the trailer that says "World War Starship Troopers" to me. These Zs act more like a swarm of army ants, climbing over the bodies of their fallen fellows to get to the top, chasing Brad Pitt even after he's flying away in a chopper so they just fall off the building one after the other.

There are two factors when dealing with the undead - speed, and intelligence.  Transmission is another thing, but speed and intelligence are pretty much what determine their actions/strategies.  Slow and dumb, you get the shambling horde.  Slow and smart, possibly 'wolf-pack' tactics, ambushes, circling the prey.  Fast and smart, freaking velociraptors - don't bother writing a will, because humanity is pretty much done.  Fast and dumb - run at nearest food source.  Maybe they have enough sense to bonk their way around a wall, but the hundreds and thousands behind them haven't stopped Plan A yet.

Kind of like Black Friday crowds, only without the 'human interest' reporter.

[Avis habilis]

Kind of like Black Friday crowds, only without the 'human interest' reporter.

"I'll show you a door-buster special!"

[Callie Del Noire]

There are two factors when dealing with the undead - speed, and intelligence.  Transmission is another thing, but speed and intelligence are pretty much what determine their actions/strategies.  Slow and dumb, you get the shambling horde.  Slow and smart, possibly 'wolf-pack' tactics, ambushes, circling the prey.  Fast and smart, freaking velociraptors - don't bother writing a will, because humanity is pretty much done.  Fast and dumb - run at nearest food source.  Maybe they have enough sense to bonk their way around a wall, but the hundreds and thousands behind them haven't stopped Plan A yet.

Kind of like Black Friday crowds, only without the 'human interest' reporter.

Sort of reminds me of the zombies in Feed.  Newer ones are faster older are slow. More than five in an area is bad. More than twenty, you start seeing scary wits. A hundred plus is downright deadly.

[Shjade]

There's something about the wall segment in the trailer that says "World War Starship Troopers" to me. These Zs act more like a swarm of army ants, climbing over the bodies of their fallen fellows to get to the top, chasing Brad Pitt even after he's flying away in a chopper so they just fall off the building one after the other.

The wall tactic is new, but the lemming impression off the building is straight out of the book. The canine units figured it out when they were clearing the urban areas, remember? There was a heavily infested building and one of the dogs ran up to the top of a building near it and started barking. Led a bunch of zombies to just walk off the building trying to reach it.

[Mathim]

The scary thing about the slow-moving ones is the claustrophobic feeling the book generated, like that pilot lady who got dumped right into Z country and had to be careful about noise and find a safe spot to sleep but still got surrounded. It's a numbers game, the terror comes from being outnumbered, surrounded, and with no place to hide. If they really wanted to they could have made the slow thing work, it just needs a director who's good with atmosphere. It just feels like they wanted to take the lazy approach because it speeds up the narrative.

Well, yeah, WWZ the book takes place after the war, so obviously any movie taking place during the war isn't going to be the book regardless of the speed of the zombies. The book doesn't provide enough insights into "wartime" to produce a coherent narrative going just off the book's content: you'd get some Yonkers, some of General There'snowayinhellI'llrememberhowtospellhisname's square-formation last stand, some of the Russian rebellions and the general military pulling out to ditch refugees to die, but you'd be all over the place and never have a worthwhile linear story to follow. (Unless you set a movie in that college fortress, maybe. You know the one, the place where they made that movie on how the students held out for however long it was they held out in there, a year or something? That could be enough for a stand-alone movie.)

So it doesn't surprise me that they decided to insert a different plot for the movie to follow within that general setting. What does surprise me is the running zombies. Everything else seems fine, but that one detail changes everything. It's more like a global 28 Days Earlier than a WWZ adaptation. :|

I thought the book did an excellent job describing in-depth what was happening before and during the war, or at least enough to make a movie with. General Raj Singh (the one you couldn't remember how to spell) showing up to detonate those charges and stop the last-resort nuking would have been an awesome scene. And frankly, it's not intended to be a linear narrative, it should have played like a documentary from the way the book was structured, so it would be expected to be less focused on a single area by the readers, and it could have been an original approach for those unfamiliar with the actual background. I think it would have been worth the effort to make it reflect the book more accurately. As it is, the trailer makes it look like a full-movie version of what's happening in 2004's Dawn of the Dead where it shows what's happening on that montage while Sarah Polley is unconscious.

[Stella]

^ +1

A good screenwriter could have pulled all those stories together to make a terrific plot without inventing a new one in its place.

[Mathim]

Thank you; as a writer, I like the idea of integrity and could have easily written a screenplay that made the slow-moving zombies threatening, so I don't see why they didn't at least try it.

Personally, I thought it would have been the best approach to tell the story from the point of view of that one director guy who shot the video of the Avalon college battle, because it would make sense for him to be shipped all over the world and cover all the major happenings. It would have to have fudged the timeline a little but it still would have worked.

[Moraline]

The thing I find terrifying about slow moving zombies is that they are so relentless.

There is always the building tension that there is no way out and no matter what you do they will find you and get you.

When the action is so fast there's little time to do anything but react.

Slow moving sits with you and builds until you feel like your going to scream. It's like the beating of Edgar Allan Poe's Tell-Tale Heart. Accept with zombies, it's a *scratch scratch scratch.. shamble shamble shamble...* (( BRAINS! ))

I've never read World War Z. It's nice to know that the movie won't spoil it for me. HA!

[TheGlyphstone]

^ +1

A good screenwriter could have pulled all those stories together to make a terrific plot without inventing a new one in its place.

A good screenwriter would have cost money. They spent all their budget on getting Brad Pitt to star.

[Mathim]

A good screenwriter would have cost money. They spent all their budget on getting Brad Pitt to star.

Actually, it was Brad Pitt's idea in the first place. His Plan B production company was in a bidding war with Leonardo Dicaprio's and he won. So this might have starred Leo D instead had things gone differently. Don't know how this would have affected the script, though. One has to wonder why Brooks didn't want to try his hand at writing a rudimentary screenplay or at least saying which scenes in the book he would have wanted in the movie. I know he had no creative control but there's nothing wrong with writing a friendly letter full of suggestions...

[LaCroix]

I actually think I heard Brad Pitt paid to option the book into a movie himself. I'll have to double check that.

[TheGlyphstone]

Huh, I didn't realize that.

[consortium11]

A good screenwriter would have cost money. They spent all their budget on getting Brad Pitt to star.

I doubt Pitt cost must considering his company is making it...

[Shjade]

The scary thing about the slow-moving ones is the claustrophobic feeling the book generated, like that pilot lady who got dumped right into Z country and had to be careful about noise and find a safe spot to sleep but still got surrounded. It's a numbers game, the terror comes from being outnumbered, surrounded, and with no place to hide. If they really wanted to they could have made the slow thing work, it just needs a director who's good with atmosphere. It just feels like they wanted to take the lazy approach because it speeds up the narrative.

I thought the book did an excellent job describing in-depth what was happening before and during the war, or at least enough to make a movie with. General Raj Singh (the one you couldn't remember how to spell) showing up to detonate those charges and stop the last-resort nuking would have been an awesome scene. And frankly, it's not intended to be a linear narrative, it should have played like a documentary from the way the book was structured, so it would be expected to be less focused on a single area by the readers, and it could have been an original approach for those unfamiliar with the actual background. I think it would have been worth the effort to make it reflect the book more accurately. As it is, the trailer makes it look like a full-movie version of what's happening in 2004's Dawn of the Dead where it shows what's happening on that montage while Sarah Polley is unconscious.

True, they could have done it pseudo-documentary-style like the book, basically stringing together a series of narrated flashbacks rather than  a more central linear plot, but it's pretty clear they wanted to cover the actual war which, while you can piece it together from the book, isn't really covered. I mean, you basically get to hear about one major engagement in several different countries and...that's it. What happened after Yonkers? We're just suddenly "later, after everyone was dead, we came back and did it right." The whole "war" part is pretty much summarized in one skirmish and that's it. The bulk of World War Z is build-up, society's collapse and mop-up post-collapse; it's not really zombie-focused most of the time, despite that being the core drive of events. Zombies are just the background while Brooks goes through a series of "what if" scenarios for how various regions would respond to that level of catastrophe. Translated into a movie, this would most likely mean not much zombie screen time and a lot of political/interpersonal drama. Which, hey, don't get me wrong, that could make a great movie (I'm thinking something akin to Clear and Present Danger-type content...with zombies), but it's not really a "zombie movie" in the sense that 90% of people would be expecting to get out of their ticket to see a zombie movie, y'know?

Sidenote, why did I remember Raj Singh's name as being something four syllables long? Hm. Must be thinking of someone else.

[Avis habilis]

... but it's not really a "zombie movie" in the sense that 90% of people would be expecting to get out of their ticket to see a zombie movie, y'know?

As I was reading it, I found myself thinking it would make a pretty good cable miniseries. The episodic storyline would have fit the hour-a-week format better.

[Oniya]

They brought Max in to do an episode of 'Deadliest Warrior', Vampires vs. Zombies.  He went with the slow shamblers in that one.

[Mathim]

True, they could have done it pseudo-documentary-style like the book, basically stringing together a series of narrated flashbacks rather than  a more central linear plot, but it's pretty clear they wanted to cover the actual war which, while you can piece it together from the book, isn't really covered. I mean, you basically get to hear about one major engagement in several different countries and...that's it. What happened after Yonkers? We're just suddenly "later, after everyone was dead, we came back and did it right." The whole "war" part is pretty much summarized in one skirmish and that's it. The bulk of World War Z is build-up, society's collapse and mop-up post-collapse; it's not really zombie-focused most of the time, despite that being the core drive of events. Zombies are just the background while Brooks goes through a series of "what if" scenarios for how various regions would respond to that level of catastrophe. Translated into a movie, this would most likely mean not much zombie screen time and a lot of political/interpersonal drama. Which, hey, don't get me wrong, that could make a great movie (I'm thinking something akin to Clear and Present Danger-type content...with zombies), but it's not really a "zombie movie" in the sense that 90% of people would be expecting to get out of their ticket to see a zombie movie, y'know?

Sidenote, why did I remember Raj Singh's name as being something four syllables long? Hm. Must be thinking of someone else.

There are actually many more instances of during-war and zombie chaos than you make it sound; that one situation in Europe where a small group of soldiers had to get a bunch of people across a bridge before the army dropped a bunch of nerve gas on everybody would have been a great in-war scenario to showcase; they can embellish things, naturally, they don't necessarily have to follow the book exactly but the overall situations are easy enough to imagine and put to the screen. The build-up is also great (before the 'official' start of war), like that one scene where people are scrambling to get to the coast and hit the seas when they find that the shipyard they thought would be their salvation was actually a dry-dock dismantling station. And don't forget all those castle sieges that one guy was talking about, if the movie chose to they could go more in-depth with what happened with some of the failures whose defenses didn't hold up.

As I was reading it, I found myself thinking it would make a pretty good cable miniseries. The episodic storyline would have fit the hour-a-week format better.

This is actually true of almost any zombie story.

[Shjade]

They could, yes. And then people would complain about how they're not making the movie in lock step with the book anyway. ;p

[TheGlyphstone]

They could, yes. And then people would complain about how they're not making the movie in lock step with the book anyway. ;p

There's always going to be purist haters in every fandom. But you can definitely do better than the Starship Troopers route.

[Mathim]

I actually enjoyed the (first) Starship Troopers, never read any of the books but I thought the idea was awesome and well-executed, but I am aware of the differences. Still, I considered the movie to be successful whether or not it followed the books; usually if it's the movie totally bites that I harp on them for not following the books, but in this case the departure is so extreme I just couldn't hold it in.

[Oniya]

I read Starship Troopers before seeing the movie (well before it was even considered), and with the exception of the aliens being 'bugs', I couldn't recognize them as being the same story.  It was about as different as Andre' Norton's 'Beastmaster' was from the movie she yanked her name off of.

[Avis habilis]

Considering how Demi Moore's "Scarlet Letter" turned out, some people have a very loose definition of "based on".

[Oniya]

Considering how Demi Moore's "Scarlet Letter" turned out, some people have a very loose definition of "based on".

Did Dimmsdale get the girl in the end and live happily ever after? [/lit geek]

[Avis habilis]

Did Dimmsdale get the girl in the end and live happily ever after? [/lit geek]

There was a sequence with a maid watching them through a keyhole as he & Hester were getting it on & doing ... uh ... stuff to herself with, I think, a candle.

A tallow one at that. *squick*

[Mathim]

Well, no one ever said that every attempt that deviates severely from the original source is going to be decent...but it's hard to believe the people making them could be ignorant that the end result will be as bad as they end up being.

[Shjade]

I read Starship Troopers before seeing the movie (well before it was even considered), and with the exception of the aliens being 'bugs', I couldn't recognize them as being the same story.  It was about as different as Andre' Norton's 'Beastmaster' was from the movie she yanked her name off of.

I didn't read the book until years later.

Honestly? The movie was more entertaining. ST is a good novel, but not very...compelling I guess is the word I'm looking for.

That said, I did like that the ST animated series re-introduced the Skinnies.

[Oniya]

With 'Beastmaster', I read (and enjoyed) the book long after seeing (and enjoying) the movie.  However, I could see why Andre' was so upset.

[Lux12]

People can often get more out of a book than a film.They often cut things out of the movie because of time constraints as we all know and unfortunately, the adaptation often lacks a little something as a result. Such is often the case with these things though.

[NotoriusBEN]

Im not mad... Im just disappointed.  I've only heard those words once from my old man because I really screwed up back as a teenager, and that hurt much more than if he was just angry.

They could have still done great with the zombies as shamblers because its all about the inevitable crush of bodies. That bus could have easily been toppled by slower fare just from the mass of zeds pressed against it. I mean, they could have done the Battle of Yonkers with the damn things not going down because you need a legit head shot or spinal hit above the shoulder to immobilize the WWZ zeds. A bunch of Army and Marines that were trained to put as much fire as possible down range and into center mass, and the fuckers just. keep. coming...   THAT'S Horror.

I just hate the idea that some hollywood exec was like... "well, dawn of the dead and resident evil and 28 days sold millions of tickets and Im sure it's because there wasnt a single slow zombie in either of them. Sure beat Romero's slow ass zombie movie, nevermind inflation, so that must mean that fast sells better than slow. Make them runners."

and then the guy is rewarded for that line of thinking because people will still drop money on this thing.

[Mathim]

Im not mad... Im just disappointed.  I've only heard those words once from my old man because I really screwed up back as a teenager, and that hurt much more than if he was just angry.

They could have still done great with the zombies as shamblers because its all about the inevitable crush of bodies. That bus could have easily been toppled by slower fare just from the mass of zeds pressed against it. I mean, they could have done the Battle of Yonkers with the damn things not going down because you need a legit head shot or spinal hit above the shoulder to immobilize the WWZ zeds. A bunch of Army and Marines that were trained to put as much fire as possible down range and into center mass, and the fuckers just. keep. coming...   THAT'S Horror.

I just hate the idea that some hollywood exec was like... "well, dawn of the dead and resident evil and 28 days sold millions of tickets and Im sure it's because there wasnt a single slow zombie in either of them. Sure beat Romero's slow ass zombie movie, nevermind inflation, so that must mean that fast sells better than slow. Make them runners."

and then the guy is rewarded for that line of thinking because people will still drop money on this thing.

Yep, that about sums it up. I mean, how predictable is it that the fast-moving zombies could cause an outbreak overnight? At least if it's the slow kind, there's lots of stuff to factor in to how the outbreak gets to that level, and by that time it's too late to call it anything but a global catastrophe even though at their base level they aren't really a threat. That was the entire point of the book, that we let it happen when it shouldn't have. The runners don't let us have that self-reflection.

And yeah, the formula for success with those movies is not even remotely down to the type of zombies, I don't know what wannabe hotshot got his wires crossed when they made that assumption.

[Shjade]

It's different from the book-style zombies, which disappoints me too, but I'm not sure why you guys seem to be assuming it's going to be a bad movie because of that...

[TheGlyphstone]

It's different from the book-style zombies, which disappoints me too, but I'm not sure why you guys seem to be assuming it's going to be a bad movie because of that...

I don't think anyone has said it's going to be a bad zombie movie in its own right. Looking at the trailer, it will be a formulaic movie in its own right, which means it could be bad, mediocre, or good, but likely not great. But as far as a World War Z movie, it will be awful.

[Shjade]

It was implied by BEN's assertion that "the guy is rewarded for that line of thinking because people will still drop money on this thing," suggesting it won't be worth paying to see but people will anyway.

[NotoriusBEN]

my intent of that line was that hollywood is taking the low road and not being innovative or daring with plot ideas. The fact that people will drop money on this movie further reinforces it.

[Mathim]

My interpretation was that they will piss on artistic integrity if it means they make a few dollars more. Calling this movie World War Z is frankly insulting to anyone who's read the book, is the point. I can't say whether it will be good or bad in and of itself but I get the feeling that trying to blend WWZ with fast zombies seems like it will lack substance beneath the style. You can't really tell a story if the emphasis is on action which the trailer is apparently doing. Not to mention it seems like it will feel less worldly; and of course we have no idea what kind of aftermath we'll be dealing with since this is during the war and there feels like no way to actually win it; every zombie movie where the fast-moving kind feels way less like humanity can ever come back from the brink compared to the slow-moving ones. At least if the slow-moving kind were in the movie, we could have some hope that the war can be won.

[Lux12]

my intent of that line was that hollywood is taking the low road and not being innovative or daring with plot ideas. The fact that people will drop money on this movie further reinforces it.

Join the club.Innovation in the world of cinema hasn't been a major thing for years now.

[Callie Del Noire]

http://www.cinemablend.com/new/Brad-Pitt-Back-Set-More-World-War-Z-Reshoots-34152.html

Annnnnnnd they go back for ANOTHER round of reshooting. 

[Moraline]

http://www.cinemablend.com/new/Brad-Pitt-Back-Set-More-World-War-Z-Reshoots-34152.html

Annnnnnnd they go back for ANOTHER round of reshooting.

Oh my...

" ...  plagued by repeated delays, onset disputes, reshoots and need of a new screenwriter to craft a totally new third act-- was finally coming together. Well, don't hold your breath. "

Why do these guys even bother buying up book movie rights if they are going to make a completely different story? I mean, really... just save yourself the money.

[TheGlyphstone]

Oh my...

" ...  plagued by repeated delays, onset disputes, reshoots and need of a new screenwriter to craft a totally new third act-- was finally coming together. Well, don't hold your breath. "

Why do these guys even bother buying up book movie rights if they are going to make a completely different story? I mean, really... just save yourself the money.

Because they figure the extra revenue they'll get from people similar to us who think 'World War Z Movie? Awesome!" will be more than the money they spend optioning the rights.

[Mathim]

Because they figure the extra revenue they'll get from people similar to us who think 'World War Z Movie? Awesome!" will be more than the money they spend optioning the rights.

Who here thinks that? After seeing the trailer, I mean? That could only be a pre-trailer reaction, seriously.

[Shjade]

I dunno, I still think it looks like it could be good. Granted I like the first half of the trailer more than the second (particularly that motorcycle cop just getting SMASHED by "suddenly, truck"), which gives me some hope for capturing that worldwide panic feel, but still.

[Oniya]

I think it looks like an exciting movie, to be honest.  I don't think it looks like 'Max Brooks's World War Z', though.  It's very possible to enjoy both. (Going back to my previous example, I still love both the book and the movie 'Beastmaster'.  The sequels to the book were better than the sequels to the movie, though.)

[Avis habilis]

Ye gods, there were Beastmaster sequels? It ... I ... why?

[TheGlyphstone]

Who here thinks that? After seeing the trailer, I mean? That could only be a pre-trailer reaction, seriously.

By 'similar to us', I meant 'World War Z fans who didn't see the trailer'.

[Oniya]

Ye gods, there were Beastmaster sequels? It ... I ... why?

Beastmaster 2: Through the Portal of Time and Beastmaster, the Eye of Braxus.  This is aside from the TV series.

[Callie Del Noire]

Ye gods, there were Beastmaster sequels? It ... I ... why?

Because there was clearly money to made into direct to video. 

[Mathim]

Beastmaster 2: Through the Portal of Time and Beastmaster, the Eye of Braxus.  This is aside from the TV series.

The TV series? Where the guy carried around a giant plastic bone?

And I meant no one could think it was going to be awesome as an actual depiction of the book. As far as a running-zombie movie, it's got potential but I can't possibly take it as seriously as I otherwise would.

[Shjade]

Given it's a movie about zombies, I wouldn't endorse taking it seriously regardless of the speed of their locomotion.

[Lux12]

Given it's a movie about zombies, I wouldn't endorse taking it seriously regardless of the speed of their locomotion.

...And yet this is what so many people seem so hell bent on doing.

[Mathim]

If that one aspect didn't make all the difference in the world, I would agree. But it does.

[Sabby]

I haven't read the book... mostly because I'm sick to death of zombies and would prefer skeletons or dinosaurs in my apocalypse.

Gimme World War Skelesaurus and I'll be interested.

My only exposure to the book is my friend, who thinks it's highly overrated. Then again, he says Doctor Who is overrated, and I'm literally the only person whose ever seen eye to eye with him on that topic. But he did explain enough of the premise for me to understand just how off the mark this movie looks.

Ignoring that and looking at it as just a movie... eh... I guess it doesn't look terrible. Too CGI heavy, always looks too smooth to be real. The real problem is I just can't get into it :/ the whole premise is a smack in the face I can't help but flinch at, so I can't suspend my disbelief. I see zombies, walking corpses, fighting what looks like a fully geared up and organized military... I don't care what body count they put up on the screen or explanations like "Oh it happened so fast" that just does not compute o.O You can't show a few seconds of jets and choppers carpet bombing zombies with ease and then clip to OMG WHAT DO WE DO WE'RE DOOMED ALL WE HAVE IS CRUISE MISSILES

[Lux12]

I haven't read the book... mostly because I'm sick to death of zombies and would prefer skeletons or dinosaurs in my apocalypse.

Gimme World War Skelesaurus and I'll be interested.

How do you propose a dinopocalypse/skelesaurus apocalypse would even happen?

[Sabby]

Same way most zombie movies happen. Ignore the apocalypse part. It's hard to write :P Apocalypse stories take place AFTER the apocalypse. That's just how it works.

[Lux12]

Same way most zombie movies happen. Ignore the apocalypse part. It's hard to write :P Apocalypse stories take place AFTER the apocalypse. That's just how it works.

I have a feeling you're going to need more than a virus, genetic tampering, or a military weapons program gone wrong to suspend belief there. A warp in reality or sorcery would probably suffice, but I'd have to question why someone would use the grand art to that end,

[Sabby]

Please xD a virus that makes you're flesh fall off and your bones to animate with minimal muscle tissue and brain stem is about as 'believable' as a virus that reactivates your nervous system after death. Only difference is zombies are 'normal', and we're past the stage of even needing a why or how, they just are. And that's fine, it's just not attracting me to the cinemas any more :P

[Lux12]

Please xD a virus that makes you're flesh fall off and your bones to animate with minimal muscle tissue and brain stem is about as 'believable' as a virus that reactivates your nervous system after death. Only difference is zombies are 'normal', and we're past the stage of even needing a why or how, they just are. And that's fine, it's just not attracting me to the cinemas any more :P

Indeed.I've always believed, at least since I began seriously thinking about the whole virus matter, that only a parasite or magic would be plausible, and in the case of zombies, the parasite would only be able to take over the very recently dead and would likely have to do that itself.

[NotoriusBEN]

I haven't read the book... mostly because I'm sick to death of zombies and would prefer skeletons or dinosaurs in my apocalypse.

I can understand the dissatisfaction because of mainstream hype.  I still think you should read the book, though Sabby, regardless of what your friend says.

[Mathim]

The whole thing of WWZ really does go into detail with a lot of stuff. The attempt of using the carpet bombing stuff is described as not having the same effect on the undead as it does on humans so it really makes it feel like our conventional shock and awe stuff is useless and the fear and apprehension that comes with it. And then there's the matter of using the stuff that would work on anything alive or dead having the drawback of being used too late and having the live soldiers right in the thick of it. And the book may not have described the cause in detail but its precursor the Zombie Survival Guide did go into great detail and even named the virus. So the book really covers a lot of bases other apocalyptic zombie stories didn't. And I don't know about it being overrated, it's extremely powerful both in human terms and in being a zombie story. I imagine we're going to lose a lot of the stories of what the soldiers are going through because they'll be too busy running from something that never happened in the book.