[Trailer] World War Z

[NewJeffCT]

Yeah.

http://io9.com/5830389/world-war-z-movie-synopsis-is-nothing-like-the-book-internet-melts-down
http://www.avclub.com/articles/world-war-z-synopsis-suggests-movie-may-approach-d,60344/
http://www.avclub.com/articles/world-war-z,88539/

Hollywood gives a big middle finger to fans of the book, no surprise.

Interesting - I thought I remember a few years back, the original treatment got good reviews. But, that was maybe 3 years ago?

And, I don't mind that they changed the book to be happening in real time. What I don't like is if they make it Brad Pitt saves the world... the book was different than the typical zombie drama in that it had interesting characters from all over the world.

There is no reason why they can't start off with the scenes in China at the start, and then move to the various places around the world. It wont' be a Brad Pitt vehicle, but it could have a great ensemble cast held together by the actors playing the president & VP, possibly?

 

[Grimmjow]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=HcwTxRuq-uk

Nothing like the book, it seems..

the book takes place after the war. Nothing wrong with the movie taking place during the are.

 

[Nytmare]

Let me be 100% clear: I don't think anyone here is questioning their legal right to do this. So, please, don't misstate our opinions, and take that off the table.

This isn't abut what they can do. It is about what they *should* do.

To continue being 100% clear, the only opinions I am disagreeing with in this thread are the ones where people think the movie looks good, and the one where you say that "it is not fine and dandy" for them to make the film. Before I get lumped into an unfair "you are telling us that we are wrong" I am telling you that I do not agree with you.

I'm not arguing for their legal rights, I am arguing for whatever combination of business and/or artistic decisions lead them to think that they were making changes for the better.

If you don't have that, and the swarm of unfortunate mistakes that come with it, you also don't have the successes like Jaws, or High and Low, or Full Metal Jacket.

 

[Umbran]

I'm not arguing for their legal rights, I am arguing for whatever combination of business and/or artistic decisions lead them to think that they were making changes for the better.

Ah. Well, you used the word "right", which doesn't say that at all to me.

Personally, I still think of this as bait-and-switch (which, in other venues, is actually illegal). They use the name of a bestselling story, and then give you drek that was never intended to be an adaptation of that story.

 

[Nellisir]

... and then give you drek that was never intended to be an adaptation of that story.

Well, if you've seen it, how about a more complete review?

 

[NewJeffCT]

Well, if you've seen it, how about a more complete review?

I think he was speaking in general terms of movies that bear little resemblance to the books they were supposedly based upon.

 

[Remus Lupin]

The book could have been a great jumping off point for the kind of huge ensemble cast epic disaster movie that they used to make all the time in the 70s, but seems to have become unfashionable.

I would love to see a great director take on an Erwin Allen style approach to the Zombie apocalypse, and WWZ would have been the perfect text to do that with -- establish your characters in the first 1/2, then an hour of all hell breaking loose, followed by another hour to and hour and a half of the heroes fighting back on a global scale to push back the zombie hordes.

Oh well, my Erwin Allen does the zombies dream will have to wait.

 

[Bullgrit]

Coincidentally, I am reading WWZ right now for the third time. When I saw this thread, I thought, Oh Hell yes! Then I just watched the trailer, and I'm all WTF!?

That. . . that's not WWZ. Like others above think, and like Umbran said so well, this is a bait and switch. A movie of the actual book could be fantastic. I don't expect I'll bother seeing this movie. As much as I like ZA movies (and I really do), it annoys me greatly when movie makers take a great book and rip out the pages and put a different story in the cover. Starship Troopers, I'm looking at you.

Bullgrit

 

[Aaron L]

Undead Zombies vs Biological Zombies (But No P-Zombies, Please.)

Yes, another Starship Troopers or I, Robot. (Although I actually really liked Starship Troopers for what it was, as parody of that kind of jingoistic 50's sci-fi movies, it wasn't an adaptation of the book.)

This just looks to be horrendously bad, and a huge slap in the face to any fans of the book. "Hey, let's take an innovative and interesting book and turn it into yet another generic 'lone hero (American of course!) saves the world' story, but this time with zombies'" I can just imagine the reasons the movie went through so many writers, with the execs in charge calling for "more action and less talking!" and the intelligence level of the script dropping with every rewrite.

Now this is somewhat of a tangent, and I fully admit that this is purely a personal preference, but I absolutely loathe the entire "zombie virus" and biological zombie concept that has plagued horror fiction the past decade or so. I have gotten really sick of zombies being the result of some kind of "virus", and unfortunately even this otherwise excellent book suffers from this idea.

I really hate the whole concept of biological zombies. (P-Zombies are a whole other ball of wax, although I despise the concept of them, too.)

Is anyone else getting tired of this trend? To my thinking it's just so writers can have zombies that can be "cured" by the hero and therefore make a zombie story with a happier ending than what a proper horror story would demand; it's kind of like science-fiction is trying to steal zombies away from horror. I just don't like it. I like my zombies to be undead, supernatural abominations. The way God intended!

 

[Aaron L]

Though I loved both the book and the audio book, I can't agree with the idea that the people who payed for and own the rights to the title don't have the right to royally screw the pooch with it.

I mean, it's Hollywood, and a bunch of creative types who are all vying to one up the last guy who had his hands in the pot.

As Umbran said, it's a blatant bait-and-switch. If I saw that a movie titled The Shadow Over Innsmouth was playing in my local theatre, I should be able to go in to see it and reasonably expect the movie to bear a very large resemblance to the book. If, however, I walked in and watched the movie only to discover that it was actually about a man named Hank Innsmouth and his large-breasted female companion fighting hordes of fish-men in the ruins of an ancient alien city in the mountains of Antarctica, it would not be unreasonable of me to quite upset. And I should not then be told that it was wrong of me assume the movie would be anything like the original book simply because the producers of the movie legally paid for the right to use the title.

This movie is no different.

(Even though the movie I described does sound like it'd be pretty rad.)