World War Z Trailer - UGH



I was honestly excited for this movie...until watching this trailer. Yeah, it looks epic and action packed and all that...

...but they're doing it with fast zombies. Seriously, Hollywood? Seriously? Half the point of the novel was that they weren't fast zombies, but slow and shambling. Hell, there were entire passages about why it was important that they were slow and shambling.

Fuck you, Hollywood. Fuck you.
 
A zombie movie that leaves somebody dissatisfied? Can that happen?
I don't know. This isn't like removing Tom Bombidil, a bit character who didn't really serve much for the overall plot, from Lord of the Rings. Half the reason that WWZ worked so well is because Brooks worked with the idea of slow zombies to tell the story. Like the final battle, where the soldiers have single-shot rifles and told to take their time lining their shots because the zoms aren't in any hurry. That's a MAJOR part of the book. Hell, there was an entire chapter about how the first military strike, which was all bombastic, hellfire and brimstone (much like the action in this trailer) failed miserably.
 
I haven't read World War Z, but as I understand it the book's about a variety of perspectives into a global zombie apocalypse. How'd they manage to turn that into a story about one man and his family?
 
I haven't read World War Z, but as I understand it the book's about a variety of perspectives into a global zombie apocalypse. How'd they manage to turn that into a story about one man and his family?
I read somewhere that Pitt's character is actually one of the characters interviewed in the book. A military man. And some of the best - certainly the most action packed - chapters came from that character. I figured that was the way they were going to go with the movie. Just...not like this.
 
Looks interesting enough but I'm not watching that in theaters. Read the books, enjoyed them immensely and like others, fast zombies? Not for me as the concept worked well in the books maybe not so much as a movie?

I'll watch it once it's on Netflix or something.

Also GG on showing us half the storyline in the preview.
 
I really, really enjoyed the vignette style of the book and some of the character stories, as well as action sets like the Battle of Yonkers would have made for a pretty derivative zombie movie. Instead we have the prequel to I Am Legend, without Will Smith. Ugh.[DOUBLEPOST=1352431458][/DOUBLEPOST]Also... BWAHHHHHHH *horn sound*

Action Cut

BWAHHHHHHHH *horn sound*

Action Cut

BWAHHHHHHHH *horn sound*

Action Cut
 
I really, really enjoyed the vignette style of the book and some of the character stories, as well as action sets like the Battle of Yonkers would have made for a pretty derivative zombie movie. Instead we have the prequel to I Am Legend, without Will Smith. Ugh.[DOUBLEPOST=1352431458][/DOUBLEPOST]Also... BWAHHHHHHH *horn sound*

Action Cut

BWAHHHHHHHH *horn sound*

Action Cut

BWAHHHHHHHH *horn sound*

Action Cut
And then BWAHHHHHHHH *horn sound*

Ending logo

BWAHHHHHHHH *horn sound*
BWAHHHHHHHH *horn sound*
BWAHHHHHHHH *horn sound*
 
That looked TERRIBLE. Hopefully this will signal the end of the over-saturated zombie genre.

EDIT: Okay, I took a moment to ponder the trailer a bit more. As a book adaptation, it's complete shit. It's a terrible departure from a great book. However, if you remove the source material from the equation, this looks like a serviceable action flick. It's something I'll watch on Netflix or a movie channel here at my home, but I don't see myself spending the money on a movie ticket.
 
Somehow they turned poignant stories about people surviving a disastrous plague into Independence Day: Zombie Edition. That's fine, I guess. The movie doesn't have to be like the book. But I already saw Independence Day.
 
After some quick research, I found two interesting tidbits:

1) Max Brooks has zero involvement with this film beyond selling the rights to his book. He had no creative input whatsoever.

2) The original script, which reportedly was amazing, was very faithful to the source material. It was described as having a Children of Men feel to it as it followed a journalist speaking to survivors, gathering their stories, and pondering the meaning of life and civilization after the war. One person who read the first script reportedly implied the film would be in the running for a Best Picture Academy Award.

The studio heard about this and shit all over it.

So this is the new, completely re-written script we're seeing. The studio wanted more action that followed a singular strong character, and this is what we got. They seem to think it's going to be a huge megahit, as indicated by the prime June 21st release date. And you know what? They're probably correct. It sounds like they knowingly traded an Oscar-worthy film with a deep story for an explosion-riddled popcorn flick that would make them more cash. I can't blame them, though I can bemoan the fact they didn't want to try for both.
 
Maybe they're banking on the "World War Z" name drawing in crowds. Trying to replicate the success of the Hunger Games and Twilight.
 
So basically as usual, we have to judge it 100% on it's own merits and completely forget the source material. Typical Hollywood translation I suppose.
 
I never finished World War Z. Had the book but left it at a friends place and never got it back.

That said, I don't have much to base this off of source wise but I am interested. Mainly to see the way the hoard functions. Looks very flowy, like water, or as QP said, a swarm of ants. And, while, zombies are tired and played out, even fast zombies, that behavior isn't something I've ever seen handled before. At least not in the volume that is being suggested by those brief moments.

Did the original version, with the travelling reporter, garner more intrest from me? Yeah. Does it suck the source is seemingly being butchered for the name alone? Definitely and for those that were looking for something closer to it, that's gotta sting. I'll still probably see this though. It helps I get free movies but I would undoubtedly pay for this one if I absolutely had to. 28 days later is my favourite of the genre, while not technically zombies, and so far this feels like that, albeit if Jim had been around in the first days of it and the outbreak wasn't localized to the UK.
 
I own the book but I haven't found time to read it yet. Honestly? This looks like a fun action blockbuster type movie that somehow got the name of a book it has almost nothing in common with.
 
I think it looks good. I haven't read the book though.
Then again I enjoyed I, Robot so take it with a grain of salt.
 
You know what other movie used a license and had almost zero to do with the source material?

Dungeons & Dragons.

Yeah.
The same also applies to "How to Train Your Dragon." Same names, nothing else, and everyone loves the shit out of that movie. So... it can (rarely) go both ways.
 
I actually didn't know How to Train Your Dragon was based off a book. Interesting.

Personally, I would have loved to see WWZ made as a sort of documentary, to preserve the narrative and format of the book. As each new person is interviewed, they become the narrator for whatever story is now being played out. It's sad to see something that was so compelling on page turned into another Michael Bay/loud noises kind of movie.
 
I actually didn't know How to Train Your Dragon was based off a book. Interesting.
It's actually (loosely) based off a series of books. You could barely call them connected really. The books are...

- How to Train your Dragon
- How to be a Pirate
- How to Speak Dragonese
- How to Cheat a Dragon's Curse
- How to Twist a Dragon's Tail
- A Hero's Guide to Deadly Dragons
- How to Ride a Dragon's Storm
- How to Break a Dragon's Heart
- How to Steal a Dragon's Sword
- How to Seize a Dragon's Jewel

It also has a short story called The Day of the Dreader and the novel How to Train your Viking, which is told from Toothless' perspective.
 

GasBandit

Staff member
That's too bad. I would have liked to have seen the movie as written by J Michael Straczynski. ... did I spell that right?
 
Top