Export thread

I was doing my usual death toll counts on CNN when I came across
http://marquee.blogs.cnn.com/2011/08/29/brad-pitt-rescues-world-war-z-extra/?hpt=hp_bn5
and was glad to hear that this is still full-steam ahead in the production dept. I'm still concerned how it will be handled but from what I understood, Brooks has a hand in the development so it should turn out well. I mostly hope it's a documentary style with "memory clips" as they talk about what they went through.

Shegokigo said:

I was doing my usual death toll counts on CNN when I came across
http://marquee.blogs.cnn.com/2011/08/29/brad-pitt-rescues-world-war-z-extra/?hpt=hp_bn5
and was glad to hear that this is still full-steam ahead in the production dept. I'm still concerned how it will be handled but from what I understood, Brooks has a hand in the development so it should turn out well. I mostly hope it's a documentary style with "memory clips" as they talk about what they went through.

Click to expand...

It will be awesome!!

I'm a little worried, since they apparently made major changes to J. Michael Strazinsky's already great script.

That said, it's still World War flipping Z. I'm down for that bad boy like steroids on Hulk Hogan.

It will be....

Nothing like the book.
http://io9.com/5830389/world-war-z-movie-synopsis-is-nothing-like-the-book-internet-melts-down

Eh, I can kinda understand their reasoning for changing it as such. The book is unique for telling it in a series of post-war interviews but something like that would be difficult to translate onto the big screen.

I say, as long as we get the two big battles (the one on the bridge at Yonkers, I think...and the first big winning battle), I'd say we're still golden.

I'm going to do it again. Fair warning. I LIKED WWZ. Okay, that being said, I was also sort of annoyed by the repetitive theme of "I have some perceived disability that helped me survive". Like being physically disabled, or being such a strong woman that in your womanness you are rescued by a vision of the goddess of womanhood. The ordinary Joe seemed to be missing. I also fail to buy Yonkers. I think the headshot word would've spread pretty damn quickly through an organization that trains in communications regularly. All that being said, I would look forward to a movie.

Negative Nancy said:

It will be....

Nothing like the book.
http://io9.com/5830389/world-war-z-movie-synopsis-is-nothing-like-the-book-internet-melts-down

Click to expand...

From the comments: "Sounds to me like this will be the Catwoman of zombie films."

Ouch! But this is sounding really, really bad.
Added at: 10:36

fade said:

I'm going to do it again. Fair warning. I LIKED WWZ. Okay, that being said, I was also sort of annoyed by the repetitive theme of "I have some perceived disability that helped me survive". Like being physically disabled, or being such a strong woman that in your womanness you are rescued by a vision of the goddess of womanhood. The ordinary Joe seemed to be missing.

Click to expand...

When I think back to the book, I don't remember that being as prevalent as you say it is. I remember certain stories revolving around that theme, but I don't think it was repetitive.

I liked World War Z too, though the author obvious doesn't know anything about weaponry, tactics, or combined arms. I was deeply amused when the "useless" 5.56mm selective fire weapons of the current military are replaced by the "magnificent" 5.56mm selective fire weapons, the only difference being the use of incendiary rounds.

I understand that smashing the bones of a zombie's body won't kill or hurt it. But it will damn well immobilize it. Soft tissue injuries are another matter, but you can't tell me that machine-guns are useless against zombies, because they wouldn't be. And I've never seen any zombie fiction that used armored vehicles even close to adequately. Here's a clue - if a reporter or scientist with a bulldozer he isn't trained on, figures out he can just crush the zombies, how long do you think it would take a tank driver to work the same thing out? The old M113 would be fantastic for clearing mobs of zombies in cities. Button them up and keep going forward. It's not like the zombies will be firing RPGs at it.

You realize we're talking about a book/movie about super-natural creatures that don't exist. I understand that he's basing it in our world but those don't seem like nitpicks that would remotely overshadow the amazing storytelling in the novels. He didn't say that machine-guns are useless against zombies, he was "preparing" readers for a constant onslaught and that guns of that calibur/type were not long-term reliable, which they aren't. It's about sustainable survivability, not what can dispatch a zombie or group of zombies once or twice.

Also, tracks are not infallible... enough debris and detritus get pushed into them, then the metal box is immobilized. Doesn't mean so much, until the folks inside have to come out... but still.

Null, I completely agree. Shego, I would normally agree with you, too, except that Brooks takes the time to try to get realistic, so it's almost like all bets are off when it comes to suspension of disbelief. In fact, what Null is complaining about always bothered me about zombie movies, and I LOVE zombie movies. The tactics that seem to beat the zombies in most movies are standard military tactics executed by untrained schmucks, despite the fact that the regular army got beaten using the same (better trained) techniques.

fade said:

Null, I completely agree. Shego, I would normally agree with you, too, except that Brooks takes the time to try to get realistic, so it's almost like all bets are off when it comes to suspension of disbelief. In fact, what Null is complaining about always bothered me about zombie movies, and I LOVE zombie movies. The tactics that seem to beat the zombies in most movies are standard military tactics executed by untrained schmucks, despite the fact that the regular army got beaten using the same (better trained) techniques.

Click to expand...

Yea. I can see both side.
The problem with movies is time limit. you can only tell so much story/stories before you run out of time (which average about 1.5 hours to 3 hours tops!)

Superior firepower will always win IF they are also superior forces

If a zombie break out just started in a town, then the military shouldn't have any issue dispatching them (assuming under 200 or so)
If a city have a zombie break out in the millions, then we have issue cause the military (at the time) may have limited resources until more arrive (bullets, people, weapons, vehicles etc etc)
which part of the scenario above will the movie take?

I do love Zombie Survival guide (I haven't had chance to read WWZ since all my stuff are still packed) and notice that a lot of the stories are small breakout. We haven't had a huge world scale break out. I presume WWZ does cover this.

But how will the movie end? I personally hope it doesn't end with the human "winning" cause if it is a world level epidemic movie, the human will eventually lose unless every single zombie is wiped (which is hard to do if you read the survival guide)

The point is to survive (but it would make a boring movie to most people) I personally gonna wait and see how they are going to do it.

Chibibar said:

If a zombie break out just started in a town, then the military shouldn't have any issue dispatching them (assuming under 200 or so)
If a city have a zombie break out in the millions, then we have issue cause the military (at the time) may have limited resources until more arrive (bullets, people, weapons, vehicles etc etc)
which part of the scenario above will the movie take?

Click to expand...

Actually, in that scenario (a situation where military or CDC containment of a location would be impossible and the consequences of such a failure are lethal), the military is generally authorized to ether level and/or burn down the entire area to prevent further infection. That this didn't happen in the book is probably for narrative reasons or because they didn't have access to large stores of Napalm anymore.

Chibibar said:

But how will the movie end? I personally hope it doesn't end with the human "winning" cause if it is a world level epidemic movie, the human will eventually lose unless every single zombie is wiped (which is hard to do if you read the survival guide)

Click to expand...

I assume the movie will end with a similar ending to the book: Humanity is on the way to winning (or at least managing the zombie problem somewhat), but society is completely changed as a result... and not always for the better. Communities have to be rebuilt to account for Zed, governments have be overthrown, and some countries are still swarming with Zed. It ends on a hopeful note but it's clear that everything might go to shit at anytime and it might not be because of Zed.

fade said:

Null, I completely agree. Shego, I would normally agree with you, too, except that Brooks takes the time to try to get realistic, so it's almost like all bets are off when it comes to suspension of disbelief. In fact, what Null is complaining about always bothered me about zombie movies, and I LOVE zombie movies. The tactics that seem to beat the zombies in most movies are standard military tactics executed by untrained schmucks, despite the fact that the regular army got beaten using the same (better trained) techniques.

Click to expand...

My other point is that so much of the alternate history presented hinges on the failure of conventional military forces, when there's no goddamn reason given why it would. Why was the Battle of Yonkers a massive failure, but company-sized volley-fire works brilliantly? If the civilians aren't an issue, why not use thermobaric weapons to level the entire area? If you're facing a mass of unarmored, unarmed infantry who are only a threat at point-blank range, channeled into a killing zone, what's wrong with using helicopter gunships or automatic grenade launchers? A blind dude with a garden tool is invincible, but the USMC is wiped out?

Shaun of the Dead presents this brilliantly - yes, soldiers are overwhelmed... for a few hours. By the next day, though, soldiers are clearing out neighborhood by neighborhood with relative ease.

Also I'm curious what they'll call this when it comes to Canada. Usually they don't bother to change titles between American and Canadian releases, but I honestly think World War Zee sounds stupid. I'll be ordering my ticket for World War Zed either way.

It'll probably be World War Zed, considering they call them Zeds in the book sometimes.

I always hated "zed". It breaks the pattern of "tee cee dee gee", etc. It's like, "Fuck you, this one's different."

We sing it to a different tune in our public schools so it rhymes (more or less) with M, instead of rhyming with B,C,D,E,G,P,T, and V.
But that aside, in this particular case, I like the finality of "zed". Maybe just because it rhymes with "dead", I dunno.

I was just playing anyway. I work for a British company, and we always have to deal with the "z" dimension because it's depth. We good-naturedly rib each other about it, and about spelling "colours" and "modelling" wrong, etc.

Oh I get it. I do the same to my American friends. You guys and your "Candy bars" and "soda"...

The only reason why it works better as World War "Zee" is because it rhymes better with "World War Three." At least that's how I look at it. There is something to sounding like "World War Dead" I suppose.

That is precisely the argument I have had with the few people I've met who care enough about the book to have an opinion on the matter.

I bet they overlook t and call it World War Zee here. I'm sure in dialogue it'll be World War Zee and not Zed, and its not like Canadian Audiences won't understand the title of the movie if the movie trailer voice says Zee instead of Zed.

Also I just read the synopsis of what this is to be about, and how much it will differ from the book and... I'm actually not sure if I even still want to see it. That sounds kinda boring.

Leaked Footage:

Oh, for...

Tell me they're not doing that running zombie shit. Not doing as a documentary, I can understand but the fact that they were proper, slow-moving ghouls was part of the goddamn impact of the book.

Shegokigo said:

You realize we're talking about a book/movie about super-natural creatures that don't exist...

Click to expand...

FUCK YOU ZOMBIES ARE REAL AND YOU'LL SEE WHEN THEY BITE YOUR HEAD OFF!
*runs away crying*

also without context that clip is the funniest thing I have ever seen.

Biannoshufu said:

FUCK YOU ZOMBIES ARE REAL AND YOU'LL SEE WHEN THEY BITE YOUR HEAD OFF!
*runs away crying*

Click to expand...

I cringed when I saw that. not because zombies scare me but christ that is a bad render.

AshburnerX said:

Leaked Footage:

Click to expand...

I thought Max Brooks was involved in this on some level? Are they just not listening to anything he has to say? Running Zombies? Look, Running Zombies aren't a complete deal breaker for me (Dawn of the Dead remake was actually pretty awesome for what it was, and the zombies are inarguably scarier when they're sprinting full-tilt). But running zombies say to me they aren't paying a whole lot of attention to the source material here.

maybe it's misinformation? "Hey lets shoot a clip that totally screws with the internet and has nothing to do with the real film, and leak that?"

checkeredhat said:

I thought Max Brooks was involved in this on some level? Are they just not listening to anything he has to say? Running Zombies? Look, Running Zombies aren't a complete deal breaker for me (Dawn of the Dead remake was actually pretty awesome for what it was, and the zombies are inarguably scarier when they're sprinting full-tilt). But running zombies say to me they aren't paying a whole lot of attention to the source material here.

Click to expand...

I don't know---I sure want to argue with you. I find the shuffling terrifying because it reinforces the inevitability of eventually getting eaten. Running turns them into more animal-like creatures rather than death-metaphors to me.

fade said:

I don't know---I sure want to argue with you. I find the shuffling terrifying because it reinforces the inevitability of eventually getting eaten. Running turns them into more animal-like creatures rather than death-metaphors to me.

Click to expand...

Let me clarify. I think shuffling zombies are creepier, and definitely have a more lasting, lingering effect, but an undead cannibal sprinting at you is more of an adrenaline rush scare.

In any case, I'd rather avoid both.

On that, I think everyone can agree.

I'm pretty unsure about this movie. On one hand; its clearly deviating from the source material and I really wanted to see that source material interpreted faithfully. On the other, the Dawn of the Dead remake veered well away from Romero's version and although it failed to make any commentary whatsoever, it managed to be a pretty rockin' mindless action-horror flick worth revisiting from time to time. This could be the same...

I'll throw this one out there just in case - is the a 100% guarantee it's from WWZ and not a flashback in The Walking Dead?

checkeredhat said:

On the other, the Dawn of the Dead remake veered well away from Romero's version and although it failed to make any commentary whatsoever, it managed to be a pretty rockin' mindless action-horror flick worth revisiting from time to time. This could be the same...

Click to expand...

But then I can just re-watch the Dawn of the Dead re-make.

If you're going to adapt something for another medium, you need to make an effort to keep as much of what made that original thing great, and the terrifying inevitability that the WWZ zombies have is tied up in their movement and behavior.

Not saying they can't have found some other way, but this makes me doubtful, is all.

That's what I've said about every bad remake that uses just the name of the source material then creates it's own movie. I've never understood the purpose. I mean I get they're trying to get butts in the seats but it's a bait and switch and I'm sick of it.

I think that every time there's a good re-make/re-imagining, someone in a position of hollywood power convinces themselves that all the crappy re-makes were flukes, and this next one is going to do amazing.

The zombies in the Walking Dead don't run. They kinda stumble quickly sometimes, but they don't run like that.
Added at: 01:41

Shegokigo said:

That's what I've said about every bad remake that uses just the name of the source material then creates it's own movie. I've never understood the purpose. I mean I get they're trying to get butts in the seats but it's a bait and switch and I'm sick of it.

Click to expand...

Yeah, I hate that. small changes, okay, I can get behind that. I like to not know exactly what's going to happen next. For example, the changes in Lord of the Rings don't bother me too much, save for the exclusion of the Hobbits saving the Shire at the end, and expanding Arwen's role just because she was the biggest star going in. But I was not one of those people who cried foul at the condensed timeline or the explanation of the Uruk-Hai.

But deviating drastically, so as to alter themes or remove important elements of the story, just change the title. Your ruse is transparent and its aggrevating.
Dawn of the Dead atleast kept the mall part, but still managed to lose the commentary on consumerism, and by removing the human's as real danger, completely missed the point. I never saw the "remake" of Day of the Dead, because they didn't even bother to get the setting right on that one.

Shegokigo said:

That's what I've said about every bad remake that uses just the name of the source material then creates it's own movie. I've never understood the purpose. I mean I get they're trying to get butts in the seats but it's a bait and switch and I'm sick of it.

Click to expand...

For example: Doom.

They had ONE fucking plotline to follow. ONE! Lone space marine battles on Mars as a portal to hell opens up. They could of even had a team of space marines. All you needed was Mars and Hellspawn. That's it. Anything else was fair game. What did they go with? Evil mutant genomic bullshit that makes people into evil zombies (or some shit like that). HOW DO YOU FUCK UP THE ONLY PLOT THAT MAKES UP THE ENTIRETY OF THE SOURCE!?!?!?

Oh man, videogame movies really are the prime example of this. I swear, if they would just actually faithfully adapt a plot driven videogame into a movie rather than alter the storylines completely into something woefully generic.... well that's a rant for another time. *still clings to hope that someone will actually do that one day*

checkeredhat said:

Oh man, videogame movies really are the prime example of this. I swear, if they would just actually faithfully adapt a plot driven videogame into a movie rather than alter the storylines completely into something woefully generic.... well that's a rant for another time. *still clings to hope that someone will actually do that one day*

Click to expand...

I don't get the motivation to do so either. Is it some bullshit artistic twist by directors? They always seem to have to "make it their own." I understand the need to alter some things from the source material of everything, but some things are just horribly "re-imagined".

Mathias said:

I don't get the motivation to do so either. Is it some bullshit artistic twist by directors? They always seem to have to "make it their own." I understand the need to alter some things from the source material of everything, but some things are just horribly "re-imagined".

Click to expand...

I also hate how some makers of video game movies feel the need to make sure everyone know it's from a video game, like references to gamey shit like "Game Over" in Street Fighter or the first-person parts of Doom, or the cutscene-styled exposition bit "Congratulations!" from Silent Hill.

Quotemander Prime said:

I also hate how some makers of video game movies feel the need to make sure everyone know it's from a video game, like references to gamey shit like "Game Over" in Street Fighter or the first-person parts of Doom, or the cutscene-styled exposition bit "Congratulations!" from Silent Hill.

Click to expand...

I don't remember that part.

checkeredhat said:

I don't remember that part.

Click to expand...

Bottom of the hospital, right after she gets past the nurses.

What bothers me most about remakes is just how useless they are. I can count on one hand the number of times the remake was as good or better than the original.

Let Me In was just as good as the Swedish version, since it did some things better (like focusing on the kids more than the neighbours) although the special effects were terrible in the remake.
Some people have said The Departed is better than the original. I've never seen it, so I can't say.

But mostly, they're just terrible. Why not save that money, use a small portion of it to clean up the picture of the original, and just re-release it?

What bothers me more though, are foreign movies remade. Trollhunter, for example, is now getting a remake. Let the Right One In was already a great movie. If people were a little more open minded about movies in another language, we wouldn't need to remake them!

But then there's some that are even in English that are remade, which just makes absolutely no sense to me. Death at a Funeral, for example! A brilliant British comedy that's remade into a generic black comedy. There's talk of an American version of a highly praised Canadian TV show, Little Mosque on the Prairie. Why would they need to remake it?! It's right there in its fifth season! They didn't remake The Trailer Park Boys and that was (I believe) pretty damn popular in the U.S. Popular enough for two movies, at least.

Let Me In was not as good, and did things worse. (opinion)

Quarantine destroyed probably one of the greatest horror movies ever made (*REC)

Psycho remake was shot-for-shot and still horrendous.

Though Charlie's Angels was amazing.

Transition to film is always a mixed bag. Some do damn well (Lord of the Rings/Harry Potter) others are god awful. Games to movies are even worse.

My point? If you're going to make a remake/transition film, stay faithful to the source material or just make something original please?

has anyone put that clip in this thread to the Benny Hill Sax theme yet?

There are more good remakes and adaptations than people readily admit. It's just that there are such terrible ones as well that the good remakes get overshadowed. I agree with what's been said about keeping true to the original, though. If you're going to drastically alter the plot and/or direction of the film, don't bother using the same name.

I've been honestly racking my brain, trying to think of some good remakes.

Ocean's 11.
The Departed.
The Magnificent Seven.
3:10 to Yuma
Little Shop of Horrors
Fistful of Dollars
The Man Who Knew Too Much (may not count, since Hitchcock did them both)
Dawn of the Dead (debatably, if not faithfully)

Not comprehensive, just off the top of my head
Added at: 12:40
heck, Scarface.

Charlie's Angels
Dawn of the Dead
Charlie and the Chocolate Factory
The Thing

are a few of the ones I own.

Dawn of the Dead is VERY debatable. I like it and it's one of the few zombie movies I own, but it still has running zombies, which is an endless debate.

I don't know if I'd call Magnificent Seven or Fistful of Dollars exact remakes. Yeah, they follow a similar story structure to Seven Samurai and Yojimbo respectively, but they're not out-and-out remakes. They're different enough to be considered seperate units.

Scarface was a remake?

ThatNickGuy said:

Dawn of the Dead is VERY debatable. I like it and it's one of the few zombie movies I own, but it still has running zombies, which is an endless debate.

Click to expand...

I'm assuming you mean that change in theme and pacing brought about by the running zombies makes it debatable, not the running zombies themselves. Whether zombies run or not is not the point, it's what running zombies does to the focus and theme of zombie films. Sorry, in a film-geeky mood.

I don't know if I'd call Magnificent Seven or Fistful of Dollars exact remakes. Yeah, they follow a similar story structure to Seven Samurai and Yojimbo respectively, but they're not out-and-out remakes. They're different enough to be considered seperate units.

Click to expand...

FoD fair enough, but Mag7 is very much an explicit remake, they even adapted the original script, not just the story.

Scarface was a remake?

Click to expand...

Very much so.
Added at: 13:54

Shegokigo said:

The Thing

Click to expand...

I didn't see the original, but does this one really count? I've heard it's more a second try at adapting the original novella than a straight re-make. Quibbling, of course.

Great examples posted so far. I would also include True Grit, The Birdcage, The Ring, Invasion of the Body Snatchers, Cape Fear, Father of the Bride, The Italian Job, Fright Night, and Insomnia. So there really are some great remakes, it's just that the bad ones are easier to remember for whatever reason.

I think alot of people confuse "remake" with "transition" film. Transition films are overwhelmingly worse than good.

SpecialKO said:

I'm assuming you mean that change in theme and pacing brought about by the running zombies makes it debatable, not the running zombies themselves. Whether zombies run or not is not the point, it's what running zombies does to the focus and theme of zombie films. Sorry, in a film-geeky mood.

FoD fair enough, but Mag7 is very much an explicit remake, they even adapted the original script, not just the story.

Click to expand...

Ah. So they just changed the names and setting, basically? I stand corrected on that.

As far as running zombies go, I mean the running zombies themselves. I'm a zombie purist and hate running zombies. It takes away the horrific eventuality that, yeah they're slow, but you'll exhaust yourselve. They won't. But let's please not get into that argument again. We've had it multiple, multiple, multiple times on the board.

ThatNickGuy said:

But let's please not get into that argument again. We've had it multiple, multiple, multiple times on the board.

Click to expand...

Well, the last thread about it didn't quite make it to steak-and-wiping territory so...

I liked both Dawns, but they were most definitely different movies. The new dawn, even with my dislike of running zombies, was overall scarier to me (geez, the opening few minutes made me check out the windows), but it lacked the subtlety and the brains (ha!) of the original. Then on the other hand, it kind of has to be a different movie to be worth watching in my opinion.

ThatNickGuy said:

I don't know if I'd call Magnificent Seven or Fistful of Dollars exact remakes. Yeah, they follow a similar story structure to Seven Samurai and Yojimbo respectively, but they're not out-and-out remakes. They're different enough to be considered seperate units.

Click to expand...

I read that Leone admitted he outright was remaking Yojimbo, and just didn't know that he needed permission for that and Kurosowa was quoted as saying something along the lines of "It is a very good movie. But it is MY movie". They were also similar enough that Kurosowa won a lawsuit against Leone, if memory serves.

Good Remakes I can think of:
3:10 to Yuma
True Grit
The Producers
The Lion King

Good Adaptations I can think of:
Captain America
Iron Man
Batman Begins
The Dark Knight
X-Men
X2: X-Men United
The Princess Bride
Lord of the Rings
300
Jurassic Park
Scott Pilgrim vs the World...
Yeah, this list could go on. I mean, I'm mostly sticking within the last 10 years or so. There are a lot. I still think there's 3-4 terrible ones for every good one though. But really, thats actually probably better than Hollywood's overall average.
Added at: 03:16

fade said:

I liked both Dawns, but they were most definitely different movies. The new dawn, even with my dislike of running zombies, was overall scarier to me (geez, the opening few minutes made me check out the windows), but it lacked the subtlety and the brains (ha!) of the original. Then on the other hand, it kind of has to be a different movie to be worth watching in my opinion.

Click to expand...

That's all I was sayin'. haha
Added at: 03:19

SpecialKO said:

Very much so.
Added at: 13:54

Click to expand...

I've never seen the old Scarface, but I knew it existed. We talked about it briefly in my History of World Mafias class (seriously). Didn't actually realize the two movies had anything to do with eachother though. I find it funny that TWO movies have been made called Scarface and neither are about Al Capone.

There are rare occasions where the movie outshines the book, and The Princess Bride is one in my opinion. It's almost unsurprising, given that Goldman was arguably a better screenwriter than a novelist, even by his own admission.

I haven't read the book, but that seems to be the general consensus. The Princess Bride is a fantastic movie though, for sure. I forced my friend to watch it about a month ago, she'd never seen it before and she hates fantasy. She wasn't paying attention at first, but near the end she was asking the same questions the kid in the movie was.

Coraline was a fantastic adaptation.

Animated films have a pretty good record of adaptation really.

Quotemander Prime said:

Coraline was a fantastic adaptation.

Click to expand...

I believe that is because the author, Neil Gaiman, was heavily involved. Generally speaking, the more involved the author is, the better the final product will be.

Wasn't Douglas Adams pretty involved with Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy (I'm not sure how far they were into production before he died though).

Quotemander Prime said:

Bottom of the hospital, right after she gets past the nurses.

Click to expand...

Crap, I have to watch Silent Hill again now don't I?
Dammit....

checkeredhat said:

Crap, I have to watch Silent Hill again now don't I?
Dammit....

Click to expand...

You don't; just take my word for it, or watch Phelous's two or three plothole reviews.

checkeredhat said:

Wasn't Douglas Adams pretty involved with Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy (I'm not sure how far they were into production before he died though).

Click to expand...

I'm pretty sure he was dead way before it ever actually went into production. I know he was pretty heavily involved in the script writing though... and he intentionally changed a lot of stuff because he liked to make each adaption a bit different. This is why the radio plays are different from the book, which is different from the movie.

Quotemander Prime said:

You don't; just take my word for it, or watch Phelous's two or three plothole reviews.

Click to expand...

I made it 7minutes into that review. That was a worse experience than watching the movie itself was. Yeeesh.

Aw, the Silent Hill movie was bad? I never got around to watching it. Those were some of my favorite games. I love the combo of horror+engaging story+puzzles. The creepy graphics in SH2 were really good, too. Best use of fog effects in a game ever. And radio static makes the pants-crappingest monster radar. Whoever thought of that should get a medal.

fade said:

Aw, the Silent Hill movie was bad? I never got around to watching it. Those were some of my favorite games. I love the combo of horror+engaging story+puzzles. The creepy graphics in SH2 were really good, too. Best use of fog effects in a game ever. And radio static makes the pants-crappingest monster radar. Whoever thought of that should get a medal.

Click to expand...

It's only bad if you've played the games and know they fucked up the story. If you haven't played them then it's decent.

It was probably the best videogame movie made so far. But that isn't saying much. I also am well aware, even though I never played the game, that it changes a lot of things from the game for no reason whatsoever, so back to our previous off-topic topic, its still a pretty lousy adaptation.
Added at: 22:14

AshburnerX said:

It's only bad if you've played the games and know they fucked up the story. If you haven't played them then it's decent.

Click to expand...

Yeah, this. Not really good. But decent. I have absolutely no urge to ever watch it again, but I didn't mind it too much watching it once in the theatre. (I had to see it in theatres. My girlfriend at the time was heavily into horror movies).

AshburnerX said:

It's only bad if you've played the games and know they fucked up the story. If you haven't played them then it's decent.

Click to expand...

I hadn't played the games before watching the movie and I had/have no problem with the story changes. Ignoring the load of plot holes, the movie has narrative problems in that Rose goes through trying to figure things out and never actually does, with it all just being explained like a video game cutscene near the end, and that in all but one tense situation, the movie itself goes "well, that's enough" and the threat just vanishes into thin air.


It's not terrible, but it's not good either. It looks nice, but the actual story is middle of the road and nothing special. They could've done much better.

That's a shame, given the source they had to work from.

As much as I love Sean Bean (and it's an unhealthy amount), his subplot in the movie was entirely unnecessary and just ate up screen time that didn't need to wasted.

The filmmakers would agree with you. The original movie (or was it the script?) didn't even have Bean's side-plot. But the higher-ups said the movie needed a male character in there somewhere.
Added at: 16:03
Personally, I liked the first half of Silent Hill, before the cult came into play. It was creepy, moody, and fun. Then it became a totally different movie in the second half. I haven't seen it since seeing it once in theatres, but I still liked it, overall. It's not terrible, by any means.

Didn't know about this book and I just added to my next Amazon shopping spree. Should I bother to read this thread or has it been ruined by carelessly placed spoilers?

Jay said:

Didn't know about this book and I just added to my next Amazon shopping spree. Should I bother to read this thread or has it been ruined by carelessly placed spoilers?

Click to expand...

The entire book is ruined by it's very premise: It's a documentary style take on a global zombie outbreak, detailing personal accounts of people who survived and what they did during various stages of outbreak. The fact that all of the people involved are able to tell you their stories pretty much solidifies that they lived.

It's still a great read though.

It's a quick, enjoyable read.

AshburnerX said:

The entire book is ruined by it's very premise: It's a documentary style take on a global zombie outbreak, detailing personal accounts of people who survived and what they did during various stages of outbreak. The fact that all of the people involved are able to tell you their stories pretty much solidifies that they lived.

It's still a great read though.

Click to expand...

That's one of the things that really makes it a great read, IMO. We basically know going in what the deal is, but the human element, and background info, and the Max Brook's mostly excellent choice of narrative voice make it really enjoyable anyway.

Except for the part where the zombies break into the interview studio at the end and eat all the main characters. SPOILER ALERT.

You must have really misinterpreted the epilogue. That was a dream he had while he was unconcious after he crashed the truck into that sasquatch.

It was really all a dream Brooks was having after he killed himself back in Vietnam after he found out that his female sergeant was only a sled with his wiener tucked between his legs, and K-Rations were people.

I'm not sure what's happening, but I approve.

fade said:

It was really all a dream Brooks was having after he killed himself back in Vietnam after he found out that his female sergeant was only a sled with his wiener tucked between his legs, and K-Rations were people.

Click to expand...

Oh,is that what that was all about? That part confused me, cause that was like halfway through the book, and after that he still went on to team up with Robbie Burns and Emilia Earhardt to fight the zombie martians.
I think I get it now though.

Trailer of this movie is too good. I am sure this movie will be one of the best movie of 2013. I am waiting for this movie.

Jamesdawn said:

Trailer of this movie is too good. I am sure this movie will be one of the best movie of 2013. I am waiting for this movie.

Click to expand...

Jamesdawn said:

Trailer of this movie is too good. I am sure this movie will be one of the best movie of 2013. I am waiting for this movie.

Click to expand...

I'm giving you a five-minute headstart...

Jamesdawn said:

Trailer of this movie is too good. I am sure this movie will be one of the best movie of 2013. I am waiting for this movie.

Click to expand...

It is not too late to create a new user account.

You guys do realize that that guy is a totally bogus account, right?

Bowielee said:

You guys do realize that that guy is a totally bogus account, right?

Click to expand...

Yep.

However seeing this thread get bumped and who started it, I for a second though -Oh hell no, she doesn't call/contact me for as long as it's been and then posts here? Bullshit!-

Jay said:

Didn't know about this book and I just added to my next Amazon shopping spree. Should I bother to read this thread or has it been ruined by carelessly placed spoilers?

Click to expand...

While you're at it, get the Zombie Survival Guide. Brooks wrote that one too. It's more tongue in cheek and you can definitely tell he's Mel Brooks' son.

IronBrig4 said:

While you're at it, get the Zombie Survival Guide. Brooks wrote that one too. It's more tongue in cheek and you can definitely tell he's Mel Brooks' son.

Click to expand...

You got Necrod.

North_Ranger said:

I'm giving you a five-minute headstart...

Click to expand...

Won't help when he gets swept up in the zoooombie waaave!

Come on, everybody. Surf's up!

Quotemander Prime said:

Won't help when he gets swept up in the zoooombie waaave!

Come on, everybody. Surf's up!

Click to expand...

But Charlie Don't Surf, so he's totally gonna die!