# [Trailer] World War Z



## Krug (Nov 9, 2012)

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

Nothing like the book, it seems..


----------



## Silverblade The Ench (Nov 9, 2012)

this movie should be renamed

*Straffing Neds In Glasgow With Cannons and Napalm*

_I heartily approve of this!! _

(those familiar with the city of Glasgow will know EXACTLY what I mean when waching the video, lol!)


----------



## Nellisir (Nov 9, 2012)

Looks cool.


----------



## Bungus (Nov 10, 2012)

big change from the books, where the zombies were the slow, lumbering types you saw in Night of the Living Dead and its sequels or the somewhat faster lumbering zombies from The Walking Dead.  This is more like 28 Days Later/I Am Legend... in fact, one of the scenes reminded me of 28 Weeks Later.

Looks pretty intense, but how close is the rest of the plot to the book?


----------



## frankthedm (Nov 10, 2012)

Uhg, fast zombies. That wrecks a few things from the book to say the least.


----------



## Umbran (Nov 10, 2012)

It is fine and dandy to make a zombie apocalypse movie.  

It is not fine and dandy to use the tile of an excellent book, and then make a movie that bears no real resemblance to the book, and slap the title on it.

I fully understand that some things usually have to change when adapting from one medium to another.  But tossing out the entire plot and concept is rather much.  

I am less than impressed.


----------



## Mercutio01 (Nov 10, 2012)

Umbran said:


> It is fine and dandy to make a zombie apocalypse movie.
> 
> It is not fine and dandy to use the tile of an excellent book, and then make a movie that bears no real resemblance to the book, and slap the title on it.
> 
> ...




This, exactly.

I said it in a Facebook discussion with a friend, but it appears that the filmmakers bought the rights with the sole intent of stealing the title, knowing full well that their film had nothing whatsoever to do with the source material.


----------



## Morrus (Nov 10, 2012)

I'm not familiar with the book.  Based on the trailer alone - I like the "waves of zombies" idea.


----------



## Nellisir (Nov 10, 2012)

Morrus said:


> I'm not familiar with the book.  Based on the trailer alone - I like the "waves of zombies" idea.




I read the book and promptly forgot it again.  Make of that what you will.


----------



## Umbran (Nov 10, 2012)

Morrus said:


> I'm not familiar with the book.




I find it to be an excellent work, and would recommend it.  

It is *not* a "one man trying to find the cure" story.  No spoilers, as you learn this in the first chapter of the book:  It is more like a documentary.  After the zombie apocalypse, the UN sends someone to gather the stories of the events, which are then all told to you in the voice of the people who lived it.  Not all these stories are central to winning the war, but all seem, at least to me, to be intensely human stories.


----------



## NewJeffCT (Nov 11, 2012)

Umbran said:


> I find it to be an excellent work, and would recommend it.
> 
> It is *not* a "one man trying to find the cure" story.  No spoilers, as you learn this in the first chapter of the book:  It is more like a documentary.  After the zombie apocalypse, the UN sends someone to gather the stories of the events, which are then all told to you in the voice of the people who lived it.  Not all these stories are central to winning the war, but all seem, at least to me, to be intensely human stories.




I'd also recommend the audiobook afterwards - since the author is the son of Mel Brooks & Anne Bancroft, he got an all-star cast to read the various chapters in the books:  Alan Alda, John Turturro, Mark Hamill, Jurgen Prochnow, Carl & Rob Reiner, Henry Rollins and several others.  Unfortunately, the version I have on audiobook is an abridged version.  (OK, none of them are A-List stars now, but for an audiobook, they're big)


----------



## Kaodi (Nov 11, 2012)

Honestly... Not really thrilled by the trailer. Fast zombies are great, but these things are more like geometrically challenged millipede zombies. They just do not move _believably_...


----------



## Umbran (Nov 11, 2012)

NewJeffCT said:


> I'd also recommend the audiobook afterwards...




Seconded.  It isn't just a standard audiobook reading, it has aspects of... an audio or radioplay production of the book.  It is abridged, but I don't end up minding that - they made their choices wisely.


----------



## darjr (Nov 11, 2012)

I loved that book. I was really looking forward to it's take on the zombie apocalypse on the big screen, it was rather unique. The movie, while I'm looking forward to it, and it might be good/cool, I also don't like that they basically just took the title.


----------



## humble minion (Nov 11, 2012)

Fast vs slow zombies seems to be the issue that's getting everyone steamed up in the comments on the youtube trailer (I actually thought those sequences were impressive, actually), but what stands out to me the most (judging horribly prematurely from 2 mins footage as I am...) is that it seems to have thrown out the multi-character viewpoint, quasi-doco stuff completely in favour of a very conventional Brad Pitt Saves His Disneylike Family (And The World In The Process) In A Manly Manner.  Which would imho completely miss the point of the book - but from what I hear the film has gone through so damn many script rewrites any resemblance to the book may well have vanished 7 drafts and 4 scriptwriters ago.

I hope I'm wrong on this one.  I loved the book, but it was the breadth of viewpoints that made it work.  Narrowing the focus to and providing a single hero who saves the day (the book was a paean to the virtues of collective action) would really take away from what made WWZ unique, imho.


----------



## NewJeffCT (Nov 11, 2012)

Agreed - I liked the vast international scope of the book.  It was a lot different than most zombie apocalypse stories that focused on one rag-tag band of survivors.

The book was written in 2005 or 2006, if I recall, and the president and vice-president were a thinly veiled Colin Powell and Howard Dean (the Whacko in the book), who ran on a bipartisan unity ticket.  I wonder if they'll keep that aspect of it?


----------



## delericho (Nov 11, 2012)

It was rather surreal seeing recognisable parts of Glasgow city centre made up to pretend to be the US. Is this what most films are like for residents of LA/NY/etc?

Other than that, the trailer seemed quite underwhelming.


----------



## Nytmare (Nov 11, 2012)

Umbran said:


> It is not fine and dandy to use the tile of an excellent book, and then make a movie that bears no real resemblance to the book, and slap the title on it.




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.

I'm also in the boat with the people who think that the cgi'd hordes looked horribly outdated.  The concept is neat, but I don't think they were rendered well.


----------



## Umbran (Nov 11, 2012)

Nytmare said:


> 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.




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.


----------



## frankthedm (Nov 11, 2012)

Mercutio01 said:


> it appears that the filmmakers bought the rights with the sole intent of stealing the title, knowing full well that their film had nothing whatsoever to do with the source material.



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.


----------



## NewJeffCT (Nov 11, 2012)

frankthedm said:


> 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/
> ...




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 (Nov 11, 2012)

Krug said:


> 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 (Nov 11, 2012)

Umbran said:


> 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 (Nov 11, 2012)

Nytmare said:


> 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 (Nov 12, 2012)

Umbran said:


> ... 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 (Nov 12, 2012)

Nellisir said:


> 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 (Nov 12, 2012)

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 (Nov 12, 2012)

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 (Nov 14, 2012)

*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 (Nov 14, 2012)

Nytmare said:


> 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.)


----------



## Richards (Nov 14, 2012)

Aaron L said:


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



P-Zombies?  I'm unfamiliar with this term.  Pseudonatural zombies?  Plague zombies?

Johnathan


----------



## Aaron L (Nov 14, 2012)

Richards said:


> P-Zombies?  I'm unfamiliar with this term.  Pseudonatural zombies?  Plague zombies?
> 
> Johnathan




Philosophical Zombies.  A human body which is not sentient, not sapient, and doesn't experience consciousness, but acts like it does, and with no way to tell that it isn't really a person with conscious experience.  It's a concept that's gotten kinda popular to discuss in the circles of philosophy and artificial intelligence (and in the philosophy OF artificial intelligence.)  It's used by some philosophers in thought experiments to debate whether consciousness is a physical function of the body/brain, or it exists on a separate, metaphysical level.  It is used to debate whether it is even logically possible to exist or not.  It... can get really esoteric and bizarre.  

It's basically just a fancy term for a person who doesn't have a soul, but who you can't in any way DETERMINE doesn't have a soul.

I sometimes imagine panels of Wizards, Clerics, and Psionicists debating the topic.  It makes it more fun.   The debate would, of course, be based on Knowledge: Arcana, Knowledge: The Planes, and Knowledge: Religion.  

Remember that episode of ST: TNG where they put Data on trial to determine if he had legal rights, or was just a machine and therefore the property of Starfleet?  That's pretty much the debate in a nutshell.

I'm of the opinion that it is not logically possible, and is a completely ridiculous and inane concept.  But it does have some possible consequences for future developments in artificial intelligence.  It's like debating whether or not an artificially intelligent computer with the same discernible level of intelligence as a human (if/when we ever get there) would have rights as a person or not.  

The people who argue for the existence of P-Zombies say no, because the computer wouldn't actually have conscious experience on the "metaphysical" level, and therefore wouldn't really be conscious, even though it seemed like it did in every way.  I believe that if a computer acted in every way like it was conscious, and there was no possible way to determine that it did not have consciousness, than it IS conscious. 

The whole concept is a bizarre mixture of very important/inconsequential/fascinating/frustrating and stupid.  Like a lot of philosophy.  That's what makes it so fun.

At one point I thought about trying to figure out the Pathfinder stats of a P-Zombie, wondering what effect lacking metaphysical consciousness (or a soul) would have.  I remembered the kir-lanan from the Forgotten Realms, which were beings that didn't have souls, and considered making P-Zombies immune to divine magic, or at least having very high resistance.  But then I realized that _that_ in itself would be a way to distinguish the P-Zombie, so that idea wouldn't work.  Then I wondered if even the gods could determine a P-Zombie, and what implications that might have!  And then I considered that maybe I was thinking about the whole thing too much. 

I came to the conclusion that, in D20, if there isn't a measurable difference you can define with stats, then there _is_ no difference; just like in real life.


----------



## jonesy (Nov 14, 2012)

So.. would Kzinti females or the devolved humans from Planet of the Apes be considered p-zombies according to the thought experiment or not? How about the rage victims from 28 Days Later, or WH40K Jokaero?

Edit:
Hang on, the experiment says there would be no way at all to say whether it was sentient or not? None? If I'm understanding it correctly then the classic Jokaero would fit, but none of the others. And in reality, yeah it's loony.


----------



## Remus Lupin (Nov 14, 2012)

Seems like a Turing test would solve the P-zombie issue fairly readily: If there is no way to determine whether something is sentient or not, but it acts sentient, then for any practical purpose, it IS sentient.


----------

