# World War Z



## Water Bob (Jun 25, 2013)

Wow, no thread for this one yet?  

I LOVED it.  It's the best zombie film I've ever seen.


----------



## Umbran (Jun 25, 2013)

As a fan of the book, which even from the previews I can tell this movie does not resemble in any meaningful way, I am rather uninterested in the film.


----------



## Morrus (Jun 25, 2013)

Umbran said:


> As a fan of the book, which even from the previews I can tell this movie does not resemble in any meaningful way, I am rather uninterested in the film.




Does that matter?  (Well, to you it does, as you've stated; I just view it as a zombie movie which happen to have the same title).

I'm bored of zombies though.


----------



## darjr (Jun 25, 2013)

Morrus said:


> Does that matter?  (Well, to you it does, as you've stated; I just view it as a zombie movie which happen to have the same title).
> 
> I'm bored of zombies though.




For me the very best part of the book were the characters, not the zombies. I wanted to see them on the big screen. Mark me disappointed about that. I want to see the movie on it's own merits, however.


----------



## Umbran (Jun 25, 2013)

Morrus said:


> Does that matter?




Yeah, it kind of does.  Whether or not it is technically legal, what they're doing is basically false advertising, or bait-and-switch.  There's a level of change that's necessary when you transit from one medium to another - tossing out the entire format, plot, and style is well beyond that.  I wanted to see a movie of the original book, and this isn't it, and this pretty much means what I want will not be made in the next decade or two, if ever.

If you have a zombie movie, that's great.  But don't go telling the viewers it is something that it isn't.  Not only is it kind of jerkish to the fans of the book, it gives those who haven't read the book a false impression of the original work.  

And for those wise-guys who might try to analogize to D&D editions, that fails in one major point:  The people who make D&D are up-front that a new edition isn't the same as the old.


----------



## Morrus (Jun 25, 2013)

Umbran said:


> Yeah, it kind of does.  Whether or not it is technically legal, what they're doing is basically false advertising, or bait-and-switch.




Hmm?  I thought you said that you could - and did - tell it wasn't the book from the previews?   To me that's the opposite of false advertising!


----------



## Bullgrit (Jun 25, 2013)

What if someone made a movie titled _ENWorld_. Here's the trailer: 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lB95KLmpLR4

I hear it's a good movie. It's about an online social network, just like ENWorld is an online social network. But is it ENWorld? Why is it titled _ENWorld_?

Imagine if Hollywood did this with _Lord of the Rings, The Watchmen, Starship Troopers_? (Oh, wait, they *did* do it with _Starship Troopers_.)

* * *

If the trailer had shown this movie was at least a nod in the direction of the book, I'd go see it opening night. But the trailer shows the story is completely unrelated to the book, so I'll have to hear some really good reviews to get me to go see it. Reviews good enough to convince me it's worth the time and money, and good enough to overcome the sour taste using the title but tossing the story leaves in my mouth.

Bullgrit


----------



## Umbran (Jun 25, 2013)

Morrus said:


> Hmm?  I thought you said that you could - and did - tell it wasn't the book from the previews?   To me that's the opposite of false advertising!




Note that "previews" to me means more than just the trailers.  In previews, I include much more of the press coverage.  As a fan of the book, I looked a bit deeper into what the film would be like.  I was excited when I was told that JMS was writing the screenplay, for example.  My expectations dropped significantly as time and reportage went on.

The trailers don't make it clear that the two don't really share plot or characters or style.  But trailers alone don't normally tell you much more than visual style and a bit about quality of effects, so that is unsurprising.

Part of my issue is this:  while I like apocalyptic fiction, and I really like World War Z, I'm not a zombie-movie aficionado.  If they re-titled the movie, I'd have nothing against it, but I'd have nothing for it, either.  I'd watch it when it came around on Netflix, or something, maybe eventually.


----------



## Morrus (Jun 25, 2013)

Bullgrit said:


> What if someone made a movie titled _ENWorld_. Here's the trailer:
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lB95KLmpLR4




I'd be upset that they were infringing on my IP.  Unless I'd given them permission, in which case I wouldn't.  I assume the author of WWZ is happy, and they haven't stolen the title from him.  But IP infringement is something else entirely.


----------



## Bullgrit (Jun 25, 2013)

Even if they paid you for the title/IP, you wouldn't feel the resulting movie was misrepresenting? Would the members of ENWorld feel the movie was misrepresenting the site? Would people visiting the site because they liked the movie feel things were misrepresented?

That's the thing that annoys me about this movie (so far unseen beyond the trailer). Why use the book title if the movie has nothing to do with the book other than "zombies"? 

Bullgrit


----------



## darjr (Jun 25, 2013)

From what I've read the movie may have been very much like the book initially.


----------



## Morrus (Jun 25, 2013)

Bullgrit said:


> Even if they paid you for the title/IP, you wouldn't feel the resulting movie was misrepresenting?




It's a hypothetical, obviously, but I wouldn't sell the rights if I felt that way.    I can't speak for the author of WWZ, but presumably he was happy to do so.


----------



## Bullgrit (Jun 25, 2013)

Morrus said:
			
		

> It's a hypothetical, obviously, but I wouldn't sell the rights if I felt that way. I can't speak for the author of WWZ, but presumably he was happy to do so.



I don't think whether Max Brooks is happy or not with the movie is an issue. My issue is whether the movie is good or not, and even then, why use the book title if the movie doesn't reflect the book? 

Bullgrit


----------



## Morrus (Jun 25, 2013)

Bullgrit said:


> I don't think whether Max Brooks is happy or not with the movie is an issue.




Well, you were asking me how I'd myself feel if someone made a movie using the name of my website as a direct analogy to that.


----------



## Umbran (Jun 25, 2013)

darjr said:


> From what I've read the movie may have been very much like the book initially.




Given that the initial script treatment was by JMS, I would have guessed that it did.  Brooks is quoted as calling at least one of JMS' drafts, "amazing".  That was back around 2008.

In July 2009, the script was rewritten by Matthew Michael Carnahan (whose films apparently get mixed reviews). In June 2012, they had Damon Lindelof rewrite the third act after principle photography on the film was completed, with some significant reshoots.  We can expect taht at this point, there's not much of JMS' adaptation left.



Morrus said:


> It's a hypothetical, obviously, but I wouldn't sell the rights if I felt that way.    I can't speak for the author of WWZ, but presumably he was happy to do so.




Max Brooks didn't have any creative input on the script (while Brooks has done scriptwriting, he didn't feel he had the experience to do this justice), and didn't get to see the final version before making his decision to sell the rights.  Few authors do.  But, looking at that history - I'd have had complete confidence if they told me JMS was writing the script.  The man knows a story.

Like Bullgrit, though, I'm not annoyed on behalf of the author.  It'd be more accurate to say that I feel the book is good enough to deserve respect as a piece of literature.  The movie makers failed to show that respect, but are willing to cash in on it, regardless.  I find that irksome.


----------



## sheadunne (Jun 25, 2013)

I haven't seen the movie yet, although I expect to in the next couple of days. 

Based solely on the trailers I felt the imagery captured my impression of the imagery in the book. I can tell you that I wouldn't have enjoyed a movie that followed the books (I was bored about 1/2 the time I read it and had no interest or connection with any of the characters, only the events portrayed). If the movie has similar events (walls being built, people living on ships, zombies, panic, resistance fighting, etc) I'll be content. And I much prefer fast zombie over slow ones.

That said, I'll wait until I see the movie before I say whether I liked it or not.


----------



## darjr (Jun 25, 2013)

Umbran said:


> Given that the initial script treatment was by JMS, I would have guessed that it did.  Brooks is quoted as calling at least one of JMS' drafts, "amazing".  That was back around 2008.
> 
> In July 2009, the script was rewritten



 ugh. OK I'm starting to lean towards not seeing it.


----------



## Umbran (Jun 25, 2013)

darjr said:


> ugh. OK I'm starting to lean towards not seeing it.




The thing is running at 68% on the tomatometer - so I'm guessing it is at least a serviceable example of its genre.  If you like zombies, it is probably a fine film.

However, what I personally was looking forward to was the ways in which Brooks thoughtfully and imaginatively broke from the genre to make something new, and I expect that's been lost.


----------



## JRRNeiklot (Jun 25, 2013)

Bullgrit said:


> Imagine if Hollywood did this with _Lord of the Rings, The Watchmen, Starship Troopers_? (Oh, wait, they *did* do it with _Starship Troopers_.)




Hollywood does this with EVERY movie, especially LOTR.  Which is why I haven't been to the theater since RoTK.


----------



## Umbran (Jun 25, 2013)

JRRNeiklot said:


> Hollywood does this with EVERY movie, especially LOTR.  Which is why I haven't been to the theater since RoTK.




With respect, the number and magnitude of changes that were done to LotR or The Watchmen were minor as compared to what was done with, say, Starship Troopers, or now WWZ.  

Now, some folks find they cannot enjoy a work with even minor changes.  And that's okay - to each their own.  But I think we are talking about two different phenomenon.  One in which the original material is kept, but altered, and the other in which the original material is pretty entirely abandoned.


----------



## Richards (Jun 26, 2013)

sheadunne said:


> And I much prefer fast zombie over slow ones.



I consider "fast zombies" to be an oxymoron.

As for this movie, I'm with Umbran - I would have loved to have seen an actual adaptation of the original novel, and I'm kind of ticked that by basically stealing the name "World War Z" and grafting it onto a movie that is in no way, shape, or form anything like the novel "World War Z," I'm not likely to ever get to see a movie version of the "World War Z" novel.  Which is a shame, because that was an excellent book, and it could have been an excellent movie.  Part of the appeal is that it's such a mosaic; this is definitely not a story that should revolve around a specific, "star" character.

Oh well.  Plenty of other movies coming up that look interesting.  "Kick Ass 2" is out in two months; hopefully that will be good.

Johnathan


----------



## Morrus (Jun 26, 2013)

I suppose a good analogy would be the Philip K. Dick movies/films.  _Total Recall, Blade Runner, I Robot, Minority Report_.


----------



## Umbran (Jun 26, 2013)

Morrus said:


> I suppose a good analogy would be the Philip K. Dick movies/films.  _Total Recall, Blade Runner, I Robot, Minority Report_.




"I, Robot" is ASIMOV!  

But yes, it is a good analogy.  The saving grace for them is that I hadn't read Dick before seeing the films.  I had read the Asimov, and while I did see the film, my excuse was that it was August, and I wanted an excuse to get a couple of hours in air conditioning.


----------



## tomBitonti (Jun 26, 2013)

Umbran said:


> And for those wise-guys who might try to analogize to D&D editions, that fails in one major point:  The people who make D&D are up-front that a new edition isn't the same as the old.




Major nit: Saying that you are doing something wrong doesn't make it less wrong.

But, to all: What did you think about the movie?  Whether or not it's the same as the book is one thing, but the discussion has become an aside from the movie itself.  Did you like it, would you recommend it?

I thought that it was an excellent movie.  Worth noting: Gore is minimal.  There _are_ lots of good and creepy zombie close-ups.  But if you want gore, you will be disappointed. (And to say: a lot of reviewers are in this camp, leading to lots of negative reviews.) The movie does have a goodly amount of suspense -- 



Spoiler



one of the earlier scenes in the building leading to the helicopter rescue gave me a good jump.



Also, the acting seemed to be quite tight.  That's another negative to a lot of the reviews, but I thought it was refreshing to see tight character pieces, and to see _less_ overdone presentations.  I rather thought the actress playing the Israeli soldier (you'll know who I mean if you see the movie) did a good job.

One complaint that I had was that 



Spoiler



the Israelis did not have observers on all points of the wall.  And, that the zombies reacted strongly to sound seems like, duh, and should have been well noted by then.  And wouldn't you put in a wider exclusion zone?  A wall inside the wall.  At the very least, an area free of people.  (Maybe they were too short on space for that.)



Thx!

TomB


----------



## The Gibbergeist (Jun 26, 2013)

Gonna see it next week, looks like fun!


----------



## Derren (Jun 26, 2013)

Richards said:


> I consider "fast zombies" to be an oxymoron.




They probably found no way to make slow zombies threatening in any form to the army. Against some ragtag band of survivers with no weapons and combat skill yes, but soldiers with high powered rifles?

Yeah, I know about the big battle in WWZ where the army gets soundly defeated but there was so much wrong with that scene that I can't take it seriously.
Generally I didn't like the book much. Too much caricatures in it. The blind japanese swordsmen and his computer addict pupil was simply too much. Not that many other characters or countries are better.

So, as the movie does not follow the book does that make it more watchable? After the reviews I think I will pass, too.


----------



## sheadunne (Jun 27, 2013)

Watched it last night. 

I felt that it took place in the same "universe" as the book, just told through a different character. There were plenty of visuals that met my needs for feeling that way. I didn't find myself comparing the movie to the book while I watched it though. It keeps a decent enough pace. Some of it was cheese though (the smelly untasteful kind) and I felt the ending was crap. 

What bugged me about both the movie and the book equally is that one of the major points of the zombie genre for me is that eventually the zombies win (fast or slow). A zombie story isn't about stopping the zombies, it's about seeing how long you can survive before eventually you die. And a good story is one where the zombies are just part of the setting and the real conflict is between the humans in the story. Both the book and the movie pretty much ignored that.  

Overall I'd say it was a fun movie but not very good (I felt the same about the 2nd star trek remake).


----------



## ShadowDenizen (Jun 28, 2013)

Some really interesting thoughts here, and I agree with alot of what's been said. 

I agree with *@Umbran* that this was a sort of bait-and-switch, and that the move bears little, if any, resemblance to the book. (Full disclosure: Though I appreciate what Max Brooks was trying to do,  I was still somewhat apathetic about the book, to be honest, and thought it was wildly overrated.) Perhaps it did, at some point, but not in the final cut.

I agree with *@Sheadunne* this this movie utterly missed the defining things that characterize a movie, and that the zombies are really a setpiece to motivate the human drama. (That’s why, in almost any piece of zombie fiction, the zombies are able to eventually win due to the fractured nature of humanity and the actions of the humans.)

I agree with *@Richards* that a film that posits a “World War” cannot be told through the eyes of one person, who by necessity, sees only a tiny piece of the overall situation. (I think there are circumstances where it’s an appropriate format [“Saving Private Ryan”], but I would have preferred this to be either an anthology-style film, or perhaps told in the format of news reports/interviews?

I also agree that robbing the film of gore (and I’m NOT a torture porn enthusiast!) takes away some of the visceral _threat_ of the zombies.  Even when 



Spoiler



Brad Pitt cuts off the hand of the army chick we don’t really get to see it, even when he’s bandaging her up!!


.

So, in case it’s not clear?
I loathed this move with every fiber of my being.


----------



## Bagpuss (Jun 30, 2013)

Just seen, I liked it a lot. I've read the book, and I think it owes more to the book than people are giving it credit for.

The book was a different take on the zombie mythos. It was clear from the start of the book that humanity won the war, at a great cost, but they won. Previous zombie genre films and books tended to assume humanity loses, and concentrate on how the characters react in such a hopeless situation. The book was about how humanity survived, it is hopeful in it's outlook, and in human resourcefulness.

This isn't a horror film like other zombie movies this is an action movie, so it doesn't need or warrant the gore some think is missing. It doesn't need the claustrophobic environment with people turning on each other, that is traditional to the genre, it's about people helping each other.

You get the global scale through Brad Pitt's globe trotting, and get to see and hear how nations and various people have reacted to the plague. In a normal zombie horror film it is normally very localised, and it only hints that the rest of the world things are also going to .

As an action, race against time, type movie it works well, it is a new take on the zombie genre and I think breathes a bit of life into it.

One failing I think it does have is in the pacing of the third act, which is much slower and more claustrophobic than the first two acts, which were almost at break neck speed from the get go.


----------



## Hand of Evil (Jul 1, 2013)

Bagpuss said:


> This isn't a horror film like other zombie movies this is an action movie, so it doesn't need or warrant the gore some think is missing. It doesn't need the claustrophobic environment with people turning on each other, that is traditional to the genre, it's about people helping each other.



This is very important and it seems the box office Mojo agrees:



> In its second outing, World War Z fell 55 percent to an estimated $29.8 million. While that sounds like a steep drop, it's at least on par with big-budget Summer action movies and not in line with horror movies (which was the fear in some corners).


----------



## dogoftheunderworld (Jul 1, 2013)

Bagpuss said:


> Just seen, I liked it a lot. [lots of good stuff] SNIP




I have not read the book, but I agree with most everything else Bagpuss says here anyway.  I really appreciated the toned down gore.

I really liked the strong non-stereotypical character of the female Israeli soldier.


----------



## Nytmare (Jul 1, 2013)

ShadowDenizen said:


> I also agree that robbing the film of gore (and I’m NOT a torture porn enthusiast!) takes away some of the visceral _threat_ of the zombies.




You can't have gore if you're trying to maximize profits off a summer blockbuster.  Did you confuse summer movies with artistic endeavors again?


----------



## ShadowDenizen (Jul 3, 2013)

Nytmare said:


> You can't have gore if you're trying to maximize profits off a summer blockbuster.  Did you confuse summer movies with artistic endeavors again?




LOL! Silly me!
What was I thinking, that the two are not mutually exclusive?!  

After seeing this, it actually forced me to reread the novel, which I initially read when it first came up. While it's still far from one my favorites, it did move up a tiny bit in my esteem on the reread, as I have to give Max Brooks credit for at least TRYING to be ineventive in his narrative.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Jul 6, 2013)

I enjoyed the movie. It had a good pace and an unusual scope for a Zombie movie. I haven't read the books, though. I suppose I might have been disappointed then but the movie does seem to stand on its own for me.


----------



## Nikosandros (Jul 6, 2013)

I haven't read the book. I found the movie mildly entertaining, even though the plot was basically nonsensical. Some interesting visuals in the Israeli part. By the time they reached Wales, I think that the movie had lost whatever steam it had. The zombies in the lab were rather ludicrous.


----------



## Hishen (Jul 7, 2013)

i am going to see this tonight...only watching this because of brad pit otherwise i hate zombies


----------



## Joker (Jul 13, 2013)

I don't get the criticism of people who say it's unjust that the movie is very unlike the book in many respects, that the movie somehow tricks you.  If by now you haven't figured out that businesses which develop movies use less than virtuous means to sell their product you're gonna continue to get upset and that's your problem.  You should judge the film on it's own merits and not preemptively slam it on moral grounds.  If it sucks, so be it.  But don't tell me it sucks because of the marketing decisions of a couple of people out of the hundreds who worked on it.

That out of the way.  I was pleasantly surprised by this movie.  I haven't read the book.  I only heard that it had the format of survivors telling the story after the fact.  I knew from the trailers it wasn't going to be anything like that.  

I loved the scope of the film.  It was huge.  I loved that we finally get a zombie flick where not everyone is trying to screw each other.  Global cooperation, people working together towards the same goal.  It was refreshing.  The first sequence leading up to the helicopter escape was frantic and tense.  As were the other scenes where the zombies started taking control.  And the Israeli soldier, Segen, was all kinds of awesome.  The actor's performance was flawless.

I'm not going to criticize the actions* of the people in the movie.  Some things seemed a bit bone-headed like the pilots throwing the gun out of the cockpit or the father in the beginning not going with Brad Pitt's character, but I'm not in that deadly situation so I can't honestly say I wouldn't do dumb things.
I do have one gripe, however, as I do with nearly all movies only available in 3D.  It's in 3D.  It adds nothing to the experience and I'm convinced it actually detracts from it.  Hopefully it will come out in 2D later on but I think I might have to wait for the Blu-ray for that one, which kinda blows because I want to see it in the theaters again.

I thoroughly enjoyed it and recommend it everyone wanting a tightly made detective zombie action adventure.

* I suppose I do have to criticize the Israeli government for allowing those people to make so much noise.  They should have known by then that noise angers the undead but perhaps didn't realize they would be able to scale the giant walls.
I'm assuming that whole city was one big checkpoint and that the government would be able to sacrifice it if it was overrun.  I have nothing to base this on except that all the streets were covered with metal cages.  The people living there were either refugees or people who refused to leave their homes.


----------



## Bagpuss (Jul 13, 2013)

Erm I saw it in 2D in the theatre by mine, in fact I think every theatre near me had both 3D and 2D on offer. If you don't have the choice complain to the theatre.


----------



## Joker (Jul 19, 2013)

The theater says it's not up to them but the choice of the distributors.


----------



## Bullgrit (Jul 19, 2013)

> I don't get the criticism of people who say it's unjust that the movie is very unlike the book in many respects, that the movie somehow tricks you.



Well, it's not that we feel "tricked." 

Consider this: If the movie is not anything like the book, why use the title of the book? For the people who don't recognize the title, calling the movie _World War Z_ means nothing more than if they called it "War Against the Zombies." For the people who do recognize the title, calling the movie _World War Z_ does mean something. Then to disconnect the movie from the recognized book does what? 

It's not a case of just accidentally having a similar name. The producers used the title to draw attention to their movie. Attention from people who recognize that the title relates to a good book. There *is* at least a little bit of "play" going on there. 

Bullgrit


----------



## Hishen (Jul 19, 2013)

me and my friends have a plan for this movie..really excited after reading reviews.


----------

