Why can't everything be the same? I hate anything that expands on an idea, or changes it even remotely. Without seeing it I will know that it is terrible since it isn't something I already know. Certainly I will never let it stand on its own merits to determine its value, just that it isn't a transliteration of another work is enough for me to know that it is the worst thing that has happened ever.
Ahtman wrote: Why can't everything be the same? I hate anything that expands on an idea, or changes it even remotely. Without seeing it I will know that it is terrible since it isn't something I already know. Certainly I will never let it stand on its own merits to determine its value, just that it isn't a transliteration of another work is enough for me to know that it is the worst thing that has happened ever.
Ahtman wrote: Why can't everything be the same? I hate anything that expands on an idea, or changes it even remotely. Without seeing it I will know that it is terrible since it isn't something I already know. Certainly I will never let it stand on its own merits to determine its value, just that it isn't a transliteration of another work is enough for me to know that it is the worst thing that has happened ever.
Or you could do what I did, which is not read the book, have no idea about the rest of the film and instead just judge it on the tides (like Return of the King green ghosts) of zombies that look ridiculous and come to the conclusion that it looks like gak and, like steel magnolias or titanic, I never even need to see it to know I'll dislike it.
Ahtman wrote: Why can't everything be the same? I hate anything that expands on an idea, or changes it even remotely. Without seeing it I will know that it is terrible since it isn't something I already know. Certainly I will never let it stand on its own merits to determine its value, just that it isn't a transliteration of another work is enough for me to know that it is the worst thing that has happened ever.
Or you could do what I did, which is not read the book, have no idea about the rest of the film and instead just judge it on the tides (like Return of the King green ghosts) of zombies that look ridiculous and come to the conclusion that it looks like gak and, like steel magnolias or titanic, I never even need to see it to know I'll dislike it.
Perhaps you missed it, but my problem isn't in people being discerning in their choice of film, but in the 'it isn't the exact same thing as the source so it must be terrible' line of reasoning I take issue with. Adaptations and reinterpretations are a vital and important part of storytelling. I'm also a little baffled by 'slow zombie means good, fast zombie means bad' attitude. It would depend on the story that is being told I would think; people get to caught up in rigid ideas of fictional things that they lose perspective.
People prefer slow zombies, because there are more good slow zombie movies than good fast zombie movies. Correlation ain't causation, but it sure sometimes can seem like it.
Variation would make sense with the zombie speed though. They'd be fast when fresh, but probably get gradually slower until they reach the shamble state.
In the original Dawn of the Dead (from the 70's), the zombies had varied speed. Most were shambling, but a few, like the zombie kids, could move faster.
Dawn of the Dead was awesome. The remake was an okay movie, but it had none of the feel of the original.
I prefer good zombie movies, regardless of whether they are slow or fast. There really isn't enough here for me to tell if this is good or bad yet. Having massive numbers of zombies on screen seems really cool, and something not really shown in this manner before. On the other hand the whole 'only one man to save the world' made me /sadface a bit. Still Brad Pitt hasn't made a generic, standard action flick in some time, and I doubt this will break that. We also have to recognize that it may be marketed badly as well. I'm curious to see what the actual trailer shows, but I don't feel to strongly one way or another about it at this point.
As for the people that read the books, as I understand it, this is supposed to just be another story set in the same world i.e. it is just another chapter, not a retelling.
Ahtman wrote: Why can't everything be the same? I hate anything that expands on an idea, or changes it even remotely. Without seeing it I will know that it is terrible since it isn't something I already know. Certainly I will never let it stand on its own merits to determine its value, just that it isn't a transliteration of another work is enough for me to know that it is the worst thing that has happened ever.
Or you could do what I did, which is not read the book, have no idea about the rest of the film and instead just judge it on the tides (like Return of the King green ghosts) of zombies that look ridiculous and come to the conclusion that it looks like gak and, like steel magnolias or titanic, I never even need to see it to know I'll dislike it.
Perhaps you missed it, but my problem isn't in people being discerning in their choice of film, but in the 'it isn't the exact same thing as the source so it must be terrible' line of reasoning I take issue with. Adaptations and reinterpretations are a vital and important part of storytelling. I'm also a little baffled by 'slow zombie means good, fast zombie means bad' attitude. It would depend on the story that is being told I would think; people get to caught up in rigid ideas of fictional things that they lose perspective.
Well, that I can agree with. It does make better sense to wait and see more, then again, this was a thread about a linked trailer and people will make their decision at this time based on the available info. I personally like fast zombies and loved 28 days later. I just saw those 'waves' of zombies and was reminded of the waves of the deadmen of dunharrow, which looked overkill back then (and they were supposed to move like that as incorporeal not rotting corpses).
For others, especially those who've read the books and liked them, the rumours about the changes were very negatively received and this trailer seems to directly confirm their fears about the setting and theme, not just a reimagine or change of direction but an entire reworking.
Ahtman wrote: I prefer good zombie movies, regardless of whether they are slow or fast. There really isn't enough here for me to tell if this is good or bad yet. Having massive numbers of zombies on screen seems really cool, and something not really shown in this manner before. On the other hand the whole 'only one man to save the world' made me /sadface a bit. Still Brad Pitt hasn't made a generic, standard action flick in some time, and I doubt this will break that. We also have to recognize that it may be marketed badly as well. I'm curious to see what the actual trailer shows, but I don't feel to strongly one way or another about it at this point.
As for the people that read the books, as I understand it, this is supposed to just be another story set in the same world i.e. it is just another chapter, not a retelling.
Then call it something else. Add a tag line, something like "based in the world of World War Z". The only thing this has to do with the book is it's supposedly part of the same war. Basically none of the events from the book are really represented and the ultra fast zombies completely clash with half the stories from the original book (particularly key events like Hope.) It's not an adaptation or a director's vision of the book, it's a completely different story hoping to drive sales by gluing the name on the front of it.
Seriously, with the success of the walking dead and the general zombie high going on right now, making a good zombie action flick wouldn't be hard. Put Brad Pitt in there and you have a sure home run.
That doesn't mean you have to take an existing IP and change basically everything about it.
Make an Ex Heroes movie and ride the Avengers wave too. Pitt could make a great Dragon.
What if they purposefully designed the marketing campaign to be misleading? What if the whole 'one man saving the world' is just the first ten minutes and then they realize that it is to late and the rest of the film is something else? It seems odd that people have such obstinate and absolute opinions on something that is months away based on .1% of the finished product. This isn't even a trailer, it is a commercial for a trailer.
Ahtman wrote: What if they purposefully designed the marketing campaign to be misleading? What if the whole 'one man saving the world' is just the first ten minutes and then they realize that it is to late and the rest of the film is something else? It seems odd that people have such obstinate and absolute opinions on something that is months away based on .1% of the finished product. This isn't even a trailer, it is a commercial for a trailer.
I like pizza. If someone hands me a box with "pizza" written on it, and it smells funky and when I open it up it looks like a slightly rotten hoagie, I don't need to eat all of it and spend an afternoon ruminating on it to decide that it isn't pizza.
Ahtman wrote: What if they purposefully designed the marketing campaign to be misleading? What if the whole 'one man saving the world' is just the first ten minutes and then they realize that it is to late and the rest of the film is something else? It seems odd that people have such obstinate and absolute opinions on something that is months away based on .1% of the finished product. This isn't even a trailer, it is a commercial for a trailer.
I like pizza. If someone hands me a box with "pizza" written on it, and it smells funky and when I open it up it looks like a slightly rotten hoagie, I don't need to eat all of it and spend an afternoon ruminating on it to decide that it isn't pizza.
Can't understand why Brad Pitt's production company would buy the rights for this years ago, then make a film that looks like it has nothing in common except the title and the fact that it has zombies in it?
Apparently it is part of a trilogy. Did you guys watch LOTR, the fellowship.
Kinda like that I guess. I dunno though, even if I am a fan of pitt, I really am annoyed at the premise and the execution.
The book I know is kind of confusing to turn into a movie, and still remain a solid zombie flick (having many different heroes doesn't help a movie) and the length as well....urgh.
I think it does merit a watch, but as a straight to DVD release, rather than the 30 dollar movie ticket.
infinite_array wrote: Holy hellfire! That's not a horde, that's a friggin wave of zombies!
C'mon Hollywood, why couldn't we have nice slow zombies?
They turned zombies into ripper swarms! Holy jehuzifats. I don't know if I like that. Part of the charm of the Zombie games is that you can release your inner psycho. Now they're killing machines that would give the Alien Queen pause.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ahtman wrote: Why can't everything be the same? I hate anything that expands on an idea, or changes it even remotely. Without seeing it I will know that it is terrible since it isn't something I already know. Certainly I will never let it stand on its own merits to determine its value, just that it isn't a transliteration of another work is enough for me to know that it is the worst thing that has happened ever.
Time to polish up on my surfing skills..... Hey surfing Zombies will be a cool way to get to college But more to the point since when did zombies come in TSUNAMIS!!!!
I might watch this later when it comes out just for the pure sake of it
master of ordinance wrote: Time to polish up on my surfing skills..... Hey surfing Zombies will be a cool way to get to college But more to the point since when did zombies come in TSUNAMIS!!!!
Lets go surfing now, everybody surfing now, come on go surfing with me....
The Apartite South African chap who came up with the save what you can and move to a safe haven plan
As for the waves, having been in the odd crowd surge in my time allot of human bodies cane move at a suprising lick, and that's with the participants resisting it!
I'll give it a chance, the whole rescue my daughter thing could be a bit of a bore but hey it's a zombie movie: not many of them are masterpieces but most are enjoyable.
That said if none of it is about the Queen holding out and kicking arse at Windor Castle then I may change my mind!
While I'm not entirely against deviation from source material ( I belive The Walking Dead series has done a nice job), I'd have prefered that the makers of WWZ had stuck closer to Brooks' work, which by the ( admitedly limited) information I have both seen and read , they have'nt.
Now as he often does, Ahtman brings up some good points, and I will reserve "final judgement" until I've actually seen the movie...but...I'm honestly not very hopeful about this one and will enter the theatre expecting to be dissapointed.
The book was in documentary form chronicling the plight of various people around the world.
The movie looks like one surfer dude trying to catch the gnarliest wave of undead ever while his girlfriend frets about missing her manicure appointment.
Totally disassociated Hollywood interpretations subject to interpretation of course.
The Apartite South African chap who came up with the save what you can and move to a safe haven plan
As for the waves, having been in the odd crowd surge in my time allot of human bodies cane move at a suprising lick, and that's with the participants resisting it!
I'll give it a chance, the whole rescue my daughter thing could be a bit of a bore but hey it's a zombie movie: not many of them are masterpieces but most are enjoyable.
That said if none of it is about the Queen holding out and kicking arse at Windor Castle then I may change my mind!
I can understand a realistic wave. Superfast ninja ripper swarm waves (like the second scene coming down the alley and going up the wall) thats harder.
That said if none of it is about the Queen holding out and kicking arse at Windor Castle then I may change my mind!
What? I just ordered the book based on that little note alone.
Well, there's one of the other elements I've wondered about...given that the book encompasses a " World view" of the Apoc I honestly hope thhat the film won't just become a " Murica!! Feth yeah!! BOOMPOWBANG!!" mess.
I still belive the best way to have done this film would have been to cast Pitt in the role of the interviewer and have all the action occur in flash back sequences.
It all makes sense now, they aren't Zombies the're Weegies. I suppose the CGI was there to tone them down so that their mass behaviour was more 'realistic'. I suppose in the plot origin is based around someone founding a way of mixing crack with Buckfast and unleashed a shitstorm of global payback.
If they just wanted to make a crazy special effect driven zombie movie they easily could have done that without the world war z IP.......I don't get it. Zombies can't climb in world war z, you could find safety by climbing a tree. This movie has Zombicanes that can apparently fly! No Bueno!
Andrew1975 wrote: If they just wanted to make a crazy special effect driven zombie movie they easily could have done that without the world war z IP.......I don't get it.
It isn't that difficult to understand. An original title would get less funding, but you take a licensed product plus a few well known names and you can get the money to make a big movie. These things aren't free, you know.
I still have trouble believing this is going to be "I Am Legend: Zombie Edition" with the one man saving the world. We still have so little info to go on, and I can think of movies that were purposefully marketed one way to avoid spoilers (Cabin in the Woods) or badly marketed as something other then they were (Looper, 12 Monkeys) that at this point looking at the people involved and looking at the source material I have to believe it isn't a gneric zombie film with a big FX budget. Brad Pitt has been pretty choosey about his roles for some time, and I don't see why he would suddenly fall back to generic Hollywood action/horror all of a sudden.
Andrew1975 wrote: If they just wanted to make a crazy special effect driven zombie movie they easily could have done that without the world war z IP.......I don't get it.
It isn't that difficult to understand. An original title would get less funding, but you take a licensed product plus a few well known names and you can get the money to make a big movie. These things aren't free, you know.
I still have trouble believing this is going to be "I Am Legend: Zombie Edition" with the one man saving the world. We still have so little info to go on, and I can think of movies that were purposefully marketed one way to avoid spoilers (Cabin in the Woods) or badly marketed as something other then they were (Looper, 12 Monkeys) that at this point looking at the people involved and looking at the source material I have to believe it isn't a gneric zombie film with a big FX budget. Brad Pitt has been pretty choosey about his roles for some time, and I don't see why he would suddenly fall back to generic Hollywood action/horror all of a sudden.
He's had to be. Every "epic" film he's been in for several years has bombed (and this is from someone who thinks he's an excellent actor actually). He really needs to approve stay in better films.
Ahtman wrote: Why can't everything be the same? I hate anything that expands on an idea, or changes it even remotely. Without seeing it I will know that it is terrible since it isn't something I already know. Certainly I will never let it stand on its own merits to determine its value, just that it isn't a transliteration of another work is enough for me to know that it is the worst thing that has happened ever.
I'm generally with you there, but in this case I can understand why some might be disappointed. The trailer looks like straightforward zombie fare, and the book tended to come at the subject from an angle. That has nothing to do with whether the film is good or bad, but again, I can understand why some might be disappointed by the approach the trailer suggests.
Admittedly, my recommendations of the book to non-geeks ("It's well-written and not quite what you think.") have gone largely ignored. So Hollywood may be wi$e to give people a movie that meets with their expectations. Or, as you suggested later, at least give them a trailer that meets with their expectations.
Actually, almost none of them have 'bombed'. They weren't blockbusters (though this is what I have been saying) but I don't think any of them were ever meant to be. Tree of Life, Moneyball, Burn After Reading, Curious Case of Benjamin Button, and Inglorious Basterds all did well and made money. I'm not sure if I should count the voicework in Megamind or not. The only film that didn't make money was The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford, which was an amazing movie and the fact it underperformed is criminal. The closest thing to generic Hollywood action films are the Ocean's films, and those all did we, economically.
Ahtman wrote: Actually, almost none of them have 'bombed'. They weren't blockbusters (though this is what I have been saying) but I don't think any of them were ever meant to be. Tree of Life, Moneyball, Burn After Reading, Curious Case of Benjamin Button, and Inglorious Basterds all did well and made money. I'm not sure if I should count the voicework in Megamind or not. The only film that didn't make money was The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford, which was an amazing movie and the fact it underperformed is criminal. The closest thing to generic Hollywood action films are the Ocean's films, and those all did we, economically.
master of ordinance wrote: Time to polish up on my surfing skills..... Hey surfing Zombies will be a cool way to get to college But more to the point since when did zombies come in TSUNAMIS!!!!
Lets go surfing now, everybody surfing now, come on go surfing with me....
Ahtman wrote: Actually, almost none of them have 'bombed'. They weren't blockbusters (though this is what I have been saying) but I don't think any of them were ever meant to be. Tree of Life, Moneyball, Burn After Reading, Curious Case of Benjamin Button, and Inglorious Basterds all did well and made money. I'm not sure if I should count the voicework in Megamind or not. The only film that didn't make money was The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford, which was an amazing movie and the fact it underperformed is criminal. The closest thing to generic Hollywood action films are the Ocean's films, and those all did we, economically.
Troy ring a bell?. None of those (possible exception IB which was - indeed - awesome) are action oriented.
But you're actually supporting my point. Those are effectively non-action semi-independent films that show off his acting chops.
Didn't you just love him as the airhead workout coach in Burn After Reading?
Frazzled wrote: Troy ring a bell?. None of those (possible exception IB which was - indeed - awesome) are action oriented.
But you're actually supporting my point. Those are effectively non-action semi-independent films that show off his acting chops.
Didn't you just love him as the airhead workout coach in Burn After Reading?
I have to think that somewhere you go confused. My point was that he hasn't made a generic action film in some time, and here you come thinking you have one-upped me by pointing out that, yes, indeed he hasn't made a generic action film in some time. I'm not quite sure where Troy specifically fits into this, though it was no bomb either, as it grossed almost 500 million. If he has been consistent in doing non-Hollywood stereotypical films (barring voice work in family films) over the last seven or eight years, why would he start now? I have no doubt it will be marketed as an action film though, as marketing departments tend to fall back on the easy sell, sometimes to a film's detriment.
Frazzled wrote: Troy ring a bell?. None of those (possible exception IB which was - indeed - awesome) are action oriented.
But you're actually supporting my point. Those are effectively non-action semi-independent films that show off his acting chops.
Didn't you just love him as the airhead workout coach in Burn After Reading?
I have to think that somewhere you go confused. My point was that he hasn't made a generic action film in some time, and here you come thinking you have one-upped me by pointing out that, yes, indeed he hasn't made a generic action film in some time. I'm not quite sure where Troy specifically fits into this, though it was no bomb either, as it grossed almost 500 million. If he has been consistent in doing non-Hollywood stereotypical films (barring voice work in family films) over the last seven or eight years, why would he start now? I have no doubt it will be marketed as an action film though, as marketing departments tend to fall back on the easy sell, sometimes to a film's detriment.
Oh I think this will be heavily done as an action movie-thats what the clip is.
Troy made $500mm? Really? I may have to adjust my thinking. I must redeem myself. A nice little clip with an excellent bonus of the oh so easy on the eyes Kruger
Do I want to see a close to the source adaptation of WWZ? Yes.
Does this trailer look as if it is such a thing? Not really.
Will I go and see this movie anyway? Absolutely.
There have been a slew of low-budget, crappy, boring zed flicks released over the last 5 years. I haven't enjoyed a single Romero release. There's a pretty good French flick about a bunch of cops and robbers fighting their way out of an apartment block that I can't remember the name of but was pretty good. Otherwise as far as Z movies go I feel inundated with sub-par showings.
So I anticipate good things from a big money production, and from a talented and well respected actor like Pitt.
And above all I'm thankfull that this doesn't have Will Smith or any of his kids involved in it.
Lint wrote: There's a pretty good French flick about a bunch of cops and robbers fighting their way out of an apartment block that I can't remember the name of but was pretty good.
My first thought was [Rec], but then remembered it was Spanish. The Horde?
It's like they gave Matt Ward to write the script...
Well, not that far.
It Matt Ward was involved, the Zombies would not only attack in waves, but also be able to psychically attack their victims, causing them to be bodily paralyzed and easy to roll over.
Plus they'd shoot lasers from their eyes and fly in outer space while making rocket noises.
In the book, I think they were one of the few bad ass countries who took care of that gak.
Isreal sealed off its border with a big arse wall. Also, they actually accepted the Palestinians into their country. And the Ultra-orthodox Jews revolted to poor results.
To me it almost looks like someone came up with a cool-looking special effect, and that then became the basis of making the movie rather than any adherence to the book (which, to be honest, would have probably made a better documentary series than a movie anyway).
As others have said however directors walking out and halts in production are often a bad sign.
I blame Max Brooks for this. He either OKed the decisions of this movie or he sold it and absolved himself of any responsibility for the decisions made.
ProtoClone wrote: I blame Max Brooks for this. He either OKed the decisions of this movie or he sold it and absolved himself of any responsibility for the decisions made.
Besides having the movie based on his book, he didn't have much of anything to do with this film. The rights to the film were bought, and without Brooks being directly involved, he has no say. He did read the screenplays that were submitted though...
The full trailer loses the 'one man to save the world' line and push. The character is asked to help out with something, but he doesn't appear to be alone, and we still don't quite know what it is that he is being brought along for.
I thought the trailer did decent job of setting up that it just happened all of a sudden, with most people caught by surprise, and that the dead just got up hungry and ready to eat. It also seems to really show zombies that don't care about personal safety at all, what with jumping off buildings just for a snack. Some of the FX still don't quite seem to mesh quite right.
It looks like it would be fun and I imagine I will see it at some point.
Yup still crap, just with more BWWOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOM
And now im in the mood for a zombie RPG survival game.
But how that begins is truly epic-Remain in your vehicle si-BWOOOOOOM!!!!! And then everyone caught like that and trying to flee...... Now i want to read the books.
Just hope the actual zombie outbreak is more walking dead style zombies though
Yup still crap, just with more BWWOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOM
Well except for the zombie wave it looks a lot better (not like the book though - at least the Wiki synopsis). I still can't hang with the wave thing though. As someone said, being dead shouldn't make you a superhero.
Bromsy wrote: Seriously, with the success of the walking dead and the general zombie high going on right now, making a good zombie action flick wouldn't be hard. Put Brad Pitt in there and you have a sure home run.
That doesn't mean you have to take an existing IP and change basically everything about it.
Make an Ex Heroes movie and ride the Avengers wave too. Pitt could make a great Dragon.
Ahtman wrote: The full trailer loses the 'one man to save the world' line and push. The character is asked to help out with something, but he doesn't appear to be alone, and we still don't quite know what it is that he is being brought along for.
I thought the trailer did decent job of setting up that it just happened all of a sudden, with most people caught by surprise, and that the dead just got up hungry and ready to eat. It also seems to really show zombies that don't care about personal safety at all, what with jumping off buildings just for a snack. Some of the FX still don't quite seem to mesh quite right.
It looks like it would be fun and I imagine I will see it at some point.
The suicide zombies are actually part of the book. There is a scene in the book where zombies walk off the top of a building because they see a character in another building.
As far as the whole "OH NO Change!" argument just reference The Walking Dead, it stays faithful to the comic book but is also very different. I don't see people having a cow about it because it is still very much inspired by the original story line enough that it is recognizable. The changes that were made to The Walking Dead source material are actually quite good and allow fans to watch without knowing exactly what is going to happen. They play with the original story very well too, all the fans knew that Carl shoots Shane in the book, but very early in the story, the show teased us with that for so long, it was awesome, something you would probably not pick up on if you did not read the book.
This season has been amazing, I did not expect television to allow the story to get as dark as the comic, but after last week, it looks like they are willing to take it possibly even darker, which is pretty amazing that they have the balls at AMC.
Spoiler:
Lori's death in the comic book is not even close to being as dark and F^%$ up as it was on the show. To force Carl to shoot his own Mother was pretty ballsy. In the book the story only gets darker as the mental stress really begins to take its toll. One of the things I caught last week was that in the room Lori died in there was a telephone........
World War Z however looks like it really has almost nothing to do with the original source material. This appears to be a full out "Cash in" on Zombies movie, which is fine, but its not World War Z.
At the end of the day, this seems to be coming down to fast vs. slow zombies debate, an eternal argument since 28 days later (which interestingly enough didn't actually have zombies in it). Even Simon Pegg has chimed in on this new type of nerd debate.
Me, I'm actually in the minority that prefers fast zombies. I find them more threatening and less comical. I think you can capture the "sadness" slow zombies have by showing their utterly inhuman and vicious nature from what they once were, something 28 days later did effectively.
Harriticus wrote: At the end of the day, this seems to be coming down to fast vs. slow zombies debate, an eternal argument since 28 days later (which interestingly enough didn't actually have zombies in it). Even Simon Pegg has chimed in on this new type of nerd debate.
Me, I'm actually in the minority that prefers fast zombies. I find them more threatening and less comical. I think you can capture the "sadness" slow zombies have by showing their utterly inhuman and vicious nature from what they once were, something 28 days later did effectively.
I AM READY FOR CRUCIFICTION.
That doesn't look like fast zombies. It looks like a wave. Er ok...
Heh, I remember watching this being filmed. Pretty much all my asian friends are in it (we spent the day at college picking everyone out). Funny that most of the security and extras in the film are American though, despite it being filmed in Scotland in Spain though. =P
Yeah, this is beyond fast zombies, it's more like moving human carpet...
Regardless of your preference when it comes to zombie speed, be it shuffling or full out Kenyan, nothing changes the fact that this movie carries the title from a book that had shuffling zombies. Apparently Brad Pitt isn't even on speaking terms with the director... so... yeah...
I don't know, it kind of makes sense really. You take the number of corpses in the world, which is a lot, then you remove the ability to feel pain and get tired from running, and in a single motivation and they probably would move in huge (HUGE!) swarms that would be similar to waves.
Ahtman wrote: I don't know, it kind of makes sense really. You take the number of corpses in the world, which is a lot, then you remove the ability to feel pain and get tired from running, and in a single motivation and they probably would move in huge (HUGE!) swarms that would be similar to waves.
The inability to feel tired doesn't mean they are limitless olympic runners. Running so fast they break against a wall like a storm wave? Meh.
As noted I liked the parts where it wasn't a wave or where the zombies could climb a wall like a bunch of half gymnasts/half ants.
I did like that "YOU WILL STAY IN YOUR CAR" ZZZZZZZZZZZZZAP! scene. hehe.
Ahtman wrote: I don't know, it kind of makes sense really. You take the number of corpses in the world, which is a lot, then you remove the ability to feel pain and get tired from running, and in a single motivation and they probably would move in huge (HUGE!) swarms that would be similar to waves.
The problem isn't the muscles. Zombies don't fatigue, because their brains are working at a very basic level, so we accept superior strength and endurance. The trade off tends to be that this basic brain lacks coordination. Running that fast and climbing takes a great amount of coordination, something zombies are not know for.
I don't mind fast zombies. The "zombies" in 28 days later I think are perfect for fresh zombies. Fast, strong, but not terribly coordinated, unable to climb anything more difficult than a flight of stairs at a decent clip. The zombies in this clip are some kind super zombie, not only could they climb a tree, it looks like they can scale vertical walls!
Ahtman wrote: I don't know, it kind of makes sense really. You take the number of corpses in the world, which is a lot, then you remove the ability to feel pain and get tired from running, and in a single motivation and they probably would move in huge (HUGE!) swarms that would be similar to waves.
The problem isn't the muscles. Zombies don't fatigue, because their brains are working at a very basic level, so we accept superior strength and endurance. The trade off tends to be that this basic brain lacks coordination. Running that fast and climbing takes a great amount of coordination, something zombies are not know for.
I don't mind fast zombies. The "zombies" in 28 days later I think are perfect for fresh zombies. Fast, strong, but not terribly coordinated, unable to climb anything more difficult than a flight of stairs at a decent clip. The zombies in this clip are some kind super zombie, not only could they climb a tree, it looks like they can scale vertical walls!
Well there is the issue of continued stress on decaying muscles. Without the brain to say "stop & rest" muscles do become fatigued. The zombies just don't have the higher function to know this and so they keep pushing the muscles until they break. Take in to account the moment they die, muscles start to decay and are unable to repair damages.
They could be fast, but only for as long as the muscles hold out. As soon as the muscles start to go, so too does the zombies power.
I don't mind fast zombies. The "zombies" in 28 days later I think are perfect for fresh zombies. Fast, strong, but not terribly coordinated, unable to climb anything more difficult than a flight of stairs at a decent clip. The zombies in this clip are some kind super zombie, not only could they climb a tree, it looks like they can scale vertical walls!
Quite true, these are super zombies. It's like the virus made them up to 3x stronger and faster than normal humans in addition to giving them high invulnerability and immortality.
I am just glad they are showing off other parts of the world and not just USA. But I not glad that they are able to get over Israeli wall, Israel survived by making that wall and they will bring it down here.
Ahtman wrote: I don't know, it kind of makes sense really. You take the number of corpses in the world, which is a lot, then you remove the ability to feel pain and get tired from running, and in a single motivation and they probably would move in huge (HUGE!) swarms that would be similar to waves.
The problem isn't the muscles. Zombies don't fatigue, because their brains are working at a very basic level, so we accept superior strength and endurance. The trade off tends to be that this basic brain lacks coordination. Running that fast and climbing takes a great amount of coordination, something zombies are not know for.
I don't mind fast zombies. The "zombies" in 28 days later I think are perfect for fresh zombies. Fast, strong, but not terribly coordinated, unable to climb anything more difficult than a flight of stairs at a decent clip. The zombies in this clip are some kind super zombie, not only could they climb a tree, it looks like they can scale vertical walls!
Well there is the issue of continued stress on decaying muscles. Without the brain to say "stop & rest" muscles do become fatigued. The zombies just don't have the higher function to know this and so they keep pushing the muscles until they break. Take in to account the moment they die, muscles start to decay and are unable to repair damages.
They could be fast, but only for as long as the muscles hold out. As soon as the muscles start to go, so too does the zombies power.
Right, fresh zombies vs older zombies. I always imagine the slow zombies are a few days old.
I guess I meant to say the simple zombies brains don't feel or react to fatigue the same way we do. They will push a body part to destruction, but the brain will still push it. Remember fatigue is just a build up of chemicals in the muscle, its not really damage. No a zombie that tears a peck is not going to be able to heal it, but he is still going to use it until he rips it to shreds.
It also depends on the brand of Zombie because no two appear to be the same, but if i remember correctly WWZ Zombies will rot and fall apart eventually. The ones in cold climates last longer, but they also freeze and thaw out in the spring for fresh attacks.
I think the zombie metaphor is breaking down like this. Slow zombies are the ever present, unrelenting march toward death and the grave. You can run and even hide but eventually they will catch you. There is no future.
The fast zombies represent plague and contagion. The fear of the process of dying but not of death itself. You can try to fight it but everything is spiralling out of control, civilization is collapsing, and nobody has a way to stop it. There is no hope.
Breotan wrote: I think the zombie metaphor is breaking down like this. Slow zombies are the ever present, unrelenting march toward death and the grave. You can run and even hide but eventually they will catch you. There is no future.
The fast zombies represent plague and contagion. The fear of the process of dying but not of death itself. You can try to fight it but everything is spiralling out of control, civilization is collapsing, and nobody has a way to stop it. There is no hope.
Really "Zombie" is a catch all phrase. There are about a million types ranging from the truly classic voodoo zombie (drugged out person) to mythical undead, we also have the "Ramaro" Zombie that is basically completely unexplainable and changes from movie to movie, and even the "28 days" Zombie and everything in between.
My issue is that WWZ Zombies are described in detail in the source material. The ones in this clip do not appear to be WWZ zombies.
Breotan wrote: I think the zombie metaphor is breaking down like this. Slow zombies are the ever present, unrelenting march toward death and the grave. You can run and even hide but eventually they will catch you. There is no future.
The fast zombies represent plague and contagion. The fear of the process of dying but not of death itself. You can try to fight it but everything is spiralling out of control, civilization is collapsing, and nobody has a way to stop it. There is no hope.
I always thought slow zombies were a metaphor for conformity. The ever present, ever consuming, drive to belong or fight to be yourself.
Breotan wrote: I think the zombie metaphor is breaking down like this. Slow zombies are the ever present, unrelenting march toward death and the grave. You can run and even hide but eventually they will catch you. There is no future.
The fast zombies represent plague and contagion. The fear of the process of dying but not of death itself. You can try to fight it but everything is spiralling out of control, civilization is collapsing, and nobody has a way to stop it. There is no hope.
I always thought slow zombies were a metaphor for conformity. The ever present, ever consuming, drive to belong or fight to be yourself.
I always thought slow zombies were just slow, and fast ones were harder to hit. But I'm not a deep thinker.
Breotan wrote: I think the zombie metaphor is breaking down like this. Slow zombies are the ever present, unrelenting march toward death and the grave. You can run and even hide but eventually they will catch you. There is no future.
The fast zombies represent plague and contagion. The fear of the process of dying but not of death itself. You can try to fight it but everything is spiralling out of control, civilization is collapsing, and nobody has a way to stop it. There is no hope.
I always thought slow zombies were a metaphor for conformity. The ever present, ever consuming, drive to belong or fight to be yourself.
I always thought slow zombies were just slow, and fast ones were harder to hit. But I'm not a deep thinker.
Breotan wrote: I think the zombie metaphor is breaking down like this. Slow zombies are the ever present, unrelenting march toward death and the grave. You can run and even hide but eventually they will catch you. There is no future.
The fast zombies represent plague and contagion. The fear of the process of dying but not of death itself. You can try to fight it but everything is spiralling out of control, civilization is collapsing, and nobody has a way to stop it. There is no hope.
I always thought slow zombies were a metaphor for conformity. The ever present, ever consuming, drive to belong or fight to be yourself.
I always thought slow zombies were just slow, and fast ones were harder to hit. But I'm not a deep thinker.
Breotan wrote: I think the zombie metaphor is breaking down like this. Slow zombies are the ever present, unrelenting march toward death and the grave. You can run and even hide but eventually they will catch you. There is no future.
The fast zombies represent plague and contagion. The fear of the process of dying but not of death itself. You can try to fight it but everything is spiralling out of control, civilization is collapsing, and nobody has a way to stop it. There is no hope.
Really "Zombie" is a catch all phrase. There are about a million types ranging from the truly classic voodoo zombie (drugged out person) to mythical undead, we also have the "Ramaro" Zombie that is basically completely unexplainable and changes from movie to movie, and even the "28 days" Zombie and everything in between.
My issue is that WWZ Zombies are described in detail in the source material. The ones in this clip do not appear to be WWZ zombies.
+1
I think the issue a lot of fans take is that this movie using the world war z name is laughing in the face of the book.
Okay, from the trailer, I got 3 things. Nuclear bomb. at least one nuke. I think more. The armada at sea is happening as well.
Centralising to one hero is pretty hard to do, so I will reserve judgement until I actually see the movie, but in hindsight, I think that this is actually a movie view now.
I mean considering Pitt's character is the mercenary.
What I hate is that 98% percent of the people who profess to hate this trailer will still go see it in the theater. Which is what always happens, and why the movie industry feels no pressure to actually deliver a good, well adapted product.
I mean, transformers guys. If you keep going to the theaters, they'll just keep making em.
That said, I will probably go see this in the theater. Bastards.
Kilkrazy wrote: This zombie theme just won't lie down and die.
Now we've evolved into heartfelt stories of heroic surfer dudes trying to hang ten on the gnarliest waves of zombies he can find, much to the chagrin of his girlfriend.
you know, if you replaced the soldiers with imperial guard, Bradd Pitt with a comissar and the zombie scenes with Tyranids, this would be an awesome looking movie.
The problem isn't the muscles. Zombies don't fatigue, because their brains are working at a very basic level, so we accept superior strength and endurance. The trade off tends to be that this basic brain lacks coordination. Running that fast and climbing takes a great amount of coordination, something zombies are not know for.
Zombies are a complete scientific impossiblity. You can't have it both ways, what ever magic that could actually make zombies could also allow them to do virtually anything. Even surfing, apparently.
It looked interesting, right until the zombie tidal waves and the Zombie Tower (tm). Fast zombies can work (28 Days Later) but super fast, highly agile zombies just don't.
The problem isn't the muscles. Zombies don't fatigue, because their brains are working at a very basic level, so we accept superior strength and endurance. The trade off tends to be that this basic brain lacks coordination. Running that fast and climbing takes a great amount of coordination, something zombies are not know for.
Zombies are a complete scientific impossiblity. You can't have it both ways, what ever magic that could actually make zombies could also allow them to do virtually anything. Even surfing, apparently.
It looked interesting, right until the zombie tidal waves and the Zombie Tower (tm). Fast zombies can work (28 Days Later) but super fast, highly agile zombies just don't.
I think a real good "zombie" movie is the Parasite kind... ala, Slither.
On of the best zombie films that I have seen is Shivers (the David Cronenberg film with 'love' zombies). Its even semi plausable and no one gets eaten.
There was a French film, Les Revenants, where the recently dead rise, but basically as there previous selves. It looks at the bureaucratic nightmare caused by the sudden influx of so many humans back onto the scene, as well as the emotional toll. No brain eating there either. I wouldn't actually classify it as a zombie movie, but it pops up on lists of zombie movies sometimes, so why not.
I actually like the zombie tsunami and the tower. Other zombie movies make it look like an average person could survive a zombie apocalypse of they're lucky, but watching the trailer, it made guns look useless against those kinds of numbers.
I liked the part where they were climbing up that pipe? That looked pretty cool. But the Zombie wave is still a bit weird to me, as before, Ill wait till DVD
The problem isn't the muscles. Zombies don't fatigue, because their brains are working at a very basic level, so we accept superior strength and endurance. The trade off tends to be that this basic brain lacks coordination. Running that fast and climbing takes a great amount of coordination, something zombies are not know for.
Zombies are a complete scientific impossiblity. You can't have it both ways, what ever magic that could actually make zombies could also allow them to do virtually anything. Even surfing, apparently.
Wait .....Zombies are impossible.....but......they seam so plausible!
The point is that the abilities and functions of the WWZ zombie is well documented in two books, if you count the survival guide. So you could make a movie about flying superzombies if you like, just don't title it WWZ.
If this actually goes down like the movie...first person I trip be Brad Pitt....throw 50 cal cans in back of the MRAP..ensure KingCracker has plenty of water to drink while he's manning the CROWE system (remote control 50 cal)..maybe a bag of Cheeto's but more likely Dorito's. Get in the TC position and slap Whembly on back the helmet yelling "Its the pedal on the right Hero!!"
The problem isn't the muscles. Zombies don't fatigue, because their brains are working at a very basic level, so we accept superior strength and endurance. The trade off tends to be that this basic brain lacks coordination. Running that fast and climbing takes a great amount of coordination, something zombies are not know for.
Zombies are a complete scientific impossiblity. You can't have it both ways, what ever magic that could actually make zombies could also allow them to do virtually anything. Even surfing, apparently.
It looked interesting, right until the zombie tidal waves and the Zombie Tower (tm). Fast zombies can work (28 Days Later) but super fast, highly agile zombies just don't.
Jihadin wrote: If this actually goes down like the movie...first person I trip be Brad Pitt....throw 50 cal cans in back of the MRAP..ensure KingCracker has plenty of water to drink while he's manning the CROWE system (remote control 50 cal)..maybe a bag of Cheeto's but more likely Dorito's. Get in the TC position and slap Whembly on back the helmet yelling "Its the pedal on the right Hero!!"
This sounds excellent. Specially with the inclusion of the Doritos
Wait .....Zombies are impossible.....but......they seam so plausible!
well done for the pointless use of an emoticon
You can't argue something from a basis of scientific logic when its completely impossible. Canon or not its gibberish.
I think your looking a bit too much into what people mean when they say Zombie Apocalypse. Yes we say zombies, but it also really means an apocalyptic scenario, and the zombies are a fun way of talking about something that would really be a terrible experience all around. You sir, need to lighten up. Like a lot. A lot a lot
I think your looking a bit too much into what people mean when they say Zombie Apocalypse. Yes we say zombies, but it also really means an apocalyptic scenario, and the zombies are a fun way of talking about something that would really be a terrible experience all around. You sir, need to lighten up. Like a lot. A lot a lot
Actually what I object to is the use of 'logic' to dictate exactly what zombies can do when that logic is fatally flawed to begin with. Its far better to just accept them as a plot device and leave it at that.
In the book, I think they were one of the few bad ass countries who took care of that gak.
Them and parts of England, Scotland and Wales. Hell, lots of western Europe. But in particular, go Conwy! I read the book about a week after staying in Conwy for a while and I was thinking...I would have survived that. Nice.
Also, I'm disappointed because the movie doesn't look like it'll have the university stuff that is mentioned in the book, some crazy chick holding a wall of the uni with a double-bladed staff and singing some dirge while she does so...sounds epic. But a part of my memory is telling me that was part of a propaganda movie...still, very cool and would have looked awesome as a 'snippet of the movie shown to people to boost morale' or something
I think your looking a bit too much into what people mean when they say Zombie Apocalypse. Yes we say zombies, but it also really means an apocalyptic scenario, and the zombies are a fun way of talking about something that would really be a terrible experience all around. You sir, need to lighten up. Like a lot. A lot a lot
Actually what I object to is the use of 'logic' to dictate exactly what zombies can do when that logic is fatally flawed to begin with. Its far better to just accept them as a plot device and leave it at that.
I think what you are not getting is I'm not using logic to say Zombies are not allowed to do that, your Zombies can do whatever they want. I'm using source material from WWZ to say that these zombies are not acting like WWZ zombies and the movie should not be titled as such.
It will be as unworthy of its title as "Starship Troopers". I expect much the same, decent popcorn movie, but only loosely based on the actual source material. It might not be a bad Zombie movie, but it looks like it will be bad WWZ movie. Get it? It's not that I object to how Zombies are portrayed in this movie as illogical, I object to it being called WWZ, because well.......its not.
Jihadin wrote: If this actually goes down like the movie...first person I trip be Brad Pitt....throw 50 cal cans in back of the MRAP..ensure KingCracker has plenty of water to drink while he's manning the CROWE system (remote control 50 cal)..maybe a bag of Cheeto's but more likely Dorito's. Get in the TC position and slap Whembly on back the helmet yelling "Its the pedal on the right Hero!!"
You do that. Over here ill be dual wielding a couple of A-12s converted to be belt fed and with one big-ass bunker filling belt for each I wish. Sword-preferably a bastard sword-for when they get to melee range. Scalemale armour for protection and a pole arm such as a glaive baresque or war bill and crossbows-their silent . Me and my friends and our familys fortify my friends neurberhood on his side starting with his and working outwards. Tasks are assighned and a small group of us including me are assighned the task of clearing zombies rescueing survivors gathering supplies and ensuring the supply of gamer gear never runs down.
KamikazeCanuck wrote: I think this would be fine if it wasn't named WWZ. This has absolutely nothing to do with the book. It's like they just liked the name.
I don't mind fast zombies if they are done right. I prefer the 'walkers' as you get more creepiness from them actually being animated dead.
But my expectations from this trailer... sigh. If they can't even make a trailer right then what can you reasonably expect from the movie itself? I felt like I was going to get dizzy the cuts were going so fast...
and the director... haven't seen any of his movies aside from quantum of solace. And while I like daniel craig, the movie sucked.
but I am such a pathetic zombie fan, I will probably still go and see this movie.
KamikazeCanuck wrote: I think this would be fine if it wasn't named WWZ. This has absolutely nothing to do with the book. It's like they just liked the name.
I don't mind fast zombies if they are done right. I prefer the 'walkers' as you get more creepiness from them actually being animated dead.
But my expectations from this trailer... sigh. If they can't even make a trailer right then what can you reasonably expect from the movie itself? I felt like I was going to get dizzy the cuts were going so fast...
and the director... haven't seen any of his movies aside from quantum of solace. And while I like daniel craig, the movie sucked.
but I am such a pathetic zombie fan, I will probably still go and see this movie.
I don't mind fast zombies either but in WWZ they beat them by giving the army bolt action rifles and making them stand in a circle. Why name this movie WWZ? Like I said, it just seems to be because it sounds cool.
Meade wrote: If they can't even make a trailer right then what can you reasonably expect from the movie itself?
The people who make the film don't make the trailer, typically.
it still reflects on the quality of the production, is my point. I've seen crappy movies with good trailers but very rarely is it the other way around.
I don't mind fast zombies either but in WWZ they beat them by giving the army bolt action rifles and making them stand in a circle. Why name this movie WWZ? Like I said, it just seems to be because it sounds cool.
The only thing I can remotely tie to the book from the trailer is the scene where the zombies are climbing over each other to get over a wall. There is a scene in WWZ like that, except of course the zombies are not ridiculously fast (i would imagine it in slow motion). but yes, apparently it is in fact 'based' on the book and Max Brooks consulted on the film.
Well, the lip curling reaction many of the book fans have is probably deeper than the speed of the zombie.
At least, in my listening to the audio book, my take away was how personalized each story was (due to the method of the telling) and endurance (steadfast survival over long periods of time). It's hard to know this early--but given the dialogue (They ask Brad Pitt to abandon his family to do something 'vitally important') and the scope of the conflict it tries to portray (big camera angle shots over countless dashing zombies)---well that's a pretty big difference from the book. In my opinion .
AgeOfEgos wrote: Well, the lip curling reaction many of the book fans have is probably deeper than the speed of the zombie.
At least, in my listening to the audio book, my take away was how personalized each story was (due to the method of the telling) and endurance (steadfast survival over long periods of time). It's hard to know this early--but given the dialogue (They ask Brad Pitt to abandon his family to do something 'vitally important') and the scope of the conflict it tries to portray (big camera angle shots over countless dashing zombies)---well that's a pretty big difference from the book. In my opinion .
The book did describe large battles, oh and there were seaborne makeshift cities, that also seems to be in the film. But I'm predicting a lot of seizure-inducing camera tricks and a fast, compressed narrative, they might even turn it into the standard, oh he's a scientist and he has to find a cure for the zombie virus in time to save his family. That is not in the book at all... it was mostly accounts of lone survivors or groups of survivors in desperate and unusual situations....
What are they asking Brad Pitt to do anyway? Makes it sound like there will be some blow up the Death Star solution. The whole point of WWZ is that it was a hard long slog to victory.
KamikazeCanuck wrote: What are they asking Brad Pitt to do anyway? Makes it sound like there will be some blow up the Death Star solution. The whole point of WWZ is that it was a hard long slog to victory.
well, they got Brad Pitt. They will get their money's worth out of him. It's a sure bet that he will blow up the death star, and probably take his shirt off a few times in the process.
AgeOfEgos wrote: Well, the lip curling reaction many of the book fans have is probably deeper than the speed of the zombie.
At least, in my listening to the audio book, my take away was how personalized each story was (due to the method of the telling) and endurance (steadfast survival over long periods of time). It's hard to know this early--but given the dialogue (They ask Brad Pitt to abandon his family to do something 'vitally important') and the scope of the conflict it tries to portray (big camera angle shots over countless dashing zombies)---well that's a pretty big difference from the book. In my opinion .
Well (having finished it last night), they could go for the scale of it in vignettes. Images from the great panic, a periscope view of the ocean full of Zombies and ships strapped together, that sort fo thing would be different. Turning it into Brad Pitt Must Save The World! Would be bad.
'd
Holy Terra.... 
That was....er.....different....
