Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

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

I remember when the first news about the movie adaptation of the popular "World War Z" was announced. I was optimistic even though they cast Brad Pitt as the protagonist...Surely if they stuck to the idea in the book it would turn out pretty good right?

Well...there goes that dream...

Discuss...

I'm a zombie fan, and what is this?

If you like the book, just read it again. This isn't a difficult problem to overcome.

Ahtman wrote:If you like the book, just read it again. This isn't a difficult problem to overcome.

I was excited when they announced the movie though...

Now it seems that Paramount has reduced the book's adaptation to another horror action flick that we've all seen a hundred times...

I've been following various tid bits of news concerning " World WaR Z" being made into a film since the rumours first started...and though I wasn't particular disheartend when I heard Bradd Pitt would be staring in the film adaptation (Pitt has had some good screen moments)...it did give me pause....as I thought that the film could end up abandoning much of the source material and go more of the typical " Boom!!POW!!...dumb!!" action movie route.
Thus far...I've heard/ read rumours that the film would indeed deviate from the book considerably ...but the above link is by far the worst I've heard so far..
It'll really be a shame if the film makers screw up what is perhaps one of the best zombie stories ever writen...but..it won't surprise me.

Considering how the book tells different stories in different places in different ways I just see this as another story set in the same world, not a recreation of the book. Could still be good.

Ahtman wrote:Considering how the book tells different stories in different places in different ways I just see this as another story set in the same world, not a recreation of the book. Could still be good.

I see what your saying, but then the film would be much less "World War Z" and more " This may have happened during WWZ"...
I had originally heard that Pitt would be playing the part of the interviewer from the book, and much of the film would be told via " Flash back" seqeances , omitting some of the story (much as the audio book did) but still covering much of it's content, or at least the overall "feel".
I had thought that that sounded like a good way of doing the film, yet remaining true to the source material and not letting down fans of the book...
The idea of Pitt playing a "hero" dashing about the globe during a zombie apocalypse trying to " save humanity" just seems a bit "bleh" to me...and certianly nothing like the book...
But...maybe I'm wrong...might turn out to be a decent film..guess I'll know when it's finally released.

NOOOOOOO!!!!

I just really got into the book after discovering it a while ago (Thanks WARORK) and I heard there was going to be a film so I was all exited.

for about 3 days.

until I read what was in this OP.

I dispair for the film industry.

Well im shocked at this.
I expect it will be about as faithful to the source material as the war of the worlds movie with tom cruise was.
There will be zombies. There will be a narrator. And that's it.
A movie with a whole series of flashbacks could have been good. Some of the moments in WWZ were downright terrifying (eg the underwater zombies attacking the boats).

and they thought they were safe from the Gs on the boats...nope. floating bowl of meat is what it was.



but really, the beauty about that book is that it is not a crappy horror film, it is a recount of peoples experiences.

I'm really, really bored of the idea that films need to stick to the source material to good. Follow that logic, and you'll end up demanding Watchmen over and over again (with slavishly follows every detail of the comic, but in putting it on film removed it from the context in which those details meant anything).

That said, anyone who thought World War Z would be half decent does not understand Hollywood. What made World War Z good wasn't the format, it was the use of zombies to comment on a variety of human institutions, and ultimately on humans themselves. What was the last decent budget film made in Hollywood that actually explored an issue on any level of substance? The big budget films are geared towards 15 year old boys and girls, and Hollywood has decided that they don't want anything too challenging.

Not that World War Z does too much to really challenge us, but it's far too much for what Hollywood thinks us willing accept. The US military deploying ineffective strategies and getting routed by zombies?!

Not that I blame Hollywood. Transformers 3 made almost $800 million at the box office. I'm inclined to believe we really are as stupid as the movies they make for us.

WWZ was a good book. this...this...garbage that hollywood puts out is not promising.

sebster wrote:I'm really, really bored of the idea that films need to stick to the source material to good. Follow that logic, and you'll end up demanding Watchmen over and over again (with slavishly follows every detail of the comic, but in putting it on film removed it from the context in which those details meant anything).

Its more about Hollywood taking the source material and diluting it through their meddling until it is nice and generic. Maybe there will be a sassy black sidekick who cracks jokes. Brad Pitt can rescue a feisty kid who saves the day at the end. His love interest can be a model with no acting skills but nice legs.

sebster wrote:That said, anyone who thought World War Z would be half decent does not understand Hollywood. What made World War Z good wasn't the format, it was the use of zombies to comment on a variety of human institutions, and ultimately on humans themselves. What was the last decent budget film made in Hollywood that actually explored an issue on any level of substance? The big budget films are geared towards 15 year old boys and girls, and Hollywood has decided that they don't want anything too challenging.

Rise of the planet of the apes? That had a surprising level of substance to it. Issues of what makes someone human, genetic engineering. Animal rights. Much deeper than i expected.

sebster wrote:Not that World War Z does too much to really challenge us, but it's far too much for what Hollywood thinks us willing accept. The US military deploying ineffective strategies and getting routed by zombies?!

How about independence day, US military routed almost completely. then coming back and winning the day.

sebster wrote:Not that I blame Hollywood. Transformers 3 made almost $800 million at the box office. I'm inclined to believe we really are as stupid as the movies they make for us.

I'm very sorry for having seen Transformers 3. No longer will i go to a movie that i know is going to be bad just to see some visual effects.

And the point is pretty much the same as

US army VS 'nids. 'nids don't think like humans, neither are they built like them..

ChaosGalvatron wrote:Its more about Hollywood taking the source material and diluting it through their meddling until it is nice and generic. Maybe there will be a sassy black sidekick who cracks jokes. Brad Pitt can rescue a feisty kid who saves the day at the end. His love interest can be a model with no acting skills but nice legs.

Of course its more about that. But go and read the complaints linked in the OP's post. While I agree that Hollywood does not use it's properties well, the general fan reaction only serves to show how they'd be no better - slavishly following the structure and plotting of the original is just as prone to bad moviemaking as ignoring it altogether.

Rise of the planet of the apes? That had a surprising level of substance to it. Issues of what makes someone human, genetic engineering. Animal rights. Much deeper than i expected.

Yeah, it had a surprising level of substance. I liked that the research was actually admirable, and sympathetic, and actually managed to justify the risks taken to some extent. I like that the decision to close the project down was based in corporate reasoning, and not simply stupid.

But that is not a great deal of substance for a movie. That we're surprised that film can say that little and be heralded for it is utterly damning of the blandness of blockbusters. Seriously, are you actually claiming that blockbuster movies are noted for their social and political commentary?

How about independence day, US military routed almost completely. then coming back and winning the day.

In Independance Day we see the US military defeated by advanced alien shields, only to show resourcefulness and cunning to win a war despite being technologically far superior. In World War Z the US deploys weapons and tactics geared towards the Cold War, and this results in them getting routed from the field of battle.

One celebrates the military capabilities of the US, the other condemns them. I think you can guess which one is to be found in big budget hollywood movies.

I'm very sorry for having seen Transformers 3. No longer will i go to a movie that i know is going to be bad just to see some visual effects.

You can go and see whatever the hell you want. But if you go and see dumb movies with good special effects, and lots of other people go see dumb movies with good special effects, you shouldn't be surprised if that's what Hollywood keeps on making.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

ineptus astartes wrote:And the point is pretty much the same as

US army VS 'nids. 'nids don't think like humans, neither are they built like them..

See, now I want to make an anti-war movie, about a needlessly bloody invasion of another planet. Except the movie is made by an alien race about their invasion of earth, and is told entirely from their point of view. All the most tragic moments involve members of the alien squad of soldiers getting killed. All the bits about human culture are wrong in the weirdest little ways, eating hotdogs with chopsticks and stuff like that.

The only thing I really saw that was different from the book is that it is durning the apocalypse and not after. The same themes could still be explored just as easily. It is just that a movie consisting of nothing but a bunch of flashbacks would be hard to manage and film.

World War Z had some great scenes. And some total crap, and ridiculous ideas based on absurdly bad math and failures to credibly conceptualize reality. But the good and creepy bits were impressively good and creepy.

We'll see how the movie comes out.

Meh, you'll still all go and see it. This way, now some other people will too.

But...but.....Albatross, ITS DIFFERENT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! LOTR sucked because they missed a couple .'s and ,'s in their dialog!!!!!! AAAAAAARRRRRRRGGGGGGGGG!!!!!!!!!!!

No Tom Bombadil is not forgivable, King Cracker.

WWZ has been on my reading list for a while, I may have to check it out before the Movie.

Mannahnin wrote:World War Z had some great scenes. And some total crap, and ridiculous ideas based on absurdly bad math and failures to credibly conceptualize reality. But the good and creepy bits were impressively good and creepy.

We'll see how the movie comes out.

This is basically my opinion, and upon review I suppose the synopsis isn't too farfetched. But the thing is they originally told the fans the movie would be more like the book and here we are now with the plot which is now ten times mire generic...

Albatross wrote:Meh, you'll still all go and see it. This way, now some other people will too.

I'd like to disagree with you but the truth is you're probably right...

KingCracker wrote:But...but.....Albatross, ITS DIFFERENT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! LOTR sucked because they missed a couple .'s and ,'s in their dialog!!!!!! AAAAAAARRRRRRRGGGGGGGGG!!!!!!!!!!!

That's a bit of an overexaggeration...I'm sure that this movie can be good and that I will probably go see it given the information I have now. The LOTR and SW movies (yes all of them) were great IMO and there's not much people can say to sway that opinion...

Sasori wrote:No Tom Bombadil is not forgivable, King Cracker.

WWZ has been on my reading list for a while, I may have to check it out before the Movie.

Do yourself a favor and do that, it will give you a greater perspective of Max Brook's universe upon the premiere of the movie.

The way I see it the creators/authors are just as much to blame when this sort of thing happens.

If they agree to sell their IP to Hollywood despite the history of how hollywood despoils everything it touches, well...

Fact is Hollywood wants to use mostly the name to prop up what would otherwise be a run of the mill zombie flick, and the authors/creators wanted to cash in even at the risk of selling out and destroying their intengrity or the integrity of their own work (or they assume that the film will lead to people go back and buying the original). Either way the motivation is money on both ends. And we are the suckers that will suck at the teet on both ends...

Ahtman wrote:If you like the book, just read it again. This isn't a difficult problem to overcome.

It's not. But as the subject line says, it's still disappointing.

However, I'd watch or read reviews of the actual movie before deciding
whether or not it was disappointing.

Honestly, the way the book was written did not lend itself to a Hollywood movie. The changes in time/location/characters/phase of the Zombie Rising... Hollywood never could have pulled off something like that due to lack of easy continuity.

I was surprised to hear they were going to try, and right away figured they would have to deviate a whole heck of a lot.

Jake

CptJake wrote:Honestly, the way the book was written did not lend itself to a Hollywood movie. The changes in time/location/characters/phase of the Zombie Rising... Hollywood never could have pulled off something like that due to lack of easy continuity.

I was surprised to hear they were going to try, and right away figured they would have to deviate a whole heck of a lot.

Jake

The thing is that even if the book doesn't lend itself to a Hollywood movie, I do believe it lends itself to an action/horror film, admitedly with a bit of "nip/tucking" here and there...and has the potential to be so much better than the " Captain America saves the world from the horrible zombies!!" mess it may be shaping up to be.
As I stated earlier, having Pitt play the role of the interviewer, and doing the film primarily in "flash back" sequences would insure tons of action, an established continuity and still remain closer to the source material than the comcept of Pitt rushing around the globe " saving the world".

FITZZ wrote:

CptJake wrote:Honestly, the way the book was written did not lend itself to a Hollywood movie. The changes in time/location/characters/phase of the Zombie Rising... Hollywood never could have pulled off something like that due to lack of easy continuity.

I was surprised to hear they were going to try, and right away figured they would have to deviate a whole heck of a lot.

Jake

The thing is that even if the book doesn't lend itself to a Hollywood movie, I do believe it lends itself to an action/horror film, admitedly with a bit of "nip/tucking" here and there...and has the potential to be so much better than the " Captain America saves the world from the horrible zombies!!" mess it may be shaping up to be.
As I stated earlier, having Pitt play the role of the interviewer, and doing the film primarily in "flash back" sequences would insure tons of action, an established continuity and still remain closer to the source material than the comcept of Pitt rushing around the globe " saving the world".

I agree. But it would have made Pitt's character 'boring' instead of the Zombie Slaying Azz Kicking Captain America that he wants to play (I speculate...).

well they butcherd I am Legend, Why would this be any differnt? Look at what trash they are doing to Red dawn.

My view here is twofold, first of all, yes they deviate from the book in a big way. But LOOK at the book, it's set over 2 or 3 years, not even 1 or 2 months. The different locations, the different heros/antiheros. The book would be very problematic to film because of the way it's constructed as a viable action movie. I can see it being shot in a documentary style action, but less like conventional movies.

Sure stuff like the battle of Y, and so forth are very easy to see shot, but really if you read the book properly....its a hard subject to film. A lot of it is about politics, and economy and so forth, rather then just pure action. Sure, the book is a good book, just will be interesting to see hollywoods rendition.

I am shocked, shocked, that Hollywood has altered an adaptation to make it more appealing to the mass market. But not as shocked as I am to the overreaction to a few lines of generic blurb text describing the film in a way that could be as misleading as almost all marketing blurbs are. On the Internet? This bastion of rational thought and enlightened optimism? Shocking.

Sarcasm mode off, this was probably always going to be a bad film. Futhermore, it would be impossible to make WWZ into a film. A television series, perhaps. The format simply doesn't translate into a viable film format. I'll still go and watch it, though. I like films about zombies.

Cmon guys, itll be like Inglorious Bastards. Brad Pitt will show up with a charming voice and kick ass. Probably not, but who knows this is WAY to early to tell yet isnt it


Also I just wanted to point out, I love the LOTR movies, I was just exaggerating some of the flame Ive heard nerds say on it