World War Z - Avoid it in 3D! (no spoilers)

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.

**Ouze**

So, I pretty much never go to movies in 3D unless they were natively shot in 3D (which is fairly rare). This morning my wife and I wanted to go see WWZ so we went, and I bungled the showtimes (we have 2 theaters and I got the wrong one). Long story short, we wound up in time to see the 3D version, and I shrugged and said OK.

That was a mistake.

There are some scenes in the movie that are dark, and many more that have fast moving action, and some that have both. In all of those scenarios, it's very difficult to see what was going on. I left the theater thinking I couldn't wait till the blu-ray so I could see wtf I missed because it was so dark and blurry.

So far as the movie itself goes - I don't need spoilers because, well, all zombie movies are pretty much the same. I liked the movie itself, generally, but was unhappy by how rushed the ending was. It felt like they were so hungry for a franchise they forgot they needed to make a great movie first, and then talk about sequels - apparently the ending was the subject of several last minute re-writes, always a bad sign. I also noticed a distinct lack of chemistry between Brad Pitt and his co-stars, but, you know, the zombies are always the star of a zombie movie anyway.

What did you guys think? Use spoiler tags if you discuss plot elements, please.

---------------------------- SPOILERS PROBABLY BELOW----------------------------------------------

**motyak**

Ouze wrote:

What did you guys think? Use spoiler tags if you discuss plot elements, please.

There's a plot?

On a more serious note, I nearly convinced the missus to see it with me last night but she chickened out at the last minute, glad I didn't because I would have gone 3D. So 2D it is when I get around to seeing it!

**Ouze**

Yeah, a minor one.

Spoiler:

**Jihadin**

Read the BOOK!!

Spoiler:

**Ouze**

Discussion on origins

Jihadin wrote:
Read the BOOK!!

Spoiler:

Thought China was ground Zero....

Spoiler:

**Jihadin**

I believe....I believe....

Spoiler:

**Grimskul**

I'm really sad that Max Brooks sold out his franchise for a crappy cop-out movie like this. It's so far from the book's depth and realistic take on a zombie viral outbreak that honestly it would been much better if it had instead made an adaptation of the book through a documentary-like TV series of the events that took place (including "footage" during the war like the disastrous Battle of Yonkers). It just shows how crappy Hollywood is with their inability to bring out movies that aren't remakes or based on a book/an established series/superheroes; the lack of originality is disgusting.

**Ouze**

There was a scathing review on Pajiba that indicated that Max Brooks is probably pretty disgusted that he saw how stale and tired the zombie genre had become, he wrote his book that had the whole interesting POV angle, and then BAM, they turn it into another formulaic and tired movie of the type he was unhappy with.

I don't wholly agree with the Pajiba review; I liked the movie pretty well, 3D issues aside. I was super pleased to see the part of the posting that talked about the franchise aspirations being apparent in what was almost a word-for-word quote of what I told my wife as we were walking to the car, an hour before I read the review - it sticks out that bad I guess.

**timetowaste85**

I haven't finished the book yet, so what I saw the movie as was a supplement to the book: it's one person's experience during the War, to be viewed alongside reading about those who survived it, if not before: you get a tale during the war (the movie), then you get the aftermath stories from those who survive it (the book). I was quite impressed, and enjoyed it far more than superman, as did my friend. Thumbs up from me.

**Ahtman**

Ouze wrote:
There was a scathing review on Pajiba that indicated that Max Brooks is probably pretty disgusted that he saw how stale and tired the zombie genre had become, he wrote his book that had the whole interesting POV angle, and then BAM, they turn it into another formulaic and tired movie of the type he was unhappy with.

It has a scale never really done in a zombie movie before, but then I think Zombie stories tend to be better from smaller, more focused perspectives. The movie looks like fun, but the number of good PG-13 horror movies is pretty slim. I imagine I will see it at some point, but I have no expectations so I hope I will be moderately entertained. I have heard the ending is really 'meh' though, in that it is very anti-climactic.

**MrMoustaffa**

Grimskul wrote:
I'm really sad that Max Brooks sold out his franchise for a crappy cop-out movie like this. It's so far from the book's depth and realistic take on a zombie viral outbreak that honestly it would been much better if it had instead made an adaptation of the book through a documentary-like TV series of the events that took place (including "footage" during the war like the disastrous Battle of Yonkers). It just shows how crappy Hollywood is with their inability to bring out movies that aren't remakes or based on a book/an established series/superheroes; the lack of originality is disgusting.

You realize the books were cheesy and over the top as well right?

Half of those "tips" in the Zombie Survival guide would get you killed in a real life disaster, zombie or otherwise. World War Z (the book) had a lot of preposterous and simply ridiculous scenarios in it as well.

Take them for what they are, like the movie. A fun distraction designed to imitate a more serious work, making it a cool "parody". In the survival guide, it's a parody of military and civilian survival guides, whereas World War Z is more a parody of documentary.

Is the movie worth seeing by the way? I'm pretty broke but if the movie has some cool scenes or is hilariously bad I'd like to see it on the big screen at least once.

**timetowaste85**

Movie is definitely worth it. Other friends just got back and one of them HATES zombies, feels they've worn out their big screen welcome, and she loved it.

**Pacific**

Having read the book I thought, as Grimskul said, it would have worked well as a series with the story changing between characters each episode.

**generalgrog**

I watched it in 3D and didn't have any problems with "darkness" at all.

I do agree that the ending was too rushed, kind of killed an otherwise decent movie.

GG

**Grimskul**

MrMoustaffa wrote:
Grimskul wrote:
I'm really sad that Max Brooks sold out his franchise for a crappy cop-out movie like this. It's so far from the book's depth and realistic take on a zombie viral outbreak that honestly it would been much better if it had instead made an adaptation of the book through a documentary-like TV series of the events that took place (including "footage" during the war like the disastrous Battle of Yonkers). It just shows how crappy Hollywood is with their inability to bring out movies that aren't remakes or based on a book/an established series/superheroes; the lack of originality is disgusting.

You realize the books were cheesy and over the top as well right?

Half of those "tips" in the Zombie Survival guide would get you killed in a real life disaster, zombie or otherwise. World War Z (the book) had a lot of preposterous and simply ridiculous scenarios in it as well.

Take them for what they are, like the movie. A fun distraction designed to imitate a more serious work, making it a cool "parody". In the survival guide, it's a parody of military and civilian survival guides, whereas World War Z is more a parody of documentary.

Is the movie worth seeing by the way? I'm pretty broke but if the movie has some cool scenes or is hilariously bad I'd like to see it on the big screen at least once.

I understand that it's not the most realistic rendition of what would happen in a zombie outbreak and that the survival guide in particular is more of a fun "add-on" tacked onto the book but considering its fiction to begin with it at least gave a more gritty feel to the zombie genre that isn't full of cliché chainsaw wielding hacks in things like Lollipop Chainsaw or Left 4 Dead series. I have to agree he did lose me on a couple of "interviews" in the WWZ book, particularly the whole "blind swordsman in Japan" which I felt that kinda pushed it as I couldn't stop thinking of Bobby Lee in his Madtv "Blind Kung-fu Master" whenever I would read over that particular part. But by and large I think the movie doesn't do the book justice at least in terms of how the zombies were portrayed in the movie alongside the narrow-1-man/group perspective restriction caused by a movie. It would be nice to see a viral outbreak not occur in the stereotypical American cities like New York or isolated rural areas like farms but instead in foreign areas like in Vatican City, Russia or maybe even in Australia.

**Jihadin**

Viral outbreak in Australia wouldn't work. Once we nuked all the cities that has recent flights from Australia the viral outbreak be pretty much contain. Then we can get on with our Mad Max version of the world ending....which in turn for me mix my rounds in my mag...FMJ and HP 5.56mm....and the wife pressing me to get a .45 Colt so that means I need to swap out all my 9mm mag's.....sheesh being a prepper getting expensive....

**Mr Nobody**

I went and saw it in 3D, it didn't really need to be 3D so save your money and just see it in 2D. It vaguely touched on what was in the book, sites like Jerusalem and the outbreak being somewhere in Asia. If they took the montage at the end of the movie, showing how different people fought back, and expanded on it then the movie would have been much more interesting. Still thoroughly liked it though and had a good time watching it.

**MeanGreenStompa**

Speaking of Mad Max, I'm about ready for that film now.

**MrMoustaffa**

Oh yeah of course, I wanted the same thing from the movie Grimskul. Just trying to point out the booms weren't super serious to begin with.

I would have loved a TV series focusing on different people throughout the event and their stories, especially if they focused most on non American characters. They missed a huge opportunity to do something unique, but I guess they were scared of the walking dead.

**hotsauceman1**

Movies are odd, they have to appeal to a broad spectrum of people. The Walking dead can appeal to a small amount of people and still be succesful, but a movie can rarely do unless it isnt a blockbuster, but even then it is rare.

**Dark Apostle 666**

I don't plan to watch it - loved the books, but I dislike Brad Pitt, and every review I've read has utterly panned it, plus it sounds as if it's about as faithful to the source material as the 300 movie was to Herodotus - some tenuous references, and not much else.

Shame really, but there it is *shrugs*

**poppa G**

I'm not looking forward to it, although I'm somewhat hopeful.

**Captain Fantastic**

Fun fact. The scenes in Jerusalem weren't actually filmed in Jerusalem.

All the scenes in Israel made me feel very patriotic though. Seems like a nice place. It's a close second behind Japan.

**Mr Nobody**

Captain Fantastic wrote:
Fun fact. The scenes in Jerusalem weren't actually filmed in Jerusalem.

All the scenes in Israel made me feel very patriotic though. Seems like a nice place. It's a close second behind Japan.

Any idea where they were filmed instead?

**Mathieu Raymond**

Apparently Philly seens were all shot in Belfast.

Jon Stewart is filming a movie about Iran in Jordan.

***SPOILERS, SORTA***

I hated it. It had little to do with the book. I saw it in 3D and I second, the camera moves too fast to clearly see the zombies. After a point I just saw water physics, and not a crowd. Being a runner, they were as far from a marathon as I have ever seen.

And the manufactured jeopardy really is annoying.

Spoiler:

That felt good. Thanks for listening, guys.

**Enigwolf**

I'm curious, was it filmed natively in 3D?

**MeanGreenStompa**

I watched it in regular format today, I found it flat and soul-less, Pitt was an emotionless beige the entire movie and what a waste of Capaldi...

I've forgotten most of it already.

It REALLY suffers from it's certificate, the lack of gore, the lack of blood, the lack of violence, the silly seas of zombies... You could have replaced a sea of zombies with a sea of sand and had The Mummy for all the horror it failed to convey. There were parents with little kids at the cinema, 7 year olds... I was astonished as I saw them come in and then realized they had nothing to be worried about, it's a kids film.

A shoddy kids film.

**Ouze**

Enigwolf wrote:
I'm curious, was it filmed natively in 3D?

No - that's why, in my opinion, the film was unwatchable during the darker scenes. That's a highlight of movies that have had a 3d conversion done in post-processing, as well as a bit of blurriness during fast motion. I went to go see Man of Steel today, and I saw the same trailer for RIPD just days apart - it's was unbelieveable how much clearer it was in 2D.

The only movies i've seen in 3d where the process added value instead of removing it were Avatar, the Final Destination ones (don't laugh) and the Titanic re-release (because it was very subtle, and of course James Cameron is a master of the process).

**WarOne**

I'll stick to summarizing the trailer as that is as far as I want to be to this movie-

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.

**Crablezworth**

I'd give it 4/10, it was actually better than I thought it would be, but I thought it would be really really bad.

Spoiler: