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.

This looks pretty awesome

lots of very pretty girls killing Zombies and some humour - ticks all my boxes!

We shall see. After WWZ, I have become a sceptic.

Relapse wrote:
We shall see. After WWZ, I have become a sceptic.

That was a great book, bad fim (IMO)

This does look much better

 Mr Morden wrote:

Relapse wrote:
We shall see. After WWZ, I have become a sceptic.

That was a great book, bad fim (IMO)

This does look much better

Good book and good movie if they dropped the WWZ name.

WWZ was way way too long and dull for me - didnlt like the superfast zombies either.....

Some of the book was genius.

Plus WWZ didn't have ballgowns and blades.

 Mr Morden wrote:

Relapse wrote:
We shall see. After WWZ, I have become a sceptic.

That was a great book, bad fim (IMO)

This does look much better

Agree on the book. Among it's other flaws, I was disappointed the didn't have the blind swordsman in the movie. The films had all the ingredients to be good, but badly dropped the ball.

Relapse wrote:

 Mr Morden wrote:

Relapse wrote:
We shall see. After WWZ, I have become a sceptic.

That was a great book, bad fim (IMO)

This does look much better

Agree on the book. I was disappointed the didn't have the blind swordsman in the movie.

Thats was cool - The Russian stuff was also very bleak (those guys never get a break) and the Hey we don't know what happened to NK but we are not going in to find out!

The whole airport creating vast amount of noise but a bit of singing draws zombies was a bit silly

I've looked at the book a couple of times but it seemed like a one-off joke that probably couldn't sustain a whole novel, and I didn't get past the first couple of pages. I think a film probably is more workable, though. Less story and more action, etc. PLus, costume dramas are inherently visually appealing.

I wonder how many people who have read and enjoyed P&P&Z actually have read and enjoyed P&P?

 Kilkrazy wrote:
I've looked at the book a couple of times but it seemed like a one-off joke that probably couldn't sustain a whole novel, and I didn't get past the first couple of pages. I think a film probably is more workable, though. Less story and more action, etc. PLus, costume dramas are inherently visually appealing.

I wonder how many people who have read and enjoyed P&P&Z actually have read and enjoyed P&P?

I have not read either (yet) - but several friends have and they really enjoyed both........

Looks....surprisingly good!

I know its just a trailer but they seem to have captured the whole War with Zombies thing quite nicely (redcoats huzzah!), something that WWZ (and its set pieces) failed on I think.

Now to start laying the ground work to trick the Mrs into going to the cinema to see it!

 Kilkrazy wrote:
I've looked at the book a couple of times but it seemed like a one-off joke that probably couldn't sustain a whole novel, and I didn't get past the first couple of pages. I think a film probably is more workable, though. Less story and more action, etc. PLus, costume dramas are inherently visually appealing.

I wonder how many people who have read and enjoyed P&P&Z actually have read and enjoyed P&P?

I got PPZ for Christmas or a birthday when it came out... it was very much just shoehorning the "Z" into the original book. Could have done a lot more with it if the writer had been a bit smarter. I agree with you however, a film would be a lot more workable as you can just have the fun without the protracted rubbish attempt to explain things that ran throughout the book.

I am so tired of Zombies. Stop putting Zombies in everything, everything. How about we get a twist where something that had Zombies before now doesn't and instead it's like killer robots or something.

The horse that is zombies has been beaten to death, reanimated as zombie-horse and beaten to death again.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
I've looked at the book a couple of times but it seemed like a one-off joke that probably couldn't sustain a whole novel, and I didn't get past the first couple of pages. I think a film probably is more workable, though. Less story and more action, etc. PLus, costume dramas are inherently visually appealing.

I wonder how many people who have read and enjoyed P&P&Z actually have read and enjoyed P&P?

I read the Jane Austin book in German and English, watched the classic BBC show and the more recent movie too and liked everything...p&p&z was a a torture to read.. I haven't felt that non guilty to quit reading a book to the end for quite some years...every minute/page I wanted my money back...
Regarding the movie...this might actually work...tho I am sceptical...

Annnnnnd thats it folks, zombies are officially more beaten than a dead horse at a police baton convention.So we should officially change it to, beating an undead zombie?

I thought The Walking Dead was the last dying breathes of the over exposed zombie craze. I guess I couldn't be more wrong. Pride and Prejudice and Zombies is the screeching weeze of the hemorrhaging over exposed zombie craze in the media.

I still want to see a movie with Zombie Rob Zombie. Perhaps robbing a music store. That would be so Metal and Meta.

I like the concept for the book (but couldn't get past the first chapter I read while waiting in line at a Butcher book signing). I enjoyed the actual Abe Lincoln: Vampire Hunter book and less so the movie. I think the movie looks fun.

Personally I don't have a problem with the zombie saturation. They are far better than the angsty vampire fad that still hasn't completely died out...

 Mr Morden wrote:
WWZ was way way too long and dull for me - didnlt like the superfast zombies either.....

Some of the book was genius.

Plus WWZ didn't have ballgowns and blades.

I liked WWZ for what it was, having never read the book. But after hearing about the book, I want to. But it was a fun movie with some decent moments I still remember even 5 years down the road. Like the awesome pepsi scene.

While I like the idea of a Napoleonic-era redcoat vs undead horde set piece battle, judging by the trailer this is a film I'll be leaving until it's available for 75p in CEX. Looks a bit forced and predictable to me, personally.

"Frankly darlin' I don't give a ****" *blows zombie's head off with gun*

Yeah, it's not looking like something I'll pay £10 at the cinema to go see.

I might be tempted to watch it on tv though... Kinda amazed that Charles Dance signed up for it though. But then, a lot of traditional British tend to be very aware of the need for the next paycheck.

What it really does make me want to see though, is a properly done 'War of the Worlds.'

There are several of the actors and actresses out of the BBC's current War and Peace in the trailer. Which actually is set at the same period of history now that Icome to remember.

 Compel wrote:
Yeah, it's not looking like something I'll pay £10 at the cinema to go see.

I might be tempted to watch it on tv though... Kinda amazed that Charles Dance signed up for it though. But then, a lot of traditional British tend to be very aware of the need for the next paycheck.

What it really does make me want to see though, is a properly done 'War of the Worlds.'

I couldn't be bothered to spend the same to watch another Star Wars film - different strokes..........I'll probably watch it on tv as it looks very meh...........could have been owrse could have been another George Lucas creation - "shudder".

This however looks fun and flashy - and yep full of great talent..................

 Compel wrote:
Yeah, it's not looking like something I'll pay £10 at the cinema to go see.

I might be tempted to watch it on tv though... Kinda amazed that Charles Dance signed up for it though. But then, a lot of traditional British tend to be very aware of the need for the next paycheck.

What it really does make me want to see though, is a properly done 'War of the Worlds.'

Or they just did it for a laugh - which is why Sir Ben Kingsley was in BloodRayne.

Not worth the price of a ticket, but I've got a Cineworld Unlimited card, so I might go and see it. Heck, I sat through Hansel & Gretel, both ... Of The Titans films and The Brothers Grimm, so it can't be as bad as those.

Michael Caine has always taken the view that if he needed money he would do a film. He's done some right crap and some awesome literary films too.

Being in a popular exploitation pic doesn't mean you aren't a good actor. If you watch these youngsters like Lily James in War & Peace, you can see they are very good actors, not just pretty faces.

Sorry, that should be Sir Michael Caine...

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Michael Caine has always taken the view that if he needed money he would do a film. He's done some right crap and some awesome literary films too.

His response to whether he'd actually seen the terrible Jaws 3 was great.

“I have never seen it, but by all accounts it is terrible. However, I have seen the house that it built, and it is terrific.”

To be fair to actors, all they can do is to read their bit of script and perform it to the best of their ability. They do this under the direction of the director. The final result is heavily modified by the rest of the script, other actors' performances, the cinematography, the editing, music and SFX and many other factors completely out of the actors's hands.

I may have preferred if they did a napoleaonic era but realistic movie, without all the girls, knifes etc, but it does sound like fun and cool film.
I have avoided, not necessarily willingly, a lot of zombies stuff myself (didn't watch TWD, didn't play H1z1 or Zombies U etc etc) so I still appreciate zombies

"a napoleonic era but realistic movie"? Like the one from 2005 with Keira Knightley? Or the TV series from 1995 which propelled Colin Firth into the limelight?

Mr Morden...in this thread and the DC movie thread I have learned that you don't intend to see the new SW movie or the Deadpool movie and think they look bad. I must ask; does lack of taste in movies run in your family?

On topic...I'm cautiously optimistic about this. I like zombies. I liked WWZ (never read the book). We'll give it a shot.

 timetowaste85 wrote:
Mr Morden...in this thread and the DC movie thread I have learned that you don't intend to see the new SW movie or the Deadpool movie and think they look bad. I must ask; does lack of taste in movies run in your family?

On topic...I'm cautiously optimistic about this. I like zombies. I liked WWZ (never read the book). We'll give it a shot.

Any art form is subjective - movies are no exception.

Deadpool is knowing slapstick - something that simply does not apeal to me and so why would I waste several hours and the money just because others think it is good for their own (equally valid) reasons.
Star Wars looks an ok movie - nothing special and if not for its history - I doubt would have got good reviews - I'll watch i on TV but watch it on the big screen - I'd rather watch something else. I don't think SW looks "bad" just not great.

IMO Movies can be bascially devided into two categories - movies you like, movies you don't - We should nt be told "what is a good movie" - I personally refuse to be told what is and is not a good movie, thats for me to decide - no one else.

I certianly don't bother with film critics - why would I? - they may not like what I like - so why would I trust their opinion.