World War Z Trailer

[YetAnotherBloodyCheek]

So here it is, the exclusive Apple World War Z trailer:

http://trailers.apple.com/trailers/paramount/worldwarz/

What are your thoughts?

[Deacon_Tyler]

HORRIBLE. Did they decide to rip of We're Alive here? At what point did the zombies become runners???

[Deacon_Tyler]

Again, this looks just nightmarishly bad - NOTHING AT ALL like the book, wretched CGI, complete and utter crap.

[Luna Guardian]

I have to agree with the above two posters to a degree, it's not like the book and I'm not quite sold on it yet. However, adapting the book into a movie would have been very difficult, and I have seen weirder movies that are very entertaining (Doomsday. Shut up, I love it!), so I will refrain from judgement for now

[GreggSz]

I really enjoyed the book. Good story, good zed fighting strategy & tactics. The CGI could be a deal breaker for me. I’ll wait to see the Battle of Yonkers to make up my mind. But on a side note the Zeds in the trailer looked a lot like the infected in “I Am Hero”.

[Blood & Ice Cream]

interesting... damn fast zombies

although its still 8 months away - something to tide us over until the start of season four

[7oddisdead]

ive always trusted pitts work...but man, this one looks like a tough pill to swallow.

[Raven]

Brad.....Pitt...... .....
Wait a second my brain just needed to reboot after this information.
Nope not happening ::brain 'splodes::

[turbo]

I think at the very least it will be an enjoyable movie, the fact that it looks like it went way off of the story line upsets me. We've been waiting for this movie for a while, at least stick to a big part of the book.

[Deacon_Tyler]

I want my infected zombies fast and my undead zombies SLOW. Absolutely no exceptions. This movie looks like a pile of shit and is the first time that a trailer actually angered me.

I know some hated the book, but I thought it was quite enjoyable and focused heavily on the HUMAN element - you could sympathize with some of the characters, their viewpoints were inspiring, etc. The movie exemplifies everything that I hate about zombie movies - THEY TURN THEM INTO GOD FORSAKEN POPCORN MUNCHING FLICKS >_<

KHHHAAAAAAAAAANNNN!!!

[Deacon_Tyler]

oh and the part where the CGI pile of crap was climbing up the wall....Really? REALLY?

[Red Shirt]

Daaaaaaaaaaammmmmmmnnnnnn! :yay: Looked pretty intense and exciting.

I agree with your sentiments though. Looks like they went way off plot for the script. However, I chose to look at it this way:

The book was the personal side of the After Action Report written for the UN post-war commission. An oral history written down after the fact, ten years after the end of a ten year long war. If the character in the movie is the writer of the report, it looks like it is a look at what happened to him during WWZ. A tale that he did not put in the report.

Therefore, I think the movie is after a fashion, a prequel to the book.

[fredrum]

That does look pretty awful. The outbreak looks nothing like the slow burn that it is described as in the book.

And why the hell does it sound like the reapers are coming? I kept expecting the Normandy to come flying out of the sky with some red/green/blue explosions......


I always felt that World War Z would work best as a Band of Brothers style miniseries.

[Red Shirt]

I always felt that World War Z would work best as a Band of Brothers style miniseries.

Precisely. But then It wouldn't get the wide theatrical release.

Do you listen to the Rooster Teeth Podcast? They said pretty much the same thing on one of their (recent?) episodes.

[fredrum]

Nope....I've felt that way for years ever since i read it.

[YetAnotherBloodyCheek]

The trailer evokes in me the fear that it will be as horrible as the " I Am Legend" movie. One great blockbuster movie star fighting off hords of zombies.
But the way, Argo by Ben Affleck, which have seen yesterday, was a hell of a movie. Extraordinary intense and well crafted. Should be a candidate for the Academy Awards next year.

[LiamKerrington]

Ok ..

have watched the trailer.
NOW I understand why the release was deleayed.
The first time I herad bout WWZ being adapted as a movie was like: "Whoa! Yeehaww, wtf u mofus, you serious? That'll be a challenge!" And almost instantle I expected something 'more documentary-style' ...
And now this. The trailer tells me: This'll be a war. A bloody CGI-masturbation, thin story etc. The CGIs in the trailer look terrible and just good enough for a PC/ console-game ... But for the silverscreen? No way! The CGI look like copy-pasted from "Sucker Punch". But "Sucker Punch" was a movie without names ...
And also I wonder - again based on what I saw on this trailer: WTF BBQ? In the middle of a war against them zeehs Mr. Pitt is able to use his cell-phone anytime anywhere? Bloody fuck ... That's the opposite of what WWZ (the book/ audio-book) tried to achieve. The latter one at least tried to imagine kind of a realistic scenario of consequences, if most parts of humankind were eradicated ... That would include the breakdown of infrastructures like mobile-phone-communication-networks ...

Deacon-Tyler: I absolutely agree with you. This trailer angered me as well.

Well ... Anyway. That's the impression from watching this first trailer. Time will tell ...

All the best!
Liam

P.S.: Yes, "Argo" is a nice movie.

[GodofInsanity]

I will give it a chance. I have seen movies with bad graphics be entertaining if the story carries it. As for the comparison to the book, it is so far off base it is funny. But I read quite a while ago when Pitt's production company won the rights that the story would look nothing like the book. But beyond that I will go and see because any zombie flick, bad or good, gets a chance from me. And just because of that I hope they do not try to do the Battle of Yonkers because that deserves to be done as close to the book as possible

http://i1052.photobucket.com/albums/s455/Sockettwoomie/World_War_Z_contest_winner.jpg


I like this one a lot too

http://i1052.photobucket.com/albums/s455/Sockettwoomie/wwzyonkers1hi6.jpg

[YetAnotherBloodyCheek]

Damn, I do not know what Hollywood is up to. A zombie movie and a plot which includes serious character studies do not go seldom hand in hand in the producers eyes, I guess. But why? Let's face it, zombies service as a plot device to bring out the best (or worst) of the characters who have to cope with the situation. I do not need them to be around for - let's say - 70 per cent of a movie's running time. They are a menace, which forces the people being alive to deal with the whole "it's either them or us" situation. This of course includes some serious character play based on mutual sympathy/antipathy among the characters. Do you recall the first time you watched "Jaws"? How the Amityville people distrusted Sheriff Brody's actions and theories in the beginning? How creepy the situation got when they left the habour to hunt down the big white shark. And finally, how long was the shark present in this movie.

Sadly, those kinds of movies are only rarely produced nowadays. I really disapprove the Michael Bay'ish style of most blockbuster movies produced today because they never thrill me like the old flicks. Well, maybe I am too old. :squint:

[fredrum]

Sadly these days all it is is unnecessary remakes of good older movies crammed full of cgi or adaptations of popular books that are either so popular that the movies is an instant hit regardless of quality or books that are amazing only to have the movie lose all of the compelling aspects that made the book great in the first place and just turn it into more Hollywood crap....and even the "b" movies are worse. Technology has made it so easy to just crank out direct to dvd/cable cgi shit fests that nobody is even trying to make a good movie anymore and the end result lacks the one redeeming quality that made most of those types of movies tolerable: heart.

[werewolf]

i was disappointed when i saw the trailer. as i hear it they had to re shoot 7 scenes and do some major rewriting. I was hoping more like a documentary type of movie instead of the 28 days later. i think the walking dead has a beat on it than this pile of rioting corpses. Who knows it might turn out to be good.

[YetAnotherBloodyCheek]

Heart ... Another point is that the action / sci-fi / fantasy flicks do not need to tell a decent story because the plot holes can be whitewashed with CGI effects.

That is why Raiders of the Lost Ark is so much better than The Kingdom of the Crystal Skull, for instance.

[LiamKerrington]

I would even bet on it: "World War Z" with and produced by Pitt won't be as bad or even worse then "Ozombie". My disappointment about what is displayed in this trailer is huge, no matter what. But maybe, just maybe, the movie will be a whole lot different from what the trailer tells us ... (This is a thoght along the "hope-" or "wishful-thinking"-line ...)

[Witch_Doctor]

I thought the bleak doomsday scenarios of the political campaign ad that ran prior to the trailer would have made a better zombie film. Seriously, were those the Orcs from LOTR: The Two Towers climbing that wall? If your name isn't Stephen Spielburgh or James Cameron, then STAY AWAY from CGI. Yes, this includes you too, George Lucas.

[Luna Guardian]

Out of curiosity, if the movie ends up being entertaining (I'm not saying a cinematic masterpiece, but entertaining), but completely untrue to the source material except for the broadest possible margins, could you still enjoy it? Or would you view it as utter and complete BETRAYAL! and demand your time and money back?

[YetAnotherBloodyCheek]

I thought the bleak doomsday scenarios of the political campaign ad that ran prior to the trailer would have made a better zombie film. Seriously, were those the Orcs from LOTR: The Two Towers climbing that wall? If your name isn't Stephen Spielburgh or James Cameron, then STAY AWAY from CGI. Yes, this includes you too, George Lucas.

Hi WD, did not Lucas and Spielberg team up for Indiana Jones 4? That was such a bad movie and it used so massively CGI that it almost made me leave the cinema. Oh, the good old days, when Indy killed evil nazis in hand-to-hand combat are long gone - sorry, got to stop weeping.

[LiamKerrington]

I thought the bleak doomsday scenarios of the political campaign ad that ran prior to the trailer would have made a better zombie film. Seriously, were those the Orcs from LOTR: The Two Towers climbing that wall? If your name isn't Stephen Spielburgh or James Cameron, then STAY AWAY from CGI. Yes, this includes you too, George Lucas.

+1

[LiamKerrington]

Out of curiosity, if the movie ends up being entertaining (I'm not saying a cinematic masterpiece, but entertaining), but completely untrue to the source material except for the broadest possible margins, could you still enjoy it? Or would you view it as utter and complete BETRAYAL! and demand your time and money back?

I would still enjoy the movie AND consider the usage of the original source's name/ label as betrayal; but if the movie is not enjoyable, then, hell, I hope some people loose their jobs ...

[LiamKerrington]

Hi WD, did not Lucas and Spielberg team up for Indiana Jones 4? That was such a bad movie and it used so massively CGI that it almost made me leave the cinema. Oh, the good old days, when Indy killed evil nazis in hand-to-hand combat are long gone - sorry, got to stop weeping.

Just imagine: Shia LaBeouf vs. Nazis ...

That.
Does.
Not.
Work.

So, the CGI in Indy IV was the lesser of two small evils ...

[YetAnotherBloodyCheek]

Just imagine: Shia LaBeouf vs. Nazis ...

That.
Does.
Not.
Work.

So, the CGI in Indy IV was the lesser of two small evils ...

Is not Shia LaBeouf's whole existence based on CGI? He acts just like a Muppet puppet.

[LiamKerrington]

Is not Shia LaBeouf's whole existence based on CGI? He acts just like a Muppet puppet.

Believe it or not: Any computer producing CGI and worth its circuitry would simply deny to process something that would look like Shia LeBeouf. It is as simple as that.

[YetAnotherBloodyCheek]

@Liam: Even some of the Transformer characters seemed more human to me than Shia.

But, do not be afraid: he confirmed that he is done with Hollywood. Shia's upcoming film. (http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/shia-labeouf-lars-von-trier-nymphomaniac-363931)

[Raven]

..... I think I just threw up in my mouth....

[LiamKerrington]

..... I think I just threw up in my mouth....

^ this ^

[Witch_Doctor]

Out of curiosity, if the movie ends up being entertaining (I'm not saying a cinematic masterpiece, but entertaining), but completely untrue to the source material except for the broadest possible margins, could you still enjoy it? Or would you view it as utter and complete BETRAYAL! and demand your time and money back?

I can enjoy an entertaining story for the simple fact of it being entertaining. Star Wars had annoying science but it's among my favorites.

[Witch_Doctor]

Hi WD, did not Lucas and Spielberg team up for Indiana Jones 4? That was such a bad movie and it used so massively CGI that it almost made me leave the cinema. Oh, the good old days, when Indy killed evil nazis in hand-to-hand combat are long gone - sorry, got to stop weeping.

I'm not sure, haven't seen any of the Indiana Jones films. If the CGI was bad then it must have been Lucas' fault for simply touching it.

[fredrum]

I'm not sure, haven't seen any of the Indiana Jones films. If the CGI was bad then it must have been Lucas' fault for simply touching it.


Do yourself a favor and watch Raiders of the Lost Ark, if not all three of the original movies. Temple of Doom and The Last Crusade are decent movies, Raiders is fantastic. Its a combination of Spielberg and Lucas at the top of their games and the result is nothing less that a great movie. It doesn't have to rely on nonstop over the top action (although the action scenes are pretty incredible-especially the chase scene through the desert) and instead tells an entertaining story with characters you actually somewhat care about and doesn't assume that you are a brain dead moron with zero attention span.
On top of that, the three original Indiana Jones movies have become another one of those things that have been so ingrained into pop culture that you're almost missing out if you haven't seen them.


That being said, stay away from Kingdom of the Crystal Skull. Stay far, far away. Unless you're some kind of cinematic masochist.....

[Osiris]

Might be entertaining.

[fridginators]

I watched it and kept waiting for the part where I actually see the zombies. There's like that one part on the rooftop, but that's about it. It seems much more like a disaster movie - I mean the trailer is disaster movie trailer 101 really. The hordes of zombies were just literally hordes - they might as well have been escaping from a virus than the walking dead. I guess in part the purpose is to highlight the 'world war' part of it - the literally unending hordes, but it comes off as just completely dehumanising the entire story, which is what WWZ set out exactly to do the opposite of.

I'm not saying they had to reproduce the book, and I'd be annoyed if they did. But honestly, the book's premise is not hard to fulfill - it is essentially a pre-written television script already. Many great films have been written in flash back - Casablanca, Citizen Kane anyone? This film could've been great. The book is good but in reality it is simply a script; as a film it could have really been fantastic. And instead, what, we have disaster film 101? I assume Brad Pitt is simply a re-written Todd Wainio? What about all the other characters, all the other elements? Okay, don't include the French tunnels and the Australian astronaut, nobody gives a fuck about those elements, I agree. But the beginning? The Chinese doctors? The Cuban organ trade? The American safe-house for the rich overrun by the poor? (By the way, that includes a reference to characters I assume are Bill Maher and Ann Coulter who end up fucking before they presumably die). The mentally insane Redeker? Come on man, there's so much good shit. I assume there will still at least be SOME of it but jesus, it doesn't look like it. The whole point of the book was the universality of the problem, and an extensive social critique about how we ignore social issues - the whole thing could essentially be an allegory for climate change. This film doesn't look like it will keep any of that.

That said, I'll go and I'll probably enjoy it as much as I enjoyed Taken 2. Okay but not great.

[YetAnotherBloodyCheek]

Most certainly nowadays, the producers are reluctant to consider the typical audience not to bright enough to request more than a CGI orgy.

[Leedo2502]

I think they saved a story that was pretty aweful. The book had so many parts in it that were just stand out bad and overdone cliches that it took me out of the story. I think the movie will be a nice popcorn summer movie. And I have to say Brad Pitt did what Max Brooks failed to do, ask someone who has ever been in the military (or even held a gun) what would happen. It looks like that they got rid of the tired troppe of absolute military incompetence (as seen in 28 Days Later and the original WWZ) and went with the idea that just maybe the Army isn't filled with rapists and imbiciles that would build a dug in position with overhead cover to battle people infected with a disease.

[Spazz]

The CGI looks ridiculous -.- they could have done a lot more with this trailer. but i will keep an open mind til the movie is available

[YetAnotherBloodyCheek]

Here is the new trailer:


http://trailers.apple.com/trailers/paramount/worldwarz/

I still do not know what to make of this...

[scbubba]

Here is the new trailer:


http://trailers.apple.com/trailers/paramount/worldwarz/

I still do not know what to make of this...

None of the trailers for this movie have made me want to watch it... At this point I can't see dumping the coin to see it at a theater. Maybe.... maybe.... spend about $2 to see it when it hits on-demand.... Maybe

[YetAnotherBloodyCheek]

And Brad Pitt looks pretty old in this flick.

Besides, a zombie movie should scare the shit out of me, if it mainly relies on eye candy scenes which appear to be mediocre CGI sequences - I do not want to see it.

[pinkstarmary]

I haven't read the book yet. I think I'm going to wait and watch the movie first, then read the book. I don't want to be disappointed like I was with "Interview With A Vampire"

[LiamKerrington]

pinkstarmary: I think this is the best possible approach. Too bad I read the book and listened to the audio-book a zillion times ... Considering this and considering having watched the first trailer (I won't watch the new one) I am close to certain to avoid this movie; there is only a tiny chance making me want to watch the movie in order to speak in favor of or against it based on the movie-experience and knowledge about the movie. Right now I am very prejudiced about it, because I know too well what I expect from a movie labeled "World War Z" and what the trailer does not announce to happen in the movie ...

All the best!
Liam

[LiamKerrington]

I just watched the second trailer ... And I think the movie "World War Z" is not so much about zombie-horror in the typical sense; also it does not focus on the same effects you see in the zillion Resident Evil movies. I will contradict myself by saying this: the movie "World War Z" probably approaches the zombie-apocalypse from a different angle then what we used to see in other movies. We used to see a small band of weird survivors fighting for survival; or we had the disgusting movies living from gore and really obnoxious effects; then there were different movies making fun of the genre. But were there any movies or TV-shows that tried to put the bigger picture on the screen? I think the movie of "World War Z" will try to do this to a certain degree, which would make it different from many other zombie-movies, right?

This could help as well: Consider the title "World War Z" disconnected from the book or audio-book. This movie is about a "World War Z"; but the few things it might have in common with "World War Z" written by Max Brooks do make it neither a movie-adaption nor a spin-off of this particular (fine?) piece of pop-culture literature. That being said: The movie "World War Z" won't be about the "World War Z" by Brooks. So you cannot do anything wrong watching the movie, unless you hope to find a movie-adaption of the Brooks-story ...
And in my opinion this does not change at all, although Brooks was involved in the movie to a certain degree.

All the best!
Liam

[Bakkie-Pleur]

This is not a typical zombie HORROR movie, just a typical Hollywood blockbuster with a flavor of romance, a flavor of 'ooh I live my family so much' etc etc against a zombie background.. Still I will watch it, if it was only seeing zombies on a plane for the first time :D I will probably wait for it coming to dvd/bluray.. And just watch it with a nice cold one on the couch. :D

[YetAnotherBloodyCheek]

Will it bomb as bad as Green Lantern or will it be even worse?

[LiamKerrington]

Will it bomb as bad as Green Lantern or will it be even worse?

I have not watched Green Lantern; so I cannot give an estimate on this comparison. But: Since there are only few movies worse then Terminator IV, I think "World War Z" could be 'not good' (I may be totally wrong, and "World War Z" could be a lot better); but I wouldn't expect it to be as bad as Terminator IV or even worse. This applies for the comparison with "Transformers III" as well. And since there are no movies worse then "Urban Scumbags vs. Countryside Zombies" or "Ozombie", I feel inclined to say: "Give it a try."
In all honesty, though, I don't know if I will watch "World War Z".

All the best!
Liam

[werewolf]

seen wwz the movie today. the audiobook was better. i should have gone and seen monster university instead.

[Hellbringer]

seen wwz the movie today. the audiobook was better. i should have gone and seen monster university instead.

Green Lantern was good when I viewed it as a rental.

I haven't World War Z's book, but based off the trailers, my only complaint so far is Brad Pitt's hair. I'm going to see it in an hour or so. I'll give my final verdict afterwards.

[turbo]

seen wwz the movie today. the audiobook was better. i should have gone and seen monster university instead.

Did you get the newer audiobook? Just came out recently.

[Hellbringer]

Ok, just got back from the movie. It was pretty good, but it had that Hollywood feel-good ending (as much as you can for a zombie movie). Still didn't care for Brad Pitt's hair... he looks like a hobo getting ready to beg for money.

[Duffusmonkey]

I liked the movie, It was no "Omega Man" but still enjoyed it. It was more than a little distrubing to watch thousands of people being killed over and over, Finally I agree with Hellbringer. Before the Zombie attack Brad Pitt's hair looked like the power and water had already been gone for a week.

[LiamKerrington]

Hello.


Did you get the newer audiobook? Just came out recently.

This made me curious.

I just found out that amazon.com offers three different products:

The original abridged version:

http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/61GSURRGGRL._SY300_.jpg

Then "The Lost Files", which are meant to close the gaps of the abridged version:

http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/61snHvFsUNL._SL500_AA300_PIaudible,BottomRight,13, 73_AA300_.jpg

And then there is the newest edition, which is considered to "tie-in" with the movie-franchise:

http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51F2RuereoL._SY300_.jpg

I own hte very first version. Too bad that "The Lost Files" are neither available on amazon.de (German Amazon-service) nor on amazon.co.uk (British Amazon-service); that kind of sucks, 'cause I'd love to get more cool stuff. But am I willing to purchase the "tie-in"-version???

Best wishes!
Liam

[LiamKerrington]

Too late ... I couldn't resist ... The -tie-in-version lasts more then 14 hours (, if you buy the MP3 version of the product-series); so I ordered it. But gonna keep the original audio-cds ...

[Raven]

So they already announced a sequel to this thing. Hate to say it but No battle of Yonkers, A totally scrapped ending, and just more room for Pitt to make himself look like an "action hero" yeah I will keep my 12$ and wait for red box.
Maybe with the 1 mil$ Brooks got he can make a low budget version of the actual book and just name it something slightly different.

[CitizenSoldier]

The movie world war z was a great movie, it had its corny parts, but other then those few parts it waa suspensful and good, i felt they could have made it longer but it was still a great movie

[LiamKerrington]

Hi.

I happen to realize there are two current versions available as audiobooks:

This one - the unabdridged audiobook version of World War Z, done by a seemingly different cast then the one that made the original first WWZ audiobook from 2006/07:

http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51k1g1zGk4L._SL175_.jpg

And then there is this version available, which is the original old audiobook-version from 2006/07 with plenty of more chapters and parts beeing added and beeing done by a huge cast of all kinds of (voice-/movie-/film-/TV-)actors and actresses:

http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51KF3sicKxL._SL175_.jpg

Now, a warning to all those of you who might be interested in the translated version of WWZ as an audiobook; it uses the cover of the original plus expanded, and yet still lighlty abridged version of the book, but is done as an unabridged version; the real shit is the poor voice-acting, to a certain degree over ambitious and far toooooo serious; it lacks the 'natural' and convincing voice-acting which was done on the original audiobook from 2006/07 ... I was dumb enough to order this German audiobook, and it really is a pain ...

Anyway ... Just some more thoughts. On next Tuesday I will watch the movie, although I still don't like the trailers available ...

Best wishes!
Liam

[LiamKerrington]

The movie has its flaws, which is why I wouldn't want to get over-excited about it. But besides those things I'd say the movie is surprisingly well done - in all respects.
There are a few things I really do not like - like the flawed truck-action in the beginning of the movie, the CGI and the logic of any military action in the Israel-scenes of the movie, or the crashside near Cardiff (who watched the movie, will know what I mean).
The two special freak-accidents within the movie fit into the movie very well and show very well that the tragedy of the Zombocalypse is not only the scope of it but also the tragic behind single small events like when the two important scientists in the whole movie have their freak accidents ... That was kind of weird and funny ...
I really enjoyed the whole Cardiff thing and the down-to-earth ending of the movie which in contrast to many other Zombie-movies does not result in a dystopian vision ...

All in all I would give the movie a rating of 7 on a scale of 1-10 with 1 being bad and 10 being awesome. But this is only possible, because I did not expect a well done movie more then just based on the novel "World War Z"; actually the opposite is true - if you expect the movie to be in line with the book, the disappointment will kick in immediately; besides the title and very, very few references the movie is totally different from the book - plotwise, characters-wise, zombies-wise, almost everything-wise ... You get the point, I guess.

Best wishes!
Liam

[turbo]

I haven't seen it yet, I'm excited to, but knowing Hollywood went way off course of the book, I'm disappointed. I had the chance of meeting the man that started it all, Max Brooks. He wasn't too happy with the movie, and all of the interviews that I've seen lately of him on air, reflects everything he mentioned to the group of us.

I'll see it, but will be giving it lower than an 8/10.

[LiamKerrington]

I haven't seen it yet, I'm excited to, but knowing Hollywood went way off course of the book, I'm disappointed. I had the chance of meeting the man that started it all, Max Brooks. He wasn't too happy with the movie, and all of the interviews that I've seen lately of him on air, reflects everything he mentioned to the group of us.

I'll see it, but will be giving it lower than an 8/10.

Really, the only thing that helps is considering the movie an own piece of pop-culture. If you treat the book and the movie as too different circles, which both overlap, then the overlapping are would be significantly low.
As soon as I start comparing the book with the movie (or vice versa) I would add a totally new badass wall of words here (or anywhere else) ... And this would drive me mad, you crazy and wouldn't help at all. I mean, it already starts with the type of zombies and how they behave ... But that's not worth the trouble. My advice is: If you won't try to treat both World War Z seperately, then you will be very disappointed about the movie and I assume you wouldn't be able to rate the movie above 3/10 at all; waste your time with other things instead and don't rush towards this pain ... :yay: I really could start a huge ramble about the more as well as less important deviations between the movie and the book ... But this would a) spoil things and b) lead nowhere anyway ...

Best wishes!
Liam

[scbubba]

The Oatmeal (http://theoatmeal.com) summed it up very well...
http://i.imgur.com/UPOGPAx.jpg

[LiamKerrington]

Hi there,


The Oatmeal (http://theoatmeal.com) summed it up very well...
IMG

although a lot on me wants to cry out loud in agreement, I need to disagree.

There is (little) more then the title that movie and book share ... Where should I start? I think there is no point in schowing the differences, 'cause this would take me much longer for writing (unless I keep it like this: mostly book and movie have nothing in common ...), but it also would spoiler too much. Things in common are not as challenging, though a challenge anyway, since it is some time ago that I read the book or listened to the abridged audio-book ... Anyway, let's get started:

1) In South Korea the American soldiers gave a very crude and basic wrapup about Patient Zero; although it was different from what was being told in the book, it basically boils down to the same story: a doctor met patient zero who was a zombie without known cause behind it.
2) Jurgen Warbrunn actually was a major character in the audiobook and told the story about the tenth guy - in the movie as much as in the book; in that regard the movie is quite close to what you learned from the original writing.
3) In Jerusalem the safety measures were being displayed how even Muslims were lead into the safe haven; I think the movie exaggerated the methods a bit, but it still was something I remember happening in the book as well.
4) In the movie Jurgen Wambrunn told Mr Pitt that t was difficult to get an idea about Patient Zero or the ways how the zombie-shit spread; he spoke about the unknown paths in Indian, trade with human organs in Germany and stuff; and things like these were mentioned in the book as well - especially pointing out that it would be hard to trace back how shit hitting the fan started.
5) After the flight-scenes we saw a zombiefied plane-zombie stuck to its seat and fastened by the seat-belt. It attempted to get at the survivors, but it was not able to get away from its seat; this is pretty much what was described in the book as well - especially during the story of the female pilot fleeing down a highway in order to be safed by another plane; she spoke about zombies sitting in the cars and ready to grab for people running along, while these things were not able to get out of the cars are free themselves because they were stuck to their seats by the safety belts.
6) Wasn't the place of Nova Scotia mentioned in the book as well? Eff me ... I need to read this book again to veri- or falsify ...

Anyway - at least the points 1 through 5 struck me while having watched the movie; therefore there are more references to the book then just the title of the movie and book alone; but the references are small, heavily reduced and smashed ... And yet they are there - w/o doubt. I think reading the book again or listening to the 14 hour unabdridged audiobook will let me remember more items ... I keep you updated, if you like me to do it ... ;)

Best wishes!
Liam

[Robzombie]

Read the book a few years ago and frankly don't remember much of it. I seem to remember my general opinion of it being that it was just okay.... anyways, going to see WWZ tonight and although I get peoples point and how this can piss people off, I personally could not care any less if it had anything at all to do with the book. Frankly I like that it doesn't as it just becomes another story to add to the genre. On the other hand if you really like the book then maybe one could just take the view that your watching the same event unfold yet from a different perspective, idk. I try and just take it for what it is, entertainment.

[LiamKerrington]

Hi there,

I remember having been very furious when I watched the first trailer for the first time; and when the movie had to undergo certain changes which made it delay until summer 2k13, my fury was heavily fueled.

But then I started to reconsider and think. I convinced myself to consider the moving being a different story then what the original book was all about; and this was pretty simple, because the movie is about the World War Z happening, while the book is a collection of interviews looking back at the huge catastrophe.


Frankly I like that it doesn't as it just becomes another story to add to the genre.

That's the way to look at it.


On the other hand if you really like the book then maybe one could just take the view that your watching the same event unfold yet from a different perspective, idk.

That's the individual's challenge.


I try and just take it for what it is, entertainment.

I wish you well and hope you have a good time watching the movie ...

Best wishes!
Liam

[Robzombie]

I totally enjoyed the movie. Didn't think about the damn book for one single second. Although I wish the end had been drawn out and displayed a bit more as it felt somewhat anticlimatic, but I wouldn't have mind and extra 5 or 10 minutes there. I'm seeing this a few more times for sure.

[LiamKerrington]

I totally enjoyed the movie. Didn't think about the damn book for one single second.

I cannot say that I enjoyed the movie totally; but I had some good moments with the movie. And I am close to agreeing with you: I didn't think about the book for most of the time - only when the references were too striking ... ;)
Glad you liked it.

Best wishes!
Liam

[turbo]

Watched it last night, i went in thinking it wasn't World War Z. I kind of enjoyed it. Still will only give it 7/10

[Witch_Doctor]

Out of curiosity, if the movie ends up being entertaining (I'm not saying a cinematic masterpiece, but entertaining), but completely untrue to the source material except for the broadest possible margins, could you still enjoy it? Or would you view it as utter and complete BETRAYAL! and demand your time and money back?

I will admit that I enjoyed it. Not only was it better than I thought it would be, it was pretty darn good.

[LiamKerrington]

Out of curiosity, if the movie ends up being entertaining (I'm not saying a cinematic masterpiece, but entertaining), but completely untrue to the source material except for the broadest possible margins, could you still enjoy it? Or would you view it as utter and complete BETRAYAL! and demand your time and money back?

I guess it boils down to what you expect. If you want to see a thorough and well done adaption of the book, you will be very annoyed and disappointed. But if you want to see a zombocalypse-movie which shows tribute to the original source with a few references you might be well entertained. But this depends on your decision about your expectations before you visit cinema.

Best wishes!
Liam

[LiamKerrington]

Hi there,

is it only me, or did the zombies remind you a lot of Kc's We're Alive zombies?
The are very powerful, react to noises and to a certain degree pheromons (they dismay victims which suffer from terminal sickness), very quick turning ...

Ok, this is true for some more Zombie-stories ... But to me this is maybe too much of a coincidence. What if the writers of the movie-script were mixing We're Alive zombies with the "World War Z" background-story? Or is it kind of a too far stretch?

Best wishes!
Liam

[LiamKerrington]

Hi there,

is it only me, or did the zombies remind you a lot of Kc's We're Alive zombies?
They are very powerful, react to noises and to a certain degree to smell or hormons of their targets, too, (they dismay victims which suffer from terminal sickness, which is what they need to recognize somehow), very quick turning from human to zombies ...

Ok, this is true for some more Zombie-stories ... But to me this is maybe too much of a coincidence. What if the writers of the movie-script were mixing We're Alive zombies with the "World War Z" background-story? Or is it kind of a too far stretch?

Best wishes!
Liam

P.S.: Sorry for double-posting ... I actually wanted to edit my former posting; but the buttons "save" and "go advanced" won't work for whatever reason ...

[Leedo2502]

I saw this last week and liked it. I wasn't a fan of the book at all considering how much they got wrong and how preachy Brooks was.

I liked that there was no Battle of Yonkers since it strayed SO far away from what would actually happen if the military had to fight zombies and that was the point in the book where Brooks totally lost me.

[scbubba]

I saw this last week and liked it. I wasn't a fan of the book at all considering how much they got wrong and how preachy Brooks was.

I liked that there was no Battle of Yonkers since it strayed SO far away from what would actually happen if the military had to fight zombies and that was the point in the book where Brooks totally lost me.

I had to suspend a lot of disbelief at the Battle of Yonkers as well. I like the overall device of the "oral history" in the book and I see that he really needed a major military malfunction to be able to set up the world the way he did for the story. But it seemed like a very unlikely scenario.

The way the movie portrayed things as a rapid outbreak instead of a slow spread over a long period would have severely hurt military's ability to mount a major offensive inside the US. But since the world in the movie was setup differently, we didn't need anything explicitly laying it out (i.e. a Battle of Yonkers scene).

Overall, I was entertained by the movie and the book. I don't put either near the top of any list of movies/books.

My $0.02.

[Cabbage Patch]

Hi there,
is it only me, or did the zombies remind you a lot of Kc's We're Alive zombies?
The are very powerful, react to noises and to a certain degree pheromons (they dismay victims which suffer from terminal sickness), very quick turning ...
Best wishes!
Liam

I had the same thought! It was like the writers doing the adaptation needed something to make the revised story work, and they borrowed the zombie dynamics from We're Alive to do it. I'm sure that no one will ever admit anything, but I'm betting one of the writers is a WA fan. Let's see, there was Mathew Michael Carnahan, Drew Goddard, Damon Lindelof, J. Michael Straczynski, Saul Tink and some guy named Victor something or another.

[LiamKerrington]

I saw this last week and liked it. I wasn't a fan of the book at all considering how much they got wrong and how preachy Brooks was.

I liked that there was no Battle of Yonkers since it strayed SO far away from what would actually happen if the military had to fight zombies and that was the point in the book where Brooks totally lost me.

Yeah, the hardest criticism on Brooks's oral history of the zombie-apocalypse is about his depiction of military actions against the horde.
But that's not the point about the book. The idea of the book was to draw a picture about what might happen to small communities as well as large communities on a larger, global scale; also certain special abilities of humans to struggle for survival were part of the focus of the book. And that's actually where the strength comes from. The Yonkers-scene was hilarious and might hurt military personell a lot. I can understand that. Although I never was with Y-Tours (the German military services, Y-Tours named after the first letter of the license number on military vehicles), Yonkers always felt kind of wrong to me - not only because of the way this scene was set up, but also because of the 'type of character' chosen to tell the story.
Regardless of that the lack of precision in viewing the military action does not make the book too bad - at least not for me; and I appreciate this piece of pop-culture a lot actually ...

[LiamKerrington]

I had the same thought! It was like the writers doing the adaptation needed something to make the revised story work, and they borrowed the zombie dynamics from We're Alive to do it. I'm sure that no one will ever admit anything, but I'm betting one of the writers is a WA fan. Let's see, there was Mathew Michael Carnahan, Drew Goddard, Damon Lindelof, J. Michael Straczynski, Saul Tink and some guy named Victor something or another.

I need to watch the movie again ... Where did these names appear in the movie???
Thank you for sharing!

edit: imbd.com was a help; except for Saul Tink and Victor something I could pinpoint the names ...

Best wishes!
Liam

[Duffusmonkey]

I finally read World War Z, and I liked the movie better. The book was good but it reminded me of reading the Sillmarillion. It seemed more like a background to set up a later work.

Let the flaming begin!

[Creepykinai]

I had the same thought! It was like the writers doing the adaptation needed something to make the revised story work, and they borrowed the zombie dynamics from We're Alive to do it. I'm sure that no one will ever admit anything, but I'm betting one of the writers is a WA fan. Let's see, there was Mathew Michael Carnahan, Drew Goddard, Damon Lindelof, J. Michael Straczynski, Saul Tink and some guy named Victor something or another.

Victor I believe is an extra character that mr Warmbrunn talks to before creating the Warmbrunn-Knight report. The one that got bit by a shark. I've read the book so many times and have the audiobook on my quick tabs that I ought to remember for sure but sadly it is not so.

[Creepykinai]

Well we had advanced warning that it would not be the same. 2 years ago, I think, Max Brooks posted on his blog that while he was excited for a movie with his books title on it, it was in no way an accurate portrayal of his possible fiction. Of course we all know that now but, what the heck "The More You Know"
http://maxbrooks.com/news.php His blog doncha know?