#1 Edited by Cybrilious4 (1766 posts) - - Show Bio

- Did you see the movie yet?

#2 Posted by comicace3 (6607 posts) - - Show Bio

No I didn't see the movie. This should be in off topic bro.

Stay frosty my friend.

#3 Posted by AweSam (7376 posts) - - Show Bio

No, but it looks nothing like the book.

#4 Edited by Vortex13 (12264 posts) - - Show Bio

@awesam said:

No, but it looks nothing like the book.

Plus it seems to have fast zombies which the book didn't. It kind of annoys me actually. They basically just took the title of the book and said f##k whats actually in between to front and back cover. It actually more than annoys me it straight up pisses me off. The book was interesting and had a lot of interesting characters, plot points, and concepts that had genuinely not been discussed in zombie lore before. It'd be like doing a Daredevil movie where he isn't blind and isn't lawyer. I'm usually ok with film makers taking some creative license from the source material but the movie from what the trailer's show has absolutely nothing in common with the book. Like I said I'm pretty sure they took the title and nothing else.

#5 Edited by Dragonborn_CT (23839 posts) - - Show Bio

The trailer alone gave my cancer. I want to stay as far away from the movie as possible

Online
#6 Posted by Royal_Rumble_Man (513 posts) - - Show Bio

Read DayZ and WorldWarZ

movie looks crummy

#7 Posted by AweSam (7376 posts) - - Show Bio

@vortex13: Not really. I figured it was just a prequel. If the zombies were slow, then it wouldn't be movie-grade. We would just have The Walking Dead. The book was great, but it wouldn't make them nearly as much money as a movie that took place during the zombie apocolypse. They pretty much made a call; stay true to the book or make money.

#8 Posted by The Stegman (26021 posts) - - Show Bio

It was meh. Horrible ending.

#9 Edited by nerdork (4039 posts) - - Show Bio

Regarded as the biggest flop of 2013, so far. They reshot a portion of the film, and it cost them over $80 million. Pitt wouldnt even talk to director Forster, due to a silly and juvenile falling out, and would only communicate through intermediaries. I wrote a blog about the production of the film a few months back if you want to check it out...

http://www.comicvine.com/forums/off-topic-5/world-war-z-adaptation-to-suck-690441/

#10 Posted by ComicStooge (13971 posts) - - Show Bio

I saw it and liked it.

It has nothing to do with the book, though.

#11 Posted by nerdork (4039 posts) - - Show Bio

@comicstooge: I figured it would be a decent movie, in its own right...but giving it the title "World War Z"; guarantees that a REAL adaptation to the book will not happen for a long time.

#12 Edited by ComicStooge (13971 posts) - - Show Bio

@nerdork said:

@comicstooge: I figured it would be a decent movie, in its own right...but giving it the title "World War Z"; guarantees that a REAL adaptation to the book will not happen for a long time.

Yeah, which suck.

WWZ was an awesome book and would be great if the movie were in a documentary sort of format.

Perhaps they could do that in the sequel?

#13 Posted by nerdork (4039 posts) - - Show Bio

@nerdork said:

@comicstooge: I figured it would be a decent movie, in its own right...but giving it the title "World War Z"; guarantees that a REAL adaptation to the book will not happen for a long time.

Yeah, which suck.

WWZ was an awesome book and would be great if it were in a documentary sort of format.

From when i first read the book, I was so certain that it would be adapted into a 10-15 episode mini-series (1 1/2 to 2 hours each) on HBO. I do not see any other way it could accurately, and effectively, incorporate all of the stories. I mean, there are only 2 or 3 narratives that dont need to be involved, to not disrupt continuity. It would require a huge budget, but HBO would have made a killing on it.

#14 Edited by ComicStooge (13971 posts) - - Show Bio

@nerdork said:

@comicstooge said:

@nerdork said:

@comicstooge: I figured it would be a decent movie, in its own right...but giving it the title "World War Z"; guarantees that a REAL adaptation to the book will not happen for a long time.

Yeah, which suck.

WWZ was an awesome book and would be great if it were in a documentary sort of format.

From when i first read the book, I was so certain that it would be adapted into a 10-15 episode mini-series (1 1/2 to 2 hours each) on HBO. I do not see any other way it could accurately, and effectively, incorporate all of the stories. I mean, there are only 2 or 3 narratives that dont need to be involved, to not disrupt continuity. It would require a huge budget, but HBO would have made a killing on it.

So true. I'd love it.

Which was your favourite interview/recount in the book?

My favourite was of that crippled night watchmen guy, Joe Muhammad.

#15 Edited by nerdork (4039 posts) - - Show Bio

@comicstooge: Oh man, my favorite? Geez...that's a tough one. But, if I had to pick, it would fall between The Battle for Yonkers, The Celebrity Bodyguard, The Female Air Force Pilot or The Blind Japanese Gardener.

But, TBH, I could reread the whole book, and love every page. In fact, when I finish the book in reading right now...that's exactly what I'm gonna do.

#16 Posted by The Stegman (26021 posts) - - Show Bio

@nerdork said:

@comicstooge said:

@nerdork said:

@comicstooge: I figured it would be a decent movie, in its own right...but giving it the title "World War Z"; guarantees that a REAL adaptation to the book will not happen for a long time.

Yeah, which suck.

WWZ was an awesome book and would be great if it were in a documentary sort of format.

From when i first read the book, I was so certain that it would be adapted into a 10-15 episode mini-series (1 1/2 to 2 hours each) on HBO. I do not see any other way it could accurately, and effectively, incorporate all of the stories. I mean, there are only 2 or 3 narratives that dont need to be involved, to not disrupt continuity. It would require a huge budget, but HBO would have made a killing on it.

I agree, it would make for a much more interesting mini series than movie, there's just too much content for it all to be crammed into a two hour film.

#17 Edited by ComicStooge (13971 posts) - - Show Bio

@nerdork said:

@comicstooge: Oh man, my favorite? Geez...that's a tough one. But, if I had to pick, it would fall between The Battle for Yonkers, The Celebrity Bodyguard, The Female Air Force Pilot or The Blind Japanese Gardener.

But, TBH, I could reread the whole book, and love every page. In fact, when I finish the book in reading right now...that's exactly what I'm gonna do.

Good idea. I want to re-read it too.

The Battle of Yonkers was amazing, though.

#18 Edited by Deranged Midget (17968 posts) - - Show Bio

I'm hearing a lot of mixed views on the film. Fans of the book despise it, casual movie-goers think it's a rather enjoyable zombie-horror film.

Guess I'll actually have to see it.

Moderator
#19 Posted by ComicStooge (13971 posts) - - Show Bio

I'm hearing a lot of mixed views on the film. Fans of the book despise it, casual movie-goers think it's a rather enjoyable zombie-horror film.

Guess I'll actually have to see it.

As a fan of the book, I still liked he movie. I knew it wouldn't compare, so I enjoyed it for what it was.

#20 Posted by Deranged Midget (17968 posts) - - Show Bio

@comicstooge: I've read the book as well and from the trailer, it's painfully evident they have nothing in common but it still looked entertaining. Not a fan of judging something based off other reviews.

Moderator
#21 Posted by Chaos Prime (10857 posts) - - Show Bio

Not seen it, but looking forward to watching it next wk.

#22 Edited by ComicStooge (13971 posts) - - Show Bio

@deranged_midget said:

@comicstooge: I've read the book as well and from the trailer, it's painfully evident they have nothing in common but it still looked entertaining. Not a fan of judging something based off other reviews.

Do you have a favourite interview from the book?

#23 Posted by Deranged Midget (17968 posts) - - Show Bio

@comicstooge: Yeesh, I can't pin-point that off the top of my head.

Moderator
#24 Posted by Chibi_cute (4612 posts) - - Show Bio

They screwed up another book. they made the zombies look so CGI and run like usain bolt.

In the book the zombies are slow walkers. And the first infection started in china

I wonder if that will also happen in the movie.

#25 Posted by russellmania77 (15822 posts) - - Show Bio
Online
#26 Edited by AweSam (7376 posts) - - Show Bio
#27 Posted by Dragonborn_CT (23839 posts) - - Show Bio

Oh the movie is now bombing? What a shock *sarcasm*.

Online
#28 Posted by Fuchsia_Nightingale (10130 posts) - - Show Bio
#29 Posted by Dragonborn_CT (23839 posts) - - Show Bio

@dragonborn_ct: Not a zombie fan I take it ? :P


You guessed correctly but it has little to do with me not liking zombies, and more with this movie taking the source material and beating the sh*t out of it with a bat. Not to mention, they did a f*cking terrible job with the marketing, putting the worse things you could in a trailer such as horrible screeching Inception music, cliched action sequences and waves of pile zombies. Not surprised it made many people choose to stay away from it.

Online
#30 Posted by Fuchsia_Nightingale (10130 posts) - - Show Bio

@dragonborn_ct: Haha Okay ^-^

To be honest,just off the trailers, idk what it was until it said WWZ, I'll hold final judgement till I see it =^-^=

#31 Posted by SideburnGuru (1338 posts) - - Show Bio

..Why the hell are undead corpses with rotting bodies able to keep up with cars and climb things? That goes against everything zombies have ever done.

I'm all for originality, but at least explain it. Or hell, do what 30 Days Later or whatever and just call them rage infected, THAT makes sense.. a bit more.