World War Z

[jenny105]

I read the book and enjoyed the movie. I'm not a Brad Pitt fan but I didn't hate him in it.

 

[LilyWDW]

To start, I have not seen it. I don't like to go to the theater.

That said, I know many MANY who have. It seems that those who did not like it are people who complained about how different it was from the books since the whole thing was announced. The people who did like it are people who had not read the book or who went in thinking about it as totally separate from the book and did not try to compare the two.

It is the evils of making movies with a book backing them. You have fans who cry foul at ANY changes, additions, or omissions (the addition of Legolas into the next Hobbit movie is a prime example).

 

[jen0610]

To start, I have not seen it. I don't like to go to the theater.

That said, I know many MANY who have. It seems that those who did not like it are people who complained about how different it was from the books since the whole thing was announced. The people who did like it are people who had not read the book or who went in thinking about it as totally separate from the book and did not try to compare the two.

It is the evils of making movies with a book backing them. You have fans who cry foul at ANY changes, additions, or omissions (the addition of Legolas into the next Hobbit movie is a prime example).

DD16 saw the trailer for The Mortal Instruments: City of Bones. She has read every book out in the series. After seeing it, in typical over dramatized teen fashion, she was ranting and raving about what was wrong in the trailer vs what was in the book. DH looked at her and flat out told her that if that was how she was going to act, she wouldn't be seeing it with us or until we had seen it, because as far as mom and him cared, it looks like a really good movie and we could careless if so-and-so has blonde hair in the movie instead of the black that he had in the book, as well as every other point she was having a hissy about. Needless to say, she had kept her bemoaning strickly to her facebook page, so her dad doesn't have to hear about it, leading to her not getting to see the movie.

 

[JenM]

To start, I have not seen it. I don't like to go to the theater.

That said, I know many MANY who have. It seems that those who did not like it are people who complained about how different it was from the books since the whole thing was announced. The people who did like it are people who had not read the book or who went in thinking about it as totally separate from the book and did not try to compare the two.

It is the evils of making movies with a book backing them. You have fans who cry foul at ANY changes, additions, or omissions (the addition of Legolas into the next Hobbit movie is a prime example).

I've never read the book, but I thought it was the worst movie I've seen all year.

 

[Feralpeg]

I haven't seen the movie, nor have I read the book. I've seen the trailers over and over. The thing that bothers me, about what I've seen, is the zombies moving so fast. They seem more like insects. It just doesn't seem right. That might keep me from seeing the movie, although I'm not a huge zombie fan anyway.

 

[TheAviator]

I just don't understand why they would pay for the movie rights for the book with no intention of making that story when they could have just made a zombie movie of their own? This movie isn't World War Z.

I haven't seen the movie yet, but I agree with you, have no idea why you would spend no doubt a million or more on the rights, then make a totally different movie from the book. I'm guessing the director went off on a tangent, or another explanation maybe, so many directors write, maybe this particular one had his own zombie script he wanted to do and just so happened to change the original script to suit what he really wanted to do, i.e. his film. Just a thought, have no idea if that's what happened.

 

[tajz90]

He wanted the idea of the man searching for patient zero.

 

[Free4Life11]

I haven't seen the movie yet, but I agree with you, have no idea why you would spend no doubt a million or more on the rights, then make a totally different movie from the book. I'm guessing the director went off on a tangent, or another explanation maybe, so many directors write, maybe this particular one had his own zombie script he wanted to do and just so happened to change the original script to suit what he really wanted to do, i.e. his film. Just a thought, have no idea if that's what happened.

I don't really see how the book could have been made into a movie, but I can definitely see how the book influenced the movie. I'm sure the author could have sued if they made the movie without buying the rights to the material...not sure how it works.

 

[Jennasis]

He wanted the idea of the man searching for patient zero.

That wasn't what the book was about.

 

[tajz90]

That wasn't what the book was about.

I do realize that. I own the book. I was just pointing out that any little fact they wanted to use couldn't be used if they didn't own the rights.

Forrest Gump, the book, couldn't be further from the movie if it tried. However, they couldn't have made it without buying the rights. The tiniest of ideas that are similar could be considered copyright infringement.

 

[WDWBarb]

I'm another one who is NOT OK with fast zombies. They need to lurch and groan (to give you lots of warning) and stumble along. These group-thinking FAST zombies are scary beyond words.

Even on The Walking Dead they are a bit more "joggers" than they are "walkers" so I constantly threaten to abandon the show. If it wasn't for Daryl, I would have already.

Give me drag-along lazy zombie any dang day. Even those dragging themselves along after being half-eaten are OK by me. Just don't let them OUTRUN ME!!

So I won't be seeing this movie.

 

[LilyWDW]

I don't really see how the book could have been made into a movie, but I can definitely see how the book influenced the movie. I'm sure the author could have sued if they made the movie without buying the rights to the material...not sure how it works.

The book would have made a horrible movie. It is much better suited for a miniseries on HBO or something. Even the author has admitted that the book is NOT a good choice to do a movie adaptation on. He knew that things would be changed and drastically. He is quoted as saying:

"I cannot guarantee that the movie will be the book that they love. And I'm in no position to tell people to see this movie or not see it. If I'm asked I say: See the movie as a movie and judge it as a movie."

If the author is not all that upset with how this all went, I would hope that fans would be willing to give the movie a chance.. AS a movie.

 

[skatalite]

The "zombies" in "World War Z" aren't zombies at all. They're just infected, like in "28 Days Later."

But yeah, being dead (which a zombie is) is a disability, not a superpower. Zombies don't need to be fast in order to be scary.

 

[tajz90]

The book would have made a horrible movie. It is much better suited for a miniseries on HBO or something. Even the author has admitted that the book is NOT a good choice to do a movie adaptation on. He knew that things would be changed and drastically. He is quoted as saying:

If the author is not all that upset with how this all went, I would hope that fans would be willing to give the movie a chance.. AS a movie.

When I heard the book was being made into a movie, I couldn't even imagine how they were going to do it. It would not have been an easy task.

 

[skatalite]

I would hope that fans would be willing to give the movie a chance.. AS a movie.

That's what I do with every adaptation. But "World War Z" was pretty bad. It's boring, illogical and trite. If you go into it expecting a zombie movie, you should come out disappointed because it's not about zombies. If you go into expecting a disaster movie, you might come out feeling alright.

There's no comparison to the book, of course. Just like it was with "I Am Legend," the movie shouldn't even carry the same name as the book because they're incredibly different.

The book would have worked well as a mini-series, like on HBO or Showtime. I think even AMC could've done something solid with it, and maybe FX.

If you've seen "28 Days Later," then you've seen a superior, less-expensive version of "World War Z."

 

[JenM]

The "zombies" in "World War Z" aren't zombies at all. They're just infected, like in "28 Days Later."

But yeah, being dead (which a zombie is) is a disability, not a superpower. Zombies don't need to be fast in order to be scary.

Early in the movie, a newscast referred to it as a form of rabies, and I almost wish they'd gone that route (or some variation of that) instead of zombies. The CGI looked ridiculous, especially when you see far superior makeup work on The Walking Dead, and the camerawork on the crowd scenes looked like they just stuck the camera on the end of a loose firehose and let it go.

28 Days Later was much scarier. I'll even take the remake of Dawn of the Dead, which had the fast zombies, but was still pretty cool.

 

[Jennasis]

I do realize that. I own the book. I was just pointing out that any little fact they wanted to use couldn't be used if they didn't own the rights.

Forrest Gump, the book, couldn't be further from the movie if it tried. However, they couldn't have made it without buying the rights. The tiniest of ideas that are similar could be considered copyright infringement.

I think they just wanted the NAME of the book and the subsequent buzz and popularity of it (along with the current mania for anything zombie related). It isn't World War Z. It's just a movie that uses the name.

Does anyone know what Max Brooks thinks of it? Never mind...found it: http://litreactor.com/news/max-brooks-publicly-disses-world-war-z-movie and this http://www.huffingtonpost.com/denni...r-says-m_b_3244960.html?icid=hp_books_top_art

Looks like he agrees with me.

 

[tajz90]

I think they just wanted the NAME of the book and the subsequent buzz and popularity of it (along with the current mania for anything zombie related). It isn't World War Z. It's just a movie that uses the name.

Does anyone know what Max Brooks thinks of it? Never mind...found it: http://litreactor.com/news/max-brooks-publicly-disses-world-war-z-movie and this http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dennis-miller/world-war-z-author-says-m_b_3244960.html?icid=hp_books_top_art

Looks like he agrees with me.

I agree with you too

 

[CPT Tripss]

I think they just wanted the NAME of the book and the subsequent buzz and popularity of it (along with the current mania for anything zombie related). It isn't World War Z. It's just a movie that uses the name.

Does anyone know what Max Brooks thinks of it? Never mind...found it: http://litreactor.com/news/max-brooks-publicly-disses-world-war-z-movie and this http://www.huffingtonpost.com/denni...r-says-m_b_3244960.html?icid=hp_books_top_art

Looks like he agrees with me.

I'll wait for the Mel Brooks remake . . .

 

[JenM]

I'll wait for the Mel Brooks remake . . .

LOL! When we were leaving the movie, I said that it was based on a book by Max Brooks, but turned out like a movie by Mel Brooks.