Movie: World War Z - In production.

[TPRJones]

Still not going to watch it until someone I trust who is familiar with the book assures me that it is a reasonable attempt at a faithful adaption instead of the complete horseshit name-grab for a completely unrelated project that the trailers makes it out to be.

I utterly despise people who pull that shit.



Edited By TPRJones on 1372082094

[Leisher]

Still not going to watch it until someone I trust who is familiar with the book assures me that it is a reasonable attempt at a faithful adaption instead of the complete horseshit name-grab for a completely unrelated project that the trailers makes it out to be.

I utterly despise people who pull that shit.

I couldn't agree more about how Hollywood destroys established properties thinking they can do it better.

[Troy]

Nothing like the books. That said, I didn't hate it. I enjoyed most of it.

Some of you will hate hate hate the ending. Think aliens melting to water and dinosaurs not seeing movement.

But it was a big budget zombie flick, so it gets a 6/10 from me.



Edited By Troy on 1372491967

[GORDON]

Welp, that was certainly a movie with the title World War Z.

Looks like they didn't even try to tell the story from the book. Went in a totally opposite direction from most themes the book explored. Couldn't have been a more different story than what the book told and still include zombies. They didn't even bother keeping the "Zed" moniker... they made it something else. wtf.

As a completely different movie... it was ok. Troy gave it a 6/10, I'll give it a 5. I am going to take a wild-ass guess and say they late reshoots they were doing, and the story they were adding to give the movie an ending, was that "camouflage" crap.

[Leisher]

Welp, that was certainly a movie with the title World War Z.

That's dead on. (No pun intended.)

While it was an entertaining movie, as someone who read the book, I couldn't help but be disappointed. I simply do not understand why you get into a bidding war for the rights to the book, and then tell a story that is completely different from the one in the book.

I mean, you can't even call the zombies by the same nickname as is used in the book?

It just boggles the mind.

That being said, the movie was entertaining, but not great. The ending was also ridiculously anti-climatic.

I wonder what kind of movie we'd have seen if Leonardo DiCaprio had won that bidding war instead of Brad Pitt?

[Malcolm]

I wonder what kind of movie we'd have seen if Leonardo DiCaprio had won that bidding war instead of Brad Pitt?

I don't know how, but it would have been worse. Least I'm relatively sure Brad Pitt still has his balls.

[Leisher]

I wonder what kind of movie we'd have seen if Leonardo DiCaprio had won that bidding war instead of Brad Pitt?

I don't know how, but it would have been worse. Least I'm relatively sure Brad Pitt still has his balls.

I have no idea what that means.

[Malcolm]

I wonder what kind of movie we'd have seen if Leonardo DiCaprio had won that bidding war instead of Brad Pitt?

I don't know how, but it would have been worse. Least I'm relatively sure Brad Pitt still has his balls.

I have no idea what that means.

I'm thinking a movie about zombies, about as unnecessarily long as "The Aviator", as full of itself as "The Great Gatsby", and with as stupid an ending as "Shutter Island."

[Leisher]

I don't know how, but it would have been worse. Least I'm relatively sure Brad Pitt still has his balls.

I have no idea what that means.

I'm thinking a movie about zombies, about as unnecessarily long as "The Aviator", as full of itself as "The Great Gatsby", and with as stupid an ending as "Shutter Island."

I see. Well, that's a fair criticism, but I would advise you to wait until you see the movie before making comments like that.

Why?

Because if you've read the book, you're going to come here posting: "I wonder why DiCaprio would have done with it..."

[Malcolm]

DiCaprio hasn't done anything that's made me stand up and take notice in a long, long while. His turn in "Django Unchained" was ok, but he was hardly carrying that flick. I'd argue Christoph Waltz was the most memorable character, followed by Brumhilda, and then Django. I can't imagine DiCaprio having creative control over a zombie story and making a movie out of it that I'd want to watch. If that thought you mentioned goes through my head, it's pretty much equivalent to, "I wonder what would happen if they made a flick out of this World War Z book?" Because, from what I hear, no one has yet. I don't care if it's "World War Z" with Randy Quaid and Steve Guttenberg, I want World War Z.

[Leisher]

DiCaprio hasn't done anything that's made me stand up and take notice in a long, long while.

I disagree with that. I thought he was great in Django.

Also, what does his acting have to do with behind the scenes creative direction? Who's to say he wouldn't have asked someone else to make the film for him?

You're making some big assumptions, and asking essentially the same question...all without even seeing the film...

[Malcolm]

I thought he was great in Django.

Eh. He was alright. He didn't project enough malevolence for me. He just seemed like he was a big name they got to play a part that isn't exactly three-dimensional and could've been done by virtually any white male actor aged 25 and up. I sure as shit wasn't buying his "accent." I couldn't take him seriously as a villainous threat.

Also, what does his acting have to do with behind the scenes creative direction? Who's to say he wouldn't have asked someone else to make the film for him?

His ego usually doesn't permit him to get involved with a film and not act in it. He's got a real, real small list of things he's produced and hasn't starred in. I can think of two that got theatrical releases (Orphan and Red Riding Hood). They were not well received.

If Leo made a zombie flick, I'd probably check it (when it's cheap enough) and not expect much. If anyone, even Uwe Boll, made a real World War Z movie, I'd probably check it, too, but I'd expect more.



Edited By Malcolm on 1373470077

[TPRJones]

That being said, the movie was entertaining, but not great.

I don't care, I despise this movie and everyone involved with it, sight unseen.

I have never been one of those people that insist the movie be exactly like the book. But it should at least attempt to respect the spirit of the source material. It should be an honest and forthright attempt to make something that shows respect for the prior creation and creators and respect for the audience that cares for it, even if it has been changed to fit the new medium. To do something like this where the source material is almost completely ignored is grotesquely disrespectful. It is an insult to everyone involved in the prior art and all of the fans of that art. It is an unforgivable sin and everyone involved should feel nothing but shame.



Edited By TPRJones on 1373470505

[Leisher]

Eh. He was alright. He didn't project enough malevolence for me. He just seemed like he was a big name they got to play a part that isn't exactly three-dimensional and could've been done by virtually any white male actor aged 25 and up. I sure as shit wasn't buying his "accent." I couldn't take him seriously as a villainous threat.

That's how I felt about Don Johnson.

I don't think his character needed malevolence.

His ego usually doesn't permit him to get involved with a film and not act in it. He's got a real, real small list of things he's produced and hasn't starred in.

World War Z starring Brad Pitt.

[Malcolm]

That's how I felt about Don Johnson.

I was so waiting for the dude that played Tubbs to show up. But yeah, that was a slightly bigger role than a cameo that could've been done by virtually anyone.

I don't think his character needed malevolence.

Not all the time, but for instance, the scene where he brought out the skull and expounds the virtues of phrenology, I almost couldn't contain my laughter.

[GORDON]

But it should at least attempt to respect the spirit of the source material.

You have an out, though, because the book is not source material, they just share the same name. The movie did not betray the book, the movie has nothing to do with the book.

[Malcolm]

But it should at least attempt to respect the spirit of the source material.

You have an out, though, because the book is not source material, they just share the same name. The movie did not betray the book, the movie has nothing to do with the book.

The movie is claiming the screenplay is "based on the book." The fact that there was a much publicized bidding war for rights to make a motion picture about the book makes it all the more difficult to avoid the association. Maybe by "based on the book" they mean "it has zombies, the book has zombies, ergo..."



Edited By Malcolm on 1373477083

[GORDON]

I get that. And I wanted the book made into a movie, too, and I was irritated when I heard they were diverging.

But I don't feel betrayed. I've seen it, and they haven't made the book into a movie, yet.

[TPRJones]

That's not an out, that's the very essence of their horrible crime! To completely ignore the prior art while claiming that this is the adaption is to piss all over Max Brooks' work.

I hope he was well-paid to take that particular golden shower.



Edited By TPRJones on 1373477493

[GORDON]

Eh. It's like I went to the zoo and there was an elephant in the tiger cage. I don't care if the sign says "This is a tiger,"




I have no idea where I was going with that.

Maybe I just want to see an epic tiger/elephant fight.



Edited By GORDON on 1373477500