So here it is, the exclusive Apple World War Z trailer:
http://trailers.apple.com/trailers/paramount/worldwarz/
What are your thoughts?
Printable View
So here it is, the exclusive Apple World War Z trailer:
http://trailers.apple.com/trailers/paramount/worldwarz/
What are your thoughts?
HORRIBLE. Did they decide to rip of We're Alive here? At what point did the zombies become runners???
Again, this looks just nightmarishly bad - NOTHING AT ALL like the book, wretched CGI, complete and utter crap.
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
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”.
interesting... damn fast zombies
although its still 8 months away - something to tide us over until the start of season four
ive always trusted pitts work...but man, this one looks like a tough pill to swallow.
Brad.....Pitt...... .....
Wait a second my brain just needed to reboot after this information.
Nope not happening ::brain 'splodes::
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.
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!!!
oh and the part where the CGI pile of crap was climbing up the wall....Really? REALLY?
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.
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.
Precisely. But then It wouldn't get the wide theatrical release.Quote:
Originally Posted by fredrum
Do you listen to the Rooster Teeth Podcast? They said pretty much the same thing on one of their (recent?) episodes.
Nope....I've felt that way for years ever since i read it.
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.
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.
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
I like this one a lot too
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:
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.
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.
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.
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 ...)
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.
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?
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Witch_Doctor
+1Quote:
Originally Posted by Witch_Doctor
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 ...Quote:
Originally Posted by Luna Guardian
Just imagine: Shia LaBeouf vs. Nazis ...Quote:
Originally Posted by YetAnotherBloodyCheek
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by LiamKerrington
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by 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.
..... I think I just threw up in my mouth....
^ this ^Quote:
Originally Posted by Raven
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Luna Guardian
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by YetAnotherBloodyCheek
Quote:
Originally Posted by Witch_Doctor
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.....
Might be entertaining.
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.
Most certainly nowadays, the producers are reluctant to consider the typical audience not to bright enough to request more than a CGI orgy.
