World War Z Trailer

[Deacon_Tyler]

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

[Red Shirt]

Daaaaaaaaaaammmmmmmnnnnnn! 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




I like this one a lot too

[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.

[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.