Originally posted by Flyattractor
[b]Wasn't WWZ kind of a Flop? Or did it actually manage to make enough money? [/B]
It did decently (Box Office Mojo).
The trouble is a lot of people here are used to looking at Superhero comic movie numbers and yeah, they make bank. But that's still a profit.
Any money it made was lucky for the two hours of garbage that it put on screen. The plot was dumb, and the director seemed to think the audience was full of morons with the 'reveal' of the 'secret' weapon against the zombies. Let's not forget either how they destroyed Brooks' description of the plague itself and how it developed. Literally one of the worst zombie films ever.
Originally posted by Ascendancy
Any money it made was lucky for the two hours of garbage that it put on screen. The plot was dumb, and the director seemed to think the audience was full of morons with the 'reveal' of the 'secret' weapon against the zombies. Let's not forget either how they destroyed Brooks' description of the plague itself and how it developed. Literally one of the worst zombie films ever.
Cool story bro
not everyone has read the book like yourself.
Originally posted by Ascendancy
The plot was dumb, and the director seemed to think the audience was full of morons with the 'reveal' of the 'secret' weapon against the zombies.
Name a zombie movie where the plot wasn't dumb.
I didn't find the "reveal" as moronic but more a nod to H.G Wells' War Of The Worlds.
Originally posted by Esau Cairn
Name a zombie movie where the plot wasn't dumb.I didn't find the "reveal" as moronic but more a nod to H.G Wells' War Of The Worlds.
I have no problem with a nod to plot devices from other well-known films, but they handled it poorly.
I also get that not everyone has read the novels, but there was literally no reason to even buy the rights from Brooks because their story so loosely touches on it that if it hadn't been called the same thing I'd have had no idea it was in any way sourced from it. The book was great because it told the story from the perspective of survivors all over the world and made what happened a puzzle that came together over the course of the read. WWZ was just a bunch of disjointed action scenes with lulls in the middle that did little to help connect to the characters.
Lastly, the masses of CGI zombie track stars throughout was a weak trope. I don't think anyone would find TWD enjoyable if every episode were them running into a new herd, and even less so if they were the type in WWZ. Fast zombies are rarely the way to go, and the film handled them horribly.
I'm glad that Brooks is getting extra checks for his IP, but it sucks the big one that Hollywood decided to destroy such amazing source material and turn it into something so generic and story-wise on a B-movie level if it weren't for the budget and Pitt at the helm.
Originally posted by Ascendancy
Them going back over and over and over and hitting the audience in the head with "zombies ignore you if you're already terminal" was pathetically bad. It's one thing to make sure that everyone is keyed in on what's going on in case they missed the context clues, but they both saturated the movie with those context clues, then did 5 minutes of flashbacks with voice overs.
From memory there's only 3 or 4 incidents where the zombies "ignore" the injured,sick or weak (soldier with injured leg, sick kid, old man & maybe a 4th I can't remember...)
These incidents nag Pitt's character & he plays them back in his head (once) before he makes the connection. He then gives his summary to both the scientists & audience alike.
I honestly wouldn't call this a saturation of context clues.
As I compared it with War Of The Worlds where there is zero context at all.
A voice over telling us the aliens are defeated because of the common cold. The end.
Then you have The Wizard Of Oz where the wicked witch's demise is a bucket of water. No context, no explanation why whatsoever...the audience just accepts it. The end.
Originally posted by Ascendancy
I also get that not everyone has read the novels, but there was literally no reason to even buy the rights from Brooks because their story so loosely touches on it that if it hadn't been called the same thing I'd have had no idea it was in any way sourced from it. The book was great because it told the story from the perspective of survivors all over the world and made what happened a puzzle that came together over the course of the read. WWZ was just a bunch of disjointed action scenes with lulls in the middle that did little to help connect to the characters.
I tried reading WWZ but I found the "interview format" tedious & definitely not the greatest source material for Pitt to make a Hollywood blockbuster with.
It probably would've worked better as a tv series if they wanted to stay close to the source material as possible.
This isn't the first time Hollywood has bought the rights & then went ahead & butchered the source material. Won't be the last either.
Originally posted by Ascendancy
[B
Lastly, the masses of CGI zombie track stars throughout was a weak trope. I don't think anyone would find TWD enjoyable if every episode were them running into a new herd, and even less so if they were the type in WWZ. Fast zombies are rarely the way to go, and the film handled them horribly.[/B]
TWD's perspective is more about humanity's downfall & the level of evil & violence certain aspects of society will easily resort to. The zombies become 2nd nature like dealing with seasonal droughts, plagues & storms...they're not so much a threat as a way of life to deal with.
It's always about the evil encounters with humans that keeps the story going.