Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

Why did the directors have to use Brad Pitt? I've read the book and it's personal testimonies about those who lived during the war. Do you think the movie will be ruined?

Originally posted by Darth Truculent
Why did the directors have to use Brad Pitt? I've read the book and it's personal testimonies about those who lived during the war. Do you think the movie will be ruined?


pitt is a name actor designed to put people in theater seats.. i haven't read the book, but might.. but no i don't think the movie will be ruined unless it flops

Don't think the director had much choice seeing as they were probably hired by Pitt in the first place. It is his studio who own the rights to the make the movie.

Originally posted by Darth Truculent
Why did the directors have to use Brad Pitt? I've read the book and it's personal testimonies about those who lived during the war. Do you think the movie will be ruined?

Why would he ruin it? He's a top actor. 12 Monkeys, Fight Club, Burn After Reading, The Assassination of Jesse James, Babel, Spy Game, The Mexican, Se7en, Sleepers, Meet Joe Black, True Romance, The Devil's Own. Kalifornia, Thelma and Louise.

He's hardly done a bad film or role in his career. I get the feeling because he's supposedly one of the "Heart throb" actors that people think he isn't great actor. Same thing has happened with Tom Cruise and Leonardo Di Caprio...Both of them are also superb.

Although saying that I've not read the book so I don't know what role he'll be playing or how he fits the character from the book.

In the book there is no heart throb charcter, but there is a former model who is a resistence fighter. The rumor is that Sasha Grey will be playing that role. For those who don't know who Sasha Grey is, she is a former porn superstar who quit the industry to go into mainstraim films. But using Brad Pitt as the primary character is a bad idea. Watch the A & E series The Walking Dead. An unknown actor/actress is perfect because it makes it more believable.

Originally posted by Darth Truculent
In the book there is no heart throb charcter, but there is a former model who is a resistence fighter. The rumor is that Sasha Grey will be playing that role. For those who don't know who Sasha Grey is, she is a former porn superstar who quit the industry to go into mainstraim films. But using Brad Pitt as the primary character is a bad idea. Watch the A & E series The Walking Dead. An unknown actor/actress is perfect because it makes it more believable.

that may be true, however the studio wants to put people in theater seats in hopes that this is a success..


the difference between this and the walking dead is that walking dead is a pretty good tv show so unknowns work for that

I wouldn't mind it. Although a series of interviews would be boring. I guess they'll probably act out each of the scenarios that the interviewees went through which means that Pitt will have a recurring, but not particularly prominent role. I'm not sure how they're going to be able to fit all the content in to one movie.

Making Brad Pitt the main character is a bad idea in the sense that there is no main character in World War Z. Literally. There are some characters who get more spotlight than others, but, not enough to be considered "the protagonist". None of the characters in the book are even connected to each other. It's a book of short stories.

That being said, I'm not counting Brad Pitt out.

This film will be epic!

Brad will be fine it's just a series of short stories but I imagine he'll be a modern environment survivor.

Holy shit, this comes out in 2012. I'm totally down for an epic zombie film with Brad Pitt. F#CK yeah..

Fairly entertaining fake trailer. Can we name all the movies that they used? Off the top of my head:

I Am Legend
Seven
28 Days Later/Weeks?
Walking Dead?
Land of the Dead?
Dawn of the Dead?

oMm4s1268to&feature=related

I tried reading the novel but I didn't like the "collection of interviews format".

I'm guessing the movie will flow with the standard formula of beginning, middle & end rather than a disjointed series of short stories for each character.

Hmm, Esau. This does not bode well for me. I bought the book a few weeks ago. Haven't started reading it yet (not sure I will anytime soon), but is it well written? You just don't like the format?

Originally posted by Patient_Leech
Hmm, Esau. This does not bode well for me. I bought the book a few weeks ago. Haven't started reading it yet (not sure I will anytime soon), but is it well written? You just don't like the format?

I spent about 20 minutes in the bookshop reading the book, debating on whether to buy it or not...

It is well written...I just didn't find it an exciting read.

I mean it's written from various 1st persons' point of view describing the war on zombies & how it affects religion, politics & the impact on the environment on a world wide scale....

You can easily replace "zombies" with global warming, terrorism or the stock market crashing & still have the same desired effect of the novel.

Oh, well that sounds pretty interesting. Seems like the movie might have difficulty covering all those bases. Well anyway, here's a kind of cheesy video, but it has some production images, so it's worth a watch...

q2FQLhwc0NQ&feature=related

Because Brad Pitt is so amazing and he was done lot's of movies in this category.

Little interview

Leech, the book is a fun and fast read. I blew through it in well under a week and I normally read very slow and often flip back to re-read paragraphs or even pages.

Yeah, I loved the book. As to the movie, likely each scene will start with an interview then move into the action. I hope they make it long enough to really cover the scope that the book does. It will suck if it doesn't connect correctly.

I will probably give the book another chance sometime. I did buy it.

Here's Mr. Pitt calling it, "a monster of a film."

GshVrtpGvx8

awesome movie

http://iklan-media.com/img/index.jpg

World War Z : is an Upcomming Horror movie and it released December 2012.

17SN9AQmgYI

Well f*ck me sideways. 28 Days Later Zombies pale in comparison.

Damn...

Those zombies are hardcore.

the cgi doesn't look too hot. There's no excuse for a big budget movie to have crap graphics in this era.

Looks like shit, both literally, as Marwash said the CGI looks like ass, and from a story standpoint. Someone want to explain to me how this is WWZ? It looks nothing like the book's plot besides Zombies on a world scale.

Cock! I'm drunk but i'll have to wait do watch the trailer!!!

looks interesting

-Looks like what could be an entertaining yet generic infected people/zombie flick.

-Looks like it's WWZ in name only, which is lame.

What made the book great was that is was set after the war and humanity had reclaimed (a drastically changed) the world and it was a combination of multiple stories of people(s) from around the world and what they did during WWZ; several tying in together at some level.

They should have used a mockumentary style of filming/story telling, if they wanted to stay true o the book.

Originally posted by Robtard

They should have used a mockumentary style of filming/story telling, if they wanted to stay true o the book.

Well y'know the old saying, "To each their own..." but I honestly found the book's style of story telling a bit tedious.

Yes, it would've made an interesting low-budget mockumentary but not IMO a good format for a big budget HollyWood flick.

I don't think making some random badass American the protagonist, like always, is much of an improvement.

Why even call it World War: Z?

I honestly haven't read the book, so I can't comment on that.

All I will say, is that it looks like a fun zombie movie, so I'll watch it.

It looks good. I didn't finish watching the trailer.. is there a release date yet?

Originally posted by Esau Cairn
Well y'know the old saying, "To each their own..." but I honestly found the book's style of story telling a bit tedious.

Yes, it would've made an interesting low-budget mockumentary but not IMO a good format for a big budget HollyWood flick.

The mockumentary format yes, the low budget no. Throw gobs of $$$ into great actors that can fit each roll, the cgi, the settings/locations etc.

I had imagined it as the interviewer (Pitt?) travelling and interviewing the people; then their individual stories are shown as they begin to relate their tale.

Originally posted by Tzeentch._
I don't think making some random badass American the protagonist, like always, is much of an improvement.


Now you're sounding like a terrorist. Tell me, why do you hate America?

I only read the comic. Which went through time covering different accounts of the the virus' influence.

And the zombies were slow walkers indeed.

Though I have no problem with this film's idea of the infection. After all, only a threat of this level would actually threaten the human race. And the comic didn't limit what the zombies could do once they were fresh! And the comic also had the modern civilized world crushed by them. It makes sense.
Actually a zombie threat of this level is overkill.
Modern day Dawn of the Dead was enough but this......should be hell fun!

Agreed, a tidal wave of swarming zombies makes for a more plausible zombie apocalypse fall of humanity scenario. Also think this movie looks fun and will likely deliver in entertainment. But's it's not WWZ from that trailer, that's what I wanted. They could have made an action zombie flick and called it something else.

imo, the book did a decent job of dictating how the world could fall from slow shambling zombies. Government lies, ineptness, mass denial etc.

I've never read the book but I understand that it's nothing like it but as a stand alone film I think it looks spectacular. George Square in Glasgow still looks the same as it usually does though (the scene at 0:48 and 0:57) . slavering brainless zombies running riot.

Originally posted by Esau Cairn
Well y'know the old saying, "To each their own..." but I honestly found the book's style of story telling a bit tedious.

Yeah, I read the first chapter or so of the book and it didn't seem like it was going to be my cup of tea. I might give it another chance sometime, though.

Ah... Rotten Tomatoes says June 21, 2013. That's a long time.

Originally posted by Patient_Leech
Yeah, I read the first chapter or so of the book and it didn't seem like it was going to be my cup of tea. I might give it another chance sometime, though.

Ah... Rotten Tomatoes says June 21, 2013. That's a long time.


they'll be other chances for people to salivate on this.. i've never read the book, might, might not but this does look interesting though

Definitely enjoyed the book.

Originally posted by Robtard

I had imagined it as the interviewer (Pitt?) travelling and interviewing the people; then their individual stories are shown as they begin to relate their tale.

Once again, I haven't read the book...I tried to but lost interest.
I'm just imagining that every person interviewed would be ending their tales with, "And then the zombies came & I ran..." OR "And then the zombies came & I've been hiding here ever since..."

Each tale would more or less end with the begining of the zombie invasion/ take-over & the story,as a movie, wouldn't really progress.

Originally posted by Robtard
-Looks like what could be an entertaining yet generic infected people/zombie flick.

-Looks like it's WWZ in name only, which is lame.



This.

Don't get me wrong, I love a good Zombie movie, but this is a disappointment considering the hype and how it was supposedly based on the book - it is nothing like it.

The TV show The Walking Dead is a closer match.

Originally posted by Esau Cairn
Once again, I haven't read the book...I tried to but lost interest.
I'm just imagining that every person interviewed would be ending their tales with, "And then the zombies came & I ran..." OR "And then the zombies came & I've been hiding here ever since..."

Each tale would more or less end with the begining of the zombie invasion/ take-over & the story,as a movie, wouldn't really progress.

Not really, many of the stories link together on some level to tell a bigger picture. One story involves a Chinese nuclear submarine. It's not really at all what you imagine.

The book told a progressing story when all the stories are combined, you just happen to know that it's told after the fact. It was also a best seller(and not just to tween girls and broken housewives), no reason to think if they followed the book the movie wouldn't be at least decent.

Looks good, also has Brad Pitt, so I'll see it.

Rob, you pay for the popcorn and I pay for the tickets again?

Originally posted by Robtard
Not really, many of the stories link together on some level to tell a bigger picture. One story involves a Chinese nuclear submarine. It's not really at all what you imagine.

The book told a progressing story when all the stories are combined, you just happen to know that it's told after the fact. It was also a best seller(and not just to tween girls and broken housewives), no reason to think if they followed the book the movie wouldn't be at least decent.

But wasn't there like an under lining message to the novel?

Like you could've replaced "zombie invasion" with global warming, nuclear fall-out, drought, famine,collapse of the stock-exchange or world-wide terrorism?

The f*ck is this? They seem more like ants than zombies.

I felt like they didn't want to fully reveal it was Zombies (to those who don't know about the book/info).

Originally posted by Esau Cairn
But wasn't there like an under lining message to the novel?

Like you could've replaced "zombie invasion" with global warming, nuclear fall-out, drought, famine,collapse of the stock-exchange or world-wide terrorism?

You could possibly say that, as the novel deals with massive global political change and government ineptness.

Originally posted by Placidity
I felt like they didn't want to fully reveal it was Zombies (to those who don't know about the book/info).

If I didn't know anything about the book, I would have though 28 Days Later clone/infected humans from that trailer.

trailer's up on youtube.. i dunno how to embed..

it's on page 2.

Originally posted by Scythe
The f*ck is this? They seem more like ants than zombies.

Zombie pyramid doesn't do it for you?

Obviously a homosexual.

Originally posted by Robtard
Zombie pyramid doesn't do it for you?

Well ya gotta have a spirit to show class spirit.

Originally posted by Robtard
-Looks like what could be an entertaining yet generic infected people/zombie flick.

-Looks like it's WWZ in name only, which is lame.

What made the book great was that is was set after the war and humanity had reclaimed (a drastically changed) the world and it was a combination of multiple stories of people(s) from around the world and what they did during WWZ; several tying in together at some level.

They should have used a mockumentary style of filming/story telling, if they wanted to stay true o the book.
It was also much more menacing because my impression was that the zombies weren't moving like Usain Bolt in the book. Creeping death is always much more terrifying that death barreling down the highway.

I have to agree, the trailer looks to draw very little from the original book. Part of the books power was all the storylines coming together. This would be much better as a film/miniseries with lots of strong, familiar character actors playing multiple parts than turning it into a plot centering around Pitt.

I don't think I'll be seeing this as of now.

ok just got back from seeing this up at Paramount Pictures..

this film is basically family friendly..

not sure but will.. there is no blood at all
Pitt's character is a retired UN Investigator and also a family man which mirrors Pitt's actual family

never truly explained what really causes people to turn into zombies , my guess is that is a virus

if you like The Walking Dead sans the violence this film is for you

doubtful this will make a ton of money.. decent but suspenseful film 6.7/10

Originally posted by BruceSkywalker


this film is basically family friendly..



yeah I read this was deliberate, no blood or gore to get a wider audience.

Just seen this one too

Haven't read the book but i did enjoy this movie

8/10 form me

Originally posted by BruceSkywalker


never truly explained what really causes people to turn into zombies , my guess is that is a virus


Maybe a sequel will explain it the way it ended.

Originally posted by Kazenji
Just seen this one too

Haven't read the book but i did enjoy this movie

8/10 form me



Maybe a sequel will explain it the way it ended.


its possible

I'm looking forward to seeing this. Probably won't be able to see it until next weekend, though. It's getting pretty good reviews...



I tried reading the book again and I just don't think I particularly care for it. It's not bad by any means, but I don't think it would make sense to make a direct adaptation of it to the screen, so it's no wonder they veered from it..

I had watch this movie and the story of this movie is wonderful.

I got bored with the book.

Originally posted by Mindset
I got bored with the book.

No, the book got bored with you!

Originally posted by Robtard
No, the book got bored with you!

Rob what job did Pitt's character have? Also how does the book end?

Originally posted by Robtard
No, the book got bored with you! I doubt it, it still calls me begging for me to open it

The only thing the movie really has in common with the book (from what i've seen) is the title. I'll wait for the reviews and make a decision from there. The book was excellent but don't expect the same story on screen tho.

Originally posted by BruceSkywalker
Rob what job did Pitt's character have?

Also how does the book end?

Haven't watched the film yet.

The book takes place about a decade after humanity united and fought back and for the most part reclaimed the planet from the zombie hordes. Though there are still zombie infested areas.

It's essentially a collection of stories of various people and what they did/how they survived during WWZ. Some are connected together and overall they tell a larger picture of how the "disease" spread and the world's new geopolitical state, eg Cuba is now the world's economic powerhouse. In the book, the infection likely started in China and iirc is implied to be viral, but is ultimately unknown.

Originally posted by Robtard
Haven't watched the film yet.

The book takes place about a decade after humanity united and fought back and for the most part reclaimed the planet from the zombie hordes. Though there are still zombie infested areas.

It's essentially a collection of stories of various people and what they did/how they survived during WWZ. Some are connected together and overall they tell a larger picture of how the "disease" spread and the world's new geopolitical state, eg Cuba is now the world's economic powerhouse. In the book, the infection likely started in China and iirc is implied to be viral, but is ultimately unknown.


thanks Rob, i've never read the book however should I?

I've read for the zombies regarding the book that they're the slow moving types and with the movie yeah they're the running ones.

I don't like running zombies. It's exhausting just to watch a film with them in it. And these look like more than runners; they're swarmers, giving no thought to climbing all over each other. I guess the makers of the film had to upgrade; standard runners just won't do.

I predict the next zombie upgrade will be a rushing, cartoon cloud, like a pyroclastic flow, with arms, legs and zombie heads popping in and out of it.

Originally posted by Robtard
Agreed, a tidal wave of swarming zombies makes for a more plausible zombie apocalypse fall of humanity scenario. Also think this movie looks fun and will likely deliver in entertainment. But's it's not WWZ from that trailer, that's what I wanted. They could have made an action zombie flick and called it something else.

imo, the book did a decent job of dictating how the world could fall from slow shambling zombies. Government lies, ineptness, mass denial etc.
I thought it was good on some points (i.e. how early in the epidemic people would tie up infected family members rather than killing them) and just downright stupid on others (a few hundred Maori tribesman armed with spears doing better than the US military in fighting zombies). I also thought the way the US Army defeats the zombies at the end of the pandemic was ridiculous, and that's where Brooks abandoned any semblance of logic (which was what made the Zombie Survival Guide so compelling--the sense that if Solanum zombies really existed this might be a useful guidebook) and went for what sounded awesome.

Originally posted by BruceSkywalker
thanks Rob, i've never read the book however should I?

I enjoyed it. I have it in eBook format; I can email, if you like.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
I thought it was good on some points (i.e. how early in the epidemic people would tie up infected family members rather than killing them) and just downright stupid on others (a few hundred Maori tribesman armed with spears doing better than the US military in fighting zombies). I also thought the way the US Army defeats the zombies at the end of the pandemic was ridiculous, and that's where Brooks abandoned any semblance of logic (which was what made the Zombie Survival Guide so compelling--the sense that if Solanum zombies really existed this might be a useful guidebook) and went for what sounded awesome.


The book isn't flawless by any means. But considering the subject matter, I thought Brooks did a decent job overall.

Originally posted by Darth Truculent
Why did the directors have to use Brad Pitt? I've read the book and it's personal testimonies about those who lived during the war. Do you think the movie will be ruined?

It's Brad Pitt's production company making the movie, he was the person who went after the rights and wanted to make the film. In this film Brad does travel to different parts of the world and experiences different aspects of the War (like Sheen in Apocalypse Now), so they try to keep that plotline from the book.

Also, I recently learned this is planned to be a trilogy, so they may focus on other characters or travel to many other locations in the following 2 movies.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
I thought it was good on some points (i.e. how early in the epidemic people would tie up infected family members rather than killing them) and just downright stupid on others (a few hundred Maori tribesman armed with spears doing better than the US military in fighting zombies). I also thought the way the US Army defeats the zombies at the end of the pandemic was ridiculous, and that's where Brooks abandoned any semblance of logic (which was what made the Zombie Survival Guide so compelling--the sense that if Solanum zombies really existed this might be a useful guidebook) and went for what sounded awesome.

Wow! I thought the same thing! Once the government got its act together and went on the offensive, I thought not one single life should've been lost. I came up with several ideas the military could've used..

1) Use speakers mounted on Humvees to gather Zees together or parade them out of a city/town. Use these same Humvees to shift attacking lines so they don't come right at the defensive line.

2) Pits and traps- since the Zees always took a direct path to their victim or following sounds, it's easy enough to put traps in their way. say a huge pit or trench they cant get out of filled with oil/gas. Or a hill then dump wet concrete down it until the Zees are stuck by thousands.

3) Height- The U.S. knew they couldn't climb, build scaffolding and towers and pick them off easily with no threat of contact. Set up on a mesa or hill so at least as they die they roll down and don't pile up in front of the soldiers as they did in the book.

4) Barbed wire/ low fencing- the Zees in WWZ were slow and limping, any fencing would slow them down or stop them for head shots. At least give the defense time to take them out or adjust lines.

And there are many other options, all better than a static defensive line in the middle of the desert just sitting there as the Zees approach. It worked pretty well in the battle of Hope, but I'm sure there would be battles where the soldiers were overrun.

Maybe i've had enough zombie movies because i almost walked out of this movie. I can see why people will like it. It's not filmed poorly and has decent acting but it didn't do anything to gain my interest

Saw this tonight and enjoyed it. I wouldn't say it's perfect by any means, (choppy editing, shaky cam bullshit), but a relatively enjoyable addition to the zombie fad frenzy going on right now. The zombies are used more for comic relief in this than for horror, which was sort of weird, heh. But they have kind of a unique twitchy way of moving, not to mention they're rather fast, which keeps the pace going.

I'll be keeping an eye on this to see how it does financially because obviously sequels are planned (a tad shameless actually). But damn, with a $190 million budget they've got quite a hole to dig themselves out of. It's at $111,800,000 worldwide so far and still has many places left to open up.

I saw this film, too. I gave it a 7 out of 10. I enjoyed myself a bit more in this than Man of Steel (hey, summer movies, bitches....gonna be seeing almost all of them).


It some great acting, at times...surprisingly. At others, it felt like a rehearsal rather than the real deal. Just like my man, Patient Leech, shaky camera bullshit got annoying.

Some points were rather dumb...especially the very brief moments it did anything related to science. Obviously, a highschool student that pays attention will get irritated. However, most move goers (and people in general) are dumb.


The movie also cut around too quickly and too fast. I was able to follow it (all of us in this thread are movie buffs and can pick up on that stuff much more readily the the standard population) but I know my fellow movie theater goers were going, "huh? Why are they doing that? Why are they there, now? When did that change?" This is where the movie fails. You don't make a film for pundits of fiction...it just won't sell too well. You've gotta make a film like JJ Abrams: very easy stories to follow.

Maybe a small budget indie film can be made with hard to follow action...that stuff can be made for the critics and pundits.


But not a movie like this.

This movie ended pretty strongly, which redeemed most flaws that it had. The last 30 min or so is a good nail biter and well done (i.e. no shaky cam and a slower pace).

Also where did you get comic relief from the zombies?

when i was watching it i didn't get anything funny from them.

Originally posted by Kazenji
Also where did you get comic relief from the zombies?

Don't think it was intentional humor, but there were at least 3 different moments where myself and people in my theater chuckled...


1. Black lady zombie in research cell at the W.H.O. facility.

2. The researchers at the W.H.O. on the security cameras turning and acting sort of goofy.

3. And the zombie who stared down Brad Pitt at the end with his chomping jaws.

I think it would have been less humorous if they had been able to use more blood and make it more gruesome instead of keeping it PG-13 for the teenie-boppers in the crowd. Oh well.

a sequel is on the way..

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/paramount-brad-pitt-set-sights-573814

Decent movie. Good set pieces. Though a little too deliberate how whenever Brad Pitt's character arrived at a destination the shit instantly hit the fan.

Also would have liked a bit more of a slow build when it came to showing the zombie epidemic hit. Was basically "hey everything's fine OH **** ZOMBIES EVERYWHERE."

^ good points. A little extra explanation at the beginning that would maybe tie in with what you find out later in the film would have been nice. But you could make the argument that they just wanted to jump right into the action. That's also not a bad choice in a thriller like this.

Originally posted by BruceSkywalker
a sequel is on the way..

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/paramount-brad-pitt-set-sights-573814

I'm kind of surprised that they're already making the call, just after the opening weekend. But hey, cool.

This film doesn't deserve a sequel.

How can it?

The human race discovered a form of immunity to the threat.

A sequel is pointless.

^ They shamelessly stated at the end of the film that "This is just the beginning."

Rise Of The Planet Of The Ape Zombies!!!

World Whore Zombies.
"Rimming The Pacific..."

Originally posted by Patient_Leech
^ good points. A little extra explanation at the beginning that would maybe tie in with what you find out later in the film would have been nice. But you could make the argument that they just wanted to jump right into the action. That's also not a bad choice in a thriller like this.



I'm kind of surprised that they're already making the call, just after the opening weekend. But hey, cool.

because of Brad Pitt.. also Paramount believes this will come close to paying for itself



Originally posted by the ninjak
This film doesn't deserve a sequel.

How can it?

The human race discovered a form of immunity to the threat.

A sequel is pointless.


a sequel is perfect especially since they don;t even tell us much about who started the virus

did you want them to follow the novel page for page?? word for word??

Who's to say the virus won't evolve and that immunity becomes useless.

Originally posted by Kazenji
Who's to say the virus won't evolve and that immunity becomes useless.

that is probable, given that World War Z was originally a planned trilogy and now that Paramount is happy with the results they virus could certainly evolve..

I was entertained the whole time.

8.5/10

Another potentially great stand alone film ruined by the inability to write a screenplay for a film that doesn't require a sequel. Not something I thought I'd levy at Drew Goddard. Decent enough though. The action in the 1st 2/3's is impeccable both close up and at a distance. The change of pace to a more standard horror movie set piece is a bit of an odd choice though then it's like they thought 'people aren't gonna be happy with that as an ending' and so they tagged on a violent montage at the 'end'.

It was good but could've been great if they didn't waste time in certain irrelevant plot points and instead spent it on a full resolution of the main plot.

Originally posted by jaden101
Another potentially great stand alone film ruined by the inability to write a screenplay for a film that doesn't require a sequel. Not something I thought I'd levy at Drew Goddard. Decent enough though. The action in the 1st 2/3's is impeccable both close up and at a distance. The change of pace to a more standard horror movie set piece is a bit of an odd choice though then it's like they thought 'people aren't gonna be happy with that as an ending' and so they tagged on a violent montage at the 'end'.

It was good but could've been great if they didn't waste time in certain irrelevant plot points and instead spent it on a full resolution of the main plot.

How many chocolate starfishes out of 10 do you give it?

It's all about that bottom line.

Originally posted by Robtard
How many chocolate starfishes out of 10 do you give it?

Just yours.

Originally posted by Robtard
How many chocolate starfishes out of 10 do you give it?

Don't forget the hotdog flavored water.

http://userserve-ak.last.fm/serve/_/364417/Fred+Durst.jpg

Finally saw it last night.
New found respect for Brad Pitt. He carried the movie but didn't steal the focus away from the story or other actors.
I liked the constant reminder that his motives weren't really about saving the world but more so just trying to protect his family.

I also enjoyed the clever use of camera angles that hinted at the violence without graphically showing it. IMO the zombies were still "scary" without the need of showing blood & guts.

I heard its main problem is its rating. Another case of a film that should have got an R-rating but had the PG-13 slapped on it for financial gain.

Still on the fence on whether to go see this or not.

Originally posted by Darth Martin
I heard its main problem is its rating. Another case of a film that should have got an R-rating but had the PG-13 slapped on it for financial gain.

There's other ways to make things scary without using blood & Gore, Which Esau pretty much said.

Originally posted by Darth Martin
I heard its main problem is its rating. Another case of a film that should have got an R-rating but had the PG-13 slapped on it for financial gain.

Still on the fence on whether to go see this or not.

this is basically a family film.. there is no blood.. repeat no blood

there is no problems with it

It's a good movie that scares you without even the need of blood. It's has some plot holes and poorly thought out parts, but I did enjoy it. I do recommend it.

Yeah, I agree with Esau... it's actually pretty impressive that it manages to be scary without blood 'n guts. Usually PG-13 movies that should be R-rated bother me, but this didn't.

Well, maybe "scary" isn't the right word. "Intense" is probably better. It works.

I don't think going in to this movie, with the idea that you're about to watch a horror film, is the right approach. It's not really a horror film. It's a disease/pandemic film (like Contagion) and a... relatively subdued action film. It's got some shock value scares, but nothing definitive as "horror". And I don't think that's what the filmmakers were going for.

And if anything it benefited from the PG rating. Instead of focusing on the blood and guts approach of most zombie plots, it focused on the survival/cause 'n effect/ramification of such a situation. Focused on Pitt's characters too, and without any of the standard zombie film cliches--love story, guy who's clearly bitten but hiding it, finding a safehouse, "BOOMER!", etc. It was a very focused story, and I appreciated that.


"Intense" is the right word, as Leech^ said.

iV6NL8OjbMg

And that has what to do with this movie?

That was a set of the movie. Now it's been released I could post it.

Could've posted before the movie was out too

hasn't stop other places from showing off things from movie sets


unless your trying to say that you filmed it.

I agreed not to upload it before release. If I agree something, I stick to it. I'm a man of my word.

Do you have a problem with that as well?

That's not what i'm trying to get at

so did you film the footage and then agreed to something from the studio?

Yes I filmed the footage. Here's a snap as well.

http://img850.imageshack.us/img850/6517/px9.jpg

Originally posted by GCG
Yes I filmed the footage. Here's a snap as well.



????

because if not...comes back to my previous


hasn't stop other places from showing off video's from movie sets, Like for the second Thor movie.

It doesn't even make the slightest difference to you what I agreed. So what I posted it after the release.

I've worked on movies before and this one, WWZ I had to turn down as I worked on another movie who's production was running concurrently with Z. Z decided to come shoot on the same location as we were and I had to work on a Sunday to come 'baby-sit' them. The only reason I was there was because inside the counterguard there was one of our sets and Z had crew walk in and out of that place.

I represented our production in case Z wanted to exceed their agreement, and believe me, with a production as big as Z, they thought they could have walked all over everyone to get what they wanted.

Photos and Videos were taken in case the Counterguard was damaged by Z and respective inquiries were made in order to establish whether their guarantees were viable.

Originally posted by GCG
iV6NL8OjbMg

Cool shit. Nevermind Kaz... I'm appreciative of you posting it.

Well, I enjoyed this movie for what it was. Saw it with my parents, and liked it. Almost have to see it on the big screen for the effect.

Originally posted by Patient_Leech
Yeah, I agree with Esau... it's actually pretty impressive that it manages to be scary without blood 'n guts. Usually PG-13 movies that should be R-rated bother me, but this didn't.

Well, maybe "scary" isn't the right word. "Intense" is probably better. It works.

But that's the thing, your PG-13 is our standard, M+15.
And yeah, "Intense" is the key word to describe this film.

Originally posted by Patient_Leech
Cool shit. Nevermind Kaz... I'm appreciative of you posting it.

I wasn't attacking him

what i was getting at, yes he filmed it but did he have to agree to some sort of agreement from the studio to not post it before the movie got release

clearly he's not understanding that bit

but moving on.

Might watch this during the weekend

Originally posted by Kazenji
I wasn't attacking him

what i was getting at, yes he filmed it but did he have to agree to some sort of agreement from the studio to not post it before the movie got release

clearly he's not understanding that bit

but moving on.

Better than studio, I would call it 'the production'.

The production always comes out with 'no recordings allowed' policy, unless that recording is done for work related purposes such as continuity, location preparation, stunt recce, sfx recce..etc. Some crew members just like to take snaps as a souvenir.

I had no agreement per se with Z, but my agreement was with my own Production Manager as our production was, at that time, at loggerheads with the Z production.

Now it's released I posted. I hope this satisfies your curiosity.

Movie to have a unrated cut for Blu-ray

http://insidemovies.ew.com/2013/08/02/world-war-z-blu-ray-brad-pitt/

Excellent.

^ ditto. Although I almost wonder if making it more violent will actually detract from the intensity. Sometimes showing less is more. But it doesn't necessarily mean more violence, so we'll see.

The film was entertaining. As a fan of hardcore zombie flicks I still liked this.

Originally posted by Patient_Leech
^ ditto. Although I almost wonder if making it more violent will actually detract from the intensity. Sometimes showing less is more. But it doesn't necessarily mean more violence, so we'll see.

My fav horror film is Texas Chainsaw Massacre and it showed little to no gore at all. It's all about execution. Same as Psycho.

This film had no faults besides detracting from the source material.(arguably)
A film based on the graphic novel alone would've been epic.
But that very novel showed this very occurrence so it was arguably very accurate.

I just hope they don't attempt to make a sequel for this for it is pointless. Maybe a prequel would be better to show what the fans wished to see. That would rock.

Originally posted by the ninjak
Maybe a prequel would be better to show what the fans wished to see. That would rock.

But a prequel wouldn't have Brad Pit & he was clearly the driving force of the film.

I would rather have a sequel, if anything.

I read the Vanity Fair article on the supposedly troubled production of the film. There was lots of rumor of the director not being experienced with this kind of film, that he didn't get along with Brad Pitt or one of the special effects guys. And apparently they didn't really have the 3rd act nailed down very well and they filmed some violent clash with the zombies set in Russia for the finale. That's what they cut completely and went back to rewrite. Lindelof had three weeks to create another path, and that's probably how it was conceived as a trilogy. Because if they didn't have the right third act down before shooting, then they probably weren't planning on a trilogy. But that's probably what Lindelof was paid to do, to come up with a stronger ending and expand it into a franchise.