The Sword and Laser discussion
This topic is about
World War Z
TV, Movies and Games
>
What the World War Z movie has in common with the book.
date
newest »
newest »
That's funny! ..and very true from what I understand (I haven't seen the movie). When I first found out that they were planning to do the movie and that it would have little to do with the book I said "oh well, as long as they include the Battle of Yonkers I'm in." Why would you not use such an amazing scene? I guess it doesn't work as well with fast-moving zombies.
Not only does the movie apparently have nothing in common with the book, in at least one respect it looks like it did a complete 180: I saw an article suggesting that there has been some criticism of the movie as being anti-Israel. I haven't read the book in a while, but I very clearly remember getting a very pro-Israel vibe; specifically, I recall an Arab character who was very suspicious of Israel's intentions and then wound up basically saying, "oh, if only we listened to Israel!" Am I misremembering that, or did anyone else feel the same way?
Not only does the movie apparently have nothing in common with the book, in at least one respect it looks like it did a complete 180: I saw an article suggesting that there has been some criticism of the movie as being anti-Israel. I haven't read the book in a while, but I very clearly remember getting a very pro-Israel vibe; specifically, I recall an Arab character who was very suspicious of Israel's intentions and then wound up basically saying, "oh, if only we listened to Israel!" Am I misremembering that, or did anyone else feel the same way?
I saw the trailer in theaters and my gut was telling me it would be a bad movie. I wanted to give it the benefit of the doubt. Maybe if they pulled from the characters interviewed. Maybe if they use the rich world building. Maybe it will be good. My hopes are not high for this movie.
I felt the movie was terrrible - they didn't need to introduce the family aspect, there was less logic and more stupidity towards the latter half, not enough intellectual or action-based scenes either. Just an average flick, way below the amazing quality the book had.
The movie is a disgrace. Reading up on its troubled development, it becomes painfully clear that nobody involved understood the first thing about why Brooks' book garnered such a following.
The resulting film is so bad that having actual zombies write the screenplay might have been worth a shot.
Eh, I'm not concerned. The book became a case study on far-flung ways to kill zombies, after a point. Brad Pitt shooting zombies sounds perfectly fine, to me.
I can't say that I am surprised based on the trailers for the movie.I totally loved the book and I feel that Hollywood missed the opportunity to make a really fantastic movie.
Having said that, I'll still turn my brain off and watch the over-the-top action and zombie killing. Some of the effects look cool. To me, it will be like, wow I can't believe they accidentally chose the same name as that really cool book. :)
That Venn diagram has more in common with the book than does the movie.
You can't do a interview documentary and expect to be a big summer block buster. No one is going to want to pay money to see that.
Lit Bug wrote: "Yes, but [spoilers removed]"Faithful realism has no place in a discussion about zombie movies.
True, but there's no way one can justify stupidity - it at least has to be credible. Sci-fi or even HArry Potter cannot claim realism in that sense, but at least it SEEMS credible.
Kevin, I WOULD pay money to see a well-produced docudrama movie version of this book. :)
A docudrama would have been far better than this stupid action flick - for the 120 mins time slot, even if they had shown 12 accounts, each lasting 10 mins, it would have been stunning under a good director.
As I was reading (and then later listening to the audio book) how this could play out as a fresh new movie would roll through my head.
Valerie wrote: "As I was reading (and then later listening to the audio book) how this could play out as a fresh new movie would roll through my head."Same here - and the book was pretty much like a movie script in terms of narration, so it wouldn't have been difficult to adapt it to screen.
Valerie wrote: "Kevin, I WOULD pay money to see a well-produced docudrama movie version of this book. :)"Well, I'm talking about the average moviegoer.
I think Hollywood should give the average movie-goer more credit.
It does seem to be an over the top parody of the "Hollywoodization" of a good book....except they were really serious
To be fair, the film did accurately capture the experience... of XBox Live.
Oh poo. I didn't expect it would follow the documentary style of the book, but I thought it would at least follow some of the people in the book and expand their stories more. I thought it was obvious that you couldn't simply follow the book, but there were so many interesting stories that all you had to do was pick a few and give them a bit of movie polish. Ah well!
I never read the book. Loved the movie. Note that I went to see the movie because I like zombie movies and it definitely delivered. I knew the book was out there, and I know it was told in a documentary fashion from what friends have told me. I was suspecting the movie would be something like District 9 in the sense that it would be told through media eye perspective.Regardless, I was still quite happy with the movie. It offered enough variance from the typical zombie movie to be exciting and new. I thought they captured the World War aspect quite well.
Seems most of the people who liked the movie didn't read the book.Too bad they jettisoned the novel. It's the definitive magnum opus of zombie literature.
Kevin wrote: "You can't do a interview documentary and expect to be a big summer block buster. No one is going to want to pay money to see that."Maybe, but they could've done a heck of a lot of other things. And all of it would've been better than what they did now.
It's not a horrible action film, but it has nothing to do with the book. It is a prime example of everything Hollywood can do possibly wrong when "adapting" a book.
They even changed "Zack" into "Zekes" for crying out loud. What is the point of a change like that?
This coming from the guy who liked the Starship Troopers film.
At least sales of the book have been skyrocketing over the past months, so the author gets his fair share.
KevinB wrote: "This coming from the guy who liked the Starship Troopers film."Wait. Are you saying there are people who don't?
Yeah, BUG-LOVERS...enemies of the Federation!
Darren wrote: "KevinB wrote: "This coming from the guy who liked the Starship Troopers film."Wait. Are you saying there are people who don't?"
No, he is referencing your impeccable taste.
What is interesting to me is why they had to option the book for this movie? Why not just write it up as your own IP and title it accodringly? Giving it the title of the book just cut down on the people that would want to see it. If it was entitled "Piles of Zombies - Now it's International" or something more serious, we would not be getting this.
Nathan wrote: "What is interesting to me is why they had to option the book for this movie? Why not just write it up as your own IP and title it accodringly?"Because they thought they'd make more money on adaption of a popular book. They fell into the trap that happens to more book adaptations than I would like and believed that with a few changes this would be even more awsome and it snowballed from there.
There are exactly TWO things the book and movie have in common as you forgot it also happens on Earth. :DI still enjoyed the movie (or I should say I did not walk out of the movie half-way through.)
3 out of 5 stars.
I lemmed the book - thought it was truly awful. It was like being force fed government white papers with your eyes stapled open. But I enjoyed the movie, even if it wasn't "great". And the new Doctor was in it :)
I think the book conversion would have been feasible if they'd made a tv show (or mini-series) out of it. Each episode one of the stories (or themes) with a very small regular cast. They could have cherry-picked the ones that would work visually and had lots of great guest stars. And me I hated the Starship Troopers film. Where was the power armor and we haven't done that sort of "let's all run at the enemy and see how many of us he can kill" military 'tactics' since cave-man days.
Jim,1) Agreement. That's why the audiobook worked so well: the power of the individual stories. The movie was an atrocity but then, that's Hollywood.
2) Paul Verhoeven deliberately changed the way Heinlein's soldiers trained and fought to serve the simplistic and heavy-handed "anti-war" politics he was pushing. This would have been utterly confounded by showing the Mobile Infantry as the well-equipped, expertly-trained, self-reliant and elite Mecha-Samurai they were in the book.
So Paul V. made them clownish cannon fodder. Because war is, like, bad and stuff.
True. And as I recall he's done some other films I have enjoyed. When it first came out I was angry but as I've gotten older I realized that it's unavoidable and not really worth the energy. Who read the audiobook? I have considered trying them periodically but I'm so chronically behind on my podcasts (including this one) ...
Verhoeven is the real thing; he's made wonderful films but his politics got the better of him with ST.The WWZ audiobook was a cast of thou... uh, dozens including some pretty big names. Being Mel Brooks' son probably helped with that.
http://seaofks.blogspot.com/2013/05/w...
<3 The Oatmeal