World War Z
question
things that they could of change in the movie

what do you think hey could of changed in the movie to make it like the book
reply
flag
I found the book to be gripping. I was actually in tears for a good portion of it. I looked forward to the movie, anticipating a franchise, since that seems to be what Hollywood loves to do of late. And the book was so rich with layers and observations that it would have made a great series of films. That there was no central character was in part essential to the complexity of the book.
Had they made a movie that was somewhat a "documentary" it might have succeeded, but instead they went pure Hollywood.
Skip the movie. Or if you already saw it, don't let it deter you from the book. The book is great.
Had they made a movie that was somewhat a "documentary" it might have succeeded, but instead they went pure Hollywood.
Skip the movie. Or if you already saw it, don't let it deter you from the book. The book is great.
That zombies won't eat sick people. Completely stupid plot point that really doesn't make any sense.
I read somewhere that they had tried to make it closer to the book but they weren't happy with it so they re-shot a ton of it.
how much different is it from the movie ? Cause I haven't read the book yet.
Joel Borden
The movie is a heavy handed attempt to show that man is killing himself through everything we do. The book is a collection of short stories about man
...more
· flag
· flag
It's a very interesting book, but let's face it, "An Oral History of the Zombie War" doesn't make for an interesting movie. Why they even tried is beyond me. They could have just named it some generic zombie movie and not named it after the book. that would have been honest.
S.A.A. Calvert
The thing they could have changed was exactly that. The book and the film are as related as those of 'Starship Troopers'. I think one thing that milit
...more
· flag
· flag
i'll be honest and say i actually enjoyed the movie, yet i was expecting to hate it.
The one thing they could have done without was the pointless wife/kid storyline, it added nothing to the movie.
I enjoyed the first half of the movie and more so the second half which was a typical zombie movie.
The one thing they could have done without was the pointless wife/kid storyline, it added nothing to the movie.
I enjoyed the first half of the movie and more so the second half which was a typical zombie movie.
Gore and including at least one major engagement between the military and zombies (Yonkers) would have been an improvement.
I heard that a sequel is in the works though, so we'll see if anything changes.
I heard that a sequel is in the works though, so we'll see if anything changes.
The book is phenomenal, the film is an average zombie-flick that I probably won't feel that compelled to watch many times again. They're both completely different works of fiction (aside from the name).
I'd love to see something done on cable that is a lot more faithful to the book......a 10 to 13 hour show on something like HBO that can be much more like the book but still somewhat......if HBO can do the Leftovers, I can see this
I think they could change the title of the movie. That might end the confusion.
The book was brilliant. The movie wasn't the worst zombie movie ever created but it WAS NOT World War Z. So basically, I would have changed the title.
What are the chances that the only two survivors of a plane crash are our hero and woman friend?
They could just name it differently. keep everybody happy
Could not agree more. Great book, good movie, but should not be tied together.
all discussions on this book
|
post a new topic