[Trailer] World War Z

[NewJeffCT]

I find it to be an excellent work, and would recommend it.

It is *not* a "one man trying to find the cure" story. No spoilers, as you learn this in the first chapter of the book: It is more like a documentary. After the zombie apocalypse, the UN sends someone to gather the stories of the events, which are then all told to you in the voice of the people who lived it. Not all these stories are central to winning the war, but all seem, at least to me, to be intensely human stories.

I'd also recommend the audiobook afterwards - since the author is the son of Mel Brooks & Anne Bancroft, he got an all-star cast to read the various chapters in the books: Alan Alda, John Turturro, Mark Hamill, Jurgen Prochnow, Carl & Rob Reiner, Henry Rollins and several others. Unfortunately, the version I have on audiobook is an abridged version. (OK, none of them are A-List stars now, but for an audiobook, they're big)

 

[Kaodi]

Honestly... Not really thrilled by the trailer. Fast zombies are great, but these things are more like geometrically challenged millipede zombies. They just do not move believably...

 

[Umbran]

I'd also recommend the audiobook afterwards...

Seconded. It isn't just a standard audiobook reading, it has aspects of... an audio or radioplay production of the book. It is abridged, but I don't end up minding that - they made their choices wisely.

 

[darjr]

I loved that book. I was really looking forward to it's take on the zombie apocalypse on the big screen, it was rather unique. The movie, while I'm looking forward to it, and it might be good/cool, I also don't like that they basically just took the title.

 

[humble minion]

Fast vs slow zombies seems to be the issue that's getting everyone steamed up in the comments on the youtube trailer (I actually thought those sequences were impressive, actually), but what stands out to me the most (judging horribly prematurely from 2 mins footage as I am...) is that it seems to have thrown out the multi-character viewpoint, quasi-doco stuff completely in favour of a very conventional Brad Pitt Saves His Disneylike Family (And The World In The Process) In A Manly Manner. Which would imho completely miss the point of the book - but from what I hear the film has gone through so damn many script rewrites any resemblance to the book may well have vanished 7 drafts and 4 scriptwriters ago.

I hope I'm wrong on this one. I loved the book, but it was the breadth of viewpoints that made it work. Narrowing the focus to and providing a single hero who saves the day (the book was a paean to the virtues of collective action) would really take away from what made WWZ unique, imho.

 

[NewJeffCT]

Agreed - I liked the vast international scope of the book. It was a lot different than most zombie apocalypse stories that focused on one rag-tag band of survivors.

The book was written in 2005 or 2006, if I recall, and the president and vice-president were a thinly veiled Colin Powell and Howard Dean (the Whacko in the book), who ran on a bipartisan unity ticket. I wonder if they'll keep that aspect of it?

 

[delericho]

It was rather surreal seeing recognisable parts of Glasgow city centre made up to pretend to be the US. Is this what most films are like for residents of LA/NY/etc?

Other than that, the trailer seemed quite underwhelming.

 

[Nytmare]

It is not fine and dandy to use the tile of an excellent book, and then make a movie that bears no real resemblance to the book, and slap the title on it.

Though I loved both the book and the audio book, I can't agree with the idea that the people who payed for and own the rights to the title don't have the right to royally screw the pooch with it.

I mean, it's Hollywood, and a bunch of creative types who are all vying to one up the last guy who had his hands in the pot.

I'm also in the boat with the people who think that the cgi'd hordes looked horribly outdated. The concept is neat, but I don't think they were rendered well.

 

[Umbran]

Though I loved both the book and the audio book, I can't agree with the idea that the people who payed for and own the rights to the title don't have the right to royally screw the pooch with it.

Let me be 100% clear: I don't think anyone here is questioning their legal right to do this. So, please, don't misstate our opinions, and take that off the table.

This isn't abut what they can do. It is about what they *should* do.

 

[frankthedm]

it appears that the filmmakers bought the rights with the sole intent of stealing the title, knowing full well that their film had nothing whatsoever to do with the source material.

Yeah.

http://io9.com/5830389/world-war-z-movie-synopsis-is-nothing-like-the-book-internet-melts-down
http://www.avclub.com/articles/world-war-z-synopsis-suggests-movie-may-approach-d,60344/
http://www.avclub.com/articles/world-war-z,88539/

Hollywood gives a big middle finger to fans of the book, no surprise.