World War Z
- Thread starter Water Bob
- Start date
It's a hypothetical, obviously, but I wouldn't sell the rights if I felt that way. I can't speak for the author of WWZ, but presumably he was happy to do so.
Well, you were asking me how I'd myself feel if someone made a movie using the name of my website as a direct analogy to that.
Given that the initial script treatment was by JMS, I would have guessed that it did. Brooks is quoted as calling at least one of JMS' drafts, "amazing". That was back around 2008.
In July 2009, the script was rewritten by Matthew Michael Carnahan (whose films apparently get mixed reviews). In June 2012, they had Damon Lindelof rewrite the third act after principle photography on the film was completed, with some significant reshoots. We can expect taht at this point, there's not much of JMS' adaptation left.
Max Brooks didn't have any creative input on the script (while Brooks has done scriptwriting, he didn't feel he had the experience to do this justice), and didn't get to see the final version before making his decision to sell the rights. Few authors do. But, looking at that history - I'd have had complete confidence if they told me JMS was writing the script. The man knows a story.
Like Bullgrit, though, I'm not annoyed on behalf of the author. It'd be more accurate to say that I feel the book is good enough to deserve respect as a piece of literature. The movie makers failed to show that respect, but are willing to cash in on it, regardless. I find that irksome.
I haven't seen the movie yet, although I expect to in the next couple of days.
Based solely on the trailers I felt the imagery captured my impression of the imagery in the book. I can tell you that I wouldn't have enjoyed a movie that followed the books (I was bored about 1/2 the time I read it and had no interest or connection with any of the characters, only the events portrayed). If the movie has similar events (walls being built, people living on ships, zombies, panic, resistance fighting, etc) I'll be content. And I much prefer fast zombie over slow ones.
That said, I'll wait until I see the movie before I say whether I liked it or not.
Based solely on the trailers I felt the imagery captured my impression of the imagery in the book. I can tell you that I wouldn't have enjoyed a movie that followed the books (I was bored about 1/2 the time I read it and had no interest or connection with any of the characters, only the events portrayed). If the movie has similar events (walls being built, people living on ships, zombies, panic, resistance fighting, etc) I'll be content. And I much prefer fast zombie over slow ones.
That said, I'll wait until I see the movie before I say whether I liked it or not.
darjr
I crit!
ugh. OK I'm starting to lean towards not seeing it.
The thing is running at 68% on the tomatometer - so I'm guessing it is at least a serviceable example of its genre. If you like zombies, it is probably a fine film.
However, what I personally was looking forward to was the ways in which Brooks thoughtfully and imaginatively broke from the genre to make something new, and I expect that's been lost.
JRRNeiklot
First Post
Hollywood does this with EVERY movie, especially LOTR. Which is why I haven't been to the theater since RoTK.
With respect, the number and magnitude of changes that were done to LotR or The Watchmen were minor as compared to what was done with, say, Starship Troopers, or now WWZ.
Now, some folks find they cannot enjoy a work with even minor changes. And that's okay - to each their own. But I think we are talking about two different phenomenon. One in which the original material is kept, but altered, and the other in which the original material is pretty entirely abandoned.
