With at least $250 million pumped into that movie, I can't wait to see it.
Any other zombie fan here?
With at least $250 million pumped into that movie, I can't wait to see it.
Any other zombie fan here?
the walking dead for me.
and warm bodies.
You liking that movie is like those gay neo-nazis from that other thread...
Is it anything like this?
Or this one?
Love zombies!! I am really looking forward to this movie. It should be really good.
I am also addicted to the Walking Dead.
Has anybody read the book?
Is there some reason (don't spoil/a 'yes or no' is fine) why these zombies move like marauding ants?
Does anybody else find Brad Pitt sort of miscast in it?
I thought everybody likes zombies. Anyone not?
Zombies films are stupid and I have yet to see one that makes any sense from a scientific perspective. This ordinarily wouldn't bother me except that way to many people think we're overdue for the zombie apocyplse. I pretty much avoid zombie flicks.
I was excited for this when I first heard about it a couple years ago. When I saw the first trailer for it last winter, my excitement was deflated. It just didn't look interesting on any level. And early reviews are not good. The movie is said to have zero in common with the book, except for zombies.
I didn't care much for the book, for me it never seemed to go anywhere. skipped most of the later parts.
I may be bad, but I'm perfectly good at it.
From what I've seen in the trailers, it looks to be one more CGI overload movie. Special effects are supposed to enhance a movie, not be it.
The buzz is that this movie is World War Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.
not upset pop s
mind world bury da dead a real wars etc so on ans inclusive befor keep make shit so sofas suck da farts a awsums
I get so stressed out watching post apocalyptic movie.
I rather watching movie about people getting rich in the 80s
I think "Resident Evil" was the best zombie or uncontrolable virus movie.
I have zero desire to see it, but I caught a half-second of it and noticed all the ruin with the Philadelphia skyline in the background.
Congratulations, Hollywood! You finally found a city to destroy other than New York.
The book is a collection of stories told by survivors of the zombie apocalypse. It's a documentary type fiction.
To all the haters, here's the thing. When was the last time you guys saw a documentary of anything on the history channel? You bastards really wanted them to dump $400 million into a documentary type movie?
The man behind the script for the film was the creator of Babylon 5. They had 3 big name directors for this film. And yes, they invested almost $400 million into this movie. So, take it for what it's worth and not try to be purists.
The book is interesting for a book. But it would make a lousy and boring movie. Why can't you people see that?
What the film makers did was take the concept behind the book and made it into a movie. If they had stuck to the book format, it would have ended up being a boring history channel tv series documentary.
What reviews are you reading? Or maybe you just don't WANT it to be good?
At first I was a little disappointed with the early teaser trailer I saw because it looked like another bad zombie flick on Netflix, and looked nothing like the book. But as you mentioned, the book wouldn't transition well into a movie. The biggest difference of this is "fast" zombies ala 28 days/weeks later.
I guess they saw how disappointed people were with the early trailer that they actually re-shot a lot of the scenes. I read a story that the budget was actually $150M but Brad Pitt or the director (can't remember who) actually convinced the studios to pump out more cash for re-shoots. To everyone's surprise, they agreed and coughed up the cash. I'm glad.
Can't wait to see it.
Oh, and you're not likely to make many friends here by calling us 'bastards'.
don't forget Otto...........
Anyway, I know that $400 million and 3 big-name directors don't equate to a good movie. We don't really know what the movie is like yet. But there's already a lot of "reviews" on the internet, mostly by people who haven't seen it, that say the movie sucks because it doesn't stay true to the book.
Max Brooks in a recent interview even urged people to see the movie as the movie, and not try to see how true the movie stay to the book. It's unfair for the movie.
Again, the book is written in a documentary type format. When was the last time any of us is will to pay $12 to go see a documentary on the big screen? Why on Earth would people think it's a good idea to pump $400 million into making a documentary? I don't get that.
We should follow Max Brooks' advice. We should see this movie and judge it as this movie, not judge it upon how well it stay true to the book. We're still 2 weeks away from the movie premiere, and people are already writing bad reviews about it simply because it didn't stay true to the book. That's bullshit.
^want to play in the sandbox
lets pretend that everyone is dead.
I saw the trailer, seems ok. But damn a 400$ million budget?
DAMNIT...I just saw the trailers and I hate the movies where the zombies can run as fast as Olympians. I have a hard time suspending my disbelief. They have to walk slow in order to engage me. I was soooo looking forward to this movie but not now.... damnit damnit damnit
Oddly movies that are told from multiple points of view are rather interesting to me. The book seemed more like testimony in front of a world body after the war was over than a documentary to me... but I guess it is how you perceived the book.
SOme bastards can't see it that way.... bwahhahahaha
- - - Updated - - -
The book is brilliant, but they made the film PG-13 for the sake of bringing back the budget at the box office. Pity.
Nobody is saying it, but this is probably the most over-budgeted movie ever. It started out at $125 mil and it ended up pushing toward $400 mil.
Regardless, my boyfriend and I are thrilled to see it in 2 weeks. He hasn't read the book. I've read it like 20 times. I will give this movie a fair chance, unlike some people *ahem*.
I still don't get it. What kind of ego makes a person hate a movie weeks before it came out? Do they have a crystal ball I'm not aware of?
And my question still stands. When was the last time these people sat down and watched a documentary, even if it's first person documentary, on the history channel? Why on earth would they think it's a good idea to make a first person documentary for a big budget film?
My elderly mom can't wait to see it. I'll be taking her along with my niece and nephew to see it on Friday morning. Then Friday night I will take my boyfriend to it. Don't ask. It's complicated.
However, I can say this about this movie: I've seen the trailers on television and nothing in them make me want to see the movie. As I mentioned in an earlier post, CGI and special effects should enhance the movie. They shouldn't be it.
I don't hate the movie. I simply don't have a desire to see it.
Last edited by zoltanspawn; June 7th, 2013 at 04:53 PM.
Whether it is zombies, tsunamis or alien invasions, you can always count on a white family surviving it.
In fact, according to reports, this movie has very few green screen scenes. Which is why this movie was so damn expensive to make. Almost all of the movie was done with real live actors, real live scenes, and real live set-ups. Then the special effects are added in to compliment the shots.
Why did you think it cost them $400 mil to make this movie? They could have opted for all green screen like most movies these days. Would have been a lot cheaper. But the producers and directors (all 3 of them) insisted on making a biological movie, not a sterile one. This is the reason why this project has had more man-power involved than most other movies before.
You're making an unfair judgement on the movie based on snapshots (the trailer).
But again, I respect your decision to not go see it. I'm just objecting to judging it based on misconceptions and guessworks.
I want to see it now that I've read this thread
I'll probably wait for the DVD like I usually do
I wonder how much they will score for the box office opening weekend. Usually superhero themed movies can earn well as they have a decent fan base. Maybe this one can attract the zombie fans.
Good. I give it 3 thumbs up........
I thought the trailer for World War z was decent but since Brad Pitt was the Lead player I thought I should wait for PPV. Don’t read me wrong, I think Brad is a GREAT & capable actor but action Sci-Fi isn’t his thing. I saw WWZ last weekend and it was good. Very fast-paced, light on the special effects but the Director and his Team made their point. Brad is a Leading Actor and he delivered on that. He def looks younger than 49 but you can tell the Ol’boy is getting-up-there.
The Motion Picture association gave WWZ a PG-13 rating & it’s under the HORROR genre….Hmmmm, I think NOT. No gore, no visible Zombie eating Human flesh. The PG-13 rating is appropriate because we see ZERO blood and the Zombies look more like aging Senior citizens..
Because WWZ debuted at #2 with $67-million the sequel has been green lighted. But do we need a sequel or do Women just wanna see Brad again with his “Hanson MMMbop” haircut? Resident Evil has the Zombie thing on lock down with awesome Kick-ass special effects. WWZ cost $200+ million to make but it simply did not look like it. I seriously would ask the Studio & the Director WHERE did all that money go? WWZ snuck by @ the theatre but if they want part 2 to be successful they gotta step it up. Look at what happened to Taken part 2. CRAPOLA.
^I've been reading that the budget was $190M, up from $125 or so. I think it'll make profit. Even it's own studios predicted it would do $35M, and it almost doubled that.
I've been waiting for this movie for a while, ever since I read the book 2 years ago. I had some elements of the book, but it was completely different.
Out of 10, I give it an 8, 8.5.
Though it is a zombie-movie, it was a great twist to it. A great way of telling the plague. It didn't really need to be gory to get the point across.