Panch Posted July 2, 2013 Share Posted July 2, 2013 Like I've mentioned somewhere else before: I liked the book, but it would have made a boring movie. They just took the most exciting element of the book and expanded upon it for the movie. What's wrong with that? I still haven't seen the movie, but plan on it after these positive reviews. I'm not expecting much, but I am glad they didn't completely screw it up. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Iambaytor Posted July 2, 2013 Share Posted July 2, 2013 (edited) See, I want to believe Dodge, but Panch comes in and ruins it with his nonsense words again. I don't see how the journalist character was "the most exciting part of the book." Edited July 2, 2013 by Iambaytor Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keth Posted July 2, 2013 Share Posted July 2, 2013 When I heard they were making WWZ, my first thought was "They better include the blind Zombie Slayer from Japan!" Were there any real nods to the book at all? Easter eggs or anything? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reverend Jax Posted July 2, 2013 Share Posted July 2, 2013 Were there any real nods to the book at all? Easter eggs or anything? At the very beginning, when the title card came up. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Panch Posted July 2, 2013 Share Posted July 2, 2013 Not the journalist part. The siege on NYC. The hundreds of thousands of zombies. THAT was the most exciting part of the book. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FireDownBelow Posted July 2, 2013 Share Posted July 2, 2013 I would differ. My favrite part of the books were the catacombs in Paris Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Panch Posted July 2, 2013 Share Posted July 2, 2013 No, then it would be called 28 Months Later. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keth Posted July 2, 2013 Share Posted July 2, 2013 Might as well, they already had the running part down. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the division of joy Posted July 2, 2013 Share Posted July 2, 2013 When I heard they were making WWZ, my first thought was "They better include the blind Zombie Slayer from Japan!" Were there any real nods to the book at all? Easter eggs or anything? Not really, not that I noticed. I still think the book would make a great movie, but the movie that was made was still pretty great in my opinion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Iambaytor Posted July 2, 2013 Share Posted July 2, 2013 Not the journalist part. The siege on NYC. The hundreds of thousands of zombies. THAT was the most exciting part of the book. Gee, I would bet that those parts of the movie are not the ones people are complaining about and in fact might represent parts of the book that they wanted to get made. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Panch Posted July 2, 2013 Share Posted July 2, 2013 The only people I see complaining are the ones that haven't seen the movie yet. And complaining about the title is stupid. The book was good, but Moby Dick, it ain't. Who gives a shit. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thrizzle Posted July 2, 2013 Share Posted July 2, 2013 Right, it's way better than Moby Dick. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FireDownBelow Posted July 3, 2013 Share Posted July 3, 2013 I agree with Logan. It was finally a look at the zombie genre that wasn't just a horror/action film. It felt as if it could have been real. It is a good piece of literature. Also, I give a shit and last I checked whether or not you give a shit isn't really my problem. Just like you don't have to get so fucking worked up about my opinion. Good god, you'd think we were talking about politics. You got your opinion and I've got mine. Like assholes. Also, (in addition to the title thing) I don't want to see the fucking movie because there's been such a glut of zombie media over the last few years that I'm frankly sick of the shit. So, unless this is doing something drastically different (like the book) then I really have no desire to watch it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Panch Posted July 3, 2013 Share Posted July 3, 2013 Nobody's worked up here, babydoll. I'm just saying: get off your hipster high horse and watch the movie before bashing it. While I agree it was a fresh take on the genre, the book wasn't outta this world. That's my opinion, of course and you're entitled to yours, as well. Still, y'all actin like they're adapting the bible with unicorns and robots or some shit. It's a fucking zombie movie. Watch it and come back. Or don't. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Panch Posted July 3, 2013 Share Posted July 3, 2013 And now that I think about it, the book ISN'T that groundbreaking. George Romero was doing the same thing throughout his films. Max Brooks just put all these different stories at different stages of the zombie apocalypse in one book. Heh, you might still get your Paris catacombs story in World War Z II. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FireDownBelow Posted July 3, 2013 Share Posted July 3, 2013 That is the first time I've ever been called a hipster. I don't even know what to say to that except, Wow. And would it be predictable of me to ask that you please not patronize me with 'pet' names? I'm more bitter fat lady with a bad attitude than a babydoll. As least be more accurate if you're gonna condescend, thanks. I'm not bashing it, just saying I don't think I want to see it. I'm bored with the premise. Eh...now if I were a hipster I would ironically like Romero, right? And if I were a purist I would genuinely like Romero... Here's the thing, I don't really care either way about Romero. I agree the films were groundbreaking for the time and they created the whole genre, but I feel they were clumsy. <shrug> But I think that's just indicative of that era as well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Panch Posted July 3, 2013 Share Posted July 3, 2013 *ahem* Mergy mergy? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FireDownBelow Posted July 3, 2013 Share Posted July 3, 2013 I second that Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Panch Posted July 3, 2013 Share Posted July 3, 2013 Ok, your Romero criticism is fair, but I'm just saying. The book does nothing special. It's basically what Romero's films would be if all collected in one place. I just don't understand what the big deal is about the change from the source material. And this is where my hipster "petname" (the only REAL petname I've used so far) comes from. This boycotting of the movie because of the changes from the book. What does it matter? If you TRULY loved the book then you would support the movie. It's not like some Alan Moore type shit here. Brooks is still getting paid. I just don't understand people's fascination with huddling in the dark with their precious things and not wanting the world to know about it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Panch Posted July 3, 2013 Share Posted July 3, 2013 But if you simply don't want to watch it because your bored with the genre then that's your right, too. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FireDownBelow Posted July 3, 2013 Share Posted July 3, 2013 Well, it's a principle thing. Like the difference between Coke and New Coke. One is Coke and the other wasn't, even if the label did say it was. But yes, aside from my irritation with the title, the main reason is because it doesn't look much different from other zombie/end of the world movies that are being pumped out. I'm thinking its just some more cheap entertainment without the emotional impact and since going to a movie is a difficult thing for me these days, I'm putting this one in the RENT list. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Panch Posted July 3, 2013 Share Posted July 3, 2013 (edited) But how do you know that New Coke isn't good until you try it? The rest: fair. Edited July 3, 2013 by Panch Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keth Posted July 3, 2013 Share Posted July 3, 2013 Still, y'all actin like they're adapting the bible with unicorns and robots or some shit. SOMEBODY START WORKING ON THIS SCRIPT NOW! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reverend Jax Posted July 3, 2013 Share Posted July 3, 2013 it doesn't look much different from other zombie/end of the world movies that are being pumped out. Honestly, I don't think it looks like any other zombie movie ever made. I think this is basically the first ever big-budget, tent-pole zombie blockbuster. When I say big budget, I mean like a hundred million dollar or more in today's dollars. The 2004 Dawn of the Dead was about $28M, Zombieland was about $23M, 28 Days Later was under $10M, and those are what would previously have been known as the big budget ones, relatively speaking. We have never had a zombie movie with this kind of scale. As for the end of the world genre, the global disaster movie, yes, this does look pretty generic, like a Roland Emmerich movie. I just don't understand people's fascination with huddling in the dark with their precious things and not wanting the world to know about it. I really don't know why you're characterize what Amber is doing as this. You seem to be saying Amber doesn't want people to know about the book because that'll make it mainstream and less cool or something, like someone who doesn't want their favorite local band to get signed and go mainstream, because they prefer liking an unsuccessful band. That's a thing, but it's not what Amber is doing with this book. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Panch Posted July 3, 2013 Share Posted July 3, 2013 But she's being overly critical of the movie before even seeing it BECAUSE of her biases of the book. AND wanting it to have a different name. That's why. I guess I just see a true adaptation of the book as being indie and not approachable or B rated. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.