FireDownBelow Posted July 3, 2013 Share Posted July 3, 2013 You know, Jax, I'm racking my brain trying to come up with an example of massive hordes of zombies overruning the Earth and I can't. So you've got me on that one. So, perhaps I could understand the World War Z title when taken in that context. As to new Coke (or this movie) ...well, I wouldn't need to try it because I have heard and carefully weighed the opinions of people I trust that have taken the plunge. I don't think I'm being overly critical. I'm just making assumptions, which can be detrimental but guide most of our quick decisions. And I'd like it to have a different name because it's not the same story. It just...isn't. I can't explain it any better than that. Some argue that the book would have made for a dull story. I disagree. Interview with a Vampire used a similar premise and I think it was well done, for the overwrought gothic mess that it was. Diary of Anne Frank managed it. If anything, I think I'm being more of a purist. Psst: I actually don't like the xtras they threw in the Hobbit movies and I'm afraid to watch Game of Thrones because of the changes (minute though they may be) that might irritate me. I guess I just like what I like and see no reason for change. I'm stodgy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Panch Posted July 3, 2013 Share Posted July 3, 2013 Don't even get me started on Game of Thrones book readers! I rest my case. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FireDownBelow Posted July 3, 2013 Share Posted July 3, 2013 I never claimed I wasn't being weird. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Iambaytor Posted July 3, 2013 Share Posted July 3, 2013 (edited) My main concern is that most of the cool stuff that was in the book, didn't make it into the movie. I was fine with Brad Pitt's character taking a step up to the lead, it was unneccesary but there was no reason he couldn't be relating these things from a first person perspective. I wasn't pleased about the PG-13 aspect but, realistically, an R-rating would only be necessary for the Battle of Yonkers seciton as that's the only time when things got super gruesome in the book. I know everything that happens in this movie and it sounds like one I want to watch, though i'm hoping the sequel peppers in some more stuff from the book (or any of it at all.) I'm more taking umbrage with your dismissal of a closer-to-the-book approach being "dull", "b-movieish", and throwing the word hipsters around in regards to purists. There are dull sections of the book, particularly toward the end, but I don't think that's what anyone is talking about. And when people are suggesting things that were exciting about the book you're all, "No, that would've been lame, hispter!" There are plenty of examples of "Movie is as good/better than book in spite of being almost nothing like it" and the book purists are annoying but you're being the other prickish side of the spectrum about this. In short, YOU are being a hipster right now. And don't pretend it's flawless, that "I am the 10th man" explanation where they built a wall around Jarusalem just in the off-chance that when they heard the word "zombie" over a scrambled channel months ago it might be literal is fucking silly. The "zombies ignore the sick" subplot is pants-on-head retarded. Oh, and the movie's ending is pretty much nonexistant, which wouldn't be a problem if they'd actually greenlit a sequel when they made it. I'm glad they're talking sequels, so the third problem will be a nonissue but don't piss in my pocket and tell me it's raining. Still kinda hyped to see this, in spite of it all. Edited July 3, 2013 by Iambaytor Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Panch Posted July 3, 2013 Share Posted July 3, 2013 Fucking hipsters. Kidding. Still, this "purist" thing is a stretch as well. I'm sorry if I've been rude. Seriously. I just can't wrap my mind around people getting upset about any details from the book not making it into the movie. And the boycott of said movie because of it. I just didn't think it was that good. It's just my opinion. I just look forward to additions to the zombie genre. That's it. Everyone is reacting as if this was actually something good like Game of Thrones and Walking Dead. World War Z just wasn't that. TO ME! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FireDownBelow Posted July 3, 2013 Share Posted July 3, 2013 Oh god, don't apologize for being rude. Rude is good. Rude is real. But admitting that you didn't think WWZ was caliber material would explain why you don't see why it's such a big deal. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keth Posted July 3, 2013 Share Posted July 3, 2013 You guys listened to the WWZ audiobook right? As long as that exists (Unabridged version is coming soon!) I think that will be the closest we get to a faithful adaptation of some sort.. A straight, live action movie adaptation would work alot better if made into say, a 4 part miniseries in a faux history channel type thing... History channel could even air it back to back with Mermaid Harpooners! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FireDownBelow Posted July 3, 2013 Share Posted July 3, 2013 I would watch that! I did not listen. I don't absorb audio as well as I do print. My attention tends to wander. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reverend Jax Posted July 3, 2013 Share Posted July 3, 2013 If WB had decided to release the Green Lantern movie exactly as they made it, but just call it Spider-Man, Panch would have lost his fucking mind. We could have said "What's the big deal? Normal American white guy didn't have superpowers, then he gets superpowers, learns how to use em, saves the day, and sets itself up nicely for a sequel...it's basically the same story." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Panch Posted July 3, 2013 Share Posted July 3, 2013 No, not the same. Besides "purists" were up in arms over organic webbing and I didn't give a shit. Lots of things were changed for Spider-Man and I didn't complain. I was just happy it was being made. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The NZA Posted July 4, 2013 Share Posted July 4, 2013 merge'd, sorry for any confusion Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Visitant Posted July 4, 2013 Share Posted July 4, 2013 It was the Michael Bay of zombie movies. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reverend Jax Posted July 4, 2013 Share Posted July 4, 2013 No, not the same. Besides "purists" were up in arms over organic webbing and I didn't give a shit. Lots of things were changed for Spider-Man and I didn't complain. I was just happy it was being made. The changes made to the Spider-Man movies were tiny compared to the changes made to the World War Z movie. You didn't want to see a faithful adaptation, but can you imagine how this movie would look if you did want a faithful adaptation? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Iambaytor Posted July 4, 2013 Share Posted July 4, 2013 It's exactly the same. There is nothing in World War Z that came from the book, in fact at many points it actively goes in opposition to the book. I mean, I'm as glad as anyone that they finally made 28 Months Later, I just wish they would've called it something else. And I get you being lukewarm on the book, hell I thought Play Dead was a mediocre read that did nothing interesting with it's out-there concept, but how can you say there's nothing there to film: the battle of Yonkers, the blind swordsman, cleaning out the catacombs of Paris, a horde of zombies chasing the people of India up a mountain pass only to be stopped by one brave guy who gives his life to blow it up, one of the first winning battles where soldiers wait in one area and pick off zombies from all sides as they just keep coming out of the darkness. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The NZA Posted July 4, 2013 Share Posted July 4, 2013 i'm not merging that one; someone else do it Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Iambaytor Posted July 4, 2013 Share Posted July 4, 2013 I would, but I'm on my phone. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lycaon Posted July 7, 2013 Author Share Posted July 7, 2013 <grumble> I like the book and I dislike very much that a movie that has litle to do with the plot bears to same name. I know it's stupid and petty to base my decision for not watching the film on this, but that's how I feel. Meh. They should have called it something else. Absolutely anything else. Agreed. Yeah, I was a little more disappointed and angry with each hint that what they were making was not World War Z, but a summer blockbuster about a world-wide zombie outbreak. That sucks. I can get over that. What really pisses me off is that they kept the name. I'd give the movie a chance if the name were different. Keep the name, and you make it a slap in the face that ensures that I'll not fork over any money for this movie or anything attached to it. You guys listened to the WWZ audiobook right? As long as that exists (Unabridged version is coming soon!) I think that will be the closest we get to a faithful adaptation of some sort.. A straight, live action movie adaptation would work alot better if made into say, a 4 part miniseries in a faux history channel type thing... History channel could even air it back to back with Mermaid Harpooners! The audiobook (while abridged) was wonderful. With an actual cast, and a different voice actor for each interviewee, this is the closest we'll likely come to an actual WWZ movie adaptation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Hakujin Posted July 10, 2013 Share Posted July 10, 2013 ^^ Looks like you're relating to The Bard's Juliet... 'Tis but thy name that is my enemy; Thou art thyself, though not a Montague. What's Montague? it is nor hand, nor foot, Nor arm, nor face, nor any other part Belonging to a man. O, be some other name! What's in a name? that which we call a rose By any other name would smell as sweet; So Romeo would, were he not Romeo call'd, Retain that dear perfection which he owes Without that title. Romeo, doff thy name, And for that name which is no part of thee Take all myself. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Iambaytor Posted July 10, 2013 Share Posted July 10, 2013 And now I don't even know whether to up or downvote that, I am seriously conflicted. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Panch Posted July 24, 2013 Share Posted July 24, 2013 Great movie. Loved it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Iambaytor Posted July 25, 2013 Share Posted July 25, 2013 Wait, hadn't you already seen it before? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Panch Posted July 25, 2013 Share Posted July 25, 2013 Nope. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Iambaytor Posted July 25, 2013 Share Posted July 25, 2013 But how do you know that New Coke isn't good until you try it? How do you know that New Coke IS good until you try it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Panch Posted July 25, 2013 Share Posted July 25, 2013 I don't... until I do. I don't boycott something before I see it just because I'm in love with the mediocre source material. I see it THEN make a judgement. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thrizzle Posted July 25, 2013 Share Posted July 25, 2013 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.