World War Z (film)

[krisvds]

oh dear ... /thread

[ZombieMovies]

How is the poster "proving" your point? It isn't a zombie movie. And for the record, the DoTD remake was 100x better than the last 3 shit films Romero put out. So can we stick to the topic? Ie: Z isn't a zombie movie? The point is p3ople not giving th3 movie a chance because of the fast zombies.. I expected zer0 walking in.. maybe thats why I enjoyed it so much.. I loved dawn of th3 dead remake much bettr than land of the dead.. the thing I liked ab8ut Wwz is they do new things and explore new ideas the genre has n3ver seen..theres actually an explanation as to whats going on. That never happened in the romeros. Also certain ppl are immune and if we lived in a wwz world I would be 1 of the immune one. Some of th3 zombie shenanigans (ie walking, twitching) was the best ever seen in the genre up to this point.. and it leaves the door open for a sequel that can be much more like ths book And its gota 7.3 on imdb so that meansthe majority that seen it and voted has enjoyed it.. imdb ratings are a good guage of a film. Generally movies rated above a 7 are exceptional.. 5-6 are ok and 4 and under are trash

[Rancid Carcass]

Perhaps we should lighten the mood a little, courtesy of Mr Brooks... http://uk.ign.com/videos/2013/06/22/...bie-proofs-ign

[krisvds]

Perhaps we should lighten the mood a little, courtesy of Mr Brooks... http://uk.ign.com/videos/2013/06/22/...bie-proofs-ign Hahahaha! Brilliant "Take a book, make it into a movie, and ignore the book"

[blind2d]

Well, if it got you posting here again it can't be all bad . Hope all is well, Blind! Thanks, Aces. Yeah, I've missed this place... Things are okay, could be better but yeah. And upon further reflection, there WERE some decent bits... Like the biter guy I mentioned before, but yes, it was just too rushed for me, and none of the characters really developed at all. The actors were set pieces for the most part. Oh, but Segen was cool. Wish they had more of her.

[kidgloves]

Im going to see it tomorrow sometime. For the people who are complaining bout this being a pg13, its rated a 15 in the UK. The same as Shaun of the Dead and Land of the Dead. Up until recently The Walking Dead was a TV14 in the US if im not mistaken so I don't really see what relevance its rating has on its quality.

[MagicMoonMonkey]

I dont see where the issue regarding this movie being a zombie movie or not comes from by those that have seen the movie. It is mentioned several times that they were zombies and undead. The difference is that these undead don't tear the prey apart. They bite to procreate. These zombies are a plague. If it is mentioned in the script that they are zombies and undead then its safe to assume its a zombie movie. Maybe not the traits we are used to from our undead, but makes sense in as much as a story about the dead returning to life can make sense. Its changed some genre rules, but nowhere near as bad as some would want and hope it to be.

[DevilDog]

**SPOILER** The entire plot is that Pitt must track down patient zero, so that a vaccine can be produced. A vaccine. Vaccines improve biological resistance from and help the body combat,wait for it....disease. They didn't show "zombies" eating anyone because they 1)weren't zombies, and 2)were rabid from disease.

[krakenslayer]

I dont see where the issue regarding this movie being a zombie movie or not comes from by those that have seen the movie. It is mentioned several times that they were zombies and undead. The difference is that these undead don't tear the prey apart. They bite to procreate. These zombies are a plague. If it is mentioned in the script that they are zombies and undead then its safe to assume its a zombie movie. Maybe not the traits we are used to from our undead, but makes sense in as much as a story about the dead returning to life can make sense. Its changed some genre rules, but nowhere near as bad as some would want and hope it to be. I suppose it gets into the realm of semantics, but when it comes to deciding whether or not something is a zombie flick, I'd say there are two schools of thought: 1) People who think any movie with actual zombies in it is a "zombie movie". By this logic Prince of Darkness and Creepshow are zombie movies. 2) People who think a zombie movie is any film that adheres to enough of the established tropes and dynamics of the genre. By this logic 28 Days Later might be considered a zombie movie even though they are not true zombies (because the general gist of the film ticks almost every other box), and World War Z might not be a zombie film because it shares more in common with the disaster film genre, and although it features "true" zombies you could replace them with aliens or killer triffids and the movie would be basically the same (I'm guessing, I haven't seen it, but that seems to be people's argument). I don't think either one is right, it's all personal opinion.

[Neil]

** SPOILER ** The entire plot is that Pitt must track down patient zero. So my prediction/guess was right then! ps: Remember those spoiler tags please... (I've added one)

[MinionZombie]

Im going to see it tomorrow sometime. For the people who are complaining bout this being a pg13, its rated a 15 in the UK. The same as Shaun of the Dead and Land of the Dead. Up until recently The Walking Dead was a TV14 in the US if im not mistaken so I don't really see what relevance its rating has on its quality. TV and MPAA ratings are different - it's actually very surprising they've got away with as much as they have - and The Walking Dead is rated "18" here in the UK. Shaun of the Dead and Land of the Dead were both rated "15" here in the UK, this is true, but they were both rated "R" in America. So WWZ might be rated "15", but it's still PG-13 content ... many "15" rated movies are "R" in America - such is the stupid MPAA rating system. ... As for dismissing WWZ just because it's got fast zombies in it - perhaps folks haven't read my posts, because there's more reasons than just that, as to why I'm not willing to pay to see this movie, and why I have many issues with it up-front. However, I have also given thumbs up to other aspects of the movie up-front (e.g. the scale), and I've always been pro-Brad Pitt (I don't understand the Pitt-hate whatsoever) ... but to reduce my grievances over how WWZ thus far appears to be, to just 'Oh you just don't like runners', is absurd and ignores everything else I've said (for good or bad) regarding WWZ in this run-up to it. I still ain't paying to see it in the cinema. I will see it, eventually, but it just seems really silly to me to take a fantastic book and ignore it so completely (as has been frequently reported). I just ain't that interested in seeing it - and that's a sad thing to say, as really I should be psyched to see this (I was psyched when it was originally announced), but here we are... If I wasn't giving the movie a chance - I'd never ever watch it - but I will watch it, just not in the cinema. Sadly though my expectations are rather low - that in itself is a sorry thing to say. I only give credit to Kermode's review because, for me at least, I find his opinion frequently lines-up with my own - not always, but frequently - so it's a good way to sort of guess what my opinion might be. I'm not closed off to the movie totally surprising me, and me loving it when I see it - you never know - indeed I have been very pleasantly surprised by certain movies that I was not looking forward to at all (e.g. Piranha 3D - it looked awful up-front, but I watched it and absolutely loved it ... however, I do not expect the same conversion with WWZ). Sometimes, in the case of Yawn04, I hate it from the off - see it and hate it - then see it again and kinda like some parts of it, then like it a smidge more, and then realise that actually I don't like it at all ... or in the case of Diary of the Dead, I kidded myself into thinking it was good the first time in, but then I saw it again and really didn't like it, then saw it again and enjoyed it, then saw it a fourth time and really disliked it, and now my opinion is all over the map on it (but generally it's not a good flick). ... Back to 28 Days Later - yes, it shares some of the traditions of the zombie film - but some traditions are also shared by viral outbreak films. Contagion isn't a zombie film, but it has many of the same components ... I also believe that there's a difference between "zombie" and "infected" (and in the case of 28DL, the difference is quite clear - but not to the likes of Zack Snyder, evidently).

[MagicMoonMonkey]

They described it as rabies and talked of antidotes in other zombie movies. I am sure both terms are mentioned within Romero's works. The creatures in WWZ are zombies. They are dead. They sink their teeth in to humankind. The survivors in WWZ tell us they are zombies and that they are dead. They go down permanently with a bullet to the head - body shots are as much use as throwing crisp packets full of shit at an oncoming tank to stop it. They are described several times as zombies and undead. So, they are reanimated corpses. The get all bitey with people. Their bite makes more reanimated corpses that get all bitey. I really can not see an argument as to how these are not zombies??? 28 days later were infected people.

[bd2999]

They didn't show "zombies" eating anyone because they 1)weren't zombies, and 2)were rabid from disease. Actually, I think it has more to do with a script for a movie that is rated as PG-13 instead of R. It is hard to show gory bites or eating on a PG-13 movie. I mean it can be done but I thought it was more to do with that than anything else. The biting to procreate always seemed more incidental to me in the novel and other things. It was a side to wanting to eat someone.

[Buzzbomb]

It'd be nice to see a poll on HPOTD for how people who've seen the movie rate it.

[paulannett]

Oh, surprise, surprise that the movie is generally disliked in here. Of course you (plural) don't like it, you wrote it off months ago and are looking for reasons to not like it. Pretty pathetic really. As a stand alone movie, it was decent fun. As a WWZ adaption, it was obviously a waste of movie rights, but get over it. It hasn't ruined your precious book and it hasn't changed how much you can love and hold your book at night. The sad truth is that this forum is packed with sour, bitter old zombie veterans. Open your minds, don't be afraid of being happy and don't be afraid to enjoy anything other than a handful of zombie movies. Many of you sound like elitist pricks. PS: They are fucking zombies. Seriously? How is this even an argument??? PPS: Oh and some great news, a sequel has been announced after a successful opening weekend. This will give you guys something to bitch and complain about for another couple of years.