World War Z trailer is out . . . and it sucks

[Razgovory]

Well, there was the movie the Fountain.   Viking is wrong, plenty of films have multiple story lines, though they usually tie together somehow.  I've never read WWZ but I understand it's based on the Good War, which I have read.  If so it, then it would be series of unrelated vignettes giving the history of a fictional war.  Film isn't well suited to that medium.  You can do something like that, like an anthology film, though films like that tend to be uneven.

[Viking]

Well, there was the movie the Fountain.   Viking is wrong, plenty of films have multiple story lines, though they usually tie together somehow.  I've never read WWZ but I understand it's based on the Good War, which I have read.  If so it, then it would be series of unrelated vignettes giving the history of a fictional war.  Film isn't well suited to that medium.  You can do something like that, like an anthology film, though films like that tend to be uneven.

Since you rarely actually read what I write and merely crop and quote mine. I said pretty clearly that movies with parallel threads need to bring them together and resolve them within the scope of the movie. If the movie doesn't compellingly tie the threads together the movie fails. WWZ doesn't tie the threads together, they are a different points of view on a single story which progresses from observer to observer. To tell that story in a movie requires either the threads to be tied together (which the book doesn't do) and centered of a single character that the movie goer needs to build a relationship with within 90 minutes.

Making it as a movie with a star means it ceases to be WWZ and become a movie set in the world of WWZ. 

[katmai]

I can understand making it a central story around the Pitt character. I can't abide by the decision to make the undead not just fast but a frigging juggernaut swarm of CGI silliness.

[katmai]

JMS' script was very faithful to the book's structure, but the producers chickened out and got a rewrite to make it more conventional, with a clear protagonist, etc...

The only way the book would've worked as written is as a TV series, and it would be so expensive than I'm not sure it would be feasible either.

Anyway, as long as the mass zombie scenes are there, it should be decent. That was one of the most frightening aspects of the book.

Check the trailer, they made the mass zombie scenes look incredibly bad.

[Razgovory]

Well, there was the movie the Fountain.   Viking is wrong, plenty of films have multiple story lines, though they usually tie together somehow.  I've never read WWZ but I understand it's based on the Good War, which I have read.  If so it, then it would be series of unrelated vignettes giving the history of a fictional war.  Film isn't well suited to that medium.  You can do something like that, like an anthology film, though films like that tend to be uneven.

Since you rarely actually read what I write and merely crop and quote mine. I said pretty clearly that movies with parallel threads need to bring them together and resolve them within the scope of the movie. If the movie doesn't compellingly tie the threads together the movie fails. WWZ doesn't tie the threads together, they are a different points of view on a single story which progresses from observer to observer. To tell that story in a movie requires either the threads to be tied together (which the book doesn't do) and centered of a single character that the movie goer needs to build a relationship with within 90 minutes.

Making it as a movie with a star means it ceases to be WWZ and become a movie set in the world of WWZ.

I didn't even quote you at all.  So save your whining about "cropping" and "quote mining".  You can make a film with unrelated stories, like the Twilight Zone film, they simply run the risk of being uneven.

[Queequeg]

Read the book today.  Really dislike zombies devoid of personality.  The entire terror of zombies is that they're  somewhat recognizable as humans.  Z's zombies aren't even close to that. 

Also, some of it was patently silly.  The Samurai bullshit, especially.  I actually found the Russian response pretty plausible, though. 

[celedhring]

JMS' script was very faithful to the book's structure, but the producers chickened out and got a rewrite to make it more conventional, with a clear protagonist, etc...

The only way the book would've worked as written is as a TV series, and it would be so expensive than I'm not sure it would be feasible either.

Anyway, as long as the mass zombie scenes are there, it should be decent. That was one of the most frightening aspects of the book.

Check the trailer, they made the mass zombie scenes look incredibly bad.

I did... I'm still hoping for "temporary FX just for the trailer" here. I will probably be disappointed.

The idea of zombies climbing on each other's corpses to pass an obstacle is actually pretty cool, but it looks rotten in the trailer.

[CountDeMoney]

The idea of zombies climbing on each other's corpses to pass an obstacle is actually pretty cool, but it looks rotten in the trailer.

I can appreciate the "nonhuman wave" concept, but a suspension of belief doesn't mean a suspension of belief of physics.  It just looks bad.

[The Brain]

CGI zombies? Fail.

[jimmy olsen]

[celedhring]

CGI zombies? Fail.

I always find funny when all those CGI-fests are excused as a way of reducing costs, yet the movies wind up costing 200 million bucks and the effects don't look any less ridiculous than a bunch of costumed extras would.

People that work in CGI always tells me that the best way to go around this kind of stuff is doing practical effects, and then use CGI to enhance them, instead of doing full CGI. But it's easier to just do it from scratch.

[Josquius]

CGI zombies? Fail.

I always find funny when all those CGI-fests are excused as a way of reducing costs, yet the movies wind up costing 200 million bucks and the effects don't look any less ridiculous than a bunch of costumed extras would.

People that work in CGI always tells me that the best way to go around this kind of stuff is doing practical effects, and then use CGI to enhance them, instead of doing full CGI. But it's easier to just do it from scratch.

CGI does actually bring down costs of doing things a lot...but nonetheless people continue to throw the same amount of money at movies so the amount of special effects needed just grows expontentially.

[Viking]

CGI zombies? Fail.

I always find funny when all those CGI-fests are excused as a way of reducing costs, yet the movies wind up costing 200 million bucks and the effects don't look any less ridiculous than a bunch of costumed extras would.

People that work in CGI always tells me that the best way to go around this kind of stuff is doing practical effects, and then use CGI to enhance them, instead of doing full CGI. But it's easier to just do it from scratch.

CGI does actually bring down costs of doing things a lot...but nonetheless people continue to throw the same amount of money at movies so the amount of special effects needed just grows expontentially.

Not to mention the marginal costs. With Star Wars type effects re-shooting anything would be almost just as expensive given that apart from the model making everything would probably need to be redone. With CGI you can redo-redo-redo and play around with until you are satisfied, then you render in high texture and do final processing, this allows the director much more flexibility.

[CountDeMoney]

Yoda in The Empire Strikes Back was far more convincing than any Yoda scene of the prequel trilogy.   That pretty much sums it all up.

As dated as it is, I still think the T Rex paddock scenes from Jurassic Park is still the most convincing CGI effects ever, and the primary reason was the inclusion of rain in the shots.

[celedhring]

CGI zombies? Fail.

I always find funny when all those CGI-fests are excused as a way of reducing costs, yet the movies wind up costing 200 million bucks and the effects don't look any less ridiculous than a bunch of costumed extras would.

People that work in CGI always tells me that the best way to go around this kind of stuff is doing practical effects, and then use CGI to enhance them, instead of doing full CGI. But it's easier to just do it from scratch.

CGI does actually bring down costs of doing things a lot...but nonetheless people continue to throw the same amount of money at movies so the amount of special effects needed just grows expontentially.

Not to mention the marginal costs. With Star Wars type effects re-shooting anything would be almost just as expensive given that apart from the model making everything would probably need to be redone. With CGI you can redo-redo-redo and play around with until you are satisfied, then you render in high texture and do final processing, this allows the director much more flexibility.

That only works if the shot is 100% CGI though. If you need anything practical in the shot (actors, ghasp), you need to go out and do conventional reshoots.

And all in all, CGI still looks too fake when doing anything resembling living (or unliving in this case). Should be limited to 'plosions and scenery.