At least it doesn't put me into the mood of the book (post war eye witness interviews) and looks like a CGI action crapfest.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=HcwTxRuq-uk
Always knew it was going to be nothing to do with the book but was kinda hopeful it might work- the book format would make for a weird movie afterall. But this looks to be even more of a departure than expected, very dissapointing.
What is it with New York City and disaster porn?
Nonetheless despite it seeming a huge let down it might be kinda worthwhile. I'm not expecting the best thing ever, that is dead and buried, but I have a little hope it might be watchable when its on TV at least.
Those zombies don't look like the shuffling variety in the book.
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.
BLah. Netflix.
It's zombies, of course it's going to suck. :rolleyes:
Quote from: Razgovory on November 10, 2012, 03:16:24 PM
It's zombies, of course it's going to suck. :rolleyes:
No, that's vampires.
Quote from: Razgovory on November 10, 2012, 03:16:24 PM
It's zombies, of course it's going to suck. :rolleyes:
Dude, Walking Dead is awesome. Shaun of the Dead and 28 Days Later are pretty good too.
Quote from: celedhring on November 10, 2012, 03:57:41 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on November 10, 2012, 03:16:24 PM
It's zombies, of course it's going to suck. :rolleyes:
No, that's vampires.
Them too. People just need to get over this zombie bullshit. You never see movies about a Mummy apocalypse. Where pyramids burst up from the ground and bandaged Egyptians come shuffling out. Or maybe a Ghost apocalypse, where armies of spirits try to drive humanity mad by turning on or off the lights.
Quote from: celedhring on November 10, 2012, 11:54:14 AM
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.
It smells of Terra Nova/Falling Skies like meh. The only thing we know about the Brad Pitt character is that he has a family and the doesn't want to leave it despite the government giving him an important job while the human race spirals to extinction.
I am going to pretend that this movie does not exist because the book and the handbook are excellent.
The book would have worked best as a mini-series produced as a series of parallell stores like the book interspersed with vignettes of PSA's from the handbook about why flame throwers are not worth it, why destroying the stairs in your house is a good idea and how the standard roman legionary is better equipped to deal with zombies than the 82nd Airborne.
Movies don't do multiple threads well. Movies to single narrative best. If you have multiple threads they must come together or the movie becomes a disordered chaotic mess. TV and Miniseries can have independent threads which inform the viewer about the nature of the fictional world without having to be directly relevant. Traffic and Crash were loved by critics but they were hard to watch and follow since they (unlike reservoir dogs or pulp fiction) didn't end up with all the characters in the same room.
:huh:
Crash was not remotely hard to follow.
Quote from: Viking on November 10, 2012, 08:20:25 PM
Quote from: celedhring on November 10, 2012, 11:54:14 AM
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.
It smells of Terra Nova/Falling Skies like meh. The only thing we know about the Brad Pitt character is that he has a family and the doesn't want to leave it despite the government giving him an important job while the human race spirals to extinction.
I am going to pretend that this movie does not exist because the book and the handbook are excellent.
The book would have worked best as a mini-series produced as a series of parallell stores like the book interspersed with vignettes of PSA's from the handbook about why flame throwers are not worth it, why destroying the stairs in your house is a good idea and how the standard roman legionary is better equipped to deal with zombies than the 82nd Airborne.
Movies don't do multiple threads well. Movies to single narrative best. If you have multiple threads they must come together or the movie becomes a disordered chaotic mess. TV and Miniseries can have independent threads which inform the viewer about the nature of the fictional world without having to be directly relevant. Traffic and Crash were loved by critics but they were hard to watch and follow since they (unlike reservoir dogs or pulp fiction) didn't end up with all the characters in the same room.
The beauty of the book is that it is a single narrative when all pieces are put together though, it's just spread between different characters in different locations. Pretty much almost every chapter follows the next.
It would have worked as a bit of a narrative experiment, and I don't think it would have been hard to follow, but Hollywood producers don't do 100m$+ narrative experiments.
I'm still waiting for new Gor movies.
Quote from: celedhring on November 10, 2012, 08:34:57 PM
It would have worked as a bit of a narrative experiment, and I don't think it would have been hard to follow, but Hollywood producers don't do 100m$+ narrative experiments.
But you can get that much in independent funding: see Cloud Atlas...though with it struggling in the box office, I guess that might not be possible now. :D
Well, there was the movie the Fountain. :x 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.
Quote from: Razgovory on November 10, 2012, 09:21:31 PM
Well, there was the movie the Fountain. :x 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 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.
Quote from: celedhring on November 10, 2012, 11:54:14 AM
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.
Quote from: Viking on November 10, 2012, 09:58:55 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on November 10, 2012, 09:21:31 PM
Well, there was the movie the Fountain. :x 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.
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.
Quote from: katmai on November 10, 2012, 10:01:58 PM
Quote from: celedhring on November 10, 2012, 11:54:14 AM
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.
Quote from: celedhring on November 11, 2012, 05:04:33 AM
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.
CGI zombies? Fail.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.infamouskidd.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2010%2F07%2Fworld-war-z-concept-art-2.jpg&hash=8cb656b51b89e18ecda5cdc95339aff88e294fe1)
Quote from: The Brain on November 11, 2012, 05:59:22 AM
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.
Quote from: celedhring on November 11, 2012, 06:02:50 AM
Quote from: The Brain on November 11, 2012, 05:59:22 AM
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.
Quote from: Tyr on November 11, 2012, 07:46:01 AM
Quote from: celedhring on November 11, 2012, 06:02:50 AM
Quote from: The Brain on November 11, 2012, 05:59:22 AM
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.
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.
Quote from: Viking on November 11, 2012, 07:52:16 AM
Quote from: Tyr on November 11, 2012, 07:46:01 AM
Quote from: celedhring on November 11, 2012, 06:02:50 AM
Quote from: The Brain on November 11, 2012, 05:59:22 AM
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.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on November 11, 2012, 07:56:01 AM
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.
Well a good portion of it was done with a giant puppet, and it's hard to tell which scenes used the mock up and which used CGI.
I have to say, weirdest thing about the book for me was that the Chicoms were able to hide what was going on for a substantial period of time. There's hundreds of millions of cellphones with cameras in China. Reanimated dead would be on YouTube within days. Hours, maybe.
Quote from: Queequeg on November 11, 2012, 06:15:55 PM
I have to say, weirdest thing about the book for me was that the Chicoms were able to hide what was going on for a substantial period of time. There's hundreds of millions of cellphones with cameras in China. Reanimated dead would be on YouTube within days. Hours, maybe.
It starts out in their rural areas, plus the Chinese have a huge control of the content transmitted through their web. But yeah, it's probably a bit too stretched out. The author didn't anticipate how pervasive social media would be just a few years after he published the book, information would probably flow much faster in reality than it does in the book.
We had pretty decent footage of the Rwandan Genocide, and that was in the early 90s in a far less interconnected place than near-future China.
Quote from: Queequeg on November 11, 2012, 07:16:09 PM
We had pretty decent footage of the Rwandan Genocide, and that was in the early 90s in a far less interconnected place than near-future China.
There was hardly an effort from their government to cover that massacre though, damn, I remember that the government media even openly called to murder Tutsis. Members of government were cleansed, too... the international community learnt pretty soon about it and there already were several international reporters on the ground due to recent the civil war.
But the Chinese weren't hiding the massacre, IIRC, just the reason.
Quote from: HVC on November 12, 2012, 09:46:28 AM
But the Chinese weren't hiding the massacre, IIRC, just the reason.
Dunno, I should pick up the book again, but I think they were shadier than that.
Anyway, I concede the general point that Brooks didn't really account for the pervasiveness of social media and smartphones (both were still a novelty when the book came out), and how more easily information would flow if this thing happened right now. I'm not sure how these communications would hold up if countries started to be overrun, though.
It's a shit book. So many internal inconsistencies there's no point in picking up just one or two.
And the writing is terrible too.
Quote from: Gups on November 12, 2012, 10:31:35 AM
It's a shit book. So many internal inconsistencies there's no point in picking up just one or two.
And the writing is terrible too.
Tell me more! :)
To beat these zombies, dig a big pit. Put a battery powered siren or something noisy in there. Watch and laugh as the zombies fall into the big pit one after another.
Max Brooks eats boogers.
Quote from: Ed Anger on November 12, 2012, 12:55:31 PM
Max Brooks eats boogers.
You say that like it's a bad thing. :huh:
Quote from: Gups on November 12, 2012, 11:10:18 AM
To beat these zombies, dig a big pit. Put a battery powered siren or something noisy in there. Watch and laugh as the zombies fall into the big pit one after another.
I was thinking a variant of this
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimages.wisconsinhistory.org%2F700099990709%2F9999010602-l.jpg&hash=8eb40c6fdcfd8801223c0b84d7eb597d57d8747b)
Where the funnel leads to a deep trench with steep sides and filled on the bottom with gasoline and firewood.
that and equpping a zombie killig squad with moped driven chariots, in MC crash suits with crowd control gear protecting their skin from biting and equipped with morning stars and maces killing zombies before jumping back on the chariot to escape.
Why not just use magic?
Quote from: Razgovory on November 12, 2012, 02:57:05 PM
Why not just use magic?
Because magic doesn't exist, just like god.
Quote from: Viking on November 12, 2012, 03:00:46 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on November 12, 2012, 02:57:05 PM
Why not just use magic?
Because magic doesn't exist, just like god.
Neither do zombies or memes, but we are talking about a fantasy world.
Quote from: garbon on November 12, 2012, 03:01:31 PM
Quote from: Viking on November 12, 2012, 03:00:46 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on November 12, 2012, 02:57:05 PM
Why not just use magic?
Because magic doesn't exist, just like god.
Neither do zombies.
It's the suspension of disbelief exemption, sci-fi, fantasy and horror get one each.
Quote from: Razgovory on November 12, 2012, 03:02:40 PM
Quote from: Viking on November 12, 2012, 03:00:46 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on November 12, 2012, 02:57:05 PM
Why not just use magic?
Because magic doesn't exist, just like god.
Neither do zombies or memes, but we are talking about a fantasy world.
Your disbelief in memes is a meme :contract:
Show me a meme in the laboratory, and the mechanism it uses to transfer and encode cultural information.