world war z

who here has see the trailer for this new badass looking zombie movie? also a better question has anyone read the book and agree with me that they could pull it off, and that i think Brat Pitt can get the job done.

Wanna know something funny? My first time viewing the trailer, I have never heard anything about the book or anything about World War Z at all. I thought it was just some random new movie coming out so when I watched the trailer, I honestly thought those "Zombies" were people.

Imagine if they were though, that would be the most controversial film of all time

yeah for real, i really want to see it lol , yeah most people don't know about the book which is a shame its one of the best zombie books i have ever read.

Speaking of zombies, Thanks for getting me to see the walking dead I probably would of never given it a chance if you didn't see that it was amazing and such. You weren't the first person to tell me how good it was though. You just made me cross the line, in a good way. Now I love the walking dead more than half of the films on my top 10 favorite movie list.

I know it's harsh for me to say but, In World War Z, I was really hoping they were people because, well...

Spoiler:

Industrial Ridden wrote:

Speaking of zombies, Thanks for getting me to see the walking dead I probably would of never given it a chance if you didn't see that it was amazing and such. You weren't the first person to tell me how good it was though. You just made me cross the line, in a good way. Now I love the walking dead more than half of the films on my top 10 favorite movie list.

I know it's harsh for me to say but, In World War Z, I was really hoping they were people because, well...

Spoiler:

lol no problem man im glad i got someone else to be a fan. i love it to its a great series its in my top five favorite zombie show/movies. ha i do to but if they want to say to the book it needs to be zombies. but from the trailer it kinda looked like the people from i am legend, you know?

The ones from I am Legend looked like people from a quick glance, but these...These looks like regular humans, even if I stare for a while, It's hard to tell that they are actually zombies. Not the zombies I'm used to seeing.

yeah they move fast as hell and just seem like auged humans. ig well just have to wait which i hate the waiting game.

Book is brilliant, but I am kinda disappointed how the movie is looking for a more linear, chronological narrative. Nevertheless, it still looks awesome as something different and I'm just as eager to see it.

Limey wrote:

Book is brilliant, but I am kinda disappointed how the movie is looking for a more linear, chronological narrative. Nevertheless, it still looks awesome as something different and I'm just as eager to see it.

Good so there is someone else that has read the book its a good take on zombies and just how it is written kinda documented. True but at this point htey can either make it or destroy it. Im already seeing resident evil movies destroyed lets hope wwz does not share the same fate. plus its got brat pit not my favorite actor but at least he knows what he is doing.

Limey wrote:

Book is brilliant, but I am kinda disappointed how the movie is looking for a more linear, chronological narrative. Nevertheless, it still looks awesome as something different and I'm just as eager to see it.

Yeah, the book is fantastic. I don't think the film will work as well, seeing as how part of the book's brilliance was the fact that it didn't have one protagonist, and was told from the points of view of dozens of different people during the outbreak. Turning it into, like you say, a more linear narrative makes me think that this will turn out to be just another zombie movie.

I'll still go see it though. I'm a fan of the book, Brad Pitt's a damn good actor, and part of it was filmed just an hour away from here in Glasgow, so that's 3 reasons right there.

Also, have you guys read the Zombie Survival Guide? It was the book Max Brooks wrote before World War Z. It's a great read too, thoroughly recommended if anyone hasn't checked it out.

Cyberization wrote:

Limey wrote:

Book is brilliant, but I am kinda disappointed how the movie is looking for a more linear, chronological narrative. Nevertheless, it still looks awesome as something different and I'm just as eager to see it.

Yeah, the book is fantastic. I don't think the film will work as well, seeing as how part of the book's brilliance was the fact that it didn't have one protagonist, and was told from the points of view of dozens of different people during the outbreak. Turning it into, like you say, a more linear narrative makes me think that this will turn out to be just another zombie movie.

I'll still go see it though. I'm a fan of the book, Brad Pitt's a damn good actor, and part of it was filmed just an hour away from here in Glasgow, so that's 3 reasons right there.

Also, have you guys read the Zombie Survival Guide? It was the book Max Brooks wrote before World War Z. It's a great read too, thoroughly recommended if anyone hasn't checked it out.

yeah i have read that it is a great read.

Cyberization wrote:

Limey wrote:

Book is brilliant, but I am kinda disappointed how the movie is looking for a more linear, chronological narrative. Nevertheless, it still looks awesome as something different and I'm just as eager to see it.

Yeah, the book is fantastic. I don't think the film will work as well, seeing as how part of the book's brilliance was the fact that it didn't have one protagonist, and was told from the points of view of dozens of different people during the outbreak. Turning it into, like you say, a more linear narrative makes me think that this will turn out to be just another zombie movie.

I'll still go see it though. I'm a fan of the book, Brad Pitt's a damn good actor, and part of it was filmed just an hour away from here in Glasgow, so that's 3 reasons right there.

Also, have you guys read the Zombie Survival Guide? It was the book Max Brooks wrote before World War Z. It's a great read too, thoroughly recommended if anyone hasn't checked it out.

Own it and appreciate the sound advice for the absurd scenario, but I still don't think it has the level of World War Z as the scale was unbelievable and details comprehensive. The film is at least having many location shots, though, which could show the effects of the zombie apocalypse in variety and how each nation responds/endures the events.

Industrial Ridden wrote:

Wanna know something funny? My first time viewing the trailer, I have never heard anything about the book or anything about World War Z at all. I thought it was just some random new movie coming out so when I watched the trailer, I honestly thought those "Zombies" were people.

Imagine if they were though, that would be the most controversial film of all time

I myself didnt know that that was a zombie movie i bumped into it when i was on Brads wiki page, but i was there for smthing else so didnt open the link . . . I haven read the book asw well.

Well one thing can be said 4 sure, the CG of the movie looked awesome, but i dont know how brad is going to fit in it, its kinda not his style doing disaster movies . . . Or even horror movies . . . If Tom Cruise was in it then . . . (well maybe thats just a point of view of a Tom Cruise fan . . . )

Have any of yall read the forest of hands and teeth.

Limey wrote:

Own it and appreciate the sound advice for the absurd scenario, but I still don't think it has the level of World War Z as the scale was unbelievable and details comprehensive. The film is at least having many location shots, though, which could show the effects of the zombie apocalypse in variety and how each nation responds/endures the events.

Oh totally. The Survival Guide, while being amusing, creepy and informative in equal measure, is absolutely nowhere near as good as WWZ. It manages to create such an amazing atmosphere as you read each new chapter, the detail is just stunning, and most if not all of the characters feel completely real. Some of the stories are very poignant and almost touching as well. The one about the blind man from Japan always stuck with me. Very emotional stuff.

ChrisRedfieldRE156 wrote:

I myself didnt know that that was a zombie movie i bumped into it when i was on Brads wiki page, but i was there for smthing else so didnt open the link . . . I haven read the book asw well.

Well one thing can be said 4 sure, the CG of the movie looked awesome, but i dont know how brad is going to fit in it, its kinda not his style doing disaster movies . . . Or even horror movies . . . If Tom Cruise was in it then . . . (well maybe thats just a point of view of a Tom Cruise fan . . . )

If you're a fan then I apologise, but if Tom Cruise was in it, it'd be fucking terrible.

Cyberization wrote:

If you're a fan then I apologise, but if Tom Cruise was in it, it'd be fucking terrible.

may i ask why? ? ?

ChrisRedfieldRE156 wrote:

Cyberization wrote:

If you're a fan then I apologise, but if Tom Cruise was in it, it'd be fucking terrible.

may i ask why? ? ?

Well, because Tom Cruise is, in my view, a terrible actor. He always (past decade or so anyway) seems to play some variation on the charming action hero type. His characters typically have very little development, and I feel like he's shown that he's capable of almost no range. His movies are often braindead Hollywood blockbuster action garbage, the "jettison logic and switch your brain off at the door" type of film. Aside from Collateral (excellent movie) and Mission Impossible 1 (more due to the awesome Jon Voight), I haven't enjoyed a single one of his films.

If he was in World War Z, based on a very cerebral and thought-provoking take on the zombie apocalypse scenario, in which the main character isn't an assassin, or a secret agent, or a cop, but a simple journalist..........then I would despair, because it would mean the creators had definitely decided to go for the typical and clichéd "action, guns n gore" route.

Cyberization wrote:

ChrisRedfieldRE156 wrote:

Cyberization wrote:

If you're a fan then I apologise, but if Tom Cruise was in it, it'd be fucking terrible.

may i ask why? ? ?

Well, because Tom Cruise is, in my view, a terrible actor. He always (past decade or so anyway) seems to play some variation on the charming action hero type. His characters typically have very little development, and I feel like he's shown that he's capable of almost no range. His movies are often braindead Hollywood blockbuster action garbage, the "jettison logic and switch your brain off at the door" type of film. Aside from Collateral (excellent movie) and Mission Impossible 1 (more due to the awesome Jon Voight), I haven't enjoyed a single one of his films.

If he was in World War Z, based on a very cerebral and thought-provoking take on the zombie apocalypse scenario, in which the main character isn't an assassin, or a secret agent, or a cop, but a simple journalist..........then I would despair, because it would mean the creators had definitely decided to go for the typical and clichéd "action, guns n gore" route.

Guess u havent seen many of his films, Tom has short acting range? well id disagree, tell that to Les Grossman, Jack Reacher or his 3 Oscar nominations for Born on 4th of july, jerry maguire or Magnolia (watch his fathers death scene there, you will change ur mind), when brad pitt is known for over acting and or frozen face/no charisma (but i still like him). But thats not the reason why i think tom should be in this film, i simply think that he is more experienced in sy fy (War of Worlds, Minority Report, Oblivion) when brad has none of em . . . But thats just my thought and it wont change anything like producers wont fire pitt, and reshoot movie with Tom. But to sa above everything the second half of your avatar! Now thats some balls to the wall actor!!!

Oh yea almost forgot Rock OF Ages, Tom Nailed all high ones of Axl Rose and perfectly mixed 60s tantra hippie with 80s Hardcore metal man . . .

ChrisRedfieldRE156 wrote:

Guess u havent seen many of his films, Tom has short acting range? well id disagree, tell that to Les Grossman, Jack Reacher or his 3 Oscar nominations for Born on 4th of july, jerry maguire or Magnolia (watch his fathers death scene there, you will change ur mind), when brad pitt is known for over acting and or frozen face/no charisma (but i still like him). But thats not the reason why i think tom should be in this film, i simply think that he is more experienced in sy fy (War of Worlds, Minority Report, Oblivion) when brad has none of em . . . But thats just my thought and it wont change anything like producers wont fire pitt, and reshoot movie with Tom. But to sa above everything the second half of your avatar! Now thats some balls to the wall actor!!!

Les Grossman was a small role in a cringeworthy film (if you like it cool, but I thought Tropic Thunder was painfully, painfully unfunny). Jack Reacher isn't my kinda thing, and I struggle to see how it's very different from the typical action hero role. Could be wrong. And yeah, I said in the past decade he always seems to play the same type. Those three Oscar noms were in the late 80s and 90s. But I'll give you Magnolia, I actually totally forgot about that one. That was a very good movie indeed. Some great acting all round in there.

Would disagree with Brad Pitt overacting. The Assassination of Jesse James is a very understated performance by him. Same with Meet Joe Black (not a great film, though). The Tree of Life is a great one also. Add these to his more well-known fare like Seven, Snatch, Benjamin Button, the Oceans trilogy - I believe he has much more range than Cruise. And also, he's done sci-fi - have you never seen Twelve Monkeys? It's fantastic.

But yes, you are correct. Ed Norton blows the both of them completely out of the water!

Cyberization wrote:

ChrisRedfieldRE156 wrote:

Guess u havent seen many of his films, Tom has short acting range? well id disagree, tell that to Les Grossman, Jack Reacher or his 3 Oscar nominations for Born on 4th of july, jerry maguire or Magnolia (watch his fathers death scene there, you will change ur mind), when brad pitt is known for over acting and or frozen face/no charisma (but i still like him). But thats not the reason why i think tom should be in this film, i simply think that he is more experienced in sy fy (War of Worlds, Minority Report, Oblivion) when brad has none of em . . . But thats just my thought and it wont change anything like producers wont fire pitt, and reshoot movie with Tom. But to sa above everything the second half of your avatar! Now thats some balls to the wall actor!!!

Les Grossman was a small role in a cringeworthy film (if you like it cool, but I thought Tropic Thunder was painfully, painfully unfunny). Jack Reacher isn't my kinda thing, and I struggle to see how it's very different from the typical action hero role. Could be wrong. And yeah, I said in the past decade he always seems to play the same type. Those three Oscar noms were in the late 80s and 90s. But I'll give you Magnolia, I actually totally forgot about that one. That was a very good movie indeed. Some great acting all round in there.

Would disagree with Brad Pitt overacting. The Assassination of Jesse James is a very understated performance by him. Same with Meet Joe Black (not a great film, though). The Tree of Life is a great one also. Add these to his more well-known fare like Seven, Snatch, Benjamin Button, the Oceans trilogy - I believe he has much more range than Cruise. And also, he's done sci-fi - have you never seen Twelve Monkeys? It's fantastic.

But yes, you are correct. Ed Norton blows the both of them completely out of the water!

God i feel like im talking to my mom :looooooooool: (oh u brad pit fans)

Im not much into Trop Thund myself but toms performance in it was epic and showed that he can quickly switch from action hero to fat bossy money making fat angry movie producer, it was impossible at first to figure out that Les was tom. I agree that he kinda is frozen with big budget action movies now, but to say that he has no range is really wrong (dustin hofman considers him to be his generations finest, that means something) he has movies like Classic risky business or color of money (BTW tom was Paul Newmans favorite aswell) Rain man, Eyes wide shut (stanley kubrick called him one of the most talented actors he ever worked with), interview with vampire. Tom is extremely tallanted, but yes he is stuck on actions now.

Brad is simply same in River Runs Through it, Joe Black, Interview With vamp, 7 years in tibet, all blown lips and watered eyes and most of his other films, though i consider 12 monkies, Snatch and Burn After Read to be his masterpiece thats where he actually acts, goofy characters are his best True Romance is the proof he shows up for like 10 minutes but steals the show. He is over acting in Seven when they bring paltrows head and he aims at Spacey, just as in Troy . . . But i like him very much simply cs he makes them goofy characters perfectly (especially when he wipes mouth juice from Bruice in 12 monkeys with his hand, Yeakh but funny as hell)

Ed is a masterpiece of god, Gen X maan i get chills every moment i look at his face when he turns around and kneels down when cops are about to take him in. Primal Fear his first role and right away he got oscar nomination. . . . Plus he's and awesome football player and really nice dude that still uses subway not high roller bentley shit . . .

Guess were going way far from topic, halestride gonna kill us (just Check Toms movies better dude u will change ur mind on his acting range as well as his vocal range)

ChrisRedfieldRE156 wrote:

sy fy

I don't really have anything to add to the discussion but when on earth has this become a term? Last I checked the only "SyFy" was that one TV channel while the genre was still scifi. I'm only asking this because syfy sounds like a weird slang word for syphilis.

Then again, who am I to tell if Tom Cruise has syphilis or not.

Mass Distraction wrote:

ChrisRedfieldRE156 wrote:

sy fy

I don't really have anything to add to the discussion but when on earth has this become a term? Last I checked the only "SyFy" was that one TV channel while the genre was still scifi. I'm only asking this because syfy sounds like a weird slang word for syphilis.

Then again, who am I to tell if Tom Cruise has syphilis or not.

science fiction, so i know that thats the term, but i like the way SyFy looks and yes i picked it up from TV Channel . . .

Yea exactly no one

i just hope the movies good im tired of being disappointed in movies made from video games or books.