IGX

Shapecharge wrote:Damn...looks awesome.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0816711/

Shapebaby...do yourself a favor and read the book first. Reviewed here.


http://irongarmx.net/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=222751

Looks like I missed that post Blade. I'll have to check that book out along with the books that Game of Thrones on HBO is based.

Why does the movie trailer imply the movie will be shit? Because Brad Pitt is in it and he's too good looking or the book is just too complex to do it justice?

Do you have to pay an author less if you use the title of his book but none of the content?

^^^ That's what I hear the complaints are about. I hear great things about the books, including from a guy I know who war games for the DOD. Says the book takes a sci fi idea but adds alot of geo politicol and military truth to it.

The movie sounds like a dick contest with the Walking Dead and Romero's greats.

Oh okay...now I get it.

IGX-

mal·con·tent
/ˌmalkənˈtent/
Noun
A person who is dissatisfied and rebellious.
Adjective
Dissatisfied and complaining or making trouble.
Synonyms
discontented - disgruntled - dissatisfied - disaffected

Fuck off Shaggy.

Shape,

The book is just really really good, that's all. I thought the zombie genre was played out but WD and WWZ totally changed my mind.

I saw the Hobbit last night and was struck with the late breaking news flash that a movie can utterly ass rape the book and still be a dang good film. I have hopes this will be the case with WWZ.

PS...the trailer does look good. Like the S. African reference right off.

WWZ would be a hard movie to make, and be faithful to the book in any way. A mini-series would be a better medium...so many stories.

The thing that's interesting about the trailer is that they have taken the "fast zombie" concept, and turned it into FUCKING FAST ZOMBIES. There was no mention of how fast the zombies moved in the book, and it certainly didn't indicate that they ran together like a pack of Usain Bolt clones.

Kazuya Mishima wrote:WWZ would be a hard movie to make, and be faithful to the book in any way. A mini-series would be a better medium...so many stories.

The thing that's interesting about the trailer is that they have taken the "fast zombie" concept, and turned it into FUCKING FAST ZOMBIES. There was no mention of how fast the zombies moved in the book, and it certainly didn't indicate that they ran together like a pack of Usain Bolt clones.

Fast Zombies...ala I am Legend..just never really caught on. I think I prefer slow crushing wall of zombies.

Blaidd Drwg wrote:Fuck off Shaggy.

Shape,

The book is just really really good, that's all. I thought the zombie genre was played out but WD and WWZ totally changed my mind.

I saw the Hobbit last night and was struck with the late breaking news flash that a movie can utterly ass rape the book and still be a dang good film. I have hopes this will be the case with WWZ.

PS...the trailer does look good. Like the S. African reference right off.

I agree and think that's exactly what happened with the Hobbit.

WWZ was a very good book and the way that it jumps around the world gives a film maker a lot of cool visual options w/o fucking up the story line. I'm open to this flick but with trepidation. I don't usually care for super zombies, I prefer them to be shambling but relentless.

I suspect this movie will be more about Brad Pitt than WWZ. It it might be a decent zombie flick but I don't see how they can capture the multi-narrative, episodic nature of the book.

To do this right, it would have to be a 4-hour epic.

I don't remember anything in the book about a traffic jam, a Winnebago, a wife and two kids, choppers, aircract carriers, and zombies that are evidently created from terrorist nanotechnology that turns corpses into frenzied killer drones.

Oh, and Zombies in general are kind of played out...they are kind of like the 1980's cinematic fascination with anything Australian...the love affair is over.

I thought The Zombie Survival Guide was better than WWZ, and the zombies in the first were definitely slow moving. I thought they were also slow in WWZ, but I might have just assumed they were slow.

I do believe they were slow now that I think about. I remember that they started combating them in large numbers by forming firing lines, and potshotting the zombies as they walked toward the firing lines. They were shambling wrecks, not well oiled cheetahs.

That's where 28 Days Later and 28 Weeks Later are bad ass plus it's something that is possable if not probable as they were not zombies but sick people.

DARTH wrote:That's where 28 Days Later and 28 Weeks Later are bad ass plus it's something that is possable if not probable as they were not zombies but sick people.

Anything is possable in Hollywood.

Kazuya Mishima wrote:WWZ would be a hard movie to make, and be faithful to the book in any way.

Yeah, the strength of WWZ is that it skips right over character and dialog (which the author may or may not be good at) and just sets up irresistible SCENARIOS and describes them with Tom Clancy level attention to detail.

Does look like it could be a good flick.

Haven't read the book but from seeing that trailer, you know that it has to be butchered. Will pick up the novel but probably pass on the film.

Just read the book and liked it a lot. The trailer looks like the shitty Will Smith's I Am Legend mixed with the shitty Spielberg's War of the Worlds.

Grandpa's Spells wrote:Just read the book and liked it a lot. The trailer looks like the shitty Will Smith's I Am Legend mixed with the shitty Spielberg's War of the Worlds.

That's why sometimes your critical eye and brain is a good thing to have around.