WTF! why? (if you read wwz you will understand.)

[Guest]

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever

Login with username, password and session length

[Spartan_Marine88]

Im feeling lazy and a bit pissed off about this so if you doubt it, just google it for yourself.

In the first pages of the book it explains how the Reporter has next to nothing to do with the events in the book.


Heres the official Movie synopsis from paramount

"The story revolves around United Nations employee Gerry Lane (Brad Pitt), who traverses the world in a race against time to stop the Zombie pandemic that is toppling armies and governments and threatening to decimate humanity itself."


way to not even read the back of the book

[brn4meplz]

Yeah thats pretty terrible.

The Russian dude in the book was the best and part of the reason the book was so decent is that it was told as a historical synopsis. Rather then as an ongoing event.


Safest place... Canada. Yeah thats right, natural zombie protection.

[RikiRude]

it should be such an easy book to adapt for a movie... but no. first wrong move, casting brad pitt. that right there means it will suck. i mean i fucking love brad pitt, but that means there's a 90% chance its going to be a big blockbuster movie, and we all know how those go when they are based on a book.

imagine how i feel about The Thing being remade. the john carpenter version was god damned fucking perfect. there is absol-fucking-utely not a single shit ass cock reason to remake it. There's a reason why I don't know, Casablanca was never remade, and the Thing didn't need remaking either!

[Malgoroth]

Having never read the book, I can't comment on how irritating it is to have them deviate from the novels style. As for Brad Pitt, I share your opinion. He's a great actor, but they do throw him into lame blockbuster style films a lot. Then again... if you were expecting an artful, serious film about a zombie apocalypse coming from Hollywood, then you were being quite unrealistic. You should have drastically lowered your expectations the second it was announced they were making it a movie.

[PonySlaystation]

it haz zombies? good enough for me

[nikomas]

I'm naive, I'm just going to hope here... why couldn't they just do it interview/flashback style :/

Well, we could always hope they are spinning the "Fighting" slightly to make it sounds more like an action flick than it really is?

One can hope...

[RikiRude]

i dont know sometimes you can be surprised, or you know an independent crew picks up the rights to make the movie.

[Spartan_Marine88]

The thing is, is that it could have been a studios wet dream.

IE Have each of the 'stories' separated to either show  case their up and coming stars or they could cameo a bunch of different actors like Nicole Kidman as the mother who kills the zombie defending thier child, then talking to the drunk mercenary from the celebrity fortress who just happens to be val kilmer (you know you see it too)

[Malgoroth]

Once again, that's not how Hollywood sees it. Hollywood operates under the assumption that audiences want the typical movie formula and cliche plots with as few deviations from the norm as possible. And it's probably a safe assumption given that most people have shitty taste and dislike movies for arbitrary and stupid reasons. Reasons like "omg you never even see the monster! What a dumb movie!" for "The Blair Witch", or "omg I hated the ending! What a dumb movie!" for "The Mist", or "omg the movie is soooo boring!" for "There Will Be Blood". You see what I mean? The movie "I'm Not There" featured big name Hollywood actors and a structure similar to what you described, yet only opened in limited release in the States and I don't believe it made all that much money. It received very positive reviews but wasn't the money maker a business like the movie industry focuses on. Hollywood's prerogative isn't to cater to the very small portion of the movie-going public who read the book, or enjoy the subject matter... it's to make a massive return by catering to as many demographics as possible.

A documentary style movie is too different from what Hollywood assumes most people want to go to the movies to see. They figure that if people wanted to watch something like that they'd just watch the history channel. Now... that's not to say the movie won't include documentary style elements. It wouldn't surprise me if the director used the 'shaky camera' effect, or included little news report style 'asides' like the news report bits from Starship Troopers.

In any event, you can never expect the movie to mirror the book flawlessly. The very nature of the medium dictates that the two will be vastly different. The documentary style of the book was apparently one of the concessions the producers thought necessary in transferring the materiel. 

Shame, really... I would love a movie like that (but my tastes ARE quite ahead of everyone elses ).

[RikiRude]

In any event, you can never expect the movie to mirror the book flawlessly. The very nature of the medium dictates that the two will be vastly different. The documentary style of the book was apparently one of the concessions the producers thought necessary in transferring the materiel.

Actually its funny you mention the mist earlier, because the movie was dead on to the book I'd say about 90+% follows the book, except for the ending which the director only changed it because he didnt want people who read the book to know the end.

either way, you are dead on with everything you said.

the exact same thing can be said about video games right now.

another thing though, what I find funny, take an independent movie, give it a shit ton of rewards, have it be an absolute masterpiece. and that movie will be in limited theaters because the general public wont like it because it's not megan fox in something skimpy and there aren't enough explosions, or dudes with six pack abs.

its so fucking sad. the general public needs all forms of art (music, movies, ect) dumbed down so much to like it.

[AmPM]

Actually its funny you mention the mist earlier, because the movie was dead on to the book I'd say about 90+% follows the book, except for the ending which the director only changed it because he didnt want people who read the book to know the end.

either way, you are dead on with everything you said.

the exact same thing can be said about video games right now.

another thing though, what I find funny, take an independent movie, give it a shit ton of rewards, have it be an absolute masterpiece. and that movie will be in limited theaters because the general public wont like it because it's not megan fox in something skimpy and there aren't enough explosions, or dudes with six pack abs.

its so fucking sad. the general public needs all forms of art (music, movies, ect) dumbed down so much to like it.

Not really, I think it is more likely that people will only pay to go to a movie if there is a reason to see it in theaters. Movies with explosions fit this criteria. Artsy movies are the same no matter the screen size.

[Spartan_Marine88]

Once again, that's not how Hollywood sees it.

In any event, you can never expect the movie to mirror the book flawlessly. The very nature of the medium dictates that the two will be vastly different. The documentary style of the book was apparently one of the concessions the producers thought necessary in transferring the materiel.  

Shame, really... I would love a movie like that (but my tastes ARE quite ahead of everyone elses ).

 listen to yourself 'In any event, you can never expect the movie to mirror the book flawlessly' although to be honest before you keep going on, read the book plenty of ways to make it just people fighting zombies and lots of senseless explosions with an American army being triumphant. Hell, make Band of Brothers vs Zombies would be truer like the Battle of Yonkers (and probably cooler) then Brad Pitt running around to save the day.

In the beginning of the book the reporter says "this is NOT about me"

The movie "this is all about me!"

that's not mirroring, that's a complete change. And you seem to be under the assumption that this is just some 'zombie book' that a few thousand nerds love, when it sold over 600 000 copies and rose to number 9 on the new your times best seller list.

Unfortunately Mals critiquing of Hollywood feels far off, instead this seems like a last chance for J. Michael Straczynski to grab fame by making his own mark with HIS version. Although blaming Hollywood is like blaming PC alot of the crappy spammed movies are from Paramount (with a small number of exceptions) Also not to mention Pitt struggling to stay in the game by doing movies like Basterds, Button, Moneyball etc.

[RikiRude]

Not really, I think it is more likely that people will only pay to go to a movie if there is a reason to see it in theaters. Movies with explosions fit this criteria. Artsy movies are the same no matter the screen size.

That's a pretty damn good point. I mean I am not going to pay $12 to see a movie when i can wait 2 months and watch it at my leisure for half the price, on my own couch with my own pop corn. But I still feel either way the general public isn't going to sit there and watch an artsy movie.

In response to Sparten, the worst thing a director or whatever can do is take a book and say "well this is my spin on it!" people want the book, not what someone thinks would make the book better. its like you have a chicago style hotdog and some jackass takes it and dumps everything off and puts ketchup on it.

[Mister Schmidt]

"Iceland has been completely depopulated, and is the world's most heavily infested country."

You sad Icelandic?

[Malgoroth]

Nerd love means fuck all to producers. The fact that a book sold well doesn't mean it will do well in theaters. Scott Pilgrim was wildly popular as a comic but failed to meet the production budget in ticket sales during the time it was on the big screen. Hollywood pays attention to things like that which is why they have a habit of fucking over the fan-base when porting something from book to cinema. They don't want a copy of the original, they want something that puts asses in the seats, and catering solely to the books fans won't accomplish this. A zombie holocaust action movie featuring Brad Pitt will. His presence is probably one of the primary reasons they abandoned the documentary style. Making the movie all about the reporter is their way of keeping his face on the screen as much as possible.  

All I'm saying is that you shouldn't have been surprised. Hollywood sucks. I'm sorry you gave them the benefit of a doubt and was disappointed.

As for J. Michael Straczynski, even if he wrote the script, the studio fronting the money for the budget had to sign off on it before he could begin filming. Being true to the book obviously wasn't on their minds. Go figure.