‘World War Z’ Movie Debate: Too Different From the Book?

Published 3 years ago by

World War Z Movie Book Differences World War Z Movie Debate: Too Different From the Book?

Paramount’s World War Z has been gaining notoriety lately, ever since set pics of star Brad Pitt started hitting the Net. The adaptation of author Max Brooks’ ‘oral history of the zombie war’ has always had a question mark hovering over it, since the format of book involved a U.N. employee interviewing survivors of the zompocalypse about their experiences.

That’s a tricky narrative format to translate to film. Director Marc Forster could’ve snagged some great dramatic actors for a movie made in the style of a faux documentary; however, a lot of people figured that the World War Z film would go the route of, say, Interview With a Vampire (also starring Pitt), with U.N. worker Gerry Lane’s (Pitt) survivor interviews being the frame for flashbacks to grisly zombie war action. When fans learned the movie was leaning toward a PG-13 rating, they figured the aforementioned format would still work, only with less grisly zombie war action.

It now appears as though the World War Z movie will be a far departure from Brooks’ novel.

We cited the Paramount press release for our earlier report on World War Z‘s release date, but it was other sites like /Film and Movies.com that first picked up on the bombshell packed in the film synopsis that came with Paramount’s announcement:

“The story revolves around United Nations employee Gerry Lane (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.”

Clearly this is a massive change to the story. Brooks’ book explored – among other things – how the world would or wouldn’t be able to cope with a massive disaster like a zombie apocalypse. The sci-fi/horror premise was a great allegorical frame for a lot of relevant political, social and moral questions. This movie is basically your tried-and-true (and often failed) race-against-time action/thriller. You probably wouldn’t even bat an eye if were to lie and say that Roland Emmerich was directing.

This “tweaking” of the story is also a massive change to the character of Pitt’s U.N. employee, who in the book is a man trying to research the global catastrophe to try and gain some perspective on it and what it has done to humanity. In this movie, he’s basically the reluctant hero who must overcome insurmountable odds to save the world (and just maybe… the woman he loves).

Look… This stuff happens all the time in Hollywood. Books, old films, foreign films, comic books, board games, toys – even websites – all have their likeness funneled through the Tinseltown machine before a lot of them get spit out the other end as flat sheets of cinematic bologna. Why pretend to be surprised that it’s happening to this book?

The only question is: Are you still interested in this project? Or is it straying too far from its roots to be worthy of your ticket money?

Fans of the book: is there a particular scene or moment you worry will be missing from the movie?

World War Z will be in theaters on December 21st, 2012.

Source: Paramount

Get our free email alerts on the topics and author of this article:
TAGS: world war z

539 Comments

Post a Comment

  1. I didn’t read the book too much, but I listened to the abridged version through its audible book a lot. It was really good; I even uploaded to my phone so I can listen to all the stories over and over again. I think the two best stories was battle of the yonker and the bodyguard for that live TV show.

    I know the movie adaptation to the book is not going to be good because of how fast the spread was, solution of camouflage, a seemingly victory, and of course the sprint of the zombie. So that was somewhat of a led down.

    Oh, and game shark cheats that Gerry had on was amazing: hawk eyes awareness, invincibility, relocation to W.H.O., and crazy luck on picking the right pathogen vial.

    However the difference that the movie made it somewhat refreshing if you actually listened to all the stories again for about 20 times plus. It also brings out a really good idea: how come zombies don’t attack other zombies. Zombies are only attract to healthy people. So, if you’re a zombie–it is assumed that you’re not healthy. But then again, how is it possible for zombies (of this movie) to even gain that ability or receptor is questionable.

  2. I never read the books, but I hope they are better than this film.

    This film barely had any tension in it.
    It wasn’t scary at all. You have to have some violence to make something scary. How can you show a world wide zombie outbreak with almost no graphic violence?? You also need something called ACTORS. CGI is a poor substitute
    for real people. It has it’s uses, but it should be limited.

    This film was like “I am Legend” but in many ways even worse! It was watered down to the point where there was no point.

  3. The didnt even do the Battle of Yonkers…

    THEY SUCK! THIS MOVIE SUCKS!!!
    So effin boring and stupid.

    • While I didn’t read the book, I did read the highlights about this battle online. Within the context of the movie they decided to make, it would have been impossible to show the details of this battle. However, to not at least show a limited engagement on the ground between the military and the zombie horde is, well UNFORGIVABLE.

      Others have done this with a hand full of military vehicles, some national guard, CGI helicopters and planes in all sorts of recent movies like Cloverfield. Heck, they could have put something in and done it in three minutes of screen time.

      I even know where they could have placed it into the movie. Just have a battle take place behind enemy lines outside the apartment complex where Pitt is hiding. After the three minutes of losing battle, have Pitt pull (rescue) a few weary soldiers into the apartment who tell them how futile the whole battle was from their perspective.

      Then go to the roof escape. Problem solved. But to do that, you had to show some guts.

  4. Well, I snuck in to see it. What a steaming pile of hot garbage this movie was. First, did the director got the memo that the scenes with shaky cam were done to death back in 2006? It’s like they hired Michael J Fox to hold a camera and film all the “zombie action” sequences.Never seen so much “shaky cam syndrome” in my life!

    Second, the zombies were a mix DNA of Usain Bolt, Carl Lewis, and Oscar Pistorius with a ton of parkour skills just thrown in for giggles. The movie would have been good if hey took out all the cgi and not associate it with WWZ.

    Then Brad Pitt moved the plot with nothing more than lucky breaks after lucky breaks. He had such super mundane luck that if he wanted to, he could be winning the Power ball lottery multiple times at will. His lucky mutant powers overshadows Longshot’s powers.

    The the ending was so abrupt, they might as well parachuted a sign that stated the movie was wrapping up and get the hell out of the theater.

    This should give you an idea of the blow-a-thon this movie was without getting into any spoilers.

    • Not the first person to admit to being happy to break the law in order to see a movie they don’t even like (see earlier comments by someone along the lines of “… I’ll see it but I’m not going to pay, I’ll download the torent…”; however, you’re the first to make a somewhat tastelss reference to Michael J. Fox.
      Well done! <- this is sarcasm by the way.

      • I applaud anyone who REFUSES TO PAY for a PG-13 CGI s*** fest.
        The 13 in PG-13 means 13 YEAR OLDS CAN SEE IT… Safe for the kids!
        Anyone stupid enough to pay for this garbage should be shot.
        People like that are ruining film. Just stop being so A.D.D. and
        learn some patience, you don’t have to run to the theater and chuck
        out cash for every money grab the studios make. BE PATIENT!
        Wait for stuff you know at least has a chance of being good.
        Marc Forster should never be handed a camera again, what were
        they thinking after that horrid Bond movie?
        The M.J.Fox reference was funny and worked.

  5. I saw it, too, and I didn’t like it just because it was so different from the book. I read the book and I wonder why didn’t they just make the movie by taking a look at different stories throughout the zombie apocalypse? Just removing the interview part would have been OK. I also didn’t like the fact that the zombies were so fast. Anyone who knows even a little bit about zombies will tell you that a slow spreading infection is what makes zombie-ism, or any illness for that matter, spread throughout the world. It’s not knowing that you or someone else is infected that makes it spread. If someone turned into a zombie in 12 seconds, then they wouldn’t have time to get on a plane or cruise ship or whatever. Someone would have to actively bring an infected person onto a boat or plane to make sure it would spread to other continents. If it moved that quickly, then I could see maybe a whole continent being overrun, but certainly not the whole world. And you certainly wouldn’t be sitting in traffic going, “What’s that?” because you would have already heard that all of Asia had been taken over. If zombies were real, then this movie isn’t an accurate portrayal. The book was way better. Max Brooks shouldn’t have let them do this to his book.

    • …how does anyone know “even a little bit” about zombies?

  6. I saw it, too, and I didn’t like it just because it was so different from the book. I read the book and I wonder why didn’t they just make the movie by taking a look at different stories throughout the zombie apocalypse? Just removing the interview part would have been OK. I also didn’t like the fact that the zombies were so fast. Anyone who knows even a little bit about zombies will tell you that a slow spreading infection is what makes zombie-ism, or any illness for that matter, spread throughout the world. It’s not knowing that you or someone else is infected that makes it spread. If someone turned into a zombie in 12 seconds, then they wouldn’t have time to get on a plane or cruise ship or whatever. Someone would have to actively bring an infected person onto a boat or plane to make sure it would spread to other continents. If it moved that quickly, then I could see maybe a whole continent being overrun, but certainly not the whole world. And you certainly wouldn’t be sitting in traffic going, “What’s that?” because you would have already heard that all of Asia had been taken over. If zombies were real, then this movie isn’t an accurate portrayal.

  7. I saw it, too, and I didn’t like it just because it was so different from the book. I read the book and I wonder why didn’t they just make the movie by taking a look at different stories throughout the zombie apocalypse? Just removing the interview part would have been OK. I also didn’t like the fact that the zombies were so fast. Anyone who knows even a little bit about zombies will tell you that a slow spreading infection is what makes zombie-ism, or any illness for that matter, spread throughout the world. It’s not knowing that you or someone else is infected that makes it spread. If someone turned into a zombie in 12 seconds, then they wouldn’t have time to get on a plane or cruise ship or whatever. Someone would have to actively bring an infected person onto a boat or plane to make sure it would spread to other continents. If it moved that quickly, then I could see maybe a whole continent being overrun, but certainly not the whole world. And you certainly wouldn’t be sitting in traffic going, “What’s that?” because you would have already heard that all of Asia had been taken over.

  8. I just saw World War Z. It has it’s problems, and is not a great movie, but I found several of it’s sequences very suspenseful. What’s with all of the ghouls who require terrible on-screen violence to feel fear?

    • No, I do not need terrible violence. But I also do not want something that resembles a cartoon either, which many parts of this movie’s CGI certainly did. Those LEAPING zombies were laughable, they look like what was on that cheesy remake of Day of the Dead. If you don’t believe me, watch it.

      Some interesting aspects which could have been done were Removed strictly based on the fact that it would have required some violence to show the scenes. Like, Gee, if a whole city went down, how come we never saw the US military engage in a single on the ground battle and lose??

      Battles are mostly only suggested, like when the swarm of drones pass overhead. Making this a PG-13 rating watered the whole movie down.

      It’s 28 Weeks Later for Wimps.

      • One more thing: watch a movie (A dark comedy) like Return of the Living Dead. Parts of this COMEDY have more tension than WWZ, mainly because when the director switches to horror, he pulls out the stops and uses real actors, real violence. He just uses a touch, but that’s all it takes. The Police Line in that movie being overrun comes to mind. This was a bare bones budget film.

        WWZ had a $200 million budget, yet where was it spent? giving us scary cartoons. I’m not scared of a cartoon zombie, perhaps someone else is.

        • I agree with you about the cartoon aspect of some of the big CGI zombie scenes. They move too fast, and are just too invincible. I also felt that the humans were too often incompetent. Everything goes completely wrong so many times that I stopped suspending my disbelief at a couple of points. I’ve heard that 28 Days Later is excellent, and will probably, finally, check it out. And for an original, different, and deeply powerful take on zombies, check out the BBC’s recent “In The Flesh.” WARNING: It’s more of a drama than a horror story.

          • I would definitely check out another 28 Weeks movie because even the sequel was decent, and that’s not easy to do!

            I will check out that other film because I don’t mind a drama, in fact, I like them very much if they are done right.

            BTW: I liked that scene in WWZ where Pitt looks out the window of the plane and the nuke goes off. That’s what I’m talking about, it made the situation feel hopeless for a moment…..

            ……..unfortunately the rest of the film didn’t feel that way. It could have with some on the ground battle scenes of the US Military fighting “REAL ZOMBIES” and losing despite giving them hell (like in War of the worlds). But to make it effective, that would have required some graphic violence- something completely avoided in this whip-lash production. You can only HIDE so much reality before it becomes a useless enterprise. That’s what they did- “Well we lost that fight, see the city burning?”

            Don’t tell the audience, SHOW THEM. My GOD, that’s film making 101!

            • One more thing, when I make the comments about graphic violence, I in no way want people to think that’s what I go to see. It isn’t. Personally, I think most of Rob Zombie’s work is junk because he has Way Too Much violence in it for no other reason than shock value.

              But, I’m a film maker myself and I just do not accept Mediocre Work, especially from a film with a $200 million budget. If other people think it’s mildly entertaining with the CGI candy thrown in, good for them. That’s not good enough for me.

              I expect to be moved, either horrified or sympathetic for the characters. But to do that, you can not limit a film just for the sake of aiming for the low-brow PG-13 rating. The only way Spielberg got away with a PG-13 it is by vaporizing people instead of showing blood. But, that worked in the context.

              As suspenseful as some people thought a few scenes were, can you imagine how much more moving this would have been if you showed people some scenes that were just well terrifying! Limited graphic violence isn’t usually thrown in for no reason, it’s in there to heighten the tension of the rest of the film!

              Without it, the tension is reduced dramatically- who cares, they’re only CGI puppets who jump on people and burn a CGI city.

              Personally, I will think Long and Hard about seeing any other horror type film that isn’t an R after this.

          • Yes, 28 Days later and 28 Weeks later are both good films.
            You will not find a bunch of CGI zombies in them. I didn’t care for the ending of 28 Days later, but overall it was solid.

            • If you can, check out the alternative ending to 28 Days Later – it’s offered as part of the extra scene cuts on the DVD edition.

              It assumes a darker path, and is plausible given that none of the characters that survived to the end were revived for 28 Weeks Later.

      • Those weren’t drones. Those were A-10 Thunderbolt II’s. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairchild_Republic_A-10_Thunderbolt_II

        They’re incredibly distinctive and, seeing that many in formation (if you know anything about what those planes can do and are used for) indicates SERIOUS trouble. Now, if they’d shown those things being really ineffective that would have left people who know about these planes feeling kind of gut wrenched. That said, obviously most people don’t know much about military hardware (I’ve only had to learn it over the years because of my academic studies), and stopping to teach people about it is a waste of time. That said… most of this movie was a waste of time.

        I don’t know why they didn’t follow the book even a LITTLE more closely. The resulting movie is just really stupid.

        • Oh, Guess I missed it. Yeah, I’m familiar with the ThunderBolt. That’s the one that is a plane that was built “around” a very large vulcan gun and is mainly used to attack armored vehicles.

          As much as I really dislike Transformers, at least the C-130 gunship was cool. And, other lesser films have displayed cool military vehicles and fighting.

          As for whoever said they walked out and felt the movie was great, none in our group read the book and we all said “it wasn’t very good.” In fact, a few people in the theater walked out before it was even over! It was too sterile for us horror lovers and it didn’t even have enough of a gripping story for my Non-Horror liking wife.

          Trying to make a movie that would Appeal to Everyone, apparently they made a movie which appeals to almost no one. They fooled us for this one, but good luck on a sequel.

  9. Like you, I thought the scene with the mysterious nuclear explosion was powerful. I would have liked them to spend a little more time on that, and the plane trip around it – but movies are forced to constantly rush from one action point to the next these days, so that scene had no extra room to breath. Which brings me to your “whip-lash” comment – amen. There are many worse offenders out there, but World War Z did indeed have too many whip-lash moments where the random actions onscreen have no real connection, and so the tension dissipates. I saw this movie with a friend, who directed a horror movie himself, and he highlighted another problem, the “point of view” issue. Remember when Brad Pitt’s character first sees a zombie resurrection on the streets of Philadelphia? Suddenly we cut to an overhead shot looking down at the new zombie, and whereas we were sharing the point of view of the movie hero before, we are suddenly yanked away to some abstract “God’s Eye” view. It’s distracting and breaks the tension. But here I want to say something nice about the movie – that image of the army ant-like zombies scaling the walls of an ancient city is haunting. Too bad the movie never really lives up to that iconic moment. BTW – you are a filmmaker? Is anything you’ve done available to see on the web?

    • Movies are only “forced” to be made in whatever way the people who make them decide to make them. Making a crappy movie is not forced upon them, they make decisions. In this case, all of the decisions were bad. BTW- does your friend the horror movie director have any movies on the web?

    • I spent years directing, editing, even partially scoring a documentary film called Screamer. It’s a film which follows two underdogs trying to make a successful haunted house venture, and unlike Hollywood it’s 100% real. It’s going through some festivals right now so it is only available via video on demand. screamermovie.com

      As far as horror movies go, I’m pretty picky so I wouldn’t make one without a story that is above the norm, a nice budget etc. That would take a miracle to happen in independent film.

  10. “Forced” – Like you, I’m angry at all of the bad filmmaking that comes out of Hollywood, but I wanted to cut the WW Z people some slack. From what I know, from a distance, about the Hollywood system, the suits at the studios keep telling the directors “I’m going for popcorn!” whenever things aren’t moving fast enough on screen for their tiny, reptilian brains. They then insist on “appropriate” cuts. So even talented directors can come out with hack work. If the directors have no talent, they are members of the “we’ll fix it in post”school of filmmaking. They don’t direct so much as point a large number of cameras at the action, and then put together a whip-lash sequence that’s supposed to be exciting. Drives me nuts. As for my friend, he’s Doug McKeown; he wrote and directed “The Deadly Spawn.” – Finally, I will look up screamermovie.com!

    • Yes, I know this Deadly Spawn film. I have watched it several times through the years. My favorite was the spawn in the blender and the girl who goes flying out the window with no head. It’s a little gem from the days of independent horror movies on VHS.

  11. This original post is to debate the differences between the movie and the BOOK. If the words “I didn’t read the book” EVER cross your mind, much less as you post, then you shouldn’t be posting here. Seriously folks, why?

  12. Just saw the film and liked it, however didn’t find it to be one of those “wow, I’ll come back to see it again” movies. If I wasn’t into “Walking Dead” as much as I am, I probably would’ve liked it more, but after so much exposure to the TV series I guess “all things zombie” is kind of diluted for me right now. Still, this was a good, entertaining watch for a couple of hours, but I kind of agree that I’m not too crazy about the quickness and agility of the zombies here. Aside from the fact that I’m just used to zombies lumbering as has been depicted in so many prior films and TV shows ( I don’t count “28 Days Later” as that was an infectious disease thing as opposed to the undead ), from a movie going standpoint I found it hard to follow just what was happening at times due to the rapid nature of things. It also would’ve been nice to see, as some others have already suggested, a prolonged knockout, drag down fight between U.S. military ground troops, let’s say,and the zombie masses. Maybe that’s in store for the sequel, since the ending seemed to suggest the possibility of one. Whatever the case, this was a good, not great, depiction of a worldwide zombie infestation, and worth a look if you’re into any type of apocalyptic type films.

    • After this, I doubt many will SHOW UP for a sequel. Ha.

  13. Just finished the book yesterday morning and saw the movie yesterday. The movie was just ok. In fairness, i might have thought it was above-average if i didnt read the book, but boy, what a letdown from the book. On the flip side, i dont know how i would make a movie from this book. Perhaps, focus on a few guys that were interviewed in a series of flashbacks. Not sure if it would work. Yonkers, the chinese sub captain, general singh should be included!!!! Besides the fact that the virus spread in 12 secs. and israel is overrun, (i can overlook these), how the hell can a zombie move so fast and what bullcocky having him use a virus as camoflage. Pissed me off to no end. Now that im thinking about it, this whole movie is pissing me off. They just signed to do a sequel, why the hell didnt they just have a humanity is endangered ending (meaning it ends during the great panic) How can you do a sequel when brad pitt singlehandedly saved the world by injecting himself with angelinas breasts. Any ideas what they will do with the sequel?

    • Since they completely disregarded the book for every aspect of the movie, who cares about the sequel I would never, ever watch another iteration of this bastardized crap if it were produced by or starring the same people.
      Remake the first!

      • I agree. In some ways i wish i didnt read the book. Much like steven spielberg and george lucas raping indiana jones during filimg of the crystal skull, i too feel violated. Can we hit a rest button formthe sequel?

    • The book was tremendously good, I actually fell asleep in the movie. That’s how good I thought it was. It could have been an epic movie Instead we got a vanilla horror movie. I read the entire book on five days. I couldn’t put it down. The book gave a great start to the epidemic and it gave it an evil twist which made it even that much more interesting. The movie didn’t even really explain where it really started, china, where a young boy was bitten in the foot by something in a lake. The lake was formed by the dam that Flooded some ancient Chinese strange religion. And the old grandma saying to the scientists that they will pay for what they did to the people. I also heard that the studio did not want to follow the book and say that it started in china for fear that the Chinese would not show it. I agree with the last poster. The renegade Chinese nuclear sub was cool and also how Israel had a system in place before anybody else. The use of dogs for checking for Z was cool also. It could of been a movie with 10-15 vignettes of how different cultures and people dealt with their own horror
      I give the movie 2 stars just because I read the book and thought it was amazing

    • The book was tremendously good, I actually fell asleep in the movie. That’s how good I thought it was. It could have been an epic movie Instead we pgot a vanilla horror movie. I read the entire book on five days. I couldn’t put it down. The book gave a great start to the epidemic and it gave it an evil twist which made it even that much more interesting. The movie didn’t even really explain where it really started, china, where a young boy was bitten in the foot by something in a lake. The lake was formed by the dam that Flooded some ancient Chinese strange religion. And the old grandma saying to the scientists that they will pay for what they did to the people. I also heard that the studio did not want to follow the book and say that it started in china for fear that the Chinese would not show it. I agree with the last poster. The renegade Chinese nuclear sub was cool and also how Israel had a system in place before anybody else. The use of dogs for checking for Z was cool also. It could of been a movie with 10-15 vignettes of how different cultures and people dealt with their own horror
      I give the movie 2 stars just because I read the book and thought it was amazing

      • Ha, you’re not going to find any finger waving at China! Red Dawn was originally the Chinese invading not North Korea. They actually changed it in post After it was shot.

        However, not showing or explaining where the virus came from is one of the least offensive things about the WWZ film anyway. I could really care less, it didn’t have to be explained. At least, not in this film.
        Sometimes it’s better not to clearly explain, it slows down the film.
        Romero didn’t do it clearly in Night of the Living Dead.

        So, that part they did OK. It was everything else they messed up.

  14. Just finished book it was quality..havnt seen the movie but by the looks of it Hollywood has deprived us of what could have been a absolute brilliant film or films why not make more..what hooked me to the book was the way it was layed out first hand survivor accounts from victim zero to v day it made it feel so real…Excuse my french but Tinseltown you gone f###ed up again how many times is this goin to happened :(

  15. Ya know the weird thing is they are saying they want to do a sequel, but after this…how? A 2 hour movie of people lazily walking around killing oblivious zombies?

    Also, I’m not scientist….but this ending makes no sense.
    Ok, so if a person terminal and dying then the zombies arent interested, and they can smell if someone is dying. Ok, I can buy that. Dying people do smell like death frankly, and some animals can smell cancer and other diseases.

    BUT…how does that make sense in this context? Unless you give everyone on earth a terminal illness. It doesnt make sense to give them a vaccine. A vaccine is just an inactive version of the virus so it would not make them terminal…but more importantly if that was all that was needed, than MOST people should have had no problem. People get vaccines all the time. Everyone over like 40 has a small pox vaccine.
    They are talking about giving it their soldiers? I was in the army for 10 years…I’ve been injected with Anthrax, Rabies, Yellow Fever, hepatitis a/b/c, and two more pages worth of stuff I cant eve remember. If you’re in the military chances are you’ve already been vaccinated for everything there is a vaccine for.
    On top of that the way vaccines work (again, I’m not a scientist but I’m pretty sure of this) is that they inject you with a dormant virus and your body builds immunity to it and kills it….so how would a vaccine work in this case with the zombies? The bug they injected you with will be killed pretty quickly and then the zombies will just go back to attacking you

    If it is that they inject you with some nasty bug so the zombies dont attack you….and then later give you a vaccine that cures the disease…well that opens a whole bunch of other problems. Namely a lot of people will die of it no matter what, and giving billions of people a virus means it is extremely likely said virus will mutate.

    I just dont see how this makes sense

    • Doesn’t matter because the film was DOA a long time before we even got to this idea (even though this part of the film even seemed ripped off an old film called Warning Sign).

      I guess the Army did ok, since we never see them lose a fight. They probably left the CGI town to go on vacation.

    • It doesn’t my friend. My guess is they wanted Phalanx but they didn’t want to make the pharmaceutical company take the rap. Also no government on Earth has that kind of resources in the BEST of times. And the closets governments would be despotic. In the book how long did the great panic last. 3 Years!!! That was before SOuth Africa turned itself around. And the world soon followed. Also a camo scheme in a Zombie environment is the WORST POSSIBLE PLAN. Fine I can see it working on a retreat. On the offensive the dead are attracted by NOISE. You kill you make noise. So that is tossed. Also in the part of the book Total War they gave up on the camo scheme people finally realize cold War tactics don’t work. But no lets keep it.

      Then little known fact a vaccine may increase your Immunity to that specific disease but decrease your resistance to everything else. I speak from both research I’ve done (I am in Med school) and ironically I haven’t taken a vaccine before. I’ve caught Swine flu, Scarlet fever, and Whooping Cough. I recovered from each one.

      So infecting yourself with something else is only going to make Solonum Much worse.

  16. I am a minor fan of World War Z the book. I got it the moment it came out and I read it often. Many times changing my view of the world. Here is my theory on how the movies are going to work in real life.
    First Movie World War Z Bears slight resemblance the the part of the book known as Blame and the Great Panic. Seen in the case there was news about a bunch of useless gossip with legitimate news. One of the Characters on the book described this at the beginning of the great panic. With Gerry heading everywhere to try and identify the source of the infection. Takes him to several countries that where better off. Such as Israel (Which the director decides to sacrifice) South Korea. Then wales which Any Person who has read the book knows they had Castles which saved countless people including the queen. The Book mentions how important the Royal Family is during war not as pampered movie stars Hollywood tries to pass off as. In the Book We Realize the Queen exists to inspire the absolute best in her country. Other examples include General Raj Singh his Heroics alone should have AT LEast Been mentioned.

    Second Movie Turning the tide no government on earth has the strength to ‘vaccinate’ their populace (really bad idea to introduce into world war z) so people turn to a man in South Africa (or if Hollywood is involved Los Angeles) named Paul Redeker probably make him into a macho hero and not the emotionless schizophrenic man he was in the book. Turning point is made. Safe zones are established and We finally learn about China and Russia. (I hope they make it the same way as in the book that was so Awesome what happened to change their governments) Honolulu conference people start cheering when Gerry Lane (Brad Pitt) announces we go on the offensive. Exactly as Max Brooks predicted in his books BOTH OF THEM. Yeah He called it. You TOLD US SO.

    Third Movie Clean up America saves the day (like in every other movie)

    Reason for the Vaccine the movies equivalent to Phalanx remember someone takes phalanx gets bit by a quisling everyone thinks they are zombies. WHat if… the virus doesn’t work and what was in the lab was Qs and not Zs?
    Also they are making a movie on the Survival Guide and Recorded attacks.
    In the survival guide Max Brooks says the director will always prefer larger then life fantasy heroes then the real heroes and truth. When we see the truth we see people who could have risen to the occasion fall. And those who rise when no one would have blamed them for Running.
    (I.E. Terry Knox, Raj Singh, and Emil Bernard) Thank-you I haven’t seen the movie yet just commercials and Max Brooks predictions on what would happen if his books where to be made into a movie.

  17. Here’s a riddle. What do Troy, World War Z, and Climate Change have in common? Well, expect for Climate Change they each star Brad Pitt; but they all have in common is a Trojan Horse: 1)Troy has one; that’s easy 2) World War Z introduces the idea that scientists really consider the “10th Man Principle”. You’ll remember that when Brad goes to Israel, he interviews the visionary scientist who foresaw the global threat that the zombies turned out to be. Brad asks him, “Zombies. How could you buy into that?” Here we are introduced to the “Tenth Man Principle”. The Israeli scientist states that if nine scientists agree on something, then the tenth is obliged to abandon his objections and join the others. Please know that scientists don’t actually have any such “principle”. In fact real world science is very democratic. It’s more like the “10th guy is probably the one who got it right while we all missed it”. Science is very-open minded while Politics, on the other hand, is more about simple answers. Politicians are very busy people who need to get a lot of legislation passed. They don’t have time to look for the truth so they settle for “consensus”, a weak substitute. 3) Global Warming also has the concept of “consensus” that all but goof-ball scientists agree that man is responsible for Global Warming; same as the “10th Man Principle”: Politics not Science. Consensus is like an opinion poll and can be easily manipulated. Arriving at the truth in science is typically a long and rigorous process, often contentious. Sometimes movies reflect popular culture and sometimes they sneak in a Trojan Horse to create it. Beware the Trojan Horse.

    • Please don’t bring climate change into this -_-

    • Max Brooks said in his book that Israel followed the idea if 9 intelligence operatives come to the same conclusion it is the tenths job to refuse. that is actually something used in Israel. Not a bad idea at all.

  18. Normally I would agree that Climate Change has no place on movie review site. But it is my perception that the movie itself was deliberately making a statement about the subject; and, of all things, sneaking it into a big budget movie about zombies. Why let it go unnoticed?

    • Actually during WWII, there was some significant impact on the environment probably caused by all the dust and smoke from the bombing raids and massive flights of bombers winging it at high altitude. An event that wipes out billions of people would have possibly an extinction level effect, but I’m just speaking in general terms.

  19. Not having read the book, I came to the movie with a clean slate and enjoyed it. It really tells the story of a global pandemic more than a zombie apocalypse and, as such, it held together. I have a longer commentary on my blog at: http://bit.ly/14uOQUL

  20. What a load of crap, this movie should be vanished to furtherest reaches of space & time.

  21. Did anyone read this article?
    http://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/2013/06/brad-pitt-world-war-z-drama

    No wonder they produced such a mediocre film, they didn’t even have a completed script BEFORE they started shooting! Then the ending got changed from what could have been an interesting idea if done right, having other countries invading the zombie over-run US. Instead we got a run-of-the-mill, weak cliche ending.

    • Yeah that would have been intersting not as good as the book. BUt hey no director in Hollywood can hold a candle to the book. PEriod

  22. Just read a snippet where Brad Pitt definitely seems interested in a sequel, so I guess if the film does even decent box office there probably will be one. Once in a while the sequel is better than the original, maybe if they listen to the movie going critics like the many posting here they’ll figure out how to improve on this first film which again, I feel was good, but not great.

  23. No mention of Mirelle Enos pathetic acting? In a apocalyptic situation she smiles at inopportune moments, behaves like a love struck teenager and even cant wait for the basic shout of cut to come out of acting mode. For eg: when they find shelter in a spanish speaking families apartment and sit on the sofa, Mirelle is seen smiling at Brad Pitt like the scene/take was over. Otherwise enjoyed the film.

  24. The movie seems to emphasize on one hero Brad Pitt yet in the book there where many Heroes. That is what the movie needs are several heroes from several countries. There needs to be variety so people realize that no one person wins a war.

  25. You know, I could stand that they were running zombies instead of walking ones, I could stand that they killed the Tough one and the Mad one,I could stand that they made North Corea survive and Israel die, but I could not stand their s***** camuflage idea, I couldn’t stand that the infected just bit someone and instead of eating him/her they just ran away to bite someone else,I couldn’t stand the no mention of the Redeker plan , I couldn’t stand that they made Cuba totally absent of the film when in the book it became the post war world biggest economy and democracy,that the Great Panic lasted two week and the War lasted lees than a year when in the book it’s a 10 years war, and mostly I can’t stand that the infection changed nothing in the society, one of WWZ(book) strongest points is the fact of that the infection changed they way people thought,instead of being black,white,muslim,latin or jew we were humans and zombies, the generation Z(the one that dealt with the Zombie threat) cleaned it’s own mess, in the movie Brad Pitt cleaned the mess.

  26. Yes, Yonkers, but other than that there is not enough time to build the character for each separate interview i.e. “the stakes”. Remember this is only an 1h 56m movie, that the studios wanted all sorts of people to see not just people who feel they are superior because they read the book. I read the book World War Z – An ORAL HISTORY of the zombie war and liked it. I also enjoyed World War Z a VISUAL PRESENTATION of the Zombie war – Part 1. To each their own.

  27. Watch World War Z here : http://worldwarzwatchfree.blogspot.ro/

  28. Thanks Mychaella !

    • Seriously? ! Anyone who thinks that the film is good versus the actual book itself is a complete retard. Period. Read the book before saying how good it is, when it really sucks ass

  29. I think World War Z was a fantastic movie! The zombies were worst than Dawn of the Dead. It kind of makes me want to read the book. :-)

    • Well, they were certainly Clean and well-groomed compared to the zombies in Dawn of the Dead. And, about as scary as a kid’s cartoon on a Saturday morning.

      I saw Dawn of the Dead in the theater TWICE. That movie has some stuff in it that was darn rattling (at least the first time you saw it). It lived up to the hype, probably one of the best zombie movies ever made.

      WWZ is a poor film. Period.

    • “The zombies were worst than Dawn of the Dead.”

      Well….you got that right.
      Were there zombies in World War Z though? I forget? I only remember occasional blobs of CGI spider monsters

    • If you read the book, I guarantee you will be disappointed and confused.

    • You should read it, but not because of the movie. If you think is something imilar to the movie, you will be dissapointed. Movie story, and the book are two completely different things. the book is really amazing, in fact i’ve read it like 3 times, Expectacular! … The Movie = a good zombie movie, but just another zombie movie to the pile.

    • well first of all i sincerly disagree with ur opinion, secondly if you like the movie u will probably hate the book

      • That movie was the most disappointing piece of crap I’ve seen in years, and you have no credibility. The book is fantastic. Not even in the same league.

        • Definitely, this was a dumbed down, barely passable zombie-ish movie which seemed more based for kids than anything. I mean really, pg-13? wtf. No zombies, no blood, no gore, all the “infected” are somehow super mutants and are basically rip-offs of the I Am Legend, thingys. This was a sad and dismal failure, and anyone who thinks this is a good zombie movie, (it was an ok visual piece/thriller), has never seen a good zombie movie or has no knowledge of the genre at all. And should probably be shot in the head. Oh, and did I mention there were no zombies in this movie? Just wanted to be clear for anyone defending this, as james said it best, PIECE OF CRAP. Way to sell out Max Brooks, and way to ruin a franchise Brad.

Post a Comment

GravatarWant to change your avatar?
Go to Gravatar.com and upload your own (we'll wait)!

 Rules: No profanity or personal attacks.
 Use a valid email address or risk being banned from commenting.


If your comment doesn't show up immediately, it may have been flagged for moderation. Please try refreshing the page first, then drop us a note and we'll retrieve it.

Be Social, Follow Us!!