1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

World War Z

Discussion in 'South Oval' started by 8timechamps, Jun 21, 2013.

  1. 8timechamps

    8timechamps Administrator

    Saw it this afternoon, very well done.

    If you've read the book, it'll be like every book-to-movie ever made (a lot of things are left out, and there are some nuances). Otherwise, a good zombie flick.
  2. yermom

    yermom Stayatworkdad

    Has to be better than Man of Steel
  3. 8timechamps

    8timechamps Administrator

    It ABSOLUTELY was. Why is it so hard to make a decent Superman movie? Anyway, It was much, much better.
  4. SoonerStormchaser

    SoonerStormchaser Emma's Daddy!

  5. yermom

    yermom Stayatworkdad

    i didn't walk away hating the last one

    this one had great effects, but overall, it was junk. it was like they rolled Superman, The Avengers and The Phantom Menace all toghether somehow
  6. NormanPride

    NormanPride SoonerFans.com Elite Member

    Superman is not a main character anyone can identify with. He is better used as a force of nature or as an element of a bigger story, a la Dr Manhattan from watchmen.
  7. yermom

    yermom Stayatworkdad

    overall, i don't know that i didn't like the story, more the execution
  8. 8timechamps

    8timechamps Administrator

    It's interesting that you say that. I was having the same discussion with a buddy yesterday, and he said the same thing. He said "he's not from earth, so right away it's not a character anyone can relate with". My argument was Thor. He's not from earth, and yet that was a pretty good movie. Maybe Superman is so played out, that they'll never be a way to make a good movie?
  9. ouwasp

    ouwasp New Member

    My whole family likes to watch zombie flicks...we felt WWZ was underwhelming. Maybe give it 5-6 out of 10. It was not scary, not even really very suspenseful. Very predictable. Not really like the book, which I have read.

    WWZ was okay, and I'll watch it again when it comes out on dvd.
  10. 8timechamps

    8timechamps Administrator

    Really? My 18 & 13 year old boys thought it was great. I thought it was good (they were more excited about it), but I've also read the book. I think reading a book, then seeing the movie (any book/movie) is just a bad combination. The movie rarely, if ever lives up to the book.
  11. ouwasp

    ouwasp New Member

    Possible spoilers below...

    8time, I'm glad you and your boys liked it. I don't wish to dissuade anyone from watching WWZ...
    Problems with WWZ:
    I don't mind fast zombies... but these creatures were so fast as to be cartoonish. And the premise that they could scale the 70 foot walls of Jerusalem, fall over, and still be functional enough to get up and attack made me laugh.
    The characters are not developed enough to care about them; a viewer realizes Pitt will survive, but all others are disposable... and treated that way. If his family were threatened in any way after the opening sequence, that would have been interesting.
    The method of coping with the zombies was sort of anti-climactic, that's just my opinion though.
    I would have liked to see the initial outbreak explored more, like in the book.
    Speaking of the book, one of the enormous number of differences is the book was set after-the-fact. The movie presents it as happening in the present... so much was not known.
    The shaky style of camera shots is one of those I don't care for. Just show me what's happening, don't make it unclear.
    Not much gore for a global pandemic... and the extremely fast "turn time" (maybe 10 seconds) made WWZ seem like a knock-off of 28 Days Later. Plus, it robbed the story of the drama of a victim attempting to hide their bitten status- that's standard fare for most zombie flicks- and it was certainly prominent in the WWZ book. In fact, the hidden bite was a major means of spreading the pandemic.

    Like I said, I don't wish to be a wet blanket. WWZ is one of those flash & dash summer flicks that many will enjoy. And some folks that cannot deal with the graphic gore of most undead offerings will have no problem with this one. So the ranks of zombie fans will undoubtedly swell.
  12. NormanPride

    NormanPride SoonerFans.com Elite Member

    The thing that Thor had was that he spent 80% of the movie with no powers. Also, he isn't an invincible perfect person. He also has very human flaws that I've never seen in a superman movie.

    But the same holds true for all those types of characters. If they're too powerful then we can't relate and there isn't any suspense.
  13. yermom

    yermom Stayatworkdad

    have you even seen all the Superman movies? ;)
  14. 8timechamps

    8timechamps Administrator

    Good point NP. Maybe that's why I can never get into Superman, because he finds himself in situations that he should be able to use his powers to escape, yet he can't. I think what ruined it for me was when the Christopher Reeves version turned back time. After that, I just kept thinking "why not just turn back time" anytime something bad happened.
  15. 8timechamps

    8timechamps Administrator

    If we look past the "Zombies aren't real, so there's no reason to fault a movie for having unrealistic Zombies" argument, then you do make some vaild points for sure.

    My biggest issue with the movie [POSSIBLE SPOILERS] [spoil]was that it did seem to stray from the book at some key points. I understand that the movie has to pack a lot in a short amount of time, but the whole development of the epidemic seemed too rushed. I think they could have followed the book by simply using the first 5 or 10 minutes from a third person perspective, discussing how the epidemic originated and spread (or at least spread). Then they could have focused on Pitt's character more (and develop his family's characters). So, I do agree with you there.

    As for the lack of gore, I noticed it too. However, I kind of liked it. After watching The Walking Dead for so long, I've become so desensitized to it, so it was kind of cool to see a zombie story without all the gore. One scene in particular that I thought it really stood out, was when Pitt was in the WHO lab, and got his crowbar stuck in the zombies head while another was coming at him.

    The last thing I'll agree with you about was the super speed of the zombies. I think they could have gotten the same effect having them run at normal speed. The book did a good job of underscoring the zombies not being the typical roaming, slow undead, but it never made me think they were superhuman.[/spoil]
  16. ouleaf

    ouleaf New Member

    A little underwhelming and the pacing of the whole movie just seemed incredibly rushed. I didn't read the book so maybe that has a more realistic timeline. A few suspenseful moments, but I think the PG-13 rating for a Zombie movie was a dead giveaway that there wasn't going to be any truly gory scenes.

    Ready for some Walking Dead to return.
  17. Fraggle145

    Fraggle145 Drunky Town Limnologist

    I still havent figured out why they havent done a Death of Superman via Doomsday movie... Seems so simple to me.
  18. Tulsa_Fireman

    Tulsa_Fireman SoonerFans.com Elite Member

    I could get on board with that if it had creepy Super-Peeping Tom-Man from the Brandon Routh film getting killed.

    Whack the perv.
  19. C&CDean

    C&CDean Administrator

    In the A?
  20. Tulsa_Fireman

    Tulsa_Fireman SoonerFans.com Elite Member

    Sh*ttin' truth.

Share This Page