Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Collider)   First look at look at footage from World War Z. Yonkers never had a chance   (collider.com ) divider line
    More: Scary, World War Z. Yonkers, sneak previews, Max Brooks, Marc Forster, Anthony Mackie, footage, Quantum of Solace  
•       •       •

9311 clicks; posted to Entertainment » on 06 Nov 2012 at 9:19 AM (3 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



223 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2012-11-06 03:40:58 PM  

stuhayes2010: Great book, any sci-fi/horro fan should read. I think the movie is going to be awful.


No.

I read the survival guide when it came out because people I knew and people on fark were literally masturbating (and I use literally correct here) over it.

It was a useless uninteresting pile of fetid dog shiat.

And that was back when I was just as obsessed with everything zombie as everyone else.
 
2012-11-06 03:41:10 PM  

Freakin Rican: AntonChigger: thecpt: Freakin Rican: i would think even fire bombing them would work. naplam or something like that. just burn em to a crisp

That was the initial strategy, and that's why they lose the battle.

SPOILERS.
What came out of the firebombing was the most horrifying part. Thermo-baric explosions made the Zs lungs come out of their mouths, and they were burnt crisps but they weren't dead. The smoky left overs allowed them to collect ranks, and distracted the army. Soon they crawled and walked out to now terrified soldiers.

Thats the kind of book this is. They really build up the reason to be scared of them, more than something that can kill humanity but something for which humans have to rewrite the book of war.

Thermo-baric explosives aren't effective for firebombing because they aren't primarily intended to be incendiary devices, if I recall correctly. We are simply talking napalm, which sticks to everything and burns hot. The zombies can't movie if all their flesh and tendons, etc has burnt and sloughed off.

thats what i would think. burning them up there would be nothing left to move.


thecpt: Freakin Rican: i would think even fire bombing them would work. naplam or something like that. just burn em to a crisp

That was the initial strategy, and that's why they lose the battle.

SPOILERS.
What came out of the firebombing was the most horrifying part. Thermo-baric explosions made the Zs lungs come out of their mouths, and they were burnt crisps but they weren't dead. The smoky left overs allowed them to collect ranks, and distracted the army. Soon they crawled and walked out to now terrified soldiers.

Thats the kind of book this is. They really build up the reason to be scared of them, more than something that can kill humanity but something for which humans have to rewrite the book of war.

wow thats crazy!! that would scare the crap outta me.

i understand about the destroying of cities with fire bombing. maybe lead them out into an open area away from the cities?

would fire bombing possibly burn up carl? do we know where he is? ...


carl is in the prison... taking care of business.
 
2012-11-06 03:44:39 PM  

Strategeryz0r: AntonChigger: So does anyone want to explain why the military didn't just drive around the city with tanks running over all the zombies?

Or just send in a bunch of gunships to mow them down from the air?

That's one of the main reasons zombie movies make me laugh. All it would take is some apaches, blackhawks with miniguns, and a ton of ammo to put an end to the zombie apocalypse. Sweep with the air assets, then send in the ground troops supported by armor to clean up the streets and sweep the buildings.

Quick, simple, easy, effective. Yet it's always the last thing any zombie film/book ever tries.

That was brought up in the book. It was combination of the military being built to fight enemies that wound/bleed out and MASSIVE numbers.
 
2012-11-06 03:47:43 PM  

Freakin Rican: i understand about the destroying of cities with fire bombing. maybe lead them out into an open area away from the cities?


Cities have gotten too farking big. I remember when there was some kind of wilderness between cities, but now? Geez. In another twenty years, you won't know where Los Angeles ends, and Las Vegas begins.
 
2012-11-06 03:55:21 PM  

Strategeryz0r: Regardless of that, the military response to a zombie outbreak in films and movies seems to rely on heavily outdated strategy.

1) setup defensive line
2) funnel zombies into a main avenue
3) try and cut them down while they're in a massive group, from a large firing line

That's a very.. err.. revolutionary war style strategy that seems to make ill-use of all the equipment in the military's arsenal. It also seems to be standard zombie film/book protocol.

I mean give me a street full of zombies, a wing of A-10s, and a bunch of avenger strafing runs. Tell me that wont wipe out a shiatload of zombies.


ALL military strategy in movies is derived from Napoleonic war strategies. Or even before. How many modern variations on "hold the line against a charge" have you seen in movies? Why do we have to see archers or guys with M-16s saying "steady.... steady... wait for it..." when they should just open fire on a charge as soon as they see the enemy? It's not like they have flintlock muskets that take time to reload. Cavalry charges went the way of the dodo as soon as reliable repeating rifles and machine guns were invented (acknowledging their occasional success, typically due to major blunders on the receiving side)
All movie naval battles (including space) seem to think that crossing the T, broadsiding, then boarding is a viable strategy.

This is more filmable and "Hollywood" than a front spread over hundreds of miles.
 
2012-11-06 03:56:38 PM  

scottydoesntknow: egomann: give me doughnuts: The "Starship Troopers" of zombie movies.

You say that like it is a bad thing.

Starship Troopers had some of the cheesiest writing I've ever seen, like SyFy Original movie bad. If it didn't have copious amounts of gore and a lot of boobs it would've been absolutely terrible.

"Rico, how do you know she's still alive?"
"I don't know how I know, but I know."


Starship Troopers was a war propaganda movie. It was subversive. It was beautiful.
 
2012-11-06 04:03:16 PM  

kroonermanblack: stuhayes2010: Great book, any sci-fi/horro fan should read. I think the movie is going to be awful.

No.

I read the survival guide when it came out because people I knew and people on fark were literally masturbating (and I use literally correct here) over it.

It was a useless uninteresting pile of fetid dog shiat.

And that was back when I was just as obsessed with everything zombie as everyone else.


I thought WWZ and the survival guide were 2 seperate books. Same author and same zombieverse...but one was a story and the other was...a fictional survival guide...
 
2012-11-06 04:10:39 PM  

mooseyfate: mooseyfate: Lazy personal attacks, name-dropping of unrelated authors, implication of being an idiot because I believe the movie should at the very least be about the source material, and then to top it off, you say that the book had no plot because L4D. Yup. I'm the m

Mouth-breather in this equation. You are the exact reason most things zombie suck ass. Thanks for doing your part to drive the genre into the ground. And no, I won't be getting off the couch to watch this garbage because I don't just mindlessly throw my money away on things that are obviously garbage. The same couldn't be said for you. Enjoy the shiatty movie, it was made to pander to people like you, anyways. Way to be a target demographic.



You're not understanding this. It's being made into a MOVIE. Arguing a miniseries is moot, i.e. a waste of time.
As others have already stated, the 'zombie' thing is getting tiring. I mostly agree, because 'running' from zombies that can barely walk is relatively boring. But zombies that can run...well that's just downright entertaining.


As someone else said, making a zombie movie with the WWZ tag on it may be sacrilege (and to you it obviously is), but that's Hollywood. I'm sure you watched Transformers and Avengers, so you can't make the point of not supporting Hollywood, now can you?


/out...boring conversation anyway.
 
2012-11-06 04:12:08 PM  

Coelacanth: Freakin Rican: i understand about the destroying of cities with fire bombing. maybe lead them out into an open area away from the cities?

Cities have gotten too farking big. I remember when there was some kind of wilderness between cities, but now? Geez. In another twenty years, you won't know where Los Angeles ends, and Las Vegas begins.


but at what point do we really care what we do to our cities? i would say, "my life is worth more". so firebombing a whole city wouldnt bother me none.
 
2012-11-06 04:13:39 PM  

frepnog: Freakin Rican: AntonChigger: thecpt: Freakin Rican: i would think even fire bombing them would work. naplam or something like that. just burn em to a crisp

That was the initial strategy, and that's why they lose the battle.

SPOILERS.
What came out of the firebombing was the most horrifying part. Thermo-baric explosions made the Zs lungs come out of their mouths, and they were burnt crisps but they weren't dead. The smoky left overs allowed them to collect ranks, and distracted the army. Soon they crawled and walked out to now terrified soldiers.

Thats the kind of book this is. They really build up the reason to be scared of them, more than something that can kill humanity but something for which humans have to rewrite the book of war.

Thermo-baric explosives aren't effective for firebombing because they aren't primarily intended to be incendiary devices, if I recall correctly. We are simply talking napalm, which sticks to everything and burns hot. The zombies can't movie if all their flesh and tendons, etc has burnt and sloughed off.

thats what i would think. burning them up there would be nothing left to move.


thecpt: Freakin Rican: i would think even fire bombing them would work. naplam or something like that. just burn em to a crisp

That was the initial strategy, and that's why they lose the battle.

SPOILERS.
What came out of the firebombing was the most horrifying part. Thermo-baric explosions made the Zs lungs come out of their mouths, and they were burnt crisps but they weren't dead. The smoky left overs allowed them to collect ranks, and distracted the army. Soon they crawled and walked out to now terrified soldiers.

Thats the kind of book this is. They really build up the reason to be scared of them, more than something that can kill humanity but something for which humans have to rewrite the book of war.

wow thats crazy!! that would scare the crap outta me.

i understand about the destroying of cities with fire bombing. maybe lead them ...


lol carl sure did take care of business. kicking ass and taking names. hes all out of bubble gum.
it was a good epi this week.
 
2012-11-06 04:21:46 PM  

Freakin Rican: but at what point do we really care what we do to our cities? i would say, "my life is worth more". so firebombing a whole city wouldnt bother me none.


What if that city 'belonged' to the Koch Brothers?
 
2012-11-06 04:23:31 PM  

Coelacanth: Freakin Rican: but at what point do we really care what we do to our cities? i would say, "my life is worth more". so firebombing a whole city wouldnt bother me none.

What if that city 'belonged' to the Koch Brothers?


what if the Koch Bros are zombies?
 
2012-11-06 04:23:43 PM  
Ww z was ok but my god it still thinks the military fights battles with revolutionary tactics. I mean Yonkers was ridiculous. Sit in a line and try to hold it at all costs against millions of zombies. I guess it's good visually but its the such a retarded strategy that the person suggesting it would be run out of the war room. Yes. Let's use a military that is designed to be highly mobile and just sort of sit them all in a couple miles wide line and wait for the bad guys to come to us. Also lets not use like half of our arsenal and no, of course we don't want the air force to help!
 
2012-11-06 04:26:24 PM  

NINDroog: I don't know what everyone is complaining about. It's going to be awesome. Didn't you see the clip of those thousands of zombies pouring over each other while stuff exploded in the background? Sure the book had character development and insight, but you can't put that on screen. If Avatar and Prometheus have taught me anything it's that CGI makes everything better.


WWZ was a series of short interviews. There was no character development.

As far as "realism" the first thing that will have to go is all the ridiculous underwater stuff. It would be virtually impossible for a zombie to attack you from underwater. And the stuff with the divers fighting submerged divers was idiotic.
 
2012-11-06 04:27:59 PM  

fastfxr: mooseyfate: mooseyfate: Lazy personal attacks, name-dropping of unrelated authors, implication of being an idiot because I believe the movie should at the very least be about the source material, and then to top it off, you say that the book had no plot because L4D. Yup. I'm the m

Mouth-breather in this equation. You are the exact reason most things zombie suck ass. Thanks for doing your part to drive the genre into the ground. And no, I won't be getting off the couch to watch this garbage because I don't just mindlessly throw my money away on things that are obviously garbage. The same couldn't be said for you. Enjoy the shiatty movie, it was made to pander to people like you, anyways. Way to be a target demographic.


You're not understanding this. It's being made into a MOVIE. Arguing a miniseries is moot, i.e. a waste of time.
As others have already stated, the 'zombie' thing is getting tiring. I mostly agree, because 'running' from zombies that can barely walk is relatively boring. But zombies that can run...well that's just downright entertaining.


As someone else said, making a zombie movie with the WWZ tag on it may be sacrilege (and to you it obviously is), but that's Hollywood. I'm sure you watched Transformers and Avengers, so you can't make the point of not supporting Hollywood, now can you?


/out...boring conversation anyway.


Maybe if our conversation was sprinting and made up of CGI and no imagination, you'd be hurling your money at it. And don't even counter with The Avengers, it actually hurts your argument. The Avengers was actually a good movie that used it's source material to enrich it, not ignore it flat out so they could just make shiat up as they went along. Transformers is pointless, because it's always been a shameless cash-grab. Maybe it would be easier if you just admit you willingly gobble down whatever boiling shiat is spoon-fed to you than it would be for me to admit that WWZ will be anything but a gaping goatse of a movie.
 
2012-11-06 04:28:52 PM  
......fighting submerged zombies...
 
2012-11-06 04:30:04 PM  

kroonermanblack: stuhayes2010: Great book, any sci-fi/horro fan should read. I think the movie is going to be awful.

No.

I read the survival guide when it came out because people I knew and people on fark were literally masturbating (and I use literally correct here) over it.

It was a useless uninteresting pile of fetid dog shiat.

And that was back when I was just as obsessed with everything zombie as everyone else.


I bet you get hard everytime you see a zombie related thread on Fark just because you get to whip that little gem out.

/Yep, I totally hated that thing you like before it was even cool to hate it
//Who wants to touch me?
 
2012-11-06 04:30:11 PM  

Saiga410: Fast zombies vs slow zombies..... can't we get a moderate speed zombie. Maybe one that walks at a brisk leasurely pace, like when you are late for an appointment but you do not want to bowl over a group of small kids in your way (as much as you would want to... social decorum bedamned.) Or maybe zombies that walk like speedwalkers at the mall at 7am.... it could be explained by some type of contamination at a supository factory... Oh well just spitballing here but why only shamble or able to do a 4 min mile for ever and ever..


I always thought that Zombies should only move fast when they are new, but as they age, go through rigor mortis, dry out and deteriorate they get slower and slower.
 
2012-11-06 04:48:23 PM  

T.M.S.: NINDroog: I don't know what everyone is complaining about. It's going to be awesome. Didn't you see the clip of those thousands of zombies pouring over each other while stuff exploded in the background? Sure the book had character development and insight, but you can't put that on screen. If Avatar and Prometheus have taught me anything it's that CGI makes everything better.

WWZ was a series of short interviews. There was no character development.

As far as "realism" the first thing that will have to go is all the ridiculous underwater stuff. It would be virtually impossible for a zombie to attack you from underwater. And the stuff with the divers fighting submerged divers was idiotic.


What was wrong with the underwater stuff? Most of the attacks were in fairly shallow water, no?
 
2012-11-06 04:49:01 PM  

T.M.S.: NINDroog: I don't know what everyone is complaining about. It's going to be awesome. Didn't you see the clip of those thousands of zombies pouring over each other while stuff exploded in the background? Sure the book had character development and insight, but you can't put that on screen. If Avatar and Prometheus have taught me anything it's that CGI makes everything better.

WWZ was a series of short interviews. There was no character development.

As far as "realism" the first thing that will have to go is all the ridiculous underwater stuff. It would be virtually impossible for a zombie to attack you from underwater. And the stuff with the divers fighting submerged divers was idiotic.


You are incorrect even in correcting his misuse of the phrase. The Japanese kid's story is the very definition of character development. It was the entire point of his section. However, I'll grant you half a point in that both as the phrase is commonly used and as he applied it, the book does not qualify. It is, as you said, a collection of vignettes, some personal scale and providing a portrait of a character during the disaster and some of larger scope.

As for underwater zombies, I have no expertise to argue with, so instead, NO U!
 
2012-11-06 04:50:49 PM  

give me doughnuts: The "Starship Troopers" of zombie movies.


The difference being that Starship Troopers is a fine film. This thing just looks like suck.
 
2012-11-06 04:51:28 PM  

Coelacanth: Freakin Rican: i understand about the destroying of cities with fire bombing. maybe lead them out into an open area away from the cities?

Cities have gotten too farking big. I remember when there was some kind of wilderness between cities, but now? Geez. In another twenty years, you won't know where Los Angeles ends, and Las Vegas begins.


www.internationalhero.co.uk
 
2012-11-06 04:52:07 PM  

scottydoesntknow: egomann: give me doughnuts: The "Starship Troopers" of zombie movies.

You say that like it is a bad thing.

Starship Troopers had some of the cheesiest writing I've ever seen, like SyFy Original movie bad. If it didn't have copious amounts of gore and a lot of boobs it would've been absolutely terrible.


But it did have copious amounts of gore and boobs (and Nazi Dougie Howser) which is why it was awesome.

In some alternate universe, I'm sure it sucked.
 
2012-11-06 05:09:04 PM  

LowbrowDeluxe: T.M.S.: NINDroog: I don't know what everyone is complaining about. It's going to be awesome. Didn't you see the clip of those thousands of zombies pouring over each other while stuff exploded in the background? Sure the book had character development and insight, but you can't put that on screen. If Avatar and Prometheus have taught me anything it's that CGI makes everything better.

WWZ was a series of short interviews. There was no character development.

As far as "realism" the first thing that will have to go is all the ridiculous underwater stuff. It would be virtually impossible for a zombie to attack you from underwater. And the stuff with the divers fighting submerged divers was idiotic.

You are incorrect even in correcting his misuse of the phrase. The Japanese kid's story is the very definition of character development. It was the entire point of his section. However, I'll grant you half a point in that both as the phrase is commonly used and as he applied it, the book does not qualify. It is, as you said, a collection of vignettes, some personal scale and providing a portrait of a character during the disaster and some of larger scope.

As for underwater zombies, I have no expertise to argue with, so instead, NO U!


Yeah that one and a few others focused on how the war changed people. I agree I was imprecise. It's just the the term "character development" is tossed around a great deal these days when discussing zombie lore. And it has been endless used to excuse the dirge-like pace of The Walking Dead. That show did not need nine hours of season 2 to "develop" the characters. You could have watched Death of a Salesman three times instead and Miller did a pretty good job "developing" those characters in a fraction of the time.


Iceberg659: T.M.S.: NINDroog: I don't know what everyone is complaining about. It's going to be awesome. Didn't you see the clip of those thousands of zombies pouring over each other while stuff exploded in the background? Sure the book had character development and insight, but you can't put that on screen. If Avatar and Prometheus have taught me anything it's that CGI makes everything better.

WWZ was a series of short interviews. There was no character development.

As far as "realism" the first thing that will have to go is all the ridiculous underwater stuff. It would be virtually impossible for a zombie to attack you from underwater. And the stuff with the divers fighting submerged divers was idiotic.

What was wrong with the underwater stuff? Most of the attacks were in fairly shallow water, no?


No. The book wrongly presumes dead people could walk around on the ocean floor. And without lead boots that would be impossible.

Also, no zombie would be able to bite through a deep sea diving suit.
 
2012-11-06 05:17:00 PM  

T.M.S.: No. The book wrongly presumes dead people could walk around on the ocean floor. And without lead boots that would be impossible.

Also, no zombie would be able to bite through a deep sea diving suit.


The book mentioned a severe chemical changes of the zombie body. I was willing to suspend disbelief in regards to floating considering in the same universe the zombie cells couldn't get frostbite. I don't remember a chapter about a deep sea diving suit, but I only listened to the audio version.
 
2012-11-06 05:17:24 PM  

mooseyfate: fastfxr: mooseyfate: fastfxr: Zombies have to move slow and lethargic?
-Y'all are idiots.

Should be a mini-series?
-Idiots as well.


Looking forward to a WWZ/L4D-type movie myself.

You clearly haven't read the books, or even heard about them in passing. You're an idiot, please don't speak on subjects you are obviously ignorant on. Also, eat shiat and die.

Umm yeah, I did. It was mildly entertaining, but I don't think each chapter requires its own series.
That's just the TV-watching couch-addict in you talking, I assume.


My comment on it was that slow zombies are boring...but I guess reading comprehension fails you.

And yet rather than just shut up about something you have no idea about, you try your "politics thread" best to shift attention away from the fact that you're obviously wrong. If you actually HAD read the books, you'd know that Brooks goes out of his way in chapter 1 of the ZSHB to describe that voodoo zombies and "runners" simply do not exist in his zombie world.

As for the mini-series, I never stated that it should be, but as evidenced by all the production stills and trailer screenshots, they utterly failed to capture any part of the book in the film, so clearly it WOULD have been better off as a mini-series, and it has nothing to do with this laziness you've assumed about me. It has everything to do with how the book was written, but since you clearly haven't read it, you'd have no idea what I'm talking about. Go ahead. Run to Wikipedia and read the plot synopsis so you can hurry back and impress no one with how you "totally read it" because Scott Wanio and LMOE! And then to make your blinding ignorance worse, you put WWZ and L4D into the same "type" because, well, there's zombies in both of them, so clearly they're identical!

/what a farking mook


I'm going to assume that you are actually Max Brooks at this point. No one else would have this much tied up emotionally into this movie.

Take a step back and breath. I know you wanted this to be better than it will be, but that is no reason to be an ass on the internet to people who have a different opinion than you on a work of fiction.
 
2012-11-06 05:36:47 PM  

Strategeryz0r: AntonChigger: So does anyone want to explain why the military didn't just drive around the city with tanks running over all the zombies?

Or just send in a bunch of gunships to mow them down from the air?

That's one of the main reasons zombie movies make me laugh. All it would take is some apaches, blackhawks with miniguns, and a ton of ammo to put an end to the zombie apocalypse. Sweep with the air assets, then send in the ground troops supported by armor to clean up the streets and sweep the buildings.

Quick, simple, easy, effective. Yet it's always the last thing any zombie film/book ever tries.


Well... WWZ covered the initial fiasco in some detail.

Basically, the military fell into Fulda Gap mode and failed to realize that zombies don't succumb to shockwave, don't succumb to penetrating trauma (except to the brain) and that they're attracted to noise. Miniguns don't do very well in the headshot department.

Once the military had their tactics figured out, however...
 
2012-11-06 05:41:26 PM  

thecpt: T.M.S.: No. The book wrongly presumes dead people could walk around on the ocean floor. And without lead boots that would be impossible.

Also, no zombie would be able to bite through a deep sea diving suit.

The book mentioned a severe chemical changes of the zombie body. I was willing to suspend disbelief in regards to floating considering in the same universe the zombie cells couldn't get frostbite. I don't remember a chapter about a deep sea diving suit, but I only listened to the audio version.


It's been a while but I recall a chapter about commercial and military divers battling the zombies in deep water. It was a cool idea but very impractical.
 
2012-11-06 05:47:57 PM  

give me doughnuts: The "Starship Troopers" of zombie movies.


Was thinking the same thing.

I'd also like to recommend these books for zombie lovers:

anythinghorror.files.wordpress.com

img2.imagesbn.com

www.fictitiousmusings.com
 
2012-11-06 05:56:28 PM  

jaybeezey: mooseyfate: fastfxr: mooseyfate: fastfxr: Zombies have to move slow and lethargic?
-Y'all are idiots.

Should be a mini-series?
-Idiots as well.


Looking forward to a WWZ/L4D-type movie myself.

You clearly haven't read the books, or even heard about them in passing. You're an idiot, please don't speak on subjects you are obviously ignorant on. Also, eat shiat and die.

Umm yeah, I did. It was mildly entertaining, but I don't think each chapter requires its own series.
That's just the TV-watching couch-addict in you talking, I assume.


My comment on it was that slow zombies are boring...but I guess reading comprehension fails you.

And yet rather than just shut up about something you have no idea about, you try your "politics thread" best to shift attention away from the fact that you're obviously wrong. If you actually HAD read the books, you'd know that Brooks goes out of his way in chapter 1 of the ZSHB to describe that voodoo zombies and "runners" simply do not exist in his zombie world.

As for the mini-series, I never stated that it should be, but as evidenced by all the production stills and trailer screenshots, they utterly failed to capture any part of the book in the film, so clearly it WOULD have been better off as a mini-series, and it has nothing to do with this laziness you've assumed about me. It has everything to do with how the book was written, but since you clearly haven't read it, you'd have no idea what I'm talking about. Go ahead. Run to Wikipedia and read the plot synopsis so you can hurry back and impress no one with how you "totally read it" because Scott Wanio and LMOE! And then to make your blinding ignorance worse, you put WWZ and L4D into the same "type" because, well, there's zombies in both of them, so clearly they're identical!

/what a farking mook

I'm going to assume that you are actually Max Brooks at this point. No one else would have this much tied up emotionally into this movie.

Take a step back and breath. I know you wanted this to be better than it will be, but that is no reason to be an ass on the internet to people who have a different opinion than you on a work of fiction.


of all, this is Playground Rules and he started it. 2nd of all, Welcome to Farkistan, where everyone is a dick about everything. And last but not least, if YOU'D like to post something ignorant and completely indicative of the state of shiatty Hollywood blockbusters and book adaptations, I'd be more than happy to spend the remainder of my day spewing hate-filled bile at you as well. It's not okay that they've butchered this book so badly. You can say "it's just a movie" all you want, it's still not okay.
 
2012-11-06 06:02:25 PM  
The problem with fast zombies is they represent an actual threat which is enough to unify survivors and force cooperation.
Slow zombies are underestimated and give survivors the 'luxury' of self interest and poor preparation.
The whole zombie genre is a thought experiment on the human psychological condition. It looks like a fun movie but the footage indicates they've missed the point entirely.
 
2012-11-06 06:04:52 PM  
upload.wikimedia.org

This was a good zombie flick. Kind of low-budget, but it worked. And yes, it's a found-footage, camcorder flick, but it still works a lot better than a movie that has a CG wave of zombies.

It also shows why slow zombies are better, and why the zombies are not an antagonist, but a natural disaster. That's my main problem with Brooks' book-- He treats zombies like an invading army of monsters that can be defeated, and not like a natural disaster that can't be prevented.

I don't hate Brooks' book. I just think he introduced a lot of new people to a very bad version of the zombie formula, and they took the idea and came to the conclusion regarding what makes a "good" zombie story (to them: survival porn versus horror-drama).

A good zombie flick is a drama first, and the horror is in the choices the people have to face-- Not the monsters attacking, and not the inevitable gore. It's in the psychological effect, not the physical threats.

And I still say Brooks could have replaced zombies with aliens, robots, rabid dogs, or anything else and he would have been telling essentially the same story: Survivor tales about how they beat the strange enemy.
 
2012-11-06 06:13:21 PM  

ZeroCorpse: This was a good zombie flick. Kind of low-budget, but it worked. And yes, it's a found-footage, camcorder flick, but it still works a lot better than a movie that has a CG wave of zombies.

It also shows why slow zombies are better, and why the zombies are not an antagonist, but a natural disaster. That's my main problem with Brooks' book-- He treats zombies like an invading army of monsters that can be defeated, and not like a natural disaster that can't be prevented.

I don't hate Brooks' book. I just think he introduced a lot of new people to a very bad version of the zombie formula, and they took the idea and came to the conclusion regarding what makes a "good" zombie story (to them: survival porn versus horror-drama).

A good zombie flick is a drama first, and the horror is in the choices the people have to face-- Not the monsters attacking, and not the inevitable gore. It's in the psychological effect, not the physical threats.

And I still say Brooks could have replaced zombies with aliens, robots, rabid dogs, or anything else and he would have been telling essentially the same story: Survivor tales about how they beat the strange enemy.


I think there's room for both versions, though. If Walking Dead threads are any indication, zombie survivor porn has a large audience already. People that want to sit back and say "What if" til three in the morning with their friends. Brooks' first book did an excellent job of capturing that feel, even of you were reading it alone and didn't discuss it with anybody. I liked that. It was fun. So was WWZ. It's not the golden standard of the zombie genre, but just because it got over exposed doesn't mean it's not damn good.
 
2012-11-06 06:55:47 PM  

Father_Jack: what was so neat about WWZ was how they explored so many aspects of what a zombie apocalypse would do to all levels of society: economic, manufacturing, social structures, raising kids afterwards, etc etc, and how different nations responded differently to it.


If you think that's neat, then you should read the WW3 (not "Z") books that Brooks plagiarized down to minute plot details such as from this:

upload.wikimedia.org

Gives you much the same story, right down to the nature of post-conflict California, but with greater strength in writing style, more realistic handling of details and without sounding like it was done by a hack. Why go for the fanfic-esque story that hardly does more than word replace "nukes" with "zombies" when you can enjoy better books? There's a whole batch out there waiting to be discovered by those willing to read more than one book without pictures.

/I'd have liked WWZ when I read it, wanted to after all the hype that led me to it, but I hate plot plagiarists and crappy writing.
//WWZ is Twilight for zombie lovers. (Not really, but the writing is certainly in that class.)
 
2012-11-06 07:02:06 PM  

Diogenes Teufelsdrockh: Father_Jack: what was so neat about WWZ was how they explored so many aspects of what a zombie apocalypse would do to all levels of society: economic, manufacturing, social structures, raising kids afterwards, etc etc, and how different nations responded differently to it.

If you think that's neat, then you should read the WW3 (not "Z") books that Brooks plagiarized down to minute plot details such as from this:

Gives you much the same story, right down to the nature of post-conflict California, but with greater strength in writing style, more realistic handling of details and without sounding like it was done by a hack. Why go for the fanfic-esque story that hardly does more than word replace "nukes" with "zombies" when you can enjoy better books? There's a whole batch out there waiting to be discovered by those willing to read more than one book without pictures.

/I'd have liked WWZ when I read it, wanted to after all the hype that led me to it, but I hate plot plagiarists and crappy writing.
//WWZ is Twilight for zombie lovers. (Not really, but the writing is certainly in that class.)


I'm going to check that out because it looks like a good read, but normally people will include said cases of plagiarism if they actually occurred. Google didn't turn up anything, so maybe you can post the parts that were plagiarized. Unless your version of plagiarism just means "somebody else did something similar in the past", which I get the feeling is what you meant. Regardless, War Day, if it is as similar as you say, sounds like it could be some awesome reading material to gear me up for the coming apocalypse.
 
2012-11-06 07:12:51 PM  

chewy milk: Ww z was ok but my god it still thinks the military fights battles with revolutionary tactics. I mean Yonkers was ridiculous. Sit in a line and try to hold it at all costs against millions of zombies. I guess it's good visually but its the such a retarded strategy that the person suggesting it would be run out of the war room. Yes. Let's use a military that is designed to be highly mobile and just sort of sit them all in a couple miles wide line and wait for the bad guys to come to us. Also lets not use like half of our arsenal and no, of course we don't want the air force to help!


Well that was kind of the point and the soldier even says something very close to that in the narrative.
 
2012-11-06 07:20:55 PM  
wwzino

world war z in name only
 
2012-11-06 07:23:26 PM  

Zombie DJ: InmanRoshi: After this, can we officially expire the Zombies shiat? Holy fark, it's officially played the fark out.

I don't agree.
Zombies aren't the main character of movies.
Vampires are. Werewolves are. But zombies are the thing that moves the plot for OTHER characters.
Like disaster movies. Floods, earthquakes, zombies.....


Since I've had time off work I've been thinking of doing some writing , and the idea was some fiction from the zombies perspective. But hasn't gotten off the ground yet.
 
2012-11-06 07:30:24 PM  

chewy milk: Ww z was ok but my god it still thinks the military fights battles with revolutionary tactics. I mean Yonkers was ridiculous. Sit in a line and try to hold it at all costs against millions of zombies. I guess it's good visually but its the such a retarded strategy that the person suggesting it would be run out of the war room. Yes. Let's use a military that is designed to be highly mobile and just sort of sit them all in a couple miles wide line and wait for the bad guys to come to us. Also lets not use like half of our arsenal and no, of course we don't want the air force to help!


IIRC, *SPOILER ALERT sort of* it was "revolutionary tactics" that they turned to, and were successful with, in the end.
 
2012-11-06 07:43:02 PM  
I liked the book and all, but I don't think there's a movie they could have made out of it that would make people happy. There's too many different stories in the book to make a cohesive single movie telling all of them. I'm willing to see it to see what they do with it. It does look like a typical Hollywood CGI blockbuster which is a turn off, but who knows.

Personally, my least favorite parts of the book were the military stories. There was simply too much military terminology thrown around for my liking. So I'm more disappointed they chose to focus on that rather than some of the other more unique civilian stories, but that's just a personal preference.

For all of you who are sick of zombies, you certainly don't have to see/watch/read anything about them if you feel this way. I'm personally sick of hearing about people who are sick of hearing about zombies :). Also, no one owns zombies so whenever people throw out that someone has bastardized zombies, it's just absurd. There are always going to be different iterations of topics. I don't like the Resident Evil movies, but I'm not going to say they ruined zombies. I just don't prefer their take on the subject. It's cool though, they can make their crappy movies and I'm free to not watch them but more power to people who enjoy them.
 
2012-11-06 07:49:10 PM  
The zombies look like the vampires from the Will Smith version of I Am Legend.
 
2012-11-06 07:53:16 PM  
In the book all the soldiers used a tool called the Lobotomizer aka Lobo.

How would that work well against a bunch of zombies RUNNING at you? Also the blind monk in Japan with the staff or the Air force pilot that had the broken ankle but ran away?
 
2012-11-06 07:54:52 PM  
Everything about the army in World War Z was stupid as hell.

One dude in a tank could literally smash thousands upon thousands of zombies. Just crushing them flat under thousands upon thousands of pounds of metal and treads. Ask the Polish how well unarmed people did vs tank treads in WWII....And our modern tanks are stronger faster and better than the WWII ones.

Then once they military realized that they could crush zombies with tanks they would just up-armor thousands of bulldozers and crush all the farking zombies, while having patrols blare heavy metal music to draw them out into the open and head shot them to death.

World War Z is a fun read but farking stupid when you put any logic into it.
 
2012-11-06 08:12:31 PM  

D2theMcV: chewy milk: Ww z was ok but my god it still thinks the military fights battles with revolutionary tactics. I mean Yonkers was ridiculous. Sit in a line and try to hold it at all costs against millions of zombies. I guess it's good visually but its the such a retarded strategy that the person suggesting it would be run out of the war room. Yes. Let's use a military that is designed to be highly mobile and just sort of sit them all in a couple miles wide line and wait for the bad guys to come to us. Also lets not use like half of our arsenal and no, of course we don't want the air force to help!

IIRC, *SPOILER ALERT sort of* it was "revolutionary tactics" that they turned to, and were successful with, in the end.


It's kind of funny, because every single one of his concerns is actually addressed IN THE BOOK. The Air Force was largely mothballed because of the immense amount of satellite and electrical support needed to operate them properly, not to mention the ever-present fuel problem. They were still flying old WWII era planes because those were designed before the days of reliable radar, electronic huds, and GPS satellites and could be more easily repaired in between missions than $100 million fighter jets. Revolutionary War Tactics became highly effective because when the enemy can't return fire, the only weapon more deadly than a soldier's rifle is his ability to keep his head in battle. Why waste resources and personnel chasing down Zeds and risking possible infection when you can stay in one highly organized group (which meant people were actually able to rest in shifts) and murder zeds around the clock as they come. "Half the arsenal" is shock and awe, and you can't shock and awe an enemy with no emotions. What real good would a bunker buster bomb do to an army of undead? Sabot rounds? Thermobaric weapons? Smart missiles become unguided rockets thanks to the world-wide infrastructure breakdown. The only truly viable options are napalm (not widely used post-Vietnam War, but I'm sure there's still stockpiles somewhere) and weapons of MASS destruction, but as someone else pointed out, the general idea behind combating the undead horde is to reclaim or retake infected areas, not turn it into a glass parking lot. So yeah, all that stuff's already been covered by the source material. Not that it matters for the movie, it appears. I wouldn't be surprised to see someone kill a zombie with a taser in this shiatstain of a movie.
 
2012-11-06 08:21:25 PM  
I've nearly finished the book.

The movie looks like a big bag of suck.
 
2012-11-06 09:09:03 PM  
Looks like I'll have to wait for the reboot...sigh... 


/Carl took a level in badass between seasons, I see
 
2012-11-06 09:35:32 PM  
for some reason that reminded me of the critball

Link
 
2012-11-06 10:06:39 PM  

mooseyfate: It's kind of funny, because every single one of his concerns is actually addressed IN THE BOOK. The Air Force was largely mothballed because of the immense amount of satellite and electrical support needed to operate them properly, not to mention the ever-present fuel problem. They were still flying old WWII era planes because those were designed before the days of reliable radar, electronic huds, and GPS satellites and could be more easily repaired in between missions than $100 million fighter jets. Revolutionary War Tactics became highly effective because when the enemy can't return fire, the only weapon more deadly than a soldier's rifle is his ability to keep his head in battle. Why waste resources and personnel chasing down Zeds and risking possible infection when you can stay in one highly organized group (which meant people were actually able to rest in shifts) and murder zeds around the clock as they come. "Half the arsenal" is shock and awe, and you can't shock and awe an enemy with no emotions. What real good would a bunker buster bomb do to an army of undead? Sabot rounds? Thermobaric weapons? Smart missiles become unguided rockets thanks to the world-wide infrastructure breakdown. The only truly viable options are napalm (not widely used post-Vietnam War, but I'm sure there's still stockpiles somewhere) and weapons of MASS destruction, but as someone else pointed out, the general idea behind combating the undead horde is to reclaim or retake infected areas, not turn it into a glass parking lot. So yeah, all that stuff's already been covered by the source material. Not that it matters for the movie, it appears. I wouldn't be surprised to see someone kill a zombie with a taser in this shiatstain of a movie.


I think the reason that some people don't like the book is because one guy doesn't win it all by himself.
 
2012-11-06 10:15:54 PM  

my_cats_breath_smells_like_cat_food: kroonermanblack: WTF Indeed: Book: A real science-based account of how the world would react to a plague.
Movie: ZOMG Zombies! Brad Pitt will save us! Thank Jesus Brad Pitt!

It's not science based. It's realistic bent of speculative fiction. It's no more factual than National Treasure is a historic accuracy.

So ready for the zombies everywhere thing to be done. It was fun and cool for a little while but it's just so insanely over saturating everything now.

So you are saying...the zombies just keep coming...relentlessly...despite your best efforts and throwing everything you have at it, they just. keep. coming. I feel like there must be some sort of outlet, some method to describe that feeling of helplessness in the face of daunting odds and an unstoppable hungry horde. It is like all these zombie movies/books/shows/commercials/blogs/websites are some sort of semi-alive/semi-dead amalgamation of the essence of our humanity.


If only there were a term... wait, there is. Lame.
 
2012-11-07 02:45:08 AM  
Love the book, so I'm just going to pretend this movie is called something else and take it as it plays.

The zombies as army ants thing is a new take and I'm curious to see if they make it work.
 
Displayed 50 of 223 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Newest | Show all


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report