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.

(Deadline)   World War Z is receiving a lot of press before its June premiere. Unfortunately, it's the same type of press that John Carter of Mars and Battleship got before their premieres; in short, this movie is destined to be 2013's biggest bomb   (deadline.com) divider line 166
    More: Obvious, World War Z, battleships, Christopher McQuarrie, Marc Forster, Rob Moore, J. Michael Straczynski, Brad Grey, GK Films  
•       •       •

3641 clicks; posted to Entertainment » on 13 May 2013 at 2:27 AM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread
 
2013-05-13 12:46:35 AM  
Perhaps now they can make the book into a movie
 
2013-05-13 12:47:05 AM  
John Carter was a good movie, given the press. The problem was the title.

World War Z will Duck Hot Bonkey Salls, though.
 
2013-05-13 12:55:06 AM  
fta It would just be nice to see a little more understanding among the media and Wall Street analysts, to recognize that just because a film has problems during the process of production, that doesn't mean it's doomed.

In the future, you may also want to consider the opinions of your potential audience.
 
2013-05-13 01:03:57 AM  
Thing is, I enjoyed both of those.  They weren't great cinematic masterpieces, but they were fun popcorn flicks.  I also liked other bombs, like Howard the Duck, Ishtar and Waterworld, but I guess that just makes me weird.
 
2013-05-13 01:20:17 AM  

Notabunny: fta It would just be nice to see a little more understanding among the media and Wall Street analysts, to recognize that just because a film has problems during the process of production, that doesn't mean it's doomed.

In the future, you may also want to consider the opinions of your potential audience.


The moment Damon Lindelof is called in to fix the script, it's doomed.
 
2013-05-13 01:25:25 AM  

doglover: John Carter was a good movie, given the press.


No, no it wasn't.   It was a long drawn out movie about a guy who can jump far and had an alien dog for a pet.

I went into the movie wanting to like it, and thinking the critics just had a bug up their ass.  I was wrong, they were right.
 
2013-05-13 01:28:13 AM  

ShawnDoc: No, no it wasn't. It was a long drawn out movie about a guy who can jump far and had an alien dog for a pet.
I went into the movie wanting to like it, and thinking the critics just had a bug up their ass. I was wrong, they were right.


I agree. I watched it for the first time a couple of nights ago. I got halfway though, said "meh", and turned it off.
 
2013-05-13 01:32:45 AM  
I figured something was up when I saw the trailers full of zombies sprinting over things like a colony of caffeine fueled ants.

Meh, I'll go see it anyway. My expectations won't be sky high, but that doesn't mean I won't be entertained.
 
2013-05-13 01:42:34 AM  

Mentat: The moment Damon Lindelof is called in to fix the script, it's doomed.


I'm curious, how did he got from writing a few TV episodes to being given so many high profile scripts?

Cowboys vs Aliens - Big budget flop, that should have been good.
Prometheus - I don't think this flopped at the box office, but almost all the hate is directed at the script and how dumb the characters were.

And yet somehow he gets:
Star Trek Into Darkness (Huge budget/hype movie)
World War Z (Which looks like its going to be a huge flop)
Tomorrowland (Which is going to be a high budget Disney film starring Clooney)
 
2013-05-13 01:55:45 AM  
More like World War Zzzz, am I right!?
 
2013-05-13 01:59:01 AM  

ShawnDoc: doglover: John Carter was a good movie, given the press.

No, no it wasn't.   It was a long drawn out movie about a guy who can jump far and had an alien dog for a pet.

I went into the movie wanting to like it, and thinking the critics just had a bug up their ass.  I was wrong, they were right.


Better than any Transformers flick.
 
2013-05-13 02:02:42 AM  

ShawnDoc: doglover: John Carter was a good movie, given the press.

No, no it wasn't.   It was a long drawn out movie about a guy who can jump far and had an alien dog for a pet.

I went into the movie wanting to like it, and thinking the critics just had a bug up their ass.  I was wrong, they were right.


An alien dog that looked like a penis with legs.

I saw it on Starz, and it was a bit of a mess. They didn't even try to make Mars not look like Utah, and the setup was way too long. Hell, even Bryan Cranston's awesomeness was wasted.
 
2013-05-13 02:05:39 AM  

doglover: Better than any Transformers flick.


Stepping barefoot on warm dog shiat is better than any Transformers movie.
 
2013-05-13 02:10:25 AM  
WWZ the book is told as a series of interviews with survivors from a great zombie infestation. These survivors come from all around the world, and shows that Max Brooks really took a long look at the geopolitical ramifications of a large-scale outbreak.
WWZ  the movie seems to be "Brad Pitt's 'Murrican Zombie Mowdown" co-starring a bunch of computer-generated zombies.

i.imgur.com
Beside that, zombies are boring. We're into this string now.
 
2013-05-13 02:35:59 AM  
Still going to wait for actual reviews and, of course, my own viewing.  Production issues and bad press can result in movies like Waterworld and Ishtar.  They can also result in movies like Jaws and Star Wars.  You just can't tell until you see the damn thing for yourself.
 
2013-05-13 02:49:07 AM  
So how many hot screenwriters did it take to finish a zombie movie?

Oooh, oooh, give me a minute, I've heard this one before...


www-deadline-com.vimg.net

Enjoy the random screencap from "Shaun of the Dead".

/too bad about Tyres...
 
2013-05-13 02:54:33 AM  

karmachameleon: Still going to wait for actual reviews and, of course, my own viewing.  Production issues and bad press can result in movies like Waterworld and Ishtar.  They can also result in movies like Jaws and Star Wars.  You just can't tell until you see the damn thing for yourself.


So basically you're going to be the guinea pig for everyone else? I salute you, you brave soul.
 
2013-05-13 03:00:24 AM  

doglover: ShawnDoc: doglover: John Carter was a good movie, given the press.

No, no it wasn't.   It was a long drawn out movie about a guy who can jump far and had an alien dog for a pet.

I went into the movie wanting to like it, and thinking the critics just had a bug up their ass.  I was wrong, they were right.

Better than any Transformers flick.


I'd rather catch crabs than AIDS, but it doesn't mean I'd enjoy it.
 
2013-05-13 03:03:09 AM  

karmachameleon: Still going to wait for actual reviews and, of course, my own viewing.  Production issues and bad press can result in movies like Waterworld and Ishtar.  They can also result in movies like Jaws and Star Wars.  You just can't tell until you see the damn thing for yourself.


That's fine, but this is a reportedly $200,000,000, 75 minute movie. Unless they spent that 200 millon getting the world's hottest actresses together for the greatest lesbian orgy OF ALL TIME...the movie isn't gonna be good.
 
2013-05-13 03:09:40 AM  

GreenAdder: Beside that, zombies are boring. We're into this string now.


TINFINS!
 
2013-05-13 03:15:04 AM  
HA HA!

I knew zombies were completely ruined today when I saw an urban gangbanger, pants hanging around his knees, with a pin that said "I have a zombie survival plan."

Yep. All the social commentary and allegory is gone from the zombie genre, and it has been replaced with survivalist ideals, end-of-world fantasies, and "I get to kill people and not feel bad about it" types.

Another clue that it's over: Sporting goods stores sell a variety of gear marketed to the new crop of lower-I.Q. zombie fans; Targets, bullets, survival gear, etc.. The fans now are frat boys, rednecks, gangbangers, and conspiracy nuts who think it  just might happen (or wish it would).

I think these days, the message and meaning of the original Night of the Living Dead and Dawn of the Dead would go right over the heads of the bulk of new zombie fans who were turned on to the genre by the Zombie Survival Guide and WWZ... And it's not like Romero was subtle, either.

So for those keeping score, here's the list of classic monsters that have been destroyed by Hollywood and exploitative writers who "reinvented" them:

Vampires
Zombies/Ghouls
Ghosts
Werewolves
Golems (specifically flesh golems, i.e. Frankenstein's monster)
Slashers/psychos
Aliens (especially greys and body snatchers)
Mummies
Robots
Witches
Trolls/Goblins
Shapeshifters
Dinosaurs

Really, all that's left are amorphous blobs, giant insects, dragons, kaiju (although Hollywood almost ruined them), and mermen/gill men. I think demons and devils are still usable, too, but angels as monsters is overdone.

I suppose Hollywood could start working on movies about chimeras, cockatrice, baba yaga, and various elementals.

I'd love to see someone breathe life (haha) into the zombie genre, but at this point nobody's doing anything  smart. It's all the same gory survivalist shiat that uses the basic idea of undead humans, but misses the opportunity to position them as the force of nature/backdrop that brings out man's worst urges. Instead, they  glorify the idea that the end of the world is awesome because all your survival plans will be put to use.

The Walking Dead tries to keep the focus on the people, but too many mouth-breathing viewers get all pissy if they don't have a bunch of zombie kills every episode. How long before the show just becomes an endless stream of shallow zombie-gore and "fortify the encampment" scenes because the new breed of zombie fans don't like all that talking and drama?

Sigh. I'm cranky about this, and I'm certain it all goes back to the Zombie Survival Guide. By releasing that book, Max Brooks opened zombies to a whole new audience that didn't give a shiat about subtlety or subtext. Just like Anne Rice turned vampires into pretty fops, and the plethora of crappy ghost hunting shows turned ghosts into dumbed down jump-scare startlethons.

F♥ck it. The old movies are still around. I'll go watch something made before 1990, or re-read I Am Legend again.
 
2013-05-13 03:17:58 AM  

The All-Powerful Atheismo: GreenAdder: Beside that, zombies are boring. We're into this string now.

TINFINS!


Don't mess with Grizzlebees.

ZeroCorpse: I suppose Hollywood could start working on movies about chimeras, cockatrice, baba yaga, and various elementals.


I really think the next big trend will be Lovecraftian horrors. The groundwork has already been laid for that. And, of course, they'll eventually just be turned into squishy generic baddies with tentacles and fins - bullet targets for the wisecracking protagonist. Just like zombies.
 
2013-05-13 03:28:05 AM  

Clutch2013: karmachameleon: Still going to wait for actual reviews and, of course, my own viewing.  Production issues and bad press can result in movies like Waterworld and Ishtar.  They can also result in movies like Jaws and Star Wars.  You just can't tell until you see the damn thing for yourself.

That's fine, but this is a reportedly $200,000,000, 75 minute movie. Unless they spent that 200 millon getting the world's hottest actresses together for the greatest lesbian orgy OF ALL TIME...the movie isn't gonna be good.



Sounds weird, but the 75 minute runtime may help. They can squeeze in an extra showing per screen and sell a few more tickets opening weekend before the reviews come in.

Personally, I'll wait for it on Bluray or on demand. I can't see a point in shelling out 12 bucks a ticket for a 3D Walking Dead episode with about ten extra minutes.
 
2013-05-13 03:47:06 AM  

ZeroCorpse: I'd love to see someone breathe life (haha) into the zombie genre, but at this point nobody's doing anything smart. It's

...

Really? Hollywood and smart. Together?

It's become the biggest oxymoron in the history of oxymorons.

/oxymoron.
 
2013-05-13 03:48:36 AM  
img.pandawhale.com
 
2013-05-13 03:51:54 AM  
Battleship was farking awesome.   It didn't spend more than two minutes on the whole "romantic character development" angle, giving us enough for this...

patpoh.fooyoh.com

and this...

2.bp.blogspot.com

And then spent the remaining 98% of the movie on "shoot the aliens in the face with the 5" gun" awesome sauce.

geektyrant.com

That movie delivered, and you're a terrorist hugger if you disagree.

image.blingee.com
 
2013-05-13 04:08:13 AM  

ShawnDoc: Mentat: The moment Damon Lindelof is called in to fix the script, it's doomed.

I'm curious, how did he got from writing a few TV episodes to being given so many high profile scripts?

Cowboys vs Aliens - Big budget flop, that should have been good.
Prometheus - I don't think this flopped at the box office, but almost all the hate is directed at the script and how dumb the characters were.

And yet somehow he gets:
Star Trek Into Darkness (Huge budget/hype movie)
World War Z (Which looks like its going to be a huge flop)
Tomorrowland (Which is going to be a high budget Disney film starring Clooney)


"I need some characters to get lost in the alien structure, to show how dangerous the situation is.  I know, I'll pick the two guys with the mapping computer and the scanning drones."
 
2013-05-13 04:19:56 AM  
So farking bored of zombies I'd rather watch the House try to pass a binding resolution on chicklets.
 
2013-05-13 04:21:35 AM  

Notabunny: fta It would just be nice to see a little more understanding among the media and Wall Street analysts, to recognize that just because a film has problems during the process of production, that doesn't mean it's doomed.

In the future, you may also want to consider the opinions of your potential audience.

]

Who gives a f*ck about THEM? It's not like they've got anything to do with our projections or analyses of how good the movie's going to do!
 
2013-05-13 04:22:23 AM  

Rent Party: Battleship was farking awesome


Call an ambulance, RentPary is delirious!
 
2013-05-13 04:27:11 AM  

ZeroCorpse: Yep. All the social commentary and allegory is gone from the zombie genre, and it has been replaced with survivalist ideals, end-of-world fantasies, and "I get to kill people and not feel bad about it" types.


What social commentary and allegory?!

The appeal of zombie movies have ALWAYS revolved around Tower Defense-style survival plans. They've never not been about the fantasy of taking out as many mooks as possible before they overwhelm you.
 
2013-05-13 04:47:30 AM  

doglover: John Carter was a good movie, given the press. The problem was the title.

It had bigger problems than the title.

1. The absolute lack of connection between it and the world Edgar Rice Burroughs created.
2. It was all setup for a sequel that will now never happen.
3. The focus group cobbled together ending.
4. The epic lack of epicness, it felt like it happened in one weekend.

If you can ignore all that it's not a terrible way to kill a couple hours, but then again you have a computer, google some porn, except if you're in a public library.. they frown on whipping it out and gumming up the keyboard.

 
2013-05-13 04:57:58 AM  

ShawnDoc: doglover: John Carter was a good movie, given the press.

No, no it wasn't.   It was a long drawn out movie about a guy who can jump far and had an alien dog for a pet.

I went into the movie wanting to like it, and thinking the critics just had a bug up their ass.  I was wrong, they were right.


Jump Good was the basis for a pretty good Samurai Jack episode.
 
2013-05-13 04:59:10 AM  
World War Z is going to kill big budget zombie films for the next decade at the very least. On one hand that makes me sad, on the other even as a Zombie fan they sorta need a break.

There is just so much about this movie they seemed to have changed just for the sake of changing. The fast zombie, the 12 seconds to becoming a zombie, the fact it takes place over 2 days rather than a decade.

If they had just stuck with Todd Wainio's story from the book, mention what else is going on in the world through the movie (i.e. a radio mentions the Air Force chick being rescued from the swamp, or a paper blows by with a head line about African rabies) it would have been a great adaptation. Use some external media, maybe an AR site to explore some of the other stories of WWZ, I don't know.

It's just so much wasted potential in favor of Brad Pitt masturbating over himself and Lindelof ruining something that could have been great, once again.
 
2013-05-13 04:59:39 AM  
This movie is getting bad press because of the god awful CGI, no other reason! It looks extremely bad and no amount of gloss is going to make that "ants crossing a stream" BS leave the public mind any time soon. These is going to be just as shiat awful as I Am Legend, no matter how good the script is. Zombies are just about the easiest damn thing for a special effects artist to do, why would you famr out something so effective for shiatty VFX?
 
2013-05-13 05:03:21 AM  

Evi1Bo1weevi1: This movie is getting bad press because of the god awful CGI, no other reason! It looks extremely bad and no amount of gloss is going to make that "ants crossing a stream" BS leave the public mind any time soon. These is going to be just as shiat awful as I Am Legend, no matter how good the script is. Zombies are just about the easiest damn thing for a special effects artist to do, why would you famr out something so effective for shiatty VFX?


The scri
 
2013-05-13 05:04:26 AM  

Raw_fishFood: Evi1Bo1weevi1: This movie is getting bad press because of the god awful CGI, no other reason! It looks extremely bad and no amount of gloss is going to make that "ants crossing a stream" BS leave the public mind any time soon. These is going to be just as shiat awful as I Am Legend, no matter how good the script is. Zombies are just about the easiest damn thing for a special effects artist to do, why would you famr out something so effective for shiatty VFX?

The scri


Pardon, posted that a little prematurely.

Anyways, the script is going to be horrible. There will be nothing redeeming about this movie. Absolutely nothing.
 
2013-05-13 05:08:39 AM  

Lith: It had bigger problems than the title.

1. The absolute lack of connection between it and the world Edgar Rice Burroughs created.
2. It was all setup for a sequel that will now never happen.
3. The focus group cobbled together ending.
4. The epic lack of epicness, it felt like it happened in one weekend.


John Carter's powers were inconsistent as all hell. Sometimes he can jump so high, and other times he can leap across entire cities. He's strong enough to waste hordes of enemy combatants Tower Defense-style, yet he keeps getting captured and thrown in prison. If he's that powerful, why does he do anything for anyone? What predicament is too much for him? Simply tell everyone to fark off and bound away. But no, the movie couldn't decide if he was Golden Age Superman, Silver Age Superman, Platinum Age Superman, or just the Hulk.
 
2013-05-13 05:12:30 AM  

Ishkur: ZeroCorpse: Yep. All the social commentary and allegory is gone from the zombie genre, and it has been replaced with survivalist ideals, end-of-world fantasies, and "I get to kill people and not feel bad about it" types.

What social commentary and allegory?!

The appeal of zombie movies have ALWAYS revolved around Tower Defense-style survival plans. They've never not been about the fantasy of taking out as many mooks as possible before they overwhelm you.



Night of The Living Dead had an underlying theme of race relations, as it was one of the first horror movies where the hero was black, and he still died.

Dawn of The Dead had social commentary of the growing mass consumerism of America. The zombies were always in that mall, even before the ones that ate people's brains started showing up. Land of the Dead critiqued corporatism as the elite thought the walls would always protect them from the riffraff. Until the zombies showed up.

At least in the Romero films, there was always some kind of social commentary.
 
2013-05-13 05:27:17 AM  
John Carter was a fantastic film.  Highly recommend reading to learn about just how big a cluster-eff that marketing campaign was:

i.imgur.com
 
2013-05-13 06:30:35 AM  
"Titanic" got a ton of bad buzz before it came out, too. Just saying.
 
2013-05-13 06:37:47 AM  

Nabb1: "Titanic" got a ton of bad buzz before it came out, too. Just saying.


That seemed kind of manufactured in the wake of Waterworld.

In every one of Cameron's films since the Abyss, there were 3 constants. 1.The budget would skyrocket, 2. The shoot would take far longer than expected, and 3. Cameron's reputation as one of cinema's biggest assholes would come out and make headlines. No one should have been surprised that Titanic was having issues.

People have been waiting for one of his movies to pull a Heaven's Gate, but so far, it just hasn't happened.
 
2013-05-13 06:42:45 AM  
John Carter was a GREAT movie. Just had some of the worst marketing I've ever seen...
 
2013-05-13 06:55:54 AM  
Fleeing the Zombies in Africa.
encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com
If only there was a plan ,a guide of some sort...a book to follow.
 
2013-05-13 07:14:58 AM  

doglover: Rent Party: Battleship was farking awesome

Call an ambulance, RentPary is delirious!


Could have been popcorn awesome.

/so when do the rights revert back for HBO/Starz/A&E/TLC/FX to do a proper miniseries?
 
2013-05-13 07:15:09 AM  

stoli n coke: Nabb1: "Titanic" got a ton of bad buzz before it came out, too. Just saying.

That seemed kind of manufactured in the wake of Waterworld.

In every one of Cameron's films since the Abyss, there were 3 constants. 1.The budget would skyrocket, 2. The shoot would take far longer than expected, and 3. Cameron's reputation as one of cinema's biggest assholes would come out and make headlines. No one should have been surprised that Titanic was having issues.

People have been waiting for one of his movies to pull a Heaven's Gate, but so far, it just hasn't happened.


Avatar II is coming....
 
2013-05-13 07:25:41 AM  

OtherLittleGuy: Could have been popcorn awesome.


If it had been a better movie...
 
2013-05-13 07:25:56 AM  
Wait, Lindelhof wrote the new Trek movie? There goes any chance of me paying out a single replicator credit to see that crap.
 
2013-05-13 07:46:15 AM  

timujin: Thing is, I enjoyed both of those.  They weren't great cinematic masterpieces, but they were fun popcorn flicks.  I also liked other bombs, like Howard the Duck, Ishtar and Waterworld, but I guess that just makes me weird.


Ironman 3 is a fun popcorn filck. Battleship was an insult to the intelligence of every person in the theater.
 
2013-05-13 08:03:24 AM  

Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: More like World War Zzzz, am I right!?


This, ladies and gentlemen, is what we call "low hanging fruit."
 
2013-05-13 08:05:57 AM  
Didnt really care for Iron Man 3. Tried to like it, I really did. Kingsley steals the movie.
 
2013-05-13 08:12:52 AM  

Clutch2013: That's fine, but this is a reportedly $200,000,000, 75 minute movie. Unless they spent that 200 millon getting the world's hottest actresses together for the greatest lesbian orgy OF ALL TIME...the movie isn't gonna be good.


For only 75 minutes, do they discount the tickets?  Sure, longer movies don't cost more, and quantity doesn't necessarily mean quality.  But geez.  That's too damn short.
 
2013-05-13 08:25:29 AM  
I just find it mind boggling that Brad Pitt would bankroll this movie because he loved the book, and then blow all that money making a movie that is completely unlike the book.

On the plus side I guess this means somebody will be able to make a movie that is actually like the book.
 
2013-05-13 08:28:13 AM  
Meh, I still want to see it.
 
2013-05-13 08:33:09 AM  
I liked John Carter and Battleship.  The former gets a bad wrap, the latter was clearly the equivalent of junk food but a little of that is ok now and then.
 
2013-05-13 08:38:09 AM  
The unabridged audiobook gets released tomorrow.

/literally just preordered before I came to Fark
//did the ol' free audiobook, support my favorite podcast thing
//not a shill for Audible
 
2013-05-13 08:43:55 AM  
Maybe I'm alone, but I hated the book.  Basically, EVERYONE in that story is too stupid or oblivious to the obvious, and no one is smart enough to take care of it from the start.  Then, when it's a problem, people are STILL stupid and don't do the easy and OBVIOUS things to get rid of the zombies.

Sorry, can't stand continuing stupidity.
 
2013-05-13 08:53:58 AM  

Rent Party: Battleship was farking awesome.   It didn't spend more than two minutes on the whole "romantic character development" angle, giving us enough for this...

[patpoh.fooyoh.com image 600x250]

and this...

[2.bp.blogspot.com image 400x355]

And then spent the remaining 98% of the movie on "shoot the aliens in the face with the 5" gun" awesome sauce.

[geektyrant.com image 850x358]

That movie delivered, and you're a terrorist hugger if you disagree.

[image.blingee.com image 358x317]


But But But....

Hand-break turning....
A Battleship.....
On an ANCHOR!

(Just one of many issues)

/Brain Still Hurts
//So does Physics!
 
2013-05-13 08:57:50 AM  

karmachameleon: Still going to wait for actual reviews and, of course, my own viewing.  Production issues and bad press can result in movies like Waterworld and Ishtar.  They can also result in movies like Jaws and Star Wars.  You just can't tell until you see the damn thing for yourself.


Hollywood thrives on that attitude. It doesn't matter if a film is good or bad, as long as you're willing to fork over the dough to see it.
 
2013-05-13 09:00:58 AM  

ZeroCorpse: Really, all that's left are amorphous blobs, giant insects, dragons, kaiju (although Hollywood almost ruined them), and mermen/gill men. I think demons and devils are still usable, too, but angels as monsters is overdone.


You ROONED IT!
 
2013-05-13 09:01:51 AM  
25.media.tumblr.com\\

/that's what I get for not previewing.
 
2013-05-13 09:02:46 AM  

bborchar: Maybe I'm alone, but I hated the book.  Basically, EVERYONE in that story is too stupid or oblivious to the obvious, and no one is smart enough to take care of it from the start.  Then, when it's a problem, people are STILL stupid and don't do the easy and OBVIOUS things to get rid of the zombies.

Sorry, can't stand continuing stupidity.


That's what made it realistic.
 
2013-05-13 09:06:58 AM  

Gosling: So basically you're going to be the guinea pig for everyone else? I salute you, you brave soul.


Oh no, don't get me wrong - I'll let the critics do that!  :-)

Clutch2013: That's fine, but this is a reportedly $200,000,000, 75 minute movie. Unless they spent that 200 millon getting the world's hottest actresses together for the greatest lesbian orgy OF ALL TIME...the movie isn't gonna be good.


I concede it doesn't sound promising so far.
 
2013-05-13 09:09:07 AM  
I loved the book so much that the percieved amount of bastardization of the content makes me want to watch the movie in no way that allows for positive marketing info getting back to the studio.  I know I will watch it... I must watch the trainwreck... does anyone know how pirates go about that in these day and age.

/usually very anti-pirate.
 
2013-05-13 09:24:31 AM  
only a 75 min movie? are we sure about that? 200 million on 75 mins?
come on! at least a 120 min movie.
 
2013-05-13 09:26:03 AM  

bborchar: Maybe I'm alone, but I hated the book.  Basically, EVERYONE in that story is too stupid or oblivious to the obvious, and no one is smart enough to take care of it from the start.  Then, when it's a problem, people are STILL stupid and don't do the easy and OBVIOUS things to get rid of the zombies.

Sorry, can't stand continuing stupidity.


For me it's the fact that the author doesn't seem to understand how 5,000 lb bombs, depleted uranium shells, or Hellfire missiles work. There's nothing left to get up when you strike zombies with those. The Battle of Yonkers would've been over in a few hours, with the humans winning.

There are plenty of other good parts in the book, though.
 
2013-05-13 09:36:30 AM  

verbaltoxin: bborchar: Maybe I'm alone, but I hated the book.  Basically, EVERYONE in that story is too stupid or oblivious to the obvious, and no one is smart enough to take care of it from the start.  Then, when it's a problem, people are STILL stupid and don't do the easy and OBVIOUS things to get rid of the zombies.

Sorry, can't stand continuing stupidity.

For me it's the fact that the author doesn't seem to understand how 5,000 lb bombs, depleted uranium shells, or Hellfire missiles work. There's nothing left to get up when you strike zombies with those. The Battle of Yonkers would've been over in a few hours, with the humans winning.

There are plenty of other good parts in the book, though.


Yeah, it isn't like the zombies use tactics or take cover, they're an Air Force pilot's wet dream.  A few FAEs or some white phosphorus would have absolutely destroyed them.  The book made a point of saying that the bodies kept decaying, and could be damaged.  I don't care how little pain they feel, all the skin and muscle burned off the bodies, or every bone smashed to bits means that the zombies won't be moving anywhere.  The Battle of Yonkers would have consisted of the Air Force dropping a shiat ton of ordinance, some arty units firing off their M777s, and then the grunts getting up in a line and walking through the mass of wrecked zombies, putting a round into every head they could find.
 
2013-05-13 09:43:51 AM  
So... I have an idea for the worst possible movie...

Zombis on Mars.

Crap, that might make a good album title, actually.
 
2013-05-13 09:50:59 AM  

ShawnDoc: doglover: Better than any Transformers flick.

Stepping barefoot on warm dog shiat is better than any Transformers movie.


upload.wikimedia.org

You shut your whore mouth!
 
2013-05-13 10:01:08 AM  

wildcardjack: So... I have an idea for the worst possible movie...

Zombis on Mars.

Crap, that might make a good album title, actually.


Ghosts of Mars.  Study it up.

/close enough
 
2013-05-13 10:07:33 AM  
I paid too much attention to the critics.  When John Carter of Mars and then Battleship came on Starz, both times I watched "just to see how bad it could be."  And it turns out neither of them were really all that bad.

John Carter was closer to the book than I honestly expected it to be, and certainly closer in spirit than many adaptations I've seen heralded as "most faithful evar!"  Going into it, I was sure they would have completely crapped all over the source material, but aside from the limitations of transferring from the page to the silver screen, I thought the majority of key elements made it intact.  ERB's works are typically abused beyond recognition, but in this case I think they did a decent job.

Battleship KNEW it was only going to succeed if it was a little campy, and so it played it the only way there was to play it.  And despite being a movie about a board game that involves putting pegs in plastic ships, it actually managed to be a fun little show.  Decent graphics.  Actors who didn't take themselves seriously while managing to play characters taking themselves TOO seriously.  Overall, I thought they did a decent job with the material and premise they were given.

Critics can suck balls.  I'm going to start using negative reviews to decide which movies to see.
 
2013-05-13 10:08:18 AM  
The people ripping 'John Carter' either had over-blown expectations or didn't see the movie.

It was by no means terrible/awful/full of suck.

It *was* a nice little adventure story that really should have been turned into a trilogy.

I Disney hyped it so much that people were expecting 'Star Wars' and it wasn't that type of movie.
 
2013-05-13 10:08:36 AM  

Freakin Rican: only a 75 min movie? are we sure about that? 200 million on 75 mins?
come on! at least a 120 min movie.


That's the really bad sign, because with 200 million they have to have more then 75 minutes of footage, so mass amounts must have ended up on the cutting room floor.  If they can't string together more than 75 minutes, it means shooting likely did not go well.
 
2013-05-13 10:11:45 AM  

tillerman35: I paid too much attention to the critics.  When John Carter of Mars and then Battleship came on Starz, both times I watched "just to see how bad it could be."  And it turns out neither of them were really all that bad.

John Carter was closer to the book than I honestly expected it to be, and certainly closer in spirit than many adaptations I've seen heralded as "most faithful evar!"  Going into it, I was sure they would have completely crapped all over the source material, but aside from the limitations of transferring from the page to the silver screen, I thought the majority of key elements made it intact.  ERB's works are typically abused beyond recognition, but in this case I think they did a decent job.

Battleship KNEW it was only going to succeed if it was a little campy, and so it played it the only way there was to play it.  And despite being a movie about a board game that involves putting pegs in plastic ships, it actually managed to be a fun little show.  Decent graphics.  Actors who didn't take themselves seriously while managing to play characters taking themselves TOO seriously.  Overall, I thought they did a decent job with the material and premise they were given.

Critics can suck balls.  I'm going to start using negative reviews to decide which movies to see.


Armond White will show you the way.
 
2013-05-13 10:13:56 AM  

Notabunny: Perhaps now they can make the book into a movie


Seconded.

The book was almost like "The Things They Carried" for the zombie apocalypse.  It was full of cool little vignettes and reflections on how much society has changed because of it.  The movie looks like: "Ooohh, zombies!  They can attack!  Let's fortify and fight back!"  Essentially in the book we "lost" and it was about the aftermath of that.
 
2013-05-13 10:15:26 AM  

ha-ha-guy: Freakin Rican: only a 75 min movie? are we sure about that? 200 million on 75 mins?
come on! at least a 120 min movie.

That's the really bad sign, because with 200 million they have to have more then 75 minutes of footage, so mass amounts must have ended up on the cutting room floor.  If they can't string together more than 75 minutes, it means shooting likely did not go well.


thats just unbelievable. how can we really explain it all and have good action in 75 mins? like you said alot must be on the floor but i just dont get what we will see in 75 mins. i dont know im just at a loss for words right now. i was hoping for something decent. i read the book and love zombie flicks. i knew it wasnt going to be like the book but was hoping for something good to watch. now im just like ah whatever. my and my kids were waiting to go see it since we all read the book but maybe we will just watch a crappy cam copy online. having brad pitt run around the movie the whole time isnt gonna save the movie. its not a love story or chic flick where woman are gonna line up to watch it. oh well it isnt my 200 million
 
2013-05-13 10:19:54 AM  
I loved Battleship.
 
2013-05-13 10:22:14 AM  

Ned Stark: I loved Battleship.


I loved American Battleships.
 
2013-05-13 10:30:16 AM  

Saiga410: Ned Stark: I loved Battleship.

I loved American Battleships.


I loved American Graffiti
 
2013-05-13 10:33:44 AM  

RyansPrivates: Notabunny: Perhaps now they can make the book into a movie

Seconded.

The book was almost like "The Things They Carried" for the zombie apocalypse.  It was full of cool little vignettes and reflections on how much society has changed because of it.  The movie looks like: "Ooohh, zombies!  They can attack!  Let's fortify and fight back!"  Essentially in the book we "lost" and it was about the aftermath of that.


And that's why I won't see the movie. The book was well-done, and the very things that made the book a success - the vignette approach, the human interest, the post-apocalypse efforts to rebuilt - are simply not present in the movie, at least from what folks have been saying with regards to the re-re-re-rewriting and the re-refilming.
 
2013-05-13 10:33:45 AM  

wildcardjack: So... I have an idea for the worst possible movie...

Zombis on Mars.

Crap, that might make a good album title, actually.


They already did Ghosts of Mars with some somewhat zombie like baddies.

(Yes, it was bad)
 
2013-05-13 10:56:51 AM  

devildog123: verbaltoxin: bborchar: Maybe I'm alone, but I hated the book.  Basically, EVERYONE in that story is too stupid or oblivious to the obvious, and no one is smart enough to take care of it from the start.  Then, when it's a problem, people are STILL stupid and don't do the easy and OBVIOUS things to get rid of the zombies.

Sorry, can't stand continuing stupidity.

For me it's the fact that the author doesn't seem to understand how 5,000 lb bombs, depleted uranium shells, or Hellfire missiles work. There's nothing left to get up when you strike zombies with those. The Battle of Yonkers would've been over in a few hours, with the humans winning.

There are plenty of other good parts in the book, though.

Yeah, it isn't like the zombies use tactics or take cover, they're an Air Force pilot's wet dream.  A few FAEs or some white phosphorus would have absolutely destroyed them.  The book made a point of saying that the bodies kept decaying, and could be damaged.  I don't care how little pain they feel, all the skin and muscle burned off the bodies, or every bone smashed to bits means that the zombies won't be moving anywhere.  The Battle of Yonkers would have consisted of the Air Force dropping a shiat ton of ordinance, some arty units firing off their M777s, and then the grunts getting up in a line and walking through the mass of wrecked zombies, putting a round into every head they could find.


But that wouldn't have fit the author's ideological perspective.  Still a great book.

Slow-moving zombies simply aren't a threat.  Entertainment that uses them usually has to take great liberties with reality, as Brooks did, or skip ahead to the apocalypse part and not show the actual takeover.  Because trying to depict that society would end when faced with slow-moving humans with no motor controls, limited intelligence, and no capacity for organization is problematic.
 
2013-05-13 10:58:40 AM  

ZeroCorpse: HA HA!

I knew zombies were completely ruined today when I saw an urban gangbanger, pants hanging around his knees, with a pin that said "I have a zombie survival plan."

Yep. All the social commentary and allegory is gone from the zombie genre, and it has been replaced with survivalist ideals, end-of-world fantasies, and "I get to kill people and not feel bad about it" types.

Another clue that it's over: Sporting goods stores sell a variety of gear marketed to the new crop of lower-I.Q. zombie fans; Targets, bullets, survival gear, etc.. The fans now are frat boys, rednecks, gangbangers, and conspiracy nuts who think it  just might happen (or wish it would) ...


Lower IQ zombie fans...oh my god, so much this. farking fratboys and rednecks. I don't know how many pick-ups with a rifle rack in the back window and a "Zombie Hunting Team" (or whatever) bumper sticker I've seen... Mega eye roll. I saw one in Lincoln, Nebraska with like four or five zombie apocalypse-themed bumper stickers.

Mainstream zombie fiction is DEAD TO ME
 
2013-05-13 11:20:08 AM  

RyansPrivates: Saiga410: Ned Stark: I loved Battleship.

I loved American Battleships.

I loved American Graffiti


I loved Physical Graffiti
 
2013-05-13 11:20:09 AM  

FLMountainMan: devildog123: verbaltoxin: bborchar: Maybe I'm alone, but I hated the book.  Basically, EVERYONE in that story is too stupid or oblivious to the obvious, and no one is smart enough to take care of it from the start.  Then, when it's a problem, people are STILL stupid and don't do the easy and OBVIOUS things to get rid of the zombies.

Sorry, can't stand continuing stupidity.

For me it's the fact that the author doesn't seem to understand how 5,000 lb bombs, depleted uranium shells, or Hellfire missiles work. There's nothing left to get up when you strike zombies with those. The Battle of Yonkers would've been over in a few hours, with the humans winning.

There are plenty of other good parts in the book, though.

Yeah, it isn't like the zombies use tactics or take cover, they're an Air Force pilot's wet dream.  A few FAEs or some white phosphorus would have absolutely destroyed them.  The book made a point of saying that the bodies kept decaying, and could be damaged.  I don't care how little pain they feel, all the skin and muscle burned off the bodies, or every bone smashed to bits means that the zombies won't be moving anywhere.  The Battle of Yonkers would have consisted of the Air Force dropping a shiat ton of ordinance, some arty units firing off their M777s, and then the grunts getting up in a line and walking through the mass of wrecked zombies, putting a round into every head they could find.

But that wouldn't have fit the author's ideological perspective.  Still a great book.

Slow-moving zombies simply aren't a threat.  Entertainment that uses them usually has to take great liberties with reality, as Brooks did, or skip ahead to the apocalypse part and not show the actual takeover.  Because trying to depict that society would end when faced with slow-moving humans with no motor controls, limited intelligence, and no capacity for organization is problematic.


Yup.  People are stupid, in general- but not stupid enough to see a slow-moving corpse walking towards them and not try every single thing they can to destroy that mother f***er.  But the author is trying to force his square point in a round story.  It just doesn't fit.
 
2013-05-13 11:21:44 AM  
Wait, Damon Lindelof is a part of this movie? Then you just know it's going to be a steaming pile of dog shiat.
 
2013-05-13 11:26:38 AM  

Nabb1: "Titanic" got a ton of bad buzz before it came out, too. Just saying.


They said it was going to "sink", not "stink".  Careful reading, son.
 
2013-05-13 11:28:52 AM  
I somehow missed ever hearing about John Carter until I ended up discovering it on an inflight movie list.  I thought it was decent.  I don't know how it was marketed or financed or how they may have butchered any source material, but the end movie was all right.

Even if I knew nothing about WWZ, the CGI effects shot alone, of a zombie wave, makes me think the movie will be shiat.
 
2013-05-13 11:31:00 AM  

ShawnDoc: Mentat: The moment Damon Lindelof is called in to fix the script, it's doomed.

I'm curious, how did he got from writing a few TV episodes to being given so many high profile scripts?

Cowboys vs Aliens - Big budget flop, that should have been good.
Prometheus - I don't think this flopped at the box office, but almost all the hate is directed at the script and how dumb the characters were.

And yet somehow he gets:
Star Trek Into Darkness (Huge budget/hype movie)
World War Z (Which looks like its going to be a huge flop)
Tomorrowland (Which is going to be a high budget Disney film starring Clooney)


Classic "It's not what you know, (or your talent or skill ,apparently), but who you know,"  I'm guessing.
 
2013-05-13 11:41:37 AM  

BizarreMan: RyansPrivates: Saiga410: Ned Stark: I loved Battleship.

I loved American Battleships.

I loved American Graffiti

I loved Physical Graffiti


I loved Physical Education
 
2013-05-13 11:52:20 AM  

ZeroCorpse: I think these days, the message and meaning of the original Night of the Living Dead and Dawn of the Dead would go right over the heads of the bulk of new zombie fans who were turned on to the genre by the Zombie Survival Guide and WWZ... And it's not like Romero was subtle, either.


I love Night of the Living Dead and Dawn of the Dead.  But judging by Romeros recent Dead movies, I am basically at the point of thinking any commentary and social meaning were accidental.
 
2013-05-13 11:53:11 AM  

Bane of Broone: doglover: ShawnDoc: doglover: John Carter was a good movie, given the press.

No, no it wasn't.   It was a long drawn out movie about a guy who can jump far and had an alien dog for a pet.

I went into the movie wanting to like it, and thinking the critics just had a bug up their ass.  I was wrong, they were right.

Better than any Transformers flick.

I'd rather catch crabs than AIDS, but it doesn't mean I'd enjoy it.


Go on...
 
2013-05-13 12:02:49 PM  

manimal2878: ShawnDoc: Mentat: The moment Damon Lindelof is called in to fix the script, it's doomed.

I'm curious, how did he got from writing a few TV episodes to being given so many high profile scripts?

Cowboys vs Aliens - Big budget flop, that should have been good.
Prometheus - I don't think this flopped at the box office, but almost all the hate is directed at the script and how dumb the characters were.

And yet somehow he gets:
Star Trek Into Darkness (Huge budget/hype movie)
World War Z (Which looks like its going to be a huge flop)
Tomorrowland (Which is going to be a high budget Disney film starring Clooney)

Classic "It's not what you know, (or your talent or skill ,apparently), but who you know,"  I'm guessing.


I'm guessing it's because he's linked to J.J. Abrams.
 
2013-05-13 12:05:15 PM  

devildog123: verbaltoxin: bborchar: Maybe I'm alone, but I hated the book.  Basically, EVERYONE in that story is too stupid or oblivious to the obvious, and no one is smart enough to take care of it from the start.  Then, when it's a problem, people are STILL stupid and don't do the easy and OBVIOUS things to get rid of the zombies.

Sorry, can't stand continuing stupidity.

For me it's the fact that the author doesn't seem to understand how 5,000 lb bombs, depleted uranium shells, or Hellfire missiles work. There's nothing left to get up when you strike zombies with those. The Battle of Yonkers would've been over in a few hours, with the humans winning.

There are plenty of other good parts in the book, though.

Yeah, it isn't like the zombies use tactics or take cover, they're an Air Force pilot's wet dream.  A few FAEs or some white phosphorus would have absolutely destroyed them.  The book made a point of saying that the bodies kept decaying, and could be damaged.  I don't care how little pain they feel, all the skin and muscle burned off the bodies, or every bone smashed to bits means that the zombies won't be moving anywhere.  The Battle of Yonkers would have consisted of the Air Force dropping a shiat ton of ordinance, some arty units firing off their M777s, and then the grunts getting up in a line and walking through the mass of wrecked zombies, putting a round into every head they could find.


I think you, and many people who point out things like the above, seem to forget is that the failure wasn't one of military might in that battle, it was one of the soldiers and military industrial complex being so arrogant about how extremely easy it was going to be, they could have easily annihilated the zombie hoard, had they planned to just do so, but instead it was set up as a media circus that went wrong, and new technology was implemented in disastrous ways just to show it off that ended up causing panic and such.  The point isn't that the Zombies were invincible to conventional tactics, the point is that the military and media are arrogant and that caused the battle to be lost.
 
2013-05-13 12:09:39 PM  
When the first trailers came out, people were making jokes that the movie was going to be about the world's wildest orgy.  I'm still kind of hoping that will turn out to be true.
 
2013-05-13 12:12:56 PM  

Mad_Radhu: ShawnDoc: doglover: John Carter was a good movie, given the press.

No, no it wasn't.   It was a long drawn out movie about a guy who can jump far and had an alien dog for a pet.

I went into the movie wanting to like it, and thinking the critics just had a bug up their ass.  I was wrong, they were right.

An alien dog that looked like a penis with legs.

I saw it on Starz, and it was a bit of a mess. They didn't even try to make Mars not look like Utah, and the setup was way too long. Hell, even Bryan Cranston's awesomeness was wasted.


I've never seen the movie so I didn't know what the "dog" looked like but that description is pretty spot on.
 
2013-05-13 12:14:40 PM  
I saw John Carter last week.  Was surprisingly decent, actually.
 
2013-05-13 12:18:12 PM  
Holy smokes there appears to be a ton of studio shills in the comment section over at DH.  Gave up reading them.

I can't believe how stupid the studios are when they go ahead and start shooting a film without an ending.  Pretty expensive term paper mentality...
 
2013-05-13 12:22:53 PM  

ZeroCorpse: Words


This, ladies and gentlemen, is a man who masturbates to his own smugness.
 
2013-05-13 12:27:39 PM  

ShawnDoc: Mentat: The moment Damon Lindelof is called in to fix the script, it's doomed.

I'm curious, how did he got from writing a few TV episodes to being given so many high profile scripts?

Cowboys vs Aliens - Big budget flop, that should have been good.
Prometheus - I don't think this flopped at the box office, but almost all the hate is directed at the script and how dumb the characters were.

And yet somehow he gets:
Star Trek Into Darkness (Huge budget/hype movie)
World War Z (Which looks like its going to be a huge flop)
Tomorrowland (Which is going to be a high budget Disney film starring Clooney)


I'm fascinated by Hollywood's ability to repeat history.  As in:  get big name actors for a movie yet forget that you need a story that people will follow for the movie with big name actors to make money.  Then when said movie bombs, execs wonder "WHOA HOPPENED?!"; then decline to retrace the steps fearing that their name will come up as to why the movie bombed.
 
2013-05-13 12:28:30 PM  

ShawnDoc: Tomorrowland (Which is going to be a high budget Disney film starring Clooney)


Wait, what? Disney has moved beyond making movies based on single rides and now is making movies based on whole sections of the park??
 
2013-05-13 12:31:54 PM  

Carousel Beast: ShawnDoc: doglover: Better than any Transformers flick.

Stepping barefoot on warm dog shiat is better than any Transformers movie.

[upload.wikimedia.org image 215x328]

You shut your whore mouth!


Yeah, Michael Bay Transformers movies: bad.  "Transformers: The Movie": awesome.
 
2013-05-13 12:34:25 PM  
We all know if will be bad because Brad Pitt's daughter turns to the camera and says, "Daddy, what's martial law?"   That is Razzie worthy alone.
 
2013-05-13 12:39:48 PM  

Carousel Beast: ShawnDoc: doglover: Better than any Transformers flick.

Stepping barefoot on warm dog shiat is better than any Transformers movie.

[upload.wikimedia.org image 215x328]

You shut your whore mouth!


Sorry.  Any live-action Transformers movie.
 
2013-05-13 12:48:25 PM  

Big Beef Burrito: BizarreMan: RyansPrivates: Saiga410: Ned Stark: I loved Battleship.

I loved American Battleships.

I loved American Graffiti

I loved Physical Graffiti

I loved Physical Education


I loved Rocky Road.
 
2013-05-13 12:59:07 PM  

ShawnDoc: Carousel Beast: ShawnDoc: doglover: Better than any Transformers flick.

Stepping barefoot on warm dog shiat is better than any Transformers movie.

[upload.wikimedia.org image 215x328]

You shut your whore mouth!

Sorry.  Any live-action Transformers movie.


Oh, well then sure :)
 
2013-05-13 01:00:26 PM  

Rwa2play: ShawnDoc: Mentat: The moment Damon Lindelof is called in to fix the script, it's doomed.

I'm curious, how did he got from writing a few TV episodes to being given so many high profile scripts?

Cowboys vs Aliens - Big budget flop, that should have been good.
Prometheus - I don't think this flopped at the box office, but almost all the hate is directed at the script and how dumb the characters were.

And yet somehow he gets:
Star Trek Into Darkness (Huge budget/hype movie)
World War Z (Which looks like its going to be a huge flop)
Tomorrowland (Which is going to be a high budget Disney film starring Clooney)

I'm fascinated by Hollywood's ability to repeat history.  As in:  get big name actors for a movie yet forget that you need a story that people will follow for the movie with big name actors to make money.  Then when said movie bombs, execs wonder "WHOA HOPPENED?!"; then decline to retrace the steps fearing that their name will come up as to why the movie bombed.


I wonder how much of it has to do with the number of people that pocket money whether the movie is a flop or not.  Isn't there canard about there being no movie that is "profitable" the way Hollywood does their financing?
 
2013-05-13 01:12:45 PM  

ha-ha-guy: Freakin Rican: only a 75 min movie? are we sure about that? 200 million on 75 mins?
come on! at least a 120 min movie.

That's the really bad sign, because with 200 million they have to have more then 75 minutes of footage, so mass amounts must have ended up on the cutting room floor.  If they can't string together more than 75 minutes, it means shooting likely did not go well.


Is there a source for this? I can't believe the movie is only 75 minutes. I heard the reshoots added like 35-40 minutes to the movie, and that would make it half the film.

I expect the film to be 2+ hours.
 
2013-05-13 01:16:39 PM  

manimal2878: devildog123: verbaltoxin: bborchar: Maybe I'm alone, but I hated the book.  Basically, EVERYONE in that story is too stupid or oblivious to the obvious, and no one is smart enough to take care of it from the start.  Then, when it's a problem, people are STILL stupid and don't do the easy and OBVIOUS things to get rid of the zombies.

Sorry, can't stand continuing stupidity.

For me it's the fact that the author doesn't seem to understand how 5,000 lb bombs, depleted uranium shells, or Hellfire missiles work. There's nothing left to get up when you strike zombies with those. The Battle of Yonkers would've been over in a few hours, with the humans winning.

There are plenty of other good parts in the book, though.

Yeah, it isn't like the zombies use tactics or take cover, they're an Air Force pilot's wet dream.  A few FAEs or some white phosphorus would have absolutely destroyed them.  The book made a point of saying that the bodies kept decaying, and could be damaged.  I don't care how little pain they feel, all the skin and muscle burned off the bodies, or every bone smashed to bits means that the zombies won't be moving anywhere.  The Battle of Yonkers would have consisted of the Air Force dropping a shiat ton of ordinance, some arty units firing off their M777s, and then the grunts getting up in a line and walking through the mass of wrecked zombies, putting a round into every head they could find.

I think you, and many people who point out things like the above, seem to forget is that the failure wasn't one of military might in that battle, it was one of the soldiers and military industrial complex being so arrogant about how extremely easy it was going to be, they could have easily annihilated the zombie hoard, had they planned to just do so, but instead it was set up as a media circus that went wrong, and new technology was implemented in disastrous ways just to show it off that ended up causing panic and such.  The point isn't that the Zombies were invincibl ...


No, not really.  Reread the book.
 
2013-05-13 01:17:52 PM  
I'll still see the hell out of it, granted probably by myself... Loved the book... The movie looks different, but still better than most anything else that passes for zombie related, these days.
 
2013-05-13 01:24:45 PM  

manimal2878: I wonder how much of it has to do with the number of people that pocket money whether the movie is a flop or not.  Isn't there canard about there being no movie that is "profitable" the way Hollywood does their financing?


If that were the case then Hollywood would stop making movies unless they were guaranteed to be profitable OR double ticket prices.
 
2013-05-13 01:26:10 PM  
Good. Hopefully its being terrible will kill off all this zombie nonsense and people will be forced to have an original idea again.
 
2013-05-13 01:30:44 PM  

Carth: timujin: Thing is, I enjoyed both of those.  They weren't great cinematic masterpieces, but they were fun popcorn flicks.  I also liked other bombs, like Howard the Duck, Ishtar and Waterworld, but I guess that just makes me weird.

Ironman 3 is a fun popcorn filck. Battleship was an insult to the intelligence of every person in the theater.


Well, there's your problem, you saw it in the theater.  It's not that bad when it's free.  I'd have been pissed off if I'd paid for it, too.
 
2013-05-13 01:31:57 PM  

Supes: ha-ha-guy: Freakin Rican: only a 75 min movie? are we sure about that? 200 million on 75 mins?
come on! at least a 120 min movie.

That's the really bad sign, because with 200 million they have to have more then 75 minutes of footage, so mass amounts must have ended up on the cutting room floor.  If they can't string together more than 75 minutes, it means shooting likely did not go well.

Is there a source for this? I can't believe the movie is only 75 minutes. I heard the reshoots added like 35-40 minutes to the movie, and that would make it half the film.

I expect the film to be 2+ hours.


i tried looking online and found nothing. kinda dissapointing
 
2013-05-13 01:33:23 PM  
weknowmemes.com

/for the LULZ
//and MeowMix
 
2013-05-13 01:36:54 PM  

Carth: Battleship was an insult to the intelligence of every person in the theater.



There was a good movie in there somewhere trying to get out, it just failed to do so.

 appreciated that the aliens were not the usual omnicidal maniacs. They didn't even shoot first. Amusingly, letting both the JPJ and that dweeby scientist escape unharmed actually led to their defeat.
 
2013-05-13 01:37:28 PM  

Nabb1: "Titanic" got a ton of bad buzz before it came out, too. Just saying.


So you're saying World War Z is gonna suck but make a ton of money?
 
2013-05-13 01:38:42 PM  

Jaxotea: Rent Party: Battleship was farking awesome.   It didn't spend more than two minutes on the whole "romantic character development" angle, giving us enough for this...

[patpoh.fooyoh.com image 600x250]

and this...

[2.bp.blogspot.com image 400x355]

And then spent the remaining 98% of the movie on "shoot the aliens in the face with the 5" gun" awesome sauce.

[geektyrant.com image 850x358]

That movie delivered, and you're a terrorist hugger if you disagree.

[image.blingee.com image 358x317]

But But But....

Hand-break turning....
A Battleship.....
On an ANCHOR!

(Just one of many issues)

/Brain Still Hurts
//So does Physics!


But you're OK with the aliens coming from outer space and forgetting their radio?   That movie was about giant gun fights and blowing shiat up.  And if they're gonna fire up the old Mo and cruise around blowing up the aliens, that ship *better* do a couple of broadies, get sideways,  and  fire a full broadside directly into ET's face.

So how's life in the Taliban these days, Mahomed?
 
2013-05-13 01:39:38 PM  

manimal2878: devildog123: verbaltoxin: bborchar: Maybe I'm alone, but I hated the book.  Basically, EVERYONE in that story is too stupid or oblivious to the obvious, and no one is smart enough to take care of it from the start.  Then, when it's a problem, people are STILL stupid and don't do the easy and OBVIOUS things to get rid of the zombies.

Sorry, can't stand continuing stupidity.

For me it's the fact that the author doesn't seem to understand how 5,000 lb bombs, depleted uranium shells, or Hellfire missiles work. There's nothing left to get up when you strike zombies with those. The Battle of Yonkers would've been over in a few hours, with the humans winning.

There are plenty of other good parts in the book, though.

Yeah, it isn't like the zombies use tactics or take cover, they're an Air Force pilot's wet dream.  A few FAEs or some white phosphorus would have absolutely destroyed them.  The book made a point of saying that the bodies kept decaying, and could be damaged.  I don't care how little pain they feel, all the skin and muscle burned off the bodies, or every bone smashed to bits means that the zombies won't be moving anywhere.  The Battle of Yonkers would have consisted of the Air Force dropping a shiat ton of ordinance, some arty units firing off their M777s, and then the grunts getting up in a line and walking through the mass of wrecked zombies, putting a round into every head they could find.

I think you, and many people who point out things like the above, seem to forget is that the failure wasn't one of military might in that battle, it was one of the soldiers and military industrial complex being so arrogant about how extremely easy it was going to be, they could have easily annihilated the zombie hoard, had they planned to just do so, but instead it was set up as a media circus that went wrong, and new technology was implemented in disastrous ways just to show it off that ended up causing panic and such.  The point isn't that the Zombies were invincibl ...


Well, that and also because of the sheer numbers. The zombies are a menace not because of their inherent individual abilities, but sheer weight of numbers and relentlesness.The military planners also misunderstood the nature of the enemy as well. Several factors combined are why the Battle of Yonkers went badly, and I thought Brooks was pretty explicit about that.

If the military folks had more properly understood the threat they faced, they could have won it. Instead they were relying on different tactics and tools then they should have been, and because they underestimated the threat they didn't try to fall back on contingencies until it was too late. They ended up attracting millions of zombies (remember how dense the population of that area is!) into a huge, neverending wave approaching them from any direction possible. They'd annihilate what they thought was a big chunk of them, and sinince they were using big waepons the noise of the calamity ended up attracting zombies from mu further around then they otherwise would have.

Some of those weapons would also slow or mangle the zombies, but not destroy them, as pressure waves which - further out from actual center of the blast - would stop things made of living tissue were not nearly as effective on the dead (I remember Brooks describing how after some of the attacks there would be a bunch of zombies with lungs hanging out of their mouths or limbs missing, but still chugging along the best they could). Some of the weapons also relied on shrapnel, which was only effective if a piece of shrapnel actually penetrated the brain - again, unlike living flesh things.

And then using incendiary weapons backfired too, as fire will destroy the zombie - but not right away. So they ended up making a bunch of zombies still shuffling inexorably onwards but also now on FIRE, which only made them even more dangerous.

All those factors, combined with the massive columns attracted from an unforseen range of area all on to one spot began to look pretty dangerous to the military folksfighting them. Then once a few had slowly made their way closer folks were panicking on the future combat systems network, which served to panic and demoralize the rest, breaking down discipline and further weakening the military response.

It wasn't because of any one thing, it was because of ALL those factors all together. If even one of them had been accounted for then they would have had a much better chance. Sounded pretty reasonably realistic to me. Although, considering how many young folks in the military love zombie stories (many thanks to WWZ, I'm sure) I'm guessing if you wrote it today you might want to assume they'd be better prepared to meet the threat more effectively!
 
2013-05-13 01:39:40 PM  

hulk hogan meat shoes: Good. Hopefully its being terrible will kill off all this zombie nonsense and people will be forced to have an original idea again.


Nah. This movie is already perceived as risky. There have been very, very few zombie movies that attempt an "epic" scale. The vast majority of them are smaller, more personal stories.  If anything, this will dissuade Hollywood from taking chances on grand visions, and cause them to fall back into the old remake/sequel playbook.

But don't worry, zombie movies are already on their downswing. In about 5 years, we won't see them anymore except for the occasional "Living Dead" or "Resident Evil" movie.

I think the next trend that will be over-capitalized on will be low fantasy (more akin to Game of Thrones than Lord of the Rings). Studios are starting to learn that this seems to have broad appreciation across many different demographic groups.
 
2013-05-13 01:42:00 PM  

Rent Party: Jaxotea: Rent Party: Battleship was farking awesome.   It didn't spend more than two minutes on the whole "romantic character development" angle, giving us enough for this...

[patpoh.fooyoh.com image 600x250]

and this...

[2.bp.blogspot.com image 400x355]

And then spent the remaining 98% of the movie on "shoot the aliens in the face with the 5" gun" awesome sauce.

[geektyrant.com image 850x358]

That movie delivered, and you're a terrorist hugger if you disagree.

[image.blingee.com image 358x317]

But But But....

Hand-break turning....
A Battleship.....
On an ANCHOR!

(Just one of many issues)

/Brain Still Hurts
//So does Physics!

But you're OK with the aliens coming from outer space and forgetting their radio?   That movie was about giant gun fights and blowing shiat up.  And if they're gonna fire up the old Mo and cruise around blowing up the aliens, that ship *better* do a couple of broadies, get sideways,  and  fire a full broadside directly into ET's face.

So how's life in the Taliban these days, Mahomed?


not for nothing and i tired to be open minded but battleship kinda sucked. i watched it finally last week. it was basically a movie to waste time. but it was bad. could have been better if they took it a different way and got rid of the game reference. rhianna was worse in it. nice body to look at but just unbelievable in the part.
 
2013-05-13 01:47:02 PM  

Big Beef Burrito: BizarreMan: RyansPrivates: Saiga410: Ned Stark: I loved Battleship.

I loved American Battleships.

I loved American Graffiti

I loved Physical Graffiti

I loved Physical Education


I loved An Education
 
2013-05-13 02:13:26 PM  

Mentat: The moment Damon Lindelof is called in to fix the script, it's doomed.


fix v.tr.
2.d. To kill and preserve (a specimen) intact for microscopic study.
9. To spay or castrate (an animal).
 
2013-05-13 02:19:54 PM  

Freakin Rican: Rent Party: Jaxotea: Rent Party: Battleship was farking awesome.   It didn't spend more than two minutes on the whole "romantic character development" angle, giving us enough for this...

[patpoh.fooyoh.com image 600x250]

and this...

[2.bp.blogspot.com image 400x355]

And then spent the remaining 98% of the movie on "shoot the aliens in the face with the 5" gun" awesome sauce.

[geektyrant.com image 850x358]

That movie delivered, and you're a terrorist hugger if you disagree.

[image.blingee.com image 358x317]

But But But....

Hand-break turning....
A Battleship.....
On an ANCHOR!

(Just one of many issues)

/Brain Still Hurts
//So does Physics!

But you're OK with the aliens coming from outer space and forgetting their radio?   That movie was about giant gun fights and blowing shiat up.  And if they're gonna fire up the old Mo and cruise around blowing up the aliens, that ship *better* do a couple of broadies, get sideways,  and  fire a full broadside directly into ET's face.

So how's life in the Taliban these days, Mahomed?

not for nothing and i tired to be open minded but battleship kinda sucked. i watched it finally last week. it was basically a movie to waste time. but it was bad. could have been better if they took it a different way and got rid of the game reference. rhianna was worse in it. nice body to look at but just unbelievable in the part.



I enjoyed it for what it is.

And they did bring their "radio" if I recall, but that crashed in Tokyo.  Hence why they had to re-establish communications using that outpost.

To me it seemed like the aliens were the good guys in the film.  There were too many instances where they were here to escape the enemy who attacked their planet.  They thought we were a peaceful planet.

1.  The "no man left behind" thing on the battleship.  They didn't harm any of the humans and they wanted to take back their wounded.

2.  Shortly after there's a "mind meld" with the main guy where the alien tries to show him that they were a group that received the signal, and went to escape the war to find solace on Earth.

3.  The stupid battleships mistook their hailing signal as a threat since it was so powerful it blew out their windows.

4.  They never attacked the one ship since it never fired on them, hence they had some sort of code to follow they only attacked immediate threats.

5.  At the end, when the scientist goes back for his briefcase, the alien allows him to take it.


I thought it was a pretty smart underlying story wrapped up in the stupidness of it's characters.
 
2013-05-13 02:21:04 PM  
Did anyone else noticed that the article's author saw an advanced screening and said it was spectacular?
 
2013-05-13 02:29:23 PM  

Fireproof: Did anyone else noticed that the article's author saw an advanced screening and said it was spectacular?


The content of the article is irrelevant.  This thread is for coming in and rehashing the arguments we've used in the last sixteen World War Z threads.
 
2013-05-13 02:34:14 PM  
I think the big problem with all 3 of these movies is their names.
Battleship - Who wants to see a movie based on a board game that isn't Clue?
John Carter - That guy from ER?
World War Z - It's going to alienate the built in fanbase of the books because it strays way too far from source material.

Now I'm going to see it. I like zombies and Brad Pitt usually doesn't disappoint, but I'm just going to pretend that this has very little to do with the book.
 
2013-05-13 02:36:35 PM  
Army ant zombies is what ruined my interest in this movie.
 
2013-05-13 02:38:59 PM  
World War F
Battle of the Fire Ants.

thejetlife.com
 
2013-05-13 02:45:04 PM  

Rent Party: Battleship was farking awesome.   It didn't spend more than two minutes on the whole "romantic character development" angle, giving us enough for this...

[patpoh.fooyoh.com image 600x250]

and this...

[2.bp.blogspot.com image 400x355]

And then spent the remaining 98% of the movie on "shoot the aliens in the face with the 5" gun" awesome sauce.

[geektyrant.com image 850x358]

That movie delivered, and you're a terrorist hugger if you disagree.

[image.blingee.com image 358x317]


Battleship was awesome if you like giving a 131 min blowjob to the entire Navy.
 
2013-05-13 02:47:45 PM  

fusillade762: So how many hot screenwriters did it take to finish a zombie movie?

Oooh, oooh, give me a minute, I've heard this one before...




Enjoy the random screencap from "Shaun of the Dead".

/too bad about Tyres...


Oh those unlucky people!
 
2013-05-13 02:58:44 PM  

FLMountainMan: No, not really. Reread the book.


Yes really.  You reread it.
 
2013-05-13 03:04:51 PM  

Rwa2play: manimal2878: I wonder how much of it has to do with the number of people that pocket money whether the movie is a flop or not.  Isn't there canard about there being no movie that is "profitable" the way Hollywood does their financing?

If that were the case then Hollywood would stop making movies unless they were guaranteed to be profitable OR double ticket prices.


I think you missed the point.
 
2013-05-13 03:08:21 PM  

mongbiohazard: It wasn't because of any one thing, it was because of ALL those factors all together. If even one of them had been accounted for then they would have had a much better chance. Sounded pretty reasonably realistic to me. Although, considering how many young folks in the military love zombie stories (many thanks to WWZ, I'm sure) I'm guessing if you wrote it today you might want to assume they'd be better prepared to meet the threat more effectively!


Don't forget the part where they had the guys in  clumsy chemical and biological hazmat suits when  that was pointless, but they wanted the guys to wear them because it looked good on camera.  And then the part where panic spread because they used a new and untested com link system that was suppossed to increase battle field communication, but instead allowed one dudes misunderstanding of the situation to create mass panic that spread through all the troops.
 
2013-05-13 03:37:38 PM  
The best sci-fi movie I have ever seen was District 9. The movie took relative unknown actors and inserted them into a story that, while retreading familiar themes (apartheid and aliens, most notably), created something new.

The movie I am most looking forward to seeing this summer is Pacific Rim, another sci-fi movie containing familiar themes (giant robots, monsters from the sea, apocalypse averted) yet doing so in a new, engaging way. The cast contains familiar actors but no mega A-listers.

Give us more of this. Interesting stories that do not rely on Brad Pitt to carry the film. The themes can be retreads, hell EVERYTHING is a retread, just do so in a way that makes us WANT to see it.

That last sentence is key, because NO ONE wants to see swarming, fast, hivemind zombies.
 
2013-05-13 03:54:47 PM  

manimal2878: mongbiohazard: It wasn't because of any one thing, it was because of ALL those factors all together. If even one of them had been accounted for then they would have had a much better chance. Sounded pretty reasonably realistic to me. Although, considering how many young folks in the military love zombie stories (many thanks to WWZ, I'm sure) I'm guessing if you wrote it today you might want to assume they'd be better prepared to meet the threat more effectively!

Don't forget the part where they had the guys in  clumsy chemical and biological hazmat suits when  that was pointless, but they wanted the guys to wear them because it looked good on camera.  And then the part where panic spread because they used a new and untested com link system that was suppossed to increase battle field communication, but instead allowed one dudes misunderstanding of the situation to create mass panic that spread through all the troops.


Two things about World War Z.

Firstly, it clearly was in a slightly different world than our own based on history and ideology so some of what we expect can be reasonably different.

Secondly the whole zombie apocalypse scenario is complete bullshiat. Everyone now knows what a zombie is and how to deal with them. There's no way a zombie outbreak gets beyond the few dozen stage before people figure out what's going on and put a stop to it. Especially with the prevalence of the internet; FARK or Reddit would figure things out pretty damn quick.
 
2013-05-13 04:13:53 PM  

RyansPrivates: Saiga410: Ned Stark: I loved Battleship.

I loved American Battleships.

I loved American Graffiti


I am a real American

pic.shuaijiao.com
 
2013-05-13 04:20:51 PM  

Lunchlady: ...

Secondly the whole zombie apocalypse scenario is complete bullshiat. Everyone now knows what a zombie is and how to deal with them. There's no way a zombie outbreak gets beyond the few dozen stage before people figure out what's going on and put a stop to it. Especially with the prevalence of the internet; FARK or Reddit would figure things out pretty damn quick.


Oh fark, we're doomed.
 
2013-05-13 04:21:44 PM  

Freakin Rican: Supes: ha-ha-guy: Freakin Rican: only a 75 min movie? are we sure about that? 200 million on 75 mins?
come on! at least a 120 min movie.

That's the really bad sign, because with 200 million they have to have more then 75 minutes of footage, so mass amounts must have ended up on the cutting room floor.  If they can't string together more than 75 minutes, it means shooting likely did not go well.

Is there a source for this? I can't believe the movie is only 75 minutes. I heard the reshoots added like 35-40 minutes to the movie, and that would make it half the film.

I expect the film to be 2+ hours.

i tried looking online and found nothing. kinda dissapointing


I'm sure there isn't a confirmed length of the movie yet, as there probably isn't a final cut yet.  I'll bet 2+ hours too, though.
 
2013-05-13 04:23:25 PM  
Bomb? Subby, you're an idiot.

It's a zombie movie...regardless of the suckage IN the film, people are going to line up to see it...hence no 'bomb'.

Bet you a sixer...
 
2013-05-13 04:54:42 PM  
Sorry, but the zombies are too cartoonish looking.
 
2013-05-13 04:58:10 PM  

Lunchlady: Reddit would figure things out pretty damn quick.


But like CNN and the New York Post they would be looking for the wrong Zombies.
 
2013-05-13 05:15:28 PM  
I thought this came out already? WOW.. maybe should have a nap
 
2013-05-13 05:22:17 PM  

Lunchlady: Secondly the whole zombie apocalypse scenario is complete bullshiat. Everyone now knows what a zombie is and how to deal with them. There's no way a zombie outbreak gets beyond the few dozen stage before people figure out what's going on and put a stop to it. Especially with the prevalence of the internet; FARK or Reddit would figure things out pretty damn quick.


Eh. If there's a worse case scenario, with fast zombies and every dead person (rather than just bitten people) reanimating, I'd expect 98% of the world's population dead within two months.
 
2013-05-13 06:01:46 PM  

flynn80: Rent Party: Battleship was farking awesome.   It didn't spend more than two minutes on the whole "romantic character development" angle, giving us enough for this...

[patpoh.fooyoh.com image 600x250]

and this...

[2.bp.blogspot.com image 400x355]

And then spent the remaining 98% of the movie on "shoot the aliens in the face with the 5" gun" awesome sauce.

[geektyrant.com image 850x358]

That movie delivered, and you're a terrorist hugger if you disagree.

[image.blingee.com image 358x317]

Battleship was awesome if you like giving a 131 min blowjob to the entire Navy.


USS Ranger, CV-61.  Good morning, Rangermen!

Why do you hate America?
 
2013-05-13 06:15:07 PM  
so, based off of the trailer, if I go see this movie I should forget that I ever read the book. Ok, so it's like Starship Troopers in that it only shares the name of a book but not the contents of the book.

It doesn't look like a good movie though, like a mash up of 28 Days Later and War of the Worlds.
 
2013-05-13 06:30:41 PM  

Carousel Beast: ShawnDoc: doglover: Better than any Transformers flick.

Stepping barefoot on warm dog shiat is better than any Transformers movie.

[upload.wikimedia.org image 215x328]

You shut your whore mouth!


I love that movie, but I HATE the music in it. I wish someone would remake it with better music.
 
2013-05-13 08:04:46 PM  
THey're probably trying to control the neck beard whining so that it doesn't sink what looks like a pretty exciting movie.  Neckbeards should all die, and the sooner the better.
 
2013-05-13 08:05:15 PM  

Geotpf: Freakin Rican: Supes: ha-ha-guy: Freakin Rican: only a 75 min movie? are we sure about that? 200 million on 75 mins?
come on! at least a 120 min movie.

That's the really bad sign, because with 200 million they have to have more then 75 minutes of footage, so mass amounts must have ended up on the cutting room floor.  If they can't string together more than 75 minutes, it means shooting likely did not go well.

Is there a source for this? I can't believe the movie is only 75 minutes. I heard the reshoots added like 35-40 minutes to the movie, and that would make it half the film.

I expect the film to be 2+ hours.

i tried looking online and found nothing. kinda dissapointing

I'm sure there isn't a confirmed length of the movie yet, as there probably isn't a final cut yet.  I'll bet 2+ hours too, though.


It's already got a rating, so the final theatrical cut of the movie is finished. I don't think the 75 minute runtime includes credits, so it's probably clocking in at barely an hour and a half. However, with commercials and previews, you're still looking at 2 hours in the theater.

Plus, I'd wager a lot had to be cut out to get a PG-13, so it's a safe bet that the director's cut Blu-ray with 20 extra minutes will be coming down the pike.
 
2013-05-13 08:06:15 PM  

doglover: John Carter was a good movie, given the press. The problem was the title.

World War Z will Duck Hot Bonkey Salls, though.


Carth: timujin: Thing is, I enjoyed both of those.  They weren't great cinematic masterpieces, but they were fun popcorn flicks.  I also liked other bombs, like Howard the Duck, Ishtar and Waterworld, but I guess that just makes me weird.

Ironman 3 is a fun popcorn filck. Battleship was an insult to the intelligence of every person in the theater.


Battleship made my brain hurt, the stupid was epic and I couldn't get more than a few minutes into the film. >.>
 
2013-05-13 08:34:41 PM  

stoli n coke: Geotpf: Freakin Rican: Supes: ha-ha-guy: Freakin Rican: only a 75 min movie? are we sure about that? 200 million on 75 mins?
come on! at least a 120 min movie.

That's the really bad sign, because with 200 million they have to have more then 75 minutes of footage, so mass amounts must have ended up on the cutting room floor.  If they can't string together more than 75 minutes, it means shooting likely did not go well.

Is there a source for this? I can't believe the movie is only 75 minutes. I heard the reshoots added like 35-40 minutes to the movie, and that would make it half the film.

I expect the film to be 2+ hours.

i tried looking online and found nothing. kinda dissapointing

I'm sure there isn't a confirmed length of the movie yet, as there probably isn't a final cut yet.  I'll bet 2+ hours too, though.

It's already got a rating, so the final theatrical cut of the movie is finished. I don't think the 75 minute runtime includes credits, so it's probably clocking in at barely an hour and a half. However, with commercials and previews, you're still looking at 2 hours in the theater.

Plus, I'd wager a lot had to be cut out to get a PG-13, so it's a safe bet that the director's cut Blu-ray with 20 extra minutes will be coming down the pike.


I keep trying to find the article that quoted the 75 minute runtime.  I do keep seeing articles where the initial rough cut of the movie clocked in at 52 minutes.  So even with the reshoots that added on another 30-40 minutes, it's just barely coming in at a hour and a half.  For a 200 million dollar movie.  And surprisingly enough, this isn't going to be the first time Forster's helmed a movie like that.  This go-around, though, I don't believe he's going to have the benefit of a writer's strike to cushion the impact.
 
2013-05-13 08:37:08 PM  
OK, Fark tossed out the Bloody Disgusting link, so here's another article about WWZ's rough cut:

Clicky
 
2013-05-13 10:00:00 PM  

ZeroCorpse: HA HA!

I knew zombies were completely ruined today when I saw an urban gangbanger, pants hanging around his knees, with a pin that said "I have a zombie survival plan."

Yep. All the social commentary and allegory is gone from the zombie genre, and it has been replaced with survivalist ideals, end-of-world fantasies, and "I get to kill people and not feel bad about it" types.

Another clue that it's over: Sporting goods stores sell a variety of gear marketed to the new crop of lower-I.Q. zombie fans; Targets, bullets, survival gear, etc.. The fans now are frat boys, rednecks, gangbangers, and conspiracy nuts who think it  just might happen (or wish it would).

I think these days, the message and meaning of the original Night of the Living Dead and Dawn of the Dead would go right over the heads of the bulk of new zombie fans who were turned on to the genre by the Zombie Survival Guide and WWZ... And it's not like Romero was subtle, either.

So for those keeping score, here's the list of classic monsters that have been destroyed by Hollywood and exploitative writers who "reinvented" them:

Vampires
Zombies/Ghouls
Ghosts
Werewolves
Golems (specifically flesh golems, i.e. Frankenstein's monster)
Slashers/psychos
Aliens (especially greys and body snatchers)
Mummies
Robots
Witches
Trolls/Goblins
Shapeshifters
Dinosaurs

Really, all that's left are amorphous blobs, giant insects, dragons, kaiju (although Hollywood almost ruined them), and mermen/gill men. I think demons and devils are still usable, too, but angels as monsters is overdone.

I suppose Hollywood could start working on movies about chimeras, cockatrice, baba yaga, and various elementals.

I'd love to see someone breathe life (haha) into the zombie genre, but at this point nobody's doing anything  smart. It's all the same gory survivalist shiat that uses the basic idea of undead humans, but misses the opportunity to position them as the force of nature/backdrop that brings out man's worst urges. Instead, they  glorify the idea that the end of the world is awesome because all your survival plans will be put to use.

The Walking Dead tries to keep the focus on the people, but too many mouth-breathing viewers get all pissy if they don't have a bunch of zombie kills every episode. How long before the show just becomes an endless stream of shallow zombie-gore and "fortify the encampment" scenes because the new breed of zombie fans don't like all that talking and drama?

Sigh. I'm cranky about this, and I'm certain it all goes back to the Zombie Survival Guide. By releasing that book, Max Brooks opened zombies to a whole new audience that didn't give a shiat about subtlety or subtext. Just like Anne Rice turned vampires into pretty fops, and the plethora of crappy ghost hunting shows turned ghosts into dumbed down jump-scare startlethons.

F♥ck it. The old movies are still around. I'll go watch something made before 1990, or re-read I Am Legend again.


Let me geuss, everything seems like shiat to you?

have you considered drinking? Heavily?
 
2013-05-13 10:00:55 PM  
This is what I don't understand about normal humans:

There are essentially two types of movies: The kind that attempt to replicate every normal facility of every faucet of being pertaining to everyday life, and then the extraordinary.

The kind of movies where a demon from Hell can appear in real life and shoot other demons. The kind of movie where a farmboy becomes a knight of sorts and joins a rebellion.

Did the SFX people 'disguise' that the Death Star close ups were cannibalized models of battleships? Maybe. But after seeing the movie 20 years after it's release when I was nearly 11, it didn't matter.

Did Disney 'disguise' Mars so it 'didn't look like Utah' or some such crap as I keep reading? Meh I don't know and I don't care. Never been.

It's PULP FARKING FICTION you subhumanoid rectal ticks. It's fiction you take as it appears, not attempt to categorize it as 'what ifs' and 'how could this work' sci-fi crap. "Looper" provided the greatest example of this recently "we could spend time drawing charts and blah blah blah".

I think that's the problem with most of you normal farks these days: You attempt to rationalize a story. You fail. you fail hardcore.

You know what's fake? Opera is fake. Plays are fake. Does that mean they're any less awesome? FARK no. Some of them are freaking fantastic. "Oooh! The Marriage of Figaro didn't have sets that REALLY represented an 17th Century Palace".

Eat my balls you ass goblins.

I don't know of John Carter was representative of the source material, but the movie has inspired me to pick up the books. I'll be checking it out whenever bills are caught up. Was it 'epic'? I don't farking know. It was the story of an anti-hero who said "fark the world, fark you, fark your ideology and shove it up your asshole' while living for himself. There was a decent character arc, there *was* the Disney silliness but it didn't outweigh the slightly "Outlaw Josey Wales" bit, as well as the early sci-fi of the 20th century aspect of it. It looked good, it was acted out with decent drama, and it was fun for what it was: not groundbreaking, not entirely original as it was an early story from where many people draw fiction from (farking Superman copied John Carter, so it's hard to ignore that stigma) but it doesn't mean it was shiat.

The only conclusion I can come to is that those who said 'meh' and the like lack imagination. With movies, so many of you simpleton farks what 'so realistic you can't tell it from the CGI' or 'that's not what would happen if a guy could leap 40 meters in the air and land even with dense bones'.

Eat my cock meat. Grow an imagination, and for the love of Cthulhu, stop talking about movies. Without any sort of perspective you sound like a politician talking about shiat he has no business discussing.

of course that applies to the majority of the people on Fark discussing politics as well, but for now, let's stick to fiction, something of which most people can only grasp in a specific, time based manner.

Farking fleshy carbon sacks.
 
2013-05-13 10:47:47 PM  

Lunchlady: manimal2878: mongbiohazard: It wasn't because of any one thing, it was because of ALL those factors all together. If even one of them had been accounted for then they would have had a much better chance. Sounded pretty reasonably realistic to me. Although, considering how many young folks in the military love zombie stories (many thanks to WWZ, I'm sure) I'm guessing if you wrote it today you might want to assume they'd be better prepared to meet the threat more effectively!

Don't forget the part where they had the guys in  clumsy chemical and biological hazmat suits when  that was pointless, but they wanted the guys to wear them because it looked good on camera.  And then the part where panic spread because they used a new and untested com link system that was suppossed to increase battle field communication, but instead allowed one dudes misunderstanding of the situation to create mass panic that spread through all the troops.

Two things about World War Z.

Firstly, it clearly was in a slightly different world than our own based on history and ideology so some of what we expect can be reasonably different.

Secondly the whole zombie apocalypse scenario is complete bullshiat. Everyone now knows what a zombie is and how to deal with them. There's no way a zombie outbreak gets beyond the few dozen stage before people figure out what's going on and put a stop to it. Especially with the prevalence of the internet; FARK or Reddit would figure things out pretty damn quick.


For sure it is fark the day

reddit sucks the fat one
 
2013-05-13 10:48:13 PM  

Capo Del Bandito: This is what I don't understand about normal humans:

There are essentially two types of movies: The kind that attempt to replicate every normal facility of every faucet of being pertaining to everyday life, and then the extraordinary.

The kind of movies where a demon from Hell can appear in real life and shoot other demons. The kind of movie where a farmboy becomes a knight of sorts and joins a rebellion.

Did the SFX people 'disguise' that the Death Star close ups were cannibalized models of battleships? Maybe. But after seeing the movie 20 years after it's release when I was nearly 11, it didn't matter.

Did Disney 'disguise' Mars so it 'didn't look like Utah' or some such crap as I keep reading? Meh I don't know and I don't care. Never been.

It's PULP FARKING FICTION you subhumanoid rectal ticks. It's fiction you take as it appears, not attempt to categorize it as 'what ifs' and 'how could this work' sci-fi crap. "Looper" provided the greatest example of this recently "we could spend time drawing charts and blah blah blah".

I think that's the problem with most of you normal farks these days: You attempt to rationalize a story. You fail. you fail hardcore.

You know what's fake? Opera is fake. Plays are fake. Does that mean they're any less awesome? FARK no. Some of them are freaking fantastic. "Oooh! The Marriage of Figaro didn't have sets that REALLY represented an 17th Century Palace".

Eat my balls you ass goblins.

I don't know of John Carter was representative of the source material, but the movie has inspired me to pick up the books. I'll be checking it out whenever bills are caught up. Was it 'epic'? I don't farking know. It was the story of an anti-hero who said "fark the world, fark you, fark your ideology and shove it up your asshole' while living for himself. There was a decent character arc, there *was* the Disney silliness but it didn't outweigh the slightly "Outlaw Josey Wales" bit, as well as the early sci-fi of the 20th century aspect of it. I ...


No, Brad Pitt, it's none of that. We just don't want to see fast, hivemind zombies. It really is that simple.
 
2013-05-13 10:50:05 PM  

IrateShadow: When the first trailers came out, people were making jokes that the movie was going to be about the world's wildest orgy.  I'm still kind of hoping that will turn out to be true.


Chuckled at that - especially remembering the trailers...
 
2013-05-13 10:55:28 PM  

Owangotang: The best sci-fi movie I have ever seen was District 9. The movie took relative unknown actors and inserted them into a story that, while retreading familiar themes (apartheid and aliens, most notably), created something new.

The movie I am most looking forward to seeing this summer is Pacific Rim, another sci-fi movie containing familiar themes (giant robots, monsters from the sea, apocalypse averted) yet doing so in a new, engaging way. The cast contains familiar actors but no mega A-listers.

Give us more of this. Interesting stories that do not rely on Brad Pitt to carry the film. The themes can be retreads, hell EVERYTHING is a retread, just do so in a way that makes us WANT to see it.

That last sentence is key, because NO ONE wants to see swarming, fast, hivemind zombies.


I agree with your sentiment, although Pacific Rim isn't the example I'd use - it looks like a fun popcorn movie, but watching giant robots clearly breaking the laws of physics in the trailer also carries with it a certain amount of derision, too. It's live-action manga - SF fantasy, yes, but not hard SF.

I want to see hard SF with unknown actors, in which the story, not the flashy name of the actor or the strident claims of the movie's budget, is the feature. Retread a good story - there's an entire friggin' catalog of hard SF from both seminal and unknown authors that's been untouched. Stop selling the rights to big companies, only to watch them piss all over the story to crank out a friggin' TV miniseries that no one will watch, but that will sell enough advertising to break even.
 
2013-05-13 11:44:13 PM  

Owangotang: Capo Del Bandito: This is what I don't understand about normal humans:

There are essentially two types of movies: The kind that attempt to replicate every normal facility of every faucet of being pertaining to everyday life, and then the extraordinary.

The kind of movies where a demon from Hell can appear in real life and shoot other demons. The kind of movie where a farmboy becomes a knight of sorts and joins a rebellion.

Did the SFX people 'disguise' that the Death Star close ups were cannibalized models of battleships? Maybe. But after seeing the movie 20 years after it's release when I was nearly 11, it didn't matter.

Did Disney 'disguise' Mars so it 'didn't look like Utah' or some such crap as I keep reading? Meh I don't know and I don't care. Never been.

It's PULP FARKING FICTION you subhumanoid rectal ticks. It's fiction you take as it appears, not attempt to categorize it as 'what ifs' and 'how could this work' sci-fi crap. "Looper" provided the greatest example of this recently "we could spend time drawing charts and blah blah blah".

I think that's the problem with most of you normal farks these days: You attempt to rationalize a story. You fail. you fail hardcore.

You know what's fake? Opera is fake. Plays are fake. Does that mean they're any less awesome? FARK no. Some of them are freaking fantastic. "Oooh! The Marriage of Figaro didn't have sets that REALLY represented an 17th Century Palace".

Eat my balls you ass goblins.

I don't know of John Carter was representative of the source material, but the movie has inspired me to pick up the books. I'll be checking it out whenever bills are caught up. Was it 'epic'? I don't farking know. It was the story of an anti-hero who said "fark the world, fark you, fark your ideology and shove it up your asshole' while living for himself. There was a decent character arc, there *was* the Disney silliness but it didn't outweigh the slightly "Outlaw Josey Wales" bit, as well as the early sci-fi of the 20th centu ...


Where are you getting this "hivemind" stuff from?
 
2013-05-14 12:00:57 AM  

Capo Del Bandito: This is what I don't understand about normal humans:

There are essentially two types of movies: The kind that attempt to replicate every normal facility of every faucet of being pertaining to everyday life, and then the extraordinary.

The kind of movies where a demon from Hell can appear in real life and shoot other demons. The kind of movie where a farmboy becomes a knight of sorts and joins a rebellion.

Did the SFX people 'disguise' that the Death Star close ups were cannibalized models of battleships? Maybe. But after seeing the movie 20 years after it's release when I was nearly 11, it didn't matter.

Did Disney 'disguise' Mars so it 'didn't look like Utah' or some such crap as I keep reading? Meh I don't know and I don't care. Never been.

It's PULP FARKING FICTION you subhumanoid rectal ticks. It's fiction you take as it appears, not attempt to categorize it as 'what ifs' and 'how could this work' sci-fi crap. "Looper" provided the greatest example of this recently "we could spend time drawing charts and blah blah blah".

I think that's the problem with most of you normal farks these days: You attempt to rationalize a story. You fail. you fail hardcore.

You know what's fake? Opera is fake. Plays are fake. Does that mean they're any less awesome? FARK no. Some of them are freaking fantastic. "Oooh! The Marriage of Figaro didn't have sets that REALLY represented an 17th Century Palace".

Eat my balls you ass goblins.

I don't know of John Carter was representative of the source material, but the movie has inspired me to pick up the books. I'll be checking it out whenever bills are caught up. Was it 'epic'? I don't farking know. It was the story of an anti-hero who said "fark the world, fark you, fark your ideology and shove it up your asshole' while living for himself. There was a decent character arc, there *was* the Disney silliness but it didn't outweigh the slightly "Outlaw Josey Wales" bit, as well as the early sci-fi of the 20th century aspect of it. I ...


I am only saying this because I care - but there are a lot of decaffeinated brands on the market today that are just as tasty as the real thing.
 
2013-05-14 04:38:17 AM  
John Carter was a hero for another century where you didn't have to be politically correct.
 
2013-05-14 07:42:44 AM  

Lunchlady: manimal2878: mongbiohazard: It wasn't because of any one thing, it was because of ALL those factors all together. If even one of them had been accounted for then they would have had a much better chance. Sounded pretty reasonably realistic to me. Although, considering how many young folks in the military love zombie stories (many thanks to WWZ, I'm sure) I'm guessing if you wrote it today you might want to assume they'd be better prepared to meet the threat more effectively!

Don't forget the part where they had the guys in  clumsy chemical and biological hazmat suits when  that was pointless, but they wanted the guys to wear them because it looked good on camera.  And then the part where panic spread because they used a new and untested com link system that was suppossed to increase battle field communication, but instead allowed one dudes misunderstanding of the situation to create mass panic that spread through all the troops.

Two things about World War Z.

Firstly, it clearly was in a slightly different world than our own based on history and ideology so some of what we expect can be reasonably different.

Secondly the whole zombie apocalypse scenario is complete bullshiat. Everyone now knows what a zombie is and how to deal with them. There's no way a zombie outbreak gets beyond the few dozen stage before people figure out what's going on and put a stop to it. Especially with the prevalence of the internet; FARK or Reddit would figure things out pretty damn quick.


 Did you have a point?
 
2013-05-14 10:02:27 AM  

FLMountainMan: Fireproof: Did anyone else noticed that the article's author saw an advanced screening and said it was spectacular?

The content of the article is irrelevant.  This thread is for coming in and rehashing the arguments we've used in the last sixteen trashing World War Z threads.


Just like every other FARK movie thread.
 
2013-05-14 10:05:22 AM  

manimal2878: Secondly the whole zombie apocalypse scenario is complete bullshiat. Everyone now knows what a zombie is and how to deal with them. There's no way a zombie outbreak gets beyond the few dozen stage before people figure out what's going on and put a stop to it. Especially with the prevalence of the internet; FARK or Reddit would figure things out pretty damn quick.


Actually, in 90% of zombie movies/shows the characters are unfamiliar with zombies, or even the concept of them see:Walking Dead re: "Biters"

Thats what makes the movies work, and arrogant assholes in Internet threads talking about how stupid the characters are cant puit themselves in the mindset of being totally unfamiliar with the concept. Dumbasses;
 
2013-05-14 10:44:58 AM  
static.topnewstoday.org:8080
Let's leave the bomb reporting to CNN
 
2013-05-14 02:35:34 PM  
I made this meme pic earlier today, and since I can't find the O.J. thread anymore in the Sports tab it'll have to do here -

i.imgflip.com
 
Displayed 166 of 166 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
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