World War Z

245678

Comments

  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 7,488
    Forum Member
    Cheers. The article's on VF's site and very interesting indeed. Seems as chaotic as rumoured, but with so much footage not being used, it makes you wonder if an alternate version will be in the offing later on.

    Desperate indeed if they wanted some clarity brought to the script.

    Nice to hear something good about it, but yes, that is an enormous budget it's got to get back.

    Looking at the US release schedule, I see it opens on the same weekend as Monsters University and only a week after Man of Steel (which they seem to have cleared the decks for - nothing much opens with it and only soft-ish openers the week before). A week later and White House Down hits the screens.

    It'll be interesting to see how WWZ fairs among all these. Paramount - who already may have problems with Into Darkness - are going to have to ramp up the advertising quite considerably.
    It could become problematic for Paramount, they could find themselves relying on next years' Transformers 4 to make a profit or they may be screwed. Tough it's in their interests for Iron Man 3 to do well, since they get roughly 8% of it's box office...

    Into Darkness opened below expectations, but it's not doing badly. It needs to make another $30m for it's production budget with presumably at least another $30m for marketing, I think it will do it, perhaps not by a lot. We might not even get a sequel, especially since predictions are now suggesting it won't even match the box office of the first (in the US)...
  • AlrightmateAlrightmate Posts: 73,120
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    this re-write was done after they finished shooting , they had an assembly and it wasn't working . They've dumped a whole sequence and done re-shoots .

    not unique , its happened on other movies, but ... not a good sign .

    Another problem is that they want a PG rating which seems a bit silly for a zombie film .

    I see what you mean now. To rewrite it after it's been shot is a bit different from a script going through several rewrites so it's ready to start production.
  • StrakerStraker Posts: 79,567
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    The got Damon Lindeloff in to do some last minute re-writes . they must've been desperate !

    The cut they showed him when he first came on board was 72 minutes long!!!

    This could well make John Carter look like a low-budget masterpeice by comparison.
  • stvn758stvn758 Posts: 19,656
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    $400million, oh dear. It's things like that getting out that can sink a film. I enjoyed John Carter but the money wasn't exactly visible on screen, same with Waterworld. Of course Titanic got the same treatment and Cameron hit the jackpot with that.
  • PunksNotDeadPunksNotDead Posts: 21,129
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    NON-Spoiler Review
    Im glad that it doesn't seem to be a bad movie despite the production problems i look forward to seeing this:)
  • AngiBearAngiBear Posts: 2,894
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    The Grosvenor in Ashton Lane will be showing it 2 days before its official release:

    http://www.eveningtimes.co.uk/news/glasgow-beats-the-world-to-brad-pitt-zombie-film-125286n.21156768
  • OpaqueOpaque Posts: 5,286
    Forum Member
    Soudnds like it's exactly what I think it's going to be. A good zombie movie but most certainly NOT World War Z
  • VerenceVerence Posts: 104,578
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭✭
    Opaque wrote: »
    Soudnds like it's exactly what I think it's going to be. A good zombie movie but most certainly NOT World War Z

    If it was a regular zombie move then fair enough but in using the World War Z name it will lead to disappointment from fans of the book
  • mrprossermrprosser Posts: 2,260
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    It was fun watching them film it in George Square, Glasgow.

    You can see bits of Glasgow in the trailer.... made to look like Philadelphia (or somewhere!)

    One of my friends was employed as an extra, but I doubt I'll spot a six foot tall baldy dressed in a US army uniform
  • MotthusMotthus Posts: 7,280
    Forum Member
    Den Of Geek have said on their twitter that early reports about World War Z are positive
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 411
    Forum Member
    Just read the book and enjoyed it but please tell me this film wont be more 12A BS?!?!
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 7,488
    Forum Member
    dbob wrote: »
    Just read the book and enjoyed it but please tell me this film wont be more 12A BS?!?!

    It cost at least $250m,you really expect them to accept an R?

    Of the past decade there haven't been that many R-rated sci-fi successes. I can name three - Prometheus, Looper, District 9...

    Having said that I can only name two failures - Dredd, Watchmen
  • CreamteaCreamtea Posts: 14,682
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    The book is very good. The trailer for the film looks... sh!t.
  • MrGiles2MrGiles2 Posts: 1,997
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    I read on a trade website that World War Z is apparently very good. But if it cost $500m Paramount are screwed...

    Even if it is a popular movie, it could take years to recoup the cost.
  • Inky BinkyInky Binky Posts: 2,261
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    The film looks terrific. I'm loving the trailers for it.

    MrGiles2 wrote: »
    Even if it is a popular movie, it could take years to recoup the cost.

    In this day and age, it's nearly impossible to lose money - even when a film bombs at the box office. With future profits coming in worldwide from pay-per-view sales, DVD/Bluray, rentals, Digital copies (iTunes, PSN, XBOX Live, etc) Cable TV and network TV, the film will easily make back its money and then some - quickly. It certainly won't take years.

    But obviously the film studios want to see immediate profit within the first few days of its theatrical release which is rather sad and unrealistic at times.
  • InTheLoopInTheLoop Posts: 6,595
    Forum Member
    I'm reading the book at the moment and it has a good format to it, with accounts from worldwide personnel detailing their thoughts and accounts of the zombie war.

    The film definitely doesn't look like it is going down that route, unless it turns out Brad Pitt is the journalist detailing and collecting all the accounts?

    (Don't think this merited a spoiler tag ;) )
  • StrakerStraker Posts: 79,567
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Inky Binky wrote: »
    In this day and age, it's nearly impossible to lose money - even when a film bombs at the box office. With future profits coming in worldwide from pay-per-view sales, DVD/Bluray, rentals, Digital copies (iTunes, PSN, XBOX Live, etc) Cable TV and network TV, the film will easily make back its money and then some - quickly. It certainly won't take years.


    Not true. The whole point of Hollywood accounting is to show on paper that movies make a loss. Usually some fiddling is required to do this but with a budget as bloated (and associated marketing/advertising costs) as WWZ they will not have to try too hard in this case.
    Motthus wrote: »
    Den Of Geek have said on their twitter that early reports about World War Z are positive

    They liked Outcasts. Those snowblind fanboys tend to like most things.
  • JCRJCR Posts: 24,029
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    It cost at least $250m,you really expect them to accept an R?

    Of the past decade there haven't been that many R-rated sci-fi successes. I can name three - Prometheus, Looper, District 9...

    Having said that I can only name two failures - Dredd, Watchmen

    It already got rated in America- "Rated PG-13 for intense frightening zombie sequences, violence and disturbing images."

    I would expect if it gets a 15 at it's first go at the bbfc it'll be cut for 12A, for cinema at least. They need the money.
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 7,488
    Forum Member
    Straker wrote: »
    Not true. The whole point of Hollywood accounting is to show on paper that movies make a loss. Usually some fiddling is required to do this but with a budget as bloated (and associated marketing/advertising costs) as WWZ they will not have to try too hard in this case.
    Its not hard to show a film as making a loss. Just stick the film in a shell company and let the main company charge the shell company a ridiculous impossibly high distribution charge. Then on paper the film always makes a loss and you don't have to give anyone a share of the backend. (Unless the film is very successful)
  • PunksNotDeadPunksNotDead Posts: 21,129
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Digispy give it 4 stars whilst Sky Movies premiere presenter Alex Zane has tweeted that
    So World War Z is utterly nerve shredding. Had to keep reminding myself to breath for the first 20 mins.
    Even though it's gone way over budget and will most likely bomb i will definitely be seeing this on release day!
  • JCRJCR Posts: 24,029
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Two out of five from the world's most popular newspaper website.
    the final 40 minutes were rewritten and reshot at a cost of $200million. It’s hard to know where the money went. The long, would-be climactic sequence inside a Welsh research laboratory looks about as lavish as the average episode of Doctor Who.

    Ouch.
  • MotthusMotthus Posts: 7,280
    Forum Member
    That's actually the one film critic that I respect the least so I won't be taking any notice of his review!
  • Gizmo210688Gizmo210688 Posts: 4,504
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Motthus wrote: »
    That's actually the one film critic that I respect the least so I won't be taking any notice of his review!

    I'd stay away from the Digital Spy one also, more of a plot synopsis than a review.

    I enjoyed the trailer so still willing to give this a go.
  • koantemplationkoantemplation Posts: 101,293
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭✭
    I'm a little worried about the mass of cgi running zombies.

    Looks too much like the dinosaur bit from King Kong, very messy.
  • MotthusMotthus Posts: 7,280
    Forum Member
    Empire gave it three stars out of five
Sign In or Register to comment.