Digital Spy

Search Digital Spy
 

DS Forums

 
 
 

World War Z


Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 21-05-2013, 20:03
somerset fox
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 359
In the novel, the 'z' stood for zombie, but this is a different animal. The 'dead' act more like the infected from the '28 days' movies. You get attacked and bit and apparantly within seconds you are a raging killer, rather than a reanimating corpse. The surging wave of people looks odd, whereas the book describes the slow unstoppable wave of zombies forever advancing. All in all, wwz in name only.
somerset fox is offline   Reply With Quote
Please sign in or register to remove this advertisement.
Old 21-05-2013, 20:30
theonlyweeman
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 5,746
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)...
theonlyweeman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21-05-2013, 20:43
Alrightmate
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 50,164
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.
Alrightmate is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 22-05-2013, 13:46
Straker
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 24,937
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.
Straker is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 24-05-2013, 01:41
stvn758
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 15,459
$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.
stvn758 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 24-05-2013, 07:19
PunksNotDead
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 3,542
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
PunksNotDead is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 24-05-2013, 15:45
AngiBear
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 1,200
The Grosvenor in Ashton Lane will be showing it 2 days before its official release:

http://www.eveningtimes.co.uk/news/g...5286n.21156768
AngiBear is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 24-05-2013, 16:14
Opaque
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Cambridge
Posts: 5,227
Soudnds like it's exactly what I think it's going to be. A good zombie movie but most certainly NOT World War Z
Opaque is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 24-05-2013, 16:40
Verence
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Kessingland, Suffolk
Posts: 67,502
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
Verence is online now Follow this poster on Twitter   Reply With Quote
Old 24-05-2013, 17:05
mrprosser
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Glasgow
Posts: 445
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
mrprosser is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25-05-2013, 00:17
Motthus
Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 5,104
Den Of Geek have said on their twitter that early reports about World War Z are positive
Motthus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25-05-2013, 00:34
dbob
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 289
Just read the book and enjoyed it but please tell me this film wont be more 12A BS?!?!
dbob is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25-05-2013, 00:53
theonlyweeman
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 5,746
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
theonlyweeman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25-05-2013, 14:57
Creamtea
Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 6,210
The book is very good. The trailer for the film looks... sh!t.
Creamtea is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 27-05-2013, 21:59
MrGiles2
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Teesside
Posts: 1,887
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.
MrGiles2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 27-05-2013, 22:20
Inky Binky
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 2,019
The film looks terrific. I'm loving the trailers for it.


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.
Inky Binky is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 27-05-2013, 22:58
InTheLoop
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 3,119
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 )
InTheLoop is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 28-05-2013, 10:53
Straker
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 24,937
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.

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.
Straker is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29-05-2013, 04:43
JCR
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Edinburgh, Scotland, UK
Posts: 13,678
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.
JCR is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29-05-2013, 08:32
theonlyweeman
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 5,746
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)
theonlyweeman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-06-2013, 23:30
PunksNotDead
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 3,542
Digispy give it 4 stars whilst Sky Movies premiere presenter Alex Zane has tweeted that
Spoiler
Even though it's gone way over budget and will most likely bomb i will definitely be seeing this on release day!
PunksNotDead is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-06-2013, 04:52
JCR
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Edinburgh, Scotland, UK
Posts: 13,678
Two out of five from the world's most popular newspaper website.

Originally Posted by Chris Tookey, Daily Mail
the final 40 minutes were rewritten and reshot at a cost of $200million. Itís 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.
JCR is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-06-2013, 09:54
Motthus
Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 5,104
That's actually the one film critic that I respect the least so I won't be taking any notice of his review!
Motthus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-06-2013, 13:58
Gizmo210688
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Rotherham
Posts: 4,399
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.
Gizmo210688 is offline Follow this poster on Twitter   Reply With Quote
Old 03-06-2013, 14:00
koantemplation
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Wolf359
Posts: 76,203
I'm a little worried about the mass of cgi running zombies.

Looks too much like the dinosaur bit from King Kong, very messy.
koantemplation is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply



Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

 
Forum Jump


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 20:17.