- Joined
- Jan 5, 2008
- Messages
- 35,160
- Reaction score
- 2
Yeah, film school. But I ran into a **** ton of problems. I've been taking a class here and there on the side. But nothing big yet.
Hopefully by December.
Hopefully by December.
World War Z (starring Brad Pitt)
- Thread starter plasmid303
- Start date
Help Support Collector Freaks Forum:
- Joined
- Jan 5, 2008
- Messages
- 35,160
- Reaction score
- 2
Well, thank you. I'm working on one now. So, we'll see how it turns out.
EVILFACE
Insufferable S.O.B.
I am eager to see one of his flicks as well, so I can rate it!!
yes but that movie had real zombies. So it didn't matter.
the thing is, Zombieland, Shawn of the Dead and even Warm bodies are comedies that are not supposed to be taken seriously, they are kind of dumb actually.
but people love them. And they have real, true zombies that eat people and everything.
If those movies are comedies with zombies then this movie, WWZ, is kind of like an action movie that has zombies in it. Since it is not really horror then some aspects like the gore were not necessary. So I didn't really mind the zombies being different because the movie itself was different. It wasn't even really horror.
Just like I don't mind Shawn of the Dead or Warm Bodies because they are comedies.
Like, what I am trying to say is that, you said it yourself you don't take Zombieland seriously because it is a comedy. But the way I see this movie is this is a summer action movie that just happens to have zombies it it. so just because it doesn't have real zombies it doesn't mean it sucks?
Yes, it sucks because bait and switch ALWAYS sucks. Just sayin'.
My argument is that there was no bait and switch. I got exactly what the previews told me I was getting.
Honestly, the only misleading part of the trailer was that they showed nearly every "wave of zombies" scene. I had hoped to see more of that. I also hoped that their behavior would have been explained more. I thought it would have been cool if they were described as having some sort of hive mind.
Honestly, the only misleading part of the trailer was that they showed nearly every "wave of zombies" scene. I had hoped to see more of that. I also hoped that their behavior would have been explained more. I thought it would have been cool if they were described as having some sort of hive mind.
I didn't feel a bait and switch at all.
We got exactly what we saw in the trailers, we knew this was pg-13
I actually would say I got A lot more than I was expecting.
The movie was actually better than I was hoping it would be and it was scarier than I was expecting it to be (even thought it is not a horror movie)
so I got more "bang for my buck" I guess..
We got exactly what we saw in the trailers, we knew this was pg-13
I actually would say I got A lot more than I was expecting.
The movie was actually better than I was hoping it would be and it was scarier than I was expecting it to be (even thought it is not a horror movie)
so I got more "bang for my buck" I guess..
The bait and switch was in thinking this was a movie about zombies, when it actually isn't. We also had the expectation that it was a HORROR movie, and it wasn't that either. Its a movie about Brad Pitt. Oh well.
It was about a zombie plague outbreak that was overtaking the whole world.
Noting about the previews implied that it was a traditional horror movie.
People really thought a PG-13 movie staring Brad Pitt was going to be a horror movie?
Noting about the previews implied that it was a traditional horror movie.
People really thought a PG-13 movie staring Brad Pitt was going to be a horror movie?
SixMillionDollarMan Guy
Super Freak
Me too. I need a good laugh.
We were taken in by the concept, which centered around a world-wide zombie outbreak and a quite-interesting book precursor. Zombies tend to be scary, at least in most settings. They certainly were in the book.
What we got was something completely different; which is why I say "bait and switch." The only way this could have been better is if Angie was in it too; Tom Cruise would have been the icing on the cake. Oh well, I am glad the people who enjoyed this enjoyed it. The rest of us will wait for, you know, actual zombies and stuff.
We were taken in by the concept, which centered around a world-wide zombie outbreak and a quite-interesting book precursor. Zombies tend to be scary, at least in most settings. They certainly were in the book.
What we got was something completely different; which is why I say "bait and switch." The only way this could have been better is if Angie was in it too; Tom Cruise would have been the icing on the cake. Oh well, I am glad the people who enjoyed this enjoyed it. The rest of us will wait for, you know, actual zombies and stuff.
but what is the difference? I know Celtic will say these were not zombies and nothing will change his mind or whatever.
But these things Were zombies. They just didn't eat people. but so what? they were dead and they came back to life and they attacked people.
besides the eating people part they were exactly zombies. They were a different kind of zombie, but zombies nonetheless. I'm just saying, You can hate the movie all you want, that's fine, but these were zombies.
If this movie had no affiliation with World War Z do you think you would have enjoyed it? I think too many people can't separate the fact that it doesn't follow the book. At face value I think it was a good action movie. I have not read the book but it would not have mattered to me that it didn't follow the book.We were taken in by the concept, which centered around a world-wide zombie outbreak and a quite-interesting book precursor. Zombies tend to be scary, at least in most settings. They certainly were in the book.
What we got was something completely different; which is why I say "bait and switch." The only way this could have been better is if Angie was in it too; Tom Cruise would have been the icing on the cake. Oh well, I am glad the people who enjoyed this enjoyed it. The rest of us will wait for, you know, actual zombies and stuff.
And as an aside this movie definitely had zombies in it. Doesn't matter how you look at it. If a person is dead and then reanimates it is a zombie.
We actually don't know that they don't eat people because they show a crowd of them jumping on someone and then cut away, but we know for a fact they bit them.
Project_A
Super Freak
- Joined
- Apr 23, 2011
- Messages
- 12,055
- Reaction score
- 2,077
Some people actually thought it was going to be a horror movie? 
I enjoyed, even with the over-the-top scenes.
I enjoyed, even with the over-the-top scenes.
- Joined
- Jan 5, 2008
- Messages
- 35,160
- Reaction score
- 2
I hope the betus takes over your body. Like a fake zombie virus.
Having a film that bears a resemblance to the source material in name only is just asking for the derision of source-material fans. This is the main reason its a bad idea to throw the original concept out the window, but studios never learn. And I don't look for that to be changin'.
So, to answer your question: if it had no affiliation, it would not even be on my radar. I am not really interested in the idea of wild people overrunning the world, which is kind of what this film turned out to be. Its not scary, its not eerie, its not creeping me out. Its just meh.
Let me ask you this hypothetical question: if a "zombie" does not decay, if it does not kill by bodily trauma - WHERE is the horror in that? Zombies are about horrible, disgusting "things" turning you into one of them. Its kind of like Invasion of the Body Snatchers: a slow wave of horrible, inhuman things slowly takes over the whole world, turning everyone into one of themselves. In the end, none will escape.
But here, we don't have "zombies": we have the film equivalent of poking an anthill and observing the "ants" [zombies] running hither, thither and yon in a mindless frenzy. They don't decay, they don't do anything except trash the place. Meh.
In fact I would rather see a film about giant ants invading. That would be awesome.
rushmore223
Super Freak
Having a film that bears a resemblance to the source material in name only is just asking for the derision of source-material fans. This is the main reason its a bad idea to throw the original concept out the window, but studios never learn. And I don't look for that to be changin'.
So, to answer your question: if it had no affiliation, it would not even be on my radar. I am not really interested in the idea of wild people overrunning the world, which is kind of what this film turned out to be. Its not scary, its not eerie, its not creeping me out. Its just meh.
Let me ask you this hypothetical question: if a "zombie" does not decay, if it does not kill by bodily trauma - WHERE is the horror in that? Zombies are about horrible, disgusting "things" turning you into one of them. Its kind of like Invasion of the Body Snatchers: a slow wave of horrible, inhuman things slowly takes over the whole world, turning everyone into one of themselves. In the end, none will escape.
But here, we don't have "zombies": we have the film equivalent of poking an anthill and observing the "ants" [zombies] running hither, thither and yon in a mindless frenzy. They don't decay, they don't do anything except trash the place. Meh.
In fact I would rather see a film about giant ants invading. That would be awesome.
How do you know they don't decay? Movie took place over a short period of time.
Similar threads
