or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

World War Z - Page 5

post #121 of 292
Quote:
Originally Posted by GoCaboNow View Post

Who needs blood if it has intestines?smile.gif

Quote:
Originally Posted by General Kenobi View Post

I do

Quote:
Originally Posted by GoCaboNow View Post

Spilling intestines > spilling blood tongue.gif

There's already more blood and guts in this thread than the actual movie wink.gif
post #122 of 292
This is nothing but a Hollywood cooking cutter bowling for dollars movie. I just hope Max got some decent $$$.

larry
post #123 of 292
Maybe Hollywood is counting on the movie attracting a lot of (real) zombies (most of the dumbed down public). wink.gif
post #124 of 292
Has anyone here seen the film?
post #125 of 292
Quote:
Originally Posted by Morpheo View Post

There's already more blood and guts in this thread than the actual movie wink.gif
Yeah, that.biggrin.gif

Quote:
Originally Posted by Toe View Post

Has anyone here seen the film?
Oddly (when you consider some of the posts), no one actually has.
post #126 of 292
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brian Conrad View Post

Maybe Hollywood is counting on the movie attracting a lot of (real) zombies (most of the dumbed down public). wink.gif
In that context, a zombie apocalypse is a lot closer than some may think. smile.gif
post #127 of 292
Quote:
Originally Posted by PooperScooper View Post

In that context, a zombie apocalypse is a lot closer than some may think. smile.gif

Bring it on I have my motorbike ready, a chainsaw in one hand, a shotgun and a blonde beauty riding with me. What more can I ask for biggrin.gif
post #128 of 292
Quote:
Originally Posted by oink View Post

Yeah, that.biggrin.gif
Oddly (when you consider some of the posts), no one actually has.

Exactly. If I judged movies on early reports and going off trailers, there would be a LOT of films over the years that I would have never watched and ended up really enjoying. I guess I prefer doing things the crazy old fashioned way of watching the movie first before judging and making up my own mind as far as how good or bad it is as crazy as that is!!!!




biggrin.gif

I would be curious to hear opinions good or bad from members who have actually watched the film though.
post #129 of 292
Quote:
Originally Posted by Toe View Post

Exactly. If I judged movies on early reports and going off trailers, there would be a LOT of films over the years that I would have never watched and ended up really enjoying. I guess I prefer doing things the crazy old fashioned way of watching the movie first before judging and making up my own mind as far as how good or bad it is as crazy as that is!!!!




biggrin.gif

I would be curious to hear opinions good or bad from members who have actually watched the film though.

Going by the trailer looks quite good smile.gif
post #130 of 292
Quote:
Originally Posted by Franin View Post

Bring it on I have my motorbike ready, a chainsaw in one hand, a shotgun and a blonde beauty riding with me. What more can I ask for biggrin.gif
I think you, and everyone else for that matter, should probably read this first:
http://www.cracked.com/blog/6-sensible-things-you-should-never-do-in-zombie-outbreak/

Quote:
Originally Posted by Toe View Post

I guess I prefer doing things the crazy old fashioned way of watching the movie first before judging and making up my own mind as far as how good or bad it is as crazy as that is!!!!
You are ageing yourself there, dude.tongue.gif

Quote:
members who have actually watched the film
The best weathervane I know of.wink.gif
post #131 of 292
Quote:
Originally Posted by oink View Post

I think you, and everyone else for that matter, should probably read this first:
http://www.cracked.com/blog/6-sensible-things-you-should-never-do-in-zombie-outbreak/

Ill take my chances biggrin.gif
post #132 of 292
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brian Conrad View Post

Maybe Hollywood is counting on the movie attracting a lot of (real) zombies (most of the dumbed down public). wink.gif
Therein lies the plausability for sucess of the Zombie horde
Quote:
Originally Posted by PooperScooper View Post

In that context, a zombie apocalypse is a lot closer than some may think. smile.gif
Most have no idea...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Toe View Post

Exactly. If I judged movies on early reports and going off trailers, there would be a LOT of films over the years that I would have never watched and ended up really enjoying. I guess I prefer doing things the crazy old fashioned way of watching the movie first before judging and making up my own mind as far as how good or bad it is as crazy as that is!!!!

I would be curious to hear opinions good or bad from members who have actually watched the film though.
I don't even know what you are talking about here? biggrin.gif


Quote:
Originally Posted by Franin View Post

Bring it on I have my motorbike ready, a chainsaw in one hand, a shotgun and a blonde beauty riding with me. What more can I ask for biggrin.gif
Uh, hello. BEER. smile.gif
post #133 of 292
Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by GoCaboNow View Post


Uh, hello. BEER. smile.gif

Thought about that but have to be focused
post #134 of 292
Quote:
Originally Posted by GoCaboNow View Post

Therein lies the plausability for sucess of the Zombie horde
Most have no idea...
When it hits....will you hide a fellow Oregonian in your HT?
post #135 of 292
Here is a short non-spoiler review from someone who went to that screening:

http://www.ign.com/articles/2013/05/23/we-have-seen-world-war-z
Quote:
It was totally worth the trip.

...any troubles World War Z faced behind the scenes aren't readily apparent in the final product. It's not a perfect movie, but it is often intense and engrossing, and the crowd at the screening last night really seemed to dig it.

...while the film is based on Max Brooks' novel, it deviates significantly from it. This version of the tale is a Brad Pitt thriller that happens to be set in a world of zombies, one crafted around the star and his character. I've read the book and enjoyed it, but I enjoyed the movie in a different way altogether.
post #136 of 292
Saw the trailer before the start of Star Trek this weekend. Although I know the Carnahan screenplay deviates from Max Brooks' book, it looked like it just might be a winner. Here's hoping the door is left open for a sequel if that is the case.
post #137 of 292
I've had the sort of pleasure of seeing this film. Yes, I was hater for months, but in the end, it's not that bad. Is it great? No. But it's BIG and it feels big because it IS big.

As in EPIC sized.

What's holding it back? The rating. No question PG-13 zombies with less blood than one can see on network television sucks some life out of the proceedings, but once you accept it, for the most part the film works. Like Spielberg has been able to do in a few films, crowds are used to enhance fear and terror. Few films succeed in making you believe there are thousands about, in panic, running for their lives. Normally the filmmakers fail to make it seem real. Here the crowd scenes have a reality and a sense of scale rarely captured with such vigor.

All of the cast does well and Pitt does carry the film. He feels like the movie star guy and has enough chops to pull it off.

Will this film make back its budget? I don't see how. It needs to earn 800 million to break even. What's certain is Brad Pitt was right to think this could be an epic film. it's just a shame the studio went off half cocked like they did.

So I'd say a solid B to maybe even a B+.
post #138 of 292
Cost was pegged at $170 million. Hard to believe $630 million was used for promotion et al. Did the movie lend itself to the possibility of a sequel?
post #139 of 292
Quote:
Originally Posted by Matt_Stevens View Post

Will this film make back its budget? I don't see how. It needs to earn 800 million to break even. What's certain is Brad Pitt was right to think this could be an epic film. it's just a shame the studio went off half cocked like they did.

800 millions???? how so?
post #140 of 292
I never have understood the crazy multipliers that are put on films to guarantee they "make money". If that means the investors all have to triple their investment, I don't particularly agree. If they make one penny extra over what they put in minus expenses and taxes, that's a profit. And my bet is they nearly always do.
post #141 of 292
Quote:
Originally Posted by Matt_Stevens View Post

I've had the sort of pleasure of seeing this film. Yes, I was hater for months, but in the end, it's not that bad. Is it great? No. But it's BIG and it feels big because it IS big.

As in EPIC sized.

What's holding it back? The rating. No question PG-13 zombies with less blood than one can see on network television sucks some life out of the proceedings, but once you accept it, for the most part the film works. Like Spielberg has been able to do in a few films, crowds are used to enhance fear and terror. Few films succeed in making you believe there are thousands about, in panic, running for their lives. Normally the filmmakers fail to make it seem real. Here the crowd scenes have a reality and a sense of scale rarely captured with such vigor.

All of the cast does well and Pitt does carry the film. He feels like the movie star guy and has enough chops to pull it off.

Will this film make back its budget? I don't see how. It needs to earn 800 million to break even. What's certain is Brad Pitt was right to think this could be an epic film. it's just a shame the studio went off half cocked like they did.

So I'd say a solid B to maybe even a B+.

This is a surprising endorsement.
post #142 of 292
Quote:
Originally Posted by benes View Post

Basic economics. Profit does not automatically equal success. Its called Return on Investment.

Spending $200 million to make one penny is a massive failure by any definition.
+1

Quote:
Originally Posted by GoCaboNow View Post

This is a surprising endorsement.
+2
post #143 of 292
You can't go wrong with a movie like this...outbreak apocalyptic zombies on a grand scale. I'm looking forward to this 2nd to Man of steel for this summer. And trust me I much rather see Pitt doing something like this instead of Babo or Babit.

And FWIW, that red head Harry @ AICN saw it 2x and loved it.
post #144 of 292
Quote:
Originally Posted by archiguy View Post

I never have understood the crazy multipliers that are put on films to guarantee they "make money". If that means the investors all have to triple their investment, I don't particularly agree. If they make one penny extra over what they put in minus expenses and taxes, that's a profit. And my bet is they nearly always do.

As stated, it's a return on investment thing, or to be more precise, does the venture you put money on earn enough to make it worthwhile and pay your other expenses, like overhead and such. (Studios have bills like everyone else on top of the expense of each movie+marketing the movie.) Whatever profit after all those expenses also funds your next movie, which you probably want on par with the previous movie at a minimum.

Just the other day I was watching American Pickers with some friends, and one of them pointed out that most of the money the guys make is from the show itself. The money they expect to get from the items they buy, we did the math and it was only a 40% profit. And that's if someone buys it. If you're only getting 40% profit, you're going out of business.
post #145 of 292
Quote:
Originally Posted by smudge981 View Post

Cost was pegged at $170 million. Hard to believe $630 million was used for promotion et al. Did the movie lend itself to the possibility of a sequel?
That figure is not even close to being accurate. The budget is now nearly 300 million. At a minimum it's 250 mil and the studio is spending roughly 125 million to promote it.

WWZ needs to be a monster epic hit if it is going to turn a profit. I think it can be a big hit. But it's not Dark Knight level excitement. It ain't THAT kind of film.

But I do actually think this is worth seeing in a theater with a crowd.

And yes, no one is more surprised about this film than I. I sat down for the free screening thinking, "Thank God it's free because I'm about to get pissed off." Didn't turn out that way.
post #146 of 292
Quote:
Originally Posted by Matt_Stevens View Post

But I do actually think this is worth seeing in a theater with a crowd. And yes, no one is more surprised about this film than I. I sat down for the free screening thinking, "Thank God it's free because I'm about to get pissed off." Didn't turn out that way.

That's good to hear because I have it pegged as the next movie to see. I loathe going into a theater with high expectations and come out with them shattered into so many little pieces.
post #147 of 292
Won't wait for the BD....I'll be in the theater for this.smile.gif
post #148 of 292
Matt, is this a shaky-cam fest like Quantum of Solace?
post #149 of 292
Well I am not going to say there is no shaky-cam, because there is. But I don't think it was at that level. Or like A GOOD DAY TO FART HARD. There are actually some really good shots in this where wires or a luma crane must have been employed. There are times where scenes are over-cut. You know, cut cut cut cut cut. And then there are those 100% CGI steadicam shots where the only way the shot would be possible is if it was created in a computer because the camera is moving backwards (or forward) so fast and so far, it's just not technically possible.

Now as for Shaky-cam... It has become almost par for the course and that is a shame. When one sees the fluidity in action for films like The Matrix, Casino Royal, Die Hard 1, any James Cameron film, etc. one understand that is takes pre-planning and skill and a lot of times the guys behind the camera simply do not have the skill or imagination needed to pull fluid action off.

I love the Korean action film SHIRI, but it's kept from being an all time favorite because the camera operator had epilepsy.
post #150 of 292
Quote:
Originally Posted by Matt_Stevens View Post


Now as for Shaky-cam... It has become almost par for the course and that is a shame. When one sees the fluidity in action for films like The Matrix, Casino Royal, Die Hard 1, any James Cameron film, etc. one understand that is takes pre-planning and skill and a lot of times the guys behind the camera simply do not have the skill or imagination needed to pull fluid action off.
Agreed.
It's being done as a crutch to hide the lack of art.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home