World War Z 2

Fysh

A *lot* of money got spent on marketing the film, so I don't know that its global takings would've been anywhere close to what was hoped for.

More importantly, for me, was the way that a great book with a lot of thought put into how various aspecta of societies would cope (or fail to cope) with a zombie outbreak got "adapted" into a film which amounted to Brad Pitt's Zombie World Tour (with cheap, obvious CGI and a lumpy turd of a script). Whether or not another one gets made, I'd have zero interest in a sequel - and I think that's true of a lot of people, whether they love the book or just want to enjoy good films.

Tony EH

check_six wrote: »

If I recall correctly the book wasn't a single narrative. It was a series of recollections of different characters experiences of the big zombie war. In that format, it's only filmable as an anthology piece. Having a single hero visit all the different battlezones was the only way to make it more hollywoody. They selected a group of zombie adventures to put the hero through which could have fitted into the book, but weren't the same stories that did appear in print. The movie was okay. Revisiting it I found diminished the impact. The books tone was up and down as well, I don't remember it building up to a big finale. They could throw out a sequel of another group of zombie adventures, I suppose. The money the first one made would seem to indicate they will give it a go.

True. I feel the Max Brooks' book would be better served as a TV series. But, people would probably just think "walking dead again". Especially since 'Fear the Walking Dead' is just "walking dead again".

Still though, it's supremely irritating that the makers took the name of a great piece of zombie lore and screwed it up into this mess. They're not even bloody zombies in the film, in the Romero filmic sense. Just infected hosts for some stupid viral nonsense that can somehow avoid hosts with terminal illnesses! What? :rolleyes:

The whole thing drives me nuts.

pixelburp

I think there was a script by J Michael Straczynski that leaked way back in the day, though no idea if it was official or just Straczynski's fan fiction: in it the narrative was more closely aligned to the book, following a lead character trying to catalogue the events and personal stories of the plague. IIRC there wasn't a cure, or some contrived 'ticking clock' narrative forcing the story ahead.

DrumSteve

Read the book...

...It would have made a much better tv show.

Nervous Wreck

pixelburp wrote: »

I think there was a script by J Michael Straczynski that leaked way back in the day, though no idea if it was official or just Straczynski's fan fiction: in it the narrative was more closely aligned to the book, following a lead character trying to catalogue the events and personal stories of the plague. IIRC there wasn't a cure, or some contrived 'ticking clock' narrative forcing the story ahead.

Wow, a WWZ movie written by Straczynski could have been special.

pixelburp

So for those wondering if or when a sequel might happen, do you suppose even the wildest fans of the first film thought someone like David Fincher might direct the follow-up?

'Cos, remarkably, he is. Or at least so claims Variety:

http://variety.com/2017/film/news/david-fincher-world-war-z-2-director-1202399978/

Now, nothing is confirmed & the film hasn't even been restored to the studio schedule yet, but supposedly it will & with Fincher at the helm. Bizarre to be honest and begs the question what kind of path might be taken here.

Tony EH

GTFO. :eek:

That's just mind boggling.

What can they be waving in his face to get that deal, assuming it's real.

Pete Moss

Absolutely loved the book and, like most have said, a mini-series would do it more justice than a movie. The Fincher rumour has me intrigued though.

I'd like to see a movie true to the book and presented in a documentary style format, but I imagine any sequel will just be in a similar vein to the Brad Pitt movie.

If anyone's interested the audio book (or at least segments of it) is on YouTube. Mark Hamill narrates the Battle of Yonkers chapter and it's the balls. I think it's Henry Rollins who narrates the story of the body-guard working at the 'celebratory fortress', which is also excellent.

pixelburp

Tony EH wrote: »

GTFO. :eek:

That's just mind boggling.

What can they be waving in his face to get that deal, assuming it's real.

Yeah it's utterly bonkers and defies logic somewhat. Begs the question what potential Fincher sees in a sequel that he's even apparently considering it, or indeed what format or idea he was sold by the studio. Though he's not exactly the kind of director that'd take any guff or shenanigans by execs, so he must be promised a fair amount of autonomy.

Tony EH

I'm very interested now to see where this goes, even though 'World War Z' was absolute pants and no doubt the silly premises in that film will severely dent a sequel, presuming that it's a direct sequel.

But Fincher is top class, with just a few of his films being duds for me. The vast majority of his output is extremely watchable.

I'd love to have been a fly on the wall for that meeting. :pac:

Sad Professor

That Fincher wants to do this isn't that surprising to me. He's been attached to all sorts of stuff over the years. What's more surprising is that the studio wants him. Fincher doesn't do something unless he has full creative control.

catbear

Loved the book, read it in one sitting. Gripping stuff.

The only thing it had in common with the movie was a zombie apocalyse so they're not really comparable. The worst cliches were packed into the movies, chaos everywhere, people running in the streets yet our hero someone manages to drive out of the city! After that just turn your brain off.

Oafley Jones

Sad Professor wrote: »

That Fincher wants to do this isn't that surprising to me. He's been attached to all sorts of stuff over the years. What's more surprising is that the studio wants him. Fincher doesn't do something unless he has full creative control.

I'm guessing that's part of the draw. Give it to someone who'll have a very clear vision for the project and avoid the mess that was the first's production.

Sad Professor

Oafley Jones wrote: »

I'm guessing that's part of the draw. Give it to someone who'll have a very clear vision for the project and avoid the mess that was the first's production.

Yeah, I think that's definitely what got him the job.

It'll be interesting to see how it goes. I'm assuming Fincher wouldn't commit to another Alien 3 cluster**** of a production.

Tony EH

If he does commit and it turns out half as good as 'Alien 3', it might be worth watching.

peteeeed

its happening

https://www.empireonline.com/movies/news/world-war-z-2-shoot-david-fincher-brad-pitt-2019/

pixelburp

I dunno, I'm still super sceptical this will happen with Fincher: he seems a busy man what with Mindhunter and could see it slipping again. One of those projects he thinks could be a wheeze, but something a tiny bit more interesting keeps interrupting.

Sleepy

****e. I was really hoping the rights would lapse and Netflix or HBO would pick them up to give the source material a proper treatment.

This will be bilge.

CatFromHue

As mentioned earlier in the thread I'm not sure where they can go with a sequel as the end of the first one seems to tie up the story.

Unless they make it a political thriller about how Cuba is now the world's leading economy :pac:

pixelburp

Sleepy wrote: »

****e. I was really hoping the rights would lapse and Netflix or HBO would pick them up to give the source material a proper treatment.

This will be bilge.

David Fincher is the obvious headline, but Dennis Kelly as writer is an interesting choice too (he wrote the Channel 4 thriller, Utopia - which as it happens, was originally meant to have a Fincher helmed US adaptation).

Assuming this becomes a reality - and I really don't think it will - there's plenty of reasons behind the lens why it could be a good film.

storker

CatFromHue wrote: »

As mentioned earlier in the thread I'm not sure where they can go with a sequel

They could try just making a decent job of it this time.

peteeeed

i haven't read the book so sorry for the following statement , i loved the film

CatFromHue

It's a pretty good Zombie film in fairness and does capture the essence of the book, in that the book is a worldwide take on the Zombie War.

It's just there's soooo much more story in the book that's impossible to capture in the film.

Thargor

CatFromHue wrote: »

It's a pretty good Zombie film in fairness and does capture the essence of the book, in that the book is a worldwide take on the Zombie War.

It's just there's soooo much more story in the book that's impossible to capture in the film.

Nah they ruined it with the complete and utter stupidity of the plot and the "cure", terrible CGI aswell. It should have been shot in faux-documentary style with flashbacks, the book provided everything they needed to make the all time best zombie film, could have used unknown actors aswell.

brevity

pixelburp wrote: »

David Fincher is the obvious headline, but Dennis Kelly as writer is an interesting choice too (he wrote the Channel 4 thriller, Utopia - which as it happens, was originally meant to have a Fincher helmed US adaptation).

Assuming this becomes a reality - and I really don't think it will - there's plenty of reasons behind the lens why it could be a good film.

Yup. Utopia is an excellent tv show. Must rewatch that.

For all it’s faults and despite the fact it has very little in common with the book I actually enjoyed WWZ.

I’ll watch anything with fincher involved so looking forward to this.

CatFromHue

If you never heard of the book you'd have thought the film was good, or at least of the people I know that was their opinion.

Tony EH

CatFromHue wrote: »

If you never heard of the book you'd have thought the film was good, or at least of the people I know that was their opinion.

There's nobody I know that likes it, even folk that never read the book, which I've always thought would make really good TV series, albeit an expensive one. But, its episodic nature is tailor made for such a thing.

The movie is just too dumb, even in its own right. There's some exciting visuals, here and there. But, overall, it's a terrible film.

Still, I'd love to know where they're going to go with this sequel. Because other than "oh noes, it's all happening again!", I can't really see another story out of this. It was all wrapped up, ridiculously so IMO, in the first film.

TerrorFirmer

I thought it was OK and I've read the book, realistically the format of the book would suit a TV show very well but not so much a blockbuster movie.

Kiith

I really wish they'd just drop the name. It has absolutely nothing in common with the book. The zombies aren't even remotely similar. As others have suggested, iIt would be far more suited to a series shot as a faux documentary.

PhiloCypher

This was one of those films I was initially disappointed with due to having only recently read the book, but have since revisited and enjoyed it for what it was, a decent 28days type zombie film.

While I can kinda understand why Pitt would be pushing for a sequel, im baffled as to why Fincher would want to be involved in making it. He doesn't strike me as a sequel kinda guy. Is this a just cheque book film for him or does he have unique vision for it .