World War Z 2

peteeeed

PhiloCypher wrote: »

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 .

the first one did $540,007,876 worldwide and was well reviewed and some of the set pieces (the initial outbreak, south korea, israel , the plane) were great
so there is real potential for the sequel

Kiith

When the worst part of a zombie movie are the zombies, you know there's a problem

Dial Hard

I'm another one who read the book and still enjoyed the movie. I treated it as Contagion meets 28 Days Later with some very periphal tie-ins to the canon.

Agent Coulson

‘World War Z’ Sequel Halts Pre-Production

Pre-production on the sequel to the Paramount hit “World War Z” has been shutdown, sources tell Variety, after a budget for the film could not be reached.

Brad Pitt was set to return and his “Seven” and “Fight Club” director David Fincher was on board to helm. Producers told Variety that the goal was to start production by this summer and while the process was still in the early stages, the studio had begun to look to fill out the ensemble.

Paramount had no comment on the news.

Sources could not confirm what exactly the budget concerns were, other than the studio becoming more and more uncomfortable with where it was headed. The previous film had hit similar production budget issues with Damon Lindelof famously coming on at the last minute to rewrite the third act while the budget continued to inflate. That film was able to survive the production issues and go on to gross $540 million worldwide, but even though that worked out, the studio did not want to see a similar situation on the sequel.

It’s currently unknown whether this film will go back into development or be completely shelved as the studio tries to figure out if the sequel is possible with the right budget.

https://variety.com/2019/film/news/world-war-z-pre-production-shutdown-1203130356/

pixelburp

Budget quibbles, hmmm would be dead (ahaha) curious to know where the sticking point was; alongside Nolan I'd have thought of Fincher as a director who could pretty much demand what he wanted, but I guess there are limits?

Not surprised the project has stalled all the same, even if budget wasn't the reason I had expected to nuke it (rather competing projects on Finchers table)

Sad Professor

I'd say Fincher walked. He's very uncompromising about budget. He won't agree to less than he knows it will cost.

Thargor

Didnt realise the first one had budget issues, the CGI was so bad I assumed it was a low-budget effort that blew its cash on Brad Pitt.

pixelburp

Thargor wrote: »

Didnt realise the first one had budget issues, the CGI was so bad I assumed it was a low-budget effort that blew its cash on Brad Pitt.

Without reading the article for confirmation, from what I vaguely remember the budget exploded because of reshoots; I think they reshot what amounted to the backhalf of the final film. Can't recall WHY they reshot the film mind you

Edit: oh yeah, thstd what the quotes say. the dreaded reshoots

Thargor

The last half was the stupidest/cheapest looking part! Woeful film, not often I leave the cinema that disgusted.

pixelburp

Thargor wrote: »

The last half was the stupidest/cheapest looking part! Woeful film, not often I leave the cinema that disgusted.

That's wholesale reshoots for you; it's kinda the Sunk Cost fallacy in action, the belief one can rescue a costly production by ploughing even more money into it and tearing up what was already made. Last year's Solo was a flop, arguably exacerbated by that 70% reshoot and ballooning of the budget.

Only instance I can think of off the top of my head, where that severe action worked, was Back to the Future and they reshot a large chunk when it became obvious Eric Stoltz was a terrible Marty McFly

Oafley Jones

pixelburp wrote: »

Budget quibbles, hmmm would be dead (ahaha) curious to know where the sticking point was; alongside Nolan I'd have thought of Fincher as a director who could pretty much demand what he wanted, but I guess there are limits?

Not surprised the project has stalled all the same, even if budget wasn't the reason I had expected to nuke it (rather competing projects on Finchers table)

Do you think he has that amount of pull? He’s not exactly prolific nor an earner. Seems like this was doomed the moment Brad Grey died.

rossie1977

Sad Professor wrote: »

I'd say Fincher walked. He's very uncompromising about budget. He won't agree to less than he knows it will cost.

And Paramount have serious financial issues so can't just throw money away.

They basically wrapped everything up in nice little bow in first movie so not sure why they thought returning to it again was good idea.

Mr Crispy

If the world wasn't generally burned out on everything zombesque, the original book would have made a far better mini-series for the likes of HBO to take on. Highly unlikely now.

CatFromHue

Yeah I'm not sure where a sequel could go.

The book does go into what it's like after the war but I can't see them making a film on that material.