
So, the first trailer for World War Z came out, and the Internet pretty much went ballistic that it was an action movie with lots of zombies starring Brad Pitt, as opposed to a romantic comedy or something.
It’s been getting roundly mocked, words we’re pretty sure will be eaten come the movie’s actual release, since Marc Forster isn’t exactly a hack.
Far be it from us to throw the usual “books are not movies” argument at you. And yes, World War Z is a great book, but it wouldn’t automatically make a great movie. Here’s why, instead, a faithful “World War Z” movie would actually kinda stink.
It’d Have To Make A Litany of Legal Compromises
Let’s just pick one section of the book, one where a bunch of fame whores get set up in a secure compound and then discover normal people want to survive too. The scene works because Max Brooks carefully dances around identifying people: You know exactly who they are, but Brooks never names them. It’s a gleefully nasty laugh at the expense of people becoming famous for being unlikeable.
Now imagine that scene on film, with a bunch of crappy impersonators. Or even worse, imagine that scene clumsily updated, since it’s not like Rueben whatsisname from American Idol has made much of a pop cultural impression in recent years and one of the gags is that he blows himself up with a grenade.
That’s just the start: It’s not like most of the governments involved would be happy to be portrayed as incompetent or, later on, willing to leave any of their citizens to die.
The Plot Would Be Tricky At Best To Capture
What makes World War Z work as a book is that there are connecting threads between the different stories. Events in one story are mentioned or come up in another. But that’s harder to do in film. There’s not a connecting throughline. The result would be more of a series of short films than an actual movie, and a lot of detail would be either lost in the translation or become Easter eggs at best.
It Would Likely Be A Found-Footage Mockumentary
Let’s say you did decide to adapt the book straight. Actually adapting each story is financially out of the question: That’s a good $200 to $300 million, right there. So you’d have to fill it with talking heads and have the “action” scenes be found footage. Found footage movies can work: Barry Levinson’s The Bay is a great example of how it’s possible.
There’s a reason we make fun of found-footage mockumentaries: They’re cheap but they’re hard to make into something genuinely convincing. It’d be far more likely to collapse into a cheese fest.
No Movie Star, No Effects Budget
Here’s the hard reality of Hollywood: You need a recognizable star in the lead. World War Z has a few people the book follows throughout its course, but there’s no central protagonist, per se. No star, no budget. That cop getting creamed by a garbage truck and those swarms of zombies in the trailer? They wouldn’t be there without Brad Pitt. In more ways than one, actually: Pitt’s Plan B is heavily involved in the production.
The Book’s Political Messages Are Already A Bit Shopworn
Finally, there’s this problem.
World War Z is a great book, undeniably, but part of the reason it works was that it was very much set directly in the time it was written, which was six years ago.
When this book hit print, America alone was in the middle of two wars, the GOP completely controlled the federal government, the economy was riding the housing bubble, and terrorism was still a major cultural fear.
True, Katrina outrage was hitting new heights and voters would sweep the GOP out of power two months later. But there’s no getting around the fact that the zombie apocalypse starts in a very, very different world than the one we have now.
You can’t really throw the politics out of the book, but in order for a movie to remotely work, they’d have to be either heavily updated or heavily downplayed. Either way, it’d be a compromise that wouldn’t sit well with anybody, fan or non-fan.
We’re not saying the movie will be spectacular, necessarily, although we suspect if that trailer had a different title we’d be seeing Brad Pitt welcomed with open arms. But it’s worth remembering that sometimes, even the most well-meaning have to take liberties with the material.




I’m going to see Brooks speak at my alma mater on Wednesday night, and if they open the floor up to questions, I’m definitely going to get his thoughts on the movie from what we, the public, have seen so far.
Let us know what he says, I’d love to hear it.
I once saw him in Dallas speak right after World War Z came out. During the QA session, I was picked and my question was, “Since he rose from the dead, do you consider Jesus Christ a zombie?”
His response was, “I’m not going to answer that in a Red State.”
I actually saw him when he came to speak at my alma mater as well a couple years back, when it was recently announced that Pitt’s film production company had picked up the rights. I asked him what he knew about the project at the time, and he essentially said that, in the grand hierarchy of people involved in the production of the movie (directors, actors, producers, etc), he knew less than the craft services guys on set. That was pretty disheartening to hear, but that might explain why the movie doesn’t look so faithful, at least in how the zombies are treated.
I recently re-read the book after Sandy took out my power for 10 days. It really was amazing, but Dan you’re totally right, its almost unfilmable in today’s political climate. I’m sure they’d have to avoid the entire Chinese revolution in the book with China being a major power player in Hollywood (see:Iron Man 3.) Oh and a Jamaican president? Not even exciting when we’ve had a Nigerian in office for 4 years with another 4 coming up (I kid I kid.)
Not even the Chinese stuff, really, although that would lock it out of the Chinese market. Does anybody really care about a Bush administration shill essentially consigned to shoveling turds?
Someone smarter than I am posted on one of these sites (FilmDrunk maybe?) that World War Z would’ve been better served as an HBO mini-series. That way you could cope with the changing focus and still maintain the common threads. The controversy and difference in geopolitical climate would certainly still be issues, but it would still be a much more faithful adaptation.
I don’t know, though. The miniseries would still have the budget issues, and the gorilla in the room with that one is “The Walking Dead”.
I was just scrolling on down here to write that very thing. I think a mini-series on HBO or Showtime would be great. Do a few “seasons”; 3-4 episodes for the outbreak, during the crisis, and post-crisis. People would definitely equate it to Walking Dead at first, but I think that would end pretty quick once it got going and the differences were spotlighted. Plus, it’s a premium channel… cursing and the possibility of boobs can always draw a crowd. Even undead boobs.
I’ve mentioned this in my insane FilmDrunk post ramblings about WWZ, but I think a faithful movie adaptation is absolutely possible. It just needs to be done in a trilogy, with the installments of the outbreak, the failed responses and collapse of society, and then the final wars to take back society. I have a glimmer of hope that maybe that’s what’s going on here, but I think since it’s been such a mess from the start that it’ll be a one-and-done.
Also, even if it were just one movie, I could see it done right with the points you’ve made taken into consideration, and the focus being on the guy collecting the stories. I see it like The Thin Red Line, but with zombies.
That would be an interesting movie, but I’m not sure audiences would bite, to be honest.
To be fair, I’m going to complain about it no matter what.
I want to see a “after after the end” movie myself, but it’ll probably be an indie.
I’ve never read the book, but after reading Burnsy’s FilmDrunk post about doing it faithfully, I think it would work and be accepted. Especially since zombie films aren’t really known for taking narrative chances. Either we see the initial outbreak or we’re flung into the story as the world has gone to shit. Then it’s either everyone trying to find a safe haven, or it’s a quest for the cure.
So yeah, you either rely on different actors for each segment carrying the story, or you focus on Brad Pitt as he collects these stories, much in the way that Moneyball became the life of Billy Beane.
It’s said that this is the start of a trilogy.
I’ve never read that, but it gives me a little faith. The problem is, for this to be a trilogy, it has to make money, and when they’re already so far over budget and it’s drowning in terrible rumors, that ain’t going to help. I hope it’s true.
I loved the book but had no expectations for a faithful retelling of the story. My only complaint is the treatment of the zombies. Why are they running? Why are they flocking / swarming / whatever the fuck you want to call that retarded shit they’re doing?
Zombies don’t fucking run. They don’t. And I don’t give a shit how much you might have liked the Dawn Of The Dead remake (I liked it too, by the way), they shouldn’t be running.
I think they’re trying to capture something Brooks mentioned, which is that enough zombies will pile up when swarming that they can climb walls.
Yeah, I hear you. And if they had just made the zombies walk and pile up like that they, sure, I’m all in. But the trailer makes it look like this zombies are fast and swarming around like ants. That’s…different.
I will say it is at least different, which considering the budget behind this thing is a miracle.
I hate running zombies too. This has to do with the impatience of modern audiences. The original Dawn of the Dead had the zombies being individually harmless if you’re careful, but when a group built up around you you’d be fucked. Building that tension as a group piles up is worth the wait, but it may be seen as time consuming compared to having one zombie running at you full steam.
I think they could do it close to the book. Its a movie and they might have to take a few liberties with the plot but it is certainly possible. I judt dont like the totally CG look of the huge rolling waves of zombies that the trailer has showcased so far. It just looks stupid….
Eh, it’s likely not an entirely finished shot and it’s not in full resolution. I’m reserving judgment until the final trailer hits.
I read an early draft of the script when it was still being developed, and it was way too faithful to the source material (and I did enjoy the book greatly). It was essentially a UN Investigator interviewing people all over the world, listening to their 5 pg monologues and then seeing what happened in flashback. The twist at the end was the UN guy’s own family, while safe up north, was in a community where food had been scarce, and they had to turn to cannibalism. Their daughter found out she had been eating people stew and went crazy – she thinks she’s a zombie, even though she’s perfectly fine. It was an ok read, but would have been a terrible movie. You have to make your main character active, you have to be entertaining, you have to be compelling. And that version was not really any of those things.
JMS draft? That daughter thing sounds like his kind of bullshit.
I was going to say, real or not, that sounds like a bad Twilight Zone episode.
Yeah, the JMS pass. I read it a few years ago, so don’t recall all the details, but that’s the general drift of the story.
You’re write I don’t want a faithful WWZ film. I want an HBO series where each story could be it’s own episode, or several episodes for the longer stories, and each one could be book-ended by the interviews. Think about it, there could be a multitude of directors to capture every chapter’s unique feel; horror, action, humor, drama, educational. If budget’s a concern make it an animation. There’s enough smooth yet realistic styles of animation out there for this to work; “Waltz with Bashir” and “Paprika” are great examples.
I would love to see the other stories turned into animated episodes.
Sadly, “Paprika” is no longer a good example due to the death of Satoishi Kon.
Solid article and I completely agree.
One thing to remember also is that trailers can be completely misleading when it comes to the actual plot or sometimes even the genre of a film.
Marc Forster is not a hack, but is probably as mediocre as it gets.
I wouldn’t go that far. He’s talented. I don’t think he’s an auteur, but he’s pretty good at what he does, and far better at action movies than Oscar bait.
I was so looking forward to seeing Bill Maher banging Ann Coulter while they get eaten alive.
I bet you were, you kinky bastard.
I always thought of it being John Stewart and Coulter.
All your points are pretty much dead on the money…but that doesn’t stop me (and probably lots of others) from being disappointed. If you can’t make a movie faithful to the book..then why make it? Or at least why bother giving it the “World War Z” title? No matter how good the film may or may not end up being, people are going to walk away unsatisfied.
I have come to the sad conclusion that this film will never be what the books were. This is not because of the old “Books are better than film” argument. This is because the world within the books was insanely large. What we will get, instead, is a watered down version, easy to consume by the masses. The book would have been made, no matter if it had Pitt or the homeless guy pissing under the bridge. Would it have gotten anywhere close to the asinine budget that Pitt brought to it? No. However, that honestly doesn’t make a better film. As for the whole idea of presenting numerous stories within one film, it is hard to pull off well. Yet, it is done all the time. I submit into evidence “The Zombie Diaries”, as a Zombie related, multistory film.The bottom line for me is, I watched the trailer a few times, when it was released, and I was not happy with what I viewed. However, just like “I am Legend”, which the Zombies in the WWZ trailer reminded me of, because of their behavior and CGI, I will still go and see it.