The movie wouldn't work f it only catered to fans, it just wouldn't make a profit and even if i would be happy as a badger on cocaine if things were different, the fact remains that without profit(or atleast even), nothing will get made.
I think the movie industry, and apparently you, have a pretty cynical attitude regarding what people would enjoy.
The vast majority of people I know hate the "blockbuster" approach producers take these days. Most people I know only go to see the movies anyway because they're hoping they haven't done that too much and cocked it all up.
If Brooks says it's ok, then the movie is ok. What we feel about it is ofcourse our opinion, but in a neutral sense only the makers/original writer of the stuff can say what is correct. Too much of fans saying what things shold be these days.
Brooks himself could've been the screenwriter, but according to wiki(yeah yeah) he said himself he's not good enough to write it. Which is odd considering he wrote the thing in the first place, but also his choice.
The movie wouldn't work f it only catered to fans, it just wouldn't make a profit and even if i would be happy as a badger on cocaine if things were different, the fact remains that without profit(or atleast even), nothing will get made.
Author in "don't fuck up my payday" shock. The views of authors about adaptations are neither here nor there frankly, as we don't know their own motivations. Certain authors are happy to take the money with the view that movies and books are different so why should they care? Whereas at the other extreme you also get the Alan Moore's who refuse to have anything to do with it. Both approaches are right and wrong.
Writing a novel and writing a screenplay are very different disciplines. Most book authors shy away from adapting their own work.
Then why call it World War Z? Its not Harry Potter, its a fairly niche title that doesn't have that much recognition among the general public. When it comes to genre fiction, the fan boys are your marketing campaign; its their word of mouth that gets bums on seats. If it was called "generic zombie action movie", fan boys would probably love it, but because it has quite a cult status, exactly because of its verité style, throwing that out just pisses its key influencing group off.
Seems fairly obvious to me that the studio has made the call that Brad Pitt will be the driver of audience numbers and they don't need to worry about the fans.
FAir point, but personally i've always leaned towards the makers saying what is right and the fans saying if it's good. If that makes more sense.
Best examples would be Marvel movies, which to be fair usually are really good, but sometimes also take wrong turns even if they believe it's the right one. A
Romeros explanation for fast zombies not being possible was something towards their feet couldn't take it, so there might be room for very short bursts of speed.
Because zombies are of course, real.
Because zombies are of course, real.
Enjoyable enough film, if you can stomach Team America and Brad Pitt saving the world (again). It proudly says it is "based on" the book, but I'd say "inspired by" was more accurate. But like I say, an enjoyable enough way to spend a Sunday evening. Certainly better than watching England lose to India in the cricket.