Talk:World War Z (film)

August 2011 - movie synopsis is nothing like the book, internet melts down

• "“The story revolves around United Nations employee Gerry Lane (Brad Pitt), who traverses the world in a race against time to stop the Zombie pandemic that is toppling armies and governments and threatening to decimate humanity itself. [Mireille] Enos plays Gerry’s wife Karen Lane; [Daniella] Kertesz is his comrade in arms, Segen.”...
  

... this synopsis is miles away from the story of the book. It raises a new major question – if you’re going to get fans of the book excited only to take away what makes the book unique, what’s the point? To make a movie In Name Only that uses the title as a hook to get people into the theater before switching your bait?
Why does the adaptation formula seem to be:
Find something people like.
Option it.
Change that thing people like."
‘World War Z’ No Longer Sounds Like ‘World War Z’, August 10, 2011

• "Paramount's World War Z is not Max Brooks' World War Z. As anyone who has read (and no doubt subsequently fallen in love with) the latter, it's about an agent of the UN's Postwar Commission who goes around the world to interview survivors of the zombie apocalypse in order to understand exactly how it happened. He's just a researcher trying to unearth facts that the UN might not want to get out whilst making sense of this big, bloody, global brain-eating mess. He is NOT an employee "in a race against time to stop the Zombie pandemic." He's not even a little bit of that. Not even a fraction."
  

Fan Rant: Why Even Call it 'World War Z' at This Point?

• "God damn it. The thing that made World War Z special -- and the thing that makes The Walking Dead special, for that matter -- is that it's not about the zombies, it's about the people. WWZ makes it a global history, where we get to see how a zombie invasion shaped society in general and various places in specific. It's not about one soldier who trots the goddamned globe fighting zombies. That's just another goddamned regular zombie movie, albeit one with a broader scope. Is it really that hard for Hollywood to wrap their heads around a zombie story that isn't a shitty action-horror film? "
  

And Speaking of Crushingly Disappointing Zombie Entertainment News

• "This is a little more straight forward and easily digestible for general audiences, but it's kind of a pointless move considering they're releasing it against a Johnny Depp flick and a week after The Hobbit, both of which have a better chance of winning big at the box office ... Since it now takes place during war, rather than afterwards, it doesn't even seem like much of adaptation. Still, this could end up being a compelling tale, just not the one we were expecting."
  

'World War Z' Might Not Be What We Hoped For

• "This “tweaking” of the story is also a massive change to the character of Pitt’s U.N. employee, who in the book is a man trying to research the global catastrophe to try and gain some perspective on it and what it has done to humanity. In this movie, he’s basically the reluctant hero who must overcome insurmountable odds to save the world ... This stuff happens all the time in Hollywood. Books, old films, foreign films, comic books, board games, toys – even websites – all have their likeness funneled through the Tinseltown machine before a lot of them get spit out the other end as flat sheets of cinematic bologna. Why pretend to be surprised that it’s happening to this book?"
  

‘World War Z’ Movie Debate: Too Different From the Book?. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.178.126.145 (talk) 11:43, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

I am sorry, but I dont understand the point you are trying to make? If you are talking about differences from the book then eventually when the film comes out it will be given a section. MisterShiney ✉ 12:51, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

This isn't about "differences" from the book. It's about the movie trailer apparently revealing that the entire movie has nothing at all to do with book, in any way, shape or form. There was literally no element of the story, or threat, in the trailer that comes from the book. RK (talk) 01:42, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

But how can people get that from a 2 minute trailer? Just because the trailer doesn't show bits people recognise from the book doesn't meant they arnt there. At the end of the day it's an Adaptation. Meaning that it isn't going to be a perfect copy (there rarely is a perfect book/film adaptation). This is all speculation and opinion and shouldn't be included in the article at this time. MisterShiney ✉ 09:07, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Filming in Glasgow

I've put these into the Commons, in case anyone is interested.

• 
  Staged crash showing car and taxi
• 
  Street scene
• 
  Staged crash showing garbage truck on top of car and taxi
• 
  Staged crash showing garbage truck on top of car and taxi
• 
  Filming notice to warn of road closures, filming, etc
• 
  OB and SWAT vehicles
• 
  Street scene with court house on left

--ML5 (talk) 21:09, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Nice work, these are great contributions! If only more people would be as proactive as this.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 13:16, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Incident on set

McAulay, Robert (2011-08-26). "Brad Pitt saves zombie crush girl". Scottish Sun. Retrieved 2011-08-29.

Does anyone know if this is legit? I'm a bit skeptical considering the source.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 13:21, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

There seems to be significant coverage of it, but it all seems to lead back to the one original source from The Sun. So it all depends on that newspaper. ONEder Boy (talk) 00:37, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

I know it can't be considered a legit source for wikipedia, but for what it's worth, I was on set when this apparently happened. And that's all it was, 'apparently', coz it never happened. But that's tabloids for you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.159.123.67 (talk) 16:07, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Oh come on: that was nothing but lame marketting for the film. OMG I cant believe it: not another crappy Zombie movie and B.P. of all peaple staring in it! Can only guess he must just want to impress his kids like Johnny Depp. So glad L.D.'s production company didn't score the rights so we wont see him in this crap and ruining my impression of him for good. Ahum: Guess I'll get back to a good book and hope Holywood keeps getting poorer... :-) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.148.41.172 (talk) 12:15, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

What am I wrong? Do you explain that? something else.

• http://www.manta.com/c/mm4g8fw/g-k-films < Private, headquartes in California. MervinVillarreal (talk) 18:35, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Nationality

Hello, I have a question, what's the country is the movie? America and Britain? why says in "country": United Kingdom?

production companies

• Hemisphere Media Capital-USA
• Skydance Productions-USA
• GK Films, Graham King is british, and is Owner, but the company is based in USA.
• Plan B Entertainment, USA

and is Distributed by Paramount Pictures, USA. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MervinVillarreal (talk • contribs) 13:53, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

please I need a answer to start the a consensus... MervinVillarreal (talk) 23:52, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Any role, no matter how small, a British company plays, makes it a joint venture and as such deserves recognition. Too much edit warring went on over the country it comes under (Mainly over zealous Americans, this isn't the first film article) being mentioned in the opening paragraph so the production countries were removed in this article, leaving the information to be displayed in the info box. There is no need to cite sources for already established facts (Which you provided when you correctly stated that GK Films is a British company). MisterShiney ✉ 00:10, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

What he said.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 00:14, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Wait, so why not type in at AVATAR "country": United States, United Kingdom .... ?

why the "Man of Steel" do not type in Country: United States, United Kingdom? and many more films I could say you, with British participation, but are 100% American.

I think that you don't understand what determines that a film is a country in specific.. MervinVillarreal (talk) 00:20, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

thats correct! I think I love you; MervinVillarreal. 63.141.199.54 (talk) 00:23, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

do a vote? 63.141.199.42 (talk) 00:42, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

i think can not. MervinVillarreal (talk) 00:44, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a democracy.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 12:50, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

thanks for advise him/her, so Mr TripleThreat, if the movie had no British production, why credits are given to uk in the section of country? thanks MervinVillarreal (talk) 17:49, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Please rephrase your question Mervin. Not to sound rude but it is incredih difficult to understand what you mean. MisterShiney ✉ 17:58, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

my English is bad :c ? MervinVillarreal (talk) 19:14, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Just keep it as United States then. All those companies could be called American so why not? You could tag the rest of Graham King's filmography as British which would be incorrect. If anything it will stop this guy above wasting everyone's time with silly discussions. TheClown90 (talk) 19:22, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

This is easy, suppose there is a new movie called "Wikipedia" is directed by one Venezuelan, starring by Indian, Chinese, Koreans, and Martians :'D . Was shot in brazil. and the production company is from the U.S., and also the distributor, and the original story. of Where is the movie? you know it. MervinVillarreal (talk) 19:29, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Again. I see letters and words on the screen but I have no idea what you are saying.

Clown, that won't solve anything as it will as you say be incorrect and confusing to the reader. I say we have 2 choices, point out that it is a joint American/British work (as we would if it was a South African/Brazillian production) or just not bother mentioning it in the opening paragraph at all. MisterShiney ✉ 20:18, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

I have 1 choices ,

World War Z is an upcoming American post-apocalyptic horror film directed by Marc Forster and written by Matthew Michael Carnahan. It is based on the novel of the same name by Max Brooks.

I still think you do not understand, if the great imperialist kingdom did not help in this **** movie, so why must have credits. If the credits are actors, then almost all movies would be British / American. MervinVillarreal (talk) 21:12, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

And now you have to resort to childish xenophobia. Grow up please. TheClown90 (talk) 21:32, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Mervin, if you continue to be disruptive on talk pages and be unwilling to comprimise and reach a nice middle ground then editors will have no choice but to report you. You are clearly hear to antagonise other editors, you have clearly stated on your user page you are here to "change nationality" and you then add a "lol" which to the casual observer makes it seem like you think this is all a bit of a joke. Please be considerate to other editors in discussions and be willing to come to a mutual compromise and be willing to accept when you are wrong when a consensus is against your views. There will be times where you make edits and they are met favourable and with little or no challenge. This is not one of those times. MisterShiney ✉ 21:43, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

• • • • .

Do you agree with this?

World War Z is an upcoming American post-apocalyptic horror film directed by Marc Forster and written by Matthew Michael Carnahan. It is based on the novel of the same name by Max Brooks. The Film was shot in the UK.

those are the only credits to the UK, if you can see IMDB says the movie is from USA, MALTA ¿wtf?

on the website of BFI not found. -- pages about movies that say that World War Z is a American FILM

• http://www.elseptimoarte.net/peliculas/world-war-z-2566.html
• http://www.aullidos.com/pelicula.asp?id_pelicula=837
• http://www.filmaffinity.com/en/film263630.html
• http://zombie.wikia.com/wiki/World_War_Z_(film)
• http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guerra_mundial_Z_(película)

and I could give many more pages. MervinVillarreal (talk) 22:11, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Again, that would be an unsuitable alternative as it is not entirely accurate. The argument that the film is part British isn't because it was filmed in part in the UK, but because one of the companies involved in its Production/Distribution is British and as such deserves the appropriate recognition. As for those sources, I am not sure they could be considered reliable as 1) Some appear to be wiki sister sites and as such are user contributed. 2) They are in foreign languages and as such could quite frankly say anything and are not accessible to be average English speaking reader. You would have to consult a more experienced user/admi to clarify it. Or consult Wikipedia:Reliable sources and follow those guidelines. Bearing in mind that your interpretation may differ from other users and the consensus of how they are interpreted. MisterShiney ✉ 23:46, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

¿WHAAT? Does the film was produced by a British company? error, in the movie there is not a British production.

Studio

• Plan B Entertainment-USA
• Apparatus Productions-USA
• GK Films- USA
• Hemisphere Media Capital- USA
• Latina Pictures-MALTA wtf?
• Paramount Pictures- USA, helped both, in production and in distribution.
• Skydance Productions-USA

please you can say to me which producer and distributor you talking about? MervinVillarreal (talk) 13:37, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Other user have already explained that you are wrong. Accept it and move the fuck on retard! It's not that hard! 81.152.29.37 (talk) 02:06, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Whilst your sentiments are understandable. Personal Attacks on users are NOT ACCEPTABLE at all. Please refrain from doing so! Mervin, whilst the comment was not appropriate, the sentiment remains the same. You need to accept that users are telling you accross multiple pages that you are wrong and move on buddy. Best bet is to let other users deal with it and try and edit Wikipedia constructively in other ways. MisterShiney ✉ 02:40, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

What I do? I try to do the right thing, but if the movie has no British producer, so why you have to give credits?, makes no sense.MervinVillarreal (talk) 15:34, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Look. GK films is British. It is producing World War Z. Making it an American/British film. End of. You are now doing the wrong thing by arguing this further. MisterShiney ✉ 15:45, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

¿WHAT?? u sure?

• http://www.imdb.com/company/co0209646/
• http://www.gk-films.com/legal/index.html < SANTA MONICA, CALIFORIA"official page"

• https://maps.google.co.ve/maps?hl=es&ie=UTF-8&q=GK+Films+location&fb=1&gl=ve&hq=GK+Films&cid=0,0,2721782649794022387&ei=LgveUKqbCKi30AHg-YGoDA&ved=0CJwBEPwSMAA

• http://www.thefilmcatalogue.com/catalog/CompanyDetail.php?id=2519

S A N T A M O N I C A

where says that is a british?¿ MervinVillarreal (talk) 21:13, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

As has already been explained to you....GK is in fact a British Producer. You can cite as many sources as you want saying it's offices are in California, but don't forget, that it is common practice for film production companies to have offices in Los Angeles...you know...where Hollywood is? IMDB I cannot see that source you provide. Although it may be under the subscription part of the service. Should be noted though that IMDB is not a reliable source. MisterShiney ✉ 15:09, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Look, if you find any source that says that GK Films is based in UK, or even having offices in UK, I forget all about World War Z, but if not, I will proceed to change the nationality of the film, since I have the evidence to prove that world war z film is American, and no have British producer company to determining nationality "except the director, this has no bearing on nationality", in wikipedia, we determine the nationality of the movie, for that; who company produces the movie and who distributed, you know, you need find any source that says that GK Films has offices in London even, or else I will go to change the nationality, I have my reliable sources. and I know you understand that. here are my reliable sources.

• http://www.paramountmovies.com/legal/privacypolicy.php?bgcolor=000000&linkcolor=FFFFFF&fontcolor=CCCCCC
• http://www.gk-films.com/legal/index.html
• http://www.thefilmcatalogue.com/catalog/CompanyDetail.php?id=2519
• http://www.imdb.com/company/co0209646/
• http://www.jigsaw.com/id2565901/1/gk_films_company_directory.xhtml

MervinVillarreal (talk) 17:29, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

I think I will change the nationality, i don't have a concrete response. from the other person that I'm debating on this consensus.MervinVillarreal (talk) 19:31, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

You have been told several times why such a change is incorrect. Stop ignoring that, and learn to understand how to actually interact here. GRAPPLE X 20:06, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Besides...this is not a debate. You clearly have no idea what a consensus is Mervin and your English needs work. Please, with all due respect and politeness return to Spanish Wikipedia and continue to edit there as most of the sources you have provided are in Spanish anyway and as such are not really suitable here. You are of course forgetting that the GK films wikipedia page says that he is a British film producer. MisterShiney ✉ 21:05, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

we are talking about the company, not the owner. yes, Graham King is a British company owner, but he IS NOT the company. Grapple, brother, WHERE I'm wrong? Where there is an error or something wrong? I am giving my reliable sources, so i present evidence, then i think that I NEED change nationality. MervinVillarreal (talk) 05:08, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

and... i think u need see it

• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability

MervinVillarreal (talk) 05:30, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

You don't NEED to do anything! You are choosing too and are now being disruptive. I have reverted your edit as it goes against the established consensus and constitutes Vandalism. If you continue to do so on this page and others, you can and will be blocked by Admins who are no doubt aware of your edits given your recent block. MisterShiney ✉ 11:11, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Again agree with MisterShiney, you are WP:FILIBUSTERing. Consensus is clear on this topic and you are disrupting Wikipedia by continuing this debate. Graham King is the GK of GK Films, like Lorenzo di Bonaventura of di Bonaventura Pictures, or Richard and Lauren Shuler Donner of The Donners' Company. The heads of these smaller (compared to the big six) production companies are in total control and their influence is such that you could say that they are the company. So Graham King's nationality does make GK Films British despite where he may choose to put his offices. And not only is Graham King British but he has been knighted which kind of makes him super British.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 13:27, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

It's like super saiyan but with more tea. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 18:02, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Exactly.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 18:04, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

that stupidity, First, Why you have denounced me? MisterShiney, I have to edit and revert the article 3 times in less than 24 hours, to be a edit war, then you cant denounced me, u understand?

second, the nationality of Graham Kings DOES NOT MATTER! The company was founded in the United States, do not understand? so, the company is American, I present my evidence, besides nobody NOBODY gives me evidence that the company has offices in London or elsewhere in the world, so, if the company is based in the U.S. so, is American , and I have to change the nationality, or speak with a adinistrador to which it deems to this, or so this need a arbritration.MervinVillarreal (talk) 17:49, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Because as per this policy you are being a disruptive editor by following a pattern of editing that may extend over a long time or many articles, and disrupts progress towards improving the said articles. Mervin, I say again, in this instance, you are wrong. As you have been told by many an editor. Reasons have been explained to you by other editors as to why your view is incorrect in this instance. You are clearly CHOOSING to do this and are thus being disruptive. MisterShiney ✉ 18:12, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Incorrect. WP:3RR does not give you the right to three reverts; Even without a 3RR violation, an administrator may still act if they believe a user's behavior constitutes edit warring, and any user may report edit-warring with or without 3RR being breached. The rule is not an entitlement to revert a page a specific number of times. Also none of the sources you posted state that the company is American or was founded in America, only that it operates an office in America (as do many international companies).--TriiipleThreat (talk) 18:17, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Yup. Thats what I said earlier. Who know...A producer having an office in Hollywood! MisterShiney ✉ 18:24, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Of course the company is American.

I present thousands and thousands of hard evidence, even on the official website says it is headquartered in Santa Monica, and headquarters means the origin of the company, or am I wrong? Want the sources again?

• http://www.imdb.com/company/co0209646/ << "US"
• http://www.gk-films.com/legal/index.html <SANTA MONICA, Califoria "official page"
• http://www.thefilmcatalogue.com/catalog/CompanyDetail.php?id=2519 <<< !!!!!!
• http://www.jigsaw.com/id2565901/1/gk_films_company_directory.xhtml <<< u see?
• http://www.paramountmovies.com/legal/privacypolicy.php?bgcolor=000000&linkcolor=FFFFFF&fontcolor=CCCCCC <<<< READ, PLEASE.

MervinVillarreal (talk) 18:26, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

You are wrong. Reasons for which have been explained to you. MisterShiney ✉ 18:28, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

• http://www.manta.com/c/mm4g8fw/g-k-films < Private company, headquartes in California.

PRIVATE COMPANY.. in california.... ¿in what country are california sir? MervinVillarreal (talk) 18:37, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

WOW! Why does this even matter? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.37.7.247 (talk) 13:48, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

you're right, the movie is American, many sources here.201.210.66.141 (talk) 22:01, 31 January 2013 (UTC)