close menu

Brad Pitt vs. Fast Zombies: “World War Z,” The Trailer

And… here’s the full trailer for World War Z. Based on the reaction to the teaser earlier this week, there’s a lot of apprehension about the adaptation of Max Brooks’ book and the concern that it doesn’t stick with the novel but, rather, seems rather generic. Plus, speedy zombies. Does this trailer change your mind?

You have a lot of time to get ready for it. The movie opens June 21st, 2013.

Hear a-ha's Gorgeous Acoustic Version of

Hear a-ha's Gorgeous Acoustic Version of "Take On Me"

A Guide to Stephen King's Lovecraftian Gods

A Guide to Stephen King's Lovecraftian Gods

Could Kylo Ren Really Be Rey's Brother?

Could Kylo Ren Really Be Rey's Brother?



  1. Mark Rajca says:

    I really don’t understand why someone would by the rights to a property just to use the name.

    Now that this movie is called WWZ it frames it in a way that just makes me like it less cause it is not at all the source material.

    Strange to say, but I think I’d like this movie more if it were called something else.

  2. Lizzie says:

    Big-budget Hollywood action Brad Pitt vehicle? Fine, whatever, they’ll do what they do. WWZ movie? Great – even with some adaptations; we’re not naive here, we know films won’t be the same as books. But using the TITLE of a successful novel for something that bears no resemblance? This smacks of a bait-and-switch.

    Are you one of those people who loves the famous Burger King Whopper? Come to our restaurant! Oh, we don’t serve burgers at all. But we got you in the door though!

  3. Okelly says:

    WWZ the book had a few decent moments it, but overall it was poorly thought out it uses the same old tropes. the movie may or may not be any good, but theres no point in expecting a movie to be like the book..

    just a side note, a bit of reality for zombie movies, two thousand running zombies vs.a 72 ton tank with a full tank of gas and nothing to do but drive back and forth on one street, zombies lose. they lose vs a 16 ton IMF too. Snap, crackle, Pop, infantry aint called crunchies for nothing.

    and Chief there was no Hobbit fiasco, only Fans of the hobbit that never read the other works of Tolkien that expanded on where Gandalf had gone too and what he was doing and how it all tied into LOTR.

  4. Winston Smith says:

    The book absolutely SUCKED. The trailer looks good and I will see it based on the trailer.

    If you want a well written zombie lit, search up Adrians Undead Diary. Best in Class imo.

  5. World war SAD says:

    28 Months Later?… maybe
    World War Z? Not even close

  6. Boo says:

    I have no problem with fast zombies, like those in 28 days and the DOTD remake but the ones in this trailer seem to have superhuman speed and ability and you are all right, its not like the book at all. wth

  7. CausaMortis says:

    Like many of you, I rank World War Z as one of my all-time favorite books, not just zombie or horror novels. When I heard that Brad Pitt’s production company (Plan B) was making a movie based on it, I was apprehensively excited. So many books don’t translate into good movie material; others that COULD make for decent movies are botched due to unnecessary deviations from the books’ stories and/or fundamental plot elements And of course, there are those films based on novels that suck simply due to bad directing, acting, and/or screenwriting.

    World War Z presents a particularly difficult challenge due to the nature of the novel itself — it is written as a series of individuals’ recollections of their personal experiences during the war. I don’t recall how many of these individual accounts there are in the book, but there are several dozen at least. Only a few of these characters provide more than one account.

    In my opinion, it is the way the novel is structured that makes it feel like such an epic story. The characters’ accounts cover most of the planet and several years, from the first hints that something dangerous is beginning to happen, through the near-disintegration of civilization during the apocalypse, the struggle to survive, and the war’s aftermath. This story is different than any other zombie book or movie in that it doesn’t focus on a single character or group of characters.

    That said, if the movie version of WWZ attempted to follow the novel in terms of structure, it would almost certainly not succeed. Even if the movie was a full three hours (which is about the maximum amount of time most people and theaters are willing to commit to a single movie), it would not be able to present but a few of the individual character accounts, and even those would have to scale back on the details. Plus, most people would find it very difficult to really connect to characters who are only in s movie for a few minutes. And if the audience can’t connect with a character — if they can’t identify with them and care about them — then the movie will end up relying entirely on its special effects and action sequences. And that will almost certainly make the movie suck [for example, see Star Wars episodes I through III]. Thus, I can understand why the movie will want to focus on a small number of central characters.

    With regards to the change from slow-moving zombies (“shamblers” or “walkers”) to fast zombies (“runners” or “Deady Gonzales, the fastest zombie mouse in aaaaallllllllll Meheeeco”), that, too, is somewhat understandable. Walkers can be scary; George Romero created the modern zombie genre using walkers. And the shambler zombies of WWZ obviously worked well in the novel. But when you try to translate the novel into a movie with its limited running time, shamblers are just not going to seem as terrifying to a fully-equipped military as thousands of speedy zombies hauling dead-ass towards them en masse. The one thing that they really CAN’T change without creating what would seem to be fatal plot inconsistencies is the time it takes for a person who becomes infected to transforms into a full-fledged zombie. In the book, it can take quite a while to turn (though I think this depends on the way the person is infected). Just like real contagions, the longer it takes for an infected person to begin showing symptoms, the greater the chance that the disease will cross borders and spread into other populations. It is this trait that caused the infection of a single boy into a global zombie apocalypse. I don’t think the book expressly excludes the possibility of a fast transformation, but that would be the exception, not the rule. If the movie makes every zombification a rapid process, that will make the possibility of global infection a bit too improbable and harder to explain.

    Regardless, I will go to see it in the theater, provided that an ACTUAL zombie apocalypse doesn’t break out on 21 December (the supposed end of the world according to some interpretations on the Mayan calendar AND the original release date for WWZ) and push the release date back even further. I’ll try to keep an open mind and remain objective. Let’s hope for the best!


  8. J says:

    From what I can see in the trailer, this is about as Un-WWZ as you could have made a movie. But it’ll still make millions, which is a shame.

  9. Xaviersx says:

    Bad 1st impression based mostly on the crafting of the trailer, from sound to CG from the movie. Never have read the book, I am fine with a different take on the source material, a different viewpoint, but the heavy focus on Pitt, the dump truck from out of nowhere Final Destination style, the flood of zombies that look like a CG effect go river rafting awry . . . well it puts me in the position of saying I’ll wait for the movie reviews instead of going to the theater at opening. Really, they could have sold this better if they hired the Dead Island video trailer guys.

  10. todd dungerow says:


  11. JL says:

    Nice trolling bro.

  12. JL says:

    “but honestly when is the last time a movie was ever as good as the book?”

    One Flew Over The Cuckoo’s Nest? The Silence Of The Lambs? Jurassic Park? Fight Club? True Grit? Too many Stephen King adaptions to list. Good adaptations come out all the time, that’s such a lame excuse to pay for crap.

  13. John says:

    This movie will be as entertaining as 2012. And will suck maybe just a little less.

    We can at least hope they quickly convert this to a TV series. THAT would be a great way to adapt the true nature of the book to the screen.

  14. Gwif says:

    Or or or…. you could save your money and send the studios the message that we’re not buying just any crap they churn out. The argument that movies never live up to the books does not apply here. This movie tosses the book out the window.

  15. Filthyrich says:


  16. todd dungerow says:

    Blah blah blah source material. Book wasn’t that great, time I’ll never get back. We need budget money to take the next step. Sorry but its the truth. thank u mr pitt. Keep moving forward and we’ll get there.

  17. todd dungerow says:

    Oh god. We r lucky to have a brad pitt to pull the zombie into the mainstream. Throwing some money r way is a good thing. I’ve been a zombie fan for 30 years. I’m sick of low budget crap fests. As long as its not I am legend two. Bring it on.

  18. hamster sabio says:

    Lets say for a minute we are OK with the plot, but seeing all those gummy-like bad CGI, it makes it look not scary and looks like a videogame runned in a low settings.

  19. Kristen says:

    I understand the outrage over the differences between the book and the film, but honestly when is the last time a movie was ever as good as the book? Never. Nothing is ever going to top real authors and your wild imagination. So you can spend your life furious with Hollywood, or you can sit back and enjoy some Usain Bolt zombie action.

  20. filthy says:

    World War Z should have been a mini series on HBO like Band Of Brothers or The Pacific. They could have honoured the novel so well with that format. President of Hollywood, why oh why don’t you ever listen to me?

  21. Derek Harju says:

    Waited 5 years for a heart wrenching retelling of personal loss and the triumphs of the human spirit, the convergence of humanity in the aftermath of near total annihilation, and The Un-winnable “Battle of Yonkers”…. Instead I get “28 Days later: The Who Gives a Crap Chronicles”
    If you have ZERO interest in even tangentially following the source material, here’s a neat idea… CALL THE FRAKING MOVIE SOMETHING ELSE, INSTEAD OF TAKING IT OUT OF THE HANDS OF SOMEONE WHO COULD HAVE MADE SOMETHING WORTHWHILE YOU HACKS!… ahem. All done, thanks.

  22. Geoff says:

    I like Brad Pitt, I have no problem with fast zombies, and I loved WWZ. That being said, this looks like trash. Come on, people. This seems exactly like the suckfest that is I Am Legend. Awesome story paired with a film adaptation that completely misses the point of the source material. The CGI zombies look wretched. The cool thing about zombies has always been they are humans without brains, not super humans. They look like freaking cockroach Spidermen. Judas. The climbing wall of CGI? WWZ as a book is about the world AFTER the outbreak, when we’re rebuilding, trying to figure out what happened. If THIS unstoppable, insanely fast horde is what happened… we would all be effed. There’s no surviving that. Therefor no account of survival. Oy. Pretty disappointed by this trailer – was really looking forward to this flick.

  23. CJ Topspin says:

    I’ll totally watch it because it is a zombie flick and I love zombies. The book is, of course, the zombie bible but I think ANYONE in their right mind can understand there is no way it could be directly adapted into a movie. To sit here and pout like a fanboy in their parents basement is…well…stupid. Enjoy the book on its own merit. Enjoy the movie on its own merit. If you want to be angry and show some “loyalty” to Max Brooks…just remember…he is the one who sold the movie rights to his book to begin with.

  24. Jen Tidwell says:

    Point of interest— I just visited the WWZ Facebook page and they are deleting all of the negative comments about the obvious shitting on of Max Brooks’ book. This means that they literally have less than 100 comments per status update.

    Ho do I know this is happening? Because I posted to their status where they uploaded the teaser trailer. At the time, over 12K negative comments. Now? About 78 positive ones.

    Wow… Stay Classy Hollywood!

  25. Jim says:

    I’m living in CA now but some of the scenes were shot in George Sq, Glasgow,in Scotland, my home town.

    Looked a lot like how I remember my Friday nights, ahh, those were the days….

  26. brandon says:

    Rotting corpses can not run!!! Fast zombies completely suck.

  27. Justin says:

    Terrible. Absolutely terrible. I will not be seeing this movie. The book is a favorite of mine and I recommend it to everyone, and when I heard they were making a movie I was so excited. Not anymore. I am repulsed.

  28. Gwif says:

    Fuck this film. Fuck the people who made the decision to shit on Max Brooks’ vision. Boycott this shit.

  29. Chuck W. says:

    The only similarity between the movie and the book, is the title. Again I’m out. I take issue with the flooding heard of zombies.

  30. Andrew W. says:

    Honestly, it looks like a pretty good zombie movie….it just shouldn’t be called World War Z. So I’ll probably watch it, but I’ll have to pretend it’s called something else and has no relation to one of my favorite books.

  31. John says:

    I’ll be seeing this but understanding that its not WWZ. What we have here looks like what could be a good fast zombie flick but its so divirgimernt from the source material that its not the same. Abe Lincoln Vampire Hunter had the same problem, too many changes from the book. Other movies from books don’t have that problem like Jurassic Park which while they made some changes the theme and essence of the story are there.

  32. natew says:

    Without really knowing anything about it, it still looks dumb. And I say that as a general fan of the zombie/outbreak/disease/apocalypse genre.

    But, the fact that trailers often make shit look horrible, (I hated the trailers for The Avengers), and the fact that Damon Lindelof is involved is enough for at least rental. (And the director also did Quantum of Solace.)

    I will say this, it looks like the type of ‘adaptation’ that is easily disassociated from the source material.

  33. the CGI looks bad. Hopefully it will get better before release. Also why when the zombies are going over each other does it look like a “Mating Ball”?

  34. Tom Corn says:

    Ugh! I agree with what most others have said. The book is a great non-linear telling of humanities survival of a zombie plague from after the fact. The only central character is the guy going around collecting the stories. A unique version on the zombie motif. This looks to be 100% the opposite of the book, just another standardized Hollywood movie format. Unsuspecting protagonists family gets caught up in opening wave, they flee and escape just barely and it turns out that he is the one person to deal with the outbreak. It’s as generic a unoriginal cliche of a treatment to an original book.

  35. diemrbond says:

    Having not read the book, and not knowing anything about this … it looks pretty good. But I can understand if it is completely against the original concept how you guys are feeling.

    @Chief Joe – what was the Hobbit fiasco?

  36. joe anon says:


  37. Ben says:

    I for one won’t being seeing this in theater. Why they used the name World War Z when it bares no resemblance to the amazing book is beyond me.
    Having it set up as interviews and flashbacks just like the book would have been an interesting change of direction for a zombie movie. From what I can see in the trailer, it looks like a generic zombie movie. I’ll wait for netflix and maybe not even then.

  38. Evan says:

    Max Brooks’s book was so good because it was rooted in the style of an collected oral history as in Studs Terkel’s “The Good War” or “Hard Times”. This movie does not look like it matches the source material. It might be good and I hope at least we get a battle of Yonkers. The audio book has Mark Hamill reading as the soldier.

  39. downcellar says:

    Gross. You want to make your own zombie movie, fine, but don’t trade on WWZ’s good name and then sodomize it.

  40. JL says:

    I’m so unhappy about this. They could have could have taken stories from the book, followed the technique of something like Waltz with Bashir, and made something really cool and imaginative. Instead, they’re making a Brad Pitt vehicle. I like Brad Pitt just fine, but why option the book if you didn’t intend on using any of it?

  41. Jack says:

    Ugh… that’s effing terrible. Why not just call it ‘ Generic Zombie Movie’? To call that World War Z is beyond messed up. Hopefully he’ll just stick to acting.

  42. Chief Joe says:

    What is it with filmmakers and books? The Hobbit fiasco and now this. Do filmmakers consider themselves superior to authors and think they can do a better job with the stories? Well if that’s so, then make movies from original screenplays and leave books to the “brainy” types who like to read them. The Abe Lincoln/Vampire movie is in this class, too; they took a really neat book and turned it into a crap movie.

  43. Jen Tidwell says:

    No. No. NO! Dammit! One of the best pieces of contemporary fiction ruined. Ugh…. no wonder Max Brooks washed his hands of it. Shameful. Skipping this one and telling all of my friends to do the same. I hope it tanks on opening weekend.

  44. Remster says:

    The line that lost me: “You’re the only man for the job.” It could not be more obvious that the makers of this movie missed the concept of the books. This might be an okay movie on its own, but I’m actually offended they’re slapping the name World War Z on it. It looks like they took some general ideas and storylines and shoved this into the mix, but it’s heavily implied in the books that Brooks was talking about shambling zombies, not this LITERAL WAVE of running zombies. I’m not a shambling zombie purist, I like the runners, but this just proves to me that the filmmakers completely disregarded the source material, and for that I say fuck this film. Call it something else, but don’t call it World War Z.

  45. Wilson says:

    It seems to be set within the universe of the novel rather than a movie based upon it. It looks like it might be decent though.

  46. nick says:

    I so want this to be great but damn WWZ was an anthology this is some sort of solid story line with fast zombies and there’s nothing wrong with either of those its just not WWZ.

  47. Chuck W. says:

    It has changed my mind. I won’t see it. Nothing like the book. I was hoping for flash backs during the interviews.