The Guardian: World War Z: the most expensive disaster of all time (400 M!)


#1

Quote:
“The negative hype surrounding Brad Pitt’s zombie epic World War Z is getting worse all the time, with news of rewrites, reshoots and a budget that has ballooned above $400m”
http://www.guardian.co.uk/film/2013/may/03/world-war-z-brad-pitt-time


#2

That’s insane, no way it’s making that much money back


#3

Looks like we have a new Waterworld in the making.


#4

…lord help me - I enjoy Waterworld. :slight_smile:


#5

I picture both Kevin Costner and Robert Kirkman celebrating after the premier. :smiley:


#6

I wonder whether Max Brooks is laughing or crying to the bank, at this point?


#7

Is the movie that bad? Its not at cinemas here in Gerany so far.


#8

Nobody knows.

But no matter how ‘good’ or ‘bad’ it has to do amazing finacially upon release or it sets a new record in wasted production spending. And there wasn’t even a hurricane in the production mix…

Now thats a commitment.


#9

given the bad press, and that he would have options on the income, not a fixed percentage of the expenses, chances are he’s laughing outside and crying inside, like a creepy clown.


#10

I doubt it’s terrible, but from what it is, the budget should be much much smaller, like $100 million or less


#11

One of my favorites

It’s not out yet, but from the trailer… It’s certainly nothing like the book, thats for shit sure. There is this shot were all the zombies are piling on each other making a sort of zombie wall, i dont know if you can say it’s a little ridiculous when you’re startin with a zombie movie, but it’s a little ridiculous.


#12

They had to call Lindledof to fix the script. The question is not whether or not if it will be terrible but HOW terrible it will be. :argh:


#13

I will still have to go and see it and decide for myself if it’s good or bad.


#14

John Carter you say?

What ever happened to watching a film before passing judgement?


#15

I don’t have the time to do that with every movie. If you look at the track record of the people involved you usually have a pretty good idea what to expect. Lindledof hasn’t done anything that I haven’t hated and the trailer for the movie shows that it has nothing whatsoever to do with the book aside from sharing the same name.


#16

unfortunately things arent like they were many years ago when it comes to a films “success”. and i put that in parenthesis because the entire meaning of success has changed. its no longer about how good the film is, its about how a studio can engineer profits through media and manipulation. These budgets are beyond ridiculous. When are we going to see the first Billion dollar film? I bet it will be something “groundbreaking” and a “must see summer blockbuster”. In the meantime the productions will be stretched inversely, longer hours, more better faster and cheaper. And when the artists finally break and wont put up with it, Im sure they’ll be replaced with artificial intelligence creating entire movies by computer, dozens at once, with no human artistic input. Im sure the audiences will be robots.

The entire industry operates like the stock market, which wildly fluctuates based on fear and assumptions. Ive watched the stockmarket dip into scary places based on speculation. this is where were at. pump more money and keep doing it over and over until its a heated mess and lets hope for the best. Instead of creating suspense because we dont have money to make the shark look real, we create 200 CG sharks, put lasers on their heads and make it in 3d.

I cannot say which way the industry will go anymore because i think the industry is gone. When we decide a movie sucks and globally abandon it before it hits the screen i think weve hit a bend in the road. Look, deconstructing a production and reworking it based on predicted outcome isn’t anything new (eric stolz and back to the future for example) but when hundreds of millions are spent doing it… there is something seriously wrong.

sorry for the rant, but one of the best movies ive ever seen in my life had no CG and cost about 21 million (2013 dollars).


#17

Well that’s a slightly different thing though isn’t it. Whether it looks like your cup of tea or not is entirely up to you.

My point was more that this article comes across to me as schadenfreude masquerading as journalism. The guy hasn’t seen the film, he’s reporting on the negative hype which wouldn’t exist if people like him weren’t generating it.


#18

If he’s pulling it all out of his ass thats one thing. But if there is substance to the financial issue that is another.

I remember the big stink about Waterworld which happened to have all its sets destroyed in a hurricane. An ‘act-of-god’ (if you’re so inclined). So a big portion of it’s cost was of a more ‘innocent victim’ nature than WWZ. But still big stinks were still made of it (it didn’t do so well at the box office ta boot) because of the production costs anyway.

Apocolypse Now same thing-and it was an epic film!

And the Internet wasn’t hardly a factor with either film’s ‘media bashing’.
But they got bashed anyway.

Side note: I was just thinking the best way they could have done WWZ was more like the book-a bunch or short films or even animations (Babel or even Heavy Metal come to mind).


#19

whatever happened to recognising the ‘writing on the wall’ :wink:


#20

i think they made a mistake with the number. it needs to make 400 millions to make its budget back. now they changed it to 400 million budget.