Paramount sets World War Z 2 moving

News Simon Brew 24 Jun 2013 - 06:15

Brad Pitt and Paramount are set to move ahead with World War Z 2, the studio has confirmed...

We've been suggesting for some time that the movie of World War Z, whilst never likely to satisfy fans of Max Brooks' source material, was always a good bet for a decent night out at the movies. And it seems as though the film has overcome the swathe of negativity that haunted the production to turn into a sizeable hit.

After its opening weekend worldwide, World War Z already has some $111.8m in the bank, thanks in part to a sizeable $66m opening weekend in the US, that was some way over expectation. The film still has lots of countries to open in too, and it seems as though Paramount and Brad Pitt have a good, solid hit on their hands.

So much so that both are now looking to execute their plan for further World War Z movies. Paramount's studio vice chairman, Rob Moore, has confirmed to The Hollywood Reporter that they will now "actively turn to developing a sequel". And while the studio needs the box office numbers to hold into the film's second weekend, all indicators right now suggest a big gamble has been won.

More on the World War Z sequels - there was an original plan for a trilogy - as we hear about them.

The Hollywood Reporter.

Please, if you can, buy our charity horror stories ebook, Den Of Eek!, raising money for Geeks Vs Cancer. Details here

Disqus - noscript

This makes me very happy. After just seeing the movie a mere 15 minutes ago, I felt that there was so much more the be told. The book is amazing and just one movie can't do it justice. They need to dive deep into how every country dealt with the epidemic and hopefully that will come out in the next movie(s).

Great. As a fan of the book, I was still able to enjoy the movie on its own terms. Looking forward to the next one. I'm guessing the studio probably won't keep the original director though...

Z2 : Judgement Day

Great, and a proper screen version of the book slips further and further away from us.

This sounds like marketing hype to persuade people on the fence about investing money/time in a bloodless apocalypse to "give it a chance". Just don't it! (at least not for the spurious reason there might be a sequel). There very might well be but straight to DVD, without Brad natch.

I'm a huge fan of the book and saw the movie over the weekend. I was pleasantly surprised, I have to admit. I would certainly welcome a sequel. I would like to see a lot more 'war' against the undead in a sequel if possible. The big action set pieces, like Jerusalem were astounding but seemed to be over before they'd begun so more of that 2nd time out please! Surely one of the 2nd movies big set pieces has to be 'The battle of Yonkers'?

Eh.

I just can't bring myself to go and see it - it's blatantly a mediocre cinematic experience (the general consensus seems to be surprise that it isn't dreadful - hardly a ringing endorsement) and shallow compared to the book. To me the book was first and foremost a satire - that was what elevated it way above the standard genre fare, to take all that away from it just seems so wrong. It's like doing a new adaptation of Orwell's Animal Farm and stripping away all the political allegory and doing it as a cutesy, comedic Disney animation about animals getting up to hijinks on a farm, with musical numbers.

Going to listen to the (fantastic) audiobook again instead - there's a new edition out which brings back a lot of the material cut from the heavily abridged previous version, and the cast has been much expanded and now includes the likes of Simon Pegg, Nathan Fillion and Martin Scorcese!!!

Shut up the movie sucked now thier going to make a sequel damn

Agreed, I watched the movie, nothing like the book at all. It has the similar theme of war of the worlds. That is with exception to the title and the tripods it had NOTHING to do with the books and made no sense at all. If you want to watch something that closely resembles the themes of WWZ then watch the Walking Dead as that is a FAR closer feel to the WWZ book.

Well who'd a thunk it? Perhaps you can polish a turd after all! I've had my doubts for a year now that they could pull this off and make a semi decent movie but it seems that they have. I like 3 star movies or those with middling reviews, you can make your own decisions on the films merits without being bludgeoned by a films supposed greatness! I remember being under whelmed by Jurassic Park on its original release. Once I was passed the "Wow! real looking dinosaurs" stage, the story didn't really work for me but I was for ever being shouted down for being a non believer! I know a lot of people felt the same way about Titanic, Avatar and LotR too.

So glad to hear someone expressing an opinion like this. Books are different from movies. So simple and yet seemingly impossible for many people to grasp.

This time, hire a proper scriptwriter.

But Walking Dead is basically just pretty standard zombie survival stuff isn't it? Forgive me if I'm wrong but there isn't really a broader satirical or social commentary aspect to it. I haven't seen it but have heard that the Soderbergh film Contagion is far closer to the tone of World War z - to the point where some accuse it of being a bit of a rip off.

I really enjoyed the book and the film in some ways managed to keep the tone of rather than the content of the book.
its definitely worth a watch and while it's relatively bloodless it manages to keep the tension up throughout

If you haven't seen the film you haven't earned the right to say its blatantly anything!!!

Films and books are different - well duh. It isn't fanboy nitpicking to object to adaptations that keep the name and change EVERYTHING else. This isn't a Tom Bombadil situation. There was a bidding war for the rights to WWZ - and the way the film has turned out the studio shouldn't have bothered buying them - they could have just as easily called the film something else as it apparently bears so little relation to the book.

Fair point, I should have said "going by the middling reviews it appears it's a very mediocre film".

I thought it was good. I was engaged all the way through. It's a solid 3* from me.

After months of being concerned I would not enjoy this I finally saw it yesterday - but I tried to put memories of the book out of my mind as I knew it could never live up to those standards (and reviews had said it very loosely based on it, in all but name , anyway) and I have to say I rather enjoyed it.

I'm sure being the only person in the theatre added to the suspense but still I felt it had some good scares and thrills and, following the excellent last act (the mere presence of Capaldi instantly makes anything better), I found myself looking forward to the proposed sequel - which could believably venture into more of the territory covered by the book.

Doesn't three stars suggest mediocrity though? So far this summer, all of the big blockbusters have been two/three stars from me. Still waiting for something to impress me.

*Jumps off tall building, Back Flips, Lands perfectly on my tip toes onto a cornetto without breaking it*, waits for applause. (tah Dah)

Mild applause. Three stars, some funny bits.

For me personally 2 stars is mediocrity. 3 is a recommendation that the film is worth seeing and you will get something or things out of it. 4 and your then looking at an elevated piece of work. Otherwise u might as well have 2 ratings only. Naff or good! Some stuff sits in the middle as being entertaining fare but not one I will own. I'd watch it again just rent not buy. And I'll certainly see any sequel.

Thx will try harder. :P

are you Amish?
have you ever ventured outside your own sad little life?

Sponsored Links