Quantum of Solace director Marc Forster has been attached for quite a while now, but another day at Comic-Con brings another cadre of announcements - including mention that Paramount Pictures is currently in the market for a new director to get behind the oft-delayed zombie flick.
And while there's no mention of who might direct the adaptation of the Max Brooks zombie opus, Bloody Disgusting learned that Forster is definitely out.
Not the worst news ever, considering how poorly Forster handled the action sequences in an otherwise nicely done James Bond flick. Who would you like to see bring World War Z to the big screen?
- MattFini
Got news? Click here to submit it!
Shoot 'em in the head in the Dread Central forums!
Submitted by Masked Slasher on Sat, 07/25/2009 - 6:09pm.
I second Alfonso Cuaron. I loved Children of Men and I can easily see it with zombies.
Submitted by Spaceshark on Mon, 07/27/2009 - 9:51am.
Alfonso Cuarón
Submitted by Monster Face on Sun, 07/26/2009 - 2:26pm.
I thought the opening car sequence in SOLACE was cut a little too closely at times however was intelligible throughout the chase and I really didn't have an issue with figuring out who was who. I thought Foster did the action quite well for a first time action director.
For bringing WWZ to life, as a film student I'm selfish in saying I hope it's delayed long enough for me to get my hands on it. However, that not being the case, after seeing his short ALIVE IN JOBURG and all the trailers for DISTRICT 9, I think Neil Blomkamp would be an interesting choice. He has that combat cameraman/real documentary (not the MTV/Paul Greengrass hyper-edited fauxmentary style) style that I think would make for a compelling film.
As well as that's the style I'd use if I could do it. Have staged interview segments and intercut with footage that looks like it was shot by an invisible combat cameraman.
Submitted by theGoldenSimatar on Sat, 07/25/2009 - 9:36pm.
I thought the action was fine in Solace.
Submitted by Didn't See It Coming on Sat, 07/25/2009 - 6:29pm.
This is sincerely not a jab at you man, but you really liked UNDERWORLD too. It seems like you don't mind MTV style editing and flash. That's cool. It's a matter of taste.
BUT...this would be wrong wrong wrong for WWZ.
It'll never happen, but I could actually take someone serious like PT Anderson. An Altman-esque approach would benefit this film.
Or Nicolas Winding Refn who did the PUSHER films and the recent (and amazing) BRONSON. Or Shane Meadows who did DEAD MANS SHOES and THIS IS ENGLAND.
Someone with some depth and not just a flashy style.
Submitted by The Butcher on Sun, 07/26/2009 - 3:32am.
No, I don't mind that kind of editing if I can tell what's going on. I hated it in Batman Begins and the Bourne Sequels. I had no problem following the action in Solace. You want to talk about a horribly edited car chase. The one in Supremacy stands out. It's also not a style I would employ as a filmmaker. So, no I'm not a fan, I just don't mind it, as I said, if I can tell what's going on.
That being said, I don't expect WWZ to be very good as an adaptation. I could be done well on it's own merit, but there is no way it's going to be true to the book no matter who directs it. It's just not marketable that way. This movie is going to have huge budget and it's going to need to be as accessible to a broad audience because of it.
Submitted by Didn't See It Coming on Sun, 07/26/2009 - 7:27am.
Really? I hated the way it was edited together ... the opening car chase, the ensuing foot chase and fist fight ... it was cut so quickly in a Jason Bourne kind of way that I found it very jarring.
I really liked the movie, but I wish they hadn't let Forster have any say over the editing.
Submitted by Masked Slasher on Sat, 07/25/2009 - 7:03pm.
What makes you think Foster had much of a say? I'm sure the studio had some sort of mandate for it to be as much like the last two Bourne movie as possible.
Submitted by Didn't See It Coming on Sun, 07/26/2009 - 7:29am.
Forster had enough say to throw out the Purvis and Wade script and bring in his own writer to rework the whole thing.
While I don't know for sure that he had say in the editing process, it seems like the producers gave him free reign over things.
It was Forster, afterall, who was able to remove the "Bond, James Bond" line from the film and chop it town to 106 minutes.
Submitted by Masked Slasher on Sun, 07/26/2009 - 1:13pm.
I know this sounds like a lame excuse, but my thought on the editing was that it synced up with Bond's mindset in that movie: he's angry, hurt, vengeful. He isn't quite the Bond we all remember yet, which is why we don't get the traditional Bond shooting the camera thing--not in Casino at all except in an homage of sorts--until the very end of Solace.
But I admit to being an apologist for that movie. Of the two films, I too prefer Casino Royale.
Submitted by MagusMaleficus on Sat, 07/25/2009 - 8:28pm.