Talk:World War Z (film)/Archive 1

August 2011 - movie synopsis is nothing like the book, internet melts down
... 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
 * "“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.”...

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

And Speaking of Crushingly Disappointing Zombie Entertainment News
 * "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? "

'World War Z' Might Not Be What We Hoped For
 * "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’ Movie Debate: Too Different From the Book?. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.178.126.145 (talk) 11:43, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
 * "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?"

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)

You can tell because the trailer clearly establishes that it takes place during the war instead of after the war. This is a extremely fundamental difference as it means it will not be dealing with rebuilding which is the only thing that set this IP apart from most other entries into this genre. How you are not able to understand this and continue to be a tool for the corporate degradation of the source material is beyond me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.243.118.90 (talk) 22:35, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Filming in Glasgow
I've put these into the Commons, in case anyone is interested. --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
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 and is Distributed by Paramount Pictures, USA. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MervinVillarreal (talk • contribs) 13:53, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
 * 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

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 ,

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?

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 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

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

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

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

MervinVillarreal (talk) 05:30, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability

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?

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


 * 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)
 * Hmm... Caracas, Venezuela. I suspect another sock puppet. BTW, this thread should have been closed by now.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 22:17, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Ahh Hello there Mervin. How goes your ban? MisterShiney   ✉    22:32, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Mervin I'm assuming it is you because this is an IP from your sockpuppet investigation and this is you now, in the same area, just happening to support Mervin's earlier stance on this topic and the only other edit you've made is to remove nations other than the US from the film Hugo. Sign in to your proper account because what you are doing is called Sock Puppetry and if you keep it up you will just get another ban. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 22:42, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm already unlocked, but who wrote: "You're right, the movie is American" Not is me, and you can research all u want, you'll never find a trace of my computer at that IP, simply because is from Venezuela is not to say it was me. MervinVillarreal (talk) 08:23, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Welcome back Merv. I assume that you took the time to re read policies and guidelines carefully? Anyway, being in Venezuela had nothing to do with it. Darkwarriorblake had a point. It was in the same area as the previous IPs from your investigation and therefore as such is extremely unlikely that it was anyone other than you. Anyway, that doesnt change the fact that the movie is not American. MisterShiney    ✉    16:20, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Mervin, it's from the same area as your other IPs, its only two edits were to remove nationality from an article and to post in and support a discussion you started using the same general lack of English as a first language and inability to indent text. It was you, I will stake a year long ban from WIkipedia on my account that it was you, you were told before and you're told now, don't do it, it's Sockpuppetry, it's against the rules and lying about it is not a great way to start over. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 16:42, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Mr, Darkwarriorblake, because they published at the same country, and perhaps in the same city, was me? so, wikipedia version in English, there are no people of Venezuela? ?

Show me the proofs! MisterShaney, I do not care if the movie is from UK, USA, China or narnia, only important thing here is that when the movie is released we will see in which country is based, and maybe I can open a new topic for discussion. xd MervinVillarreal (talk) 20:21, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Don't insult our intelligence, unless there is a national Venezuelan drive to promote America by removing all nationalities from the Infobox except the US, start the same discussion about nationality across multiple articles, ignore any and all evidence provided, and NOT indent the text in discussions using " : ", it was you. Quit your lying, quit wasting our time and start being a productive member of the community. My suggestion? Stay as far away from nationalities as possible because it will end in nothing but trouble for you. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 20:25, 9 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Where the film is BASED (or set) has no basis on what country is was produced in. As for the IP edits, well all I say is if it looks like you, talks like you, then it probably is you. MisterShiney    ✉    20:28, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Mr, Darkwarriorblake,leaves ignorance, I do not care what you say.

MistherShaney, you wrong, all the companies producers are from usa, no British production "company" in the movie, and I showed the evidence one month ago. MervinVillarreal (talk) 20:38, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
 * First off, It's MisterShiney. Secondly, as have been proven, you are the person who is wrong. The sooner you realise that, the sooner you will be able to move on from this unfavourable experience and be able to contribute constructively. MisterShiney    ✉    21:03, 9 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Mervin, go away. Just go away. GRAPPLE   X  21:09, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Like I said, MisterShaney * I want to forget this topic, whatever, everyone knows that a country like the UK can not make a Hollywood-style film for themselves, and I think you do not have clear, that there are no British production in the movie, my god, I can not believe you do not understand yet, whatever.. Grapple, dreams can come true, MervinVillarreal (talk) 21:26, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, I think that this has really gone on far enough. Please stop wasting the community's time. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 21:36, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

"Please stop wasting the community's time" not about that, fanboy. MervinVillarreal (talk) 21:51, 9 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Mervin. You are as intelligent and as desirable as a genital wart, and unfortunately as persistent. You have had the facts presented to you and are wilfully ignoring them, so please go wrestle an oncoming train and let the rest of us do something constructive. Thanks for your time. GRAPPLE   X  22:01, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

I have more fun watching the little ignorance on wikipedia, that watching some comedy. of course, i u know what i mean. MervinVillarreal (talk) 22:09, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Please be more civil Mervin. Also your statement that the "UK cannot make a Hollywood Style Film for themselves" is completely wrong. You are of course forgetting the James Bond Franchise, 28 Days Later Films, Underworld, Finding Neverland, Closer, Batman Begins, Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, United 93, The Phantom of the Opera, The Golden Compass, Sweeney Todd, Fantastic Mr. Fox, Nine, Robin Hood, X-Men: First Class, Hugo, War Horse, The Kings Speech, Pirates of the Caribbean, Oh and pretty much any film listed here. Anyway, Now we are going off topic. I am done with this conversation as are other editors. You have told us why it supposedly is an American film, we have told you why it is not. The discussion is now closed with no consensus to change. Therefore I am closing this conversation with a repeated suggestion that you no longer edit by changing the nationality of films/tv series/book/related articles. But you are of course welcome to continue editing in other ways, just stay away from nationalities. MisterShiney   ✉    22:33, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

I want to continue with this topic, you can not close it until it has reached a point.

MervinVillarreal (talk) 23:14, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Discussion closed, it has been open for nearly 2 months where most discussions are given a week or two and the only support you have had is your own. If you open it again it will be considered you repeating the exact same stuff you were banned for previously and it will be approached accordingly.Darkwarriorblake (talk) 23:36, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Genre
Is this a post apocalyptic or apocalyptic movie? If "the zombie outbreak...is bringing down nations" still, is should be described as apocalyptic.203.184.41.226 (talk) 02:13, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
 * ✅ Good Point. I have made the changes. MisterShiney    ✉    19:31, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Budget
I don't think this can be classed as a reliable website for Wikipedia, but I was just reading this and it says about half way down that it is the most expensive film of all time at being $400 million.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-2329577/Is-Brad-Pitts-400m-World-War-Z-movie-set-expensive-flop-time.html

If this article can be classed as reliable, shall we find other sources saying that the film is $400 million and add it into the article? Charlr6 (talk) 19:09, 23 May 2013 (UTC)


 * I don't think it is reliable either. Surely if it were true, more reliable sources would pick it up. The source states that the reshoots cost around $200 million whereas the Vanity Fair article states the reshoots brought the entire budget up to $200 million, which seems a lot more realistic.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 19:19, 23 May 2013 (UTC)


 * That does seem a lot more realistic. And you would have thought if it was actually $400 million they would have said announced it already. I thought there would have been some reviews for the film already, I've looked for some but nothing, and there are several articles saying that it is set to be the most expensive plot. Charlr6 (talk) 19:56, 23 May 2013 (UTC)


 * What is wrong with the Daily Mail as a reliable source? It's a well established newspaper in the UK and by the sounds of it reports realistic figures. Especially when the whole film was reshot. -- MisterShiney    ✉    21:09, 23 May 2013 (UTC)


 * At $400 million, the film would be the most expensive film of all time (by $100 million mind you). If true, the trades would be all over it. Also the whole film wasn't reshot just the final act (about 30 to 40 minutes). The article goes into some detail about it in the post-production section.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 21:17, 23 May 2013 (UTC)


 * The Daily Mail is one of those weird cases where it's essentially a salacious tabloid with an incredibly dogged, tireless staff that goes the extra mile to get story details. I've found that when it's quoting sources directly, or when it runs photos of what it's claiming, it seems very reliable. For things like estimates that are attributed to anonymous sources, though, I'd be wary. I think for something as amorphous as movie budgets, it's best to rely on the trade press that specializes in film-industry coverage and has both institutional experience and direct contacts. We're not on deadline, and as we all know, extraordinary claims require extraordinary sourcing. --Tenebrae (talk) 23:32, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I believe this $400 million dollar reference should be deleted. Its not a good source, its merely a rumor. It should not be referenced in the article.Planeis (talk) 22:39, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Ok, well if we are going to discount an updated source, can we at least replace it with one that isnt 2 years old? Because otherwise it makes it just as bad as putting an unreliable one in. -- MisterShiney    ✉    21:37, 24 May 2013 (UTC)


 * The Vanity Fair article in the post-production section is two weeks old.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 21:53, 24 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Not the one in the info box.... -- MisterShiney    ✉    05:44, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
 * The vanity fair thing says it moved above $200 million... not doubled in size to $400 million.Planeis (talk) 22:42, 29 May 2013 (UTC)


 * There is some considerable confusion here, with some articles mistinterpreting the Vanity fair story. According to Vanity Fair "the movie would have to take in around $400 million at the worldwide box office for Paramount and its financial partners to break even". The break even point is not the same as a budget. Typically a film needs to earn double its costs to break even, since the exhibitor takes up to 50% of the gross. According to the Vanity fair article, "... a re-written, reshot, scaled-down ending, [upped] the movie’s budget to more than $170 million. Paramount admits to that amount ...". This article needs to be fixed to reflect what the Vanity fair article actually states, rather than the current misinterpretation over the break-even point that is doing the rounds. Betty Logan (talk) 22:51, 29 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Exactly. --Niemti (talk) 12:19, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Vanity Fair 5-page article on the film-making "drama"
http://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/2013/06/brad-pitt-world-war-z-drama --Niemti (talk) 21:44, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

The poster
It is legit, but also embarassingly bad. Basically any other would be a better picture (personally I'm found of the one with a helicopter, but the one with the flags is pretty cool too). . --Niemti (talk) 01:21, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Does anyone else see the resemblance of the "Z" in the poster currently in the infobox to the "Z" in the poster for Z? Does anyone know if it's intentional? --anon. 71.183.133.71 (talk) 01:26, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Erm, it's a "Z". Of course they're going to resemble one another... --Jasca Ducato (talk) 08:18, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I meant that the two posters appear to use the same font. --anon. 71.183.133.71 (talk) 21:45, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

WWZ Muse gig at Horse Guards Parade
I think we should try and squeeze in a mention of the Muse gig Pitt arranged at the Horse Guards Parade, which coincided with the premiere in Leicester Square. Granted, the event was a publicity gig to increase Muse's US exposure, but this event and the premiere itself are certainly linked. I'll see if I can pull up some reliable references at some point today. --Jasca Ducato (talk) 08:39, 3 June 2013 (UTC)


 * How on earth are they linked? You yourself have just said the purpose was to increase Muse's exposure. There is no link, other than Pitt went there after the première. --  MisterShiney    ✉    08:49, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Maybe because Muse are the major contributing artists for the soundtrack, the event was World War Z branded, Brad Pitt arrived there immediately after attending the premiere of the film itself, the event was publicised as the "World War Z post-premiere performance" and was funded by ParamountUK. The fact that the event (in my opinion) also served to increase Muse's exposure does not negate the fact the two events are linked. Here's a quick reference: Muse perform at World War Z post-premiere concert --Jasca Ducato (talk) 09:49, 3 June 2013 (UTC)


 * I am sorry, but I don't see connection. Yeah the mail source says it was to promote the film, but to my knowledge because The Mail is a tabloid it isn't considered a Reliable Source. --  MisterShiney    ✉    08:23, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Even if you elect to ignore the fact the source (which I know could be better); the fact that the event was branded "World War Z post-première performance" and that it was organised by ParamountUK and Pitt (who attended) is more than enough. Short of sticking a scan of my ticket up on here which clearly indicates the event being that mentioned above, I'm failing to see how you cannot see they're connected. --Jasca Ducato (talk) 08:34, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
 * EDIT: Here's the official website for the event: WWZMuse. --Jasca Ducato (talk) 08:38, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Good enough for me. I just thought it was a concert that conveniently followed the première. -- MisterShiney    ✉    09:30, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Pointless Tags
Please stop adding pointless tags to the article. It makes the article look messy - especially when the content isn't even available yet because the film hasn't been released yet. MisterShiney   ✉    07:05, 12 June 2013 (UTC)


 * If you think any improvement tags are pointless, go to their pages and nominate them for deletion (yes, you can say they "make the articles look messy" or whatever for your stated reason, just recently someone tried with "empty section" and failed). And for the claim that "the content isn't even available", there are literally score+ of reviews available already, many of them also discussing the plot. --Niemti (talk) 10:00, 12 June 2013 (UTC)


 * -eye roll- Then add them yourself! Don't go around expecting other editors to do the work for you! -- MisterShiney    ✉    10:03, 12 June 2013 (UTC)


 * The article is under development, and will be increasingly so once the film goes to general release, so adding minor tags is fairly pointless. It's rather ridiculous to suggest nominating them for deletion: they serve a purpose in static and incomplete articles. This is not a static article and will change radically over the next few weeks. Finally Niemti, indent your posts by using one more colon than the previous poster to make the threads easier to follow for others. - SchroCat (talk) 10:07, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

No, then add them yourself. And then you can remove the tags. This is a static article, before I came here pretty recently it was still some incredibly outdated crap about it being a post-apocaliptic film set years after the war (like in the book and the original plot), the cast list was just ridicalous (not even mentioning most of the main roles as listed in the official website), etc. Pretty much only I worked on it in the last few weeks, despite it being practically released. --Niemti (talk) 10:12, 12 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Firstly, which bit of "indent your posts" are you struggling to comprehend here? Secondly, the film will be released in the next couple of weeks and once people see it, they will update it in their droves. It's happened on every other major film release article I've ever seen or worked on. The tags are utterly pointless in these cases: it's fairly obvious which parts need updating and the tags do not help identify them. If tags are unhelpful to even the meanest intelligence, they shouldn't be used. - SchroCat (talk) 10:21, 12 June 2013 (UTC)


 * That is a load of tosh! You came here two weeks ago. It is all there in the article history. The information at the time was correct. There was a mention of apocalyptic film - which it is. Edits have been made to this article almost daily by different editors. It was and is by no means static enough to warrant the addition of tags. There is still over a week till the film is released and then those sections you tagged will be filled out naturally as editors come a long and make the changes. If they are there, you might get new editors thinking that they can only make changes to those sections. So sit back, relax and let the good times roll. Tags are not worth you getting in trouble over. -- MisterShiney    ✉    10:26, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
 * That is a load of tosh of an article, indeed. It was in the category "Post-apoapocalyptic films" - which it isn't (and I see you didn't even notice, so it's for you). I even wrote everything about the video game (I think no one else wrote even 1 word before or after me), the reviews are available for over a week now and yet only 1 was added and even it's only the score and author, no one expanded the plot, I had to add the main(!!!) roles long after the official website listed them - it's so static. Completely. There was even no poster when I came here (I had to upload one). --Niemti (talk) 10:36, 12 June 2013 (UTC)


 * You've edited a couple of bits: so what? In a couple of weeks, when the film is on general release around half the world, people will flock to edit. They don't need tags to do it: it's obvious where the gaps are and where the work is needed. - SchroCat (talk) 10:42, 12 June 2013 (UTC)


 * "A couple of bits" - 83 edits that rewrote everything, as compared top your 9, and MisterShiney's 34 (since 2012-11-10). And except TriiipleThreat no one even really even touches it. Because it's static. And for things being "obvious" - tell it to this guy (which happened just after the improvement tag was removed). As of "flocking", "This article ranked 919 in traffic on en.wikipedia.org." but it doesn't matter, it's still static. --Niemti (talk) 10:55, 12 June 2013 (UTC)


 * And again, 83 edits: so what? number of edits count for absolutely nothing at the end of the day. In less than 10 days this will be in the cinemas and people will turn to this article and start editing it: the number of anyone's edits is immaterial. As to pointing to one IP's edit, I suggest that was a reaction to your overuse of cn tags: you could just as easily have looked up the RT web address and dropped it in, as I did earlier, in a move that took all of 30 seconds to undertake. The only question is why, in your 83 high quality, excellent edits, one of them wasn't constructive enough to put in a reference? - SchroCat (talk) 11:05, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
 * So that: not "a couple of bits" despite your claims (and the article was really badly written and full of out-of-date disinformation). People turn to the article due to the trailers and now reviews (919 in traffic on en.wikipedia.org), they don't edit, and when the expansion tags are removed, they are even removing content (the review, in this case), thinking it's enough. I put the link to http://www.firstshowing.net/2013/early-world-war-z-reviews-reactions-is-it-actually-any-good/ alongside the expansion tag to show prcisely how it is to be done (the roundup of earliest reviews and twitter ractions from celebs). Why? Because tags should be expained. Why not me? Because hundreds of thousands of other people see this page every week, and I'm the most active editor here anyway (because it's, yes, static - and so nobody edited since you did over 4 hours ago, despite thousands of people passing through). Oh, and all kinds of statistics must be sourced (and dated). Also, people do demand actual plot (and then my tag at plot is removed by you for no reason). --Niemti (talk) 16:37, 12 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Yawn.... are you still going on about this? How about spending just a fraction of the time updating the page, rather than dragging this out even further? The IP's edit had feck all to do with the section tags and more to do with the CN tags you lazily added, when you could and should have just sourced the information properly. Your few edits (and yes, 83 edits is only a few in the grand scheme of things), didn't add some of the more important bits, did they? Did you add to the references, or sort out the citations you tagged? FFS - the film comes out in less than ten days and once it does things will start moving properly without the pointless and ridiculous tags you added. People know what needs to be done and they'll get on and do it, without your three-act drama. - SchroCat (talk) 16:59, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I spent much more time updating the page than you did, and I didn't start this discussion (you two did). My 83 edits is about as much as everyone else in the world did in the same time period (last 2 weeks), out of hundreds of thousands people who visited this allegedly "not static" article (there was a guy who did nearly 200 edits once between 2011-2013, but here's no longer active here - I'm after him here). I don't even want to really start here, or it will end like with that and I'm now having a job and some life and I don't have time for that (that = 705 edits or something similar to that). And if you think any tags are "pointless and ridiculous", go and nominate them for deletion for that reason (explain why there, I don't care). --Niemti (talk) 17:08, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Can we stop being hostile to each other? As the article currently stands, I think we are okay without tags. The "Reception" section has a good sampling going. As for "Cast", I think we have the main cast covered. If there are other names to mention, it is probably in that gray discriminate-indiscriminate territory. (For which we could group names in prose.) Lastly, I am not sure if tagging the "Plot" section expedites matters. It will be inevitable that someone will write up a fuller summary for a blockbuster film. In contrast, such a tag may be more appropriate for a film that has been out for years but has nothing in the way of a plot summary. Erik (talk &#124; contribs) 17:13, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Cast has now all the main roles and some additional ones, but Ludi Boeken and Fana Mokoena are not even having their roles attributed at all. Relatively few people know the plot in detail, but it can be roughly got together with what is available already in reviews, interviews, leaks, trailers and production articles. One just needs to do it. Or else just someone who has seen the film can write it, if they see they not just can but also should expand this very section. (And what readers think the article is it lacks the plot, and they actually demanded precisely it.) In fact the article doesn't even mention that the film has fast zombies (or a mix of fast and slow, apparently), which is very unlike the book. --Niemti (talk) 17:22, 12 June 2013 (UTC)Italic text


 * I am not sure about what the number of edits to a page has to do with anything. Especially when it is very easy to stack edit counts up with minor edits here and there. You did not add a main cast section. Looking at what the article looked like back in November You haven't done as much as you might think. In fact, it flipping had a picture, and cast section already. All you have done, is come in and copyedit other people's work. Which is all part of being a editor (well done you). But don't come in and claim to have done stuff other editors have done. Oh and in the grand scheme of things, 919th out of thousands of articles, it is still pretty impressive. --  MisterShiney    ✉    17:23, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I added most of the main cast (main = people from the official website, not supporting characters). It didn't have a picture. Btw, someone had screwed up "starring" in the infobox (like Fox isn't even mentioned in the cast on the off-web). Did you revert me there, too? --Niemti (talk) 17:30, 12 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Because it was removed by an IP editor. Just look at the revision before. You may now withdraw your accusation of "lying".
 * Not being funny, but cobbling together a plot from "reviews, interviews, leaks, trailers and production articles" is Synthesis/Original Research. And again, that information was already there back in November. Can we move on from this now because we have gone off topic. Which was the addition of tags. You now have 3 different editors telling you they are not appropriate given that there will be an influx of editors coming in to make changes in the wake of the general release, as is common. I have only removed the tags, not your good faith edits. - Except when I put back the updated poster rather than a teaser. Please also bear in mind that the number of contributions to an article does not make them have a bigger say (not that you have said this, but you did spout a whole load of stuff about number of contributions) Everyone edits in different ways. --  MisterShiney    ✉    17:48, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Really? Even the fact that there are fast zombies - which is new, and totally different than in the book, which was basically all different in almost every aspect? That Pitt starts in Philadelphia, gets rescued and put on US NAVY aircraft carrier, then goes to Israel, etc? (And that's just stuff from the trailers alone.) You think a one-liner is enough, despite most users coming here for plot, and actually demanding plot? --Niemti (talk) 17:40, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Where did you get Israel from the trailer? Its not there. None of that is mentioned/detailed in the trailers. Wikipedia isn't a race. Two IP editors is not "most users". At the end of the day, yes it needs to be done, but the plot section will be written when the film is released generally so that many editors can contribute and collaborate on it so that it is a best representation of the film and not a rag tag of information from different sources. -- MisterShiney    ✉    17:52, 12 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Where did I get Israel from the trailer? Hmmm... Soldiers in Israeli uniforms, Israli military helicopters, crowds of people waving Israeli (and Palestinian) flags... must be Zimbabwe. Outside of the trailers, stuff like http://www.israelhayom.com/site/newsletter_article.php?id=6367 (but shhh, " the content isn't even available"). --Niemti (talk) 19:00, 12 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Editors, knock off the snarkiness already. Israel is a setting in the film; I believe Vanity Fair mentions it. In any case, I do not think combining sources is synthesis as long as the sequence of events are clear, but it is somewhat needless. Is there not one solid source that we could cite, the official synopsis or a very detailed review, to provide a temporary synopsis here? Erik (talk &#124; contribs) 19:15, 12 June 2013 (UTC)


 * All out-of-context WP:OR until the film is released and can be seen by a large audience. In ten days time this will have a workable plot section, so there is no point in trying to force one out of nothing now, and certainly no need for the rather childish sarcasm. - SchroCat (talk) 19:15, 12 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Really? So use the reviews. Oh and a sample (allegedly not "even available yet", despite being posted 5 days ago) cast and roles list: Brad Pitt play Gerry Lane, a former UN investigator now retired, a seemingly happy stay-at-home dad with wife Karen (Mireille Enos) and daughters Rachel and Constance (Abigail Hargrove and Sterling Jerins). (...) Pitt's Gerry is virtually at the center of a one-man show; few supporting characters beyond Enos, Fana Mokoena's UN higher-up and Daniella Kertesz's Israeli soldier get more than a couple of scenes (...) That's carried through to the rest of the supporting cast too, few of whom are properly sketched out. Be it Enos reprising her thankless wife role from "Gangster Squad," to Ludi Boeken as an exposition-dumping Mossad agent, to Peter Capaldi and Ruth Negga as scientists so thankless they're literally credited as Scientists despite being central to the third act, most of the players that crop up on Pitt's travels are perfunctory at best (to say nothing of Matthew Fox, inexplicably fifth-billed in a part that's not so much a cameo as a day-player gig -- presumably he has more left on the cutting room floor). The lone memorable turn, beyond David Morse virtually chewing his way through prison bars as a Kurtz-like CIA crackpot, comes from James Badge Dale, successfully stealing the show in his second successive summer showpiece after his standout turn in "Iron Man 3." This was all in the first (and only) review of it that I've even ever read yet. Dude. Hello. --Niemti (talk) 19:30, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Niemti, Stop being a dick - and don't call me "dude". That's not a proper plot summary, and if you think it is then you've got lot to learn about editing film articles. - SchroCat (talk) 19:43, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Please tell me how do you read "cast and roles list" and respond with "That's not a proper plot summary, and if you think it is"? I really wonder, your brain moves in truly mysterious way. --Niemti (talk) 19:46, 12 June 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm giving up discussing this with you: you're becoming more of a troll with each posting and I think the best thing to do is to walk away from your toxic and childish nonsense. - SchroCat (talk) 19:49, 12 June 2013 (UTC)


 * And I think you should learn to properly read (that's speaking of "getting to learn"). Oh, and stop being a dude - and don't call me "dick". --Niemti (talk) 19:55, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Honestly, I think this is a perfect example of pointless discussion about nothing. Rule #1. If someone places an improvement tag, do not remove the tag over his objections. Rule #2. If someone removes tags and feels very strongly about this, do not restore the tags. This is simply because you are going to spend a lot of your time and nerves, instead of doing something better. My very best wishes (talk) 22:58, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Tags
Seeing as the editor expects others to do the work for them. A user has "requested" that the following sections be expanded. -- MisterShiney    ✉    17:23, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Plot
 * Reception
 * Credits (although I would argue that it is fine. But if anyone would like to add information in line with MOS:FILM that would be great.

"My work"? When is my Wikipedia paycheck coming? --Niemti (talk) 17:47, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

"Segen" is a rank, not a name
The page lists "Segen" as the name of a woman serving in the Israel Defense Forces. Unfortunately, "Segen" isn't a name, it's a rank equivalent to "Lieutenant" in English. Regards, Anameofmyveryown (talk) 17:23, 18 June 2013 (UTC)


 * WP:BEBOLD, correct it!--TriiipleThreat (talk) 17:25, 18 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Having seen the film, as I am sure most of you have by now. I notice that during the dialogue between her and Gerry, she just says "Segen" and does not say what "Segen" refers to. It could be her actual name or her rank. We should therefore leave it has "known as Segen" in the cast section as it is not our place to interpret what the writers were referring to. --  MisterShiney    ✉    21:16, 24 June 2013 (UTC)


 * If it were (say) an Australian or a British soldier, and the same lines were used with the character introducing herself as "Lieutenant" or "Corporal", I don't think the same ambiguity would be perceived. The only case I can think of like this in English would be if a character was introduced as "Sergeant", which could be a surname. In my opinion it's fair to assume what is meant. Segen is, as pointed out above, "Lieutenant" in Hebrew. I think it might have been, at least in part, meant as a joke for Hebrew-speaking viewers. (Pitt asking if it was her first or last name got a big laugh when I saw the film here in Israel). —Cliftonian (talk) 19:37, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Hello! Hmm. Well, what about "Major Garret"? Knowing that a man with a name like that really exists, his name could be used to confuse people too. Oh, I didn't double-check his surname for how many of each letter r or letter t should be in it. LeoStarDragon1 (talk) 04:49, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
 * What about Major Major Major Major?? Herzlicheboy (talk) 05:52, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

World War Z self censorship
"Appeasing the huge foreign market of China meant removing references to the plague being discovered there and the government’s lying about it."
 * World War Z: Brad Pitt vs. the Zombies time.com. 84.152.14.66 (talk) 00:08, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Rotten Tomatoes
"the film holds a 68% approval rating" is not how RT works. RT takes a review of words and dumbs it down to a polar "Fresh" or "Rotten", regardless of the fact that most reviews are a mix of both. RT does not give an "approval rating" to any film, and describing it as such is utterly misleading. Triiple, the version you revered (that RT "had sampled 108 reviews and judged 68% of them to be positive") is correct and is not misleading, and is way more correct than the version that is currently in place. Open to others to call it one way or the other, but the current wording is just plain wrong. - SchroCat (talk) 21:17, 20 June 2013 (UTC)


 * The current seems fine to me, the Tomato meter is a number determined and applied by RT based on their own method. Your edit neglects the average rating as well. Also judging from your language here and in the edit summary I am sensing some POV being applied.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 21:37, 20 June 2013 (UTC)


 * The current wording is misleading (for the readons already outlined) and the version you have replaced twice is a far better expression of the reality. There is no POV in the wording you have removed. I do have strong doubts on the way RT works, but that has nothing to do with the wording of the text. As I've said, I'll welcome the opinions of others on this. - SchroCat (talk) 21:43, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

As predicted (and this was completely obvious)

 * 1) The people wanted the plot.
 * 2) Over 1 million people have seen the article this month, but nobody added any reviews or basically anything really - because some users disallowed (and still continue to) even letting people to be informed that some sections need expansion and they can do it. Btw, this is really an issue. Oh, and only 964  people visited "the talk for this type message" (out of over 1,050,000 who could have seen it).

But of course, I'm always right. --Niemti (talk) 18:46, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
 * No you're not "always right". You're misguided and impatient. - SchroCat (talk) 19:03, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes. Q.E.D. --Niemti (talk) 19:15, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Sadly, that has to be the most immature response I've seen on Wiki: which is up against some fairly stiff competition. - SchroCat (talk) 19:42, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Don't be an asshat. The plot was never going to be added before the film was released and quite frankly what was there was what was available officially at the time and that did not include the fan speculation that numerous editors/visitors tried to add from what was included in the book. One thing to remember in your editing that only a fraction of visitors to the site will edit and make additions to articles. The production expansion tag was removed because have you seen the production section? It is pretty filled up already. The part it was added was intentionally blank because the info was already in the subsections below. Something, if you actually read you would see and understand. As for the copy edit, that goes without saying and will be done when the plot is reduced down. Something which is on my to do list tomorrow. So please remember to remain Civil in your interactions. There is no RIGHT or WRONG view, so if I was you I would change my attitude before an admin comes along and tells you the hard way. -- MisterShiney    ✉    19:18, 21 June 2013 (UTC)


 * MisterShiney, saying "Don't be an asshat" is not civil either. I ask you all once again, please be respectful of each other. Niemti, your concerns can be framed better. Erik (talk &#124; contribs) 19:43, 21 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Don't be an Assad, many people have seen the completed film before the public release. And it was screened to them officially. Filled already? So where is the info about the original third and final part (filmed, then scrapped), which was taking part in Russia, with a big finale battle between zombies and Russian slave (literally) troops in the Red Square? "Russia" isn't even in the article. Must be over-filled, and spilled somewhere, so point it out to me where it went. Come on. Or, where is the info about the film being banned in the PRC, despite the producers changing the film to appase the commie censors? Where are all these editors who were supposed to be "flocking" here and write about the reviews, production, other stuff, everything, knowing they should do without the tags telling them the sections are incomplete and they can edit? --Niemti (talk) 19:45, 21 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Why don't you WP:BEBOLD and do it yourself? I assume you have reliable sources to back your statements.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 19:53, 21 June 2013 (UTC)


 * I see everyone is sure to include the word with "ass" in their response. So, where is all this info in the article, and where are those "flocking" new editors? --Niemti (talk) 19:56, 21 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Also, sources: BEHOLD THE MAGIC. Also: more magic. (They even changed the virus to "Moscow flu" to appase the chicom regime, but then put Russia out of it too.) --Niemti (talk) 20:01, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

So add it yourself! I am fed up of editors coming in and critisizing articles saying this article needs this, this article needs that who don't actually do it themselves! So get of your butt and be bold and do it! Rather than adding tags - that doesn't actually say what needs to be added as only the person who added the tags knows what is missing! As for the plot section, plot sections aren't added before general release as the addition of a plot by an exclusive few is unreliable - as well as production companies swearing reviewers to secrecy, so when it is added, then everyone who has seen the film can be involved in writing a detailed (within guidelines) accurate summary. Otherwise we end up with a dozen different versions that are red herrings or a load of rubbish. There ahs also been at least a dozen new editors to the article in the last 24 hours alone. -- MisterShiney    ✉    20:15, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

No, I'll simply add the proper improvement tags telling people the sections are And this time you won't remove them for some whimsical reasons. --Niemti (talk) 20:30, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) incomplete (so they will know)
 * 2) they can edit them (so they will know)
 * 3) what exactly is needed (so they will know)

Also, as for "that doesn't actually say what needs to be added as only the person who added the tags knows what is missing!" you're wrong and this is why: - and this is actually always recommended to do while tagging. --Niemti (talk) 20:33, 21 June 2013 (UTC)


 * At the end of the day you just enjoy throwing your toys out of your pram and screaming like a toddler rather than actually doing something positive and creating. The tags aren't needed and the consensus is against you adding them again. Move on, and stop creating a three-act drama over nothing while sapping the energy and morale of others with your silly games. - SchroCat (talk) 20:35, 21 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Yes, because I'm such an ass-ass-in. "The tags aren't needed" - take it to the talk pages of the tags and/or nominate them for deletion. --Niemti (talk) 20:38, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Don't be ridiculous. Tags are needed in some places. Not here. I don't care what you are or what you want to call yourself, but if you can't be constructive, then don't bother trying to wind others up. - SchroCat (talk) 20:42, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Really? Quick, remove the plot tag, because you forgot to do it yet. --Niemti (talk) 20:44, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Yawn... you're crossing over into troll territory now. Give up and move on. - SchroCat (talk) 20:50, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Niemti, I do not support adding tags to the article. These are narrow aspects of the topic. I agree with the sentiment that someone (all who have weighed in on this discussion, including myself) needs to be bold and add the proper content. I'd like to do it now to resolve this matter but am too touch-and-go. I hope someone else will go ahead and make the edits. Erik (talk &#124; contribs) 20:36, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
 * People don't really come to talk pages. They need to be told in the articles. That's why all these tags exist, and that's why thousands and thousands of articles are tagged. --Niemti (talk) 20:39, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Niemti, I will add the content tonight or tomorrow, unless someone beats me to it. Feel free to ping me if I have not by then. Erik (talk &#124; contribs) 20:42, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Cool. --Niemti (talk) 20:46, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Seems Erik and I got it covered. Discussion works wonders.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 21:04, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Shoot, didn't see you editing there! :) Vanity Fair said the Russia battle was filmed in Budapest (guess it was a set). Hmm, the post-production subsection is a little redundant about the Russia battle cut. Let me try to merge it. Erik (talk &#124; contribs) 21:06, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Plot improvements
Just a slightly irrelevant note to say that I saw the film yesterday and was intending to do a copyedit/rewrite of the "plot" section, but that would involve forcing myself to remember the film, and not even being an editor of Wikipedia could bring me to re-live the experience. Good luck whoever wants to try it, though ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 17:40, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
 * So the point of this message was....? If it was to express dissatisfaction of the movie then please remember that per talk page guidelines these talk pages are not forums. If however you are genuine in your suggestion then please be more specific as to the changes you would like see happen. MisterShiney    ✉    22:34, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

At the risk of sounding like I'm honking my own horn, I'd like to say that my edit of the plot section is far superior in terms of both readability and overall completeness of the summary, but someone keeps reverting it to a confusing version that is difficult to follow. What gives?! Is it due to a length issue? (192.75.71.135 (talk) 02:07, 15 July 2013 (UTC))
 * It looks like it must have been a length thing. The plot is already overlong and your edit added more length to it (although not that much, honestly).  Some editors will revert that type of thing, period.  Others will consider if the changes will actually make a trim easier in the long run due to greater clarification.  In this case, I personally find your edit to fall into the latter group.  I strongly agree that your tweaks and fixes made the whole mess more readable and think that this will make it easier for us to trim elsewhere.


 * Personally, I'd recommend re-adding it but it will probably get removed again. Some people take the WP:FILMPLOT guideline as a policy and are extremely rigid about that 400-700 words thing even though this essentially means they are missing the point of the guideline (which is to enforce succinct summaries that support other real world info in the article, sometimes this puts plots under the recommended 400 words or over 700).  SO with that thought in mind, my advice would be to grab a copy of the plot as it looks with your edits and see if you can find some places to trim down as well.  I still haven't gotten to see it or else I'd take a stab at it.  I'm a plot summary junky.  Millahnna (talk) 02:36, 15 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Nice work, dude (ette?). More readability AND a big fat trim.  Well done, you. Millahnna (talk) 04:08, 15 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Much better. Well done. Yes that was I (I think). Manual of Style, although guideline, is treated as policy because otherwise we would end up with a blow by blow, scene bye scene account of every trivial detail in the film and it would be far too long and harder to read. -- MisterShiney    ✉    06:24, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Alternate Ending
I think the alternate (original) ending, the one before the re-shoots took place, should be added. Here it is: http://www.darkhorizons.com/news/27555/original-world-war-z-ending-in-detail — Preceding unsigned comment added by 181.164.247.16 (talk) 19:52, 24 June 2013 (UTC)


 * An interesting suggestion, although I am not sure about the reliability of it. If more reliable sources could be found then it could be included. On a more personal note, if that was indeed the original ending, I for one am glad they got re shot it. It probably saved the film and they wouldn't have got a sequel. -- MisterShiney    ✉    20:59, 24 June 2013 (UTC)


 * A detailed account of this ending would surely violate WP:COPYVIO. This ending is already referred to in general scope in the production section. If reliable it might be better used as an WP:EL.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 21:06, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Ok, here are two more reliable links that describe the original ending, plus some quotes from Lindelof: - http://collider.com/world-war-z-sequel-original-ending/ - http://screenrant.com/damon-lindelof-world-war-z-movie-ending-rewrite/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 181.164.247.16 (talk) 00:51, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Israel
Is it worth adding a section regarding the controversy {in some circles} as to the book's and apparently movie's pretty transparent and revisionist/idealized presentation of Israel and Zionism? There are a lot of discussions about it online and in the alternative media, e.g. http://mondoweiss.net/2013/06/hollywoods-zionist-embrace.html   I know from having followed links into topics regarding Israel/Jews from pages on early Egypt that nothing is more contentious on here than these topics. I don't think that need be the case, however, rather than add the link to the above at the bottom of the page {would *that* be okay, or okay if paired with another link to 'balance'?} I thought I'd note this controversy, and ask if primary editors think it warrants a mention, just pov neutral, some people say X, some people say Y.  Leaving it out imho makes the article less complete - I read the book, and yes its a work of fiction, but the degree to which the Israeli government and people are idealized and made victims of their own purported, fictional nobility, is, in the Edward Bernays sense of the term - pure propaganda. All this said, I appreciate it may beyond the scope of a wiki entry on a movie. Still, the conversation is happening out there, and seems worth a mention, however brief and vanilla. 50.136.54.23 (talk) 20:07, 26 June 2013 (UTC)j.e.k.


 * I dont think there is enough content to warrant inclusion. Especially when your source isn't a neutral one. If more neutral sources were found then great go for it. But till then I am a nay. -- MisterShiney    ✉    20:25, 27 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Per WP:UNDUE/WP:GEVAL: We do not need to present every minority or extraordinary viewpoint.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 03:04, 28 June 2013 (UTC)


 * After doing some research, I definitely support including a reference to the commentary over the film's depiction of Israel, provided that we address both sides of the issue. See, for instance, this tweet by Jeffrey Goldberg, who is most definitely a mainstream pro-Israel voice. Al Jazeera has an only-slightly-biased summary of such Twitter comments; an AP article reprinted by the Washington Post discusses the dual symbology of walls in Israeli and Palestinian culture; and BuzzFeed has a surprisingly in-depth analysis. The choice of "Salaam" is also of note, especially in the cruel irony of its being Israel and Palestine's undoing—though of course you'd have to find an RS commenting on this synthesis to include it. We sing it at my synagogue, but I believe it's been controversial elsewhere.
 * Obviously this needs to be done cautiously, but I think the film's message in regard to Israel (including disagreement over what, precisely, that message is) is a key part of its real-world impact, and as such is relevant to this article. — PinkAmpers  &#38;  ( Je vous invite à me parler )  21:27, 28 June 2013 (UTC)


 * I oppose adding such a reference. Neither the book nor the film seem to make any particular political nor religious point about Israel or Judaism. Lots of countries are singled out as dealing with the outbreak in their own unique way; Israel is just one of those. In both the book and the film, Israel is shown as accepting uninfected refugees from all backgrounds, so accusations on zionism are unfounded; in the book, Israel even renames itself Palestine. It strikes me that people are just seeing a few trailer clips about Israel and a wall and are just using that to drum up their own personal political agenda. WP:SOAP Andrew Oakley (talk) 22:59, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Main cast
Maybe the section was unneeded, but I think it's better if we put the main cast in the main titles order. For example, Matthew Fox and Fabrizio Zacharee Guidoas are just extras and they are not credited in the opening sequence. Peter Capaldi, Pierfrancesco Favino and David Andrews are instead more significant characters and their names appear in the credits. Check it!--Alienautic (talk) 11:10, 2 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Per the film's website the starring credits are as follows:


 * Brad Pitt
 * Mireille Enos
 * Daniella Kertesz
 * James Badge Dale
 * David Morse
 * Ludi Boeken
 * Fana Mokoena
 * Abigail Hargrove
 * Sterling Jerins
 * Fabrizio Zacharee Guido


 * That combined with the billing block on the poster per Template:Infobox film/doc adds Matthew Fox. These credits usually contractually arranged and may have nothing to do with the amount of screen time the actor receives.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 11:20, 2 July 2013 (UTC)


 * I know that, but I think the movie itself is a major reference. If you watch the movie you can see that the main credits are:


 * Brad Pitt
 * Mireille Enos
 * Daniella Kertesz
 * James Badge Dale
 * David Morse
 * Fana Mokoena
 * David Andrews
 * Sterling Jerins
 * Abigail Hargrove
 * Peter Capaldi
 * Pierfrancesco Favino
 * Ludi Boeken
 * Grégory Fitoussi

Maybe we can add also Fox and Zacharee Guido (considering also the poster and the website) to this list and the main cast will be complete.--Alienautic (talk) 11:33, 2 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Regardless. We should always fall on what the poster says and what official sources say. If we added every cast member that are in the closing credits the list would be huge! It is not our job to interpret who the main cast are. -- MisterShiney    ✉    18:27, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
 * No, I'm not talking about closing credits, but about the opening sequence! That was the main cast, because of course in the ending titles all the cast members (both main cast and additional) are credited. Remember that the movie itself is the primary source. Promotional stuff is secondary.--Alienautic (talk) 22:34, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
 * WP:SECONDARY sources are preferable over WP:PRIMARY sources.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 23:21, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

What is WHO?
I see in the article several mentions of "WHO". Since the Brad Pitt character is given as a UN employee, does that mean "WHO" stands for the World Health Organization? Even if it doesn't, the first time the term occurs, the writer should really define it, a la: ". . .World Health Organization (WHO). . ." Thank you, Wordreader (talk) 19:15, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * The very first mention of the WHO in the article is linked... --Jasca Ducato (talk) 08:36, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Page has been hacked
I'm new to Wikipedia so I hope I'm reporting this properly. I was just looking up "World War Z" and noticed that the plot section about the film is rife with nonsensical, often lewd, and most likely inaccurate "facts" about what happens in the movie. I can't be sure, and I'm not familiar with the film either (which is why I was looking it up), so I figured I'd try to help out by bringing this to the attention of those of you who have been writing and maintaining the page -- it looks like someone has "hacked" it and messed up the plot synopsis.37.142.55.97 (talk) 19:54, 16 October 2013 (UTC)


 * As someone who saw the film recently, I can honestly say I don't know where you're seeing any issues outside of wording (especially when you said you aren't familiar with it). What sticks out to you? Might help us find out if there's some stuff buried.  Corvoe  (speak to me)  00:27, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
 * The article's Plot section was, at one point on the 16th, vandalised by an anon, but the edits were soon reverted. 'm under the impression that the above simply had the misfortune of checking the article during the time period before said reversion. Thank you for bringing it to our attention, though. --Jasca Ducato (talk) 08:21, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure Brad Pitt and not Eric Cartman was the star of the real movie. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.29.127.194 (talk) 21:24, 21 October 2013 (UTC)