But neither of those are correct, as The Guardian released exactly what Lindelof eliminated with his new ending (which is still kept hidden):
The new version is ironically said to be less spectacular, but with more of the sense of emotional relief supposedly required to send cinema goers contentedly out into the night. Carnahan’s version is said to have seen Pitt travelling to Russia to free legions of slaves, who he enlists to destroy the zombie threat with lobotomising sheaths that take off their heads. But it was too grim and violent for the PG-13 film Paramount insisted on and cast Pitt in a negative light as a savage, zombie-killing warrior leader. Worse still, it failed to reunite our hero with his family (and therefore felt hollow and bleak).
Yup, just as I expected – too gritty. I appreciate the fact that re-writer Matthew Michael Carnahan tried to embrace the darkly apocalyptic scenario with some brutal realism, but unfortunately his efforts were slashed by a studio just trying to make people happy. Um, it’s the f*cking zombie apocalypse, this isn’t a happy time to be alive. Countless people are dead, families have been torn ferociously apart, entire cities are destroyed, humanity hangs in the balance – but wait! Brad Pitt has to make it home to his family! Aw, isn’t that all sunshine and rainbows?
Sorry, mini rant coming on – grow a f@cking pair mainstream horror. Not only does this go against the dismal reality of Brooks’ book, but it defaces the entire horror genre. World War Z faces the eradication of mankind, which will most likely involve a bloody, hard-fought battle to rid the earth of an undead scourge ravaging every part of our planet. Yes, I’m sure Brad Pitt’s character misses his family, but more important should be his want to keep them safe. How does he keep them safe? By eliminating the zombies. Honestly, I don’t give a sh*t if he doesn’t reunite with them until three films later (if World War Z was to be franchised), because the grander story is “How will Gerry Lane save the world,” not “Will Gerry Lane return home in time for dinner?!” Sorry, rant over.
Personally, I don’t see the problem with showing Pitt as a “savage, zombie-killing warrior leader” because there is no clear definition of “Good.” There’s Pure Good, Neutral Good, and Chaotic Good. Again, this is supposed to be a horror movie, don’t you think getting savage would be a little necessary for survival? If it didn’t fit with the story for continuity reasons, fine, change away Paramount, but if the move was made solely with dollar signs and not integrity in mind? You don’t think there’s anything emotionally jarring about ending the film with Brad Pitt leading a group of freed Russian slaves into battle with these mile a minute zombies, knowing he might not return to his family?
Forster could have even cued up a shot of Pitt longingly admiring a picture of his family, giving his wife’s face a good ol’ cliched stroke with his hand while cracking a smile – only to then turn on the intensity and charge into the fury of war. “Hollow and bleak” are not the right words to describe the above scenario, more like recklessly hopeful and realistic. But hey, this is mainstream Hollywood, everything has to have a storybook ending. Blech.
I’m not saying the whole “successful mainstream horror film” can’t be done, just look at this year’s Warm Bodies for example, but for the scenario World War Z creates, the mainstream route represents unnecessary handcuffs that will undoubtedly lead to people imagining their own “what if” scenarios. Warm Bodies worked because it attempted to deliver one of the world’s first romantic zombie comedies, but even that got a little brutal at times. World War Z is a full-scale zombie war that doesn’t have any other aspects it’s trying to push, like romance or comedy, so watering down epic zombie carnage is a move horror enthusiasts around the world can only sigh at. Sure, maybe us horror fans are selfish in our want for hard genre movies that don’t pander to non-horror thinking minds, but hell, I can’t help but to wonder how World War Z is going to land.
World War Z – a PG-13 zombie epidemic film which changed an action-centric ending in favor for a “feel-good” ending. Man, I don’t want to say it, but I’m not psyched for Marc Forster’s crack at Max Brooks’ novel in the least bit. Sure, early reports have the film at an 80% on Rotten Tomatoes (16 Fresh, 4 Rotten), but I can already tell by the overall consensus of “there’s enough memorable action to cover up its empty core” mentality that there’s a better chance I won’t be in line with such thinking. I’ll absolutely go in with an open mind and hoping for best, but something about what will no doubt be a summer spectacle has me a little too uneasy for my liking. I’ll try riding the waves, but believe all too heavily this zombie film will be nothing but a wipeout for hardcore horror fans. Guess we’ll find out June 21st, won’t we?
