World War Z Movie Vs Book

In a nutshell, World War Z is the story of zombies; another story which takes place in a post-apocalyptic world where the threat of zombies has not hit a world-wide level. However, the novel and the film take the plot and zombie idea, and develop two very different adaptation of this idea. While film adaptation usually tend to differ from their book counterparts, World War Z goes beyond the usual plot twists and missing scenes. It seems as if the film adaptation of this novel is missing almost every scene from the book, as the film itself was turned into almost a completely different story, and tends to focus more on what would be considered the main character (in the film), Gerry Lane. In comparison to the novel, the film itself is almost

The use of all the military and the focus on more powerful political people in the movie made it feel more science fiction that the book. The fact that Gerry Lane in the main character in the novel, and we’re basically hitching a ride on his own story, gave the movie an action vibe, similar to the ones that superhero movies give off. We basically have one man, who starts off as a pretty normal civilian, and ends up saving all of humanity from the bad guy- or bad guys in this case. The film was a bit more selfish with its adaptation, focusing on the story of Gerry Lane, and what he goes through in order to stop the zombies. In the novel, we are told the there is a “patient zero” who is a young boy who is thought to be the original infected person. In the film, we learn that the plague was introduced by a doctor, but only to a specific part, which was a military base. In the film, there is mention of the same separation in Jerusalem, of the uninfected Jews, but we do not get as much global information as we do in the novel. I think that the reason for this, was to give the movie an action vibe, as opposed to making it a cluster of interviews like the book did. If the film had followed the same foundation as the novel, I think it would have become more about the sort of ‘history lesson’ as opposed to the actual zombie threat. Because there is

In the novel, it ultimately ends with the zombies being killed by the UN, which is now a large military, and the world slowly recovering from all of the chaos. In the film, however, a vaccine is released to keep humans safe from the zombies, but in the end, they are only just getting ready to actually battle the zombies and get rid of them once and for all. The overall difference in the film worked to tell a similar story, although the only things that we remotely similar among both the film and the novel was the mention of zombies. I think that making the film just a full on action movie instead of attempting to add action to the already existing novel made it more enjoyable to watch. Instead of being the documentary like film that it would have been, (had the writers and producers stuck to the original story) they decided to turn it into an action movie. I think that this is partly because action movies tend to sell a lot better, as well as capture the attention of most people. In the film, we got to see more of people interacting with each other during the global chaos, as opposed to having a deeper focus on the zombies themselves. I think that film wouldn’t have been as good as it is, had they tried to focus more on the same things the book focused on (the zombies, for example). Had they made it like the novel, it might have become