tofu_chipmunk wrote: I just grabbed World War Z, based on these posts. I also agree with Romero
carpetbeggar wrote: World War Z was a great read. As George Romero said in a recent interview "fast zombies suck".
I also fell into reading "World War Z". The story is set a decade or so after the end of a global war against zombies and written in an interview style with various people who lived through it. It probably sounds ridiculous reading that synopsis, but within the context of the book it works. There's a lot of social and political commentary mixed in, some obvious, some less so. It's being made into a movie starring Brad Pitt. Some fans of the book are outraged that the storytelling vehicle is being dramatically changed for the film, but unless someone shot the book as a documentary, I don't know what else a studio could do.
Excellent choice Tamalie. One of the main outrages coming out of the movie is the fact that in some teasers that people have seen of the movie and of discussions by people who played minor parts in the movie is that these aren't your typical zombies. They are more in the vein of the '28 Days Later' and 'Dawn Of The Dead '04' creatures where they "turn" almost instantly after being infected and are like "track star" zombies in that they are of the "running" variety as opposed to the traditional George Romeroesque type zombies which are "shamblers."
In the book, the author Max Brooks had the Romero style zombies, that lurched rather than ran and they didn't turn into zombies seconds after being infected by another zombie.
People who are fans of zombie fiction (myself included) are sticklers for detail and the majority of us hated the introduction of the running zombies in the Dawn '04 remake. They were alright in the dark comedy style setting that was "Return Of The Living Dead" from 1985, but not in a movie which takes zombies seriously (as funny as that sounds).
"The ambling zombies are still real to me, dammit!"