WWZ looks horrible. The book wasn't about a lone family man saving the world.
This shouldn't matter. People need to get over the fact that their beloved books have been changed slightly and realize that a film interpretation can be judged on it's own merits and not in comparison to the book. That's why people didn't like 'The Road', because it was different from the book and didn't capture the tone properly or something, but as a stand alone film judged on it's own merits it's pretty damn good. If the book hadn't been made and that film came out people would have splooged all over it imo, but because it was based on a book people have these ready made ideas of what it should be like and they hate it even if the film is actually pretty good. Same could be said for some of the Harry Potter films, Watchmen (imo, but I know other people just generally think it's a bad film), Shutter Island etc and the new Jack Reacher film (even though it might not be any good itself, I haven't seen it). McQueen I know is a huge Reacher fan and he had pre-conceptions of what it should be like, but he judged the film on it's own terms and more people should do that imo.
I will add that I don't read a whole lot, so I'm sorry if this is just an ill-informed bunch of shit, but it's something that always annoys me when people say a film is shit because it wasn't like the book or something along those lines. I probably just rambled there anyway because I'm so fucking tired right now. I'm not saying I think WWZ looks particularly great or anything either, what I am saying is that it looks like it could be a fun zombie romp, and judging it's quality on how different it is from the book is a bit silly to me.
FUCK, I only wanted to write a short sentence then. Anyway, I'm actually gonna' watch Les Miserables today, oh man. Maybe DREDD later too.
edit: btw Anark that wasn't having a go at you personally. And I can't stop looking at your sig.