By The Brad Pitt-helmed World War Z adaptation has seen ups and downs over the past couple years. It’s a little astounding that it’s actually going to hit its December 21st, 2012 release date, to be honest. However, it may not be the last we see of the world-gone-to-hell envisioned by Max Brooks. Paramount Pictures, and director Marc Forster, are apparently viewing the film as the beginning of a trilogy, likely as a bi-yearlyish sort of thing.
I’m of two minds on this. In terms of pure storytelling, the format of the original book lends itself really well to sequels. It’s essentially all about one guy going around the world collecting stories of the zombie apocalypse. Even if they cover all the stories in the book, there’s plenty of room for further adventures. That said, why? Why the hell does everything have to be about making a trilogy or a franchise? It seems that every time there’s an even vaguely larger-scale movie released, someone’s in the backroom of a movie studio chomping a cigar and whacking it to potential box office returns for sequels in 2013 and 2015. Also, assuming we’re talking about a bi-annual release schedule, Brad Pitt will be on the latter side of fifty by the time World War Z 3: The Quickening rolls around. Yet again, I wish movie studios would just concentrate on making singularly good films, not planning for the next three in the franchise they don’t even know if there’s a demand for.
[Via Cinema Blend]