Brad Pitt & World War Z
 

Brad Pitt's double play
He was both actor and producer in 'Moneyball.' That change-up worked well for director Bennett Miller.

By Geoff Boucher, Los Angeles Times

January 3, 2012

Like a mid-season coaching hire for a losing ballclub, director Bennett Miller inherited an uphill battle when he was brought in as the director of a shaky project called "Moneyball," but he had two key players on his side — and both of them were named Brad Pitt.

With its half-dozen Golden Globe and Screen Actors Guild nominations, "Moneyball" is now viewed as a quality contender in the Oscar nomination race, but the sports-film-with-a-message was clearly a longshot project back when Miller stepped in following the summer 2009 departure of Steven Soderbergh, who had spent years developing the script.

The difference maker, says Bennett, was the persistent presence of star and producer Pitt, who was an MVP on both sides of the camera.

"You work all day with Brad the actor and there's that energy, and then we'd wrap at the end of the day and maybe half an hour later we'd get together in this little area outside his trailer and he'd be Brad the producer," Miller said. "We would look at the next day, just go over things and maybe have a glass of wine. Sometimes it would be two or three hours of discussing and planning, and it's pretty exhausting making a movie, but it became this ritual for us. And then early the next morning, Brad the actor is back, being on set and making things happen in a totally different way."

And now Pitt may be swinging for the fences on Oscar night in the lead actor category. He seems to be a lock for that nomination, considering those early nods he's already collected for his "Moneyball" work as Billy Beane, the real-life maverick general manager of the Oakland A's who fought Major League Baseball resistance to his reliance on traditionally overlooked stats in team-building. Pitt the producer may also hear his name called out in the best picture category if the upstart film makes that final cut.

"Moneyball" looks like a sports film on paper, but on closer inspection it's a message movie about fighting an entrenched system that doesn't recognize or reward the true value of people. That's what drew Pitt to the project — that and his restless need to "surprise and challenge" himself by seeking out "passion projects and not doing what's been done before just because it's available."

Pitt certainly assembled an unlikely body of work for 2011. In addition to "Moneyball," he starred in Terrence Malick's impressionistic and challenging "The Tree of Life," a film made far from the crowd-pleasing gravity felt by most Hollywood releases. Pitt also gave voice to an existentially yearning krill (yes, that's right, krill, as in whale food) with his buddy Matt Damon in the animated film "Happy Feet 2."

Rounding out the eclectic list, he spent much of the year running from undead extras while filming "World War Z," an adaptation of the Max Brooks globe-trotting horror novel and the most expensive zombie movie in the history of Hollywood.

"Like I said, I like mixing it up," Pitt said with a chuckle during an October interview on the Budapest set of "World War Z." "You need to make it interesting for yourself to make it interesting for other people."

In "World War Z," due in theaters right before next Christmas, Pitt will play a United Nations fact-finder and family man who desperately races around the globe to determine the origins of a zombie pandemic that has toppled civilization in short order. The film is directed by Marc Forster ("Finding Neverland," "Quantum of Solace") and is similar in spirit to September's "Contagion" (from director Soderbergh and starring Damon) with its geo-political bent and the aspiration to deliver social messages amid the moans and screams.

For Pitt, the big sci-fi thriller also represents his strongest bid to have a big film franchise of his own, which might be viewed as the missing piece of his career jigsaw puzzle. Forster and Paramount Pictures each view "World War Z" as a trilogy that would have the grounded, gun-metal realism of, say, Damon's Jason Bourne series tethered to the unsettling end-times vibe of AMC's "The Walking Dead."

Time will tell if audiences embrace that idea. Pitt knows too well that big popcorn plans don't always pop; he learned that on "Troy," the sprawling Bronze Age epic in 2004 that cost $175 million to make but earned anemic reviews and pulled in just $133 million in domestic box office (although it did add another $350 million in foreign markets).

It was 20 years ago this past May that Pitt — with his cocky smile and without his shirt — first caught the eye of American moviegoers in Ridley Scott's "Thelma and Louise." Now, with the actor just two years shy of 50, he is one of the most famous men in the world. And, like his pals Damon and George Clooney, he's trying to perfect the 21st century model of a leading man who uses his star wattage to set up his cinematic risks.

"I don't need to be more famous," Clooney recently told a Rolling Stone interviewer while explaining the reason he made the $12-million political drama "The Ides of March." That phrase could also be the career-strategy motto at this point for his friend Pitt (the pair have appeared in five movies together), who has taken a stand against his own glamour in movies such as "Burn After Reading," "Snatch" and "Kalifornia."

Pitt has never won an Oscar, but he did get a supporting actor nomination for his madhouse work in Terry Gilliam's "Twelve Monkeys" (1996) and then a lead actor nod for his reverse-aging performance in David Fincher's "The Curious Case of Benjamin Button" (2008).

But for the small-town kid from Missouri, the only compass point is the work itself and finding, as he says, "the things that surprise me and things that challenge me and the things I haven't done before."

Pitt says he doesn't think his acting craft has changed much over the last decade: He still has the same approach, but, like the wily veteran players of "Moneyball," he knows the rhythms of his game better and rarely wastes energy the way he did as a young actor.

"Truthfully, I'm just more experienced. I can get to places — and I'm talking in actor-speak now — but I can get to where I need to get faster now. I can understand when it's off, and I know it quicker; I know the signals and I'm better at redirecting it. But my approach is still the same. I've always liked to mix it up a bit."

With "Moneyball," that strategy delivered a winning moment with critics as well as moviegoers (the movie has pulled in $103 million in worldwide box office). The story, based on the 2003 nonfiction book by Michael Lewis, follows the rebel path of Beane, a failed player who makes his mark in the sport by working with a shy Yale-schooled statistics guy (Jonah Hill) who doesn't know baseball traditions (or its haughty clubhouse mentality) but can find the truth hidden in the numbers.

To director Miller, there's a lot of Beane in Brad Pitt.

"He makes bold choices," Miller says. "When a movie is done and it comes out and it's accepted and it feels like a cohesive vision, it's hard to look back and really grasp what the risks felt like for the people involved. And for Brad, this movie was a big risk, not only as an actor but as a producer to hold on to it and be the motor and risk his reputation. That's especially true with the subject matter, which had a lot of skeptics."

For Miller, the "Moneyball" experience wasn't his first success — he was nominated for best director, in fact, for his first feature film, "Capote" (2005) — but "Moneyball" was a landmark moment in his creative life thanks to the presence of the two Pitts, and no trophy is needed to recognize that.

"We had a rare, fast and strong connection," Miller said. "Fast doesn't always mean lasting, but in this case it did. We shared common values, and we're after similar things and always compatible things. And somehow we were able to get to a sort of process where there were two distinctive relationships on the set. One was an actor and the other was able to be deliberative and thoughtful, a protective producer. And he was pretty great at both."

Awesome. I hope I get to actually see it before the actual zombie apocalypse on December 21, 2012.

That would be beyond awesome if it was a trilogy.

I am very much looking forward to this.

Too....many.....words.

My buddy just got back from London and then Budapest working on this film. Of the entire time the film was shooting, he ran into Pitt once.. their conversation amounted to Pitt:"Those hot dogs look good.." MyBuddy:"yep".

On a related note, I wrote custom software that was used by the on set digital media lab to manage shots and such. Don't think I'll be getting a film credit though.

I dont care if i ever see another zombie movie, is another one really necessary, even one with Pitt?

They should've stopped being made after 28 Days Later.

Yes.

agreed.

this book HAD to be made into a movie.

You shut your whore mouth! There can never be too many zombie movies.

LMAO whatever tickles your fancy fellas, its your $9.

World War Z won't be another Romero splatterfest, trust me. There WILL be that, but that's not what the story is about.

If you haven't read the book, I do recommend it.

Sounds like this flick is a disaster.....they are doing reshoots and re writing the ending. At one time it was supposed to be a tent pole release forthe holidays.........doesn't sound promising...

http://www.aintitcool.com/node/56306


The Kidd*here...

There is clearly some big trouble going on with Paramount's adaptation of WORLD WAR Z.*

After hearing of some pretty extensive reshoots getting set to take place for the zombie flick being fronted by Brad Pitt, it looks like they have no idea really what they're even going to be filming. According to The Hollywood Reporter, Damon Lindelof is being brought on to rewrite parts of the script, namely issues with the third act, for a movie that's been wrapped since last year.

Remember when WORLD WAR Z was lined up as a release this holiday season...? Sounds like a distant memory now.*

I was a fan of LOST, so I'll give Lindelof his due, but after his work on PROMETHEUS, I don't have the same type of confidence I once had in Lindelof handling the writing duties on tying up WORLD WAR Z in a sensible fashion. Flashbacks of the LOST finale, anyone?

I am still hoping that WORLD WAR Z can be fixed, but the more rumblings that make their way to me, the more this sounds like a terrible idea from the start adapting a book that they didn't know how to adapt. This is where we find ourselves as a result... with a WORLD WAR Z that could permanently broken, no matter how they try to patch it up along the way.*

Brad Pitt worked as a dishwasher at a restaurant where I was a cook for a few months. I gave him a ride home a couple of times. And yes, all the waitresses in their early 20's were trying to get in his pants even back then. Even if he was still in high school.

This may be the only thing we've ever disagreed on.
Love em' when done right.
WWZ is one of the best dead stories ever too. Should be great.

Well, shit. Hopefully this is off.

That's interesting. Isn't he from Springfiield area?

28's are not zombie movies.. They are not dead..

Yeah, scott -- quit being a zombie/infected movie n00b!

Yeah, I was living in the Kickapoo area and he was in High school there. I remember him because of how all the women of every age thought he was the cutest thing ever. But he wasnt a I can have any women I want arrogant asshole. Just another 16 year old kid.

You bought him beer, didn't you? Law breaker!

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/AmCtU1C3dcc" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

I bet he will be telling that story about the hot dog at every backyard BBQ from here on.

and did you guys know that Brad Pitt is an avid pothead?

I bet you won't watch the film now that you know that! hhaha

hell, I couldn't legally buy beer myself at that point in my life.

well he works on fairly big movies for a living(currently on the set of Iron Man 3) so meeting Brad Pitt wasn't actually that HUGE of a deal for him.

Hollywood stars are potheads? THIS IS BREAKING NEWS

right but there are some rednecks on here who would be like (think of this in a redneck voice)

"Heck, I didnt know Brad Pitt was one of dem damn potheads, those stupid bastards. Makin them dumb and stupid."

and they say that while they are sipping on their 8th Natty Light.

I like how you defend the stereotype of a pot smoker, by stereotyping rednecks...

I've received much ridicule on this very website over my love for weed. So, is it a stereotype? Or is it true?

I guess that depends on who gave you crap. Names?

Are you sure it's only because of your love of weed?

Trailer is supposed to debut in a few days. ET has a teaser for the trailer out. Looks interesting. Troubled production history though.......this thing has gotten delayed a few times and rumours the the director getting booted...


<object id="flashObj" width="480" height="270" classid="clsid:D27CDB6E-AE6D-11cf-96B8-444553540000" codebase="http://download.macromedia.com/pub/shockwave/cabs/flash/swflash.cab#version=9,0,47,0"><param name="movie" value="http://c.brightcove.com/services/viewer/federated_f9?isVid=1&isUI=1" /><param name="bgcolor" value="#FFFFFF" /><param name="flashVars" value="videoId=1949142173001&linkBaseURL=http%3A%2F%2Fet.tv%2FVOYcoK&playerID=1250536613001&playerKe y=AQ~~,AAABIWNF7qE~,EJbsvFObVfJEm7rEo1Xk3nNXqnvaIG9q&domain=embed&dynamicStreaming=true" /><param name="base" value="http://admin.brightcove.com" /><param name="seamlesstabbing" value="false" /><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true" /><param name="swLiveConnect" value="true" /><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always" /><embed src="http://c.brightcove.com/services/viewer/federated_f9?isVid=1&isUI=1" bgcolor="#FFFFFF" flashVars="videoId=1949142173001&linkBaseURL=http%3A%2F%2Fet.tv%2FVOYcoK&playerID=1250536613001&play erKey=AQ~~,AAABIWNF7qE~,EJbsvFObVfJEm7rEo1Xk3nNXqnvaIG9q&domain=embed&dynamicStreaming=true" base="http://admin.brightcove.com" name="flashObj" width="480" height="270" seamlesstabbing="false" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowFullScreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" swLiveConnect="true" pluginspage="http://www.macromedia.com/shockwave/download/index.cgi?P1_Prod_Version=ShockwaveFlash"></embed></object>

Hollywood milked the vampire thing dry...

Now it's zombies

snore.....

Hope World War Z is good.

world war ZzzzzZZZzzzzzzz

Am I the only one that thought Money ball was kinda..... well boring?

Yes....loved that movie.

No, you really haven't.

...

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-k8qPHXzAjW..._what_1863.jpg

I really enjoyed it and i'm not a big baseball guy at all, given a choice i'd rather watch basketball.

The whole sabremetrics angle was interesting to me, as its not just baseball that tracks that kind of stuff anymore, it and its like are a bona fide tool in pro sports and as far as i know they pioneered it.

Billy Bean as a person was well fleshed out, the hurdles and resistance he faced were heavy... weeding out the popular but overpaid jokers and malcontents, bringing in seemingly lesser guys to take their place.

Hoffman was killer, had it down cold... i dunno, i just really liked that movie.

As for the zombie flic, i'm with you ZZZZZZZZZ... its going to be a rainy day rental.

Full Trailer. I can dig it


<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/HcwTxRuq-uk" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Okay that was bad ****ing ass.

At 1:10 -- OMG.

Looks badass

Ok, i was wrong.

Fast zombies? Ugh.

Haven't read the book, but it sounds like there's a significant amount of people not happy about the fact the zombies can run.

Just at first glance, this thing sort of feels like the back story to the Will Smith I am Legend flick.

Slow zombies do nothing for me personally.

Yeah, I don't know the exact quote or quotes... but supposedly the author of the book has made comments in the past making fun of Hollywood saying using the fast zombies are stupid... or something along those lines. I think that's where it comes from.

And I actually agree this looks like something out of "I Am Legend."

Any reasonably in-shape person has nothing to fear with slow zombies. ****, you can just power-walk away.

Regardless, slow or fast zombies -- still looks pretty bad ass.

I was excited about this until I saw the trailer. Fast zombies are just don't work for me. I will still go see this but I prefer my zombie like the zombies of old and Walking Dead.

I'll go see it for sure.

Ditto.

Holy crap! I'm in.

Looks ****in stupid.

The book is really good. I'll probably wait for the movie to come out on Blu Ray.

the book is great. and yeah, running zombies is bullshit in this scenario.

the book was more a 'documentary,' basically interviews/people's views of AFTER the war is over as it were. this looks NOTHING like that.

that's not at all the point. the point is that, regardless of speed, you're fighting an army that has limitless resources--you kill one of them, they're gone (-1). they take one of yours and gain one at the same time (a swing of 2 for them). after a while, considering there are no logistics lines you can cut, they don't need food, water, sleep, there's no 'leadership' to assassinate, and they survive under the ocean, where there is no oxygen, etc--it's beyond a nightmare ALREADY. having them run is just bullshit.

It doesn't look like the book but it looks pretty ****ing spectacular IMO.

I think it looked good.


The zombies move like flowing water.

Exactly what I thought. Movie looks stupid, which is sad cause the book was awesome.

Yeah, this. I typically don't care for zombie movies because they shamble after you. It's boring. Lots of "tense" moments with the lead actors wringing their hands and talking. Interject a slowly moving corpse. Oh no, we have to shoot it in the head sometime within the next twenty minutes, it's seven feet away. Ooooh. Scary. Oh look. There are a bunch of them between us and the car. Oh the horror. This looks better.

I don't know. I think most of man is to a point we would own a slow zombie outbreak.

Fast zombies? We are screwed. I always liked the idea of zombies getting slower over time depending on if they had a food source.

I live in California. I deal with slow zombies on a daily basis. They don't scare me.

I've got nothing against fast zombies (the opening sequence to 28 Weeks Later is terrifying). And standing on its own, this trailer looks awesome. However, calling it "World War Z" makes me a bit disappointed. It seems like they just bought the rights just so that they could slap the title on their own zombie movie.

That being said, I'll still see it. And I hope they do a trilogy that covers the scope of the book: outbreak, living in a zombie world, and retaking the planet.

New to movies are you?

Definitely. Just power-walk away. LMAO

Boom, roasted.

Yeah, this is a solid take, but I'm in the "slow zombies do nothing for me" camp.

The thing about slow zombies is exactly like you said. There's a sense of dread and fear in knowing that, although you can avoid and pick off small numbers of them, in the end, you're essentially dealing with 6 billion more. They don't eat, they don't sleep, and their moaning/pounding on your doors/shuffling around WILL NEVER STOP. It's a battle you'll never be able to win; you can only hope to remain relatively safe and adapt to a new life with the constant danger of being overwhelmed and overrun.

BUT, I like fast zombies for all of that, and the chase scenes in films. There's just a more severe sense of urgency when the zombies can move quickly. Like someone mentioned earlier, the opening scene of 28 Weeks Later is legitimately the most intense movie scene I can think of in recent times, and that was due entirely to the fact that the 'zombies' could run. Also, the Dawn of the Dead remake is my favorite zombie flick of all time and I thought they did a great job with the running zombies.

Usually when a movie is based on a book (or other source material), it contains at least some parts of it like characters, locations, scenes, etc. So far, the only connections I've seen between the movie and the book are the title and zombies. And 'maybe' the theme of a more global perspective of a zombie outbreak, but we'll have to see.

Nothing like the book, but I will wait till it comes out on DVD.

the problem with this for adapting the BOOK is that there is a pivotal point where they explain how they take back the country/world... that will be VERY difficult to do with fast zombies. they set up a perimeter, have a ton of ammo, and just shoot, take a second, shoot, reload (your partner takes your place), and it's like ****ing CLOCKWORK. it's very poignant that they finally take it back when they use their heads, use their strengths, and use precision... you CAN'T DO THAT SHIT against a horde of running zombies.

Hollywood frequently buy the rights to a book or other form of media and changes things, characters, narrative, etc.....

Especially if they develop it as a big budget blockbuster like this appears to be. I think the mentaility is, they like the basic concept and the built in awareness a popular book or other form of media brings. Built in audience. It sounds like the book would be hard to get right as a straight adaptation.

IRL, quarantine procedures and military forces would squash any zombie threat extremely soon, barring a water/airborne-based disease.

Just look at how many people actually died from Swine Flu and how quickly that was quarantined. Zombies have no chance, unless it is airborne/water spread.

whoops, missed the first part there h5n1.

Yeah, that was the Battle of Yonkers if I'm not mistaken. It was pretty systematic; very cool.

I'm a fan of fast moving zombies, but the way they were moving in this trailer doesn't do it for me. When they're all jumping over each other and stuff it just doesn't look right. Like when they were flipping the bus over and climbing up that huge wall- I could do without that.

Yeah, that was the turn off from the trailer for me.