World War Z Book Analysis

1395 Words6 Pages
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…show more content…
The main character in the novel appears to be Max Brooks, who is both the narrator and the person who is conducting the interviews. This novel has a more serious tone to it, adding to the more post-apocalyptic and somewhat horror vibe, and goes into details about how the world has been changed in the political sense, as well as social, and even how the environment has been affected due to the zombie outbreak. The novel itself appears to focus more on how the zombies have affected the population on a global scale and how they have managed to wipe out entire countries of people. It talks about different periods of time and touches up on wars that have broken out across the world due to the plague. In the film, the plague was able to be covered for a while, until an outbreak in Africa made it more public. When the plague begins to spread, Israel separated itself from other people and only allowed Jews who have not been infected, the United States doesn’t prepare much for anything, and the “Great Panic” begins. Pakistan and Iran end up obliterated by each other in a nuclear war, battles and wars break out all over the place, ultimately leading to mass…show more content…
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
Open Document