This is the sort of thing that many of us will go back and forth on until it comes to fruition.
Zombieland was a surprisingly well-received movie—although in retrospect, it doesn’t seem that shocking. It had all the components of something today’s audiences would naturally love: apocalypse, sub-beta male lead, super-alpha female love interest, self-referential breakdown of story structure via voiceover and funky SFX titles…the list goes on. So yeah, now it seems obvious, but nobody actually expected it at the time. But those behind it have high hopes a new incarnation of Zombieland: a TV show on Fox.
It’s hard to find a stance on this, considering how much I (and pretty much everyone else) love Zombieland. In the pros column, the movie was originally conceived as a TV show, but the creators were unhappy with the network’s vision of it (and vice versa). The movie’s success will likely afford the creators a little more leeway to manifest their series as they see fit (also a pro). Finally: Zombie Kills of the Week.
But now for the cons. Despite (or because of) its open-endedness, I thought the ending to Zombieland was absolutely perfect, considering the main character’s personal battles. However, producer Gavin Polone explains that none of the film’s cast would be involved with the series, as one might expect. This does not necessarily destine the show to a decreased quality, but a lot of the fun of Zombieland could be attributed to the Jesse Eisenberg–Woody Harrelson–Emma Stone–Abigail Breslin-(Bill Murray) dynamic.
There are so many things to consider. Can a new cast capture the flare of the old? Can a comedic zombie series stay fresh? Will it necessarily demand comparison to The Walking Dead?
It’s at least partially encouraging. With the film’s writers Rhett Reese and Paul Wernick on board as the biggest pro of all, we can focus on the positive for now. It may not end up as epic as the movie, but you know the old saying: enjoy the little things.
Source: Vulture
