Here was the synopsis: In the near future, a zombie outbreak leads to a brutal battle with the human race. This war forever alters our culture economically, politically, and socially. On paper, Max Brooks’ novel World War Z sounded like it had the potential to be a decent, if somewhat generic, piece of escapist entertainment. Brad Pitt and his producing partners at Plan B Entertainment saw this and took on the project with the plan of making an epic trilogy. While their intentions may have been good, the finished product is in line to become one of Hollywood’s biggest misfires.

It has been nearly a year since cameras began rolling on World War Z, and all the filmmakers have to show for it is about 50 minutes worth of useable footage at a cost of $170 million. In many respects, this film is a microcosm of all that is wrong with Hollywood today. Going in without a finished script, the film has been plagued with problems including crew layoffs and an exploding budget. Now, with the entire production in limbo, screenwriter Damon Lindelof has been brought in to reshape the film’s script for additional shooting. So, who is to blame for this catastrophe?

If the news accounts are correct, it seems many of World War Z‘s issues stem with Brad Pitt’s decision to both produce and star. It can be problematic when an actor begins exerting his or her power in other areas behind the scenes, especially on big budget pictures. You need not look further than Kevin Costner’s now legendary flop Waterworld (1995) to see this. Still riding high from the massive success of Dances with Wolves (1990) and The Bodyguard (1992), star/producer Costner butted heads with director Kevin Reynolds at every turn. This led to a series of poor creative decisions and massive cost overruns. While Brad Pitt is nowhere near the tyrant Costner was, some of his artistic choices for World War Z may have been made to benefit himself rather than the film. The most significant of these was hiring Marc Forster to direct.

With a strong background in independent filmmaking, Marc Forster has a reputation for being an “actor’s director.” Always one to put character ahead of story, he is most noted for directing Halle Berry in her brilliant, Oscar-winning performance as Leticia Musgrove in Monster’s Ball (2001). While World War Z is a relatively straight-forward action/disaster film, Brad Pitt felt there was room for the characters to grow, hence the hiring of Marc Forster.  However, in 2008 Forster stepped outside his comfort zone to direct a big-budget adventure and it failed miserably. That picture was Quantum of Solace.  Daniel Craig had championed Forster to helm his second James Bond outing despite the director admitting he was not a fan of the franchise and had not seen the previous entry Casino Royale. As a result, the film was a cluttered, incoherent mess with many fans proclaiming it to be one of the weakest Bond films since Roger Moore’s swansong A View to a Kill (1985).

By all accounts, Marc Forster has demonstrated a complete lack of leadership on set of World War Z, with most of the crew scrambling as he struggles to visualize the film.  There are certain skill sets needed to direct large-scale set pieces, and that is clearly something he does not have. Hopefully, this experience will be a wake-up call and Forster will return to his roots in independent films, that is, if he can land another job.

Obviously, it is unfair to blame Brad Pitt and Marc Forster for all of World War Z‘s troubles, because the fact of the matter is, the film should have never been greenlit by Paramount Pictures in the first place. World War Z perfectly showcases Hollywood’s bipolar disorder when it comes to funding pictures. It’s very depressing to think of all the well-structured, original screenplays, like those on the Black List, floating out there and the struggling directors who would love to try their hands at them. Despite the fact that many could be made on modest budgets, studios want nothing to do with them if there are no established names attached. Producers would argue that acting in a more conservative manner is smart business. Oh, really? Then how do they explain shelling out $170 million for a vague outline with Brad Pitt’s name on it? All this points to a studio system that is becoming increasingly disconnected with film audiences and their expectations.