For some reason the video didn't play. Might be my computer.

However, the script:
They do everything we're told not to do: Camera directions, reference other films, use "We" throughout, etc.

But the damn thing works - the reversal to reveal an upside down Presidential Limo, the Zombie eating the camera man who SCREAMS (three separate times), etc.

Bottom line, if the writing's smash, you can do anything you want.

I like the scripted version much better. The V.O. is not necessary. I understand they changed it because they changed the opening song but This Land Is Your Land is so much better. The juxtaposition of that classic song and the images of total destruction is more effective than using the Jimi Hendrix arrangement of The Star-Spangled Banner. In the film it's grittier, but in the script it's funnier and more in the tone with the humor of the story.

It seems the director didn't trust the 'show don't tell' rule. The flag upside down is a great image and tells us what we need to know. There's no need to spell it out with the V.O. The scene also feels rushed on screen. The scripted scene has more of an arc. It builds up to the close-up of the zombie.

In essence, what's on screen is a dumbed down version of the script.

@jjg: "Bottom line, if the writing's smash, you can do anything you want." This is absolutely right. There are a lot of people who get caught up in an obsession about the supposed do's and don'ts of screenplay style. While I do think it's important for a writer to know their way around this subject, and certainly helpful to read new scripts to keep up with current sensibilities, the simple fact is if you write a great story, you could probably do the script in Crayon and sell it.

This is one reason why, if you decide to take a certain route with style tied to the particular story's narrative voice, you must grab hold of that and swing it with abandon from P. 1. In doing so, you are telling the reader, "Hey, this is it, I'm really going for it, let's have some fun and come along for the ride." Similarly to Zombieland, compare to (500) Days of Summer where they begin that narrative voice process before P. 1 with that whole bit of business noted here:

Title page: (500) DAYS OF SUMMER by Scott Neustadter & Michael H. Weber, First Draft 2006

Next page: NOTE: THE FOLLOWING IS A WORK OF FICTION. ANY RESEMBLANCE TO PERSONS LIVING OR DEAD IS PURELY COINCIDENTAL.

Next page: ESPECIALLY YOU JENNY BECKMAN.

Next page: BITCH.

As I suggested here with one of my writing mantras, The story rules. And this pertains to writing style as well.

@Teddy: I agree completely. The script is more entertaining than the film version. Re the voiceover narrator, it would be interesting to see if they address that on the DVD extras track, where in the process they decided to add that. If I had to guess, they tested a version of the movie, probably a rough assemblage, with an audience without the V.O. and got enough feedback that the studio felt it necessary (or more comfortable) to include the V.O. in order to make sure moviegoers 'got' the story's setup. I don't know that for a fact, just speculation.

Another point: This scene points out an issue with including a specific song in an original script. There was some controversy about a JibJab video that came out some years ago using the song "This Land Is Your Land" that resulted in some tangled legal proceedings. Although as I recall Jibjab won, there may still be some sort of rights issue with the song. Not sure if that influenced the switch to Hendrix's version of the Star Spangled Banner. Or if they switched from "This Land Is Your Land," which has lyrics, to Hendrix, which is instrumental, in order to work better with the voiceover narrator.If anyone knows, please chime in.

But you always take a risk when inserting a specific song in a script. And as noted previously, it represents a yellow flag to script readers when they cover your script. That said, as I noted in my previous comment, if you really want / need that song for your story, the script rules.

It would be my guess that the change of songs was an artistic choice and not due to any legal issues. This Land Is Your Land has been used many times in movies before and from what I can tell there's no reason why it can't be licensed if someone is willing to pay for the usage. There seemed to have been a decent music budget for Zombieland since they licensed a bunch of songs for the soundtrack - everything from Dueling Banjos to Ghostbusters.

The JibJab folks used the song without seeking permission first. After the owner of the song asked them to cease and desist the video, JibJab claimed that it would fall under fair-use as a parody. Also, after the EFF took on their case, they claimed that the song might even be in public domain as the copyright had expired. But that depends on how you look at it and is a story for another day.

It doesn't sound like they used Hendix's recording of Star-Spangled and it would seem silly if they did since anyone could record it with a distorted guitar to make it sound the same, and that song is definitely in the public domain. However, I guess the Hendrix estate could claim that the intent was to emulate Hendrix's version and therefore claim ownership of that arrangement, but that's also a story for another day.