Official I Am Legend Thread

[cerealkiller182]

It comes much closer to capturing the meaning of the book there though. Neville isn't the savior in the alternate ending. He realizes that these monsters have lives too and he's been nothing but the bane of their existence.

But the story in a whole on screen represents the commercialization of artistic integrity, Neville is remembered for his cure not being the boogieman to these people. Neville wasnt a legend because he was a hero, he was a legend because he was a villain.

 

[matthooper]

Neville wasnt a legend because he was a hero, he was a legend because he was a villain.

Just a villian in their eyes [the vamps]. They were still vampires that preyed on the weak, and infected normal humans, B]both the living dead and the non-dead. Even Ruth knew Neville wan't a villian. He just did what he thought was right. Killing vampires seems right to me. Even if some were more intelligent than others and not undead.

 

[Figs]

The thing that confused me about the book was the multiple versions of vamps.

Where there two different versions? Like one seemed intelligent while the other was kind of zombie like.

Were the ones that

Spoiler

took and killed Neville at the end

more evolved? Like were the zombie like ones people that the virus had outright killed while the 'smarter' ones were people who turned but at the same time had a slight antibody in them to not go completly mindless?

 

[dark_b]

still isnt good enough. but better.

i like how he looks on the wall where you can see how much he already killed.

 

[Watson]

Here´s the alternate ending if anyones interested.

meh, both not great.

 

[matthooper]

The thing that confused me about the book was the multiple versions of vamps.

Where there two different versions? Like one seemed intelligent while the other was kind of zombie like.

Were the ones that

Spoiler

took and killed Neville at the end

more evolved? Like were the zombie like ones people that the virus had outright killed while the 'smarter' ones were people who turned but at the same time had a slight antibody in them to not go completly mindless?

Only two versions. The living dead, and the regular infected.
The regular infected were almost human, intelligent vampires. In fact, Ruth passed as a human. The living dead were mindless, stupid killing machines. Unfortunately for Neville, he couldn't tell the difference when they slept so he killed both types during the day, both the living dead and the smarter ones too.

Yes the ones who took Neville were smart and had created a new socety.

 

[cerealkiller182]

Just a villian in their eyes [the vamps]. They were still vampires that preyed on the weak, and infected normal humans, B]both the living dead and the non-dead. Even Ruth knew Neville wan't a villian. He just did what he thought was right. Killing vampires seems right to me. Even if some were more intelligent than others and not undead.

You missed the point of the whole book. The fact he was a villain in their eyes is important because they are by the end of the book the dominant beings/culture. You are seeing this from a contrived point of view. They arn't evil, they are only surviving.

And by making faith and religion so important in the story it contradicted Mathesons intentions of making vampire stories science based rather than supernatural based.

 

[Warhammer]

I'm not sure if I like the alternate ending better than the movie's ending. Something like the ending of the book would have been better, but that didn't happen, and I will not hold that against the film. The movie is an adaptation of the book. When literature is adapted to film, more than likely, changes will be made. To not judge the movie on it's own merit, instead of how much it is like the book is a personal preference, not a valid criticism. Saying something like "I felt the ending of the movie was weak because it didn't have enough closure" is one thing, but it's another thing to say "The ending of the movie was weak, because it is completely different from the ending of the novel," especially since the film was not written/set up to have that specific ending be a proper one in context with the rest of the film.

That's just me...

 

[cerealkiller182]

I'm not sure if I like the alternate ending better than the movie's ending. Something like the ending of the book would have been better, but that didn't happen, and I will not hold that against the film. The movie is an adaptation of the book. When literature is adapted to film, more than likely, changes will be made. To not judge the movie on it's own merit, instead of how much it is like the book is a personal preference, not a valid criticism. Saying something like "I felt the ending of the movie was weak because it didn't have enough closure" is one thing, but it's another thing to say "The ending of the movie was weak, because it is completely different from the ending of the novel," especially since the film was not written/set up to have that specific ending be a proper one in context with the rest of the film.

That's just me...

The movie was good til the ending because although its an adaptation they took too many liberties with the ending to make it commercial.and lost the feeling and meaning of the book.

Spoiler

-Neville is no longer the last man
- The vamps are crude beings having the same sympathy as any animal would have towards mates instead of making them human
-They made Nevilles decision faith based rather than Mathesons attempt to make vampires science based
- Neville actually finds the cure making the vamps' lives meaningless when in the book they were evolving and developing like any civilization
-Neville is a legend for such an obvious, safe ending rather than the creative and original end.

 

[Warhammer]

The movie was good til the ending because although its an adaptation they took too many liberties with the ending to make it commercial.and lost the feeling and meaning of the book.

Spoiler

-Neville is no longer the last man
- The vamps are crude beings having the same sympathy as any animal would have towards mates instead of making them human
-They made Nevilles decision faith based rather than Mathesons attempt to make vampires science based
- Neville actually finds the cure making the vamps' lives meaningless when in the book they were evolving and developing like any civilization
-Neville is a legend for such an obvious, safe ending rather than the creative and original end.

You're right. The movie could have been much better if all of that was in there. If they set it up like that, and made it so an ending like the book could work, then it would have been amazing. However, with the way the entire movie was, to have an ending like the one in the book would seem out of place. Now if the script had been written like a direct adaptation, then the ending of the novel could have worked just fine.

 

[cerealkiller182]

You're right. The movie could have been much better if all of that was in there. If they set it up like that, and made it so an ending like the book could work, then it would have been amazing. However, with the way the entire movie was, to have an ending like the one in the book would seem out of place. Now if the script had been written like a direct adaptation, then the ending of the novel could have worked just fine.

What set-up?

Spoiler

After the dog died instead of having Neville flip and crash his car, they introduce the female vamp from the book. Neville is trying to figure out if shes a vamp or not. After deciding shes not she leads the vamps to his place. The studio exes get their big action scene. But ultimately Neville is captured. Neville is in a prison cell, evolved vamps talk to him. THey describe what happened and what is going to happen, his execution obviously. And Neville has an epiphany that he is legend

Adapted but saves the essence of source material.

 

[matthooper]

You missed the point of the whole book. The fact he was a villain in their eyes is important because they are by the end of the book the dominant beings/culture. You are seeing this from a contrived point of view. They arn't evil, they are only surviving.

No, actually I didn't miss anything. I never said it wasn't important in their eyes. I was hinting that it wasn't inportant in MY eyes. It's my interpretation of Neville. Not yours or even Mathesons. I understand his points as to why Neville was a villian to them. I choose to see it from another perspective than you.

Humans were being decimated by the infection and then survivors were hunted by the infected. It was kill or be killed for Robert. Neville did what he thought was right, and I agree with his decisions. He didn't know that some were smarter and started a civilized colony. All he saw were the zombies trying to kill him everynight. Also if the smarter ones were simply trying to survive, why kill and torture the zombies? They still are infected with something bad. That's not really the point though.I get that they were the new species, but guess what, I don't care. I even can take in the fact that even Robert saw himself as a villian at the end. Again, I get it, I missed nothing. I simply choose to view Robert as a guy who thought he was doing the right thing, and not a villian in any way. I never once said that they didn't view him as a villian, I get that he was the evil one in their eyes, just not mine.

 

[matthooper]

The movie was good til the ending because although its an adaptation they took too many liberties with the ending to make it commercial.and lost the feeling and meaning of the book.

..and I missed the point of the book? The movie bore ZERO resemblance to the book. It shared the title and his name. Even the last man on earth thing wasn't similar.

 

[Warhammer]

What set-up?

Spoiler

After the dog died instead of having Neville flip and crash his car, they introduce the female vamp from the book. Neville is trying to figure out if shes a vamp or not. After deciding shes not she leads the vamps to his place. The studio exes get their big action scene. But ultimately Neville is captured. Neville is in a prison cell, evolved vamps talk to him. THey describe what happened and what is going to happen, his execution obviously. And Neville has an epiphany that he is legend

Adapted but saves the essence of source material.

You just described the set-up. What you described was not in the movie. Because that was not in the movie, an ending like the one in the novel would not make sense in context with the film. In the movie, [blackout]the woman never came to Nevelle, the vampires didn't capture him, et cetera[/blackout], so they couldn't slap on the ending from the book.

Do you get what I am saying now?

 

[cerealkiller182]

No, actually I didn't miss anything. I never said it wasn't important in their eyes. I was hinting that it wasn't inportant in MY eyes. It's my interpretation of Neville. Not yours or even Mathesons. I understand his points as to why Neville was a villian to them. I choose to see it from another perspective than you.

Humans were being decimated by the infection and then survivors were hunted by the infected. It was kill or be killed for Robert. Neville did what he thought was right, and I agree with his decisions. He didn't know that some were smarter and started a civilized colony. All he saw were the zombies trying to kill him everynight. Also if the smarter ones were simply trying to survive, why kill and torture the zombies? They still are infected with something bad. That's not really the point though.I get that they were the new species, but guess what, I don't care. I even can take in the fact that even Robert saw himself as a villian at the end. Again, I get it, I missed nothing. I simply choose to view Robert as a guy who thought he was doing the right thing, and not a villian in any way. I never once said that they didn't view him as a villian, I get that he was the evil one in their eyes, just not mine.

Whether you think Neville was doing something right or not has nothing to do with it. In the end, Humans and vampires switched socially(lack of a better word). Neville was a villain to them and thats why he considered himself a legend. Thats a fact.

 

[cerealkiller182]

You just described the set-up. What you described was not in the movie. Because that was not in the movie, an ending like the one in the novel would not make sense in context with the film. In the movie, [blackout]the woman never came to Nevelle, the vampires didn't capture him, et cetera[/blackout], so they couldn't slap on the ending from the book.

Do you get what I am saying now?

I didnt describe the set-up, i described the way that the ending of the book (at least its essence) could be used in the movie.

 

[matthooper]

Whether you think Neville was doing something right or not has nothing to do with it. In the end, Humans and vampires switched socially(lack of a better word). Neville was a villain to them and thats why he considered himself a legend. Thats a fact.

Honestly I don't think we are speaking the same language. Like I said, I get that he is a villian in their eyes, I get the switch in dominant species but do you know what an opinion is? I simply said I didn't view him as a villian. Someone made a post calling him a villian. I responded that he was a villian in the vamps eyes and not mine or probably most readers eyes.

 

[cerealkiller182]

..and I missed the point of the book? The movie bore ZERO resemblance to the book. It shared the title and his name. Even the last man on earth thing wasn't similar.

Just cause it wasnt word for word doesnt mean i missed the point of the book. It was still psychologically about Neville beingalone which I cared the most about. But the ending had absolutely no resemblance to the book.

 

[matthooper]

Just cause it wasnt word for word doesnt mean i missed the point of the book. It was still psychologically about Neville beingalone which I cared the most about. But the ending had absolutely no resemblance to the book.

I would doubt that the screenwriter even read the book at all. He read the previous screenplays. Being the last man on earth isn't singular to the novel of 'I Am Legend'.

I found zero, and I truly mean zero similarites to the novel other than the title and name Robert Neville.

 

[cerealkiller182]

Honestly I don't think we are speaking the same language. Like I said, I get that he is a villian in their eyes, I get the switch in dominant species but do you know what an opinion is? I simply said I didn't view him as a villian. Someone made a post calling him a villian. I responded that he was a villian in the vamps eyes and not mine or probably most readers eyes.

I agree that theres a level of perception, but you made the vamps out to be naturally evil and suffering.They are not. They are a new species, half of which are not suffering anything. Its called survival of the fittest. Them attacking humans is no different than humans eating cows and chickens. Neville was such a target because he was a threat to them.

 

[Balthus Dire]

I just caught the alternate ending. I have to say that while it wasn't perfect it was a lot better than the theatrical ending. I thought it also left a lot of interesting questions for a sequel and I liked how they humanized the monsters, making them less cliche and stupid.

 

[cerealkiller182]

I would doubt that the screenwriter even read the book at all. He read the previous screenplays. Being the last man on earth isn't singular to 'I Am Legend'. I found zero, and I mean zero similarites to the material.

The events were different, but the psychology of character was still there,so i didnt mind until they bastardized the ending thusruinging the essence of the source material

 

[Figs]

I think the 'infected' in Omega Man were the closest to the books. At least in the intelligence/new society standpoint.

 

[matthooper]

I agree that theres a level of perception, but you made the vamps out to be naturally evil and suffering.They are not. They are a new species, half of which are not suffering anything. Its called survival of the fittest. Them attacking humans is no different than humans eating cows and chickens. Neville was such a target because he was a threat to them.

That may be true, but this whole thing was about Neville being a villian. Me using the word evil was probably a poor choice of words. A symptom of typing a post before it's truly thought out. I didn't think he evil and I don't think you did either after reading the book. He did what he thought was right. In his situation, we might do the same.

 

[matthooper]

The events were different, but the psychology of character was still there

I didn't see it. Most of Neville in the film was fluff. Smith did what he could and I still liked the film until the woman and kid showed up.

Neville in the book was nothing like Neville from the film. Their motivations, situation, personality, everything was different. That was one of the problems I had with the film. I loved the book but found that all they used was the title.

I thought 'The Omega Man' came much closer. That one fell short too as an adaptation though.