# I Am Legend [spoilers]



## JoeGKushner (Dec 11, 2007)

Got to see an advanced screening tonight over at AMC theater downtown Chicago.

For some nonspecific material, if you're looking for a faithful adaptation of the book, this is not it. It has numerous elements of the book including the crushing solitutde that the main character must endure and it has it's share of "dark seeker" as they're called here but it's a different beast.

Let me add that Wil Smith does a great job of acting. His various dialogs with maniqueins that he's set up across the city as well as his dog for early parts of the movie show a man out of his mind with solitute. His fierce dedication to his timed daily live shows that he takes the very real threats around him seriously.

First off, it moves very fast. It clocked in at about 90 minutes. 

Second off, the liberties it takes with the whole issue is much more like 28 Days Latter in that the enemies, for the most part, are mindless and brainless, possessing vast superhuman speed and strength.

Special effects on them is fairly top notch. There are a set of plauge dogs we get to see and they're very well done. Some great stuff there. 

The shooting of the movie is also strong. You get a vast sense of how empty the city is without people.

As far as the movie itself though...

1. The 'vampire plague' is a mutated virus that in essence gives 95% of the world rabies.

2. Much of the tale comes in the format of back flashes, giving us insight into the character.

3. One of the biggest crushing moments of isolation from the book, the death of the dog, is ruined in the fact that he has the dog from the get go and when he loses it, it's bad, but nothing as bad as the book.

4. His eventually encounter with other survivors, is just m'eh. He meets a woman and child who wind up saving his life when in anger he tries to take out the vampires.

5. His defenses for his house, where he's been shown to take all this great care of illustrating it's fortress like structure, is destroyed almost instantly. Sure, there are some explosions and some great action sequences here but it's weak.

6. While he dies, he cures the disease. It is his cure of the disease that makes him a legend.  This is the biggest divergent for me and while it doesn't ruin the movie, it makes me think that no, like the Omega Man and Last Man on Earth, they should've picked a different title for this movie and said "heavily based on the novel, I Am Legend."


----------



## RangerWickett (Dec 11, 2007)

Wow, when you say spoilers, you ain't kiddin'. I figured you spoil a bit, not the whole thing. For other folks, maybe you could put the big spoilers behind an sblock.


----------



## Klaus (Dec 11, 2007)

RangerWickett said:
			
		

> Wow, when you say spoilers, you ain't kiddin'. I figured you spoil a bit, not the whole thing. For other folks, maybe you could put the big spoilers behind an sblock.



 Dude, it's in the thread title.

Glad I ain't seeing this one in the theaters. I knew it'd be different. I think I'll run after the Vincent Price one.


----------



## RangerWickett (Dec 15, 2007)

Man, the first two-thirds of that movie were great. This is definitely fodder for a "How it should have ended" treatment. I can see it now:

1. title card 'I Am Legend - How it Should have Ended'
2. city is empty; things are sad
3. flashbacks to family; things are sad
4. dog dies; things are sad
5. studio exec/director/script writer says, "This is depressing. Needs more 'Postman.'"
6. Richard Matheson appears, slaps the person with a copy of the book
7. main character is captured, tried, and executed; things are sad


----------



## Darkwolf71 (Dec 15, 2007)

Yep, this one falls into the 'Planet of the Apes' category. By making that film end not being on earth, they changed the entire story. Not a bad film, but changing it just because, 'Well, everyone knows the ending, so lets change it." is just a bad idea.

Yes, everyone knows the ending, and THEY ARE PAYING TO SEE THAT END! Like the additional bit at the end of The Mist, unnecessary and detracts from the story.

I am Legend is a great, enjoyable movie, but from the point where they introduce the female character, I just knew 'something' was wrong. They changed the entire reason for the title, "I am legend". This changes the entire story. The upbeat ending was a let down.


----------



## RangerWickett (Dec 15, 2007)

I seem to recall a scene in the trailer where Smith is face to face with a monster. That wasn't in the movie, was it? There was a report that after they finished the movie they went back and filmed a different ending, so does anyone have an idea what they changed? Dare we hope that the DVD might have the real original ending?


----------



## Man in the Funny Hat (Dec 15, 2007)

JoeGKushner said:
			
		

> For some nonspecific material, if you're looking for a faithful adaptation of the book, this is not it.



I just read the book maybe two weeks ago.  A _faithful_ adaptation of the original story to film would be a borefest of the highest order.  It's a good read but it would not translate well DIRECTLY to film as it is heavily internal.  Books are ADAPTED to film.  They are different media that while they have much in common DO have different requirements for pacing, structure, character development, etc.


> Second off, the liberties it takes with the whole issue is much more like 28 Days Latter in that the enemies, for the most part, are mindless and brainless, possessing vast superhuman speed and strength.



I would disagree in that the Infected from 28 Days Later do not have superhuman speed or strength.  But the ones in this adaptation DO, and that IS rather a departure from the original story.  On the whole it's as much a remake of Omega Man as it is an adaptation of I Am Legend.

I think it's a GREAT adaptation though and after leaving the theater I had absolutely no complaints whatsoever about its merits.


> Special effects on them is fairly top notch. There are a set of plauge dogs we get to see and they're very well done. Some great stuff there.



It plays well, but I actually found things to still be a little too CGI-ish.  If there is a criticism to be levelled it is that it may have been a mistake to make the zombies superhumanly strong and fast and thus the use of DGI for them all.  It may have played better to hew closer to 28 Days Later and use live actors instead of CGI.  I don't think the virus victims needed superhuman strength and speed to be scary - their sheer numbers would be sufficient.


> 2. Much of the tale comes in the format of back flashes, giving us insight into the character.



Yes the backstory is provided in flashback but the way you phrased that makes it sound as if there were too many flashbacks or they were very long.  Just to be clear for those who might take it that way there were perhaps, 4 flashbacks, maybe 5, essentially in the form of abbreviated dreams to fill in the backstory and none of them were more than 5 minutes.  They left as much to the imagination as they explicitly filled in and were terrificly executed.


> 3. One of the biggest crushing moments of isolation from the book, the death of the dog, is ruined in the fact that he has the dog from the get go and when he loses it, it's bad, but nothing as bad as the book.



First, I would disagree just up front with this,  But secondly, here would be a great example of where written fiction and movies must diverge.  In a book it's easy to devote a chapter or two to introducing a dog, going into great detail about the emotional investment the protagonist has in the dog and how crushed in spirit he is when the dog dies.  Movies don't work that way.  Movies are a VISUAL medium and you have to SHOW that sort of attachment.  The internal narrative must be externalized in order to work (short of using non-traditional film techniques).  In movies that takes TIME to show that developing and being reinforced or else it feels abrupt, unrealistic, unsupported, even poorly acted although it would actually be a fault in the script.


> 4. His eventually encounter with other survivors, is just m'eh. He meets a woman and child who wind up saving his life when in anger he tries to take out the vampires.



This, however, DOES seem faithful to the book.  In the book when he meets the woman he is similarly distant, angry, also paranoid.  In the film it serves to demonstrate that simply FINDING another survivor does NOT fix his mental state.  It isn't just loneliness that he's been combating - it's the crushing loss of his family.  In the book that can simply be stated.  In a movie it must be SEEN.


> 5. His defenses for his house, where he's been shown to take all this great care of illustrating it's fortress like structure, is destroyed almost instantly. Sure, there are some explosions and some great action sequences here but it's weak.



This I would agree with.  If the movie is too short it is here that more should have taken place, perhaps another instance of some trick that he'd used earlier against the zombies again used against him.  Even something light-hearted like a zombie picking up a fallen handgrenade while standing at a window or the door and mindlessly pulling the pin.


> 6. While he dies, he cures the disease. It is his cure of the disease that makes him a legend.  This is the biggest divergent for me and while it doesn't ruin the movie, it makes me think that no, like the Omega Man and Last Man on Earth, they should've picked a different title for this movie and said "heavily based on the novel, I Am Legend."



Nah.  I don't see any reason to really complain.  It's a terrific adaptation that is fantastically executed.


----------



## Man in the Funny Hat (Dec 15, 2007)

Darkwolf71 said:
			
		

> Yep, this one falls into the 'Planet of the Apes' category. By making that film end not being on earth, they changed the entire story. Not a bad film, but changing it just because, 'Well, everyone knows the ending, so lets change it." is just a bad idea.



Of course, the original novel of Planet of the Apes is quite different from EITHER of its adaptations to movies, but the _ending_ of the book was much closer to the ending of the newer, more recent movie than the older Charlton Heston one.  I therefore find this an... interesting complaint.  No, everyone DIDN'T know the ending of the original story, though the ending of the original movie is now timelessly iconic.  The accusation of "change just for the sake of change" doesn't apply in either case.  If anything it DOES provide motivation to change it.  Because everyone IS familiar with the ending to the original movie they would want to change it and do something they might not expect.


----------



## Klaus (Dec 15, 2007)

Man in the Funny Hat said:
			
		

> I just read the book maybe two weeks ago.  A _faithful_ adaptation of the original story to film would be a borefest of the highest order.




Only if it's badly done.

It can be done well, as in The Last Man On Earth ( http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0058700/ )

Here's Newsarama's review of it:
[sblock]The first film adaptation of Matheson’s novel was relatively close to the book. For some reason, there’s a change of the main character and his family’s name to Morgan instead of Neville, but all other names of the main antagonists and supporting cast remain the same.

This movie, starring the late, great, Vincent Price, definitely focused on the slow steady grip madness takes upon poor Robert. Like the book and GN, the story takes place in a medium-sized suburban town. Robert has boarded up his house, and has a daily routine of garlic, mirrors, and hunting vampires in their “day coma.” Price’s signature creepy voice doesn’t betray him often, allowing for a pretty wide emotional range from the horror star.

Only a few changes hit the back-story, the most prominent making Robert (Neville) Morgan a scientist of high caliber. In the original story, he dabbled in science, and definitely learned much more as the years passed, but he wasn’t an original fighter of the plague. This did not take anything away from the story, and helped move things along at a faster pace.

The movie holds this faster pace almost all the way through. There’s an extended sequence involving a dog that leads the most boring chase scene in film history, but aside from that, it entertains while making you worry about Robert’s fate. Having just read the GN prior to seeing the movie, the nuances stood out more, but really weren’t bothersome.

Overall, The Last Man on Earth is an entertaining flick, with pretty solid acting. Obviously low budget, and far from the effects that we’re all so used to now, they instead focused on the internal tension, which made the emotions of Robert a little more real. This is probably the most accurate book to film adaptation, based on the next one that was made, and what I know of the newest version (Ironically, the first to bear the actual name of the book).[/sblock]


----------



## jaerdaph (Dec 15, 2007)

Well, I have to see it because I'm a non-credited extra with no lines in this (I played a vampire zombie in a scene filmed at night in a cemetary).   

Hopefully, I'm not on the cutting room floor (or the scene). A friend and I answered a casting call for this on a whim. It was last February some time I believe, but I do remember the weather here in NYC was in the single digits so the cast and crew took to calling the movie "I am FROZEN".


----------



## The Grumpy Celt (Dec 16, 2007)

RangerWickett said:
			
		

> "...Needs more 'Postman.'"




Things are _REALLY _Sad.


----------



## Dire Bare (Dec 16, 2007)

jaerdaph said:
			
		

> Well, I have to see it because I'm a non-credited extra with no lines in this (I played a vampire zombie in a scene filmed at night in a cemetary).
> 
> Hopefully, I'm not on the cutting room floor (or the scene). A friend and I answered a casting call for this on a whim. It was last February some time I believe, but I do remember the weather here in NYC was in the single digits so the cast and crew took to calling the movie "I am FROZEN".



That's so totally cool.  I've been a noncredited, nonspeaking extra before too . . . . but not on anything cool like a scifi flick!

Hope you had fun despite the cold, and I hope you weren't cut!


----------



## Steel_Wind (Dec 16, 2007)

(He was cut)

I enjoyed the movie. It left me with a nagging bit of "depressing as hell" feeling after it ended - but it was still a *good* movie.


----------



## jaerdaph (Dec 16, 2007)

Steel_Wind said:
			
		

> (He was cut)




Ah well. There are no small parts only small actors. 

Thanks for saving me $10 though!


----------



## jaerdaph (Dec 16, 2007)

Dire Bare said:
			
		

> Hope you had fun despite the cold, and I hope you weren't cut!




It was a lot of fun, but I wouldn't be quitting my day job any time soon.  Wil Smith puts out a good spread - the food alone made up for the sub freezing temperatures.


----------



## frankthedm (Dec 16, 2007)

jaerdaph said:
			
		

> It was a lot of fun, but I wouldn't be quitting my day job any time soon.  Wil Smith puts out a good spread - the food alone made up for the sub freezing temperatures.



Hmm, how the heck does he stay thin?


----------



## Queen_Dopplepopolis (Dec 16, 2007)

We just got home.  I enjoyed the movie VERY MUCH.  Will Smith did an excellent job.  The scene where he's yelling at Frank is absolutely terrifying.  Being that alone makes you crazy, man.

My only complaint is that I wish we would have been introduced to Anna and Ethan (those were their names, right?) earlier in the flick... had we seen them tuning into the AM broadcast or traveling to NYC or on their Red Cross ship... I just feel like their arrival would have seemed less out of place.  It took me a while to believe that they weren't hallucinations because they arrived so abruptly.

Also - the Dark Knight trailer before the movie... I would have paid my $7 just to see that.  *giddy giggle*


----------



## TogaMario (Dec 17, 2007)

Just got back from seeing it with a friend, and it was pretty good. I haven't read the book, so I went into it without knowing anything but the keywords "Will Smith, Dog, NY ... Unfriendlies". I was pleasantly surprised to find almost no soundtrack (except Bob Marley), and great cinematography. And the Batman trailer was quite worth it, as well.

They would've been much luckier if it had been rabies. No vaccination would give the "dark seekers" a few months to live, maybe?

Some interesting things that I thought about whilest watching:

1.) What if one of the lions had gotten infected? It already moves crazy fast and kills well. Just saying, they would've made great infectious beasties.

2.) Who the heck set the trap for him with the mannequin and all? The film shows that the dark-seekers aren't brainless, but a lot of them seem to be fairly stupid / not capable of planning. Maybe that's why there was a leader. But wait, they wouldn't listen to Will Smith about his curing abilities, but they listen to the boss-with-brains?

3.) For a man with all the military training and daily exercise, he sure does wimp out while he's dangling from a rope. Oh, and the knife in the leg? Really, man, can't walk because of a knife in your leg?

4.) The guy hasn't seen a woman in 3 years (that doesn't look like Sinead O'Connor with blight) ... the first thing you do is yell at her?! Nono, Will Smith, nono.

5.) I got almost all the way to the end of the movie before I realized that he put the chick mannequin in the adult section of the DVD store. Classy


----------



## Darkwolf71 (Dec 17, 2007)

Queen_Dopplepopolis said:
			
		

> My only complaint is that I wish we would have been introduced to Anna and Ethan (those were their names, right?) earlier in the flick... had we seen them tuning into the AM broadcast or traveling to NYC or on their Red Cross ship... I just feel like their arrival would have seemed less out of place.  It took me a while to believe that they weren't hallucinations because they arrived so abruptly.



Well, in the book there is a whole nother angle about some of the infected not being completely taken over by the vampirism. They are trying to rebuild society, but Neville is killing them, as well as the 'true' vampires. The woman in the book ends up being a spy sent by them. So... the fact that she was immune was quite a shocker for those who have read the original. (Or seen the previous movies for that matter.) Also, introducing them earlier would have spoiled the ending that 'The last man on earth'... wasn't. >.<


----------



## Hand of Evil (Dec 17, 2007)

I enjoyed the movie more than I thought and yes it is not the book, did not think it would be.  

I think Will's character was crazy from the get go, he did not snap out of it until the end.  

Now, he really needed to defend his home better, wall of tanning beds would have been better than what he had!  He also did not have an escape plan, he needed to find an M113 Armored Personnel Carrier!


----------



## jaerdaph (Dec 17, 2007)

frankthedm said:
			
		

> Hmm, how the heck does he stay thin?




When he's not filming, he gets to spend eight hours plus a day in the gym.


----------



## Mean Eyed Cat (Dec 17, 2007)

TogaMario said:
			
		

> 2.) Who the heck set the trap for him with the mannequin and all? The film shows that the dark-seekers aren't brainless, but a lot of them seem to be fairly stupid / not capable of planning. Maybe that's why there was a leader. But wait, they wouldn't listen to Will Smith about his curing abilities, but they listen to the boss-with-brains?




Was it the dark-seekers who set the trap or was it one of Robert's and he was so delusional he didn't realize it?  And, if it was one a dark-seeker trap [maybe mimicking Robert's traps?], why did they have enough intelligence to set a trap and, later, they abandon intelligence for madness when they assault the house? 

While I liked most of the movie [the overgrown and deserted New York was cool], the part that really annoyed me was when alpha dark-seeker guy smashes into the *bullet proof* glass.  Really?  No amount of adrenaline could negate the physics involved.  His skull should have caved in  :\


----------



## BadMojo (Dec 17, 2007)

JoeGKushner said:
			
		

> While he dies, he cures the disease. It is his cure of the disease that makes him a legend.  This is the biggest divergent for me and while it doesn't ruin the movie, it makes me think that no, like the Omega Man and Last Man on Earth, they should've picked a different title for this movie and said "heavily based on the novel, I Am Legend."




Wow.  That's pretty disappointing.

I think this may win the award for "totally didn't get the meaning of the book title".  They really should have used a different title.  From what the OP says, the new title just doesn't make sense with this movie.


----------



## Queen_Dopplepopolis (Dec 17, 2007)

Did anyone else catch the Batman/Superman movie poster in Times Square?  Date was some time in 2010...


----------



## Hand of Evil (Dec 18, 2007)

Queen_Dopplepopolis said:
			
		

> Did anyone else catch the Batman/Superman movie poster in Times Square?  Date was some time in 2010...



The director/producer said they took Liberties, he did not mean anything, even surprised that it made it by the editors and lawyers.  Figured they would be owning someone money for it.  (It was linked on the News page)


----------



## frankthedm (Dec 18, 2007)

> Hand of Evil said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Emirikol (Dec 19, 2007)

Sooooo...why was this movie such a big hit?

It was essentially a zombie flick.  I know it's been done before, but you dont see people talking about the last man on earth or omega man otherwise (except maybe as the basis for Resident Evil).

I don't get it.  I thought the movie was good, but I wouldn't go see it twice.  WHy was it such a hit?

jh


----------



## Hand of Evil (Dec 19, 2007)

Emirikol said:
			
		

> Sooooo...why was this movie such a big hit?
> 
> It was essentially a zombie flick.  I know it's been done before, but you dont see people talking about the last man on earth or omega man otherwise (except maybe as the basis for Resident Evil).
> 
> ...




Will Smith - just by having him in the movie made it a hit.  Yep, people go to a movie because of the actor and Will Smith will do this for you: Lifetime Gross Total (17 movies): $2,051,312,349 - Average: $120,665,432.  Hollywood watches stuff like this, it is called Q rating, they also messure profit margin: what a star is paid vs what their movies make, Will gets 20+ Million a film but has a 1 to 5 profit margin, for every dollor spent on him, he will get you 5 back.  

Milla Jovovich - Lifetime Gross Total (16 movies): $338,482,761- Average: $21,155,173: her worth shows she should only be paid 1 million or less a film just to provide the return that Will Smith gives.  

Tom Cruse - Lifetime Gross Total (28 movies): $2,712,240,654 - Average: $96,865,738: should be paid less than Will but is not.  Profit margin 1 to 3 (4) and dropping

Angelina Jolie - Lifetime Gross Total (23 movies): $1,054,242,905 - Average: $45,836,648: only is paid 5 to 10 million a film.  Profit margin 1 to 4.


----------



## Queen_Dopplepopolis (Dec 19, 2007)

Hand of Evil said:
			
		

> Will Smith - just by having him in the movie made it a hit.  Yep, people go to a movie because of the actor and Will Smith will do this for you: Lifetime Gross Total (17 movies): $2,051,312,349 - Average: $120,665,432.  Hollywood watches stuff like this, it is called Q rating, they also measure profit margin: what a star is paid vs what their movies make, Will gets 20+ Million a film but has a 1 to 5 profit margin, for every dollar spent on him, he will get you 5 back.




Combine that with the fact that it opened two weekends before Christmas and you have a veritable recipe for success.  People are already at the mall shopping... why not catch a flick?  I like that Will Smith, let's grab a Cinnabon and head to the theatre!


----------



## mmadsen (Dec 19, 2007)

Will Smith signals that this is a film for the mass audience, not just for hardcore horror fans -- and it isn't a gore-fest for the hardcore fans; it's about more than decomposing bodies.


----------



## JoeGKushner (Dec 20, 2007)

mmadsen said:
			
		

> Will Smith signals that this is a film for the mass audience, not just for hardcore horror fans -- and it isn't a gore-fest for the hardcore fans; it's about more than decomposing bodies.




It's about butterflies and hope.


----------



## The Grumpy Celt (Dec 20, 2007)

JoeGKushner said:
			
		

> It's about butterflies and hope.




Naw... It's about powdered eggs and doggies.


----------



## RangerWickett (Dec 20, 2007)

It's just, I . . . *draws a tense breath* . . . I was _saving_ that bacon.


----------



## JoeGKushner (Dec 20, 2007)

RangerWickett said:
			
		

> It's just, I . . . *draws a tense breath* . . . I was _saving_ that bacon.





Liar!

*I* was saving that bacon!


----------



## Hand of Evil (Dec 20, 2007)

_it's about more than decomposing bodies_

What bodies?  Don't know the number of people in New York but I did not see a skeleton in this movie.


----------



## JoeGKushner (Dec 20, 2007)

Hand of Evil said:
			
		

> _it's about more than decomposing bodies_
> 
> What bodies?  Don't know the number of people in New York but I did not see a skeleton in this movie.




It was with Tom Cruise.

In the Closet.


----------



## Hand of Evil (Dec 20, 2007)

Funny thing about this movie, it was not bad when I saw it but the more I think about what I saw; the less I like it!


----------



## The Grumpy Celt (Dec 20, 2007)

Hand of Evil said:
			
		

> _Don't know the number of people in New York but I did not see a skeleton in this movie._



_

I guess the zompires are supposed to have eaten all the ones down to the toe nails that would have been outside. 

I'm have a little postpartum disappointment with the movie as well._


----------



## S'mon (Jan 1, 2008)

I'm disappointed that it's a not a faithful rendition, and that it even trashes the end of the book, the one thing I was sure they'd leave intact.  I had already decided not to see this in the theater, based on the inappropriate casting of Will Smith in the title role.  Now I now not to buy the DVD either.  It's at 'might watch on TV if it's on at a convenient time' level with me now.


----------



## Mistwell (Jan 1, 2008)

S'mon said:
			
		

> I'm disappointed that it's a not a faithful rendition, and that it even trashes the end of the book, the one thing I was sure they'd leave intact.  I had already decided not to see this in the theater, based on the inappropriate casting of Will Smith in the title role.  Now I now not to buy the DVD either.  It's at 'might watch on TV if it's on at a convenient time' level with me now.




Why is Smith an inappropriate casting?


----------



## JDJblatherings (Jan 2, 2008)

Mean Eyed Cat said:
			
		

> Was it the dark-seekers who set the trap or was it one of Robert's and he was so delusional he didn't realize it?  And, if it was one a dark-seeker trap [maybe mimicking Robert's traps?], why did they have enough intelligence to set a trap and, later, they abandon intelligence for madness when they assault the house?
> 
> While I liked most of the movie [the overgrown and deserted New York was cool], the part that really annoyed me was when alpha dark-seeker guy smashes into the *bullet proof* glass.  Really?  No amount of adrenaline could negate the physics involved.  His skull should have caved in  :\





Why do people have difficulty grasping it was the mutants/dark-seekers who set the trap? It was pretty darned obvious to me, the head baddie was standing in the darkenss holding the leashes of 3 dark-dogs and released them when he could.  He saw what robert had done in capturing the female mutant.

The hero himself freaked out because the manikin had moved accross town by itself...as far as he knew the mutants were incapable of such behavior. The truth of the situation woudl be awful to consider as well..the mutants weren't just horribly dangerous beasts, they were now horribly dangerous people (of a sort) out for revenge.

The mutants don't abandon all intelligence when they assault the house either, one makes for the top and makes a hole in the roof so others can enter...a very wise move.


As for  the head smashing, who says the mutants can't take that sort of punishement. The virus that was enginered to fight cancer ended up totally rewritting their DNA and could very well have given them the ability to tolerate such abuse.


----------



## S'mon (Jan 3, 2008)

Mistwell said:
			
		

> Why is Smith an inappropriate casting?




The protagonist in the book is a tough, indomitable guy like Charlton Heston in Omega Man, or Kris Kristofferson 20 years ago would have been perfect. There's not many current movie stars who could pull off the tough-but-haunted nature of the character; Bruce Willis might give a halfway-decent facsimile.  Will Smith is basically a lovable comedian (IMO rather bland), and wholly inappropriate.  Remember this character becomes The Legend - and not in a good way... Charlton Heston had the gravitas, pity he had a bad script.   

Anyway since they don't even keep the book ending, the inappropriate casting is irrelevant.

Edit: I can actually see Tom Hanks pulling it off, he's a very good face/eyes/expression actor, important when there's almost no talking, and can do indomitable very well, though he doesn't have the craggy grandeur of the Legend in my mind's eye, I can see it working with him.  I had a thought whether there were any black stars who could do it - plenty from the '70s and earlier, but few current.  Samuel L Jackson is too cold - he makes a good hitman, though.  Maybe Denzel Washington.


----------



## The Grumpy Celt (Jan 4, 2008)

S'mon said:
			
		

> Will Smith is basically a lovable comedian (IMO rather bland)...




I thought he did a good job.


----------



## Mean Eyed Cat (Jan 4, 2008)

JDJblatherings said:
			
		

> Why do people have difficulty grasping it was the mutants/dark-seekers who set the trap? It was pretty darned obvious to me, the head baddie was standing in the darkenss holding the leashes of 3 dark-dogs and released them when he could.  He saw what robert had done in capturing the female mutant.
> 
> The hero himself freaked out because the manikin had moved accross town by itself...as far as he knew the mutants were incapable of such behavior. The truth of the situation woudl be awful to consider as well..the mutants weren't just horribly dangerous beasts, they were now horribly dangerous people (of a sort) out for revenge.
> 
> The mutants don't abandon all intelligence when they assault the house either, one makes for the top and makes a hole in the roof so others can enter...a very wise move.




I was just postulating and really could go either way.  Maybe it was the dark seekers who set the trap or maybe it was one of Roberts. I've heard people argue that it was Roberts who set the trap because he was losing his mind e.g. setting up manicans, speaking to them, having no one else to interact with.  The trap he got caught in could have been the result of his mind breaking up.



			
				JDJblatherings said:
			
		

> As for  the head smashing, who says the mutants can't take that sort of punishement. The virus that was enginered to fight cancer ended up totally rewritting their DNA and could very well have given them the ability to tolerate such abuse.




Again, I will fall back on physics.  Unless his DNA rewrote itself into a shotgun slug, I doubt it could break through the bullet resistant glass.


----------



## Storm Raven (Jan 4, 2008)

Mean Eyed Cat said:
			
		

> Again, I will fall back on physics.  Unless his DNA rewrote itself into a shotgun slug, I doubt it could break through the bullet resistant glass.




Bullet resistant glass is surprisingly damagable, unless it is really thick. I worked at an Embassy where one of the Marine security guards tripped and hit his head against the bullet resistant glass at the entryway, and cracked it. He didn't feel good, it almost knocked him out, but a couple whacks with a crowbar or hammer probably would have finished the job fairly well.


----------



## Mean Eyed Cat (Jan 4, 2008)

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> Bullet resistant glass is surprisingly damagable, unless it is really thick. I worked at an Embassy where one of the Marine security guards tripped and hit his head against the bullet resistant glass at the entryway, and cracked it. He didn't feel good, it almost knocked him out, but a couple whacks with a crowbar or hammer probably would have finished the job fairly well.




Right, I'm not disputing the fact that it can't be broken.  It's more about what does one's head look like after said glass is all broken.  In the movie, alpha mutant's head is not damaged in the least.  With all that banging, it should have been a pulpy mass stumped up on his shoulders.

But maybe I'm wrong.  I'm not an expert in this area.  Let's just say it was hard for my "Suspension of Disbelief" to kick in at that point.


----------



## JDJblatherings (Jan 4, 2008)

Mean Eyed Cat said:
			
		

> I was just postulating and really could go either way.  Maybe it was the dark seekers who set the trap or maybe it was one of Roberts. I've heard people argue that it was Roberts who set the trap because he was losing his mind e.g. setting up manicans, speaking to them, having no one else to interact with.  The trap he got caught in could have been the result of his mind breaking up.




The mutants just happened to be waiting there, during the day time with attack dogs, when they don't/can't travel in daylight?  They set the trap. There is clearly a gleam of comprehension in alpha mutants eye when his gal is stolen away by the hero.


----------



## Arnwyn (Jan 4, 2008)

Just saw it. I thought it was okay - but I loves me my post-apocalyptic movies, so that's where my irrationality kicks in.

But, whew! There were certainly some noticeable flaws (for me). Much of the criticism here is warranted. For example, I rolled my eyes at:
- Bad CGI. Bad, bad CGI. Those zombie dudes were not only not scary, but boring and kind of laughable. Yeah, howl one more time, losers.
- Bashing your head against the plexiglass? Multiple times? Without coming out as a squashed mess? Not buying it.
- And such wasted opportunity! When I saw the trap thingy, and then the zombie holding back the dogs, I thought - hey, here's an intelligent one! Where are they going to go with this? It should be interesting... went nowhere. Bleh.

But, regardless: Post-apocalyptic FTW, for me. 7/10


----------



## Mean Eyed Cat (Jan 4, 2008)

JDJblatherings said:
			
		

> The mutants just happened to be waiting there, during the day time with attack dogs, when they don't/can't travel in daylight?  They set the trap. There is clearly a gleam of comprehension in alpha mutants eye when his gal is stolen away by the hero.




Again, it really doesn't matter to me who set the trap and its not worth arguing about.  If you want, go over to imdb.com  and jump on the message board.  There's about a thousand threads with people arguing over who set the trap


----------



## Thanee (Jan 9, 2008)

jaerdaph said:
			
		

> When he's not filming, he gets to spend eight hours plus a day in the gym.




Like he shows off in the movie, too. 


Got to see it tonight and definitely liked it. Never read the book, so nothing to compare it to.

Anyone else thought, that this would make for an awesome single player RPG campaign? 

Bye
Thanee


----------



## Mark Chance (Jan 10, 2008)

The Grumpy Celt said:
			
		

> I thought he did a good job.




Quite so. Smith, like many comic actors, is a surprisingly effective dramatic actor. Reviews that favorably compare his depiction of his character's isolation with Tom Hanks in Castaway are on the mark. The movie has real emotional weight and tension basically all the way up until the other two survivors are introduced to the story. Then, the movie quickly becomes just another "let's run from the monsters" film.

Regarding mutant heads versus bulletproof glass: It doesn't strike me as much of an issue. The mutants obviously had superhuman strength and speed. I guess one can be realistic about a virus that turns people into superhuman strong and fast cannibal vampire-zombie-mutants, but if realism were the goal, then the virus would pretty much just kill its victims rather than result in comic-bookish transformations.


----------



## Hand of Evil (Jan 10, 2008)

Mark Chance said:
			
		

> Tom Cruise in Castaway



That was Tom Hanks


----------



## Mark Chance (Jan 10, 2008)

Hand of Evil said:
			
		

> That was Tom Hanks




D'oh! I knew that! My wife was talking at length recently about an unauthorized Tom Cruise biography, and I guess I still haven't managed to purge that "conversation" from my memory. Mea culpa maxima!


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Jan 11, 2008)

Mean Eyed Cat said:
			
		

> Right, I'm not disputing the fact that it can't be broken.  It's more about what does one's head look like after said glass is all broken.  In the movie, alpha mutant's head is not damaged in the least.  With all that banging, it should have been a pulpy mass stumped up on his shoulders.
> 
> But maybe I'm wrong.  I'm not an expert in this area.  Let's just say it was hard for my "Suspension of Disbelief" to kick in at that point.



The bigger question is how did they open the thick metal door to his lab?!

But let's face it, the story of the movie isn't exactly about realistic Vampire/Zombie creatures.
There is basically no chance that a scientist comes up with a cure against cancer that works in 100% of all test cases and shows no side effects that then suddenly turns a part of humanity into monsters. 

The real interesting thing was the character Neville. And I thought this character went pretty well. 
The "real" mistake of the movie might be that they didn't discuss the implications of the set-trapping and planning Zompire leader. Because clearly Neville doesn't recognize their behavior changes (he speaks of complete social deevolution, while the opposite actually happens at that point!). 

By the way, can anyone spoil the real book for me (do it in spoiler tags, in case someone still wants to be surprised by the real ending?) What does happen in the end with Neville?


----------



## RangerWickett (Jan 11, 2008)

From Wikipedia.

[sblock]The story takes place between January 1976 and January 1979 in Southern California. The novel opens with the monotony and horror of the daily life of the protagonist, Robert Neville. Neville is apparently the only survivor of an apocalypse caused by a pandemic of bacteria, the symptoms of which are similar to vampirism. He spends every day repairing his house, boarding up windows, stringing and hanging garlic, disposing of vampires' corpses on his lawn and going out to gather any additional supplies needed for hunting and killing more vampires.

Much of the story is devoted to Neville's struggles to understand the plague that has infected everyone around him, and the novel details the progress of his discoveries.

One day a dog appears in the neighborhood. Neville spends weeks trying to win its trust and domesticate it. He eventually traps the terrified dog and wins it over, but it dies from the vampire infection a week later.

As the story progresses, it is revealed that some infected people have discovered a means to hold the disease at bay. However, the "still living" people appear no different from the true vampire during the day while both are immobilized in sleep. Thus, along with the vampires, Neville kills the still living people. He becomes a source of terror to the still living, since he can go around in daylight (which they can only do for a short length of time using a special pill) and kill them while they sleep.

They send a still living woman named Ruth to spy on Neville, and they replicate Neville's relationship with the dog. Ruth, terrified of Neville at first sight, goes against her role of spying on him and runs away. Rather than spend weeks trying to win her over, he attacks her and drags her back to his house. Eventually Neville performs a blood test on her, revealing her true nature to him right before she knocks him out with a mallet. Ruth leaves a note telling him about the group of people like her, explaining that she was sent to spy and how monstrous he appears to them. Months later, the still living people attack, injuring Neville, but taking him alive so that he can be executed in front of everyone in the new society (which Neville finds very primitive).

Before he can be executed, Ruth provides him with an envelope of pills. Neville takes the pills to commit suicide before the still living execute him. As he dies he reflects on how the new society of the living infected regards him as a monster. Just as vampires were regarded as legendary monsters that preyed on the vulnerable humans in their beds, Neville has become a mythical figure that kills both vampires and the infected living while they are sleeping. He becomes a legend as the vampires once were, hence the title "I Am Legend".[/sblock]

I thought Smith was great in the movie. It's the writers who should be blamed, or whoever had final script approval. Ugh, how could they do this to the story? It's like ending 300 with Zeus coming down from Olympus to smite the Persian army, saving Leonidas and his men. Totally ruins the point of the story.


----------



## Darkwolf71 (Jan 11, 2008)

RangerWickett said:
			
		

> Ugh, how could they do this to the story? It's like ending 300 with Zeus coming down from Olympus to smite the Persian army, saving Leonidas and his men. Totally ruins the point of the story.



Haha! Indeed.

It was a _good_ movie. But the needless changes they made kept it from being a _great_ movie. IMO, of course.


----------



## Mistwell (Jan 11, 2008)

S'mon said:
			
		

> The protagonist in the book is a tough, indomitable guy like Charlton Heston in Omega Man, or Kris Kristofferson 20 years ago would have been perfect. There's not many current movie stars who could pull off the tough-but-haunted nature of the character; Bruce Willis might give a halfway-decent facsimile.  Will Smith is basically a lovable comedian (IMO rather bland), and wholly inappropriate.  Remember this character becomes The Legend - and not in a good way... Charlton Heston had the gravitas, pity he had a bad script.




Golden Globe and two-time Academy Award nominated Will Smith? Academy-Nominated "The Pursuit of Happyness" Will Smith? Academy-Nominated "Ali" Will Smith?  That's who you think of as a bland lovable comedian without gravitas? 

I think you're stuck about 10 years ago.  Will Smith is, in my opinion, and the opinion of many people including Academy voters, *way* beyond "lovable comedian" at this point.  He's a top tier actor now.


----------



## BadMojo (Jan 11, 2008)

Mistwell said:
			
		

> Golden Globe and two-time Academy Award nominated Will Smith? Academy-Nominated "The Pursuit of Happyness" Will Smith? Academy-Nominated "Ali" Will Smith?  That's who you think of as a bland lovable comedian without gravitas?




Yeah, I think Will Smith is a great actor.  The problem with I am Legend was a script that completely pooped all over the original source material.  Good source material.  They at least could have done the book the service of naming the movie something else.

I think I said this before (probably in this thread) but the stinkin' title of the movie doesn't even make any sense with the changes they did to the story.  I think I'm beginning to see why Richard Matheson is so damn bitter.


----------



## Krug (Mar 10, 2008)

The original ending for the movie: -SPOILERS-
http://io9.com/365403/the-i-am-legend-you-didnt-get-to-see


----------



## RangerWickett (Mar 10, 2008)

The alternate ending is better. I think Neville needs to die at the end. The best suggestion I've seen is for him to die, and then for the woman to escape with the kid, so her voice-over at the end could be about how to the new people of the world, it is the human who is the bogeyman, the monster, . . . the legend.


----------



## Anthraxus (Mar 11, 2008)

I saw the movie twice in theaters. The first time, I thought it was an Ok movie, but the differences between the book and movie really irked me. 

The second time I went, I thought it was a pretty good movie in it's own right, and the differences only mildly bugged me.


----------



## Cthulhudrew (Mar 12, 2008)

Huh- big difference between the endings. I prefer the original version for several reasons, not the least of which that it actually fits with the story elements that were dropped in the movie but which the theatrical ending completely ignores (that being that the vampires were more intelligent than just being animals). Thematically, though, I think the theatrical ending of him dying fits better with the character's personal story arc and the title. Maybe if they'd combined the two in some way it would have been better.

I'm still miffed that they thought that cgi vampires would be better than having actual people play the parts, though.


----------



## Krug (Mar 12, 2008)

Yeah I thought the CGI vampires looked terrible. I think it was one of the reasons the 'alternate ending' was shelved. The filmmakers wanted to convey that the vampires still had emotions and love, but the CG just wasn't able to pull it off.


----------



## Fallen Seraph (Mar 14, 2008)

There was apparently a alternative ending they had made that was scrapped at the last second... It really, really annoys me that they did it, since while not entirely faithful, is atleast closer to the real-thing:

http://www.transworldnews.com/NewsStory.aspx?id=39264&cat=2

That is the alternative ending.


----------



## Cthulhudrew (Mar 15, 2008)

Fallen Seraph said:
			
		

> There was apparently a alternative ending they had made that was scrapped at the last second...




Check out posts #60 through #64.


----------

