Recent Posts
I just saw this movie and enjoyed it thoroughly...until the new, shiny, test audience approved ending stuck its big fat slobbery kiss of death on it.
The original story was so unique and inspired. Why do American movie studios get a bunch of mildly retarded fat fracking monobrows to choose how a film must end?
"CG costs money. Can't have no risk of givin' folk none o them idea doohickeys. Gawd wanned us ter have ideas, wunt a givern us no bible.
God done saved them people from them vampires. I guess I durnt like the endin where the doctor feller is a monster or somt."
Had to rant. They turned a sci fi classic into a sci fi classic with an ending from "Hollywood endings Vol II."
Original Ending
The 'new' vampires arrest Neville for his crimes and begin killing the 'old' vampires, who are still governed by their need for blood. In the end Neville dies, and the 'new' vampires inherit the earth.
I also wasn't a huge fan of the ending, but the Zombie is right. Americans like happy endings. Even so, by American standards, the film was quite sad (what with the hero sacrificing himself, Sam, and the psychological trauma Neville had) and the Christianity bit seemed, to me, to be an attempt to make it brighter. Not that they did that well or subtly or anything of the sort.
What happened was that two other survivors, Anna and her son(?) Ethan, save Neville from certain death. She says it was God who sent her to Neville and he thinks she's full of crap. The smarter vamp sends hordes of vamp spawn at Neville's base and the humans are over run. Trapped in the basement lab and seemingly about to die, Anna realizes that the cure Neville has been working on has been succesful (the vamp is kept in the basement heavily sedated). Neville realizes (I dunno if that is the right word, but I can't think of a better one) that maybe Anna and him were meant to meet for a reason, giver her the cure, and blows himself up. She find the other survivors and saves the day! Yaay!
Happy endings have their place - I think if all films had unhappy endings, we probably wouldn't go so much to the cinema. A happy ending of a good film can leave you feeling uplifted. But unhappy endings also have a place, and don't happen that often in the "Hollywood aesthetic", which is something of a shame sometimes. Certainly a bit of bitter-sweet rather than a panglossian whitewash is better. But it depends on context.
I'll say this. I like happy endings and unhappy endings. Different stories require a different hand and having both out there in movies like this keep people on their toes.
And even I didn't like the ending. It was pretty clear from the crowd reaction nobody did. Nobody booed, but when it was over everyone just kinda' shrugged and wandered off. No emotional impact at all. Nill. Never seen a reaction so sad.
My problem wasn't that it was happy or sad. It didn't feel like a full movie. It felt like just as the gambit was established and you were finally getting to understand and like the characters...boom...endgame. There were so many interesting ideas and hooks provided, and the show just abruptly ends before they got to investigate or resolve any of them.
The best analogy is to 28 Days Later.
Imagine the main characters run into Frank and Hannah in the apartment complex. They hook up and discuss the need to get moving and the presence of a military outpost with "the answer". They are about to go, when a bunch of zombies show up and are about to eat everyone when Selene pulls out a hand grenade and blows herself up. The rest of the folks show up effortlessly at the military base, they have the cure afterall and everything is happy. The End.
You see, that's not a bad ending because it's too happy. It's a bad ending because you get rid of the whole main exodus story of the movie, you totally omit what should be the meat of the film--the whole main conflict. The result is dissapointment, that the thing got TPKed and epilogued before it really got started.
Radavel
(Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Roleplaying Game, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules Subscriber)
Here's what I thought the story was building toward:
They're locked in the specimen room with the zombies battering down the glass (weird, that they took forever to bring it down when they just blasted through the heavy reinforced METAL door--but yeah).
The survivors notice that the zombie specimen has started to recover, that the retrovirus has begun to reverse her zombification. As they go to make their way into hiding, Will Smith's scientist character gets a kindova' sick look on his face and says something to the effect of "the cure is in her blood".
Where I thought this was headed was that he and the woman and kid were going to take refuge in the crawlspace, leaving the now human zombie girl to get messily devoured by a legion of her former friends, while the trapped humans can only try not to listen and watch--because it's through her retrovirus tainted blood that a cure will spread its way throughout zombie hives everywhere. The new humans suddenly cured and instantly eaten by their friends--thus transmitting the new cure to all who partake of them. Sortova' pandemic anti-infection.
Granted it still doesn't cure the big problem. These zombies can rip through steel reinforced doors in seconds and track human scent across town--even when the humans are inside an automobile, right? So how in the freaking world does it work to hide behind a grating that Will Smith can open? I mean, yeah assuming the grenade takes out EVERY zombie in the lab (killing a single zombie takes near like a full mag from a pistol, right?) and even if the dying ones don't scream their heads off (like they always do) it seems as though hordes and hordes more zombies are still right there in the house or are trucking their way inbound. Maybe the smell of explosives masks human scent? Eh whatever.
I thought it was an enjoyable movie. But I didn't like this part:
It didn't make sense to me that the woman and her son saved Will when he was about to get eaten in his wrecked vehicle. How did she and the kid hold off all those vampires running around? With bright lights? Why wouldn't the vampires just throw themselves at the lights and destroy them?
This scene really bothered me.
Thanks guys, I was really unsure about whether to go to this, since the ending is the one aspect of I am Legend that I adored. I may have spoilt the ending for myself, but at least I didn't have to sit though it to come out fuming at another cack hollywood ending.
Some of the finest stories ever told were tragedies- when Tinseltown going to climb out of this infantile, bed time story compulsion to try and turn that frown upside down?
While I agree that the ending to "I Am Legend" was disappointing... the bulk of the movie itself was really rather enjoyable. I suspect that fans of the original should know about the change going in, though, so they can steel themselves for it...
OH! And if you're looking for an American movie with about the most unhappy ending you'll see in a long time...
You know.... Aside from the whole 'sensitivity to light' thing, I found the mutants to be far more ghoul-like in their behaviour than vampire. Considering their bestial nature they do have a pack mentality on the go, most especially when they're being led the the smarter 'alpha' mutant. Next time I run an encounter against a small horde of ghouls, I think I'll actually have them bodily throwing themselves against doors and barred windows to get at the crunchy victims cowering inside.
I love, love, love Richard Matheson. I have a fat handful of his work (mostly in compilations) and, if you ever get me started, will probably tell you more than you ever wanted to know how his stories have been adapted as movies and TV show episodes.
So, although I also really enjoy Will Smith movies (generally), I'll probably wait for cable on this one. I just hate seeing perfectly good stories gutted because studio executives simply can't leave well enough alone, and I definitely can't see paying $13.50 for the privilege.
Sigh.
Here's what I thought the story was building toward:
Spoiler:The survivors notice that the zombie specimen has started to recover, that the retrovirus has begun to reverse her zombification. As they go to make their way into hiding, Will Smith's scientist character gets a kindova' sick look on his face and says something to the effect of "the cure is in her blood".Where I thought this was headed was that he and the woman and kid were going to take refuge in the crawlspace, leaving the now human zombie girl to get messily devoured by a legion of her former friends, while the trapped humans can only try not to listen and watch--because it's through her retrovirus tainted blood that a cure will spread its way throughout zombie hives everywhere. The new humans suddenly cured and instantly eaten by their friends--thus transmitting the new cure to all who partake of them. Sortova' pandemic anti-infection.
That was exactly what I was expecting, too. Gruesome and deadly, but efficient, and it requires no lost colony of uninfected to further develop the serum and a delivery method.
I liked the movie, generally speaking and like other movies that I've seen recently was slightly disappointed at the ending. I thought Neville became a Legend to the 'vamps', and that alternative ending that someone came up with would have been more satisfying.
I was most sad though when:
I saw Omega Man starring Charlton Heston. "I am Legend" is said to be using the same premise, "the 'normal you' against the mutant world."
It is a fricking solo adventure.
I don't think it was the same premise. I think it was the same movie. The only real difference was the ghouls in I am Legend were not very intelligent. The night people in Omega Man could not tolerate sunlight and were dying I believe (it was a long time ago) but they had a religion based on what had happened with the disease and it was that God was punishing mankind for the evil. The evil being knowledge and science.
In Legend they were more like the Zombies in 28 days but they reminded me more of ghouls than zombies. I liked how fast and strong they were.
It looks like the movie went through an obvious script re-write because of plot points that were never addressed again.
I never read the book but it seemed like they were building up to something that never happened.
Later they get so smart they make a boodie trap very similar to the one Will made. They copied him. They even used the manakin he talks to as bait. The zombie had dogs on leashes that he sicks on him. They are definitly getting smarter.
After laying this groundwork this is never touched upon again in the story.
Obvoius script rewite that was done poorly.
Wikipedia update.
[edit] Alternate ending
The tone of the film's ending was altered dramatically before the film's release, with the majority of the changes made to the standoff between Neville and the infected survivors in his laboratory. Visual effects supervisor Janek Sirrs recounts the original ending starting with the standoff: "At that point, Neville's—and the audience's—assumptions about the nature of these creatures are shown to be incorrect. We see that they have actually retained some of their humanity. There is a very important moment between the Alpha Male and Neville." David Schaub stated, "Then, when Neville finally turns the Alpha Female over to the Alpha Male, there is this little love moment between the two of them." The infected then retrieve the captured female and spare Neville's life. He then looks at the photos of the infected he has experimented on and killed and realizes that he is the monster. The infected think of him as someone who hunts down their people and kill them. The original final shot follows Neville, Anna and Ethan as they cross the remnants of the George Washington Bridge in hopes of finding other survivors, accompanied by a recording from Anna telling survivors that there is hope
Wikipedia update.
[edit] Alternate ending
The tone of the film's ending was altered dramatically before the film's release, with the majority of the changes made to the standoff between Neville and the infected survivors in his laboratory. Visual effects supervisor Janek Sirrs recounts the original ending starting with the standoff: "At that point, Neville's—and the audience's—assumptions about the nature of these creatures are shown to be incorrect. We see that they have actually retained some of their humanity. There is a very important moment between the Alpha Male and Neville." David Schaub stated, "Then, when Neville finally turns the Alpha Female over to the Alpha Male, there is this little love moment between the two of them." The infected then retrieve the captured female and spare Neville's life. He then looks at the photos of the infected he has experimented on and killed and realizes that he is the monster. The infected think of him as someone who hunts down their people and kill them. The original final shot follows Neville, Anna and Ethan as they cross the remnants of the George Washington Bridge in hopes of finding other survivors, accompanied by a recording from Anna telling survivors that there is hope
Wow. That would have been a MUCH better ending.
I saw Omega Man starring Charlton Heston. "I am Legend" is said to be using the same premise, "the 'normal you' against the mutant world."
It is a fricking solo adventure.
I don't think it was the same premise. I think it was the same movie. The only real difference was the ghouls in I am Legend were not very intelligent. The night people in Omega Man could not tolerate sunlight and were dying I believe (it was a long time ago) but they had a religion based on what had happened with the disease and it was that God was punishing mankind for the evil. The evil being knowledge and science.
In Legend they were more like the Zombies in 28 days but they reminded me more of ghouls than zombies. I liked how fast and strong they were.
It is the same movie. Both are adaptations of the original short story from the 1940's. That is why they seem so similar to each other.
Watch enough Hong Kong cinema, and you'll develop a whole new appreciation for the tacked-on happy ending. In HK cinema, they tend to o the opposite way, and go with the tacked on mega-tragic ending.
Like The Killer, by John Woo. The ending of that movie, with everyone going blind and getting shot and crawling across the floor at each other and oh my goodness is it silly and over-the-top and not at all justified by the story. Totally tacked-on tragic ending.
I love, love, love Richard Matheson. I have a fat handful of his work (mostly in compilations) and, if you ever get me started, will probably tell you more than you ever wanted to know how his stories have been adapted as movies and TV show episodes.
So, although I also really enjoy Will Smith movies (generally), I'll probably wait for cable on this one. I just hate seeing perfectly good stories gutted because studio executives simply can't leave well enough alone, and I definitely can't see paying $13.50 for the privilege.
Sigh.
As a nascent writer I wrote to Matheson and he gave me wonderful advice and direction. Long distance mentoring. I also have some choice letters from the late, and quite great, Carl Sagan.
Tell your kids to write to their heroes. There's a very good chance they'll write back.
Didn't love the happy ending for this movie, but I really liked the movie. You'd think with all those other adaptations out there, they'd have realized why we love the film and not toy with it. If you keep trying to sell huge films to people with limited artistic appreciation, then true art appreciators are forced to turn to smaller productions for their thrills. Money-wise, they know what they're doing. KPI (Kagen Point Index) was everything in the film game back in the nineties... a rating that compared what your film cost, in total, to what it earned. A film that earns twice what it cost to make and promote gets a KPI of 2. Clerks had a KPI of something like 89! Welcome to the table, Mr. Smith.
As I've said before, film is escapism for many people, and they don't want to escape to a place with unhappy endings... or extreme poverty, or physical unattractiveness. So, Charles Bukowsky writing a screenplay for a modern adaptation of Hamlet set in Bombay and starring Pruitt Taylor Vince? Don't even try running it past a big studio.
Wikipedia update.
[edit] Alternate ending
Spoiler:The tone of the film's ending was altered dramatically before the film's release, with the majority of the changes made to the standoff between Neville and the infected survivors in his laboratory. Visual effects supervisor Janek Sirrs recounts the original ending starting with the standoff: "At that point, Neville's—and the audience's—assumptions about the nature of these creatures are shown to be incorrect. We see that they have actually retained some of their humanity. There is a very important moment between the Alpha Male and Neville." David Schaub stated, "Then, when Neville finally turns the Alpha Female over to the Alpha Male, there is this little love moment between the two of them." The infected then retrieve the captured female and spare Neville's life. He then looks at the photos of the infected he has experimented on and killed and realizes that he is the monster. The infected think of him as someone who hunts down their people and kill them. The original final shot follows Neville, Anna and Ethan as they cross the remnants of the George Washington Bridge in hopes of finding other survivors, accompanied by a recording from Anna telling survivors that there is hope
I was curious what you guys were talking about.... The ending above is the ending I saw...
But I only watched it on Blu Ray.... Must have watched the original ending verison.. not the theatre version.
Wikipedia update.
[edit] Alternate ending
** spoiler omitted **
I was curious what you guys were talking about.... The ending above is the ending I saw...
But I only watched it on Blu Ray.... Must have watched the original ending verison.. not the theatre version.
When I spoke of the film to people who saw it on DVD I realized we'd seen different endings. I asked if they had a choice of endings and no one thought they did. That's... entirely odd.
[It is the same movie. Both are adaptations of the original short story from the 1940's. That is why they seem so similar to each other.
That I didn't know. Thanks. The handling of it was sure different. Although there were a lot of similarities. In the Omega man they mutants knew where the guy lived and assaulted it every night and burned books outside his place and such. And could not seem to get to him until later in the movie when he found other non-infecteds.
And I believe (all from memory here - haven't seen it since it was in theaters) I think the main character had a vaccine but his helicopter crashed and so he shot himself with the vaccine and that is why he was not infected. Small differences but... A different handling of things of course the special effects are so much more advanced now.
When I spoke of the film to people who saw it on DVD I realized we'd seen different endings. I asked if they had a choice of endings and no one thought they did. That's... entirely odd.Wikipedia update.
[edit] Alternate ending
** spoiler omitted **
I was curious what you guys were talking about.... The ending above is the ending I saw...
But I only watched it on Blu Ray.... Must have watched the original ending verison.. not the theatre version.
I have it on DVD and Blu-ray and both have both endings. The whole movie is the same until the ghouls break into the basement. I agree that they are more ghouls than vampires.
Here's what I thought the story was building toward: ** spoiler omitted **
What struck me is how Dr. Smith goes on in his recording about how the zombie-boss-dude was 'degenerating' because it exposed itself to sunlight.
It seemed to me that the zombie-boss-dude was being portrayed as wanting his girlfriend back, which would be the opposite of the Doctors assumptions. Signs of social structure. Signs of willingness to self-sacrifice for another. Hardly signs of 'degeneration,' IMO.
And then the end, which made no sense to me, although, at least, he did get to fulfill the title and 'become a legend.'
And now I've finished clicking on all the spoilered stuff, and realized that Jason Grubiak already mentioned this! Woot, I'm a parrot!
I'm confused. Which version was the "happy ending"?
The happy ending is the one where:
The sad ending is the one where:
Two years later and I still rage when I remember that the alternate ending was not shown in theaters.
Someone else put it best:
Where the alternate ending at least captured a bit of the soul of the original story, the one they actually went with pretty much just pisses all over it.
Seriously, if they had the stones to pull a Blade Runner, throw up a Director's Cut and let the "original" fall out of circulation, it would take some of the bad aftertaste out. Or maybe it can at least get the same treatment Dark City finally did and recieved a "fixed" special edition release with all of the executive meddling torn out.
I'll be over there watching the Vincent Price version again....
Seriously, folks that haven't seen this yet: Watch the alternate cut first.