Thread: Why would you deliberately screw up I Am Legend?

Last Man was much truer to the book, but skipped over some of what I found to be the most key parts of the book. And the ending... the ending of I am Legend was the culmination of the entire point of the book as I saw it. It had two key elements. Spoiler in white below:

He never cured the disease in fact he noticed at the end that it wouldn't be cured and in fact had mutated so EVERYONE was going to die anyway.
And he was formally executed because he was legend, not hunted and impaled on a spear because the woman couldn't tell them that his blood was magical and would save them all in time to stop them.

Both of those were COMPLETELY flipped. To the point where it's like... ok, so what's the point of this now? It was just a vehicle for Price at that point. But it was kind of what I expected from the Smith movie... pretty decent up till the end, then as soon as the girl shows up, they drop the ball.

Originally Posted by Frankenstein

Alright, it's now number one on my must read list. I'm just finishing War of the Worlds - so back to back dystopias it is!

Thanks

OK, have finished War of the Worlds, which was fun, and have been to the bookstore and am now in the throes of I am Legend. It's a great read - but I can't get the vision of Charlton out of my mind when reading - which is kind of ruining the book for me. Stupid Charlton.

I saw the movie first, and thought it was "ok" with a bad ending.
Then I read the book, I realized how much better the movie would have been if it stuck more to the book plot.
Some internet reading would reveal that the original version of the movie was closer to the book, but that it didn't "test well" with focus groups.
I thought it was a sad sign of where we are going culturally that:
A: The "death to all" ending of the Will Smith movie was more palatable than the book's ending.
B: That the movie producers/director would rather get more viewers than make a good movie.

PS. With the movie's ending, the name of the movie doesn't even make sense.

Originally Posted by Xavier

I saw the movie first, and thought it was "ok" with a bad ending.
Then I read the book, I realized how much better the movie would have been if it stuck more to the book plot.
Some internet reading would reveal that the original version of the movie was closer to the book, but that it didn't "test well" with focus groups.
I thought it was a sad sign of where we are going culturally that:
A: The "death to all" ending of the Will Smith movie was more palatable than the book's ending.
B: That the movie producers/director would rather get more viewers than make a good movie.

PS. With the movie's ending, the name of the movie doesn't even make sense.

Agreed. Have now finished the book which I really enjoyed and watched the movie last night. There are some great bits in the movie - atmospheric, stylish, etc. but the whole cgi vampire thing still made it a classic Hollywood F***-up, IMHO. But for those that enjoyed it - good for you, at least someone did.

That sounded rather negative, didn't it?

Sorry,

Originally Posted by Frankenstein

Agreed. Have now finished the book which I really enjoyed and watched the movie last night. There are some great bits in the movie - atmospheric, stylish, etc. but the whole cgi vampire thing still made it a classic Hollywood F***-up, IMHO. But for those that enjoyed it - good for you, at least someone did.

That sounded rather negative, didn't it?

Sorry,

I believe without Will Smith, who had some spot-on performances (like where he was breaking down after the manikin had moved), the movie would have fallen pretty flat. I'm not sure he's a great actor (or even if I would recognize one if I saw him) but I can say that I appreciate how well he has matured into acting from his starter days as "the prince of bel air."