Why would you deliberately screw up I Am Legend?

Ok, so when I am Legend came out. I heard a lot of people say, "End ruins it, what a giant turd of an ending."

So a month ago I went to UPS (7 mile walk) to pick up a package they had failed to deliver. Turns out they are only open 8-9pm for pickups (I went... lul wat?) so I go to borders, buy I am Legend, buy a cup of coffee, and spend an hour or so reading it. Nice book for how short it is. Very different from anything else I have read. Solid progression and character development. I do wonder how they go from an entire first chapter describing a german guy in pretty elaborate detail to Will Smith, but hey, at least he can act. It's not like they cast Adam Sandler or something. So I read it, like it and think... well I've got to see the movie now.
I come to folks for holidays. Folks have all the premium channels. I notice I Am Legend playing. 'OK', says I. I sit down and watch it.

Hmm... He's a scientist... Hmm... family never got sick... Hmm... nothing about his wife other than her dying... no depth to that at all.
Hmm... dog (about 1/3 of the book detailing how he met the dog and their brief time together) is a puppy he took from his kid who's with him the entire movie now. Hmm... vamps don't speak... dont gather at his house... dont have any history with him... dont have two different levels of disease... arent hunted by him (except the occasional research subject... which happened like... twice... in the book). Basically the only similarities are that it's a disease and it makes them want blood. Other than that, there is nothing at all that relates the book to the movie. Then the spy from the vamps turns into a human survivor trying to convince him to run away to a survivor colony with her... and she has a kid.

The ending was just the Dairy Queen swirl atop the soft serve cone of crap that was the butchery of this book. The ONLY good thing was that Smith could act. Every other element of this movie made me hate the screenplay writer with every fiber of my being.

I looked online and found the original ending... saying it's better than the real ending is like saying crabs are better than genital warts.

That is all. Sorry if you liked this movie, but wow... what a way to ruin a decent book.

I wasn't all that impressed with the movie. I see they are running it constantly on all the movie channels now......I still don't want to sit and watch it again or DVR it and I get that stuff for free. Now you've convinced me to read the book.

:beer1:

I totally agree that they screwed up with that movie, and specially with it's end that differs totally from the book.
I can see that it is not easy to make a good movie from a good book, but this was totally low.
Wasn't the first time that this has happened.

For comparison/contrast you should check out the following movies... both based on the book (more or less, lol):

The last Man on Earth (1964)
The Omega Man (1971)

I enjoyed all three though I agree the recent one is a VERY loose interpretation of the book.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CableDawg

I wasn't all that impressed with the movie.

:beer1:

---

+1

I'm a dystopian fan, but hate insults to the intelligence and unnecessary CGI which is what ruined the film for me.

So, for those that have read it, is the book great or just better than the movie.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Frankenstein

+1

I'm a dystopian fan, but hate insults to the intelligence and unnecessary CGI which is what ruined the film for me.

So, for those that have read it, is the book great or just better than the movie.

---

The book is fantastic
very bleak and desperate
all the movie versions of the book have been completely different to the book itself, I could mention why but that might ruin the book for you
Richard Matheson has distanced himself from the early film

A similar style book that seems like it might have been translated faithfully into a movie is "the Road" by Cormac McCarthy
well worth a read

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

Hm, I'm curious to read the book.

I thought the movie was quite entertaining (for some movies, I'm ok with just entertainment), but naturally I can't compare it to the book because ^

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by holli4pirating

Hm, I'm curious to read the book.

I thought the movie was quite entertaining (for some movies, I'm ok with just entertainment), but naturally I can't compare it to the book because ^

---

Yep, I thought it was a fairly decent movie myself. I have most definitely seen better But for what it was it was quite enjoyable. Never have read the book though.

Perhaps if you saw the movie first, then read the book your opinion would be different? Just a thought. I saw the movie and have never read the book. I thought the movie was good.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tabre

Perhaps if you saw the movie first, then read the book your opinion would be different? Just a thought. I saw the movie and have never read the book. I thought the movie was good.

---

actually you might be onto something there
I read the book before seeing the movie so that might be why I didn't like it

when you read the book. you will see it's core elements are completely different to the movie

for instance (no spoilers) the infected ones are typical vampires not mutated humanoids
thats one major difference
other than that, I can't say much for fear of ruining the book

I'm pretty good at separating remakes from originals or in this case books from movies. The book was very good and I enjoyed all three movies to different degrees and for different reasons though none of them were all that true to the book.

So did you read the original book by Matheson, or was this one of those books thats a novelized version of the movie?

As far as the movie goes, they actually changed the ending at the last minute. You know how there were those hints that the vampires were intelligent? They were supposed to develop into something, but the studio or somebody didn't like it ending that way.

I found the page that talks about it:

5 Awesome Movies Ruined By Last-Minute Changes | Cracked.com

Pete not sure who you are referencing with the question, I read the book
the link you attached is a hilarious reference thanks!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pete_S

So did you read the original book by Matheson, or was this one of those books thats a novelized version of the movie?

As far as the movie goes, they actually changed the ending at the last minute. You know how there were those hints that the vampires were intelligent? They were supposed to develop into something, but the studio or somebody didn't like it ending that way.

I found the page that talks about it:

5 Awesome Movies Ruined By Last-Minute Changes | Cracked.com

---

Wow that new ending actually wasn't too bad. I want to watch the movie again with that ending.

I read the original... I don't mind books to movies since the book was the inspiration to the movie but books from movies are usually pretty much a waste to read, lol.

Wow, last man on earth looks WAY more like the book just from screenshots. Downloading now, thanks.

Have to say that there are also movies that we based on a book, and ended to be better than the original book (of course this is subjective). Or the movies were so different that that the only think that linked it to the original book was the name.
Shortly thinking at least one movie comes to mind. I think that 'Bladerunner' was far more better than 'Do androids dream of electric sheep?'

[QUOTE=JasonC;510599]The book is fantastic very bleak and desperate all the movie versions of the book have been completely different to the book itself, I could mention why but that might ruin the book for you Richard Matheson has distanced himself from the early film
QUOTE]

That is the crux for me. The theme that the book explores is completely ignored in all three movies (each of which is interesting in its own right, as a movie, but each of which refuses to do justice to the book). Like JasonC, I don't want to give it away, but the book, which is a decently-written sci-fi adventure on purely literary grounds, has a thought-provoking twist in perspective as its moral theme.

I think it's fair to say that all three movies simply reject that perspective and take a fairly ordinary "last human against the zombie apocalypse" approach which is precisely the perspective the original book invites you to question. The theme explains the title of the book; the Will Smith version of the movie gets it almost hilariously wrong by interpreting that title as completely opposite its original meaning as could be.

MINOR SPOILERS AHEAD:

The other thing I disliked about the Smith movie was its dumb and ham-handed political slant. Smith is a military doctor who invents the cure for the vampire disease. The remnants of humanity are living inside a military compound guarded by soldiers. Smith sacrifices himself to save the others. And as others have already noted, a major character is changed from zombie to human, further undercutting the theme of the original novel. It is hard not to read this as an allegory for the "War on Terror" (in much the same way that the original vampire/zombie/alien movies were often metaphors for the Cold War), in which "the troops" are heroic saviors of the "good humans" against the implacable, monstrous hordes who look just like us but want to wipe us out. (Again, this subverts the original book, which simply cannot be read in this sense.) As a movie it's not too bad, but as an interpretation of the original novel it seems to be an exercise in trading introspective nuance for self-congratulatory cliches of the most obvious kind. A true Hollywood triumph.

I think the movie (Will Smith's version) was quite good, akthoug not completely faithful to the book, but the atmosphere was quite similar...By the way, I finished reding today "The Road" and inmediately reminded me of "I am Legend", even the style of both writer I find similar in some parts....

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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,
:p

Quote:

---

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,
:p

---

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."