PDA

View Full Version : Official "I Am Legend" discussion thread (SPOILERS GALORE, YOU'VE BEEN WARNED!)



heywoode
12-21-2007, 09:25 PM
I would like to start this thread just so we can stop using those spoiler tags when discussing in the movies thread!

I have now watched the movie in snippets several more times, and plan to watch it in it's entirety later tonight so I will be glad to discuss further as I have time!

To start it off, I would like to stress that I think this movie is excellent, and the best adaptation thus far of Richard Matheson's 1954 novel of the same title. The first film adaptation was in 1964. That movie was titled The Last Man On Earth and starred Vincent Price as Dr. Robert Morgan (rather than Neville). I watched the majority of it and had a hard time really enjoying it. To be honest, I have a hard time enjoying most movies made that long ago. The quality of film making has risen dramatically over the last couple of decades and only continues to rise.

The second adaptation was 1971's The Omega Man, starring Charlton Heston as Dr. Robert Neville. I recently watched this movie as well, and it was much better than The Last Man On Earth, but was still kind of lame. Most of my problem with it is that it was made in 1971 and lacks most of the quality that I'm now spoiled with. By 1971 standards, it was probably a pretty good movie. I like Charlton Heston quite a bit, so it was at least entertaining....

The current adaptation is titled the same as the original book, so that kinda blows my idea about the whole Bob Marley connection and why the film was titled as it is.

That is all for now, but I would love to discuss this movie as much as possible, so somebody please post some ideas! I hesitate to write that I would rather it not turn into a discussion about whether it is a good film or not, because I know there are some users who didn't care for it. I'm not gonna suggest that someone refrain from posting what they thought about it, just know that I would rather this be a thread where people who actually LIKED the movie can discuss the movie without having to defend the quality of the movie or try to convince someone whether it was actually good or not. Let's face it, nobody is gonna convince me it isn't, so I don't expect to convince someone who didn't like it that they should!

heywoode

LouisvilleLip
12-21-2007, 10:42 PM
I'm not sure which movie was more thought provoking Transformers or I am Legend.

heywoode
12-21-2007, 11:22 PM
I liked Transformers quite a bit too, and it is hard to compare the two. Transformers was more of a work of fiction in my mind. I feel like I Am Legend was based a little bit more in the realm of something that could happen, albeit with a good bit of fantasy mixed in, considering the effects of the virus on certain humans.

LouisvilleLip
12-21-2007, 11:32 PM
I was kidding. They are both bad.

heywoode
12-21-2007, 11:35 PM
I was kidding. They are both bad.

Thanks for posting though............................................ ....................

Should I start an official "I thought I Am Legend sucked" thread for you?

LouisvilleLip
12-21-2007, 11:37 PM
Aight

Hoop
12-21-2007, 11:42 PM
I'm not sure which movie was more thought provoking Transformers or I am Legend.Is that a real question? or are you being sarcastic? (EDIT: Didn't see your second post, before I posted)

I thought Transformers was completely stupid and was not thought provoking what so ever. Not saying it wasn't entertaining.

Sorry if I already broke the rules of this thread, heywoode.

I Am Legend was excellent, but I was hoping it would be even better. I thought it was to short, it could have easily been over 2 hours. I would have liked to see more of Dr. Neville & Sam exploring the city, more of how they lived and the things they did everyday. More interaction between Neville, Anna and Ethan.

ajbry
12-21-2007, 11:45 PM
For a Canadian, Lip has pretty distinguished movie tastes actually.

Although he's giving "I Am Legend" the same treatment as he did for "American Gangster." They were both decent movies but overly hyped.

James Bond
12-22-2007, 12:01 AM
One thing that i just wanted to say on the whole grenade note, was that even if he would've used the whole throw the grenade threw the glass routine, its possible that the glass just wouldn't have protected him.

Also, he may not wanted to risk the time of the grenade thrown and the time getting in the chute/passageway thing. Ya know, the cure was in there and he wanted to protect it.

Just a thought.

heywoode
12-22-2007, 12:25 AM
Is that a real question? or are you being sarcastic? (EDIT: Didn't see your second post, before I posted)

I thought Transformers was completely stupid and was not thought provoking what so ever. Not saying it wasn't entertaining.

Sorry if I already broke the rules of this thread, heywoode.

I Am Legend was excellent, but I was hoping it would be even better. I thought it was to short, it could have easily been over 2 hours. I would have liked to see more of Dr. Neville & Sam exploring the city, more of how they lived and the things they did everyday. More interaction between Neville, Anna and Ethan.

No rules, buddy....just common sense....not trying to control anyone's opinions, it's just tedious when people still have to be red about stuff sometimes...even after I asked nicely in the opening post.

For the record, I didn't really think Transformers was stupid, given the context with which I knew the movie was going to be in...It wasn't really thought provoking at all, like you said, but at least it was entertaining...like you said.

I absolutely wish IAL was much longer. Given how much adaptation/deviation from the original movie there already was, I don't really understand why they only chose to come up with 100 minutes of movie.

I would have loved to have seen less of a gap than three years at the start, and much more explanation of how he developed his habits, how he amassed all the stuff he had, how he set up his perimeter defenses, etc....there are just a ton of ways they could have expounded on things while leaving the story line intact...



For a Canadian, Lip has pretty distinguished movie tastes actually.

Although he's giving "I Am Legend" the same treatment as he did for "American Gangster." They were both decent movies but overly hyped.

I guess I don't watch enough TV...I didn't see that many ads for either one...Haven't seen AG yet, but I love Denzel's skills and I got a dvdscr screener of that too, so it will be consumed pretty soon...



One thing that i just wanted to say on the whole grenade note, was that even if he would've used the whole throw the grenade threw the glass routine, its possible that the glass just wouldn't have protected him.

Also, he may not wanted to risk the time of the grenade thrown and the time getting in the chute/passageway thing. Ya know, the cure was in there and he wanted to protect it.

Just a thought.


I think you are probably correct in assuming that he didn't want to risk destroying the cure to save his own life. He knew Anna and Ethan were safe and he knew that he probably couldn't get partly in the coal chute (or whatever it was) and still make the grenade shot through the hole in the glass that I agree was there....he knew he had to keep them (and the cure) safe and take out as many as he could by making sure the grenade went off when and where he wanted it to.

heywoode
12-22-2007, 01:11 AM
OK, there's a big debate over at imdb.com about whether it was Neville's own trap that snared him or the Alpha Male's trap...it seems split, with maybe a slight edge going to people who thought it was Neville's trap. I still think it was the Alpha Male's plan considering he had seen Neville's trap catch his woman, and had time after it got dark that night to check it out.

It was suggested that Neville moved Fred and used him as bait in another trap, but I don't think a mannequin would've worked as bait long enough to snare anything. He had to use blood in the one that we saw him spring....

EDIT: Just found this over at imdb.com....looks like the trap was set by the infecteds....http://imdb.com/title/tt0480249/board/nest/92613924

Also, just having watched the movie again, right before he blew the grenade, as the Alpha Male was bashing into the glass, it jumped right out at me...The cracks in the glass formed a butterfly shape, and right after that is when he heard his daughter's voice, and then looked back and saw Anna's tattoo of a butterfly. It was the shape of a butterfly in the glass that set that plan in motion, I have no doubt.

Erik
12-22-2007, 05:15 PM
I just saw it and loved it. I was a big fan of the book so I had certain expectations going into it. I liked the book better, but I thought that the film had a better ending (yes, I thought the ending was pretty good.) The reason I liked the book better was because it focused more on his everyday survival and rountines. It was cool to read about things like him burning down both houses next to him so the vampires couldn't jump rooftops to get into his home (the perimeter was laced with lights and garlic). And how he would spend alot of his day murduring sleeping vampires and doing his testing. I won't talk too much about the ending of the book for those who haven't read it and are interested, but it's alot different from the movie and could've been better if more detail was given about it. About a quarter of the way into the movie I had to just seperate it from the book into two entirely different stories, otherwise I probably wouldn't have enjoyed it as much.

Erik
12-22-2007, 05:20 PM
On the "grenade through the hole" thing, maybe I'm missing something but to me it seemed that the plexiglass was so damaged that it wasn't a problem for Neville to bust right through it and join the Darkseekers on the other side.

bellisimo
12-22-2007, 05:31 PM
On the "grenade through the hole" thing, maybe I'm missing something but to me it seemed that the plexiglass was so damaged that it wasn't a problem for Neville to bust right through it and join the Darkseekers on the other side.

I agree - it looked to me as if he just took the grenade and went for a touchdown style jump across the plexiglass and blew the whole room up...

what I didn't get is now that they had found the cure...how are they going to save 'em?

those creatures in the room with Will Smith didn't look like they wanted to be cured....

considering the numbers of the creatures vs. the immune...they seem rather outnumbered...

would they have to go on a hunting spree and just shoot 'em all up with the anti-virus?

I dunno the ending of this movie bugged me a lot...only because the first hour and 20 minutes of the movie was not bad - i was just expecting a bigger bang than a bomb on hand and some "sign" of butterfly...

Natston
12-22-2007, 05:46 PM
It was suggested that Neville moved Fred and used him as bait in another trap, but I don't think a mannequin would've worked as bait long enough to snare anything. He had to use blood in the one that we saw him spring....


But he did use a mannequin at the end of the dock... ;)

heywoode
12-22-2007, 11:08 PM
But he did use a mannequin at the end of the dock... ;)

Yes, I thought about that also...I don't know what to say other than he was using the mannequin at the end of the dock to draw them in so he could then run them over with the SUV and take a few with him as he gave up and committed suicide. I don't think the mannequin at the dock was meant to bait anything into getting snared, only to lure them toward the end of the dock? Your point is a valid one....

The mannequin Fred was meant to snare, like he used his blood to do before that. I believe that the Alpha Male was more intelligent than the rest of the darkseekers, therefore he could still make the emotional connection with a mate. Also, after Neville snared his mate and left, when it got dark the remainder of the snare trap was still there, and the Alpha Male studied it, figured out what was up, and then set up the Fred trap and had dogs ready in Grand Central because he didn't want to feed on Neville, he wanted to kill him for taking his mate.

The only thing I have a problem with in this theory is that I don't know how the Alpha Male made the connection between Neville and the Fred mannequin. The only thing I can come up with is that Neville was using vinegar to mask his scent as he was snaring the darkseeker and when he returned home. He never used vinegar when he was at the video store, so maybe the Alpha Male tracked some of Neville's spots (especially a spot that he obviously frequented enough to have the mannequins set up to interact with and had gotten to GoodFellas in the DVD library) and figured out that Fred would be good bait that way....It is a stretch, but maybe not...

heywoode
12-22-2007, 11:16 PM
I just saw it and loved it. I was a big fan of the book so I had certain expectations going into it. I liked the book better, but I thought that the film had a better ending (yes, I thought the ending was pretty good.) The reason I liked the book better was because it focused more on his everyday survival and rountines. It was cool to read about things like him burning down both houses next to him so the vampires couldn't jump rooftops to get into his home (the perimeter was laced with lights and garlic). And how he would spend alot of his day murduring sleeping vampires and doing his testing. I won't talk too much about the ending of the book for those who haven't read it and are interested, but it's alot different from the movie and could've been better if more detail was given about it. About a quarter of the way into the movie I had to just seperate it from the book into two entirely different stories, otherwise I probably wouldn't have enjoyed it as much.

Thanks for adding some info about the book! I am definitely going to read it now, and I appreciate you leaving some stuff out...

I wondered myself why Neville didn't do more killing during the day. The only thing I can think is that he kept saying that he could still fix the world. Maybe he didn't look at them as things needing to be killed, only things needing to be saved.

I also thought this at the beginning when he came in contact with the lion family in Times Square...My immediate thought was that he was pretty well armed....I would've laid the lions to waste and then had the antelope....After considering it, I think he wanted to leave as little of a death footprint as he could given the magnitude of death the world had already endured. His actions throughout the movie certainly reinforced that opinion that he hadn't given up on bringing the world back...until the whole suicide thing....

I don't think he wanted to kill anything he didn't HAVE to kill. I liked that angle of the story more than I think I would the idea of Neville as a vampire slayer like you say the book portrays him, and definitely how The Last Man On Earth portrays him.

N8R
12-23-2007, 03:33 AM
I just re-watched the movie so I have seen it twice. It does help that the discussion was going on and that a lot of points were made and things to watch for. Upon watching it again I too was questioning weather the Night Seekers could have set that trap but my gut tells me the movie makers wanted Neville to think that the Night Seekers had lot all thought and human emotion but the taking of the female proved that wrong. When Neville was being chased by the infected dogs why didn't the leader go after him as well? He could have easily had him there and killed him. And I noticed on this time that it was his own knife that went into his leg. The first time I saw it I was unsure of what stabbed him I actually thought it was part of the trap.

I did see the butterfly in the glass that was pointed out, I also saw one in the field while they were getting corn. Obvious that was a theme.

One thing I hadn't noticed the first time was that the basement had a pretty big metal door on it and Neville locked it tight but it took not a moment for them to break right through it but it took like 20 hits to get through the glass. Probably because only the leader was trying to break it down but still in my head I had thought he would have been smarter in building an impenetrable room that no matter what they couldn't get into and I thought the metal door should have been stronger so therefore more time to get into the actual lab. And are we to believe that the Compound 6 was the saving cure with the addition of the ice? I am not being sarcastic I am actually wondering about that.

But I do guess the cold would help to kill the virus because the Free Zone was there due to the virus not being able to with stand the Winter so I guess cold is one thing that would kill the virus or help to at least.

With regards to the stats on the K Virus he said 5.4 Billion people died immediately, 12 million were safe and 588 Million got the virus and turned into the Night Seekers. Just so it it out there. I didn't catch the full stats the first time around. And boy is that a deadly virus. I would hate to clean up all those dead bodies.

I also now more fully understand that Neville had to kill himself because that was the only way the Night Seekers would have stopped trying to get in but they would have been able to smell Anna and the kid in that shoot, Also how was the shoot staying shut and grenade proof?

I do wish the movie had shown how they planned on distributing the vaccine to the Night Seekers because I am curious about that but than Neville would have had to live past the grenade so that Will Smith wouldn't have been dead for the last 30 minutes of the movie.

And on a completely different side note, did anyone else notice the price of gas at $6 something a litre which I thought was funny. And Ethan didnt say a single word the entire movie. The only sound he made was the one that alarmed the Night Seeker and almost got them killed. Good job Ethan.

Well that is my rundown of the second viewing. This movie is available in DVD quality from torrent website and that helps to be able to watch as home with no theatre noise. If you can torrent I would suggest searching for I.Am.Legend.REPACK.DVDSCR.XviD-iMBT it is the DVD with a few watermarks but the Audio and Video are 10/10. Hope to see some continued discussion and now I want to read the book.

N8R
12-24-2007, 02:07 AM
I watched the movie again tonight and I downloaded the Audio book of I Am Legend and I plan on listening to i when I get a chance. Still a good movie. I will probably watch it a few more times with different film. I just really liked Will Smith in this one and I wanted to see more of the movie. I could have sat through another hour of content on the spreading of the virus and the spreading of the vaccine.

heywoode
12-24-2007, 02:14 AM
I watched the movie again tonight and I downloaded the Audio book of I Am Legend and I plan on listening to i when I get a chance. Still a good movie. I will probably watch it a few more times with different film. I just really liked Will Smith in this one and I wanted to see more of the movie. I could have sat through another hour of content on the spreading of the virus and the spreading of the vaccine.

Me too, me too, and me too!

N8R
12-24-2007, 04:20 PM
an hour and half is a short movie by todays standards. I just feel gipped every time not because the movie is bad but because it is so good I want to see more.

Erik
12-24-2007, 05:49 PM
I wondered myself why Neville didn't do more killing during the day. The only thing I can think is that he kept saying that he could still fix the world. Maybe he didn't look at them as things needing to be killed, only things needing to be saved.

In the book the vamps were able to talk and they tormented him at night, so he had plenty of reason to kill during the day even though he was looking for a cure.

Major Cold
12-25-2007, 05:40 PM
I loved the movie. Felt it could have more content and failed to develope Neville's character beyond losing loved ones. I want the book.

able
12-26-2007, 12:47 PM
the movie was a far cry from the book and also from "the Omega Man", which was about a hundred times better.

Sorry WS is no CH

idioteque
12-26-2007, 02:19 PM
Just saw the movie...had been looking forward to it for a very, very long time. I was just infatuated with the story.

Loved the Bob Marley sidestory and the playing of "Three Little Birds" throughout the movie. I really felt connected to Neville throughout the movie, I thought Will Smith did a stellar job. I wasn't really even a fan of his until "Pursuit of Happyness" but since then he has quickly moved up on my list of favorite actors.

This is one of the only movies that has ever made me feel emotionally involved, and I've seen a lot of movies.

I am infatuated for some reason with the environment of a deteriorating city. One huge error I noticed is that all of the flags throughout NY seemed to be in perfect shape. In reality wouldn't all of the flags have been tattered and really, really beat up?

Also the roads in Vermont were suspiciously clear, while the roads in NY were filled with overgrowth.

But overall I did enjoy the film.

heywoode
12-26-2007, 03:09 PM
the movie was a far cry from the book and also from "the Omega Man", which was about a hundred times better.

Sorry WS is no CH

I'm sure the book, as the original work, has it's own fans who probably thought all three movies didn't live up to the original story...I will undoubtedly read the book, and I look forward to it. I don't know that I will make many comparisons to the book and any of the three movies, as only the first movie followed the book plot fairly consistently from what I have read.

Sorry able, but Charlton Heston was great for his time, but pales in comparison to actors of our current generation. I feel like there are literally DOZENS of actors and actresses whose skills far surpass most of the heralded actors of generations past. Not sure if it is just that scripts and the technology of movie making are so much better now, or what, but there aren't many actors (term used for both male and female thespians these days) from yesteryear who impress me.

I thought that The Omega Man, while probably pretty good by 1971 standards, was about as cheesy as it could be. The acting was dismal by most of the actors, and I didn't like the blaxploitation feel of it either. I thought it was probably groundbreaking of Heston to have a black female romantic lead, but it was done poorly. I thought the leader of 'the family' was a better actor than Heston in that movie.

So much less was expected of movies back then, and the movie-going public was a lot easier to convince back then. I'm not saying there weren't quality movies made, but The Omega Man was nowhere near the cream of the crop of it's own year, let alone decade or generation. It wasn't even close to being as good a movie as I Am Legend in any facet of criticism. The plot was better, the character development was better (although I agree with others that Will Smith's character deserved more explanation), the visuals were far more stunning, and the 'believability' was far greater in IAL than in TOM. The 'believability' can be taken as a moot point because most movies, after all, are works of fiction, or at least fantasized a bit for better selling value, but I use the term to mean something a bit more telling. Does the story make sense? Do the characters behave as a real-life person would? Those kinds of questions that can be answered in the affirmative help make a movie better because they help avoid plot holes.

Things that were just pointed out, like the flags flying were in pristine condition (something I hadn't noted before) or that the roads in Vermont looked like they had been maintained, while the roads in NYC were overgrown with vegetation....those are plot holes which suggest laziness or a lack of attention to detail, not poor script writing. Movies of yesteryear were absolutely HORRIBLE at these kinds of things. All that leads back to my feeling that so much more is expected of movies nowadays, and so much more is delivered to the screen in terms of effort and attention to detail.

Will Smith is ten times the actor Charlton Heston ever was, in my opinion. Anyone who can do drama, comedy, action, romantic comedy, etc. and be believable at all of them is a very talented, well-rounded actor. Will Smith is easily that. Charlton Heston is not. Heston was very popular and well thought of for his generation, but again, so much less was expected, it was far easier to be a star and a stud then than it is now. FAR easier.

idioteque
12-26-2007, 07:51 PM
Heywoode, I didn't mean to sound like I was bashing the movie but pointing out those errors. I am a total geek when it comes to such things and I was scanning for them throughout the whole film.

I am going to pick up the book at the airport to read on my flight back to DC on Saturday.

heywoode
12-26-2007, 09:33 PM
Heywoode, I didn't mean to sound like I was bashing the movie but pointing out those errors. I am a total geek when it comes to such things and I was scanning for them throughout the whole film.

I am going to pick up the book at the airport to read on my flight back to DC on Saturday.

Hey, don't worry about it man! That is the kind of stuff I like discussing....both of those things I didn't notice and am glad you pointed out. As I just posted, I don't think those kinds of details are in the script/screenplay, just things that reflect a lack of attention to detail. They did pretty good in this movie, but no movie is perfect.

I thought that some of the way the cars were arranged/abandoned looked like they were parked there to look like chaos, but weren't really parked to represent anything in particular....There were cars parked in front of a police barricade and they were facing away from the barricades...weird stuff like that....

I don't want anybody to think that they will make me mad or can't post things that are not absolutely a$$-kissing the movie. I don't think it is perfect nor do I think it was the best movie of the year. I simply think it was a very good movie that left enough to the imagination to stimulate conversation. I would rather have had another half hour of movie that let them expound on some of the main themes and offered some more insight into Neville and how he came to survive the first three years, and other things along those lines....

I just have a problem with people complaining that it was bad for reasons that don't make sense to me or people thinking the movie was bad because they didn't understand certain things about it...I kind of got on one user in particular in the movie thread last week because I didn't agree with his reasons for not liking the movie. I have friends who saw it and didn't like it because they don't care for that kind of movie. I'm fine with that and would never criticize someone for not having the same taste I do in movies. Even movies that I don't like, some of them I can recognize as good movies that are well written/acted/directed, even though they aren't my particular cup of tea.

There is a big difference in not liking a movie because you didn't care for it and not liking a movie because you don't understand a movie....

Oh, and have a nice flight. I hope the airport isn't too big of a P.I.T.A. and that you can find the book to read...If you do, and you get it read, I would like to hear your thoughts on it!

idioteque
12-27-2007, 12:56 AM
I know what you mean about Neville surviving the first three years. More information about that would have been really, really interesting.

The first time I saw a preview for it the preview lead me to believe that everyone died overnight...like they showed the evacuation scene (which happened at night) and then they showed NYC empty (which was during the day) which led me to believe that. Of course this was only a preview and such detailed information isn't really to be expected.

But we know now from some details that Manhattan had to die a very, very slow death overall. If this had been shown in detail it probably would have been the most brutal part of the movie.

One question, when the guy is creamed by Will Smith (or Neville, whatever) when he is driving his wife and kid to the evacaution scene, is that guy supposed to be a Darkseeker or what? I sort of got that impression but I'm not entirely sure if he was trying to get some flesh or if he was saying "help" to them...

I have thought about this movie a lot since I have seen it. For some reason I am felt/feel very emotionally attached to the characters...no movie has done that in awhile.

N8R
12-28-2007, 07:48 AM
Another question I had is how did Anna drive into Manhattan when the bridges were blown up? I dont know the geography of that area at all but wasnt the bridge blowing up supposed to keep people in manhattan and people out of it? Just wondering how she drove there?

I want to watch it again and again. I just keep wanting to watch it. I downloaded I Am Legend audiobook and I am done parts 1 & 2 of 8. So far it is pretty cool. As I am listening to it I am imaging a whole different movie.

heywoode
12-28-2007, 08:24 PM
Another question I had is how did Anna drive into Manhattan when the bridges were blown up? I dont know the geography of that area at all but wasnt the bridge blowing up supposed to keep people in manhattan and people out of it? Just wondering how she drove there?

I want to watch it again and again. I just keep wanting to watch it. I downloaded I Am Legend audiobook and I am done parts 1 & 2 of 8. So far it is pretty cool. As I am listening to it I am imaging a whole different movie.


I thought she said that she had come from a Red Cross evac. boat out of Sao Paulo, Brazil and that they started making port stops for supplies and then someone picked up KV on shore and brought it back on the boat and that is when they got out. I assumed that she had somehow made it to America from Brazil, and that means she had a boat. If she had a boat, she could sail right to Manhattan and then take her pick of vehicles.

Of course, that still begs the question of how did she get off the island and have a vehicle? Again, not too hard to find a vehicle and I'm sure by that point she was used to taking whatever she found as the world was deserted. The logistics of all of these questions are taken with a grain of salt, I guess.

I took a screencap of the map he was holding and I've tried to relate that to a real world map of NYC just to get a feel for the location of most of the movie, but I'm having a hard time matching it up. Here is the map:

http://i35.photobucket.com/albums/d163/heywoode/assorteds/map.png



I've looked for the 'X' intersection of Avenue of the Americas and Broadway, and when I find that, I cannot relate any of the other street names, Hudson Square, or Independence Plaza and figure out where this location is at. Bear in mind that mapping is what I do for a living, so either I'm having a big brain fart, or the map is hypothetical. I will continue to investigate this, but for now, the Pacers are on and my son wants me to help him put decals on his new motorcycle stunt toy he got!

heywoode
12-29-2007, 12:18 AM
Welp, I was brain farting it...kinda....

I found the real world location of the area on the map from the movie. Here it is:

http://i35.photobucket.com/albums/d163/heywoode/assorteds/map3.jpg
(http://i35.photobucket.com/albums/d163/heywoode/assorteds/map3.jpg)

Also, with the wonders of privacy-invading mapping, here is a streetview shot of the area that is shown across the street to the south from the southeast corner of Hudson Square on his map in the movie. He has it kinda circled with hashes indicating a clockwise motion from the northwest of that area around to the southwest. I thought it interesting that the building he has that circle around (the circle doesn't look like the other circles that are just solid black lines with X's through them as he has searched/cleared them) is a police station....

http://i35.photobucket.com/albums/d163/heywoode/assorteds/map2.jpg



Also, the screencap below is of his house, with his door being just to the right of the Washington Square Arch....


http://i35.photobucket.com/albums/d163/heywoode/assorteds/map5.png



...and then here is the streetview shot of the real world site.....

http://i35.photobucket.com/albums/d163/heywoode/assorteds/map4.jpg


Looks like in the real world view, all those townhouses are on the NYU campus. Do you think that since he was a Army virologist with a full lab in his basement, that maybe he was living in NYU housing and doing research for the Army in conjunction with NYU? I found this to be most interesting......

Man, I either have too much time on my hands, or I'm a HUUUGE dork.....or both......

At least I didn't start a thread about counting......:-p

LouisvilleLip
12-29-2007, 12:42 AM
its just a movie

heywoode
12-29-2007, 02:04 AM
its just a movie


Just go away...

N8R
12-29-2007, 11:01 AM
See I thought the boat had landed someone else and she said she came from vermont or somewhere and she heard him on the radio. But I just assumed there is someway she got across and I stopped asking questions. Nice mapping by the way cool to see the buildings and I like the privacy invasion too.

Natston
12-29-2007, 01:55 PM
See I thought the boat had landed someone else and she said she came from vermont or somewhere and she heard him on the radio. But I just assumed there is someway she got across and I stopped asking questions. Nice mapping by the way cool to see the buildings and I like the privacy invasion too.

I thought she was from like Baltimore, and she was traveling to colony and she heard him on the radio....

heywoode
12-30-2007, 02:15 AM
I thought she was from like Baltimore, and she was traveling to colony and she heard him on the radio....

Now that I watched that part again, she said she was from San Pablo (or maybe still Sao Paulo, I can't make it out 100% with her accent)...San Pablo is just outside San Francisco, so she would've had to cross the entire continental US with all the darkseekers and she didn't look like she had been through that kind of an odyssey...

She did say that they had come from Maryland after hearing him on the radio, and that they were going to Vermont to the survivors colony.

When she said she was on a Red Cross boat (out of either San Pablo or Sao Paulo) she was talking about "...after the Navy fell apart, we started docking to take on supplies....", so that makes me think that it was still somewhere in the US since she mentions the Navy even though she doesn't say specifically the US Navy....I would guess that either she started in San Pablo, CA and escaped and came across the country to Maryland and then to NYC or she came across the Atlantic on a ship from Sao Paulo, Brazil and then landed in Maryland and then came to NYC. Either way, she had been through plenty before she got to Neville. I don't think it would've been too hard for her to acquire the things she needed to move forward with her plan whether it was a boat to get across the river(s) to Manhattan, or multiple vehicles to keep moving from Maryland to NYC to Vermont....

heywoode
12-30-2007, 02:25 AM
Incidentally, I found a REPACK of the dvd screener of this movie, supposed to have the slight audio sync problem fixed and be slightly better quality video. Getting it now....

N8R
12-30-2007, 03:28 AM
The copy I have is perfect no worries on sound or picture. Just a little watermark here and there

N8R
01-01-2008, 08:07 PM
I watched up until Neville caught the female infected and than I jumped to the part when Fred is used as the bait for the trap set because one of my friends who had only seen the movie once wanted to see that part again because when we saw it in theatres it looked like Fred was moving and a real person at first and to me it almost still does when you get the first glimpse at him, but of course it is just a mannequin.

We noticed some butterflies in different places like there is one in the God Still Loves Us poster on the tank when he is driving at the start of the movie and there is one when he and Sam are in the corn fields. We were trying to figure out what the one in the corn fields could have meant. The only thing we decided on was that maybe it was to signify their food source and how they are staying alive, because I felt the butterfly in the poster meant that there is still a God and everything would be okay.

I am going to watch it again right now.

heywoode
01-01-2008, 09:54 PM
I watched up until Neville caught the female infected and than I jumped to the part when Fred is used as the bait for the trap set because one of my friends who had only seen the movie once wanted to see that part again because when we saw it in theatres it looked like Fred was moving and a real person at first and to me it almost still does when you get the first glimpse at him, but of course it is just a mannequin.

We noticed some butterflies in different places like there is one in the God Still Loves Us poster on the tank when he is driving at the start of the movie and there is one when he and Sam are in the corn fields. We were trying to figure out what the one in the corn fields could have meant. The only thing we decided on was that maybe it was to signify their food source and how they are staying alive, because I felt the butterfly in the poster meant that there is still a God and everything would be okay.

I am going to watch it again right now.

I noticed the butterfly on the 'God still loves us' poster on the tank as well. I remember thinking when I first saw the movie and saw the butterfly when they were picking corn that butterflies must be immune also and it got me thinking that birds must have been also. I know that in other movies with apocalyptic viruses, most of the time, when animals feed on the dead bodies of the infected, they become infected also, and I assumed that the dogs in this movie had been infected that way.

I'm not sure what the butterfly was meant to signify in the cornfield, but he and Sam were discussing what he would say to the girl mannequin at the video store...I can only assume that the butterfly was God trying to keep him vigilant and thinking about it when he saw the butterfly on Anna's neck.

Also, another thing that bothered me was that at the end, the survivor colony had a big wall, but it didn't look totally impregnable. I would think that the darkseekers would have been able to coordinate a ladder attack, meaning they would make a human (sort of) ladder....the only thing I can assume is that there were no darkseekers in Vermont because they all pretty much migrated into the cities because that is where the food was, plus there would have been much better places to hide during the day....

muppetgal
01-05-2008, 06:16 PM
so this movie just came out in scotland on boxing day, so I've only seen it recently.

the thing that is bothering me is the death of Sam. I want to know what he injected her with, what your thoughts are on that.

here are mine:

I doubt very much he wanted to see her turn, so personally think he gave her something to kill her rather than the vaccine. I'm conflicted as to whether he then had to kill her himself because it didn't work fast enough and she turned anyway, or if he was just struggling to stop her from biting him until she passed.

I know of no one who would CHOOSE to put themselves in a position where they would have to kill/choke/strangle their best and only friend

He didn't think the vaccine worked at all, so why bother trying? Or if he did give her the vaccine why did he then not give her at least overnight to react, as he had given the rat at least one night to see. I realise he only gave the human moments to decide it didn't work, but still....Sam was not the same size as the human.

Erik
01-05-2008, 09:28 PM
so this movie just came out in scotland on boxing day, so I've only seen it recently.

the thing that is bothering me is the death of Sam. I want to know what he injected her with, what your thoughts are on that.

here are mine:

I doubt very much he wanted to see her turn, so personally think he gave her something to kill her rather than the vaccine. I'm conflicted as to whether he then had to kill her himself because it didn't work fast enough and she turned anyway, or if he was just struggling to stop her from biting him until she passed.
I know of no one who would CHOOSE to put themselves in a position where they would have to kill/choke/strangle their best and only friend

He didn't think the vaccine worked at all, so why bother trying? Or if he did give her the vaccine why did he then not give her at least overnight to react, as he had given the rat at least one night to see. I realise he only gave the human moments to decide it didn't work, but still....Sam was not the same size as the human.It's probably that simple, a very sad scene but one that makes you appreciate what a great actor the fresh prince is.

indyman37
01-05-2008, 09:56 PM
if anyone is too lazy to read or just doesn't like reading, and they would like to know what happens in the book, go to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_Am_Legend and read the plot section.

idioteque
01-06-2008, 10:42 AM
I watched up until Neville caught the female infected and than I jumped to the part when Fred is used as the bait for the trap set because one of my friends who had only seen the movie once wanted to see that part again because when we saw it in theatres it looked like Fred was moving and a real person at first and to me it almost still does when you get the first glimpse at him, but of course it is just a mannequin.

We noticed some butterflies in different places like there is one in the God Still Loves Us poster on the tank when he is driving at the start of the movie and there is one when he and Sam are in the corn fields. We were trying to figure out what the one in the corn fields could have meant. The only thing we decided on was that maybe it was to signify their food source and how they are staying alive, because I felt the butterfly in the poster meant that there is still a God and everything would be okay.

I am going to watch it again right now.

The mannequin does actually move it's head. Of course it's not REALLY moving it's head, you're just seeing it from Neville's perspective as he's obviously going a bit loony.

heywoode
01-06-2008, 01:00 PM
so this movie just came out in scotland on boxing day, so I've only seen it recently.

the thing that is bothering me is the death of Sam. I want to know what he injected her with, what your thoughts are on that.

here are mine:

I doubt very much he wanted to see her turn, so personally think he gave her something to kill her rather than the vaccine. I'm conflicted as to whether he then had to kill her himself because it didn't work fast enough and she turned anyway, or if he was just struggling to stop her from biting him until she passed.

I know of no one who would CHOOSE to put themselves in a position where they would have to kill/choke/strangle their best and only friend

He didn't think the vaccine worked at all, so why bother trying? Or if he did give her the vaccine why did he then not give her at least overnight to react, as he had given the rat at least one night to see. I realise he only gave the human moments to decide it didn't work, but still....Sam was not the same size as the human.

I skimmed the movie to the part where he gives the female darkseeker the vaccine that he was testing, and then to when he gave Sam something by injection. It appears to me that he gave Sam the vaccine. Both liquids were purple, and when he brought Sam down to the lab, he got whatever he injected her with from the same container/cooler that he got the vaccine from when he gave it to his female darkseeker test subject.

My opinion is that he gave Sam the vaccine, but he was still wacked out from having gone through being snared and attacked and was in a panic. I think had he been thinking clearly, he could've given Sam the vaccine and contained her somehow until the vaccine had a chance to work.

I also give some credence to the theory that he didn't want to see her turn. I'm sure he was emotionally attached enough to her that he wouldn't have necessarily wanted to use her for testing the vaccine. His attachment to her also could be seen as a motivating factor FOR using her, given the situation, and that giving her the vaccine would be the only possible way she would survive, even if the possibility was remote.

Good question and good discussion....

On another note, my 7 year old daughter had a friend spend the night last night (another 7 year old girl) and the friend's grandmother told us that they had taken her to see I Am Legend because "she said she wanted to see it." Of course, they tried to tell her she would be scared, but she insisted (how you let a seven year old INSIST anything is beyond me...) so they took her and then they had to leave after 15-20 minutes because, BIG SURPRISE, she was scared.

The reason for this rant is that it frustrates me to no end when I see parenting (by parents or grandparents or anyone else) this worthless. I'm sure it is not the norm, but we seem to come across SO many children who get to do whatever they want, and seem to dictate to their parents what they are/aren't going to do. Our kids have very few good friends because there just aren't that many quality children out there that we will let them spend time with. Today's revelation about my daughter's friend going to see this movie caught me by surprise, because for the most part, her friend is pretty cool and a pretty nice girl.

Sorry, just had to get that out to someone other than my wife. We have been discussing it since her friend left....If anyone who reads this has something to add about this subject, I would love to hear other opinions, even if it is off-topic for this thread....This thread seems to be nearing the end of it's usefulness anyway!

BTW, I found a very good dvdrip of I Am Legend, and used Ulead movie maker (I think that's what it's called) to convert the AVI to an ISO, and then burned it to dvd. I now get to watch it on the big screen without having to hook up my laptop to the tv....That's good because the connection between the laptop and the tv is problematic and causes minor problems with the picture quality....I'm excited to be able to simply put in a dvd and watch it!

Erik
01-06-2008, 01:46 PM
My opinion is that he gave Sam the vaccine, but he was still wacked out from having gone through being snared and attacked and was in a panic. I think had he been thinking clearly, he could've given Sam the vaccine and contained her somehow until the vaccine had a chance to work.
Thinking back, didn't he choke the dog to death? Seems like I remember that happening, maybe he tried the vaccine, realized it was useless and then decided to strangle the dog.

Hicks
01-06-2008, 01:57 PM
Popping in to say that I bought the book last week and I'm about half way through. VERY different than the movie, and I'm liking it better overall.

heywoode
01-06-2008, 01:57 PM
Thinking back, didn't he choke the dog to death? Seems like I remember that happening, maybe he tried the vaccine, realized it was useless and then decided to strangle the dog.

He definitely had to choke Sam out and kill her. It was because she started turning and the vaccine had not had a chance to work. This is where I was thinking that he wasn't thinking clearly because he should have known that it wouldn't work quickly if the vaccine worked at all. The human he had given the vaccine only started showing signs of changing back after he lowered it's body temperature with ice and the vaccine had been given a day to work.

He should have given Sam the vaccine and contained her, knowing that she would turn before the vaccine had time to work. I feel like she would've maybe died from her bite wounds before the vaccine worked even if she was contained. Had he been able to stabilize her wounds AND contain her, the vaccine probably would've saved her life.

I think those things weren't meant to be in the script because it was losing Sam that drove him to decide to end it all and that led to meeting (and being saved by) Anna.

heywoode
01-10-2008, 10:44 PM
I think I need to watch this again so I have something else to rant/talk/whine/post/gripe/opine about, and so this thread doesn't die!

C'mon Newman, you were watching the movie every friggin' day for a week or so there...you got nothing else to say?!

Hicks
01-10-2008, 11:32 PM
I finished the book several days ago (turns out I was close to the end, not the middle; the second half of the book is a collection of other, shorter, and believe it or not STRANGER stories from the author).

I liked it a lot better than the movie. I'd give the movie a B- and I'd give the book an A-. I love that the author goes to great lengths to create a scientifically explainable vampire. The story also has a big twist I wasn't expecting (which the movie doesn't even touch, nor could it considering how it portrays the infected). I also like how the book's infected act compared to the movies.

The movie OK, but the book was quite good.

kester99
01-10-2008, 11:56 PM
I am still trying to find time to watch 'Lost in Translation.' That's how far behind I am, so I haven't seen this...did see the Omega Man long ago, based on the same book.

I just wanted to give a plug to a couple of collections of strange stories, since Mal mentioned some. 'Space by the Tale', by Jerome Bixby (wrote some of the original Star Trek episodes), and 'Dangerous Visions' edited by Harlan Ellison (A Boy and His Dog). Really fine weird stuff.

Sorry. Now back to the cinema!

Erik
01-11-2008, 05:03 AM
I finished the book several days ago (turns out I was close to the end, not the middle; the second half of the book is a collection of other, shorter, and believe it or not STRANGER stories from the author).
I liked it a lot better than the movie. I'd give the movie a B- and I'd give the book an A-. I love that the author goes to great lengths to create a scientifically explainable vampire. The story also has a big twist I wasn't expecting (which the movie doesn't even touch, nor could it considering how it portrays the infected). I also like how the book's infected act compared to the movies.

The movie OK, but the book was quite good.I didn't realize that either going into the book. It kinda pi$$ed me off at first, I was reading a story about a guy throwing ping-pong balls into a fishbowl at a carnival and thought it was some sort of flashback. I read half of the next story before I knew what was going on. If the writer would have put more in about how the vampires were so afraid of him,( maybe Neville escapes for a while and women and children vamps run away screaming in fear) the ending would have been much better and the book would have gone from an A- to an A+.

idioteque
01-11-2008, 03:56 PM
I read the book, and like both of you guys I was mislead by the length. I was planning on reading the other stories but I left the friggin book at my parent's house in Indiana on accident, does anyone know if they are worth reading?

The book and the movie both have their pros and cons, both give an intimate view of Robert Neville albeit in VERY different ways. I actually think Neville's human emotional response to everything that has happened to the world is better illustrated in the book rather than the movie, his constant drinking and tirades and such.

Also the way the book ends is totally different than that in the movie, the ending is much more intriguing in the book I think and much more in tone with the story's initial sci-fi bend. Many science fiction stories are transformed into drama stories when they are released to the bigscreen, to make them more easily accessible to the masses. All I'll say without spoiling the book is that the original, more scientifically explained ending opens up many more avenues for the story.

I favor the book slightly over the movie, if only the book had utilized Bob Marley's "Three Little Birds" so well. I have all of Bob's CD's and have seen many Jamaican and other foreign films that utilize his songs and his legendary appeal, but I am Legend ranks right up there with the top of them.

Erik
01-11-2008, 06:57 PM
I read the book, and like both of you guys I was mislead by the length. I was planning on reading the other stories but I left the friggin book at my parent's house in Indiana on accident, does anyone know if they are worth reading?
The book and the movie both have their pros and cons, both give an intimate view of Robert Neville albeit in VERY different ways. I actually think Neville's human emotional response to everything that has happened to the world is better illustrated in the book rather than the movie, his constant drinking and tirades and such.

Also the way the book ends is totally different than that in the movie, the ending is much more intriguing in the book I think and much more in tone with the story's initial sci-fi bend. Many science fiction stories are transformed into drama stories when they are released to the bigscreen, to make them more easily accessible to the masses. All I'll say without spoiling the book is that the original, more scientifically explained ending opens up many more avenues for the story.

I favor the book slightly over the movie, if only the book had utilized Bob Marley's "Three Little Birds" so well. I have all of Bob's CD's and have seen many Jamaican and other foreign films that utilize his songs and his legendary appeal, but I am Legend ranks right up there with the top of them.

I don't remember them all, but I'd wait until you come across the book again rather than putting any effort into tracking it down just to read them. From what I can remember they aren't that good.

Hicks
01-11-2008, 09:15 PM
I was frustrated that the main story was over so I gave up reading them after a handful. I did enjoy the one about the Hunter doll, though; that was good.

heywoode
01-11-2008, 09:27 PM
I still haven't picked up the book...I got Quiet Strength (Tony Dungy memoir) for Christmas and have been reading that for a couple weeks. I usually only read when I'm in the bathroom, so it is slow going, although it is a fast read. I will definitely be picking up I Am Legend soon and hope to be having some conversation about it.

Thanks to all who read the book for posting thoughts on it; you all have definitely motivated me to acquire it and devote time to reading it.

Erik
01-12-2008, 08:10 AM
I was frustrated that the main story was over so I gave up reading them after a handful. I did enjoy the one about the Hunter doll, though; that was good.I forgot about that one. I think that there was a movie made about that one too, I kept getting flashbacks of the movie while reading it. I have no idea what it was called, I was probably 5 or 6 years old when I saw it.

Erik
01-12-2008, 08:34 AM
It was in a trilogy, "Trilogy of Terror". There is alot about Matheson that I didn't know, He wrote some of the most popular "Twilight Zone" stories and alot of movies (Stir of Echo's, What Dreams May Come) as well as alot of books. Steven Spielberg got his career jumpstarted with "Duel", another one of Matheson's stories. He was a busy man. http://www.scifistation.com/matheson/matheson_index.html

Naptown_Seth
01-14-2008, 01:26 AM
I Am Legend was half Oscar caliber, half epitome of what is wrong with current filmmaking.

Given the strength of films like 28 Days Later why in the world would you opt for total CGI human mutants created basically the exact same way (virus)?

But hey, why stop there when you can CGI the deer, lions and even a freaking car (or two I assume)? Rather than learn to edit, do some in camera tricks and pony up for an interesting practical why not just hand it over to the computer geeks. Freaking UGH!

And then you see the hands of Akiva all over this script. There is no good reason for a mutant "leader" with his own attack dogs and a plan to get Smith, not as the mutants are portrayed otherwise at least.


They were sitting with this homerun story of isolation ala Cast Away with Smith more than capable of delivering (which he does), paired with some slightly pushy but nonetheless solid religious/fate undertones, and apparently for the sake of meeting standard script motivations they forced in a literal protagonist to drive things forward when the situation itself was more than enough to handle this on it's own.

Pull a Dawn of the Dead situation, let the dog get killed just by chance, let Will honestly hurt himself while out, the risk of just being alone in the world when it's falling apart and unsafe, and let him go on a losing-his-mind rampage of zombie killing more like the Dawn sniping sequence or something.

This freaking brilliant film was just sitting there to be taken and some a'hole tried to turn it into a Bruckheimer film. A+ for all the stuff that wasn't that (including the Marley angle which worked well), and a big F you to the stuff that was.

I will drive to CA and punch the next filmmaker that features a humanoid opening his mouth to unreal proportions (ahem Raimi, you made the list for Spidey 3).

Naptown_Seth
01-14-2008, 01:48 AM
I thought he gave the dog pain medication so he could spend the final minutes with it before having to kill it when it turned. That situation didn't strike me as one where he was hoping for something to work as his efforts were pretty minimal.

I assume the girl was from Sao Paulo, Brazil (on the Atlantic) and they docked the boat in Baltimore to come find someplace safe. The boat was out of supplies, and they say explicitly in the film it was never meant to be a long term solution.


Heston might have struggled in Omega Man, but his efforts in Ben-Hur, Planet of the Apes and Soylent Green were powerful and emotional. People forget his character's pessimism in PotA for example. The idea that actors of other eras were lesser is just ridiculous. Some of it is style and method actors did change that, but quite a bit of it is also the fact that people spoke and behaved differently then too.

Grant, Bogart, Gable, Cagney, the Barrymores, etc were all more than capable actors. They played the act as it was meant to be played and to perfection. This is why The Roaring Twenties is still one of the great gangster films ever, why we think that Rick (edit: Jay, thanks for the smack to the face) really was PO'd that she walked into his gin joint and why everyone agreed that Rhett really probably didn't give a damn anymore at that point.


Besides the best version is not Omega Man but rather Price in Last Man on Earth.

Erik
01-14-2008, 06:14 AM
Heston might have struggled in Omega Man, but his efforts in Ben-Hur, Planet of the Apes and Soylent Green were powerful and emotional. People forget his character's pessimism in PotA for example. The idea that actors of other eras were lesser is just ridiculous. Some of it is style and method actors did change that, but quite a bit of it is also the fact that people spoke and behaved differently then too.

Got that coming in from Netflix this week.:D

heywoode
01-14-2008, 08:53 AM
I thought he gave the dog pain medication so he could spend the final minutes with it before having to kill it when it turned. That situation didn't strike me as one where he was hoping for something to work as his efforts were pretty minimal.

I assume the girl was from Sao Paulo, Brazil (on the Atlantic) and they docked the boat in Baltimore to come find someplace safe. The boat was out of supplies, and they say explicitly in the film it was never meant to be a long term solution.


Heston might have struggled in Omega Man, but his efforts in Ben-Hur, Planet of the Apes and Soylent Green were powerful and emotional. People forget his character's pessimism in PotA for example. The idea that actors of other eras were lesser is just ridiculous. Some of it is style and method actors did change that, but quite a bit of it is also the fact that people spoke and behaved differently then too.

Grant, Bogart, Gable, Cagney, the Barrymores, etc were all more than capable actors. They played the act as it was meant to be played and to perfection. This is why The Roaring Twenties is still one of the great gangster films ever, why we think that Sam really was PO'd that she walked into his gin joint and why everyone agreed that Rhett really probably didn't give a damn anymore at that point.


Besides the best version is not Omega Man but rather Price in Last Man on Earth.

I was going to disagree with you about actors of the past, but realized it is pointless to argue with you. I can agree that Heston is much better in the films you list. Still kinda cheesy in POTA and Soylent Green, but Ben-Hur is great work. All three of those had better screenplays than The Omega Man.

I will at least say that I don't agree about Vincent Price. I thought The Last Man On Earth was a complete and utter TURD. I can never get past the amateur filmmaking when watching old movies. I can agree on some of your points about I Am Legend. I especially agree that they had so much opportunity for it to be far better than it turned out to be. I still thought it was damn good and I really like Will Smith. Just about anyone else, and IAL would've been a complete failure.

idioteque
01-14-2008, 09:42 AM
I was going to disagree with you about actors of the past, but realized it is pointless to argue with you. I can agree that Heston is much better in the films you list. Still kinda cheesy in POTA and Soylent Green, but Ben-Hur is great work. All three of those had better screenplays than The Omega Man.

I will at least say that I don't agree about Vincent Price. I thought The Last Man On Earth was a complete and utter TURD. I can never get past the amateur filmmaking when watching old movies. I can agree on some of your points about I Am Legend. I especially agree that they had so much opportunity for it to be far better than it turned out to be. I still thought it was damn good and I really like Will Smith. Just about anyone else, and IAL would've been a complete failure.

Amatuer filmmaking? I guess we can agree to disagree. I like that sort of filmmaking, especially in old movies, it gives it sort of an edge. Having everything crisp and clear is nice, but there is something to be said for the grainy feel of old films. One man's trash is another man's treasure, I suppose, and we'll agree to disagree.

heywoode
01-14-2008, 10:19 AM
Amatuer filmmaking? I guess we can agree to disagree. I like that sort of filmmaking, especially in old movies, it gives it sort of an edge. Having everything crisp and clear is nice, but there is something to be said for the grainy feel of old films. One man's trash is another man's treasure, I suppose, and we'll agree to disagree.

I don't mean the clearness of it...I mean the bad angles, the bad lighting, the contrived concepts, the no attention to detail. I have no problem if technology was a hindrance, and if they did the best they could with the tools that were available. I have a problem with cheesy delivery that was such the norm back then that it is a cliche now. I have a problem with not doing a good job as an editor.

Yes, I know that the profession and all aspects of filmmaking have advanced greatly, but that is precisely my point. It has advanced greatly.

Hicks
01-14-2008, 11:10 AM
You have to start somewhere, historically speaking. I think calling it amatuer is off the mark, even though I think I see why you say it that way.

heywoode
01-14-2008, 01:07 PM
Well, it isn't the use of what tools were available at the time...that I can live with. It's where they (actors, directors, editors, etc.) could've done better, and that missed opportunity is obvious, that I have a problem.

I equate it to much lower expectations back then. I hesitate to even say "back then" because I don't know when the line in the sand was crossed. It hasn't completely been crossed even now, I don't think. There are still plenty of missed opportunities in current movies....Seth pointed out that even a movie that was a decent hit, and the subject of this thread, could've done quite a bit better given the material that was there to work with.

Maybe amateur was the wrong word, but I don't know how else to put it.....lacking in attention to detail? I dunno, that seems to point to just one facet of failure. Amateurish speaks more to several different areas of not measuring up, and not from a technical standpoint...

Not sure what else to call it...

Hicks
01-14-2008, 04:35 PM
Maybe this is worse, but "primitive" comes to mind. I don't knock them for it any more than I'd knock the pioneers of any field.

heywoode
01-14-2008, 07:44 PM
Maybe this is worse, but "primitive" comes to mind. I don't knock them for it any more than I'd knock the pioneers of any field.

I would agree with that sentiment.

I agree that it may seem worse, but it is more fitting of a description for what I'm talking about...

How about "Early Attempts At Cinematography"??!!

JayRedd
01-15-2008, 12:11 AM
This is why...we think that Sam really was PO'd that she walked into his gin joint

That's borderline unforgivable. You are now on ignore.

Naptown_Seth
01-15-2008, 02:15 PM
I would agree with that sentiment.

I agree that it may seem worse, but it is more fitting of a description for what I'm talking about...

How about "Early Attempts At Cinematography"??!!
This isn't just me saying this, it's pretty well accepted in film theory that cinematography hit it's peak circa 1927-1930, and that a focus on sound was a massive setback in visual filmmaking.

Passion of Joan of Arc is one prime example of this pinnacle. Toland's later effort in Kane, exaggerated as some aspects were (more tricks were used than is usually credited simple as deep focus), was still one that set the standard also.


And while direction is often confused with this field, that area also hit it's stride by this point. Again one need only look at Kane for numerous examples of brilliant camera staging. And just about everything coming of out Germany from 1917-1921 and Russia from basically the 20's fits this as well.

Hitchcock cribbed quite a bit from stuff he saw while working in Germany for about a year. You can watch Lang's "M" and see similarities to what Hitch then did just after that.


Don't confuse the horrible state of some prints with the quality of the filmmaking. If anything the 1970's represented a low point in film stock quality. Contrast Hitchcock's own Family Plot with his Notorious or Rebecca. They went cheap on film technology and it wasn't pretty.

I mean right now if you get a 70mm print it's IMAX only and special. Back in the day 70mm was a fairly standard shooting stock. And by the way the resolution off 70mm is far beyond HD pixel resolution. A good quality 70mm of 2001 or Lawrence of Arabia dwarfs HD still.


There is better/worse and there is what you are used to or what recently passed. I mean Mann went digital to get some great dark shots for Vice, but it also introduced plenty of grain. It's a style, not an absolute better or worse. People used it then and now.

Film technology has been pretty impressive for a very long time. As much money as there is in it today, that's nothing compared to the relative money maker it was back in 1920, 30, or 40. Back then you had film factories and tons of effort into making top notch product.

Naptown_Seth
01-15-2008, 02:22 PM
That's borderline unforgivable. You are now on ignore.
Sam Spade, what's the problem. When Brigid comes into his office I mean.

;):o

I feel ill. I must now also put myself on ignore. Although in my defense I bet Sam did think "oh great, just what we needed". Sure he was nice to her, but he knew this was going to send Rick on a bender.

heywoode
01-15-2008, 10:33 PM
This isn't just me saying this, it's pretty well accepted in film theory that cinematography hit it's peak circa 1927-1930, and that a focus on sound was a massive setback in visual filmmaking.

Passion of Joan of Arc is one prime example of this pinnacle. Toland's later effort in Kane, exaggerated as some aspects were (more tricks were used than is usually credited simple as deep focus), was still one that set the standard also.


And while direction is often confused with this field, that area also hit it's stride by this point. Again one need only look at Kane for numerous examples of brilliant camera staging. And just about everything coming of out Germany from 1917-1921 and Russia from basically the 20's fits this as well.

Hitchcock cribbed quite a bit from stuff he saw while working in Germany for about a year. You can watch Lang's "M" and see similarities to what Hitch then did just after that.


Don't confuse the horrible state of some prints with the quality of the filmmaking. If anything the 1970's represented a low point in film stock quality. Contrast Hitchcock's own Family Plot with his Notorious or Rebecca. They went cheap on film technology and it wasn't pretty.

I mean right now if you get a 70mm print it's IMAX only and special. Back in the day 70mm was a fairly standard shooting stock. And by the way the resolution off 70mm is far beyond HD pixel resolution. A good quality 70mm of 2001 or Lawrence of Arabia dwarfs HD still.


There is better/worse and there is what you are used to or what recently passed. I mean Mann went digital to get some great dark shots for Vice, but it also introduced plenty of grain. It's a style, not an absolute better or worse. People used it then and now.

Film technology has been pretty impressive for a very long time. As much money as there is in it today, that's nothing compared to the relative money maker it was back in 1920, 30, or 40. Back then you had film factories and tons of effort into making top notch product.

You obviously know far more about this subject than I do...

I'll go back to using 'amateur-ish' as my description for movies as late as the 1980's that didn't try very hard to have any sort of realism even if the story was a work of fiction and heavily contrived. Little things like Vincent Price pretending to hit a stake with his hammer with the end of the stake off camera and obviously not hitting anything...They could've used a dummy or had something to rest it on so that he could actually hit the stake with the hammer and have it seem like he was actually hitting it, and that it was actually going into something. High school films are more convincing than some of the stuff I have seen. I'm not focused on that one particular example, it is just a good example.

That kind of stuff is what I keep posting about.

I can appreciate the art (that is definitely what it is) you post about above, and that is not what I was making derogatory comments about....

SoupIsGood
01-15-2008, 10:52 PM
I am Legend was entertaining in a Will Smith way.

The CGI boogeymen and the thing about whether a God is out there made a joke of the film, though.

Will Galen
01-18-2008, 09:43 PM
Now that I watched that part again, she said she was from San Pablo (or maybe still Sao Paulo, I can't make it out 100% with her accent)...San Pablo is just outside San Francisco, so she would've had to cross the entire continental US with all the darkseekers and she didn't look like she had been through that kind of an odyssey...

She did say that they had come from Maryland after hearing him on the radio, and that they were going to Vermont to the survivors colony.




If you want to know what she said, turn on captioning and just read it.

heywoode
01-18-2008, 09:53 PM
If you want to know what she said, turn on captioning and just read it.

Or you could just post what she said, given that you already did it....:-p

Will Galen
01-19-2008, 11:21 AM
Or you could just post what she said, given that you already did it....:-p

No I did not.

heywoode
01-19-2008, 11:52 AM
Well, the avi I downloaded does not have subtitles, and that translates to no subtitles when I converted the avi to an ISO so I could burn to dvd.......

bellisimo
03-05-2008, 05:34 PM
an alternative ending to I AM LEGEND has been leaked...

http://forums.gametrailers.com/showthread.php?t=329096

Hicks
03-05-2008, 05:54 PM
Interesting. Nice find.

bellisimo
03-05-2008, 06:05 PM
thx...

with this ending there were possibilities for a sequal...but i guess they just decided not to deal with all the paperwork to get a second one up and running...

Erik
03-06-2008, 06:14 AM
I like how it showed him get close to the Vamps, and how it showed more that he was their "monster". But I thought it was pretty dumb that they just left him alone. I wish they could have worked the first part of that in somehow and still made the very ending like the one in the theatres.

tdubb03
03-06-2008, 07:47 AM
I guess I should start by saying I liked the movie, nothing amazing, but I'd watch it again.

I really like that alternate ending much more than the theatrical. Never understood why he'd sacrifice himself at the end, seemed like he could have fit in that box to. It shows the audience the Nightwalkers, whatever you want to call them, are a lot more human-like than shown before, which would help explain some things from earlier in the movie like the trap and the mannequins in the store.

N8R
03-07-2008, 02:20 AM
Watched the alt ending last night. I liked it but it was unrealistic plus it put more of a love story theme to the movie. I did always wonder why he didnt just try to give the girl back so it was cool to see how that ending would have played out.

I think the theatrical one was good but it was also good to see Will's character live and I would have liked to see a part 2 on the rebuilding of society

heywoode
03-07-2008, 09:25 AM
Thanks thanks thanks for posting the alternate ending!

I thought the alt ending was much better than the theatrical ending. The alt ending also proves the point that was argued in this thread about whether the trap that got Neville was his own doing or the lead vampire's doing. I and many others argued that it was the lead vampire and that he wanted his woman back. Now we know.

What I don't like about the alt ending is that I don't know if the lead vamp just wanted to be a vamp and have his woman back or he understood that his woman was being cured...I would assume he just wanted her back and wanted to remain the same or he would have wanted Neville to inject him also.

All in all, I loved this movie. I found it fascinating and one of the best of the genre ever produced. I know I may be in the minority on that, but I can live with it. This movie did it for me; very much so. Loved seeing the alt ending and would LOVE for there to be a sequel.

N8R
03-07-2008, 09:58 AM
I agree with Heywoode for the most part....didnt think I would be saying that. I think I just liked seeing Neville live cause I like Will Smith in a man attraction kind of way and he didnt deserve to die. I do think it would have been cooler if she spoke and you could see she was cured. I would love to see part 2