why was I Am Legend's ending changed?

They babied it up for people so they would have a clear cut bad guy, good guy, etc. Whether or not it made any sense.

I'm assuming you're talking about the ending where Will Smith has the young vampire and it explains that the vampires are actually intelligent and are just trying to get their daughter back. Which is why the traps are there. And it also explains the title of the movie.
 
That's been the big question since the film was released. Someone with enough power got annoyed with the ending I'm guessing and demanded it changed.
 
Wow. That ending would have been miles better than what we got. And would have been pretty in tune with the book.
 
The only ending I saw was

The one where Will Smith dies.


To be honest, I prefer it to the one I just saw, that seemed too cliche to me that the monster shows feelings abandons his rage for his love and they go their separate ways. Seems too silly to me. I liked it when it revealed that they were just too far gone and too animalistic and Will Smith had died.
 
That could work if they had pushed that theme in the movie Raziaar, but the story develops more in the direction of the original ending, and the recut version just neuters it.
 
Like the outcome of the ending would of made a difference...

The movie has WILL SMITH in it. Many people would flock to this movie, regardless because he always produces big box office numbers with audiences.

That alternate ending should of been in there.
 
I would have to agree that this original ending is much better. The re-cut ending was the only thing I didn't really like about the movie when I saw it the first time.
 
In the book, wasn't will smith's character captured by them, and he ended up killing himself in the end?
 
Yeah, theres a few other key differences too.
Theres no kid, and the woman is one of the vampires and is there to spy on him.
 
Raziaar said:
The only ending I saw was

The one where Will Smith dies.


To be honest, I prefer it to the one I just saw, that seemed too cliche to me that the monster shows feelings abandons his rage for his love and they go their separate ways. Seems too silly to me. I liked it when it revealed that they were just too far gone and too animalistic and Will Smith had died.
Click to expand...

The point is, there was never any rage in that monster. The whole reason the monsters were attacking will smith and trying to capture him was so that they could get back their daughter. Will Smith then looks at the pictures of the "monsters" that he had killed while trying to find a cure, and realizes that they're not the monsters -- he's the real monster, he's their legend... in the same way that vampires are legends to us. The vampires don't WANT to be saved by a cure; they want to be left alone.


Plus, the alternate ending explains the butterfly motif and also clears up a contradiction made by the theatrical ending. If the vampires exhibit no human behavior or intelligence like will smith's character stated at the beginning of the movie, how did they figure out to use traps? There's also a couple more scenes cut out of the original movie, in which the woman character asks will smith of the possibility that the vampires might have retained or developed intelligence.
 
I preferred the grenade ending, it seems more realistic, and just all round better.



If these mutated infected humans behave like wild murderous animals then thats what they are, suddenly throwing in this bullshit about how these large mob of them that attacks human survivors is all of a sudden good intelligent guys is BS.

Somewhere in their raging regressed minds they might think humans are evil, but it doesn't change the fact that they are killers and they kill humans, hence as far as I am most viewers are concerned they are the bad guys, that doesn't take away from Will Smith's character, you don't need that soppy BS ending to get closure on the character, which the movie is ultimately about, so really your preferred ending is up to you, there is no right or wrong one, but yeah, I prefer the grenade sacrifice one.
 
Jerry_111 said:
The point is, there was never any rage in that monster. The whole reason the monsters were attacking will smith and trying to capture him was so that they could get back their daughter. Will Smith then looks at the pictures of the "monsters" that he had killed while trying to find a cure, and realizes that they're not the monsters -- he's the real monster, he's their legend... in the same way that vampires are legends to us. The vampires don't WANT to be saved by a cure; they want to be left alone.


Plus, the alternate ending explains the butterfly motif and also clears up a contradiction made by the theatrical ending. If the vampires exhibit no human behavior or intelligence like will smith's character stated at the beginning of the movie, how did they figure out to use traps? There's also a couple more scenes cut out of the original movie, in which the woman character asks will smith of the possibility that the vampires might have retained or developed intelligence.
Click to expand...

Except the movie made no indication at all that they were even vampires except for the pain and fear of sunlight. If there was supposed to be any loyalty to the books as far as them being vampires, it was certainly downplayed heavily.
 
Because directors have a habit of listening to their shitty test audiences. Instead we got a piss poor ending that riddled the rest of the movie with plot holes.
 
I thought that the ending of the film was abrupt and very illogical. I thought the book's ending made a lot of sense, because in the novel, Neville figures out that as the vampires had once been the legendary monsters that preyed on humans, Neville is now the monster who murders the society of vampires.

The monsters in the film were terrible CGI, and I think that they could have used actual people with makeup to better effect. I also think that if the film tried to show us that the vampires had an actual sense of intelligence rather than being simple generic monsters, the original ending would have more effect.
 
I like this ending better. Someone must've thought that a heroic sacrifice would make the movie more epic.
 
Oreolek said:
I like the movie ending.He's a legend,afterall.
Click to expand...

He's a legend in the alternate ending. He's a legend to the vampires; the scary human who hunts down their kind at night and kills them while he tries to "save" them.
 
Doomguy132 said:
I thought that the ending of the film was abrupt and very illogical. I thought the book's ending made a lot of sense, because in the novel, Neville figures out that as the vampires had once been the legendary monsters that preyed on humans, Neville is now the monster who murders the society of vampires.

The monsters in the film were terrible CGI, and I think that they could have used actual people with makeup to better effect. I also think that if the film tried to show us that the vampires had an actual sense of intelligence rather than being simple generic monsters, the original ending would have more effect.
Click to expand...

That makes so much more sense than this entire movie. Wow. Why didn't they go that direction in the film? It would have been a much better movie.
 
Didnt really like this movie. Having the original ending would have made it better tho.
 
Because I Am Legend is a gay ****ing movie with a gay ****ing actor with gay ****ing producers.
 
Prefer the original ending over the one released, however the CGI Vampires were awful, up there with the Robots in I,Robot as just plain substandard CG. I can't help but wonder if they paid Smith less, they might of had better effects.
 
I preferred the "grenade sacrifice" ending myself personally.

Just another classic example though how screenwriters change the story of a popular book, comic, videogame, in an attempt to make it more appealing to wider audiences.
 
Saturos said:
I preferred the "grenade sacrifice" ending myself personally.

Just another classic example though how screenwriters change the story of a popular book, comic, videogame, in an attempt to make it more appealing to wider audiences.
Click to expand...

A wider, and less educated audience, yes.
Had they the original ending, people would be like "What? That's weird, I don't get it."

nurizeko said:
Clearly someone didn't grow up with the wisdom and awesomeness of the fresh prince. :laugh:
Click to expand...

Oh I grew up with the Prince alright.
 
zombieturtle01 said:
A wider, and less educated audience, yes.
Had they the original ending, people would be like "What? That's weird, I don't get it."
Click to expand...
I just thought the original ending made more since tbh. Due to the nature of how the vampire beasties were designed in the movie, and despite somewhat of intelligence and sense of self-awareness, they exhibited mostly animalistic and primal behavior. It wouldn't make any since for them to suddenly be like, "We were a peaceful race! Look what you've made us become!"

Most "book/videogame/comic" to, "movie" translations are stupid though. The Resident Evil movies are a prime example. Except for Chris Redfield, Albert Wesker, and the zombies/monsters, those movies were basically an action/horror series with the RE license, while based very loosely on the videogame RE's story. It wasn't what I knew and loved, so to me it was stupid. Since I've never read the I Am Legend books however, I'm left with nothing but the movie's translation.
 
toaster-chan said:
You're missing the point. They're supposed to look like wild murderous animals so that you think that's all there is to them. Then, when it turns out they were just trying to save the girl, it makes you take a step back and think about who's really be bad guy.

"It doesn't change the fact that they are killers and they kill humans?" It doesn't change the fact that he's a killer and killed them.

There are hundreds of movies out there where the monsters stay the monsters all along, but that's not the point of this one. The point of this book, and the original point of the movie, was to make you think about what it really means to be a monster.
Click to expand...
That's not how I envisioned them. To me, the reason why they set traps for the good doctor was because he was a threat to their "hive". I envisioned their behavior to be like a "pack", or "nest" in which the survival of the hive was the most important, not the life of a single vampire.

I never once had the feeling that the Alpha male/patriarch really cared about the female captive, but that since the doctor was able to capture one of them, suddenly he's a threat to the entire community, or "hive".

Then again, remember I've never read the book. It's just that the way the screenwriters presented the movie made since to me. I can forgive fanboyism of the books though, as I was upset at how much hollywood butchered the RE story. The Nemesis for example, should have murdered Alice without question according to it's behavioral pattern from the game series, but that's an entirely different thread. :>
 
I doubt anyone can really be a "fanboy" of the book, since it's been around for 50 years and has had many adaptations.
I never once had the feeling that the Alpha male/patriarch really cared about the female captive, but that since the doctor was able to capture one of them, suddenly he's a threat to the entire community, or "hive".
Click to expand...
One of the problems with that view is that she isn't the first one he's captured, his wall is covered with dozens, maybe hundreds, of polaroids of his test subjects. I agree that one or two other nods to their smarter nature would help the ending, but the grenade one still seems sudden and forced.
 
i don't get it....aren't humans food for those diseased monsters (why the **** do you keep calling them vampires)?

so how the hell would these monsters even exist, they don't seem to grow crops or raise animals. by just watching the movie the grenade ending was way more believable. a disease is loose and turning people into monsters, that eat other people until there are none left.
it just doesn't make sense that these monsters have a unique culture/society.
 
We're calling them vampires because that's what they're described as in the book and every other movie version. Even in the book they're closer to the zombies in 28 Days Later than vampires, but their sensitivity to light is why they get the label.

Part of the problem comes from the omissions that the movie makes (the vampires are a fully functioning society in the book). However, the movie's version lines up more of a comparison for Neville himself. He doesn't grow anything, or raise livestock either. They're survivors of the same sort he is.
 
jverne said:
i don't get it....aren't humans food for those diseased monsters (why the **** do you keep calling them vampires)?
Click to expand...

In the book they're vampires. Plus even in the movie they're vulnerable to day light, they turn you into one of them by biting you- they're represented more as zombies but they have vampire-esque traits.
 
Direwolf said:
We're calling them vampires because that's what they're described as in the book and every other movie version. Even in the book they're closer to the zombies in 28 Days Later than vampires, but their sensitivity to light is why they get the label.

Part of the problem comes from the omissions that the movie makes (the vampires are a fully functioning society in the book). However, the movie's version lines up more of a comparison for Neville himself. He doesn't grow anything, or raise livestock either. They're survivors of the same sort he is.
Click to expand...

fully functional...so what do they eat?
 
In the book version we never find out much about their society, the revelation that it even exists is very sudden. They seem to basically be normal people with a condition that they need to medicate. I'd assume they eat the same things people do.

They never cover much of that in the movie either. They go after Neville and the dog, but it's assumed they probably have some other means of feeding themselves too. Either they scavenge, or they hunt as Neville does.
 
Direwolf said:
In the book version we never find out much about their society, the revelation that it even exists is very sudden. They seem to basically be normal people with a condition that they need to medicate. I'd assume they eat the same things people do.

They never cover much of that in the movie either. They go after Neville and the dog, but it's assumed they probably have some other means of feeding themselves too. Either they scavenge, or they hunt as Neville does.
Click to expand...

meh the original story seem to have even more holes in it. i think the movie version is more believable, but i agree that it kind of renders the original ending useless.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

bbson john
Hi everyone. I am new to this forum!
Replies
11
Views
6K
Tollbooth Willie
Tollbooth Willie
-smash-
ARG or Easter Egg found inside Danger Zone update
Replies
2
Views
20K
BabyHeadCrab
BabyHeadCrab
MFL
Fascinating look at the ongoing psychological evolution of flat hieirarchies.
Replies
2
Views
2K
Tollbooth Willie
Tollbooth Willie
B
Barking Dog Studios' work for Valve
Replies
0
Views
12K
Barnz
B
B
Community Interviews: Final Exchange development team
Replies
0
Views
5K
Barnz
B
Back
Top