I am Legend

Bishop149 · Post by **Bishop149** » Sun, 27. Jul 08, 02:24

Ok, ok. . . . I realise I am a bit late to this party but I just had to put something down.

So . . . . after the film came out I heard many people singing the praises of the book and saying as little about the film as possible!

My interest was peaked and I got a copy of the novel and put it on list of things to read. . . . eventually read it and thought it was a very good read.

I just watched the film. . . . . .

OH MY GOD!!

I was actually speechless for about 2 minutes afterwards. . . . . how can they even say its based on the book. . . . I can think of about three points of similarity in the entire thing. . . . . They even changed the meaning of the BLOODY TITLE!! Dramatically!

Now I have no problem with hollywood taking the occasional liberty in adaptation to cinema. . . . virus not bacteria does actually make more sense, We brought it on ourselves? Ok, nice angle to take. They keep the identity of the "monsters" a secret for a while. . . ok, builds suspense. . .

Totally and utterly changing the entire rest of the plot, including the most powerful bit, the ending, and thus removing the whole point of the story!?!?! NO NO NO!!!

/Rant

Galaxy613 · Post by **Galaxy613** » Sun, 27. Jul 08, 03:28

Welcome to the club.

cappedup · Post by **cappedup** » Sun, 27. Jul 08, 10:43

hmmn, ive seen the film and intend to read the book.. i wonder what i will think.. i thought the film was great as i had no literary reference with which to feel let down..

muppetts · Post by **muppetts** » Sun, 27. Jul 08, 11:45

same with the bourne films

apogee · Post by **apogee** » Sun, 27. Jul 08, 20:15

Will Smith in film of book = film nothing like the book

remember i-robot

Nyax · Post by **Nyax** » Sun, 27. Jul 08, 21:10

apogee wrote:remember i-robot

That was at least an entertaining film though.

Java Jawa · Post by **Java Jawa** » Sun, 27. Jul 08, 21:14

Nyax wrote:
apogee wrote:remember i-robot
That was at least an entertaining film though.

To a very limited degree. As an Asimov fan I was livid when I saw it.

It's not even a fracking novel! It's a collection of short stories!

Apollo911 · Post by **Apollo911** » Sun, 27. Jul 08, 21:43

Urgh, can't people appreciate films 'based' on books even though they've read the books. It's like in principal they won't even give the film the chance if it isn't exactly like the book! It's hollywood, obviously they're going to change it, they rewrite history!

Mars Mug · Post by **Mars Mug** » Sun, 27. Jul 08, 22:14

I’ve seen three versions of the story, Vincent Price, Charlton Heston, and now Will Smith. All three films had of course the same theme, but all three were different, they were all entertaining in their different ways. I have never read the book and don’t intend to, but I am so very glad that Hollywood does not feel the need to be tightly tied to the fine details of books. Perhaps those who are so very disappointed when a film does not match a book precisely should stick to reading books and avoid watching films?

Antilogic · Post by **Antilogic** » Sun, 27. Jul 08, 22:17

I actually perfer when the film is different to the book. I already know what happens with the book, and enjoy watching exploring different possablties within the universe the book represents. If it excatly mirrors the book I often find it boring, if it completely screws it up and makes the book look bad then I dont like it either, but if it takes a different direction like I am Legend does then I quite enjoy it.

The_Abyss · Post by **The_Abyss** » Mon, 28. Jul 08, 00:20

Just have a look at the alternate ending to this version, and you see how truly bad it could have been, as Will Smith cruises off into the sunset with woman and kid in tow.

The point about the real story in the book was that Neville spent his days battling against the vampires, hunting and killing them until he reached the point where he had become exactly what the vampire once was - a killer of their (now dominant) species, only operating in light instead of in the shadows. This whole plot was completely lost in the film.

Mars Mug · Post by **Mars Mug** » Mon, 28. Jul 08, 00:49

The_Abyss wrote:The point about the real story in the book was that Neville spent his days battling against the vampires, hunting and killing them until he reached the point where he had become exactly what the vampire once was - a killer of their (now dominant) species, only operating in light instead of in the shadows. This whole plot was completely lost in the film.

And if you haven't read the book and are totally unaware of that story line then does that still make the film bad?

Is it possible to watch a film and think it's brilliant, then read the book afterwards to then think 'the film was brilliant but the book is even better'? It seems to me that when people have read a book then watch the film then the film rarely lives up to expectations. Are we just saying that books are simply a better way of telling a story?

Snokid · Post by **Snokid** » Mon, 28. Jul 08, 01:02

the man makes a good point

DrCBVI · Post by **DrCBVI** » Mon, 28. Jul 08, 01:10

Mars Mug wrote:
The_Abyss wrote:The point about the real story in the book was that Neville spent his days battling against the vampires, hunting and killing them until he reached the point where he had become exactly what the vampire once was - a killer of their (now dominant) species, only operating in light instead of in the shadows. This whole plot was completely lost in the film.
And if you haven't read the book and are totally unaware of that story line then does that still make the film bad?

Is it possible to watch a film and think it's brilliant, then read the book afterwards to then think 'the film was brilliant but the book is even better'? It seems to me that when people have read a book then watch the film then the film rarely lives up to expectations. Are we just saying that books are simply a better way of telling a story?

I think generally speaking, yeah, a book probably is a better way as it allows for more intricate storytelling, getting into character's heads in the way few movies attempt. Granted, there's a few brilliant films and a lot of guff books, but generally, books come out on top.

The problem with a film adaptation failing to resemble the book at all (as Abyss mentions, the point of the book is completely missed in the film) is simply... why bother? Why bother buying the rights to the movie-of-the-book if you're just going to brush it aside? Why not just come up with your own story? An obvious answer is that they do it just to cash in on any popularity the book has and that, I imagine, is what irks a lot of people.

Carlo the Curious · Post by **Carlo the Curious** » Mon, 28. Jul 08, 01:18

Mars Mug wrote:I’ve seen three versions of the story, Vincent Price, Charlton Heston, and now Will Smith.

Interesting, I didn't know there was a Vincent Price one (or, it was so dissimilar to the book I didn't make the connection!).

Mars Mug wrote:Is it possible to watch a film and think it's brilliant, then read the book afterwards to then think 'the film was brilliant but the book is even better'? It seems to me that when people have read a book then watch the film then the film rarely lives up to expectations. Are we just saying that books are simply a better way of telling a story?

Off-hand, I can't think of any film that was better than the book. Alien, maybe. A few comic-book adaptations have been okay though.

The_Abyss · Post by **The_Abyss** » Mon, 28. Jul 08, 01:21

It is a good point indeed. After all, when I've read a good book, I've visualised a lot of it along the way - a lot of reading is still left down to the imagination, even with the most descriptive of texts.

For me it is just disappointing when such sweeping changes are made that they totally remove the original story, at which point having read the book you will inevitably be disappointed unless the film can prove to be on a par or better with the new story. This rarely happens though. I will quite happily concede that I would have enjoyed I Am Legend far more if I hadn't read the book, but my overall experience would have been cheaper if I hadn't. Where I Am Legend probably suffers is from it's age - being some 50 years old and also having been converted to film twice already, there was probably less will and perceived need to stick to the story.

Another recent example was Stephen King's The Mist. I first read this years ago, and went through periods of excitement and dread when I found out it was finally being made into a movie - after all let's face it - Stephen King adaptions have normally either been terrible or excellent - Christine, Carrie, Shawshank Redemption on the positive, most other stuff on the negative. The Mist proceeded on a relatively low budget to virtually mirror the story word for word, scene for scene, and for me managed to translate the book pretty effectively to the scren. Until the last 10 minutes, where clearly in a fit of Hollywood "you can't end a film like this" re-writing, they added an additional part which totally took the ending away from the imagination of the viewer / reader, and handed it to you on a plate, although admittedly not the normal "everything is ok now" ending normally scene.

More recent Stephen King works are now also in production - From a Buick 8 and the truly excellent Cell - I am left with the same mixture of anticipation and dread for these.

On a positive note, one I am really looking forward to is The Road. This book was one of the more utterly depressing yet gripping reads I've had in the last few years. There is scant hope throughout the whole film, even only a glimmer at the end. I'd be very interested to see if this is re-written for the big screen. A couple of big names have signed up for it, but I can't tell any longer if that is good or bad. Same with The Time Traveller's Wife - another superb book with a story I fear too complex for Hollywood to do justice.

Java Jawa · Post by **Java Jawa** » Mon, 28. Jul 08, 01:25

Apollo911 wrote:Urgh, can't people appreciate films 'based' on books even though they've read the books. It's like in principal they won't even give the film the chance if it isn't exactly like the book! It's hollywood, obviously they're going to change it, they rewrite history!

I am usually fairly forgiving when it comes to inter-media adaptations of anything, including books to film. I enjoyed Lord of the Rings much more than many pre-movies fans did, because although I had read it numerous times when the movies came out, I wasn't bogged down by the literature.

However, there are some things I cannot forgive. I, Robot was one of them. They took the title of the book and one of the short stories and spun it out into a movie! There are so many good Asimov books that would make great films, like the epic Foundation series. It just seems like Hollywood wanted the title so they could say "based on the works of Isaac Asimov" and get however much more revenue from betrayed Asimov fans. As a film it is generic action-pulp with a heavy reliance on CGI and special effect-based action scenes, and little emphasis on the story, which could've been a redeeming feature. It was executed badly with little vision, and I resent the butchering of Asimov's work a lot more than how crap/good the movie was.

MGA · Post by **MGA** » Mon, 28. Jul 08, 01:37

Pah, the only reason to watch the film was for Will Smith because people expect him to be the Fresh Prince back in the day.

Or as one photoshopped poster said

"The last man on Earth is not so Fresh."

"I am irritated by my cousin."

Still, I do find some books were better than the films, take Harry Potter for example. There were so many scenes in the Order of the Pheonix that would have been incredible to see that weren't there and others were simply changed for the worse.

It's even more annoying that say a film is made on a classic TV show that one would have watched as a child i.e. Thunderbirds, one of my all time favourites. The live action film that was released recently was so bad that the only quote from the newspapers was from a children's paper (funday times). I watched with father to see if it was any worse than it seemed. I was right, only the awesome Thunderbird 2 and a good interpertation of the character Brains made the film bareable let alone watchable.

Jericho · Post by **Jericho** » Mon, 28. Jul 08, 11:57

The simple fact is that books into films are rarely that faithful. Books have so much narative and insight into what characters are thinking etc, that it is almost impossible to translate into a film.

Lord of the Rings managed it very well for the simple reason that the books are quite simpley written (by that I mean that they are filled with descriptions of the countryside and descriptions of the action or dialogue). i.e., elements that can easily be transferred to the film format.

Do Androids dream of Electric Sheep for example had a huge section of the 'fake' religion and the question of Deckard being a replicant removed from the film Blade Runner.

(there really is no indication that Deckard is a replicant in the film other than the unicorn and Gaff's comment "Its a shame she won't live, but then who does?" and these are in no way guarantees.)

In the book there are far more questions raised.

With Stephen King: The Running Man the film I think is an overlooked gem. Sure, it is nothing like the book, but I think the basic principles are there (but with a happy ending).

I haven't read Legend, maybe I will. I disliked the film. Anyone seen the alternate ending?

Mars Mug · Post by **Mars Mug** » Mon, 28. Jul 08, 18:57

Carlo the Curious wrote:Interesting, I didn't know there was a Vincent Price one (or, it was so dissimilar to the book I didn't make the connection!).

The Last Man On Earth (1964), Vincent Price, is the first of the adaptions of the book. Like I have said, I have not read the book, but from the descriptions people have given here this sounds like the closest of the three films with Vincent Price being more dark and tragic than the stars of the other two films.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_Am_Legend

http://uk.imdb.com/title/tt0058700/

I don’t read books myself, but I expect those that do put so much of their own imagination into reading that a film is likely to be a disappointment. Films are for lazy people like me who want to be told a story and entertained without having to put in a great deal of effort.

My problem with films is that I will logically dissect them, as I think I would a book, so if I watch a Sci-Fi film and find a glaring logical flaw then that’s what spoils a film for me.

egosoft.com

egosoft.com

I am Legend

I am Legend