I Am Legend ending.

DublinGAA96

Hiya lads,

I was just watching I Am Legend for the first time last night on Tg4.
But I didnt have a clue what was going on in the end when he gave the mutant the person he had been testing on in his lab. Could somebody explain this to me?

Duke Leonal Felmet

**** films don't require explaining.

Morag

Go read the novelette or read the plot which is up on the wiki.
That remake was a heap of crap, you'd be better of watching The Omega man.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_Am_Legend_%28novel%29

Mickeroo

DublinGAA96 wrote: »

Hiya lads,

I was just watching I Am Legend for the first time last night on Tg4.
But I didnt have a clue what was going on in the end when he gave the mutant the person he had been testing on in his lab. Could somebody explain this to me?

Wasn't the test subject part of the mutants tribe or whatever? They were attacking his house to get her back or something. Long time since I watched it.

Mitch Connor

DublinGAA96 wrote: »

Hiya lads,

I was just watching I Am Legend for the first time last night on Tg4.
But I didnt have a clue what was going on in the end when he gave the mutant the person he had been testing on in his lab. Could somebody explain this to me?

As the poster above says, the 'mutant' he was testing was one of them, and they were coming to get her back. He gave her to them as a peace offering of sorts.

that is one of the two endings the film got.

in the other he blew the place up and died

Morlar

DublinGAA96 wrote: »

Hiya lads,

I was just watching I Am Legend for the first time last night on Tg4.
But I didnt have a clue what was going on in the end when he gave the mutant the person he had been testing on in his lab. Could somebody explain this to me?

That was a different ending to the one I am used to. That one was better imo.

The mutant scrawl on the screen was in the shape of a butterfly.

Like the butterfly tatoo on the shoulder of the 'mutant' he had experimented on.

You could take it that he realised they had evolved to have feelings like love and attachment etc. Or you could take it that this was just the moment he realised what had been the case all along. Either way he knew he had been wrong to treat them like rats, & therefore opened the door to release her back to her partner & take responsibility/ any potential consequences for his wrong actions.

Goldstein

What happened is the screen writers were idiots and didn't understand the title of the book their film was based on.

fontanalis

Goldstein wrote: »

What happened is the screen writers were idiots and didn't understand the title of the book their film was based on.

Yes, it was more I am Leg end than I am legend.

irishh_bob

i enjoyed the film aswell , right up to the point where the predictable american rebuke of smiths apparent athiesm surfaced via anna , as for the alternartive ending , yeah , its the alternartive ending which TG4 always show

pixelburp

I think I Am Legend is a good example of how the good, first two-thirds of a movie can be completely undone by a shoddy last segment. Personally, I suspect the sudden about-turn in the movie's tone - turning into sentimental, religious hokem - was a panicky move by the studio; they probably realised during filming they had been backing a fairly grim, pessimistic movie all along, and not a family-friendly Will Smith feature.

To be fair, until the holy-roller appeared and the movie went south, I thought I Am Legend was one of the better post-apocalyptic movies made in recent years. Ignore too the bizarre decision to make the vampires CGI creatures & instead focus on Will Smith's character. Watching his torment, loneliness & slow descent into insanity was gripping & tragic stuff & props are deserved for that aspect.

But yes, all the good dramatic work was instantly undone the moment the other humans turned up & the tone was hijacked by an almost laughably conservative agenda

Galvasean

It is quite daft how much effort was put into shoehorning religion into the film when the book goes out of it's way to remove all religious elements from the vampire myth.
I must agree though, I enjoyed the film (despite the CG vamps) up until the other people showed up. Just like that all of the isolation which had been driving the film up until that point simply vanished.

I read the book after seeing the film and good God (woops) that's one heck of an ending!
How many times have they tried to adapt the book now? Last Man On Earth, Omega Man, the abandoned Arnie version, I Am Legend (technically two attempts considering the alternate cuts).... 5 by my count and they still can't get it right!

pixelburp

Well all the adaptations, including the (Italian!) Vincent Price version, were effectively big-star vehicles, which doesn't help. The money instantly becomes a factor, and I guess you get more studio interference from that. Not to mention interference from the star name too.

I always thought the novel was the kind of beast more suited to a small-scale or small-budgeted adaptation anyway. In many ways it was nearly like a stage play: a tight focus on 1/2 characters, restricted to the inside of one man's (albeit besieged) home. Pity the book isn't in the public domain as we'll never likely see that now.

faceman

If you want to watch a faithful adaptation of I Am Legend, watch "The Last Man On Earth" which stars a young Vincent Price.

Despite its age, low budget and lack of CGI enhancement, its a FAR superior film

Johnny Bitte

Only saw this version on TG4 to and much prefer it.
One it explained

who set the trap that knocked him out (from the orginal I thought he had set it but just forgot) and I did prefer the ending. The creature literally inches from his face was quiet terrifing I thouhgt.

dark crystal

Galvasean wrote: »

It is quite daft how much effort was put into shoehorning religion into the film when the book goes out of it's way to remove all religious elements from the vampire myth.

Personally, I suspect the sudden about-turn in the movie's tone - turning into sentimental, religious hokem - was a panicky move by the studio; they probably realised during filming they had been backing a fairly grim, pessimistic movie all along, and not a family-friendly Will Smith feature.

i enjoyed the film aswell , right up to the point where the predictable american rebuke of smiths apparent athiesm surfaced via anna

Guys, I've seen this film a couple of times and I can't for the life of me figure out where the religious/conservative agenda comes into the film at all

Was this theme dealt with on an alternative ending I haven't seen perhaps?

Boo Radley

dark crystal wrote: »

Guys, I've seen this film a couple of times and I can't for the life of me figure out where the religious/conservative agenda comes into the film at all

Was this theme dealt with on an alternative ending I haven't seen perhaps?

If I remember correctly the arrival of the woman and her kid was the start. She was a believer in God who she claimed spoke to her telling her of other survivors or something like that and she had faith blah, blah blah, that kinda thing.

human repellent

Film was very good up until the women and her son came into the movie.

Manach

dark crystal wrote: »

Guys, I've seen this film a couple of times and I can't for the life of me figure out where the religious/conservative agenda comes into the film at all

Was this theme dealt with on an alternative ending I haven't seen perhaps?

Same here. It seems atheist types are quite good at sensing the dead hand of religion everywhere, rather like witchfinders actually.

chin_grin

He was saving that bacon. /credits roll.

rossc007

Manach wrote: »

Same here. It seems atheist types are quite good at sensing the dead hand of religion everywhere, rather like witchfinders actually.

The woman came in preaching.... film got worse, true story.

homerun_homer

I always hated the poster for it's tag line.

"The last man on Earth is not alone."

True he's not alone but he is not the last man on Earth so it's false advertising.

krudler

I love the first hour of I Am Legend, then it all falls apart once

the dog dies

there was a audible "what the ****?" from the audience when the woman and kid come into it, perfectly clean and nourished despite civilisation having desintegrated. at least Smith has an excuse hes got all the provisions he needs.

the cgi is absolultely woeful as well for something with such a huge budget, have seen tv shows with better effects. It does have some brilliant scenes though, when Sam runs into the building and Smith is trying to find her and stumbles across a group of infected huddled around each other is a fantastic moment.

homerun_homer

When I first saw this film in the cinema I was with my then gf and she was a bit off that night so the scary bits were a bit too much for her and she asked if we could leave, so we left the packed cinema. As we left I saw he was setting up a trap.

I was really enjoying it and wanted to see how it would play out. I went back a week or two later and wish I hadn't.

fontanalis

krudler wrote: »

I love the first hour of I Am Legend, then it all falls apart once

the dog dies

there was a audible "what the ****?" from the audience when the woman and kid come into it, perfectly clean and nourished despite civilisation having desintegrated. at least Smith has an excuse hes got all the provisions he needs.

the cgi is absolultely woeful as well for something with such a huge budget, have seen tv shows with better effects. It does have some brilliant scenes though, when Sam runs into the building and Smith is trying to find her and stumbles across a group of infected huddled around each other is a fantastic moment.

Didn;t they decide to go the cgi route for the vampires well into the shoot?

Galvasean

dark crystal wrote: »

Guys, I've seen this film a couple of times and I can't for the life of me figure out where the religious/conservative agenda comes into the film at all

When Smith asks the woman where they came from she replies, "God sent us" and she makes frequent references to having faith and whatnot.
Not to mention that the final shot of the film is

a big church

.

The King of Moo

fontanalis wrote: »

Didn;t they decide to go the cgi route for the vampires well into the shoot?

It was definitely well into pre-production: they did test make up which you can see at this link.


They look pretty good, very creepy, it's a pity they didn't go with them, as apparently the director felt the make up wouldn't have allowed the actors to create emotional enough performances.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j22RthvabUM

irishh_bob

dark crystal wrote: »

Guys, I've seen this film a couple of times and I can't for the life of me figure out where the religious/conservative agenda comes into the film at all

Was this theme dealt with on an alternative ending I haven't seen perhaps?

will smiths charecther is clearly seen to be in despair , despair is a sin apparently

when the charecther of anna shows up , smiths charecther is dismissive and contempteous of her apparent hope and optimism , so much so that smith shouts emotionally , thier is no god , to which anna calmly responds , thats just not true

i dont mean to sound offensive but i envy your absence of anylisis , thinking too deeply isnt good

irishh_bob

RopeDrink wrote: »

I didn't pay much heed to the religious garbage - That sort of slant usually always makes my eyes roll and just ensures I have an automatic dislike for the character.

I've no qualm with religion in general, everyone has their own beliefs, but in a movie, if someone starts rambling that they are sent from God, or try to convince someone God was speaking to them and telling them the way etc etc it's just too hard to take that tone seriously, especially in a world FAR beyond the ancient religious fanatacism of old.

Ignoring that factor made sure I kept enjoying the movie - Yep, the CGI was definately crummy but oh well.

i just find it hard to swallow the idea that 5.9 billion people had to die before god got the finger out and saved the day through anna from brazil

MungBean

I'm confused as hell here. Is there an alternate ending or something ?

Ending I seen was

The mutant he was experimenting on had been cured, other mutants had traced him to the house and were tying to get in through the screen. He realised she was cured, took a sample of the blood and gave it to the woman and child to bring to the camp or whatever. He pulled a grenade and blew himself and everyone up. Woman and child drive to the camp and all is saved

Whats you all talkin about ?

dark crystal

irishh_bob wrote: »

will smiths charecther is clearly seen to be in despair , despair is a sin apparently

when the charecther of anna shows up , smiths charecther is dismissive and contempteous of her apparent hope and optimism , so much so that smith shouts emotionally , thier is no god , to which anna calmly responds , thats just not true

i dont mean to sound offensive but i envy your absence of anylisis , thinking too deeply isnt good

When it comes to Will Smith films, thinking deeply really isn't a prerequisite in most cases!

If the woman was a believer in God, I don't necessarily that brings any larger meaning to the film in general - It was just a facet of her character. Herself and her son seemed to become a sort of subsitute for his own wife and child, who left earlier in the film.

I honestly didn't read anything deeper than that into it.

krudler

The King of Moo wrote: »

It was definitely well into pre-production: they did test make up which you can see at this link.


They look pretty good, very creepy, it's a pity they didn't go with them, as apparently the director felt the make up wouldn't have allowed the actors to create emotional enough performances.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j22RthvabUM

thats much better than what they went with

Phony Scott

I haven't seen the film since it came out, but I do remember there was an element of 'if you tamper with God's will' worldwide devastation will result.

What disappointed me most about the film wasn't nessessarily the CGI per se, but the complete lack of an antagonist. The book was so much better in that regard. Must watch the film again, but this time with the alternative ending...

Duggy747

The King of Moo wrote: »

They look pretty good, very creepy, it's a pity they didn't go with them, as apparently the director felt the make up wouldn't have allowed the actors to create emotional enough performances.

Yes, because the CGI character's portrayed soooooooo much more emotion with their ability to stretch their jaws in a completely stupid and unrealistic, plastic way.

Rightfully, they should've just ditched the big black eyes with electronic eyelids on the practical make-up if they wanted the emotions. Especially, considering they scrapped it altogether for the CGI replacements which showed nothing but feral anger.

I enjoyed the movie for the 1st part, right up until when the woman and kid came along where it just became a by-the-numbers action movie, ignoring the compelling moment where we realise the Smith's character was seen as the monster all along by those he hunted against.

The scummy pair also caused him his life and ate his bacon :pac:

Mellor

Manach wrote: »

Same here. It seems atheist types are quite good at sensing the dead hand of religion everywhere, rather like witchfinders actually.

Galvasean wrote: »

When Smith asks the woman where they came from she replies, "God sent us" and she makes frequent references to having faith and whatnot.
Not to mention that the final shot of the film is

a big church

.

So she was a reglious character. Those people exist in the world, right or wrong. I don't see the issue having them in any film.

Her beliefs have nothing to do with what actually happened in the film.
Religion-fanboys exist in real life, makes sense to include them in films.

irishh_bob wrote: »

i just find it hard to swallow the idea that 5.9 billion people had to die before god got the finger out and saved the day through anna from brazil

She believed god would save mankind. Thats her character, whats the big deal.

Just bacause they were saved in the end doesn't mean that god did it. Even if she still believed that's what happened.

Galvasean

Mellor wrote: »

So she was a reglious character. Those people exist in the world, right or wrong. I don't see the issue having them in any film.

It wasn't so much that her character was religious that was annoying, but rather the ham-fisted approach at introducing religion to the film. It added nothing to the film except badly structured dialogue.
Religious elements can be excellent tools in terms of film, particularly horror films (eg: the Exorcist), just not when a character shows up out of the blue and says "God sent us". It's bad writing pure and simple. Even if the woman and kid had no religious connotations about them the film would have still spiraled downhill when they showed up. It's like the writers felt they needed to ad extra characters to the film so just threw them in at a deus ex machina moment and fobbed away their far too convenient arrival by saying, "Oh well, we'll just say God sent them". They could have been psychic or just incredibly lucky and it still would have sucked balls.

Boo Radley

Mellor wrote: »

So she was a reglious character. Those people exist in the world, right or wrong. I don't see the issue having them in any film.

Her beliefs have nothing to do with what actually happened in the film.
Religion-fanboys exist in real life, makes sense to include them in films.



She believed god would save mankind. Thats her character, whats the big deal.

Just bacause they were saved in the end doesn't mean that god did it. Even if she still believed that's what happened.

I suppose the big deal is that in the original version of the story (the book) there was none of this God stuff thrown in.

I see what you're saying that these people exist in the real world and therefore are fair game for films but her character and the whole God angle didn't do a damned thing to improve the story.

You're left with an overwhelming sense that the message of the film was that God is good, real and all the other stuff.

Couldn't be further away from Richard Matheson's intended story.

This wasn't 'I am Legend' it was closer to

'I thought I was the last person on Earth but I'm not and I also thought there was no God but there is. Silly me.'

Ruu_Old

faceman wrote: »

If you want to watch a faithful adaptation of I Am Legend, watch "The Last Man On Earth" which stars a young Vincent Price.

Despite its age, low budget and lack of CGI enhancement, its a FAR superior film

Agreed. I have been working my way through Price's films and it was one of the first I saw.

irishh_bob

dark crystal wrote: »

When it comes to Will Smith films, thinking deeply really isn't a prerequisite in most cases!

If the woman was a believer in God, I don't necessarily that brings any larger meaning to the film in general - It was just a facet of her character. Herself and her son seemed to become a sort of subsitute for his own wife and child, who left earlier in the film.

I honestly didn't read anything deeper than that into it.

never really saw anna and the kid as any kind of replacement for his wife and kid , anna and the kid represented hope and redemption for smiths charechter , before they arrived , he had more or less given up and was in the process of committing suicide by zombie

Mellor

Boo Radley wrote: »

I suppose the big deal is that in the original version of the story (the book) there was none of this God stuff thrown in.

I see what you're saying that these people exist in the real world and therefore are fair game for films but her character and the whole God angle didn't do a damned thing to improve the story.

You're left with an overwhelming sense that the message of the film was that God is good, real and all the other stuff.

Couldn't be further away from Richard Matheson's intended story.

This wasn't 'I am Legend' it was closer to

'I thought I was the last person on Earth but I'm not and I also thought there was no God but there is. Silly me.'

I get what you are saying, I just don't agree with you that the film is suggesting that they were correct and that God did save them.

I tend to ignore religious types in real type. I guess I do the same in films

voxpop

I understood the religious aspects where in contrast to the will smiths characters purelly scientifically view on the muts/vamps.the first half is a great movie,smith chasing the dog into the 'hive ', the trap and the dog resolution.smith going near crazy.

busyliving

DublinGAA96 wrote: »

Hiya lads,

I was just watching I Am Legend for the first time last night on Tg4.
But I didnt have a clue what was going on in the end when he gave the mutant the person he had been testing on in his lab. Could somebody explain this to me?

So they showed the alternative ending...the worse ending...

They really could have made it a great movie, but as usual they rush the ending and ruin it

ziggyman17

who set up the trap that smith steps into ??

busyliving

ziggyman17 wrote: »

who set up the trap that smith steps into ??

Himself, at that stage he was started to really lose it

Sudden Valley

busyliving wrote: »

Himself, at that stage he was started to really lose it

I thought it was that the mutant with the dog that set the trap. he saw Neville capture his female mate by using the same technique, so copied it, showing they had some form of intelligence.

busyliving

Sudden Valley wrote: »

I thought it was that the mutant with the dog that set the trap. he saw Neville capture his female mate by using the same technique, so copied it, showing they had some form of intelligence.

Been awhile since I've seen the film, but i always thought that he'd just lost it and forgot about the trap

Mellor

voxpop wrote: »

I understood the religious aspects where in contrast to the will smiths characters purelly scientifically view on the muts/vamps.

Exactly, juxtposition rather than an underlying message

busyliving wrote: »

Been awhile since I've seen the film, but i always thought that he'd just lost it and forgot about the trap

I doubt it.

The trap used the manican from the video store. So if Neville had set it up it would of been quite recent, so doubtful he'd have forgotten, we also should of seen him setting it up.