I Am Legend Alternative Ending

[K]

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

[Universal]

Neither ending is perfect, but i kind of like this one better.

[DMN in the House]

It was alright. I liked the actual movie ending better, and the book tops both of them. The book had such a badass ending that anything else was anti-climactic. The book's ending is the reason the book is named 'I Am Legend'. This was alright, but too... 'happy' for the tone of the film for me.

EDIT: I do have to say that it is nice to see that this ending had more 'human' behavior from the mutants/vampires/whatever, because in the book there was a segment of them that showed completely human behavior.

Edited March 6, 2008 by DMN

[Gabriel]

I hated the original ending. It was too preachy in the same way Signs was. An otherwise perfectly good movie that was tainted by those in power wanting to push the religious undertones to the forefront.

This one feels a lot better, and I personally did enjoy it more. I'm surprised it's up for viewing, what with it being a major selling point for the DVD.

I haven't read the book though. A lot of stuff doesn't age well for me. Some older books I adore, and other ones I can't really get into despite how much I try. What was the ending from the book?

[Your Mom]

How did the book end?

[apsham]

Spoiler: Click here to view

Well the book was quite different, in the book people basically become vampires after becoming infected and Ruth is an apparently uninfected person that Neville runs into and after initial mistrust they fall for each other. Later though, he finds out that she is infected (he kills not only the fully vampiric people, but also those who are just infected). She knocks him out and then leaves a note saying that she's from a society that has found a way to keep the disease at bay, and tells him that they are going to come to destroy him... so leave. Well, he stays so they get him but she gives him a pill so that he doesn't feel pain.

The whole ending revolves around the fact that this new society regards HIM as a monster, I Am Legend refers back to the fact that people regarded vampires as legendary creatures who killed people in their sleep.. well Neville was a legendary creature that killed the infected AND vampires in their sleep.

Yeah.

[Gabriel]

That ending would have worked so much better in the movie too. A bit of a downer, yeah... but not every movie needs to end with the heroes walking into the sunrise filled with hope.

Of course, they would have had to devote more time to the creatures, to give them more distinct characteristics and show that there are the primal ones, but that there are also regular infected.

[LL!]

Well, comparing the two endings, I'd say I prefer the theatrical ending over this. I dunno.. I think that syco made the most sense of it in calling it "too happy" with the tone of the movie.

Something I found now, that I have no idea how it will work, is this: http://imdb.com/title/tt1167498/. It has bad written all over it.

[K]

This alt end is sort of like the book, except without the death.

He realizes that the Vamps have formed their own culture, they're intelligent and that, then he looks over at the wall of his failures and realizes that, essentially, he's been capturing and murdering peoples friends and family. Like the book, he has become the creature of legend that takes your children in the night (day), tortures them and murders them.

[DMN in the House]

Yeah, it is more like the book. I just really liked the book.

They left it open for a sequel, which I'm sure will involve some sort of 'war' between the infected and the non-infected. It'll make a lot of money, have some nice special effects, and be completely worthless.

[K]

Ehhh, I think a sequel might be alright in a popcorn flick kinda way.

[DMN in the House]

Probably. I guess I was just put off due to really digging the book.

[Redefine Sick]

So...why doesn't everyone go watch the more accurate depiction of the book?

The Last Man On Earth has three things going for it.

A) It's more accurate to the book.

B) It doesn't star Will Smith.

C) It stars Vincent Price.

[DMN in the House]

Whats wrong with Will Smith? He wasn't the problem with the movie, and is a fine actor.

[Zaz]

Will Smith is awesome, and is one of a few actors I'll go watch a movie for just because he's in it (well, of course, the plot has to interest me slightly, but you get my point).

[NobBe Nobbs]

Whats wrong with Will Smith? He wasn't the problem with the movie, and is a fine actor.

[Redefine Sick]

Whats wrong with Will Smith? He wasn't the problem with the movie, and is a fine actor.

[GoGo Yubari]

Whats wrong with Will Smith? He wasn't the problem with the movie, and is a fine actor.

It begins with "s", ends with "y" and rhymes with "ientology".

Which has absolutely nothing to do with him as an actor.

[DMN in the House]

BUT ITS WITTY! HE HATES SCIENTOLOGY! HE'S SO FUNNY! AND WITTY! OH BE, YOU SLAY ME!

[modernoni]

I honestly didn't dislike the theatrical ending, regardless of how far it strayed from the book's original plot. A lot of people would call it preachy...but I honestly liked that. As a Christian, I enjoyed the religious undertones. I don't think it "ruined the movie" in any way. If you aren't religious, hey good on you, it never explicitly states "God exists, in your faces." So I don't see the point in saying that's what ruined the movie. Was it better than the book? Heck no. Was it better than The Last Man On Earth? Again, no. But it was a good movie. Will did a very good job in my opinion.

This ending, to me, seemed quite a bit like a medium between the book's ending and the theatrical ending. And that wasn't a bad thing. That being said, I preferred the theatrical ending to this one because...well...it ends on more of a downer. ^_^; This one seemed too cheery for the atmosphere of the movie, as has already been said. But the book's ending was still by far the best because it's so epic. To him, they're monsters. To them, he's a monster. It's a beautiful twist that you don't see coming.

On the subject of a sequel: God in Heaven, I hope not. There's NO need for a sequel whatsoever. Will there be one? ...Probably. What'll it be about? Most likely the war of Humans versus Infected or some other cliche concept. Will it suck? Oooooooh Yeah. Will it make money? Totally. And that's the driving power behind all sequels. I really just hope Will doesn't magically return for the sequel. I love the guy, he's charismatic, he's entertaining, he's got a good look. But he's dead. He better stay that way. Retconing the ending to go with the alternate ending would be the only logical way to bring him back...but it would lack sense. Most people who saw the movie in theaters won't buy the DVD and even less will probably see this alternate ending. Thusly the audience would probably be confused when they see Will suddenly alive and well in the sequel. But I can see it happening because most audience members wouldn't say anything. Another, albeit slightly worse, way of doing a sequel would be to have this movie just be a dream and then Will suddenly wakes up and we get...this...movie again...or something to that effect. Or they could do a prequel. I could see that happening too.