-
Website
http://www.filmschoolrejects.com/ -
Original page
http://www.filmschoolrejects.com/news/i-am-legend-alternate-ending-but-is-it-a-better-ending-or-even-a-happy-ending.php -
Subscribe
All Comments -
Community
-
-
Top Commenters
-
Popular Threads
This ending shows that the creatures haven't lost their human essence after years of this plague. There is sort of a parallel of real life events (a-bomb) and fictional (cancer curing disease). What is done is done and so humanity must conform and adapt to new conditions. I guess the reason the theatrical ending was used is because of the God factor. The deus ex machina was the butterfly. This ending shown gives off an atheist view where humans are only in control. The butterfly mention is only meant to be a coincidence.
I prefer this ending.
But I still don't like either.
with the relationship of the mutants... it was just implied.
Plus, Neville dying made his character complete.
But for script over all I would have preferred something that was more true to the book.
Like this one at fanfiction that I found through simplyscripts.com: http://www.fanfiction.net/s/2667084/1/
The book is great. Largely because of the ending(s), the movie is just so-so. 28 Days/Weeks later does the same thing, but better.
It wasn't clear to me in this version - does he still find the anti-dote - to save mankind? If so, then this communication/peace offering with the mutant strain of mankind may have saved them both. It also demonstrated that the mutated humans have a social order, and are capable of higher functions, such as planning and working as a social group toward a common goal. They are not animals.
I'll push it further, and say it also draws parallels with real world events. We're 'saving' Iraq by killing tens of thousands of innocents, not to mention thousands of American soldiers? To what end, so they can be more like us? Hubris.
SERIOUSLY?
-J
That said, it's just a movie... and the ending doesn't prevent me from being entertained all to hell by the movie as a whole!
Neville gives a vile of blood to the girl, but knowing that the creatures must be stopped locks her and the boy in the vault. Then Neville injects a vile of the female's blood into himself and sits fearfully through a good part of the night waiting for the creatures to break in and EAT him knowing that this will at best save them or at worst kill them. Once morning comes the girl and her sons walks through a lab full of heavy breathing comatose creatures that look somewhat more human. Then they escape.
Although I agree the book ending would have been more epic, I had no problems with and thoroughly enjoyed the original flim ending. The only problem I had was the religious implication of the ending, especially the church symbolism at the very end. "To me FAITH is what gives hope to many in the world." I'm sorry, but faith didnt create the cure to the virus, science did.
all their human attributes and were mindless creatures. In the theatrical ending it proved to
be true. The theatrical ending butchered the rest of the movie. I believe he was so
persistent to find a cure because he thought they had lost what made them human and
didn't want that to happen. When he realized they still had it I think he was able to accept it
and leave.
Still don't like the look of the creatures though.
Now, granted, I haven't had the chance to read the book. But the vampire plot has never interested me in the first place, so I doubt I'll be picking it up any time soon.
However, if I were asked which ending to see in theaters...it would be this one. The one they choose was great, and it left me heartbroken and wanting more. They had it so I was thinking of the movie, Will Smith's performance, and the amazing people who put together such an artwork for days to come. But at the same time, I felt the ending didn't have the right closure. It had closure alright, but not the right kind.
Here, we see something happen. More than just *BOOM* We see contact with the Dark Seekers that we had been waiting for since we started watching. We felt Robert's fear as the Alpha Male stood, deliberating his next move. We see closure in the end, as the three survivors head off to hope. Not to mention, that ending right there - no cure having been made? It follows the book way more than *BOOM* There was no cure in the book. The book was about a man who became a legend for simply being human, the only human among those who were now vampires.
Sure, it sucks balls that Will Smith's character and those in Vermont now live in fear of Dark Seekers...but who knows. Maybe that might just happen to us one day.
There are a few problems I do have with this ending that keep me from finding it all superior though. For example, the whole butterfly idea. I never got that in the original ending, and sure as hell didn't here. Why did Robert randomly turn over the Dark Seekers arm? What if there was no tattoo? And what did the butterfly stand for? Innocence? Flying against the wind? Standing out? It was too confusing for my taste.
Overall, both endings are great, and thank you SO much filmschoolrejects for having the alternate posted. Because Walmart sucks and I picked up the wrong DVD last night. Whether Robert dies, or he and the others find shelter in Vermont...I Am Legend was an amazing movie that deserves more credit than it's been given. If anything, you have to respect the film makers for stepping out of the box and giving I Am Legend a twist that we can all relate to. Would you rather have seen a bad Resident Evil vampires-rule-you-over movie…or something about an infection that could possibly happen? The latter is more relatable, is it not?
I know everyone is sick of hearing about the book, but the movie really only covers about half of the "last man on earth" plot in the books. One of the key points in the book (wihout going into alot of detail) is that he finds "human" woman, and finally believes there a hope for humanity, only to have her taken away. This ultimately leads to him being captured and killed. I think a sequel that covered this part would have be even better and given the title its orginal meaning.
In ending, I think this film was incredible to begin with. However, the alternate ending would have made it a truely "great film."
It was essential for Neville to die, it made it more than a horror/thriller movie, it made it a drama. And to everyone who is "insulted" by the Christian ending. 1. It wasn't a Christian based ending, she was right, as stated in the movie their was a plan to meet at Vermont, Neville just believed everything went wrong. 2. Getting offended by the church at the end is the most stupid thing I've heard, everywhere you go you will find a church, people like to have faith. This damn generation makes the biggest deal out of small little things like a church in the ending and a Christian being right. You would have much preferred the ending that took away the sacrifice of a man to keep his cure safe. Yes you could tell throughout the movie that the "zombie" male had feelings and therefore had human feelings, but here's the thing, the alternate ending was cheesy and unrealistic, a brutal creature such as the infected in this movie would not stop attacking to save the one he loved. In fact he would have kept at it, like in the original ending, trying to get what he wanted by force. You could tell he had human thought in the movie, but sacrifice is something we all have to do and it made a hell of a lot greater ending.
I give the original ending a 9.5-10
I give the alternate ending a 7-10
Three years earlier, KV caused a crazed state of hyper-metabolism in the infected people who survived (about 9% of the population). But, viruses can mutate, and infected people can recover. Neville knew only about the original Infecteds, who were monstrous and had cannibalized all of the healthy survivors. Neville wasn't aware that the Infected were beginning to regain their intelligence and reason, form social orders, and learn to love and care for each other. The Infected were reclaiming their humanity. Thus, by capturing subjects for his medical research, Neville had become the boogeyman of the newly-developing social order.
Did you notice how the Alpha Male stared at the wall of photographs? Suddenly, the wall took on the tinge of a serial murderer's gallery. The humbled and contrite Neville softly apologized before the Infecteds left his laboratory.
Then maybe the producers should have titled their almost-total "re-imagining" of Richard Matheson's classic novella something other than "I Am Legend".
Kinda reminds me of that other big-budget Will Smith sci-fi blockbuster of a few years back, "I, Robot". Almost total re-write of Asimov's book, keeping only the title and main character's names. Nothing else. Why bother? If yr going to buy the rights to a book, maybe you should porduce that book as faithfully as possible --- or, and here's an idea --- write some original material and come up with yr own title. But, expecting originality out of Hollywood is an exercise in futility it would seem.
As for the alternate ending, I find it much preferable to the Christian-themed cheese-fest of "God Has A Plan For You". As others have noted, the Other Ending ties up the fore-shadowing, and paints Neville as the real monster of the story. He was a legend in the same way as the bogey-man is a legend: He comes when yr sleeping and steals away yr loved ones.
Having just finished watching the alternative ending, I have to say while not perfect, I found
it to be much better. It makes clear why the 'lead' vampire held such a personal hatred for
Neville. And it opens up another avenue for thought, ie. who's really the monster?
Really, I think I'd finally favor the first ending, due to the fact that if they really are regaining their human senses, the first thing a human would most likely do is fall into a rage after looking at that wall and slaughter the character Will Smith plays.
Why did she think some one told her to find him?
Why would she have to be there?
The creatures DID in fact kill off most of the humans and they were NOT loving, thinking and caring creatures. .
Perhaps a different picture was painted in the book but in this movie the infected massacred the survivors of the virus.
i would of preferred Nevil(Will Smith) to have Survived, taking the blood sample. the childs mother trying to protect the child dieing from trauma from the "Attackers", Nevil throwing the grenade and grabbing the child in anger, while moving into the little hole there. just in time for them to break through. the grenade would go off and hear screams of agony. then silence as they boy cries for his mother, and Nevil attempts to soothe him and quiet him. as it seems to be over. they rush out, nevil grabbing the dead mother and carrying the child to the vehicle. quickly putting the mother in the rear, then putting the child in the back.
driving as fast as they can to get out of the city they discover the New Jersey turnpike is actually fine just boarded up. they quickly drive through it blasting through the boards, then driving to some location. just before it ends, you see the encampment of the survivors in the background and nevil stands with the child at the mothers headstone on a hill over looking a lake.
i think that would of been the perfect ending, would of left a responsibility, and a cure, and left room to allow for a GOOD Sequel.
It left a sense that Man went to fair and could not correct this mistake...
If one were to think about it, the alt ending could be though of as "christian" too with even the infected having humanity(kind of like the worst sinner still having humanity) but without the perceived symbolism of the church. All in all, much better than I expected. From the trailer, I thought it was just a run of the mill post apocalyptic movie but this was a movie with a message, unlike so many action movies.
I agree with most that the theatrical version is not inline with the message of the book (despite Neville dying) in that Neville is Legend for finding a cure for humans rather than legend to the vampires as a murderous relic of the past. The movie (either version) shares very little with the plot of the book beyond the basic idea of disease creating vampires that destroy civilization.
However, the theatrical version creates a new and much deeper context, which is basically the role of God in the story. I suppose some haters will automatically despise any mention of God and say that's the problem, but I think this theatrical version and the God role bring a whole lot to the story, which hasn't been done before in the book or previous film adaptations.
Here's my take (in as few words as possible):
1. The butterfly. The butterfly is the underpinning of the entire movie. The butterfly is the symbol of God’s will or God’s intervention. Think about the occurrences:
• Marley - If Robert had listened to her and not packed her and his wife on the chopper, they'd (possibly) be alive and with him. By not listening he lost his family to fate (not the disease) in a freak accident. In the small point where he was influenced by her (the handing off of the dog), there is salvation and Sam lives.
• The tanks (nobody ever mentions this) - in the opening drive through the city, Neville corners hard to avoid some tanks. The camera pauses on the tanks and a poster with the Hand of God reaching to the hand of man and the slogan "God Still Loves Us, Do We Still Love Him?" One poster is torn in the shape of a butterfly, firmly establishing the God-Butterfly link.
• Anna's neck (theatrical version)- the butterfly convinces Neville that Anna was in fact sent by God to help him save humanity. In the alt ending, the butterfly on the subjects neck convinces him that the vampires are not out to kill him, but rescue the girl. His “listening†is not just listening but in both versions it's clear he is choosing drop his despair and disbelief, along with his insistence that he is right and there is no god or plan and chooses to listen to and believe in God's will and purpose for him and chooses to follow that path.
• There are a few more – a pillow in Marley’s room, and the butterfly while Neville is picking corn. For the corn incident in particular I am having trouble identifying the significance… anyone have any ideas?
2. The role of God. The entire movie is a commentary on the relationship between man and God. Briefly summarized: Man attempts to become god-like by defeating death (cancer) with disastrous consequences that result in the destruction and death of man and society. This is essentially the story of the Garden of Eden and man's fall.
The resulting plague is "sin" which changes and kills everyone. Neville feels it is his responsibility to save mankind even though he didn't cause the fall. He doesn't have the disease and can't get infected... i.e. he has no sin in him. He offers to save mankind both from sin with his cure and directly from death via his radio broadcasts (come to me and I will give you salvation). Furthermore, the cure or salvation of man comes from his blood. In the theatrical version he has to die to give this gift to mankind. Could there be a more direct correlation to the story of Jesus dying to save man though his blood? Neville even spends 3 years working on his cure - about the same amount of time Jesus spent on earth actively preaching.
There is more, but I’m sure you get the idea.
3. IF you accept the role of God and Neville as the Christ figure, there are very interesting questions around the meaning of the posters featured in the film.
“God Still Loves Us, Do We Still Love Him?â€
Given the context of the film, who is God and who is Us?
• Is God the biblical God and Us is all of mankind, which is going through the spread of disease and death at the time the poster was made? It would be unclear if man still loves God, although many feel that the community at the end of the film is religious, indicating that man does still love God.
• Is God the biblical God and Us is the human survivors? In which case Neville does not love God, but is redeemed at the end and embraces God.
• Is God Neville and Us is the vampire race? In which case God is trying to save Us, but Us doesn’t want to be saved, rejecting God’s salvation in favor of their current existence.
• Or…
If you go with the alt ending, you lose the Neville as Christ theme, and reduce God to merely fate and circumstance. The butterfly becomes for a symbol for Neville’s personal beliefs, and in the end he chooses simply to modify his view of the vampires rather than embrace the path of a higher power. It’s still a good story, but not quite as deep. I suppose it’s the preferred version for the atheists in the crowd.
I've just seen the alt ending on bluray, it's quite a bit better IMHO. With the reveal that the 'monsters' are still human comes Neville's realisation that he is a serial murderer, I think this is an interesting place for for Neville to end his anger fuelled journey into hell.
The book ending is still the best of the three.
The alternate ending sucks so much. They're "monsters" (or whatever) and they feed with non-infected people... wtf then with the "humanity" in them?! It's far better to keep the monsters to be monsters. If they had still humanity in them, then the virus is just a joke and the movie loses the initial idea. The whole agony and the same everyday struggle are the main things that keep people excited and to wait for something to happen (but not to wait for such a shitty end). A sea full of possibilities for an sequel. With the alternate ending, it's not the same movie I started to watch. It's just crap then. And with the death of Neville, it's still all open for a sequel... isn't it? Only, Will Smith can't be starring in it :).
Sorry for my bad english... it's not my first language.
Thanks for reading
If you have a deep mind, read the book and you will then understand. Unfortunately, most people don't use their minds too much and they will never really understand the authors point. That's just too sad! Keep watching movies though.
i think the other ending is better.
sorry, i am not a film critic or student of drama. i do not know the definition of "hate speech". i apologise for any involvement of "hate speech" within this comment.
And just a small reply to Johnny O's comment:
It's not about "deep mind" or understanding, it's just about the storyline in the movie. And like you said, both endings are incorrect, which means that the creators of the movie didn't follow the book. They focused on the "evil" in them, not the "good" or whatever, and that with no single clue of their "good". In the book are, I'm sure, a lot more information about their human nature, but in the movie - none! And that's why people "making comments that have no background", 'cause there's no initial idea of the human background of the "zombies" in the movie at all. And then, it's a "mistake" of the makers, not the viewers.
No offence, just debating.
Thanks