Jump to content

Talk:I Am Legend (film)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by JimDunning (talk | contribs) at 04:48, 31 December 2007 (→Marley influence: sign your posts with four tildes). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Archive

Visual effects

I Am Omega

This is the second time I've just discovered someone removing I Am Omega from the lead. Crappy DTV rip-off or not, it is still the third I Am Legend film adaptation. Alientraveller (talk) 20:21, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A rip-off is not the same as an adaptation.

I Am Omega is not an adaptation of the Richard Matheson novel in any way, shape or form. 'I Am Omega' has a different storyline and features a different main character named Renchard. Furthermore, 'I Am Omega' does not say based on the novel by Richard Matheson in its film credits anywhere. The owner of the film company The Asylum who made the movie 'I Am Omega' also does not claim that it is based on the Matheson novel. 'I Am Omega' is a film produced by The Asylum who make knockoff films that are borderline copyright infringement of bigger budget movies. Some previous films by The Asylum include "Transmorphers", "Snakes on a Train", "The Da Vinci Treasure", etc. Additionally, here is an article from The New York Times where the owner of The Asylum talks about their "mockbusters" and says that all of their movies are original stories [1] Wikipedia should stick to facts and not spread baseless misinformation. JohnnieYoung (talk) 00:04, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That article says nothing about I Am Omega. It's a hop, skip, and jump to apply that to this particular film. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 00:46, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that New York Times article doesn't mention I Am Omega because it was written before that movie came out. And I didn't claim that it did talk about I Am Omega. What I did say about the article is that the owner of The Asylum talks about the type of films that his company produces and how they make them seem similar to current blockbuster movies but that they are actually all original stories. [2] I was pointing out this statement by the maker of the film in question that all of their movies are original stories to show further proof that this recent film of theirs I Am Omega can't be an adaptation of the Richard Matheson novel I Am Legend since that wouldn't make it an original story. Additionally, I will point out again that on the official website for the I Am Omega film, they show "Written by: GEOFF MEED" with no Based On A Novel By Credit [3]; at the IMDB page for I Am Omega, they show "Writer: Geoff Meed" with no Based On A Novel By Credit [4]; also at the IMDB page for I Am Omega, you can see that the main character's name is Renchard not Robert Neville as it is in the novel and the Will Smith movie. But the bottom line is that I saw that there was incorrect information in this article and I thought I would submit a correction. My corrections are accurate and I think everyone actually agrees with these facts now but apparently I have stumbled into some "Edit War" where users and editors alike seem to be more concerned with protecting their territory than the accuracy of the information in Wikipedia. JohnnieYoung (talk) 01:24, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You may want to assume good faith about other editors' intentions. Accusations of ownership rather than focus on the content don't help interpersonal matters. Now, the New York Times article would be applicable for the article about the company, but as it does not specifically name I Am Omega, it is synthesis to apply the article to the film. Surely it can address the films mentioned in the article, but it cannot be universally applied to all of the Asylum's projects afterward. At the Asylum's website, none of the film listings have a "Based On A Novel By Credit"-type attribute. Also, the argument of the main character's name not being Renchard is inapplicable because in The Last Man on Earth, the protagonist is Robert Morgan. The assertions made here and at I Am Omega have been personal analysis -- "Despite some reports to the contrary, the similarly titled 2007 direct-to-video feature I Am Omega has no official relation to the novel or any of its three film adaptations," and "This has led to some confusion among film fans which is no doubt the intention of film distributor The Asylum who have used this marketing strategy in the past..." What's apparent to you may not be apparent by the rest of us, as there's no reliable source that explicitly calls I Am Omega a rip-off. My suggestion is to further assess the situation with reliable sources and determine what kind of mention is warranted in this article or the other article. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 02:10, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • News Blaze: "That, in turn, was followed by The Omega Man (1971) with Charlton Heston and, more recently, by I Am Omega (2007), a straight-to-video rip-off released just last month."
  • Union-Tribune: "I Am Omega is, in fact, I Am Legend -- or at least something eerily similar... Now the low-budget production house The Asylum, just in time for the new "Legend" adaptation, has released its own coattails-riding version, straight to DVD. No surprise -- The Asylum has made an art of this "tie-in" strategy, with titles that sound almost kind of a little bit like the real thing ("Transmorphers"; "Snakes on a Train"; "The Da Vinci Treasure"; you get the picture)."
  • Union-Tribune: Its next couple of releases, 30,000 Leagues Under the Sea and 666: Part II, aren't tie-ins at all, although Latt says the film that follows those – Eye of Omega – is "sort of" tied to the Will Smith sci-fi thriller I Am Legend."
  • Winston-Salem Journal: "Oh, and don’t forget Asylum Entertainment’s new DVD I Am Omega, a completely unrelated movie with Mark Dacascos as … er, the last man on Earth, fighting a horde of zombies."
  • Los Angeles Times, December 13, 2007: "I Am Omega (2007) - Straight-to-video rip-off of I Am Legend, released in November to cash in on the new movie. The film is from Asylum, the company that also released such films as Snakes on a Train, The Da Vinci Treasure and 30,000 Leagues Under the Sea."
  • The Times-Picayune, December 14, 2007: "If the story behind I Am Legend seems familiar, it's because this isn't the first time Richard Matheson's novel has been made into a movie. Others include: ... I Am Omega - A direct-to-DVD version released just this year, starring Mark Dacascos."
  • Variety: "Matheson’s pioneering novel, which worked a lot of science into a story populated by vampiric predators, hasn’t fared too well on the bigscreen thus far... A direct-to-vid item called I Am Omega (from the Asylum, specialists in parasitic low-budget versions of big-budget studio fare) has just been produced."

What does everyone think? —Erik (talk • contrib) - 02:26, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A preliminary thought... perhaps we can mention that I Am Legend is the third feature film adaptation of the book, and we can use one of the citations above to reflect briefly that I Am Omega is a DTV production that was reported to ride on the Will Smith film's potential success. No need to mention the so-called "official relationship" or lack thereof -- that seems a bit too gray to warrant a mention, at least in this article. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 02:30, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well you can handle it however you see fit. But just for the record, the term rip-off, as nearly every source you cite is referring to the direct-to-video I Am Omega, is a term used in the film industry to mean that this is not an authorized adaptation of the original work. JohnnieYoung (talk) 02:57, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article for ripoff doesn't mention this, so unless we provide content there to define its usage in the film industry, it probably wouldn't be appropriate to wiki-link. Do you know of any citations we could use to perhaps expand that particular article to provide a define of ripoff in cinematic terms? —Erik (talk • contrib) - 03:00, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am confused as to why every common sense term has to be proven through some official reference? Everybody knows what the word ripoff means don't they? I think we can all agree that ripoff doesn't mean something that's authorized, right? In order for a film adaptation of a copyrighted work to take place the filmmaking company must make a contractual agreement with the copyright holder. In this case, we are talking about a novel that is still under copyright written by Richard Matheson who is a living author. Warner Bros Pictures bought the rights to the novel and made the Will Smith movie I Am Legend. At the same exact time a low budget B-movie film production company The Asylum made a very similar direct-to-video movie I Am Omega. The Asylum doesn't have any rights from Richard Matheson or his book publisher or Warner Bros Pictures to make this movie. Like the other fifty movies that The Asylum has produced, they try to make their movies sound like they are related to a big blockbuster film to confuse the consumer and make some quick money. A number of articles have been written about The Asylum's practices and the owner of the company freely admits that this is what they do. So shouldn't the person who wants to list I Am Omega as an official adaptation of the Richard Matheson novel have to prove that assertion, rather than making others have to prove a negative which is extremely difficult to do. JohnnieYoung (talk) 03:21, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, the official Wikipedia entry for the novel I Am Legend says it has been adapted to a feature-length film three times and doesn't even mention the direct-to-video I Am Omega. I think the official entry on the Richard Matheson novel would hold some weight here. JohnnieYoung (talk) 03:27, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We don't appear to be getting anywhere with this, and do I really need to point out the fallacy at the heart of citing another Wikipedia entry to back up your case? Let me restate: I think you're likely correct about this, but the available evidence, presented here by Erik, and be me on your talk page, introduces some ambiguity which we're trying to resolve here in good faith. Erik's footnote idea may well be the best one until the situation becomes clearer; would everyone be happy with presenting it thus until then (detail within <ref> tags will appear as footnotes):
  • "It is the third film adaptation of Richard Matheson's 1954 novel I Am Legend, following 1964's The Last Man on Earth and 1971's The Omega Man.<ref>In 2007, the direct-to-DVD I Am Omega was released by The Asylum to cash-in on the recent adaptation's potential success; Todd McCarthy (2007-12-07). "I Am Legend review". Variety. Retrieved 2007-12-18.</ref>"
Best regards, Liquidfinale (Ţ) (Ç) (Ŵ) 09:02, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. Sounds good. Change it to that. JohnnieYoung (talk) 17:24, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I concur; the wording works for me, and perhaps we can revise it when more information surfaces. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 17:26, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, one change to make -- rewrite it to show that I Am Omega was released earlier in 2007 than I Am Legend (as opposed to afterward). —Erik (talk • contrib) - 17:27, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Trivia

For the bit that keeps getting added indiscriminately, MTV has real-world context about this. Perhaps it could be directly implemented in Production as part of designing the look of the area. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 22:38, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Time between cure and death

Didn't in the movie it say that he found the cure at 8:48 and died at 8:52? The page says 3 minutes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zengman (talk • contribs) 00:01, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It was 8:49 to 8:52. icelandic hurricane #12(talk) 16:17, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Krypton Virus?

The article as it is says KV stands for Krypton Virus, but I saw it the other night and I'm not sure if thats what he said. I can't remember it now, but I figured it was the name of that doctor that shows during the TV broadcast part. Wasn't her name Krippin or something like that? K-something anyway —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.61.105.190 (talk) 03:34, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I thought he said Krypton, but maybe you are right. icelandic hurricane #12(talk) 16:18, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

JLA Movie Teaser?

In a scene kinda early into the movie there is a billboard with the Batman and superman symbols on it with the 5.16.09? Perhaps that is the release date. 70.250.180.237 (talk) 04:30, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

http://moviesblog.mtv.com/2007/12/03/batman-vs-superman-coming-in-2009-but-will-we-live-to-see-it/ Jamesr66a (talk) 16:05, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cannibalistic Hunger?

The article makes an assertion that the Infected exhibit cannibalistic hunger. I know this is kind of nitpicky, but while the Infected are known to eat the Unaffected, there's no proof in the movie that they had cannibalistic tendancies among themselves. In scenes where the Dark Seekers are seen together, they never attack one another and instead demonstrate great social cohesion (gathering in circles together to devour the deer they killed, following their leader to rescue their fellow Dark Seeker). By just dismissing them as "cannibalistic", there is an implication that they're a lot like zombies in other movies that would devour themselves if left alone. 72.192.206.80 (talk) 01:24, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed.

They're just essentially mindless and are desperate to eat the nearest sources of food available; and while we LIKE to think of ourselves as spirtually unique, on the outside we're just meat.

(Are you folks aware that several species of primates hunt down one another for food in real life?? This wouldn't really be all that different -Uninfected don't "look" the same.) Thanos777 (talk) 03:54, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"When he is forced to kill Sam after being bitten by infected dogs, . . ." should probably be reworded to be a little clearer: "When he is forced to kill Sam after she is bitten by infected dogs, . . ." Neville is bitten (I think), but that's not the point. The point is that Sam was bitten. Markstevo (talk) 05:08, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Already fixed. — OcatecirT 05:13, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The trap

For the statement, ". (The plot appears to leave unresolved the possibility that the trap was one of hundreds set by Neville himself in his drive to capture the infected for study. The film suggests that the mannequin used for this snare was left elsewhere by Neville.)"


The night before Neville mentions that one of the infected does something very uncharacteristic- actually venturing out into the sun after Neville bags his catch. Neville says this is the complete loss of human touch.

The plot, however, has Neville's mannequin being moved right next a trap. I think this means that the same infected vampire that ventured out into the sun had developed some sort of intellect, at least enough to move the mannequin (which would also explain his leadership abilities later on in the movie). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ftc68 (talk • contribs) 04:42, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just undid that part because it is a reading of the plot by an editor, thus origional work. in order to keep to the encyclopedic format of this page, it is neccisary to just report on "what happend on the screen" not "my reading of this part is" this section has been replaced by "he was snared in a trap he didn't appear to set" which is actually what happened. Personaly I believe that the infected set the trap and can point to several sections of the movie that support this theory, however others think Neville set several traps and just got cought in one of his own...which dosn't make sence to me but that is their reading. hence we need to report on just what happened.Coffeepusher (talk) 18:02, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't original work if it's just acknowledging that different interpretation of the action exist. By your own admission ("Personaly [sic] I believe," "several sections of the movie that support this *theory*"), the reading you present as "actually what happened" is just your own reading, i.e., your original work, and your stating it in an objective voice does not cure the problem, whereas being transparent and acknowledging that differing interpretations exist, can be more encyclopedic than stating a subjective view and painting it as objective, which is actually misleading. Carlos_X (talk) 20:01, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:TALK people, this is not a forum for general discussion. Alientraveller (talk) 20:03, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

when I said "actually what happened" I was refering to the events depicted on the screen, and not a reading that brought different elements into the scean. the section has been reduced to "he got cought in a snare" so this discussion has become moot anyway. Thank you for the reminder Alientraveller, I believe this discussion is still relevent to the page, however it is dangerously close to the edge.

and to answer your statement, it is original work if you acknowledge any interpretation of the action. The setting of the trap, or any other traps for that matter, didn't happen on screen so it is origional work to speculate on the topic.Coffeepusher (talk) 07:41, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia's policy, "No original research" contains a Neutral point of view (NPOV) component. As such, "this policy promotes the inclusion of multiple points of view." The guidance provides in relevant part, "In many cases, there are multiple established views of any given topic. In such cases, no single position ... is authoritative." Significantly, the guidance reminds us that "it is important that editors provide context for this point of view, by indicating how prevalent the position is, and whether it is held by a majority or minority." Therefore, the answer is not to unilaterally delete ideas you disagree with, but to acknowledge differing POV's. Editorial protocol aside, simple etiquette/netiquette dictate that before you cast aside somebody else's contribution you try to resolve it first by discussing it in a forum such as this one. Carlos_X (talk) 23:06, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

you are correct. and that is a valid point, except the fact that I deleted the section after it had erupted into a debate "on the page" with people using the statement "(The plot appears to leave unresolved the possibility that the trap was one of hundreds set by Neville himself in his drive to capture the infected for study. The film suggests that the mannequin used for this snare was left elsewhere by Neville.)" as a springboard and subsiquently adding and deleting stuff from this section...so it turned into "(there is no evidence that the infected...)" and back to "(it is obvious that neville didn't set the trap because...)" and all i did was take away the perentheses, and post on the talk page. I can understand your frustration, however I don't think my actions are inapropriate.Coffeepusher (talk) 00:18, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think the language where we ended up is acceptable now. Carlos_X (talk) 21:59, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Appears that Coffeepusher has done and said the right thing. There is often a temptation to get into interpretation, and even the most well-meaning editor can slip into interpretation by mistake. It's good that folks like Coffeepusher are around to calmly set the article on the right track and are able to explain clearly why they are doing what they are doing. Nice one! SilkTork *SilkyTalk 12:55, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The plot doesn't need to say any more than what we see on the film. What we see is that the trap is "in nature appears to be identical to his own". We do not KNOW any more than that, and we do not NEED TO KNOW any more than that, that's why you watch the film. DO NOT ADD SPECULATION INTO THE PLOT! PLEASE STOP IT. --Hm2k (talk) 14:09, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Error in article, not SR-71

The plane that looks very much like an SR-71 on the USS Intrepid is actually an A-12 OXCART, the predecessor. I have been to the Intrepid and seen it.

Mpduggan (talk) 14:46, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the detail because it's not irrelevant to the film; saying just "plane" provides enough ambiguity. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 20:40, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why is this page locked?

Anyone?

Anyone? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.208.248.66 (talk) 01:32, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Personal Best for Smith?

According to this page, a 155 million dollar revenue was a "Personal best for Smith." but thats not true... I mean, if the poster meant "Is a personal best for Smith over the course of such a short period of time." then that would be true, but, just off hand, the Wild Wild West brought in 222 million, so I Am Legend can't be Smith's best thus far. 71.207.138.63 (talk) 12:58, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Human behavior

I disagree with this sentence (objectionable statement will be put in bold):

The remaining 588 million people were infected but did not die; they instead began exhibiting early symptoms of rabies and then lost all normal human behavior, degenerating into a primal state driven by hunger and blind rage, in turn killing a majority of the immune.

Will Smith's character claims that the infected "lost all normal human behavior", but shortly after this part of the film it's pretty clear that he is wrong. The infected still maintain social behavior and structure; further, they were clever enough to trap Will Smith's character, and they were clever enough to command dogs. Shortly after the "no human behavior" statement, we get a glimpse of them as much more intelligent than one would initially think. –Andyluciano (talk) 20:32, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We don't personally analyze these things... if the character said it, then that's the case for the film. I really would not worry so much about it -- if we address this, then it opens up a can of worms in poking holes in the film's plot on our own. We're better off developing real-world context for the article, which the Plot section serves to complement. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 20:37, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Don't personally analyze; this is fair enough. But, in supporting the character's viewpoint, Wikipedia is in fact taking sides on this issue. I'm aware that my own personal opinions shouldn't necessarily result in additions to a Wikipedia article, but upon seeing the film I personally took it to mean that Will Smith's character was underestimating his foes. When I read the article on the novel it only confirms this: there, it seems to suggest that the protagonist is seriously misjudging the infected people, unaware that they have their own social structure, and indiscriminately kills (murders?) them, thinking they are below human abilities.
So, I guess my point was, by endorsing Will Smith's character's assessment of the situation, Wikipedia is flatly stating that a fairly easy-to-make interpretation of the plot is false. Characters in a fictional work are not always correct.
–Andyluciano (talk) 20:49, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My suggestion is to try to make the issue ambiguous. For example, for the SR-71 discussion above, I just removed mention of what kind of plane it was since I've seen too many arguments about what kind of vehicle or weapon is used in a particular film. If it's never identified, then it's likely not relevant. For this particular case, though, try to word it to say that the protagonist believes that they lost all normal human behavior. That'll tie the "fallacious" perspective to that character. Just a thought. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 21:08, 18 December 2007 (UTC

Plot still too detailed

The Plot summary has been trimmed further, but at 760+ words it is still too long and detailed for a movie with a fairly straightforward storyline. I'll work on it further.
Jim Dunning | talk 04:21, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the Plot summary is truly summarized now, per Film Style Guidelines and Fiction guidelines. It describes the major events, plot twists, and characters, without going into so much detail that it reproduces the actual story. The summary can be enhanced to support any content in Response, Development and Themes sections as they evolve, but beware of Plot Bloat.
Jim Dunning | talk 04:36, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Survivor colony location?

How do we know the colony is in Bethel, Vermont? I only recall Anna saying Vermont, no town.
Jim Dunning | talk 19:58, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Moot. Removed specific reference from Plot summary to keep it brief.
Jim Dunning | talk 02:39, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anna

I just got back from seeing this movie a second time and Anna said she was from Maryland, not Brazil. How could she have heard the Radio message and make it all the way up to New York if she was from Brazil? :)

Edit: Alice Braga, the girl who plays Anna, in real life is from Brazil. Anna herself is from Maryland. Please change the article to fit this. Caption1247 (talk) 02:37, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

She left Sao Paula and drove to Manhattan (which raises more questions as to how she managed to do so if all the bridges were destroyed) from Maryland. 66.177.131.56 (talk) 05:49, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Her character was from Sao Paulo, Brazil. She was with the Red Cross, and ended up in Maryland after the ships they were on became contaminated and a number of people became infected. Post-ship life she (and Ethan, possibly others) were located in Maryland where they heard the broadcast. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.245.101.232 (talk) 23:52, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The actress is from Brazil. The Red Cross character Anna came from Maryland or she, the little boy (little brother?), and three other survivors came from a navy ship or hospital ship that came from Maryland from a Naval fleet that broke up. Nowhere does it say anything about Brazil only that the rest of the world is now full of zombies according to Dr. Neville. Whether the character Anna is from Brazil or Europe since she sounds like she has a foreign accent is not certain and doesn't really matter. She, her little brother, and three other survivors were "guided" (by God according to Anna) to NYC by Dr. Neville's radio messages. The three other survivors that were with Anna and the little boy were killed by the zombies on their journey to find Dr. Neville in NYC.--Pilot expert (talk) 21:45, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm pretty sure Anna says she originally came from Sao Paulo. Of course, we don't know whether she means the large city in Brazil a relatively short distance from the Atlantic or some other city of the same name. Since she doesn't clarify it further for Neville (and there are no other notable cities of the same name anywhere), we are probably safe in assuming it's the well-known city. She then mentions coming most recently from Maryland; how she gets there from a ship near Sao Paulo is anyone's guess. Also, I don't think she ever mentions Ethan's relationship to her or where he joined her; she does say he is immune and the inference is that he was on the (evacuation? treatment?) ship with her.
Jim Dunning | talk 22:26, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nope. Other than "the rest of the world", I haven't heard any other specific place mentioned other than New York City (where the movie takes place), the White House (where the POTUS makes a speech on the radio), Maryland (where Anna, Ethan, and the three other survivors traveled from or their ship traveled from), and Vermont where one of the survivor colony is located. After just watching the movie when it first premiered, I had to look up Alice Braga's bio in wikipedia and IMDB to see where she was from out of curiosity since she sounded like she had a foreign accent. I thought she might be from Puerto Rico (since the movie takes place in New York City), Europe, or South America. This movie is still new but wait awhile after it comes out in DVD (where it will have subtitles) and check the script IMSDB when they post it in the future. You'll see if Brazil is mentioned or not.--Pilot expert (talk) 22:51, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm fairly certain she does mention Sao Paulo, Brazil (mostly cause I don't know a thing about the actress and I still walked away with that impression, think it's tied in with an explanation of the Red Cross ship), but waiting for DVD is never a bad idea. Anyways, her origin isn't important to the plot, it's only used to help root how she believes in God due to her heritage (Brazil is mostly Catholic) and supposedly hearing his voice and plan.72.192.206.80 (talk) 04:10, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just saw it. I'm pretty sure she does say Sao Paulo. I know she said she was from somewhere outside America, then more recently Maryland. And I don't know anything about the actress personally. Although I'm still wondering how she got into NY when there were no bridges. Itsmeiam (talk) 07:12, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's what other movie fans were wondering. The express tunnels would have also been flooded (like in the movie Daylight) as the bridge was being blown up by F/A-18 Hornets from the nearby Carrier Battle Group.--Pilot expert (talk) 12:37, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In the Spanish dubbing, she first says they come from Maryland. Later she says something about the Red Cross and Sao Paulo, but I did not understand if she was correcting herself or adding new information. --Error (talk) 22:23, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Provided we are not asked to swallow something too fantastic, we enter into a suspension of disbelief agreement with the film maker which means that we know there are going to be bits that wouldn't happen in real life, but we ignore them for the greater benefit of the general enjoyment. However, at no point does the film suggest that Manhattan is totally cut off, so people are free to supply their own explanations. I think that Anna made a raft out of the Infected people and used that to float away. SilkTork *SilkyTalk 13:45, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect linking

The link for "put down" in reference to Neville having to put down his dog, Sam, should not be linked to animal euthanasia and should instead be linked to strangling, the dog was strangled not euthanized.

140.175.214.35 (talk) 20:43, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Take a look at Animal euthanasia: it says, "Animal euthanasia (Greek, "good death") is the act of inducing humane death in an animal. Euthanasia methods are designed to cause minimal pain and distress. In pet animals, this process is commonly referred to by the euphemisms 'put to sleep' or "put down"." This is exactly what Neville does to Sam. If you look further in the Animal euthanasia article you'll see that it even lists the reasons for "putting" a pet down, including terminal illness or dangerous behavior (which both apply in this case).
While strangulation is the method Neville used (we assume), the method is not important, but the intention is (he could just have easily injected Sam with poison or shot her in the head, but the intent of saving her from a horrible fate is the focus). I hope this helps.
Jim Dunning | talk 21:10, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"possibly Earth's only survivor of a man-made virus."

The mutants are also survivors. I think you might want to change this to unaffected survivor or something, since it's fairly inaccurate as is. --81.178.89.152 (talk) 00:47, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, but I'd say "not as clear as it should be" rather than "fairly inaccurate". lol. Thanks,
Jim Dunning | talk 01:07, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I fixed it.--Patrick (talk) 02:22, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

IMAX performance

Recent film tag

I have to agree with Liquidfinale on the lack of need for the {{Recent film}} tag. A week or so ago it may have arguably been useful, but content is fairly stable now. Tweaks -- good and bad -- to the Plot section are ongoing as people return from seeing it, but not much significant changes. The balance of the article is fairly well developed and balanced, and readers should have no difficulty in encountering a neutral, informative and stable piece of Wikipedia.
Jim Dunning | talk 21:57, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The film was released 12 days ago — it's still a recent film. The {{recent death}} tag is not removed when article content is stable. --Pixelface (talk) 23:58, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And this film was released 12 days ago, yet this article has been edited 54 times today. Is that stable? --Pixelface (talk) 00:17, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed; especially considering that were the tag to escape deletion, there is as yet no guidance as to its use or what it is actually for. To merely tell people that this is a recent film? Unnecessary. To tell people that the article may warrant expansion and as yet does not come up to scratch? Perhaps... on other articles, but not this one, which has plenty of production information and is only really short on critical reaction. Best regards, Liquidfinale (Ţ) (Ç) (Ŵ) 22:08, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And if you want guidance on its use or what's it's for, you can see Template talk:Recent film. --Pixelface (talk) 00:14, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That is not guidance; it's a basic instruction for use. What I'm talking about is the rationale. You are arguing for this tag's existence based upon the fact that, um, this tag exists! Please tell me what exact benefit the tag adds to this article specifically. Please tell me. Liquidfinale (Ţ) (Ç) (Ŵ) 00:53, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The tag puts this article into Category:Recent films. By looking at Category:Recent films, editors can see which films have been recently released and help improve those articles. The template {{recent film}} is like the {{recent death}} template, only for films instead of people. It's meant to be a counterpart to the {{future film}} template. The template {{current product}} has existed since September, and if {{recent film}} is deleted, I'm just going to use that template instead. --Pixelface (talk) 01:37, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That doesn't answer the questions I have posed here, nor those on your talk page. Liquidfinale (Ţ) (Ç) (Ŵ) 01:57, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think I have answered your questions. What are you unclear on? This article has been edited at least 54 times today and the film was released 12 days ago. The {{recent film}} tag says information in an article may change rapidly. That is certainly the case here. This film was released 12 days ago, it is a recent film, so the category the {{recent film}} template puts this article into, Category:Recent films, is appropriate. The benefit the {{recent film}} tag adds to this article is similar to the benefit that the {{recent death}} tag adds to the Ike Turner article. --Pixelface (talk) 02:11, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's as unnecessary as tagging an article with {{recent death}}. The {{recent film}} tag is meant to be a counterpart to {{future film}}. Once {{future film}} is removed, {{recent film}} can be placed on the article. The template is meant to indicate that an article may change rapidly. It is also meant to encourage editors to work on an article. I added "You can help by expanding this article" to the {{recent film}} template because that text appears in the {{current product}} template and I think it's a good message. --Pixelface (talk) 00:02, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm getting frustrated with someone saying the purpose of a tag like this is its "name", and that the message associated with it is ancillary, or even meaningless. In this case, the tag is initially placed on this article with the message "Some information may change rapidly as more facts become known." We dispute that the article is still very dynamic, so someone adds to the template message "You can help by expanding this article," to make it applicable in an attempt to nullify the dispute. What is it with this moving target strategy? It's ridiculous. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JimDunning (talk • contribs) 23:21, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, I added "You can help by expanding this article" to the {{recent film}} template because that text appears in the {{current product}} template. I don't appreciate you accusing me of "playing games" Jim. Category:Current events says "When used properly, it invites any user to fill in the Wiki community on the latest information about the subject of an article." The template {{recent film}} should also encourage editors to add the latest information about the film. I am not using some "moving target strategy."
If there is consensus on this talk page that the {{recent film}} template should not be in the article because I Am Legend is not a recent film, fine. You've both made your opinions known. I think the template should stay. I think the template should stay in the article until there is a consensus to delete the template at the TFD. --Pixelface (talk) 00:12, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good Article Nomination?

Would it be possible to bring this to Good Article Nominations? It looks like a good candidate. Rt. 16:22, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would wait. While it is fairly stable, the frequent and expected Plot description tweaks are going to continue. GA likes stability.
Jim Dunning | talk 16:37, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, considering my GA reviewing experience, I'd have to agree. Thanks though. Regards, Rt. 16:47, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with the need for stability, but I also think that this article needs a larger Critical reaction section, something similar to Road to Perdition#Reception. We haven't given readers a full idea of what critics thought of the film. In addition, the Headlines section above should be reviewed to make sure that all the background information is fully implemented. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 17:00, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"last healthy human survivor" vs. "remaining 0.2% are immune"

I haven't seen this movie, but this still doesn't make sense, article-wise.

The first paragraph of the summary states that 90% died, 9.8% survived but are infected, and 0.2% are immune - the latter including Will Smith.

Now, 0.2% is a lot, when we're talking about human population. That's 12 million worldwide, or 16000 in New York City alone. Will Smith would be far from alone.

I'm assuming that the movie has explanations for this, so the Wiki article should reflect this as well. Though the statistics may have been pulled out of somebody's ass, in which case they should be removed completely. Cine (talk) 20:07, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I made a correction. Also note the "Three years later".--Patrick (talk) 00:38, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly they evacuated New York, assuming the eye scans allowed people who were immune to leave, that covers that, secondly it doesn't state where the 0.2% is in the world, 99% of it could be in Africa for all we know... I'm not sure this really matters for the plot, as this is just what we're told by the film. It's not open for discussion. --Hm2k (talk) 14:04, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Since no one can agree on what was actually said in the film about the specific percentages, I'm generalizing them to over 90% dead, more than 9% survive but infected (transformed), and less than 1% are immune. I guess we can wait for the DVD to come out to pin it down. Of course, the specifics really aren't that crucial: these figures certainly paint the picture . . . .
Jim Dunning | talk 01:49, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Movie Spiritual Content

There is no mention about the heavy spiritual content of the movie (science versus religion, redemption, faith, etc.) that is significantly departing from Matheson's novel. See this excellent review for instance [5]. The studio have also set up a website: www.godstilllovesus.org! Sfoucher (talk) 20:14, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are two links involving material by Alan Weisman. The first is a Popular Mechanics article on the film discussing the science of the film. I think that's useful. The second, however, is tangentially related. It shows a series of images of what New York would be like without humans. I'm not convinced of the usefulness of this link. And I am concerned it might encourage other such tangential links. SilkTork *SilkyTalk 11:40, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think the former would be more useful as implemented into the article. Alientraveller (talk) 12:50, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Here's the link [6] Do what you would want. Alientraveller (talk) 12:54, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have summarized the article into the criticism section. --Error (talk) 22:33, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Distressed by Sam's death, etc

There's been a few attempts to word the section of the plot where Neville attacks the Infected in a suicidal manner. "Knowing that his only live companion left is gone"; "Distressed by Sam's death"; "He appears distressed by his loneliness"; "In anger"; "Despondent over the death of Sam, Neville suicidally attacks"; "When he is forced to choke his dog companion to death after an attack by the Infected, he nearly commits suicide by attacking". It's a difficult moment because there is this desire to give some detail as to why he attacks the Infected. But the reason he does it is open to interpretation. Between the dog's death and the attack comes the scene in the shop where he talks to the mannequin, so there is the sense that it a general feeling of loneliness. But that is interpretation. That he attacks the Infected is fact. Why he attacks the Infected is interpretation and should be left to the Critical Reception section. We don't actually know he is distressed by the dog's death enough to kill himself. Would it be OK to say that he is distressed?

While helping him escape, Sam is bitten by an Infected dog and begins transforming, so Neville puts her down. In a distressed state he attacks a group of Infected that night at the South Street Seaport and is nearly killed himself...

Or would that imply that the distress was the result of the dog's death?

While helping him escape, Sam is bitten by an Infected dog and begins transforming, so Neville puts her down. Later that night he attacks a group of Infected at the South Street Seaport and is nearly killed himself...

How about adding wildly or recklessly?

While helping him escape, Sam is bitten by an Infected dog and begins transforming, so Neville puts her down. Later that night he recklessly attacks a group of Infected at the South Street Seaport and is nearly killed himself... SilkTork *SilkyTalk 15:28, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Would it be appropriate to indicate that he is aware of and disturbed by his loneliness? SilkTork *SilkyTalk 15:28, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good points. I go with adding "recklessly". Certainly his behavior is out of character, so reckless works, but no interpretation of why he acts so is included.
Jim Dunning | talk 15:48, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's suffice to say he's most defiantly "troubled" by the loss for the purpose of the plot, this is accurate, but yes, why he went on the rampage is open to interpretation, but it's clearly a direct influence of the loss. There's a distinct display of sadness, followed by depression. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.152.138.226 (talk) 18:05, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"The Infected"

If you're using "the infected" as a name for these (zombie-like/vampire-like) creatures, since it's quoted from somewhere else (see http://uk.rottentomatoes.com/m/i_am_legend/about.php), in which it's also quoted, you then MUST also quote it in the same way, otherwise using the term "the infected" is simply common language, and should NOT have a capital I on infected. PLEASE STOP CHANGING IT! --Hm2k (talk) 18:12, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Religious Propaganda in the Plot Summary

Perhaps the Plot summary should refer to the blatant religious propaganda in the movie. It would be important information for people who want to see movies like that or for people who want to avoid them. (PSG) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.126.151.171 (talk • contribs)

Blatant in your own opinion. Alientraveller (talk) 19:22, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There is a bit of religion in the film but it's not pressed and only has about a minute of screen time. Wolfmankurd (talk) 01:19, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oncolytic virus?

New material has been added to the Plot description that is unfamiliar to me. Is this original research by the editor (anon IP) or was all of this actually mentioned in the film? Specifically, it is the references to "oncolytic virus" and "hemorrhagic fever". I don't recall Krippen going into that much technical detail; she was on some morning news show, so the content doesn't seem appropriate to the audience. Also, the pandemic stats keep changing and I can't recall all of them, but for some reason "1%" sticks in my mind. Can anyone confirm that the medical detail is in the film and nail down the figures?
Jim Dunning | talk 19:47, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it's necessary to include such detail if it wasn't mentioned in the film. It's too much of a specialist's assertion -- not what a reader in general would know. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 20:46, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
An Oncolytic virus attacks cancer cells and therefore a cancer curing virus would be an oncolytic virus but the detail is unnessesary. I think I remember a reference to hemorrhagic fever but again this isn't needed.Wolfmankurd (talk) 01:23, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I was just informed by Erik that I accedentily added this part back after it's deletion. I was reverting another edit, and I am sorry for the confusion...um...I agree that it is way to complicated and should be deleted.Coffeepusher (talk) 02:50, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Trivia Section

Something I think should be add to the trivia section of the article would be the watch Neville uses in the film. If someone knows what's the watch he uses added to the trivia section (with a link to the official watch brand site). Snowstone (talk) 02:48, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Trivia sections are generally avoided. I'm also afraid the watch model type would not be of interest in an encyclopedia.
Jim Dunning | talk 03:19, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I concur with Jim -- perhaps you can go to the IMDb page for I Am Legend and see if that is available there. If not, you can submit the information there if you find it. It doesn't belong in an encyclopedic article. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 06:26, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Marley influence

I'm getting tired of people deleting the note I am adding. I'd personally like to stress the significance of Bob Marley in the title. However, I am under the influence that Bob Marley was a chosen idol for Neville AFTER the title was chosen, as the book was made first (despite how the movie and book were very different.)

In real life, Bob Marley is regarded as 'Legend'. At the end of the movie, Neville becomes regarded as 'Legend' also, which goes to show how he followed in the steps of his personal idol, thus "I Am Legend". —Preceding unsigned comment added by DrTheKay (talk • contribs) 12:10, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry you're frustrated about your Marley contribution, but the reason I removed it was that it appeared to be your analysis of the film, not that of a credible source, such as an established reviewer or even the film's director or producer. You even say, "I'd personally like to stress the significance of Bob Marley in the title," indicating it is your observation. As WP editors/contributors, we can only reference observations and analyses of reliable sources, and then we must cite then appropriately so others are able to verify them. Otherwise our contributions are considered original research, which is not allowed in WP.
If a credible Marley source can be found, its inclusion in the article would likely fit in Development or a future Themes section (you could even be the editor that starts the Themes section). I did a quick search, however, and any credible references to Marley influences or themes are slim to none (this doesn't count mentions in blogs, which are not considered credible sources). There is this one, but it doesn't offer much. Another one is more explicit, but not well-written. The Marley influence is fairly obvious (Neville's daughter is named Marley, even), but since there aren't many references in reviews, it doesn't yet appear significant enough to include in the article.
I hope this helps. Don't hesitate to check the Page History of the article and look for the revision that removed or changed your contribution. If the editor is worth her or his salt, an informative Edit Summary will at least give a hint as to the concern or issue.
Jim Dunning | talk 14:19, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But that's the point, I don't tihnk that in the novel that the main character was a fan of Bob Marley. Why else would the director choose for Bob Marley to be Neville's music inspiration? Because Bob Marley is also "Legend" and thus it goes well with the film. Thankyou for you lengthy post nonetheless. Here is the source: http://www.rollingstonesnet.com/images/BobMarleyLegend.jpg —Preceding unsigned comment added by DrTheKay (talk • contribs) 14:44, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Since Bob was only five or six when the novel was published, you're right, novel Neville could not have been a fan. Unfortunately for your purposes a picture of a Marley album cover is not a suitable source to support your observation (for WP). You need someone else to make the connection and publish it. Even mention in the Plot section of Neville's comments about Marley may not gain agreement from other editors, if it isn't considered notable enough. Sorry for the lengthy responses -- just wanted to give a complete explanation.
Jim Dunning | talk 15:00, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I concur with Jim about the Marley connection. It's a connection being made where one didn't exist before. If you could find an independent source talking about how and why the director incorporated the music in the film, it may warrant inclusion. You should check out the yet-implemented headlines above for that. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 17:01, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Good idea. Sorry, Erik: I forgot you harvested those excellent sources. I checked through them, however, and there's no mention of Bob Marley. Doesn't mean that one won't show up down the road.
Jim Dunning | talk 17:14, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So what you're basically saying is that it is merely a conicidence that Bob Marley a.k.a LEGEND happened to be the director's choice for Neville's music inspiration in "I Am **LEGEND**"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by DrTheKay (talk • contribs) 04:04, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No: I'm sure it's no coincidence the producers/director chose Marley and his music (and wrote the accompanying commentary from Neville) and the Legend tie-in, but since it appears no credible source has published anything making that connection, then it cannot be mentioned in this article. If and when you or someone else finds such an analysis, then by all means include it in the article.
Jim Dunning | talk 04:46, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PS: Please sign your posts with four tildes (~~~~) so your signature and timestamp show.
Jim Dunning | talk 04:48, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:I_Am_Legend_(film)&oldid=181131989"