PDA

View Full Version : I AM LEGEND: My Rant


irishjayhawk
12-14-2007, 09:52 PM
If plagiarism is illegal, this should be illegal too. What do I mean by "this", you ask?

Well, I mean the absolute butchering of a story and then "claiming" to have based it off a book. I know, I know, adaptations off true stories or books are usually 1% book. But where does one draw the line between an adaptation and an entirely new story.

Meet Akiva Goldsman. He should be banned from writing adaptations for anything else. In fact, throw out his not-yet-finished script for Angels and Demons. He's butchered EVERYTHING he's touched. Hell, now I can see why he was the one behind Batman and Robin - the worst Batman film of all time.

In Da Vinci code, he essentially neutered the punch. Apparently, he doesn't want to offend. But at what cost. It appears at any cost. Even the thought of POTENTIALLY offending someone sits uncomfortably with him. Look, in the Code, he changes things that cinematically don't need to be changed. Things like the main heroine's grandpa, grandma and brother whom are very vital to the story. Like the adding of retarded scenes to appease religious crowds. And for what?

Now, in Code's defense, Ron Howard saved the film making it an acceptable stand alone film. Yes, neutered and all, it stands alone as watchable and even ownable. Though, it must be said that the book is much, much better.

And that brings me to Legend. Let me say this upfront. Will Smith cannot save this movie. He does his best. And I have to say, it's very, very good. He takes frustration, emotion, longing for companionship, etc (all of which is in the book) and conveys it flawlessly.


The director of Constantine, cannot save this film. The script is rubbish. It's total rubbish. And what I fear more than anything is it's rubbish because the book deals with evolution. (Of course, this is a thread by itself and spoiler heavy).

In fact, I think the movie illustrates it nicely. The book is Robert Neville. The movie are all the horrible creatures hunting Neville. They have no soul (story). They have no core. They have craftsmanship issues (skin meets light). He is immune. He sits alone (book a bookshelf). And the best part is, the ending shows just how willing Akiva is to butcher a film. To take it's soul and destroy it.

Needless to say, this film is a step above horrible. It's not quite the worst movie ever or this year, even. But it's definitely not okay. It's about as okay as the vampire/zombies in the film.

Mr. Kotter
12-14-2007, 09:54 PM
You need to get out more. Drink and chase some pussy, dude. Your testorone levels must be in the basement, battling incredible estrogen levels.

:shake:

Douche Baggins
12-14-2007, 09:54 PM
I see what you're saying. The book was a character piece. The movie is more fluffy popcorn crap based on the premise of the book?

Douche Baggins
12-14-2007, 09:54 PM
You need to get out more. Drink and chase some pussy, dude.

SHUT UP OLD MAN

L.A. Chieffan
12-14-2007, 09:55 PM
Do you like Huey Lewis and the News?

Mr. Kotter
12-14-2007, 09:56 PM
SHUT UP OLD MAN

I'll adjust it for you, Clayton:

Get a life. Leave your basement. Drink and chase pussy, or dick (if that's your preference, Biff.)

;)


Is that better??? :)

Deberg_1990
12-14-2007, 09:56 PM
I see what you're saying. The book was a character piece. The movie is more fluffy popcorn crap based on the premise of the book?


Is it a better adaptation than "I Robot" ??

elvomito
12-14-2007, 09:57 PM
and no Ben Cartman, can you believe that?
i suppose people who have not read the book will still enjoy it. but i couldn't watch it properly knowing the truth. i'll go see it again i think

Mecca
12-14-2007, 09:57 PM
Seeing as I didn't read the book.........it won't matter to me.

schneider221
12-14-2007, 09:57 PM
i also saw it and it is like they tried to keep the main ending from the book(won't give it away) but wanted to mash that with a what they thought a better movie ending.

irishjayhawk
12-14-2007, 09:57 PM
I see what you're saying. The book was a character piece. The movie is more fluffy popcorn crap based on the premise of the book?

The book was character driven but not completely so. The book was very good because it brought you into his psyche. Smith did a phenomenal job with it. Just the story, the movie's core, was flawed.

I don't even think it's the same story.

KcMizzou
12-14-2007, 09:57 PM
Do you like Huey Lewis and the News?When "Sports" came out, they really came into their own.

Jayhawkerman2001
12-14-2007, 09:58 PM
i saw the movie tonight and i felt totally frustrated with the ending. the movie itself was ok, but the way they went about ending the movie really sucked ass. overall, id say that it was an average movie that had the potential to be a great movie, but somewhere along the lines, somebody ****ed it up somewhere.

Douche Baggins
12-14-2007, 09:58 PM
That dog in the trailer dies, doesn't it? Those sons of bitches had to kill the dog. EVERY TIME! IT NEVER FAILS! LEAVE THE POOR POOCHES ALONE!

irishjayhawk
12-14-2007, 09:58 PM
and no Ben Cartman, can you believe that?
i suppose people who have not read the book will still enjoy it. but i couldn't watch it properly knowing the truth. i'll go see it again i think

It's bad. On the upside, the Batman stuff (which, of course, will be online soon) make it better.

elvomito
12-14-2007, 09:59 PM
this is a remake of Omega Man without any of the decent story line and with a few things changed around.

irishjayhawk
12-14-2007, 10:00 PM
Is it a better adaptation than "I Robot" ??

Never read I, Robot, but judging from the people who cried at that, I wouldn't expect much difference.

The writer is a fraud at adaptations. Period. And that scares me for Angels and Demons because I loved that book.

schneider221
12-14-2007, 10:00 PM
the imax batman sneak peak was the highlight of my night... and it was like 5 minutes long compared to the movie

irishjayhawk
12-14-2007, 10:01 PM
i saw the movie tonight and i felt totally frustrated with the ending. the movie itself was ok, but the way they went about ending the movie really sucked ass. overall, id say that it was an average movie that had the potential to be a great movie, but somewhere along the lines, somebody ****ed it up somewhere.

Nailed it. It's the writing. He killed it.

Sure-Oz
12-14-2007, 10:03 PM
I still am going to see it due to being a fan of will smith. I heard the movie was going to originally be directed by micheal bay and produced by schwartzenneger but it got changed a few times and they fell off, smith was still supposed to star.

elvomito
12-14-2007, 10:03 PM
it would have been cool to see a giant everburning pit of smoldering corpses

Deberg_1990
12-14-2007, 10:04 PM
Never read I, Robot, but judging from the people who cried at that, I wouldn't expect much difference.

The writer is a fraud at adaptations. Period. And that scares me for Angels and Demons because I loved that book.

People need to understand.

Anytime you have a big hollywood star + a huge budget, the studios are always going to play it safe. They have to make it appealing to mainstream audiences in order to maximize the earning potential.

In other words, dont make it too "artsy" or "heady"

irishjayhawk
12-14-2007, 10:04 PM
it would have been cool to see a giant everburning pit of smoldering corpses

Actually, I thought the trailer had a shot where there was a huge fire in the city and I figured that was what you're talking about.

It's not. ANd the shot isn't in the movie.

irishjayhawk
12-14-2007, 10:05 PM
People need to understand.

Anytime you have a big hollywood star + a huge budget, the studios are always going to play it safe. They have to make it appealing to mainstream audiences in order to maximize the earning potential.

In other words, dont make it too "artsy" or "heady"

In no way would making the story adhere to the freaking book make it artsy. It just wouldn't.

The fact is, Akiva should be banned. Or shot.

JBucc
12-14-2007, 10:06 PM
This is one of those times not reading comes in handy.

irishjayhawk
12-14-2007, 10:07 PM
This is one of those times not reading comes in handy.

Sadly, no. Usually, I'd agree with you. Since I don't like to read that much. The book is 100000x better for the storyline.

L.A. Chieffan
12-14-2007, 10:08 PM
This is one of those times not reading comes in handy.

pretty funny

JBucc
12-14-2007, 10:08 PM
I did hear the cgi is terrible. Like, Van Helsing bad.

elvomito
12-14-2007, 10:09 PM
will smith's movies have grossed $4.4 billion. i'm sure this will still do great

Mecca
12-14-2007, 10:09 PM
I think some of you care a little to much about this...

irishjayhawk
12-14-2007, 10:10 PM
I did hear the cgi is terrible. Like, Van Helsing bad.

Yeah, it's pretty bad. The villians are okay, but there's some other stuff (animals and helicopters) that are atrocious.

elvomito
12-14-2007, 10:10 PM
I think some of you care a little to much about this...maybe. 53 years and you can't make a decent movie about it? shiiit. i guess it wasn't meant to be

Ultra Peanut
12-14-2007, 10:11 PM
Meet Akiva Goldsman. He should be banned from writing adaptations for anything else.I'm Ultra Peanut, and I endorse this message.

irishjayhawk
12-14-2007, 10:11 PM
I think some of you care a little to much about this...

Eh, in a week, if I posted it, I'd agree with you. But right now, I'm just running off disappointment at the film. So, no.

L.A. Chieffan
12-14-2007, 10:11 PM
I think some of you care a little to much about this...

Mecca, Did you know that Ted Bundy's first dog was a collie named Lassie?

Mecca
12-14-2007, 10:13 PM
Mecca, Did you know that Ted Bundy's first dog was a collie named Lassie?

I always wondered if Al was related to him.

L.A. Chieffan
12-14-2007, 10:13 PM
I'm Ultra Peanut, and I endorse this message.

But Lost in Space was such a laugh riot

stevieray
12-14-2007, 10:17 PM
meh...not much of a WS fan...

irishjayhawk
12-14-2007, 10:22 PM
I wonder if it was a prequel to the Villiage. And you'll know what I mean when you see it.

DaKCMan AP
12-14-2007, 10:27 PM
Will Smith was excellent. The ending was disappointing and abrupt.

elvomito
12-14-2007, 10:28 PM
And what I fear more than anything is it's rubbish because the book deals with evolution.what did you mean by this?

BWillie
12-14-2007, 10:29 PM
Will Smith was excellent. The ending was disappointing and abrupt.

I want to see this movie. I've really never seen a Will Smith movie that was bad. All the movies some people didn't like such as Independence Day I thought were awesome. Anything Will Smith in, I will go see because his movies usually don't suck.

irishjayhawk
12-14-2007, 10:34 PM
what did you mean by this?

Did you read the book?

irishjayhawk
12-14-2007, 10:34 PM
Will Smith was excellent.

Can't disagree. He was great, given the confines of the script.


The ending was disappointing and abrupt.

Yep. Absolutely. The book's ending is fitting, and neither of those two adjectives.

elvomito
12-14-2007, 10:35 PM
yes, but are you talking socially?

Third Eye
12-14-2007, 10:36 PM
I must say that I am a little confused. You criticize this movie because of how poorly they adapted the story from the book, yet a couple of weeks ago you praised "The Golden Compass" and even went so far as to suggest it deserved awards for adapted screenplay. Talk about neutered, that movie completely lost its ending, and they basically censored anything mildly controversial.

irishjayhawk
12-14-2007, 10:37 PM
yes, but are you talking socially?

I'm talking about the ending being offensive to the population on a mainstream movie.

Hell, after thinking about it, the God/NoGod and Survivors/No survivors arguments were horrible and retarded in the film. Will Smith says one time "God didn't do this, we did." and then turns around 10 minutes later and says there is "No god, because god wouldn't do this. That argument shows just how much he doesn't want to touch a cord.

Do you think the majority of people would be candidly fine (outside of pure story, socially, as you say) with the book's ending?

irishjayhawk
12-14-2007, 10:41 PM
I must say that I am a little confused. You criticize this movie because of how poorly they adapted the story from the book, yet a couple of weeks ago you praised "The Golden Compass" and even went so far as to suggest it deserved awards for adapted screenplay. Talk about neutered, that movie completely lost its ending, and they basically censored anything mildly controversial.

Ah, yes.

I have to come clean on this a bit. I went back to the book and I was premature. I read this very close to the movie and I think that took over in my analysis of it. The Golden Compass still had a great core story. It had the book's story at it's core. This one doesn't.

Now, you mention the censoring of things. I knew that going in. This one is different. The book isn't openly atheist or openly christian or whatnot. In the Compass, it was. It was all those things and there were people banning it and so on.

In fact, I'd say you're saying they cut out the ending - well, that's being partially naive, even though I agree with you on most everything - having gone back to the book. The lack of the book's ending in the movie is NOT a product of poor writing. In fact, it's the product of GOOD writing for the screen in this case. It ensures a good bridge between movies (not that the book ending didn't...) and it ends it on a nice note rather than the death of a kid. (Which, in the movie, they go out of their way to avoid....)



So in all, I retract part of my Compass review but I will stand by and defend this one to it's death.

Third Eye
12-14-2007, 11:02 PM
In fact, I'd say you're saying they cut out the ending - well, that's being partially naive, even though I agree with you on most everything - having gone back to the book. The lack of the book's ending in the movie is NOT a product of poor writing. In fact, it's the product of GOOD writing for the screen in this case. It ensures a good bridge between movies (not that the book ending didn't...) and it ends it on a nice note rather than the death of a kid. (Which, in the movie, they go out of their way to avoid....)

It definitely ends on a nicer note, which is good for the average Joe movie watcher. And perhaps adding the ending of book 1 to the beginning of book 2 helps it flow a little better, like Peter Jackson did with Two Towers and Return of the King. However, in this case it completely removes the essence of what the series was about, i.e. killing God. You lose the whole theme and weight of the book IMO.

irishjayhawk
12-14-2007, 11:10 PM
It definitely ends on a nicer note, which is good for the average Joe movie watcher. And perhaps adding the ending of book 1 to the beginning of book 2 helps it flow a little better, like Peter Jackson did with Two Towers and Return of the King. However, in this case it completely removes the essence of what the series was about, i.e. killing God. You lose the whole theme and weight of the book IMO.

No doubt, and I'm mad as hell about that. But it's a different front. And that front has nothing to do with entertainment and has everything to do with the pussification and ignorance of America. But that's another thread for another time.

elvomito
12-14-2007, 11:11 PM
Do you think the majority of people would be candidly fine (outside of pure story, socially, as you say) with the book's ending?by social evolution i meant a society of bloodsuckers, working to, and eventually being able to move about during the day. operating under new rule, etc.
Are you saying that the ending was changed because of that implied absence of God?
i think they changed it to have a happy ending, with hope. BS. it changes the whole reason he was "legend."

if you were talking about the change into bloodsuckers being evolution of humans... i don't consider that evolution.

unlurking
12-14-2007, 11:12 PM
...This one is different. The book isn't openly atheist or openly christian or whatnot. In the Compass, it was. It was all those things and there were people banning it and so on...

So it's OK to butcher a novel's plot when you're not wanting to offend Christians?

BTW, the Golden Compass sucked as a movie. The books were only passingly acceptable in the first place, but the acting in the movie was very bland. No character development and incredibly choppy.

Third Eye
12-14-2007, 11:12 PM
No doubt, and I'm mad as hell about that. But it's a different front. And that front has nothing to do with entertainment and has everything to do with the pussification and ignorance of America. But that's another thread for another time.
Absolutely.

irishjayhawk
12-14-2007, 11:15 PM
So it's OK to butcher a novel's plot when you're not wanting to offend Christians?

BTW, the Golden Compass sucked as a movie. The books were only passingly acceptable in the first place, but the acting in the movie was very bland. No character development and incredibly choppy.

Not what I said, but I can see how you interpreted it that way.

The GC was good because it had CORE story to it. Legend doesn't have a shred of it. Not a shred.

I disagree about the character dev in GC. I thought Lyra went well.

But to the first question: absolutely not. My point was the book at least had elements from the book. This did not.

irishjayhawk
12-14-2007, 11:19 PM
by social evolution i meant a society of bloodsuckers, working to, and eventually being able to move about during the day. operating under new rule, etc.
Are you saying that the ending was changed because of that implied absence of God?


SPOILERS OF THE BOOK BEWARE!!!!










Well, no. But it does imply this, yes, which makes it a related, secondary reason. My point was: so many people don't buy into or like the theory of evolution. And for humans to "evolve" into something else would ruin the movie on a social level, rather than an entertainment level.


i think they changed it to have a happy ending, with hope.

This is also why I loved Children of Men. It didn't coddle you and tell you everything was going to be allright. It just said what happened.

They absolutely did this. It's a typical leave on a happy note, humanity trumps all, etc.


BS. it changes the whole reason he was "legend."

Absof*ckinglutely.


if you were talking about the change into bloodsuckers being evolution of humans... i don't consider that evolution.

That's what they say at the end of the novel. He was legend because he became, effectively, extinct. The virus was an "evolution". Correct me if I'm wrong.

'Hamas' Jenkins
12-14-2007, 11:21 PM
Huey's a little too black sounding for me.

elvomito
12-14-2007, 11:50 PM
The virus was an "evolution". Correct me if I'm wrong.i would say the virus caused an evolution, of the world, not biological. since the virus can be treated, its not really evolution.

ya know, i kept waiting for the female in the movie to hit neville over the head with something and knock him out.

Jenson71
12-15-2007, 12:10 AM
SPOILER WARNING BELOW



This is also why I loved Children of Men. It didn't coddle you and tell you everything was going to be allright. It just said what happened.

I also loved Children of Men, but I disagree - I think they did end with everything was going to work out. The pregnant woman finds safety with the ship.

Douche Baggins
12-15-2007, 12:13 AM
SPOILER WARNING BELOW




I also loved Children of Men, but I disagree - I think they did end with everything was going to work out. The pregnant woman finds safety with the ship.

And that's why No Country rocked. :clap:

Jenson71
12-15-2007, 12:18 AM
And that's why No Country rocked. :clap:

I haven't seen No Country For Old Men - it hasn't made it's way here yet. SO NO SPOILERS MAN!

Again, more spoilers for Children of Men below:

I will say that Children of Men's hopeful ending did not hurt its story. Although the optimism of movies can get stale, and a dreary, pessimistic tone and ending can be a great refreshing taste, Children of Men had that perfect blend. Yes, man has done so much bad - but that glimmer of care stays strong.

Ultra Peanut
12-15-2007, 12:33 AM
if you were talking about the change into bloodsuckers being evolution of humans... i don't consider that evolution.Evolution is change from one state to another. Human society, at the very least, evolved after the plague.

kchero
12-15-2007, 01:42 AM
If plagiarism is illegal, this should be illegal too. What do I mean by "this", you ask?

Well, I mean the absolute butchering of a story and then "claiming" to have based it off a book. I know, I know, adaptations off true stories or books are usually 1% book. But where does one draw the line between an adaptation and an entirely new story.

Meet Akiva Goldsman. He should be banned from writing adaptations for anything else. In fact, throw out his not-yet-finished script for Angels and Demons. He's butchered EVERYTHING he's touched. Hell, now I can see why he was the one behind Batman and Robin - the worst Batman film of all time.

In Da Vinci code, he essentially neutered the punch. Apparently, he doesn't want to offend. But at what cost. It appears at any cost. Even the thought of POTENTIALLY offending someone sits uncomfortably with him. Look, in the Code, he changes things that cinematically don't need to be changed. Things like the main heroine's grandpa, grandma and brother whom are very vital to the story. Like the adding of retarded scenes to appease religious crowds. And for what?

Now, in Code's defense, Ron Howard saved the film making it an acceptable stand alone film. Yes, neutered and all, it stands alone as watchable and even ownable. Though, it must be said that the book is much, much better.

And that brings me to Legend. Let me say this upfront. Will Smith cannot save this movie. He does his best. And I have to say, it's very, very good. He takes frustration, emotion, longing for companionship, etc (all of which is in the book) and conveys it flawlessly.


The director of Constantine, cannot save this film. The script is rubbish. It's total rubbish. And what I fear more than anything is it's rubbish because the book deals with evolution. (Of course, this is a thread by itself and spoiler heavy).

In fact, I think the movie illustrates it nicely. The book is Robert Neville. The movie are all the horrible creatures hunting Neville. They have no soul (story). They have no core. They have craftsmanship issues (skin meets light). He is immune. He sits alone (book a bookshelf). And the best part is, the ending shows just how willing Akiva is to butcher a film. To take it's soul and destroy it.

Needless to say, this film is a step above horrible. It's not quite the worst movie ever or this year, even. But it's definitely not okay. It's about as okay as the vampire/zombies in the film.


I am sorry, but I completely disagree. I am a huge horror and sci-fi genre fan and critic and this is by far a superior film than the first two remakes of this film before it. (The last man on earth - 1964, and The Omega Man 1971). First off, it is a movie, we cannot possibly wrap up the entire context of the film in just under 2 hours (Just ask fans of the Lord of the Rings Trilogy, Harry Potter, etc.) This film has done something that very few to no apocalyptic based films have done prior to this. The main undertaking of the story was him being absolutely alone and the struggles of him dealing with it emotionaly, spiritally and physically. The concept of the "ghouls" wasn't even fully examined until halfway through the film and I thought they handled the film with much success. The story was solid and Will Smith's acting was amazing, it is seriously an Oscar worthy performance, better than Tom Hanks in Castaway in my opinion since he portrayed a character suffering isolation as well. Honestly, to say this film is horrible is easily not the case. I was actually very fond of the film and the audience was very well recieved to it. You are certainly titled to your opinion and by no means am I telling you that you are wrong, but I have a completly different take on the film and I figured I would share that.

elvomito
12-15-2007, 01:51 AM
Evolution is change from one state to another. Human society, at the very least, evolved after the plague.true for societies which was what i was saying, but not biology. Ebola/Aids isn't evolution.

kchero
12-15-2007, 01:53 AM
true for societies which was what i was saying, but not biology. Ebola/Aids isn't evolution.


Exactly, I saw that and I was going to say something, but you beat me too it.

Ebolapox
12-15-2007, 02:04 AM
true for societies which was what i was saying, but not biology. Ebola/Aids isn't evolution.

true in the classical sense. viruses and epidemics can cause selection PRESSURE on environments and populations, which could lead to an adaption in a given population. however, the virus or epidemic caused by the virus ITSELF doesn't cause the evolution (see the slippery slope caused by the classical definition?)

in other words: let's say that a virus spreads throughout the entire population of the world. (just to be fun, let's say it's a genetically modified form of ebola, like the 'rainbow 6' virus 'shiva'). it kills 99.9% of the population, and those who survive (all 6.5 million of them) have an immunity to it in the future.

Shiva itself didn't cause the evolution. the outbreak/pandemic thereof caused selection pressure (as well as possible 'bottleneck events' and 'founder's effect') to the world's population, and those who survived 'evolved' into a population where, most likely, a future outbreak of Shiva would kill minimal people (like smallpox had little effect on europeans, yet decimated indians in the new world)...

Fairplay
12-15-2007, 05:14 AM
I like apocalyptic movies like that.

No to say that this one will be great. But i will go see it.

Baby Lee
12-15-2007, 05:54 AM
Evolution is change from one state to another. Human society, at the very least, evolved after the plague.
Then Owen had to open the effing rift.

Fairplay
12-15-2007, 06:46 AM
I think i am the only one on earth but everyone else are just actors.

Just there to play a role in my world. Like the Truman show. Only on an earthly scale.

munkey
12-15-2007, 07:28 AM
by social evolution i meant a society of bloodsuckers, working to, and eventually being able to move about during the day. operating under new rule, etc.


Sounds a lot like Blade...Does Snipes make a cameo?

Spicy McHaggis
12-15-2007, 07:33 AM
I heard that the movie even omits to explain why the story is titled "I Am Legend". That's a rather big whiff IMO and really made me not want to see it.

Sure-Oz
12-15-2007, 08:33 AM
Maybe cause hes the last man on earth??

BigRedChief
12-15-2007, 08:55 AM
I like apocalyptic movies like that.

No to say that this one will be great. But i will go see it.
Saw it last night. Save yourself the money and watch it on DVD or HBO.

I've never heard of the book before the movie nor have I read it so I don't know about the "butchering" pf the book.

This movie was slow and the direction was horrible. Will Smith is a good actor but he can't save it.

BigRedChief
12-15-2007, 08:56 AM
I heard that the movie even omits to explain why the story is titled "I Am Legend". That's a rather big whiff IMO and really made me not want to see it.
Not true. The last words of the movie spoke by narration explain why.

Deberg_1990
12-15-2007, 09:24 AM
Saw it last night. Save yourself the money and watch it on DVD or HBO.

I've never heard of the book before the movie nor have I read it so I don't know about the "butchering" pf the book.

This movie was slow and the direction was horrible. Will Smith is a good actor but he can't save it.

If i go see it, it will definately be in IMAX to "enhance" the experience.

Ultra Peanut
12-15-2007, 09:29 AM
true for societies which was what i was saying, but not biology. Ebola/Aids isn't evolution.The end result of this particular virus, however, was that the people with the mutation/affliction adapted, and those who didn't died off.

Ipso facto, evolution. More or less. We're left with a society of bloodsuckers who sleep during the day.

Maybe cause hes the last man on earth??Actually:

BOOK SPOILER: Mother****er is their Dracula.

irishjayhawk
12-15-2007, 09:45 AM
SPOILER WARNING BELOW




I also loved Children of Men, but I disagree - I think they did end with everything was going to work out. The pregnant woman finds safety with the ship.

I disagree. Well, sort of. I agree with your later post about the blend. I might grant you a slight piece of truth to the "happy ending" but it isn't. At least, not in the happy ending sense. Clive Owen's fate is in the balance. We don't know what happens to the baby (can ONE baby save the world). Is the boat full of people who want to kill the baby, like many others?

We find out only what the character finds out. And that's how this movie should have been. I can only wonder how this move would have come out if directed by Burton, Cuaron, Del Torro, or some of the many dark directors.

And I'm serious when I think they walked onto the set of The Villiage.

irishjayhawk
12-15-2007, 09:50 AM
Saw it last night. Save yourself the money and watch it on DVD or HBO.

I've never heard of the book before the movie nor have I read it so I don't know about the "butchering" pf the book.

This movie was slow and the direction was horrible. Will Smith is a good actor but he can't save it.

Will Smith was superb at conveying Neville's emotions. But he, himself, cannot save the film.

@elvomito: I'll agree in the strict sense, but the book seemed to indicate the virus caused an actual mutation which evolved everyone but Neville. Am I wrong or are you just saying the book has a wrong interpretation of evolution?

@kchero: If I set everything aside about the adaptation, the direction was horrendous. The CGI was terrible. The pacing was about as bad as you can get. The one thing I did think was an acceptable directorial change was the manicans. It was an easy way for Smith to showcase his talent. I have no idea about the other two films, as I haven't seen them. But it's not hard for a modern movie to be better than it's older counterparts. And that by no means means it's a good film.

Maybe I should make it my goal to remake the film to the actual goddamn book.

Jenson71
12-15-2007, 12:28 PM
I disagree. Well, sort of. I agree with your later post about the blend. I might grant you a slight piece of truth to the "happy ending" but it isn't. At least, not in the happy ending sense. Clive Owen's fate is in the balance. We don't know what happens to the baby (can ONE baby save the world). Is the boat full of people who want to kill the baby, like many others?

We find out only what the character finds out.

Not in the sense that "everyone lives happily ever after" but it is, ultimately, a hopeful ending. Yes, Theo died - but he died in sacrifice for a great cause - helping to save mankind.

But there's more to it than Theo's life (and death). And you can't infer on to the story something that is not intended, although it might be fun and imaginitive to do so, it's just not what the message is.

Your example is like if in The Godfather, pretending there is no book or sequel, after the door shuts on Kay and the viewers, Michael is killed by his capos. What!? There's no indication of that. Instead, the indication is, the circle is complete - Michael is the man of power his father once was and he originally wanted no part of.

I'm thinking you probably won't appreciate the spiritual, Christian overtones of Children of Men, but next time you watch it, I encourage you to notice the symbolism and themes.

Who was another baby that "saved" and gave hope for mankind? Notice how the mother's journey is similiar to another woman's we hear alot about this time of year.

Dunit35
12-15-2007, 01:56 PM
I watched this movie last night and I thought it was badass. Although I did think the ending could've been way better. Hell, I didn't know there was a book. I guess I'll need to pick it up.

Ari ümlaüt
12-15-2007, 02:02 PM
Bill Belichek and Tom Brady like the movie, so I'm going to go see it.

FAX
12-15-2007, 05:22 PM
Saw it last night.

This, my friends, is a rental. Will Smith does a good job, but it isn't worth seeing on a big screen, unfortunately.

They did show previews that look very enticing. One was for "The Dark Knight", one was for "Iron Man", and one was for "10,000 BC". That last one had mammoths and a sabertooth. It reminded me of the department store I patronized yesterday afternoon.

FAX

siberian khatru
12-15-2007, 05:57 PM
Just got back from seeing it with my 12-year-old. He's read the book. Said they changed a lot, but so what.

Two thumbs up.

Oh, and Dark Knight looks awesome. They've finally got the Joker right -- he's a psychopathic killer, not some funny criminal.

irishjayhawk
12-15-2007, 06:58 PM
Not in the sense that "everyone lives happily ever after" but it is, ultimately, a hopeful ending. Yes, Theo died - but he died in sacrifice for a great cause - helping to save mankind.

But there's more to it than Theo's life (and death). And you can't infer on to the story something that is not intended, although it might be fun and imaginitive to do so, it's just not what the message is.

Well, see I guess we disagree on the interpretation of the ending. I don't think he dies. I think he passes out and would be (hopefully) revived on the Tomorrow.


Your example is like if in The Godfather, pretending there is no book or sequel, after the door shuts on Kay and the viewers, Michael is killed by his capos. What!? There's no indication of that. Instead, the indication is, the circle is complete - Michael is the man of power his father once was and he originally wanted no part of.

Color me confused.



I'm thinking you probably won't appreciate the spiritual, Christian overtones of Children of Men, but next time you watch it, I encourage you to notice the symbolism and themes.

Who was another baby that "saved" and gave hope for mankind? Notice how the mother's journey is similiar to another woman's we hear alot about this time of year.

Oh, I know. But you also have to be warned that Christianity doesn't have a patent on this story. There have been plenty of stories before that of Christ that went in similar ways.

stevieray
12-15-2007, 08:37 PM
(radio static) DC police..cleanup on aisle four...(radio static)

John_Wayne
12-15-2007, 08:38 PM
If plagiarism is illegal, this should be illegal too. What do I mean by "this", you ask?

Well, I mean the absolute butchering of a story and then "claiming" to have based it off a book. I know, I know, adaptations off true stories or books are usually 1% book. But where does one draw the line between an adaptation and an entirely new story.

Meet Akiva Goldsman. He should be banned from writing adaptations for anything else. In fact, throw out his not-yet-finished script for Angels and Demons. He's butchered EVERYTHING he's touched. Hell, now I can see why he was the one behind Batman and Robin - the worst Batman film of all time.

In Da Vinci code, he essentially neutered the punch. Apparently, he doesn't want to offend. But at what cost. It appears at any cost. Even the thought of POTENTIALLY offending someone sits uncomfortably with him. Look, in the Code, he changes things that cinematically don't need to be changed. Things like the main heroine's grandpa, grandma and brother whom are very vital to the story. Like the adding of retarded scenes to appease religious crowds. And for what?

Now, in Code's defense, Ron Howard saved the film making it an acceptable stand alone film. Yes, neutered and all, it stands alone as watchable and even ownable. Though, it must be said that the book is much, much better.

And that brings me to Legend. Let me say this upfront. Will Smith cannot save this movie. He does his best. And I have to say, it's very, very good. He takes frustration, emotion, longing for companionship, etc (all of which is in the book) and conveys it flawlessly.


The director of Constantine, cannot save this film. The script is rubbish. It's total rubbish. And what I fear more than anything is it's rubbish because the book deals with evolution. (Of course, this is a thread by itself and spoiler heavy).

In fact, I think the movie illustrates it nicely. The book is Robert Neville. The movie are all the horrible creatures hunting Neville. They have no soul (story). They have no core. They have craftsmanship issues (skin meets light). He is immune. He sits alone (book a bookshelf). And the best part is, the ending shows just how willing Akiva is to butcher a film. To take it's soul and destroy it.

Needless to say, this film is a step above horrible. It's not quite the worst movie ever or this year, even. But it's definitely not okay. It's about as okay as the vampire/zombies in the film.

That's why I don't read books. They ruin perfectly good movies. :)

Bill S Preston
12-15-2007, 08:41 PM
I thought that it was pretty good.

Braincase
12-15-2007, 09:00 PM
It's a renter. Not top shelf sci-fi. Ending was disappointing. Rarelt do I say that a movie needs to be stretched out fo 2 and a half hours, but this is one.

irishjayhawk
12-15-2007, 09:14 PM
That's why I don't read books. They ruin perfectly good movies. :)

Again, aside from the book, the film really isn't that good. It's pacing sucks, CGI is terrible, and the direction sucks. Only good thing is Smith's acting.

FAX
12-15-2007, 09:27 PM
I don't want to spoil it for anyone, so is it okay to say what I didn't like about the movie in this thread thing?

FAX

irishjayhawk
12-15-2007, 09:36 PM
I don't want to spoil it for anyone, so is it okay to say what I didn't like about the movie in this thread thing?

FAX

Yes. Plenty of spoilers already. I tried to preface most of mine.

FAX
12-15-2007, 10:09 PM
Well, first off. I thought the movie was, essentially, depressing. It was like watching a zombie chick flick. We cry, we talk to ourselves, we go nuts, we dream crummy dreams, then we die. Secondly, the suspense was shallow. The only good suspense scene was where the dog ran into the warehouse and, although that was okay, there was really no solid suspense throughout the balance of the film. Finally, because the girl character wasn't properly developed, Will Smith suffers thoughout and blows himself up, so you're left with no hope. It was like Castaway except that, at the end of that movie, Tom Hanks is, at least, at a crossroads and you leave the theater not feeling like to just watched some poor bastard suffer for two hours.

All in all, the premise was good but I thought the plot (such as it is) was basically weak and the resolution was weaker.

FAX

penguinz
12-15-2007, 10:13 PM
How can you expect it to be a good movie when it has Will Smith in it?

FAX
12-15-2007, 10:17 PM
How can you expect it to be a good movie when it has Will Smith in it?

He was good in that movie about the space aliens with that guy who was in the movie about the dinosaurs and the guy who played the cab driver in that tv show with the dinky guy who played the attorney in that movie about the married couple who killed themselves with the guy and the girl who were also in that movie where they were in South America looking for her sister.

FAX

KCwolf
12-15-2007, 11:05 PM
Will Smith is $$ and I thought it was a solid 7. Try not to over analyze and just enjoy....worth the $6.50 matinee price.

FAX
12-15-2007, 11:14 PM
Will Smith is $$ and I thought it was a solid 7. Try not to over analyze and just enjoy....worth the $6.50 matinee price.

Normally, I would say the same thing, Mr. KCwolf. I was just looking forward to a nice, well-budgeted zombie movie. My expectations were a little off target, probably.

FAX

irishjayhawk
12-16-2007, 01:18 AM
Will Smith is $$ and I thought it was a solid 7. Try not to over analyze and just enjoy....worth the $6.50 matinee price.

It requires minimal analyzing to discover this movie is a fraud. And even less when one has read the superb novel it's "based" on.

btlook1
12-16-2007, 01:28 AM
Will Smith is $$ and I thought it was a solid 7. Try not to over analyze and just enjoy....worth the $6.50 matinee price.

NOt a great movie but worth the price!! Now it's time to read the book I'm sure it will be better!

cardken
12-16-2007, 06:38 AM
Thats why they are called Adaptations. Listen I've been tired for years of listening to Grishom-ites and the sort crying about "not being as good as the book" and the such. Once you've read something it is yours. your imagination, your storyline. And the chance of your vision being the same as someone elses will rarely be. And all adaptations are "dumbed" down forthe masses, granted, that is what is wrong with Hollywood. Had this been an independant film it probably would have went the other way. I saw it for what it was entertainment and was pleasantly suprised. Will Smith did a great job, and a script that has one character for the better part of the film is a hard toryline to keep moving (see Castaway). So was entertained, the purpose of a movie.

siberian khatru
12-16-2007, 08:37 AM
I was just looking forward to a nice, well-budgeted zombie movie. My expectations were a little off target, probably.

FAX

I was expecting more of a psychological thriller, examining the loneliness and guilt of a survivor. For the first 2/3 of the movie I got it and was satisfied. I had no problems with Smith or the pacing.

The movie went off the rails, though, when SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER

SPOILER SPOILER










Smith went suicidal against the zombies at night and was saved by a deus ex machina. The movie didn't spend enough time developing Anna's character, then suddenly it became a zombie movie with all-out assault.

Before the movie came out, I kept reading how this wasn't a remake of Omega Man (a movie I like a lot). Yet, I was surprised how much Omega Man-like stuff they put in the movie, right down to the cure at the end and the sacrifice.

Still, the first 2/3 was good enough for me to give it a thumbs up, or 3 out of 5 stars.

Deberg_1990
12-16-2007, 08:40 AM
I just have one question:

Are the vampires all CGI or are some played by REAL actors?

Thats crap if they went all CGI.

KcMizzou
12-16-2007, 08:41 AM
What's with all the zombie talk? I thought they were more like vampires.

(haven't seen the movie)

elvomito
12-16-2007, 08:41 AM
there were supposed to be two kinds

VonneMarie
12-16-2007, 10:56 AM
Saw it last night.

This, my friends, is a rental. Will Smith does a good job, but it isn't worth seeing on a big screen, unfortunately.

They did show previews that look very enticing. One was for "The Dark Knight", one was for "Iron Man", and one was for "10,000 BC". That last one had mammoths and a sabertooth. It reminded me of the department store I patronized yesterday afternoon.

FAX
And don't forget The Chronicles of Narnia: Prince Caspian that looked pretty good also.

As for I'am Legend, it was ok... I wish they would have shown more about the outbreak more.

Sure-Oz
12-16-2007, 11:02 AM
I was expecting more of a psychological thriller, examining the loneliness and guilt of a survivor. For the first 2/3 of the movie I got it and was satisfied. I had no problems with Smith or the pacing.

The movie went off the rails, though, when SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER

SPOILER SPOILER










Smith went suicidal against the zombies at night and was saved by a deus ex machina. The movie didn't spend enough time developing Anna's character, then suddenly it became a zombie movie with all-out assault.

Before the movie came out, I kept reading how this wasn't a remake of Omega Man (a movie I like a lot). Yet, I was surprised how much Omega Man-like stuff they put in the movie, right down to the cure at the end and the sacrifice.

Still, the first 2/3 was good enough for me to give it a thumbs up, or 3 out of 5 stars.
Agreed 100% with this statement. Decent flick, definetly rent, i thought they rushed the end and jumbled things together. Still was DECENT though. The Dark Knight looks simply, badass!

jiveturkey
12-16-2007, 07:50 PM
I loved it. The wife freaked the **** out.

One of the most stressful movies I've seen in a while.

BigRedChief
12-17-2007, 12:04 PM
Biggest opening weekend in December. Evah.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22285096/

Sure-Oz
12-17-2007, 12:05 PM
Will Smith is money, always has been. The movie entertained.

Bearcat2005
12-17-2007, 12:38 PM
I loved it. The wife freaked the **** out.

One of the most stressful movies I've seen in a while.


Ditto, I thought it was great and the girl spent the time hiding on my arm...

Que Card QB
12-17-2007, 01:22 PM
Most of it was well done. I was impressed with the deserted New York scenes and Will did a pretty good job of losing his mind. Overall I thought it was a good movie but there were some pathetic scenes that needed removed (powdered eggs comes to mind), and I'm pretty tired of the over animation Hollywood is obsessed with. The small group of "dark dwelllers" was good, 8 million of them crashing the pad was old hat.

tomahawk kid
12-17-2007, 02:08 PM
Based on what I've seen in the previews for the Dark Knight, Nolan has nailed the Joker character.

In the comics, he's a homicidal maniac and less of the "Clown Prince of Crime".

onescrewleftuntwisted
12-17-2007, 02:21 PM
i hope its a good movie im gonna go see it tonight

El Jefe
12-17-2007, 02:48 PM
Best Movie of the year, better than the book, I give this movie 10 thumbs way up.

Portis&Taylor
12-17-2007, 03:49 PM
I liked it, never read the book though. I though Will Smith did an excellent job, he is one of the best actors IMO.

Sure-Oz
12-17-2007, 04:03 PM
Based on what I've seen in the previews for the Dark Knight, Nolan has nailed the Joker character.

In the comics, he's a homicidal maniac and less of the "Clown Prince of Crime".
The movie looks like it will be excellent, Ledger definetly in what little ive seen has captured the Joker.