RiffTrax Forum

RiffTrax Discussion => Individual RiffTrax Discussion => I Am Legend => Topic started by: Junkyard on May 01, 2008, 07:58:54 PM

Title: Original Ending vs Alternate Ending
Post by: Junkyard on May 01, 2008, 07:58:54 PM
Alternate Ending

[yt=425,350]6cIQU1Fass8[/yt]

So, having seen both, which should the movie makers have gone with?

Also, which would have been more riffable?


For myself, I vote Alternate Ending on both points. It made more sense in the context of the rest of the film, and seems a bit more original. As a riffing subject, I find that happy endings after that much dark can be easliy exploited for their absurdity.

One last note: They used a clip from the alternate as the climax of the early trailers. Does this mean they were going to go with that ending originally?
Title: Re: Original Ending vs Alternate Ending
Post by: OmegaR! on May 01, 2008, 08:03:41 PM
From what I heard, the "alternate" ending and the current one were both up for the actual ending, but the explodey one tested better with some audiences, so that's what they went with
Title: Re: Original Ending vs Alternate Ending
Post by: nummy muffin on May 01, 2008, 08:08:42 PM
They used a clip from the alternate as the climax of the early trailers. Does this mean they were going to go with that ending originally?

It means they wanted you to buy the DVD for the extras.

I dunno.  Will Smith seems a whole lot less legendary alive.
Title: Re: Original Ending vs Alternate Ending
Post by: gammer on May 01, 2008, 08:10:07 PM
I guess liking one or the other is subjective. But, I'd have to say the alternate is marginally better.

Oh, and the alternate would have been better for riffing, for sure. I could just hear it now, when the male and female zompire's looked at each other:
Mike - "John"
Bill - "Marsha"
Title: Re: Original Ending vs Alternate Ending
Post by: Junkyard on May 01, 2008, 08:14:45 PM
I figure they could have done a weirdly sappy song over the "leaving New York" closing scene.
Title: Re: Original Ending vs Alternate Ending
Post by: nummy muffin on May 01, 2008, 08:16:12 PM
Oh, and the alternate would have been better for riffing, for sure. I could just hear it now, when the male and female zompire's looked at each other:
Mike - "John"
Bill - "Marsha"

Great Disney qoute.  ^_^

But Marsha Marsha Marsha!  
Why does she get all the attention?  Maybe it's the upsetting zombie bra...
Title: Re: Original Ending vs Alternate Ending
Post by: MartyS (Gromit) on May 01, 2008, 09:57:24 PM
I dunno.  Will Smith seems a whole lot less legendary alive.

Exactly, the title makes no sense with the alternate ending.

Both endings kinda suck.

The original:
  The butterfly images make him realize the cure is in the females blood?  What kind of scientist was this guy?
  And  the big town up in Vermont isn't sending out any radio signals to let people know they exist????  Not a single ham operator survives?

The alternate:
   He goes from obsessing about finding the cure at ground zero to happy go lucky driving down the road.
   They should have developed the zombie culture a bit more, to suddenly have the one controlling all the others, understanding what needed to be done to save it's mate, and then just leaving without killing was too much to dump in there all at once.
   
 
Title: Re: Original Ending vs Alternate Ending
Post by: ShadowDog on May 01, 2008, 10:57:40 PM
And  the big town up in Vermont isn't sending out any radio signals to let people know they exist????  Not a single ham operator survives?

I wouldn't draw that conclusion.  The woman knew about the community somehow.  I think she just stopped by New York to hang out for a day or two after she heard his transmission, doesn't mean she didn't also hear the town's.
Title: Re: Original Ending vs Alternate Ending
Post by: bratpop on May 01, 2008, 11:08:53 PM
They're both stupid, but Will blowing himself up with a grenade for essentially no reason is the stupidest.

But everything about the movie is wrong. No ending could save it. I'd love to see the alternate riffed, because blowing yourself up with a grenade ruins all the riffs of future Michael Bay movies!

Also, the lack of a really riffable ending is what made them make Disembaudio sing to distract people from the anticlimax.
Title: Re: Original Ending vs Alternate Ending
Post by: Fortis on May 01, 2008, 11:29:36 PM
Both endings sucked...I swear the writer that adapted this movie got to where the brazilian chick arrived and then forgot about the script for a few weeks.

But even though both endings sucked...the original had the emotional and character climax that was needed for Robert Neville, for the alternate ending to work they should have portrayed different aspects of Neville's personality so that I would believe that he would just let the girl (who was potentially the cure he was obsessing over) walk off with her boyfriend.

The Robert Neville they characterized would never have let her go...he would have died, if you will. But, they should have handled it better, I've been trying to think of how I would want it to end...but it really is kind of a hard ending to write. They really wrote themselves into a corner with this story, ah well, what can you do.
Title: Re: Original Ending vs Alternate Ending
Post by: Tony Farms AKA Puma Man on May 02, 2008, 06:32:29 AM
It would have been an even better ending if the lead zombie was like 'PSYCHE!  I DIDN'T CARE ABOUT HER AT ALL!" and then eaten everyone.

In between roaring, of course.
Title: Re: Original Ending vs Alternate Ending
Post by: AmandaGal on May 02, 2008, 06:39:15 AM
I think the alternate fits more with the themes in the book.  I haven't read the book in a LONG time but I seem to recall that part of it was making Neville the "monster" because the "Zombies" were "normal" and he was killing them.  I thought part of the book was flipping "normal" on it's back, so to speak.  Kind of a play on evolution. 

But, you guys are right.  That wasn't explored in the movie at all.  The ending they picked fits more with the theme of the movie.
Title: Re: Original Ending vs Alternate Ending
Post by: SmilinJackRoss on May 02, 2008, 06:40:35 AM
I prefer the alternate ending, I like how you see the pictures of other zombies on the wall, and you realize that (to the zombies) he looks like a freaking serial killer.  
Title: Re: Original Ending vs Alternate Ending
Post by: AmandaGal on May 02, 2008, 06:43:27 AM
I prefer the alternate ending, I like how you see the pictures of other zombies on the wall, and you realize that (to the zombies) he looks like a freaking serial killer. 

 I guess that's what I was trying to say, but you said it better :)  I think that was explored more in the book...but maybe I'm misremembering.  The zombies had their own society and Neville was knocking them off.  You feel for him because he's "human" until you realize that they have families they're defending and they're people like his neighbor and his best friend, etc. that he's killing because he hasn't "evolved" thusly.

So, he's really the killer zombie afterall.
Title: Re: Original Ending vs Alternate Ending
Post by: ShadowDog on May 02, 2008, 07:42:49 AM
You guys are on target, though the scriptwriter also seemed to forgot that it was VAMPIRES in the novel, not zombies.  Opps.

It would have been an even better ending if the lead zombie was like 'PSYCHE!  I DIDN'T CARE ABOUT HER AT ALL!" and then eaten everyone.

In between roaring, of course.

LMFAO!
Title: Re: Original Ending vs Alternate Ending
Post by: MartyS (Gromit) on May 02, 2008, 08:02:12 AM
I prefer the alternate ending, I like how you see the pictures of other zombies on the wall, and you realize that (to the zombies) he looks like a freaking serial killer. 

 I guess that's what I was trying to say, but you said it better :)  I think that was explored more in the book...but maybe I'm misremembering.  The zombies had their own society and Neville was knocking them off.  You feel for him because he's "human" until you realize that they have families they're defending and they're people like his neighbor and his best friend, etc. that he's killing because he hasn't "evolved" thusly.

So, he's really the killer zombie afterall.

That's the problem with this version, they made the dark seekers too animalistic for the alternate ending to make sense.

In The Omega Man they showed them as organized and intelligent (and could talk instead of 100 decibel roars).

This has happened in several remakes now, I blame CGI, it's too easy to make the mutated humans into impossible super creatures.
Title: Re: Original Ending vs Alternate Ending
Post by: Bairman on May 02, 2008, 08:11:57 AM
Everyone seems to refer to the creatures in this movie as zombies, but I thought they were vampires.  I must be missing something.
Title: Re: Original Ending vs Alternate Ending
Post by: MartyS (Gromit) on May 02, 2008, 08:54:13 AM
And  the big town up in Vermont isn't sending out any radio signals to let people know they exist???  Not a single ham operator survives?

I wouldn't draw that conclusion.  The woman knew about the community somehow.  I think she just stopped by New York to hang out for a day or two after she heard his transmission, doesn't mean she didn't also hear the town's.

That would have made sense, and have been a good way to get Nevil to leave NY, making the alternate ending more plausible.

BUT, in the movie she says God told her to go there, that she was given a vision..... 

Also it would seem implausible to be an ex military man alone for 3 years and not scan every frequency for broadcasts every once in a while? 
Title: Re: Original Ending vs Alternate Ending
Post by: SmilinJackRoss on May 02, 2008, 08:58:17 AM
Everyone seems to refer to the creatures in this movie as zombies, but I thought they were vampires.  I must be missing something.

They're neither.  Technically, they have some kind of genetic transformation, from the cancer "treatment".  Calling them zombies or vampires is just easier when discussing them.

It's like the "zombies" in 28 Days Later aren't really zombies, they have the "Rage" virus.
Title: Re: Original Ending vs Alternate Ending
Post by: David on May 02, 2008, 09:20:41 AM
Everyone seems to refer to the creatures in this movie as zombies, but I thought they were vampires.  I must be missing something.

They're zompires.
Title: Re: Original Ending vs Alternate Ending
Post by: skenderberg on May 02, 2008, 09:49:07 AM
Both endings sucked for the simple reason that the whole last act sucked. 

The theatrical ending is abominably stupid, but it fits better with the third act.  It posits that all the dark seekers are barely sentient killing machines, heedless of their own safety in pursuit of their objective.  Since this is how they've been portrayed since after Sam's death, it makes sense by the movie's own internal logic.

The alternate ending tries to implement a much cooler idea.  It posits that the dark seekers have rudimentary culture, can form personal bonds, and can resove situations in a peaceful manner under the right circumstances.  This is much closer to the book and is a much more interesting way to treat them, but that pesky third act is in its way--Alpha Male rigged that trap in the second act, sure, but since Sam's death, the dark seekers have still been portrayed as barely sentient killing machines.  The only reason they're in the basement at all is that they've hurled themselves against Neville's defenses with no regard for their own safety or the safety of their fellows.  If they'd behaved in an more intelligent fashion throughout the film, and gotten into the basement through some sort of clever gambit, this ending would have been great.  But, since it appears to belong to a whole different movie, it turns out even worse than the awful theatrical ending.
Title: Re: Original Ending vs Alternate Ending
Post by: Junkyard on May 02, 2008, 10:59:48 AM
By the way, want a nightmare tonight?

Try to picture what those two Darkseekers would have looked like if they're affectionate hissing had turned into full blown kissing.
No, seriously, do it- pastey white, veiney, engulphing each other's faces, hissy moans...
DO IT!
Title: Re: Original Ending vs Alternate Ending
Post by: bratpop on May 02, 2008, 01:57:17 PM
Frankly, I misunderstood the ending completely. I thought he said "the cure is in OUR blood" and that he meant the people who were immune. Which, you know, I thought was OBVIOUS. But he says "the cure is in HER blood" which makes no sense. Well yeah.. the cure for CANCER is in her blood, which also happens to be the cure for not being a zombie, but how can the cure for being a zombie be in the zombie's blood? How is this a sudden realization? It doesn't make any sense. Yes, in theory if you keep studying the zombie blood then you should figure out a cure. That's what he thought in the book until he realized there IS no cure. This is the human race.

As for the monsters, they were rendered ineffective by having their humanity removed. They were made into animalistic monsters, but also they can think logically enough about their opponent to plan and rig a trap, and they can love. But also they're pointlessly strong, can run straight through a steel door, and attack a glass partition by SMASHING IT WITH THEIR FACES instead of using a tool or a blunt object. They're clever enough to bite dogs to turn them into "dark seekers" instead of EATING them for survival, but they're not smart enough to get some guns to kill Neville with, or put on some sunblock and some hoodies and go out in the daytime. In short, they're plot-serving monsters with no consistency. So any "point" or poignancy is loss in the muddle.

They set up Neville as being a control freak doctor like Jack on Lost, so that his obsession with "curing" the zompires was more selfish than compassionate. Instead of his family dying of the virus, they die in the most astronomically improbable freak accident of all time - the only two helicopters in New York City smash into each other. They might as well have spontaneously combusted or choked to death on a chicken wing. They died first, unrelated to the virus, instead of dying last and giving Neville a reason to want to save the world. Now if he saves the monsters, his family is still dead. He might as well not even have a family to begin with.

I was almost right with my early prediction about how they'd end this movie. Except they left out the part where they build him a huge golden statue in Vermont. They should have done that, and had human kids running around the statue with bald creepy zompire kids catching butterflies. For he is LEGEND!
Title: Re: Original Ending vs Alternate Ending
Post by: Junkyard on May 02, 2008, 02:04:50 PM
They should have done that, and had human kids running around the statue with bald creepy zompire kids catching butterflies. For he is LEGEND!

A perfect end to a confusing rant. Can I use that to end all future speeches I may give?
Title: Re: Original Ending vs Alternate Ending
Post by: Wiseblood on May 02, 2008, 02:07:49 PM
Frankly, I misunderstood the ending completely. I thought he said "the cure is in OUR blood" and that he meant the people who were immune. Which, you know, I thought was OBVIOUS. But he says "the cure is in HER blood" which makes no sense. Well yeah.. the cure for CANCER is in her blood, which also happens to be the cure for not being a zombie, but how can the cure for being a zombie be in the zombie's blood? How is this a sudden realization? It doesn't make any sense. Yes, in theory if you keep studying the zombie blood then you should figure out a cure. That's what he thought in the book until he realized there IS no cure. This is the human race.

I think what he meant was that what was curing her could be found by having someone look at the blood sample, so he took some of the cured zombie's blood and gave it to Anna so she could escape with it and give it to someone who could use it.  This was likely faster than writing down what he did to cure the zombie.
Title: Re: Original Ending vs Alternate Ending
Post by: AmandaGal on May 02, 2008, 02:14:18 PM
Frankly, I misunderstood the ending completely. I thought he said "the cure is in OUR blood" and that he meant the people who were immune. Which, you know, I thought was OBVIOUS. But he says "the cure is in HER blood" which makes no sense. Well yeah.. the cure for CANCER is in her blood, which also happens to be the cure for not being a zombie, but how can the cure for being a zombie be in the zombie's blood? How is this a sudden realization? It doesn't make any sense. Yes, in theory if you keep studying the zombie blood then you should figure out a cure. That's what he thought in the book until he realized there IS no cure. This is the human race.

In theory, Neville was working on some kind of drug (or maybe even a virus itself?) in the movie that was curing the zombie girl.  When you take a drug (and especially if it was a bacterial or viral), the drug remains in your blood.  You can analyze blood and get the chemical compounds a person has been taking, drug levels and stuff like that (more effective than urine because in urine you get more metabolites than the actual drug).  I thought what he was saying was that cure (ie: the drug or virus or bacteria he was working on) was in her blood.  Take this vial and analyze it.

It would have been better to get the actual prototype substance, but I was under the impression that that was in the "zombie" ridden lab.

And I think he did use his blood and his immunity to engineer whatever the hell it was he was working on.  That was implied but never spoken in the film.
Title: Re: Original Ending vs Alternate Ending
Post by: ShadowDog on May 02, 2008, 02:18:35 PM
And  the big town up in Vermont isn't sending out any radio signals to let people know they exist???  Not a single ham operator survives?

I wouldn't draw that conclusion.  The woman knew about the community somehow.  I think she just stopped by New York to hang out for a day or two after she heard his transmission, doesn't mean she didn't also hear the town's.

That would have made sense, and have been a good way to get Nevil to leave NY, making the alternate ending more plausible.

BUT, in the movie she says God told her to go there, that she was given a vision..... 

Also it would seem implausible to be an ex military man alone for 3 years and not scan every frequency for broadcasts every once in a while? 

Dammit!  I hate being outlogiced, but you've done it.  I forgot about the God comment and your second comment makes too much sense to argue against.  Time for me to go eat PIE and sulk.
Title: Re: Original Ending vs Alternate Ending
Post by: bratpop on May 02, 2008, 02:52:02 PM
Well, that's what confused me then. When they went in there and Brazil was like, "Will this cure her?" and he's like, "Nawwww, it'll probably kill her," they never said what "this" refered to. I didn't know what he had done to modify his zompire cure, so it was kind of bullshit that suddenly he leaves and comes back and the cure is working. There was no discovery or anything, it just magically appeared. So why did his fucking DOG DIE? Why did the cure work on the rat but not his dog, and what was curing Sinead? Yes, I feel like this is slightly too important to leave on the cutting room floor.

I still don't get the butterfly thing. Kevin's explanation made about as much sense as anything the movie said. I would prefer if a giant butterfly crashed through the ceiling to save Will Smith, and he and the others got onto its back and flew off to Heaven. I mean WTF, seriously.

"Follow the white butterfly, guy who almost played Neo!"
"Whoa... I AM legend!"
*sees the zombie matrix*
Title: Re: Original Ending vs Alternate Ending
Post by: AmandaGal on May 02, 2008, 03:13:42 PM
He said he was going to dilute the cure, I think, because it had killed her before. And he put her on ice for some reason.  So, he was going to try again.  It make sense that it worked the second time to me.  He had changed the conditions of the experiment. I don't know why it didn't work for Sam.

As for the butterfly, they carry lots of symbolism in religion but I thought in the theatrical ending, seeing the butterfly grounded him.  It made him remember his daughter and remember what was important.  So, he protected the woman and the child.  I can't explain why it made sense within the confines of the movie, but the butterfly is a symbol of rebirth and starting anew so it makes sense that it's on the woman.  She was going to help the human population be reborn and start anew.

In the second ending, he saw the butterfly and again, remembered his family and realized what the zombie was really after his own family.  The butterfly on the zombie girl because the human population had been "reborn" as this new breed.

There are butterflies throughout the movie when he's reminded of family or for the whole "rebirth" thing.  I haven't analyzed them all, but I thought some of it was a bit contrived when I was watching.
Title: Re: Original Ending vs Alternate Ending
Post by: bratpop on May 02, 2008, 03:15:32 PM
There was a butterfly in the cornfield. It would have been cool if Sam ate it.
Title: Re: Original Ending vs Alternate Ending
Post by: Tony Farms AKA Puma Man on May 02, 2008, 03:44:35 PM
So what would have happened if the alpha dark seeker hadn't (in a one in a billion chance) just happened to hit the glass into the shape of a butterfly?

Title: Re: Original Ending vs Alternate Ending
Post by: esoobaC .T bocaJ on May 02, 2008, 03:55:03 PM
I would say A.D.S (I don't have time to type the whole thing) would break through the glass and kill everyone
Title: Re: Original Ending vs Alternate Ending
Post by: Tony Farms AKA Puma Man on May 02, 2008, 05:16:00 PM
This is what i don't get...

Neville spends the whole movie trying to cure these freaks....

Then, he sees some butterfly imagery and decides to blow them and himself up?

I know I'm missing something here.
Title: Re: Original Ending vs Alternate Ending
Post by: AmandaGal on May 02, 2008, 05:21:11 PM
This is what i don't get...

Neville spends the whole movie trying to cure these freaks....

Then, he sees some butterfly imagery and decides to blow them and himself up?

I know I'm missing something here.

He blows himself up for the greater good. I don't think he necessarily cares about the individual "zombies" (you can see he doesn't see them as people or individuals, at least in the theatrical ending).  He cares about humanity as a whole.  He's not trying to "cure them."  He's trying to save humanity and any zombie who gets in the way is inconsequential (as you can see by those who he used as nothing more than human rats).  He sees the only way the cure can survive is for him to make the final sacrifice and really, he doesn't have anything to live for anymore now that he's found a cure.  That was his life's mission.  For him to stay and fight and die with the cure would be useless.

Like he said, the zombies wouldn't give up.  He could either run with the cure and risk losing everything he's worked for, probably dieing in the process, or make the choice to die for it.

In my thinking, the butterfly reminded him of his daughter who symbolizes the future.  It made him remember that the future generations, the children, are more important than his own life.
Title: Re: Original Ending vs Alternate Ending
Post by: FBX on May 02, 2008, 06:21:04 PM
I thought it was pretty clear he didn't have anything to really live for once he had found the cure. He was a psychologically screwed up individual once his whole family died. The only thing keeping him alive really was his obsession to find that cure and his dog that he didn't want to die.

Of course, any good scientist would realize the potential for imbeciles to mess up his cure and be unable to reproduce it without his help, but I guess he was more concerned with going out with a bang.

I thought the movie itself had a good "book" ending even if it didn't have the book ending.
Title: Re: Original Ending vs Alternate Ending
Post by: Tyrant on May 02, 2008, 07:00:58 PM
Even though the original ending depressed the hell out of me, I've got to go with it. It doesn't have the storybook/Hollywood twist where the hero survives and all is well. I also agree with everyone who said it makes more sense to the title. I suppose Neville could have been a legend for being the dude who cured humanity, but dying for the cure would make him an even bigger legend. Yeah, the alternate ending made me feel better, but the original one told a better story.

 As for the butterfly thing, I interpreted it to mean God was giving Neville some visuals to go with what Anna said about Vermont. Basically, "Hey stupid, give the cure to Anna to save humanity!!! Do I have to draw you a chart? Oh, I do? Damn scientists. Here's your stupid chart...." sort of thing.
Title: Re: Original Ending vs Alternate Ending
Post by: bratpop on May 02, 2008, 08:49:11 PM
Amanda, you're the animal expert... which animal-shaped shattered glass would have made Neville realize that the cure and his cure-couriers might not be entirely safe if he explodes a hand grenade five feet from them?
Title: Re: Original Ending vs Alternate Ending
Post by: AmandaGal on May 02, 2008, 08:55:16 PM
They were in a furnace.  They were safe from fire . . .  I guess?

Actually, what the hell was that hole in the wall?  Apparently it wasn't a tunnel or anything. He said, "Stay until morning and then leave." It was kind of short sighted for him to build a tiny little cubby hole to nowhere, when apparently it wasn't strong enough to withstand a night long of creature attacks anyway.  He should have built a tunnel out of the house with a bomb he could ignite from outside, so while they were trying to get through the door, he could leave and blow them up.

Too bad I am not Legend.
Title: Re: Original Ending vs Alternate Ending
Post by: Fortis on May 02, 2008, 10:04:05 PM
well we can't all be as intelligent as you amanda. But then, if I were legend I would probably have slowly set up a boat when it was day time with everything I ever needed, and then sail the seven seas and live the life of a pirate until I should want for nothing.

There aren't any darkseeker sharks are there?
Title: Re: Original Ending vs Alternate Ending
Post by: MartyS (Gromit) on May 02, 2008, 10:15:57 PM
well we can't all be as intelligent as you amanda. But then, if I were legend I would probably have slowly set up a boat when it was day time with everything I ever needed, and then sail the seven seas and live the life of a pirate until I should want for nothing.

There aren't any darkseeker sharks are there?

If all the land was taken over by dark seekers it would be a long time out at sea, oh no, WATERWORLD, NOOOOOOOOO!!!!!

As for darkseeker sharks, a virus that attacks mammals would be unlikely to affect fish, but he did say it was mutating so who knows.
Title: Re: Original Ending vs Alternate Ending
Post by: RoninFox on May 02, 2008, 10:24:01 PM
well we can't all be as intelligent as you amanda. But then, if I were legend I would probably have slowly set up a boat when it was day time with everything I ever needed, and then sail the seven seas and live the life of a pirate until I should want for nothing.

There aren't any darkseeker sharks are there?

If all the land was taken over by dark seekers it would be a long time out at sea, oh no, WATERWORLD, NOOOOOOOOO!!!!!

As for darkseeker sharks, a virus that attacks mammals would be unlikely to affect fish, but he did say it was mutating so who knows.

So we should probably be more worried about darkseeker dolphins?
Title: Re: Original Ending vs Alternate Ending
Post by: OmegaR! on May 02, 2008, 10:27:38 PM
So we should probably be more worried about darkseeker dolphins?

Like in the Halloween episode of the Simpsons

Anyway, the cold repressed/negated the K. Virus, so most creatures of the deep would be immune, in my logic, which has proven at times to be flawed
Title: Re: Original Ending vs Alternate Ending
Post by: MartyS (Gromit) on May 02, 2008, 10:32:13 PM
well we can't all be as intelligent as you amanda. But then, if I were legend I would probably have slowly set up a boat when it was day time with everything I ever needed, and then sail the seven seas and live the life of a pirate until I should want for nothing.

There aren't any darkseeker sharks are there?

If all the land was taken over by dark seekers it would be a long time out at sea, oh no, WATERWORLD, NOOOOOOOOO!!!!!

As for darkseeker sharks, a virus that attacks mammals would be unlikely to affect fish, but he did say it was mutating so who knows.

So we should probably be more worried about darkseeker dolphins?

And whales, hmmm, a pale killer sperm whale, where have I heard of that before............

One thing though, they would have no place to hide during the day to avoid the sun, so I guess they wouldn't be a problem after all. :'(
Title: Re: Original Ending vs Alternate Ending
Post by: AmandaGal on May 02, 2008, 10:37:01 PM
Killer zombie dolphins would ROCK.  Where were you guys when the script was being written? That's way cooler than killer zombie dogs.
Title: Re: Original Ending vs Alternate Ending
Post by: RoninFox on May 02, 2008, 10:43:10 PM
well we can't all be as intelligent as you amanda. But then, if I were legend I would probably have slowly set up a boat when it was day time with everything I ever needed, and then sail the seven seas and live the life of a pirate until I should want for nothing.

There aren't any darkseeker sharks are there?

If all the land was taken over by dark seekers it would be a long time out at sea, oh no, WATERWORLD, NOOOOOOOOO!!!!!

As for darkseeker sharks, a virus that attacks mammals would be unlikely to affect fish, but he did say it was mutating so who knows.

So we should probably be more worried about darkseeker dolphins?

And whales, hmmm, a pale killer sperm whale, where have I heard of that before............

One thing though, they would have no place to hide during the day to avoid the sun, so I guess they wouldn't be a problem after all. :'(

Underwater caves with air pockets?
Title: Re: Original Ending vs Alternate Ending
Post by: MartyS (Gromit) on May 02, 2008, 10:50:59 PM
well we can't all be as intelligent as you amanda. But then, if I were legend I would probably have slowly set up a boat when it was day time with everything I ever needed, and then sail the seven seas and live the life of a pirate until I should want for nothing.

There aren't any darkseeker sharks are there?

If all the land was taken over by dark seekers it would be a long time out at sea, oh no, WATERWORLD, NOOOOOOOOO!!!!!

As for darkseeker sharks, a virus that attacks mammals would be unlikely to affect fish, but he did say it was mutating so who knows.

So we should probably be more worried about darkseeker dolphins?

And whales, hmmm, a pale killer sperm whale, where have I heard of that before............

One thing though, they would have no place to hide during the day to avoid the sun, so I guess they wouldn't be a problem after all. :'(

Underwater caves with air pockets?

Yes, that would work for dolphins.  Of course being a Hollywood film we could say that sea water blocks UV, even though it doesn't, science isn't all that reliable in films.  Now, imagine the sound the darkseeker dolphins would make.
Title: Re: Original Ending vs Alternate Ending
Post by: scottrkrv on May 03, 2008, 11:19:19 PM
I prefer the alternate ending, I like how you see the pictures of other zombies on the wall, and you realize that (to the zombies) he looks like a freaking serial killer. 

 I guess that's what I was trying to say, but you said it better :)  I think that was explored more in the book...but maybe I'm misremembering.  The zombies had their own society and Neville was knocking them off.  You feel for him because he's "human" until you realize that they have families they're defending and they're people like his neighbor and his best friend, etc. that he's killing because he hasn't "evolved" thusly.

So, he's really the killer zombie afterall.

That's the problem with this version, they made the dark seekers too animalistic for the alternate ending to make sense.

In The Omega Man they showed them as organized and intelligent (and could talk instead of 100 decibel roars).

This has happened in several remakes now, I blame CGI, it's too easy to make the mutated humans into impossible super creatures.


And compare this to the "original" "Last Man on Earth" with Vincent Price. He was an obvious zombie/vampirer hunter, and his "victims" were far more "human."

(and the backstory was more ambigiuous).
Title: Re: Original Ending vs Alternate Ending
Post by: scottrkrv on May 03, 2008, 11:27:39 PM
[It's like the "zombies" in 28 Days Later aren't really zombies, they have the "Rage" virus.

You know that is a meaningful as saying  ham is less filling than turkey, right?
Title: Re: Original Ending vs Alternate Ending
Post by: Hamdingers on May 04, 2008, 02:20:46 PM
The alternate ending fits the movie much better, but as is typical of focus groups, they preferred the more "explodey" ending, predictable really

another great example of this is the "Unhappy ending" (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VtEkIKXcs98) (warning, 22 minutes long, and some idiot marked it as "mature" even though it wasnt) of the remake of Little Shop of Horrors, the movie would have been much stronger with that ending
Title: Re: Original Ending vs Alternate Ending
Post by: GoldieLucks on May 04, 2008, 08:26:36 PM
Both endings sucked for the simple reason that the whole last act sucked. 

The theatrical ending is abominably stupid, but it fits better with the third act.  It posits that all the dark seekers are barely sentient killing machines, heedless of their own safety in pursuit of their objective.  Since this is how they've been portrayed since after Sam's death, it makes sense by the movie's own internal logic.

The alternate ending tries to implement a much cooler idea.  It posits that the dark seekers have rudimentary culture, can form personal bonds, and can resove situations in a peaceful manner under the right circumstances.  This is much closer to the book and is a much more interesting way to treat them, but that pesky third act is in its way--Alpha Male rigged that trap in the second act, sure, but since Sam's death, the dark seekers have still been portrayed as barely sentient killing machines.  The only reason they're in the basement at all is that they've hurled themselves against Neville's defenses with no regard for their own safety or the safety of their fellows.  If they'd behaved in an more intelligent fashion throughout the film, and gotten into the basement through some sort of clever gambit, this ending would have been great.  But, since it appears to belong to a whole different movie, it turns out even worse than the awful theatrical ending.

Ah, that sheds light, thank you.  This might explain why the semi-intelligent zombie (alternate ending) stood hissing at Neville for what seemed like 10 minutes, despite having rescued his girl and no challenge from Neville whatsoever.  At first I thought, 'what's with all the yelling? He's more than made his point.'  By round 4 of this one-sided screaming match, I had been pulled completely out of the movie.
Title: Re: Original Ending vs Alternate Ending
Post by: bratpop on May 04, 2008, 08:59:30 PM
See, that's another thing. They're smart enough to train dogs and rig a Will trap, but they smash their heads into walls and stare at you stupidly hissing instead of saying, "Hey, can I have my girlfriend back?" You'd think with the giant mouths, they'd be even BETTER at talking.
Title: Re: Original Ending vs Alternate Ending
Post by: nummy muffin on May 04, 2008, 09:06:54 PM
See, that's another thing. They're smart enough to train dogs and rig a Will trap, but they smash their heads into walls and stare at you stupidly hissing instead of saying, "Hey, can I have my girlfriend back?" You'd think with the giant mouths, they'd be even BETTER at talking.

Until I read this thread and found out that the zombies had rigged the Will trap, I'd just figured he'd set it himself and forgot about it.  That he was actually going insane.  You're right.  The zombies were portrayed as no smarter than the deer.   
Title: Re: Original Ending vs Alternate Ending
Post by: bratpop on May 04, 2008, 09:11:11 PM
I suppose it's possible a wizard did it. But even so, they had dogs on leashes, and yet they were too dumb to point at something they wanted.
Title: Re: Original Ending vs Alternate Ending
Post by: nummy muffin on May 04, 2008, 09:21:17 PM
Or be anywhere close behind the dogs...they could've had him.
Title: Re: Original Ending vs Alternate Ending
Post by: MartyS (Gromit) on May 04, 2008, 09:31:52 PM
Or be anywhere close behind the dogs...they could've had him.

Yea, that was another thing that didn't make sense, why did he send only the dogs and not a bunch of fellow dark seekers, are we supposed to belive they were afraid to get shot at that point but later on stormed the house without caring?  Or that they only wanted him wounded so they could follow him home?

It seems like they had absolutely no idea what the dark seekers were and just made stuff up as they went along.  Some day I'll have to listen to some of the extra commentary tracks to see what they say.
Title: Re: Original Ending vs Alternate Ending
Post by: Fuzzy Necromancer on May 04, 2008, 10:58:31 PM
Wow. o.0

*after reading entire thread*

What a train wreck of a film. I think that hollywood generates some kind of negative-intelligence vibes, something that makes people actively seek out the worst, un-logic driven answer to a problem.
Title: Re: Original Ending vs Alternate Ending
Post by: bratpop on May 04, 2008, 11:07:45 PM
Maybe they had a couple of smart dark seekers and the rest were rock stupid, or some just had special skills like rigging car traps. I mean, they were stupid enough to run to his house and get blown up, except for the alpha DS. He obviously sent them in knowing they were too stupid to figure out there were bombs.

What I want to know is why is this movie so UN-violent when Justice League: New Frontier had people getting their heads blown off and eyes ripped out? I don't think they clearly showed one zompire getting killed or blown up on screen without ambiguity. And despite being about vampires, there was hardly any blood except when Will got ambiguously bit on his shoulder. What the hell? It's like they wanted to make it rated G but couldn't quite cut it.
Title: Re: Original Ending vs Alternate Ending
Post by: nummy muffin on May 04, 2008, 11:12:59 PM
Now we all know the kiddies love their violence.  And fart jokes.

It's PG-13, so I guess whatever they did worked.  Lame as it was.  But teens = revenue.  Respect the dollar bill.
Title: Re: Original Ending vs Alternate Ending
Post by: bratpop on May 04, 2008, 11:26:21 PM
I think the PG-13 = money thing is more of a superstition than a fact. Otherwise, why do they release EVERY PG-13 (and R-rated) movie as an unrated DVD? Obviously THAT makes a lot of money. That's the only good example I have of the same movie being released with two ratings. Otherwise, you can't really compare an R rated movie to a PG-13 rated movie because the content and style of movie are generally different.

I mean look, you think if Tank Girl and Barb Wire were PG-13 they would have made one extra cent? Or that The Matrix would have made more? Heck, if they had decent promotion for the Matrix and it was PG-13, I would definately have avoided it because it would look really worthless. At least if it's R you know something has to happen. I learned growing up in the 80s that EVERY kid wants to see R-rated movies. They might not be ABLE to, but it's much more appealing.
Title: Re: Original Ending vs Alternate Ending
Post by: ShadowDog on May 04, 2008, 11:39:33 PM
Since I'm old enough that I haven't had to worry about film ratings in 20 years, I HAVEN'T worried about film ratings in that long.  The process for determining a rating is so silly I never give it a second's thought.  In fact, until just now I didn't know that the Matrix was rated R.

All of which makes me laugh to think about how much time the studio suits probably spend thinking about film ratings and what dollar impact each rating will give them in terms of street cred (though obviously it has a money impact if teeny boppers can't get in to see it).
Title: Re: Original Ending vs Alternate Ending
Post by: nummy muffin on May 05, 2008, 12:37:12 AM
It's currently #41 on the highest-grossing Hollywood films list.  So regardless of it's sucktitude, the corporates are happy? 
They'd make a sequel if they could.  Legend 2: Sam's Ghost.  *_*
Title: Re: Original Ending vs Alternate Ending
Post by: AmandaGal on May 05, 2008, 01:00:33 AM
I think the PG-13 = money thing is more of a superstition than a fact. Otherwise, why do they release EVERY PG-13 (and R-rated) movie as an unrated DVD? Obviously THAT makes a lot of money. That's the only good example I have of the same movie being released with two ratings.

Because people pay for the extras on DVD releases.  It makes them think they're getting something.  You can add the "extras" in as bonus material and not have to worry about the suits giving it a rating.  Unrated doesn't mean anything bad was added. You could add a scene where the character hugs a care bear and says they love Jesus.  It just means a scene in movie was not rated or is different from the rated theatrical release.
Title: Re: Original Ending vs Alternate Ending
Post by: Tony Farms AKA Puma Man on May 05, 2008, 06:54:24 AM
I just realized the same guy who wrote this film wrote I, Robot, the DaVinci Code, and Lost in Space.  Maybe adaptations aren't his thing.

AND he wrote Batman and Robin (And a Beautiful Mind, which didn't suck...WTF?)

Title: Re: Original Ending vs Alternate Ending
Post by: ShadowDog on May 05, 2008, 09:04:28 AM
You could add a scene where the character hugs a care bear and says they love Jesus. 

Ew!  THAT should be rated Y for Yuck!  LMFAO
Title: Re: Original Ending vs Alternate Ending
Post by: SmilinJackRoss on May 05, 2008, 10:37:03 AM
[It's like the "zombies" in 28 Days Later aren't really zombies, they have the "Rage" virus.

You know that is a meaningful as saying  ham is less filling than turkey, right?

Look, I'm not saying that you can't or shouldn't refer to the creatures in 28 Days Later as zombies, it's certainly the easiest way to refer to them when discussing the film (especially since the movie itself gives them no specific name, they're only referred to as "the infected").  I'm just saying, in a literal sense, a zombie is a re-animated corpse....the 28 Days Later creatures not zombies in the slightest.

Nor are the creatures in I Am Legend.  But at least in this movie, they give them the name Dark Seekers, which is only to say they have been infected with the disease.
Title: Re: Original Ending vs Alternate Ending
Post by: ShadowDog on May 05, 2008, 10:46:53 AM
Couldn't you make a case in both movies that the disease killed the host and then reanimated them as something else?  I know we're getting down to semantics here but that's how I took both movies.
Title: Re: Original Ending vs Alternate Ending
Post by: Junkyard on May 05, 2008, 11:16:22 AM
Haitian Zombies are to Romero Zombies
what
Romero Zombies are to 28 Days Later Zombies

What I mean is, none of them have anything to do with each other except vauge themes. The first set is connected by the "reanimated corpse" thing, and the second set is connected by the "mindless hungry legions" thing.
Title: Re: Original Ending vs Alternate Ending
Post by: Tyrant on May 05, 2008, 02:05:45 PM
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/zombie (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/zombie)

 So really, people who have no human sentience can be considered zombies, and thusly the 'infected' in 28 Days Later were zombies by definition, just not the Romero or voodoo types. The ones in I Am Legend are way harder to define as such. Especially with the alternate ending.
Title: Re: Original Ending vs Alternate Ending
Post by: skenderberg on May 05, 2008, 02:46:05 PM
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/zombie (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/zombie)

 So really, people who have no human sentience can be considered zombies, and thusly the 'infected' in 28 Days Later were zombies by definition, just not the Romero or voodoo types. The ones in I Am Legend are way harder to define as such. Especially with the alternate ending.
They prefer to be called "differently human".
Title: Re: Original Ending vs Alternate Ending
Post by: Tyrant on May 05, 2008, 03:19:02 PM
Homosapien impaired?
Title: Re: Original Ending vs Alternate Ending
Post by: OmegaR! on May 05, 2008, 03:27:48 PM
Here's what they were,

The Incredibly Strange Creatures Who Stopped Living and Became Mixed-Up Zombies!!!

(c'mon with all the word play, we all knew it was coming)
Title: Re: Original Ending vs Alternate Ending
Post by: Tyrant on May 05, 2008, 03:35:01 PM
Here's what they were,

The Incredibly Strange Creatures Who Stopped Living and Became Mixed-Up Zombies!!!

(c'mon with all the word play, we all knew it was coming)

   :clap:   Nicely done. Nicely done.  :D
Title: Re: Original Ending vs Alternate Ending
Post by: ShadowDog on May 05, 2008, 04:57:36 PM
I suppose it was nicely done. <grumble grumble>
Title: Re: Original Ending vs Alternate Ending
Post by: gammer on May 05, 2008, 06:30:56 PM
That was nice, but I still prefer 'zompires'. Its more new-age  ;)
Title: Re: Original Ending vs Alternate Ending
Post by: bratpop on May 05, 2008, 07:03:07 PM
It just means a scene in movie was not rated or is different from the rated theatrical release.
You couldn't be wronger! That what it MEANS, but they USE it because it makes people think it's full of hot steamy porn and ultraviolence.

Couldn't you make a case in both movies that the disease killed the host and then reanimated them as something else?
No, because they never showed anybody die in I Am Legend. That was a key part of the book, but they made the distinction that they were vampires. Sam didn't die at any point before turning, she just sort of started become more eviler and darker seekinger.
Title: Re: Original Ending vs Alternate Ending
Post by: Hamdingers on May 05, 2008, 07:27:19 PM
I thought they were the "Living Impaired"
Title: Re: Original Ending vs Alternate Ending
Post by: Tony Farms AKA Puma Man on May 06, 2008, 08:24:26 AM
As a aside, I liked the Rifftrax a lot, but this movie is so gawdawful depressing that I have no desire to see it again.
Title: Re: Original Ending vs Alternate Ending
Post by: skenderberg on May 06, 2008, 09:25:56 AM
I thought they were the "Living Impaired"
Naw.  Most modern zombies are diseased, not dead.
Title: Re: Original Ending vs Alternate Ending
Post by: bratpop on May 06, 2008, 04:25:04 PM
Where can I get the disease that makes you smoove and super strong?
Title: Re: Original Ending vs Alternate Ending
Post by: ShadowDog on May 06, 2008, 04:59:55 PM
Sure, those things are sexy but who wants that overbite or skin condition?  Plus, zombie music is terrible.  You can only listen to Hellbilly Deluxe so many times before you want to blow your delicious brains out!
Title: Re: Original Ending vs Alternate Ending
Post by: OmegaR! on May 07, 2008, 11:36:52 AM
Where can I get the disease that makes you smoove and super strong?

According to my Encyclopedia RiffTraxia, for super smoothness, consult the Elves, and for super strength, consult Harrison Ford, AKA "Pennsylvania Dutch" [for specific reference see scene where Indy slides under truck and climbs back on using Whip)
Title: Re: Original Ending vs Alternate Ending
Post by: J-Proof on May 07, 2008, 03:52:33 PM
hmm - I never saw the alternate ending before (i don't own the dvd). I think it's better, actually! I thought the suicidal smith at the end of the original was even cheesier than the happy-ending of the alternate.

If they went with the original b/c of test audiences then I say screw test audiences!
Title: Re: Original Ending vs Alternate Ending
Post by: Junkyard on May 07, 2008, 05:30:40 PM
I'll second that sentiment, if not that method.
Title: Re: Original Ending vs Alternate Ending
Post by: Gadfly on May 11, 2008, 05:03:18 PM
Where can I get the disease that makes you smoove and super strong?

I don't know, but you might wish to check with the Dolphins' Jason Taylor (http://www.jasontaylor99.com/).  He certainly appears to have those symptoms...

Gadfly
Title: Re: Original Ending vs Alternate Ending
Post by: Ben on May 15, 2008, 09:33:12 AM
Both are ridiculous, with the alternate version being maybe 2% less idiotic, since it actually, y'know, had more to do with what the book was freakin' about. Unfortunately, the mind-boggingly retarded"butterfly" theme fits into both endings. Why is Goldsman trying to shoehorn a pro-Christian message into a post-apocalyptic movie? As Crow T. Robot would say, "What's his deal?"
Title: Re: Original Ending vs Alternate Ending
Post by: AmandaGal on May 15, 2008, 09:59:42 AM
The butterfly originates in pagan mythos.  It's a symbol of reincarnation.  Christians use it too, but I wouldn't call it Christian.  It actually fits with the theme of the book.  The human species has undergone a metamorphosis.  We went from larvae (Will Smith) to butterflies (Zombie)...kinda.

She refers to "god" but I think you'd expect someone to do that in an apocalypse.  I didn't think it was overly Christian.
Title: Re: Original Ending vs Alternate Ending
Post by: Junkyard on May 15, 2008, 10:05:47 AM
Um...

I respect you AmandaGal, but yes it was. It was the movie makers trying to jam God into a film that was meant to be distinctly devoid of it. Perhaps it's not OVERLY Christian, as it's Hollywood God, the touchy-feely vaugue God, but it's still meant to be basically Christian.
Title: Re: Original Ending vs Alternate Ending
Post by: Ben on May 15, 2008, 10:19:04 AM
The butterfly originates in pagan mythos.  It's a symbol of reincarnation.  Christians use it too, but I wouldn't call it Christian.  It actually fits with the theme of the book.  The human species has undergone a metamorphosis.  We went from larvae (Will Smith) to butterflies (Zombie)...kinda.

She refers to "god" but I think you'd expect someone to do that in an apocalypse.  I didn't think it was overly Christian.

The cobwebbed pattern of a butterfly on Will Smith's laboratory glass (and the tattoo on Anna's neck) was supposed to imply that Anna's speech about "God having a plan" was indeed correct. I can see the reincarnation approach possibly working in the alternate version, but the theatrical ending was just plain daft.
Title: Re: Original Ending vs Alternate Ending
Post by: AmandaGal on May 15, 2008, 10:25:12 AM
Um...

I respect you AmandaGal, but yes it was. It was the movie makers trying to jam God into a film that was meant to be distinctly devoid of it. Perhaps it's not OVERLY Christian, as it's Hollywood God, the touchy-feely vaugue God, but it's still meant to be basically Christian.

Maybe with the theatrical ending, I'd agree.  With the alternate ending, do you also think it was god centered?  I think it was more metamorphosis centered.

To me, the alternate ending made her faith look stupid.  She says god leads her there to basically destroy feeling, loving creatures.  In the alternate ending, I don't think "human" faith in god makes sense.
Title: Re: Original Ending vs Alternate Ending
Post by: AmandaGal on May 15, 2008, 10:26:34 AM
The butterfly originates in pagan mythos.  It's a symbol of reincarnation.  Christians use it too, but I wouldn't call it Christian.  It actually fits with the theme of the book.  The human species has undergone a metamorphosis.  We went from larvae (Will Smith) to butterflies (Zombie)...kinda.

She refers to "god" but I think you'd expect someone to do that in an apocalypse.  I didn't think it was overly Christian.

The cobwebbed pattern of a butterfly on Will Smith's laboratory glass (and the tattoo on Anna's neck) was supposed to imply that Anna's speech about "God having a plan" was indeed correct. I can see the reincarnation approach possibly working in the alternate version, but the theatrical ending was just plain daft.

I thought we were talking about the alternate ending. My mistake.
Title: Re: Original Ending vs Alternate Ending
Post by: rockyoumonkeys on June 06, 2008, 10:55:18 AM
the theatrical version is garbage.

just awful. i couldn't understand why they advertised the "alternate" one as "controversial".
Title: Re: Original Ending vs Alternate Ending
Post by: MartyS (Gromit) on June 06, 2008, 11:41:23 AM
the theatrical version is garbage.
just awful. i couldn't understand why they advertised the "alternate" one as "controversial".

Marketing gimmick, just like "unrated" is used even if they add a few minutes of G rated footage...

It seems as if they shot the movie not knowing what ending they were going to use, so neither ending is good because neither one had the appropriate setup in the rest of the movie.
Title: Re: Original Ending vs Alternate Ending
Post by: rockyoumonkeys on June 06, 2008, 11:49:16 AM
the theatrical version is garbage.
just awful. i couldn't understand why they advertised the "alternate" one as "controversial".

Marketing gimmick, just like "unrated" is used even if they add a few minutes of G rated footage...

It seems as if they shot the movie not knowing what ending they were going to use, so neither ending is good because neither one had the appropriate setup in the rest of the movie.

well the "alternate cut" held together as a whole much better. even in the theatrical version, i think the setup was there for the "alternate" ending, and the alternate cut included still one more scene which made it even clearer.

the alternate cut is also faithful to the actual meaning of the title of the movie, whereas the theatrical cut is forced to change it completely, making it utter nonsense.
Title: Re: Original Ending vs Alternate Ending
Post by: OmegaR! on June 06, 2008, 04:47:35 PM
 ;D
Now to BLOW your Minds  :o

The Alternate Ending was actually The Theatrical Ending they were going to originally use
 :( Then a test audience came along and didn't like it, then they changed it,

Juxtapositioning all of the conversation thus far,

so just reverse everything and you should be okay

As for me  >:D I like the original (not the old original, the new original)

Time to slink away.... into the shadows...
Title: Re: Original Ending vs Alternate Ending
Post by: Ben on December 20, 2008, 08:49:29 PM
The Alternate Ending was actually The Theatrical Ending they were going to originally use
 :( Then a test audience came along and didn't like it, then they changed it,

...adding further conviction to my already stoic belief that all test audience members are bread mould.