Alternate Ending to "I Am Legend"

[url] http://www.firstshowing.net/2008/03/05/must-watch-i-am-legends-original-ending-this-is-amazing/[/url]

This wouldn't have made the movie perfect, but it would've made the movie a hell of a lot better, imho.

it is certainly a better ending, but it doesn't solve the rest of the last third of the movie.

Better ending indeed. Closer to the book's original ending than the "Hollywood special".

mrmarcus wrote:

Better ending indeed. Closer to the book's original ending than the "Hollywood special".

That's what I thought too. Obviously, a big fan of the book would still have been dissapointed, but the ending they used left what the film itself implied throughout the first half unresolved! And was stupid. I like this one much better, but I cannot with certainty say that it would make me like the movie as much more as it does now, had I not seen the disapointing crappy theatrical ending first.

Is there a third ending? I thought that one made no sense whatsoever.

I started to click on it, but then I remembered that it wasn't the ending that sucked...IT WAS THE WHOLE FUCKING MOVIE. Total high-gloss corporate dogshit.

*Hmmph* If you guys need me I'll be over here watching BRING ME THE HEAD OF ALFREDO GARCIA.

The ending was better, but it doesn't help the movie become something good. I watched the entire movie, thinking throughout how terrible and generic it all was. The new ending would still make me think this was a horrible movie, but I would have just avoided the extra eye rolling revulsion I had in the last ten minutes. Or maybe I would have just rolled one of my eyes...I don't know.

-Vampires were lame, thoughtless, cookie cutter CGI monsters
-Nelville was a typical hollywood superman instead of being a real person with everyday problems in an apocalypse
-Nelville searches for a cure instead of extermination...

I could go on but we went over this in the other thread. The new ending, or really any ending, cannot solve the movie's basic problems of laziness on the part of the writers.

I hate to sound like an elitist book snob, but please read the book people. This had the potential to be one of the best horror movies of all time and the people who made the movie couldn't even scrape together a decent popcorn blockbuster.

But it had Shrek in it. God bless America!

heh.. I saw this thread title and thought, what did Tim Curry bust the mirror and reign in a 1000 years of darkness?

That's right, fuck crazy ass Tom Cruise!

Read the book, know the movie is too scary for me.

The 'New cover' version of the book (with Will Smith) does not allude to the other short stories... which had me seriously confused for a bit.

The copyright surprised me too. I should sit down some weekend and type up my list of post apoc books here, for shits and giggles to see what all people have read.

Thaadd wrote:

The copyright surprised me too. I should sit down some weekend and type up my list of post apoc books here, for shits and giggles to see what all people have read.

Please do!

The new ending is way more eye rolling then the theatrical.

They let him go? BULLSHIT!

Mr Skeletor wrote:

The new ending is way more eye rolling then the theatrical.

They let him go? BULLSHIT!

It was what they were alluding to throughout the film though. You can say it was a dumb direction to take the movie to begin with, but what they did theatrically was ignore the first two thirds of the movie and slap a make-shift ending on.

I can't say for sure if the ending would seem as much of an improvement if I hadn't seen the theatrical ending at all. From here though, it is at least sticking to the plot of the first 2/3rds of the movie.

For what it's worth, anyone who would take this over Omega Man should have their head examined.

I disagree - where in the movie was it aluded too that these creatures - who were starving - had no plans to kill him? The film did not paint that picture at all, people who have read the story are putting that interpretation on there "because it matches the book closer."

The fact they saw a wall full of their dead comrads and yet let him go just because he gave them back the chick AFTER THEY HAD HIM CORNERED made no sense. It was a copout hollywood feelgood ending, complete with happy family driving off into the sunset.

Well, I meant that they were alluding to the main bad guy going after his girlfriend throughout the movie, and by extension that the vampires/whatevers were either regaining some humanity, or hadn't lost as much as Neville originally thought.

I did not mean, obviously, that throughout the movie it was implied that monsters love not killing people.