Talk:I Am Legend (novel)/Archive 1

Inspiration examples
I've added the fact that many movies that feature the same basic plot as I Am Legend were inspired (either directly or indirectly) by the book. I've included George Romero as an example. --Jazz Remington 00:21, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * I really don't think that 28 Days Later is based on I am Legend at all. They have very few simularities that could be any more then homages.  Headrattle 00:22, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * Night Of The Comet sounds (I haven't seen it, so I'm going from the description on it's page) sounds more like Day Of The Triffids: mysterious comet affects most of the human race, bar a fortunate few who are shielded as the comet passes. Optimus Sledge 20:15, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Film rumors
I've removed the mention of rumors about an upcoming film version because it is not encyclopedic. If anyone has reliable source material for these assertions, please include them if restoring such claims. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 16:27, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Not sure if this refers to the new Will Smith movie, but I know they're filming in September in new York since I was considered for the role of Hemocyte... --24.18.46.35 03:10, 26 August 2006 (UTC) This is also my first article edit and discussion entry, tips?

Your removal was in error. Garth Franklin of Dark Horizons was covering the story for over three years before the film was cancelled due to cost estimate problems and Arnold's dropping from the project due to his political ambitions coming to fruition. Please do your research *before* removing factual information in the future.

[Abrasive and profane rebuttal deleted]

Um, the removal was definitely in error. Garth Franklin has just updated his website to include the Johnny Depp addition to the cast. The film is set for a 2007 release, but some sources claim the movie may take enough post time to push it to 2008. - Tom Galloway (talk) 16:27, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Writing Quality, 28 Days Later
I've removed references to "Ah-nuld" as it's hardly fitting language for an encyclopedia. I've cleared up the debate with 28 Days Later a little - it does have parallels with the book, and I have noticed them before, but I do dispute whether or not it really deserves a mention anyway as for all we know the similarities outlined could just be coincidental. I've no problem if somebody sees fit to delete 28 Days Later and add, say Night of the Living Dead instead - for which I believe Romero has even been quoted talking about I Am Legend, and in general, it should be clear which of those films is more relevant and influential. --ToneLa, 16 Dec 05

"Zombie films" are those movies that are concerned with the transformation of humanity into a mass of mindless killers, zombies, if you will. 28 Days later is a zombie film. All zombie films owe their existence to Night of the Living Dead. Night of the Living Dead owes its existence to I am Legend. Whatever Boyle says about his movie not being a "zombie film" is poppycock. It doesn't matter if they are magic zombies or science zombies or religious zombies. There is a number of reanimated corpses pressing on the glass to come in and bite us and eat us or make us join them, and so those are zombies, and the movie about it is a zombie film. Miguel

28 Days Later is not a zombie film, there are no reanimated corpses! - Alastair 03 Feb 2006

A zombie isn't an "undead person" in this context. Such a zombie is a cannabilistic, feral or otherwise uncivilized creature! 28 Days Later uses the established template from other zombie movies of such malevolent beings outnumbering the desperate human survivors. It's not a "zombie film" in that it features the walking undead, but it is other than that small discrepency, the constitution of the film just screams Zombie! - ToneLa 03 Feb 2006

There are many films that feature supernatural creatures persuing or stalking humans, not all of them feature zombies, zombies specifically being reanimated corpses. There is no context to take, a zombie is a specific type of supernatural creature, not a type of film! - Alastair 04 Feb 2006

28 Days later's infectees are, in my opinion, a closer match for those in I am legend than the zombies of Romero's numerous efforts. The scientific knowledge we have about the pathogen, the fairly intelligent behaviour of those infected and the non-dead characteristic, missing from zombie movies, all give me this impression.

I am Legend has both Zombies, as defined by dying and being reanimated (by the bacterium), and those who have not died but have been merely infected but have several of the same qualities as those who have died. I suppose those who must have raging debates over such things could use I Am Legend to illustrate their point. The dead vampires are mindless by and large, while the infected are calculating, making medicines, and refounding a society. - Brad 07 '06.

The Last Man on Earth
"The film starred Vincent Price, who in later years admitted it was quite probably the worst film he ever made."

Can someone provide a source for that? It sounds kind of unlikely. Off the top of my head, I can think of several Price movies that I would regard as much worse than this one. It seems odd that he would consider it his worst. 207.6.31.119 07:45, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

I can't find a source either and I very much doubt Price would consider it his worst film ever. Especially considering he starred in "Dr. Goldfoot and The Love Bombs" just two years later. --169.233.14.15 11:43, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Official Movie Site
I question the validity of this link as the 'official' site of the film.



Spoiler Section
I added a little bit of detail regarding the protagonist's suicide at the end of the book. Feel free to change.


 * Could you please add 'warning spoilers' or somehting above the plot summary! I already read the clue whilst I did not want to know! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.245.193.154 (talk • contribs) 07:10, 14 June 2007

The book is horror more than science fiction
I changed the beginning description of the book's genre from science fiction to horror. (The infobox, which I kept the way it is, lists both genres.) First of all, I'm not sure this would be considered a true science fiction book. Even though it puts forth a sort of quasi-scientific explanation for the vampires, it is still rooted heavily in occult beliefs. If the story took place in the future or in outer space, you might have a better case to make. Since there's no question the book qualifies as horror, I think that's the first genre that should be listed. marbeh raglaim 17:25, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Article notes scientific explanation of Vampires as unusual?
"In this regard, the novel is almost unique in vampire fiction in that instead of asking the reader to accept a supernatural explanation for vampire phenomena, the author strives to offer scientific basis for such symptoms as aversion to garlic, craving of fresh blood, and resistance to bullets but vulnerability to stakes and sunlight."

I think this approach was unique for its time, but it is no longer unusual with modern vampire stories. In the very mainstream movie Blade, for example, there's nothing supernatural about the vampires and werewolves.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Special:Contributions/ (talk)

Film adaption comparison
This version, while not a cinematographic masterpiece, is considered the far superior of the two adaptations by most film critics

Pure weaseling in my opinion. Where are the sources? Which critics? Most of the comparisons between those two movies I've seen clearly favour The Last Man on Earth. Writing that in the article would be just as subjective, though, so I'm for just removing that sentence.

--57.66.193.70 11:45, 21 December 2006 (UTC)