‘I Am Legend’ Alternate Ending… For Better or Worse?

the alternate ending is far better. people need to stop insulting the intelligence of the moviegoer. the action movie-esque self-sacrifice without sending a distinct message was unnecessary. a much better ending would be to combine the two endings - keep the alternate ending, but find a way to still have neville die. just my opinion.. cause it would’ve been reaaaal easy.

I disliked the theatrical ending and I dislike this one even more (didn’t think that was possible) but I must admit that Microbefox makes a great argument for how this ending could work better with the story.

But I still don’t like either.

I personally liked the theatrical ending better. They never really slapped you across the face
with the relationship of the mutants… it was just implied.
Plus, Neville dying made his character complete.

Theatrical was better but I am glad i saw this one as well. I wanted to se what would have happened if he lived, but seriously - the zombies were so far gone, they wouldn’t have caed about each other like that. go to my site http://www.finickycritic.com

In my opinion the alternative ending sums up the movie much better than the theatrical version. Yes the theatrical one ties the butterfly thing together with the whole god factor and makes him the “legend” he is supposed to be. But the one thing that i disliked most about this movie was the subtly implied fact that the “monsters” still kept there humanity to some degree. Through out the film there was foreshadowing to this fact, including the “monster” deliberately exposing himself to Neville and the use of Neville’s own traps to capture Neville. It seemed that both of these acts and a few others were deliberately included in the film to show that these monsters maintained some sense of humanity. With the theatrical ending all this foreshadowing goes to waste and leaves an intelligent moviegoer with a sense of something absent or missing from the feature. (at least it did so in my case) However the alternative ending makes uses of this foreshadowing, although it doesn’t build Neville up to be the “legend” he is supposed to be. There are problems with both endings, and i don’t particularly like one more that the other, but it seems that the alternative ending did a better job of summing up the movie. (While also leaving it wide open for a sequel)

I liked this ending because it leaves you guessing what happens now. But then I liked the original since they put a lot of Bob Marley references throughout the film and end credits with Redemption Song. Giving up ones life for the greater good of all is a “legend”. Seeing this movie just makes me want to read the book now.

Eh. Both endings are awful. Just brutal. It’s a shame, too, because the first 2/3rds of the film were much better than I had expected. I guess I prefer the new one slightly, but only slightly. It’s like saying I’d rather have a glass of piss than a shit sandwich.

The book is great. Largely because of the ending(s), the movie is just so-so. 28 Days/Weeks later does the same thing, but better.

“although if you haven’t already seen this latest film version of the classic Richard Matheson novel, you’re not really a film fan anyway”
SERIOUSLY?

Rob, I’m a bit confused where the “insulting” part of the original ending is…

-J

The book’s ending and all the movie endings are not good enough. Here is the best possible ending.

Neville gives a vile of blood to the girl, but knowing that the creatures must be stopped locks her and the boy in the vault. Then Neville injects a vile of the female’s blood into himself and sits fearfully through a good part of the night waiting for the creatures to break in and EAT him knowing that this will at best save them or at worst kill them. Once morning comes the girl and her sons walks through a lab full of heavy breathing comatose creatures that look somewhat more human. Then they escape.

I’m getting tired of the whiney “oh, its not like the book” crowd! jeez people! have you heard of “creative license”? If you love reading books so much, then stop watching the movies! i have not read the book and loved the movie, so i dont care if it YOUR vision of how the book should be didnt make it to the film version! get over it and go read the book again and keep your fantasy to yourself! to everyone else, enjoy the movie

I say with this ending they are just setting up a i am legend 2 pluse now there is no cure ether and adding on to that didnt they destroy all the bridges? so i say why they didnt go with this ending is because there will be no i am legend 2

This ending was far better. It showed that he had mistakenly thought the creatures had lost
all their human attributes and were mindless creatures. In the theatrical ending it proved to
be true. The theatrical ending butchered the rest of the movie. I believe he was so
persistent to find a cure because he thought they had lost what made them human and
didn’t want that to happen. When he realized they still had it I think he was able to accept it
and leave.
Still don’t like the look of the creatures though.

I thought this ending was a much better ending than the orginal. It seems much more in line with the spirit of the rest of the movie. It seemed that the orginal ending was forced to make the movie line up with the title. Plus, I think the way they changed the meaning of the title really takes away from the depth of the movie. The scene of Richard facing the reunited couple with the puctures of all the dead in the backround, realizing that they still have “human” feelings, is an incredibly deep scene. This raises so many moral questions and makes the film more than just a zombie film (albeit one that is exceptionally well done). This ending fully develops the Dark Seeker plot and there isn’t a happy ending (though others may think). No cure is found and though they go looking for the colony, it never shows if they find one or not. Yes, it is an obvoius set up for a sequel, I think that that wouldn’t have been a bad thing.

I know everyone is sick of hearing about the book, but the movie really only covers about half of the “last man on earth” plot in the books. One of the key points in the book (wihout going into alot of detail) is that he finds “human” woman, and finally believes there a hope for humanity, only to have her taken away. This ultimately leads to him being captured and killed. I think a sequel that covered this part would have be even better and given the title its orginal meaning.

In ending, I think this film was incredible to begin with. However, the alternate ending would have made it a truely “great film.”

I liked the theatrical ending 100x better.
It was essential for Neville to die, it made it more than a horror/thriller movie, it made it a drama. And to everyone who is “insulted” by the Christian ending. 1. It wasn’t a Christian based ending, she was right, as stated in the movie their was a plan to meet at Vermont, Neville just believed everything went wrong. 2. Getting offended by the church at the end is the most stupid thing I’ve heard, everywhere you go you will find a church, people like to have faith. This damn generation makes the biggest deal out of small little things like a church in the ending and a Christian being right. You would have much preferred the ending that took away the sacrifice of a man to keep his cure safe. Yes you could tell throughout the movie that the “zombie” male had feelings and therefore had human feelings, but here’s the thing, the alternate ending was cheesy and unrealistic, a brutal creature such as the infected in this movie would not stop attacking to save the one he loved. In fact he would have kept at it, like in the original ending, trying to get what he wanted by force. You could tell he had human thought in the movie, but sacrifice is something we all have to do and it made a hell of a lot greater ending.

I give the original ending a 9.5-10
I give the alternate ending a 7-10

“I’m getting tired of the whiney “oh, its not like the book” crowd! jeez people! have you heard of “creative license”? If you love reading books so much, then stop watching the movies! i have not read the book and loved the movie, so i dont care if it YOUR vision of how the book should be didnt make it to the film version! get over it and go read the book again and keep your fantasy to yourself! to everyone else, enjoy the movie.”

Then maybe the producers should have titled their almost-total “re-imagining” of Richard Matheson’s classic novella something other than “I Am Legend”.

Kinda reminds me of that other big-budget Will Smith sci-fi blockbuster of a few years back, “I, Robot”. Almost total re-write of Asimov’s book, keeping only the title and main character’s names. Nothing else. Why bother? If yr going to buy the rights to a book, maybe you should porduce that book as faithfully as possible — or, and here’s an idea — write some original material and come up with yr own title. But, expecting originality out of Hollywood is an exercise in futility it would seem.

As for the alternate ending, I find it much preferable to the Christian-themed cheese-fest of “God Has A Plan For You”. As others have noted, the Other Ending ties up the fore-shadowing, and paints Neville as the real monster of the story. He was a legend in the same way as the bogey-man is a legend: He comes when yr sleeping and steals away yr loved ones.

Zackster and others who thought the alternate ending fails to make him the “legend” he is supposed to be. When I hear the word “legend”, I think of heroes or figures with a positive connotation, as that is more in line with how we use the word today. But, if you read the book, he is not a legend for saving humanity, he is a legend in the style of vampires and big foot - a freak who stalks a society while they sleep. (Which I would not have realized without being told the premise of the original story either. ) Point is, the alternate ending is more in line with the original concept. The theatrical ending makes for a story that should not have been named after the book.

Hm, I really cannot choose which is better. First, I thought the original was much better. But the way Primobabe explains it, that they are regaining their humanity, well, that makes the alternative sound pretty cool too. I Don’t understand the offense of a church, don’t make such a big deal out of a small thing.

Really, I think I’d finally favor the first ending, due to the fact that if they really are regaining their human senses, the first thing a human would most likely do is fall into a rage after looking at that wall and slaughter the character Will Smith plays.

With the new ending wtf is the point of the girl and the boy finding him?
Why did she think some one told her to find him?
Why would she have to be there?
The creatures DID in fact kill off most of the humans and they were NOT loving, thinking and caring creatures. .
Perhaps a different picture was painted in the book but in this movie the infected massacred the survivors of the virus.

I liked the alternative ending, it had a sense of what’s done is done and Neville becomes aware maybe he should look for others like him and leave the infected be.
It left a sense that Man went to fair and could not correct this mistake…

There are actually a lot of well thought out replies on this forum!
I agree with most that the theatrical version is not inline with the message of the book (despite Neville dying) in that Neville is Legend for finding a cure for humans rather than legend to the vampires as a murderous relic of the past. The movie (either version) shares very little with the plot of the book beyond the basic idea of disease creating vampires that destroy civilization.

However, the theatrical version creates a new and much deeper context, which is basically the role of God in the story. I suppose some haters will automatically despise any mention of God and say that’s the problem, but I think this theatrical version and the God role bring a whole lot to the story, which hasn’t been done before in the book or previous film adaptations.
Here’s my take (in as few words as possible):
1. The butterfly. The butterfly is the underpinning of the entire movie. The butterfly is the symbol of God’s will or God’s intervention. Think about the occurrences:
• Marley - If Robert had listened to her and not packed her and his wife on the chopper, they’d (possibly) be alive and with him. By not listening he lost his family to fate (not the disease) in a freak accident. In the small point where he was influenced by her (the handing off of the dog), there is salvation and Sam lives.
• The tanks (nobody ever mentions this) - in the opening drive through the city, Neville corners hard to avoid some tanks. The camera pauses on the tanks and a poster with the Hand of God reaching to the hand of man and the slogan “God Still Loves Us, Do We Still Love Him?” One poster is torn in the shape of a butterfly, firmly establishing the God-Butterfly link.
• Anna’s neck (theatrical version)- the butterfly convinces Neville that Anna was in fact sent by God to help him save humanity. In the alt ending, the butterfly on the subjects neck convinces him that the vampires are not out to kill him, but rescue the girl. His “listening” is not just listening but in both versions it’s clear he is choosing drop his despair and disbelief, along with his insistence that he is right and there is no god or plan and chooses to listen to and believe in God’s will and purpose for him and chooses to follow that path.
• There are a few more – a pillow in Marley’s room, and the butterfly while Neville is picking corn. For the corn incident in particular I am having trouble identifying the significance… anyone have any ideas?
2. The role of God. The entire movie is a commentary on the relationship between man and God. Briefly summarized: Man attempts to become god-like by defeating death (cancer) with disastrous consequences that result in the destruction and death of man and society. This is essentially the story of the Garden of Eden and man’s fall.
The resulting plague is “sin” which changes and kills everyone. Neville feels it is his responsibility to save mankind even though he didn’t cause the fall. He doesn’t have the disease and can’t get infected… i.e. he has no sin in him. He offers to save mankind both from sin with his cure and directly from death via his radio broadcasts (come to me and I will give you salvation). Furthermore, the cure or salvation of man comes from his blood. In the theatrical version he has to die to give this gift to mankind. Could there be a more direct correlation to the story of Jesus dying to save man though his blood? Neville even spends 3 years working on his cure - about the same amount of time Jesus spent on earth actively preaching.
There is more, but I’m sure you get the idea.
3. IF you accept the role of God and Neville as the Christ figure, there are very interesting questions around the meaning of the posters featured in the film.
“God Still Loves Us, Do We Still Love Him?”
Given the context of the film, who is God and who is Us?
• Is God the biblical God and Us is all of mankind, which is going through the spread of disease and death at the time the poster was made? It would be unclear if man still loves God, although many feel that the community at the end of the film is religious, indicating that man does still love God.
• Is God the biblical God and Us is the human survivors? In which case Neville does not love God, but is redeemed at the end and embraces God.
• Is God Neville and Us is the vampire race? In which case God is trying to save Us, but Us doesn’t want to be saved, rejecting God’s salvation in favor of their current existence.
• Or…

If you go with the alt ending, you lose the Neville as Christ theme, and reduce God to merely fate and circumstance. The butterfly becomes for a symbol for Neville’s personal beliefs, and in the end he chooses simply to modify his view of the vampires rather than embrace the path of a higher power. It’s still a good story, but not quite as deep. I suppose it’s the preferred version for the atheists in the crowd.

sorry i ment the theatrical ending