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

By: Rmb2012

Rmb2012 — Wed, 24 Nov 2010 15:43:00 +0000

In the book, the point of the title “I am legend” isn’t because he’s some great hero, it’s because the original human race has become a thing of fairy tales, or “legends.” The zombies/vampires/infected humans have become the norm.

By: Nick_smiley

Nick_smiley — Tue, 20 Jul 2010 02:20:00 +0000

The problem is that in the theatrical ending he died for no reason, so they ended the movie with a bad plot deviceː Will Smith could have just thrown the grenade instead of pulling the pin and holding it. The alternate ending is closer to the ending of the book as well.

By: Spider_pig448

Spider_pig448 — Sun, 13 Jun 2010 09:38:30 +0000

Oh man, I'm so glad they didn't use that ending. It would have killed all the philosophy in the movie. Also, how do they drive off the bridge when it was destroyed?

By: Phenom

Phenom — Wed, 24 Mar 2010 05:41:45 +0000

love this ending. i just recently watched the film.

i wonder if the zombies still attack people

By: jayme

jayme — Mon, 01 Feb 2010 11:13:22 +0000

I think this is a way better ending

By: Nichols

Nichols — Thu, 14 Jan 2010 07:54:05 +0000

Like a lot of people said…If they had somehow combined the two endings it would have made a pretty decent one…Movies do insult viewers attenchion these days, constantly!!! Why they dont put a little more thought and time into the movies is beyond me!!! Very frusterating! But I personally liked this one better. Because they still did have the cure in his blood. But they acually never said that. Shoulda been better either way! AHHH! Frusterating!

By: Anarchyiscapitalisedon

Anarchyiscapitalisedon — Sun, 18 Oct 2009 11:52:23 +0000

Worse. Nuff said.

By: Fred Fuchs

Fred Fuchs — Wed, 29 Oct 2008 23:37:40 +0000

I didn’t read the book, and I don’t know how the human nature of the “zombies” is explained in it, but in the movie, there’s no word in any scene about their humanity. In the alternate ending, we see it only then, and it’s quite a shock for the audience, ’cause, like a said, no word, or even a small tease of their human nature was seen in the whole movie. The theatrical ending “follows” the movie and, I think, it’s way better so.
And just a small reply to Johnny O’s comment:
It’s not about “deep mind” or understanding, it’s just about the storyline in the movie. And like you said, both endings are incorrect, which means that the creators of the movie didn’t follow the book. They focused on the “evil” in them, not the “good” or whatever, and that with no single clue of their “good”. In the book are, I’m sure, a lot more information about their human nature, but in the movie – none! And that’s why people “making comments that have no background”, ’cause there’s no initial idea of the human background of the “zombies” in the movie at all. And then, it’s a “mistake” of the makers, not the viewers.
No offence, just debating.
Thanks

By: Fred Fuchs

Fred Fuchs — Wed, 29 Oct 2008 23:37:00 +0000

By: jack

jack — Thu, 23 Oct 2008 03:04:39 +0000

the original ending is wayyy better. well, i don’t know. arent those zombies or alpha people supposed to be WILD and CRAZY and have completely lost their human nature? like… they said that at the start of the film. you see, if they were crazy, why would will smith want to hunt them down anyway? there could be a whole civilisation of zombies. the “alternative” ending contradicts the film itself.

i think the other ending is better.

sorry, i am not a film critic or student of drama. i do not know the definition of “hate speech”. i apologise for any involvement of “hate speech” within this comment.

By: jack

jack — Thu, 23 Oct 2008 03:04:00 +0000

i think the other ending is better.

sorry, i am not a film critic or student of drama. i do not know the definition of “hate speech”. i apologise for any involvement of “hate speech” within this comment.

By: Johnny O.

Johnny O. — Thu, 09 Oct 2008 12:18:16 +0000

It amazes me how most people making comments have no background to make them with. If you did not read the book, then don’t make a comment on how it should have ended. Both endings are incorrect, but the alternate is closer to the true product. He is not a Legend because he sacraficed himself for mankind. They were not savage beasts. They were the new race of mankind. In their world, Neville was killing them and they did not know why. To them, he was the ‘boogeyman’ in the day. Kind of like our boogeyman of the night. To them, he was considered a ‘Legend’ and that is what he realizes at the end. Although, neither ending compares to the actual ending, the alternate ending is again closer to revealing the true meaning.
If you have a deep mind, read the book and you will then understand. Unfortunately, most people don’t use their minds too much and they will never really understand the authors point. That’s just too sad! Keep watching movies though.

By: Johnny O.

Johnny O. — Thu, 09 Oct 2008 12:18:00 +0000

By: GD

GD — Sat, 26 Jul 2008 02:09:46 +0000

The theatrical ending is much better, although, it seems like the ending came “to early”. The movie should last at least 30 min more. To me, it was too soon to end it like that. It’s like, they had 1.5 hours for the whole movie and at 1.4 hours they realized the story needs an ending. And that’s what I’m thinking about the movie… just great story for the first 1.4 hours and then… boom! Everything “compressed” in 10 minutes!
The alternate ending sucks so much. They’re “monsters” (or whatever) and they feed with non-infected people… wtf then with the “humanity” in them?! It’s far better to keep the monsters to be monsters. If they had still humanity in them, then the virus is just a joke and the movie loses the initial idea. The whole agony and the same everyday struggle are the main things that keep people excited and to wait for something to happen (but not to wait for such a shitty end). A sea full of possibilities for an sequel. With the alternate ending, it’s not the same movie I started to watch. It’s just crap then. And with the death of Neville, it’s still all open for a sequel… isn’t it? Only, Will Smith can’t be starring in it :).
Sorry for my bad english… it’s not my first language.
Thanks for reading

By: GD

GD — Sat, 26 Jul 2008 02:09:00 +0000

By: Mash

Mash — Sun, 20 Jul 2008 23:00:25 +0000

I did find the theatrical ending a disappointment and an insult to my intelligence (what there is of it anyway:).

I’ve just seen the alt ending on bluray, it’s quite a bit better IMHO. With the reveal that the ‘monsters’ are still human comes Neville’s realisation that he is a serial murderer, I think this is an interesting place for for Neville to end his anger fuelled journey into hell.

The book ending is still the best of the three.

By: Mash

Mash — Sun, 20 Jul 2008 23:00:00 +0000

I did find the theatrical ending a disappointment and an insult to my intelligence (what there is of it anyway:).

The book ending is still the best of the three.

By: tom

tom — Sun, 11 May 2008 11:13:19 +0000

sorry i ment the theatrical ending

By: tom

tom — Sun, 11 May 2008 11:13:00 +0000

sorry i ment the theatrical ending

By: tom

tom — Sun, 11 May 2008 11:12:04 +0000

i think that the alternative ending because he died for every one he died for the cure which makes him a legend and it makes him are legesy