"I Am Legend" Book vs Movie: FIGHT!

So I saw "I Am Legend" the other day and it got me really interested in reading the book.  I just finished the book. LOTS OF SPOILERS AHEAD! Unfortunately this just is just another case of the movie being essentially completely different than the book.  Oh, I suppose there are similarities... the main character has the same name in both.  In both a plague wipes out much of humanity leaving that main character alone.  But it's there the similarities end. The book begins with the assumption that a bacterium creates a vampiric sickness - people can be revived from death, are killed by sunlight or stakes, are allergic to garlic and hate mirrors and crosses.  During the day they enter a "coma" of sorts allowing our hero to easily kill any he can find.  A war (we presume nuclear) has created country-wide dust storms which give this bacteria unlimited freedom to spread. The movie invents a man-made plague (an engineered virus).  The sick still die in sunlight but that's about the only similarity.  They are generally active and dangerous in the daytime.  They feature no other vampire-like symptoms. The book has our hero as a simple plant worker who, using his time alone, educates himself as he tried to understand the situation and how he might cure the sickness.  The disease took his wife and daughter and he is utterly alone.  The movie hero is a high-ranking official in the CDC (or army or something) and has a complete underground lab in his home.  His family was killed in a helicopter accident (how exciting!) while trying to escape New York (the book sis set in California).  His steadfast companion is his son's now-grown dog, Sam. The book features a dog as well - a poor, wounded mutt that takes our hero many weeks to befriend only to have him die a short while after. The book's loneliness is underscored by the fact that the hero's house is surrounded every night with vampires attempting to draw him out (unable to come near because of the garlic spread about).  The females attempt to seduce him which nearly drives him insane.  The movie's hero lives in secret, not allowing them to know where he lives. In the movie our hero finds a normal human woman child just as he both reaches his limit and seemingly discovers a cure for the disease.  We get metaphysical as a rather stupid climax informs us that he "must" die and that she was probably "sent" to him to carry the cure to the last surviving enclave of normal humans. Those surviving normal people don't exist in the book.  Rather we see an "evolved" vampire fool him into thinking she's normal. She takes pity on him and lets him know that these vampires have learned to live with the sickness: they're recreating society.  To do this they'll be exterminating the "lesser" vampires and any "normal" people they might find. The hero of the movie becomes legend because he struggled, fought and finally cured the disease giving his own life in the process. The hero in the book becomes legend because in this new society, where he's spent his time killing vampires as they slept, he's essentially the monster that goes bump in the day - a cruel and evil creature who needs to be destroyed.  He's transitioned from being the only normal person in a world of freakish vampires to being a freak in a world of normal vampires. The movie is a sad tale which ends on a hopeful note of faith and future. The book is a commentary on the evolution of society and a fictional treatise on the scientific possibilities of vampirism. I really don't mind if a movie changes parts of a book.  But damn it's annoying when they just throw the source material away wholesale. Jim Davis

What did you think of "Omega Man?" I liked the tie-in with Omega Man, where both movies opened with him speeding around deserted New York in a brand-new red Mustang (at least I think it was a Mustang in Omega Man). Respectfully, Adam Phillip Churvis President Productivity Enhancement > So I saw "I Am Legend" the other day and it got me really interested in > reading the book.  I just finished the book. > > > LOTS OF SPOILERS AHEAD! > <snip>

> What did you think of "Omega Man?" > > I liked the tie-in with Omega Man, where both movies opened with him > speeding around deserted New York in a brand-new red Mustang (at least > I > think it was a Mustang in Omega Man). It may have been a homage to something but I'm not sure. At least in the book's case there were no sports cars involved (the book took place in the late seventies so I'm not sure if the Mustang would have been the "it" car). In the book the only car he would drive is a specific model station-wagon because that's the car he "knew" enough to fix and maintain - and the car he had collected parts for. They also talk specifically about how it became hard to find a working car after a while.  Dead batteries, damage from the vampires, dry rot, gas leaks, etc  To get a replacement car he has to struggle to find a car that runs (or that he can get running in less than a day) and then drive out to the dealer for his station wagon where he's stashed some "extras". Got me thinking... if I were totally alone how would I handle things like that?  Maybe get a truck to bring more than one car near... but then I would have to store and protect multiple cars at the same time. It nothing else the book gets you thinking. Jim Davis

> So I saw "I Am Legend" the other day and it got me really interested in > reading the book.  I just finished the book. Nice Jim, you saved me from needing to read the book with your Cliff Notes.

Jim, I just finished the book last week.  I thought it was very entertaining.  I haven't seen the movie, but I have read a summary.  It does seem like the movie is very different. From wikipedia, I found a link to a version staring Vincent Price.  It was made in the 60's and according to the article is the most accurate. You can download the movie for free from: http://www.archive.org/details/the-last-man-on-earth since it has is now in the public domain.  I have downloaded it, but haven't watched it yet.

> Jim, > > I just finished the book last week.  I thought it was very > entertaining.  I > haven't seen the movie, but I have read a summary.  It does seem like > the > movie is very different. Yeah... but for all the wrong reasons.  ;^) When you completely and totally change the message of the source material can you really say that you've made a movie of the book? This was my problem with "I, Robot" - it had some similarities but turned into an action slug-fest instead of the more cerebral examination of how the Three Laws might work.  I would still love to see an anthology or mini-series based on the actual book but it seems like a giant (tho' totally false) Hollywood movie crushes any hope of that. I don't know what's worse... having a whole generation of people think that's the story the author wanted to tell or knowing that we won't get another chance to tell it anytime soon because nobody will remake the remake for another decade at least. > From wikipedia, I found a link to a version staring Vincent Price.  It > was > made in the 60's and according to the article is the most accurate. I love Vincent Price!  He's my favorite EVERYTHING! (That's a Dana Gould line, but it fits.)  I've not really sat down and watched his old movies for years... when I was growing up outside of Buffalo there was an overnight schlock-fest hosted by Barry Lillis (a local weatherman) called "The Cats Pajamas" that would show all the old sci-fi, horror, western, kung-fu, etc - I used to be up every night and bleary-eyed every day from it. I'm still annoyed by little things tho'... like why did they change the name?  Not only of the story but also of the hero (from "Neville" in the book to "Morgan" in the movie)?  I don't think it'll affect anything but that always paints a picture of some putz sitting in a room saying "I love it!  But does it have to be vampires?" ;^) > You can download the movie for free from: > > http://www.archive.org/details/the-last-man-on-earth Thanks!  Downloading it now... I'm alone for the weekend so I think I may watch this now. ;^) Jim Davis

> From wikipedia, I found a link to a version staring Vincent Price.  It > was > made in the 60's and according to the article is the most accurate. > > You can download the movie for free from: > > http://www.archive.org/details/the-last-man-on-earth I watched it this afternoon. Unfortunately the transfer was really poor, but the movie was watchable - but there were a lot of artifacts and wash outs and such. Still, it was MUCH more faithful to the source story than the current film. I'm still not sure why they bothered to change the main character's name (they didn't change any others) but it was a small price to pay I suppose. The movie did throw in few simplifications - I presume for pacing.  The main character starts out a scientist (cutting out all of the "how did he learn this stuff" stuff).  To simplify his home they just had him maintain a generator at a supermarket. One thing that did bug me tho': damn were home defenses crappy!  ;^)  Loose boards with huge gaps between them covering the windows.  It just didn't seem to be the home of a survivor. They also threw in a (slightly) new ending which I didn't mind so much.  It didn't (unlike the current film's ending) change the message of the story. If anything it enhanced it.  The new movie just chucks the book out the window about 5 minutes in. It is harder to watch the old movie... I do LIKE old movies but damn, we've learned a lot since then. Pacing and staging and so forth.  Watching the original "Dracula" (one of my favorite movies) feels almost like work.  ;^) Still, if you can stand to sit through a 90 minute fuzzy, black and white movie this is a MUCH better version overall than the current one (if you care at all about the message of the source material). Jim Davis

I'll have to agree with you on most things, especially "I, Robot". Hollywood does bastardize the movies.  Maybe they needs to meet an explosion quota or something. I loved Asimov growing up. It would have been better to never have read the book and see the movie. Another writer whose books get significantly changed is Philip K Dick.  If you read the original, and then see the movie, they are usually miles apart.  I will say that they did a good job of keeping "A Scanner Darkly" close to the original.  Others, not so much.  Of course, some of the movies turned out alright.  Blade Runner is a first class movie.  I am rereading it now.  Soon, I'll watch the new director's cut of the movie. As far as "I am Legend", I'll catch it when it comes out on DVD just so I can see the differences.

IMO, there is nothing lamer than a "book vs. movie" fight. Books - assuming you read them - are *always* better than movies, because you envision the characters the way you want to envision them. Books tend to go into much more detail about many things, drawing a world with words, but ultimately, you envision everything the way your imagination wants to. I don't read a whole lot for pleasure any more because my Best Disease has deteriorated my vision enough where I read *MUCH* slower than I used to, and I simply don't enjoy it anymore. In most cases, the "book vs. movie" argument is not a case of which is better, but what is different.  Some movies attempt to be as true to the original story as possible.  I think Peter Jackson did a great job with the Lord of the Rings - even though certain things were glossed over, and others still were completely left out (Tom Bombadil, anyone? or the post-climactic "Scouring of the Shire"). so it's not a matter of book vs. movie, but more - how do you feel about the adaptation of the book to a screenplay, and the liberties the director/writer took. Many argue that the adaptation of "I-Robot" was extremely poor because it completely bastardized Isaac Asimov's views.  At least, as interpreted by those making such claims. So.. was the adaptation of "I Am Legend" good?  I don't know.. never read the book, havent' seen the movie. I suspect that I will enjoy the movie, as I tend to enjoy movies that are popular with the mainstream.. and at $206 million through 3 weeks, "I Am Legend" qualifies. -- Rick Root Coldfusion/Flex Developer needed in Durham, full-time, no telecommuters.  Please email me!  No third parties.

Rick Root wrote: > IMO, there is nothing lamer than a "book vs. movie" fight. Books bludgeon better, but DVDs work better as shurikens.  Really, it depends on your fighting style. FWIW, VHS makes a terrible weapon. --BenD

> Books bludgeon better, but DVDs work better as shurikens.  Really, it > depends on your fighting style. Hah, I haven't heard the word "Shuriken" since the last time I played "The Bard's Tale II" (which I still have the floppy disk and manual for!) > FWIW, VHS makes a terrible weapon. did we learn nothing from "Castaway"?  You can make good rope out of VHS tape, suitable for strangling. -- Rick Root Coldfusion/Flex Developer needed in Durham, full-time, no telecommuters.  Please email me!  No third parties.

Rick Root wrote: ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more ----- I played the first one on the NES.  Man.  That was old-school.  What RPG doesn't have a self-mapping feature these days? >> FWIW, VHS makes a terrible weapon. > > did we learn nothing from "Castaway"?  You can make good rope out of > VHS tape, suitable for strangling. Very true.  I bow to your superior wisdom. --BenD

> I played the first one on the NES.  Man.  That was old-school.  What RPG > doesn't have a self-mapping feature these days? I had no idea they made Bard's Tale for the NES. Half the fun of playing was getting out the graph paper! -- Rick Root Check out CFMBB, BlogCFM, ImageCFC, ImapCFC, CFFM, and more at www.opensourcecf.com

I spent too many hours playing BT's 1 and 2.  The graphing was just part of the experience. Of course, I have spent too many hours playing games all together.

Rick Root wrote: > IMO, there is nothing lamer than a "book vs. movie" fight. First I would point out that it is rare, but sometimes a movie is better then a book at least in my opinion. Secondly, I would agree that movies and books are completely different mediums and will tell a story in a different manor.  Your Lord of the Rings example is a good case for this, I believe the Harry Potter movies make a good example as well. But with I. Robot and I am Legend, when all that may be the same between the book and movie is the title, I think we have gone beyond telling a story in different mediums.  I have seen both movies, I have only read I Robot, but Larry's synopsis of I am Legend was concise and I trust it.   I can easily say I enjoyed both movies, they where entertaining and good movies.  But as far as I can tell, associating them with the books was pure marketing.  By saying they are based or adopted from these well known written works, the film makers are trying to tap a ready market.   I feel this cheapens both works a bit and just sounds lazy to me. If you want to make a fun robot or virus takes over the world movie go for it.  It's not the first time, doesn't have to be the last time.  But if you are going to base it off a well known written source, you need to give it more then lip service by having the same title and maybe a character or two of the same name.

Ian Skinner wrote: > First I would point out that it is rare, but sometimes a movie is better > then a book at least in my opinion. Fantastic Voyage (the movie, not the Coolio video). The movie was mediocre, but the book (a novelization by Isaac Asimov) was so bad that Asimov wrote a sequel whose preface was an apology for the first book. --BenD

> IMO, there is nothing lamer than a "book vs. movie" fight. And yet you'll favor us with your views on it depth.  ;^) (Also I hope you realize that the title was more a joke than an invitation to actual combat.  I just happened to see the movie and read the book in the same weekend.) > Books - assuming you read them - are *always* better than movies, > because you envision the characters the way you want to envision them. >  Books tend to go into much more detail about many things, drawing a > world with words, but ultimately, you envision everything the way your > imagination wants to. I generally agree - however there are exceptions. I just finished reading the "Dexter" books.  The TV Series is significantly better in my opinion. I also liked the movie "Jaws" much more than the book. > I don't read a whole lot for pleasure any more because my Best Disease > has deteriorated my vision enough where I read *MUCH* slower than I > used to, and I simply don't enjoy it anymore. Audio books can be very good.  I don't use them much but when I'm slightly interested in something and don't want to use the time to read it all I do. I listened the last "Harry Potter" book and enjoyed it - much faster than reading it. > In most cases, the "book vs. movie" argument is not a case of which is > better, but what is different.  Some movies attempt to be as true to > the original story as possible.  I think Peter Jackson did a great job > with the Lord of the Rings - even though certain things were glossed > over, and others still were completely left out (Tom Bombadil, anyone? >  or the post-climactic "Scouring of the Shire"). Leaving things out is generally a requirement... there's no way to create a "complete" 2 hour movie from a 400 page novel. Changing things outright is less defensible - especially when you change nearly everything. In this case the movie "I am Legend" isn't bad (I actually quite enjoyed it), but it's simply NOT the same story as the book.  They are much more different than alike and carry completely different messages.  At best you can say they're two stories on a similar theme. In some of the more egregious cases (like the heinous "Wizard of Earthsea" produced by the Sci-Fi Channel) the two are so utterly different that it's purely, completely insulting. As I said, one concern I have in this is that any production of a story, especially a truly classic, ground-breaking story like "I am Legend" (or "Earthsea" or "Tarzan" or whatever) tends to: 1) Dilute the story in the public view.  The source material becomes secondary to the popular view making subsequent popularizations even worse. Since the book has been released each generation has had a movie version of the story and each film took less and less from the book and more and more from the previous films. 2) Reduce the chances of anybody stepping up in the near future.  Basically there won't be a "better" I am Legend" produced this generation - we've already got a huge, big-budget one.  Nobody will be produce another anytime soon. I find this interesting - the way popular culture and profit repurpose and bend creative works.  I always try to read the book when a movie comes out - especially when the book is from a different generation - just because I find it so interesting to see how people have decided to change them. Unfortunately taken from this perspective you get a disheartening picture. The stories are almost always changed to simplify, increase catharsis and popular appeal.  "Add a hot chick!", "make a happy ending!", "throw in some 'splosions!" is the rule of the day. It's a minor, but I think meaningful indictment on our cultural evolution. Jim Davis