Just saw "I AM LEGEND" last night

[RP33]

That was a kickass movie if I've ever seen one. The suspense will just about drive a person insane.

will smith was great

but i hated the movie..

they RUINED the book, which was awesome..

the movie suffered from a few bad cheesy modernizations.. The Omega Man and The Last Man On Earth were both better movies..

If you remake a remake of a remake, and then add cheesyness to it, you're bound to fail.. hence I Am Legend..

like, oh, of course, the night that they all come to your house, you've finally realized that you FOUND THE CURE.. I mean come on, a 7th grader can write that shit..

Anyone who liked the movie i encourage you to read the book and then reevaluate your thoughts.. the book is completely different and superior.

C'mon, The Omega Man was the ultimate in Cheese. Being cool with black people must have been nouveau riche back in the 70s as evidenced by Heston's black girlfriend in the flick. And that ending... he died standing?

I can understand if you think "I am Legend" was a poor adaptation of the book, but it was just as good, if not better, than "The Omega Man". It was not a remake but a different adaptation just like with "The Thing". That was a second adaptation of the source material. They couldn't have remained faithful to the novella; nobody would be interested in that as a feature film. The ending was so anti-climactic. With a storyline that involves sci-fi and vampires you HAVE to inject some action, otherwise audiences will be bored.

Will Smith was excellent and at times his performance was almost on par with Tom Hank's in "Castaway". The CGI was godawful; I wish they had just used real actors. They crafted this movie to be right up the alley of a mainstream audience.

liquid if you read one of my other posts i elaborated on the Omega Man.. and i said that it was my least favorite of the 3 book adaptations.. I guess i was just remembering my anger after watching I Am Legend when i first posted..

I also said that Will Smith did a great job in the movie..

ANYWAY

Whether you meant to or not, you basically posted the general idea of WHAT IS WRONG with film today..

"With a storyline that involves sci-fi and vampires you HAVE to inject some action, otherwise audiences will be bored."

"They crafted this movie to be right up the alley of a mainstream audience."

So basically what you're saying is that intelligent people read books, and that if you're going to watch a movie it MUST have action in it so that you're not bored.. That's the BIGGEST JOKE i've heard in a while.. This is the problem with film today.. anything "crafted" to fit the main stream audience is horrible, hence those aspects in I Am Legend.. As i said in my original post, if you make a remake of a remake and then add the mainstream elements to it, then it's bound to be horrible.. Sure it will satisfy the "mainstream" audience, which you unintentionally explained as NEEDING action to not be "bored" with a movie.. but the real film lovers will laugh at this movie..

See the problem with society today is reflected in the types of entertainment we choose.. Listen to the radio.. nowadays it's all about "pimps" and "hoes" and "rims" and "ice".. Compare that to older decades where the music could actually be considered "ART".. You know, it actually had some meaning behind it.. Whether it was political or not, it had substance.. Today there are very few kids/teenagers growing up that will appreciate music as it truly should be.. You went from saying "hey mom, i want to learn how to play guitar like George Harrison" to "hey mom, check out how i can shake my ass like those girls in that video"..

The same goes for film.. I think it's funny how many people say "I've never even heard of that film" when all of the films nominated for best movie come out.. It's cause they were too busy watching Bring it on Again 10..
The other current movie thread about No Country For Old Men, which won best picture, is about a film that has substance to it.. YES there was action in it, but it was necessary action.. it wasn't put in the movie as a reason to go see the movie, it just happened to be NECESSARY to the story..

To say that you need to ADD action to a "sci-fi" movie because otherwise it would be "boring" is a joke..

[Wadeb_21]

I have seen "I am Legend" and thought it was a pretty good movie, However I have talked to many that have read the book and tell me the movie is shite compared to the book. I guess the book was written in the 1950's and the story takes place in the 70's if I remember correctly. I'm gonna try and read the book someday if I ever have time.

[Wayne]

will smith was great

but i hated the movie..

they RUINED the book, which was awesome..

the movie suffered from a few bad cheesy modernizations.. The Omega Man and The Last Man On Earth were both better movies..

If you remake a remake of a remake, and then add cheesyness to it, you're bound to fail.. hence I Am Legend..

like, oh, of course, the night that they all come to your house, you've finally realized that you FOUND THE CURE.. I mean come on, a 7th grader can write that shit..

Anyone who liked the movie i encourage you to read the book and then reevaluate your thoughts.. the book is completely different and superior.

C'mon, The Omega Man was the ultimate in Cheese. Being cool with black people must have been nouveau riche back in the 70s as evidenced by Heston's black girlfriend in the flick. And that ending... he died standing?

I can understand if you think "I am Legend" was a poor adaptation of the book, but it was just as good, if not better, than "The Omega Man". It was not a remake but a different adaptation just like with "The Thing". That was a second adaptation of the source material. They couldn't have remained faithful to the novella; nobody would be interested in that as a feature film. The ending was so anti-climactic. With a storyline that involves sci-fi and vampires you HAVE to inject some action, otherwise audiences will be bored.

Will Smith was excellent and at times his performance was almost on par with Tom Hank's in "Castaway". The CGI was godawful; I wish they had just used real actors. They crafted this movie to be right up the alley of a mainstream audience.

liquid if you read one of my other posts i elaborated on the Omega Man.. and i said that it was my least favorite of the 3 book adaptations.. I guess i was just remembering my anger after watching I Am Legend when i first posted..

I also said that Will Smith did a great job in the movie..

ANYWAY

Whether you meant to or not, you basically posted the general idea of WHAT IS WRONG with film today..

"With a storyline that involves sci-fi and vampires you HAVE to inject some action, otherwise audiences will be bored."

"They crafted this movie to be right up the alley of a mainstream audience."

So basically what you're saying is that intelligent people read books, and that if you're going to watch a movie it MUST have action in it so that you're not bored.. That's the BIGGEST JOKE i've heard in a while.. This is the problem with film today.. anything "crafted" to fit the main stream audience is horrible, hence those aspects in I Am Legend.. As i said in my original post, if you make a remake of a remake and then add the mainstream elements to it, then it's bound to be horrible.. Sure it will satisfy the "mainstream" audience, which you unintentionally explained as NEEDING action to not be "bored" with a movie.. but the real film lovers will laugh at this movie..

See the problem with society today is reflected in the types of entertainment we choose.. Listen to the radio.. nowadays it's all about "pimps" and "hoes" and "rims" and "ice".. Compare that to older decades where the music could actually be considered "ART".. You know, it actually had some meaning behind it.. Whether it was political or not, it had substance.. Today there are very few kids/teenagers growing up that will appreciate music as it truly should be.. You went from saying "hey mom, i want to learn how to play guitar like George Harrison" to "hey mom, check out how i can shake my ass like those girls in that video"..

The same goes for film.. I think it's funny how many people say "I've never even heard of that film" when all of the films nominated for best movie come out.. It's cause they were too busy watching Bring it on Again 10..
The other current movie thread about No Country For Old Men, which won best picture, is about a film that has substance to it.. YES there was action in it, but it was necessary action.. it wasn't put in the movie as a reason to go see the movie, it just happened to be NECESSARY to the story..

To say that you need to ADD action to a "sci-fi" movie because otherwise it would be "boring" is a joke..

You're one of THOSE old fogies. Anytime people say things that begin with "The problem with music today..." you've turned into your parents, who turned into their parents, who turned into their parents, all the way back when the first caveman banged two rocks together and his mother grunted at him. The "problem" with music, movies, teens, etc. today is that the prior generation just doesn't get it. The same thing was said of the Beatles, the Stones, Jimmy Hendrix, Ray Charles, Elvis, Chuck Berry, Jackson Pollock, non-rhyming poetry, tattoos and all other forms of art. Art will always be diverse in that it is tailored to fit the tastes of the current age as well as having a minor independent streak that defies the social norm. There is nothing wrong with a movie being tailored to fit a mainstream audience when producers sink MILLIONS into it. They actually would like to make their money back on it plus a profit so they'll be able to make your "Michael Claytons", "There Will be Bloods" and "No Country for Old Mens". Those movies don't make money, but you'd probably describe them as being what is "right". Sounds counterintuitive, right? In order to have that you have to have movies that are formulaic in nature (which are still not guaranteed to make money) to put butts in seats. That's why I stated a sci-fi movie with vampires HAS to have action in it. That type of movie begs for a big budget and the source material is epic in nature. If I described such a movie idea to you would you not imagine that there would be SOME CG in it? Of course you would.

I loved "No Country for Old Men" but I liked "I am Legend" too. Sure it had its problems, but because it wasn't an artistic film up to your standards doesn't mean it doesn't have its place. I like to eat healthy food, but sometimes I just want a #9 from McDonald's. There isn't anything wrong with that and the fact they have over several BILLION served means there's a place for them. Ya-ya's (don't worry, it's only in Michigan and Florida) is healthy for you but no way can they put up those kinds of numbers. Let it be. Just realize that when you say, "(insert your complaint here) these days," it says more about you than anything else.

[RP33]

"With a storyline that involves sci-fi and vampires you HAVE to inject some action, otherwise audiences will be bored."

"They crafted this movie to be right up the alley of a mainstream audience."

You're one of THOSE old fogies. Anytime people say things that begin with "The problem with music today..." you've turned into your parents, who turned into their parents, who turned into their parents, all the way back when the first caveman banged two rocks together and his mother grunted at him. The "problem" with music, movies, teens, etc. today is that the prior generation just doesn't get it. The same thing was said of the Beatles, the Stones, Jimmy Hendrix, Ray Charles, Elvis, Chuck Berry, Jackson Pollock, non-rhyming poetry, tattoos and all other forms of art. Art will always be diverse in that it is tailored to fit the tastes of the current age as well as having a minor independent streak that defies the social norm. There is nothing wrong with a movie being tailored to fit a mainstream audience when producers sink MILLIONS into it. They actually would like to make their money back on it plus a profit so they'll be able to make your "Michael Claytons", "There Will be Bloods" and "No Country for Old Mens". Those movies don't make money, but you'd probably describe them as being what is "right". Sounds counterintuitive, right? In order to have that you have to have movies that are formulaic in nature (which are still not guaranteed to make money) to put butts in seats. That's why I stated a sci-fi movie with vampires HAS to have action in it. That type of movie begs for a big budget and the source material is epic in nature. If I described such a movie idea to you would you not imagine that there would be SOME CG in it? Of course you would.

I loved "No Country for Old Men" but I liked "I am Legend" too. Sure it had its problems, but because it wasn't an artistic film up to your standards doesn't mean it doesn't have its place. I like to eat healthy food, but sometimes I just want a #9 from McDonald's. There isn't anything wrong with that and the fact they have over several BILLION served means there's a place for them. Ya-ya's (don't worry, it's only in Michigan and Florida) is healthy for you but no way can they put up those kinds of numbers. Let it be. Just realize that when you say, "(insert your complaint here) these days," it says more about you than anything else.

first off, my friend.. im TWENTY TWO years old..

you don't realize it, but you constantly are giving me perfect examples of how "dumbed down" wahtever you want to call it, society has become..

i suggest you watch the movie Idiocracy if you have not yet, and you'll see what i'm getting at..

anyway, here is the point man.. just like you said with the mcdonalds analogy, PERFECT example.. Now you have healthy food that you can eat when you want, because it's good for your health etc, wahtever reason you want to eat healthy.. then you have Mcdonalds.. it's cheap, fast to get, and it tastes good? what's wrong with that? well besides the fact that there was a documentary called Super Size Me on all of the effects of eating this type of food, there is plenty wrong.. This is the perfect example of instant gratification.. you constantly say "well i only have a few bucks and not a lot of time, let me get a few things off of the dollar menu".. compare that mentality to that of someones taste in movies.. you don't want to think about the movie, you don't want to relate it to life or anything, you just want some quick action and gore while you're out with your date on a friday night, and then you'll talk about something else on the ride home..

if that's the type of shit that you dig, then GREAT.. all i'm saying is that you're not even scratching the surface on the art in film and the awesomeness that goes along with it..

Bottom line is that you shouldn't even be debating with me because clearly we have different likes/dislikes when it comes to entertainment.. I was a film major for 2 years, i took a few technical courses at a school near my house, i've written screen plays, and i currently do independent film production.. clearly i just have a love for the art.. If you think that you need blood and gore for a story like "I Am Legend" then that's awesome.. that's your view on the art.. but you have to understand that if someone came on the main board on this site and started saying how boring boxing is and how you need a KNOCKOUT and blood for a fight to be entertaining, then he'd get owned by ICB, Mick, Spicoli, Bilbo within 10 minutes..

ANOTHER THING..

no country for old men made plenty of money, especially after it won the awards.. obviously not as much as lets say, I Am Legend, but what does that exactly mean? All that it means is that the general public, felt more enticed to go see I Am Legend.. does that mean it was a fantastic film? or does that mean that it had a larger appeal.. whether it be that Will Smith was in it, or because teenage girls wanted to get scared by vampires, or whatever.. bottom line is that it was a highly marketed film, and because your friend saw it, and maybe liked it, you went to see it..

I work at a bookstore, and i don't know how familiar you are with Oprah Winfrey, but she has a "book club".. she "releases" a title every few months and basically the whole fucking state comes in and buys the book.. the latest one was a book called " A New Earth" by Eckhart Tolle.. It's a metaphysical type of book that would not have 1/48948923 the sales if it wasn't on Oprah's show.. so not only did we sell hundreds of thousands, but at least a thousand people took the effort to come back in and return it..

what does that tell you about our society?

in a nutshell, it shows me that people are spoon fed what they should like and what's "good" if you will..

now how does that transpire into our topic, film? well i'm sure you can figure it out, but the bottom line is that a good film is a GOOD film..

here's an example.. try to stay with me on this one because this is something you need to understand if you want to continue this conversation...

I liked the movie Punch-Drunk Love.. i know a lot of people who hated it, but i also can understand why they hated it.. It was pretty off-beat, and it was slow moving.. but you don't hear anyone say, "it didn't make sense" or "there were a lot of holes in it".. because it was a complete movie, that told a story, that was just plain and simple without needing to satisfy a specific audience.. NOW when someone sees, lets say the movie "Saw".. i actually liked saw but that's besides the point.. someone may love the movie, you know "oh man it had tons of GORE!!" etc.. someone else may say, "there was unnecessary gore, and there were some holes in the continuity of the story.. and even a few things unexplained".. I mean, the point is that there were holes in the story, the acting was BAD, so i can really hear people when they say the did not like it.. BUT for the people who did like it, they don't care about the holes in the story, because the Gore and the SHOCK VALUE ending covered all of that up and made it so that it didn't matter..

point is i like to go see a movie, enjoy the acting, enjoy the writing and dialogue, enjoy the cinematography, and enjoy the directing.. if all of those aspects meet a certain level of enjoyment, then i'd like it.. I mean, i don't go into the movie theater and take notes, these things are just embedded in my head because of my experiences with film.. i feel that i may appreciate a certain shot that someone else may not even notice, that's just my view of it.. Some people want to go to the movies strictly for entertainment and see some explosions and sex and gun fire, and that's fine with me, but i don't think that person would be getting into a film discussion..

all i'm asking if for you to #1, hear where i am coming from, #2 read your posts/thoughts and pretend that you're me, or coming from my perspective.. that may help you understand what i'm trying to say.