| abstract
| - I'm not buying that the second trap could work. It's setup all wrong, are we supposed to believe that the infected rigged a whole convoluted series of pulleys as well? How is it we can't see any cables yet Will Smith is lifted straight up? What makes the car teeter off the bridge? Where is the cable from the car? Completely faked by Hollywood that second trap.
* What was Robert Neville's role with the virus pre-apocalypse? There's a quick shot of him on the cover of TIME magazine (on his fridge) with the caption "Savior?" The nurse says "So you're *The* Robert Neville" in a manner suggesting it's more significant than just "The guy who does the radio broadcasts." And he has a very This Is Personal vibe about wanting to stay in Manhattan and fix the virus rather than move to a safe area. Is he he somehow responsible for its mutation from a cancer cure?
* It's either in one of his flashbacks or on one of those recorded television broadcasts he watches, but at some point you hear some news reporter or announcer say that he's basically the lead figure assigned to deal with the once-promising Krippen virus. The Time cover supplements that. What that means is that before the Crash, he was probably a reknowned and genius virologist (which actually makes sense, since the US military plays an important role in dealing with anti-biological warfare efforts) who was given the task of trying to deal with the mutated Krippen virus (up until the destruction of the bridge, the virus seems to have only been spread by blood-to-blood contact, hence his wife's remark "is it airborne?".
* Odds are he was the best virologist the US could throw at the problem. All his research was probably located in the area, and since his family died at the docks nearby, specifically THE ONE HE FREAKING BROADCASTS FROM, it is very personal.
* Perhaps he helped make the cancer cure? That's what I got. It would explain the fame and the whole it's personal vibe.
* Yeah, that's what I thought as well.
* Also, IJBM that Will Smith is a virologist. In the army.
* What's the problem with that? The US Army is one of the largest researchers of infectious diseases.
* Is it just a coincidence that the movie takes place in 2012, the next rumored date for the end of the world?
* Probably a mix of that and Twenty Minutes Into the Future.
* I'm still waiting for Batman/Superman movie teasers (pretty please?).
* For me, the appearance of Anna and Ethan completely spoiled the whole "the only person in the world" vibe. The part where they waltz into Neville's house uninvited and then act annoyed when he's standing right there wondering what their deal is didn't help at all.
* I've heard this is a good movie until the two scrappies show up. Anyway, the whole movie is from Neville's POV: he's been alone on an island for several years with only a dog and some mannequins as his Companion Cubes. The only other living things on the island are animals and nightwalkers, who are no longer human to Neville (Anna refers to the captured nightwalker as "she" while Neville always uses "it") so naturally the sudden intrusion of a real live woman and child - especially since he once had a wife and child of his own - is incredibly jarring.
* "I've heard this is a good movie until the two scrappies show up." It was good until the infected came into plain view.
* What bugs me is that they kept all the signs that the nightwalkers had adapted to The Virus and gotten a bit of their minds back only to blow them up to save the two scrappies (and the human race but whatever). The truly irritating thing is that not only does the alternate ending allow Neville to become The Atoner for what he's done to the nightwalkers and humanity it also sets up a potential sequel (they're still looking for the hidden survivors, who may yet be bastards or maybe the nightwalkers in the northeast developed thick hair and claws), but audiences or executives inexplicably liked a Downer Ending Made of Explodium better. You'd think the potential for a sequel or even a series would've been enough to keep this ending, but I guess it only exists in the same world where Twilight is My Immortal and My Immortal is inexplicably popular among teenaged girls.
* You consider "humans suck, so they should all die" to be the happy ending? That point aside, whether or not they'd gotten bits of their minds back, they were still a threat. If this whole "evolution/survival of the fittest" concept appeals to you, you shouldn't be upset that a human did a bunch of killing to preserve his own species, now should you?
* Okay, so, to answer to most of the scrappy questions: In the original novelette Neville has been living alone when this mysterious woman shows up. During the day he gets supplies and stuff, but he also kills vampires. Sound familiar? However, in the novelette, this woman turns out to be a different mutation of the vampires, and sometimes he kills other mutants like her during the day. In other words, he, a normal human, has become the bogeyman that kills the vampires in their sleep. Thus, his last thoughts when she betrays him and the smarter mutant vampires hang him is "I am Legend" referencing that they will be telling stories of him as the thing that goes bump in the day. The entire point of the story is lost because they wanted to have less of a downer ending. And it had been going so well up until the terrible ending...
* That's not the only thing they lost when they changed the ending for theatrical release. When you watch the movie with the original ending, it's very, very obvious that Neville is both delusional and perilously close to madness. The world has moved on, yet he's still working in his lab "ground zero", still saying "I can still fix this". It's not until the end that he finally realizes that the Infected aren't just mindless monsters, and reality comes crashing in. It's a powerful scene (particularly after the bit where he was wailing "Let me save you! Let me save you!") and it was all lost because of the audiences in the pre-screening.
* In case you hadn't noticed, Humans Are Bastards is losing popularity among the general public. There's only so much "you suck so go drop dead" people should have to hear.
* The alternate ending makes no sense. They murdered nearly every human. They do not have their own society. They have no emotions. They are predators with primal instincts. After they've slaughtered everyone who wasn't one of them, there's no way they're just going to be "Hey, you kidnapped one of our friends. Can we have her back?"
* The whole point of the alternate ending is that they are not "predators with primal instincts," and they do have emotions. They didn't "murder" every human--they were themselves victims of a disease that drove them to do it. Murder implies forethought, and intent, and in the beginning of the outbreak they had neither--at first, yes, they were predators on instinct, but they adapted and gained control of themselves. It's only after a while that they develop their society, but Neville is too blind to see it. That's the whole point of the original story: Humans aren't killed off by the plague and replaced by the vampires/whatever. Humans adapted to it and are continuing on.
* Okay, so I got into a argument about this movie when we saw it in class a couple years ago. The question is, are the creatures vampires, or zombies? Or, rather, which archetype do they fit better?
* Yes.
* They're vampires. Zombies could never be found in such large numbers (or at least not under the control of another person) in the original myths the modern day zombie was based on the vampires of I Am Legend. Furthermore the first "zombie" flick "Night of the Living Dead" the Z word was rarely if at all used, and rumor has it Romero never thought of them as Zombies older zombies were corpses resurrected as servants by Voodoo Shamans an the Afro-Caribbean areas. and from the fact that corpses were needed and particular rituals used i doubt they were ever in very large "outbreak" numbers Take That Hollywood. In fact these vampires save for the sunlight thing are closer to mythical vampires then anything.
*
* Which completely ignores the fact that there's no one definition of a vampire or zombie to begin with as there are multiple mythos that feature such things. And many 'classic' vampire traits are, in fact, modern additions - as modern as Bela Lugosi for some things or books like Bran Stokers Dracula and Anne Rice. The voodoo zombie is just one of many sorts of zombie (or zombie-like) creatures from just one culture just like the whole sunlight thing is only prevalent in one specific myth of vampires; even within the same mythos there can be disagreement. Vampires and zombies, after all, are Older Than They Think.
* This Troper's Horror Lit. class has taken to calling them "zompires".
* Night of the Living Dead was not the first zombie flick.
* The fact that they're, like, still alive disqualifies them from both categories, in this troper's opinion.
* there have been several "still alive" zombie movies before, it makes for both a more "realistic" approach in that there is no virus bring the dead to life but is instead a virus that makes people flesh hungry and insane. but also give cause to have "running" zombies that are fast and dangerous, but can be killed with any means a normal human would die. It helps with the whole action thing. just look at "zombie land" and "28 days later"
* Maybe I just missed something, but shouldn't they have spent, y'know, a very long time testing the cancer cure, with maybe some patients being in a controlled environment for extended periods of time for testing and extensive research of the side effects (such as hair loss, increased metabolism, decreased brain function, cannibalism, and evil vampirism/zombie...ish...ness)? Seems like that could've prevented the whole damn thing (unless of course there was some unexpected turn of events).
* Once the word was out that there was a "cancer cure," even an experimental one, the public demand to release (even unfinished) would have been deafening. There's definitely been some bad science done when people cannot or will not be patient enough to get it right. Also, clearly the cure mutated at some point, because the crap hits the fan when it becomes airborne and there would be no reason to engineer it that way.
* Besides, stuff like this happens all the time in real life - I mean, obviously people aren't turning into zombies and vampires, but drugs are very often rushed through production and clinical trials, especially in the U.S. This is why there are always huge news stories about recalls when longer-term problems develop - clinical trials may last 6-8 weeks when serious side effects may take months or years to emerge. Pharmaceutical companies make lots of money and a cancer cure? Not only would the public be crying for them to hurry up and finish it, but the pharma companies would've been biting at the bit to get it released so they could make the big bucks. The clinical trials were probably really sloppy and the trials might not have lasted long enough to see the real consequences. Or maybe the pharma companies simply hid it, not realizing what a huge problem it would be.
* Why are the infected CG'ed? They simply look...are humans with greying skin and some anger issues. Don't tell me make-up and costuming could not have simply used actors in prosthetics. The effect in the movie just makes them look creepy in the wrong way and looks too fake.
* Don't tell me make-up and costuming could not have simply used actors in prosthetics. Actually, we can tell you precisely that. The infected were originally actors in prosthetics, but they couldn't get the full range of needed movement from them.
* Not to mention that the infected don't wear shoes, which would be very uncomfortable for real actors before you factor in some of the scenes having broken glass or what not around. CGI was just the better option for all involved.
* Also, when we first see the infected standing still, you can see that they are constantly hyperventilating, which would be difficult for real actors to keep up for a long time.
* You don't have to pay CG characters.
* Yes you do. It's called "Motion Capture".
* No, you don't. You don't have to use motion capture; you could simply animate them the old fashioned way.
* But CGI which has the level of detail used for the Infected would have cost a lot, possibly more than just hiring extras to play them.
* Not necessarily. Those extras have to be trained, made up, directed, and each individually paid; they're not just standing around in their street clothes, after all. CGI gets cheaper with each movie made; the same can't be said for paid extras and actors. And, as mentioned above, the extras simply would not have been able to match the physical abilities they wanted for the creatures in the film.
* Why did the filmmakers set the film in NYC,particularly Manhattan? Only the constant pumping of water keeps the lower areas and the underground tunnels from flooding,it's not a particularly large piece of real estate and it it's not a very defensible position (since Neville is presented as being a military man, this would have been a paramount concern)being an island extremely close to the mainland.
* I believe they moved the setting to New York because it was more visually recognizable to a larger audience, and seeing an iconic city like New York abandoned and ravaged by nature and time would have more impact to said audience. LA is a well known city, sure, but not as visually distinct in the country's consciousness.
* Also consider that most people probably don't even know about the pumping (I live in NYC and had never even considered it - for the tunnels yes, but the subway? No) and the lack of defensibility only serves to heighten the stakes. I kept thinking about what would happen if the infected could swim across the Hudson. Screwed!
* From the book: Why does Neville have such a hard time(no pun intended) finding a way to deal with the women who strip and pose suggestively to entice him out of his house? It's emphasized that this is one of the most difficult things he has to deal with, and that he has no way to combat "the feeling". Uh, Neville....you do. Has this man honestly never heard of masturbation before? He can even peep out at the vampire girls while he does it!
|
![[RDF Data]](/fct/images/sw-rdf-blue.png)