Now, here in the blog, I often will joke about the awful aspects of sports, politics, and pop culture. The truth is, though, for most things I'm sure I could do no better. I can't write a song better than Ace of Base, and I don't have the ability to out-coach Doc Rivers (maybe). However, I am absolutely certain that I could write a better screenplay than the piece of crap that was "I Am Legend".
Let me explain.
I first learned about "I Am Legend" a few months before the movie's release last summer. Initially, I thought it looked awesome, because, as physics has told us, zombies = badass. However, due to what was likely a hilarious sequence of Rube Goldberg Machine-like complexity (or possibly because movies are expensive and I am cheap) I never ended up seeing it in the theatre. Nonetheless, reviews of the film poured in from my friends during its cinematic run. These ranged from "best ever" to "completely awful", so I had no idea what to think, and did what any lazy person from my generation would do: I wikipedia-ed it.
This, in turn gave me my first exposure to the book "I Am Legend" by Richard Matheson, which served as the basis for the film. The wikipedia article made the novel seem so interesting that I eventually purchased and read it. The book is, for lack of better words, fucking awesome. It reinvigorated my interest in the film. So much so, in fact, that I did not end up seeing it until it was a viewing option on a trans-Atlantic flight.
I think the transitive property tells us that if the book was good, the movie should also be good, right?
WRONG. The movie is NOTHING WHATSOEVER like the book: different setting characters, and, frankly, plot.
Well, what if the movie was different but somehow MORE AWESOME? It has Will Smith, you know. He blowed up the aliens with Jeff Goldblum in Independence Day and blowed up more aliens with Tommy Lee Jones in two other blowin'-up-alien-related films!
Quiet, inner monologue of questionable grammar and taste in movies. No. They took good things about the book and turned them into fecal pellets. I'm going to tackle four such discrepancies here.
SPOILER ALERT! If you reeeeallly wanted to see the movie/read the book and be genuinely surprised, do not pass. Also, Kevin Spacey did it (In TWO movies! Feel free to discuss). Also, the following is written assuming you have some knowledge regarding the basic premises of the book/film. If you do not, do what I did and wikipedia them. You may want to hit that last link anyway. It does a better job of explaing some things than I will do. Anyway, onward with the complaining.
Okay, first off, the monsters in the book are essentially vampires, while those in the movie are zombies. Now if you know me (odds are, if you are reading this, you do), you also know I am a huge fan of the zombie genre. I have already made extensive plans regarding what do do if the zombie apocalypse occurs. In many cases, I would regard the addition of zombies to be an upgrade. Not here. One of the key aspects of the book is that the vampires communicate with the protagonist when he is locked inside his house. They constantly taunt him. The female vampires, knowing he is the last man on Earth and therefore has not gotten any action in quite some time, flash him, trying to tempt him to come out of his stronghold. Zombies can't do this. At best, they can groan "BRAAAAAINNNS" before being bludgeoned by a crowbar. In the book, the monsters are legitimate characters. As for the movie, not so much.
Another key plot element missed by the film is the fate of the protagonist's wife and child. In the film, they die in a helicopter crash while attempting to escape New York (they got nothin' on Snake Plissken.). Sad face. However, in the book, they become infected (his wife dies and is resurrected as a vampire) and the protagonist HAS TO KILL THEM WITH HIS OWN HANDS. Way, way, waaaaaay more intense. You can't make the argument that they omitted this from the film to keep from depressing the audience; the two still die anyway. So what was the reason? My guess is that the screenwriters had some sort of vendetta against helicopter companies. Damn helicopters. IF GOD WANTED US TO LEVITATE HE WOULD HAVE GIVEN US HOVERCRAFTS FOR LEGS.
In both the movie and the novel, the protagonist eventually runs into a "survivor". In the movie, these are legitimate survivors (how sweet). They help him be generally less insane and eventually take his serum to other survivors when Will Smith dies (OH NOES!). The book, on the other hand, made me put quotes around the word "survivor" previously, as the person he runs into is one of the infected, who through some mutation of the disease, can survive in the sunlight for brief periods of time. She dupes him into thinking she also is resistant before knocking him unconscious and ultimately facilitating his capture. In general, she does more than "eat cereal" and "get in the way". That's quite a difference there. A difference that causes a complete change in the plot, ultimately affecting the story's central theme.
Speaking of which, lastly, and most importantly, the movies differ in their use of the title. In the book, the protagonist spends his days hunting and killing those infected with the disease while they sleep. He is, to his victims, what vampires (who, incidentally, are his victims) are to us humans. To us, vampires are a legend. To them, the future inhabitants of the fictional world, he is legend. Hence the title. So whether you are the "good guy" or "bad guy" can depend on your perspective on things. Cool idea, no?
The movie, on the other hand, must be under the impression that the viewer could not possibly make this revelation or even comprehend the whole "I am Legend" idea. Instead, the theme supporting the title is that the protagonist had the cure to the disease in his blood all along. So he is legendary because his blood was totally neato and he had midiclorians and the force or something. WHAT. THE. CRAP. When you find this out, you think "Oh, that's the title of the movie. How nice." Not "Man, so was he the bad guy all along?" In the end, this got me "Pierre Bernard's Recliner of Rage"-style pissed. So much so, in fact, that I needed to use the internet to insufficiently air my gripes about the film. Seriously, the change in the meaning behind the title takes away the central theme of the book, making it a different story completely. This is the real reason why I think the poster of the movie should appear on failblog.
Which brings me back to the beginning. I could write a better screenplay than this dreck. How? Simply by taking what was in the book, and translating it to screenplay format. There. Done. Too bad Hollywood couldn't understand that.
No comments:
Post a Comment