[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"][QUOTE="-TheSecondSign-"][QUOTE="sSubZerOo"][QUOTE="MrLions"] [QUOTE="XanderKage"]The movie sucked. Read the book.-TheSecondSign-
There yea go. The book actually explains more things, and has more action.
-No it doesn't :?, there is one seen where he gets caught out side real fast.. The rest of the book he goes through the house hold putting stakes in the sleeping vampires, where in the end he gets assaulted by another group of infected and arrested.
He also shoots a bunch of them for no reason with his pistols.
And the story development and overall plot were much better developed.
They were different, in all honesty I think the movie could have been much better if it didn't try to appeal to kids.. The infected should have been at best like the 28 days later infected in the sense of being strong.. But not as crazy as the ones in I Am Legend.. That being said I Am legend the book had some far fetched things that would not translate well to a serious movie.. Such as how he got his immunity, by getting bitten by a vampire bat?
Though it was a amazing book.. It really didn't have story development.. It was more about the guys survival and it got depressing the more you read it, in him just trying to keep his sanity in a hopeless world.
Not really, the immunity subplot was left intentionally ambigious.
Yeah really.. Being bit by a animal in the past seems quite cliche and comic booky.. The movies was far more realistic in this sense that a very few had a genetic immunity.. This happens alot of times in real life cases, and seems far more realistic then a virus that has a 100% turn/fatality rate, that a guy who got bit and made sick from a bat early in his life is some how immune.. To me that is one of the things the movie actually did better by making it realistic in that sense.. That the virus killed the majority of people, adversely turned some 25% of the population to the creatures and the rare 1% were immune.
Log in to comment