Talk:I Am Legend (film)/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Academic Journal

There's an edit war going on between Anger22 and Wikigonish about the validity of a specific scholarly journal. Anyone care to weigh in before they start blanking each others pages? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stuthomas4 (talk • contribs) 16:02, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

The journal article in question is a movie review published in an academic journal. The present wiki-article presents mainly positive reviews, while this academic article presents a critical evaluation of the film in relation to both the insertion of Christian themes and the divergences from the novel. Anger22 rejects the article on the basis that the author of the academic article does not have his own wikipedia entry, ([[1]]) which is not a valid means by which to determine "notability." The journal in which the article appears is a recognised academic journal and the review cited has direct relevance to the section "critical response."Wikigonish (talk) 17:09, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

It would have direct relevance to the section "critical response" if the article weren't written by a complete nobody and if there wasn't a WP:COI issue tagging along behind it. Anger22 (Talk 2 22) 21:11, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I looked at the movie review in question and it appears to be a reliable source per WP guidelines: it is an academic journal and therefore fair game. Wikigonish is correct that "red-links" are not a barometer of "notability". Anger22, what COI issues are involved?
Jim Dunning | talk 21:34, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Then it would seem to be agreed that the addition is relevant. 1) NN criteria are resolved by the fact that the author of the article in question is a) an academic, b) whose articles have been cited in independent sources. Both of these points can be verified by google searching both the scholar and the articles in question. 2) There is no COI issue tagging along. Wikipedia's guidelines for COI state: "When editors write to promote their own interests, their contributions often show a characteristic lack of connection to anything the general reader might want to consult as a reference." This addition supports reader interest and directs the reader to an academic article; as such, the reference is intended to further the reader's knowledge on the subject at hand, which is the aim of any encyclopedia. Since Anger22's arguments 1) and 2) are clearly met, then it should be agreed to leave the references as entered.Wikigonish (talk) 14:25, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Incorrect timeline?

While the wiki states that the film occurs in 2012, the fridge in Neville's house has a calendar opened to December, and the 1st is a Friday. The only year in the same timeframe that December 1st was on Friday was 2006 (or 2017, but we can discount that). So shouldn't the correct year be 2009? Dream to Dream (talk) 03:40, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

As the plot section describes, the film is set in 2012, but the virus breaks out in 2009. After that, Smith's character would have had trouble finding an up-to-date calendar. :) Steve ^{T • C} 07:20, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Its true that the film starts in 2009 and then it goes "3 years later" (2012) It should be in the article? The article says that the movie begins in 2012. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.80.148.58 (talk) 11:33, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

The movie is "Set" in 2012 with a series of flashbacks 3 years earlyer to the cause of the outcome. It also states this in the article as well MattyC3350 (talk) 12:05, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Sequel

Is there a source to I Am Legend 2 being a definite film to be released? Pro66 (talk) 22:13, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

• I was surprised to hear a sequel would be coming out considering the different endings to the film that was realsed and according to gossip sites the original ending (the one that was not shown in the cinemas) was better then what was edited into it. Good luck for it anyways but I canot find any info about as of yet. Cheers. MattyC3350 (talk) 12:07, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

• doesnt matter now helped to get the article deleted as it was not sourced and that.Pro66 (talk) 18:36, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Question about alternate ending

Why was the ending changed? Did Hollywood not like to entertain the idea that the "good guy" might not be right every time? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.211.72.73 (talk) 11:27, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

The test audience disliked the original ending, and thus they changed it for the new, official ending of the movie. --Delf (talk) 18:24, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

That should be in the article, it's relevant. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.94.105.4 (talk) 21:31, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Animated comics plots

Just wondering if we should add the animated comics and their plots to this page. They're on the DVD, they act in place of special features and tell the tales of various survivors from across the world.121.216.25.108 (talk) 01:28, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Are you people insane?

I have no interest in ever editing wikipedia articles, but this was ridiculous. This film was based on the novel I Am Legend (1997) by Richard Matheson (no wikipedia article amazon it). I remember first reading the novel & being blown away by the upcoming film adaptation. How someone would draw the conclusion to the Omega Man? Basic research people! *clap clap*

Basic research? ok put this in the search box I Am Legend and hey presto you got yourselve an article on a 1954 book to which the film and Omega Man is based on and if you want to do some reading before hand you can see this article meantion it was where the idea comes from......is that enough basic research for you anon? Pro66 (talk) 19:04, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Development Paragraph

I found the development article very confusing. The article refers to Mark Protosevich writing a script in 2000 and the next line says that in 1997 "Actors Tom Cruise, Michael Douglas,[7] Mel Gibson[5] had been considered to star in the film,[7] using a script by Protosevich and with Ridley Scott as director; however, by June 1997..." As Protosevich didnt have a script till 2000 this isnt possible. It might be better to put the bit about 1997 and Arnold Schwarzenegger before the piece about Protosevich. I dont know if any of the information is correct I just think its very confusing at the moment. 86.41.107.202 (talk) 08:13, 20 December 2008 (UTC)Rory

Good Reviews?

In the ref it says something like on rotten tomatoes 62 out of 192 critics rated it good and it got a 65% "fresh" ranking. I don't remember but the stats it gives indicate that the consensus might be only mediocre reviews yet the article states good reviews. Should this be changed?98.196.78.26 (talk) 05:04, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Am I the only one that notices that the mannequin moves when Will Smith spots it?

Notice that after he spots the mannequin in the street and backs up to view it, that the mannequin turns it head slightly and looks back.

Yes.
Jim Dunning | talk 00:19, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Also when he goes into the kitchen when they are making breakfast the morning after they rescued him, it shows his wife and kid.--E tac (talk) 22:27, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Half Life/Second Life

The videogame was Second Life, not Half Life.

Deviation from the novel

Would a section about the differences between the novel and the film be prudent? There are some pretty significant deviations in the film that really alter (if not reverse entirely) the overall tone and theme of the book. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.244.247.172 (talk) 11:30, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

~The movie diverges way too much from the original novel and does not stay faithful. There are way too many differences to be listed out. It's even easier to list the similarities than the differences. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.13.138.79 (talk) 22:25, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Third introductory paragraph redundant?

It had 3 spelling errors, which I just corrected. Probably, it should just be removed. 99.17.36.207 (talk) 18:04, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Use of "hype" as a fact

The sentence "The film's commercial success "cemented [Smith's] standing as the number one box office draw in Hollywood." is nothing more than hype and does not belong in this article. This is just the opinion of ONE reviewer of the film and speaks more about Smith's celebrity rather than the quality of the film itself, so it cannot even be used as a critical review. Hype has no place in a Wikipedia article.89.168.38.246 (talk) 16:11, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Of course it's the opinion of one reviewer. This is an article about a movie, and a reviewer said it was important to Smith's career, which is relevant both to Smith and the film. You even claimed [2] that it was relevant to Smith, but you did not copy the quote over to that article. It should be somewhere. Gimmetrow 16:17, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

I said no such thing, I said a comment like this would be more appropriate to Smith's article page because it is more about him and less about the film itself. However, I would even find it difficult to include it on his page because the comment is just "peacocking" and does not impart any factual information about Smith that can easily be proven. A lot of films get hype written on their DVD cases, it does not mean that it is factually accurate and certainly does not mean it should be included here. I'm sorry but that comment does not belong in this article. 89.168.38.246 (talk) 16:26, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

It is factually accurate that a reviewer said it. Gimmetrow 16:32, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

You really aren't getting this at all, are you. Critics say a lot of things that aren't necessarily true. Reviews from leading, reputable critics can be included in an article - whether we personally agree with them or not - but their comments have to be based around the quality of the film itself. Even then, they should certainly not be included in an intro to an article as it gives undue weight to it. The comment this particular reviewer made was a highly debateable remark about Smith's career and "star power" in general, and not about the quality of the film itself. To include it in this article just turns the article into a Will Smith fan page, which is not what Wikipedia is for. 89.168.38.246 (talk) 16:47, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is about "verifiability", not "truth", and a comment about the success of the film and its implications is a comment about the film. But I have bigger fish to fry than this. Gimmetrow 16:58, 7 June 2009 (UTC)