Talk:I Am Legend (novel)/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Car Trap Issue-Did blood seekers set it or did a delusional Robert?

The article says a delusional Robert and I tend to disagree I think the vampires set up the trap. If you recall, they tracked the woman, the boy and Will Smith back to his home and marked it with a leaky blood bag for them to ambush the following day. In addition, the vampires strategically took out the UV lamps first when they rampaged his condo. Another vampire was making a hole in the roof as an entrance point. All of these events demonstrated they were intelligent beings so it shouldn't suprise you that they set up that trap as well. The vampires simply mimicked what Will Smith did to them when he trapped that female vampire. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.104.112.218 (talk) 12:44, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Yeah the Will Smith movie hints at the original novel in several places. But Smith was afraid to explicitly admit to what some might view as a hopeless ending (people really do fear change). The Smith character almost figures it out when filling in his journal about one of the creatures defying self interest to pursue him into broad daylight...almost as if it was a policeman or soldier (nah!). Instead the Smith version of Neville never realizes his insanity takes the form of denying the mutant humans their underlying humanity. He totally dismisses the significance of the car trap and blames it on his own insanity. Except in the alternate ending where he realizes "oh crap! It is smart enough to communicate with me to get its daughter back. What have I been doing to all the scores of creatures I experimented on." But yeah its only a hint at the novel where normal society and technology is back in action during the night and Neville is confronted with being the new Vampire who slays while most people sleep.69.23.124.142 (talk) 13:22, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Repeated undoing of plot section

I recently did a major rewrite of the plot section (shortly before creating this account), because it seemed incredibly choppy and blurbesque. The same person (Spadefinger, presumably the guy who wrote the version prior to mine) keeps reverting it for no apparent reason, and seems now to be performing a number of small edits in order to deliberately make undoing his reversions difficult. What are other peoples' thoughts on This? Tyrs (talk) 12:14, 19 March 2008 (UTC)Tyrs

Well, I think the new summary is a bit long (with enormous paragraphs) and overly detailed; but apart from a couple of minor things (eg nuclear war isn't mentioned; just mutated insects) it looks accurate, and I was leaving discussion of undue emphasis/detail until whatever edit war was going on here was resolved. I agree, the chop by Spadefinger is too short. I've given him a warning as he was heading into 3RR territory, he needs to join in the discussion here. BTW re FisherQueen's reversion appears to have happened because you were doing a revert as a series of "undo"s. I'll explain how this should have been done on your talk page. Bazzargh (talk) 14:05, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Tyrs, while I agree that your latest plot summary was *mostly* accurate, it reads like an elementary school book report. Based on the style and content of your edits, I am assuming you are the author of the "original" plot description that I changed the other day. I would not have read the book had I read either plot summary first. I'm not complaining about the spoiler aspect, as that is a contentious topic in and of itself. Only that you somehow managed to make one of the best vampire novels ever written sound boring. However, I also agree that my entry is a bit too short. Perhaps we could collaborate to come up with an acceptable plot summary. --Spadefinger (talk) 17:21, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

After reading the history of the changes I think that the short one (The one that is up now) is best. The other got way to in depth with side stories and small details. We are just looking for a plot summary here. Maybe adding a little bit about the dog and Ruth might be helpful, but other than that I vote to leave it as the short version.170.141.109.39 (talk) 20:10, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Strongly disagree. The version thats on the page right now isn't a plot summary, it is a dustjacket blurb. It is actually repetitive despite being short (struggle, monotony/routine), and a couple of the sentences are superfluous ("Are they..something more? The end is coming..."). The long version however,(see eg here [1]) was overly detailed about the bacillus, while dismissing the 2 chapters about Virginia in less than one sentence.

The original version (see eg [2]) covered the major events of the book (with the exception of the death of his wife, which should have been in there), but as Tyrs says, its too staccato, and under-emphasises the bacillus. However, I think its a better starting point. For comparison, the 3 versions are around 230, 410 and 2100 words long. I think something like 600 would be about right; 700 tops. I also think the overall structure of it (overview, then bacillus, then major plot events) worked. How about this (starting from the medium version):

• Keep the first paragraph as is
• Expand the second paragraph. In the book he moves from the legendary aspects of vampires (stakes and daylight in chapter 3, garlic and crosses in chapter 7) through discovering the bacillus (chapter 11), rationalisation of their behaviour (chapter 14), and finally chapter 17 is mostly exposition of his theory. A paragraph that mirrored this progression would make sense, and there is so much of this stuff in the book that it does need a little more space.
• Replace the paragraph about the dog with the plot from the first half of the book: that we flash back to the death of his wife, his despair, then self-destructiveness after discovering the bacillus, and his salvation by the dog. The dog is just 1 chapter, it shouldn't dominate this paragraph.
• Replace the two paragraphs about Ruth with one rewritten paragraph (about the same total length, but with a better flow)
• Expand the last paragraph a bit; the vampires are hunted down. I'm not sure the pills/Ruth adds anything here, it breaks this paragraph up too much and is just a side-plot. Keep it focussed on Neville's thoughts in the face of death.

Cortman is a problem; he's a thread running through the book but doesn't do a great deal; I don't think mentioning him adds to the short summary (we could mention that the vampires besieging him were his neighbours, though). Bazzargh (talk) 12:49, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I had a look at Category:FA-Class_novel_articles for a gold standard to compare to; most of those novels have summaries in the 400-600 word range; a handful (Starship Troopers, Lord of the Rings) have much longer summaries, and one (Tale of a Tub) doesn't include much of a plot summary at all, so much as a description of the book's structure. So something a bit longer is ok. I'll write one up and link to it. Bazzargh (talk) 16:12, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

The plot section as it stands is a complete mess. What happened? TMC1221 (talk) 00:49, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Several things, I think, starting with #Contentious section below, where a chunk of the plot summary was removed (with the best of intentions). However this was never fixed and was lost in the noise of people trying to change the plot to that of the film, and overspills of Will Smith vandalism (fixing some of this got the page on my watchlist). So, the plot summary was left choppy and incomplete. Tyrs and Spadefinger simultaneously decided to fix the problems with the summary in different ways, and it was taken to the talk page to avoid warring. So good-faith edits have brought us here; if you any suggestions, fire away. Bazzargh (talk) 01:41, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Just my 2c in the discussion... After watching the movie, I came here a while back and read the plot summary, when it was apparently in its original version ([3]). From a person who has NOT read the book, I thought it was great! Certainly better than the current short version, and heaps better than the long one. I agree with Bazzargh above that it can be improved slightly, but I think it's the best of the 3. The current one is too short and hard to understand if you haven't read the book. Come on Baz, get us a good version! Michael ^(talk) 04:57, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

When I come to wikipedia to read a plot synopsis I want as much of the plot as can be fitted in. Which is what you get in most of the other book/film plots on other works. I do not want a teaser synopsis. If I want that, I can go to Amazon or IMDB. The old plot synopsis was better. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.158.50.206 (talk) 07:55, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

"Last man on earth against the vampire hordes...or is he?" is quite adequate as a plot summary. Pair that with prior paragraph on its historic influences on later movies and novel genre. Then let people read more if they want. Its an old novel. Most people don't read stuff so long on the shelf unless required by school of some sort. So any comparison or detail in plot summary is pointless. 69.23.124.142 (talk) 13:29, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

What a ridiculous comment. 60.242.78.144 (talk) 00:37, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Having just re-read the novel, I have done some tidying up of the plot section in order to correct inaccuracies and add a few important details. 60.242.78.144 (talk) 00:37, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Anon. Edits reflecting the movie plot

I have reverted the article to re-include the plot synopsis for the novel. It seems there is an anon. editor trying to include details from the current film. Additionally I bolded the link at the top to the movie article. This could be a new Wikipedian or kid so we may have to keep doing this until they get bored and move on. Wildwose (talk) 22:00, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Iamlegend.jpg

Image:Iamlegend.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 05:03, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Film Version of Book to be Released This Year

I just saw a preview of the movie "I Am Legend" which will be released in the near future. It will star Will Smith, and looks like it's set in New York City instead of Los Angeles. 72.194.114.93 06:05, 18 June 2007 (UTC) John Doyle

We know. The film has its own article and is linked from this one. Chris Cunningham 08:01, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Chris - you know I saw a preview of the movie? You guys are good! 72.194.114.93 03:32, 19 June 2007 (UTC) John D.

I am not a frequent user so I hope I get this edit right. I think we need to add a spoiler warning due to the upcoming film. I visited this article based on the preview and I am disappointed that I now know the ending "trick" of the story. Specifically:

Eventually, Neville discovers that while he is the only person immune to the bacterium, he is not the only one still alive. Others who have been infected have discovered a means to hold the disease at bay. However, during the daylight hours, they appear to be fully involved vampires. Thus, along with the vampires, he has been killing these still alive persons. He becomes a source of terror to the still living, since he can go abroad in daylight (which they can't) and leaves their dead behind. These still living “vampires” capture Neville and reveal their nature to him, and how monstrous he appears to them. Just as vampires were regarded as legendary monsters that preyed on the vulnerable humans in their beds, Neville has become the last of a dead breed; a mythical figure that kills both vampires and the infected living while they are sleeping. He becomes a legend as the vampires once were, hence the title.

should be considered a spoiler and guarded somehow. I am going to go look up the policy and spoiler warnings and I will edit it myself if I think it is warranted.

--Adweisbe 19:29, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I just got back from reading the spoiler page. It said "Spoiler warnings are redundant when used in "Plot", "Character history", "Synopsis", or other sections that are self-evidently going to discuss a plot or similar." But... "Spoiler warnings may be used in articles whose primary subject is fictional, and where the editors proposing them have compelling arguments for their insertion. Such reasons should demonstrate that the spoiler tag does not diminish article quality, and that knowledge of the spoiler would substantially diminish many readers' or viewers' enjoyment of the work." I think there is going to be an influx of lookups based on the recent trailer and it would be great to be able to see the movie without knowing the thought provoking twist.

--Adweisbe 19:36, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

The plot summary of this rather elderly novel is clearly labelled, so (unless the article has been edited a lot recently) if you know the plot it must be because you chose to read the "Plot summary" section. --Tony Sidaway 19:46, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I know the plot "having read the book." 72.194.114.93 04:27, 21 June 2007 (UTC)John D.

I believe the plot summary is wrong.

At the end of the 'plot summary' it says that there are infected people who have the appearance of vampirism but are not really vampires. This is only true of one character who is sent to Neville so the rest of the vampires can capture him. This character is still a vampire but has been given some sort of treatment to trick Neville to feel secure. Neville doesnt kill any "still alive" people. At the end of the book the vampires catch Neville.

I am a huge Richard Matheson fan and have read I Am Legend twice. With the upcoming movie, which will most likely be a huge departure from the book, I would'nt like anyone drawing misguided comparisons to an amazing novel written before Will Smith and most of his fans were born.

All of the diseased people are "still alive". Neville's horror at the end is finding out he has been unwittingly slaying the innocent along with the "vampires". Neville knows from the start that the disease can have two results -- kill outright 95% or leave an altered lifeform with all the characteristics attributed to vampires including appearing to rise from the dead (hibernating), general behavior, difficulty to kill, the hunger for blood/flesh and an ability to infect. Neville is slaying those who appear to be hibernating "living vampires" during the day without discrimination and burning bodies. He misses the clue about families sleeping together versus the "vampires" being very territorial and solitary. The critical problem is that Neville doesn't realize the disease mutated leaving 90% of those people who did not die as merely hibernating in the day and sensitive to light. So society is now strictly a night time activity for the mutated until their scientists finally create limited availability drugs to overcome daytime hibernation for emergency services (police/fire/etc). This new society has an organized force killing the "vampires" but for the longest time cannot track Neville because he operates only in the day. Yes Neville is tracked, tricked and captured through one special diseased woman who also gets a special suntan lotion. She is the only one who understands Neville's mistake and gives him the chance to commit suicide rather than be burnt at the stake in a public execution. 69.23.124.142 (talk) 13:42, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

The plot summary is incorrect -- particularly when it says the "still living" people appear as fully evolved vampires at night. That should read: the "still living" people appear no different than the true vampire during the day while both are immobilized in sleep. Neville stays safe inside at night. The "still living" people have a mutated version of the virus and some natural resistance (the book is not precise as to which is key as I remember). The treatment recently developed and that Ruth is taking is only for movement in daylight (treating a symptom) -- not "holding off the disease". For emergency services etc, society needs a dayshift. Not everyone is taking the new treatment. The disease outraced research and caused the social-industrial infrastructure (electricity, water, etc) to collapse. There is mention that society and infrastructure has only recently been fully reconstructed -- which is why it has taken so long to get ready to deal with Neville (7 years I think). (talk) 14:28, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Home made spoiler warning

I've removed the home made spoiler warning a couple of times. It's okay to use {{spoiler}} if there is consensus to do so. --Tony Sidaway 02:59, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

I think the "spoiler" tag should very much be there. I read the "Plot" section and it gave away the entire story.-RomeW (talk) 00:13, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not use spoiler warnings where it is obvious there will be spoilers. What else would you expect to find in a section titled 'Plot' or 'Story'? Geoff B (talk) 00:18, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the statement "spoiler" is pritty redundant.Coffeepusher (talk) 19:01, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

I just removed the spoiler tag again. seeing as the person who posted it isn't participating in the discussion, I don't think they checked for consensus.Coffeepusher (talk) 16:57, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

A plot outline is something you expect before reading a book - it gives a general idea whether or not you'd like the book to begin with. Film critics discuss plots, but they'd fast lose their jobs if they gave away major features of films. If you want to give a complete rundown on the book, I'd rather see 'Synopsis' as the section title here rather than plot - it would be more obvious that you should steer clear if you haven't read the book. Dave (talk) 16:28, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Dave, semantics aside (different people's understanding of what exactly one expects to see in a 'Plot Outline', 'Synopsis' etc) the consensus is against you so don't expect to see a Spoiler Warning staying for long. Inane Imp (talk) 15:09, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Photo shown for first edition is incorrect.

The photo of the 1st edition is incorrect. That is a picture of the science fiction book club first edition. The actual first edition is Gold Medal 417. Picture can be found at http://home.earthlink.net/~theomegaman/ial.html

I own both editions and the book club edition is clearly stated as such.

Thank you. -Jerry 76.20.142.132 15:43, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

There should be a spoiler warner.

It is wrong to keep removing the spoiler warning on this. It should b there. The synopsis clearly ruins the conclusion of the story. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.47.1.36 (talk) 16:15, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not use spoiler warnings in sections where it is obvious there will be spoilers. If you read the Plot section, what do you think is going to happen? Geoff B 22:00, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Probably isn't obvious to new Wikipedia users that Plot means "cliff notes", not book flap introduction to the type of story. Plot can imply as little as "political murder mystery set in 1980s Africa" or be all the details.

I suppose there is an argument that the Wikipedia novel and movie format should start with a book flap/trailer introduction to the story. I mean obviously lots of people are looking to get more information to see if they want to actually read the book or watch the movie. Others like yourself just want a tickler for something they already saw or to put the minimum effort getting ready for the quizz shows or social gatherings. If someone thinks that is a good change they might want to post it where they debate such changes to general Wikipedia policy and content format. 69.23.124.142 (talk) 15:47, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Uniqueness of scientific explanation of vampirism?

I hardly think that this claim is valid. There have been many entries into the vampire genre that attempt to explain vampirism scientifically. I don't have links on hand, but many can be found. It can be argued that these works are derivative, but I think it's simply a cross-breeding of a classic fear symbol (the vampire) with a modern one (communicable disease). More likely a case of convergent evolution. Fade (talk) 14:55, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

At the time it was a unique/new idea. At that time engineered bio-warfare was a new threat to the public. Maybe the juxtaposition of every possible symbol of fear is inevitable. But someone is always the first facile presenter and therefore unique. And unique doesn't necessarily mean complex and hard to understand. You are just arguing nothing is noteworthy from the jaded perspective of 50+ years later when the idea has repeated so many times it is boringly familiar. Fuck what you think is unique about today's best stories will be boring to people 50 years from now too. In fact the label "convergent evolution" is already well on the path.

PS I bet simple fear of communicable disease (especially plagues), as opposed to bio-engineered weapons, is far older than the legends of vampirism. Even many animals avoid infected animals, but the elaborate fears of vampirism requires language. Though I've heard actual National Geographic(?) show arguments that vampire legends are outgrowths of fear of rabies. (talk) 15:31, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

I can’t agree with this: the film “House of Dracula” (1945) has both the notion that classical vampirism can be explained as a disease, and a scientist seeking for a cure, so the idea was neither unique or new. It might not have been "common", and this book may take the idea further and more systematically than before, but it wasn’t original in making the connection. The citation given for this in the article as note one refers to an article that makes a claim for these qualities, but doesn’t offer any more evidence than that, so it hardly acts as substantiation of the idea.Jock123 (talk) 23:47, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

White Zombie Song

White Zombie did a song called "I am legend" based off one of the old B-movies. It's on their Lasexorcisto CD. Don't know if it's noteworthy or not. --66.65.244.151 (talk) 22:10, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

It's base off Omega Man. The lyrics are are pieces of the story from the point of view of the "family" and the title of the movie is also mentioned in the chorus: "Yeah... omega-man say, its all gone away, I cannot believe it" --70.22.228.115 (talk) 18:05, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

The 4 adaption has no citation (And is not mentioned anywhere in press) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 170.148.198.156 (talk) 16:50, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Too wordy

Many people like myself don't care to read wikipedia; not because of the validity of the content, but because of how it's written. For example, 'Neville's psychological disposition is a significant element in the novel, and his struggles with despair imbue the character with intensity and gravitas.' Uhm, okay!? This sentence was clearly written by someone trying to show off their huge vocabulary (or Thesaurus skills) and not to be helpful to the rest of the community. Get over yourselves and dumb-it down. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.162.28.250 (talk) 07:38, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

I'll take the accurate fancy words over the inaccurate semi-illiterate drivel that is more the norm. The sentence in question was very well written. 71.236.70.232 (talk) 03:49, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

You want simple? Simple.wikipedia.org —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.68.65.30 (talk) 04:55, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

While I value a healthy vocabulary as much as the next man, I have to disagree. Yes, the words they chose were used correctly and the intended message is the same as the actual message, but the point is drowned with extravagant word choices. (See Prolixity) Perhaps a better choice might be “Neville’s mental state is a prominent theme in the novel. He is an intense character who struggles with despair and depression.” -Fogelmatrix 22:48, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

The sentence is well written and clear and needs to stay. Gratuitous use of infrequent words is not a virtue, however that is not the case here. If one is too illiterate to know what 'imbue' means or 'gravitas' then that is one's issue. I disagree that we need to resort to commonplace verbal cliches to describe any and all feelings and situations.

Again, I respectfully disagree. While I cannot speak for the original poster, the issue is not one of illiteracy. There is not a single word in the sentence in question that is unknown to me. Nor do I feel that my suggested replacement contains "commonplace verbal clichés." I think the issue is one of clarity. We are not writing a sonnet or epic poem. This is a reference. As such, I believe we are obliged to make these entries as clear and concise as humanly possible. The very fact that we are engaged in this debate is evidence to the fact that the original sentence is not clear and concise. Therefore, I suggest we change it. -Fogelmatrix 14:34, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I Am Omega on template

There seems to be a disagreement on including the straight to DVD adaptation I Am Omega on the I Am Legend template. Does it really matter if the adaptation is "official" - so long as the DVD has a wide commercial release and is documented by reliable sources that it is intended to be an adaptation of the book? Any other thoughts? TheUncleBob (talk) 01:05, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

The Lord of the Rings Article, for example, lists several "unofficial" adaptations. TheUncleBob (talk) 01:11, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Are you going to put Transmorphers on the Transformers template, The Da Vinci Treasure on the Da Vinci Code template or whatever cash-in Asylum makes? Its not an official film. Films get ripped off every day. We don't include said rip off films on the templates of their original films.--CyberGhostface (talk) 01:15, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not editing the Transformers article or template, I am editing this one. If you'd like, we can RfC this issue, as it doesn't look like we're going to reach an agreement. TheUncleBob (talk) 01:24, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Sure, go ahead. I've never made one before, but if you want to set it up, I'll participate.--CyberGhostface (talk) 01:29, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

While I'm not necessarily in favour of putting I Am Omega on the template, I don't think that the mere lack of official status is a sufficient argument against doing so. Nosferatu was an unofficial adaptation of Dracula. The producers were even successfully sued by Bram Stoker's' estate because of it. Aside from some superficial changes to names and locations, Nosferatu was truly an adaptation of Dracula, and is categorised as such in the Wiki article. I think a better argument against putting I Am Omega on the template is that its links to the novel I Am Legend are tenuous. From what I understand, it is not an adaptation of Matherson's novel so much as an attempt to cash in on the the latest I Am Legend film film, and other than half the title and perhaps a few basic themes (psychological impact of isolation etc), has no more to do with the novel than any other post-apocalyptic monster film. It would be like saying that Shaun of the Dead]] is a remake of Dawn of the Dead.

Basically, in the absence of any evidence to the contrary, I don't think that it's a film adaptation. Landithy (talk) 06:37, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I just watched I Am Omega and aside from a lone man who used to have a family going against a bunch of monsters it has almost nothing to do with the book I Am Legend. Perhaps there could be a section on I Am Legend in popular culture and I Am Omega listed as being inspired by it or something like it but it is no more an adaptation than any movie where someone goes around gathering up allies is a remake of the Seven Samurai. Jccalhoun (talk) 17:45, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

That's a reasonable compromise. TheUncleBob (talk) 14:56, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Can someone point out what "reliable sources" say that it is intended to be an adaptation of the book? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.44.161.103 (talk) 06:04, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Trivia

I noticed that the trivia section was removed from this article, which mentioned the influence this novel had on George Romero in his creation of "Night of the Living Dead." While I understand Wikipedia's policy of not having trivia sections in the articles, I think this information should be returned to this article. Perhaps we could include an "Influences" or "Legacy" section or something to that effect. It seems to me that this information is not really trivial. George Romero’s films have become a horror subgenre, which have moved beyond film into video games, literature, comic books, etc. Matheson’s book helped create that. Thoughts? -Fogelmatrix 15:22, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I like the idea of an "Influences" section. You just need to make sure it doesn't become another trivia section with a different name. sdgjake (talk) 21:51, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Should there not be more info about the novel itself?

The evil jelly (talk) 03:32, 19 December 2007 (UTC)I don't often contribute to these pages, but i feel that there should be more information about the novel itself here rather than this article simply being a list of film adaptations. Perhaps a list of publication/reprint dates, plot synopsis, underlying themes etc.? In my personal opinion this novel is good enough (and obviously influential enough to spawn three movie adaptations!) to rate a better article than this? I would be willing to begin such changes but not without the community blessing!

Well for whatever my opinion is worth around here, I'm all for more/better information about the novel, if you have the time, info, references and inclination to improve it.

An 'underlying themes' section would be good, so long as you cite proper references and it's not just your opinion.

With regard to a plot synopsis, the article already has one. Is there something about it that you think needs improving?

As for being 'good' enough, I don't think it's so much a matter of it being 'good' as it being notable. Although since the book seems to have had a significant influence on the horror and science fiction genres, and there seems to have been a decent bit of literature written about it, plus as you mentioned, it has spawned three movie adaptions, I don't see notability really being an issue. Landithy (talk) 04:21, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

In my opinion this page has FAR too much information about various movies which in truth have little to do with the novel, other than seeking to steal its name in order to gain some marketing benefits (Will Smith movie, I'm talking about you). As those movies all have their own pages, why do they need to be paraphrased here? Also, why are there references to two movies in the 28 Days Later series, which is a series of minor note and not especially relevant to this book? 60.242.78.144 (talk) 00:15, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Can we get a lock on this page?

I just did a play by play on the history page, and this is the most vandalized page I have seen in a while. Can we get a lock to keep the vandalism down a bit? I really don't know the prosedure, that is the reason for this post.Coffeepusher (talk) 07:04, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I just found out how to, and have put a request inCoffeepusher (talk) 07:14, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Main Tormentor

Can anyone remember the name of Neville's main adversary? He appears to be something of a leader among the vampires who gather outside Neville's house, and was Neville's friend before the outbreak. I think it was Ben something. I don't have a copy of the book with me, but as I recall, one of Neville's main objectives was to find and kill Ben. I think it would be worth putting something about that in the plot section.

Ben was also the vampire who Neville experiments on to establish the psychological nature of the aversion to crosses - Ben, being Jewish, is not affected by the cross, but is driven back by the Torah. Can anyone with access to a copy confirm these details? Thanks. TheAstonishingBadger (talk) 20:13, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

His name is ben Cortman, and keeping with the flawed man approach Robert enjoyed hunting him, but I don't think he really wanted him dead. Robert cried when the living vampires killed Ben(spoiler;). And for my two cents it seems like the spoiler controvery is contrived. People are contributing the idea becasue they're trying to write a solid article, but it seems its against Wiki, and no one has been angered enough to come into the talk page and rage that the story was spoiled.Ben was driven back by a Torah, I finished the book last night. 24.237.194.204 (talk) 12:22, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I won't add any details right now, as there seems to be some feeling that the plot synopsis is too detailed anyway (my last edit was reverted by an anonymous editor with no explanation), but it's odd that there is no mention of Ben, one of the book's pivotal characters. I agree about spoilers - if you don't want to know the plot, why read the plot section? TheAstonishingBadger (talk) 11:03, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

About the Dog

It has been a long while since I have read "I am Legend", so I may not remember everything correctly. It says in the plot details that the dog dies from the vampire infection. However, I don't think this is the case. I thought he died from malnutrition, which is the reason why Neville was finally able to catch him. I don't have the novel anymore, is anyone able to confirm that? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sacr1fyce (talk • contribs) 17:43, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

No, the dog died from infection. Ref the section of the chapter where the dog, previously uninjured, is descried as listless with an injured paw. 24.39.237.102 (talk) 22:53, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

This part of the story was particularly sad as the dog provides hope for Neville, an escape from the loneliness of his life. In the movie he has it as a friend from the start, but in the book he has to work to gain its trust. And then it dies just as we are anticipating them becoming friends. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.94.202.217 (talk) 12:35, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Inspirations

I'm not doubting Legend inspired these, but do we have any sources with the creators citing Matheson? I recall that Night of the Living Dead was, but I don't know if 28 Days would count. I suppose the notion of "last man on earth" (although in 28 Days the main character wasn't) with a bunch of 'infected' people but that's almost become a genre in itself so I'm a bit wary of attributing Matheson to it.--CyberGhostface (talk) 19:45, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Contentious section

I've just cleaned up most of the major issues in the article. Most of the contentious writing was trivial and throwaway - but some of the reflections on the novel are quite well written and possibly have come from a reliable source so I reproduce them here. These lines are personal interpretations so should not be placed back in the article without attribution - but the attributions are possibly worth searching for. If, however, they were written by a Wiki editor, then they are Original Research and cannot be used. SilkTork *^SilkyTalk 23:09, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Interpretation

Neville's psychological disposition is a significant element in the novel, and his struggles with despair imbue the character with intensity and gravitas. The author emphasizes that he is an ordinary, flawed man trying to deal with an extraordinary catastrophe. It also explores the loneliness of being by himself, excitement and hope of finding others, and disappointment over still finding himself alone. During the evenings, Neville drinks whiskey and listens to records.

Instead of asking the reader to accept a supernatural explanation for vampire phenomena, the author strives to offer scientific basis for such symptoms as aversion to garlic, craving of fresh blood, and resistance to bullets but vulnerability to stakes and sunlight. The aversion to mirrors and crosses is classified as psychological. This represents one of the first attempts in popular culture to explain vampirism scientifically, something that has become more common in modern vampire stories, such as Ultraviolet and Shadowrun. Neville hypothesizes that he is immune to the bacteria because he was bitten by a vampire bat when he was stationed in Panama.

Though Neville is suspicious of her true nature and much of their interaction focuses on Neville's internal struggle between his deep seated paranoia and his hope, it is clear by his seizure of Ruth that the scales have tipped in favor of the irrational.

Los Angeles?

Is the book really set in LA? I read it earlier this year, and didn't get the sense that it was set in a particular place (though if he only mentions it a single time, I might have just missed it). EVula // talk // ☯ // 17:38, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

LA is only mentioned once (when he's on the steps of 'Los Angeles Public Library'), but he describes driving through Compton, several times, along Compton Boulevard. --Bazzargh (talk) 09:35, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

The book also mentions Inglewood several times, and Cimmaron St. (where Neville lives in the book) is actually a real street. Jakester1505 (talk) 05:55, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

New movie deviates from story in book?

Is it appropriate in an article such as this one to go into any greater detail about how the latest movie's plot differs from the book? I noticed talk of how the "still living" creatures weren't in the movie, but I think the differences are greater than this and could be interesting if they were included here, even in the most general terms. Lordbyronfan1 (talk) 05:32, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Cleaned up plot section

I reverted an edit which commented that the plot summary was misleading, and decided to check. It needed fixed; I see my session had timed out but the edits by 86.0.198.142 were me.

• "Rather than spend weeks trying to win her over, he attacks her" - this motive doesn't appear in the book, and the fight is mostly from Ruth.
• "They send a still-living woman named Ruth to spy on Neville, and they replicate Neville's relationship with the dog." that reads as if this was Ruth's intent; its not clear that the infected knew about the dog. It might be fair to say the book contrasts the two relationships though.
• The plot makes no sense unless you mention that Ruth and Neville have a relationship (why doesn't she kill him, why does she help him later)
• Neville spends a lot of time wondering about the reality of the legend of vampirism through history - not just science like the movie. I tried to change the 'research' para to reflect this balance better.

--Bazzargh (talk) 00:50, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

First sentence vandalism.

The first sentence of this article reads "I Am Legend is a 1954 science fiction novel by Richard Matheson about the last man alive in a future Los Angeles, California, mars, overrun with gay vampires who butt rape each other."

This can't be right, can it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.71.35.178 (talk) 06:54, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

The Dog

I will have to disagree with the theory that the dog Neville found was killed by the vampire infection. I derived this thought from the thought that the dog never tries to eat him. The dog dies from its wounds, most likely from a normal infection. And if you don't think that the virus afflicted him like it did the humans, I have two words-vampire bat. Wasn't Neville supposedly immune because he was bitten by an infected one? If this was the case, then if the dog was infected, then it, being a mammal, would have tried to kill Neville. Chiefsfan (Reply) 12:54, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I have to agree. He does actually mention vampire dogs early on in the novel, but its never made explicit that the dog has the vampire infection, and it never exhibits any of the symptoms; most tellingly, he buries the dog rather than burning the body as he does with all the others (after his wife's 'resurrection' it would be astonishing if he buried another vampire). I'll change the wording. --Bazzargh (talk) 13:51, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

"Neville kills himself"

I have removed the claim in the plot synopsis that at the end of the novel, Neville kills himself. I've done this for a fairly basic reason; it's not true. Neville is executed by the new world order, he does not commit suicide. There is a difference. --Stenun (talk) 17:05, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the summary shouldn't say that, but because its left open at the end of the book. After he takes the pills Ruth gives him "to make it easier", "the final lethargy crept into his limbs". Sounds fairly like a suicide; but other readers have just taken this to mean he took painkillers before the execution. Either way, its unclear enough that it shouldn't be stated as bald fact here. Bazzargh (talk) 17:17, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I've read the novel several times and I've always interpreted it as he allowed himself to be executed; he went without a fight. This is NOT the same as "killing himself" unless you want to start arguing that Obi-Wan Kenobi killed himself, or that Jesus committed suicide. Allowing someone else to kill you is not the same. --Stenun (talk) 17:19, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I guess its ambigious. We should probably mention the pills, though, if its not already.--CyberGhostface (talk) 17:21, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

See the discussion at the top of this page about the plot summary - what we have now isn't adequate at all. As for Obi Wan - the final scene of the Sopranos is a closer analogy. Neville hasn't been executed at the end of the story, he's still in his cell having taken some pills. The ambiguity is there; it'd be WP:OR to claim otherwise. Bazzargh (talk) 17:50, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Well if you want to be that exact over it, considering he's still alive then it would be WP:OR to say he'd killed himself, too.  :-) --Stenun (talk) 17:56, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. We are in violent agreement here :) Bazzargh (talk) 18:04, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for ruining the whole of the Sopranos! Great work. As for the end of the novel, Neville specifically says something to the effect that he accepts he has to die, but rejects the notion that it must be a violent execution by the 'dark men'. He also discussed with Ruth his horror at their apparent taste for violence. It is therefore strongly implied that the pills will kill him. He takes them to avoid a violent execution. 60.242.78.144 (talk) 00:12, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

BBC Radio Reading Torrent

Just wondering if that torrent download link is legal/allowed, or if it should be removed? Jay (talk) 23:16, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Sex Scene?

I remember a hot sex scene in the book between Neville and a vampire. It was controversial at the time because it was male on male and contained graphic descriptions of sodomy and fellatio. It was edited of most printings later on but I believe mention of it should be included. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.112.149.129 (talk) 01:49, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

If you can find a reliable source for this, please do. Otherwise, no, it won't be included. Geoff B (talk) 05:44, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

"Expand" tag

I seem to remember that a previous version of this article had a lot more detail in the plot section. Could someone please find that info and put it back? Thanks. Sonicsuns (talk) 04:07, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

P.S. When I say "expand", I DON'T mean that we need something like this: [4]. We just need something mildly longer than what we've currently got. Sonicsuns (talk) 04:12, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Name of main character

Is it just me, or is the main character's name Robert Neville alluding to the singer Robbie Nevil who sings "C'Est la Vie" meaning "that's life"?70.171.41.46 (talk) 03:17, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Even more so, have you ever noticed Robert Neville is an an anagram for "Terrible Novel"?--206.75.61.98 (talk) 06:56, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Alternate Ending to the 2007 Film

I notice how this article gives a brief summary of the 2007 film, and gives the theatrical ending, but doesn't go on to include any information on the alternate ending. I think it should at least mention it, because the Alternate ending seemed to restore some of the theme and tone of the Novel's ending. For anyone who hasn't seen it, it differs from the film when (Spoilers from here on) the Alpha-Male of the infected slams on the glass, instead of just cracking the glass, he cuts his hand and with the blood, makes a butterfly, which causes Neville to notice a Butterfly tattoo on the female Infected he has on the Slab. He realizes they're trying to save her, showing him there still is some humanity left in them, and as he gives her back to them, they actually spare him and leave, and he takes notice of the polaroids he has of all the Infected he's captured and killed, and realizes that "He's" the Monster. Thus, capturing the theme of the end of the novel, even if the events are vastly different. Should this be Mentioned at the end of the 2007 film's section? Not talking anything big, just one or two sentences about it, listing just the ending itself if nothing else. DemonRin 03:02, 05 October 2008 (UTC)

Vampires

I just saw the movie with the subtitles on, and the subtitles refered to the vampires (or Darkseekers) by some different name. I can't remember off the top of my head what that was, but it sounded sort of scientific. Anyone know what that was or why they used a name not ever acually referenced in the dialogue of the film?Leprechaun Gamer (talk) 20:13, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Discussion:Robert Neville Article?

I think Robert Neville is signifigant enough a character to have his own article, as he is mentioned in the book and 2 of the film adaptions (with his last name being changed in The Last Man On Earth). Post your opinions.Saberwolf116 (talk) 02:16, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Copycat?

Hi, i just found a wikipedia article about a 1997 book called Chromosome 6 and the story seems to be a very blanent copy of I Am Legend. Anyone who has any insight in this subject? Could'nt find any note about it here or in the discussion for that article. Just wondering Atza (talk) 00:59, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

A Fourth movie based on the novel

Another movie titled "I Am Omega" was made in 2007. I don't feel comfortable editing someone else's work. Just thought I would let you know. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.173.123.188 (talk) 19:52, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

I just thought you should know...

Someone has edited this page to include things like "I Am Gay" instead of "I Am Legend," "Penisback" instead of "Paperback," and "whore fiction" instead of "science fiction."

Don't know when it occurred, don't know who did it, but someone should probably fix it!

151.159.111.137 (talk) 18:24, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Inclusion of Night of the Comet in article

Why isn't Night of the Comet listed as one of the movies derived from this novel? It's an obvious riff on the story and you would be hard pressed to find anyone (reviewers or otherwise) that doesn't catch the similarities. Thoughts? BcRIPster (talk) 00:18, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Disease and Vampirism

Is it worth noting that an idea put forth in the novel is that the legendary vampires were in fact victims of earlier but less wide-spread outbreaks of the disease, so that the creatures, especially the reanimated dead, are in some sense, vampires?--Jrm2007 (talk) 06:00, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Depends on how that idea was put forth. Was it explicitly stated in the book or just a bit of original research? WikiuserNI (talk) 10:13, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

it has been years since I read the book, but as I recall, this was Neville's "original research" -- I guess no one could have known whether it was true or not. Perhaps it should be said as something that Neville believed, but I think it is an important concept in the book.--Jrm2007 (talk) 10:54, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Omega men

This sounds much like The Last Man. Is there any relationship? TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 10:56, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Stephen King gushing over "I Am Legend"

Stephen King has a lot more to say than "I Am Legend" influenced him: http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol/arts_and_entertainment/books/article690412.ece 76.83.4.77 (talk) 12:09, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Movie inaccurate

Like many Wikipedia articles there is too much association with movies that should have a redirection to another article. Some people do not associate literature with movie adaptations. The movie takes place in New York City while the novel takes place inside Los Angeles.

The novel itself begins in an actual very specific neighborhood halfway down the west-side of the 15400 block of Cimarron Avenue, in Gardena, California (the author's home at the time of viewing Dracula in the theaters which inspired the novel), in relation with the intersection at W 154th Place and Haas Avenue. This neighborhood is a half-a-block north of the present 156th Street Elementary School. Many of the highways were contructed after the writing of the novel. Most of the houses were other paint colors.

Haas Avenue in the Los Angeles Basin is more accurate than Washington Square Park.

There is a loop formed between Cimarron and Haas avenues that is vital to the novel that was not exploited in the movie. Just as the film, The Omega Man, departed from the book, so did the 2008 movie. Anyone reading the novel should know that on Google Maps, about two-thirds down Cimarron on the west-side and a couple of hundred feet north of the 156th Street Elementary School, is where the character would stand outside his boarded-up house and wait for the sun to set every evening before retreating inside. In the topic of his 'primary tormenter', above, was a work associate he rode with every morning. Neville was affected by the death of his own daughter, and later, his spouse. They were friends with Ben Cortman and his other spouse.

Gardena, California, not Manhattan Island borough, New York, New York. The movie didn't even end right.

Before reading, examine the location on street views in Google maps. Study them closely, and when begining the first chapter one will have a very adept sense of what is transpiring.

Just as when Stanislaw Lem's novel Solaris was rare, the movie caused a new printing.Ncsr11 (talk) 13:52, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Seeing how this page isn't about the movie, I do wonder why this comment is here. I also wonder of Ncsr11 has never heard Hollywood does this all the time... TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 17:26, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

It's here because there is too much association with the movie adaptations. It could perhaps not even mention that film adaptations where made and let users use the disambiguation redirection. I am aware the film industry does this all the time.Ncsr11 (talk) 18:14, 6 January 2012 (UTC)