Warning: This text accommodates spoilers for I Am Legend.
Scheduled for a field workplace touchdown date someday this 12 months, Will Smith‘s I Am Legend sequel is already making waves, simply not fairly the best way that the producers and director had been envisioning. What sort of sequel do the filmmakers have in retailer for followers of the primary movie? Humorous you ask. Primarily based on the early leaks from producer Akiva Goldsman per Deadline, it can ignore the final quarter-hour of the unique 2007 zombie blockbuster, opting to go along with a very completely different, deleted scene hardly anybody has ever witnessed. Consider the sequel as extra of a mea culpa than a remake.
Continuity errors are widespread, however a franchise attracts the unsuitable type of consideration after they pull a 180 and desperately try to gaslight viewers. On the shut of the 2007 post-apocalyptic film, protagonist Dr. Robert Neville (performed by Smith) dispatches the military of “Darkseekers” who pursue him after sunset, sacrificing himself to make sure a treatment. The deliberate ending that acquired scrapped? That was far bleaker, the change basically remodeling the premise from a deeply philosophical examination of the character of man to a secular blockbuster. At what value does a movie jettison an uncomfortable third act, and what does that inform us concerning the viability of focus testing?
- Launch Date
-
December 14, 2007
- Runtime
-
101 minutes
The Risks of Diverging From Supply Materials
There had been a couple of precursors that had already tailored the Richard Matheson sci-fi story to cinema. The primary starred Vincent Value, with a Charlton Heston remake arriving within the seventies. These movies set the stage for a shambling horde of zombie movies, whatever the truth each had been truly about mobs of vampires, The Final Man on Earth predating George Romero’s zombie masterpiece by 4 years. Each The Final Man on Earth (1964) and The Omega Man (1971) had been respectable movies in their very own proper, however a recent redo promised its personal distinctive twist and aesthetic decisions.
Sadly, no person appeared happy with the ultimate consequence. The film was second-guessed within the 18 years since. Within the 2007 reimagining, Neville produces a treatment to the Krippin Virus, saving the species with useful analysis within the nick of time. A tidy ending that wraps up every little thing. Maybe too tidy. On this third iteration, the studio acquired chilly toes and ditched the “actual” ending as Matheson crafted it, a dour however devastating climax through which Neville develops empathy for these he kills, and struggles with existential questions.
As movie historian Glen Donnar notes, this deleted scene is essential to how we view the so-called “monsters” and Neville’s character arc. It marks the “recognition of his personal monstrosity” as he grasps the struggling of his zombie experiment topics. Whereas the finale we noticed in theaters surrenders to predictable “hero myths in science fiction-apocalyptic cinema” that do not problem our notion of actuality, morality, or social norms. In different phrases, the movie endorses the concept science has no evil purposes, and your adversaries do not warrant understanding. Many followers of Matheson rightfully felt cheated. But, there’s way more to this story than it initially seems …
Associated
Smartest Villains in Sci-Fi Films, Ranked
Among the finest sci-fi films are made even higher with wonderful villainous geniuses and masterminds.
Take heed to Focus Teams at Your Personal Peril
There is a lengthy checklist of movies altered (or outright ruined, based mostly on how beneficiant you’re) by last-second tweaking. Blade Runner was misplaced in translation from Ridley Scott’s head to the screenplay, and acquired mangled by the producers to appease take a look at audiences. We do not imply to make this a PSA, however there is a good-sized chunk of previous examples to look again on in relation to focus-group follies. The primary ending of the Will Smith movie was changed after audiences responded poorly to the downbeat, introspective ending, as seen on this clip, solely accessible on subsequent DVD copies:
Finish of the story? Nope. Producer Akiva Goldmsan introduced the upcoming 2025 sequel would ignore the theatrical ending, reverting to the unused finale solely seen in DVD/Blu-ray editions. Good purpose why take a look at screenings must be taken with a grain of salt. And sure, we all know there are nagging instances the place focus exams can save movies. See Blade and First Blood (Rambo) for counter examples.
Associated
10 Nice Films That Had Disastrous Check Screenings
These films defied the percentages and, regardless of terrible take a look at screenings, are actually thought of classics
Swapping Horses Midstream … Sage or Cynical?
Although not a blemish on the Oscar-winning actor’s resume, I Am Legend struck many as a wasted alternative. A sequel is slated to star each Smith and Michael B. Jordan. This, as you would possibly have already got surmised, creates a nasty dilemma. The studio is relying on the concept nobody will keep in mind half one or will care that it has been drastically re-written for comfort. That may be considered as an insult to those that beloved the 2007 film and dug the theatrical finale. As a substitute, they are going to see Will Smith resurrected partly two, this time as a guilt-stricken butcher of mutated victims of the plague, not an upright savior of humanity.
This deviation is a shrugging admission from the producers that they screwed up. It additionally generates extra story-telling potentialities. We’re not so naive to disregard the true purpose this selection was licensed. This lore-swap hinged on the absence of each a serious bankable star (who blew himself up within the authentic) and the virus outbreak, the theatrical ending portray the rights holders right into a nook. We will not blame them, however let’s hope it is not the beginning of a pattern.