This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Film This article is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.FilmWikipedia:WikiProject FilmTemplate:WikiProject Filmfilm

Anyone?

Anyone? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.208.248.66 (talk) 01:32, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Two sources, BlackFilm.com and JoBlo.com, have mentioned the possibility of Johnny Depp in I Am Legend. Their information has been drawn from "production sources" with nothing confirmed by the studio. As a result of this rumor, IMDb has listed "Johnny Depp (rumored)" on its I Am Legend page. Since the news is just a rumor, Depp should not be mentioned in the film article until there is confirmation from the studio, the director, the producers, or actors. --Erik 20:33, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

...which is one reason why people should be reluctant to create these articles until filming actually begins. Even presumably confirmed cast members can end up out of it. You never know, Will Smith could break a leg tomorrow and the whole project could be put on indefinite hold. It can be a long, long way from "pre-production" to "Action!" -- Fan-1967 20:39, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So should this article be deleted? I've never been clear about when is the most appropriate time to create a film article on Wikipedia, based on pre-production news. --Erik 20:41, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Opinions differ. Some people like to create an article at the first hint of a rumor, and those go through AFD all the time. I tend to favor being very conservative about it, because so many projects do fall apart before filming, but that's me. IMDB is horrible about listing "pre-production" films that fall apart (usually over financing) before they ever shoot a frame. Ths one's kind of on the edge, because it looks pretty firm, with a major star committed and a script written. I wouldn't go out of my way to delete it, but I wouldn't fight to keep it, either. Fan-1967 20:49, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously, Wikipedians, such as me, are New Yorkers and are posting the shooting locations as they see them around Manhattan. Why are these being deleted? Right now, Will Smith's gigantic trailer is parked outside my office on 51st Street. Now why isn't that relevant? Why can't people post a list of locations where the film has been shot? These are not going to make the newspaper every day. There are no references in print or online sites to spotting the actors around the city. I would like some feedback from other New York-based Wiki users who are seeing this film being made in our city. Apparently, it is the most-expensive movie ever to be filmed here... but I can't add that to the article, because I heard it on the radio, and we can't link to that... --K72ndst 13:58, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The issue is that information on Wikipedia needs to be verifiable, which means citing sources that are reliable. Anyone could say that I Am Legend was filmed at this particular location on this particular date, and no one would be the wiser. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Wikipedia is meant to be encyclopedic. What you can do, though, is check out these IMDb boards to post such information and read others' information as well. About the radio bit, though... I'm not sure how that kind of information can be cited, if it's even verifiable. A transcript online, maybe? This film article is ultimately about I Am Legend -- it's not a timeline of I Am Legend filming locations. Look at the big picture -- when the film comes out, all these places will be recognized by New Yorkers and I think be pretty verifiable to include without citation, since it's in the film. But at this point, it's not really unnecessary, and rather unencyclopedic, to have a smorgasbord of random filming location details. --Erik (^talk/_contrib) @ 14:09, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Next time, k72.. just take a picture out your window. Can't argue that. (-Kid. 12:47, 26 March 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Will Smith was just down my street in Mt. Airy New Jersey. How cool is that? But I've got no proof so I can't post it. Here's a bit of info for everyone: When it says they're in Vermont they're not in Vermont, they're in good old N.J. That and the gigantic wall wasn't really there. ClawClaw 22:47, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comment, but we need a reliable source like a newspaper to cite the filming locations. Thanks for trying to help, anyway. Hopefully something will come up before the film's release! —Erik (talk • contrib) - 22:52, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, now that I think about it there was something in the newspaper yesterday... give me a second... ClawClaw 23:08, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Found It. http://www.nj.com/hunterdon/stories/index.ssf?/base/news-0/1194552393190670.xml&coll=12 ClawClaw 23:12, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Tim Swanson (2006-11-21). "Will Smith Extra". Premiere. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
• Lewis Beale (2007-01-13). "A variation on vampire lore that won't die". AZCentral.com. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)

—Erik (talk • contrib) - 03:23, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Ian Spelling (2007-04-05). "Eureka Star Was Legend". Sci Fi Wire. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)

Some information. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 12:06, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The diff of potentially relevant information removed by another editor. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 20:28, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, the diff is fully available in the history. Do you plan on itemizing each edit here? Anyway, an encyclopedia article about a movie doesn't need such minutia as that such and such a scene was shot on such and such a day at such and such a store. Or that shooting at such and such a site lasted x number of days, etc. Relevancy is not a sufficient criteria for inclusion in an encyclopedia. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 20:40, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I plan to itemize diffs that remove valid citations for possible restoration at a later date. The history will get long in the tooth when the film comes out, so I find it easier to identify one diff on the talk page. I somewhat agree that the filming details were unnecessarily specific, but you never know if the protagonist's weapon needs to be identified or if a specific location was prominent in the film. In addition, I disagree with your edit, which basically assumed that the 1000 extras, military vehicles, and aircraft applied to all filming locations. The citation clearly indicates that this was for the Brooklyn Bridge scene, not the other locations. In addition, the quantity of 300 crew members and 100 actors could come into play later if there are available citations about the scale of the project, in comparison to its budget or a film of that genre. I don't think that WP:NOT#INFO has a strong case here for the removal of valid content for the aforementioned reasons. I actually have a backlog of Google Alerts that have captured news headlines for this film, so I hope to expand the article sometime in the future, as I haven't done any serious work on it as opposed to some other articles of upcoming films. Cheers. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 22:01, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP is also not a crystal ball - if the fact that a scene was shot at Hugo Boss or that he used an M16 becomes of great intellectual or cultural importance in the future, then add it at that time -- but there's no reason to include such information now (even if NYU's student newspaper reported on it). --ZimZalaBim (talk) 22:24, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hence saving the diff. Citations about films get really heavy-ended up to and after the film's release (you try sifting through Google for a reliable source about a film). I'm not going to contest your removal, but I would like to request that you re-edit to indicate that the 1000 extras, military vehicles, and aircraft were used for solely the Brooklyn Bridge scene. What exists now is an inaccurate summary of production details. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 22:30, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I don't consider such information all that remarkable. Go ahead and include it yourself if you feel it is important - I won't revert it. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 22:37, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Joseph Steuer (2007-04-26). "A 'Legend' in the making". The Hollywood Reporter. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)

Information to include. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 19:23, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wasn't The Last Man on Earth the first film adaptation of I am Legend? Sarara 21:11, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It was a mistake and has been fixed. Thanks for catching it. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 22:17, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it wasn't a mistake. Some idiot changed it. Oh, well. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 22:36, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• CCI: THIS BOOK IS LEGEND —Erik (talk • contrib) - 14:08, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Recently the official website added a section for what appears to be an I Am Legend videogame in the form of Second Life. The section is titled 'Second Life'. What is the connection between the film and the virtual world, Second Life? 72.49.194.69 22:57, 3 September 2007 (UTC) Joshua[reply]

It seems to be a movie tie-in to Second Life. We'll see how big of a deal this is, if at all. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 23:04, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I removed a copyright violation from this page. The "Synopsis" section was copied from here or somewhere with similar text. If we can get it rewritten, that would be awesome. Chupper 02:33, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Site a 'Legend' for iPhone
• Warner Bros. Pictures and the Electric Sheep Company to Launch ``I Am Legend: Survival in Second Life
• Will Smith: a one-man show (I see it's already used)

• In case link goes dead: Chris Lee (2007-11-04). "Will Smith: a one-man show". Los Angeles Times. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)

Headlines. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 19:06, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Will Smith goes it alone
• Will Smith: On the Set of 'I Am Legend'
• ‘Batman Vs. Superman’ Coming In 2009, But Will We Live To See It?
• Reel Time: How Will Smith became the singular sensation in I Am Legend
• I Am Legend - Cast and Crew Interviews
• I Am Legend Press Conference: Will Smith
• An Exclusive Interview with Francis Lawrence

Headlines. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 19:14, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mr Alien, my country's(Malaysia) I Am Legend release date is based on a credible cinema's (Cathay Cineplex) release date of the movie. I've included the appropriate reference, pls dont undo it.Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nabelon (talk • contribs)

Malaysia is not a primarily English-speaking nation however. See WP:MOSFILMS. Alientraveller 13:23, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(conflict)Hi, as per the manual of style for films, release dates for every country should not be listed, otherwise we end up with a giant list of indiscriminate information. What should be included:

• The film's earliest release, whether it was at a film festival or a public release.
• Its first release dates in majority English-speaking countries only
• Release dates in the country or countries that produced the film
• In some cases, release dates in countries that are the subject of the film

Best regards, Liquidfinale ^{(Ţ) (Ç) (Ŵ)} 13:26, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see it now, thanks for the information. I rest my case. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nabelon (talk • contribs)

Hello, the article has two different realease dates for UK (Dec. 21, and Dec. 26), wich one is right? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.84.249.165 (talk) 21:30, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just looked into this; BBFC says January 4, 2008, and I've updated it accordingly. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 21:54, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, I think I originally added the December 21 date, based on this cite. I'll see if I can find corroboration for either. Liquidfinale ^{(Ţ) (Ç) (Ŵ)} 23:05, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Corroboration for neither! December 26 is listed on the Film Distributers' Association website. Liquidfinale ^{(Ţ) (Ç) (Ŵ)} 23:28, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good! Thanks for figuring out the matter. Wonder why the BBFC had it listed like that... —Erik (talk • contrib) - 23:29, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think the reason I didn't use the BBFC link initially was because of the wording: "Expected release date" - it was as if they weren't entirely sure. Perhaps that's what the studio told them at the time it was submitted for a rating (presumably before the final release date was nailed down). Incidentally, that FDA site will be of enormous help in the future; is there an American equivalent I wonder? Liquidfinale ^{(Ţ) (Ç) (Ŵ)} 23:42, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It appears from the article they act more like night zombies than the vampires from the book. Can we clarify this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by The velociraptor (talk • contribs) 04:16, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"While the infected become vampires in the novel, the film depicts them as 'dark seekers' (Neville's term for them) who consume living flesh, with a design inspired by the concept of their adrenal glands being open all the time. The actors remained on set as a guide, but were replaced by CGI." You mean that? —Erik (talk • contrib) - 04:21, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Jesus, so basically the 28 Days/Weeks Infected, but at night? Mr. Raptor 04:22, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

From the citation that was used in the passage I mentioned above: "They're not exactly vampires either, though Goldsman will say that they have vampirelike drives." Take from that as you will. I guess we'll see how reviewers react to this difference from the book itself. Sometimes these adaptations succeed, sometimes they fall flat on their faces. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 04:24, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lawrence calls them zombies. Whatever they are, they're nocturnal cannibals. Alientraveller 09:26, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can't wait to see how "wide open adrenal glands" translates to 'must sleep during the day'. I think once more we see the effect of a 'classic' horror film buff who really only skimmed the novel before deciding on his twists for a remake. Really a remake of the Charleton Heston movie with no real connection to the novel. But I guess that makes sense given "time is big money" in Hollywood and familiar movie plots are seen as free advertising. Read the novel and at the end you will see how this movie TOTALLY misses the main thrust of the novel (which is a surprise ending).69.23.124.142 (talk) 14:54, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

69.23.124.142, can I ask you to refrain from discussing the topic in general? Per the talk page guidelines, we're supposed to use the talk page to discuss ways to improve the article, not our opinions of how the film will be presented. There's other forums for this kind of general discussion, which is why we'd prefer to focus on article improvement. Hope you understand! —Erik (talk • contrib) - 15:00, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In the cast area, it says Smith is only in the first half of the movie. What does that mean? xihix(talk) 01:11, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've tried to re-word it better, but what it means is that the first half of the film will focus on Smith by himself (not counting the dog). Obviously, there will be more entities involved in the second half of the film (as you can see from the trailer), but it will initially be Smith by himself, living his lonely life before the trouble gets bad. Let me know if the new wording still doesn't make sense. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 01:33, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've just come from seeing I Am Legend - Will Smith features in 99.9% of the movie (literally every scene except for the final one minute), and acts alone for a good 80-90% of the movie (excluding his dog companion, and the eventual vampires). But Will Smith is in the spotlight for the entire duration. 219.77.93.45 (talk) 17:05, 14 December 2007 (UTC) Hamton[reply]

Shouldn't there be a section on criticism of the film, with references, etc.? —aacool (talk)

You mean reception? Well then, start citing and quoting. Alientraveller (talk) 18:42, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done - please review and refine -aacool (talk)

Since it has been decided that spoiler tags are forbidden, template:currentfiction is supposed to be used, right? So why did within 30 seconds of me tagging the article did it get reverted? What, a movie released today isn't current? Or fiction? Or current fiction? Gront (talk) 19:17, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The current fiction template states that the article may not have a lot of real-world context and focuses on the plot: that's clearly not the case here with this nicely shaping up piece of encyclopedia. Alientraveller (talk) 19:20, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It was removed because the article does not lack "a real-world perspective" or "critical commentary." As for the "spoiler" portion of that header, well, I've just gone and accidentally read the last two sentences of the plot section while looking at the older version of the page which had the header on. I'm pissed, but hey, it was my own stupid fault. Best regards, Liquidfinale ^{(Ţ) (Ç) (Ŵ)} 19:24, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So you don't want plot in the article but you don't want the article flagged in any way? And how does a rotten tomato rating and one critic's view constitute the final word on commentary and criticism? Gront (talk) 19:29, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A plot summary is appropriate in the film article regardless. Commentary is not restricted to how film critics responded to the film; commentary also includes production, how the final product was made. The template isn't necessary considering there are no issues with this well-rounded article. In addition, the template is too subjectively applied -- how long is "current fiction"? The first two weeks, the entirety of its theatrical run? Do we resurrect the template when the DVD comes out? It's not reasonably applicable. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 19:31, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If the US relase date of a film isn't approprate to flag it for current fiction... then when is? Yes, this is an adaptation of a book that has been filmed several times, but this "version" is still new. Gront (talk) 19:40, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The readership is coming here because it's new. There's no reason to inform them as such. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 19:42, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd also suggest someone add a comparison between the other adaptations and the book. Gront (talk) 19:43, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think it'd be a good idea to explain the real-world context of such differences. If anyone has access to Creative Screenwriting, there is an article about how the story was adapted for the big screen (especially the 'Hollywoodized' aspect). A Differences section can be pretty indiscriminate, as the adaptation of the source material will procure a laundry list of changes for creative and conventional reasons. It's best to use verifiable, independent perspectives to determine what differences are worth noting. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 19:55, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Where did I say I didn't want the plot in the article? I was just making an aside to the main point of my reply. As for the rest, Erik pretty much has it covered. Best, Liquidfinale ^{(Ţ) (Ç) (Ŵ)} 20:16, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've added the {{current fiction}} tag back to the article. The language about the article "lacking" something is relatively new, and I've removed it from the template. --Pixelface (talk) 02:47, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see the point of this template at all. How long is "recently released"? Also, how is the template not a way to circumvent the removal of spoiler tags, as the appropriate sections, like Plot, are clearly identified? —Erik (talk • contrib) - 02:54, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know. Maybe you should ask at Template talk:Current fiction or ask JzG who said the template had consensus. What's the point of the {{future film}} template? --Pixelface (talk) 03:07, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Erik you said this template is inapplicable. How so? Are you saying this film, which was released today in the United States, was not recently released? Are you saying this article is not about the film? The tag has nothing to do with Plot headings. --Pixelface (talk) 04:05, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"They eventually travel to an isolated community of survivors in Vermont where she and the boy hand over the cure (Neville's blood) to the guardsmen." It was actually the KV infected woman's blood that recuparated at the end —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.220.16.55 (talk) 06:13, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Some have told me that they believe Smith put his dog to sleep, and did not in fact try to cure the dog as wiki has stated. Can you confirm that he tried to cure Samantha? I apologize if this is out of place. 172.163.164.103 (talk) 09:33, 18 December 2007 (UTC)AJ[reply]

He tried to cure the dog since it was infected and begining to mutate but the cure didn't work so he had to kill the dog.--E tac (talk) 06:39, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So.. Is that vinegar that he pours on his steps every night.. or what? If so, why? How does that miraculously keep vampires at bay? ShadowedBlade (talk) 08:46, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looked like lighter fluid or something similar to throw off the scent. Gront (talk) 10:42, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't a forum people. Alientraveller (talk) 18:03, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's likely to be garlic extract, as the book makes a big deal about garlic deterring the vampires. 74.74.236.71 (talk) 01:38, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

it was vinegar you can see the label —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.145.217.29 (talk) 04:12, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can't edit page due to protection, but someone should add a spoilers tag to the plot section. Thanks. Ajschrier (talk) 11:00, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Spoiler tags aren't placed because the Plot section already specifies that the contents will be about the plot. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 18:01, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It´s seems to me that the plot equals a big deal to The Omega Man '70 movie. Will see if it deserve a reference... --190.30.9.176 (talk) 17:56, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See the first sentence of the third paragraph under Development: "Goldsman rewrote the screenplay to be closer to the second I Am Legend film adaptation, The Omega Man, of which he was a major fan." Your suspicions are correct and covered. :) —Erik (talk • contrib) - 17:59, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I Am Legend: Apocalypse Now in Manhattan —Erik (talk • contrib) - 18:26, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is the second time I've just discovered someone removing I Am Omega from the lead. Crappy DTV rip-off or not, it is still the third I Am Legend film adaptation. Alientraveller (talk) 20:21, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A rip-off is not the same as an adaptation.

I Am Omega is not an adaptation of the Richard Matheson novel in any way, shape or form. 'I Am Omega' has a different storyline and features a different main character named Renchard. Furthermore, 'I Am Omega' does not say based on the novel by Richard Matheson in its film credits anywhere. The owner of the film company The Asylum who made the movie 'I Am Omega' also does not claim that it is based on the Matheson novel. 'I Am Omega' is a film produced by The Asylum who make knockoff films that are borderline copyright infringement of bigger budget movies. Some previous films by The Asylum include "Transmorphers", "Snakes on a Train", "The Da Vinci Treasure", etc. Additionally, here is an article from The New York Times where the owner of The Asylum talks about their "mockbusters" and says that all of their movies are original stories [1] Wikipedia should stick to facts and not spread baseless misinformation. JohnnieYoung (talk) 00:04, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That article says nothing about I Am Omega. It's a hop, skip, and jump to apply that to this particular film. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 00:46, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that New York Times article doesn't mention I Am Omega because it was written before that movie came out. And I didn't claim that it did talk about I Am Omega. What I did say about the article is that the owner of The Asylum talks about the type of films that his company produces and how they make them seem similar to current blockbuster movies but that they are actually all original stories. [2] I was pointing out this statement by the maker of the film in question that all of their movies are original stories to show further proof that this recent film of theirs I Am Omega can't be an adaptation of the Richard Matheson novel I Am Legend since that wouldn't make it an original story. Additionally, I will point out again that on the official website for the I Am Omega film, they show "Written by: GEOFF MEED" with no Based On A Novel By Credit [3]; at the IMDB page for I Am Omega, they show "Writer: Geoff Meed" with no Based On A Novel By Credit [4]; also at the IMDB page for I Am Omega, you can see that the main character's name is Renchard not Robert Neville as it is in the novel and the Will Smith movie. But the bottom line is that I saw that there was incorrect information in this article and I thought I would submit a correction. My corrections are accurate and I think everyone actually agrees with these facts now but apparently I have stumbled into some "Edit War" where users and editors alike seem to be more concerned with protecting their territory than the accuracy of the information in Wikipedia. JohnnieYoung (talk) 01:24, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You may want to assume good faith about other editors' intentions. Accusations of ownership rather than focus on the content don't help interpersonal matters. Now, the New York Times article would be applicable for the article about the company, but as it does not specifically name I Am Omega, it is synthesis to apply the article to the film. Surely it can address the films mentioned in the article, but it cannot be universally applied to all of the Asylum's projects afterward. At the Asylum's website, none of the film listings have a "Based On A Novel By Credit"-type attribute. Also, the argument of the main character's name not being Renchard is inapplicable because in The Last Man on Earth, the protagonist is Robert Morgan. The assertions made here and at I Am Omega have been personal analysis -- "Despite some reports to the contrary, the similarly titled 2007 direct-to-video feature I Am Omega has no official relation to the novel or any of its three film adaptations," and "This has led to some confusion among film fans which is no doubt the intention of film distributor The Asylum who have used this marketing strategy in the past..." What's apparent to you may not be apparent by the rest of us, as there's no reliable source that explicitly calls I Am Omega a rip-off. My suggestion is to further assess the situation with reliable sources and determine what kind of mention is warranted in this article or the other article. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 02:10, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• News Blaze: "That, in turn, was followed by The Omega Man (1971) with Charlton Heston and, more recently, by I Am Omega (2007), a straight-to-video rip-off released just last month."
• Union-Tribune: "I Am Omega is, in fact, I Am Legend -- or at least something eerily similar... Now the low-budget production house The Asylum, just in time for the new "Legend" adaptation, has released its own coattails-riding version, straight to DVD. No surprise -- The Asylum has made an art of this "tie-in" strategy, with titles that sound almost kind of a little bit like the real thing ("Transmorphers"; "Snakes on a Train"; "The Da Vinci Treasure"; you get the picture)."
• Union-Tribune: Its next couple of releases, 30,000 Leagues Under the Sea and 666: Part II, aren't tie-ins at all, although Latt says the film that follows those – Eye of Omega – is "sort of" tied to the Will Smith sci-fi thriller I Am Legend."
• Winston-Salem Journal: "Oh, and don’t forget Asylum Entertainment’s new DVD I Am Omega, a completely unrelated movie with Mark Dacascos as … er, the last man on Earth, fighting a horde of zombies."
• Los Angeles Times, December 13, 2007: "I Am Omega (2007) - Straight-to-video rip-off of I Am Legend, released in November to cash in on the new movie. The film is from Asylum, the company that also released such films as Snakes on a Train, The Da Vinci Treasure and 30,000 Leagues Under the Sea."
• The Times-Picayune, December 14, 2007: "If the story behind I Am Legend seems familiar, it's because this isn't the first time Richard Matheson's novel has been made into a movie. Others include: ... I Am Omega - A direct-to-DVD version released just this year, starring Mark Dacascos."
• Variety: "Matheson’s pioneering novel, which worked a lot of science into a story populated by vampiric predators, hasn’t fared too well on the bigscreen thus far... A direct-to-vid item called I Am Omega (from the Asylum, specialists in parasitic low-budget versions of big-budget studio fare) has just been produced."

What does everyone think? —Erik (talk • contrib) - 02:26, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A preliminary thought... perhaps we can mention that I Am Legend is the third feature film adaptation of the book, and we can use one of the citations above to reflect briefly that I Am Omega is a DTV production that was reported to ride on the Will Smith film's potential success. No need to mention the so-called "official relationship" or lack thereof -- that seems a bit too gray to warrant a mention, at least in this article. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 02:30, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well you can handle it however you see fit. But just for the record, the term rip-off, as nearly every source you cite is referring to the direct-to-video I Am Omega, is a term used in the film industry to mean that this is not an authorized adaptation of the original work. JohnnieYoung (talk) 02:57, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article for ripoff doesn't mention this, so unless we provide content there to define its usage in the film industry, it probably wouldn't be appropriate to wiki-link. Do you know of any citations we could use to perhaps expand that particular article to provide a define of ripoff in cinematic terms? —Erik (talk • contrib) - 03:00, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am confused as to why every common sense term has to be proven through some official reference? Everybody knows what the word ripoff means don't they? I think we can all agree that ripoff doesn't mean something that's authorized, right? In order for a film adaptation of a copyrighted work to take place the filmmaking company must make a contractual agreement with the copyright holder. In this case, we are talking about a novel that is still under copyright written by Richard Matheson who is a living author. Warner Bros Pictures bought the rights to the novel and made the Will Smith movie I Am Legend. At the same exact time a low budget B-movie film production company The Asylum made a very similar direct-to-video movie I Am Omega. The Asylum doesn't have any rights from Richard Matheson or his book publisher or Warner Bros Pictures to make this movie. Like the other fifty movies that The Asylum has produced, they try to make their movies sound like they are related to a big blockbuster film to confuse the consumer and make some quick money. A number of articles have been written about The Asylum's practices and the owner of the company freely admits that this is what they do. So shouldn't the person who wants to list I Am Omega as an official adaptation of the Richard Matheson novel have to prove that assertion, rather than making others have to prove a negative which is extremely difficult to do. JohnnieYoung (talk) 03:21, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, the official Wikipedia entry for the novel I Am Legend says it has been adapted to a feature-length film three times and doesn't even mention the direct-to-video I Am Omega. I think the official entry on the Richard Matheson novel would hold some weight here. JohnnieYoung (talk) 03:27, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We don't appear to be getting anywhere with this, and do I really need to point out the fallacy at the heart of citing another Wikipedia entry to back up your case? Let me restate: I think you're likely correct about this, but the available evidence, presented here by Erik, and be me on your talk page, introduces some ambiguity which we're trying to resolve here in good faith. Erik's footnote idea may well be the best one until the situation becomes clearer; would everyone be happy with presenting it thus until then (detail within <ref> tags will appear as footnotes):

• "It is the third film adaptation of Richard Matheson's 1954 novel I Am Legend, following 1964's The Last Man on Earth and 1971's The Omega Man.<ref>In 2007, the direct-to-DVD I Am Omega was released by The Asylum to cash-in on the recent adaptation's potential success; Todd McCarthy (2007-12-07). "I Am Legend review". Variety. Retrieved 2007-12-18.</ref>"

Best regards, Liquidfinale ^{(Ţ) (Ç) (Ŵ)} 09:02, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. Sounds good. Change it to that. JohnnieYoung (talk) 17:24, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I concur; the wording works for me, and perhaps we can revise it when more information surfaces. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 17:26, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, one change to make -- rewrite it to show that I Am Omega was released earlier in 2007 than I Am Legend (as opposed to afterward). —Erik (talk • contrib) - 17:27, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For the bit that keeps getting added indiscriminately, MTV has real-world context about this. Perhaps it could be directly implemented in Production as part of designing the look of the area. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 22:38, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't in the movie it say that he found the cure at 8:48 and died at 8:52? The page says 3 minutes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zengman (talk • contribs) 00:01, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It was 8:49 to 8:52. icelandic hurricane #12_(talk) 16:17, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article as it is says KV stands for Krypton Virus, but I saw it the other night and I'm not sure if thats what he said. I can't remember it now, but I figured it was the name of that doctor that shows during the TV broadcast part. Wasn't her name Krippin or something like that? K-something anyway —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.61.105.190 (talk) 03:34, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I thought he said Krypton, but maybe you are right. icelandic hurricane #12_(talk) 16:18, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In a scene kinda early into the movie there is a billboard with the Batman and superman symbols on it with the 5.16.09? Perhaps that is the release date. 70.250.180.237 (talk) 04:30, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

http://moviesblog.mtv.com/2007/12/03/batman-vs-superman-coming-in-2009-but-will-we-live-to-see-it/ Jamesr66a (talk) 16:05, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article makes an assertion that the Infected exhibit cannibalistic hunger. I know this is kind of nitpicky, but while the Infected are known to eat the Unaffected, there's no proof in the movie that they had cannibalistic tendancies among themselves. In scenes where the Dark Seekers are seen together, they never attack one another and instead demonstrate great social cohesion (gathering in circles together to devour the deer they killed, following their leader to rescue their fellow Dark Seeker). By just dismissing them as "cannibalistic", there is an implication that they're a lot like zombies in other movies that would devour themselves if left alone. 72.192.206.80 (talk) 01:24, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed.

They're just essentially mindless and are desperate to eat the nearest sources of food available; and while we LIKE to think of ourselves as spirtually unique, on the outside we're just meat.

(Are you folks aware that several species of primates hunt down one another for food in real life?? This wouldn't really be all that different -Uninfected don't "look" the same.) Thanos777 (talk) 03:54, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"When he is forced to kill Sam after being bitten by infected dogs, . . ." should probably be reworded to be a little clearer: "When he is forced to kill Sam after she is bitten by infected dogs, . . ." Neville is bitten (I think), but that's not the point. The point is that Sam was bitten. Markstevo (talk) 05:08, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Already fixed. — Ocatecir^T 05:13, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For the statement, ". (The plot appears to leave unresolved the possibility that the trap was one of hundreds set by Neville himself in his drive to capture the infected for study. The film suggests that the mannequin used for this snare was left elsewhere by Neville.)"

The night before Neville mentions that one of the infected does something very uncharacteristic- actually venturing out into the sun after Neville bags his catch. Neville says this is the complete loss of human touch.

The plot, however, has Neville's mannequin being moved right next a trap. I think this means that the same infected vampire that ventured out into the sun had developed some sort of intellect, at least enough to move the mannequin (which would also explain his leadership abilities later on in the movie). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ftc68 (talk • contribs) 04:42, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just undid that part because it is a reading of the plot by an editor, thus origional work. in order to keep to the encyclopedic format of this page, it is neccisary to just report on "what happend on the screen" not "my reading of this part is" this section has been replaced by "he was snared in a trap he didn't appear to set" which is actually what happened. Personaly I believe that the infected set the trap and can point to several sections of the movie that support this theory, however others think Neville set several traps and just got cought in one of his own...which dosn't make sence to me but that is their reading. hence we need to report on just what happened.Coffeepusher (talk) 18:02, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't original work if it's just acknowledging that different interpretation of the action exist. By your own admission ("Personaly [sic] I believe," "several sections of the movie that support this *theory*"), the reading you present as "actually what happened" is just your own reading, i.e., your original work, and your stating it in an objective voice does not cure the problem, whereas being transparent and acknowledging that differing interpretations exist, can be more encyclopedic than stating a subjective view and painting it as objective, which is actually misleading. Carlos_X (talk) 20:01, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:TALK people, this is not a forum for general discussion. Alientraveller (talk) 20:03, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

when I said "actually what happened" I was refering to the events depicted on the screen, and not a reading that brought different elements into the scean. the section has been reduced to "he got cought in a snare" so this discussion has become moot anyway. Thank you for the reminder Alientraveller, I believe this discussion is still relevent to the page, however it is dangerously close to the edge.

and to answer your statement, it is original work if you acknowledge any interpretation of the action. The setting of the trap, or any other traps for that matter, didn't happen on screen so it is origional work to speculate on the topic.Coffeepusher (talk) 07:41, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia's policy, "No original research" contains a Neutral point of view (NPOV) component. As such, "this policy promotes the inclusion of multiple points of view." The guidance provides in relevant part, "In many cases, there are multiple established views of any given topic. In such cases, no single position ... is authoritative." Significantly, the guidance reminds us that "it is important that editors provide context for this point of view, by indicating how prevalent the position is, and whether it is held by a majority or minority." Therefore, the answer is not to unilaterally delete ideas you disagree with, but to acknowledge differing POV's. Editorial protocol aside, simple etiquette/netiquette dictate that before you cast aside somebody else's contribution you try to resolve it first by discussing it in a forum such as this one. Carlos_X (talk) 23:06, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

you are correct. and that is a valid point, except the fact that I deleted the section after it had erupted into a debate "on the page" with people using the statement "(The plot appears to leave unresolved the possibility that the trap was one of hundreds set by Neville himself in his drive to capture the infected for study. The film suggests that the mannequin used for this snare was left elsewhere by Neville.)" as a springboard and subsiquently adding and deleting stuff from this section...so it turned into "(there is no evidence that the infected...)" and back to "(it is obvious that neville didn't set the trap because...)" and all i did was take away the perentheses, and post on the talk page. I can understand your frustration, however I don't think my actions are inapropriate.Coffeepusher (talk) 00:18, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The plane that looks very much like an SR-71 on the USS Intrepid is actually an A-12 OXCART, the predecessor. I have been to the Intrepid and seen it.

Mpduggan (talk) 14:46, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the detail because it's not irrelevant to the film; saying just "plane" provides enough ambiguity. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 20:40, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with this sentence (objectionable statement will be put in bold):

The remaining 588 million people were infected but did not die; they instead began exhibiting early symptoms of rabies and then lost all normal human behavior, degenerating into a primal state driven by hunger and blind rage, in turn killing a majority of the immune.

Will Smith's character claims that the infected "lost all normal human behavior", but shortly after this part of the film it's pretty clear that he is wrong. The infected still maintain social behavior and structure; further, they were clever enough to trap Will Smith's character, and they were clever enough to command dogs. Shortly after the "no human behavior" statement, we get a glimpse of them as much more intelligent than one would initially think. –Andyluciano (talk) 20:32, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We don't personally analyze these things... if the character said it, then that's the case for the film. I really would not worry so much about it -- if we address this, then it opens up a can of worms in poking holes in the film's plot on our own. We're better off developing real-world context for the article, which the Plot section serves to complement. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 20:37, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don't personally analyze; this is fair enough. But, in supporting the character's viewpoint, Wikipedia is in fact taking sides on this issue. I'm aware that my own personal opinions shouldn't necessarily result in additions to a Wikipedia article, but upon seeing the film I personally took it to mean that Will Smith's character was underestimating his foes. When I read the article on the novel it only confirms this: there, it seems to suggest that the protagonist is seriously misjudging the infected people, unaware that they have their own social structure, and indiscriminately kills (murders?) them, thinking they are below human abilities.

So, I guess my point was, by endorsing Will Smith's character's assessment of the situation, Wikipedia is flatly stating that a fairly easy-to-make interpretation of the plot is false. Characters in a fictional work are not always correct.

–Andyluciano (talk) 20:49, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My suggestion is to try to make the issue ambiguous. For example, for the SR-71 discussion above, I just removed mention of what kind of plane it was since I've seen too many arguments about what kind of vehicle or weapon is used in a particular film. If it's never identified, then it's likely not relevant. For this particular case, though, try to word it to say that the protagonist believes that they lost all normal human behavior. That'll tie the "fallacious" perspective to that character. Just a thought. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 21:08, 18 December 2007 (UTC

The Plot summary has been trimmed further, but at 760+ words it is still too long and detailed for a movie with a fairly straightforward storyline. I'll work on it further.
Jim Dunning | talk 04:21, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the Plot summary is truly summarized now, per Film Style Guidelines and Fiction guidelines. It describes the major events, plot twists, and characters, without going into so much detail that it reproduces the actual story. The summary can be enhanced to support any content in Response, Development and Themes sections as they evolve, but beware of Plot Bloat.
Jim Dunning | talk 04:36, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How do we know the colony is in Bethel, Vermont? I only recall Anna saying Vermont, no town.
Jim Dunning | talk 19:58, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just got back from seeing this movie a second time and Anna said she was from Maryland, not Brazil. How could she have heard the Radio message and make it all the way up to New York if she was from Brazil? :)

Edit: Alice Braga, the girl who plays Anna, in real life is from Brazil. Anna herself is from Maryland. Please change the article to fit this. Caption1247 (talk) 02:37, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

She left Sao Paula and drove to Manhattan (which raises more questions as to how she managed to do so if all the bridges were destroyed) from Maryland. 66.177.131.56 (talk) 05:49, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Her character was from Sao Paulo, Brazil. She was with the Red Cross, and ended up in Maryland after the ships they were on became contaminated and a number of people became infected. Post-ship life she (and Ethan, possibly others) were located in Maryland where they heard the broadcast. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.245.101.232 (talk) 23:52, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The link for "put down" in reference to Neville having to put down his dog, Sam, should not be linked to animal euthanasia and should instead be linked to strangling, the dog was strangled not euthanized.

140.175.214.35 (talk) 20:43, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Take a look at Animal euthanasia: it says, "Animal euthanasia (Greek, "good death") is the act of inducing humane death in an animal. Euthanasia methods are designed to cause minimal pain and distress. In pet animals, this process is commonly referred to by the euphemisms 'put to sleep' or "put down"." This is exactly what Neville does to Sam. If you look further in the Animal euthanasia article you'll see that it even lists the reasons for "putting" a pet down, including terminal illness or dangerous behavior (which both apply in this case).

While strangulation is the method Neville used (we assume), the method is not important, but the intention is (he could just have easily injected Sam with poison or shot her in the head, but the intent of saving her from a horrible fate is the focus). I hope this helps.
Jim Dunning | talk 21:10, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The mutants are also survivors. I think you might want to change this to unaffected survivor or something, since it's fairly inaccurate as is. --81.178.89.152 (talk) 00:47, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, but I'd say "not as clear as it should be" rather than "fairly inaccurate". lol. Thanks,
Jim Dunning | talk 01:07, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed it.--Patrick (talk) 02:22, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]