I Am Legend (film) has been listed as one of the Media and drama good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones Date Process Result February 20, 2008 Good article nominee Listed

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: American 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 This article is supported by the American cinema task force.

Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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