Talk:I Am Legend (film)/Archive 1

message: 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)
replies: text: ...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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Johnny Depp in ''I Am Legend''

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

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

text: 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)
replies: text: BTW, you actually can cite a radio station (I've heard that  before). You just have to put the time, the date, and the radio station that you were listening to as your source (I think thats all you need). 71.207.138.63 (talk) 13:00, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Filming in Manhattan 

message: *
*
:—Erik (talk • contrib) - 03:23, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Some information. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 12:06, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citations for possible use 

message: The diff of potentially relevant information removed by another editor. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 20:28, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Diff 

message: *
:Information to include. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 19:23, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  $5 million scene 

message: Wasn't The Last Man on Earth the first film adaptation of I am Legend? Sarara 21:11, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It was a mistake and has been fixed.  Thanks for catching it. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 22:17, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, it wasn't a mistake.  Some idiot changed it.  Oh, well. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 22:36, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: A Question

message: *CCI: THIS BOOK IS LEGEND —Erik (talk • contrib) - 14:08, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comic book 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Second Life 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Copyright violation 

message: ===1===
*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: 
Headlines. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 19:06, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Headlines 

message: *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: 
Headlines. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 19:06, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: 1

message: *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
*Legend Switched Mutant Gears
*Legend's Smith Researched Prisoners
*Legend's Smith Goes To Dog
*Legend Changes, Adapts Book
*Legend Ending Changed
*Legend Emptied New York
Headlines. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 17:08, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: 2

message: 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)
replies: text: "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)
replies: text:  Yes. Jesus, so basically the 28 Days/Weeks Infected, but at night? Mr. Raptor 04:22, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)

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

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Infected? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Smith only in first half of movie?

message: 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)
thread_title: Criticism section

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

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

text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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  template? --Pixelface (talk) 03:07, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Current fiction?

message: "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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Wrong Information provided 

message: 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)
replies: text: Looked like lighter fluid or something similar to throw off the scent. Gront (talk) 10:42, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This isn't a forum people. Alientraveller (talk) 18:03, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Vinegar? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Plot Spoilers 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Very similar to 

message: Surely somewhere in the criticism section we should have a mention of the fact that the film completely alters the plot of the novel? I've heard this mentioned in numerous reviews and indeed, for me at least, it's the one dominant negative feature of the film.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.115.11.9 (talk) 02:06, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Novel Criticism 

message: *I Am Legend: Apocalypse Now in Manhattan —Erik (talk • contrib) - 18:26, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Visual effects 

message: How does Anna and the young boy escape NYC even though the bridges had previously been blown up and the tunnels being blocked and/or flooded? EDDIES PRIDE  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.168.245.122 (talk) 09:13, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anna Escaping NYC? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Trivia 

message: 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)
replies: text: It was 8:49 to 8:52. icelandic hurricane #12(talk) 16:17, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Time between cure and death 

message: 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)
replies: text: I thought he said Krypton, but maybe you are right. icelandic hurricane #12(talk) 16:18, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Her surname was Krippin, and as such it is likely that it was Krippin virus, not krypton.Lax15o (talk) 06:04, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, they definitely say Krippin. (It's an intentional pun on Dr Crippen, I assume.) Barnabypage (talk) 15:24, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Krypton Virus? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  JLA Movie Teaser? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Cannibalistic Hunger? 

message: "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)
replies: text: Already fixed. — OcatecirT 05:13, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Put grammar/spelling and technical langage related comments in this section 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Error in article, not SR-71 

message: Anyone?
:Anyone?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.208.248.66 (talk) 01:32, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Why is this page locked?

message: According to this page, a 155 million dollar revenue was a "Personal best for Smith." but thats not true... I mean, if the poster meant "Is a personal best for Smith over the course of such a short period of time." then that would be true, but, just off hand, the Wild Wild West brought in 222 million, so I Am Legend can't be Smith's best thus far. 71.207.138.63 (talk) 12:58, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Personal Best for Smith?

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Plot still too detailed 

message: 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)
replies: text: Moot. Removed specific reference from Plot summary to keep it brief.Jim Dunning | talk 02:39, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Though I agree it is moot, she does say "We're heading to the survivors colonoy in Bethel, Vermont" Lax15o (talk) 14:00, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I guess we can consider it moot since the article has said "Bethel, Vermont" for a while now.Jim Dunning | talk 14:45, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Survivor colony location? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: The actress is from Brazil. The Red Cross character Anna came from Maryland or she, the little boy (little brother?), and three other survivors came from a navy ship or hospital ship that came from Maryland from a Naval fleet that broke up. Nowhere does it say anything about Brazil only that the rest of the world is now full of zombies according to Dr. Neville. Whether the character Anna is from Brazil or Europe since she sounds like she has a foreign accent is not certain and doesn't really matter. She, her little brother, and three other survivors were "guided" (by God according to Anna) to NYC by Dr. Neville's radio messages. The three other survivors that were with Anna and the little boy were killed by the zombies on their journey to find Dr. Neville in NYC.--Pilot expert (talk) 21:45, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm pretty sure Anna says she originally came from Sao Paulo. Of course, we don't know whether she means the large city in Brazil a relatively short distance from the Atlantic or some other city of the same name. Since she doesn't clarify it further for Neville (and there are no other notable cities of the same name anywhere), we are probably safe in assuming it's the well-known city. She then mentions coming most recently from Maryland; how she gets there from a ship near Sao Paulo is anyone's guess. Also, I don't think she ever mentions Ethan's relationship to her or where he joined her; she does say he is immune and the inference is that he was on the (evacuation? treatment?) ship with her.Jim Dunning | talk 22:26, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nope. Other than "the rest of the world", I haven't heard any other specific place mentioned other than New York City (where the movie takes place), the White House (where the POTUS makes a speech on the radio), Maryland (where Anna, Ethan, and the three other survivors traveled from or their ship traveled from), and Vermont where one of the survivor colony is located. After just watching the movie when it first premiered, I had to look up Alice Braga's bio in wikipedia and IMDB to see where she was from out of curiosity since she sounded like she had a foreign accent. I thought she might be from Puerto Rico (since the movie takes place in New York City), Europe, or South America. This movie is still new but wait awhile after it comes out in DVD (where it will have subtitles) and check the script IMSDB when they post it in the future. You'll see if Brazil is mentioned or not.--Pilot expert (talk) 22:51, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm fairly certain she does mention Sao Paulo, Brazil (mostly cause I don't know a thing about the actress and I still walked away with that impression, think it's tied in with an explanation of the Red Cross ship), but waiting for DVD is never a bad idea.  Anyways, her origin isn't important to the plot, it's only used to help root how she believes in God due to her heritage (Brazil is mostly Catholic) and supposedly hearing his voice and plan.72.192.206.80 (talk) 04:10, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Just saw it.  I'm pretty sure she does say Sao Paulo.  I know she said she was from somewhere outside America, then more recently Maryland.  And I don't know anything about the actress personally.  Although I'm still wondering how she got into NY when there were no bridges. Itsmeiam (talk) 07:12, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's what other movie fans were wondering. The express tunnels would have also been flooded (like in the movie Daylight) as the bridge was being blown up by F/A-18 Hornets from the nearby Carrier Battle Group.--Pilot expert (talk) 12:37, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

text: In the Spanish dubbing, she first says they come from Maryland. Later she says something about the Red Cross and Sao Paulo, but I did not understand if she was correcting herself or adding new information. --Error (talk) 22:23, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Provided we are not asked to swallow something too fantastic, we enter into a suspension of disbelief agreement with the film maker which means that we know there are going to be bits that wouldn't happen in real life, but we ignore them for the greater benefit of the general enjoyment. However, at no point does the film suggest that Manhattan is totally cut off, so people are free to supply their own explanations. I think that Anna made a raft out of the Infected people and used that to float away. SilkTork *SilkyTalk 13:45, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

text: I just checked. Her exact line is: "I was on a Red Cross evacuation ship out of Sao Paulo." Barnabypage (talk) 15:35, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Seems to me that the character says "we came from Maryland", not "we come from Maryland".  That makes all the difference.  The first means "we were there before, and now we are here"; the latter would mean "we are originally from that place".About Barnabypage's quote above, the character does say that, and that is actually the main inaccuracy in the movie, I would say.  One cannot be on a "ship out of São Paulo" because, as a city, São Paulo is landlocked, 35 miles, or 55 kilometers, away from the shoreline.  A ship such as a Red Cross ship, carrying many people, would tipically dock in Santos, which also happens to be the largest port in Latin America.On a personal note, I would assume that Alice Braga, who plays the character and has the line and who is Brazilian and from São Paulo, might have tipped the writers off on this huge geographical quid pro quo.  That she didn't probably relates to the fact that she is a newcomer and probably doesn't have the influence to point out something like this and ask for a last-minute change in the script.  Redux (talk) 17:57, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anna 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: I fixed it.--Patrick (talk) 02:22, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: "possibly Earth's only survivor of a man-made virus."

message: *I Am Legend Strong in IMAX —Erik (talk • contrib) - 16:33, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  IMAX performance 

message: Would it be possible to bring this to Good Article Nominations? It looks like a good candidate. Rt. 16:22, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would wait. While it is fairly stable, the frequent and expected Plot description tweaks are going to continue. GA likes stability.Jim Dunning | talk 16:37, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm, considering my GA reviewing experience, I'd have to agree. Thanks though. Regards, Rt. 16:47, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with the need for stability, but I also think that this article needs a larger Critical reaction section, something similar to Road to Perdition#Reception.  We haven't given readers a full idea of what critics thought of the film.  In addition, the Headlines section above should be reviewed to make sure that all the background information is fully implemented. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 17:00, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Good Article Nomination? 

message: There is no mention about the heavy spiritual content of the movie (science versus religion, redemption, faith, etc.) that is significantly departing from Matheson's novel. See this excellent review for instance . The studio have also set up a website: www.godstilllovesus.org! Sfoucher (talk) 20:14, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Movie Spiritual Content 

message: There are two links involving material by Alan Weisman. The first is a Popular Mechanics article on the film discussing the science of the film. I think that's useful. The second, however, is tangentially related. It shows a series of images of what New York would be like without humans. I'm not convinced of the usefulness of this link. And I am concerned it might encourage other such tangential links. SilkTork *SilkyTalk 11:40, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the former would be more useful as implemented into the article. Alientraveller (talk) 12:50, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Here's the link  Do what you would want. Alientraveller (talk) 12:54, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have summarized the article into the criticism section. --Error (talk) 22:33, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  ''The World Without Us''  links 

message: There's been a few attempts to word the section of the plot where Neville attacks the Infected in a suicidal manner. "Knowing that his only live companion left is gone"; "Distressed by Sam's death"; "He appears distressed by his loneliness"; "In anger"; "Despondent over the death of Sam, Neville suicidally attacks"; "When he is forced to choke his dog companion to death after an attack by the Infected, he nearly commits suicide by attacking". It's a difficult moment because there is this desire to give some detail as to why he attacks the Infected. But the reason he does it is open to interpretation. Between the dog's death and the attack comes the scene in the shop where he talks to the mannequin, so there is the sense that it a general feeling of loneliness. But that is interpretation. That he attacks the Infected is fact. Why he attacks the Infected is interpretation and should be left to the Critical Reception section. We don't actually know he is distressed by the dog's death enough to kill himself. Would it be OK to say that he is distressed? 
While helping him escape, Sam is bitten by an Infected dog and begins transforming, so Neville puts her down. In a distressed state he attacks a group of Infected that night at the South Street Seaport and is nearly killed himself...
Or would that imply that the distress was the result of the dog's death?
While helping him escape, Sam is bitten by an Infected dog and begins transforming, so Neville puts her down. Later that night he attacks a group of Infected at the South Street Seaport and is nearly killed himself...
How about adding wildly or recklessly?
While helping him escape, Sam is bitten by an Infected dog and begins transforming, so Neville puts her down. Later that night he recklessly attacks a group of Infected at the South Street Seaport and is nearly killed himself... SilkTork *SilkyTalk 15:28, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good points. I go with adding "recklessly". Certainly his behavior is out of character, so reckless works, but no interpretation of why he acts so is included.Jim Dunning | talk 15:48, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

text: It's suffice to say he's most defiantly "troubled" by the loss for the purpose of the plot, this is accurate, but yes, why he went on the rampage is open to interpretation, but it's clearly a direct influence of the loss. There's a distinct display of sadness, followed by depression.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.152.138.226 (talk) 18:05, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Distressed by Sam's death, etc 

message: If you're using "the infected" as a name for these (zombie-like/vampire-like) creatures, since it's quoted from somewhere else (see http://uk.rottentomatoes.com/m/i_am_legend/about.php), in which it's also quoted, you then MUST also quote it in the same way, otherwise using the term "the infected" is simply common language, and should NOT have a capital I on infected. PLEASE STOP CHANGING IT! --Hm2k (talk) 18:12, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "The Infected" 

message: Perhaps the Plot summary should refer to the blatant religious propaganda in the movie. It would be important information for people who want to see movies like that or for people who want to avoid them. (PSG) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.126.151.171 (talk • contribs) 
:Blatant in your own opinion. Alientraveller (talk) 19:22, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is a bit of religion in the film but it's not pressed and only has about a minute of screen time. Wolfmankurd (talk) 01:19, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: True that it only appears shortly. In my opinion, they probably did that so they can justify the movie appealing to different audiences. E.G(Philosophy: Reason to live ,, Scientists: Consequences of cures(??), Religion(Christanity): "Science screwed you all over, as seen in I Am legend." etc.) It wasn't like that movie Hilary Swank was in which was extremely leniant towards pro-christianity.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by DrTheKay (talk • contribs) 08:19, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The religious themes have a lot of screen time, not just a minute or two. 1) The TIME Magazine cover with the word "SAVIOR" in large print 2) The crucifix on the rearview mirror when Robert is rescued 3) Robert yelling "LET ME SAVE YOU! I CAN SAVE YOU!" note the word "save" as opposed to "cure" or "help" 4) The most obvious of course, Robert sacrificing himself for the good of man. Religion was a pretty strong theme in this movie. I'm surprised it doesn't merit at least a mention in the article.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.186.155.167 (talk) 04:44, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Without citations of reliable sources, this is personal conjecture.  If the religious aspect of the film is strong, then there should be reliable sources that provide verifiable coverage about it. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 05:02, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

text: The crucifix is most likely a reference to the book, in which the cross actually does repel (some) vampires, and in which the female character wears a cross, which is specifically noted in the description of her.  If it's related to anything else I guess we'll find out when the writers/director provide commentary on that scene. Jtsummers (talk) 03:41, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

text: And one sacrificing themselves for the good of mankind can hardly be considered religious overtones.Lax15o (talk) 06:00, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Just an anti-religeous person trying to protest even the smallest influence of religion in a movie; it figures. Travis T. Cleveland (talk) 01:42, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

text: I've just seen this movie and I agree that the religious motives are quite obvious. The whole scene where Neville discusses with Anna whether God has sent her to him, that God has told her about the existence of the survivors colony, and that God has a plan for the humanity is clearly of religious nature. Moreover, the ending in which Neville eventually believes in Neville, and therefore sacrifices himself, clearly states the religious view that the movie is trying to convey. I also found it rather surprising that there is no comment at all about this in the article, specially considering that none of this themes occur in the original novel (which states a quite opposite point, in the original Neville finds out at the end that he, in the view of "the infected", is a monster; thus the name "i am legend"). --NavarroJ (talk) 05:10, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: all of that is in the movie, but the problem occurs that we can't type the movie line for line so we need to keep the plot down to the relevent main plot points...note that there is very little talk about how he deals with his lonelyness by dressing up maniquins, very little on the sexual tension between him and the "girl" in the video store...or how that is the catalist that brings him to the reality of his situation and drives him to suicide after sam died.  and not alot about him and Sam even though that is a main section of the movie.  There where many instances of "god" appearing in the film, but they didn't tie to main plot points outside of a speculative interpritations. I agree, but I don't think that it belongs in the plot summery...no matter how strongly I believe in God. Coffeepusher (talk) 06:29, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Religious Propaganda in the Plot Summary 

message: New material has been added to the Plot description that is unfamiliar to me. Is this original research by the editor (anon IP) or was all of this actually mentioned in the film? Specifically, it is the references to "oncolytic  virus" and "hemorrhagic fever". I don't recall Krippen going into that much technical detail; she was on some morning news show, so the content doesn't seem appropriate to the audience. Also, the pandemic stats keep changing and I can't recall all of them, but for some reason "1%" sticks in my mind. Can anyone confirm that the medical detail is in the film and nail down the figures?Jim Dunning | talk 19:47, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think it's necessary to include such detail if it wasn't mentioned in the film.  It's too much of a specialist's assertion -- not what a reader in general would know. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 20:46, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: An Oncolytic virus attacks cancer cells and therefore a cancer curing virus would be an oncolytic virus but the detail is unnessesary. I think I remember a reference to hemorrhagic fever but again this isn't needed.Wolfmankurd (talk) 01:23, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

text: I was just informed by Erik that I accedentily added this part back after it's deletion.  I was reverting another edit, and I am sorry for the confusion...um...I agree that it is way to complicated and should be deleted.Coffeepusher (talk) 02:50, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: They say it's measles, but that's that. Through the rest of the movie Neville only refers to it as "the virus". Master of Puppets Call me MoP!☺</font></sub> 18:38, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Oncolytic  virus? 

message: Something I think should be add to the trivia section of the article would be the watch Neville uses in the film. If someone knows what's the watch he uses added to the trivia section (with a link to the official watch brand site). Snowstone (talk) 02:48, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Trivia sections are generally avoided. I'm also afraid the watch model type would not be of interest in an encyclopedia.Jim Dunning | talk 03:19, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

text: I concur with Jim -- perhaps you can go to the IMDb page for I Am Legend and see if that is available there.  If not, you can submit the information there if you find it.  It doesn't belong in an encyclopedic article. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 06:26, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Trivia Section 

message: Noticed something while watching the movie. when neville is tracking a deer through what looked like Time Square there is a movie poster with the Superman S symbol and on the background on the same poster is the Batman symbol. the movie IS set in the future, 2009 i think, but i haven't heard anything about a crossover movie. anyone else heard anything--Irishboi (talk) 14:43, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yep, it's just an Easter egg, read this MTV article.  It's because the screenwriters used to work on a script for Batman vs. Superman.  And to the rest of the editors, I think we should try to incorporate this into the article.  It's like the third time we've gotten this question. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 15:23, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Movie poster

message: In the Plot description I've written that Neville "sacrifices himself" when he saves Anna and Ethan and then blows up himself and the attackers with the grenade. This has been changed numerous times to "kills himself" or "blows himself up" or some variation thereof. Am I attributing too much to the action by using the word "sacrifice" and therefor it should be "kills"?Jim Dunning | talk 19:31, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Honestly, it seems clear that he sacrifices himself.  With the creatures destroyed, Anna and the kid are able to get out.  Neville tells them to wait until morning so they can come out safely, especially with the sun out. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 20:57, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In any event, doesn't Anna use the word "sacrifice" in her closing narration, thus heading off any accusations of interpretation in the summary? Best regards, Steve T  • C 23:09, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Anna says: "..He gave his life to defend it.." or something like that :/ I'm not sure... Magnifier (talk) 18:15, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: But wouldn't giving your life to defend something be, by definition, a sacrifice?99.238.247.208 (talk) 05:54, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, which is why the section currently uses the word. Best regards, Steve T  • C 08:54, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Neville's "sacrifice" 

message: While looking around on wikipedia, i find that the I am legend article is gone. Is it going to be fix soon?
--Kunz506 (talk) 19:37, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Try I Am Legend. Is that what you're looking for, the novel's article?Jim Dunning | talk 19:55, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  article deleted 

message: I thought she said Ireland. She seemed to have an accent, and so I suppose Maryland and Ireland would sound similar, but I'm pretty sure it was Ireland. J-ſtanContribsUser page 21:25, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: She said Maryland. Besides, how would she hear a radio broadcast form new York in Ireland? Furthermore, there's already a section for speculation about where she said she was fromLax15o (talk) 05:17, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Maryland/Ireland 

message: It appears the RT ratings are inflated, possibly because the movie/story are of American origin. The japanese anime movie "Blue Gender" is a better and deeper threatise on the makind subued by horror illness theme and I've read a book by Peter Bogati titled "Last man standing" that makes more out of the story of a person left alone in the whole world. Sorrowfully pro-anglosaxon bias makes "en.wikipedia.org" act and feel like "us-uk.wikipedia.org". 82.131.210.162 (talk) 18:55, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Go have a shower, nerd.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.168.142.143 (talk) 17:21, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

text: You may want to initiate dialogue about your concerns with Rotten Tomatoes at WT:FILM, not here.  I personally think that Rotten Tomatoes should only serve as a rule of thumb for diagnosing films.  If you look at where reviews come from, they're usually US- or UK-centric.  From my work on critical reactions of films, there are rarely any non-English reviews out there that are translated to English, hence whatever inflation you may perceive.  Besides, I Am Legend is only "Fresh" at the very threshold -- the films being touted for award season are easily in the 85%+ range. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 19:02, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

text: It looks like you're just going to have to live with it user 82.131.210.162 Travis T. Cleveland (talk) 01:41, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Americans like rotten tomatoes or Rotten Tomatoes like american movies better? 

message: wat is the rating 4 this film? can some1 add it plz? 122.57.212.24 (talk) 09:31, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You should usually check out the official website for that information; you can access it here. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 16:51, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Film Rating 

message: For those who've been clamouring for it, there's something here which might be of use:
*
I'd perhaps be inclined to include any usable information in a Writing section within the Development section, rather than in one called, well, Differences between the film and the novel, but that's up to whoever ends up putting it in. All the best, Steve T  • C 15:46, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It appears that any material garnered from Tasha Robinson's critique will be more appropriate in the Critical reception section rather than Writing. She does not reference or discuss the adaptation process at all, but merely does a high-level comparison between the original book and the various films it spawned. Possibly quoting her "All of Manhattan is his, and he takes advantage of it, and much of the first hour of the film is spent watching him in that process. Which is about as close as I Am Legend gets to the book." assertion may all we could do. Information on the screenwriters' adaptation process would be interesting and useful, but Robinson's unsourced critique provides no help.Jim Dunning | talk 16:23, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, I must admit to having not read her piece yet. I just happened to see it in passing and thought it might be of some use. Steve T  • C 17:07, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Differences between the film and the novel 

message: :GA review (see here for criteria)
#It is reasonably well written:
#:Pass Very well written.
#It is factually accurate and verifiable:
#:Pass There are plenty of sources to the article, which are layed out the way they should be.
#It is broad in its coverage:
#:Pass just about every aspect of the film is covered.
#It follows the neutral point of view policy:
#:Pass no problems there.
#It is stable:
#:Pass no problems there.
#It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate:
#:Pass though more images or charts (particularly a chart of the cast or of any awards) would be very useful.
#Overall:
#:Pass Definately GA quality writing. -Ed! (talk) 23:36, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: GA Review

message: Humanity is (nearly) wiped out by a disaster.  One man is destined to and called on by God to save the remainder (who, I noticed, appeared to be Christian, though there's no way I can say they all were.)  Mix in all the talk of our 'immoral' society, much like the supposed wicked society before the flood.  (Aside: Not honestly going to rigorously defend this.  Unless the Director comes out and says it himself, it's something of an untenable position.) Jachra (talk) 10:17, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, it's an interesting position, one which has been brought up here a couple of times IIRC. While any religious allusions seemed to me to be only very lightly touched upon in the film, I'd certainly not object to the addition of something, as long as it was properly sourced. It wouldn't necessarily have to be the director or writers who advanced the position; an analysis from a good, independent reliable source would also do the trick. All the best, Steve T  • C 10:35, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Note: Will Smith compared Neville to Job, which is in the casting section. Alientraveller (talk) 13:13, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Noah Flood Story? 

message: An anon IP added this as a Trivia item —
In the first scenes where Neville is hunting deer in & around Times Square, a large billboard advertisement is seen in the background which incorporates both the Batman & Superman logos into one (similar to Superman/Batman monthly from DC Comics). Whether this is a fictional or future Warner Bros. movie project (the ad is dated as 2012) remains to be seen since they currently own the development rights for both characters. The billboard is also shown among other signs adverstising actual Broadway musicals Wicked and Hairspray.
I removed it since the article is well-developed, but it's been brought up before, so unless I missed a discussion deciding otherwise, is this Easter Egg worth addressing in the article?Jim Dunning | talk 20:08, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: To me it just seems a bit OR-ish. I think it's best left out of the article, in order to just prevent any unnecessary news artciles appearing in the tabloids - Weebiloobil (talk) 20:12, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: However, the comments from director Francis Lawrence about writer Akiva Goldsman at   might be worth including in the Production section.Jim Dunning | talk 20:21, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed, but try to keep the speculation out as much as possible - Weebiloobil (talk) 20:29, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Trivia or not?

message: When Robert Is going through the house(one were he finds spam) and right when he leaves, he notices a closed door. The he opens a door and finds plastic tent around a bed marked with the KV virus symbol. Then he goes into the other bedroom and finds two cribs. The mood changes to sad. What was in the bedroom that made him sad? Was it the lives of newborns gone without a chance to experence life?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kunz506 (talk • contribs) 03:18, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Just watched this movie last night.  Mostly, I thought that Robert was missing his wife and especially his child.  The next flashback after this point shows the helicopter accident that kills them, lending some credence to the theory.  Schoop (talk) 13:14, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

text: I agree with the above comment as well. It seemed to suggest that Robert is missing the life and company of his wife and son. With the flashback scene backing this up MattyC3350 (talk) 06:04, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Confusing part in movie, Help? 

message: Several sections have been vandalised ending with "It sucks badly" --82.20.221.55 (talk) 18:28, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: FixedCoffeepusher (talk) 18:31, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vandalism: It Sucks Badly 

message: What is Neville pouring both on his doorsteps and on the tarp for the snare?  Is it vinegar?  Why?  Atsubill2 (talk) 07:36, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think till either the makers of the film state what the liquid was then everything that gets suggested is just guess work. With all the different compounds shown in his lab it could either be vinegar, or a liquid made through his study of the creatures. MattyC3350 (talk) 05:57, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is That Vinegar? 

message: Last night I changed the lede to say this is the fourth feature film from the book, citing IMDB as the source. The direct-to-DVD I Am Omega is listed at IMDB another adaptation. Jpcline004 reverted this. Any discussion? I think going direct to DVD doesn't disqualify something as a "feature film," and IMDB is a legitimate source for film-industry information. See the IMDB I Am Legend FAQ   and the I Am Omega entry . Even a bad, low-budget adaptation is still an adaptation. And I Am Omega released earlier, making it the third and I Am Legend the fourth. Chester320 (talk) 00:09, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: See here for extended discussion on the subject, which resulted in the addition of a footnote explanation. I'm not sure at what stage the wording we agreed upon there was removed from the article. Steve T  • C 07:46, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Third or fourth film from the book?