Page 1 of 1
Posted: Sat Dec 15, 2007 11:33 am
by GORDON
*spoilers goddammit*
Ok.
Not sure if you heard, but there were last minute reshoots. I think they changed the ending.
In the book, the "vampires" actually had their own little civilization starting, and the last human on earth was systematically killing them while they slept. He was the new Jason Vorhees, to them. He was a Legend. I think the movie was building up to that... the guy "vampire" exposing himself to light because his woman got snatched, and will smith mistook it for mere dumb rage. The human woman who sees all the "vampires" he has killed in his experiments, and says, "Oh my god." And the "vampires" obviously had some problem solving skills, the way they set that snare for him.
But then all of those hints are completely forgotten, and we get the ending we got.
I think test audiences didn't like a "will smith = the bad guy all along" ending, and they changed it.
Posted: Sat Dec 15, 2007 1:36 pm
by Malcolm
He's a Scientologist now, right? I could buy him being a force for malevolence.
Posted: Sat Dec 22, 2007 12:03 am
by Leisher
I agree about the ending being changed. I think you'll probably see an "alternate ending" on a DVD release. Although, maybe not, since as I point out in my review, everything was different from the book.
Actually, thinking about it, I think it would've been hard to pull off unless they did a "10 years later" type of thing. They portrayed these things as monsters, not as potential new humans that could start a society. Thus, portraying Will as the bad guy would've been difficult to get across to audiences.
Now had a death squad shown up to kill the "wild" monsters...
My two problems:
1. "The virus has problems in the cold." Was that concept stolen from "World War Z" and other zombie books like "The Walking Dead"? Can a virus be slowed down by cold? Is Vermont far enough north to be considered cold enough, and thus, safe from the virus?
2. The walls at the end. Those keep them out? They scaled Smith's house without any effort and that was three stories high.
Posted: Sat Dec 22, 2007 10:29 am
by GORDON
1. A virus isn;t alive, per se. You can freeze one in a block of ice for a millon years and it will more than likely still be viable once you release it. Virii can only reproduce in living cells... they take over the host cell's DNA replication process to force it to make new virii. That being said, "cold weather" doesn't mean shit to a virus, depending on whether it is airborne or passes by "touch," it just depends on how well it can get to the next host cells. The idea that "if you go outside in the cold you get sick" has more to do with the cold air surpressing the body's immune system than it does cold ait being full of virii. Dry, winter air typically has fewer microbes in it than does humid, summer air.
2. Good point. I think the mistake they made was mnaking the "vampires" stupid CGI people with the ability to sprint up a wall. I don't see any need to not use real people. Rage-infected people were plenty scary in 28 Days Laterl, and that's basically what these "vampires" were.
Posted: Sat Dec 22, 2007 10:58 pm
by Leisher
The more I think about it, the more I realize the CGI unstoppable killing machines were a huge mistake.
Someone explain to me why the deer and lions were unaffected or more importantly, still alive and uneaten...
Remember, dogs were immune, except for contact. Thus, the three infected dogs had to be bitten. If the monsters would attack dogs, why not attack the deer and lions?
Posted: Sat Dec 22, 2007 11:00 pm
by GORDON
I remarked to my buddy, "Those deer must just run from sundown to sunup."
As for the lions, I suspect not even one of the "vampires" wants to fuck with a lion.
Posted: Sat Dec 22, 2007 11:37 pm
by Leisher
As for the lions, I suspect not even one of the "vampires" wants to fuck with a lion.
Why not?
They vastly outnumber the lions. They're super strong, super fast, super agile, and apparently somewhat intelligent. Many the lion might've bitten one of them, but they would've lost the war.
I heard someone once remark that they believe most movies are made just to feature a scene or two. That sequence kind of proves it since it destroys all the logic behind the film.
Still, let's ruin the logic even more...
So they don't know where Will lives because they can't "follow him" right? Still, three years and they haven't done a house by house search? They were smart enough to figure out about Fred and setup a trap they knew he'd see, but they couldn't figure out where the man lived? That was pretty stupid.
The book was better. End of story.
Posted: Mon Mar 24, 2008 12:54 pm
by Paul
I saw it, and I didn't like the ending. It ignored too much of what they were showing us about the vampires.
Alternative ending here.
Posted: Mon Mar 24, 2008 7:49 pm
by TPRJones
Very interesting. A much more subtle ending.
Posted: Sun Feb 15, 2009 11:16 am
by TheCatt
the guy "vampire" exposing himself to light because his woman got snatched, and will smith mistook it for mere dumb rage. The human woman who sees all the "vampires" he has killed in his experiments, and says, "Oh my god." And the "vampires" obviously had some problem solving skills, the way they set that snare for him.
Yeah, I was following this story, expecting it to be the movie... and it wasn't.
wtf? why was it even in there? to show that will was REALLY the one who lost touch?
Oh wow, that was brilliant, film making people.
Bah. I didn't care for this movie.
Posted: Sun Feb 15, 2009 11:27 am
by TheCatt
Paul wrote:I saw it, and I didn't like the ending. It ignored too much of what they were showing us about the vampires.
Alternative ending here.
That ending is what should have been the ending.
I would give it 7.5/10 instead of 5/10 with that ending.
Note: I never read the original book, or have seen the other movies based on this.
Posted: Sun Feb 15, 2009 4:45 pm
by GORDON
TheCatt wrote:Paul wrote:I saw it, and I didn't like the ending. It ignored too much of what they were showing us about the vampires.
Alternative ending here.
That ending is what should have been the ending.
I would give it 7.5/10 instead of 5/10 with that ending.
Note: I never read the original book, or have seen the other movies based on this.
On the Blu Ray, the better ending is in there as the default ending.
Posted: Mon Feb 16, 2009 2:56 pm
by Leisher
The better ending was the alternate ending, however neither ending was as good as the book's.