her squishy
Lord Talavar of Oz
her squishy
Lord Talavar of Oz
her squishy
Lord Talavar of Oz
How could they have been zombies when
THE BOOK WAS PUBLISHED BEFORE ZOMBIES EVEN EXISTED!? George A. Romero's "Night of the Living Dead" created the modern zombie. The risen dead who feast on flesh. Except, NOTLD came out in 1968. The book "I Am Legend" came out in 1954.
In case you're not getting it just yet...
"I AM LEGEND" WAS, IS, AND ALWAYS HAS BEEN A VAMPIRE STORY!
If you don't think so, here is a direct quote from the author himself:
HERE is the interview from which that quote came. As an adaptation of the film, those creatures were indeed vampires. Saying they're not is like saying "Batman" was about a guy who dressed up like a rabbit to fight crime. It's total nonsense.
first of all. i'm not talking about the book. come on man you should know that.
and second, ok then he was an idiot and got vampires all wrong.
Are you getting it yet, dumbass?
And how did he get them all wrong? They can't go out in the sun, feast on blood,
are afraid of crosses, are like walking corpses (vampires aren't called the undead for no reason shithead),
can't stand garlic, I mean, name a vampire trait, and it's there. Matheson's not the one getting vampires all wrong, pal. You are.
thats just a stupid comparison. this is not batman it's vampires. you dumbass.
zombies are walking corpses too.
lol where do u get that from? it's not "i am legend" there was no mention or showing of crosses or garlic in that movie you idiot.
You're the idiot, pal. Ever notice how every argument you get yourself into, you're the only one on your side of it?
The movie was based on the book. They have the same f*cking name, you moron. The book featured all of those things and more. The movie didn't have those things, no, but that doesn't change the fact that the
movie is based on the book, and because the book is about vampires, the movie is also about vampires.
And by the way, the Batman thing I've been mentioning is something called an "analogy". Pay more attention in school, and you'll know what that is soon.
i know i'm always alone on arguments. i'm the only smart one who knows what he's talking about. thats sad. and mostly cause ppl just believe whatever they are told and are too dumb to see that it's nothing like whatever they're being told.
so what? u said urself it's not like the book. u idiot.
the book like always are dumb and only care about adding a bunch of dumb s**t to either copy the current fad (in this case vampires) or have something to elaborate on and make sequels. the movie turns it into a serious matter of wat could happen as a warning or someones disbelief in the current medical advances, someones personal thoughts/fears put into a film. the movie clears up all the nonsense from the book. but sadly it still confuses retards like you. maybe if you let go the based on a book thing you'll understand, and like that movie more.
i know what that means. batman is not like and is totally different than vampires.
Right. You're the only person who knows what he's talking about and everyone else in the entire world is wrong. Are you f*cking braindead? Are you okay? Honestly...
If it wasn't for the book, the movie would not exist. If the book had not been written, the movie would not have been made. And if you think that a movie's purpose is to just take out a bunch of nonsense in the book it's based on, then you're an even bigger moron than I thought. So, in order to keep from ripping all of my hair out, I'm going to break your post apart piece by piece to respond to it.
"so what? u said urself it's not like the book. u idiot." That doesn't change the fact that the movie is based on the book. They have the same general story, even if certain details are left out. In fact, more people tend to think that the movie failed because of it's changes to the book.
"the book like always are dumb" You fail at the English language.
"only care about adding a bunch of dumb s**t to either copy the current fad (in this case vampires) or have something elaborate on to make sequels." Did you even read my post? I Am Legend came out in
1954. Vampires weren't a fad back then. In fact, what Matheson wrote was groundbreaking, because no one before him had written a story like it. So not only is it not a cash-in on the vampire fad, but it's the most original vampire story every written, and still to this day, no one has really topped it when it comes to originality. And by the way, there were no sequels, moron.
"the movie turns it into a serious matter of wat could happen as a warning or someones disbelief in the current medical advances, someones personal thoughts or fears put into a film" The book was a serious matter as well, though the theme of the film was changed from the theme of the book. Even so, I doubt you know anything about "current medical advances". And uh, the film wasn't some passion project from a visionary. The book was. The movie was just an adaptation of the book.
"the movie clears up all the nonsense from the book" You haven't read the book. How the f*ck would you even know? And for the record, the book makes more sense than the movie does. But, again, you're not going to believe that because A. You can't read, and B. You won't try to read.
"but sadly it still confuses retards like you" If it wasn't for the book, Stephen King would never have been inspired to become a writer. So many people in the writing and film industry were inspired by that book. The only person who is confused here is you.
"maybe if you let go of the based on a book thing you'll understand, and like that movie more." There's a difference between judging a film on it's own merits and refusing to acknowledge the source. It's a solid fact that the film is a vampire film because it's based on a vampire novel. This cannot be ignored. It is an adaptation of the source. The source is about vampires. The movie is about vampires. The book is about the last man on Earth trying to survive on his own. The movie is about the last man on Earth trying to survive on his own. The book featured a scientist named Robert Neville. The movie featured a scientist named Robert Neville. The book was about vampires. The movie was about vampires. Get it now, idiot?
