Talk:I Am Legend (film)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the I Am Legend (film) article.
Article policies
Archives: 1
Good article I Am Legend (film) has been listed as one of the Arts good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a reassessment.
February 20, 2008 Good article nominee Listed
Archive
Archives
Archive 1
About archives

Contents

[edit] Neville's "sacrifice"

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)

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)
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)
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)
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)
Yes, which is why the section currently uses the word. Best regards, Steve T • C 08:54, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] "possibly Earth's only survivor of a man-made virus."

This is incorrect, as the film shows us. There are other survivors. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.16.15.240 (talk) 00:29, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

It was true until other survivors showed up.--Patrick (talk) 00:33, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
The point of "possibly" is to renact the feeling towards the movie in the beginning or when you first see the trailer, as in you wonder if this really is the only man alive, so its better to begin the plot in wikipedia that way as well. It will also limit the opening plot spoilers.—Preceding unsigned comment added by DrTheKay (talk • contribs) 05:27, January 1, 2008
To be honest I do not like the way it is phrased, to me it sounds like its coming from a person who has not yet seen the movie, and is looking at it in a preview way. Just my thoughts however. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.122.219.4 (talk) 14:07, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
Ok, I changed it. "Possibly" is ambiguous: is the editor not sure, or is the story ambiguous, or is it from the pov of the character? Besides, the mutants are also survivors. And the fact that a character thinks something does not spoil what is really the case.--Patrick (talk) 15:46, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] article deleted

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)kunz506

Try I Am Legend. Is that what you're looking for, the novel's article?
Jim Dunning | talk 19:55, 2 January 2008 (UTC)


No, someone deleted the whole article but when i checked back, it was restored. But thanks anyway.--Kunz506 (talk) 18:22, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Difference of meaning of name from the novel

First, allow me to quote the last line of the Plot section of the article:

Anna and Ethan escape to Vermont and locate the survivors' colony, where Anna hands over the cure. In the closing voice-over, she states that Neville's cure enabled humanity to survive and rebuild, establishing his legend.

Second, quote the last line of the plot section from the novel:

As he dies he reflects on how the new society of the living infected regards him as a monster. Just as vampires were regarded as legendary monsters that preyed on the vulnerable humans in their beds, Neville has become a mythical figure that kills both vampires and the infected living while they are sleeping. He becomes a legend as the vampires once were, hence the title "I Am Legend".

I think this large difference should be incorporated somewhere in the article. Thoughts?

Those who mind don't matter, and those who matter don't mind. (talk) 15:14, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

If there is a significant difference between the meanings (or possible interpretations) of the novel's and film's titles, then a reference to it would be a candidate for inclusion in the article, probably in the Development or Critical Response sections. However, no matter how "obvious" the difference may be, we, as WP editors, cannot be the ones originating that analysis per WP:NOR. If a reliable source can be found that makes the analysis for us, then by all means, work it into the article (and cite it).
I haven't read the novel in ages, so I can't attest to how the "legend" is handled in the book, but one problem with your example above is that you are quoting not from the original works being compared, but a synthesis of each written by WP contributors. In fact, as I look at the pertinent passage from the Plot summary of the novel, it in itself appears to be WP:OR. "[H]ence the title "I Am Legend" seems to be an editor's interpretation and should be removed from the article unless a good source can be found to support it (there are none referenced in the article at this time). That issue points out why we can and should only reference reliable sources; we have no way of knowing at this point if the comparison made above is even accurate since it doesn't even refer to the original material and the conclusion is unsourced.
Jim Dunning | talk 15:44, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
I agree with DukeDoom that the ending is thematically different. While the passage he provided isn't in verbatim from the novel itself, it's fairly in line (in my opinion) with explaining the original ending. It may be worth finding reliable sources by critics who compare the film to the source material or even the previous film adaptations. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 17:48, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
I've been looking. The most promising source may be an interview with Matheson (2003) in Rue Morgue magazine, but I'm having a devil of a time finding the content (or decent reference to it). Same for a 1999 interview with him. I agree that it would be a good addition to the article.
Jim Dunning | talk 17:57, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Maryland/Ireland

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)

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)

[edit] Americans like rotten tomatoes or Rotten Tomatoes like american movies better?

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)

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)

Reviews are reviews, and I know who shares my opinion of a good movie, and who dosn't...and this is a discussion page of I am legend, not a chat room. Please keep the discussion on the article. Coffeepusher (talk) 06:13, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

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)

[edit] Film Rating

wat is the rating 4 this film? can some1 add it plz? 122.57.212.24 (talk) 09:31, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

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)

[edit] Differences between the film and the novel

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)

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)
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)

[edit] GA Review

GA review (see here for criteria)
  1. It is reasonably well written:
    Pass Very well written.
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable:
    Pass There are plenty of sources to the article, which are layed out the way they should be.
  3. It is broad in its coverage:
    Pass just about every aspect of the film is covered.
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy:
    Pass no problems there.
  5. It is stable:
    Pass no problems there.
  6. 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.
  7. Overall:
    Pass Definately GA quality writing. -Ed! (talk) 23:36, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Noah Flood Story?

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)

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)
Note: Will Smith compared Neville to Job, which is in the casting section. Alientraveller (talk) 13:13, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Superman/Batman

[edit] Trivia or not?

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)

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)
However, the comments from director Francis Lawrence about writer Akiva Goldsman at [1] might be worth including in the Production section.
Jim Dunning | talk 20:21, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
Agreed, but try to keep the speculation out as much as possible - Weebiloobil (talk) 20:29, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Useless links!

I have made this argument before - please see discussion for Heralds of Galactus - but it is something I find extremely annoying as a casual reader. I truly wish to understand the purpose of including links on a page that redirect to subjects that have nothing to do with the original subject; e.g., "I Am Legend" with a link to "Human Extinction". Why would any intelligent person wanting to research HE detour through IAL to do so. Why shouldn’t anyone who clicks the link “more than 90% of the planet’s…” expect to find a page relating this phrase to IAL. As I’d pointed out in the aforementioned discussion, these links are arbitrary and random, serving no purpose in enhancing my understanding of the article I chose to read: I Am Legend. What criteria determines which words get linked and why? From a cursory glance, one could conceivably link every noun in this article – and every noun-derived word (infected = infection) – and have a collection of links no more valid to the article than those already there. I ask that if someone more daring than I agrees you please consider revising these links or some admin for Wikipedia create or clarify the rules for links to me, thanks.

P.S. Sorry for the tirade, I’ve just gotten tired of clicking links that lead to tangent reading. I almost gave up and missed what I was looking for in this article, the related movies/books to the 2007 release. Dphoenix1701 (talk)

Then don't click the links? What is wrong with you? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.49.216.50 (talk) 03:52, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
While the insinuated tone isn't necessary, I'll try to clarify what is at issue here. I personally found the excessively linking to be a problem because I was using the article as a starting point to find information related to the subject - as I said earlier, I almost missed it had I given up. Further research would indicate that my point is valid: WP:CONTEXT. The above post was in fact a question, in the event you missed that, and in response to yours: I apparently suffer from an acute condition whereby I seek to understand before I disparage. Since I seemed to have found the answer to my question on my own, I hope my efforts to further my knowledge will assist you in furthering yours.Dphoenix1701 (talk) 07:25, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Links do not need to have a two way mapping between topics. The references linked from IAL are useful and in some parts necessary. This is the whole point of a wiki, to aid in the linking of related topics. If you are really concerned, change your link colour to black in your browsers settings. Or become colourblind. 128.250.6.247 (talk)
Look this is getting asinine. I’m just someone who comes here during my downtime at work to read a few articles. The point of my posts is that the usage of links in a great deal of articles I’ve come across seem ‘misleading’ to the casual reader. I don’t know and don’t want to know all the thousands nuances to Wikipedia’s linking policies; simply put, as an outsider looking in, their inclusion a lot of the time appears without reason. I have no idea where you inferred “two-way mapping” from what I posted; the linked page not referencing back to the original article was not the issue. My question, and I repeat question was to the relevance of the links to the subject page the links are found on. If Wikipedia’s defining of relevant is more liberal than mine, that’s fine. If the inclusion of dates or years is acceptable, regardless of how they relate, so be it. If every geographical location can always be linked, okay. But, if Wikipedia says the links should be “relevant connections to the subject of another article that will help readers to understand the current article more fully” – note current – I don’t see how most of them qualify. That is what I have been trying to get clarified. No offense, but I come here because I thought this was a noble project. Rather than edit the page to my whim and start some crude back-and-forth I came to the discussion; but, I ask a question and the first reply reads like an insult, the second as a SA suggestion. I like the site, but if this is the way new contributors are received, you can have it.Dphoenix1701 (talk) 06:33, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
That sure is a lot of text, you must have a lot of downtime at work. 128.250.6.247 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 03:07, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
No, you're right. Useless, irrelevant linking is frowned upon here. I'll go through it now, see what I can get rid of. Steve T • C 08:25, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
After reviewing them, it seems that since the last time I read this article, someone had gone through it adding a bunch of useless wikilinks. Please don't take the tone of the previous poster as a reflection on the rest of us. Anything you want to point out is more than welcome. All the best, Steve T • C 08:36, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Confusing part in movie, Help?

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)

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)
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)

[edit] Original Script

I just read the original script by Mark Protosevich which is in some respects much closer to the novel -- it is amazingly different from movie. I will put a link here and perhaps it should be part of the article. http://www.horrorlair.com/scripts/legend.txt --Jrm2007 (talk) 08:14, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

If you think that's like the book, you haven't read the book in a good long while. Seriously, though, if a link to this script is to be added to the article, we need to know how reliable a source Horror Lair is for this sort of thing. How can we know this is the real thing and not something that someone put together for fun? There have been loads of fake scripts doing the rounds for various other films.
Even if we can be sure it's the real deal, it only warrants being put in the external links unless we can find another reliable source discussing the script. GDallimore (Talk) 22:22, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
Have just seen that it already is in the article - misused as a reference as it happens. More of a "further information" than a reference. The question remains, though: is it from a reliable source? GDallimore (Talk) 22:27, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
Either way, it's unnecessary, so it's gone. But I wouldn't strenuously object to it as an external link, if others were happy with that. In fact, that'd be some kind of copyright violation, so no. Steve T • C 22:51, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
Not a copyright violation per se, but potentially supporting a copyright violation if horrorlair don't have permission to distribute the script, which is possibly as bad legally. Basically, unless we know how horrorlair got this script, we can't link to it, for both my reliability issues and your copyright concerns. GDallimore (Talk) 09:32, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

You know, u are right about the script being pretty far from the novel. In a sense, the movie that was made is actually closer since the "sane" and "insane" vampires of the novel are sort of reflected in the movie whereas the script has none of this. As far as the script's reliability: it is quite long for a fake and if someone else wrote it, why attribute it to Protosevich? I do not know about copyright.--Jrm2007 (talk) 10:41, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Alternate version

How is the 2 disc edition have an alternate film version, is it just the ending or added delted scenes? What are the deleted scenes? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.6.37.146 (talk) 01:07, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

the ending is different but i'll let you watch it to see. there are a few added scenes as well. one where will smith explains that the trap he was caught in is his equipment and is in denile of the fact that the vampires used his trap to make there own trap to get him. there is also a scene of the boy swimming and saying the water is cold which is how will smith gets the idea to put his test subject on ice to lower her body temp. those are the only two i remember being added. there may be more though. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.3.14.113 (talk) 01:42, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Shouldnt there be a section for the alternate version. It was horrible, I watched it in school and we had maybe 4 more minutes to go and my teacher turned of the video, and I want to know how the alternate movie ended. ;_; Dragon queen4ever (talk) 20:18, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I might be wrong but there is also a scene where he discovers a butterfly tatto on the vampire/infected back when brought to the lab. MattyC3350 (talk) 05:59, 13 May 2008 (UTC)


I don't know how to make a new topic, so this is where I'm going to ask, because it seems most relevent here. Is there somwthing anyone can make of the recurring butterfly, where Marley (the daughter) notices it "look daddy, there's a butterfly" (I think that's what she said) and the door shatter cracks form in the shape of a butterfly, and Anna has a butterfly tatoo. (72.253.100.97 (talk) 07:21, 16 May 2008 (UTC))

Well I guess this is a spoiler, not that it hasn't been already... I just saw the movie and it is fresh in my mind, on the 2 disk, saw the unrated version then later looked at the scenes of the original and they all added up except for the part from after they lock themselves in the alpha female's safe room. So the final three scenes from each version are different. I remember the scenes discussed by "24.3.14.113", but can't say whether or not they are deleted from the original, since I didn't watch the movie again straight through and only the final scenes.
Now with the butterfly and here comes the real spoiler I think, in the original version the shape of a butterfly is seen by Neville in the cracked glass and then on Anna's neck as a smaller version of the alpha female's tattoo as he glances over at her. This is used as an awakening for him, as now he knows what he must do. In the unrated they have the rest of the higher brain function and human emotion subplot and after smashing the glass a few times, the alpha male paints the shape of a butterfly on the glass to let Neville know he wants his alpha female, who has a butterfly tattoo on her ankle. This is used to get Neville to put faith in the pack as he puts the situation in their hands.--< Nicht Nein! (talk) 09:01, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism: It Sucks Badly

Several sections have been vandalised ending with "It sucks badly" --82.20.221.55 (talk) 18:28, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

FixedCoffeepusher (talk) 18:31, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Is That Vinegar?

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)Atsubill2

I don't know what it is, but if you do some research on vampires, you would know. Yeah, so if you find out what liquid vampires can't stand, you have your answerDragon queen4ever (talk) 13:04, 5 May 2008 (UTC) They're not vampires in the movie though. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.15.193.236 (talk) 03:47, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Two points here, one is that they are vamps in the book. Two, if a creature that cant stand the light, crave blood, and if you get bitten by one you become one, is not a vampire, what is it?Dragon queen4ever (talk) 18:51, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

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)

I don't remember what they said it was, but the liquid was used to kill his scent so that the vampires, or whatever they are won't smell him and know where he is. Darcphoenix2 (talk) 20:20, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I think that it was alcohol, which would kill off any damaging bacteria and maybe eliminate his smell somewhat. (72.253.100.97 (talk) 07:18, 16 May 2008 (UTC))

[edit] Third or fourth film from the book?

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 [2] and the I Am Omega entry [3]. 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)

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)

[edit] Academic Journal

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)

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, ([[4]]) 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)
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)
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)
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)

[edit] Alternative ending is real, on DVD

Not sure how to cite any of this so I will give you a link and you can go at it.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4050675069536850106&q=I+am+Legend&ei=9XxHSNvrOoSwrAP-kJm6DA&hl=eN —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.20.4.93 (talk) 05:53, 5 June 2008 (UTC)