The book was amazing. With so many adaptations of the book, why aren't any of them faithful to this masterpiece?
They got the dog in there, but didn't follow the story. They got the girl, but didn't follow the story. They got the vampires (sorta), but didn't follow the story.
I haven't read the book in 30 years, but it was so great I still remember it.
One of the great mysteries of the universe - why does Hollywood have to muck up already great things? Although I did enjoy The Omega Man if only for Heston’s awesome conversations with himself.
shareExcept for Neville's far to often alcoholic episodes and the ending which I thought made revenge seem right I thought the novel was good. I think the main reason the films never get made close to the novel is the wrong beliefs that vampires are nothing special now/overdone and that audiences would never believe Neville's "scientific" explanations for them. Also, it might be that filmmakers find it difficult to explain the people dying from the plague coming back as vampires. The novel only states that the virus brings them back but does not say how or even if they are simply reanimated corpses or have at least a halfway working heart or circulatory system. In the novel, Ruth says they are dead but also that their brains are damaged. So it is unclear what she means by saying they are dead.
Vampires in the novel has never been portrayed in any movie or television show. The closest has been 1935's Condemned to Live and 1992's television series Forever Knight. Both these had the vampiric condition related somewhat to an illness/virus and many still ridicule both for this type of portrayal which makes no sense.
That is weird that people can accept science-based zombies but not science-based vampires. Morbius will likely do it (if the comics are anything to go by).
BTW, Blade 2 and the Korean movie The Thirst have vampires made from science and they’re pretty good.
There's no such thing as "science-based zombies". Science based vampires? Sure, that can actually be a thing. But it's more cool to have them as mythical beings :D
shareWhen I say science-based, I'm referring to zombies being created through radiation, a virus, or some other sci-fi means as opposed to magic or something. The same goes for vampires. Vampirism being created through a virus seems just as legit as vampirism being created through a supernatural curse.
shareThere've been plenty of movies with that kind of vampires ... and even the ones that are more "mythical" their creation is mostly un-explained ...
Vampirism is more likely to be created through science. Zombies are impossible as science goes.
But nothing in nature would make a human who has no heartbeat or circulatory function. That is only made by magical/supernatural means. And even when you have the infected like in 28 Days or 28 weeks later, these were living people. It is more accurate to call them cannibalistic, not zombies.
shareNah, those are still zombie movies.
shareRichard Matheson has to be one of the most undervalued writers. He wrote a memorable WWII novel in The Beardless Warriors, a unique afterlife novel in What Dreams May Come, a few fine westerns like Journal of the Gun Years, a superb haunted house novel Hell House, a fascinating Sf novel The Shrinking Man, and the dystopian novel I Am Legend. On top of all that, he wrote the teleplay for the classic vampire tv movie The Night Stalker. He even wrote a time travel romance in Somewhere in Time, which I have not yet read. That is quite a varied list of genres.
shareYes. I wish I could give you a thumbs up.
shareGood entertainment.