No matter how hard directors and screenwriters try, it is impossible for any movie to be a perfect reflection of the detailed plot and intricate characters presented in a novel. I had watched the film adaption of Richard Matheson’s I Am Legend prior to reading the book, I was very aware of major differences from the get go. The to main categories that I could see differences being placed in were emotion and action. Many aspects of the book were changed to emphasize both either emotion or action for the film. Considering pieces of literature cannot be easily transferred to the screen, few of these changes were very necessary. There were a few changes in general that were very out there and obvious, though the reason for the change is not very …show more content…
The vampires of conscious and cohesive thought were changed to aggressive zombies who can do nothing but yell and fight. The novel clearly shows that the vampires were capable of clear communication to the point of effectively taunting Neville. Whereas in the film, they do not know where he lives due to the fact that he can easily keep this information from them, as well they are simply the constant fight. Their main purpose in the film is to carry the action. Last but not least the ending of the plot most definitely had its changes from print to screen. In Matheson’s original plot line, Neville inevitably gets captured by the vampires and is eventually killed off for the same reason he was trying to kill them. He posed a threat. In the film, however, he sacrificed himself so that two survivors may take the newly found cure to a survivors camp. In both our protagonist passes, though at different costs. There were multiple differences between the movie and the book, though the plot was undoubtedly the same. The general idea of the only man on earth pinned against a diseased population was still evident through all the hollywood extras. All in all, I would recommend both book and movie to anyone who