Was there any CG in I Am Legend?
I haven't seen "I Am Legend," but I feel impelled to comment on the faux-book "Children of Men" dig: I am not surprised that people would take that sort of approach in critiquing "Children of Men" because the narrative takes two liberties that often turn people off: 1. future happenings based on conjecture2. implied story tellingBut the thing is--in my opinion--is that Cuarón and company execute this to the epitome of (arguably) the single most important and defining film characteristic: showing and not telling. My argument for this is neatly supported in the DVD extras by renowned thinkers and experts in the fields they are exposing over. The creators of "Children" have a very specific philosophy on the trajectory of our future. The argument should be based on the merit of the ideas on the DVD and the degree of expertise they were presented. My point is that it is quite easy to miss the substance of the film if you are unaware of the rich ideas Cuarón is exercising in its making.Sorry to divert this thread to something completely different from where it began. I just got all hot and heavy from whatever yahoo photoshoped that faux-"Dummie" cover. But maybe this person was correct in the irrelevancy of “Children,” because maybe only he had the foresight to know that “Children’s” dystopian view of the future will never come to be now that Obama is president and we don't actually ever have to worry about anything bad ever happening again. Hooray!
Obviously I didn't illustrate this well enough for some of the more enlightened people of this world. Ok, the point of the faux-book is not a dig on 'Children'. It's meant to imply that 'I Am Legend' could be titled 'Children of Men for Dummies'. This would insinuate that if a person did not like 'Children of Men' they might enjoy a much more dumbed down version of an "End of the human race" movie. Thereby giving praise to 'Children of Men' as it is the far superior of the two. But I am not surprised that someone misread the book cover since the blog entry itself doesn't spell it out for the reader to understand, like I'm having to do now. I am surprised, however, that someone who can intellectually dissect the concept of a film (by watching the DVD extras) can misconstrue the concept of the dummies book. Can you just smell the irony brewing here? I am also left pondering the meaning of the rest of Ben's response. I really have no fucking clue what he is trying to say. Seriously, I've read it six times and brain is a piece of shit for trying to make sense of it. Even the forced political statement at the end is cryptic. The only sentence that makes an ounce of sense is when he admits to diverting this thread to something completely different. Yes, he hit the nail on the head there.