Talk:The Last Man

Novels: Sci-fi / 19th century Mid‑importance

	Novels portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Novels, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to novels, novellas, novelettes and short stories on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and contribute to the general Project discussion to talk over new ideas and suggestions.NovelsWikipedia:WikiProject NovelsTemplate:WikiProject Novelsnovel articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by Science fiction task force.
	This article is supported by 19th century task force.

Women writers Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women writers, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of women writers on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women writersWikipedia:WikiProject Women writersTemplate:WikiProject Women writersWomen writers articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Untitled

But what is it about? -Branddobbe 05:07, Feb 22, 2004 (UTC)

Plot summary

Poorly written and confusing, with characters mentioned without introducing them or explaining who they are. Needs to be rewritten. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.180.44.133 (talk) 18:52, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Year

I don't think it's set in the twenty-first century, I'm fairly certain it was set in the twenty-second. (DrZarkov 00:06, 10 December 2006 (UTC))[reply]

It's set in the year 2097: twenty-first century.137.166.4.130 16:24, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Analysis

I'm removing the analysis section because it's poorly thought out, unreferenced, and written in the essay, instead of encyclopedic, format. This really is unacceptable, all of the current printings of the book contain extensive analysis section in the Foreword and Introductions, so there's no need to add unsourced statements. (216.165.147.48 18:21, 18 December 2006 (UTC))[reply]

MEMZAT10 50.40.162.26 (talk) 00:00, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Correct Film URLS

Removed:

The Last Man on Earth (1924) released by Fox Film Corporation
It's Great to Be Alive (1933) also released by Fox

Neither Fox comedy qualifies as an adaptation of this title. These two obviously unrelated comedy films (about worlds populated exclusively by women, fighting over one man) are not based direcly, or even indirectly, upon Shelley's title, nor do they attempt to interpret or adapt any aspect of her story, thematic elements or characterizations whatsoever. There are 4 films based on this novel. I'm not good at formatting information for wiki articles, so i am not able to make the change on the page. The 1964 film The Last Man on Earth is directly based on the novel, as is 1971's The Omega Man. The 2007 film is a remake of the 1964 version based on the book. Also to be released in 2007 is a remake of The Omega Man titled I Am Legend. So it is very incorrect to say that the 2007 film The Last Man is the verst adaptation of the movie, it is the 3rd of 4. Filmarizona 06:39, 2 May 2007 (UTC)Filarizona[reply]

You are incorrect. Those are based on Richard Matheson's novel, I Am Legend, and have nothing to do with Shelley's novel. The films listed at the top are based on the concept of a world of women with no men, which has nothing to do with Shelley's concept, nor with Matheson's concept about a world full of vampire-like people. --Scottandrewhutchins 15:24, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Scott is correct: Richard Matheson's novel "I Am Legend" is an original work as well as the source material for the three films "The Last Man On Earth", "The Omega Man" and the upcoming Will Smith film, "I Am Legend". Filmarizona 02:35, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The following personal speculations and errors have been deleted from the facts:

"Based on the film's website it appears that very little of the book, with the exception of some character names, was used in this adaption. Specific examples include:

Featuring weapons that are used to fight off the Diseased, which is contrary to the book where the inflicited are cared for by the survivors until they die.

The invention of military grade Small Pox as the source of the plague. The source of the plague is never mentioned in the book.

Even some characters appear to be different such as Lionel's wife Idris now being called "Captain Idris" (denoting a military or law enforement rank) and Adrian, who becomes the Lord Protector (or what we call Prime Minister) in the novel being called Dr. Adrian in the cast list."

Filmarizona 20:05, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's understood that film adaptations are never verbatim transpositions from book to screen. Since no one has seen the script or the movie at this point, providing "details" is not encyclopedic. I've actually read the book and it's a foregone conclusion to me that the major problems between Shelley's vision of the 21st century and the actually 21st century have probably been corrected. It might be interesting if Lionel Verney was living in a 21st century that was no different than the 19th century, like in the book, but that seems like more of an alternate universe story.

Therefore, the following was removed.

"The film deviates from the novel by including such elements as mutant hordes, high tech weaponry and the reimagining of some characters (ie: Idris who was a mother and wife in the novel is a referred to as "Captain" in the film credits, and Adrian, who becomes the leader of the English survivors in the novel is referred to as a doctor in the film's credits)."

Filmarizona 21:25, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is considered common knowledge in the film industry that an “adaptation” is considered a faithful translation of a source material, including significant plot points, characters and themes, and that “inspired by” is commonly used to indicate a film uses some elements from the source material but also adds new elements or makes changes to the source material that are significantly different than the intentions of the author of the source material. The use of mutant hordes and high tech weaponry signal a vast thematic shift from the source material, in which the diseased where cared for by the main characters even after they succumbed to the plague. After careful examination of the book there is no conceivable way the effects of the plague could be construed as the result of a “weaponized strain of Small Pox” which is unleashed by “black marketers” as the film’s website describes. Furthermore, mutant hordes of the infected bare no resemblance to any element found in the book, nor was their any passage of the book that featured violence or weapons (high tech or otherwise) being used against the infected. Based on the information contained in the film’s website there is no way anyone familiar with the source material can claim that this film is a true adaptation of Mary Shelly’s novel. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.20.127.229 (talk) 20:40, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

roman a clef

I have often seen it said that this is a roman a clef. Shouldn't this be mentioned (with refs.)? Kdammers 17:16, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ADAPTATIONS

69.223.139.66 Please note that this section is for film, TV and theater adaptations. Thanks.Filmarizona 00:50, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Y: The Last Man bears absolutely no resemblance to Shelley's novel, so stop adding it. In Shelley's novel, unlike Y, everyone dies off, not just the men. The word "Man" in the title is used in the more general sense as was common in 1824. --Scottandrewhutchins 20:01, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"The last man on earth" silent movie & "its great to be alive" comedy are not from this book. they are same as Y:the last man comic book idea of one man left in a world full of women. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.32.211.22 (talk) 20:17, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The terms "inspired by" and "based upon" denote that source material is non-fiction. This book is fiction and can only be ADAPTED from a book to the screen. The Last Man is absolutely a work of fiction, trust me.Filmarizona 05:35, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

this movie.

I don't think I've ever seen another article about a 19th century novel that had an external link to a movie adaptation's website.

You don't think? See H.G. Wells War OF The Worlds or any of the 18th century novels referenced in this article. If they were adapted into a film, they've got links to those movies. It's too simple not to notice.

The fact that the movie isn't even out yet and isn't being made by a major studio, and the spammy description makes it even more inappropriate. I don't think this complies with WP:EL or adds anything for the reader.P4k (talk) 05:43, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think you need to read all of WP:EL before vandalizing an article in the future..Filmarizona (talk) 01:50, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Missing bibliography

Here are some more resources, as promised:

Franci, Giovanni, "A Mirror of the Future: Vision and Apocalypse in Mary Shelley's The Last Many" in Mary Shelley edited by Harold Bloom, pp. 181-191. New York: Chelsea House, 1985. Translated by Giovanni Franci. (I can scan if needed, the Bloom work also has some other passing references and comparisons to other works by Mary and Percy)
Goldsmith, Steven. "Of Gender, Plague, and Apocalypse: Mary Shelley's Last Man, Yale Journal of Criticism, 4 (1990), 129-173.
Luke, Hugh M "The Last Man: Mary Shelley's Myth of Solitary", Prairie Schooner, 39 (1965-1966), 316-327.
Porte, Joel. "In the Hands of an Angry God: Religious Terror in Gothic Fiction" in The Gothic Imagination: Essays in Dark Romanticism edited by G. R. Thompson, pp. 42-64. Pullman: Washington State University Press, 1974.
Sambrook, A. J. "A Romantic Theme : The Last Man" Forum for Modern Language Studies 2 (1966), 25-33.
Sunstein, Emily W. Mary Shelley: Romance and Reality. Boston: Little Brown, 1989.

Two incorrect names (maybe) Snyder, Robert Lance I think is Snyder, Robert Lane and Spatt, Hartley S. is Spratt, Hartley S. Double check to make sure. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:14, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the ending of the summary says he plans to look for survivors. I took the ending as to be he is indulging in literature, buried in his imagination because nothing else exists, while sailing around aimlessly. Its not a big issue, just my take. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:17, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mistake

It says in the "Introduction" section that the man lived at the end of the 21st century, but at the end of the "Plot" section that the novel ends in the year three thousand. Perhaps whoever wrote this meant at the end of the second millenium, or the year 2100? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.13.86.65 (talk) 19:54, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Omega men

This sounds much like I Am Legend & "The Omega Man". Is there any relationship to them? TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 10:55, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

gain insight "to"?

(in the second sentence of the article,) wouldn't it be "gain insight into"? I'm not a native English speaker, so I don't know for sure 94.134.203.232 (talk) 08:25, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]