least not well enough to say I know them well) and they still struck me as
essentially rehashings of old ideas. Good rehashing of old ideas (you�re
talking to somebody that LOVES good rehashings of old ideas) but I don�t
remember anything that would be specifically lawsuit worthy.
I guess I�m stuck on the idea that I didn�t see anything explicitly taken
from the books (or at least nothing taken from the books that the books
didn�t take from someplace else) in the movie. They are definitely
complimentary and obviously would have both enjoyed the same parties, but
the movie still seemed much more �Romeo and Juliet� than anything else.
I found a copy of the complaint and it was pretty ludicrous. Very specific
about certain things. For example infringement because:
+) One of the vampires is killed by sunlight.
+) Silver harms werewolves.
+) Werewolves are able to change their form at will.
+) (and I LOVE this one) �werewolves and vampires can injure or kill each
other with their teeth and claws�
I�m not sure, there may be something there but the vast majority of the
points are nothing more than common folklore (they actually claim
infringement because in one scene �underworld� made a vampire appear
�bat-like�). Those points that seem more damning are also those that seem
most unoriginal (to me). Things like calling vampires �bloods� or having
the families sentence the star-crossed lovers to death.
Also many of them are just plain stupid. For example:
�In World of Darkness wood does not kill vampires. In Underworld the
werewolves do not use wood to kill vampires, nor mention it as an option.�
That almost seems like they�re citing them for NOT having an idea. Couldn�t
we have a huge list of those? Maybe �In World of Darkness reruns of �The
Jeffersons� does not kill vampires..� or �In World of Darkness marshmallow
peeps do not kill vampires�� and so forth
In short it just seems like they were desperately throwing things against
the wall to get something, anything to stick.
Here�s the original complaint:
http://www.geeklife.com/files/whitewolf.complaint.pdf
All that being said I still think that both works are well done, but at the
same time I think their both incredibly derivative of centuries-old source
material.
Jim Davis
_____
From: Lyons, Larry [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, April 14, 2004 1:27 PM
To: CF-Community
Subject: RE: Weekend movies
Too many of the movie's elements looked like they were directly taken from
those books and games. Too many for it to be coincidental or just tapping
into the same archetypical concepts.
larry
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jim Davis [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Wednesday, April 14, 2004 1:15 PM
> To: CF-Community
> Subject: RE: Weekend movies
>
>
> I knew about the lawsuit, but just didn't see that much to
> crow about... the most fundamental concepts in the film are
> more archetypical than anything else. It just seemed more
> "Romeo and Juliet" than "White Wolf" at any stretch.
>
>
>
> Sure some of the concepts are shared, but those that are just
> didn't seem that original or innovative (to me at least).
>
>
>
> Jim Davis
>
>
>
> _____
>
> From: Lyons, Larry [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Wednesday, April 14, 2004 12:58 PM
> To: CF-Community
> Subject: RE: Weekend movies
>
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Jim Davis [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Sent: Wednesday, April 14, 2004 12:37 PM
> > To: CF-Community
> > Subject: RE: Weekend movies
> >
> > I did like "Underworld" and loved some of the concepts
> > (although much of it was clichéd), but was really let down by
> > the ending... the creature effects at the ends just really
> > didn't do it for me at all and although they were trying for
> > "epic" with the battle it just deflated.
> >
>
> Having being very familiar with the mythos behind White
> wolf's Masquerade
> and its companion RPG for werewolf's, it was painfully
> obvious what the
> movie was based on. Enough so that White Wolf Games tried to
> stop the film
> http://www.white-wolf.com/News/underworldrelease2.html
>
> larry
>
> This electronic communication, together with any attachments,
> may contain
> information that is legally privileged, confidential or
> otherwise private.
> The information is intended only for the use of the
> individual or entity to
> which it is addressed. If you are not the intended recipient,
> please be
> aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of
> the contents of
> this communication or any attachment is strictly prohibited.
> If you have
> received this communication in error, please immediately
> notify the original
> sender and delete the received information from your system.
> Thank you.
>
> _____
>
>
>
>
_____
[Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings]
