I have just seen Underworld

[hong]

And my god, it rocks. Maybe not like The Rock, but it still rocks.

Somebody described it as being like a Vampire LARP on film. I have no idea what they mean by that. Heck, if I ever run a LARP, I want it to look as stylish and badass as the people (creatures? monsters? protagonists?) in this movie. Screw the content, I'm here for the pose value.

Good points: Pacing. Cinematography (who needs yellow?). Gun fights galore, featuring people who actually look like they know how to use a gun. Kate's ass. Kate's acting, to show she's not just a pretty ass. Lucien the badass werewolf. Michael the hapless human. No poorly-timed comic moments that spoil the mood.

Not-so-good points: That mumbo-jumbo about silver nitrate, UV bullets, genetic engineering and viruses that kill <s>normals</s> humans if vampires bite them -- the World of Darkness version of midichlorans. Craven's silly overacting. Giving Kate's vampire the name "Selene", because SHE'S A VAMPIRE, NO REALLY, WE MEAN IT, LOOK AT HER NAME DAMMIT.

Points I noticed, but couldn't give a stuff about: Paper-thin plot -- it's all about style, not substance. Lack of fidelity to historical legends and folklore re vampires and werewolves. They're all superhumans who can do OTT stunts, what more do you need? Vampires == ninjas for the 21st century, and once this is realised, it all starts to make sense.

This is the best advertising White Wolf could have hoped for as they start to roll out World of Darkness 2.0, and I say this as someone who's never, in fact, played Vampire or read Anne Rice. If it means I can be a badass who wears black vinyl jumpsuits, mows down mooks with abandon, drives a Maserati, and has the "Never Needs Ammunition" feat, then sign me up.

 

[Dirigible]

Points I noticed, but couldn't give a stuff about ... Vampires == ninjas for the 21st century, and once this is realised, it all starts to make sense.

I fully agree with you here. Does that make werewolves pirates? Coooool.

Giving Kate's vampire the name "Selene", because SHE'S A VAMPIRE, NO REALLY, WE MEAN IT, LOOK AT HER NAME DAMMIT.

Plus, it means moon. Mys-teeeeer-ious *wiggles fingers* Now, if her opposite number had been called McFanggy...

It kinda remined me of Blade + Ultraviolet. But not as good. As Ultraviolet. It would have to be a cold day in hell to be worse than Blade.

 

[diaglo]

i saw it yesterday also. i was hoping for a nekked shot of Kate. oh well. at least she looks good in vinyl.

not much plot. not much sense for background. the flashback stuff sucks.

but for high action...no stupid jokes. it was great.

 

[hong]

I fully agree with you here. Does that make werewolves pirates? Coooool.

Probably. This is why the werewolves always LOSE!

Plus, it means moon. Mys-teeeeer-ious *wiggles fingers* Now, if her opposite number had been called McFanggy...

One of the players IMC has that sort of habit. His tank fighter was named Herc Stormbringer. His healer cleric was named Carmen Broodlove.

Mmm.

It kinda remined me of Blade + Ultraviolet. But not as good. As Ultraviolet. It would have to be a cold day in hell to be worse than Blade.

I never saw Blade, and I've never really felt that I missed out on a classic of modern cinema. But I thought Ultraviolet wasn't out yet?

Ah, I see you're talking about THIS Ultraviolet: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0169501/

Yeah, the problem with political-intrigue stories is that there's just so much stuff going on, it's hard to fit it all into 2 hours. Underworld did have that compressed feel to it, where you get the feeling that they really need a miniseries to do justice to all the backstory. Still, I've heard that a sequel/prequel is already in the works, so perhaps they'll have the chance to expand on all that.

Or maybe they'll just concentrate on the fights. Which is fine by me too.

 

[Umbran]

Plus, it means moon. Mys-teeeeer-ious *wiggles fingers* Now, if her opposite number had been called McFanggy...

Oh, it's more blatant than just being "mysterious". One vampire is named "Kraven", and he's not exactly a brave hero, now is he? Another is named "Selene" (which as you point out means "moon"), and she's the thing that brings out the beast in Michael....

And Michael is the archangel of war and fire, and what does he bring with him? Whoever made up these names had watched The Matrix a bit to often

 

[hong]

Kraven I can dig. Heck, it's more common than Selene. I actually know real people called Kraven (although it's usually spelled with a C). Ditto with Michael.

The thing is that these names, while having a mythic subtext, are actually plausible as names for real people; and thus are not conspicuous. Selene OTOH is a names that skirts the boundary, and sometimes falls on the wrong side of it.

 

[SkidAce]

Celene is a common name...so Selene plus the moon inferences is kinda clever and along the same lines as the rest of the names.

 

[hong]

So anyway, I just saw Underworld for the second time last night, and this time the flaws that various people pointed out are more noticeable. The plot is full of holes, some big enough to drive Kate Beckinsale's Maserati through. The scenes in the mansion are just so much window dressing. The ammunition expenditure verges on the ludicrous. Speedman's Michael basically spends the whole movie as a hapless bystander; even in his climactic fight with Viktor, he doesn't exactly shine. The use of a sword in the final fight scene is incongruous, given the emphasis on gunfights in the rest of the movie, and KB looks like she doesn't have a clue which is the sharp end. None of the characters are particularly deep, and some are woefully underused (eg whatsername the blonde, Kraven's wannabe mistress).

And yet I still thought the movie rocked on toast. I've been thinking about just why this is. Long ramble follows; why the heck I'm posting this is beyond me. Maybe it's because I HATE YOU ALL! Or something.

I think it's because Underworld feels, to me, a LOT like an idealised RPG session put on film. Its priorities are very similar to what my priorities are, as a DM/GM. I don't put great emphasis on storyline; as long as events can be arranged into a semi-coherent sequence, that's good enough for me. Ditto for Underworld: there's nothing in here that hasn't been seen N times already, but since the same can be said for most of my adventures, I'm happy to let it slide.

I also don't put great emphasis on complex characterisation. All I want is broad-brush stuff: Joe is the brooding loner, Bob is the stout fighter, Mary is the idealistic crusader, etc. Character development -- is that stuff like when you go from 3rd to 4th level? And again, Underworld is a bit like this. The characters aren't _completely_ vacuous, but we're not talking James Joyce here.

What I DO want in a game is action in spades, featuring characters whose exploits are larger than life. I don't just mean tactical wargaming, with maps and minis etc (although I'll use them). I mean fast, furious action, where the stunts, atmosphere and adrenalin are sufficient to make people forget about the shortcomings mentioned above. And on this count, Underworld delivers. The action sequences are some of the best I've seen for a while, and if I could capture that feel in a game, I'd beable to die happy. The cinematography and soundtrack all contribute to that vibe; whatever vampires may be, you know that they're more than just human.

And of course, there's Kate. Personally, in my games I prefer characters who kick butt and take names, but are more than just psychotic killers. A violent character who exists only to be violent is just a munchkin, as far as I'm concerned. Selene may be a killer, but KB does a good enough job of convincing me that the character still has a soul (metaphorically speaking, at least). The fact that she's a knockout in black vinyl also doesn't hurt, but isn't a requirement of PCs IMC.

Now let's see what I definitely DON'T want in a game. I DON'T want lots of NPCs mouthing platitudes or getting deep into pseudo-philosophical waffle. The Matrix had action in spades, but it kept getting its head stuck up its fundament on this count. While Underworld takes itself seriously, it also doesn't take things so seriously that it gets bogged down.

I DON'T want NPCs overshadowing the PCs. The main characters should be more interesting than the supporting cast, and so it is with Underworld. Selene basically carries the movie, and that's what I want to see. Michael is a bit of a loser, but that's what happens when you're a Real Roleplayer thrust into a Real Man's game (cf Real Men, Real Roleplayers, Loonies and Munchkins). He does well enough in the scenes where it matters, as does Lucien.

I DON'T want a game that's self-consciously a parody. I don't have a problem with funny stuff in a game, and I'm quite capable of making up my own humour on the spot. For that, though, I need source material that plays things straight; I'll probably never play something like Hackmaster or Toon, for instance. Again, this is basically what Underworld is like. The black-trenchcoat look is something that would be very easy to lampoon, but to its credit, it doesn't do that. No, it lets me do it myself, which is very gracious indeed.

Hmm.

 

[Atridis]

And yet I still thought the movie rocked on toast. [...]I think it's because Underworld feels, to me, a LOT like an idealised RPG session put on film.

Fascinating. No, really, I'm not being sarcastic. Is there a "non-sarcasm" tag?

I'm quite the opposite from you. In fact, I've always felt a little frustrated that my role-playing games failed to reproduce aspects of the movies and television shows that are such a huge inspiration for them.

One of the reasons I was so disappointed with Underworld is exactly the same reason that you liked it: It seemed as though someone had simply put their World of Darkness campaign on film. Frankly, if this had been a World of Darkness campaign, I'd be knocking people out of the way to go play in it; in another thread I described the mansion scenes as "really good LARPers, with a budget."

 

[hong]

I'm quite the opposite from you. In fact, I've always felt a little frustrated that my role-playing games failed to reproduce aspects of the movies and television shows that are such a huge inspiration for them.

I used to feel that way. Then I realised that all I was doing was giving myself an ulcer, and I'd be better off concentrating on making my game into something uniquely my own, rather than trying to emulate someone else's work in some other medium.

One of the reasons I was so disappointed with Underworld is exactly the same reason that you liked it: It seemed as though someone had simply put their World of Darkness campaign on film. Frankly, if this had been a World of Darkness campaign, I'd be knocking people out of the way to go play in it; in another thread I described the mansion scenes as "really good LARPers, with a budget."

See, I don't understand the distinction at all. If something is enjoyable, then it's enjoyable, right? If you could have fun with it as an RPG, why not have fun with it on the big screen?