So how close was Underworld to White Wolf's setting?

[Staffan]

True, but vampires from the World of Darkness are descended from Caine, who was cursed by God with vampirism as punishment for killing Abel (actually, God had some angels curse Caine, but he's the man who gave the order). Notice the "e" in Caine; not exactly biblical canon. But, Lilith was Caine's lover/teacher right after he was cursed according to World of Darkness teachings.

Or at least that's what the vampire myth says. Whether that's what actually happened is another question. I think only up to the 3rd generation (Antedeluvians, the ancestors of the clans) are actually known to exist.

 

[Enforcer]

Or at least that's what the vampire myth says. Whether that's what actually happened is another question. I think only up to the 3rd generation (Antedeluvians, the ancestors of the clans) are actually known to exist.

I'm pretty sure it's "true." From the new and soon to be defunct Demon game we at least that the World of Darkness has a real judeo-christian God...Caine isn't a big stretch from there.

 

[reiella]

True, but vampires from the World of Darkness are descended from Caine, who was cursed by God with vampirism as punishment for killing Abel (actually, God had some angels curse Caine, but he's the man who gave the order). Notice the "e" in Caine; not exactly biblical canon. But, Lilith was Caine's lover/teacher right after he was cursed according to World of Darkness teachings.

Not to pull it too off topic.

But alot of that depends on your "beliefs" in WoD. The majority of vampires believe Caine to be the first, there's a small sect/path who believe that Lillith herself was the first. And there's even the Cycle of Lilith to run contrary to the Book of Nod.

On topicality.

The biggest WoD claim is similiar use of the word abomination. Many of the other WhiteWolf (World of Darkness) claims were just blatantly wrong.

The book complaint has more potential (although not really for the movie itself, but supposed prequel Bloodlines).

 

[jdavis]

Not to pull it too off topic.

But alot of that depends on your "beliefs" in WoD. The majority of vampires believe Caine to be the first, there's a small sect/path who believe that Lillith herself was the first. And there's even the Cycle of Lilith to run contrary to the Book of Nod.

On topicality.

The biggest WoD claim is similiar use of the word abomination. Many of the other WhiteWolf (World of Darkness) claims were just blatantly wrong.

The book complaint has more potential (although not really for the movie itself, but supposed prequel Bloodlines).

I didn't see any White Wolf claims that were blatently wrong, they were all there it's just there were a ton of differences there too. That there were lots and lots of marked differences between White Wolf creatures and the movie creatures doesn't make their claims blatently wrong. I also don't think the biggest of White Wolfs claims was the abomination bit, it was the short story bit, almost all their points revolved around stuff that was in the short story (like the abominations, the werewolf having to watch his vampire lover killed by sunlight, the master coming out of Torpor to take care of the situation,etc...) I guess I'm just going to have to find a copy of the short story and read it myslef to see just how close it is. Without the short story I really doubt there would be a lawsuit.

 

[reiella]

I didn't see any White Wolf claims that were blatently wrong, they were all there it's just there were a ton of differences there too. That there were lots and lots of marked differences between White Wolf creatures and the movie creatures doesn't make their claims blatently wrong. I also don't think the biggest of White Wolfs claims was the abomination bit, it was the short story bit, almost all their points revolved around stuff that was in the short story (like the abominations, the werewolf having to watch his vampire lover killed by sunlight, the master coming out of Torpor to take care of the situation,etc...) I guess I'm just going to have to find a copy of the short story and read it myslef to see just how close it is. Without the short story I really doubt there would be a lawsuit.

A few.

#74, Werewolves and Vampires were not depicted as natural enemies in the actual history.

Spoiler

The history of how the war actually started. Werewolves before that point were guards and servants of the vampires.

#86

Spoiler

The ruling party was solely based on age, not an artistocratic noble house. Although in the elder's absense, it went to a proxy.

#92 This one was rather blatantly wrong to me. The term "embrace" as specifically quoted in the complaint was not used.

Spoiler

"Turn" was used. And of course, "bite him" was also used.

Others (And I'm sure some of the ones I listed ) depend somewhat on interpretation (86 comes to mind specifically for that), or some extrapolation without explicit quoted terms in the complaint (Marcus looks 'bat like'). There were also a couple items in the complaint that didn't make too much sense to me either (From the World of Darkness side ).

And sorry about you losing Super Trivia to the guy with the Huge Brain (Bah can't even remember his name now). 50 Bar Bucks aren't that much anyway.

[ Edit / Add ]
And well, I was differenating White Wolf (World of Darkness) claims with the Collins claims (The Love of Monsters), and hence that distinction.

 

[reapersaurus]

Before I saw the movie, it seemed fairly similar, from previews and whatnot. After seeing it, I'm much less convinced.

This was a damn good post, and one of the only ones that analyzes the movie vs WW claims.

ON paper, and superficially, Underworld DOES seem like a blatant ripoff of WW.
The closer you look at it, there ARE differences, maybe even enough to say that they are different works.

However, I think the crux of WW's argument (and the strength of the case) is that when you look at the movie quickly, anyone who is exposed to or knows of WW's material will see blatant similarities. Ironically, the more one knows of WW's material, the easier it would be to pick out the differences with Underworld.
Since I highly doubt that the judge will be well-versed in WW (or the jury, if it is a jury trial), so this phenomenon (I think) will strongly help WW's case.

As for my opinion personally, I saw the film with my wife and we both were pointing out things THROUGHOUT the film that are in WW, so there is enough justification that WW HAD to sue to protect their property.
Having said that, I DO think that Underworld included enough unique interpretations that it stands on its own as a piece of vampire/werewolf film. With 2+ hours, I would certainly HOPE that the film could put something unique enough to not be a blatant ripoff.

So personally, it boils down to: HOW close does something have to be to another property before you can call it derivative, or sue them for copying?

This whole thing has made me really think about some aspects:
* WW has done SO MUCH stuff in this arena, I doubt if there's that many ideas/expressions of vampire/werewolf left that they haven't done in some form.
Does this mean that noone else should be able to create a piece of work with vampires or werewolves in it without crediting WW? And what does that MEAN, to credit WW? Do they get a % of the profits? Or a flat sum up front? What would that up-front fee be based on?

* As a fan of the genre, I would like to see a lot of WW's ideas be taken up and used in mainstream media, so does that mean I should want this suit to fail, so filmmakers can feel free to raid all the cool stuff WW has created/cobbled together?

* How much of a movie needs to be copied before you cry foul? Perfect example is Blade, where (as I recall) they had no need to use Houses of Clans - it was a throw-away thing in the movie, yet blatantly copied from WW. I thought that was cheap of Blade, and pretty tacky.
On the other hand, a lot of Underworld's copying is in tone and things that are not on the surface. It just kind of infused the movie - permeating it, unlike Blade's accessory (but more blatant copy) of Clan Houses.

 

[nikolai]

The one part that screamed WoD to me was the "abomination". The concept of it could go either way, and the method of creating one wasn't the same as the game world, but to use that name for that concept was pretty blatent.

How many names can actually be used for abominations*? If you want something more catchy than "werewolf-vampire hybrid" how many other options are there**?

Frankly, the "similar names are used" points (elders, covens, child, embrace, abominations) are blindingly obvious extensions of common english words. They've also been used before in similar contexts. This portion of the case is a load of nonsense. Would it really be a good idea to have those how do the next vampire film thinking: "well we can get rid of the garlic and stuff, but we'll have to have an ancient convert the werewolf to make a defilement"?

nikolai.

* Please, don't report me to WW for using the term.

** Roget (c. 1911) would have us believe ten: "defilement, contamination &c. v.; defoedation|; soilure[obs3], soiliness|; abomination; leaven; taint, tainture|; fetor" you'll have convert them from a verb to a noun sensibly though.

 

[Klaatu B. Nikto]

White Wolf can't put too much claim on Abomination since Marvel Comics has had it way longer. But that'd be a frivoulous lawsuit considering the two Abominations have little in common, unlike the Hulk connection (Incredible Hulk vs. Hulk Hogan) listed elsewhere, if it's true.

 

[Caliber]

Its funny you mention the Incredible Hulk.

Spoiler

One of the first things my friend told me when we got out of the movie was that the "Abomination" at the end reminded him of a cross between the Incredible Hulk and Wolverine.

Speaking of Marvel in general, I know Blade is based on the Marvel Vampire Hunter of the same name. Did they have "houses" or "clans" of Vampires in the Blade comic? I always thought they did ...

 

[paulewaug]

Isn't the only time "Abomination" used in the movie when

Spoiler

Viktor makes reference to the bastard offspring of Lucian and his daughter?

Anyhow it seemed to be used more for an actual statement of personal feeling used to describe something abhorrent by a character I would basically call a racist, or at least a "supremacist."
Also I have seen someone mention "the Book of Nod" (sorry if I spelled it wrong I am not knowledgeable of WW)
And I would have to say that just because they have an old book does not mean they ripped off the book of Nod,

If Lovecraft has an estate couldn't his people sue WW for infringing on his intellectual property by having a book of dark knowledge just as the Necronomicon?!

If you say "they are not the same thing" then I think my point is clear.

Personally, as I said, I am not very knowledgeable about the WoD and If they did steal stuff then they should have to pay some $$, but one way or the other I don't care too much as long as they make more movies like this.

I enjoyed it a lot and would gladly see more, although I am not down with "ripping people off,. From the sound of things here though that doesn't seem to be the case? If so that is very good news!