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

[billd91]

<snip>
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.

<snip>
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!

Would the Lovecraft estate, or Arkham House Publishing depending on who has the rights, complain about a book of dark knowledge? Depends. Is the book of dark knowledge written by a mad arab who writes about alien gods and is then ripped apart in public by invisible demons? If so, I would hope they'd sue. Otherwise, books of dark knowledge aren't exactly unique. It's the details that make it infringement and not the generalities.
Now, with respect to the movie vs WW, I'm not so sure the consensus is that WW isn't being ripped off. I think we can agree, generally, that the general trappings of werewolves and vampires aren't all that unique. It's the actual screenplay of the movie compared to the short story that will be the most important in the courts. If they are close enough that a jury would find it unreasonable for the movie's story developers/ screenwriters to not have been influenced by the short story, then WW should be rewarded with due damages. And from the discussion here, there really aren't that many people familiar with the story chiming in. The ones who have, second hand for the most part, said that it's pretty close.
If you get to the point that the story is ripped off, then the other points of similarity help to show that it was lifted a bit more whole cloth rather than piecemeal elements. I suspect that would allow WW to claim greater due damages because it would show greater blatant disregard on Sony's part.
I'm not familiar with the story, myself, but claiming that it's a variant on Romeo and Juliet isn't really a defense since the injection of the werewolves, vampires, and specific plot elements (like the master vampire coming out of slumber to settle things, various specific killings) could still be protected even if the Romeo/Juliet-West Side Story-kids getting it on from rival clans/gang general element is unprotected old hat.

I'd like to hear more from people who have both seen the movie and read the story.

 

[jdavis]

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.

Those do have a certain interpretation attached to them, for example the story did imply for most of it that werewolves and vampires were natural enemies

Spoiler

(being a rebelling slave race doesn't change that really, it just shows that at one time one race ruled the other)

. Both groups were decendents of aristocracy and all the vampire leaders shown looked and acted like aristocracy. As far as the embrace bit well they didn't use the term but it was the same thing (of course it's always been the same thing with vampires).

Another thing to remember is that the suit is based on the script not watching the movie, things in the script could of been cut out in editing or terms could of been used in the script to describe things that were not actually said in the movie. I really don't know exactly how much difference that would make as I do not have access to the script but it will make a difference.

On the abomination thing, It's not because they used the term abomination, it's because they had a werewolf bitten by a vampire who became a creature with the powers of both that was called a abomination that was the issue. That is something that has been a part of the World of Darkness setting for a long time, not to mention that may be one of the few actually original World of Darkness bits here. I could be wrong about that but I had never heard of a vampire/werewolf in the same person before that. Do you think the people who made the movie came up with a hybrid vampire/werewolf similar to the one in the World of Darkness setting and named it exactly the same thing as White Wolf, on their own? I don't think there is any way that this movie will be mistaken for a White Wolf movie and the world is very different but I really doubt they would of engaged in what will probably be a long and expensive suit against Sony unless they had enough evidence to actually have a shot at winning the case (once again it falls back on how similar the short stroy is I guess).

Oh yea, does anybody know where you can find this short story? I have been looking for a couple of days and I can't find it (does anybody even know what book it is in?). Is it out of print?

Edit: It was Wayne the Brain (I think it was Seth Macfarlane from "The Family Guy" who did the voice)

 

[reapersaurus]

It was in the short story anthology "Dark Destinies", AFAIK.

 

[Mog Elffoe]

On the abomination thing, It's not because they used the term abomination, it's because they had a werewolf bitten by a vampire who became a creature with the powers of both that was called a abomination that was the issue. That is something that has been a part of the World of Darkness setting for a long time, not to mention that may be one of the few actually original World of Darkness bits here. I could be wrong about that but I had never heard of a vampire/werewolf in the same person before that.

What, you never saw the episode of 'Real Ghostbusters' where the ghostbusting gang got holed up in a town full of feuding vampires and werewolves? Once the monsters started fighting and biting each other they *ALL* became vampire/werewolf hybrids. Can't believe you never saw that one...

 

[jdavis]

What, you never saw the episode of 'Real Ghostbusters' where the ghostbusting gang got holed up in a town full of feuding vampires and werewolves? Once the monsters started fighting and biting each other they *ALL* became vampire/werewolf hybrids. Can't believe you never saw that one...

No you got me there (never liked real ghostbusters). Maybe they should sue

 

[reiella]

No you got me there (never liked real ghostbusters). Maybe they should sue

Hehe one of J Michael Stazenski's earlier works.

Kinda funny now to look at B5 and then the Real Ghostbusters.

And thank you for reminding me his name (the answer is 'backstreet boys').

Back on topic .

Fair point on the script issue, and I suspect some of them (the embrace specifically) came about from using the term to refer to a compassionate hug or the like, as opposed to turning. There are few other items that read like that as well (marcus/batlike, and a handful of others).

Also more immediately than Ghostbuster's there was a 1994 Horror flick featuring a Vampire/Werewolf hybrid called Twisted Tales.

The first appearance of the World of Darkness Abomination was in 1996, Under a Blood Red Moon.