Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="reapersaurus" data-source="post: 1137125" data-attributes="member: 1194">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.</blockquote>

Verification