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



## Kai Lord (Sep 20, 2003)

I have zero familiarity with any of White Wolf's products, save for what I read in the other thread about their law suit.  Now that the movie's out, I'm curious as to what people think about WW's claim of copyright infringement.


----------



## jdavis (Sep 20, 2003)

Well it had a lot of differences but there were a few glaring similarities, most of those also had to do with the story from the book. If it wasn't for the book similarities I doubt White Wolf would have much of a case. I went with somebody who had read the short story and they said the movie was real close to the short story. It's obvious the story was inspired by White Wolf but it's not obvious enough to make for a sure thing in the court case.


----------



## Kobold Avenger (Sep 21, 2003)

One thing I wonder about the movie is whether or not there was any referrence to vampires being descendants of Cain, since that might actually be valid point for a lawsuit since I'm pretty sure nowhere else makes the connection between vampires and Cain.  Even the part about Cain being cursed to eat ashes and blood doesn't necessarily mean vampire.  And Grendel is referred to as a descendant of Cain, but nowhere in Beowulf did it say he was a vampire.


----------



## Vocenoctum (Sep 21, 2003)

I wonder about Past Lives my self. Never really remember anything like racial memory for werewolves before WW.


----------



## jdavis (Sep 21, 2003)

Vocenoctum said:
			
		

> I wonder about Past Lives my self. Never really remember anything like racial memory for werewolves before WW.



yea racial memories is part of White Wolf werewolfs (past life background for example) but White Wolf werewolves are born not bitten.


----------



## jdavis (Sep 21, 2003)

Kobold Avenger said:
			
		

> One thing I wonder about the movie is whether or not there was any referrence to vampires being descendants of Cain, since that might actually be valid point for a lawsuit since I'm pretty sure nowhere else makes the connection between vampires and Cain. Even the part about Cain being cursed to eat ashes and blood doesn't necessarily mean vampire. And Grendel is referred to as a descendant of Cain, but nowhere in Beowulf did it say he was a vampire.



Vampires and Werewolves came from the same person (count something or other) in the movie.


----------



## Tsyr (Sep 21, 2003)

jdavis said:
			
		

> Vampires and Werewolves came from the same person (count something or other) in the movie.




And it's a virus, not mythological.


----------



## DanMcS (Sep 21, 2003)

This post has spoilers.  Duh.

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

There were a lot of similarities that are trivial, things from mythology (sunlight kills vamps, silver hurts werewolves, get bit to get infected, blah blah).  There were also some differences from mythology, but they aren't WW-specific.  For instance, Underworld vampires didn't have to be invited into a house.  WW vamps don't either, Buffy vamps do, Anne Rice vamps don't, Blade vamps don't.  Flip a coin, apparently.

Underworld vamps and werewolves were infected beings, you get the virus and you turn.  You don't have to die first to be a vamp, apparently.  That's not WW at all.

Underworld werewolves weren't clan-based, there was just one group of them apparently.  They were also apparently immortal, like vamps.  Not WW.

Underworld vamps weren't clan-based.  There was apparently an american coven and european coven, but that's not WW-specific, anne rice and Buffy both had organizations of vampires.  Had there been different clans with different powers, I might have bought it.

Never really saw many powers from either group, except they were all strong and fast.  Eh.  The vamps seemed to get stronger as they got older, but that's not WW specific either.  There was no concept of generations like you find it Vampire: the Masquerade.

The part that killed most of the similarities for me was the virus.  Both groups were descendants of one man, some nobleman in the 4th or 5th century, who survived some kind of plague.  His children inherited the virus, which made one of them a vampire, one a werewolf, and one normal but a carrier.  There's nothing like that in WW at all.  WW is "Caine is the angsty forefather of vamps" and "Garou are the tree-hugging children of Gaia", and they have no familial tie.

WW claimed in their suit that a bunch of trivial elements added up to make the Underworld setting similar enough to the World of Darkness that it was infringing.  I didn't see it.  The clans and tribes of the WoD are central to the setting, and they just weren't in the movie.  The look and feel was "vampire-werewolf shoot-em-up w/Matrix", not WoD.

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.

The story WW is saying is similar, "Love of Monsters", I haven't read, there could be some plot similarities in there.  That might be where they got the "abomination" concept too.  So the whole case really has to do with that story, I think, because the movie isn't very WW-ish at all.

They set it up so there could be a sequel, and this one was fun eye-candy for a couple hours, so I'll probably give the sequel a go too.


----------



## S'mon (Sep 21, 2003)

Kobold Avenger said:
			
		

> One thing I wonder about the movie is whether or not there was any referrence to vampires being descendants of Cain, since that might actually be valid point for a lawsuit since I'm pretty sure nowhere else makes the connection between vampires and Cain.  Even the part about Cain being cursed to eat ashes and blood doesn't necessarily mean vampire.  And Grendel is referred to as a descendant of Cain, but nowhere in Beowulf did it say he was a vampire.




Usually vampires are said to be the children of Lilith, Adam's first wife in Talmudic myth (AFAIK), not Cain.


----------



## Enforcer (Sep 21, 2003)

S'mon said:
			
		

> Usually vampires are said to be the children of Lilith, Adam's first wife in Talmudic myth (AFAIK), not Cain.




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.


----------



## Staffan (Sep 22, 2003)

Enforcer said:
			
		

> 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 (Sep 22, 2003)

Staffan said:
			
		

> 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 (Sep 22, 2003)

Enforcer said:
			
		

> 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 (Sep 22, 2003)

reiella said:
			
		

> 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.
> 
> ...



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 (Sep 23, 2003)

jdavis said:
			
		

> 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 (Sep 23, 2003)

DanMcS said:
			
		

> 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 (Sep 23, 2003)

DanMcS said:
			
		

> 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 (Sep 24, 2003)

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 (Sep 24, 2003)

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 (Sep 24, 2003)

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!


----------



## billd91 (Sep 24, 2003)

paulewaug said:
			
		

> <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.
> ...




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 (Sep 24, 2003)

reiella said:
			
		

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



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 (Sep 25, 2003)

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


----------



## Mog Elffoe (Sep 25, 2003)

jdavis said:
			
		

> 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 (Sep 25, 2003)

Mog Elffoe said:
			
		

> 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 (Sep 26, 2003)

jdavis said:
			
		

> 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.


----------

