Timewaster's Guide Archive

Departments => Movies and TV => Topic started by: Fellfrosch on April 25, 2003, 06:04:41 PM

Title: Odd
Post by: Fellfrosch on April 25, 2003, 06:04:41 PM
There are two cool-looking vampire hunter movies on the horizon, and Kate Beckinsale is in both of them. Maybe she's trying to be cool again after Pearl Harbor, or maybe she wants to fill the pleasant niche of "goth action movie babe." Or maybe she thought they were the same movie, and signed up for both by accident. I don't know, I thought it was weird so I figured I'd mention it.
Title: Re: Odd
Post by: The Holy Saint, Grand High Poobah, Master of Monkeys, Ehlers on April 25, 2003, 07:48:26 PM
So on a whim I investigated this. In case you wanted to know, the movies in question are Van Helsing (2004) (http://us.imdb.com/Title?0338526) in which she is NOT a vampire, and which also stars Hugh Jackman as the title character. He takes on Dracula, Frankenstein's monster, and the Wolfman. Universal Studios monsters versus the Wolverine. May be cool (it's to be done in a Victorian era, not an X-Men era, and to be fair, Jackman has shown quite a bit of range, he is not just an X-Man).

Not nearly so cool sounding is Underworld (2003) (http://us.imdb.com/Title?0320691), the description of which has me and my co-workers rolling on the floor in hysterical fits of uncontrollable laughter. Here's what IMDB has to say:
Quote
Selene (Beckinsale), a beautiful vampire warrior, is entrenched in a war between the vampire and werewolf races. Although she is aligned with the vampires, she falls in love with Michael (Speedman), a werewolf who longs for the war to end.


Apparently Vampires are aristocrats, and werewolves ("Lycans") are street thugs. Basically, think West Side Story meets White Wolf -- and from the trailer, they're trying for a bit of Matrix thrown in (sorry guys, we've got our dose of the REAL THING this summer already). I read the description outloud, and I literally could not finish before my coworker and I were both laughing out loud.

Can any ammount of amazing writing save this flick?
Title: Re: Odd
Post by: Spriggan on April 25, 2003, 08:13:38 PM
 Van Helsing is also done buy the Mummy guys.
Title: Re: Odd
Post by: Tage on April 28, 2003, 01:16:33 PM
The first one does sound like it has potential, but could turn out really crappy. And that second one... oh man. Seriously though, if you go in to a movie expecting a campy cross between Romeo & Juliet and White Wolf, how could you *not* be amused? It couldn't possibly be worse than what you're expecting.
Title: Re: Odd
Post by: Slant on April 28, 2003, 02:12:02 PM
I am so sick of the way that American cinema depicts vampires that I could scream!  Vampires are ruthless beats who feed on humans as we feed on cows.  They are not interested in romancing humans, nor do they wallow in existential angst over their lot in life.  All they care about is their next meal and they don't care where it comes from.

This whole notion of the "noble" vampire who loathes what he has become is pure garbage!  Next thing you know, the wolfman will turn out to be an animal rights activist and the Phantom of the Opera will be getting cosmetic surgery.  People, let our monsters BE monsters, okay?  Take all this Anne Rice nonsense and chuck it into the dust bin.  We don't need tragic, misunderstood children of the night; we need ruthless bestial animals out for our blood!
Title: Re: Odd
Post by: Spriggan on April 28, 2003, 02:13:43 PM
a comic on slants POV
http://www.clanbob.net/modules.php?name=Content&pa=showpage&pid=380
Title: Re: Odd
Post by: The Holy Saint, Grand High Poobah, Master of Monkeys, Ehlers on April 28, 2003, 02:19:16 PM
Actually, Slant, from what I remember, in WW, the wolfman IS an ecological activist....

Maybe that's why he wants to fight the goth/yuppie vampires in this new movie...
Title: Re: Odd
Post by: Fellfrosch on April 28, 2003, 02:22:45 PM
Oh come on, I think the angsty romantic vampire is cool, and no more one-dimensional than the bloodthirsty predator vampire (less so, usually). Of course, my vampire book took a completely different view of them, and my short story I'm writing is another completely different view. There's no reason to pigeonhole vampires into any one mold.
Title: Re: Odd
Post by: The Holy Saint, Grand High Poobah, Master of Monkeys, Ehlers on April 28, 2003, 02:24:44 PM
It can have mroe depth, but it also has become more cliche recently. Which is to say I agree. Stop pigeonholing "monsters" and what you write will probably be more interesting. Don't use someone else's view of a character, use your own. Which is also to say, don't write RPG fan fiction.
Title: Re: Odd
Post by: Fellfrosch on April 28, 2003, 02:27:00 PM
Agreed: romantic vampires are saturating the market. I should have you guys read this story when I'm done with it.
Title: Re: Odd
Post by: Arathorn on April 30, 2003, 01:09:43 AM
Quote
I am so sick of the way that American cinema depicts vampires that I could scream!  Vampires are ruthless beats who feed on humans as we feed on cows.  They are not interested in romancing humans, nor do they wallow in existential angst over their lot in life.  All they care about is their next meal and they don't care where it comes from.

This whole notion of the "noble" vampire who loathes what he has become is pure garbage!


Man, that's partially true but haven't you ever read Bram Stokers Dracula or atleast watch the movie version. It doesn't get anymore noble than Count Dracula; he's rich, charming, although old in the beginning he becomes young and handsome. On the other hand there are the younger vampires who are more of what you describe to be monsters, they aren't as powerful or smart as Dracula. They're just plain animals. You can't argue that Bram Stoker was copying someone else's stereotype either because he started it  from all the folk tales about vampires.
Title: Re: Odd
Post by: Slant on April 30, 2003, 02:34:08 AM
There have been tales of vampires since before the Dark Ages from all over the world.  Not just Eastern Europe, but also Japan, Africa, and the Aborigines of what would eventually become Australia all had their stories about the living dead who came in the night to take a man's blood and soul.  Nowhere were these creatures portrayed as urbane and sophisticated.  Bram Stoker's original story isn't what most of us think about when we hear "Dracula."  Rather, it is the Bela Lugosi film and all those that followed it.  In the original work, Dracula is depicted as a ruthless old aristocrat who has found a way to cheat death at the cost of countless innocent lives.  All he cares about is his own well-being and his own desires.  Humans are cattle to be fed upon and discarded.  The silent film "Nosferatu" is much closer in tone to the original Dracula story, and Max Schrek as Orlock is much closer to how a vampire is supposed to look and behave.
Title: Re: Odd
Post by: Entsuropi on April 30, 2003, 05:02:18 AM
But lets face it though.

Playing a RPG where you are a impulse driven monster would suck badly.
Title: Re: Odd
Post by: The Holy Saint, Grand High Poobah, Master of Monkeys, Ehlers on April 30, 2003, 09:18:31 AM
But I'm pretty sure there's a d20 expansion for that...
Title: Re: Odd
Post by: Entsuropi on April 30, 2003, 10:38:07 AM
Yeah. The PHB. It mentions "adventurers" a lot.
Title: Re: Odd
Post by: Slant on April 30, 2003, 09:33:20 PM
Dude, I've been playing impulse-driven monsters since I was 13.  They come in three genral flavors: Fantasy spell-blaster, Superhero powerhouse, and Sci-fi cybernetic killing machine.
Title: Re: Odd
Post by: Arathorn on May 01, 2003, 08:36:50 PM
I haven't seen Nosferatu, is there any way you know that I can get my hands on it?

I saw a movie that came out a while back that was about the making of that movie. I don't know if you guys have seen it but the actor was actually a vampire in it and he kills everyone at the end of the movie...strange.