Underworld (1 Viewer)

[Jason Seaver]

Why would superhuman (subhuman?) "monsters" need guns and kung fu?

Hey, it's an arms race. If you're fighting with other people with your abilities, you need an edge, and if the food has found ways to compensate for your superior strength, speed, and stamina, it behooves you not to ignore it.

 

[Chuck Mayer]

Scott named the song, by Agent Provocateur on the previous page.

Seeing the trailer on the big screen today was fun. Can't wait to see the film itself

Take care,
Chuck

 

[Rex Bachmann]

Vlad D wrote (post #79):

I personally would find it much more inventive and interesting to see the two groups battle it out with what lends them their respective distinct identities as supernatural beings: claws, fangs, transformational abilities, flight, and so on. I don't understand the attraction of having them act like kung fu-fighters or shootists. There are sooooo many films with that in it, in its "purest" form, already.

What's the point of having the characters be "supernatural", if the other kind of thing is what you really want to see??? The whole point of their being "supernatural" in the first place, as I see it, is that that frees them from dependence on mere human skills, tools, and "aids", and it divests them of human vulnerabilities, as well. (Of course, there may be trade-offs.)

One of the properties of a healthy cat is that it can jump to heights far beyond the length of its body. I wouldn't want to see a movie---not even a kiddie kitty movie---where the cats jump into a (cat-sized) helicopter so they can climb up onto the dining room table, just because the producers of said film could devise such. Similarly, I want to see the vampiricness of the vampire or the outsized wolfishness of the werewolf when I view movies involving these respective entities. Otherwise, there is little to be gained by making the characters "supernatural".

I don't get it.

Where is Paul Naschy when you need 'im?!?

 

[Vlad D]

Rex:

No, I don't think you do.

Why is it that you feel that I don't understand your point of view? If you read my post carefully, you would see that I stated that "I agree" that vampires and werewolves don't need to use guns and martial arts. Sure they could fight using their "claws, fangs, transformational abilities, flight, and so on," but I feel it would be equally interesting to see them fight using weapons and martial arts in addition to their inherent supernatural abilities.

Just because I have dissenting point of view doesn't mean that I don't understand yours.

Paul Naschy

 

[TheLongshot]

I personally would find it much more inventive and interesting to see the two groups battle it out with what lends them their respective distinct identities as supernatural beings: claws, fangs, transformational abilities, flight, and so on. I don't understand the attraction of having them act like kung fu-fighters or shootists. There are sooooo many films with that in it, in its "purest" form, already.

And I have a feeling that there will be some of that as well, but are you saying that in the hundreds of years these creatures have been around, they haven't learned anything new? No new methods of fighting come in all of this time? Sounds more imaginative than your ideas...

Jason

 

[Ryan_C]

[Rant on]

What happened to just enjoying a movie, and not trying to find something wrong with it, or pick it apart?

Movies are meant to entertain and take the viewer somewhere else for 2 or 3 hours. Every movie that comes out doesn't need to be something inventive and/or thought provoking to entertain. But just to clarify, I do enjoy those "thinker" films as much the next guy. I'm all for the Eyes Wide Shut/Donnie Darko flick.

But that doesn't mean I expect a movie about vampires versus werewolves to be a thinker. I expect it to be fun. If I think after I watch a vampire flick, it's going to be because there was a plot hole or something. I just don't see how a movie about mythical creatures can be a medium for a "thought provoking" movie.

And the vampire genre is tried and true, I don't think there is anything new to bring to the table. I love vampire flicks, I try to see them all. And the last time I saw a new twist in the genre was in Wes Craven's Dracula, with said twist being that Dracula was actually Judas Iscariot, who's hangmen's noose broke after he cursed God. That was a new one twist to an old story.

[Rant off]

We now return you to your regulary scheduled thread.

 

[Rex Bachmann]

Vlad D wrote (post #84):

See above (and below).


The music industry is widely known to have used what are called "hooks" in its production of popular music. That is, certain elements, like backbeats, synthetic "licks", and like formulaic techniques are thrown into the recordings of song after song after song that supposedly fulfill the expectations of the mass audiences at whom the "product" is directed and "hook" them into the consumption of that "product". (No doubt, the marketeers thought this stuff up.)

Anyway, I believe that filmmaking in big-time Hollywood also has its marketing-driven hooks. The obligatory romantic angle, the ethnic inclusiveness (in an earlier age, it was "ethnic" (i.e., racial) exclusiveness that was mandatory), the black-and-white villainy/heroism (few shades of gray allowed), the happy ending (unless a sequel is planned), as well as good old star power (as opposed to acting talent), are all examples of elements used as marketing "hooks" to audience consumption of Hollywood "product". For tv, it used to be a given---the subject of much criticism from Europeans---that action shows (Westerns, cop shows, etc.) always were to have a chase as coda (hence, the expression to "cut to the chase").

I look at the modern developments, the martial arts, the gun play, the explosions, and, yes, the chases---they're still there---as continuations of the tradition of placing "hooks" in stories on the theory that "that's what the audiences want". That combined with what I take as Hollywood producers' and marketeers' inability to wrap their minds around fantastic premises is what I consider to be at the root of the phenomenon we have before us. ("Our marketing surveys with focus groups and teen-magazine respondents shows they don't know or care from 'supernatural', but we can expect to get 17.83% more ticket sales in the first week if we use semi-automatics in the fight scenes, and 10.33% more male audience members 13 to 38 if Booberella bares her breasts---minus nipple, of course---for 10.5 seconds, CB." CB: "Get my brother-in-law, Morty the 'writer' on the line! The hook goes into the picture!")

Thus, these hooks get placed into all kinds of stories, even ones where they might not be organic to the story at hand. (Hence, genre mishmash.) Young writers or writer-directors, who have, like many of you, also grown up with entertainment media (video and computer games, tv programs, films, etc.) chock full of (in fact, dominated by) these "hooks", think in terms of these and/or other hooks when "pitching" their stories (whatever the genre) to studio production heads. And here we are---"hooked".

If all of this makes me sound like a sourpuss longing for the good old days, too bad. I'm not.

I just want, as I said before, a chance to see some serious supernatural-horror films each year (2 or 3) from "major" motion-picture studios. That means films with good production values that serve good, chilling stories.

 

[Rex Bachmann]

Ryan_C wrote (post #86):

Well, some others don't have that problem. Although I don't think anyone could expect every film, or every work of art, for that matter, to be a masterpiece, I don't buy into the idea of "fun" (i.e., entertainment) being mutually exclusive from thought. I'm seldom entertained unless thought is provoked in me (if not right away, at least after the viewing/listening experience). I believe a good fantastic film, in whatever genre, can, in presenting sentient, intelligent nonhuman characters, provoke thought about what it means to be human; what separates humans from other creatures ("intelligent" or not); what humans' relationship to those other kinds of beings should be (if they're real) or would/could be (if they're only imagined, as far as we know). Certainly, through the ages that's been one of the preöccupations of religion and some modes of popular entertainment, such as drama, have evolved from religious practice. Of course, if you're going to see something strictly for the "babe" in the tight leather suit and the explosions and car chases, I guess nothing will sway you.

This whole exchange reminds me of that old Saturday Night Live spoof of late-night horror-film tv programs (from the days before homevideo), a skit with Christopher Lee and the mock-ominous voice-over of Dan Ackroyd (I believe), featuring such "hits" as "The Creature from the Black Studies Program" (mentioned only), "The Thing that Would Not Leave" (a skit-within-skit about an obnoxious dinner guest played by---who else?---John Belushi), and the like. As the sketch draws to end, the voice-over threatens the audience with the ultimate horror in next week's show: (I hope I'm remembering this line correctly) "It's educational!"

 

[Frank Anderson]

 

[John Doran]

just beautiful, frank - that's the funniest smiley i've ever seen.

thanks for the first laugh of my work-week.

- jd

 

[JamieD]

Awesome smiley, very true.

I'm not going to add my 2 cents, simply because it won't change anyone's opinion anyways.

 

[Vlad D]

Taking a cue from Frank, lets just agree to disagree.

BTW, my link to Paul Naschy was also a joke, which you seemed to have completely missed. Maybe next time I'll add a .

 

[John Doran]

rex,

Thus, these hooks get placed into all kinds of stories, even ones where they might not be organic to the story at hand. (Hence, genre mishmash.)

what difference does why a movie was made the way it was made, or why any piece of art was made, make to the enjoyment of that movie or book or poem or painting or photograph or song or....?

i mean, even if we were (and we're typically not) antecedently aware that the (artistic) intent behind the screenplay of a movie was, for instance, the (dubious) one of producing a work that was likely to provide the largest box-office gross to the studio, that only matters to the artistic character of the work based on one, but certainly not the only theory of aesthetic value.

for instance, what if you were to discover that welles wrote citizen kane as what he considered a shallowly and emptily pretentious film solely out of contempt for a cadre of movie critics he despised and who he knew would give the film rave reviews? or what if bolt penned a man for all seasons in a drunken haze, guided only by the direction of the studio to compose a screenplay about st. thomas more?

but what's more, if you believe that the purpose or point of the movie (whose point? director? screenwriter? cinematograher?) is critical to a (proper) evaluation of the film's merits, then how do you value any film in the absence of a sure knowledge of its point?

and who (besides you and yours) cares about "genre mishmash"? why should anyone else care? what difference does it make how easily and clearly a film can be slotted into different genres and sub-genres?

an engaging movie by any other name....

 

[Max Knight]

I haven't seen so much pseudo-intellectual masturbating since college. Seriously. People, the film isn't even OUT YET! No one here (unless someone has gotten a special screening or worked on the production) knows anything more than the trailer which was aptly summed up earlier.

Let's just cut through all the BS here for a minute.

We can assume that there are a few different camps in this thread, and everyone is hoping the movie is:

1. Rex's Platonic Ideal of a "supernatural movie". If Underworld doesn't meet this, he will turn up his nose in disgust and go back to his Brie.

2. A Fight Fest for The action movie lovers. It doesn't matter if it's vampires, monks, or cops. If the action is good, and the bullets are flying, they will be happy.

3. Eye Candy for the Visual Junkies. Luscious sets? Tasty actresses in fetish-wear? Stylized combat? Count us in!

4. And more subgroups, but I don't feel like listing them all (I guess tech-noir is an official genre now? Cool, I love that stuff.)

Who cares if this movie does not meet your particular needs? You are out $9, but someone else is happy.

What is obnoxious here is that people are devaluing anything that they themselves don't like. Just remember that many pop-consumption products were only later recognized as art (the entire novel format anyone?). So before you puff up your chest and proclaim the death of cinema, remember that Wuthering Heights was practically a Harlequin Romance of its day. And don't even get me started on Charles Dickens.
Talk about "hooks".

I for one love "genre mishmash". The Matrix was a great movie, and was an *enormous* genre mishmash. And who is to say that any film can be considered anything but a genre mishmash? What is Pulp Fiction? Think of all the different ways that movie can be experienced. What is Lawrence of Arabia? Casablanca? Brahm Stoker's Dracula could be seen as a romance.

Kate in leather and latex is sufficient for visual enjoyment, but not necessary.

 

[John Doran]

I haven't seen so much pseudo-intellectual masturbating since college. Seriously.

and i didn't even see as much of it then...

seriously.

 

[Vlad D]

I haven't seen so much pseudo-intellectual masturbating since college.

That is too funny. And too true.

 

[Ryan_C]

Sima don nah, sima don! (Translated, simmer down now, simmer down!)

Can we get this thread back on topic and discuss the movie, please? Let's just all agree to disagree like someone said above. If we want to have a discussion of the genre, what to expect from it and hollywood let's start another thread. I'm all for a discussion, but this one's starting to get heated, and all these long winded, mutli-colored font-enthused posts are confusing and giving me a headache.

Edit: No offense intended to those posting the long posts full of font enthusiasm, I was only giving you a hard time. But they are a bitch to read, seriously.

 

[Zen Butler]

"Set in the secret nocturnal and supernatural world of vampires and werewolves, two groups that have been at war for centuries, this is the story of a romance between a female vampire warrior, Selene (Beckinsale), who's famous for her strength and werewolf-hunting prowess, and a peace-loving male werewolf, Michael (Speedman), who wants to end the war."


"What's "Underworld?" Vampires battling werewolves, Kate Beckinsale and Scott Speedman, an action/thriller with barely any CGI effects, and one of the most searched for movies on the Internet. Kate Beckinsale, Scott Speedman and director Len Wiseman provide an in-depth look at the making of "Underworld."

Hmm...been following this one for awhile. Have never been confused on what the film is about. I'd say the marketing is pretty coherent.

Still excited, despite all the crapping.

 

[David Rogers]

I remember when, here at HTF, we could have discussions without long posts that take other posts apart sentence by sentence and treat it like a physics paper.

Repeat after me. It's a movie. You know the old song they used to play at concessions time at the Drive In?

(tune)
"Let's all go to the moooovies. Let's all go to the moooovies."
(dancing popcorn boxes and chocolate bars inserted here)

That's what it's all about. There are no rules for movies, only audience expectations that have to be either met or ignored. Meeting them doesn't guarantee the film will be well received; nor does ignoring them likewise ensure the film will fail. Audiences don't always know what they really wanted, and sometimes walk out of a film pleasantly surprised it worked to the degree or level they saw it did. Other times they walk out of what was supposed to have been a 'sure thing' very disappointed it didn't work at all.

Two very simple points follow.

* Will Underworld use good and engaging characterization in its story arc. Will we attach to either lead (the Romeo or Juliet of this forthcoming story)? Will we attach to any of their hangers-on? Will we identify with or enjoy any of them, or develop strong dislikes or hatreds of them?

* Will Underworld use good and enjoyable fight chorography in its depiction of action? Will we be allowed to appreciate and cheer solidly put together action sequences, or will it be dark-cam, quik-cut, and fast-edited to obscure a lack of money and/or effort having been put into the action?

That's really it. Just as no one ever expects the Spanish Inquisition, no one can ever truly expect a 'classic' film. I feel few walk into a movie expecting it will be a timeless film for the ages; and that few movies are even possibly eligible for such expectations in a given year.

What we walk in hoping for is a good flick that was fun. We want it to be fun, to be enjoyable, to be not-stupid, not-dumb, and not-rushed. We want honest effort from filmmakers and cast, we want genuine care to have been placed into the crafting of the movie. Fans are the easiest people in the world to please so long as you are actually trying, honestly, to succeed. If you take shortcuts or try to provide excuses, fans will rip you into shreds.

Underworld's a big if. Trailers are easy to manipulate. Quik-cuts are part and parcel in most trailer construction, making it easy to hide many problems or difficulties that were encountered in complicated action sequences. I'm pretty sure, for most of the potential audience for Underworld, if the action blows we're going to be beyond disappointed. I'm hoping they don't make the same mistakes I've seen many movies that fail at action commit. Unfortunately, we kind of have to bite the bullet to find out. The only comfort I have these days is DVD is big money, and the studios have seen movies that ‘lie’ or ‘cheat’ their box office returns with marketing see horrible disc sales. So perhaps we’re going to see the fiscal incentive that will encourage filmmakers (including Underworld’s) to not just settle for “screw the audience, they bought tickets opening weekend, what do we care if they hated it?”

I don't expect Underworld to be Matrix or Equilibrium, but it'd better not be Bulletproof Monk or I'll count it as a failed movie. Jackie Chan hopefully has proven to Hollywood audiences want to SEE the body art that is chorography. Edits to create the illusion of same are lame and never work unless eye rolling and disappointed sighs are the sought after reaction.

And to wrap up these thoughts, I'll just say I like movies that use intelligent and well crafted action, as I'm sure many action fans would agree. If Underworld can't put chorography sequences together without using the camera to cut it into place then they should really just not have bothered; and their film will be a joke. If the action has style and a sense of cool, a sense of motion and of realism, and enables us to appreciate the results on the screen, then it's very possible it could be a nice flick.

That it could be cool AND would be using vampires and werewolves as central characters merely allows for further coolness (or even worse laughability if they screw it up).

 

[TheLongshot]

I don't expect Underworld to be Matrix or Equilibrium

Well, I think it would be disappointing if it wasn't at least as good as Equilibrium, since it is in the same budget range...

Jason