Talk:Underworld (2003 film)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Minor edit[edit]

My last edit was minor, forgot to check it off. Whoops. --Fitly 22:57, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


I cannot understand what is the relation between mynard james keenan & underworld.

A Perfect Circle on the soundtrack? --Ajshm 23:46, 8 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
yes, a remix of Judith from (mer of nomes).. i've never liked that song.. the lyrics are just too much..--Amr Hassan 22:22, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect spelling in ALL Underworld Articles[edit]

In the first movie, the lycan scientist's vials that hold vampire and lycan blood are labeled "vampyre" and "lycan" respectively. This needs to be changed throughout all the articles. 02:41, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In the written intro to Underworld: Evolution it's spelled 'Vampires' so apparently that's just the way Singe spells it.

lawsuit by white wolf[edit]

There should probably be some note of the lawsuits regarding this film (and associated video game) brought by the White Wolf roleplaying company. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 17:11, Apr 29, 2005 (UTC)

added some info on it and a link, not sure about the outcome, will have to look into that. Boneyard 13:40, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Did some extensive Google searching on the case, was only able to find an expedited hearing report in September, 2003, but nothing at all after that. I'll check Lexis-Nexis from the local college library sometime within the next couple of days to see if any interesting filings can be found there, but White Wolf's sudden clamming up about the matter after that press release, followed by Sony's continuing ahead with the movie release, DVDs, and a sequel, suggests that the case was quietly settled out of court with terms that included no further public discussion of the case. I've added an update to this effect. --Robotech_Master 20:26, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think this is more than a little speculative. If someone has some usuable context for this ("Famous Game Insider shamelessly speculates that", then fair enough, but otherwise, we should just present the verifiable facts. Alai 01:26, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In my opinion, that lawsuit was garbage. I mean, Underworld is nothing at all like White Wolf. Except that it has vampires and werewolves, but guess what? Those are mythical creature not created by White Wolf. Voicingmaster 03:00, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The problem, though, lies in two things... one, the argument as to whether or not 'Vampires vs. Werewolves' can be considered to be a 'classic myth of the monsters' or something invented for World of Darkness story reasons. After all, how often is such a conflict seen in fiction outside of the White Wolf games? The other issue is the fact that Nancy Collins wrote a World of Darkness novel that tells pretty much the exact same story, except gender-reversed. There are other little things worth noting, like the movie's referral to a vampire-werewolf hybrid specifically as an 'Abomination.' There is also the very real possibility that if Underworld tanked and White Wolf later came out with a World of Darkness movie, then the American populace (some of whom didn't even know the Lord of the Rings movies were based on novels) would assume that a WoD movie would be a ripoff of Underworld and leave it with a harmful stigma. And the last thing to consider is this... under US copyright law, if a company thinks their trademarks have been infringed upon, they're forced to at least attempt to sue or they lose any right to do so in the future. It's been commented by one of the company's employees (although the source can no longer be found online as it was on their old forum which has since been shut down) that one thing that hurt White Wolf's lawsuit was the fact that they didn't go after the Blade movie, which bears more in common with Vampire: the Masquerade than Underworld does.--MythicFox 13:04, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, actually US copyright law makes as many requirements on what White Wolf has to do with their trademarks as US food processing laws do.--Prosfilaes (talk) 20:40, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The section ends with a speculative statement, which is discouraged by WP:OR and WP:NOT#CRYSTAL. Removing it. David Spalding (  ) 19:53, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's 2008 and the last pertinent point is that a judge granted an expedited hearing in September 2003. The courts may be slow, but I doubt they're that slow! Also, that last tidbit is per a statement by White Wolf. The fact that that was White Wolf's last public statement on the matter may be relevant, but it would probably better to cite orders directly. A check in PACE using the case number from the complaint should turn something up. I can try to do that in the next couple of weeks, but anyone who wants to beat me to the punch, feel free. InMyHumbleOpinion (talk) 06:49, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]


When I read a film article, I want to know the important plot details, not read a fucking cop-out like: "Several dark secrets about the history of vampires and werewolves, as well as Lucian and Viktor's past are revealed in the film's climax."

Seriously, what the Hell? --Apostrophe 21:21, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Strangely, my issue is in completely the other direction. What on earth is the point of a section beginning "The following list is designed to help by describing who kills who"? Is there any reason to keep this list? I have never seen such a list in other film articles (although I have seen very terse plot summaries that do not give spoilers away in plenty of other articles). --Telsa ((t)(c)) 21:28, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I deleted the section on character deaths. Deleted due to the fact that it was stupid, pointless, and insulting to inteligence. {{spoiler}}
Really, if you're so stupid that when some vampire gets pinned down by a lycan and then he walks to him, opens its mouth roaring and the camera cuts away, and you can't figure that that lycan killed that vampire, you seriously need to stop watching action movies. And you're sure as hell damn stupid if you didn't know Selene semi-decapitates Victor. Voicingmaster 03:09, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

prequel or second sequel[edit]

does anyone know anything about the prequel? I'd like to have some info.--BUF4Life 03:22, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Where would be the appropriate place to put info about a prequel? also, does anyone else think from the ending of Underworld: Evolution that it will be a sequel to that movie, not a prequel?--BUF4Life 03:23, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's unknown whether it will be a sequel or a prequel or a sequel with prequel flashbacks. It's left to Wiseman to decide what will happen next in the franchise. If next one is successfull enough (as I suspect it will be), then he can do another movie or two perhaps. So it's all about Wiseman now. Painbearer 10:30, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


although someone went through a lot of work and wrote articles on almost every possible aspect of this movie franchise, the historical figure of Mathias Corvinus that almost certainly inspired the surname of Michael Corvin, or rather, that of his progenitor Alexander Corvinus, is not even briefly mentioned anywhere. interestingly enough, Alexander Corvinus is described as an immortal, a role similar to that of Mathias Corvinus in Slovene lore, where he is believed to be asleep in a cave, waiting for the right time to awake and resume his just reign. just thought this might be worth mentioning...

Plot Outline is Much Too Long[edit]

Why is this so long? And what point does it serve? If you haven't seen the film, it gives the whole plot away to the minutest detail and if you have seen the film it is completely redundant cos you know it all already (assuming you didn't fall asleep whilst watching it). Maybe somebody here could tell me what exactly is the point??? Colin4C 18:09, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Point is, this is what happpens when die hard fans work on the articles of the films they love. They go overboard. And boy do I agree that someone needs to take a machette to this plot outline. It is worst I have seen so far. RoyBatty42 03:05, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I second the notion; so much that I, whilst being a fan as well, have started mincing it to the essentials. If anyone can find an effective way to condense it even further without removing too much, go for it.The Bulldozer 20:39, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Plot summary[edit]

Get rid of the extensive plot summary.

Plot Outline[edit]

I have added the general storyline of the movie, though I couldn't find it to watch it so it's possible it's out of order some what. Also, I did gloss over a few things I couldn't remember but I think have everything important (or most everything). But if someone who has the movie on hand to watch and update what I have it would be appreciated. I also thought it might be good if we added something about what the vampires and lycans actually are, like what they look like and how they change and things like that. I added a short blurb about the Corvinus blood line and the virus, but I'm not sure that's sufficient.Jupiterzguy 02:19, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do you think you could actually reduce the size of the summary a bit? I don't know if it's necessary to describe everything that happens in the movie! - Eyeresist 04:45, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Plot summary...should be a summary[edit]

Hi all, The plot summary is supposed to be a summary, not a minute by minute recounting of the film action ("And then so-and-so fires three rounds at so-and-so, and they fire back, and then so-and-so is wounded, and then..."). Right now (October 2nd, 2008), the plot summary is at about 1,160 words. The Film article style guide for Wikipedia suggests 700 words. Since this film has an ambitious mythological backstory, I think you could argue that it needs more words than a Steven Seagal shoot-em-up film plot summary, but not 1,160 words. I will trim the summary down a bit.OnBeyondZebrax (talk) 03:54, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I came back and trimmed more. My friends, look at a plot summary of a movie in a magazine, such as Rolling Stone or Preview. You will never see minute-by-minute accounts, like "and then so-and so shoots three rounds and so-and so, but the gun jams, and then a henchman fires a burst from a submachine gun, and then XXX falls down, but he is only wounded, and when YYY approaches, he stabs him in the leg with a cryptonite blade, but then one of the first people who is shot gets up and fires again, but the bullet glances off the concrete wall, and XXX withdraws the blade, and then....." (a made up example of excessive detail). We should "pull back" and describe the "big picture". In the silly made-up example above, we could say "XXX and YYY have a gun battle in which several of their henchman are killed, and both XXX and YYY are wounded." We don't need to describe the details of the onscreen action. The plot summary should be more about the BIG issues, like who the main characters are, what is motivating them, what the main structural points are (e.g., X betrays Y, or Q becomes a traitor, etc), and how the drama resolves.OnBeyondZebrax (talk) 15:44, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]


"While the film and its sequel opened to mixed reviews they have developed somewhat of a cult following, as films of their kind are seldom so ambitious." Do we have a citation for this perceived "ambition"? Otherwise, I think it should be rewritten or removed, since it smacks of fanness and does not explain itself in the least.

Delorted. I also did some other edits in the article, including deleting the "details" section, seeing as most of the data was already in the righthand sidebar at the top of the page.Juno Loire 16:09, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Underworld movie poster.jpg[edit]

Image:Underworld movie poster.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 15:53, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]


why isnt there a criticsm section? this was easliy the second worst movie i have ever seen (after son of the mask) a shitty matrix-meets-blade-with-romeo-and-juliet-plot movie definetly has plenty of critics why did they keep saying "leave us"? why did i constantly feel like i was watching the matrix? why did i constantly here sound effects that didnt appear to come from anything and add to the story at all? who the hell titled this a horror movie? what kind of idiots would be part of a cult following to such an awful movie? this movie was full of terribly written dialogue, there was no character development and they tried to push an entire new world on us in such a short time. and why the hell did michael and seline hook up? i dont care if its a movie, it didnt help the story at all, it was just a crappy and obligatory love story that added nothing to the film. what a god awful production, i refuse to watch the second one. 06:19, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Or maybe simply a "Reception" section, collecting a sample of reviews, and notes of ratings (Rottentomatoes, IMDB, box office, etc., etc.?) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) 13:26, 12 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Imported Trivia[edit]

  • The movie was filmed entirely in Budapest, Hungary. The story itself takes place in Budapest.
  • Amy Lee of Evanescence sang in some of the songs by Renholder, but her voice was cut off the official soundtrack, due to legal problems with her record company.
  • Director Len Wiseman opted to shoot several action scenes live, without the use of computer generated imagery. One such scene involves the Lycan Lucian seemingly running at high speed behind a speeding car. The scene was shot with actor Michael Sheen running upon a heavy cloth which was in turn being towed by the car he was chasing.
  • No special audio effects were used to alter Kevin Grevioux's voice. Grevioux's voice is naturally that deep.
  • Actor Scott Speedman won the Face of the Future Saturn Award for his role as Michael Corvin.
  • The name of the main character, Selene, is indicated in Greek mythology as being associated with the moon.
  • The name "Michael Corvin" was the name used in the teaser trailers on the tombstone of Ashe, the lead character of The Crow: City of Angels. This trailer is available on some VHS versions of The Crow.
  • Kevin Grevioux has stated the character of Selene is partially based on the Marvel Comics X-Men villainess of the same name.
  • Many of the guns used in this film are guns made by Heckler and Koch (H&K). However, Selene uses a pair of Beretta 92/96's with compensators.
  • The Film is often mistakenly criticized for heavy use of CGI effects, mostly for the Lycans. In fact the majority of the creature effects were not CGI but costumes.
  • A Nod to Shakespeare? The Vampire shooting range used busts of Shakespeare. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 08:03, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Above is the trivia section imported here, since no one has integrated the content into the rest of the article.Erik (talkcontrib) - 18:57, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mythological Inconsistency[edit]

Did anyone notice how the vampyres have reflections in the movie? Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe one big attribute that describes a vampyre is the fact that they lack reflections... I found it an interesting little inconsistency of the movie. -Sanctuary- (talk) 23:33, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The entire point of the movie is that the vamps and wolves are natural creatures infected with a virus. The number of people who don't get this is simply astounding. AlessaGillespie (talk) 06:01, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DREADNAUT:... Dear Beowulf; ; is it because of this she stands atop the arc d'triumph in triumph promised her by Viktor over the lineage of Dracula despite Marcus being the chose one of Normandy; ; Or is why there in one of the statutes has always been Diana in rest for one million years suddenly says this and wakes; ; and the goblin returns to the lake of night - unto herself foreigner of chapterhouses yeti; ; But then why should I care, only last time I said in all arguement of better passage to this understanding of your apocrypha in sealism NECROSENTIAL; ; but they argue with me into the hellcageispiderless -- and finally understand necronomicon in taste-flower -- but they then wonder it is time to discuss the truce of the necroscope; ; dark versus light in zura; ; only one of them will not sign again, and this time despite the rhyme of the changeling of the soldier pirates 'Do not pity thos that are not ironmongers in this way | always become angry | when they realise they are not the children of tomorrow'; ; and so - brings the beingnostromo into concurrency, and I lay down the factors of the powermonger-atlantis as it is time machine in this series; ; she will not sign dismantle of avaris in continuity; ; saying "there is trap there now enraged in uselessness"; ; I remember the castlestream in the so-carpathia, and the warrant of scape in the narwhale paradox, [only this way], who was my captor -- (Belgiumn Nebucadnezzer); ; now I have finished such works -- that they spiral significance or this is continuist, {INRI} | I have only three tasks left, benign chasm of Judas Iscariot; ; + in this I agree to the dismantle into the truce - that if it fails there is dreadlock-war in this way ,,heh,,; ; the trap works like this |as said| as the queen of the damnned is nexus where she is nexus |yesse| :penguin: ; ; the clans of the Ironone outweigh the freindships of the psinauts, in this they activate a beholder which has a mobius paradox inside - this then relays such behaviour from that point as evidence to them as miranda-polaxe; ; my point - in apocrypha - anyway, is that this fails to find them nautical enough of advertising collapses -- I agree however that it is dangerous in phallanx not to become nullified from this point is mellenial-certaincy; ; nevertheless I will not go there insipid fortitude is kraken mileage; ; I have in verfication this warning - the feint of the capitalist-revolutionary is U-Tube... —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 00:58, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Does the above actually mean anything or is it random mumbling meant to hide something else? Perhaps a mod would like to look into this and consider it for deletion? Rabhingm (talk) 16:05, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All powerful elder vampires?[edit]

If Viktor, and I assume Markus are such powerful elder vampires able to actually defeat lycans in hand to hand combat, why couldn't Amelia? (talk) 12:49, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps she could, but in the train ambush she was outnumbered... — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:18, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Underworld (2003 film). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 07:04, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone more familiar with the series than I care to add it to this list?[edit]

Types of mythological or fantastic beings in contemporary fiction is a page of, well, fantasy series (movie, TV, written, whatever) and the assorted mythological and/or fantastic critters they contain. This series would qualify. Anyone care to add it? Tamtrible (talk) 00:34, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Underworld (2003 film). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:11, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]