Gladiators V. Werewolves

[Shyria Dracnoir]

Bringing a whole new meaning to the phrase "Dog Latin"

Originally Posted by FilmDrunk

AD 160. The Romans occupy Britain, and the great Hadrian’s Wall divides the land, built to keep back the northern warrior tribes, and something far more dangerous; a clan of savage wolf-like creatures which roam the lowlands.

Word reaches Governor Flavius that the Emperor has decreed that new, more fearsome beasts should be captured for the games. The ambitious Governor, having heard rumours of the fierce wolf-beasts beyond the great wall, senses an opportunity to win favour with the Emperor and even a place in the senate.

The heroic Centurian, Titus, is tasked with hunting and trapping the wolf-creatures. Titus and his legionaries track the beasts to their mountain lair and discover a warrior clan who transform at will into mighty, armour clad werewolves. In a fierce battle, the beasts slaughter half of the legionaries. Titus and his surviving men escape and ensnare the pursuing werewolves.

The Governor is delighted he has his prized new fighting savages, but Titus realizes that anyone bitten by a werewolf is cursed to become one of their kind. He warns the Governor that the werewolves pose a grave threat if they increase their numbers. Titus’s reward for challenging the Governor is to be stripped of his rank and thrown into the arena where the beasts’ savagery will be tested. [AV pictures via QuietEarth]

My brain hurts just reading this. I don't know whether it's because of the sheer density of stupid inherent in the whole premise or if the whole thing is just too awesome for me to comprehend. Thoughts?

[bluestarultor]

No, it's vast amounts of stupid. Werewolves who can change at will? Wow, isn't that just convenient and riding the bandwagon? Throwing them in the arena with the hero? Cheap excuse for action. Hero stripped of his rank? Change of heart and joining the other side in 3... 2...

This is the kind of thing I'd expect to see in converted 3D.

[Shyria Dracnoir]

The big twist is at the end Victoria Stilwell shows up in full chainmail bikini mode and utterly trashes the werewolves.

[BitVyper]

Werewolves who can change at will? Wow, isn't that just convenient and riding the bandwagon?

You know werewolves that can change at will are as old as the werewolf legend, right?

[phil_]

Honestly, this could be really cool. Like, turn-your-brain-off-and-enjoy-the-carnage cool. I've heard worse set-ups. And it's not like I'll have to pay to see it.

[Marc v4.0]

Originally Posted by BitVyper

You know werewolves that can change at will are as old as the werewolf legend, right?

Obviously he's never heard of the tale of men who sold thier souls to The Devil to get a belt that turned them into wolves at will. ya know, one of the many folk myths at the root of the werewolf legends.

There are of course the Skinwalkers, Yee Naaldlooshii, etc from Native American lore

But hey! Way to jump on the "lets hate a folk myth figure without even bothering to educate ourselves on it just because it's been a little mistreated by fame" bandwagon

[Viridis]

Yeah. Where have you been, Blues? I'd say half the werewolves you see in fiction change at will. World of Darkness, Discworld, WoW, ....Twilight. It's a long list. See where Werewolves intersect Voluntary Shapeshifting*



*TVTROPES

[bluestarultor]

Originally Posted by BitVyper

You know werewolves that can change at will are as old as the werewolf legend, right?

Originally Posted by Marc v1.0

Obviously he's never heard of the tale of men who sold thier souls to The Devil to get a belt that turned them into wolves at will. ya know, one of the many folk myths at the root of the werewolf legends.

There are of course the Skinwalkers, Yee Naaldlooshii, etc from Native American lore

But hey! Way to jump on the "lets hate a folk myth figure without even bothering to educate ourselves on it just because it's been a little mistreated by fame" bandwagon

Oh, believe me, I know there are specific origins to that approach, but said approach has largely been sitting by the wayside for many years until monsters stopped being objects of fear and started being objects of lust.

Or, to put it this way, until Twilight came around, the predominant image of a werewolf in the Western (or at least American) public has been the kind that turns shaggy and feral on the night of the full moon.

[edit] Or maybe I'm just wrong about how often it's abused. Either way, it raises issues (see below).

I mean, really, there are all kinds of werewolves, but you don't see the vampire-werewolves that are terrified of frogs from Cajun myth cropping up very often, either.



And that's not even the worst of it. If it's all at will, wouldn't you WANT to get bitten by one just so you could have awesome werewolf powers? Get a Roman soldier bitten, have him spread the love, steamroll Europe with your monster army, The End. There's no mention of getting bit automatically turning you against non-werewolves.

Hello Larry's Construction, we need a cement truck to patch a gaping plot hole. :P

[Professor Smarmiarty]

Becasue the entire point of the werewolf story is the battle to control the animalistic instincts and it works even better if they can choose when to control the transformation becasue then they have an active battle with temptation. It is similar all the Jeckyll and Hyde stories-wherein the shit versions just place Hyde as the villain but the better versions play the villainy of Jeckyll too- his active seeking out of an animalistic side, using Hyde as a scapegoat, he controls the transformation more in these versions. If the werewolf can't control his transformation you lose a lot of drama in favour of a guy who goes out and kills people but he can't control it so it's not really his fault.
And the Romans knew that shit too- the Satyricon has a Roman soldier who is a werewolf, the other soldier shits himself.

[Magus]

Werewolves changing at will is at least as old as the whole Dracula concept where the werewolf/vampire dynamic is basically mixed (i.e. vampires can turn into wolves, bats, etc. at will).

I mean I'm not sure if it was just Bram Stoker sticking the werewolf legend and wampyr legend into one thing, though, or if they were basically stuck together back in time. If they existed as separate concepts back when then that's cool but it just seems like Eastern Europeans probably were just like "demonic monster withces suck blood and turn into wolves and crap", I don't think they differentiated stuff out into separate legends and monsters, I think there was a lot of bleeding together.

But somebody who knows more can fill me in. Regardless though the changing at will isn't really new, and like Smarty said the concept of having to fight their animal instincts comes into play, though I think there is an element of drama here if he can't control it to an extent, like if they get too angry they start to change and can't help themselves, but there is an element of control if they can calm themselves, etc. The whole "turn into a werewolf under the full moon" thing just seems uninteresting. It's just some external factor that has nothing to do with their emotions or personality.

This concept sounds cool but it has a dumb name (I mean, is it Gladiators v. Werewolves or is that just the thread title?). There's no real reason to have a title that just describes the basic concept of the movie other than to render the thing intentionally satirical which takes away a lot of the subtlety that would actually make it enjoyable. To an extent the thing should take itself mock seriously.

Like this movie sounds like if Machete had been titled "Action Exploitation Movie" or "Action Man Kills People". There's no subtlety to a joke like that. So I disagree with this film's title being so obviously satirical. It should have had a classier title.