Exactly.
Twohy sure as hell wouldn't be credited, and certainly not paid, if it wasn't the same character. That wouldn't make any sense. It's obvious it's the same Warlock.
Rock's comments actually don't disprove anything, since he's in a position that's potentially biased. He, being someone who's writing a continuation of someone else's work, might have wished differently. It could be a sore point for him, having written for characters not his own. Additionally, his draft may even have been commissioned or completed before Sands was attached, so he may have written it with another actor in mind.
Regardless, the dialogue and the Twohy credit proves the characters are one and the same. If the previous poster's quote of Rock was accurate, it would be interesting to get Rock's response today, just after what's in his script is pointed out to him.
It could be like Predator. The predator in the second film is definitely not the same as the first, meaning there are more than one.
That's a
species that the screenwriters created. That's why they are credited on later appearances. A "Warlock" unto itself, cannot be copyrighted, just as a "Witch" cannot be. This Warlock is a particular individual, thus the credit.
Also, in terms of copyright law, it would be difficult to do a version of a character with the same name and similiar abilities without giving money or credit to the person who first had that idea.
Of course not, since it would be the same character. To not do so would be plagarism. :D
I realize you are arguing on the basis of a single quote from a magazine, but there's far more evidence to counter it. Again, after pointing this all out to Rock today, he might make a different statement, assuming he wasn't misquoted to begin with.
http://www.xm202.info
reply
share
bladou20
18 years ago
Okay, I was mistaken when I quoted from the magazine. I looked again and this is the actual quote:
" This film really has nothing to do with any of the other characters from the original, so I do take the stance that it is not a sequel, confirms Rock. It's just another story about a warlock-it just happens to be the same warlock."
The article attempts to link the films. The previously mentioned attempts to link them are not accurate. The closest reference was when the Warlock puts his hand on the ministers wife in the original and feels her belly, it is implied that this is a "jumping off point." The warlock could have impregnated her with his spirit.
This of course never materialized in WTA. The poster who quoted the channeler's lines of dialogue to the warlock has a valid point if these films were related. Remember how the first film was marketed " Satan also has one son" and so forth. That was put in the trailer and the poster. The warlock was not yet satan's son when he was running around 1980's Los Angeles, yet he was depicted that way.
Rock eliminated any connection to the first film as the references were deemed to be too vague for even a die hard Warlock fan. The "based on characters created by David Twohy" credit is all that proves that they are the same. The studio wanted to distance itself from the first film and let the second one stand alone. They were hoping to bring in a bigger crowd and dropped the numeral from the title while basically reworking the story from the first.
The first film is a self contained story with no possibility for a sequel. WTA is as close to a cliche horror film as your going to get complete with an ending that leaves the door open for sequels.
It is almost a reboot with the same basic character. If they are the same Warlock in the cannon story, not as a character, Why doesnt the Warlock just say God's name backwards at the beginning of WTA? He learned the name at the end of the first film? If they are cannon, how does the first film take place if the warlocks birth was stopped at the beginning of WTA? That period piece predates the sequence in 1691 Boston.
reply
share