Wolfman-The Offical Thread

[Cuyan]

Or someone has a different opinion than you, and a similar opinion to me.

 

[DACrowe]

Honestly? Even if those 17 minutes are reinserted and make it a more solid film, it just just be a mostly solid Werewolf film that falls apart at the end due to a forced twist and a cheesy werewolf battle.

What bugged me and really marred the film for me is the twist with Abberline. In Blackmoor at the end, Abberline attacks The Wolfman with a spear. Rather than rip him apart for getting in his way like he did with EVERYONE ELSE, The Wolfman merely bites him in the arm to get Abberline out of the way just so he can go after Gwen. Abberline should have been dead by the end of that film. Like i said in my previous post: Lawrence Talbot is the Wolfman. If the Wolfman is not Lawrence Talbot in any other movie, it's a mistake.

The werewolf battle felt too damn choreographed to be effective. And the shot of Papa Wolf ripping his shirt off ala Hulk Hogan? Unintentionally hilarious, made even more so by the fact that they only did it so you can tell whose who.

I'm seeing the film again in about 15 minutes, though. We'll see how it plays out a second time.

anyways, I haven't seen CHEZ here since the Thursday night before the film came out. I hope he wasn't so disappointed that he put a silver bullet through his head

I agree. Walker's script may have been more nuanced than the finished product (though the alligator fight sounded beyond stupid, thank God that got axed). But his idea of werewolf fights, though in Werewolf of London, just didn't work here.

With that said, not that I'm trying to defend this movie too much, but I think I can explain the Abberline bit as it really does make sense to me. For better or worse, the relationship between Lawrence and Sir John in this movie is very Freudian. It is no secret there is a lot of Oedipus to it. That is why they work in Lawrence playing Hamlet, as that has often been read as an Oedipal tale (and apparently in the original draft the "To Be or Not to Be" speech about suicide played a major role for Lawrence that got trimmed).

Well Lawrence, as the forgotten and thrown away son, can now prove himself to his father in literally the only way his father would understand...savage brutality. But he is not fighting for the Freudian explanation to be with his mother, as his mother is dead. However, Gwen has become the surrogate mother to the Talbot family in a lot of ways. It is made very clear that she greatly resembles the wife Sir John lost and the mother Lawrence never really knew. So all three Talbots (including the brother) are drawn to her because their ids, which the werewolves are an expression of, see her as a sexualized maternal figure.

I don't think I'm reaching in using that as an explanation as to why the Wolfman decided to go after Gwen while he could. The reason that Sir John got drunk and subsequently was unable to chain up his wolf-self was because he was subconsciously jealous of his son for marrying and taking away the "mother" figure. So, as a werewolf his id lashed out and murdered his son. After Lawrence has proven his dominance by killing the father (very Oedipus), they show the picture of his mother on the wall. When he chases Gwen through the woods, Johnston goes out of his way to cut back to the portrait of Lawrence's mother on the wall. Lawrence has defeated his father and is now going after his "mother" to slate his psychological id. Even when he takes her, he leans into her in a ravishing position and his attack is far more sexualized in visuals than when he kills anybody else in the movie.



Look, I don't like the Oedipal angle. But in all honesty I think if you read it (as I think Johnston wants you to) like that, then him making her a higher priority to ravish than killing Abberline (who was protecting himself) makes sense. Now where the crap did Gwen's horse go when she ran out of the house? That's the real question.

 

[DACrowe]

oh dear just saw it...


all the cg shots of the wolfman and him transforming was awesome, but those inbetween shots of him in a nasty cheap looking halloween suit had me squinching and hoping they'd cut to something else quickly. I know that the classic design is what they were going for but it just didnt work.

CGI good? Rick Baker make-up bad? Hey different strokes for different folks. But the wolfman look was awesome. If he was a quadraped or worse...CGI, then the movie would have no reason to exist.

But Baker's make-up was quite awesome looking and not a "Halloween suit." Give me that over the werewolves in Van Helsing, Twilight, Underworld, etc. anyday.

Really.

 

[Cuyan]

It is a shame this "horror" film wasn't scary in the least though.

 

[Figs]

Or someone has a different opinion than you, and a similar opinion to me.

Thanks for stating the obvious.

The point of these boards is for discussion and civil arguments, if you don't like that and want everyone to agree on everything then you're in the wrong place.

There is opinion and then there is fact. Rick Baker's effects did not look like a cheap halloween costume. You personally may have not liked how they designed the Wolfman but to say Baker's effects were crap over very noticable CGI bad taste.

 

[Cuyan]

No reason for knee-jerking. When did I say anything about Rick Baker, CGI, the comparison between the two, everyone agreeing, my distaste for discussion and civil arguments, etc.?

I was merely illustrating that you were portraying your opinions as facts, which they are not. It is possible to discuss differing opinions without resorting to personal jabs and argumentative statements, grown-ups do it all the time.

I thought the costumes, effects, and make-up were on-par with just about everything that is out there today. My dislike came from the painfully predictable story, the less-than-threatening looking "monsters", Del Toro's disappointing performance, the heavy-handed writing (and dialogue in some parts), and the fact that it simply wasn't scary to me.

See how those points come off as opinions and not facts? That's what I was inferring.

 

[Figs]

No reason for knee-jerking. When did I say anything about Rick Baker, CGI, the comparison between the two, everyone agreeing, my distaste for discussion and civil arguments, etc.?

I was merely illustrating that you were portraying your opinions as facts, which they are not. It is possible to discuss differing opinions without resorting to personal jabs and argumentative statements, grown-ups do it all the time.

Very funny with the grown-up line. You say opinions as in multiple but my single opinion/comment to xwolverine2 was that it's pretty ridiculous to say the Wolfman suit looked like a cheap halloween costume. I would love to see a well done costume like that side by side with a cheap halloween costume you can buy at the store. That's primarily why I was stating that single opinion of mine as fact. Like I said in my previous post, you don't have to like the design for the wolfman but the makeup effects work is damn good.

I thought the costumes, effects, and make-up were on-par with just about everything that is out there today. My dislike came from the painfully predictable story, the less-than-threatening looking "monsters", Del Toro's disappointing performance, the heavy-handed writing (and dialogue in some parts), and the fact that it simply wasn't scary to me.

Those are perfectly fine criticisms and you say that you felt the make-up and effects were on par with the current standard for practical effects. This whole argument started with my comment towards xwolverine2 about him saying practical effects are pretty much ****. Your list of dislikes doesn't really include the make-up or costumes so I don't see any reason to continue an argument with you when my original comment was directed at xwolverin2 and it was about a difference of opinion in regards to the make-up effects.

That comment about the Rick Baker, CGI comparison was meant for xwolverine2 mainly but in your last post you state "and a similar opinion to me" so I thought you felt the same way he did. The everyone agreeing thing was because you got on my case like a personal defender for xwolverine2. Why don't you let him reply with his own counter argument. It seemed like you got offended about my reply to his post. I could understand if I was replying to one of your posts and you came back with something but this wasn't directed at you. I'm sure he's able enough to defend his own opinions.

 

[Cuyan]

I am not offended, nor am I defending anyone. I was merely offering clarity into a situation in which you seemed to be confused.

For future reference, "similar" does not carry the same meaning as "same".

 

[CGHulk]

Wow I'm a lone wolf giving this movie a 10! *howls at the moon*

The way you guys talk about this it's not even a working film, also the critics score being so low makes you not want to see this. It was nothing more than I expected.

 

[bestever23]

a ten would be like dark knight good, It is good, worth a buy but It's not a 10. 10s get Oscar nobs

 

[spider-neil]

a ten would be like dark knight good, It is good, worth a buy but It's not a 10. 10s get Oscar nobs

no way is TDK a '10'

 

[dark_b]

no way is TDK a '10'

are you two going to now have a 3 page debate in the wolfman thread about opinions?

at the end both of you will be right.

 

[spider-neil]

are you two going to now have a 3 page debate in the wolfman thread about opinions?

at the end both of you will be right.

you're correct of course. okay, I leave it there.

 

[CGHulk]

a ten would be like dark knight good, It is good, worth a buy but It's not a 10. 10s get Oscar nobs

It's me rebelling against all the hate. This film is getting criticisms it doesn't deserve. It's good and it's being labeled as crap. BTW I also don't think TDK is Best picture worthy. *runs away*

 

[El Payaso]

well...that the makeup and the transformations @ least make it 3/5 don't it?

Yes, and then Hopkins-wolf gets it back to 2. When his wolf head was ripped off and landed still biting, it was beyond salvation. If they wanted comedy they could have had the head doing the classic Lecter slurping sound.

 

[spider-neil]

for me wolfman was a very entertaining movie but character developement lite, which the characters motives, desires and feelings fleshed out then it would be a great movie. the 17 minutes may fix that, regardles I am buying the buy ray as its certainly one of the better wolf movies I have seen.

 

[dark_b]

you're correct of course. okay, I leave it there.

i dont remember quoting you. whats with SHH?

 

[Figs]

I am not offended, nor am I defending anyone. I was merely offering clarity into a situation in which you seemed to be confused.

For future reference, "similar" does not carry the same meaning as "same".

I know that "similar" and "same" don't have the exact same meaning but they're close enough so stop being condescending and talking down to me as if I'm a child. I wasn't confused at all, xwolverine2 said the suit looked like a cheap store bought halloween costume. I just said that it in fact it did not.

I understand as you said in the past, that he has a right to his opinion and I shouldn't go around claiming my opinion is fact but to compare Rick Baker's suit to a $10-$20 costume is ridiculous.

 

[xwolverine2]

Rick Baker's effects and the costume were fine and no, it looked nothing like a nasty cheap halloween suit. Do you really have that bad of eye sight?

yes i thought the make-up and design looked terrible and unconvincing...
i dont care who made it and why... in the film it looked amateurish and took me out of the moment.

it was just a solid mask over his face that never moved or showed any kind of reaction...

...and least the heads in the underworld movies were animatronic... and moved.

to each his own, but even with cool make-up/costume this movie would still be as mediocre and pointless as it was.

 

[mclay18]

How did this do at the box office?

The opening weekend numbers were stronger than expected, especially for a movie riddled with re-shoots and release delays. It's grossed $35.5 million during the 4-day President's Day weekend.

But since the reshoots tipped the budget over to $150 million (Nikki Finke says that Universal claimed that tax credits reduced it to $110M), it will have a real struggle making that back. If Universal still stuck to the original $85 million budget, they might be better off when it's released on DVD and Blu-ray.

Right now, it's highly unlikely the film will recoup its budget in theaters, even if domestic grosses scrape $100M.

 

[Figs]

yes i thought the make-up and design looked terrible and unconvincing...
i dont care who made it and why... in the film it looked amateurish and took me out of the moment.

it was just a solid mask over his face that never moved or showed any kind of reaction...

...and least the heads in the underworld movies were animatronic... and moved.

to each his own, but even with cool make-up/costume this movie would still be as mediocre and pointless as it was.

What do you mean it never moved or showed any kind of reaction? I understand it was more of a latex mask(a damn good detailed one at that) and could have had a few sections that would move or adjust more with Del Toro's face and reactions but I don't think it "never" showed any reaction.

Most if not all of the werewolves in the Underworld films were CGI creations.

Can you explain why you thought the movie was pointless? I'm just curious because you can pretty much say that about most films. The film did what it set out to do, it told the story of a man cursed with lycanthropy. People also seem to forget that this is a remake and as a remake should follow the original fairly close while adding in new elements. As far as new elements I liked that Lawrence had a trouble past as well as the whole asylum sequence.

I understand that a lot of people were underwhelmed by the film but I don't think it deserves the majority of hate it's recieving. If you hated it that's fine but I still don't think the costume and make-up effects were terrible.

 

[Doctor Jones]

Anyone hear the rejected Haslinger score? It's pretty good actually, but not for The Wolfman.

 

[KenK]

Most if not all of the werewolves in the Underworld films were CGI creations.

Outside of wide action shots of them running on all fours or stampeding (like the end of Rise of the Lycans), most of the time, it's done practically. The first and second relied primarily on men in suits. Watch the behind the scenes on the first and second, and you'll see how much work went into presenting the werewolves practically.

 

[Figs]

Outside of wide action shots of them running on all fours or stampeding (like the end of Rise of the Lycans), most of the time, it's done practically. The first and second relied primarily on men in suits. Watch the behind the scenes on the first and second, and you'll see how much work went into presenting the werewolves practically.

Hmm, I guess it's been that long since I've watched them. I could have sworn they were CGI but I guess not.

Either way I thought the Wolfman's face was good, not perfect but good.

 

[cryptic name]

oh dear just saw it...

even with my low expectations from all the negative reviews... it still was awful
barely had any redeeming qualities.

this movie was the opposite of percy jackson.. great acting but not entertaining.
both had these extremely predictable plots too.

all the cg shots of the wolfman and him transforming was awesome, but those inbetween shots of him in a nasty cheap looking halloween suit had me squinching and hoping they'd cut to something else quickly. I know that the classic design is what they were going for but it just didnt work. I was hoping they'd use shadows or something to make it work but no. Alot of people in my theater were laughing at the wolfman lol

why did universal even bother?

5 out of 10... bleh, and no rewatchability factor.

shame on you joe johnston

you need psychiatric help

and the wolfman's face was absolutely not a solid mask and absolutely did change expression with del toro's face. this isn't about opinion, these things you are saying are factually inaccurate