Wolfman-The Offical Thread

[Figs]

I'm not holding out hope that there is anything really to that 17 minutes that will drastically improve this film.

I'm convinced it will for the most part. First off it's 17 minutes of footage, that's a pretty damn good amount. Second, Johnston already said the majority of that footage is character moments as opposed to action, that's an even better sign.

Personally I didn't find this film to be nearly as bad as most are making it out to be. It definitely had it's flaws with pacing and editing, and I would have preferred them to use more traditional effects for the transformation but I think a lot of people had their expectations too high.

I'm in no way saying people need to lower their standards, it's just the way things are now, especially because of the internet. All this hype keeps pumping people up for a film. Not to mention trailers showing too much as well as most films releasing full scenes online now as a "sneak peak" a week before the film is out.

With saying that I do realize some of you didn't have your expectations really high and still walked out of the theatre disappointed, which is completely fair since everyone had their own reasons for not liking it.

 

[AndThePickles]

Saw this movie last weekend, and thought it was pretty good. It had a great "classic werewolf" feel to it, and definitely made me jump a few times. I started to fall asleep in the beginning because I was exhausted and went to a late showing, but that may also reflect on the slow start to the main action

 

[bullets]

I really fo want to see a sequel and i'd like to see the other monsters return in the same vain but did this do well enough for a sequel?

 

[Doctor Jones]

I'm currently watching it again. Now it's a little better the second time. Probably because I know what I'm getting. It still has its flaws and my rating remains the same, I still see a solid film in there. I can't wait to see those 17 minutes.

 

[KenK]

17 minutes is plenty of time to improve the film a great deal. Some of the people who didn't care for Daredevil in theaters did a complete turnaround when they saw the Director's Cut, which added roughly the same amount of footage as what's missing from The Wolfman. And I liked the theatrical version of Daredevil already, but the Director's Cut makes for an extremely different viewing experience.

 

[El Payaso]

I understand the daredevil case, but I doubt 17 more minutes will make Del Toro or Hopkins' acting any better.

 

[Figs]

I understand the daredevil case, but I doubt 17 more minutes will make Del Toro or Hopkins' acting any better.

I didn't see what was so bad about it. The acting definitely wasn't superb or fantastic but aside from being given some bland lines every now and again I thought they both did alright.

I fully disagree with people who say Del Toro was mumbling or wasn't even trying at all with emotion. This is a guy who has some inner demons and nightmares from his past. He seems incredibly, mentally troubled and I don't see why he would be more upbeat or energetic. To me it's the equivalent of people that complained that Bale was too much of a downer and empty as Bruce Wayne.

 

[Nivek]

I find the Del Toro acting critisims kind of funny, considering this is a remake of a Lon Cheney Jr. Wolfman film. You people thinking he was subdued, you ever see the original film, or any of his sequels? Or the Universal Wolfman sequels? benicio played him pretty close to the original.

I didn't think the film was awful, I was just disappointed with elements, and some of the performances were uneven. Benicio did a good job for his character, I agree Hopkins was on cruise control.

Personally, I would just jump to see a sequel with Weaving as a Wolfman, he was one of my favorite things in the film, but this is a guy who made me love a character that I never seen his face with when he was playing him.

 

[El Payaso]

I didn't see what was so bad about it. The acting definitely wasn't superb or fantastic but aside from being given some bland lines every now and again I thought they both did alright.

They did do alright. And that's it. Being Del Toro and Hopkins with their careers behind them, alright is poor.

I fully disagree with people who say Del Toro was mumbling or wasn't even trying at all with emotion. This is a guy who has some inner demons and nightmares from his past. He seems incredibly, mentally troubled and I don't see why he would be more upbeat or energetic. To me it's the equivalent of people that complained that Bale was too much of a downer and empty as Bruce Wayne.

In Del Toro's case, he looks mumbling because there's not much more to his character than mumbling. Sure, you can go and interpret that as "troubled" since troubled people might mumble, but those demons inside of him are not clear unless the movie explicitly shows them. And a good actor should be able to show them even when not explicit.

Take Ledger's Ennis Del mar in Brokeback Mountain. He mumbled the whole movie but his inner demons were palpable even when not explicit. Whereas Hopkins and Del toro satisfy themselves with the external mold of their characters. That's why the "romance" between Lawrence and Gwen felt fake the whole time. Nothing was actually happening except that the script said they fell in love. Sure, I get it, that way everything is more tragic. But nothing really happened between them - other than that rock-skipping class, which is more than a poor excuse for a romance starter, considering she was going to marry Larry's brother days before.

 

[webhead731]

That has to be fake. Even if someone loves Twilight and hates The Wolf Man (not hard to imagine in the case of teen girls), there is no way they would ***** about silver bullets and brutal transformations. This has to be done for attention.

I hope it's real. Just shows how bad the internet can be. If it is real, she has to be like 7.

I'd agree the Hulk transformations were terrible in both films. Especially Lee's Hulk. Mostly due to 5 years of less experience, but the Hulk transformations in that movie were eye sores (as was Bubble Dad). The reboot movie they were better in, but still looked cartoony (as did the Hulk himself). The problem is Universal or Marvel or whoever (I guess ILM) has yet to make a convincing Hulk, when Peter Jackson made a believable CGI King Kong nearly 4 years ago. I don't get it.

Honestly, I liked the transformations in the Hulk films. The first one's were good for the most part, but a few shots were bad. He kind of just inflated. I really liked the first transformation though.

As for Incredible Hulk, that film was better all around and I loved the transformations. Bones moving, painful looking, etc. I loved the part where he was on the table.

I haven't seen one CGI based central character(s) that looked perfect all through out. Avatar, District 9, King Kong, Hulk, etc. They all look fake here and there. Overall I thought the Hulk was great looking in TIH.

As for the Wolf Man. The CG transformations were certainly not as good as they could have been if they had started and ended as prosthetics and used CGI as the bridge.

Agreed on the need for practical effects. I mean, I LOVED the transformations in the Wolfman. They looked great 98% of the time, and were really painful looking. I loved the part where he was on the chair.

P.S. The best human to anything or reverse transformation I can think of in recent memory is a pile of sand turning into Sandman in SM3 (the big long scene). That was actually quite impressive.

[/QUOTE]

Agreed. That was great because it was so detailed, didn't use dialogue, and had a moving score. It obviously had alot of effort put into it.

 

[bestever23]

I agree with Del Toro fans! i think he was great for this movie and I felt sorry for him and his acting was good for a classic horror film

 

[Figs]

They did do alright. And that's it. Being Del Toro and Hopkins with their careers behind them, alright is poor.

That's perfectly understandable.

In Del Toro's case, he looks mumbling because there's not much more to his character than mumbling. Sure, you can go and interpret that as "troubled" since troubled people might mumble, but those demons inside of him are not clear unless the movie explicitly shows them. And a good actor should be able to show them even when not explicit.

Take Ledger's Ennis Del mar in Brokeback Mountain. He mumbled the whole movie but his inner demons were palpable even when not explicit. Whereas Hopkins and Del toro satisfy themselves with the external mold of their characters. That's why the "romance" between Lawrence and Gwen felt fake the whole time. Nothing was actually happening except that the script said they fell in love. Sure, I get it, that way everything is more tragic. But nothing really happened between them - other than that rock-skipping class, which is more than a poor excuse for a romance starter, considering she was going to marry Larry's brother days before.

I definitely agree that the romance thing was pretty bad and unnecessary. I still don't think Del Toro was literally mumbling his lines. Maybe he did and I didn't notice that much on first viewing though.

 

[Bad Superman]

I really fo want to see a sequel and i'd like to see the other monsters return in the same vain but did this do well enough for a sequel?

I hope Universal brings back the other classics. Im not too enthusiastic of what the plans are for Dracula and as for Frankenstein Im still on the fence.

 

[Figs]

I hope Universal brings back the other classics. Im not too enthusiastic of what the plans are for Dracula and as for Frankenstein Im still on the fence.

Haven't heard plans for those. What exactly have they said in regards to how they want to do them?

 

[Matt Mortem]

Aren't they doing like Dracula: Year One or something?

 

[Bad Superman]

Haven't heard plans for those. What exactly have they said in regards to how they want to do them?

Dracula: Year Zero and Dean Koontz Frankenstein.

Aren't they doing like Dracula: Year One or something?

Year Zero.

 

[Matt Mortem]

Dean Koontz Frankenstein seems like a bad idea. They alread did a crappy TV movie version in like 2004. If they're going to remake Frankensteing, they need to do in a similar style to The Wolfman

 

[bullets]

I hope Universal brings back the other classics. Im not too enthusiastic of what the plans are for Dracula and as for Frankenstein Im still on the fence.

I haven't heard much about Dracula but what i've heard about frankenstein isn't too exciting.

Haven't heard plans for those. What exactly have they said in regards to how they want to do them?

Frankenstein will be based off some Koontz novels and they would use "synthetic biology" , also make it modern day

A Creature from the Black Lagoon remake is in the works but not sure if it will be modern or not , which should be cool .

There's a movie about Vlad the impaler in the works but it won't have nothing to do with Dracula

then the Mummy franchise is going to get another sequel. I dont actually mind those movies but I want a real Mummy movie already.

 

[El Payaso]

I definitely agree that the romance thing was pretty bad and unnecessary. I still don't think Del Toro was literally mumbling his lines. Maybe he did and I didn't notice that much on first viewing though.

Well, inall justice I just called it mumbling because it was the way his performance was preeviously described. I just used to refer to a lack of emotion or 'inner world' there.

I mean, if they didn't put that shot of Larry acting as Hamlet I wouldn't have guessed he was an actor. Del Toro is good enough to portray a character with an inner world even if it's not explicit.

 

[DACrowe]

I'm not holding out hope that there is anything really to that 17 minutes that will drastically improve this film.

Maybe not drastically. But all things point to just longer scenes with more breathing room. Pace is the film's biggest problem. Will it make up for what they did to Sir John or some off the dialogue problems, etc.? Probably not. But if it just moves well (especially in the first act), I will be a happy camper, I must say.

 

[DACrowe]

I definitely agree that the romance thing was pretty bad and unnecessary. I still don't think Del Toro was literally mumbling his lines. Maybe he did and I didn't notice that much on first viewing though.

I agree. I imagine there are going to be at least a few more scenes of them (there is supposed to be a dinner table scene with all three principles that apparently Johnston was very fond of), but this was where Del Toro was sort of weaker to me. Del Toro did all right. But Chaney was just so much more sympathetic and memorable. And that is because Del Toro internalizes his performance imo. He is more of a character actor than a movie star. And while so was Chaney, he knew how to play audience's emotions like a harp and that is kind of required in a werewolf movie, imo.

But Del Toro did fine, he just is not Lon Chaney. With that said I don't think Del Toro mumbled at all in this film other than his first scene with Hugo Weaving, from what I recall. Conversely, I thought Emily Blunt made the romance at least have some resonance. She is a rising star and had to carry that subplot on her back and even with a truncated film, the ending was still sad at least from her conviction.

P.S. The one scene where Del Toro really brought it IMO was right before he changed in the asylum. Well that whole sequence he was allowed to just throw off internal struggle and play it broad. His desperation and despair was golden in that sequence.

 

[DACrowe]

double post. Sorry for the spamming of responses.

 

[DACrowe]

I hope Universal brings back the other classics. Im not too enthusiastic of what the plans are for Dracula and as for Frankenstein Im still on the fence.

I hope so too. The Wolfman may not have done well enough to greenlgiht itself a sequel. It cost $150 million to make. But first this may be okay because bringing Lawrence back might be cheesy and the end of the first taught us we should not hope for another monster mash a la 1943's Frankenstein Meets the Wolf Man. But if it was about Hugo Weaving as a werewolf I'd be game.

But it opened really well with $35 million for opening weekend. I hope Universal is not discouraged to not return to classic gothic horror. The lesson is make sure you have a solid movie going into production that will not need reshoots, rewrites, re-edits, new scores, new CGI. Man when you look at it, it's a miracle The Wolfman wasn't Van Helsing-level bad.

But if they can make a sequel or another Universal classic horror-style film for around $80 to $90 million, they could have some real successful films on their hands.


Anyway, I heard there are like three competing versions of Frankenstein in the works. I heard that the director of Pan's Labyrinth (Del Toro) wants to do one after he completes The Hobbit. Given his style on Pan's, Universal should put him on the fast track to do one in a gothic setting for them. There is that bad modern day one you mentioned and apparently Universal is just skipping doing Frankenstein and trying to remake The Bride of Frankenstein. I don't know about that. First you should introduce Dr. Frankenstein and his monster first, IMO. Second, while The Wolf Man (1941) was my favorite Universal horror, James Whale's 1935 classic (Bride) is easily the best of these films. It is so intelligently made, so subversive and as much a dark comedy as a horror movie...a remake seems almost impossible to pull off. And since Wolfman didn't reach the bar, I dunno.


Dracula, I haven't heard much. But Dracula: Year Zero sounds terrible. I say ditch it and make a Dracula film that adapts the book faithfully with some Universal iconography. That'd be the best decision, IMO. But who knows what Universal is thinking.

But Wolfman showed these films can be successful if they keep the budget costs down. Indeed.

 

[Figs]

Frankenstein will be based off some Koontz novels and they would use "synthetic biology" , also make it modern day.

I think people should just leave Frankenstein alone. For those that don't realize this, out of all the classic monsters he has been the one to have the most remakes and reimaginings. There are sooo many direct to video versions and some that were released already sound like that Koontz version in regards to more futuristic/modern "synthetic biology".

A Creature from the Black Lagoon remake is in the works but not sure if it will be modern or not , which should be cool .

This I would be interested in. It's just the creature would have to be entirely different from the original in every way possible or people will ***** that it looks stupid...even though it's a remake. I hope like The Wolfman they stick somewhat close to the original look of the creature while adding a few new touches.

There's a movie about Vlad the impaler in the works but it won't have nothing to do with Dracula.

That's a good thing it has nothing to do with Dracula. He only inspired the legend/story. Hopefully it's fairly accurate and shows how what he was really like.

then the Mummy franchise is going to get another sequel. I dont actually mind those movies but I want a real Mummy movie already.

The first was entertaining but the second was meh and I didn't bother with the third. I agree with you on wanting a real Mummy film. Something more R rated or a hard PG-13 with a less comical take on it.

 

[cryptic name]

I really fo want to see a sequel and i'd like to see the other monsters return in the same vain but did this do well enough for a sequel?

same here. it's doing pretty well for an R rated horror movie that's slightly out of step with modern horror. and it should do really well on DVD. a sequel is definitely a possibility