• The upgrade to XenForo 2.3.7 has now been completed. Please report any issues to our administrators.

Wolfman-The Offical Thread

Rate the movie

  • 10

  • 9

  • 8

  • 7

  • 6

  • 5

  • 4

  • 3

  • 2

  • 1

  • 10

  • 9

  • 8

  • 7

  • 6

  • 5

  • 4

  • 3

  • 2

  • 1


Results are only viewable after voting.
Status
Not open for further replies.
- Del Toro, Hopkins and Weaving in the cast
- CGI and make-up, including the wolfmen, and the digital London sets
- All the reshoots
- marketing
- paying a new guy to score the film
- paying new guys to re-edit the film

The budget was probably low, but with all the crap they did after production, is probably what set the budget higher.

I remember they had some problems during production but I can remember the specifics. Those above and whatever it was they had problems with could explain why the budget was so big.
 
블라스;18417419 said:
So did the extra minutes help this terrible film? Does it still have that stupid "CGI kung fu werewolf" fight scene?

I hope your kidding around. [BLACKOUT]Other than the daddy Decapitation,[/BLACKOUT] I don't remember much "CG Kung-Fu", just some guys in suits tussling and some wire-work.
 
well on some movies they throw money through the window. i would not compare the budgets to those movies.

for example LOTR,Titanis,Spielbergs movies are good examples. money wasspent only on the movie.

True, depends on the director I guess, but D9 looked more expensive than some movies with more then double the budget, same with the Hellboy movies, they look superb and not one of them cost even $100 million.

- Del Toro, Hopkins and Weaving in the cast
- CGI and make-up, including the wolfmen, and the digital London sets
- All the reshoots
- marketing
- paying a new guy to score the film
- paying new guys to re-edit the film

The budget was probably low, but with all the crap they did after production, is probably what set the budget higher.

As I said earlier, the digital London couldnt have been that expensive as Sherlock Holmes had the same and cost $60 million less, I do agree though that all the delays probably pushed the budget up a bit, but to $150 million?

I just dont see it, apparently the original budget was $80 million so far as I remember.
 
Well, the extended cut did add much. Only added some to the relationship between the three leads. I wanted more Wolfman gore and Weaving... :p
I really want to see the cut scenes of Del Toro eating edible bodyparts, looked sick in the make-up featurette. I still liked the film this time around.
 
Ehh... So the extended cut didn't save much to me. The pacing is a bit better in the beginning, but the overall feeling now is that Joe Johnston is a HACK and shouldn't be anywhere near the upcoming Captain America.

I'm dissapointed. But I try real hard to love it. And I'll always have the original... of course I waited for this remake for four years so it does kinda piss me off that it kinda sucks...
 
Ehh... So the extended cut didn't save much to me. The pacing is a bit better in the beginning, but the overall feeling now is that Joe Johnston is a HACK and shouldn't be anywhere near the upcoming Captain America.

I'm dissapointed. But I try real hard to love it. And I'll always have the original... of course I waited for this remake for four years so it does kinda piss me off that it kinda sucks...

Just stupid. How's it feel being part of that large group of people on the internet who have no idea what the meaning of "hack" really is?
 
I feel fine. I know what hack means. I think. What I'm trying to say that Johnston is a pretty bad director. Of course it might not be his fault alone that The Wolfman isn't quite so good, but because I believe Romanek would have made this movie better, I tend to steer towards blaming Johnston's directing abilities. But okay, the script could have been a bit better as well, I guess. Yeah, the daddy and pup werewolf fight was a bad idea. So there.
 
I feel fine. I know what hack means. I think. What I'm trying to say that Johnston is a pretty bad director. Of course it might not be his fault alone that The Wolfman isn't quite so good, but because I believe Romanek would have made this movie better, I tend to steer towards blaming Johnston's directing abilities. But okay, the script could have been a bit better as well, I guess. Yeah, the daddy and pup werewolf fight was a bad idea. So there.

I agree that the dad and son fight was fairly lame but I don't think Johnston is as bad as a director as some make him out to be.
 
He's not at all. He made October Sky. That proves he is capable. With the right script he is good. Hidalgo is underrated and The Rocketeer is pretty good. Hell, Jumanji was a childhood favorite of mine. I still kind of like it.
 
I feel fine. I know what hack means. I think. What I'm trying to say that Johnston is a pretty bad director. Of course it might not be his fault alone that The Wolfman isn't quite so good, but because I believe Romanek would have made this movie better, I tend to steer towards blaming Johnston's directing abilities. But okay, the script could have been a bit better as well, I guess.

You want someone to blame, look at Universal themselves. They seem pretty damn clueless when it comes to genre films over the past 10 years.
 
Watched it today, enjoyed it for what it was. I went in expecting very little after everything I've read online and ect.
 
To be honest i'm more worried about Whedon directing The Avengers(if it becomes official) than I am with Johnston directing Captain America. I recently watched Serenity for the first time and I found it to be fun and liked the quips thrown back and forth between the actors but the movie felt like a TV movie but one that was one step from feeling like a big summer film you would see in the theatre. I worry that it wasn't really the budget but his direction with the actors since the delivery of most lines felt like TV quality. I realize that movie was based on a show but for a movie you usually try to do better.
 
I agree that the dad and son fight was fairly lame but I don't think Johnston is as bad as a director as some make him out to be.

I think i'm one of the few who didnt mind the fight at the end, the only thing I didnt like was the older wolf seeming faster and stronger despite being a lot more bulky and older looking.
 
Well I give it an 8 on the poll above.

I just watched this on PPV and I have to say it wasn't bad. I love the old Universal Monster movies and this was a very enjoyable remake.

I hope they remake the old Universal Frankenstein movie next. It would be fun to see how they update Karloff's makeup.
 
I'd say this turd pretty much kills any gothic horror coming up unless Guillermo del Toro gets his Frankenstein and Jeckyll/Hyde made.
 
Universal have one of those stupid people in charge that don't utilize something like the Universal Monsters likenesses. You ever see the ILM CG test footage of Frankenstein Monster from the late 90's?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4m1qS8rUrws

and they did nothing with it, that was around 1998.

Hire DelToro two months ago, turn Doug Jones into the Karloff/ Cheney/ Strange style Monster, and get rolling...
 
Last edited:
Finally bought this on DVD. Took me awhile, but I got it! I have to say, I love it more each time I watch it. This really is one of my favorite films of all time!!
 
wow. I CAN see someone liking it but calling it one of their favorite films....of all time? bravo i guess!
 
The original is one of my favorite films of all time, or Lon Chaney's version of the Talbot character is anyway.
 
Finally bought this on DVD. Took me awhile, but I got it! I have to say, I love it more each time I watch it. This really is one of my favorite films of all time!!

I have found I enjoy more each time I watch it, I wouldnt call it a personal favourite of all time but I will be watching it for years to come.
 
I saw this recently... and what can I say? Absolutely atrocious. Almost felt like a spoof in some parts. Shocking that Del Toro and Hopkins signed on to this.
 
I liked it for what it was, but lets face it there was tons of room for improvement here. the ending was too obvious then kinda laughable with the wolf on wolf scene, my problem with that fight is who are we suppose to route for? There both evil animals and even after del toro wins he still goes after the women to try and kill her so what was the point then? They never should have went to england because in the end they go back home anyway so what was the point? Couldnt they have just tried all the shock treatment there in town on him and still have the same outcome with him going ballistic? I just wish there was more wolf moments and moments spent trying to find a cure and going deeper into the wolf mythology. That stuff would be much more interesting then a sappy love story with a subplot of an abusive dad thrown in.
 
I liked it for what it was, but lets face it there was tons of room for improvement here. the ending was too obvious then kinda laughable with the wolf on wolf scene, my problem with that fight is who are we suppose to route for? There both evil animals and even after del toro wins he still goes after the women to try and kill her so what was the point then? They never should have went to england because in the end they go back home anyway so what was the point? Couldnt they have just tried all the shock treatment there in town on him and still have the same outcome with him going ballistic? I just wish there was more wolf moments and moments spent trying to find a cure and going deeper into the wolf mythology. That stuff would be much more interesting then a sappy love story with a subplot of an abusive dad thrown in.

I thought it was pretty obvious who we were meant to root for, Sir John revelled in being a werewolf and didnt mind the fact that he had killed countless people including his wife, his son and his faithful servant, not to mention he turned his other son into a werewolf.

Lawrence was horrified at the things he had done and the only reason he didnt kill himself was because he wanted to make sure his father died for what he had done. He didnt have a choice once he turned into the wolf hence why he thanked Gwen for 'releasing' him.

Its summed up in the pre-fight conversation as well:

Sir John: "It is glorious isnt it?"
Lawrence: "No, its hell!"
 
after this s****y movie... the terrible Hidalgo... and the extremely dissapointing JPIII
... im 100% convinced this joe johnston guy will make crappy captain america movie (as if people could care less about the captain america character as is lol)

no idea how the guy who directed Jumanji turned into such a hack..
 
Mark Romanek talks about The Wolfman:

Mark Romanek: I never was reading the guys in capes, I was reading like CASPER and ARCHIE. (Laughs) But I’d like to do a film on a bigger, more ambitious scale. I tried to do something with THE WOLFMAN, but that was just a big mistake for me. (laughs)

Quint: I would have loved to of seen what you did with that. The result…

Mark Romanek: It was never going to happen.

Quint: The problem with the movie that we ended up with is that Joe Johnston didn’t really have much time to create his own identity and so it was kind of like this hodgepodge of what you had already set up and his own take on it. It makes this movie that’s trying to be two or three different things.

Mark Romanek: It was a producer driven project. It was not a director driven project. I tried to make it be a director driven project or have it be a director driven project, but it was never going to be that. I should say an actor-director driven project. Benicio and I wanted to do a certain kind of film and when we ran that up the flagpole nobody saluted. So, it was best to bow out because they knew what they wanted and it was better for them to have a filmmaker that was going to be more collaborative, I guess, toward that end. I saw it in the film. Some of the design remained and some of the locations I picked, but that’s about it, though.

Quint: Yeah?

Mark Romanek: Some of the cast. Some of it they recast when I left. Some of them they kept.

Quint: I’m thinking specifically in your vision you wanted a lot more practical stuff, that’s why you brought on Rick Baker, right?

Mark Romanek: Well, I wanted it to be simpler, more practical and more character-driven, more emotional, more archetypal and mythic and what they really wanted… And by the way, I want to make it really clear actually and this is a good place to do it, because I don’t talk about it that much, I don’t have any bitterness attached to it.

I was actually supported fairly well, there were just a lot of problems about… There was the strike, for starters, which got it off on a really bad foot and then the film was dramatically under-budgeted.

People say “Oh, he couldn’t figure how to make a movie for a hundred million dollars,” well you know what? If you are 30 or 40 or 45 million dollars shy of what you need that’s on the page and there’s a strike and you can’t change anything (in the script), what the **** do you do? That’s a problem. It’s very easy for people that actually don’t make films to say “Oh, he couldn’t figure it out for a hundred million dollars.”

You know, when we are three weeks away from shooting, we can’t change the script, and it’s clear that we are 30 or 40 million dollars light, what do you do? On top of that, no one could agree on what the tone of the film should be and no one wanted to unanimously support Benny and my’s version of it and Tony Hopkins’ (version), too.

And so it seemed better to let them find a filmmaker that was more suited to their goals. And they are good guys, they are nice guys. I don’t think they are like evil bad guys, they just wanted to make a certain kind of film. That’s what they believed in and that’s really true. I would work with any of those guys again, it just didn’t work out. Sometimes you just can’t get on the same page, which is fine. I have no regrets about it. It was a very traumatic decision to leave that film because I worked on it for almost a year, but I don’t regret leaving because it was the right decision, but it was a hard decision.

Quint: At that point you had only had one feature under your belt, right?

Mark Romanek: Yeah.

Quint: So much of the business is a power play, the ability to have leverage and the ability to be bankable. Obviously people are flipping for this movie, NEVER LET ME GO… I guess the question is when do you think you are going to have enough built up to be able to…

Mark Romanek: I don’t know. I’ll know when I do if I’m lucky enough to get there, but I don’t want to make a big ambitious film again until I have the leverage that a Chris Nolan has or a Fincher has or someone, because there’s no pleasant outcome unless it’s that sort of circumstance.

Quint: Yeah, and you are powerless to do something about it, but it would have been on you if you had kept with WOLFMAN and it just hadn’t worked and your vision wasn’t on screen, people would have laid the blame on you.

Mark Romanek: I’m the one that’s going to get blamed or praised and so directors usually feel like “Well, then I should be the one making the salient decisions about what it’s going to be.”

The only thing a director wants is to be supported. They want his idea of the movie to be believed in and then they want people there to support and facilitate them to do the job they were hired to do. It’s like what an actor probably wants from a director, they just want to be made to feel confident, to do their most daring work, and to be supported where they need it and left alone when they need it. That’s all a director wants from a producer, but when there’s that much money involved there’s a lot of fear and I didn’t feel like my idea of it was believed in at the end of the day.
http://www.aintitcool.com/node/46963
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
202,262
Messages
22,074,094
Members
45,876
Latest member
kedenlewis
Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"