Wolfman-The Offical Thread

[CHEZ]

Has that runtime really been confirmed?

I'll still go see it, but shadowbat60 is right, the runtime has nothing to do with the quality of the story or the level of the actor's performance. All the horror classics were incredibly short. But they made an impact that has lasted 80+ yrs.

We have top-notch actors here, a proven and seasoned director, a great sfx team, and a top-notch make-up team--all the ingredients for an amazing movie.
The Wolf Man is not a complicated story so it shouldn't be hard to tell.

Seriously, everyone, don't let all the negativity and reports cloud your enjoyment of the whole thing. Wait and see it and then make a judgment.

 

[Doctor Jones]

Yeah, we'll see. But I doubt it will be good with just 80 minutes.

 

[CHEZ]

Yeah, I know, by today's standards that's really short. I really wish we were getting a 3 hour movie. I'd be thrilled.
But, man, I am going to wait until I see it before I criticize something I know hardly anything about.
The internet poisons so much today.

 

[CrimsonMist]

Some people want 2 1/2 hours? There's only so many scenes of Lawrence going "**** MY LIFE I'M A WEREWOLF!", Anthony Hopkins going "EEEEEVIL!!!", Hugo Weaving going "Hmm..." and Emily Blunt looking all sob-eyed that you can show before people begin to stop caring about what happens and begin saying everyone is just whiney or obnoxious. Some movies don't need to be epic in length to be good. This isn't a complicated film here.

 

[Doctor Jones]

Damn, CHEZ. three hours? That's too much. I was expecting something around two hours or less.

 

[CHEZ]

Some people want 2 1/2 hours? There's only so many scenes of Lawrence going "**** MY LIFE I'M A WEREWOLF!", Anthony Hopkins going "EEEEEVIL!!!", Hugo Weaving going "Hmm..." and Emily Blunt looking all sob-eyed that you can show before people begin to stop caring about what happens and begin saying everyone is just whiney or obnoxious. Some movies don't need to be epic in length to be good. This isn't a complicated film here.

AHAHAHA!
Well, I for one, wouldn't mind seeing an outrageously long mega-WOLF MAN-epic!
But I am not going to let this news about 80 mins get me down either.

And you are right, short runtime or long runtime, that's really not what matters. What matters is story (and badass Wolf Man action).
And like you said Wolf Man is not a complicated story.

 

[CHEZ]

Damn, CHEZ. three hours? That's too much. I was expecting something around two hours or less.

HAHAHA! I wasn't being serious. But if it was 3 hrs I wouldn't be disappointed.

 

[CrimsonMist]

HAHAHA! I wasn't being serious. But if it was 3 hrs I wouldn't be disappointed.

If they started doing crossovers, an epic length would probably be appropriate. Not sure if i'd be comfortable with them doing crossovers to begin with, but still.

Dracula and Frankenstein, if new films ever get off the ground, should get the 2 - 2 1/2 hour treatment though. I just hope they drop the the over the top crap that plagued the Coppola and Branagh films and go for realistic horror when they get to those.

 

[CHEZ]

Well, if Universal is trying to relaunch the whole Universal monsters thing, then it'll probably come down to how well Wolf Man does at the box office.
If it's a big it with a runtime of 80 mins then you can bet they'll follow the same formula for Frankenstein and Dracula.
Another thing is, if Wolf Man is a hit with big over-the-top action, which from the trailer, looks like that. Then they'll probably do the same thing with Frankenstein and Dracula.
Short, dramatic, action packed, sfx driven movies.

I would love to see a remake of Frankenstein meets the Wolf Man.

 

[CrimsonMist]

Well, if Universal is trying to relaunch the whole Universal monsters thing, then it'll probably come down to how well Wolf Man does at the box office.
If it's a big it with a runtime of 80 mins then you can bet they'll follow the same formula for Frankenstein and Dracula.
Another thing is, if Wolf Man is a hit with big over-the-top action, which from the trailer, looks like that. Then they'll probably do the same thing with Frankenstein and Dracula.
Short, dramatic, action packed, sfx driven movies.

I would love to see a remake of Frankenstein meets the Wolf Man.

I'm not too sure about that. Unlike The Wolfman, both Dracula and Frankenstein are based on novels. And both of them have yet to receive the faithful screen treatment they deserve. Universal could probably pull off making longer films, especially if they can treat them as something other than horror, as both are great pieces of literature as well. I really wouldn't want to see Universal try to remake the Lugosi film again.

I tried writing my own remake, under the self-imposed rule that Universal told me specifically that I can't adapt the book fully, but could incorporate ideas from the book into the product as long as enough of the Lugosi film appears. I got about mid-way through(where Dracula gets to England) and the whole thing became convoluted and coincidence got stretched to it's maximum. It had a lot of cool ideas that took incidents from the novel and used characters from the Lugosi film instead(like Renfield being their psychic guide to try to cut off Dracula in Transylvania and Renfield dying trying to stop Dracula as he breaks free from his coffin) but in order to fulfill them all, I had to really stretch plausibility with the story. I realized then that the book would probably just be the best way to go. Not to toot my own horn or anything, but I felt I managed to capture that Golden Age of Universal Horror (1931-1938) feel down to a T. Universal should do the book as faithfully as they can(all 5 male characters, Renfield, Dracula de-aging, no romance, Harker going to the castle and being held prisoner, etc...).

They could probably pull it off within 2 hours, if they exclude alot of unimportant details. Frankenstein is the same way. To do it any different would be stupid. I think we've all sat through enough crappy Frankenstein and Dracula films to warrant a GREAT adaptation of the novels.

The problem with cross-overs is that it borders on Van Helsing territory, which I'm sure Universal doesn't want to repeat. How can they pull it off without it being cheesy? The story has to be real top-notch. And it shouldn't be called "Frankenstein Meets The Wolfman". The story has to be something deadly serious. See, The Wolfman suffered by being made in the 40's when the Universal horror films took a back-seat as B-Films, rather than the A-List spectacles they originally were in the '30s. All of those films got cheesy and poorly made. Therefore, I don't think The Wolfman ever got a sequel that it truly deserved. Had it been made in the '30s, it probably would have had a sequel that was spectacular. The crossovers don't hold up as well for me as the original films did. They're campy, and to redo them would involve some heavy creativity in order to avoid that again.

 

[SHADOWBAT69]

Yeah, Van Helsing left a bad taste. Im gaining faith again in the classic monsters after seeing the trailers for Wolf Man. Personally, Id like to see a Creature film next. We've had Frank and Drac, lets try something new.

 

[CHEZ]

I'm not too sure about that. Unlike The Wolfman, both Dracula and Frankenstein are based on novels. And both of them have yet to receive the faithful screen treatment they deserve. Universal could probably pull off making longer films, especially if they can treat them as something other than horror, as both are great pieces of literature as well. I really wouldn't want to see Universal try to remake the Lugosi film again.

I tried writing my own remake, under the self-imposed rule that Universal told me specifically that I can't adapt the book fully, but could incorporate ideas from the book into the product as long as enough of the Lugosi film appears. I got about mid-way through(where Dracula gets to England) and the whole thing became convoluted and coincidence got stretched to it's maximum. It had a lot of cool ideas that took incidents from the novel and used characters from the Lugosi film instead(like Renfield being their psychic guide to try to cut off Dracula in Transylvania and Renfield dying trying to stop Dracula as he breaks free from his coffin) but in order to fulfill them all, I had to really stretch plausibility with the story. I realized then that the book would probably just be the best way to go. Not to toot my own horn or anything, but I felt I managed to capture that Golden Age of Universal Horror (1931-1938) feel down to a T. Universal should do the book as faithfully as they can(all 5 male characters, Renfield, Dracula de-aging, no romance, Harker going to the castle and being held prisoner, etc...).

They could probably pull it off within 2 hours, if they exclude alot of unimportant details. Frankenstein is the same way. To do it any different would be stupid. I think we've all sat through enough crappy Frankenstein and Dracula films to warrant a GREAT adaptation of the novels.

The problem with cross-overs is that it borders on Van Helsing territory, which I'm sure Universal doesn't want to repeat. How can they pull it off without it being cheesy? The story has to be real top-notch. And it shouldn't be called "Frankenstein Meets The Wolfman". The story has to be something deadly serious. See, The Wolfman suffered by being made in the 40's when the Universal horror films took a back-seat as B-Films, rather than the A-List spectacles they originally were in the '30s. All of those films got cheesy and poorly made. Therefore, I don't think The Wolfman ever got a sequel that it truly deserved. Had it been made in the '30s, it probably would have had a sequel that was spectacular. The crossovers don't hold up as well for me as the original films did. They're campy, and to redo them would involve some heavy creativity in order to avoid that again.

I think you are mostly right. But if you were to take a poll from the general public about their knowledge of the characters of Dracula or Frankenstein, most would probably note the films from the 30's than the books.

Studios will almost always go the route where they will benefit from the general public than the select few who "really care about the novels".
That's typically what happens. Not to say it will never happen.
I am sure one day we will get the definitive Dracula and Frankenstein movies.
(Hey, maybe one day you'll make it! But when short, action-packed movies make a lot of money, the studios typically jump on that trend.

Here we are faced with a (reportedly) 80+ minute Wolf Man movie. If that movie is a hit, chances are the studios will follow it up with a new Dracula movie and a new Frankenstein movie and they will likely go that short in-out movie trend. They may make them each run a max of 90-94 mins.

Now, I agree with you, that's not doing the stories justice. But that all depends on the writer and how well he/she adapts the original work, and how well the director and editor cut the film.
The classic movies Dracula and Frankenstein ran about 70-80 mins, and the general public ate it up.
And don't forget, nowadays there's the "extended dvd cut" or the "director's cut" that makes them a whole butt load of extra money.
I am not making excuses for them, I don't particularly like it, but that seems to be a growing trend with film studios.

A crossover may or may not work. Again it comes down to the writer. And of course the director. A lot of people love the classic Frankenstein meets the Wolf Man, and if the movie is ever re-made and if the trailer is as gripping as this new Wolf Man trailer is, then you can bet your bottom dollar that audiences will come.
It also comes down to how well the next new Universal monster movies come out and if they are compatible to each other like the classics were.
If the next Dracula movie or Frankenstein movie are in the same period that Wolf Man is in and have the same look and style, it will make a crossover believable and acceptable. It doesn't necessarily have to have the same title, but I doubt that the title will hurt. If the trailer grabs you and blows your mind you'll be there!

 

[cryptic name]

The problem with cross-overs is that it borders on Van Helsing territory, which I'm sure Universal doesn't want to repeat. How can they pull it off without it being cheesy? The story has to be real top-notch. And it shouldn't be called "Frankenstein Meets The Wolfman". The story has to be something deadly serious. See, The Wolfman suffered by being made in the 40's when the Universal horror films took a back-seat as B-Films, rather than the A-List spectacles they originally were in the '30s. All of those films got cheesy and poorly made. Therefore, I don't think The Wolfman ever got a sequel that it truly deserved. Had it been made in the '30s, it probably would have had a sequel that was spectacular. The crossovers don't hold up as well for me as the original films did. They're campy, and to redo them would involve some heavy creativity in order to avoid that again.

I've been working on a screenplay for exacty this for a long time called House of Frankenstein.

 

[CrimsonMist]

I think you are mostly right. But if you were to take a poll from the general public about their knowledge of the characters of Dracula or Frankenstein, most would probably note the films from the 30's than the books.

Studios will almost always go the route where they will benefit from the general public than the select few who "really care about the novels".
That's typically what happens. Not to say it will never happen.
I am sure one day we will get the definitive Dracula and Frankenstein movies.
(Hey, maybe one day you'll make it! But when short, action-packed movies make a lot of money, the studios typically jump on that trend.

Here we are faced with a (reportedly) 80+ minute Wolf Man movie. If that movie is a hit, chances are the studios will follow it up with a new Dracula movie and a new Frankenstein movie and they will likely go that short in-out movie trend. They may make them each run a max of 90-94 mins.

Now, I agree with you, that's not doing the stories justice. But that all depends on the writer and how well he/she adapts the original work, and how well the director and editor cut the film.
The classic movies Dracula and Frankenstein ran about 70-80 mins, and the general public ate it up.
And don't forget, nowadays there's the "extended dvd cut" or the "director's cut" that makes them a whole butt load of extra money.
I am not making excuses for them, I don't particularly like it, but that seems to be a growing trend with film studios.

A crossover may or may not work. Again it comes down to the writer. And of course the director. A lot of people love the classic Frankenstein meets the Wolf Man, and if the movie is ever re-made and if the trailer is as gripping as this new Wolf Man trailer is, then you can bet your bottom dollar that audiences will come.
It also comes down to how well the next new Universal monster movies come out and if they are compatible to each other like the classics were.
If the next Dracula movie or Frankenstein movie are in the same period that Wolf Man is in and have the same look and style, it will make a crossover believable and acceptable. It doesn't necessarily have to have the same title, but I doubt that the title will hurt. If the trailer grabs you and blows your mind you'll be there!

There is alot to be missed if they don't adapt the novels. And in fact, before they made the Lugosi film, Universal was hellbent on adapting the novel as closely as possible until they realized budget problems(it was the Depression after all). Now would be their prime moment to do it right this time, rather than just rehash the stage play, the Lugosi film and the Langella film. Just because the general population is only familiar with the 30's film doesn't mean that 1. They like it and 2. It's reason enough to remake it. It goes back to what i said in the previous post: The Wolfman is a remake of a movie that was based on nothing. Dracula and Frankenstein have novels as their source. To not adapt them again would be missed opportunity, and quite frankly, lazy.

I don't think the time length has anything to do with it, to be honest. The Wolfman doesn't have to be 2 1/2 hours, but it should be long enough for the film to tell it's story. They brought in two of the best editors in cinema to fix this thing. It could be longer. Remember, in that one report saying it was 80 something minutes, it was said that Universal was unsure of the middle portion of the film, concerned that it dragged on a bit. With the right editing, you could extend it and make it twice as exciting.

Also, as I said, it's entirely possible to adapt Dracula and Frankenstein faithfully in atleast 100 minutes if the right things were included and removed. In fact, doing that might very well make all the action in both novels more compact and make them work better. And where I LOVE the Lugosi Dracula film, at 75 minutes, that movie really drags on. You could easily cut it down to an hour and it wouldn't affect anything.

Those "Director's Cut/Extended Cut" DVDs alot of the time feel like wasted opportunity. With things like Watchmen or Lord Of The Rings, 2 films that were already long, that were part of something even longer, extended DVDs are understandable. But alot of the times, it seems that had the studio released the extended cut theatrically, it would have been more of a success. Look at the Daredevil Director's Cut. I honestly believe that films based on Dracula and Frankenstein practically sell themselves now. To me, the books are the only way to go now. They've covered all the grounds. It's time to take a new step forwards.

as for the crossovers, I'm still not sure they could be pulled off seriously. They'd really be treading dangerous ground. The Wolfman is being treated seriously and as realistically as possible given the nature of the film. I imagine that the Creature of The Black Lagoon film Universal has ready will be the same way. Dracula and Frankenstein should get the same treatment. What the worry is, how do you make these guys all fight one another without relying on stupid ideas that piss on the characters, excessive CGI, and making it look silly? The Wolfman vs Dracula...think about it. The Wolfman fighting a dude in a cape? They might make him transform into that stupid Bat creature like in Van Helsing and I don't want to see that. I also don't want to see Dracula playing mad scientist either. It's gonna be really hard to not make it silly.

I saw Van Helsing and that's reason enough to be cautious.

 

[CHEZ]

All your points are well taken, CrimsonMist!

Ultimately, it comes down to money. What the studio is willing to fork out for the movie based on what it believes it will see in return. We've seen so many incarnations of Dracula and Frankenstein, both short and long, and they range from poor to average. Although, I personally loved Coppola's Dracula (except for Keanu who was nearly unbearable), the movie was visually awesome, the story was good (not great) and the music unforgettable. And while I thought Dracula 2000 was overall a stupid movie, I still found parts enjoyable. I also thought the revelation of Dracula as Judas Iscariot was pretty interesting and original.
But I remain optimistic that we will eventually get to see the perfect film adaptation of these books.

Wolf Man--I thought the report was about the end of the movie. I read somewhere that (on here actually) that they had to re-shoot the entire third act to "spice up" the action as they felt it was quite lacking in the climax.
I honestly can't imagine Wolf Man being a bad movie. I can't see how they could get it wrong. Even if it is bad, it will better than most.

Extended Cuts etc--I agree with you completely. I think that with certain movies, DD for example, should not have been edited down the way it was. The studio actually ruined the movie. Now it has a small but growing cult following. The theatrical Lord of the Rings, however, was way too long, and could have been edited down a little.
I remember people groaning and shifting uncomfortably in their seats dying for the movie to end. I was one of those people. At home you can enjoy the extended cut, as you can pause and take a break for as long as you want. I haven't seen the Watchmen extended cut, so I have no opinion on that. But I thought the theatrical cut could have been a tad shorter. There were a few scenes that dragged, imo.
I sincerely hope Wolf Man doesn't suffer the DD problem.


Crossovers--Come on, man! Have hope! If they can make you take the Incredible Hulk fighting the Abomination seriously they can do it with Frankenstein and the Wolf Man.
I have all the Universal Monster movies on dvd, and all my life I have been dreaming, waiting for a new take on these stories. I would love love love to see a new Creature From the Black Lagoon!
I would love to see a movie where Dracula fights the Wolf Man or a movie where Frankenstein fights the Mummy. YES, I know you're saying "Can't be done seriously!"
But I believe it can, with smart, creative, inventive writing!

HAHAHAHA! Yes, Dracula playing mad scientist is bad! VERY BAD! And I hope we never see that again. Van Helsing was a brilliant concept that was very poorly executed.
It's too bad.

Ah, what could have been....ah...what could be...

 

[CHEZ]

Doublefreakingpost!

 

[Darth Elektra]

I'm really enjoying reading your guys discussion.

I believe it is a really difficult descision for a filmmaker to make, What is the right length to tell the story?

 

[GoblinWhirlwind]

The right length sure isn't 80 minutes. While that has to lead to some action right away, it's still the length of a TV movie.

 

[gwynplaine]

I'll be seeing this for Anthony Hopkins. He looks cool and like he's having fun.

 

[Figs]

I'll be seeing this for Anthony Hopkins. He looks cool and like he's having fun.

No love for Benicio Del Toro?

 

[Big Daddy]

Whenever I read this thread, I remember that monster movie themed restaurant at Universal Orlando, anyone know what I'm talking about?

 

[gwynplaine]

No love for Benicio Del Toro?

Let's put it this way, I hope this is the movie that marks Del Toro's return. Cause you're right he is a very good actor when on top of his game.
(But I have a soft spot for Hopkins, what can I sayt:.)

 

[redhawk23]

Not to say it will never happen. I am sure one day we will get the definitive Dracula and Frankenstein movies.
!

See that will take the help of a different Del Toro

Spoiler

But he's lost in middle earth right now, and then most likely heading to The Mountains of Madness, but someday...

 

[CHEZ]

See that will take the help of a different Del Toro

Spoiler

But he's lost in middle earth right now, and then most likely heading to The Mountains of Madness, but someday...

Hahaha! Good ol' Guillermo!

 

[CrimsonMist]

All your points are well taken, CrimsonMist!

Ultimately, it comes down to money. What the studio is willing to fork out for the movie based on what it believes it will see in return. We've seen so many incarnations of Dracula and Frankenstein, both short and long, and they range from poor to average. Although, I personally loved Coppola's Dracula (except for Keanu who was nearly unbearable), the movie was visually awesome, the story was good (not great) and the music unforgettable. And while I thought Dracula 2000 was overall a stupid movie, I still found parts enjoyable. I also thought the revelation of Dracula as Judas Iscariot was pretty interesting and original.
But I remain optimistic that we will eventually get to see the perfect film adaptation of these books.

Wolf Man--I thought the report was about the end of the movie. I read somewhere that (on here actually) that they had to re-shoot the entire third act to "spice up" the action as they felt it was quite lacking in the climax.
I honestly can't imagine Wolf Man being a bad movie. I can't see how they could get it wrong. Even if it is bad, it will better than most.

Extended Cuts etc--I agree with you completely. I think that with certain movies, DD for example, should not have been edited down the way it was. The studio actually ruined the movie. Now it has a small but growing cult following. The theatrical Lord of the Rings, however, was way too long, and could have been edited down a little.
I remember people groaning and shifting uncomfortably in their seats dying for the movie to end. I was one of those people. At home you can enjoy the extended cut, as you can pause and take a break for as long as you want. I haven't seen the Watchmen extended cut, so I have no opinion on that. But I thought the theatrical cut could have been a tad shorter. There were a few scenes that dragged, imo.
I sincerely hope Wolf Man doesn't suffer the DD problem.


Crossovers--Come on, man! Have hope! If they can make you take the Incredible Hulk fighting the Abomination seriously they can do it with Frankenstein and the Wolf Man.
I have all the Universal Monster movies on dvd, and all my life I have been dreaming, waiting for a new take on these stories. I would love love love to see a new Creature From the Black Lagoon!
I would love to see a movie where Dracula fights the Wolf Man or a movie where Frankenstein fights the Mummy. YES, I know you're saying "Can't be done seriously!"
But I believe it can, with smart, creative, inventive writing!

HAHAHAHA! Yes, Dracula playing mad scientist is bad! VERY BAD! And I hope we never see that again. Van Helsing was a brilliant concept that was very poorly executed.
It's too bad.

Ah, what could have been....ah...what could be...

I hated Coppola's Dracula. Everything up to the point where Dracula opens the door to his castle is fine, barring Keanu Reeves. After that, it goes straight to hell. The sappy romance(as I've said, romance lies within the human characters, not with Dracula.), Dracula's huge hair and really silly costume, Van Helsing being a crackpot loony, the wolf-rape thing...ugh. The list never ends. My problem lies with the fact that the guy who wrote it, James V. Hart, just assumed that because Dracula was hundreds of years old, he must be lonely and that's why there's romance. No. Dracula isn't lonely. He's an evil vicious bastard. He does what he does not because he's cursed to do so, or has a broken heart, but simply because he can and he enjoys doing it. I think the film really missed the point of the novel by switching it around like that.

Dracula 2000 was interesting. The Judas Iscariot thing was especially fascinating. The day we get a faithful adaptation of the book on the big screen is the day I die a happy man(after seeing it at least 5 times first).

I could have sworn the article said the middle section of the film, but I may be mistaken. Regardless, I do agree, that even if it isn't amazing, it'll still be good and better than most.

Long films I have no problems with. It's really subjective though if a film is long. I thought Watchmen, after sitting in the theater, should have been LONGER. The ultimate cut of the film is great. The Lord of The Rings films caused me some unrest as well. I only went to see them for Christopher Lee, and I'm sure you can imagine the rage I felt upon, after being coerced into seeing the third film, seeing NO CHRISTOPHER LEE! But it'll just seem like wasted opportunity to release a mediocre 80 minute film, just to release a 120 minute extended DVD that sells like hotcakes.

Back to Crossovers. I don't know. I was thinking about this last night and came to the conclusion that there's gonna be an underlying sense of camp regardless of how they make it. It also comes down to how they handle Dracula and Frankenstein. If they adapt the novels, they're gonna have to pull some major creativity to make it work. Dracula in the book is an uber-powerful horrible, intelligent being and Frankenstein's Monster is an uber-powerful misunderstood being who is very intelligent. The monster won't fall for that "I Wanna be your friend" crap. But speaking of which, back in the 40's, Universal toyed around with making a Wolfman vs Dracula film as the first sequel to "The Wolfman". It was to be shot in technicolor and Universal considered Lugosi for Dracula again. I'm hazy on plot details, but Dracula was supposed to fight as a giant bat monster. They didn't really know how to pull it off so they scrapped it and made Arabian Nights instead. For those interested, www.bearmaniamedia.com is releasing a series of script books by Philip J. Riley about the abandoned Universal horror films. They're being released in the same format as Riley's other books about the produced Universal Horror films which are out of print and hard to find(but so very worth every penny. I have Dracula and Frankenstein. Both are fascinating to read.) You get the script, lots of pictures and information about what was going on during the development and production stages.

Bear Manor Media has currently released the book for "Dracula's Daughter" had James Whale directed it using the script he and Bride of Frankenstein co-writer R.C. Sheriff had written. They've also just released the book for "Cogliostro" which was intended to be a vehicle for Karloff that later evolved into "The Mummy". Next year, in January I think, they're releasing the "Wolfman vs Dracula". After that, from what I understand, they intend to release what was originally going to be "Werewolf of London" with Lugosi and Karloff considered for the role for Dr. Landon that went to Henry Hull(i HOPE HOPE HOPE that it includes the treatment for a wolfman movie that Robert Florey wrote in the mid-30's that was eventually scrapped in favor for Curt Siodmack's story that we all know). Also coming I think will be the first script treatment/script for Dracula that was much more faithful to the book and written for Lon Chaney Sr. All cool stuff. Be sure to check them out if you can and try to track down all of Philip J. Riley's other Universal Horror books he did for MagicImage. It's worth it.

as for Guillermo Del Toro, I want At The Mountains of Madness to be the first thing he tackles after The Hobbit. Then Hellboy 3. After that, he can do whatever the hell he wants.