Wolfman-The Offical Thread

[Kirk Langstrom]

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

Yup!

More pics of it here for anyone interested:

http://viewmorepics.myspace.com/ind...viewPicture&friendID=416184222&albumId=862507

 

[Nivek]

Such a disappointing restaurant. Hardly any cool merchandise in there.

 

[Nivek]

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.

???

I take it you have not seen that many Dracula movies, because Coppola's flick was at least the 12th one to use that lost love plotline with Dracula. Hell, there are at least 5 Dracula films pre-1992 that I can think of that did that.


I agree it's not really in character with the Count from the book, but the character on film has more to do with the play that Lugosi popularized than the book.

 

[Kirk Langstrom]

Such a disappointing restaurant. Hardly any cool merchandise in there.

Virtually no "merchandise" to speak of, however some cool original props and original pages of movie script...

 

[Nivek]

Sorry, meant to say Memorabilia. But for what it is, there is really nothing there.

 

[Gunga Diner]

???

I take it you have not seen that many Dracula movies, because Coppola's flick was at least the 12th one to use that lost love plotline with Dracula. Hell, there are at least 5 Dracula films pre-1992 that I can think of that did that.


I agree it's not really in character with the Count from the book, but the character on film has more to do with the play that Lugosi popularized than the book.

I can see Mist's point. While Dracula is one of the most romantic and overtly sexual stories/fantastical metaphors in literary history, he's never sympathetic, and that's what the Coppola movie turned him into. When you over-explain origins and make him a sympathetic wimp, he feels like less of a threat and his presence has less of an over-prevading sense of doom that Dracula deserves. It makes him seem like he's in a position of less power than he is, when Dracula is unstoppable, which is scary. That's what we learned from the Star Wars prequels and Rob Zombie's Halloween movies.

TL;DR: Making a character tragic and romantic are NOT the same thing as sympathy.

 

[gwynplaine]

This movie looks cool and made me want to see a new take on Jekyll and Hyde even more. Paging Viggo Mortensen!

 

[CrimsonMist]

???

I take it you have not seen that many Dracula movies, because Coppola's flick was at least the 12th one to use that lost love plotline with Dracula. Hell, there are at least 5 Dracula films pre-1992 that I can think of that did that.


I agree it's not really in character with the Count from the book, but the character on film has more to do with the play that Lugosi popularized than the book.

I have seen many Dracula films. Coppola's film, more or less, ripped the plotline off from Dan Curtis's TV movie adaptation with Jack Palance: Vlad The Impaler? Check. Reincarnated love interest? Check. The difference between the two films is that Curtis's Dracula and Coppola's Dracula is that Curtis's Dracula still did what he wanted because he could. There was no "WOE IS ME FOR I AM UNDEAD!" nonsense. He doesn't romanticize the women, he just takes them. Then there's the Frank Langella film, and that's all romancy too, as well as, though slightly, Herzog's remake of Nosferatu

What it comes down to though, and this is why the Coppola film is such a problem, is that no one knows about the Palance film, the Herzog film or the Langella film, unless they're fans. And those films don't tout themselves as the most faithful adaptation of the book either, unlike Coppola's, which is all anyone bothers to know about. That's atleast five. What are these additional films you speak of? Unless that was exaggeration?

 

[Kirk Langstrom]

Sorry, meant to say Memorabilia. But for what it is, there is really nothing there.

Depends on your definition of "nothing" i guess. Seeing the original Wolfman script and the original Creature's fossilized hand was pretty cool, imo...

 

[Nivek]

Dan Curtis Dracula (with Jack Palance)
Love at First Bite
Dracula (Langella)
Blackula & Scream Blackula Scream (eh, it's pretty much Dracula)
Dracula Rising

 

[Nivek]

*edit*

 

[CrimsonMist]

Love at First Bite
Blackula & Scream Blackula Scream (eh, it's pretty much Dracula)
Dracula Rising

Love At First Bite is a comedy, and not even an adaptation of the novel. With comedy, anything is fair game. I don't think Stoker's Dracula would waste his time with disco either.

Blacula and Scream Blacula Scream aren't adaptations either, and Dracula shows up in the first film as the vicious monster Stoker wrote him as. Hell, he's the reason why Blacula is a vampire.

and Dracula Rising...i forgot about that one. And for good reason. It was awful. I'll give it to you, i guess. But it was made to cash in on the success of Coppola's film. And from what I remember, it was Dracula himself who turned his own son into a vampire(the son is the character we see in the film, while Dracula actually shows up once or twice and is pretty *****in' to look at).

The rest of the films you listed I covered already. And it came down to characterization. In those films, Dracula is still every bit the villain Stoker wrote him as. He doesn't romance because he longs for companionship. He does it simply because he wants something. He doesn't wreak havoc because his heart was broken, he does it because he can, for the sheer hell of doing it.

 

[Nivek]

Hey, I would love to see a brutal Dracula as Stoker depicted on screen, and we got close a couple times (Christopher Lee's dirt budgeted Count Dracula, the PBS Dracula with Louis Jordan, even Duncan in Monster Squad) but the romance crap will always be there to draw in females who want the "bad boy I can try to fix, or he could kill me" fetish.

FYI- Dracula Rising is one of those Dracula films I throw out just because it's so lame. Christopher Atkins as Dracula, blah... I would rather see the Dracula: The Muppet Musical in Forgetting Sarah Marshall a thousand times than that mess...

 

[redhawk23]

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.

hes pretty much confirmed that ATMM is lined up first. Universal is fronting the bill for R and D for insane puppets and new Cgi programs. he's talked about it in a few interviews.

 

[DACrowe]

Coppola's Dracula is nothing like the book.

And it is still wildly entertaining with a great cast (save for Reeeves), amazing retro visuals and the best cinematography and score you could ask for. The score is still one of my all time favorites.

But it bastardizes the book, no question. However, this film we are hyping bastardizes the original film by:

Spoiler

Turning the Greek Tragedy elements of the original on themselves and missing what made it classic. It was as much Claude Raines' strict, but sympathetic father as Lon Chaney that made that movie endearing. The father killing the son and completing the cycle of disbelieving his son and being left with a barren line is the heart of the tragedy's ending.

In the new version the dad is suspiciously evil from the start and a werewolf who Larry will likely kill at the end, thus ruining that element of pathos to both of them.

But if the remake is half as entertaining as Coppola's Dracula, especially at this point, I'd consider it a win.

 

[Darth Elektra]

'The Wolfman' Producer Barks on Delays and CG Make-Up

Horror fans keeping a close eye on Universal Pictures' The Wolfman know that the remake, starring Benicio Del Toro, has been delayed so many times it's becoming uncomfortable. Typical delays of such length are the result of problems behind-the-scenes, or just a cluttered release schedule. According to a new interview with producer Scott Stuber, it's neither.

"The visual effects work was so complex that some of the stuff wasn't ready," Stuber told Total Film Magazine in response to the delays. "There were so many textures we had to create, like landscapes of London and all the elements within the London sequence; they just weren't where they needed to be."

Early reports indicate that the film is CG-heavy, Stuber explains.

"It was never our intention for this to be a CGI-fest. Our whole thing was to honor Lon Chaney Jr and the spirit of the original. It's an authentic, make-up-driven film, but there are transitional pieces that we needed to do in CG, so you didn't have to cut away during the change in the monster. Integrating the make-up and the effects to make them feel like one cohesive whole was always going to be a challenge and it's something we've had to work through."

As for the reshoots, Stuber explains that they needed some new exposition between Del Toro and Emily Blunt.

"We needed one more piece between Benicio (Del Toro) and Emily (Blunt). We added a new scene during the post-bite, pre-transformation sequence when he's starting to realize something's wrong. It's a big quality piece of entertainment. It's beautiful, rich, gothic, tragic - it's everything you hope it would be."

THE WOLFMAN arrives in theaters finally on February 12th, 2010.

 

[Kurosawa]

Hey, I would love to see a brutal Dracula as Stoker depicted on screen, and we got close a couple times (Christopher Lee's dirt budgeted Count Dracula, the PBS Dracula with Louis Jordan, even Duncan in Monster Squad) but the romance crap will always be there to draw in females who want the "bad boy I can try to fix, or he could kill me" fetish.

FYI- Dracula Rising is one of those Dracula films I throw out just because it's so lame. Christopher Atkins as Dracula, blah... I would rather see the Dracula: The Muppet Musical in Forgetting Sarah Marshall a thousand times than that mess...

Pretty sad seeing wuss Draculas when they should be shooting for Christopher Lee's type of badass Dracula.

 

[TheComicbookKid]

Nevermind

 

[Darth Elektra]

36 days till the 'Wolfman' is released!

 

[ultimatefan]

Let´s hope this time it´s not just damage control BS. If I go to see it on theater and I get a chopped, rushed 90-minute mess of a flick, I may turn into a "beast" myself.

 

[redhawk23]

if this thing comes out the otherside a quality film, i will be very suprised, but i will give it the benefit of the doubt.

from what i hear though they are reditting, AGAIN!

 

[redhawk23]

double

 

[Darth Elektra]

'Wolfman' Troubles?

This week, the Internet was afire with more bad buzz regarding the troubled "Wolfman" film that is to be released next month. However, Ain't It Cool News was able to clarify the matter.

Here is what they said:

Earlier this afternoon, I started getting emails from Universal insisting that The Playlist's main contention - that Universal Co-Chair Donna Langley is overseeing a studio cut of the THE WOLFMAN - is incorrect. I just got off the phone with producer Scott Stuber, and he has assured me that they have settled on a cut (which tested strongly back in November), and are now in the process of mixing, getting the final f/x and dropping in credits. Here are the particulars according to Stuber:

1) It was (director) Joe Johnston's idea to bring in editor Walter Murch after the spring '09 reshoots to supply a "fresh perspective" and, most importantly, get the film in shape. Stuber had nothing but praise for Dennis Virkler's work, and insisted this was all about getting a new pair of eyes.

2) Murch did the bulk of the work. Mark Goldblatt was only on for three or four weeks to assist with a complicated London set piece.

3) Moving the release date from November to February was all about finishing the f/x, particularly in that London sequence.

4) Per Stuber: "The thing about Donna [Langley]... they weren't really involved in that stuff. They knew [what we were] doing, and they were supportive of it, but there's never been an editing room that was sanctioned by the studio against the filmmakers."

5) The dual test screenings in November were not dueling test screenings. "There were sequences or pieces that we wanted to try differently," said Stuber. "And we did them back-to-back so we could watch them." Basically, it was all about rhythm and pacing. Nothing major. By the way, they've got their R-rating from the MPAA, so don't worry about that being rescinded.

6) The future of Universal's other "Classic Monsters" is not contingent on the success of THE WOLFMAN. Each of these projects is its own entity, and they all have little to do with one another.

Overall, Stuber sounded pleased with the film. Obviously, he's relieved that this multi-year odyssey is coming to a close, but everything seems to be coming together.

 

[TheComicbookKid]

They showed some Wolfman commercials during the football game. So excited.

 

[Kane52630]

They showed some Wolfman commercials during the football game. So excited.

yea i saw that, cant wait for it