Wolfman-The Offical Thread

[Matt Mortem]

Dracula. Ugh, Dracula: Year Zero. So this is going to be Clash of the Titans except with fangs? Ugh. Coppola's prologue was enough for me and probably better than this film concept could ever be. I would like a faithful adaptation of the book with some of Universal's classic staples or just don't bother.

100% agree with this. Hollywood needs to stop trying to weave Vlad Tepes and the Stoker Dracula together. One inspired the other, but they aren't the same. I liked Coppola's Dracula and a revamped version would be cool, but I think they need to work on the Creature from the Black Lagoon and Frankenstein first since Coppola's Dracula came out in the early 90's and is still kind of fresh in people's minds. Either way I want a resurgence in Universal Horror!!!

 

[Doctor Jones]

Creature From The Black Lagoon goddammit.

Just think of the possibilities. Make it set in Victorian times when Darwinism is first known and published. But give it a B movie feel with A list talent. Like Shutter Island. I'm not asking for Scorsese or DiCaprio to be apart of it, but alot of care should go into it. Love too. But it should be a mix between Alien, The Thing and Beauty and the Beast.

 

[Matt Mortem]

Creature From The Black Lagoon goddammit.

Just think of the possibilities. Make it set in Victorian times when Darwinism is first known and published. But give it a B movie feel with A list talent. Like Shutter Island. I'm not asking for Scorsese or DiCaprio to be apart of it, but alot of care should go into it. Love too. But it should be a mix between Alien, The Thing and Beauty and the Beast.

Bingo. That'd be a hell of a film

 

[Darth Elektra]

Have you seen Pans Labyrinth then? Style and substance is to be found in that film. It's a touching dark fairytale.

That was an excellent movie, and your right.

 

[Octoberist]

It was fake.

As a somewhat (I realize how silly the franchise is and the fact that the movies and books aren't "good") Twilight fan it never fails to amaze me how much hatred the series garners because it mostly appeals to females.

That fake letter was so pointless and was just made up by that website to stir up the loonies in the Twilight fansbase. It maybe would have been interesting enough for me to read if it weren't so random and pointless.

Then again Latino Review thought that GI JOE was a better movie than Star Trek and talks crudely about Megan Fox because she is far from a good actress. Decent Website sometimes but I wish they'd grow up a little.

How about an actual article about The f**king Wolfman movie?

I'm with you here.

If people like Twilight, then whatever. But when I see grown ass men complaining about a franchise that caters to pre-teen girls, I roll my eyes.

Like Kevin Smith said (and I'm paraphrasing) "Yeah, they're 12 year old Twilight fans now, but in 6 years, they're be LEGAL 18 year old Twilight fans." haha.

 

[DACrowe]

Twilight hate is overdone. The movies are fairly mediocre, as I hear the books are. But fanboys love Transformers movies and look forward to obviously trite productions (Wolverine, Fantastic Four, etc.) because it is based on a franchise they like. "Oh but it is all about guys with no shirts!" And Megan Fox is in Transformers for her acting or the Bond girls are cast for their personalities, like Denise Richards as a nuclear scientist.

It is ridiculous.

 

[SurfDUI]

The movies are fairly mediocre,

I do agree that detractors of the whole 'saga' really are picking on preteen girl entertainment...whatever: and some 40 year old women at my job...seriously- a poster??)

They've got there thing and I've got... Howling II I guess...which is the worst Werewolf movie even surpassing AWIP, the ending w/ that gdamned, nuvo band is nausiating.

Which is why I don't piss on Twilight, even though I couldn't pick anyof them out of a line up. Horror moves in cycles. You got the classics...then they become corny and you get new stuff like in the 60's and you get more of a modern mix w/ the old w/ gore and schmaltz. woot:Frankenstien's Castle of Freaks!) Then it moves to totally modern day...70's - 80's (birth Freddy & Jason) all the while appreciation of the classics grows and you get a movement to redo the wheel, 'Brahm Stoker'...the worse Van Helsing, again you movie into the modern day settings, Buffy and now the twilight...all the while rehashes pop up between cycles-NEW Freddy and Jason, and new Wolfman...meh. I hope were not in a lest redo the entire Universal line up...please. How many times can you go round. So Twilight is just putin the girl spin on the genre.

Thas cool, NOT FOR ME, but hey.. if Werewolves move teenage girls now we could have a whole new Ann Rice generation beginning...or more Howling II.

 

[DACrowe]

^^ Well vampires have gone through an interesting journey. They became a symbol of sexual debauchery and evil in the English 19th century fiction. The victorians are so repressed, it became a wonderful way to deal with subjects like lesbianism (Camilla) or a slew of subjects about old vs. new at the dawning of the scientific age (Dracula).

But then in the 20th century vampires have become sexy. Lugosi added a creepy sex appeal to Dracula that was not in the novel. Eventually it leads to things like Frank Langella playing Dracula in a Universal film as a romantic hero. And you just see reinventions of the wheel. Anne Rice very cleverly recreated vampires as tragic anti-heroes as opposed to monstrous villains in her book series (though the later installments were mediocre, the early ones in the '70s and '80s were brilliant), but she made her vampires more attractive and sexually ambiguous. This becomes the vampire of popular fiction and it leads to Coppola's otherwise faithful Dracula (a viscous monster) to become a tragic hero with a romance subplot. It leads to Twilight. But there seems to be an equal push back with films like The Lost Boys, From Dusk Till Dawn and Blade.


So, I don't feel Twilight is a tired retread of a worn out concept. Merely, I believe it is about as far as you can take the romantic vampire which began with Lugosi's evil, but oddly sexual performance in 1931. You can't (pardon the pun) defang vampires more than Twilight. But I do not think that it means we shouldn't revisit the archetype of vampire or that it can't be reinvented again. Vampires are hundreds of years old and the popular image of them never lasts that long (other than perhaps Lugosi in the cape and maybe Max Schreck in Nosferatu). Vampires will outlive Twilight and the Vampire Diaries.

What I'm saying is it is a bit ridiculous to throw out vampires as a boring or washed up material because of Twilight. Stoker recreated vampires, as did Universal, as did Rice, as did Meyer. Just because we don't care for Meyer's popular interpretation does not mean that the concept is dead.

The same applies to werewolves that with some notable exceptions has strayed little in popular culture since Universal's 1941 original film. There is always room for a new take though. Otherwise we never would have gotten AWIL, a reworking of The Wolf Man's original formula, or The Howling, Wolfen, etc....Oh for the record, I watched Dog Soldiers for the first time last night. Though flawed, full of gaping plot holes, some questionable make-up and a low budget..absolutely loved it. An extremely entertaining movie and my new favorite werewolf movie of the last 20 years, easily.

 

[Spidey-Bat]

Just got back from seeing it. The pacing was bad. Most of the gore was excessive and unnecessary, but it's obviously in there as a selling point for the ignorant masses. There were too many cheap jump scares (like the two times with the dog). I think the cast helped keep it from being bad as it might have been.

A couple things annoyed me. One (really two) was the CGI of the bear and elk. How is it that Jurassic Park had great CGI dinosaurs 17 years ago but today they can't even do a convincing CGI bear? Same thing with the elk. They couldn't use a real elk when they were tying it up? Nitpicks but still. The other was when [blackout]Laurence kills John by kicking him into the fire then slashing his head off. So much for the silver bullets. [/blackout]

It was alright, I'd give it a 6-6.5. It could be a 7 if you're really in the mood. As a movie, I'd say it's on-par with The Mummy but wins out on being a better adaptation of the classic 30's version. It wasn't my pipe dream version of The Wolfman but it'll do until they give it another try. Now I want my pipe dream Dracula movie. Either a remake of the 1931 classic or a closer adaptation of the book. Jason Issacs as Dracula and Liam Neeson as Abraham Van Helsing.

And Doctor Jones, love the Creature of the Black Lagoon idea. That needs revamp treatment the most.

 

[enterthemadness]

Just got back from seeing it. The pacing was bad. Most of the gore was excessive and unnecessary, but it's obviously in there as a selling point for the ignorant masses. There were too many cheap jump scares (like the two times with the dog). I think the cast helped keep it from being bad as it might have been.

A couple things annoyed me. One (really two) was the CGI of the bear and elk. How is it that Jurassic Park had great CGI dinosaurs 17 years ago but today they can't even do a convincing CGI bear? Same thing with the elk. They couldn't use a real elk when they were tying it up? Nitpicks but still. The other was when [blackout]Laurence kills John by kicking him into the fire then slashing his head off. So much for the silver bullets. [/blackout]

It was alright, I'd give it a 6-6.5. It could be a 7 if you're really in the mood. As a movie, I'd say it's on-par with The Mummy but wins out on being a better adaptation of the classic 30's version. It wasn't my pipe dream version of The Wolfman but it'll do until they give it another try. Now I want my pipe dream Dracula movie. Either a remake of the 1931 classic or a closer adaptation of the book. Jason Issacs as Dracula and Liam Neeson as Abraham Van Helsing.

And Doctor Jones, love the Creature of the Black Lagoon idea. That needs revamp treatment the most.

Didn't JP use for the most part animaltronics(sp?) that were CGI enhanced?

And wasn't this movie edited to hell? I know the first act was cut by 17 minutes...

 

[Spidey-Bat]

Didn't JP use for the most part animaltronics(sp?) that were CGI enhanced?

IIRC, the scene when they see the Brontosauruses for the first time was CGI. The end scene with the T-Rex looked mostly CGI. Even if I'm mistaken, the bear and elk looked terrible. It's only a nitpick though since they barely take up 15 seconds and I can understand using CGI animals in those scenes. Not faulting them for using CGI, but they could have done a better job.

And wasn't this movie edited to hell? I know the first act was cut by 17 minutes...

Yes, it was. I know that. But that doesn't excuse the flaw. The movie is only 94 min, they could have put the 17 more in. It's not as if the final cut was 2.5 hours.

 

[mclay18]

Now Nikki Finke is saying The Wolfman cost Universal around $200M to make (with tax rebates lowering it down to $175M) and that the second weekend gross plummeted 70%:

Universal's The Wolfman -70% from last Friday and last weekend, cementing that movie's complete disintegration. A bitter legacy of fired Universal Pictures chief Marc Shmuger for the studio, the film cost a giant $200M (but with tax credits the net budget came down to about $175M). Not only did the pic drop huge at the domestic box office its 2nd weekend, but it also fell apart overseas where it hadn't opened particularly well anyway. As one of my financial sources says, "This is a huge, huge writeoff."

Methinks Universal should've budgeted this movie more wisely. I have a hard time believing the reshoots cost another $85M or more, or they should've picked better/cheaper CGI houses to do the transformation work.

 

[Silver Knight]

How did this fair at the BO?

 

[TheComicbookKid]

It's expected to make 9 million in the second weekend.

 

[Doctor Jones]

First off Universal put too much into this movie. How much money did they think this was going to make? This was always an R rated werewolf film that would in no way be a smash success.

 

[TheComicbookKid]

Well it wasn't supposed to be released in February originally so it probably would have made more.


Beyond that, Shutter Island(and the Crazies) next week unexpectedly sucked up a lot of air.

 

[Hannibal Smith]

Twilight hate is overdone. The movies are fairly mediocre, as I hear the books are. But fanboys love Transformers movies and look forward to obviously trite productions (Wolverine, Fantastic Four, etc.) because it is based on a franchise they like. "Oh but it is all about guys with no shirts!" And Megan Fox is in Transformers for her acting or the Bond girls are cast for their personalities, like Denise Richards as a nuclear scientist.

It is ridiculous.

At least those films give you good effects eye candy. Twilight is very depressing and you can't call it a vampire flick in New Moon for they cut away from seeing people getting there blood sucked out.
Its not a Vampire flick until see someone drained dry.

 

[Hannibal Smith]

Now Nikki Finke is saying The Wolfman cost Universal around $200M to make (with tax rebates lowering it down to $175M) and that the second weekend gross plummeted 70%:



Methinks Universal should've budgeted this movie more wisely. I have a hard time believing the reshoots cost another $85M or more, or they should've picked better/cheaper CGI houses to do the transformation work.

Percy Percy Jackson was 3rd Avatar 4th Wolfman was 5th place on Fridays total.
Which they all were pulling near 4 million.

 

[Spidey-Bat]

Hopefully the DVD/Blu Ray sales do well. I don't want Universal to be discouraged from doing future monster remakes.

 

[TheComicbookKid]

Hopefully the DVD/Blu Ray sales do well. I don't want Universal to be discouraged from doing future monster remakes.

I think/hope they are still going forward with TCFTBL remake. But I think the budget will surely be 50 million or less.

 

[Nivek]

Given the behind the scenes trouble, and the release date being pushed back over a year from a Halloween release to freaking Valentines Day, this movies failure again falls directly on Universal themselves. I don't want to hear a damn thing about no one being interested in the source material.

 

[Nightmare]

Hopefully the DVD/Blu Ray sales do well. I don't want Universal to be discouraged from doing future monster remakes.

Agreed. I really wanna see a Dracula Movie as well as CFTBL.

 

[Doctor Jones]

Just got back from seeing it. The pacing was bad. Most of the gore was excessive and unnecessary, but it's obviously in there as a selling point for the ignorant masses. There were too many cheap jump scares (like the two times with the dog). I think the cast helped keep it from being bad as it might have been.

A couple things annoyed me. One (really two) was the CGI of the bear and elk. How is it that Jurassic Park had great CGI dinosaurs 17 years ago but today they can't even do a convincing CGI bear? Same thing with the elk. They couldn't use a real elk when they were tying it up? Nitpicks but still. The other was when [blackout]Laurence kills John by kicking him into the fire then slashing his head off. So much for the silver bullets. [/blackout]

It was alright, I'd give it a 6-6.5. It could be a 7 if you're really in the mood. As a movie, I'd say it's on-par with The Mummy but wins out on being a better adaptation of the classic 30's version. It wasn't my pipe dream version of The Wolfman but it'll do until they give it another try. Now I want my pipe dream Dracula movie. Either a remake of the 1931 classic or a closer adaptation of the book. Jason Issacs as Dracula and Liam Neeson as Abraham Van Helsing.

And Doctor Jones, love the Creature of the Black Lagoon idea. That needs revamp treatment the most.

Thanks!

Oh, and your avvy is awesome! t:

 

[DarkSuperman]

I thought Anthony Hopkins was incredible. I really loved his character towards the end. I wanna go back and watch all his scenes again.

 

[Spidey-Bat]

I think/hope they are still going forward with TCFTBL remake. But I think the budget will surely be 50 million or less.

I hope they learned from their mistakes from this and don't need to piss away $200M. Hopefully the $50M is enough to make a Creature costume. I'd be disappointed if it was fully CGI.

Agreed. I really wanna see a Dracula Movie as well as CFTBL.

Me, too. I've not seen Coppola's but I can't stand the design of Dracula they used. IMO, there are only 2 acceptable designs of Dracula: Bela Lugosi's and Nosferatu. Anything else is Dracula in name only.

I also hope they avoid the temptation many other Dracula/vampire films give into and make Dracula's mouth all bloody when he's sucking the blood out of a victim. He's not supposed to eat their neck, just puncture it.

Thanks!

Oh, and your avvy is awesome! t:

You're welcome and Thank you t: