Wolfman-The Offical Thread

[CrimsonMist]

Perhaps, I never read it (but wouldn't mind to). With that said Walker was the one who came up with the (bad) ideas of making Sir John evil and for there to be a WWE werewolf throwdown at the end.

If i remember correctly(i'll have to dig out the script. I have it somewhere.), the twist with Sir John wasn't revealed until the end, and was well kept away from the audience until the end, unlike in the film where it's essentially given away an hour into the film. I also believe the gypsies fit more prominently into the story as well. The idea of Ben acting as a mediator between the village and the gypsies was played up more.

 

[AVEITWITHJAMON]

Finally saw the extended cut tonight on BD (looks stunning), and I enjoyed it, the movie now has much better pacing and you get to know the characters more, especially Lawrence and his father, as well as their motivations.

More of Gwen definately helped the impact of the ending also, and its a damn shame we wont ever see Weaving as The Wolfman as it would have been amazing. My only dissapointment with the extended cut was that I thought we would get another Wolfman scene or two.

Also, there is no way this movie in itself cost $150 million as BOMojo state, you just dont see that amount of money on screen.

 

[marvelman2006]

Finally saw the extended cut tonight on BD (looks stunning), and I enjoyed it, the movie now has much better pacing and you get to know the characters more, especially Lawrence and his father, as well as their motivations.

More of Gwen definately helped the impact of the ending also, and its a damn shame we wont ever see Weaving as The Wolfman as it would have been amazing. My only dissapointment with the extended cut was that I thought we would get another Wolfman scene or two.

Also, there is no way this movie in itself cost $150 million as BOMojo state, you just dont see that amount of money on screen.

practical effects (wolf suits), cgi work in london and the building of london digitally and hopkins and del toro's salary, it adds up pretty quick. also Im sure they had lobster, shrimp lunches catered. oh also of course about 30-40 million for marketing.

 

[AVEITWITHJAMON]

^Yeah, I still dont see $150 million though, especially when Sherlock Holmes had many similar things and only cost $90 million.

I just wonder if they are including failed previous attempts into the budget.

 

[King K]

I really enjoyed Wolfman. Saw it on bluray uncut and it really helped seeing all the gore and tearing of limbs. The sight of wolfman ripping out a dudes stomache in the medical lecture was awesome. The movie started out really slow but the last 3rd saved it and had a great ending. I saw the ending were Gwen stops Hugo Weaving from shooting causing him to get attacked and Gwen killing "saving" Talbot.
One complaint or confusion was the death of Talbots mother.

I think I would have been royally pissed off if I saw this any other way but uncut. I gave it a 9/10.

 

[Bad Superman]

I loved the film, but I don't know if it did well enough at the BO for a sequel.

 

[AVEITWITHJAMON]

^It definately didnt, especially if the reported $150 million budget is true, the movie didnt even make that world-wide, damn shame as Hugo Weaving would have been a great wolf man for the sequel.

Not to mention a sequel just had great potential anyway to correct the mistakes of the first movie, which while enjoyable, was floored, although the extended cut did remedy some of these flaws.

 

[Bad Superman]

^^

That's too bad. I had hopes for a sequel. Hugo would've been amazing as wolfman.

I know this is wishful thinking but if only Universal would turn their classic monsters into the franchises they were in the 30's and 40's. They don't have to be a CGI fest. I think the less CGI, the cheaper and the better.

 

[marvelman2006]

^Yeah, I still dont see $150 million though, especially when Sherlock Holmes had many similar things and only cost $90 million.

I just wonder if they are including failed previous attempts into the budget.

you know I wouldnt be surprise if they did account for that. yeah the sets were just like holmes and yet most of the movie they were in the woods. it was only like 30 minutes they were in london where as holmes was there the whole movie. I wonder sometimes is hollywood executives think that by flashing how much a movie cost that it will somehow make a movie seem bigger then it is.

 

[AVEITWITHJAMON]

^^

That's too bad. I had hopes for a sequel. Hugo would've been amazing as wolfman.

I know this is wishful thinking but if only Universal would turn their classic monsters into the franchises they were in the 30's and 40's. They don't have to be a CGI fest. I think the less CGI, the cheaper and the better.

I know, I really wish The Wolfman could have turned into a franchise, but alas, a crappy release date and delays seemed to hamper any chance of this, especially with that budget.

With GDT developing Frankenstein, and another Dracula movie in the works (so I believe) hopefully we'll see The Wolfman again in a vs movie against one of these monstors one day.

you know I wouldnt be surprise if they did account for that. yeah the sets were just like holmes and yet most of the movie they were in the woods. it was only like 30 minutes they were in london where as holmes was there the whole movie. I wonder sometimes is hollywood executives think that by flashing how much a movie cost that it will somehow make a movie seem bigger then it is.

It wouldnt surprise, sometimes I look at the budget for movies and just dont see it on screen, like Terminator Salvation costing $200 million, sorry, just dont see it on screen, there are plenty of other examples as well. It could just be directors wasting money as well of course.

 

[Bad Superman]

I think the CGI transformation scenes along with having three top caliber actors (Del Toro, Hopkins and Weaving) took a big chunk out of the budget. But $150 million seems a bit steep.

 

[AVEITWITHJAMON]

I think the CGI transformation scenes along with having three top caliber actors (Del Toro, Hopkins and Weaving) took a big chunk out of the budget. But $150 million seems a bit steep.

Even with the cast, I just cant see it, this was a labour of love for BDT, but even then I cant see him, Weaving and Hopkins costing that much between them, and the CGI was kept to a minimum in the movie hence them developing the Wolfman suit.

 

[Bad Superman]

Even with the cast, I just cant see it, this was a labour of love for BDT, but even then I cant see him, Weaving and Hopkins costing that much between them, and the CGI was kept to a minimum in the movie hence them developing the Wolfman suit.

Just read it was shot in the UK. Maybe the change in currency made it a bit more expensive.

 

[dark_b]

this movie was not a CGI fest and they didnt use a lot of CGI.

 

[marvelman2006]

this movie was not a CGI fest and they didnt use a lot of CGI.

so then where did the money go? if I was a big time executive I would want to know where each penny went. district 9 cost potatoe chips to make and yet that looked like a 200 million dollar movie.

 

[dark_b]

distric 9 was a good movie and it looks more then a 30 million movie.

but it doesnt look like a 100 or 200 movie. fact. if you think that it looks like it cost more then 100 millions then go to the internet sites where they talk about budgets. and then use your common sense and some math.

 

[AVEITWITHJAMON]

Just read it was shot in the UK. Maybe the change in currency made it a bit more expensive.

Maybe, but cant see it making that much difference.

distric 9 was a good movie and it looks more then a 30 million movie.

but it doesnt look like a 100 or 200 movie. fact. if you think that it looks like it cost more then 100 millions then go to the internet sites where they talk about budgets. and then use your common sense and some math.

Dark b he has a point, D9 looks like it cost more than the first Fantastic Four movie which cost $100 million.

 

[dark_b]

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.

 

[블라스]

So did the extra minutes help this terrible film? Does it still have that stupid "CGI kung fu werewolf" fight scene?

 

[Bad Superman]

So did the extra minutes help this terrible film? Does it still have that stupid "CGI kung fu werewolf" fight scene?

Are you sure it's the 2010 Benicio del Toro and Anthony Hopkins Wolfman???

 

[블라스]

Are you sure it's the 2010 Benicio del Toro and Anthony Hopkins Wolfman???

Pretty sure.
Did that version not have a bombastic, completely unnecessary CGI-enhanced werewolf fight?

 

[dark_b]

i dont remember a CGI fight. i do remember stunt guys in suits.

 

[블라스]

Really?
Gotta watch it again.

 

[Bad Superman]

There was a werewolf fight but there was no kung-fu.

 

[CrimsonMist]

Even with the cast, I just cant see it, this was a labour of love for BDT, but even then I cant see him, Weaving and Hopkins costing that much between them, and the CGI was kept to a minimum in the movie hence them developing the Wolfman suit.

- 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.