Vindicator wrote:

Even then I still enjoyed it. Sorry that it bummed you out as you seemed to be one of those who was more excited about it.

Thanks dude. I was actually :o)
Btw, the manic laughter at the top of my post was not directed at the folks posting here, I was just really surprised so many loved it.

I will say though, that I'm glad so many did. That's slot more fun than what I felt. As for a sequel - if they use Weavings character as the lead, I'd be all over that :o) he'd be a character I'd care about.

And I think part of the problem with Larry's character in this film is that you never get to see his charm, as Lon portrayed so well in the first. It's doom and gloom from the first, social restraint expected around the widow of his brother, etc. And again, Del Toro's refusal to emote as Larry, which is odd, because I know he's a great actor.

Oh well.

Last edited by WolfMontana (2010-02-16 10:56:33)

3. Larry and Gwen's relationship... I don't mean this wrong, but if the person I was about to marry got killed savagely, I wouldn't be in any shape for SEVERAL months, to start seeing somebody else, but in reality, she apparently has no shame, and apparently our sympathic hero, doesn't either.

I think it's quite believable. When there's such a tragic end to deep relationship, it's natural to try and find comfort in someone else to replace what you lost, and it's not unnatural for a person giving that comfort to grow attached. It's a classic rebound scenario, and it's not uncommon. Of course, once you realize that you don't really love the new guy, things tend to go down hill from there, but, well...

The movie, as a whole, is a mess. It has a horrible identity crisis and doesn't know what it wants or wants to say.

Is the theme... "What makes a monster or what makes a man?" "Where does the beast end and the man begin or visa versa?" In either case, again the story fails.

I tend to blame extra editing when this happens (and as known, this movie had a lot of last-minute edits). Usually means someone in the higher up decided they didn't like the original concept and tried to change it, no matter how ingrained in the plot it is, leaving you with something that isn't the original intent, nor fully the revised intent.. there's only so much you can do in post-production after all, especially when re-shot scenes lacked having the lead actor on-location. So you get some kind of bastard mix. Sometimes it can save a film from being an utter failure, but usually it just prevents the film from shining in its own way (I'd rather have a fundamentally flawed story that knows its place and stays consistent, over a potentially good story that can't remain coherent). A movie that tries to earn your respect, compared to one that takes it for granted.

You see in the original Wolf Man, Larry Talbot turned into a ravenous beast. The ONLY reason, historically speaking, they used studio makeup, was because Curt Siodmak's original concept, using a real wolf (or wolf-like dog), was deemed...too scary. The fateful hound did though make an appearance anyway, as Bela's werewolf form. Once Larry put on his make up, he wasn't humane at all. He was a murderous monster, one that was even capable of harming Gwen, the love of his life. This was a stark contrast from the loving and carry Larry you were introduced. It was vastly important that the audiance separate the man from the beast, so that you could sympathise with the man, but fear the beast. You should want the beast to die, but hate the fact that if you kill the beast, you kill the man you care about.

HOWEVER... again, if the beast is too much like the man, then you leave the audiance confused.

Personally, I would think it's the exact opposite. How can you sympathize with the man, if the murderous monster shows no ties to him? There's two movies I can readily bring up to illustrate this.

In AWIL, I sympathized most with David on the day following his transformation, when he realized what had happened. But it wasn't because of what he'd done (why feel sorry for David when it was some damned dog that did it), it was because of how he took the revelation and his "short sightedness" of not taking the warnings more seriously. Stuff his human side was responsible for. He freaked out, and refused help that could've saved him. I sympathized because David, the human, was scared of a perceived danger and reacted out of fear. The killer dog did not generate any sympathy for David because it had no visible or emotional connection to him.. it was a completely separate entity.

And in Ginger Snaps, the poignant a moment for sympathy with Ginger was near the end. At the Halloween party when she was accosting Sam, and Bridgette came in and stopped her. She was still (barely) recognizably human, and it was her realization of "Oh, shite. What am I doing?" that connected, along with her plea for help. All the stuff that Ginger's lycanthropic aggression was causing was pinned on her while she was human, so when she realized what she was doing and looked repentant, we could sympathize with her. We saw her doing that stuff, but we could see in that moment that she was sorry and wanted help.

The separation of the beast and person is what prevents feeling sympathy for the character. When the beast's actions can be attached to the person, either though inference by the person showing shadows of the beast's behavior (ala Ginger Snaps), or visually by the beast resembling the person, is when sympathy can be garnered for the person because of the beast. At least, for me. It's probably also why I perceive the werewolf-as-an-evil-killer genre to have a fundamental flaw... the evil werewolf cannot look good (to my subjective standards, ie, a wolf-like animal) while the human remains good, and expect one to get sympathy for the other. I'd much prefer a werewolf that is dangerous in the way a hungry predator is dangerous (has to kill for survival and/or defense, so the werewolf can generate sympathy for itself like everyone else), not because they are evil monsters.

Here comes plot whole number 4. In the Wolfman, if Larry was able to somehow control himself and prevent himself from killing Gwen, then why wasn't he able to fight the urge to murderously rampage through town, once he realized what he was?

Love kept him from killing Gwen (she may have not truly loved him, see above about point 3, but that doesn't mean he didn't love her). Love for your girlfriend tends to be a stronger force than compassion for strangers (especially if such strangers would have you killed, compared to your girlfriend that wants to save you).

Universal should have scrapped it. This movie wasn't ready to be released, and it would have been better had they started over and went back to the basics, and got it right on the page first.

I have to wonder how much of the last-minute editing is really to blame. They thought something was wrong and tried to change it, but that doesn't mean the perceived defects were worse than the changes. I mean, hell, they couldn't decide on who to use for the film's score and changed there minds twice during post (originally using Danny Elfman's score, then switched to some guy that did electric/techno for Underworld, then back to Elfman less than a month before release; and Elfman's score is considered one of the finer points of the movie!). Makes me question what other finer points of the movie were replaced and not restored.

SouthPaw wrote:

Delta Wolfman wrote:

alphanubilus wrote:

And you obviously, can't read... so hey...

As stated, in the movie, you are not given any indication that the towns folk know it is a werewolf. Some think it is a beast. Some think it is a man. Some hint to the supernational, but none of them state it is a werewolf. During the wolfman's initial attack, a few townsfolk come to the gypsies' camp to put down the dancing bear. If they had KNOWN it was a werewolf, they would have used silver bullets, but none of them were prepared, so you have to assume, that they didn't know it was a werewolf, thus, other than Larry being attacked by what could have been a lion, a bear, or tiger. So again my point sticks. No one believed it was a werewolf, so it makes no sense that out of no where the towns people storm John Talbot's castle wanting Larry, when by the information given, he wasn't bitten by anything cursed.

Except for those who believed it was supernatural.

You're backtracking on your own points and refuting yourself.

Yeah, the priest's sermon shortly after his trip to the castle underscored that the villagers who did believe in the supernatural were convinced it was a werewolf, though he didn't use the word outright.  You see the villagers melting down their silver during the montage.  It didn't take much to piece things together:

3 bodies found after the full moon.

They didn't know it was a werewolf at first and were willing to consider the bear as a culprit, but discovered that wasn't the case when the real predator started mauling the gypsy camp before their own eyes, during another full moon.

The beast bit Lawrence Talbot, who later recovered miraculously from his wounds in record time.  This was witnessed by the doctor, who later reported the matter to the village.

A + B + C = Crazy, gently caressed up, supernatural shite going on, and it now points toward the Talbots.

Exactly. Very well said.

Oh, yeah:

alphanubilus wrote:

As for Wolfman's defenders... guys if you liked the movie, I'm not so horrible, as to say that you're mentally challenged for liking it. I went to see New Moon... twice... (it's shameful really)... We like what we like. If it made your day, then great. I'm happy for you, but why on earth are you so obsessed with forcing people who didn't like it, or in some instances, hated it, into saying it was a great over all film, when in reality it wasn't. You may like it, and that is fine, but that doesn't make it a good story, or an effective movie.

And I'm fine with it if you don't like it, for at least you tried. Granted I do wish that you did enjoy it, and I'm only sad you didn't.
I do however encourage others to watch and at least TRY it before saying they hate or don't like it, if they at least like werewolves and/or gore.
I myself hate twilight, but I can say I at least tried watching/reading it before saying so.

What we argue is purely the comments that don't make sense and just non-sensibly bash The Wolf Man.
As well as pointing things out and clearifying what others may be confused about in the movie,
in hopes that maybe once the understand, they can better enjoy it.

Last edited by Roi Doberwolf (2010-02-16 16:50:55)

Well that sounded like a pointless tantrum -.-
...and not in any way related to alphanubilus's post...

*...brain hurts to much from arguing with you already for better response*

alphanubilus wrote:

I agree WolfMontana...

It was bad. It could have been good... It could have been great. Personally I think Universal went wrong with the director, as Joe's other Universal project, Jurassic Park III was equally as rediculous. Instead of seeing poor Larry try and do everything he could to stop his metamorphysis, you get to see him tortured. This offers no character development for the Larry and it hurts the story.

As for Wolfman's defenders... guys if you liked the movie, I'm not so horrible, as to say that you're mentally challenged for liking it. I went to see New Moon... twice... (it's shameful really)... We like what we like. If it made your day, then great. I'm happy for you, but why on earth are you so obsessed with forcing people who didn't like it, or in some instances, hated it, into saying it was a great over all film, when in reality it wasn't. You may like it, and that is fine, but that doesn't make it a good story, or an effective movie. The reviews have been negative to So-So, with very few being overtly positive. The box office returns have been really poor.

In short, you're starting to sound as bad as Twilight fans of whom refuse to accept any type of critical analysis of the Twilight Saga, because it always leads to the fact that the story is really bad with non existent character development.

As for my one plot hole... Okay, so I flubbed, there. But even so, that still doesn't justify all of the other issues that were rabid with this film. I had officially 4 major plot issues... so now the film only has 3 major plot issues. IT doesn't matter... It STILL has issues.

That's very much pot calling kettle black.  Nobody has tried to force you to like the film.  Some people, myself included, have bothered to explain some of the questions you brought up despite your caustic entrance to this thread.  Your replies continue to blindly insult the intelligence of those who don't share your viewpoint.  I'm all for listening to the negative comments about the film, but if you're gonna be pretentious about it, then suit yourself.  I was actually hoping to engage your discussion a bit more, because you did have some great points to bring up, and I intended to complement those with some additional issues that I noticed in the film.

So, to continue a different line of discussion. . .

For those of you interested in seeing a sequel, would you want it, too, to be a remake? Or would you rather it go off in a different direction, considering the ending of the Wolfman remake was a bit different than the original?

I would not mind them making a completely different one. Most of the later Wolfmanmovie sequels kinda sucked.

Rogue wrote:

I would not mind them making a completely different one. Most of the later Wolfmanmovie sequels kinda sucked.

I think most sequels tend to suck, if only because the producers, directors, writers, etc. are more interested in trying to recapture the original's appeal, instead of allowing them to be their own stories in addition to acting as "the continuing adventures of. . ."

As someone else said earlier (can't remember who; too lazy to go back and check) I think it would be loads of fun to have a Scotland Yard werewolf.  Certainly, Abberline's new nature would, to put it mildly, get in the way of his work, but could it also help? There seemed to be some suggestion that Lawrence Talbot's senses increased.  So, Abberline might be more observant, able to detect different kinds of evidence, etc.  However, he'd also have to figure out ways to explain how he figured those things out without causing suspicion.  Yeah, it's a bit cliché, but still might be fun.

Hey, that sounds good to me. You write it, we'll pitch it as a sequel.

WolfMontana wrote:

Hey, that sounds good to me. You write it, we'll pitch it as a sequel.

Oh, goodie! Writing project! I've been needing one of those. . .

Viergacht wrote:

WATCH RICK BAKER CREATE THE WOLF MAN!

http://io9.com/5475061/how-old+fashione … he-wolfman

http://cache-04.gawkerassets.com/assets … 00x_07.jpg

Nice video, I really hope they put a lot more of this stuff on the dvd/blu-ray release, including anything about his practical transformation approach for the film.

Delta Wolfman wrote:

Has there been any mention at all of a Art of The Wolfman movie book?

I'm really interested in seeing Rick Baker's possible early designs/sketches/models, along with costuming sketches and still photos of sets. Along with a full report of the movie's trek.

I'm interested in getting this also, if/when it's released.  The only images I've seen are the old ZBrush models he worked on.