RKMBs Forums .::Robegories::. Media Universal's Wolfman Coming Back to the Big Screen

I have no doubt that Del Toro's method acting will make for a good feral bi-pedal canine.

Mmmmm...well I still wanna see it.I saw Van Helsing in the theater and didn't die from it so I'll take the risk.Same boat though....my woman doesn't have any interest either.Might have to Snarf it and see it alone.

All allan1 ever wanted was someone to be in love with, and have that same person be in love with werewolf movies, and he's starting to realize that that is never going to happen.

The good news is that Guillermo del Toro is attached to do Frankenstein. The bad news is that he's got so many other projects that it's hard to figure out when he could go. With The Hobbit looming it could be four years before GdT even sits down to really work on this film. But I hope Universal waits - no one loves this character like del Toro does. An avid collector of Frankenstein-related memorabilia, including tons of original artwork from Bernie Wrightson's classic adaptation of the novel (side note: I've seen these pages first hand and what's most amazing about them is that Wrightson uses no White Out and there appear to be no eraser marks on them, despite Wrightson's incredibly intricate style).

Rick Baker told me this weekend that Frankenstein's Monster is the dream character for him, and he's not talking about a reimagining - he wants to do a modern take on the famous Jack Pierce make-up that originated with Boris Karloff in 1931. There are many who think this design, which has been co-opted by cereal and comedy, can no longer scare, but Baker insisted to me that with just some minor tweaks Pierce's vision could be as horrifying today as it was in the 30s.

. . . Universal has been batting around a remake for a couple of years, with the latest version being set in the modern day New York, with a script by Sheri Springer Berman and Robert Pulcini, although that was scrapped. The project has now moved on to Neil Burger, writer and director of The Illusionist, who is working on the script with partner Dirk Wittenborn. I don't know what Burger's take on the material is, but I imagine that his version will bring in the Bride before the last scenes, unlike the original Whale version.

. . . The project has been stopped and started many times over the previous decades, and it has just recently undergone another change of leadership; Breck Eisner (questionably talented son of Michael) dropped off the project and has been replaced by Carl Rinsch, a commercials director who had been in line to direct the Alien prequel for daddy-in-law Ridley Scott (nepotism runs strong in the Black Lagoon). What Rinsch's take might be is a mystery, but don't be surprised that it's in 3D, just like the original film.

David Goyer has been working on a new version of The Invisible Man, but he's the only one of these reboots that isn't a remake - his version is actually a sequel to the original. In Goyer's film the nephew of the original Invisible Man discovers the invisibility formula and perfects it. He's captured by Scotland Yard and is forced into spying for Britain as part of the brand new MI6. Goyer is looking to bring a steampunk sensibility to the film, and it sounds like his take on the Invisible Man will be more of an action-adventure movie than a horror film, drawing on Goyer's long experience with superhero comics and movies.

. . . they're making Dracula Year Zero, a movie about the historical Vlad Tepes Dracula, who inspired Bram Stoker's immortal vampire. But the film, to be directed by Alex Proyas, also weaves in elements of the vampire mythos. The most recent rumors have omnipresent actor Sam Worthington toplining.

Yup. The new The Wolfman leaves open the ending for a possible sequel. I won't spoil what that ending is, but the potential story implications are really intriguing and thematically fascinating. And that's just a sequel to this film; when I talked to producer Scott Stuber, who did The Wolfman and is on Frankenstein, he talked about how much he loved the shared universe nature of the original Universal Monsters. With The Wolfman being set in Victorian times and with Guillermo del Toro all but assured to want to set his version in that same timeframe, how far off are we from a remake of Frankenstein Meets the Wolf Man becoming a reality?

The Invisible Man

In Goyer's film the ...Invisible Man [is] captured by Scotland Yard and is forced into spying for Britain as part of the brand new MI6. Goyer is looking to bring a steampunk sensibility to the film, and it sounds like his take on the Invisible Man will be more of an action-adventure movie than a horror film,

http://chud.com/articles/articles/22447/1/IT039S-ALIVE-THE-UNIVERSAL-MONSTER-REMAKE-STATUS-UPDATE/Page1.html











Dracula

That sounds completely original and unlike any previous take on the character.
Sincerely,
Alan Moore.

RB: It was the Universal films that made me want to do what I do. "Frankenstein," "Dracula," "The Mummy," "Creature from the Black Lagoon" -- it's what hooked me. "That's what I want to do, I want to make monsters." And especially "The Wolf Man." And when I heard they were going to do a new film I knew I wanted to do. I never pursue stuff, I'm kind of stupid that way, I'm not really a good businessman. I like when somebody calls me because they want to use me. But with this one, I didn't to let it go by. I went and talked to someone at Universal and said, "If this is really going to happen and it's going to put a person into makeup -- as it should be done -- then you got to use me. I really want to do this." I was begging. I was glad to hear they wanted to use me, first of all. But then, like you said, then the reality hits and you think of the challenges. I need to make an homage to the Jack Pierce makeup, but I also need to modernize it and make it work for a modern audience. Are they going to accept a guy with hair on his face? It was a daunting task.

RB: That's one of the things I always enjoyed about Wolf Man movies, the metamorphosis. And Lon Chaney Jr. was really underrated as an actor. I think in the original film and in the follow-ups there's this deep sympathy you feel for this poor, cursed man. That's so much of the appeal of it. He's this tortured soul who, not by choice, turns into a monster and kills people. It just tears him up. But watching the man turn into the animal is one of the special things. I wasn't sure going into this film how it was going to be done, Thirty years ago, with "American Werewolf in London," we changed the way people thought about transformation. So what do you do now? The answer is they pretty much left me out of the transformation. They did it with CG. They utilized my ideas and concept sculptures, they scanned it all in, but it was all done in the computer. I would like to have been involved in it more because I also do a lot of computer stuff -- I do my designs on the computer -- but I thought they did a terrific job. On the Blu-ray there's a lot of cool stuff showing how the transformation stuff was accomplished and also how I did my thing. It's great for people to be able to see all that stuff. I tell my daughters, when I was young we didn't have the Internet, we didn't have home video -- to watch these movies when I was young, I'd have to scour the TV Guide and see what time it was on and hope that my parents would let me watch it if they weren't watching something else on the one TV in the house. You only had one shot at it. And there wasn't a lot of information out there, either, but luckily there was Famous Monsters of Filmland magazine and Forry Ackerman. He talked about the people behind the scenes and articles on how to do this stuff. That's how I learned it was an occupation. But today the information is out there everywhere. I'm hoping it gives us a whole generation of whiz kids who are masters at this kind of stuff.

RB: It's funny -- like you, the people who like old-school horror movies tended to like it. It's the closest thing to a monster movie that's been out in a long time. There's fans of the old movies that went and saw this one like eight times. It's not a knife-wielding-crazy-guy-movie where teenagers get cut up in the worst ways possible. It's more of a gothic horror film. I was hoping it would bring back that type of film, the kind I really enjoy. It's very much a monster movie, and I hoped it would bring back monster movies. Will this make it harder to continue make more? I don't know. It's always kind of tough. When you're working on a movie you always hope that people will go for it and enjoy what you're doing. I don't know what they were expecting. Frankly, it seems to me that part of the problem was when it was released. To put out a movie called "Wolfman" on Valentine's Day weekend against a movie called "Valentine's Day"? I didn't really understand the logic of that. What do you expect? Release it on Halloween and I'm sure it would have done a lot better.

I saw it yesterday!

I really enjoyed it!


Simple story, handled well with good pacing.

Some of the kills are awesome.

In fact, didn't they release on Valentines Day or something (traditionally a chick flick day)?