The Wolf man remake is Amazing ! ! ! in Second Takes on Films of the 2000s Forum

0 Points

Forum Jump

The Wolf man remake is Amazing ! ! !

Author	Comment
WaverBoy		#41	[-]
Mar 11 10 11:18 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	soundstage28 wrote: Kevrock wrote: I've only been on the forum two years. I joined when I was 12 (Which before I turned 13 I had "The 12 year old, classic horror fan") and I will be turning 14 on May 1st. hahaha. Jeez, you must be the 3rd person who's trying to trick me into admiting that I am some 40 year old looser who pretends he's 13 for fun. lol Count me as the 4th person. Nice way of marketing your YouTube series. You're not hurting anyone so have fun. Just stop misspelling so many words in your posts; it's a giveaway. Nice dance around the age discrepancy as well. Having said that, I'll even help you with your idea. Great intro on this one: http://www.youtube.com/us...036FBD71DA/1/ZJXBqrTnKKU He sure sounds like a kid to me. And if that's him briefly in the intro, he sure looks like a kid to me. And both kids and adults alike misspell words frequently, so that don't prove nothin' no-how.
	Remove this ad
Kevrock		#42	[-]
Mar 12 10 2:52 AM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	CreepingBride wrote: There are more than 1500 posts about the film in the "Current Releases" folder. Since this folder is for Universal horror films made between 1931 and 1946, that is the better place for this conversation. Yes, Sorry about that. But it is the wolf man. And it's Universal. Sorry
Joe Karlosi		#43	[-]
Mar 12 10 6:45 AM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	Yeah, at this point it would seem that the best place to discuss the new WOLFMAN film is in the CURRENT FILMS folder. But once the film is out of the theaters (as I think it pretty much is already, or soon to be) where do the future dicussions wind up? I should think that thread should be relocated into this one right here -- UNIVERSAL HORRORS -- which, by the way, I don't think would have to necessarily be restricted to the classic era of "1931 to 1946" (besides, ABBOTT & COSTELLO MEET FRANKENSTEIN is 1948). The moderators have defined the UNIVERSAL HORRORS folder thusly: "Film history's most famous horror characters from Hollywood's fright factory". But the 2010 WOLFMAN is another one of those movies that may indeed have different possible homes -- first CURRENT FILMS, then THE 2000s, and most certainly UNIVERSAL HORRORS. (Though, heck - if the Sherlock Holmes reviews may be placed in UNIVERSAL HORRORS instead of the much more appropriate SHERLOCK HOLMES folder, I guess anything can happen. ). Last Edited By: Joe Karlosi Mar 12 10 6:51 AM. Edited 2 times.
delgadosaur		#44	[-]
Mar 12 10 12:25 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	Echoing sentiments above supporting the Nolan batman films, and turning back to the thread, the tendency in films is to OVERLIGHT films, so despite its plot problems, the Wolfman basks in its darkness, IMO.
CreepingBride		#45	[-]
Mar 12 10 1:58 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	Kevrock wrote: Yes, Sorry about that. But it is the wolf man. And it's Universal. Sorry Look, it is very easy to figure out. Take a look at how the designers of the Classic Horror Film Board laid out the website. There is a folder called "The Golden Age of Horror" (with forums for films from the silent era up until the 1940s), "The Silver Age of Horror" ('50s, '60s, '70s), and "Tomorrow's Classics" ('80s, '90s, '00s). The "Golden Age" of "Universal Horror" ended with the July 30, 1946 announcement of a total re-organization of the studio, its personnel, and its product and the formation of "Universal-International". This is not my theory; this is the way in which the historiography is periodized, and one apparently used by the people who set up the Classic Horror Film Board. So, based on the classification system set up by the people who launched the Classic Horror Film Board website, any horror, sci-fi, or fantasy movie made by any incarnation of Universal after the summer of 1946 does not belong in the "Golden Age" folder. This thread, however, is about a movie that was released about 64 years after the "Golden Age" of "Universal Horror" ended and so it belongs somewhere else. It is completely irrelevant to the horror films made by Universal from 1931-1946. Don't blame me... I'm just asking you to respect history and the people who run CHFB.
Kevrock		#46	[-]
Mar 12 10 3:05 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	CreepingBride wrote: Kevrock wrote: Yes, Sorry about that. But it is the wolf man. And it's Universal. Sorry Look, it is very easy to figure out. Take a look at how the designers of the Classic Horror Film Board laid out the website. There is a folder called "The Golden Age of Horror" (with forums for films from the silent era up until the 1940s), "The Silver Age of Horror" ('50s, '60s, '70s), and "Tomorrow's Classics" ('80s, '90s, '00s). The "Golden Age" of "Universal Horror" ended with the July 30, 1946 announcement of a total re-organization of the studio, its personnel, and its product and the formation of "Universal-International". This is not my theory; this is the way in which the historiography is periodized, and one apparently used by the people who set up the Classic Horror Film Board. So, based on the classification system set up by the people who launched the Classic Horror Film Board website, any horror, sci-fi, or fantasy movie made by any incarnation of Universal after the summer of 1946 does not belong in the "Golden Age" folder. This thread, however, is about a movie that was released about 64 years after the "Golden Age" of "Universal Horror" ended and so it belongs somewhere else. It is completely irrelevant to the horror films made by Universal from 1931-1946. Don't blame me... I'm just asking you to respect history and the people who run CHFB. Yes, Well, I am very sorry. I guess I was thinking it's Universal and also when I posted this thread saying that I am very confused as to why most people thought the general audience did not enjoy the film as much as I did, I sort of had the reviews and thoughts I have read on the internet saying it was "Just ok" Mainly because it was too different from the original on my mind. But whatever the case, I apologize, but it's still the Wolf man, the classic monster. If it is an issue to the board admins, they can move the thread. And to all the Members, once again, who say I'm not a kid, I don't really care, but just saying. I am. I think there are photos and video of me on here. And my reviews should give it away with the voice. Which speaking of my reviews, I'll be posting my video review of the Wolf man remake soon. I am half way done with it now. The 15 year old classic horror film fan Kevrock http://www.Kevrock.webs.com Last Edited By: Kevrock Mar 12 10 3:08 PM. Edited 1 times.
Kongu is Kingu		#47	[-]
Mar 12 10 3:10 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	CreepingBride wrote: Kevrock wrote: Yes, Sorry about that. But it is the wolf man. And it's Universal. Sorry Look, it is very easy to figure out. Take a look at how the designers of the Classic Horror Film Board laid out the website. There is a folder called "The Golden Age of Horror" (with forums for films from the silent era up until the 1940s), "The Silver Age of Horror" ('50s, '60s, '70s), and "Tomorrow's Classics" ('80s, '90s, '00s). The "Golden Age" of "Universal Horror" ended with the July 30, 1946 announcement of a total re-organization of the studio, its personnel, and its product and the formation of "Universal-International". This is not my theory; this is the way in which the historiography is periodized, and one apparently used by the people who set up the Classic Horror Film Board. So, based on the classification system set up by the people who launched the Classic Horror Film Board website, any horror, sci-fi, or fantasy movie made by any incarnation of Universal after the summer of 1946 does not belong in the "Golden Age" folder. This thread, however, is about a movie that was released about 64 years after the "Golden Age" of "Universal Horror" ended and so it belongs somewhere else. It is completely irrelevant to the horror films made by Universal from 1931-1946. Don't blame me... I'm just asking you to respect history and the people who run CHFB. Last Edited By: Kongu is Kingu Mar 12 10 5:10 PM. Edited 1 times.
rvoyttbots		#48	[-]
Mar 12 10 10:04 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	Don`t worry about it Kev. Its a Universal and all Universal films can be discussed here. All the nitpickers should go watch a movie or something. And I want FRANKENSTEIN MEETS THE WOLF MAN remade with this new WOLF MAN.
Kevrock		#49	[-]
Mar 13 10 7:34 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	rvoyttbots wrote: Don`t worry about it Kev. Its a Universal and all Universal films can be discussed here. All the nitpickers should go watch a movie or something. And I want FRANKENSTEIN MEETS THE WOLF MAN remade with this new WOLF MAN. OH, YES!!! YES!!! In fact, I was just saying to my buddy Daniel, who I saw the film with. I would be up for a Wolf Man remake sequel. But first things first. We need these same people who Remade the Wolf Man to now take on Frankenstein! We need a fantastic Frankenstein remake! And than Dracula! The Frankenstein and Dracula remakes sucked!!! Terrible, if you ask me! I mean, I say, as long as these guys are in charge, why not remake more classics! I used to be completely against classic film remakes. And that's cause they all are terrible. But this new Wolf man has changed my thoughts on remakes! The 15 year old classic horror film fan Kevrock http://www.Kevrock.webs.com
Matuatay		#50	[-]
Mar 15 10 2:13 AM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	No, no, no, no, no. If the Hollywood of today tried to remake Frankenstein meets the Wolfman, it would be disasterous, imo. The initial story would be okay, but I'm worried about the confrontation itself. I honestly don't know why, but I am strongly opposed to a remake of this classic sequel. I just have a bad feeling they would take the CGI way too far and sacrafice story for the sake of special effects. I just don't see Frankenstein meets the Wolfman working at all unless the follow the classic universal formula. Then it might work, but I just don't see it happening without a lot of disappointed fans of the original.
	Remove this ad
flyeater1931		#51	[-]
Mar 15 10 4:14 AM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	Saw the film when it came ou about 3 weeks ago and I enjoyed it a lot. A little too mch gore for my taste but as this is the 21st Century one must "go with the flow". I also though that they should have concentrated more on the supernatural aspect of the werewolf . I thought Anthony Hopkin's portrayal of John Talbot was fantastic. Playing the character as one who didn't really belong to this world anymore after an event that changed his life immeasurably, and just went along for the ride until his time was up. Benecio did a fine job as the afflicted Lawrence. My favorite shot of him was after he awakens the morning after some killings take place and he is confronted by his father in an open field and he realizes what he did. The look of both fear and anguish on his face rivals if not supplants that of the great Lon Chaney Jr.'s "Larry".
Matuatay		#52	[-]
Mar 15 10 4:45 AM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	The modern-day adaption of the story was out of this world, imo. And you'll get no complaints from me about Sir. Anthony Hopkins. Like you, I wish Larry would have spent more time with Maleva learning the supernatural aspects of the wolf, but that's where I hope these characters will return in a sequel. I thought Benicio did great with the dialogue/script he was given. Had they concentrated more on Larry and his torment, this would have really been a heart-wrenching flick. And I have to agree. Lawrence waking up covered in blood with Hopkins just saying "Terrible things, Laurence, You've done terrible things" was absolute masterpiece dialogue in my opinion. What else could be said is such a situation? Then Hopkings saying "Be strong son" as the men knock him unconscious and take him prisoner was really touching. It wasn't until later that SIr John showed his true colors that I began to think "you evil, evil ba**ard". If they had to deviate from the origina 1943 tale, this is the next best thing they could have done with the Talbot family.
Ryan A Elliott		#53	[-]
Mar 15 10 12:29 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	I loved that "morning after" scene too. I could FEEL Lawrence's pain and fear through Benny's acting. It was that great. And I think they could totally do a Frankenstein Meets The Wolfman movie. Take kenneth branagh's creature and combine it with Joe Jonston's Wolfman, forgo the CG and go straight up mano y mano like the Wolfson vs. Wolfdad fight in Wolfman, and bingo. Awesome movie. Besides, I think they learned from their mistakes(a little at least) from the fan reaction to Van Helsing. We don't want excessive CG.
Kevrock		#54	[-]
Mar 15 10 5:28 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	Matuatay wrote: No, no, no, no, no. If the Hollywood of today tried to remake Frankenstein meets the Wolfman, it would be disasterous, imo. The initial story would be okay, but I'm worried about the confrontation itself. I honestly don't know why, but I am strongly opposed to a remake of this classic sequel. I just have a bad feeling they would take the CGI way too far and sacrafice story for the sake of special effects. I just don't see Frankenstein meets the Wolfman working at all unless the follow the classic universal formula. Then it might work, but I just don't see it happening without a lot of disappointed fans of the original. I see your point. However, if it was done as well as the Wolf man remake, I'd Love it! The 15 year old classic horror film fan Kevrock http://www.Kevrock.webs.com
Razzle Bathbone		#55	[-]
Mar 19 10 8:51 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	Hmmm... $61.6 mill in domestic earnings. Under Hotel for Dogs and Paul Blart Mall Cop. In fact, it's like in the last 10 of the bottom of the list... Confessions of a Shopaholic did worse, though. We'll have to see what it makes in DVD sales and rentals. But Universal can't be too excited about exhuming their old monsters with this kind of showing...
Rick		#56	[-]
Mar 19 10 8:57 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	The only way I could see a sequel is if Universal decided to do it on the cheap. Budget it at 1/8th of WOLFMAN's cost. Of course, that leaves a few possibilities: 1. a lousy theatrical feature 2. a surprisingly good theatrical feature (call it the WRATH OF KHAN syndrome) 3. a lousy direct-to-video feature 4. a decent direct-to-video feature, but who cares? I don't like the outlook. I say, let it lay.
The Mighty Bongo		#57	[-]
Mar 20 10 7:27 AM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	CreepingBride wrote: Kevrock wrote: Yes, Sorry about that. But it is the wolf man. And it's Universal. Sorry Look, it is very easy to figure out. Take a look at how the designers of the Classic Horror Film Board laid out the website. There is a folder called "The Golden Age of Horror" (with forums for films from the silent era up until the 1940s), "The Silver Age of Horror" ('50s, '60s, '70s), and "Tomorrow's Classics" ('80s, '90s, '00s). The "Golden Age" of "Universal Horror" ended with the July 30, 1946 announcement of a total re-organization of the studio, its personnel, and its product and the formation of "Universal-International". This is not my theory; this is the way in which the historiography is periodized, and one apparently used by the people who set up the Classic Horror Film Board. So, based on the classification system set up by the people who launched the Classic Horror Film Board website, any horror, sci-fi, or fantasy movie made by any incarnation of Universal after the summer of 1946 does not belong in the "Golden Age" folder. This thread, however, is about a movie that was released about 64 years after the "Golden Age" of "Universal Horror" ended and so it belongs somewhere else. It is completely irrelevant to the horror films made by Universal from 1931-1946. Don't blame me... I'm just asking you to respect history and the people who run CHFB. If you look at the header above this topic C.B. you'll see it says Universal Horrors...Period. Not golden age of, silver age of , or any other stipulation. By YOUR criteria movies like the "Creature from the Black Lagoon" have no business being here falling outside of your imposed 1946 limit. Kevrock is within his right to feel that the new Wolfman belongs here. It's a Universal picture, it's a horror movie, it's also one of Universal proprietary characters .( Larry Talbot as Wolf-MAN) It is MUCH more appropriate here than" House Of the Wolfman" that dominated this folder for months, and it was a small, independant film, based on, and not made by, Universal. Go get 'em Kev ! Chris Want to hang out with the ultimate party animals ? Come see us at; http://www.hollywoodgorillamen.com/
Rakshasa		#58	[-]
Mar 20 10 9:03 AM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	Welllll, it does say THE GOLDEN AGE OF HORROR over this entire section of forums....BUT, no, the world won't stop spinning if there's a second WOLFMAN thread on the boards. You're both right, Creeping Bride and Mighty Bongo, and therefore you each get a werewolf-shaped cookie. Links To All The Classic Monster Stills I've Posted: http://monsterkidclassichorrorforum.yuku.com/topic/30758
VarneyVampire		#59	[-]
Mar 20 10 9:56 AM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	Yep, I was all ready to hate this movie . . . but I really enjoyed it. The scenes that are just make-up, no CGI, are really good & so satisfying on the senses. Del Toro was kinda lifeless etc etc but, my god, the classics are far from flawless. Monster Kids who have issues with elements of this movie should maybe try cutting it the slack they cut for their favourite classic horror movies. I'm surprised it didn't do well at the box office but I think rentals & DVD sales should be alright. I'd watch what you wish for. Seriously, the quality of this monster movie is very RARE nowadays. A revamped Drac or Frank still has a huge potential to stink, as per the times. I think we're all really lucky to have this one & if the majority of the population doesn't get it . . . well that's par for the course, ain't it?
bromstaker		#60	[-]
Mar 20 10 7:52 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	It's important to remember that Del Toro is not playing Chaney Jr.'s Talbot, but a rather a Lawrence Talbot that has a different background from the Chaney character. Del Toro's Talbot is a bit hollowed out emotionally from witnessing his mother's death, spending time in an asylum as a boy, blocking out what really happened to her, and being sent off to live in the U.S. by his father. As if this isn't enough, he returns home when he get's the news that his brother has gone missing, then finds out rather abruptly that his brother was brutally killed. So the fact that Del Toro plays the character as a bit off-kilter and socially awkward makes sense to me.
	Remove this ad

<< Previous Topic Next Topic >>

Add Reply

Yuku free message boards

The Wolf man remake is Amazing ! ! !