Universal's Wolfman Movie

[RoboDad]

But, but.. I don't even have a beard! And I'm not 67! And I don't ride the bus!

 

[thenammagazine]

But, but.. I don't even have a beard! And I'm not 67! And I don't ride the bus!

Then I guess it's time to put on that black 'n white checkered Pendleton.

That video had me cheering like I was at a Strikeforce event.

 

[GrueSam]

In this Civil War I am with RoboDad.



He and I saw the same movie!

 

[Mr ?]

I don't consider the relationship between father and son in the new film strained, because I perceived no relationship at all. There was nothing there to strain. In the original, I never doubted that Sir John loved his son, but there were issues keeping them apart. In the new film, Lawrence seemed to be little more a psychotic plaything to his father.

As far as the Gwen relationship, I guess what I'm saying is that I didn't see anything that led me to believe there was a romantic spark at all, prior to the scene in the antiques shop, making that scene pretty unbelievable to me.

And whatever the behind-the-scenes reasons are for how the original became what it eventually became, that is somewhat irrelevant. It is what it is, and the torment Larry felt didn't ring as true in this version, at least for me. Instead, it focused more on his anger/hatred for his father, and his ultimate desire for revenge. I will admit that the post-battle ending helped redeem the film a little for me, returning it to its tragedy roots, but in light of the rest of the story, it was still somewhat unsatisfying.

Well, where I see a damaged/twisted relationship you see none; that's kind of splitting hairs but I digress. The scene in the anitques shop (another element brought from the original) was a momentary release for both emotionally stunted characters; Larry trying to keep the monster within controlled and Gwen battling her grief and her attraction to Larry, which again, is a shallow attraction fueled more by the emotions of the situation than any real bond.

While not as fully explored this somewhat thin relationship is another element brought from the original.

I bring up the background of the original because on this site a "fan" usually denotes someone who knows the ins and outs of these films.
Doubting the existance of the werewolf curse was utilized in the remake, just not as long. Larry came to terms with it more quickly and began to deal with it sooner. I had no problem with that and don't see how it hindered the story.

 

[Reinhardt]

I just came back from seeing this - it was...ok. it looks beautiful, the scenery, costumes, cinematography were phenomenal. Story was definitely choppy - i'm amazed how long they spend on skipping stones to build a relationship. Acting was ok on Del Toro's part. Hopkins was just Hopkins - nothing special. Hugo Weaving however... he was fantastic. He stole every scene he was in.

 

[GrueSam]

Mr ?
I'm sorry but you will not sway me to like the movie. And I doubt you will Robo either. Let me clarify- Loved the monster, effects and atmosphere, as did he.

But I felt no chemistry between any of the cast. And when I go back and read Chris' posts, I wholeheartedly agree with all his points. The person I saw it with feels the same way and said so on the drive home.

We don't all have to like the same movies. Or anything, really. 31 flavors of ice cream should tell you something.

And I think it's a blessing, personally.


I loved Weaving too, Reinhardt!
And did you notice that even though months went by, shown by the passing of the full moon, it remained winter?

 

[Mr ?]

Mr ?
I'm sorry but you will not sway me to like the movie. And I doubt you will Robo either. Let me clarify- Loved the monster, effects and atmosphere, as did he.

And did you notice that even though months went by, shown by the passing of the full moon, it remained winter?

Don't care to change anyone's opinion. I was responding to the assertion that the majority of the elements from the original that worked so well were missing from the remake, and I feel I've made that case thoroughly.

And if memory serves what you saw was the moon passing through the night skies for dramatic effect; the phase of the moon was alluded to for plot purposes when needed.

 

[GrueSam]

In your own mind.

 

[Mr ?]

In your own mind.

You can make this personal all you want, but nothing I said was untrue. Those elements were in the remake, as for their effectiveness to the overall film it's up to individual conclusion.

 

[RoboDad]

You can make this personal all you want, but nothing I said was untrue. Those elements were in the remake, as for their effectiveness to the overall film it's up to individual conclusion.

Neither I nor Sam have done anything to make it personal, but you apparently have taken it to be so. You are not in a position to need to (or be able to) refute anything. We are sharing our personal perceptions, thoughts and feelings about the film. That you perceive the elements from the original as being adequately, even successfully represented is not in doubt. However, your perceptions do represent undeniable fact.

What you perceive as a fractured father/son relationship I perceive as no relationship at all. What you perceive as a shallow romantic spark I perceive as a clumsy attempt to contrive such a relationship without the necessary development to support it.

In short, nothing you can say, and no thinly veiled insult about whether or not I am really a "fan", is going to convince me that you are correct, and that somehow I just don't get it. I do get it. I just didn't really like what I got.

 

[GrueSam]

Thanks, Chris, for being able to articulate what I cannot!

 

[thenammagazine]

HORROR DORK FIGHT

!!! THE SEQUEL !!!​

 

[Mr ?]

Neither I nor Sam have done anything to make it personal, but you apparently have taken it to be so. You are not in a position to need to (or be able to) refute anything. We are sharing our personal perceptions, thoughts and feelings about the film. That you perceive the elements from the original as being adequately, even successfully represented is not in doubt. However, your perceptions do represent undeniable fact.

What you perceive as a fractured father/son relationship I perceive as no relationship at all. What you perceive as a shallow romantic spark I perceive as a clumsy attempt to contrive such a relationship without the necessary development to support it.

In short, nothing you can say, and no thinly veiled insult about whether or not I am really a "fan", is going to convince me that you are correct, and that somehow I just don't get it. I do get it. I just didn't really like what I got.

I didn't insult anybody. Sam responded with "In your own mind," I took that as resorting to portraying me, and not my argument, in a negative light. It's always unproductive whenever these discussions resort to snide comments designed to paint the other party negatively.

But again to use your own words, you had posted all of the best elements of the original story were completely discarded. I maintained those elements are indeed there in the remake, if you think they failed that's fine but they were not discarded and or ignored. And I point to your previous post where you site so-called "failed" moments and aspects of Wolfman; so those elements are in the film. Go ahead and hate it, why would I care? But in fact Wolfman 2010 hit the plot points we've been discussing.

Not sure why my mentioning of "fans" was taken as a slap. People here are more than casual movie-goers, we are far more involved and knowledgable of the films and genres we discuss. When an earlier post questioned me bringing up behind-the-scenes information, as though it were out of left field, I was just highlighting the fact that I'm talking with those who are "in the know," so to speak.

I try never to get in pissing competitions on boards for fear I'm going round and round with some teenager online, that's just goofy. I like the give and take in these debates and prefer to keep it on subject. I find I appreciate the movies I defend all the more after a discussion like this, so they are a lot of fun. It's one of the reasons I read these boards, to give and read the opinions of (somewhat) like-minded people.

And for the record, have you ever convinced anyone of anything, or have been convinced of anything, after reading something on a message board? I know I've never changed my mind about anything.

 

[GrueSam]

I simply meant that these elements are in your mind and not in ours.

And if your previous post is valid, why do you insist on going on and on about your 'truths'?


*sigh*

 

[Mr ?]

I simply meant that these elements are in your mind and not in ours.

And if your previous post is valid, why do you insist on going on and on about your 'truths'?


*sigh*

In my mind? What?? Did I once describe a scene or protion of the film that wasn't there?

 

[GrueSam]

OMG you are too much!



These "elements" worked in your mind. Not in ours. Sorry!

Please go back and read RoboDad's posts. Maybe you'll "get it" if you reread it.

 

[Mr ?]

OMG you are too much!



These "elements" worked in your mind. Not in ours. Sorry!

Please go back and read RoboDad's posts. Maybe you'll "get it" if you reread it.

Well, you guys were back and forth on what was and was not in the film. As long as you're saying they were present, but ineffective, that's an opinion and is fine. Y'all can think Wolfman sucked Obama Balls as far as I'm concerned, I was just defending what the movie featured as plot elements.

Enjoyed the back and forth by the way (well, mostly )

 

[RoboDad]

And for the record, have you ever convinced anyone of anything, or have been convinced of anything, after reading something on a message board? I know I've never changed my mind about anything.

Actually, I have both been convinced and helped convince others on some subjects, sometimes in this very forum. Granted, it doesn't happen often, but I am working on approaching these debates with a more open mind. Then, even if I don't change my own position or opinion, I at least have the opportunity to better understand what motivates someone else's.

Even in this case, I have come away from the discussion with a better understanding of why you feel that the film succeeded. I don't agree with your conclusions, but I understand how you could arrive at them. Unfortunately, you don't seem to have gained any better understanding of how I arrived at my conclusions, based on your continuing insistence that your conclusions are correct, and that I am overlooking elements that you insist are present in the film.

I am not overlooking anything. The elements you perceive as representing similar elements from the original, I see as replacing elements from the original with unsatisfying substitutes. Further, the element that, for me, is central to all others, the one that sets the tone for the rest of the original film, you dismissed as being irrelevant, since it originated in an earlier script treatment. The fact that it was intentionally left in the finished film seems lost on you. What set the tone of the original, for me, was Larry killing what he believed to be a wolf, but later found to be a man. It colored his perception of his own transformation, and added depth to his torment. Was he a victim of a curse, or had he lost his mind, and did he, as a man, kill his victims? That aspect of the character is completely absent in the new film.

In any case, I'm happy you enjoyed the film as much as you did, and I really wish I could have as well. As I mentioned in another post, it wasn't a horrible film, but it is impossible for me to view it in a vacuum. I have to compare it to the original, and in that regard it comes up sorely lacking.

 

[Mr ?]

Potato......Po-TAH-to

I am not overlooking anything. The elements you perceive as representing similar elements from the original, I see as replacing elements from the original with unsatisfying substitutes.

Now that position is understandable, and obviously for you to decide upon yourself.

Decent debate. But let's not

 

[Mr ?]

HORROR DORK FIGHT

!!! THE SEQUEL !!!​

For the record...I look nothing like any of those guys!