Visualize our excitement for Universal’s jazzed-up remake of “The Wolf Man” as a beautiful Greek statue. Now watch as every new development starts to chip it away, piece by disappointing piece. Studio hack craftsman Joe Johnston replaces risky music video auteur Mark Romanek in the director’s chair — lop a leg off. Danny Elfman’s atmospheric score replaced by the guy that did the music for the “Death Race” remake – there goes an arm… etc.
Now, with a month left until the movie’s release, our excitement more or less resembles a dusty pile of rubble. And the hits just keep coming.
To make matters worse, we now hear — from a source close to the project —that Donna Langely, Universal’s production president, is holed up with a different editor. (Remember when Universal hired the great editor/sound designer Walter Murch (“Apocalypse Now”) and Mark Goldblatt to try and salvage this disaster? It’s part of the reason Elfman left — because the movie was still an amorphous blob and he had other shit to do.) Elsewhere, the film’s director, Johnston, is cutting his own version of the movie, even though he’s supposedly waist-deep in pre-production work for Marvel’s “Captain America.”
Generally in these scenarios, the studio will test both versions with audiences to see which one “plays” better. A similar situation arose in the notoriously thorny post-production of Andrew Dominik’s wonderful “The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford.” (After the studio’s version tested just as poorly as Dominik’s they conceded and the director’s version remained.) The difference between “Jesse James” and “Wolf Man” however, is the amount of time involved. While both had an outrageously lengthy post period, “Wolf Man”‘s new behind-the-scenes shenanigans are happening within weeks of the film’s supposed release (February 12), which means that they don’t exactly have the luxury of time on their side to test-run different cuts.
What’s more is that the expensive “Wolf Man” is holding up Universal from making any more big decisions, re: big budget projects. We’re sure that all the additional Universal Horror remakes in the pipeline (including the “Creature from the Black Lagoon,” which recently landed Carl Erik Rinsch as its director) are in a perilous place too.
So how will “The Wolf Man” turn out? Well, it’s now almost certainly going to be a huge fucking mess, the result of a creatively compromised project that has had far too many cooks in the kitchen all the way through. Which version will they ultimately choose? Which one will be “better”? At this point that’s probably a trick question. — Drew Taylor
Update: By now you’ve probably seen this story denied the world round; this is an expensive movie and Universal is a big machine and has a lot invested in it. They’ll do what they can, even give interviews to other outlets to debunk. But we stand by this story. In fact our source tells us the situation has really been “worse” and we could get into it, but the kool-aid drinking geek community (who love this shit and who studios puppet around to do their bidding) have already cause enough ruckus. Proof will be in the pudding when this incoherent beast finally hits theaters.
I'm assuming you're just creating bullshit to get more site attention from riled up fans, maybe from the 124 you have.
You have no source, no name of the editor,and you unprofessionally take shots at the film. That's why I'm calling bullshit.
Sam, sorry we hurt your feelings. Yeah, we just made it up. Have a nice day.
Good, I'm glad you admitted it. Assumption bloggers are ruining the movie world.
oh boy, goodbye.
I have to agree with Sam. What type of source do you have? Usually I'd believe it, but it makes no sense to edit it now. If you don't know the name of the editor, and you're just "hearing" about it, it's really hard to believe.
Then don't believe it and get on with your day, seriously. We're ok with that. We've never printed garbage. There's more than enough of that going around at the usual suspect places.
As you were.
You're getting awfully defensive.
From whom did you hear about this? I would like to know.
…interesting…i'm just discovering 'PLAYLIST' and after about 30min. of hunt and peck, I am really impressed with your writing – and your general comment about style and/or substance… then to see this little quip about 'whose your source' …. please. Cynics – have you through this site at all?…
Ominous news. I had high hopes for this one, but given the issues leading up to more issues, looks like it may wind up another CF like Van Helsing.
Maybe I overreacted. I've been following this film since 06, and I'm getting really antsy about it.
Maybe the reason for this second cut is just to test it one last time and see how it fares against the one that Murch did. It's not a bad idea just to test it one more time, and ultimately make a decision that way. Murch's cut got excellent reviews according to some of the producers, so maybe this is just one last test.
I just don't see the need to be overly negative. like this article was.
Who the fuck even cares anymore?
The writers of The Playlist care, it's why they wrote it. They care to hate. It fuels them in this colder than usual winter.
Explains why most posts seem to filled with more venom than usual.
They are just delivering the news man.
I was refering to the movie…
I don´t get all the people that write this comments complaining over and over again of the playlist!!
Guys, if you don´t like the freakin blog, why dou you read it??!!!
I might be wrong about this, but wasn't Dominik's vision of Jesse James a four-hour film and what was released was an attempt at an abbreviated version of that?
Yes Alex, but there were three versions all in all.
The almost four hours version, that i think screened at some festival.
Then there was the one that ended up being the theatrical cut, which was a shortend version of the four hour cut and then there was another cut, made by the studio that was shorter and had more action to it or something.
The four hour cut of "Jesse James" was a rough cut, not a final cut by any means. There were other edits at various points in the film's development hell, but as far as I know, the one that hit festivals was the one the rest of us saw too.
Sucks to be the Playlist. Not only are they hating, unprofessional douchebags, they're also liaars. Read this article.
http://chud.com/articles/articles/22061/1/UPDATED-WITH-EXCLUSIVE-QUOTES-THERE-ARE-NOT-TWO-COMPETING-CUTS-OF-THE-WOLF-MAN/Page1.html
Sucks to be you guys
God, the sad part is that these guys don't even know the whole story which is much, much worse. Props for having the balls to go out with this. You'll get flack, but good on you.
And well, everyone in the industry knows that Devin is the biggest hypocrite and twists what he can to suit his needs. He's a small man as they all say.
Keep in mind chubs in L.A. who rides the bus there (the lowest possible caste section there is there) also tried to say our Greengrass leaves 'Bourne' report was wrong, but then shut up when Variety and THR confirmed it (and both gave us credit). Yes sam, we broke that story. Shocker.
Universal has confirmed that what you're reporting is false.
I'll take their word over yours.
Kthxbi
Playlist,
We usually enjoy reading the reports on here as post on various films, but I've worked on "The Wolfman" since last December, and yes there have been some issues, fortunately it's all pacing. I've seen the cut and it's great. We're disappointed you guys decided to run this, we don't know who your source is but you've been mislead incredibly. No producer is breathing down anyone's neck:
http://www.aintitcool.com/node/43551
Despite this, we still love your reports and reviews.
Regards,
Anonymous Digital Artist (hey, that rhymed!)
Ok wait a minute people..Do you honestly think this article is really going to keep the masses of people who are going to watch the trailer and flock to this movie from seeing it? Or the critics for that matter? Probably not. Just look at the two shit heaps Transformers 2 and Twilight. (Although I have a decent amount of hope this movie could be pretty good.) There's no reason to get all pissy when you read an article talking about cuts and changes to a movie. Every movie gets cuts and changes, its called post production. To all you guys giving the writer of the article flak (whether or not he has sources etc): is it really going to keep you from seeing the movie opening day? As long as they don't water it down to PG-13 I'm still seeing it.
Here's the thing: if your story is true (I say "if" because I don't know you from a can of paint) will your source back you if the studio is in a petty mood and gets litigious? Is there any way at all, beyond your source, to verify your story? If your source backs out, you're standing on a limb by yourself, truth or not. Something batshit crazy is happening on a film project somewhere as we speak, so two copies of the same movie isn't that far-fetched. If you choose to tell their business, be absolutely sure you can cover your ass. Just sayin'.
for more info about The Wolfman or about Benicio Del Toro visit http://www.beniciodeltoro.ca
Well, Danny Elfman's score is back, and if Universal keeps their amateur ideas away, it may be frightening!!! Can't be worse than new moon or house of the wolf man-which was funny! So, playlist…till you see the final cut…STFU!!!! there…
Lol.. I’ve just visited the site. Very very feisty fans. I wonder how people can sometimes get so serious and engaged.
Benicio del Toro