Talk:The Wolfman (film)

	Film portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.FilmWikipedia:WikiProject FilmTemplate:WikiProject Filmfilm articles
	This article is supported by the American cinema task force.

Horror Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Horror, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to fictional horror in film, literature and other media on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit one of the articles mentioned below, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and contribute to the general Project discussion to talk over new ideas and suggestions.HorrorWikipedia:WikiProject HorrorTemplate:WikiProject Horrorhorror articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Merging into The Wolf Man

With just the Variety announcement as the source of all pertinent information, it seems too early to determine if this film will be made. I'm requesting a merge into The Wolf Man (for which a Remake section should be created, anyway). --Erik (^talk/_contrib) @ 04:47, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not really. The script is there, and it is being made, with a star. Wiki-newbie 17:09, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No Merge Earlier citations I had put in got deleted, so I put them back in, I hope that helps (I could have put in dozens more citations, but I thought that would be overkill). This is a high-profile film that really looks likely to be made, and is highly anticipated even at this early stage. If the merge happens, this article will likely just have to be forked off again in a year, max. Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 14:36, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Latino Review

I removed the script review from Latino Review because it's too early to determine if the details mentioned in the script will actually make it into final production. It's too immediate to start comparing and contrasting the two films beyond the existing premise of the remake. The Latino Review link for future reference if necessary. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 14:17, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind; I decided to insert the script review (with date marked) as an external link. Let me know if this doesn't work for you. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 14:21, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is certainly possible to compare the script to the previous film, that is not speculation. I prefer Latino Review link as a footnote since it is indeed used as a source for the article, so I'm putting it back in as a footnote. Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 16:21, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I've done the changes now, including rewording the "Differences from the original" section so that it isn't so problematic. You should look over the article and make sure that I didn't inadvertently erase any of your other changes. After my first attempt, I had noticed I'd erased some of your other changes, so I put them back in over several edits, but I may have missed something. Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 16:35, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Changes I've made

Lead paragraph does not need citation; it is supposed to be a concise overview of the rest of the article. See WP:LEAD.
The official site for Benicio del Toro is an extraneous addition; it adds no information that didn't already exist, and also seems to have incorrect information. ("Like the 1941 original that starred Lon Chaney Jr., the new film will be set in Victorian England." The original had Wales.)
The director and the star should come before the screenwriter in the lead paragraph.
The Empire citation is extraneous; it repeats what the Variety citation already has said.
February 8, 2007 cannot be said as the date that the director signed on board; that was when the director was announced. Hence the flexibility of just saying "February 2007". Unless you want to word it to say that the director was announced to be attached on that date.
Previous credentials do not need to be mentioned in a film article; the respective person's article should house that information.

Additionally, I still do not support the "Differences from original" section because it is basically original research. The citation itself does not actually compare the original film to this remake; to personally make observations in comparing two different incarnations is original research. I assume good faith about this addition, but I strongly motion for it to be removed. Ideally, the citations that would fit in a "Differences from original" section would be information from the studio that directly explains these differences -- "We decided to have the brother just disappear in the remake as opposed to him being deceased in the original", or reviewers' observations about how it compares to the classic film. However, I am mostly fine with adding script detail to the Plot outline. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 17:31, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to add in all of the detail from the "differences from the original" into the plot outline section, that's fine with me. I just didn't want those facts deleted from the article entirely because they are basic, solid facts supported by citations that would be of interest to anyone seeking information on this topic. It was the deletion of large amounts of well-cited info I was objecting to, I wasn't trying to support original research speculations. Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 17:44, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's why I had re-inserted it as an external link. I'll try to explain further why I see the "Differences from original" section as original research. The author reviewed the script, but he does not compare it to the classic film at all. If I'm someone who never saw the classic film, I can't verify that whoever made the comparisons is correct. Hence the need for citations that talk about both this remake and the classic film, comparing the two. The reason for this is that personal observations can add up over time -- a lot of film adaptations, especially superhero films, have had articles with sections that have extensive lists of comparing and contrasting sources via personal observation. With cited observations from reliable sources (that contain more authority than you or me), the comparison is more professional, so to speak. If a newspaper reviewer noticed a difference between the two films, that can be included; it just can't be left up to the editors to draw these connections. Also, I said I was mostly fine with the script details from the review being included in the Plot outline, but I hesitate somewhat because it was an August 2006 script review, and with filming to start this coming autumn, there's no saying how much the script will have changed by then. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 17:55, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Moving the Article

It was just announced that this has been pushed back to 2009, so I moved the entire article to a new 2009 version. --Werideatdusk33 23:15, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since this delay is not a good sign for the start of production, can I suggest merging the content to The Wolf Man per notability guidelines for films? Stand-alone articles of films should be created when they enter production, and it may be a while yet for this project. Similar merges have been done with projects like Spider-Man 4 and Jurassic Park IV. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 03:21, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Headlines

Benicio Del Toro Ready For A Horrific Time As ‘The Wolf Man’ —Erik (talk • contrib) - 22:22, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed: Anthony Hopkins In For ‘The Wolf Man’ —Erik (talk • contrib) - 18:22, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hopkins Likes Wolf Remake —Erik (talk • contrib) - 03:01, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Filming stuff: [1] [2] [3] [4] Alientraveller (talk) 20:31, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Geraldine Chaplin in The Wolf Man remake?

I've heard this from many before, so thought it may have been just some rumor, but I finally found atleast one source with what as far as I can tell are her words (http://www.soitu.es/soitu/2008/02/29/info/1204306911_740362.html) and another source claiming to have some more of the cast. (http://www.bloody-disgusting.com/news/11888) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.123.69.81 (talk) 06:29, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

CGI

Is there any CGI in this movie? Cause shouldn't we add something in the article about it or not? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.44.20.42 (talk • contribs)

It's primarily make-up. Read the article. Alientraveller (talk) 12:28, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Stray text removed from end of article

I removed the following text from the article:

Stunt rigging and wire-work specialists Extreme Locations Rigging recently supplied equipment for the re-shoot of upcoming feature The Wolfman (Action unit) at Pinewood Studios. Extreme Locations Managing Director Robin Earle provided high-end technical stunt rigs, working alongside veteran filmmaker and stunt coordinator Vic Armstrong. The action-packed re-shoot relied heavily on stunt wire work and puppetry, with each stunt set-up requiring speedy rigging and de-rigging. The re-shoots culminated in a major stunt by Rick English.

I suspect it's mere advertising and I don't reckon any of it is worth including. --uKER (talk) 19:08, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Changing time

The first lines of this article refer to the movie as not being released. I'm not a regular editor and think a more experienced editor should make this change. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.241.209.197 (talk) 18:00, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tower Bridge

I know nothing of this film, but does Tower Bridge feature in it at all? An anon editor has added a comment in Tower Bridge#Popular Culture which would seem rather trivial, even by trivia standards. There's no mention in this article, so I have to ask here...

-- EdJogg (talk) 01:04, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I believe there is a shot of the Tower Bridge in the film. And I hear it is an anachronism done by the filmmakers as well; the bridge wasn't yet build at the time the movie is set in. --TheBearPaw (talk) 05:37, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. That's also what's been written in the Tower Bridge article. I would guess it's the sort of anachronism that commentators pick up on, so if you can find a suitable reference that would be very welcome (and it'll stand a good chance of staying in the article.)

NB -- as I'm not watching this page, please either apply the ref direct to Tower Bridge (where I'll see it) or drop me a line at my talk page. Thanks.

--EdJogg (talk) 11:37, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

When does 33 percent 'good' mean 'mixed'?

"Reviews for the film have been mixed. It currently holds a 33%.." I thought I failed dismally on certain exams, but it is appears (according the exacting standards at Wikipedia) that my exam results were 'mixed'. On Rotten Tomatoes, it is called 'rotten' when you get such poor reviews - or are there a group of interpreters here who know what they really mean? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.140.7.13 (talk) 11:01, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

33 is an average percent. It would be poor if there were all low 30s, but mixed implies there were a lot of 10s (really bad) and a lot of 50s (average film).

That's not how RT works, there aren't any ratings, it's a binary system. 33 means that 33% of critics gave it some form of positive review while 67% gave it some degree of negative review. Since you're bound to find someone somewhere that's willing to give a positive review to a bad movie (or, for that matter, a negative review of a good movie) one could say every movie ever made recieved "mixed reviews" if one is being completely strict with the term. In the case of something with a 33% it's probably same to use the term "generally negative reviews." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.118.170.201 (talk) 00:05, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely-33% on Rottentomatoes is not "mixed" it's bad. I'd say an average movie is around 65-70%- Of their list of top-10 movies at the box office now (September, generally a weak time of year for films) only one film rates lower than a 33%. Of the 47 films currently listed as "in theatres" (49 but 2 have no ratings) only six movies score worse. "Mixed reviews" does not accurately portray the critical reaction to the film. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.179.28.225 (talk) 02:47, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I changed this to "mostly unfavorable" reviews, which seems more accurate. PNW Raven (talk) 15:04, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Year in Title

A minor thing, but does this movie and the original really need the years in the title, considering technically they have a different names. "The Wolf Man" vs. "The Wolfman" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.72.9.115 (talk) 23:42, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. [tk] XANDERLIPTAK 14:04, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I concur with Xander. A single space is not enough to disambiguate one film from another. Using the release year clarifies the topic at hand beyond a doubt. Erik (talk | contribs) 17:00, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Plot Review

It seems inappropriate that the 'Plot' sections contains a full recap of the film's story and events, especially when the page lacks any short description of the story or idea behind the film.

I believe the current plot section should be replaced with a short outline of the plot of the film or for the mentioned outline be added as a sentence or two into the introduction paragraph. Unfortunately I haven't watched the film and therefore can't do that edit. --94.249.7.169 (talk) 10:30, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ron Meyer, President of Universal Studios, apologizes "We make a lot of shitty movies."

[THE WOLFMAN]..."One of the worst movies we ever made...WOLFMAN and BABE 2 are two of the shittiest movies we put out. The script never got right...the director was wrong. Benicio [del Toro] stunk. It all stunk" Universal exec apologizes, admits Cowboys & Aliens, Wolfman sucked.

Production budget?

$150 million?! That can't be right! Were they burning big piles of $100 bills on set for fun? How the hell did that happen? It says in the production section that the budget was at one time $85 million, how the hell did they go $65 million over budget?--Allthestrongbowintheworld (talk) 23:14, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on The Wolfman (2010 film). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100126200233/http://www.mezco.net:80/thewolfman.html to http://www.mezco.net/thewolfman.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 20:15, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on The Wolfman (2010 film). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:14, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on The Wolfman (2010 film). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:52, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]