HOME | DD

Published: 2011-04-03 10:26:06 +0000 UTC; Views: 41102; Favourites: 734; Downloads: 1599
Redirect to original
Description
As a lifelong fan of the original 1941 Lon Chaney Jr. version of "The Wolf Man", I naturally had mixed feelings about the 2010 remake, starring Benicio Del Toro. Of course the most important thing to me, was for the filmmakers to just please, please, please - get the character of the Wolf Man himself right - which they certainly did. So I applauded the remake for that, from the first viewing. But I also nit-picked everything else about it to death. Every deviation from the original story (and there were some major ones) felt like a grave error to me. I guess that's just what us movie fans do when one of our old favorites gets re-made in a modern version.I should know better. I've read plenty of accounts of 1960's horror fans who were up in arms about the remake of Dracula staring some new guy named Christopher Lee. And yet today, most of us 21st Century horror fans hold the Christopher Lee version of Dracula in the same high regard as the classic Bela Lugosi version. I think the lesson is, movie remakes are a shock to the system for the fan who has spent years in love with the original version. A lot of time must pass before we can judge a remake fairly.
Well, the Wolf Man character himself was treated so well in the 2010 remake that I kept going back for repeated viewings, just to see him in action, again and again, despite the film's other shortcomings. But with these repeat viewings I have found more and more to like about the 2010 Wolf Man. What can I tell ya - this movie has grown on me a lot. I've forgiven most of its changes to the original story and come to accept it as its own thing. And it has slowly become one of my favorite new horror movies from the past decade.
No, it is not a perfect film by any stretch, but it treated my old friend the Wolf Man with respect and didn't make a joke out of him. In fact it made him very cool and let him kill a lot of people with plenty of blood and gore - and reminded the world what a good old fashioned werewolf is capable of. And for that I love it.
There's a scene in the movie where Larry Talbot is in an insane asylum. He goes crazy and experiences a weird montage of hallucinatory images, one of which is a 3-second, "blink-and-you'll-miss-it" shot of his friend Gwen sitting naked on a bed. I have always been a sucker for stories about Monsters longing for the beautiful girl they can never have. So I decided to do an illustration of that striking moment, but with the Wolf Man clutching hold of her - as if Larry had injected himself into his own dream of Gwen. So sad...
Anyway there ya go.
Related content
Comments: 187
BryanBaugh In reply to ??? [2011-05-09 18:16:13 +0000 UTC]
Thank you for your kind words on my illustration! Yeah, that image of Gwen only appears in the movie for a few seconds but drawing it was kinda irresistible.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Capstain259 [2011-05-06 03:14:00 +0000 UTC]
i liked this movie, i really liked it. it had its flaws, but it was by far the best old style monster flick i have seen in a good long time. the character was handled well, the characters memerable, the story similar yet different (as a remake should be), and the gore is great. and it had a cool werewolf fight, a very good female lead who actually had alot to do, and it was a load of fun. i actually really disliked the asylum scenes, the doctors were annoyingly evil and the hallucinations struck me as out of place, but what are you gonna do. this remake was as good as we could reasonably have expected it to be, in my humble opinion. that is just me, though.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
BryanBaugh In reply to Capstain259 [2011-05-06 18:31:16 +0000 UTC]
The asylum scenes are definitely uneven and, in my opinion, mark the point where the overall quality of the whole film drops down a level. I didn't mind the crazy doctors. They fit the old-fashioned horror movie ideal of mad doctors. But I wasn't crazy about Del Toro ranting and raving. As far as the hallucinations he experiences in the asylum - they ran the gamut from enticing (like Larry's hallucination of Gwen which suggests a deeper level of character interest) to unnecessarily convoluted/ overcooked plotting (like the flashbacks of his childhood and his mother's suicide), to downright nonsensical (the hallucinations of the feral "wolf-boy" character in the underground tunnel). Simply put I could have done without most of the hallucinations.
The only part of the asylum scenes I actively hate is when he wakes up and Sir John goes into his monologue about being a beast (or whatever) and Larry suddenly wants to kill his father. That was ridiculous.
All just my opinion, of course.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Capstain259 In reply to BryanBaugh [2011-05-06 22:19:46 +0000 UTC]
yeah, i could really go on about Sir John in the film. i think that while Anthony Hopkins does a good job with what he has, he is dreadfully miscast in the role. i hate that Sir John is such a sneering, evil, "bwuh ha ha" type of villain in this movie. i don't mind him being the original werewolf, but i think his character should have been played up as more of a tragedy, as someone who has lost himself to the curse, and just does what he can to live with it, being repentant but without hope, sort of a tale of what Larry could ultimatly become. i know thats there somewhat (at least as far as i recall, i havn't seen the movie in a while), but it was a mishandled idea. also, the suicide of his mother: was there a point? it is unnecessary pathos, and it ultimatly has little payoff, so therefore it annoys me. and that stupid Gollum looking feral boy, i don't even have words.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
BryanBaugh In reply to Capstain259 [2011-05-06 22:50:32 +0000 UTC]
I was opposed to Sir John being a werewolf at all. For me, being an old-school Wolf Man fan, that was too big of a leap away from the original character in the original film.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Capstain259 In reply to BryanBaugh [2011-05-07 02:45:09 +0000 UTC]
eh, i didn't really put much thought to it. keep in mind, the point of a remake is to take a classic scenario and make it accessable to the modern audiance. the classic version of Sir John probably wouldn't have done too well with said audiance. besides, i can't really begrudge a remake for trying somthing different. i can however begrudge the lack of gypsies. hey, we always have the orginal, right?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
BryanBaugh In reply to Capstain259 [2011-05-07 03:08:38 +0000 UTC]
Funny - I disagree with almost every single thing you said right there... except for the bit about the gypsies.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Capstain259 In reply to BryanBaugh [2011-05-07 15:03:59 +0000 UTC]
eh, to each his own. darn gypsies, they have barely any screen time, and half of their screen time is pretty undignified. still a good movie overall, though.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Albionstar In reply to ??? [2011-04-25 01:46:49 +0000 UTC]
i want to learn how to draw like but put my own style into it without copying your style. this is awesome, and you're an inspiration to me. thank you for sharing your talents
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
BryanBaugh In reply to Albionstar [2011-04-25 05:31:52 +0000 UTC]
No problem! Thank you for the compliments! And keep drawing!
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
LukeMill In reply to ??? [2011-04-14 00:54:57 +0000 UTC]
I've never got around to seeing the original I'm ashamed to say. But I enjoyed the re-make a lot. I agree it's not perfect, but it is a lot of fun. Though, my favorite werewolf movie is still 'An american werewolf in london'. Not that I've seen that many.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
MonsterKingOfKarmen In reply to ??? [2011-04-13 21:49:15 +0000 UTC]
It's a pretty good movie, although i havn't watch the original. Good job.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
therocketshipchair In reply to ??? [2011-04-13 01:23:34 +0000 UTC]
I thought they did a good job with it over all. It'd be kind of unreasonable for them not to change the story a little. That's kind of a prerequisite for a remake. And yes, a lot of the changes were pretty ridiculous. My favorite part was that they didn't CG every werewolf shot. The shots of him running across rooftops, clearly a man in a suit, were some of my favorite in the movie.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
dusty-abell In reply to ??? [2011-04-05 19:35:14 +0000 UTC]
i agree...the Wolfman in the movie was AWESOME........I was thrilled Baker got another Oscar for it, and that it wasn't given to another halfassed period film where your scratching your head going "what make-up efx?" the story....well, not as much....but i'm curious....have u seen the 16 minute longer cut of the film.....if so, how did it change the movie...better, worse...the same???
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
BryanBaugh In reply to dusty-abell [2011-04-05 20:17:08 +0000 UTC]
Yes I bought the Blu Ray the day it came out so I have watched the extended (16 minutes longer) version many times now. And I must say those extra 16 minutes make a difference.
The extra 16 minutes are all up front, extending the story of Larry Talbot before he gets bitten. Which is fine... it slows the story down (in the first half) to a pace that feels much more natural than the impatient, "let's just hurry up & get to the effects shots" - feeling of the theatrical version.
This is a major improvement. However it is not what I was hoping for, when I first heard the news of a longer version.
I was hoping those extra 16 minutes would have been dispersed throughout the film, slowing down the pace of the entire story (not just the beginning), and possibly adding in a bit of extra blood & guts that might have been considered too much for the standard R-Rating. In other words I was hoping the extended edition would be a little juicier & have more patient pacing overall.
So there ya go. The extended edition IS better & more enjoyable. But only in a subtle way. Not necessarily in a way that would have vastly improved it or made it more of a horror-audience crowd-pleaser.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Gojira012 In reply to BryanBaugh [2011-04-09 00:17:14 +0000 UTC]
I got it from Doug Jones (or is his name Woods) Anyway he's they guy who was Abe in the Hellboy movies, That he is gonna be the monster in the Frankenstein Remake,
and Bernie Wrightson's helping them. Of course he wants to fashion the monster in a way that honors both Mary Shelly and Boris Karloff
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Obi-Waton In reply to Gojira012 [2011-04-20 04:29:58 +0000 UTC]
FRANKENSTEIN REMAKE! OH MY GOD! WHEN?WHEN!WHEEEEEN!?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Gojira012 In reply to Obi-Waton [2011-04-20 04:37:41 +0000 UTC]
I have no idea.planning stages
👍: 0 ⏩: 2
clinteast In reply to Gojira012 [2011-11-08 06:11:18 +0000 UTC]
From what I've heard its Guillermo Del Toro who's directing it.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Obi-Waton In reply to Gojira012 [2011-04-20 04:39:11 +0000 UTC]
Ah. Cool. Check out my new drawings. Anatomy.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
faile35 [2011-04-05 06:42:52 +0000 UTC]
I quite enjoyed the remake, too, and I thought the casting was spot on for the mood--everybody looked and acted down and brooding, even for dark and dreary 19th Century England. And I liked the design of the more human-headed wolfman, too. I thought all of the insane asylum stuff was pretty compelling, including the visions you mentioned. All-around, while I'm not the horror buff you are, I'm very glad I took up your earlier praise of this film and took myself to see it.
And, of course, your art here is a good tribute to it--wouldn't mind seeing more of Emily Blunt (ah, love the old "double entendre")...
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
BryanBaugh In reply to faile35 [2011-04-05 18:32:20 +0000 UTC]
Thanks for your comments on my stuff once again! Been a long time since I heard from you. Hope you are doing well these days!
If I ever do another tribute illustration to this movie I will of course include Ms.Blunt's character in it. But I won't want to repeat myself, and she didn't have any other scenes in the movie as sensual as this one. So most likely, if I draw her again, she will be fully clothed in one of those amazing Victorian dresses, right up to her chin!
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Emmacabre In reply to ??? [2011-04-05 04:38:18 +0000 UTC]
Once again, very nice. Always fun to see your "beauty/beast" pieces.
And absolutely agree on the Wolfman remake, and I think the same applies to most horror remakes/reimaginings/sequels/etc. Film's like good wine; it has to age before being tested again, and if it holds up over time, hooray; if not, too bad. I also agree that movies should be judged on their own merits, too, in addition to being remakes/sequels/whatever. Film is...well, film.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
BryanBaugh In reply to Emmacabre [2011-04-05 04:45:27 +0000 UTC]
Thanks for your comments in general and for your compliments on my art. I appreciate it!
Yes, it is hard to separate a remake in your mind from an original, but once you do they become much more enjoyable.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
tiamat9 In reply to ??? [2011-04-04 23:22:06 +0000 UTC]
The remake was solid, but it really isn't my favorite as far as lycanthrope movies are concerned. Great work as always with the illustration. The details and colors are fantastic.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
BryanBaugh In reply to tiamat9 [2011-04-04 23:45:15 +0000 UTC]
I understand your feeling about the movie. Thanks for your kind words on my art!
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
single-leg [2011-04-04 22:44:54 +0000 UTC]
Yeah I actually dug it! Which was a surprise cuz I thought they were going to screw it up!! Tragic old school werewolves are where its at.
I wonder what Jacinto (P Naschy) would have thought if he had lived to see it...
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
BryanBaugh In reply to single-leg [2011-04-04 23:07:23 +0000 UTC]
My thoughts exactly. Yes the dark-furred "hero" werewolf battling a grey-furred "villain" werewolf was straight out of Naschy's film "La marca del Hombre-lobo" (a.k.a. "Mark of the Wolf Man", a.k.a "Frankenstein's Bloody Terror").
Personally I wasn't a fan of Larry's father being the werewolf who bit Larry, but I did like the werewolf vs. werewolf battle. Just wish the "bad" werewolf had been someone else, and "Sir John Talbot"'s dignity had been preserved.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
single-leg In reply to BryanBaugh [2011-04-05 01:29:24 +0000 UTC]
Monster vs monster was always my fave and Naschy movies were all about that!
I just feel Anthony Hopkins has been typecast a little unfairly..Always the evil/psycho ala Hannibal.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
BryanBaugh In reply to single-leg [2011-04-05 04:25:09 +0000 UTC]
Exactly which is why it would have been nice to see him play Sir John Talbot the way Claude Rains did in the original - as a truly good person, benevolent father figure, and the voice of reason who tries to talk sense into his son Larry and keep Larry sane. ...Or like Hopkins's own performance as the good Dr. Treves in "The Elephant Man". When I heard he would be playing Sir John I was looking forward to seeing him do that type of character for a change. And he could have - Hopkins has that same level of class that Claude Raines had. But instead they took the typical Hollywood route, it HAD to be Larry's dad who bit him. Geez.
Don't get me wrong I LOVE a good monster vs. monster fight. But they coulda done that without unnecessarily warping an important good-guy character just to create some sort of half-ass "plot twist".
That said, I generally agree with your opinion. But there's my in-depth thoughts on that topic.
...All this conversation is getting me in the mood to watch a Paul Naschy movie. Haha.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
single-leg In reply to BryanBaugh [2011-04-06 16:45:55 +0000 UTC]
Werewolf vs Yeti!!!(so much action and the ultra rare happy Naschy ending!!!). I met him twice at conventions! Class act, enthusiastic, real love of fantasy cinema coming through. Do you have a fave Naschy flick?
I feel so strongly about the typecasting because Anthony Hopkins, like so many British actors has , has the ability to portray so many different roles..Like in The Elephant Man or a Bridge Too Far he plays decent, heroic men. ah well..
What do you think of Werewolf of London? I actually thought it was really good when I finally saw it recently (saw snippets on TV as a kid..)
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
BryanBaugh In reply to single-leg [2011-04-06 20:01:00 +0000 UTC]
My favorite Paul Naschy film is a perfect tie between, his very first Hombre Lobo film: "La marca del Hombre-lobo" (a.k.a. "The Mark of the Wolf Man", a.k.a. "Frankenstein's Bloody Terror").
...and "El Retorno Del Hombre Lobo" (a.k.a "Return of the Wolf Man" a.k.a. "The Craving") Granted it was just a 1980 remake of "The Wolf Man vs. The Vampire Women" but it was a huge improvement.
I like "Werewolf of London" okay but more for the mood and atmosphere than the werewolf aspect of it.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
single-leg In reply to BryanBaugh [2011-04-06 20:22:19 +0000 UTC]
Oh yeah! The Craving was awesome!! It had that 80's feel with the FX but good old fashioned Naschy style.. His stuff was really the bridge between the old universal/gothic horror and the nudity/gore of the 70's new school!
Always cool to talk Naschy films! We wont see their like ever again(Wolfman remake notwithstanding) although no budget homage stuff may be the answer.
I've heard of House of the Wolfman..have you seen or heard anything in depth about it?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
BryanBaugh In reply to single-leg [2011-04-06 20:36:03 +0000 UTC]
I have heard about "House of the Wolfman". Based on the trailer alone - I was sold, ready to buy it on the spot. Then I read a few reviews. They all say the same thing: That this movie has amazing production value and does an incredible job of recreating the look and feel of old black and white Universal monster movies... But that it is pushing two hours long and they don't show any monsters until the last 5 minutes. The whole movie up till those last 5 minutes is just endless, boring (and apparently, not very well-written) dialogue scenes. Everything I've read about it says, those last 5 minutes with the monsters are amazing, and asks why the filmmakers couldn't have introduced the monsters much earlier, so the whole movie could have been that good. Most people I have heard from who have seen it, were sorely disappointed, and sort of baffled why an obvious homage to old monster movies would give the monsters the short shrift.
...But - I have not seen it myself. Those many reviews put me off, and made me decide to save my money. So I am only telling you the overwhelming opinion I have heard or read. Who knows maybe they are wrong and it is an awesome flick. I'm just saying, that's what I've heard so I am staying away until a source I trust tells me different.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Rose-319 In reply to ??? [2011-04-04 22:28:30 +0000 UTC]
okay...startled me, scrolling down.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
BryanBaugh In reply to chachaman [2011-04-04 19:59:04 +0000 UTC]
Aww, I like the movie. Haha, thanks!
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Inferna [2011-04-04 12:22:49 +0000 UTC]
Werewolves and pretty girls, one of my favourite things too! I love this so much and I totally agree with you about the remake. Never seen the original I have to admit but I know what the Wolfman is all about. Benicio Del Toro was perfect and he really was a character we could feel sympathy for. Pity the writers thought it would be a good idea to make his father the werewolf that turned him (that really pissed me off...) Plus the Anthony Hopkins werewolf from was pretty laughable...
But before I rant anymore...XD This picture is absolutely brilliant. I love how he's possessively holding her, it's like he's growling at other wandering males to back the fuck off The way she's clutching to him is lovely but so heartbreaking since we all know how the movie ends. You've really captured the Benicio wolf form so well (wish this could have been the movie poster...) and I love everything from the black shadows surrounding him to the shimmering moonlight on his claws. I would hang this in my house with pride if I could! Excellent job!
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
BryanBaugh In reply to Inferna [2011-04-04 20:03:03 +0000 UTC]
Wow thank you for writing out your extensive thoughts on my artwork. I appreciate that very much.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Saurianpride In reply to ??? [2011-04-04 04:44:57 +0000 UTC]
Wolfman had its flaws bit it was certainly better than the...other werewolf movie that came out the same year.
God Damn Twilight and its pedowolves.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
king2wolves [2011-04-04 04:08:03 +0000 UTC]
Th-Th-Thats really COOL. Too bad, the movie wasn't as hardcore as your tribute.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
BryanBaugh In reply to king2wolves [2011-04-04 05:17:47 +0000 UTC]
I thought the movie was surprisingly hardcore. No, it wasn't the Texas Chainsaw Massacre, but it had great monster scenes and a lot more blood and gore than I was expecting. Which is why I loved it, despite a handful of severely bad choices in the storytelling.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
king2wolves In reply to BryanBaugh [2011-04-04 20:19:33 +0000 UTC]
Yeah, It was the story-telling that wasn't up-to-par. They pretty much handed the culprit midway towards the movie instead letting you quess towards the end.
Did you get your inspiration for this tribute from Ford's Coppola Dracula? The scene where wolf Dracula has sex with Nina in some garden.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
BryanBaugh In reply to king2wolves [2011-04-04 21:04:04 +0000 UTC]
No I didn't take inspiration from that but I can understand the comparison. Funny, I wasn't thinking of that at all when I drew it but now that you mention it maybe it was a subconscious influence?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
king2wolves In reply to BryanBaugh [2011-04-05 01:50:01 +0000 UTC]
Maybe you could do another one with Wulf & Batsy, if you get my drift.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
BryanBaugh In reply to king2wolves [2011-04-05 04:28:11 +0000 UTC]
Ha! I was just thinking that myself recently - it's been a long time since I did a nice, full-color Wulf and Batsy piece. I should do that again soon.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
| Next =>