Posts Tagged ‘The Wolfman’

2009's "Watchmen" made only a few million more than its budget. Is its "R" rating partially to blame?

In an article for Variety.com columnist Tatiana Siegel reports how lately Hollywood has been growing more and more averse to having their films stamped with an “R” rating. The topic gets introduced with the upcoming Clash of the Titans remake, which if you’ve seen the trailer or any commercials you’ll understand is supposed to have its fair share of violence.

Basically, the rule of thumb has been growing more and more into the overall standard. The bigger the budget, the less likely a studio will accept an “R” rating. The logic is of course that PG-13 ratings draw the widest audiences, which means the highest possible returns. Small budget films receive more slack (such as selective horror projects), but studios even insist that they shoot for PG-13 if possible (ex., Prom Night (2008)).

Some requirements are easy to satisfy. For instance, to avoid an “R” rating a film can only show violence against monsters or limited violence against people. If there is blood it must be limited, and if not it must be a different color than red – typically black. And of course, foul language must be kept to a minimum (the F word can only be uttered once).

Studios are more weary of releasing “R” rated pics lately because they’re failing to bring in big returns. Two recent examples are Watchmen and The Wolfman. Both cost over $100 million to produce but failed to make back their budgets with domestic grosses (Wolfman only managed to make back $61 million domestically, and even its worldwide B.O. failed to make it break even).

Screenwriters have stopped writing scripts that are intended to be “R” rated because studios are refusing to pick them up. However there are people within the industry who are willing to be more cavalier with raunchy material. Director/Producer Todd Phillips (The Hangover) supposedly told writer Phil Hay regarding the topic, “Write [the script] the best it can be. And we’ll figure it out later.” – Variety

What is your opinion on the “R” and/or “PG-13″ ratings? As a moviegoer, do you care about what the rating is of the movie you want to see? Do ratings affect which movies you see? What if a film is rated “R” but proves satisfying and entertaining enough to justify its ticket price?

Tell us what you have to say!

Quick Opinion: The movies mentioned by Siegel (The Wolfman, Watchmen, Prom Night) may not be the best examples to list on this topic. Based on reviews and audience reactions, as well as talks with friends, both The Wolfman and Watchmen’s lack of success is not due to their being “R” rated. People seem to agree that The Wolfman’s plot was too generic and its characters too flat, and seemed undecided about whether it wanted to be new or nostalgic. Fans of the Watchmen comics conceded that there was too much story to pack into a single film, which made the screen adaptation feel overstuffed and lack concentration. The remake of Prom Night suffered from arguably too little violence, and might have actually made more money had it shared the same “R” rating as its original. Because of how popular the horror genre is with teenagers, though, business logic tells you that you don’t make a product for a particular audience and then make it inaccessible to them (remember the No Admittance Under 17 “rule”). However, sometimes I think that studios who make horror films fail to recognize that there are plenty of horror fans over the age of 17 as well (in fact most of them). All in all, I’m convinced that it’s not the “R” ratings on certain films that are the issue, but the overall poor quality of those films and their inability to satisfy their audiences.

Short Take: It's main message is nothing new, but at least the plot varries from the original 1941 version.

Director: Joe Johnston (The Rocketeer, Jurassic Park III)

Screenwriters: Andrew Kevin Walker (Seven, Sleepy Hollow) and David Self (The Haunting)

Cast: Benicio Del Toro (Che: Parts 1 and2), Anthony Hopkins (Beowulf), Emily Blunt (The Young Victoria), Hugo Weaving (V for Vendetta)

Length: 1h 42m

Synopsis: It is 1892. Lawrence (Del Toro), a well off American thespian, is beseeched to come home to Wales after his brother had been mauled by a mysterious creature. His brother’s fiancé, Gwen (Blunt), seems inconsolable, and his father (Hopkins) appears abnormally composed. Nearby gypsies are being blamed for the horrible incident, but soon everyone is forced to deal with the truth that no human of any level of insanity could do or be what they witness. They are cursed with an unnatural beast, with an insatiable thirst for blood.

Analysis: The story is based from the 1941 film The Wolf Man starring the great Lon Chaney Jr., however there are enough differences between the two to keep The Wolfman from being a point-by-point remake. I shant divulge every disparity here, but suffice it to say that the plot takes considerably different turns on the way to its climax. Those things being said, the emergence of remakes don’t typically come about arbitrarily. The Wolf Man was released during a time when gothic horror was still somewhat popular (even though Bela Lugosi and Boris Karloff broke down that door a decade prior), and traditional, animalistic monsters were the staple of the American horror genre. In the 2000s, American horror has primarily been focused on domestic villains, serial killers, ghosts, and reintroducing human-like monsters (Michael Myers, Jason Vorhees, and soon Freddy Krueger). The Twilight films may have started a re-emergence of gothic monsters – beginning, like before, with vampires – and The Wolfman could indicate the beginnings of a trend (Daybreakers is a debatable member of this trend, as it incorporates vampires but contains almost no other gothic stamps). Read the rest of this entry »

Publicity photo for Johnston's "The Wolfman"

Director Joe Johnston (The Rocketeer, October Sky, Hidalgo) spoke with FilmJournal.com about his upcoming movie The Wolfman starring Benicio Del Toro, Emily Blunt, Anthony Hopkins, and Hugo Weaving, which opens February 12th, as well as some ideas regarding is next movie The First Avenger: Captain America.

Regarding The Wolfman: Johnston had only three weeks of pre-production, he says, because the studio “had already spent so much money and had gone down this road with Mark Romanek, and said, ‘We have to start shooting the movie at this point.’ I think a lot of it involved possibly actors’ contracts and a release date. Fortunately for me, Mark Romanek [the film's original director] made a lot of good choices. He cast some great actors”—the three leads were all aboard by this point—“I was able to cast a few more good ones, and I was able to change a few of the locations that I didn’t think were great.”

Concerning Captain America: “We’re in prep,” Johnston says. “Rick Heinrichs is production-designing and we’re set up down in Manhattan Beach [California]. It’s the part of the process that I love the most,” he enthuses. “We have eight or ten really talented artists, and we all just sit around all day and draw pictures and say, ‘Hey, wouldn’t it be cool if we could do this?’ It’s that phase of the production where money doesn’t matter: ‘Let’s put all the greatest stuff up on the wall and [then later] see what we can afford.’” The film, he says at this early stage, will begin “in 1942, 1943″ during World War II. “The stuff in the ’60s and ’70s [comic books] we’re sort of avoiding. We’re going back to the ’40s, and then forward to what they’re doing with Captain America now.”

To read more (which we recommend) see the full article.