Blumhouse/Universal's WOLF MAN directed by Leigh Whannell (2025?) 2 2

[Bosco685]

Quote

Months after Universal successfully relaunched its monster universe with Elisabeth Moss’s “The Invisible Man,” the studio is pushing ahead for “Wolfman” — which is being developed as a starring vehicle for Ryan Gosling — to be the next movie based on its catalog of iconic creatures.

 

Sources tell Variety that executives at Universal have been meeting with directors over the past month and could be making a decision soon on who will take the reins behind the camera. While there is no frontrunner at the time, Cory Finley, who recently received rave reviews for directing HBO’s drama “Bad Education” with Hugh Jackman and Allison Janney, is said to be in the mix for the job.

 

Universal and CAA had no comment.

 

It’s unknown what the new take on “Wolfman” will look like, though it is believed to be set in present times and in the vein of Jake Gyllenhaal’s thriller “Nightcrawler,” with an obvious supernatural twist.

 

Lauren Schuker Blum and Rebecca Angelo, who wrote for Netflix’s “Orange is the New Black,” penned the -script, which is based on an original pitch by Gosling.

 

[Bosco685]

Quote

The Invisible Man succeeded partially by letting its monster be an unapologetic villain rather than a tragic anti-hero.

 

With The Invisible Man standing tall as the best major studio/wide theatrical release of the year, albeit somewhat by default, Universal UVV has reason to be somewhat confident in their new “pitch-specific” approach to their classic monsters IP. Among the films in some stage of development or theoretical existence are Paul Feig’s Dark Army, Dexter Fletcher’s Renfield, Matt Stawski’s Monster Mash, Elizabeth Banks’ The Invisible Woman, Karyn Kusama’s Dracula and James Wan’s Frankenstein. And now we can add Ryan Gosling’s Wolfman to the pile. This has the makings of a very dark universe, especially if these films get made and turn out to be decent.

 

Yes, we got word yesterday that Ryan Gosling pitched a Wolfman flick which he initially wanted to both direct and star in, but at the moment it’s looking like someone else will direct. Moreover, that list of names above isn’t necessarily a “director-project” list either, as Wan specifically may end up producing while someone else directs. The pitch, set in the present tense and described as a kind of Nightcrawler/Network flick, features Gosling as a news anchor who gets bitten by a werewolf and then presumably does all of the werewolf things. But the big question is whether he’ll be allowed to be a villain.

 

First of all, making him into a tragic anti-hero, which admittedly is pretty in line with many/most werewolf flicks, would make it not that different from Joe Johnston’s The Wolfman. That 2010 flick was a deeply ambitious and old-school period piece horror movie that played like a loose remake of Ang Lee’s Hulk which itself collapsed under the weight of its admirable ambitions. Benicio Del Toro was a tragic victim of his father’s (Anthony Hopkins) own “I got bitten by a wolf” downfall, seeming to care more about whether the young actor would find love with his dead brother’s fiancee (Emily Blunt) than about the carnage he indirectly caused.

 

I’ll assume that this new Wolfman flick will cost closer to The Invisible Man ($9 million) than The Mummy ($125 million), so a result equivalent to The Wolfman’s $161 million gross (albeit on a $150 million budget) would actually be just fine for this newfangled version. Nonetheless, without knowing what Gosling’s big ideas happen to be, or how the project will take shape, I’d hope that Universal and friends will note that at least one of the reasons why The Invisible Man became Universal’s first successful “classic monsters” revamp since The Mummy in 1999, was that it let the scary monster in the title be the scary monster in the movie.

 

Leigh Whannell’s The Invisible Man, which starred Elizabeth Moss as a young woman seemingly tormented by her recently-dead abusive ex, told a present-tense horror story rooted in timely social issues (albeit ones that have been around since the dawn of time) where the title character was allowed to be the unapologetic villain. The Invisible Man, no spoilers, was not a tragic victim of circumstance or a tortured anti-hero in need of redemption. He was, simply put, a vicious monster before and after he “became” the Invisible Man. After years of trying turn these properties (Van Helsing, Dracula Untold, The Mummy) into glorified superhero stories, it was a refreshing change of pace.

 

There’s a case to be made that the key to revamping these properties and these characters is in simply letting them be scary monsters as opposed to sympathetic protagonists. A Wolfman movie starring Ryan Gosling as a doomed anti-hero, if that’s even how this plays out, is not inherently destined to fail artistically and/or commercially. I thought WB greenlighting Joker right after Wonder Woman was a bad idea, but the Todd Phillips movie worked on its own terms and it earned strong reviews and $1.074 billion worldwide on a $62 million budget. But there is a potential for the project to represent a reversion to old tropes and/or bad habits after an outside the box smash.

 

Truth be told, there is reason for optimism going forward, especially with the above-noted murderer’s row of distinct talent and IPs that are entirely rooted in specific characters, meaning the movies can be unique unto themselves and essentially anything you want them to be. Neither Peter Finch’s Howard Beale in Network nor (especially) Jake Gyllenhaal’s Lewis Bloom in Nightcrawler were the “heroes” of their respective films, so even if Gosling’s Wolf Man is the protagonist he can still be an unmitigated villain. But the success of The Invisible Man, which made its title character as scary as he’s ever been partially by letting him be the monster, should be a road map going forward.

 

[kimik]

Is this supposed to tie-in with the other Universal monster characters? I thought that was the premise behind the Mummy?

[PovertyRow]

I do wish Universal would at least get the title right if they are trying to resurrect the original Universal Monsters: The Wolf Man (two words). Wolf Man was two words in 1941, 1943, 1944 and 1945. It was in the final Universal Monsters effort, the 1948 Abbot and Costello Meet Dracula, was the name The Wolfman first used. 

With that peeve out of the way I hope this is better than the 2010 atrocity.

[Bosco685]

16 hours ago, PovertyRow said:

I do wish Universal would at least get the title right if they are trying to resurrect the original Universal Monsters: The Wolf Man (two words). Wolf Man was two words in 1941, 1943, 1944 and 1945. It was in the final Universal Monsters effort, the 1948 Abbot and Costello Meet Dracula, was the name The Wolfman first used. 

With that peeve out of the way I hope this is better than the 2010 atrocity.

I never knew this before now. Thanks for the details.

[PovertyRow]

4 hours ago, Bosco685 said:

I never knew this before now. Thanks for the details.

My pleasure! 

[telerites]

21 hours ago, PovertyRow said:

I do wish Universal would at least get the title right if they are trying to resurrect the original Universal Monsters: The Wolf Man (two words). Wolf Man was two words in 1941, 1943, 1944 and 1945. It was in the final Universal Monsters effort, the 1948 Abbot and Costello Meet Dracula, was the name The Wolfman first used. 

With that peeve out of the way I hope this is better than the 2010 atrocity.

Hey Pov 

I haven't seen you in a while.  

I had no idea either and I am a huge Universal Monsters fan.  

[PovertyRow]

These are the things you notice when you collect movie posters! I focus on horror and sci-fi from the 30s thru the 50s. Many years ago I sold my collection but decided a couple of years ago to get back into it. The best way to "collect" movies. 

[Bosco685]

 

[paperheart]

two excellent pieces in place ...

[Bosco685]

On 10/26/2021 at 5:43 PM, paperheart said:

two excellent pieces in place ...

Your straightjacket is fit tight and the holder of the key is out of arm's reach?

 

[Bosco685]

 

[VintageComics]

On 12/13/2023 at 2:32 PM, Bosco685 said:

 

Another Blumhouse product, which means odds are that this lowish budget film may actually turn out pretty good.

The Invisible Man reboot was great. Blum has a knack for making a 'horror' movie very tactfully so it appeals to a much broader audience than slasher films and still gives enough suspense to keep you on the edge of your seat. 

It's almost like watching a 50's 'horror' film, but a much better contemporary version of it. 

[Gatsby77]

Don't see why this project would succeed...

Given it's only been a few years since the last attempt at The Wolfman (ahem, "Wolf Man").

The last version had a script co-written by Andrew Kevin Walker and a cast that included Benicio Del Toro, Emily Blunt and Anthony Hopkins.

It still bombed.

[VintageComics]

On 12/13/2023 at 4:38 PM, Gatsby77 said:

Don't see why this project would succeed...

Given it's only been a few years since the last attempt at The Wolfman (ahem, "Wolf Man").

The last version had a script co-written by Andrew Kevin Walker and a cast that included Benicio Del Toro, Emily Blunt and Anthony Hopkins.

It still bombed.

It's going to be 14 years since the Wolfman (2010) movie once this one comes out. That's more than "a few years". 

How do you measure success?

Wolfman roughly broke even against a $150MIL or so budget. Maybe it made $10-15MIL through video rentals. 

Blumhouse films, as I've repeatedly stated, are made on much smaller budgets because the employees and cast profit share rather than be paid in salary, keeping production costs way down. 

Invisible man only cost $7MIL to make and raked in over $140MIL, making it 20 X profitable. That's a success no matter how you slice it. 

Blumhouse movies are typically made on $5-20MIL budgets, that means if Wolfman (2024) rakes in 'only' $140MIL, or even 'only' $100 MIL, it's still going to be very profitable.

And the dude is churning out films at an incredible pace. He's one of the hottest Hollywood movie making moguls on the scene right now. 

[VintageComics]

And I thought it was great even if the audience didn't love it. 

 

[Bosco685]

On 12/13/2023 at 4:38 PM, Gatsby77 said:

Don't see why this project would succeed...

Given it's only been a few years since the last attempt at The Wolfman (ahem, "Wolf Man").

The last version had a script co-written by Andrew Kevin Walker and a cast that included Benicio Del Toro, Emily Blunt and Anthony Hopkins.

It still bombed.

I remember a few folks saying that about The Invisible Man with a woman in the lead role. How'd that work out?

20.7X production budget seems like some win to most sane people.

[Bosco685]

 

[PovertyRow]

On 12/13/2023 at 3:14 PM, Bosco685 said:

I remember a few folks saying that about The Invisible Man with a woman in the lead role. How'd that work out?

Let's not forget the first time in 1940!

Edited January 5 by PovertyRow

[Silver Surfer]

On 12/13/2023 at 1:57 PM, VintageComics said:

And I thought it was great even if the audience didn't love it. 

 

Such a great movie, I could watch it over and over again.