Universal trying again with THE WOLFMAN.

A couple of days old, but what the heck: they’re gonna make a new Wolfman movie. “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.” Come, I will conceal nothing from you: I had not quite ‘gotten’ that the Moss INVISIBLE MAN was, well, the Invisible Man until it hit theaters.

If I had, I might have gone and seen it! I am the target demographic for that “Dark Universal” thingy: I liked the idea of a bunch of interconnected classic horror flicks. But they went too fast — and God only knows what they thought they were doing with THE MUMMY. I liked it well enough, but they’d have been better off with Russell Crowe doing an entire Hyde movie. Damn, but I would have watched that.


  • bensdad00 says:

    Let it be known, I am not an expert in Hollywood accounting.
    I am however, familiar with Broadway/theatrical accounting, so I do not speak from total ignorance.
    While average citizens look at a film and see a budget and a total return and use that to judge profitability – a normal and logical to be sure – that is not always the case from the studio’s point of view.
    NO films budget is actually known by the public – they are all hidden within one-off companies and shell corporations. Educated guesses can be made to be sure, and interested parties – including studios themselves- leak or announce numbers all the time, but always with a motive.
    While the public wold see ‘breaking even’ or a small profit as an acceptable performance, especially for an enjoyable film (think fan-favorite replacement level baseball player), studios prefer flashy home-run hitting all stars.
    The baseball analogy can be expanded. MLB as a whole is a studio. Every team is a film in production. Stars can’t be on every team (or in every film). Every team has fans loyal to it, even the Padres *straight to DVD slasher films) and the Blue Jays (badly dubbed or subtitled foreign flicks).
    While any one film/teams may appear to be unsuccessful, the League as a whole makes money and revenue sharing (amortized studio expenses and shady bookkeeping) keep everyone afloat and happy.
    Even bad films keep actors and production staff working. It’s easier to keep a business running than to periodically shutter and reopen it – loss of personnel continuity and associated industry contacts going stale etc.
    I lost my train of thought three paragraphs ago, but this was supposed to be an argument for making Crowe’s Hyde movie, Mummy box office b’damned. Now I’ve typed to much to just delete it and don’t care enough to edit it. Happy Wednesday.

  • bensdad00 says:

    This is similar to how Female Pro Basketball exists. None of the teams are independent, they are a wholly owned and operated subsidiary of the NBA and its franchises. On a micro scale the WNBA had never once turned a profit, or even come close. The NBA however leverages it’s power to get it arena bookings and broadcast deals no independent women’s league could dream of, and can write the whole thing off as marketing and exposure for basketball in general.

  • jeboyle says:

    Russell Crowe in Dr. Jekyll & Mr. Hyde feature film?

    Sign me up.

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Site by Neil Stevens | Theme by TheBuckmaker.com