Azreen I., Wolfman

There are striking differences in the transformation from man to wolf in the 1949 Wolf Man and the 2010 Wolf Man. Obviously, the 1949 Wolf Man would be expected to have less of special effects considering the time it was made. In the 1949 version, the transformation of man to wolf was not that visually active. For majority of the transformation, they only showed the hair on his feet get longer. It was not actually shown how the transformation took place. It was kept to a very minimal. Thus, leaving the audience to imagine how Lon Chaney Jr. fully transformed from a man to a wolf man. Also, the picture quality and the fact that it was black and white does not make it visually attractive to the eyes. Also, one can tell that Jon Chaney Jr.'s wolf man seemed very fake like. Obviously, if we were to think of it from the point of view of someone watching it when it was released in 1949, it would be a great feat. Around those years, there was no movie like Wolf Man. But nowadays, visual effects/special effects play an important role in practically every movie. In the 2010 version of Wolf Man, the special effects of the transformation were pretty vivid. They show how Benecio Del Toro's body changes. From the hands getting distorted, from blood coming out of the nails as they grow longer, from the bones in his face shifting to even how the teeth change. The most visual transformation scene is when Benecio Del Toro was in the hospital room with all the doctors there to observe him. The transformation scene in the 2010 version is obviously more visually pleasing. One can actually see his transformation. Also, the minute details such as blood coming out of his mouth while his fangs replace his teeth make it more realistic as well. In all, the 2010 version of The Wolf Man showed a well thought out transformation from man to wolf and allows the audience to see the transformation. Whereas the 1949 version, leaves it up to the audience's imagination on the transformation.

The hospital scene:

Villacreces, Wolfman Transformation and the Evolution of Filmmaking

VS.

Wolfman (2010)           Wolfman (1941)

It's been 69 years since director George Waggner made the first Wolfman movie. Technology and filmmaking have evolved ever since.  Because of this reason director Joe Johnston remade the movie. There are certainly a lot of differences between both movies, but what strikes the viewers the most is the  transformation from man to werewolf. 

In the 1941 version, you see  Larry Talbot struggling with fear, shame, and uncomfortability towards himself. He hides from people and does not know what is going on. As he removes his clothing, the frame present a change in his feet and nails, when in a different scene you see the changes in his face. the filmmakers were able to present this change by good editing. They changed his appearance frame by frame. 

On the other hand in the 2010 version of Wolfman, Lawrence Talbot has a  different reaction to the change. He fells angry, it seems as if the anger of the wolf is causing this change. You see a sense of unconfortability, but no fear. In the scene in which the doctors are examining what changes the full moon could make him have, he is angry and seeks revenge. The visual effects in the scene are made thanks to CGI. It is all computer animated. The advantage of computer animation is that you are able to see all the changes in his body, starting from his feet  to his eyes. There is detail, and the transformation is more real.

Both portray the transformation of the Wolfman using the technology that each time frame had in their power. The 1941 version could not presented more perfectly that they did. But the 2010 version has too much computer animation, which makes it look a little bit fake. 

The evolution of technology is allowing the filmmakers to do anything, including making a man go from human to werewolf. 

Villavicencio- Wolf Man vs. Wolfman

Written by Curt Siodmak and directed by George Waggner, the 1941 film “The Wolf Man” tells the story of a cursed man who regrettably transforms into a murderous werewolf at the arrival of a full moon.

Unlike many classic remakes, Director Joe Johnston’s 2010 version, “The Wolfman,” manages to preserve the original film’s plot rather accurately. Despite obvious differences such as character details and running time, “The Wolfman” remains relatively true to the initial story.

One of the most notable, and obvious differences, however, could be the transformation from human to monster. Although both films provide decent depictions (given the technology available at the time), I believe the original version to be more innovative as a whole.

To begin with, “The Wolf Man” stalls transformation until about 40 minutes into the film. This approach allows not only for a better understanding of character relationships, but also for the building of suspense. When Lon Chaney finally transforms into the wolf man, one can only see the changes in small portions, such as the shot featuring solely the man’s feet as they grow long, thick strands of hair. (Curious as to how this was accomplished, I found that a slow process of photograph overlapping featuring different stages of makeup was used to illustrate a smooth change.)

In the 2010 film, CGI effects allowed for an excessively gruesome transformation, as the characters fingers and toes vividly break and mutate into animal limbs, cheekbones protrude violently from each side of the face, and carnivorous pointy teeth grow into place. The changes of each body part are significantly more details compared to the older film; yet, I believe the technique falls comparatively short to other films of this time.

Overall, the way in which the 1940 film managed to create a slow, mysterious change from man to monster is more impressive given the great time, effort, and manual work required for its success.

Wolfman 2010 Trailer

Gevry- The Wolfman

The transformation from man to werewolf is always a fantastic one for a moviegoer to see. Yet, with the amount of technological advancements over the years the journey has gotten far better. From the 1940s The Wolf Man to the 2010 The Wolfman, the effect this has on the metamorphosis from man to wolf. Immense bounds in CGI make the newest version of The Wolfman, directed by Joe Johnston, a visual feast for the viewer. Whereas the transformation within the 1940s version, though surely a spectacle in its day nowadays is hardly a movie going revolution. In Johnston’s film the viewer sees the Lawrence Talbot, as portrayed by Benicio Del Toro, completely transform himself into a full blooded, all out werewolf. From the make-up to the computer animation an entirely new creature takes form when the moon is full. Unfortunately in 1941 film, directed by George Waggner, the viewer doesn’t see the same transformation on such a spectacular level. Sure, Lon Chaney Jr.’s wolfman grows a lot of hair all over, gets a few sharper teeth, and walks on his tip toes but it doesn’t have the same effect as the newest version does- I mean the wolfman is supposed to be wild and ferocious yet in Waggner’s version he still wear a tucked in shirt with pants and a belt. Ferocious? I think not. Though both films are extremely entertaining and truly amazing works, when it comes down to which film harbored the best transformation from human to beast that would have to the 2010 The Wolfman, hands down.

And here is the winner:

Thomas-The Wolfman

“What am I watching?” That’s all I could think while watching both versions of The Wolfman. This movie isn’t about the acting. For both versions, it’s apparent that the director wanted to experiment with special effects. The effects in both movies are used in different way.

The special effects (if you even want to call it that) in the earlier version are significantly different than the special effects in the later one. The most apparent difference is when Lawrence Talbot changes from a man into a wolf. In the early version, they use several different shots of his feet to show his transformation and it’s obvious. Each shot has more hair on them and his feet slowly turn into wolf feet.

In the later, yet equally terrible, version, there’s a use of digital special effects. The audience is able to see the entire transformation of Lawrence.

Both movies have significantly different endings. I thought it was interesting that the later one took has a completely different ending. Sir John and Lawrence have an epic battle where they’re both werewolves in a mansion that’s on fire. Sir John is killed by Lawrence. In the older one, Sir John is still a man and he kills werewolf Lawrence to save Gwen in the forrest at the end of the movie.

In the first one, Gwen Conliffe plays more of a “damsel in distress role” instead of a heroine that we see her as in the later version. Gwen kills Lawrence on her own at the end of the movie and saves herself.

Westerfield: Wolfman, the Real Top Dog

The most effective moments of the Wolfman (2010)come during the attack at the gypsy gathering, when Lawrence (Benicio Del Toro) ventures off after the werewolf and loses sight of him in the fog. We perceive the threat he poses to Lawrence but, like Lawrence, we cannot see him to know when or where he will strike, resulting in suspenseful tension. If only the rest of the movie followed this dynamic.
Instead it relishes in the prowess of digital imagery, and in terms of the films overall Gothic look this is effective. But it also means that we aren't spared any of the visceral details of the werewolf's violence, blood painting the screen as he slashes apart limbs and organs with graceful ease as though he were cutting through gelatin. The results in scenes that tend to be over-stylized and at times rather silly.
The 1941 version lacked the ability to produce comparable visual effects, but this isn't necessarily a bad thing. It relied on the implication of violence: cutting away before blows fell, having action occur outside of the frame or using objects such as trees to obscure it. But this isn't a slasher film. We don't even actually see the werewolf until two-thirds of the way into the film. Instead it spends more time building up the wolf's legend so that when the werewolf is revealed it's as a payoff. Here the monster's horror comes not as a result of it being a mass-murdering juggernaut, but something more subtle. This werewolf may not be as stylized as the 2010 equivalent but these imperfect effects, the glow of his eyes, the more humanoid face, create a sort of eeriness that is lost to the digital counterpart. Plus it doesn't look like a bear.

Christian- Fenwick, Wolfman

The two versions of the Wolfman were different in many respects: the acting styles, the story at points and the technology. Modern audiences have been thrilled by films such as Avatar with its amazing graphics, but simple and expected story. They have been tantalized by the sights and monsters produced by movies such as District 9. These element of CGI and cinematographic artistry were added to the remake, but not as successfully as the cast, crew and producers may have hoped. The older 1941 original version forced the audience to buy into the story of the film by stimulating their imaginations in the transformation. Nothing is scarier to a person than what they thin up themselves. While the graphics and the film of the original version seemed stilted and unrealistic to a modern day audience, it was astronomic at the time and absolutely thrilling to watch. With the 2010 version of Wolfman, I felt like the use of all the technology allowed for a movie in which the audience was entirely separated from the film and was not intellectually involved at any level with the film. The CGI and make allowed for the viewer to sit back and have someone create and imagine for them. It made the movie less thrilling because there was no personal thought put into the viewing of the film.

Hutchinson - The Hairy Beast

The advancements of digital technology have brought the visual ferocity and intimidation of movie monsters to life for modern moviegoers. Now, monsters are truly the stuff of nightmares. When the audience is first introduced to the werewolf in the 1940's version of "Wolfman," all that is clearly discernible is a dog-like animal, possibly a common wolf. While possibly a normal worry for someone camping in the woods, a dog-like wolf is hardly something that you fear will go "bump" in the night. Comparatively, the first time the "wolfman" is introduced in the 2010 remake, all you can see is a quick moving, vicious, snarling animal -- just enough left to the imagination to instill instant terror. When the wolfman actually transforms in the 1940's edition, the scenes seem to kind of pulsate as the change occurs, making it appear choppy and clearly fake. In the 2010 edition, thanks to digital mastering and special effects, the audience can actually watch the change perform, which brings a more life-like reality to it. Today, it is just easier to be frightened by monsters in the movies. They are so much more real. They no longer look like actors in make up; they look like honest to God creatures of nightmare, of myth and legend. There was a point in the 1940's version when the wolfman got caught in a bear trap. As the camera zoomed in, you could see the wolfman whimpering, a very human emotion. Today's movie monsters would not let a little trap on their foot hurt them, they'd pull it off and keep going. Digital media has made monsters much more monstrous, the way they're supposed to be. Monsters don't whimper and cry; they scream, howl, and roar as they rip apart people and buildings. They aren't really the joke they seemed back then.

Phillpott- The Wolf Man

It is evident from both Wolf Man movies that the times have changed in regards to movie graphics. In the 1941 version, the change from man to wolf man was strictly left up to the audience's imagination. The film did not have subordinate aesthetically pleasing technology. The movie showed Lon Chaney Jr.'s legs go from human to hairy "wolf" legs in gradual increments over a few seconds. Then, the film showed that Lawrence Talbot had suddenly had a complete transformation into a werewolf. The audience is forced to suspend their disbelief without help from believable makeup or costumes.

On the other hand, the 2010 version held nothing back. The audience simply had to sit back and relax. There was no action taking place in the dark. Everything was front and center for the audience to watch and comprehend. The new transformation was achieve through CGI. Although, some may think the CGI wasn't very believable it allowed the audience to see exactly what this monster entailed. You are allowed to see the bone structure change. You get to see his eyes become a wolf-like color and shape. The audience also is allowed to see his "attacks," blood and all. The transformation also shows how Lawrence Talbot's face grows a snout to become wolflike. The computer generated images in this version may not be the most believable so the audience might have to still use their imaginations in regards to this film. For both versions the audience has to suspend their disbelief, but you will always have to do that when watching a monster movie!

Becnel Wolfman

While the 2010 remake of the 1941 Hollywood- Horror classic The Wolfman is loosely based on the original and is very different in terms of most of the story line and characters' roles, the transformations that Larry Talbot underwent to become the wolf man were particulary similar in look, but different in application.

Lon Chaney, Jr.'s (Wolfman 1941) transformation involved adding "materials like yak hair, collodion, spirit gum, and cotton" (Jones) to make the make-up more realistic. The make-up artist responsible for Lon Chaney, Jr.'s transformation was Jack Pierce, "the man behind the monsters". Even though some critics have said "that Lon Chaney, Jr. looks more like a wild boar than a wolf" (Jones), Jack Pierce's work is still impressive for his time. In 1941, they did not have the luxury of computer generation or animatronics to apply to the transformation scenes. Also, the original Wolfman had to deal with censorship from the MPAA. The MPAA would "not allow direct man-to-wolf transformations", or "Lon Chaney, Jr. to "look too bestial" (Jones). When Lon Chaney, Jr. became the wolf man, he looked exactly like it sounds: a man with wolf like features, but still discernibly a man. He did not transform into an unrecognizable creature of full wolf.

Benicio del Toro's (Wolfman 2010) transformation involved " pieces of latex prosthetic make-up and loose hair, which were applied" by make-up artist Rick Baker "to del Toro's face each day" and "several dentures and wigs" (Wikipedia). The transformation was computer genrated, which did not sit well with Rick Baker, because he felt that "it would look unrealistic" and the animators did not have his creative "knowledge of design" (Wikipedia). He is a fan of Pierce and wanted to stick to the feel of the original. When Benicio del Toro transformed, he, like Chaney, Jr., looked like a man with wolf- like features. He still had discernable human features, but looked more supernatural. His hands, feet, and body morphed, instead of just growing hair all over his body and his nose changing (like Chaney, Jr.'s transforamtion). You were able to experience the full transformation, instead of experiencing only parts of it, like in the original. In my opinion, del Toro's transformation is more of what I think of as a transformation into a supernatural being than Chaney, Jr.'s.

Falanga, The Wolfman Effects

The 1941 classic Wolfman and the newer 2010 Wolfman illustrate different dynamics of the horror or suspense sequences solely through the integrating of CG effects in the newer version. The Wolfman of past was created solely out of prosthetics and a harry outfit. The sequences that show the transformation from man to werewolf are done by editing techniques rather than full on exposure of a full transformation. The audience is only able to see the feet or hands transform in close ups. This created a more illusion of suspense or uneasiness as we are still unable to see his full werewolf self. However, the wonders of CG have given us the more gruesome and horror aspect in the film because we see bleeding from the mouth, bones breaking, hair elongating, as well as muscles and joints becoming disconfigured right before our very eyes, which is horrifying and amazing at the same time. Through the ability to see this whole transformation the audience is even more terrified because we see exactly what this “curse” is capable of and how it affects the main character. However, the CG used in other circumstances was not as good and gave the film an unauthentic feel such as the look of the animals and sometimes the werewolf when seen during running sequences. We are able to understand and literally see the full power of the werewolf while in the 1941 version we are hidden from actually seeing these kills and transformation, allowing a higher sense of suspense but not executing on believability. The positives of the newer CG movies are the amount of detail and realism if executed correctly, but the older style of makeup and costumes can heighten suspense and demands better use of camera angles and lighting in order to not entirely put all the audience’s attention on the beast or monster.