Remakes, sequels, and reboots–the horror! Especially in horror, sequels, remakes, and reboots are plentiful and are mostly stinkers. It’s a tradition that goes extends to the earliest horror sequels in one of cinema’s earliest cinematic universes: Universal’s Monster Mash. While Universal certainly hasn’t been kind to any of its monsters, arguably the one that’s been done the dirtiest is Larry Talbot – better known as the Wolf Man.
Over the past eighty-five years since the Wolf Man first graced the silver screen, he’s been in four direct sequels, a technical cameo in 2005’s Van Helsing, the absolute rollercoaster of a 2010 reboot The Wolfman, and yet another reimagining coming out this month. Although none of the monsters were exempt from the cavalcade of monster crossovers in the 1940s and 1950s or bad remakes in the 2000s and 2010s, the Wolf Man has gotten the short end of the stick.
What makes the Wolf Man stand out among the pantheon of Universal’s monster men—and what makes his cinematic failures sting the most—is that he’s an entirely original creation. Where all other Universal Monsters were adapted from an original literary iteration, the lore of the Wolf Man (and most werewolves in cinema) came from the brain of screenwriter Curt Siodmak. After an extended break due to the major crackdown of the Hays Code starting in 1934, the original 1941 film reintroduced audiences to monster movies. Siodmak’s lore for the werewolf would also become the benchmark for most werewolves across all forms of media going forward.
In a vacuum, the original film was a success. It reinvigorated interest in Universal’s horror selections, opened the door to more monster madness, and created a B-movie star in Lon Chaney Jr. Naturally, Universal capitalized on this by treating their monsters like action figures and haphazardly throwing together crossovers. Chaney Jr., in a rare move for Universal’s approach to their monster cast, maintained his role as the Wolf Man across all the sequels. Frankenstein Meets the Wolf Man (1943), House of Frankenstein (1944), House of Dracula (1945), and Abbott and Costello Meet Frankenstein (1948) each attempted to bring back the magic of the man-turned-wolf, and each largely failed. They made a profit, sure, but none of these semi-sequels do anything for the Wolf Man as a character.
Based on the film’s titles alone, the reason for that failure is clear: there was zero focus on the Wolf Man. Arguably, that’s because Larry had a pretty open-and-shut narrative and character arc, and he is the least morally ambiguous of all the monsters. But, he’s usually paired with Frankenstein’s Monster: another sympathetic monster that has to be continually resurrected for these monster mashes. Yet, despite their similarities, the Creature gets top billing and the Wolf Man plays support. The Wolf Man serves as an afterthought in these crossover films.
After a seventy-year hiatus, Larry Talbot returned t in a similar fashion to most horror icons: a maligned remake from the 2000s or 2010s. This was during a short-lived second wave of Universal trying to reboot their monster mash, before the spectacular failure of the Dark Universe but after the Stephen Sommers domination.
The Wolfman, once described as one of Universal’s worst releases by former president Ron Meyer, had a special kind of production hell. For nearly two years, nearly everyone involved with the production would come and go save for producer and lead Benicio Del Toro and make-up artist Rick Baker of An American Werewolf in London fame. But, despite Baker’s Oscar-winning talent in werewolf transformations, there wasn’t a consistent vision for the new Wolf Man design to be attached to.
The director position largely sat vacant until mere weeks before principal photography began, when Joe Johnston finally stuck. With so little time for pre-production under Johnston, the vision of the new Larry Talbot was muddled and twisted. Apart from aesthetics, the film abandons Gothic horror and pivots towards action and jump scares. Although the original Wolf Man wasn’t as traditionally Gothic as some of the other Universal Monster films, the horror-action balance of The Wolfman led to extreme pacing issues with long lags before any action.
Due to extensive reshoots, late-implemented CGI use, and the copious amounts of yak hair Baker used on Del Toro, the budget ballooned. The constant production issues also led to several release date delays from a fitting October 2008 to the wasteland of February 2010. As such, the new version of Larry Talbot’s tale was doomed to make a puppy-sized whimper of an impact.
Now we’re in a fourth phase of Universal (or rather Blumhouse) trying to bring back their monsters. While Leigh Whannell’s version of Wolf Man has yet to be released things look just as shaky. On the positive side, Whannell has a strong horror pedigree and did a fantastic job with his 2020 remake of The Invisible Man; he knows how to set a mood and deliver consistent tension. Additionally, the two leads – Christopher Abbott as the titular Wolf Man and Julia Garner as his wife – consistently deliver fantastic performances.
But, there have been signs that we Wolf Man fans will not be eating. First, it’s a January release: the dumping ground of the film calendar. This isn’t an automatic death sentence — M3GAN was Blumhouse’s January release in 2023 and that movie rules. Second, Blumhouse has already overplayed its hand with the trailers by showing far too much of the creature design…and some decisions were made.
While it’s far too early to determine if the Wolf Man’s latest cinematic outing will be another flop, it’s safe to say Larry Talbot, in his many incarnations, hasn’t been treated kindly. From being sidelined in monster mash sequels to a remake so poorly mishandled that the company president called it one of the studio’s worst, Universal has treated its wolf more like a kicked puppy. Perhaps the curse will be broken soon.
Editorial Courtesy of Red Broadwell
Feature Image Credit to Universal via Bloody Disgusting