Top Class Editors Called In To Rework The Wolfman

You may not immediately jump to this same conclusion, but I think there’s finally some good news to share about Joe Johnston’s The Wolfman. Having said that, this is a film I’ve been feeling really quite down on since original director Mark Romanek left the project and, to be honest, I don’t think anything we could end up with now will be even a mere shade of what Romanek could have realised.

The lastest turnover on the production is the hiring of two new editors, in the stead of the previously attached Dennis Virkler - though at least Virkler got to add the film to his stunning resume of crowd displeasers, alongside Xanadu, Freejack, the Schumacher Batman films and other such gems. The production really couldn’t have called on a pair of more impressive names to save the day, however, with action expert Mark Goldblatt and all-round Edit Bay Yoda Walter Murch getting the nod.

Amongst other credits, Goldblatt was the editor of Cameron’s Terminator films and the only Michael Bay films to be remotely comprehensible, and directed second unit on Robocop; while Murch was the sound editor on The Conversation and The Godfather Part 2, sound and picture editor of Apocalypse Now, editor of Ghost and The Talented Mr. Ripley, and director of Return to Oz.

The Murch and Goldblatt news was buried - and I mean buried - in a Variety article. That just goes to show the respect editors receive for their efforts. The directorial equivalent would be James Cameron and Steven Soderbergh coming in to replace Stephen Sommers - massive news.

If it could be said that the final cut of a film is the final draft of its story (we won’t say screenplay, because that’s obviously not true - screenplay and story are no more  interchangeable than hair and dog) then there’s every chance that Goldblatt and Murch will now step in and fashion something at least efficient and functional out of the Wolfman rushes. Here’s hoping Johnston likes to shoot a lot of coverage and has left the editors’ options open as much as possible.

If you’re worried about Murch and Goldblatt being studio pawns then don’t be. No matter how workmanlike their efforts here might be (read:professional), these are guys who know how to elicit a response from the audience and I’d expect their inflection of the story will be the best telling we could now even dare to hope for.

What isn’t clear is how closely Murch and Goldblatt will be working with one another or, perhaps most importantly, Joe Johnston. Since I first wrote about second unit director Vic Armstrong shooting some additional action for the film this summer I’ve been curious about the Johnston’s day-to-day involvement with the picture. Does anybody out there now if he’s involved in this hiring and firing? Or was he just another thing on a string for the production to drag around?

  • MadmanMundt
    A little editing can go a long way.
  • JD
    Ugh. What a mess. The movie must have tested VERY poorly for Uni to hire two completely new editors.

    No wonder Danny Elfman left, what a nightmare that editing bay must be right now.
  • No wonder Danny Elfman left? Did you miss his fantastic Terminator Salvation Score? This could also be positive.
  • mangoshakes
    i enjoyed the irony in elfman on wolfman cause his batman theme sampled from the original
  • JD
    Despite his lackluster score for TS, Elfman (although past his prime IMO) has still got it, and Wolfman was something many people were VERY curious to hear.

    No way Paul Haslinger can churn out a better film score than Danny Elfman on any occasion.
  • Hm, good point. I guess Terminator Salvation just didn't fit with his kind of music.
  • JD
    If I were Marvel, at this point I would be scared as hell letting Johnston take the reigns for Captain America.
  • [A]
    Yeah, me to..
  • fanboy_d
    is it johnston's fault? i'm liking how the movie looks...
  • [A]
    Well, he is in charge isn't he..?
  • RJBlakeAAU
    I still have really want to see this movie. But other than that, the person that really fucked this movie up was Mark Romanek when he dropped off the movie a month before production. Johnston was a shotgun hire who probably was just doing this to direct something again before jumping into something larger. Plus, he seems to love old-school story telling, which shows through.

    I still stand by Johnston.
  • eddymovies
    This Wolfman flick has seen people come and go long before Johnston showed up.
  • lest78
    Makes me nervous about 'Captain America' now.
  • oh the humanity
    Couldn't be less nervous about CAPTAIN AMERICA. Joe Johnston directed THE ROCKETEER for fuck's sake. He can handle period superhero action, end of story.

    How this start-to-finish clusterfuck of a film turns out doesn't affect his suitability for CAPTAIN AMERICA in the slightest.
  • lest78
    Sure he did The Rocketeer...

    But he also did Jurassic Park 3.
  • existenz
    I liked Jurassic 3. A hell of a lot better than that turd Lost World. But almost every director (aside from Kubrick) loses his magic at some point. The fact that you made an OK movie ten or twenty years ago doesn't mean everything you make now is good. Look at John Carpenter or Coppola or Lucas.
  • kmccarney88
    We'll hopefully this is a sign of (possible) good things to come. There is no doubt that Joe Johnston is a little rough around the edges as a director, but I seriously think the author of this article (Brendon) is giving Mark Romanek waaaayyyyy too much credit as the original director signed on for this film. The guy comes from nothing but a commercial/music video background for the exception of One Hour Photo, which wasn't even that great a film, so to place so much doubt on this film's final product being the result of Joe Johnston's taking over the reigns is kind of silly in my opinion. Afterall, the film probably would have gone in the same direction either way.
    However, "IF" Joe Johnston somehow miraculously woke up and decided to step up his A game in the directors chair (which for some reason I suspect he did because the footage in the trailers is beautiful to look at, which is totally unlike a Joe Johnston film) then maybe with some talented editors behind the wheel, we might actually have something to look forward to.
    I'm willing to give this film a chance no matter what. Nothing I've seen thus far has led me to believe the film will be a complete and utter failure (That is as long as Johnston doesn't allow anymore ridiculously gay scenes rivaling the "Alan grant waking up to a talking Velociraptor" scene in Jurassic Park III)
    After all, a pretty good director (lest we forget October Sky), superb actors and great editors can go a long way, or at least one can hope.
  • This is interesting, but, can anyone cite precedent of editors saving movies? Or making movies a bit more digestible? I've heard about Stuart Baird ("Superman the Movie") salvaging "M:I-2" and "Tomb Raider" in order to get directing jobs.

    But anyone have any other stories?
  • matt_od
    Star Wars.
    Lucas's wife at the time, Marcia came in and saved the film from a shit cut.
  • biggles12
    Yeah, and Baird went on to murder Star Trek....
  • Wickedrebel
    Basically, any movie that is considered good or great was 'saved' in post. Editing is one of the MOST important parts of filmmaking.
  • Yeah, but doesn't every film-maker in the credits claim highest importance?

    Like what about "Annie Hall?" I hear it was a rambling mess of a 2 and a half hour rough cut at first. And, tenuously related, I always like the story about Michael Cimino sabotaging a supposed 2-hour cut of "Deer Hunter," by having the projectionist trash it during a test screening, thereby securing higher scores for his personal, 3-hour version.

    Stuff like that?
  • luke_a
    I really want this to be an awesome movie. After the last three decades of slasher films, remakes of classics and japanese horror films and torture porn, I want an old fashioned, foggy moors monster movie with a REAL werewolf and not the puppy dogs of NEW MOON. So here's hoping that these two new editors can save the film.

    As for Joe Johnston, he directed THE ROCKETEER. That's good enough for me.
  • When I read top class editors, I thought "yeah, but there's no way they got Murch"
  • Andyrooskie
    I thought the same thing. Murch is primo. He's the Scorcese/Spielberg/Coppola of the editing world. Really surprised they were able to snag him.
  • iec
    Brendan, for a film writer you assume way too much of these guys. If the news is just a footnote in an article, you really can't jump to the conclusion that the movie is saved in any respect just because better editors are on it. If the script is no good, there's only so much an editor can do. I know, I've heard editors get to re-tell the story after the writers and actors tell it, but I don't know if I trust that they can make such a completely different movie out of available footage that it's more worthwhile. For documentary, sure, if there's tons of different script options shot, sure, but...how much extra options do people normally shoot? I'll believe it when I see it I guess.

    Anyways, my point also is that you have no quotes from the editors or anyone involved in the project about what these two guys are doing, what their plans are, and how much freedom they have with the footage. No pun intended, but this is editorializing news a lot. You take your little hope about a note in an article and turn it into your own article.

    "If you’re worried about Murch and Goldblatt being studio pawns then don’t be. No matter how workmanlike their efforts here might be (read:professional), these are guys who know how to elicit a response from the audience and I’d expect their inflection of the story will be the best telling we could now even dare to hope for."

    That is putting so much weight on two guys who just got hired onto salvaging a film, while simultaneously undermining every other editor in existence.

    But that happens a lot on /Film because you guys really don't have enough material to work with to have so many writers. I guess that's how blogs go. I just don't think it's entirely responsible, because a lot of the time this blog covers important film news in-depth, and sets up all of us readers with wild expectations, and it has definitely occurred more than once that my expectations for a film were subconsciously melded by the "news" I was reading here.

    Recognizing this, I don't read /Film as much as I used to, since the problem has gotten worse. I might be exaggerating though, I know you're just being speculative, so I'm trashing on the exact function of a blog because I don't like it. I think it's something to keep in mind though. /Film really has the power to affect an audience's expectations for a film, regardless of how small or large the readership might be.
  • BrendonConnelly
    At no point do I say they will make this into a good film, just one that functions. The flipside of that? That I wasn't even expecting a functional film this time yesterday.
    There's an awful lot of good editors out there, many more mediocre ones and in the largest quantity of all, awful, awful ones.

    The actual text of what I write is quite balanced, I feel.

    If people want to see their expectations here, the first thing they should remember is that Mark Romanek left the project and that was pretty much like having its heart ripped out.

    Goldblatt and Murch really are particularly good. I'll stand by that.
  • iec
    Yeah, my comment is more extreme than it needs to be. But you do seem to be saying pretty heavily that a big difference may be seen in this movie now then if we saw it edited by a different guy, which may or may not be true. It seems like speculating that from a small mention of the two guys is tenuous? I don't now.

    But even still, a comment like "Mark Romanek left the project and that was pretty much like having its heart ripped out." is going to really spell out quality. I know, it's on my shoulders to make the conclusion, but if I'm just skimming articles and I'm having it suggested a movie is being made by a crew which could be better, then I forget about the article and all I remember is "This film could have been made by a better crew."

    It's just the negative side to a film blog. At some points news crosses into opinion about films, which is inevitable. Again, it's really my responsibility as a reader to get over it, but I think it is there to get over to some degree.

    Almost every new release I weigh against what /Film has said...for instance, I said to someone, "Of course I'm going to see Kick Ass, it's going to be great." I haven't seen a trailer, I'm not familiar with the director or the writer, I effectively know nothing about the film. Over time I've read news about it and come away with "This look's awesome." Do I blame the writers? No. It's just something to keep in mind. A news source can really color the news it reports.

    And I only say this because I just as often as not come away with the impression that some "THING" makes or breaks a film according to a /Film writer, and I end up disagreeing entirely, which is why I don't read articles as seriously as I used to.

    And I often agree with the opinions here, so it puts /Film ahead of Fox...
  • sidewynda
    You seem to want your cake and to eat it. First you are saying that /Film plays a part in forming your opinions, then you are disagreeing with the opinion here. Either you can make your own mind up - which is a good thing - or you can't, and so this informed perspective is of use to you.

    Whatever your beef is it doesn't seem to make any sense to me. Either agree with Brendon or don't. This reads like you want opinions but opinions that match your own. Well, tough cheese. It doesn't work like that.
  • Craigasorusrex
    Despite Johnston directing the Rocketeer which was a good film but a commercial disaster, I'm legitimately starting to worry about Captain America.

    Hope Marvel knows what they are doing with Johnston otherwise we might have our first Marvel bomb in the works. I guess it had to happened at some point.
  • Hopefully they are tightening the story and improving sequences and NOT falling back on quick-cuts and 'MTV-style' cheating. I think I may have my hopes set to high for this film.
  • freemachine
    I think someone put a gypsy curse on this film.
  • hmm
    Not even editing can save a turkey if the script is crap to begin with.
  • simalex2000
    i STRONGLY dispute that "screenplay and story are no more interchangeable than hair and dog)..." if a screenplay isn't a story, it's nothing at all...

    otherwise, pretty fascinating to see walter murch's name come up like this.
  • iec
    no, because things can easily be taken out or moved around to make a different "plot/story" than the original intended by the author (the editor can do this as well). I'm pretty sure this is not a rare occurrence in Hollywood.

    Alfred Hitchcock is one of the only directors known for only shooting exactly what he intended the editors to use, so they could make no other film than the one he wrote and planned out. that he did this and most people don't says something about the power of editors. I've also heard of entirely new stories being forged from available footage (and seen it happen in short films).

    but I don't think they can raise a shitty script from the dead. bad dialog and plot is bad dialog and plot.
  • simalex2000
    i would agree that a screenplay and a finished film aren't interchangable. but writing the actual script itself is basically pure story. there's no prose, not even that much dialog — just what happens, to whom, when.
  • BrendonConnelly
    A script is just another medium in which the story might or might nor be reflected. Enough scripts are bad enough to mean that they can't all be taken for containing nothing but story.

    And some good screenplays - Death Proof, for example - are the story plus... well, plus a lot of other stuff.
  • Gennaro Gattuso
    No offence, but this is one of the dumbest things I've ever seen on here, and I've read everything Connelly's written so the competition is fierce.

    Simalex, from what you said I'm not even sure you know what a screenplay is.
  • simalex2000
    @gennaro... thanks for the ad hominem, not that my qualifications have anything to do with it, but there's a reason robert mckee wrote a book about scriptwriting called, in big capital letters, "STORY."
  • eddymovies
    I think everyone in Hollywood has worked on this Wolfman adaptation at one point.
  • If I were to make a guess, I think Johnston delivered an old school horror film that was deemed too slow, too serious, or too uncommercial.
  • existenz
    I think I heard from somebody in post on this movie that they spent $20 million on reshoots and the test screening scores actually went down afterwards. Apparently Del Toro is simply miscast and the movie isn't very good. The studio is panicked and so of course they are doing the usual song and dance -- reshoots, re-edits, fire the sound editor, fire the editor, etc.

    You'd think they could have just fixed the script BEFORE shooting, but oh well.
  • scf424
    I actually read that the acting is absolutely brilliant, and the only thing that needed to be fixed was the pacing of the film, and a few scenes that were left out.

    After that test screening, the old editor was fired, and two new ones were added. Coincidence? Hmm.
  • scf424
    I actually heard, from MULTIPLE test screening reviews that del Toro is brilliant. They said the flaw of the fim was the pacing, and a few plotholes that could be fixed by simple editing.

    The old editor is fired, and two new ones are hired. Coincidence? Hm..
  • zamarov
    Joe Johnston is one overrated director, he should have stuck to special effects

    as for the announcement of these editors' involvemnet, well its a very positive development
  • Neil Snowdon
    Hey Brendon - there's peopleout there on Twitter that have seen teh film at a screening with Murch there - guessing either test of what he's done? Or wanting to see how it plays currently before doing any work on it? http://twitter.com/Amanda_Mosh & http://twitter.com/Lissa_Ann they don't say much of anything, but surely someone must have seen it and be writing mor than this???
  • BrendonConnelly
    His hiring seems too new for him to have done any work on it yet.
  • scf424
    He was hired before the Variety article on November 3rd was released.

    Of course, its The Wolfman, and you are an assumption blogger, which means everything needs a negative spin. So what was seen was Murch's version.
  • BrendonConnelly
    a) I said seems, so that's fair enough on my part and b) some people are whipping me for optimism in this post, others for negativity.

    Personally, I think Murch is going to do great work here. Whether or not that means we end up with a great film is an entirely different matter.
  • My confusion on a movie like The Wolf Man -- and films like Dominion and The Invasion, for that matter -- is why spend tens of millions of dollars on a film that will probably only be a modest success, with or without massive re-shoots or changes, to begin with?

    No matter how good or bad this film is, it's fate will most likely be similar to Coppola's Dracula and Branagh's Frankenstein. Decent U.S. ticket sales, more success overseas, and a slow but steady purchase rate on DVD for years to come.
blog comments powered by Disqus