Quote:
Originally Posted by bcislandguy
Like imagine Landis going into a meeting with the studio, he would like sit down surrounded by men in their 70's and 80's that still rule the studio and a few millenials as well and say "Hey guys I want to make a blockbuster movie about a woman whos bit by a werewolf then she gets hairy loses her breasts and becomes a cgi looking werewolf and rips other people to shreds and eats them....but it will also be a love story with some guy and her trying to be a woman with this beast inside her and because shes a "monster" and not a sparkly vampire we have to kill her off in the end . But don't worry we will get a nude shot of her a few times over the film, I will need about 40+ million dollars to make it and we might break even on profits, so whos on board"......Even he knows this movie will never fly
|
It's kind of adorable that you think pitch meetings go down like that. You're too caught up in thinking about these things only from a fetish perspective. That happens a lot on this board. It's nobody's fault, but you need to look at these things from a different perspective to understand and maybe better gauge expectations. I know I've said this many times, but werewolf movies are not made with the interests of this community in mind. Nobody sits around deciding on the details that will best give us boners. Nudity in werewolf transformations usually stem from the logistical story point of dealing with a human turning into an animal. The person either keeps them on and shreds them or strips down to nothing to salvage them. Desired rating and budget usually dictates the extent of the transformation and nudity shown on screen, as well as how much the filmmaker believes it is in service to the story being told. Clothed TFs or offscreen TFs are usually done to be budget conscious or perhaps the transformation into the beast wasn't the top priority of the story. Not every werewolf film sets out to top the TF in AWIL. John Landis purposely set out to depict a long painful transformation in bright lighting because nothing like that had been attempted before. I'm sure that's how he pitched that movie as well. By promising to deliver things that had not been seen before. I'm sure it wasn't "Oh don't worry, we're going to have the main actor, the Dr. Pepper guy, strip naked so we can see him slowly getting hairier and developing paws and they'll be lots of butt shots and now I'd like millions of dollars please..."
If Max is stepping into his father's shoes, my guess is that he'll try his best to pay homage, but do things differently in order to deliver something fresh, like his father did. The rumors of a female lead seem believable only in that it would be a fresh take to that story, not because it's boner fodder for a niche fetish community online that mostly keeps to the shadows anonymously. If you talk to any of the filmmakers behind the movies that turn us on, the things we sexualize here are not sexual to them. Landis has gone on record stating that the werewolf transformation is essentially a puberty/erection metaphor (which probably has something to do with how we all ended up here), Joe Dante talks about the werewolf sex scene in The Howling being funny and shocking and something nobody ever showed before on screen, Ginger Snaps is also a puberty metaphor, even Teen Wolf for that matter. Nudity is used to titilate yes. We all know sex sells, but it's also viewed as gratuitous if not used to service the ultimate story. That's mainly why filmmakers avoid it in these cases. They want to be legitimate filmmakers. The nudity in AWIL I believe works well and could work again artfully with a female lead would be because it makes the character completely vulnerable to the audience who then witnesses a long and painful transformation into a mindless beast. It helps the audience to build a stronger empathetic relationship with the character.