Why do film makers not do any homework on practical makeup or social structure

[bcislandguy]

Have seen the previews from a lot of these new werewolf movies that people are trying to get made and even some of the older movies are the same, its like the artists doing the sculpts have never even looked at a wolf or human anatomy before, like professional artists study anatomy to learn their craft it just seems so many of these amateur SFX think a werewolf is pointed ears, some glued on hair and contact lenses and thats a quality product.

Its always stuff like these spindly spider fingers that are twice as long as they should be, claws that are like these excessivly long catlike shape that are somehow razor sharp, they don't even get canine claws are for holding not ripping.
It even carries into how they design the skin , every werewolf looks like this half bald wrinkly potato thats dried out, canine and/or human skin looks nothing like that and the ears look like a world of warcraft night elf being stupidly long, stuff like that

Then in the social aspect both humans and wolves are both social pack based creatures yet they portray them as these extreme antisocial people, understanding a werewolf is the historical monster personification of rage/anger/lust with unbridled control, yet wolves in nature are patient and often cunning predators seems when werewolves are portrayed in movies they are mindless rage killers.

[bcislandguy]

Like it's understood budget can be an issue but sometimes its sad to see some of these even low budget movies come out where the monster is laughably bad looking and no one in the design team thought that maybe a little more care could be put into it,there are people on youtube that do strictly makeup and maybe some off the shelf ear and fang prosthetics on themselves and its better looking as werewolves than some films

[zokk]

I think what happens is similar to what you see in comics... the tendency to follow a trend and the fact that some comic artist learn to first imitate another artist and never break free from that style. Werewolves are generally locked into two styles.... The "Wolfman" (Human except for furry, bearded face, hands and arms, ripped shirt... not very appealing on a woman) Or post American Werewolf-Howling era style, with the big "Devil's Horn" ears (which I tend to like). The closest out of the box werewolf look was in the movie "Dog Soldiers" .... realistic wolf heads on a large humanoid torso.... It had a nice uncanny look to it.... But there was no real fur on the upper body though.... I'm guessing that fur is real hard to get right and be believable... In a predatory animal, you still get to see the muscles rippling under the hair and skin... even CGI doesn't get it right.

[Xanderfox]

Someone the problem steams from the fact werewolves are fictional creatures so the "right" answer is subjective.
Appearance.
Is just slightly more canine features enough? Is full transformation into canine too much? How can anyone claim the werewolves look "correct" if their isn't anything to compare them too?
Behavior.
Again how much behavior is canine? How much is simian? Do they act like wolves in the wild who have a looser structure or wolves in captivity were a strict hierarchy is established? Cause sorry to burst your bubble but the whole alpha thing? Yea in wild packs there isn't an alpha or alpha pair that behavior only shows itself in captivity. Which means we have to ask, is being part of civilization enough like captivity to encourage that and then is it even the canine instincts that cause it or the strong hierarchy humans establish in relationships?
There are fascinating questions and would in fact greatly flesh out the world of the film... which explains why they rarely are touched upon. That requires deep thought, research and world building. Monster movies are not monster case studies, the creature is the threat, what the heroes must overcome or at least survive. Plot holes are inevitable and since werewolves aren't real on a effects level they don't have a "correct" look they need to aim for. This is why we get ones that look crappy but really aren't any less correct than ones that look awesome

[Buzy]

Originally Posted by Xanderfox

Someone the problem steams from the fact werewolves are fictional creatures so the "right" answer is subjective.
Appearance.
Is just slightly more canine features enough? Is full transformation into canine too much? How can anyone claim the werewolves look "correct" if their isn't anything to compare them too?
Behavior.
Again how much behavior is canine? How much is simian? Do they act like wolves in the wild who have a looser structure or wolves in captivity were a strict hierarchy is established? Cause sorry to burst your bubble but the whole alpha thing? Yea in wild packs there isn't an alpha or alpha pair that behavior only shows itself in captivity. Which means we have to ask, is being part of civilization enough like captivity to encourage that and then is it even the canine instincts that cause it or the strong hierarchy humans establish in relationships?
There are fascinating questions and would in fact greatly flesh out the world of the film... which explains why they rarely are touched upon. That requires deep thought, research and world building. Monster movies are not monster case studies, the creature is the threat, what the heroes must overcome or at least survive. Plot holes are inevitable and since werewolves aren't real on a effects level they don't have a "correct" look they need to aim for. This is why we get ones that look crappy but really aren't any less correct than ones that look awesome

On lupine vs simian, let's not forget those whose werewolf's universe personal "mythology" or canon implies that werewolves are not lupine at all but "merely" humans that shift into a more predatory/primitive form(possibly with or without a pack structure) that somehow got confused as "lupine" by onlookers hence the name were"wolf".

The concept allows for a lot of freedom really while still retaining common trope(person who turn into a beast. Trigger that can be either the full moon/night or strong emotion. Predatory instinct and/or more animalistic mindset to varying degrees and other details).

[bcislandguy]

Yea I think the main issue is werewolves are mainly one dimensional creatures in hollywood because they can't make them sexy and thats really all thats important anymore, look what they have done with vampires, they turned them from nosferatu ugly to nowadays immortal supermodels with great sex lives and this erotic need for blood. Werewolves remind people that we are just animals that eat and fuck and the general populace wants to think they are way better than that

[Cursebearer]

A werewolf is a fictional monster and is not in most depictions meant to be biologically parallel to real wolves, in social structure or in physical structure. You'd be better off thinking of it as wolf-like monster than as a blending of human and wolf that tries to stay true to either.

[blackjack60]

Originally Posted by Cursebearer

A werewolf is a fictional monster and is not in most depictions meant to be biologically parallel to real wolves, in social structure or in physical structure. You'd be better off thinking of it as wolf-like monster than as a blending of human and wolf that tries to stay true to either.

Point taken, but one can also point out that it was only in the 20th century that werewolves became wolf-like monsters. During several hundred years of preceding folklore a werewolf either changed into an actual wolf or a wolf with just one or two human characteristics (lack of a tail, etc.). The concept has now drifted very far from that, with a few great results (the AWIL look) and many cliched bad ones. I think the original poster is on to something in asking to see werewolves that actually look like a blending of human and wolf--this would require filmmakers to actually study anatomy, instead of exaggerating the features of previous film werewolves.

A werewolf might be a fictional creature, but it still has to be somewhat wolflike, or else it's not a werewolf. The "spindly spider fingers," catlike claws, wrinkly skin, mindless antisociality, and overlong ears have nothing to do with wolves or humans. They can be fun but by now they've been overused. It would be interesting to see a werewolf that actually resembled a blend between a human and a real wolf. At this point it would be far more original too. I wouldn't want monster werewolves to go away, but the genre could use some variety. But I don't think it'll get any soon--expensive special effects and limited budgets (with even more limited imaginations) remain the curse of this subgenre.

[Cursebearer]

Originally Posted by blackjack60

Point taken, but one can also point out that it was only in the 20th century that werewolves became wolf-like monsters. During several hundred years of preceding folklore a werewolf either changed into an actual wolf or a wolf with just one or two human characteristics (lack of a tail, etc.). The concept has now drifted very far from that, with a few great results (the AWIL look) and many cliched bad ones. I think the original poster is on to something in asking to see werewolves that actually look like a blending of human and wolf--this would require filmmakers to actually study anatomy, instead of exaggerating the features of previous film werewolves.

A werewolf might be a fictional creature, but it still has to be somewhat wolflike, or else it's not a werewolf. The "spindly spider fingers," catlike claws, wrinkly skin, mindless antisociality, and overlong ears have nothing to do with wolves or humans. They can be fun but by now they've been overused. It would be interesting to see a werewolf that actually resembled a blend between a human and a real wolf. At this point it would be far more original too. I wouldn't want monster werewolves to go away, but the genre could use some variety. But I don't think it'll get any soon--expensive special effects and limited budgets (with even more limited imaginations) remain the curse of this subgenre.

You seem to have misunderstood. My point was not that werewolves are fictional and therefore have no need to cleave to reality. My point was that werewolves in their myths are not intended to be faithful representations of wolves, but rather are intended as terrifying monsters. The wolf does not represent a wolf, the wolf represents our fear of being hunted and a reflection of our own savage natures at our worst. In this way, the werewolf as a concept holds no obligations to the enlightened view of the literal animal after which it is crafted, but rather to these darker aspects of ourselves which have been with the werewolf myth arguably since its inception. In this way I believe exaggerating the monstrous features of the werewolf is perfectly true to the concept of werewolves as a whole. The wolf aspect of the creature is a symbol, and twisting it to be even more monstrous is an interpretation of that symbol that I think is quite effective even if it's not always my ideal fapping material.

That's not to say there's no room for more creative takes on the werewolf, but what the OP is asking for isn't even particularly rare. Off of the top of my head, The Vampire Diaries, Twilight and Bitten all have more anatomically correct wolf form werewolves that travel in packs. It's not only not uncommon, it's trendy, and I'll admit it's a trend I don't really care for.

[blackjack60]

Originally Posted by Cursebearer

My point was that werewolves in their myths are not intended to be faithful representations of wolves, but rather are intended as terrifying monsters.

Those weren't mutually exclusive--wolves were pretty terrifying to pesants and villagers in an age before firearms.

The wolf does not represent a wolf, the wolf represents our fear of being hunted and a reflection of our own savage natures at our worst

Again, not exclusive concepts. There's a reason why people transform into wolves rather than sheep or eagles.

In this way, the werewolf as a concept holds no obligations to the enlightened view of the literal animal after which it is crafted

True. But physically, the werewolf for most of its existence in legend holds some obligation to physically resemble a wolf.

In this way I believe exaggerating the monstrous features of the werewolf is perfectly true to the concept of werewolves as a whole.

I agree, but the concept has room for lots of "true" variations.

Off of the top of my head, The Vampire Diaries, Twilight and Bitten all have more anatomically correct wolf form werewolves that travel in packs.

The original poster wasn't asking for anatomically correct werewolves--he was asking for werewolves that more accurately combined wolf and human anatomy. That's a more difficult and interesting feat to accomplish, and most werewolf films haven't really risen to that challenge--they've just exaggerated traits from the very few great werewolf films.

[bcislandguy]

Some movies seem to have a better grasp on the idea, stuff like skinwalkers, wolves, Bitten Tv series putting actual time into developing the characters, even that old movie Wolf with jack nicholson was good

[Cursebearer]

Originally Posted by blackjack60

Those weren't mutually exclusive--wolves were pretty terrifying to pesants and villagers in an age before firearms.

Again, not exclusive concepts. There's a reason why people transform into wolves rather than sheep or eagles.

Neither of these refute my point, though? The werewolf has become more overtly monstrous- rather than more overtly wolfy or human- to serve its narrative purpose in the stories in which it appears because the modern audience no longer fears wolves but it still fears monsters. In this way the "scary" werewolf is trying to adapt to modern times, and I think they've chosen an effective path even if it is neither true to humanity nor werewolves. Depending on the story the werewolf is in, choosing this direction is often more in service to the narrative than going a route with more true human or wolf anatomy.

Originally Posted by blackjack60

True. But physically, the werewolf for most of its existence in legend holds some obligation to physically resemble a wolf.

For sure, but that obligation is tenuous and as a point to respond to the OP I believe it's more than filled by monstrous werewolves in the stories they are usually found in. Nobody is wondering what these creatures are, they're all recognizably lupine, which is the most I think a werewolf ever needs to be. From there, the form of the wolf should serve narrative.

Originally Posted by blackjack60

I agree, but the concept has room for lots of "true" variations.

I agree, which is why I mentioned as much in my post.

Originally Posted by blackjack60

The original poster wasn't asking for anatomically correct werewolves--he was asking for werewolves that more accurately combined wolf and human anatomy. That's a more difficult and interesting feat to accomplish, and most werewolf films haven't really risen to that challenge--they've just exaggerated traits from the very few great werewolf films.

I think that's exactly what the OP was asking for. You'll even see he came back in and praised "Bitten" and "Blood and Chocolate" for their depiction of werewolves which are wholly anatomically correct. So it's at the very least part of the OP's original point. As I said, the OP's criteria for werewolves is not even particularly rare, it's actually decently popular right now. It's just that many movies aren't looking for a werewolf that's anatomically or mentally faithful to humans or wolves and I was arguing for that being a perfectly valid direction.