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

[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

[bcislandguy]

But as Blackjack said my point was its not that we have to nail down a perfect werewolf form as a standard, have a movie with a full wolf, the wolfman or something like wolfsbayne from the comics , we each have our own idea what a werewolf is. But its that the artists creating the monster puts some effort into it. Like that Wolves movie that came out like a year or two ago did the manwolf look with both female and male characters and they looked lupine but also with human traits and it worked, Bitten or Blood and Chocolate (apart from the wavy mist tf into the wolf) had full wolves and the characters as humans had a wolfish/predatory way of thinking than lended itself to the story. But take a movie like the underworld series, there are no female werewolves cause the director wants all the women to be beautiful so all the werewolves are these greasy unkempt men most with about 75IQ points and the vampires are sexy women and a few filler men. The werewolves in the film are just underdeveloped bullet magnets for Seline

[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.

[blackjack60]

Originally Posted by Cursebearer

I think they've chosen an effective path even if it is neither true to humanity nor werewolves.

But if it doesn't have much to do with weres or if wolves, one wonders why they bother with calling the monster a werewolf in the first place.

Nobody is wondering what these creatures are, they're all recognizably lupine, which is the most I think a werewolf ever needs to be.

Are they recognizably lupine? The spindly spider fingers, catlike claws, wrinkly skin, and overlong ears suggest otherwise. They suggest that filmmakers have basically exaggerated the features of the werewolves in AWIL and The Howling. Like bad counterfeits, the copies grow progressively worse. Both of those films were original in their time, but very few filmmakers have advanced on them.

From there, the form of the wolf should serve narrative.

But does narrative make detailed obligations on the form or just very broad ones? Bad werewolf movies (i.e., most werewolf movies) merely require a killing machine.

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.

He did, but he also said "my point was its not that we have to nail down a perfect werewolf form as a standard, have a movie with a full wolf, the wolfman or something like wolfsbayne from the comics, we each have our own idea what a werewolf is. But its that the artists creating the monster puts some effort into it. Like that Wolves movie that came out like a year or two ago..."
Granted, I don't think Bitten or Blood and Chocolate are imaginative when it comes to the look of the wolves, but they are slightly more "realistic" about the social lives and mental attitudes of the werewolves, which was the other part of his original complaint.

I wouldn't want the werewolf to stop being a dangerous, murderous creature of horror (no new age crap for me!), but I think the mindless killing machine cliche is exhausted, and ditto for the visual image of the werewolves, which haven't advanced much beyond AWIL or The Howling (though Wolves did a good job in modernizing the Lon Chaney look, though it was an otherwise dull movie). I think filmmakers would do a better job if they challenged themselves to create werewolves that was both a horror-movie creature and one that also looked and thought more like a human/wolf hybrid. This would require more thought and research than the usual approach to werewolves in horror films.

[MG]

Laurel K. Hamilton writes a series of books that eventually turns pretty kinky and features the pack dynamic of werewolves in major plot points. Vampires play major parts as well.
Lots of sex and action. Very good read and those of you with heavy werewolf interests might find it appealing. Although there is very little were-porn, so to speak.

[bcislandguy]

I have read through a lot of the posts and there does always seem to be that thing that humans are primates and wolves are canines and completly different things but we are all mammals and the difference in dna between human and dog is not as much as we think, compared to most other mammals in the animal kingdom we share a suprising number of genetic sequences. Humans and cats share 90% of the same code and canines are 82-87%. Apes are the closest at 96-98% but you have to think at one point apes and canines evolved from some earlier mammal simply branching off. Being a werewolf wouldn't make someone like this Ape wolf hybrid like a hairy gorilla with fangs and claws....the genetics to create wolflike traits already exist in our dna but are just inactive, I would imaging a "lycanthropic" person would simply have those traits activated in the transformation

[Prof_Sai]

Originally Posted by bcislandguy

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.

I think the problem is that if you mix an attractive movie star with a healthy realistic wolf, you are going to get something too cute. More like Furries the movie then a horror film.

[Xanderfox]

the "monster" aspect is the over exaggeration of features. A realistic blending of lupine and simian features might be off putting to most but it's not really terrifying.
Further as always with Werewolves being a fantasy creature there isn't actually a real creature to compare too so you can only say "this is what I THINK werewolves SHOULD look like" not "this is what I KNOW werewolves DO look like."
Being a furry one of the oddest debates is "Do female werewolves have breasts?" It's easy to say Bipedal Humanoid Wolves would have them but is that what werewolves are? Would they have them or would they be super muscled savage killing machines who's gender wasn't visibly determinable? Maybe werewolves have 4 different forms? A human, a wolf, and athromorphic wolf and a hyper muscled "savage" form. Maybe they don't have a transitionary form.
It's easy to say "I think the effects look bad" but the statement "the effect isn't correct" is a objective thing.