MikeOliveri wrote:

One more thing to keep in mind: if The Wolfman and Teen Wolf are the two big werewolf flicks of the year, they're more likely the result of the studios trying to cash in on the remake craze. In that respect, they're no different from Transformers, GI Joe, The A-Team, and The Karate Kid.

Mike

Good point that, we have to see how original scripts will be doing and how much money producers are willing to invest.

WerewolfImmortal wrote:

http://www.newmoonmovie.org/2010/02/cnn-reports-can-wolfman-destroy-vampire-fever/

I don't agree with this b/c I'm a vampire fan (reading True Blood one now) and a werewolf fan. I think they can make werewolves sexier. New Moon shows this and I think Teen Wolf totally will b/c that guy's hoooootttttt. They can make it work. I do think they gotta get better wolf masks though for some of these movies. Sheesh I just saw skinwalkers. The only thing that was hot was Jason Behr.

It's not a good comparison you have a movie for teens vs a movie for 18+ (R rated)

Werewolves are just too... awkward and messy to ever be as popular as vampires. And I don't mean messy violent, I mean messy change wise. So I don't think they're going to experience the popularity that vampires are going through now.

alphanubilus wrote:

However, Twilight didn't single handily create the new interest. Underworld had two movies before Twilight... Then you had Van Helsing. For the budget, the Underworld films did pretty well. Van Helsing lost money, but then again, Van Helsing didn't have a plot. It was a really long ILM demo...to be honest.

In reality, Hollywood is in werewolf/ vampire heat. It would have still happened whether Twilight was around or not. Twilight helped, but it wasn't like it did it by itself.

In all honesty, Underworld was pitched to NOT BE a werewolf movie. That sucks b/c it's in line to be one of the top 10 werewolf movies. Van Helsing did have a plot, to kill the 3 evil things, just because they didn't focus on him more with his "turmoil" or whatever crap people have to have in order to be a great character, doesn't mean the movie didn't have depth.

WolfMontana wrote:

Werewolves are just too... awkward and messy to ever be as popular as vampires. And I don't mean messy violent, I mean messy change wise. So I don't think they're going to experience the popularity that vampires are going through now.

I'm going to have to disagree Wolfmontana b/c Blood and Chocolate didn't have that and other than the ending, I think from memory, Bad Moon just had the werewolf appear, so transformation isn't really necessary.

I definitely think they can be popular if certain things are changed. I have to say with New Moon, you couldn't be disgusted with the werewolves (unless you were a vampire in the movie of course). I think the next movie that's going to be huge will probably be  a lesser violent more romantic version of Wolfman. Geez there are sooooo many romantic werewolf books out there vs. just a violent werewolf book. (still pissed the Werewolves the Forsaken novels shouldn't have been scrapped. Anyone else read the paragraph about the werewolf hunting the vampire for food). Think about it, "girls" tend to like the "bad boys" right? So they'll have a good looking male with a secret and the girl will want to help him and be with him. Sorta like George and that girl on Being Human (except, sorry george, the male werewolf would be a buff jock type)

ShadyHowl wrote:

And of course it costs a lot more in terms of makeup and CGI to create the effect of a wolf change than it does to create the effect of a vampire growing fangs.

Why do they need a transformation? B/c of AWI london?

Last edited by WereWolfH (2010-02-26 18:49:54)

WereWolfH wrote:

Van Helsing did have a plot, to kill the 3 evil things, just because they didn't focus on him more with his "turmoil" or whatever crap people have to have in order to be a great character, doesn't mean the movie didn't have depth.

The main issue, from what I've read, was that Van Helsing was originally intended as a trilogy, with each movie putting more focus on one monster. But no one would fund it unless it was made into a single movie, so it all got pressed down, and it suffered badly because of that.

WolfMontana wrote:

Werewolves are just too... awkward and messy to ever be as popular as vampires. And I don't mean messy violent, I mean messy change wise. So I don't think they're going to experience the popularity that vampires are going through now.

I'm going to have to disagree Wolfmontana b/c Blood and Chocolate didn't have that and other than the ending, I think from memory, Bad Moon just had the werewolf appear, so transformation isn't really necessary.

Wolfman-like makeup, a full-body werewolf suit, and live wolves are still more expensive and more difficult to handle than giving some guy a pair of fangs and maybe some contacts. And most vampires today don't even show fangs half the time.. usually when they're just about to kill/feed.

I think the next movie that's going to be huge will probably be  a lesser violent more romantic version of Wolfman. Geez there are sooooo many romantic werewolf books out there vs. just a violent werewolf book.

There are a lot of romance books period, werewolf or not. And most of them aren't that good. A true "werewolf romance" story would border on zoophilia, or at least xenophilia, and probably not be well accepted as a big-budget film.

Think about it, "girls" tend to like the "bad boys" right? So they'll have a good looking male with a secret and the girl will want to help him and be with him.

If you wanted to target those "girls", perhaps, instead of werewolf fans.

A likable werewolf will be a likable character, and a likable character will have.. character. And that's something werewolves in film tend to lack. I'm not talking about the werewolf as a person, but the creature itself. Especially when the werewolf is used to express duality, it's just as important for the werewolf-creature to have character, for the audience to like it, as it is for the werewolf-person.

ShadyHowl wrote:

And of course it costs a lot more in terms of makeup and CGI to create the effect of a wolf change than it does to create the effect of a vampire growing fangs.

Why do they need a transformation? B/c of AWI london?

It's just something expected of the genre. Transformations were being done long before AWIL (the original Wolf Man, I believe, is what started on-screen transformations for werewolf films). It's a way to help connect the werewolf-person to the werewolf-creature.

WereWolfH wrote:

KCat wrote:

The main issue, from what I've read, was that Van Helsing was originally intended as a trilogy, with each movie putting more focus on one monster. But no one would fund it unless it was made into a single movie, so it all got pressed down, and it suffered badly because of that.

I'd have agreed on that trilogy, but Dr. Heyde/Jekyll isn't that popular vs. vampires. Yeah that probably would have worked if he fought the werewolf or vampire first. Those are the parts I like the most. I don't know how this movie became so expensive and didn't make it's money back. Was it a summer blockbuster or released in the fall? I forget, even though I saw it at the movies and liked it.

I believe the original intent was one movie that put focus on each of the three "Universal monsters".. the wolfman/werewolf, Frankenstein's Monster, and Dracula. The three monsters would likely all have roles in all three movies, but each one would have special focus in one of the movies.

True true, unfortunately. It's sad how nothing really new has developed as far as a mask that has electronics in it. They're still the same standard as 80s. Perhaps they could add more emotions (muscles/facial movements=electronics) by adding more people to have a smaller piece of the face to control?

Would be nice, but I suspect most people are too focused on CG these days to give proper care to make-up, costuming, and animatronics.

There are a lot of romance books period, werewolf or not. And most of them aren't that good. A true "werewolf romance" story would border on zoophilia, or at least xenophilia, and probably not be well accepted as a big-budget film.

Huh? what's zoophilia/xenophillia (too lazy and tired to google) lol.

Zoophila, in this sense, is having an sexual attraction to animals (not sex with animals), and xenophilia is an affection for unknown/alien things. It would be difficult to have a romance-oriented story with someone who turns into a wolf, and not deal with the fact that the romance is with someone that's sometimes a wolf.

I'm not saying a "werewolf romance" story has to have it, but it definitely gets closer to that implication by its very nature.

Nah, I meant take the love parts that worked in AWIL, New Moon, Wolf, and the new Wolfman movie and not focus on killing people. Like if the guy or girl (this argument is solely based off of a She-Wolf of London episode where she ran to the basement in a comedial way and her man, helped her by locking her up I think) is in pain and the man/woman is committed to helping them.

Personally, I don't really like mushy romance with bad-boys-that-are-secretly-really-compassionate. Romance in general doesn't really do anything for me either, unless it's simply a part of a story (as opposed to being the story).

If you wanted to target those "girls", perhaps, instead of werewolf fans.

A likable werewolf will be a likable character, and a likable character will have.. character. And that's something werewolves in film tend to lack. I'm not talking about the werewolf as a person, but the creature itself. Especially when the werewolf is used to express duality, it's just as important for the werewolf-creature to have character, for the audience to like it, as it is for the werewolf-person.

Nope. 2 different entities. 3 groups of people will see this. Fans that like the actors/ werewolf, and both combined.

I'm not sure what you're referring to. But just because you have werewolf fans, romance fans, and the actors' fans, doesn't mean that a werewolf romance with the actors will make all those fans like it. Not all romance fans will like werewolves, not all werewolf fans will like romance, and not all of the actors' fans will like werewolves or romance.

It could very likely reduce your audience, since it will be targeted to people who like werewolves AND romance, not just werewolves OR romance. That is, unless you do the story so well that each side can ignore the other, but that's no simple feat.

KCat wrote:

WereWolfH wrote:

There are a lot of romance books period, werewolf or not. And most of them aren't that good. A true "werewolf romance" story would border on zoophilia, or at least xenophilia, and probably not be well accepted as a big-budget film.

Huh? what's zoophilia/xenophillia (too lazy and tired to google) lol.

Zoophila, in this sense, is having an sexual attraction to animals (not sex with animals), and xenophilia is an affection for unknown/alien things. It would be difficult to have a romance-oriented story with someone who turns into a wolf, and not deal with the fact that the romance is with someone that's sometimes a wolf.

I'm not saying a "werewolf romance" story has to have it, but it definitely gets closer to that implication by its very nature.

I think that making this connection is saying more about you and your thought patterns than about actual implications to the story.
It's the same as saying that paranormal teen-romances with vampires or other immortals definitely implicate paedophilia or that vampire romance per se implicate necrophilia, that's simply not true, the reader/viewer accepts a given circumstance as a natural given for the time being that exists completly free from the above sexual inclinations.
Werewolf romances usually are _not_ about animal sex (apart from in a metaphorical sense), there's no need for a "true" werewolf romance to touch that subject even in the slightest.

KCat wrote:

Seen any discussions about Twilight lately? Quite a few people do assert that Edward is a pedo.

True that, but have you ever seen a "twilight" discussion that could be taken serious?

ShadyHowl wrote:

KCat wrote:

Daninsky wrote:

It's the same as saying that paranormal teen-romances with vampires or other immortals definitely implicate paedophilia

Seen any discussions about Twilight lately? Quite a few people do assert that Edward is a pedo.

Indeed. I'm more in the Jacob-is-a-pedo camp personally. Bella might be 17 but there's something more than a bit creepy about a werewolf looking after a human baby to raise it to be his 'soul-mate'.

Then there's that whole thing with a c. 100-year old guy macking on a teenager.  Seriously--what would someone as old as Edward have in common with someone as young as Bela?

Or am I guilty of applying logic to an inherently illogical story?

zockereinstein wrote:

Oh, come on... I also don't like Twilight and similar sparkling/cute/shining supposed-monsters. But first: you cannot find logic in a vampire/werewolf movie, because the original premise is false. Second: no one knows how are the mental patters of a vampire, in a supposed scenary, and it's easy for the watchers/readers of the story to be more empathic with "beings" that have similar ways of thinking, I mean, a teenager look-a-like vampire behaves like a teenager, and it looks "natural" even though the vampire could be his/her grand grandfather. And third: please, it's just fiction and entertainment, enjoy the show and don't think much about it.

Which is a psychological aspect I'd be interested in seeing explored, is what I'm saying.  Besides, if someone's going to ding Jacob for raising his future mate from infancy, they should give Edward the same treatment.

Well, at least Jacob can teach her (what's-her-name-the-baby-freak) to be exactly what he wants. Ha. She might grow up liking kinky werewolf sex, with him around. Holy Shiite, that would be freaky. It's like puppy training - no pun intended.

zockereinstein wrote:

Oh, come on... I also don't like Twilight and similar sparkling/cute/shining supposed-monsters. But first: you cannot find logic in a vampire/werewolf movie, because the original premise is false.

I mostly agree with that but ... just because your initial premise is impossible doesn't mean you don't have to have a working logic in your story. Look at "Back to future" for example, the whole construct hinges on an impossibility, time travel, but the story mostly holds up to itself and unfolds in a (albeit ridiculous) logic way.

Also people do enjoy things differently, for some it's more fun to pick something apart and search for the flaws than just leaning back and taking the whole package at it stands.