THE PACK Message Boards

Meeper you are mostly right, but you are forgeting something too most people including most movie directors werewolfs are bloodthirsty monster and in most old stories they are described as such, but you are right in some modern movies,books and TV series are giving better image too werewolfs

lovec1990 wrote:Meeper you are mostly right, but you are forgeting something too most people including most movie directors werewolfs are bloodthirsty monster and in most old stories they are described as such, but you are right in some modern movies,books and TV series are giving better image too werewolfs

If by "better image" you mean presenting werewolves as being generally more benign creatures, then I fear you misjudged my intentions. For me it's not necessarily about giving a less hostile image, it's about giving a more complete image, which properly includes the things that Hollywood screws up or blatantly omits from those old stories. Along with just better modern interpretation of what a werewolf is, which is where Freeborn seems intent on going (Good!).

*Edit* Besides, I wasn't referring to the image of whether they're truly evil or not, I was talking about the ethereal qualities displayed. The example of Lucian and Sonya in Rise of the Lycans finding out Lucian had an inexplicable communication with the other hitherto savage werewolves, that's an ethereal quality, and makes werewolves mysterious again. It's the werewolf mystique I want to see better represented, of which their savagery, and how they got to be so savage, is also a part, but sadly both their savagery and their other mysterious ways are an all too often criminally underrated aspect of werewolves in films generally.

On another note, since I'm here and posting, I gave a little more thought to the financial situation. AB came in off the back of, shall we say, quite an unorthodox method. Since nobody has spilled the identity of the investors AB was looking at, I can only speculate that they were somewhat movie oriented investors.

I don't know, AB's unorthodox methods of amassing stuff for the project, such as consulting "The fans" and signing up to otherwise disparate forums as potential sources, perhaps extending this philosophy to investor relations might turn up a winning ticket, rather than potentially culture clashing with typical movie investors. In short: Try bug someone who doesn't care about movies to invest in the project. Tell them as little as practically possible to avoid awkward questions like "Sounds like a silly idea, why should we help you make a supernatural drama?". You don't have to lie, just be economical with the truth. If they don't care exactly what you're doing, you may stand a better chance of not being asked to jump expensive spoilertastic hoops, or having investors dipping fingers in pies that they ought not.

Just a seed of an idea, it'll be fun if it germinates .

The Meeper.

yes that,sorry for misjudging you.

on example: i dont see anything mysterious in that scene at all.

Lovec, it's a feeling it gives you, you need to be sensitive to it, kind of like a joke, you either get it, or you don't.

Think of the werewolf as the joke, and the movie it's in as the way the joke is told. It can be told well and make you laugh, or it can be told badly, and not make you laugh.

Continuing the analogy, Underworld invented a number of jokes, and managed to tell a few of them well. That scene, for me, was a fairly well told cinematic werewolf joke, it made me smile, metaphorically speaking (actually it gave me goosebumps, but then, you probably didn't get that). The joke itself was only ok, but I still enjoyed it.

That's the best I can give it to you.

Is there nobody here who gets it? Somebody? Anybody? I'm honestly starting to wonder if I've lost my mind here, or I'm amid a group who genuinely doesn't appreciate that maybe there's something spooky about werewolves other than slash you're dead.

The Meeper.

Everybody sees something different -- because we're different people. It's not a bad thing, just don't expect that everybody is going to interpret things the same way that you do (particularly if they are movie patrons who are not particularly infatuated with the werewolf as an icon). Certainly the werewolf can be spooky on many levels. I (for instance), didn't find Rise of the Lycans all that compelling, so it had sort of lost me by the time that scene came around, but that's just me.

Another way to look at it is how the werewolf symbolizes different things. For some, the werewolf symbolizes the bestial side of humanity -- humankind's darker impulses given physical form, in much the same vein as a fable of sorts. For others it is just another slash-monster -- like Freddy Kreuger, but with more hair.

That doesn't make your interpretation wrong, just part of a larger tapestry.

Meeper wrote:Is there nobody here who gets it? Somebody? Anybody? I'm honestly starting to wonder if I've lost my mind here, or I'm amid a group who genuinely doesn't appreciate that maybe there's something spooky about werewolves other than slash you're dead.

werewolfs are spooky(scary) by apperance and that they are creatures from mythology and shouldnt be real.

UTS: Well, you and I have traded enough posts that you probably know how I feel about underworld generally. Rise of the lycans was my favorite out of the four to date, but then as a film, like you I wasn't compelled by it. It might be better to say it was the least badly received. And agreed everybody has their own personal feeling, but there are archetypal generalities that can be agreed on. Vampires have it, the alien monster has it, the great shark of Jaws had it in spades. I cited the example rise of the lycans as a modern genre piece that almost, almost pressed those buttons, it "came tantalizingly close" to being an ethereal thing, but didn't quite deliver.

The Meeper.