First, and most importantly in my opinion, a werewolf should be passionate. They are more creatures of instinct than the average human, which would be represented by their human sides (acting wise) in the form of passion. This is not just in matters of love (or lust as the case may be) but in everything they do, and in the emotions they convey. They are survivors and predators by nature. They should "work hard and play hard". Some attention may want to be paid to the "wolf mentality" as well (ie. the desire to be alpha male or female, pack mentality, etc.). Speaking of alpha genders, there should be male and female werewolves as well. Underworld was a real disappointment in that regard (as well as many other ways, but I won't go there)... Though based on the screen test, this one is covered. Heh...
Something else I would like to see that is rarely broached in other movies is why there are not many werewolves floating around. If it is just passed on by bite, they'd be everywhere! Perhaps it doesn't work on just anybody. Maybe there's some genetic proclivity that is triggered by the bite, or maybe they have to do something to the person that they chose prior to passing on the "gift"; or maybe they're born with it and the bite and such doesn't really work. Just something to think about...
As for looks, werewolf should be a werewolf. While that sounds rather self-explanitory, apparently many film-makers didn't get the memo. I have at least half a dozen movies with the "big hirsuite guy with fangs" makeup, or just the allusion to the character being a werewolf. I like the Lon Chaney Jr. movies... but that was the 40's... we can do better now. More than half of the movies I own are... unsatisfactory in that regard. Admittedly, there's been a lot of ground covered in other forums about this here, so I'll leave it at that. I agree with most takes on the bipedal, actual-wolf like look (including tail). Just do the end-form justice. While I know I might get some flack for this, I liked the werewolves in "Dog Soldiers" overall...
As for transformations, I think they're an important part of the experience... it allows for the audience to draw the visual connection between the actor and the werewolf. While I'm apparently not as picky in the "metaphysical" mechanics as some (whether it be pain, excstacy, slow, fast, etc.) I think there _must_ be some logic in the biology of the transformation (no growing new joints- the form is already there, just in different proportions!) and if you're going to show it, it's got to look good!
One thing all of us here should keep in mind about the transformations... there are a lot of ways of going about it... most of them are not good. This is tricky territory that's, frankly, hard to pull off. I suggest they try to put in at least one transformation, but I'd rather not see one at all if it they can't put enough time and money into it to get it done right... the alternative is too depressing, and could ruin the wole film. The technical aspects, as well as the ammount of work involved in a 2-3 minute scene (at most) is staggering (I doubt it's cheap either if done right)! That's why so few have pulled it off to any satisfactory degree, and a lot of film makers avoid doing werewolf movies alltogether. Why go to that much trouble when you can get the same effect (after a fashion) by doing a vampire or zombie movie, without all the technical hassles? For that alone, I applaud the effort.
"Darkwolf" for example had put together something that could have been halfway decent, but in my opinion they must have ran out of time and budget for the effects. They completely (and sadly) dropped the ball in a major way with the TF scenes. Between that and the mediocre acting, it ruined the whole movie for me. While "Wildernes" had a good story, it was another big let down in a similar way. "American Werewolf in Paris" sucked pretty much all around, and I'll leave it at that. Its predacessor however (AWIL) was great! I didn't care as much for the, as Apokryltaros put in one of his posts, obese wolverine he became though. I personally really liked the "Ginger Snaps" movies, but as far as transformations go, it doesn't really apply in this category, as they transformed "one way" and the process was too slow (and ironically too fast in my opinion when it started getting interesting) to really gauge in this context.
With as much care and desire for input as you folks seem to be putting into it, I applaud your efforts, and look forward to whatever the results may be. I wonder how many other films would have benefited from this form of input, and from it been far greater than they turned out to be?
I know a lot of this may already have been said, but I feel better now that at least I had the time to get a penny's worth in there...
Well, with all that being said... back to work!
Howls all!~