THE PACK Message Boards

When you're watching a werewolf movie, and the special effects just aren't very good, but the story or the characters or something else draws you in anyway, how do you prefer to see the film makers handle this problem?

if its bad it doesnt matter what they do because the movie is already ruined.........just assume go watch some vampire movie......

Just suggest stuff, and bring a nice story. I know a lot of horror-movies that have crappy special-FX, but the right atmosphere and story-line (although a highly complex storyline isn't that necessary) can make all the difference.

Just look at the movie Saw (1) for a good example of what can be done with a (very) low budget for effects.

"Other"...meaning the ever popular All of the Above.

Different scripts would benefiet from different techniques.

...that's really all I can say.

It really depends on what "bad" means, and the plot of the moive. I really hate "contrived" (wolf-cam) more than "bad"

They should go with the bad-lighting option. Still get to see some werewolves and it can keep some dignity by not dwelling on its crappiness
Wolf-cam annoys me also, if its overly used. You gotta see the monster/ww at least once in a movie.

It all depends on story quality. If the story is really good, you can get away with a lot more, because I've invested more emotionally into the movie. I tend to be more forgiving. Ginger Snaps is a good example of a movie with poor visual impact but good story. I'll even forgive the bit about finding aconite at the local grocery store or injecting it into your veins without dying from septic shock the following afternoon, because the characters are interesting and sympathetic, and the movie is otherwise good.

But, sometimes the effects can be unforgivably bad, enough to break the emotional dedication. Harry Potter's third is an excellent movie in every other respect what-so-ever, but the werewolf was bad. In a high budget movie, they don't have the same excuse about how technically difficult werewolves can be; the same movie had characters riding a flying hippogryph, not to mention equally stunning visual effects like the Dementors. The werewolf should have been better. It was a one disappointment in an otherwise spectacular film. And, it had to be the fricking werewolf! Why not botch the spider on roller skates or something instead, and make the werewolf look as cool as the rest of the film?!?

In low budget films, I expect the werewolf to look less than perfect. But, I am still distracted if it's too blatantly bad, and I'm more easily distracted if the story is bad. Darkwolf might have been able to get away with their Playstation CGI effects if the script had been a bit more adult--and not in the nudity sense, but in terms of intelligent writing. It flowed like one of the really old versions of my novel I started writing back in high school.

To me it depends on the story and plot. After all Wolfen had a descent plot and just used dogs to stand in for the werewolves.

But the special effects budget should reflect what you're trying to do. After all if the whole thing is low budget with bad acting and is just for gore you might as well do like Arizona Werewold (Werewolf) did and use a handpuppet and a gorilla suit with a dog mask.

But a major movie should have descent special effects. Unlike most monster flick horror movies which are scarier by not having the monster seen till the end (seldom seen and killing from the shadows works well for unique monsters) but werewolves are one of those things were the audeince wants to see your take on it and see it. But if its not that good but still fairly good than use low lighting and quik shots, like Ginger Snaps did (unfortunatly not enough and we had to look at close ups of dagger mouthed dry tongue monsters (both bad ideas).

Rhuen wrote:To me it depends on the story and plot. After all Wolfen had a descent plot and just used dogs to stand in for the werewolves.

They used real wolves actually, I think.

In some of the scenes when they snarled, I believed no special effect will ever create anything as scary as a real wolf

They can show the werewolf all they want. I can just suspend my disbelief more if the rest of the film is worth it.



i love bad looking werewolves as long as they are bad animatonics/suits/clay/whatever and not bad 3d.

if the werewolf is ugly or it's just plain bad costume design it's better to not show it at all!

I chose other becuse if the effects suck then the plot should make up for the cheesy effects sometimes I think that is asking too much

I think that they should never show the full wolf, just bits and pecies so that it looks okay, and hire a good lighting expert

If you have a low budget, why not use stop-motion? It'd probably cost as much as crappy CGI and look much better.

I go with just a few seconds of screen time, because I remember this one film I saw. Can't remember the name, but it had to do with this cursed slip of paper that would kill the holder at midnight. Long story short, at the end of the film, guy has the curse go into effect while he's on some train tracks. There's this whisle/scream, and he looks up, and sees something coming at him. Then, they show what he sees for just 7 frames, and it looks a lot like a train, but not quite. The result? You end up just seeing something. Was it a train? Was it a demon? Leaves a tantilizing question for the ending.

Brilliant.

I'm bad for loving a movie because of it's astounding special effects, even if the storyline isn't solid.
I think if a werewolf movie had bad CGI/special effects, then a strong plot really has to make up for it. But there are occassions where the special effects can be so bad that there's no redemption for the story.

If it has excellent CGI, the storyline can be weak, but not profoundly weak, and I'll like it.
For example, Van Helsing first got me into werewolves because of the CGI. It was the first film that I had ever seen with such effects, and although the storyline was weak, I loved the movie solely for the CGI.

Having checked "other"; here's what I'd do.

Get more financing. Since Werewolf movies are pretty dependent on special effects ( even if it's just foam rubber and makeup), if the effects aren't any good; I'd wait for more money before shooting.

Or blame it all on Uwe Boll

I vote 'other', because as much as I hate to say it...I'd rather not see the movie at all if the effects aren't going to at least be acceptable. No "wolf-cams", no "flashes of movement"...just don't show me the movie.

I voted "other"... if you don't have the budget for top of the line special effects, you had better make sure your script and actors are impeccable. Then, you might just get away with some of the work-arounds.

Case in point: Dog Soldiers. The werewolves in that film... aren't wonderful. They're spindly, gangly creatures and you don't get much of a transformation sequence. But it's a tight, well acted thriller and that's why it works.

Compare also with: Sapphire and Steel. The effects are, frankly, rubbish. But the scripts, acting and ideas behind the series are absolutely superb. Joanna Lumley, David McCallum and P J Hammond can make the audience believe that a light shone onto the set by a stagehand is a symptom of something that can do nasty things to the whole fabric of time and space.

I chose other.
I honestly can't give you my opinion on what the film makers should do. I don't know anything about film, the cost of making a movie, etc. If, I knew more about it I would be able to give you an answer. In my opinion, unless some people on this board have experience in this, then no one can really say anything on what the film makers should do. They can comment on what they would like them to do, but not what they should do. I mean, why would people with no film experience whatsoever(I do know there are some on this board who do) give advice to the experienced. Its like, why would a person with no license give driving advice to one that does?

But, here's what I would do. If the effects sucked then I wouldn't watch the movie.

I don't care if the wolf SUCKS.

I want to see the wolf, I want to know what it is doing, I want to know what the movie is about. It's too bothersome to be given only cheap glimpses of a creature and spend the entire movie going "I want to SEEEEE it!!"

Scott: Even though I completely agree with you about Harry Potter's werewolf, I believe they tried to do it in a way to invoke a sort of pity on Lupin. Of course, the third book being my favorite in the series, that doesn't stop how completely peeved I was about the werewolf's....rattiness. I seriously wonder how they're going to play out the werewolves in the sixth and seventh movie -- I mean, how am I supposed to believe big, burly Fenrir Greyback is all that frightening when he transforms into a rat?[/list]

I chose option #3, but really I should have selected "other" because it really depends on why the movie is bad.

If the movie itself is well written and has a good devoted acting cast, then creative liberties should be taken to compensate for their lack of funds. I too am more forgiving of bad FX if a movie has heart, but to me, the ability to compensate for a bad FX costume with lighting and camera tricks is part of the art form, so if the crappy werewolf is right there out in the open for everyone to see just how crappy it is, that to me indicates an inexperienced director.

Conveniently enough, one of the best examples I've ever seen of a director making a lot out of a little is in the original Freeborn trailer (right at 0:59). That is sheer brilliance; so many directors out there would have pissed a ton of time and money away on a shot like that and wound up with "glowing floating eyes" that look cheesy/lame, but our boy Tony got the better effect and all it cost him was some lighter fluid.

On the other side would be Night Watch, where the weretiger in the movie looked just as bad and PS1-esque as the werewolf in Darkwolf, but the script was compelling and the acting believable enough that I overlooked it (which was easy since the weretiger only transforms in the first five minutes of the movie). I felt the same way about it that Scott felt about the werewolf in Prisoner of Azkaban -- it was irritating that the only part they got wrong was the part with the shapeshifter, but the rest of the movie was so fantastic that I didn't dwell on it.

So on one hand, I'll try to overlook bad graphics if the movie compensates for it in other areas, but I think a real good director should know if they can't make a good werewolf on their budget or not and be thinking of ways to compensate for it right from the get go.

So that's if a movie is bad only because of graphics. If, on the other hand, a movie has bad graphics, a bad script and bad actors, your best bet would be to just go the Springtime For Hitler And Germany route and make the movie so bad it becomes a comedy.

Compare Darkwolf to Cursed, if you will. The former was horrible on so many levels: the werewolf sucked, the script sucked, the acting sucked, everything about that movie sucked. The latter, meanwhile, had a much larger budget and a director whose name is practically synonymous with the genre, but the acting in Cursed was not only just as bad as the acting in Darkwolf, it was more painful to watch because Cursed had Christina Ricci and a bunch of other actors that could have been great but refused to take the movie seriously, whereas Darkwolf's cast was composed of TV actors and stunt doubles.

So Darkwolf was horrible on so many levels, and Cursed was only horrible on one level, but Cursed was the movie that I had a much harder time sitting through until the end. Cursed could have been good (and damn well should have been good -- God damn you Christina Ricci) but wasn't, whereas Darkwolf was doomed to be a crapfest from the start, but it's so bad it's laughable. Trust me, if MST3K ever makes a comeback, I guarantee you they will do an Darkwolf episode.

They have made a comeback Terastas. It's called Rifftrax

And wh ydoes nobody think that my Stop-Motion werewolf idea is any good?

That is sheer brilliance; so many directors out there would have pissed a ton of time and money away on a shot like that and wound up with "glowing floating eyes" that look cheesy/lame, but our boy Tony got the better effect and all it cost him was some lighter fluid.

Actually, I remember AB said it was the eye reflections of his german shepards


And yeah, when I watch a werewolf movie, I WANT to be able to see the werewolves. Its what I watch it for. Not for a total of 20 seconds of flashes of them in the darkness. Thats fine and all for some scenes, to build up tension/mystery/ect, but I need to have a good look at em at some points in the movie.

Silverclaw wrote:Actually, I remember AB said it was the eye reflections of his german shepards

*nods* Like I said, brilliant.

And yeah, when I watch a werewolf movie, I WANT to be able to see the werewolves.

Me too, to some extent. Still, I don't mind paying to see a werewolf and getting a compelling plot and believable characters instead. Just like I was willing to look the other way on the Playstation-esque graphics during Tiger Cub's transformation in Night Watch, I was equally as willing to look the other way about Bear not transforming at all in the same movie.

Would I like to see the werewolf? Yes, but if the rest of the movie is good enough, I can live without it.