@wraithcaptainandtheghoulcrew It’s 2017, and they still can’t make werewolves in movies look fucking realistic!!
(They either look too cgi or are obvious animatronic puppets)
I’ll admit, I freaking LOVE the werewolves in Van Helsing, but the lore behind them is complete ass. Same for the werewolves in Underworld, which for the most part were guys in suits.
Now THOSE looked awesome….just not entirely my “idea” of a werewolf (if I wanted a werewolf that looked like a cat, I’d watch Thriller.)
The worst excuse I’ve ever heard in regards to why werewolves are so bad is because they’re either too expensive, or not realistic enough.
Excuse me, but isn’t the point of a guy who gets hairy (and not in the nice way) by the full moon NOT to be realistic? It’s like saying gnomes aren’t realistic….
I’d love to ask ANYONE if something like this was their idea of a “realistic” werewolf:
When I say “realistic” I mean they don’t appear or even move naturally or realistically. They either look like men in suits, or they look like cheap cgi creatures, as if some of the filmmakers weren’t even trying.
The thing though is that, outside of suits or CGI, there is no other way to do a proper werewolf. CGI gives the freedom of smooth movements over the sometimes very blocky human-in-suit…..but computer graphics work to a certain point before they look pretty cheap.
Technically, a werewolf can’t move realistically, because they’re bipedal. It’s trying to get a human to run 30 miles an hour on stilts.
If they’re four-legged, that’s different. They’d be more dog-like, but the best example of this also suffers from the technology of the time: An American Werewolf in London.
It’s pretty obvious with this werewolf that only the front end is actually there. The back end was essentially a cart that Rick Baker rolled around.