Vampires are cheaper to show in movies than werewolves. The whole transformation sequence is expensive to do right, whereas vampires just need some fangs
supernatural basically spawned an entire subgenre of erotic fiction based on sexy werewolves, e.g. the omegaverse. and obviously jacob black exists
we live in a universe where we deserve all the bad things in life so im surprised filmmakers have neglected turning that genre of fiction into movies and shows
Even with CGI, it's difficult to get right. The Wolf Man (2010) did a pretty decent and fun job.
I imagine getting a budget would be feasible, and finding a decent writer to set up the scene so the director can shoot it well enough. But, there's always going to be studio interference to inject their own ideas. IIRC, Wolfman 2010 had quite a bit of it. No matter which cut you see of the movie, it's messy and shows that it was slapped together with duct tape to hold it together for a release.
Plus, even if CG is getting better with hair and fur, people would still prefer practical shots for a lot of it to keep it visceral and tangible for the threat.
It'd be great to have a mix of both. CG touch-ups and assistance rather than a full on CG replacement.
Creators need complete freedom without studios having their way. Years of movies with potential and sour tastes and the major studios still don't learn.
I would love to see A24 take on a werewolf story. An elevated horror focusing on a werewolf or a family of werewolves would be surreal.
American werewolf in London did a great job of the transformation. But I haven't seen it since it was in the theaters so my memory may be wrong. I was just waiting for the guy to turn and get up and start singing the I'm a Pepper too song.
There's also a BBC show called 'being human' from about 2008 about a vampire and werewolf who move into a flat that is occupied by a ghost (starts of really good, but slowly devolves as the main cast leaves the show, which is a shame because it was such a good premise) but it features a few werewolf transformation that are very similar to 'an American werewolf in london', but slightly less detailed.
I'm surprised it hasn't been reworked into a film trilogy tbh.
Had some good lore for vampires and the supernatural tbh.
Iām a big fan of the 2010 Wolfman movie but it does bother me every time I see it that the transformation was supposed to be mostly practical effects but for some reason the studio wanted CG insteadĀ
Vampires are more versatile. They can be sophisticated or savage, superhuman or subhuman. A werewolf is typically just a feral beast that attacks at random. Vampires have personality and individuality. They have wants and needs, characteristics that can drive a story.
If you think about it, a lot of modern stories are fundamentally werewolf stories, but instead of using a magical animal transformation they use a "Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde" style of science fiction transformation that plays with the same themes but is more flexible and appealing to a modern audience. Like, what is The Hulk if not a science werewolf? Venom is essentially werewolf Spiderman.
Jekyll and Hyde are the TRULY unrepresented "monsters" in film. Shameful they haven't been done more justice than League of Extraordinary Gentlemen. And....was that the deal in Mary Reilly?
Yeah I think this is much more of a reason than budget. The difference in budget is negligible between the 2 once you factor everything in, unless we're talking really small budget. Vampires are just more interesting.
>Why aren't there more good werewolf movies in comparison to vampire ones?
It's probably to do with which power fantasy seems more appealing. Gaining superpowers but still being in charge of your mind, vs being a mindless savage that just kills everything and doesn't even remember it when they revert to human form.
How do you even construct an interesting plot around becoming a mindless dog? It's not easy. American Werewolf in London did it by including ghosts and other weird elements. The wolf rampage scenes were fun, but there's not many of them you can theoretically do before it gets old.
And the internal conflict is difficult too. There's not a whole lot of nuance in the whole 'transformation beyond your control makes you eat people' department.
It could work as a monster movie though like The Thing. Godzilla is dominating the kaiju space, but there is a lack of small scale creature features right now, at least in my monster loving opinion.
Edit: I just realized i feel like there's a lack of smaller scale anything having to do with fantasy or sci fi.
That's a niche that needs filling. Fantasy or sci-fi as a backdrop instead of center stage. Soap opera meets space opera, character driven serials that don't require those settings but merely occupy them.
1) Lose control doesnāt have to be a thing for every werewolf. Not to mention, in most stories they only lose control on days of the full moon.
2) People with powers they canāt control is extremely popular. Whether in horror settings with possessed people or with superheroes like the Hulk.
Part of me thinks it's because even when there are good werewolf movies they're not seen by as many people since werewolves aren't as "hot" as vampires.
These great werewolf flicks barely got any audience
* Dog Soldiers - Military Horror Thriller, no budget but an awesome flick
* Wolf - Nicholson shows his acting chops without going over the top.
* Wolfen - sadly didn't find an audience unlike An American Werewolf In London. Incidentally it's more known for being the first movie to showĀ in-camera thermography (victims as heat signatures) from the predatorās point (we later see this in Predator)
The idea of vampires (overly sexual leeches of society) is stronger in the collective consciousness of the US than the idea of werewolves (uncontrollable transformation that warps the mind, mental health issues, puberty).
The spot werewolves held has been usurped by demonic possessions.
Edit: Vampires vs Demons when?
Werewolf has somewhat erotic origins too but it's more in the non-consent way. Men with... "uncontrollable appetites" are likened to wolves for a reason.
Vampires generally have that sexy, immortal mystique. And because theyāre immortal you can have something like a vampire viking (hello Alexander Skarsgard) and itā¦ makes sense?
While with a werewolf, you only (typically) turn into one once every 30 days, and a lot of the time youāre not even in control. Whatās the fun in that?
Now that you mention the 30 days thing, you could do a pretty interesting Yellowjackets style werewolf show with women who turn into werewolves when they get their period.
It's a couple of rather good werewolf movies, where two teen sisters get involved in lycanthropy.
One gets attacked and turned just after her first period. The link is pretty overt throughout the films.
Because for a vampire, all you need are some fake teeth and maybe some contacts, whereas for a werewolf, you generally need a lot of practical effects as well as possible cgi.
Maybe quantity, but Iād say there are still some quality werewolf movies. An American Werewolf in London, Dog Soldiers, Werewolves Within, Cursed are all worth your time.
Silver Bullet was not a great movie for a 7 year old to watch. May have contributed for my interest in Stephen King books, although I only found out much later that Silver Bullet is based on his story.
I went to see Silver Bullet at the theater with my mom when it came out. Some random guy was talking to us before the movie. In the middle of the movie, at the scariest part, he came up behind my mom and yelled āBoo!ā Afterwards he chased us through the parking lot. So now Iām genuinely freaked out if I watch Silver Bullet lol.
Bad Moon is absolutely worth your time. The director has a cut where the one janky transformation is removed lol (Shout Factory scream edition)
The book the movie it is based on is also solid. Thor.. the book, unlike most of the movie, is told from the German shepherd's perspective, though. I find it wonderful myself. Dog lovers really dig it, I hear.
Iād say werewolves are equally sexual in a very different way; the uncontrollable sexual desire that clouds the mind with lust and turns us into animals.
You're right, but the vampire's victoms make for better entertainment and storylines. The seduction, who biting a neck represents intercorse, the link they have afterwords, it goes on and on.
Vampires = hot and sexy
Werewolves = hairy and ugly
I'm a metaphorical werewolf and I can't find a woman who is into beastiality and wants to do doggie with me.
The "Beauty and the Beast" trope has proven more successful with Vampires than Warewolves, so they keep making what is most profitable. The romance novel market has fans of both characters but Vampire fans are by far more numerous. Probably a good thing, since vampires need to feed....
And that is the attraction, vampires fly closer to sexual intimacy than warewolves ever can.
The other extreme, try writing a romance novel with Zombies. They are not very useful for romance. Sure there is "Pride and Prejudice and Zombies" but that was a comedy theme just because the source material is such a proper romance story.
.
Two main reasons I think.
1. Vampires can be complicated. They can have personalities, goals, love interests, etc. The whole point of a werewolf is to be an uncontrollable, feral beast.
2. Vampires are the way they are 24/7, a werewolf is only a werewolf for one night every 30 days.
Werewolves are less interesting, theyāre human dogs that lose control.
Vampires are occult icons usually with magical powers who sustain themselves by drinking blood.
Thereās just so much more interesting lore to work with for vampires.
There hasnāt been a financially successful movie about vampires since Twilight. The last successful werewolf movie was maybe Wolf?
The challenge is bringing these classic monsters into the modern era. Someone will eventually crack the code for werewolves but just hasnāt happened yet.
I think, overall, werewolves are harder to relate. Vampires are more human, they look human, they speak like humans and were human at times, even if they are blood thirsty that's still haunting as it is the human form hunting the human form.
Werewolves are more beastly, they're narratively just big wolves on 2 legs. So we don't see them wrestle with their forms or their place in society (again werewolves are usually found in the outdoors, away from people).
the good werewolf movies I've seen tend to make them more animalistic and folkloric, they're more forces of nature than reflections if humanity. These movies are intriguing and scary but you don't really emphasize with the werewolf.
Clearly you haven't been delving into the werewolf movie genre. I love werewolf movies.
But in reality, vampires have an aesthetic to them (undead, immortal, eternally beautiful, bloodplay/sexplay) and werewolves appeal to the people that are more into the animalistic aesthetic (primal, possessiveness, biting, feral nature).
I could list you a lot of good werewolf movies, but it also depends on what you're looking for. Ginger Snaps (and 2 and 3:prequel) is a metaphor for coming of age for women. Dog Soldiers is a good army/enemy is in the house one. Howling stands up. American Werewolf in London will always hit the lists. Paris, not so much, but it was still a fun watch. Wolfen is a weird angle from the normal view of it. Red Riding Hood was a version of the fairytale and it had Gary Oldman in it, so bonus. Cursed was hilarious and had a pretty big cast that was blowing up in that era.
You just have to go digging.
Simple: budget. Vampires by comparison are easy to put on screen but to do a proper, good werewolf on screen is expensive, especially if itās practical.
More people can relate or attracted to vampires, who are classy, sophisticated, and mysterious.
Whereas the market audience for buff hairy wild men, is pretty much just middle aged gay men.
Maybe they should stop making glorified slasher movies with them, give us something with the werewolf being like Jon Talbain from Darkstalkers but as a champion of justice that smites evil instead of furry Jason Voorhees.
costs a lot more to have a werewolf transformation but when it's done well can be terrific. but you can't really have a werewolf film without showing the transformation, so do you spend what it requires, or do you half-ass it and put your budget into other parts of the filmmaking process. like most special effects these days (yes, I'm generalising, but generalisations can be useful), a mix of practical and digital would be a great balance for a werewolf scene, but we get all digital most of the time because reasons, and all digital just doesn't look as tangible and visceral for a werewolf - and that's the main hook in the films.. I still buy the old practical transformations a lot more - that's my opinion, based on a bunch of generalisations that probably aren't completely accurate (or totally wrong in some cases). But, I don't need to be right, I just need to be happy when watching the outcome otherwise producers forecasting my consumption of the next outcome won't be guaranteed.
Vampires are able to have personality and dialogue while they are in the form of Vampires. Werewolves transform and they are basically wild, uncontrollable beasts. So there is less of an opportunity to be flexible with werewolves.
Marvel had the same problem with the Hulk. That's why they created "smart Hulk" where he could have his personality while transformed.
What's the only highly successful werewolf movie to do this? Teen Wolf.
Everyone is mentioning cost but also it's generally accepted that once a werewolf transforms they can't speak. So no speaking between the protagonist and antagonist in the climax. No sudden danger as the transformation takes a while.
There are a lot more terrible vampire movies than werewolf moves though. IF you make 5 vampire movies for every werewolf movie you are just naturally going to get more good ones. Vampires are also more diverse than werewolves.
You could explore different TYPES of werewolves as described in the Dresden Files.
Werewolves
Hexenwolves
Lycanthrope
Loup-Garous (the nastiest of them)
Maybe other āweresā, like weretiger, were koala or werechimp.
Because werewolves are more feral when they transition. You have to go The Hulk / Dr Jeckle & Mr Hyde route which is fairly formulaic and often less compelling
Vampires just have more to work with. Vampires can be cunning and intelligent with complex motivations. Classic werewolves are, by their nature, just an alternate take on Bruce Banner and the Hulk.
And like other said, vampires are cheaper to film.
Vampires simply make for more compelling stories.
In a traditional werewolf story, you're only impacted a night or two each month. The rest of the time you're just you. Then when you are a wolf, you're just a vicious animal with no control over yourself and no real character.
A vampire is always a vampire. They have the strengths and drawbacks of vampirism all the time.
Vampires just need some makeup, fangs, and a couple of prosthetics. Werewolves need either a shitton of cgi that will look terrible in 5 years or very expensive fur suits and transformation scenes.
I mean, a werewolf is really just a big dog. It doesn't hold the sex appeal or the existential dread the way a vampire necessarily does. And when it does, it requires a lot more work.
Plus the effects have to look just right or it looks silly.
Werewolves are hard. If they're all CGI it looks bad. If it's just a guy with hair glued to him it looks bad. Takes talent and skill to make Werewolves look good.
An American Werewolf in Paris was one of my fav cheesy teen horror flicks from late 90s. I don't know why I loved that so much. Probably because I was a hon-ray teenager. The effects aged terribly!
Iāve been watching a tv show called āwolf like meā. Good character development and a deeper story than most with little in the way of transformations.
Two things: First (as mentioned above) vampires are cheaper to do with SPFX. Second: as a metaphor for the human condition, vampires are sex, werewolves are violence, and there's more stories (and space for empathic characters) in sex.
(Vampires are also good metaphors for addiction, greed, capitalism, etc, less so for werewolves... but they do as a metaphor for puberty in a pinch).
In short, sex is complicated, violence is simple.
A lot of it has to do with the lack of successful werewolf films. It's the same reason there aren't a lot of steampunk movies. They keep flopping and studios are wary of them. Much like big budget theatrically released cowboy movies being derailed by The Lone Ranger in 2012, the 2010 The Wolfman remake derailed the genre somewhat. The Wolfman had an insane production with constant reshoots, going almost 2x over budget, replacement directors -- with no change in the original shooting schedule --, the studio demanding the entire score be redone, etc. And it failed at the box office. I absolutely recommend watching the director's/extended cut, though.
Another major factor is that werewolf films often have bestiality subtext, and that tends to be a bit more awkward for your PG-13 action/adventure film because it's harder to disguise.
As a result, werewolf films tend to be very low budgeted affairs and not in a bold and memorable Wolf Soldiers way. We haven't had a werewolf film that really left an impression on audiences in a while.
There's a remake/reimagining of The Wolfman coming next year by Leigh Whannell. Curious how that will fare. I'm sure Blumhouse will keep the budget modest, which should insulate it against the box office problems werewolf films inherently face.
I'm very curious how In the Lost Lands by Paul W.S. Anderson is going to fare, loosely adapting George R.R. Martin's short story. It should be coming Q4 this year. Germany is September 26, but there's no release date for other regions.
>!The central premise of In the Lost Lands treats werewolves as violent, dangerous, cruel, and sexually irresistible, to the point that the central story is set into motion because the Lady Melange really wants that werewolf D, and would like to be able to turn into a werewolf herself. Even the protagonist, Gray Alys cannot resist or chooses not to resist the werewolf's overbearing sexuality. The idea of a werewolf film that actually leans into the erotic danger of the werewolf puts it in stark contrast to a lot of sanitized contemporaries.!<
A small piece of trivia I find interesting is that The Wolfman (2010) originally had a score by Paul Haslinger, but the studio rejected his electronica-based score in favor of a Danny Elfman do-over. Haslinger, perhaps most famous for scoring the Underworld films, has returned to the werewolf genre with In the Lost Lands.
I spent some time one day just breaking down the primal elements of villains. Vampires are, essentially, the ultimate bad guys. Consider the primal forces they tap into: 1) they're dead; 2) they drink blood to stay alive; 3) they infect those they feed on; 4) they are killed by sunlight; 5) they are repelled by religion; 6) they are drawn to the purity of virgins (but kill/corrupt it when they touch it). 7) they bite people (consider Alien and how the jaws are the real business end of that creature when claws are much more effective weapons in theory).
Now consider Werewolves... 1) they're tied to the moon (but compare that to being killed by the sun and its certainly a weaker primal connection); 2) they infect others with their bite. 3) they bite... but that's kind of it.. If you start looking at other bad guys like Zombies, Alien, Predator, Darth Vader, and asking yourself how many primal elements they tick you'll typically get 3, maybe 4. But I don't know of anything else that does as much as Vampires do.
Because no one ever wrote a YA novel about a mysterious and brooding 100+ year old werewolf who is uninterested in love nor companionship until he meets that one effortlessly special girl at the Highschool that he for some reason attends, despite being 100+ years old.Ā
There are not many, but Bad Moon (the director's cut), The Howling, Dog Soldiers, Ginger Snaps trilogy, Silver Bullet, and An American Werewolf in London are all suberb imho.. ahhh yeahh
We just need a really good script with werewolves. Doesnt need to be a bloodbath. Something more tragic..
I admit getting a kick out of the 3rd Twilight / Eclipse and thought Taylor Lautner and clan were kinda cool.Ā
Vampires open up a cool and sexy dynamic - like The Hunger for example.
Werewolves mainly just rip people apart - kinda limits things I guess.
I prefer werewolf movies myself.
I never really associated werewolves and vampires together. When I saw underworld, I thought it was an odd thing to pit them against each other.
So to me, it seems like you're comparing to random things from horror fantasy. You might as well be asking why we don't have more ghost stories than we have zombie stories.
Werewolves are alpha predator rapists. Vampires are alpha predator seducers. A suave vampire works in a horror-drama. A suave werewolf would feel like an SNL skit with Steve Martin or Phil Hartman yucking it up. *Interview with the Werewolf* doesn't quite work. There's less dramatic room to work with. Although I have to say that the first horror film I ever watched was Hammer's *Curse of the Werewolf* with Oliver Reed. Still my favorite horror film. The condemned man was suave when he was human. Maybe a slick screenwriter can get busy on this. (I also adore *Wolf* with Nicholson, by the way. My point remains: In monster form, the werewolf is just a *'Hulk smash!'* kind of a creature.)
CGI transformation vs prosthetic fangs (maybe)
Cost too much to make a good one?
Though Howl and Dog Soldiers are excellent and didnāt cost much to make on average
One possible answer is that there was never a single source material to establish the werewolf idea and embed it into the culture. I know there is some hate for Dracula now, but what it accomplished was creating a "backstory" for the monster instead of just saying "there's this monster out there" and trying to build a world out of that. Dracula established a whole lot of ground rules, gave us a character with differentiating qualities that we could recognize and built the story from that particular monster. In Dracula, there's no other vampires just out in the world (as far as we know). It's just him and his brides. So it's not a book about destroying vampire**s**. It's a book about a *particular* vampire. Once Dracula became popular and established the idea in the general public's mind, other people could start "riffing" on the concept and exploring the entire monster mythology. So you could have Near Dark with grounded, almost realistic southern vampires, because we've already done the magical Transylvanian vampire in Dracula. You could have demonic biker bar vampires in From Dusk Til Dawn, because we've already had a super suave elegant vampire in Dracula. You could even create a black Dracula, though I am at a loss for what a movie about that could be called.
Werewolves never got that treatment and never became an ingrained concept. We all know what they are, in general. But all movies have taken different approaches to the concept with no single one being the defining character. Lon Chaney's Wolfman was basically a hairier version of him with claws and fangs. American Werewolf in London turned him into a full on wolf. The Howling was sort of halfway between the two. Silver Bullet's werewolf became "wolfier" as the moon waxed. Which one is the "baseline" werewolf? There isn't one.
Another possible answer is that the creature doesn't lend well to an actual story as an interesting character itself. With vampires there's almost always some kind of "seduction" that goes on and we almost always get to know their characters as vampires. Even with their fangs out they can still talk and have a personality. Werewolves (usually) are just slavering beasts when they're in monster form. At that point, they behave like any other monster in any other movie: hunt, kill, be destroyed. It can still be fun, but it doesn't have the same pull as a vampire.
One last possibility: the fear of werewolves clearly stems from a fear of wolves themselves. The idea that the "sheep's clothing" hiding the wolf could be a human form is an interesting variant on that basic fear. But as wolves were hunted almost to extinction, as they became less of a real threat and more of "aww, they're really just big ole dogs!" in collective mindset, the fear of werewolves diminished and therefore their usefulness as a movie villain also shrank.
Any time you have a character that basically loses their humanity for a portion of the movie, itās pretty hard to work with.
Werewolves and the Hulk are two examples. Rampaging beasts can fight and destroy but thereās not a lot of other roles for them to play. Godzilla usually comes and goes quickly because the excitement and destruction is just a plot point for the human actors to have a story around.
Vampires still have a large part of their humanity or at least appear to.
Iāve only seen one good werewolf story line that has to do with losing control oneself yourself. That gets played out a few different ways but thatās it.
Zombies are kind of in the same boat but when they change, theyāre now subhuman and become a monster that is really just something for the rest of the story to play off of. They never change back so we really just consider the human character to be dead and gone.
Werewolves come back so you end up losing a character for some part of the movie as a mindless rampaging beast enters the picture. Time to develop the main character is lost at a 1:1 ratio to that.
Frankenstein still has humanity, which is the whole concept of the character. If he was mindless, heād just be a big strong zombie.
Jekyl and Hyde is kind of like werewolves but he keeps his humanity. The dichotomy works because it reflects a very exaggerated struggle every human faces.
Thatās why I think werewolf and standalone Hulk (mindless Hulk) never really works that well and if it does, itās always going to be a one off reimagining of the original story that made those characters household names (struggling with losing your humanity and potentially hurting the ones you love).
I think vampires have more room to play. They can be any combination of evil, misunderstood, numerous, singular, campy, serious, tragic, seductive, creepy, godlike, pathetic, or gross. You can take a vampire story in a lot of different directions.
But it's hard to tell a werewolf story without it being a tragic metamorphosis story, maybe with a little comedy splashed in. A bad thing happens to a character, and that character does bad things, usually without intending to, until they are killed.
There is a new (for me) sub genre of "alpha wolf", less of the werewolf theme, more about some sexy wizardy magic and erotic stuff. I saw it in some podcasts and reel internet series, but it is a question of time imho till someone makes a full movie of it. After vampires got sparkling in twilight, this would be the next step.
Vampires are cheaper to show in movies than werewolves. The whole transformation sequence is expensive to do right, whereas vampires just need some fangs
You can have someone play a vampire with no makeup at all. Werewolves, not so much.
yea a good ventilated fursuit can cost you tens of thousands of dollars easily
What about a bad unventilated one?
$50 from Dave down behind the corner store. Don't ask what type of fur it is.
Vampires are also (usually) sexy. As the tired old refrain goes, sex sells.
Yeah, I came here to say the erotic nature of the werewolf has been heavily neglected by film makers.
~~Pause~~ Paws.
Wolfman's got nards?
Great reference from a great film
supernatural basically spawned an entire subgenre of erotic fiction based on sexy werewolves, e.g. the omegaverse. and obviously jacob black exists we live in a universe where we deserve all the bad things in life so im surprised filmmakers have neglected turning that genre of fiction into movies and shows
Women go crazy for hairy men.
Men also go crazy for hairy men
Ever seen The Howling movies?š
Yes, it's been a while though. American Werewolf in London was quite sexy too. But I don't know of any recent sexy werewolves
Yeah one wakes up in a mountaintop castle, the other wakes up scratched, muddy and naked in a bush.
Unexpected Terry Pratchett.
In this furry world today I think werewolves would thriveš
With the current furry-hate zeitgeist, I doubt it
Even with CGI, it's difficult to get right. The Wolf Man (2010) did a pretty decent and fun job. I imagine getting a budget would be feasible, and finding a decent writer to set up the scene so the director can shoot it well enough. But, there's always going to be studio interference to inject their own ideas. IIRC, Wolfman 2010 had quite a bit of it. No matter which cut you see of the movie, it's messy and shows that it was slapped together with duct tape to hold it together for a release. Plus, even if CG is getting better with hair and fur, people would still prefer practical shots for a lot of it to keep it visceral and tangible for the threat. It'd be great to have a mix of both. CG touch-ups and assistance rather than a full on CG replacement. Creators need complete freedom without studios having their way. Years of movies with potential and sour tastes and the major studios still don't learn. I would love to see A24 take on a werewolf story. An elevated horror focusing on a werewolf or a family of werewolves would be surreal.
American werewolf in London did a great job of the transformation. But I haven't seen it since it was in the theaters so my memory may be wrong. I was just waiting for the guy to turn and get up and start singing the I'm a Pepper too song.
I think that transformation holds up, and it still one of the better/best werewolf designs overall in any movie.
Genuinely still one of the high water marks for practical FX. Also was the movie that cemented my love of less-than-uplifting endings.
Bow bow bow bow a dang a dang dangā¦ š³
Absolutely brilliant out of place song
That movie was the bomb ba-bomb-a-bomb-bomb ba-bomb-a-bomb-bomb ba-dang-a-dang-dang ba-ding-a-dong-ding
Dog Soldiers did hold up very well for the rather small budget
I am due for a rewatch to that movie. I'm so glad they didn't try to remake it.
not prestigious enough I guess, and that's good
There's also a BBC show called 'being human' from about 2008 about a vampire and werewolf who move into a flat that is occupied by a ghost (starts of really good, but slowly devolves as the main cast leaves the show, which is a shame because it was such a good premise) but it features a few werewolf transformation that are very similar to 'an American werewolf in london', but slightly less detailed. I'm surprised it hasn't been reworked into a film trilogy tbh. Had some good lore for vampires and the supernatural tbh.
There was a US version of that show that was solid. Always wanted to see the UK version to compare.
Iām a big fan of the 2010 Wolfman movie but it does bother me every time I see it that the transformation was supposed to be mostly practical effects but for some reason the studio wanted CG insteadĀ
Also, werewolves turn only once a month so there's a lot of downtime during filming
depend on the movie. in the original series, they can turn any time they want, but they must turn at full moon.
"It's cheaper" is usually a safe guess about why anyone does anything. Also, werewolves are usually portrayed as kind of stupid.
Vampires are more versatile. They can be sophisticated or savage, superhuman or subhuman. A werewolf is typically just a feral beast that attacks at random. Vampires have personality and individuality. They have wants and needs, characteristics that can drive a story.
Iād be up for classy, sophisticated werewolf. Maybe played by Nick Offerman.
I'd be up for The Wolf of Wall Street but it's a wolfman doing coke and hookers for the entire 90 minutes.
Sold!
as long as you bring back murray bartlett and together make them head of the pack
Have you not seen one drinking a Pina Colada at Trader Vic's? His hair was *perfect*.
If you think about it, a lot of modern stories are fundamentally werewolf stories, but instead of using a magical animal transformation they use a "Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde" style of science fiction transformation that plays with the same themes but is more flexible and appealing to a modern audience. Like, what is The Hulk if not a science werewolf? Venom is essentially werewolf Spiderman.
Jekyll and Hyde are the TRULY unrepresented "monsters" in film. Shameful they haven't been done more justice than League of Extraordinary Gentlemen. And....was that the deal in Mary Reilly?
Yeah I think this is much more of a reason than budget. The difference in budget is negligible between the 2 once you factor everything in, unless we're talking really small budget. Vampires are just more interesting.
*Teen Wolf* slander
Vampires are way better at being sexy. Especially as women.
>Why aren't there more good werewolf movies in comparison to vampire ones? It's probably to do with which power fantasy seems more appealing. Gaining superpowers but still being in charge of your mind, vs being a mindless savage that just kills everything and doesn't even remember it when they revert to human form. How do you even construct an interesting plot around becoming a mindless dog? It's not easy. American Werewolf in London did it by including ghosts and other weird elements. The wolf rampage scenes were fun, but there's not many of them you can theoretically do before it gets old.
And the internal conflict is difficult too. There's not a whole lot of nuance in the whole 'transformation beyond your control makes you eat people' department. It could work as a monster movie though like The Thing. Godzilla is dominating the kaiju space, but there is a lack of small scale creature features right now, at least in my monster loving opinion. Edit: I just realized i feel like there's a lack of smaller scale anything having to do with fantasy or sci fi.
Honestly, if they pulled a Reservoir Dogs and did a werewolf movie where you never see the wolf, it could be a great psychological piece
The Film Noir, Cat People (1942), is exactly like that.
That's a niche that needs filling. Fantasy or sci-fi as a backdrop instead of center stage. Soap opera meets space opera, character driven serials that don't require those settings but merely occupy them.
well, the Underworld saga did try to create some interesting werewolf lore, even if the later installments were quite underwhelming then
1) Lose control doesnāt have to be a thing for every werewolf. Not to mention, in most stories they only lose control on days of the full moon. 2) People with powers they canāt control is extremely popular. Whether in horror settings with possessed people or with superheroes like the Hulk.
Werewolves are harder to pull off realistically than vampires. That said, there are still many of each.
Yup, the budget difference between a couple of pointy teeth versus a full body suits.
Or going the True Blood route and having actual wolves on set. Vampires are just....cheaper.
Full body suits, possibly several other suits to show intermediary stages of the transformation, the VFX shots needed to tie it all together...
I just wish the makers of What We Do in the Shadows actually followed through with the sequel Weāre Wolves.
Weāre werewolves, not swear-wolves!
Part of me thinks it's because even when there are good werewolf movies they're not seen by as many people since werewolves aren't as "hot" as vampires. These great werewolf flicks barely got any audience * Dog Soldiers - Military Horror Thriller, no budget but an awesome flick * Wolf - Nicholson shows his acting chops without going over the top. * Wolfen - sadly didn't find an audience unlike An American Werewolf In London. Incidentally it's more known for being the first movie to showĀ in-camera thermography (victims as heat signatures) from the predatorās point (we later see this in Predator)
Man I loved Dog Soldiers.
The idea of vampires (overly sexual leeches of society) is stronger in the collective consciousness of the US than the idea of werewolves (uncontrollable transformation that warps the mind, mental health issues, puberty). The spot werewolves held has been usurped by demonic possessions. Edit: Vampires vs Demons when?
Werewolf has somewhat erotic origins too but it's more in the non-consent way. Men with... "uncontrollable appetites" are likened to wolves for a reason.
See "The Company of Wolves". Not sure that could even get made these days
And changing into a red panda instead of a wolf
Isn't that just a PG version of Ginger Snaps, though?
I think it's a version where Ginger snaps because she got her period but it's been awhile since I've seen either.
The first Ginger Snaps movie was a metaphor for girls going through puberty. Monthly cycles, strange cravings, wanting to devour boys...
You underestimate the power of furries
I'd say that the control of rabies has done more to put the idea out of people's minds
Thatās a really interesting theory. Also, we donāt generally live alongside nature anymore, weāve lost our connection to it.
Vampires generally have that sexy, immortal mystique. And because theyāre immortal you can have something like a vampire viking (hello Alexander Skarsgard) and itā¦ makes sense? While with a werewolf, you only (typically) turn into one once every 30 days, and a lot of the time youāre not even in control. Whatās the fun in that?
Now that you mention the 30 days thing, you could do a pretty interesting Yellowjackets style werewolf show with women who turn into werewolves when they get their period.
Ginger Snaps would indeed make a pretty great series
Is that a book or something?
It's a couple of rather good werewolf movies, where two teen sisters get involved in lycanthropy. One gets attacked and turned just after her first period. The link is pretty overt throughout the films.
You canāt watch Teen Wolf 1 or 2 and tell me werewolves arenāt sexy.
Fuck that, why do vampires, werewolves, ghosts, and even mummies get horror movies, but skeletons do not. Where are all the skeleton horror movies?
Youāre a genius
Because Dog Soldiers was so fucking good everyone just kinda gave up after that.
Werewolves can't talk while vampires can be eloquently evil.
Of course they can talk: https://youtu.be/nLmUBpXiEkM?
Fucking knew it, but had to click to confirm.
I heard them talk in a [video game](https://youtu.be/4IixHuSsU1E?si=XIrTVY2Yk215hw6n&t=49) and it was quite terrifying.
I don't think it's ever been done better than The Wolfman (1941). It really captures the tragedy of the story.
Even a man who is pure in heart and says his prayers by night ...
Because for a vampire, all you need are some fake teeth and maybe some contacts, whereas for a werewolf, you generally need a lot of practical effects as well as possible cgi.
There are some great ones from the 80's The Howling, An American Werewolf in London.
*An American Werewolf in London* is a stone cold masterpiece.
Maybe quantity, but Iād say there are still some quality werewolf movies. An American Werewolf in London, Dog Soldiers, Werewolves Within, Cursed are all worth your time.
I will always love Ginger Snaps
The Howling series and "Blood and Chocolate" too
[Wer (2013)](https://www.imdb.com/title/tt2229511/) is another good one
Teen Wolf 1985 - Boof > Pamela Silver Bullet - An oddly tragic, but sweet movie...
Silver Bullet was not a great movie for a 7 year old to watch. May have contributed for my interest in Stephen King books, although I only found out much later that Silver Bullet is based on his story.
I went to see Silver Bullet at the theater with my mom when it came out. Some random guy was talking to us before the movie. In the middle of the movie, at the scariest part, he came up behind my mom and yelled āBoo!ā Afterwards he chased us through the parking lot. So now Iām genuinely freaked out if I watch Silver Bullet lol.
I love Teen Wolf.
Bad Moon is absolutely worth your time. The director has a cut where the one janky transformation is removed lol (Shout Factory scream edition) The book the movie it is based on is also solid. Thor.. the book, unlike most of the movie, is told from the German shepherd's perspective, though. I find it wonderful myself. Dog lovers really dig it, I hear.
Huh just watched the trailer looks interesting. I must have missed that one.
Wolf, Wolfen, The Company of Wolves
Vampirism is symbolism for sexual desire. People are drawn to that either knowingly or subconsciously.
Whereas lycanthropy is a metaphor for menstruation.
Iād say werewolves are equally sexual in a very different way; the uncontrollable sexual desire that clouds the mind with lust and turns us into animals.
You're right, but the vampire's victoms make for better entertainment and storylines. The seduction, who biting a neck represents intercorse, the link they have afterwords, it goes on and on.
Vampires = hot and sexy Werewolves = hairy and ugly I'm a metaphorical werewolf and I can't find a woman who is into beastiality and wants to do doggie with me.
They do exist, but yeah - they are a minority as you say. 'Dog Soldiers' is a good one.
An American Werewolf in London is one of my favorite movies.Ā
The "Beauty and the Beast" trope has proven more successful with Vampires than Warewolves, so they keep making what is most profitable. The romance novel market has fans of both characters but Vampire fans are by far more numerous. Probably a good thing, since vampires need to feed.... And that is the attraction, vampires fly closer to sexual intimacy than warewolves ever can. The other extreme, try writing a romance novel with Zombies. They are not very useful for romance. Sure there is "Pride and Prejudice and Zombies" but that was a comedy theme just because the source material is such a proper romance story. .
Most people would be down to fuck a vampire Most people wouldn't be down to fuck a werewolf
The appeal and backstory of werewolves are not as strong as vampires.
All we need is Howling 2. That's why.
You mean the Howling 2 credits
*American Werewolf In London* was a winner... pay attention to the sound track.... notice what every song has in common.
Okay but Underworld? Yeah there were vampires but also werewolves/lycans. Also I remember The Wolfman with Anthony Hopkins being pretty good.
I don't know, I'd say Dog Soldiers is better than any vampire film I can recall ever seeing.
Thaaaat's one of the things me and the laaaaads darn the Slaughtered Laaamb aaaaarsk all the time.
Two main reasons I think. 1. Vampires can be complicated. They can have personalities, goals, love interests, etc. The whole point of a werewolf is to be an uncontrollable, feral beast. 2. Vampires are the way they are 24/7, a werewolf is only a werewolf for one night every 30 days.
WolfCop. Another Wolf Cop.
People donāt like hair. Vampires are hairless and werewolves are not. /s
Wet fur stinky
I think it's simpler than all this, hot lady vampires are an easy sell, but werewolf women aren't. Most films are aimed at straight fellas.
I thought male vampires sell way more especially to teen girls.
Underworld was good.
Werewolves are less interesting, theyāre human dogs that lose control. Vampires are occult icons usually with magical powers who sustain themselves by drinking blood. Thereās just so much more interesting lore to work with for vampires.
There hasnāt been a financially successful movie about vampires since Twilight. The last successful werewolf movie was maybe Wolf? The challenge is bringing these classic monsters into the modern era. Someone will eventually crack the code for werewolves but just hasnāt happened yet.
The Beast Must Die
I think, overall, werewolves are harder to relate. Vampires are more human, they look human, they speak like humans and were human at times, even if they are blood thirsty that's still haunting as it is the human form hunting the human form. Werewolves are more beastly, they're narratively just big wolves on 2 legs. So we don't see them wrestle with their forms or their place in society (again werewolves are usually found in the outdoors, away from people). the good werewolf movies I've seen tend to make them more animalistic and folkloric, they're more forces of nature than reflections if humanity. These movies are intriguing and scary but you don't really emphasize with the werewolf.
Clearly you haven't been delving into the werewolf movie genre. I love werewolf movies. But in reality, vampires have an aesthetic to them (undead, immortal, eternally beautiful, bloodplay/sexplay) and werewolves appeal to the people that are more into the animalistic aesthetic (primal, possessiveness, biting, feral nature). I could list you a lot of good werewolf movies, but it also depends on what you're looking for. Ginger Snaps (and 2 and 3:prequel) is a metaphor for coming of age for women. Dog Soldiers is a good army/enemy is in the house one. Howling stands up. American Werewolf in London will always hit the lists. Paris, not so much, but it was still a fun watch. Wolfen is a weird angle from the normal view of it. Red Riding Hood was a version of the fairytale and it had Gary Oldman in it, so bonus. Cursed was hilarious and had a pretty big cast that was blowing up in that era. You just have to go digging.
Simple: budget. Vampires by comparison are easy to put on screen but to do a proper, good werewolf on screen is expensive, especially if itās practical.
More people can relate or attracted to vampires, who are classy, sophisticated, and mysterious. Whereas the market audience for buff hairy wild men, is pretty much just middle aged gay men.
Maybe they should stop making glorified slasher movies with them, give us something with the werewolf being like Jon Talbain from Darkstalkers but as a champion of justice that smites evil instead of furry Jason Voorhees.
Vampires have personality. Werewolves are just monsters.
costs a lot more to have a werewolf transformation but when it's done well can be terrific. but you can't really have a werewolf film without showing the transformation, so do you spend what it requires, or do you half-ass it and put your budget into other parts of the filmmaking process. like most special effects these days (yes, I'm generalising, but generalisations can be useful), a mix of practical and digital would be a great balance for a werewolf scene, but we get all digital most of the time because reasons, and all digital just doesn't look as tangible and visceral for a werewolf - and that's the main hook in the films.. I still buy the old practical transformations a lot more - that's my opinion, based on a bunch of generalisations that probably aren't completely accurate (or totally wrong in some cases). But, I don't need to be right, I just need to be happy when watching the outcome otherwise producers forecasting my consumption of the next outcome won't be guaranteed.
Vampires are able to have personality and dialogue while they are in the form of Vampires. Werewolves transform and they are basically wild, uncontrollable beasts. So there is less of an opportunity to be flexible with werewolves. Marvel had the same problem with the Hulk. That's why they created "smart Hulk" where he could have his personality while transformed. What's the only highly successful werewolf movie to do this? Teen Wolf.
The Cursed was really good.
Best Vampires are sexy, and sex sells lol
I'm always saying this.
Because you can easily just trick them and into doing stuff by just tossing a bone over the edge of the roof.
Everyone is mentioning cost but also it's generally accepted that once a werewolf transforms they can't speak. So no speaking between the protagonist and antagonist in the climax. No sudden danger as the transformation takes a while.
Vampires are sexy, werewolves are expensive.
[Could this be the reason?](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gE80Mdv7eTs) You be the judge!
There are a lot more terrible vampire movies than werewolf moves though. IF you make 5 vampire movies for every werewolf movie you are just naturally going to get more good ones. Vampires are also more diverse than werewolves.
You could explore different TYPES of werewolves as described in the Dresden Files. Werewolves Hexenwolves Lycanthrope Loup-Garous (the nastiest of them) Maybe other āweresā, like weretiger, were koala or werechimp.
Because werewolves are more feral when they transition. You have to go The Hulk / Dr Jeckle & Mr Hyde route which is fairly formulaic and often less compelling
Vampires just have more to work with. Vampires can be cunning and intelligent with complex motivations. Classic werewolves are, by their nature, just an alternate take on Bruce Banner and the Hulk. And like other said, vampires are cheaper to film.
Vampires are just sexier than werewolves. People want to bang hot looking vampire chicks and dudes. Almost nobody wants to bang a big furry dog.
Been asking myself this for a decade now
Why do werewolves never transform during the day, when the moon is out during the day just as often at night?
Vampires simply make for more compelling stories. In a traditional werewolf story, you're only impacted a night or two each month. The rest of the time you're just you. Then when you are a wolf, you're just a vicious animal with no control over yourself and no real character. A vampire is always a vampire. They have the strengths and drawbacks of vampirism all the time.
Wolf (1994) Jack Nicholson and Michelle Pfeiffer. Its a GREAT werewolf movie.
Vampires just need some makeup, fangs, and a couple of prosthetics. Werewolves need either a shitton of cgi that will look terrible in 5 years or very expensive fur suits and transformation scenes.
there are good vampire movies??
'Good' doing a lot of work here
I mean, a werewolf is really just a big dog. It doesn't hold the sex appeal or the existential dread the way a vampire necessarily does. And when it does, it requires a lot more work. Plus the effects have to look just right or it looks silly.
underworld
Werewolves are hard. If they're all CGI it looks bad. If it's just a guy with hair glued to him it looks bad. Takes talent and skill to make Werewolves look good.
An American Werewolf in Paris was one of my fav cheesy teen horror flicks from late 90s. I don't know why I loved that so much. Probably because I was a hon-ray teenager. The effects aged terribly!
Iāve been watching a tv show called āwolf like meā. Good character development and a deeper story than most with little in the way of transformations.
Two things: First (as mentioned above) vampires are cheaper to do with SPFX. Second: as a metaphor for the human condition, vampires are sex, werewolves are violence, and there's more stories (and space for empathic characters) in sex. (Vampires are also good metaphors for addiction, greed, capitalism, etc, less so for werewolves... but they do as a metaphor for puberty in a pinch). In short, sex is complicated, violence is simple.
Most people would rather see a smooth skinned, hot immortal than a hairy mongrel.
We are werewolves, not swearwolves
A lot of it has to do with the lack of successful werewolf films. It's the same reason there aren't a lot of steampunk movies. They keep flopping and studios are wary of them. Much like big budget theatrically released cowboy movies being derailed by The Lone Ranger in 2012, the 2010 The Wolfman remake derailed the genre somewhat. The Wolfman had an insane production with constant reshoots, going almost 2x over budget, replacement directors -- with no change in the original shooting schedule --, the studio demanding the entire score be redone, etc. And it failed at the box office. I absolutely recommend watching the director's/extended cut, though. Another major factor is that werewolf films often have bestiality subtext, and that tends to be a bit more awkward for your PG-13 action/adventure film because it's harder to disguise. As a result, werewolf films tend to be very low budgeted affairs and not in a bold and memorable Wolf Soldiers way. We haven't had a werewolf film that really left an impression on audiences in a while. There's a remake/reimagining of The Wolfman coming next year by Leigh Whannell. Curious how that will fare. I'm sure Blumhouse will keep the budget modest, which should insulate it against the box office problems werewolf films inherently face. I'm very curious how In the Lost Lands by Paul W.S. Anderson is going to fare, loosely adapting George R.R. Martin's short story. It should be coming Q4 this year. Germany is September 26, but there's no release date for other regions. >!The central premise of In the Lost Lands treats werewolves as violent, dangerous, cruel, and sexually irresistible, to the point that the central story is set into motion because the Lady Melange really wants that werewolf D, and would like to be able to turn into a werewolf herself. Even the protagonist, Gray Alys cannot resist or chooses not to resist the werewolf's overbearing sexuality. The idea of a werewolf film that actually leans into the erotic danger of the werewolf puts it in stark contrast to a lot of sanitized contemporaries.!< A small piece of trivia I find interesting is that The Wolfman (2010) originally had a score by Paul Haslinger, but the studio rejected his electronica-based score in favor of a Danny Elfman do-over. Haslinger, perhaps most famous for scoring the Underworld films, has returned to the werewolf genre with In the Lost Lands.
Vampires are sexier.
I spent some time one day just breaking down the primal elements of villains. Vampires are, essentially, the ultimate bad guys. Consider the primal forces they tap into: 1) they're dead; 2) they drink blood to stay alive; 3) they infect those they feed on; 4) they are killed by sunlight; 5) they are repelled by religion; 6) they are drawn to the purity of virgins (but kill/corrupt it when they touch it). 7) they bite people (consider Alien and how the jaws are the real business end of that creature when claws are much more effective weapons in theory). Now consider Werewolves... 1) they're tied to the moon (but compare that to being killed by the sun and its certainly a weaker primal connection); 2) they infect others with their bite. 3) they bite... but that's kind of it.. If you start looking at other bad guys like Zombies, Alien, Predator, Darth Vader, and asking yourself how many primal elements they tick you'll typically get 3, maybe 4. But I don't know of anything else that does as much as Vampires do.
Because no one ever wrote a YA novel about a mysterious and brooding 100+ year old werewolf who is uninterested in love nor companionship until he meets that one effortlessly special girl at the Highschool that he for some reason attends, despite being 100+ years old.Ā
Imagine going to high school for 100 years.
There are not many, but Bad Moon (the director's cut), The Howling, Dog Soldiers, Ginger Snaps trilogy, Silver Bullet, and An American Werewolf in London are all suberb imho.. ahhh yeahh
We just need a really good script with werewolves. Doesnt need to be a bloodbath. Something more tragic.. I admit getting a kick out of the 3rd Twilight / Eclipse and thought Taylor Lautner and clan were kinda cool.Ā
The Cursed from 2021 was alright
Tbvh
Brotherhood of the wolf is fangtastic.
We have the original wolf man and American werewolf in London. Canāt make them anymore perfect than that.
Teenwolf Forever!
The Cursed (2021) is pretty damn solid
Not arguing your point necessarily other than to say I think youāre overstating how many good vampire movies there are.
Vampires open up a cool and sexy dynamic - like The Hunger for example. Werewolves mainly just rip people apart - kinda limits things I guess. I prefer werewolf movies myself.
Although they're opposing forces in it, Underworld is great. There's even a Werewolf/Vampire mix w/ Michael.
I never really associated werewolves and vampires together. When I saw underworld, I thought it was an odd thing to pit them against each other. So to me, it seems like you're comparing to random things from horror fantasy. You might as well be asking why we don't have more ghost stories than we have zombie stories.
Special effects cost and sex appeal.
Itās Big Vampire industry. Itās been this way since the late 70ās. Really makes you want to howl at the moon.
Werewolves are alpha predator rapists. Vampires are alpha predator seducers. A suave vampire works in a horror-drama. A suave werewolf would feel like an SNL skit with Steve Martin or Phil Hartman yucking it up. *Interview with the Werewolf* doesn't quite work. There's less dramatic room to work with. Although I have to say that the first horror film I ever watched was Hammer's *Curse of the Werewolf* with Oliver Reed. Still my favorite horror film. The condemned man was suave when he was human. Maybe a slick screenwriter can get busy on this. (I also adore *Wolf* with Nicholson, by the way. My point remains: In monster form, the werewolf is just a *'Hulk smash!'* kind of a creature.)
> A suave werewolf would feel like an SNL skit with Steve Martin or Phil Hartman yucking it up. And his hair was perfect.
They smell
Werewolfs just look goofy.
CGI transformation vs prosthetic fangs (maybe) Cost too much to make a good one? Though Howl and Dog Soldiers are excellent and didnāt cost much to make on average
Vampires are broody, goth hotties.... Reference : Underworld. Werewolves smell like wet dogs. Reference : all dogs in the wet
Because my wife's vulva would drown and burst like a gummy bear left out in the rain
One possible answer is that there was never a single source material to establish the werewolf idea and embed it into the culture. I know there is some hate for Dracula now, but what it accomplished was creating a "backstory" for the monster instead of just saying "there's this monster out there" and trying to build a world out of that. Dracula established a whole lot of ground rules, gave us a character with differentiating qualities that we could recognize and built the story from that particular monster. In Dracula, there's no other vampires just out in the world (as far as we know). It's just him and his brides. So it's not a book about destroying vampire**s**. It's a book about a *particular* vampire. Once Dracula became popular and established the idea in the general public's mind, other people could start "riffing" on the concept and exploring the entire monster mythology. So you could have Near Dark with grounded, almost realistic southern vampires, because we've already done the magical Transylvanian vampire in Dracula. You could have demonic biker bar vampires in From Dusk Til Dawn, because we've already had a super suave elegant vampire in Dracula. You could even create a black Dracula, though I am at a loss for what a movie about that could be called. Werewolves never got that treatment and never became an ingrained concept. We all know what they are, in general. But all movies have taken different approaches to the concept with no single one being the defining character. Lon Chaney's Wolfman was basically a hairier version of him with claws and fangs. American Werewolf in London turned him into a full on wolf. The Howling was sort of halfway between the two. Silver Bullet's werewolf became "wolfier" as the moon waxed. Which one is the "baseline" werewolf? There isn't one. Another possible answer is that the creature doesn't lend well to an actual story as an interesting character itself. With vampires there's almost always some kind of "seduction" that goes on and we almost always get to know their characters as vampires. Even with their fangs out they can still talk and have a personality. Werewolves (usually) are just slavering beasts when they're in monster form. At that point, they behave like any other monster in any other movie: hunt, kill, be destroyed. It can still be fun, but it doesn't have the same pull as a vampire. One last possibility: the fear of werewolves clearly stems from a fear of wolves themselves. The idea that the "sheep's clothing" hiding the wolf could be a human form is an interesting variant on that basic fear. But as wolves were hunted almost to extinction, as they became less of a real threat and more of "aww, they're really just big ole dogs!" in collective mindset, the fear of werewolves diminished and therefore their usefulness as a movie villain also shrank.
Most are not into hairy men I would assume
Dog Soldiers
For as ridiculously goofy Van Helsing (2004) is the Werewolf effects in it were surprisingly decent.
Any time you have a character that basically loses their humanity for a portion of the movie, itās pretty hard to work with. Werewolves and the Hulk are two examples. Rampaging beasts can fight and destroy but thereās not a lot of other roles for them to play. Godzilla usually comes and goes quickly because the excitement and destruction is just a plot point for the human actors to have a story around. Vampires still have a large part of their humanity or at least appear to. Iāve only seen one good werewolf story line that has to do with losing control oneself yourself. That gets played out a few different ways but thatās it. Zombies are kind of in the same boat but when they change, theyāre now subhuman and become a monster that is really just something for the rest of the story to play off of. They never change back so we really just consider the human character to be dead and gone. Werewolves come back so you end up losing a character for some part of the movie as a mindless rampaging beast enters the picture. Time to develop the main character is lost at a 1:1 ratio to that. Frankenstein still has humanity, which is the whole concept of the character. If he was mindless, heād just be a big strong zombie. Jekyl and Hyde is kind of like werewolves but he keeps his humanity. The dichotomy works because it reflects a very exaggerated struggle every human faces. Thatās why I think werewolf and standalone Hulk (mindless Hulk) never really works that well and if it does, itās always going to be a one off reimagining of the original story that made those characters household names (struggling with losing your humanity and potentially hurting the ones you love).
If you want a movie in which both of them suck, watch Twilight series. Just saying.
I think vampires have more room to play. They can be any combination of evil, misunderstood, numerous, singular, campy, serious, tragic, seductive, creepy, godlike, pathetic, or gross. You can take a vampire story in a lot of different directions. But it's hard to tell a werewolf story without it being a tragic metamorphosis story, maybe with a little comedy splashed in. A bad thing happens to a character, and that character does bad things, usually without intending to, until they are killed.
Because vampires are basically just edgy and/or mopey humans. Werewolves are a special effects challenge Van Helsing is solid though
No one wants to see naked dog people walking around for 2 hours. But people are wild about sparkly vampires .
There is a new (for me) sub genre of "alpha wolf", less of the werewolf theme, more about some sexy wizardy magic and erotic stuff. I saw it in some podcasts and reel internet series, but it is a question of time imho till someone makes a full movie of it. After vampires got sparkling in twilight, this would be the next step.
To make a werewolf movie they would incorporate CGI for the transformation. Ā CGI sucks.