Werewolf vs Wolfman vs Wolfhound

[GL]

So, this is something that is going on at another forum, and it pretty much has split the place pretty evenly.

When it comes to werewolf films, which style do you like the most?

Is it a werewolf?


Pretty straight forward, a mixture of a man and a wolf, though you can tell that the wolf features take dominance in the form.

Best examples-The Howling, An American Werewolf in Paris

A Wolfman?


Another straight-forward one, only instead the human aspect is more center-stage. Very little about a wolf is present except for lots of hair on the face and fangs, otherwise it's very human-like.

Best examples-The Wolf Man (1941), The Wolf Man (2010)

Or the Wolfhound?


Now, it's a term invented by the one on the forum who started this, and is pretty much just having the man in question simply portrayed by a real-live wolf. No costumes, just a real animal.

Best examples-The Company of Wolves, Blood and Chocolate.

Now, keeping in mind that the effectiveness of the style isn't what's asked, but merely the style and look as a whole. Give your answers, please.

[HNT]

I like whichever one has the best plot and most fully keeps my interest. I think that the Wolfhound is the least interesting of the three, but there is no reason that a good plot can't make up for that. I am probably predisposed to prefer wolfman status, and most of the films that I prefer would fit in that category. But, again, it is really all about a good plot to push it over the edge. Incidently, which would you consider Ginger Snaps to be? I am assuming Wolfman, but this is not something that I am confident that I am good at differentiating yet, as it seems like a list that somebody just made up rather than something about which there is widespread agreement

[CT]

I prefer the werewolf type as it seems the way they should be portrayed IMO. Wolfman is second and wolfhound seems like a copout. There are many good wolfman movies but I think they typically chose the makeup route due to technogical constraints.

Wolfhound doesn't make sense for a creature that commits many murders with ease as a regular wolf isn't extremely deadly. Yes they can kill humans but not often and in large numbers.

[GL]

Indeed, Ginger Snaps is a Wolfman (or Wolf-woman) entry.

But the point of this is merely to ask what look do you like most, nothing to do with plots or anything else. It's just about their look. That's the only thing I'm asking here, do you like it when there's a Werewolf-type creature, a Wolfman-type creature or a Wolfhound-type creature. The examples are merely there to provide a sense of relationship for a better understanding of each style. You may base it off other films than what I chose, that doesn't mean anything, but it's simply about the look of the beast and nothing else.

[Jen]

Hard to say, not sure I have a preference really. I think any of them can work and look good, if done well. Also kind of hard to separate the look from the story the filmmakers are trying to tell to judge simply on appearance.
I'll have to think about it a bit more I suppose.

[The Walking Dude]

I don't see the difference really except advances in technology, the only reason Lon Chaney's Wolfman just had hair on his face, as opposed to a full transformation were the techniques of the time.

They're all Lycanthropic to me.

[GL]

Nov 10, 2009 12:28:10 GMT -5 CT said:

I prefer the werewolf type as it seems the way they should be portrayed IMO. Wolfman is second and wolfhound seems like a copout. There are many good wolfman movies but I think they typically chose the makeup route due to technogical constraints.

Wolfhound doesn't make sense for a creature that commits many murders with ease as a regular wolf isn't extremely deadly. Yes they can kill humans but not often and in large numbers.

I do as well, the werewolf look feels the most natural and realistic when the term is bandied about, while I utterly loathe the wolfhound style for that very reason. No matter how many bodies it may claim, no matter how vicious it's perceived, in the end it's just a wolf, something no bigger than a common dog.

[CT]

Nov 12, 2009 10:49:09 GMT -5 GL said:

while I utterly loathe the wolfhound style for that very reason. No matter how many bodies it may claim, no matter how vicious it's perceived, in the end it's just a wolf, something no bigger than a common dog.

Exactly. A Saint Bernard or Great Dane would be more believable as a killer.

[GP]

Werewolf for me. I thought Dog Soldiers did a pretty good job on a shoestring budget of creating convincing werewolves when they could have fallen back on dodgy wolfman makeup .

[GL]

I knew there was a good one I was forgetting when I was putting that up. I was just using the other guy's examples (although I changed Wolfman's examples, as he had cheapo 40s and 50s drive-in examples I was sure no one had heard of) so I just switched those. But I knew there was a better one than AAWIP.

[CT]

Still haven't seen Dog Soldiers, but want to.

[GP]

High quality for the low budget, very English and very entertaining.

[GL]

Think zombie-film quantity of gore mixed with a smarter-than-average werewolf film, with class, style, and substance and thrown together with a dash of NotLD for good measure. Worth all the hype.