I'm gonna watch it again. I've always loved this film, but it's been awhile since I've seen it.
-
The_White_Hotel — 14 years ago(September 24, 2011 09:26 AM)
There is so much evidence that Michelle is NOT the original wolf, and so little to say that she is, that I really don't understand why there is any confusion.
It's not "the same eyes" that Michelle has at the end, those eyes represent the demon wolf, Nicholson and Spader both display them in the movie. Equally, you mention yourself that neither Nicholson nor Spader become a full wolf during the course of the movie (till the very end in Nicholson's case) so why assume that Pfeiffer is a full wolf who can return to her human state? It's explicitly mentioned that that's not how it works by the Indian doctor who says something like "the spirit of the wolf consumes and takes over the spirit of the person". This idea that Pfeiffer can "control" whether or not she changes is a baseless assumption that contradicts what we are actually told during the movie (and what we see in the other two cases).
On the other hand, the evidence against her being the original wolf is:- Nicholson is miles away from where Pfeiffer lives when he is first bitten. What would she be doing out there?
- Horses are explicitly show to be troubled and disturbed by Nicholson after he is infected with the spirit of the wolf, Pfeiffer can not only approach them but actually ride them earlier in the film.
- Pfeiffer's character obviously doesn't believe Nicholson's story or expect anything to happen to him. When he disappears in the night she is angry.
- When she starts to accept there might be something in it she is scared. Nicholson can hear her phone ringing from a distance. she is surprised to discover it is ringing. When the dna sample is "contaminated" with canine dna she is surprised. When she encounters Spader at the police station and sees that he has been bitten she is scared of him. In fact, she is scared in general of the possibility that any of this might be true
even when she is alone - The line that the doctor says to Nicholson (something like "not everybody needs to be bitten to change, for some people the passion of the wolf is enough to change them) does not relate to anything if you assume Pfeiffer was the original wolf. Why is it in the film if she is the original wolf? If she is not, which I am 100% convinced of (in fact, in ten years of watching this film it never occurred to me that she was, only when I saw it suggested on here) that line makes sense and is in the film to explain how her character changes at the end without being bitten.
"Reality is the new fiction they say, truth is truer these days, truth is man-made"
-
McQueen1980 — 14 years ago(December 21, 2011 02:31 PM)
its an interesting theory. one pro for it is maybe a she wolf CAN go back and forth more easily into human than a he wolf. this might explain michelle pfeiffer not APPEARING to be wolf like and maybe just WAITING for him to fully transform and then for HER to go wolf again when he goes fully wolf. the more u think about it the more it makes sense. the movie basically comes full circle.
in space there are no movie theatres -
The_White_Hotel — 14 years ago(December 21, 2011 06:22 PM)
one pro for it is maybe a she wolf CAN go back and forth more easily into human than a he wolf.
Again, that's not a pro for the theory, it's a baseless assumption pulled out of nowhere to support an interpretation of the film for which there is absolutely no evidence.
"Reality is the new fiction they say, truth is truer these days, truth is man-made" -
Ainull_seepage — 13 years ago(June 25, 2012 07:40 PM)
Interesting theory,
It has points to support it but an equal or more points to debunk it.
The doctor says not EVERYBODY changes. The doctor says sometimes the wolf can be kept a bay. The doctor says passion can transform people into wolves. The doctor says he had never seen one as strong as Will.
In support of the theory, Laura can be a wolf, and just a wolf in control. Not being forced to transform. Based off the doctors description, Will is such a strong wolf spirit. He cannot keep his possession in the grip of his choice.
Laura could be a wolf that has grip, that controls her analog.
In debunking Laura is fearful of Will. Once SHE starts to believe he is indeed a wolf, her attitudes change namely for fear and lack of belief.
From a script and film-making standpoint EVERYONE is/can be wolf.. it depends of the spirit, passion, and will of the individual. Therefore, Laura was herself always a wolf, though it wasn't until she met Will that the transformation occurred.
Confound your lousy toll.. TROLL! -
The_White_Hotel — 13 years ago(July 02, 2012 09:50 AM)
From a script and film-making standpoint EVERYONE is/can be wolf.. it depends of the spirit, passion, and will of the individual. Therefore, Laura was herself always a wolf, though it wasn't until she met Will that the transformation occurred.
I would go along with this, yes.
"Reality is the new fiction they say, truth is truer these days, truth is man-made" -
daughterofolaf — 13 years ago(October 01, 2012 10:49 PM)
Why do people try to turn a very simple story into something complicated? How does it make ANY sense to think she was the one who bit him? That would make almost the entire rest of the scenes with her irrelevant, pointless and nonsensical.
I'm baffled to think of how someone can see this movie more than once and be confused on this issue.
"Rock 'n roll martian!" -
sadfilmophile — 13 years ago(October 17, 2012 11:25 AM)
This is so rubbish. Flanders ^ has already listed reason after reason why it cant be her.
To that I'll add this - during the rape scene wouldnt she defend herself like a wolf if she had those powers, ie high jumps etc. -
snikt_snakt — 13 years ago(October 27, 2012 07:04 PM)
I'm always saddened when I see a movie that dumbs itself down for the stupid people in the audience and I think to myself, "Come on. We don't need to be spoon-fed this crap. We aren't morons."
Then I see a thread like this.
And I realize that roughly half the audience out there are indeed morons.
"
What the f-ck is the internet?
" -
Jay
, Jay & Silent Bob Strike Back -
pw90 — 13 years ago(October 31, 2012 07:52 PM)
I myself wondered if it was her or one of her family (brother, or maybe somehow dad?) because of something that her father does at the end of the movie.
When she asks the cop about the vodka tonic and then tells him "she could smell it a mile away" her dad just laughs and then gets real straight-faced when the cop looks at him. That always stuck me as kinda odd.. -
snikt_snakt — 13 years ago(November 12, 2012 09:46 AM)
Jay and Silent Bob might be morons but that doesn't make me one just because I enjoyed the movie.
On the other hand, everyone who thinks that Michelle's character was the wolf that bit Jack's character has identified themselves as morons.
"
What the f-ck is the internet?
" -
Jay
, Jay & Silent Bob Strike Back -
MrRazorz — 10 years ago(September 30, 2015 07:01 PM)
This theory seems to spring from two misconceptions about the werewolves in this film. Firstly, that a person has to be bitten to become a werewolf, when the film clearly explains that this isn't the case. Secondly, that these werewolves can change back and forth from "full wolf" to "full human". Will's conversation with the professor implies that he'll become more wolf-like every night until the next full moon and then become a wolf for good, and the film seems to bear this out.
Besides that, there's no evidence in the film to support the idea of Laura having been a werewolf all along. She displays no wolf-like characteristics until the last scene, animals aren't afraid of her, and there are several scenes where she's freaking out over the very
idea
of werewolves, which would be odd if she were one herself.
The real nail in the coffin for this idea, of course, is the climactic scene in the stable. If Laura is a werewolf, then why doesn't she change when Will and Stewart do? Why is she running away from Stewart and feebly trying to fend him off with fire extinguishers and pitchforks, when she could just "wolf out" and fight him
lobo e lobo
, as it were?
When I first saw the film in 1994, my first assumption was that Stewart must have bitten or scratched Laura while he was tossing her around on the stable floor. While discussing it with my friends on the way home, we remembered the whole "passion of the wolf" thing, which made a lot more sense (because why would they have put that idea into the script if it wasn't going to play out in the story?). It's not that complicated a film, as much fun as it is, so the simplest explanation really is the best one. -
Soxsista — 9 years ago(May 04, 2016 05:56 PM)
I really love this movie and I try to watch it every time it's on. I think I must have seen this movie over a dozen times. I never, ever in a million years thought that I would see a thread like this. I thank all who tried to explain in "rational and exhaustive" detail why the cockamamie theory of Laura being the wolf that bit Will is preposterous, absurd, and totally counterproductive to the story.