Quote:
Originally Posted by Decardo
Have to agree your pretty much on point with that, though I would consider filming the actress in the scenes with her reacting to the hair first and then filming her shaved will allow you to show before and after shots without 3 months of waiting in between. Throw in some clothed (partial reveal shots) and you have a great start to a sequence  |
Yes, but you really need to find a performer who would be able to wait half a year to let her hair grow that size. And then tell her to shave it. The base idea is good, but in the end keep in mind that you don't have anyone who would fit in that profile. And in case you find someone, you will have to wait, as I said, six or seven months in the best case.
It is also true that you are facing one of the trickiest issues when dealing with werewolf transformations. I remember that Missa commented that even with small patches of fur the performers felt very uncomfortable, and there were many problems with glues, kinds of hair and the like (e.g., unknown alergies to certain products, the color of the hair does not match with the color of the performers'...).
And just to add another issue, if you want to show some hair-growing FX, you have a couple of options. The cheapest is the digital painting over the image, as Missa did in her videos, but if your FX crew is a bit adventurous, you can do it like Rick Baker did: I am not able to describe it effectively, but involved "reverse filming" and pulling the hair from behind... you can get it in Internet, sorry. Anyway, it did not sound as an expensive effect.
To finalize this, just as a preference of mine, and if you feel that you don't need so much fur to cover the imperfections of the transformation during the initial stages, don't cover the performer in fur too fast as everyone usually does. If the changes in the bare skin are shown before applying the fur coverage, you will make it more expectacular, and the other FX would not be obscured by the added furcoat
.