same reason the bad guys just never shot Bond in the head. that wouldn't be much of a story, would it?

In terms of Werewolves as victims, yeah that is mostly true since Hollywood. (I've been told the whole mythology we are familiar with is pretty much a Hollywood invention - transmission by bite and so on. Shape-changing could be a curse. Wottisname in Greek mythology was turned into a wolf as punishment for something pretty awful - umm serving someone his own son in a stew so some such? But a lot of shapechangers (including lycnathracopes) were voluntary skin changers. Witches or people who owned a charmed skin of whatever animal they wanted to change into. I also remember a Victorian story in which a family of werewolves were actually a kind of undead. They were apparently buried without a proper service. They took human or wolf form at will, but were ultimately laid to rest by reading a proper Church of England burial service over their graves. Pretty sure the author made that one up, but who knows? The Church of England has been around enough for it to be incorporated into folk superstitions.

same reason the bad guys just never shot bond in the head. that wouldn't be much of a story, would it?

It was when the Simpsons did it.

(Which is why it was so funny.)

OK, the Bond thing wasn't really the story on that Simpsons EP....

Wasn't there a cartoon or YouTube thing about that very question?

How Lord of the Rings should have ended.

Also there's a bit on Family Guy where Chris complains to the clerk guy about it and he replies, "Don't see Krull."

OK, the Bond thing wasn't really the story on that Simpsons EP....

No. That episode belonged to Hank Scorpio.

There's the reverse to Mott's Law, though, in that I don't want to analyze a movie (or TV show) and I resent Hubby when he insists on taking something I quite enjoyed and saying, "You know, it really wouldn't have worked that way, they should have done thus-and-so."

We call that, "pissing in the cornflakes." Basically just being a buzzkill.

Most of the time I can keep my knowledge to myself but sometimes the movie is so wrong I have to ruin it for everyone else. Kate & Leopold comes to mind. (he named the elevator after his butler? Way to belittle the real Mr. Otis, filmmakers.)

Typo, that's interesting, and I can totally see it in the original Wolfman stuff ("Even a man who is pure of heart.."). It slightly scares me that Stephanie Meyers is more in line with tradition tradition, though.

THIS THIS THIS:

First of all, when we analyze art, when we look for deeper meaning in it, we are enjoying it for what it is. Because that is one of the things about art, be it highbrow, lowbrow, mainstream, or avant-garde: Some sort of thought went into its making — even if the thought was, “I’m going to do this as thoughtlessly as possible”! — and as a result, some sort of thought can be gotten from its reception.

The post-film nitpicking is part of the experience for me. If I'm not going to analyze a film and pick it apart, why see it at all?

If I am not thinking critically about afilm (or book or TV show or whatever) it cleary didn't engage me at any worthwhile level.

But I agree that pissing on someone's Cheerios is bad form also.