Ahhh, the sorted issue of gender.

Apokryltaros · Post by **Apokryltaros** » Tue Aug 02, 2005 3:09 pm

Excelsia wrote:
Apokryltaros wrote:
Excelsia wrote:
Manes: Though I'm sure a nice big mane would look gorgeous on a male werewolf, I think it's illogical. Think about it:
1. He's a man. Most likely short hair.
2. He's a gestalt. All of a sudden this big mane appears?
3. He's a wolf. All traces of mane gone.
What about the growth, accentuation, and exaggeration of beards, facial hair and chest hair?
I think that could work, but I wouldn't go overboard. Too much would be weird.

Although it would be kinda cool to have a male WW with a Pei Mei style mustache.....

Pei Mei?
Is that anything like the "Lion-style" hair cut that some give their Persian cats?

Renorei · Post by **Renorei** » Tue Aug 02, 2005 3:14 pm

Apokryltaros wrote:
Excelsia wrote:
Apokryltaros wrote:
Excelsia wrote:
Manes: Though I'm sure a nice big mane would look gorgeous on a male werewolf, I think it's illogical. Think about it:
1. He's a man. Most likely short hair.
2. He's a gestalt. All of a sudden this big mane appears?
3. He's a wolf. All traces of mane gone.
What about the growth, accentuation, and exaggeration of beards, facial hair and chest hair?
I think that could work, but I wouldn't go overboard. Too much would be weird.

Although it would be kinda cool to have a male WW with a Pei Mei style mustache.....
Pei Mei?
Is that anything like the "Lion-style" hair cut that some give their Persian cats?

By Pei Mei, I was referring to the martial artist from Kill Bill who teaches the bride to kick a**. He has a really long mustache and it's funny.

Also I edited my previous post a bit before I answered this one, perhaps it expresses my opinions better.

Apokryltaros · Post by **Apokryltaros** » Tue Aug 02, 2005 3:20 pm

Ooooooh...
The "Chinese sage" beard dealie.
The Chinese always respected men who had long beards, though, they preferred to grow thin, wispy beards, themselves. Easier to groom and keep parasite-free that way.

Renorei · Post by **Renorei** » Tue Aug 02, 2005 5:23 pm

Apokryltaros wrote:Ooooooh...
The "Chinese sage" beard dealie.
The Chinese always respected men who had long beards, though, they preferred to grow thin, wispy beards, themselves. Easier to groom and keep parasite-free that way.

I can see why that would make sense...still looks kinda funny though.

To everyone that is reading this, sorry for getting off-topic. To summarize my thoughts:
-No breasts
-No manes (but if they exist both sexes have them)
-I agree, males should have fur-covered sheaths
-Slight height differences, differences in musculature, and softness of features could adequately distinguish between males and females. Fur color of individual wolves would help as well

I have good reasons for having all of these opinions. Go back to the previous page toward the bottom, I have a nice long post expounding on my thoughts. (except for the sheath one, but I'm pretty sure everybody's in agreement on that)

Trinity · Post by **Trinity** » Wed Aug 03, 2005 12:22 am

Lupin wrote:
Trinity wrote: Its hard to tell male and female wolves apart, aside from the body size and weight ( unless you know what you are looking at ). Humans is a bit simplier ( normally ).
Well remember, a lot of that comes from the fact that you've been looking at people all of your life.

I don't think the differences between male and female werewolves would be as pronounced as they are with humans. But you should be able to tell the difference if you're just there with them, and not fleeing in terror. Females would be smaller, and generally weigh less, (not that you should ask a female werewolf her weight) and have breasts, though not as pronounced as those on a human of similar build (fur).

Good point Lupin, but I have to stand by Excle on this one. NO Breats. If teh Gesltal form were built to run on all fours, no matter how small they were..., they woul dget CRUSHED. How about I strap some small a-cup boobage to your chest and make you run on all fours simialr to a wolf gait? mrhhn?

Even if teh Geslat ran more like a dog-cagit ( the feet further apart and leaving two lines of tracks in stead of one ), they woul dstill be in the way. It would make it particuallry impossible to run on all fours.

I do agree that there should be some differences, enough for there to be a noticable split between the sexes. Lighter form, shorter body, "finer" features, rounder shape overall to the hybrid form.

Canines don't have obvious sexual features because they are nose-based. a Lot of their very "language" is scent based. They don't NEED to see if a wolf is male or female cause they can SMELL it.

*wags*

Humans on the other hand are a more visual creatures. All of our sex features are obvious. Women are curved, have wide hips for birthing purposes, are softer ( because of teh fat they have to carry ot feed both the growing baby as well as them selves in times of need ), and have boobs.

Yes Breasts are an obvious sexual feature. dur. They are there for male stimulation purposes as well as feeding. Look at any of our primate cousins. The femals don't gain boobs until they get through to a certain stage of pregnancy. Afterwards they receed some ( but since skin streaches not all teh way ). Elepahnts are simialr as well, but femals mammaries are noticable because of where they are on the body. Unlike many four-legged mammals, they have more human-placed boobage. On the chests. They are noticable because after a while the weight of gravity ( which all femals dispise ot some extent ;) ) makes them sag somewhat.

Making it sublte would be a great idea.

Having males standing next to females would ehnace the effect as well. ;) *chuckles*

As for males having a sheath.., it ain't the sheath you got to worry about, its the.., testicles. They are very obvious on most animals because of the way mammal biology works. They hang free because its how they keep the teprature inside of them at a regular rate, thus ablt to actuall -produce- sperm.

I HATE to stigma placed upon human genetalia, but ist there, so for movie purposes something -has- to be done.

Heck I wouldn't mind it of the testicles hung free.., but to be honest it woul dbe as noticable.

On wolves they are further back and up higher. This is because their gait effect where they would be. I'm empatizing with you guys here. ;) They are placed there to be out of the way and "safe". Humans are further to the front and hang more freely.

If you look at most four-legged mammals, the same placement applies to most of them.

On a Geslat, you have to worry about being able to walk as a bi-ped as well as a quad. So.., where are you gonna put them? *grins*

If they are placed anywhere lower and further back on the mid-line, they'd get smushed between the legs while walking upright.

If placed anyfurther forward and more human like.., they get knocked around when they are trying to run on all fours.

Not the most pleasent thing to think about I'm sure. But there is a reason to why nature has placed them in the places they have.

Lupin · Post by **Lupin** » Wed Aug 03, 2005 12:44 am

Trinity wrote:Good point Lupin, but I have to stand by Excle on this one. NO Breats. If teh Gesltal form were built to run on all fours, no matter how small they were..., they woul dget CRUSHED. How about I strap some small a-cup boobage to your chest and make you run on all fours simialr to a wolf gait? mrhhn?

Of course the gestalt form may not be able to run on all fours at all. If it has a flat, human-like chest the abillity to run on all fours is strained, breast size not withstanding.

Renorei · Post by **Renorei** » Wed Aug 03, 2005 1:09 am

I'm glad you share my opinions about breasts Trinity. I think a lot of girls that have posted in this thread share this feeling.

As far as testicles go, I think that the people in charge have come to the conclusion that gestalts will only walk on two legs, so I'm thinking the testicles will probably be in a more human location, though I am personally in favor of 2 and 4 footed walking in the gestalt form.

More thoughts on breasts:

Just wanted to go ahead and say this now before someone brings this up. Many of the really good artists around here add breasts to their female werewolves. Don't get me wrong, I think their artwork is beautiful. In fact, for the purpose of merely creating a still image (without utilizing the bodies of actual people), I think breasts are fine. However, what looks good in the 2D world may not necessarily look so nice in the 3D world. People that are hoping that breasted female weres would end up looking like GoldenWolf's artwork are definitely setting their hopes too high. Though many of you probably aren't expecting this and just want breasts anyway, this goes out to all of you that are. Ta ta.

Trinity · Post by **Trinity** » Wed Aug 03, 2005 1:23 am

*ponders*

Good point.

So then we come to the question, in another thread completely, wether or not the Gestalt can run on all fours.

This would make a big difference between wether there were more human qualities to the form.

If they didn't run on all fours, then the human female torso ( as well as the male genetalia ), I think, would look more estihcially pleasing to add on. But again, I'm one for subtllty. No massive boobage of dooom, please! Fmelas who have not had kids woul dnot show as much, imo. But others may be more pronounced. it "looks" more naturalistic.

Just wanted to go ahead and say this now before someone brings this up. Many of the really good artists around here add breasts to their female werewolves. Don't get me wrong, I think their artwork is beautiful. In fact, for the purpose of merely creating a still image (without utilizing the bodies of actual people), I think breasts are fine. However, what looks good in the 2D world may not necessarily look so nice in the 3D world. People that are hoping that breasted female weres would end up looking like GoldenWolf's artwork are definitely setting their hopes too high. Though many of you probably aren't expecting this and just want breasts anyway, this goes out to all of you that are. Ta ta.

Thatis another really good point. The way 3D rendering goes, fur is a very difficult effect to have work right. i have seen teh disscussion boards, have witnessed people who have done wonders, and still the issues crop up.

The fur on the chest is thinner, and if you were to have breasts on a female form it would look.., well you'd be able to see them nipples and all.

Putting fur on them woul dmake them look weird.

It'd have to be done -well-, or not done at all.

Now if you want to maybe give them a slight "abnormality" to teh chest indicating breats fine. But again it'd have to look good, or not be doen at all. You migth end up with something along the lines of.., cancerous tumor looking things instead.

Renorei · Post by **Renorei** » Wed Aug 03, 2005 1:27 am

Well, I personally am in favor of no boobs whatsoever, but perhaps I am being unreasonable.

I suppose the decision is up to Mr. Brownrigg, though I must say never in all of my imaginings of what werewolves would look like did boobs ever play a factor.

Trinity · Post by **Trinity** » Wed Aug 03, 2005 1:39 am

Prolly because most early depictions of were-beats were male. Exceptions being Kitsune and Nagah woman.

Renorei · Post by **Renorei** » Wed Aug 03, 2005 2:01 am

That is a possibility. It seems as if (almost) everything, if not specifically stated otherwise, is automatically conluded to be male. Weird.

One of my favorite 'werewolves' of all time: Fox from Gargoyles. This pic is so not a very good one, but it is the best I could find. If any of you ever watched that show, you will remember. She looked so cool when she was running around and stuff! Anyway, here is a link to a site that has a pic of Fox in human form and in the wolf form. Trust me, that pic of her wolf form does not do justice at all. Anyway, I guess this is kinda my image of what a werewolf would look like in wolf form, regardless of gender.

http://www.dracandros.com/Jebgarg/tge/fox.htm

Trinity · Post by **Trinity** » Wed Aug 03, 2005 2:17 am

<3'd her

Renorei · Post by **Renorei** » Wed Aug 03, 2005 3:16 am

True the body is rather maleish. Though, I am of the opinion that since wolves don't have many secondary sex characteristics that are visible to the human eye, I think it is feasible that the gestalts wouldn't either, except the body and face could be a bit more delicate. Therefore, I think female WWs looking slightly male, and yet still being a little feminine sans breasts, would be awesome. But it's looking like a lotta people are lovin' the breast idea. Oh well. I'll still go and see the movie, most definitely, even if they do have breasts. Though I know if I ever made a WW movie there would be no wolven breasts. I guess overall it's not that important, the plot and acting abilities are the most important things.

Trinity · Post by **Trinity** » Wed Aug 03, 2005 4:18 am

okay someone said that werewolves were NOT both quad and bipedal in gestalt forms.., I know there was a poll around here somewhere..,

and I'd also like to point tou "Silver Corners"
http://calypso-blue.com/werewolf/viewtopic.php?t=348

WALKING IN GESTALT FORM

Werewolves can walk on four legs, or two. This was the concensus of the group. However, it should be pointed out that if a creature can walk easily on two legs, the body structure would make it very difficult to walk on four. The reverse is also true. Therefore, either one form would be almost prihibitively difficult.

For the werewolf to use both types of transportation effectively, it would have to do some form shifting to go from one to another.

Yea yea walking isn't running, but apparently in this flick they can go either bipedal or as a quadreped.

So I will enforce my support for no boobies, and re-point out the issues with the tesicles. Thank you

*wags*

AHHA! found it:
http://calypso-blue.com/werewolf/viewtopic.php?t=18

~~~~~~~

Also some pretty nice examples of four legged gaits and why boobs won't work. ;)

http://us-p.vclart.net/vcl/Artists/Jidane/vg_hunter.jpg
( Narrower more wolf like build. No room for any-kind of anything up top. Where the elbows are ( in perspective ) is equal to where the breasts woul dbe located. The elbows would be further apart, almost looking comical in trying to keep 'outof the way' )

http://us-p.vclart.net/vcl/Artists/Jida ... no1-04.jpg
(Slightly wider fore-end stance, but you will notice that there is NO room for anything hanging down.)

http://us-p.vclart.net/vcl/Artists/Emry ... dreiBW.gif
( Even wider fore-end stance. More room, but you see where teh elbows are? Yeah. It woul dbe difficult to move properly. )

http://us-p.vclart.net/vcl/Artists/Emry ... /nain1.gif
( Not a front view, but a nice over all balance between legs, arms and torso.

)

http://www.goldenwolfen.com/archive/200 ... ndship.jpg
( again you can see where the elbows would fall, and how that would be a major issue. )

http://www.goldenwolfen.com/den/freestu ... _small.jpg
( Here is a pair of weres running on all fours. Again notice teh lack of room, where the elbows fall. )

Now if I have to go searching for Nude model references online.., I will. But I bet cha since its not such a natural position for people except in porn, I'm not goign to find much that isn't lewd oir suggestive.

Set · Post by **Set** » Wed Aug 03, 2005 2:57 pm

I hate to burst your bubble on the breasts issue, but I have a sizeable chest (C-cup) and I have no difficulty walking around on all fours. My broad shoulders might be a factor in that but still they haven't given me problems at all. Elephants also have their mammary glands between their front legs. An elephant's front legs are held close together and it doesn't make it difficult for them to walk either. If there's anything that would hinder a gestalt wolf while walking on all fours it would be the length of the arms and legs.

Renorei · Post by **Renorei** » Wed Aug 03, 2005 4:45 pm

Yeah, but if any female wolf were running around (regardless of two legs or four, and regardless of cup size), some bouncage would definitely occur, if the breasts were realistic.

Yet another reason I am against breasts. Bouncing boobies in a werewolf movie would take the focus off of the plot, because many audiences would pay more attention to that than the action. I, personally, would prefer that audiences not have sexual thoughts about these werewolves. If you make a female werewolf too feminine and give her boobs, some people are definitely gonna be distracted.

Apokryltaros · Post by **Apokryltaros** » Wed Aug 03, 2005 11:39 pm

I don't want pronounced boobies on the female werewolves, either.
I mean, really, is this supposed to be a horror show, or furry porn on film?

Lupin · Post by **Lupin** » Wed Aug 03, 2005 11:55 pm

Apokryltaros wrote:I don't want pronounced boobies on the female werewolves, either.
I mean, really, is this supposed to be a horror show, or furry porn on film?

I don't want werewolves with watermelons strapped to their chest, but a complete abscence of breasts would bother me as well.

Renorei · Post by **Renorei** » Wed Aug 03, 2005 11:58 pm

Lupin wrote:
Apokryltaros wrote:I don't want pronounced boobies on the female werewolves, either.
I mean, really, is this supposed to be a horror show, or furry porn on film?
I don't want werewolves with watermelons strapped to their chest, but a complete abscence of breasts would bother me as well.

Wouldn't bother me at all. Utimately I think this issue will either have to be decided by Anthony, or voted upon in a poll. There's really no right or wrong sides, just preferences.

I could support my argument for no breasts with all the evidence and logic in the world, but some in favor of them might still disagree.

Black Shuck · Post by **Black Shuck** » Thu Aug 04, 2005 12:07 am

I'll second that one. I don't think they should be flat-chested. Just something really slight and not really pronounced. I just think that if there was a slight swell it'd help with the feminine look a bit. They wouldn't be big enough to bounce. I guess they could, but do you see what I mean? Something that kind of suggests? Like a compromise: wolves don't have big breasts and human females have breasts. Since they're half & half or what have you in gestalt form, there's not a complete absence and they're not the size of grape fruits.

Trinity · Post by **Trinity** » Thu Aug 04, 2005 12:19 am

Reiluna wrote:I hate to burst your bubble on the breasts issue, but I have a sizeable chest (C-cup) and I have no difficulty walking around on all fours. My broad shoulders might be a factor in that but still they haven't given me problems at all. Elephants also have their mammary glands between their front legs. An elephant's front legs are held close together and it doesn't make it difficult for them to walk either. If there's anything that would hinder a gestalt wolf while walking on all fours it would be the length of the arms and legs.

Elphants don't gallop ( as a wolf does ) for long distances. The run in a very stiff legged gait. They're fore-legs also aren't as flexiable nor have teh range of motion that a wolf's does. Not to mention giving teh gesltal the abaility to use its hands, also makes the arms logictiscally even more flexiable.

Elephant traks are doubleup up. Menaing that though their hind foot print will land in their front foot print much like a wolf.., it has a double row of prints because of its wider stance.

Now take a fourlegged stance. Place your hand directly under yourself, centered below you brestbone. Have both hands placed touching, side by side. Now Walk. Placing each hand directly infront and in the middle of your path.

You are going to have to move your elbows so they bend enough to get around your breasts. Not to mention you will have to swing your arms at the shoulders around so as to not interfere with yourself. Most femals get used to their top heavy nature and don't notice this. Now try to just move your arms in a forward motion without bending your elbows or swinging your arms out and around in such a mannaer as to avoid your breasts.

Now imagine for a minute -running- As a heavier top-heavy like myself, you should know that unless they are tied down, they are gonna swing. If you are running on all fours not only are they gonna swing fore to back, but side to side, and goodness forbid if you need to make a sudden turn.

I've played enough games of "dog" with my niece and nephew to know that top heavy and on all fours can get awfully cumbersome.

Wolves have narrow chest, so not only do their back feet land in the prints of their front feet, but the width between them ( from left to right, not front to back ) is a whole heck of a lot thinner. It almost looks as if they are literally running on a tightrope.

Humans have a very wide stance when on our hands and knees. I'm a d-cup mind you, and normally because I'm so used to my size, I can easily manuver around on all fours. BUT I will not be able to gallop with out have issues with my elbows.

One would have to stick one's elbows further out and away from teh body, making one's tracks between the rigth an dleft sides even wider.

Thus for a hybrid form between human and wolves, for the gestalt, I can see a more dog-like wider-chested track.., But that still doesn't allow for large breasts. Smaller breast one might be able to get away with.., but even then it would be diffuclt to manuever with out hitting oneself.

References:

http://www.kidsplanet.org/tt/wolf/math/walk.PDF

Wolf tracks are similar in shape to coyote and dog tracks, but they are much larger than
coyote tracks and larger than most dog tracks. The wolf’s front feet are larger than the hind feet.

The toes spread out more on the front feet. This is so the wolf can cling to slippery boulders in rough terrain. When a wolf is trotting, the hind foot will often land in the print made by the front foot on the same side.

Wolves have narrow chests. This enables them to “plow” through deep snow. Dogs’ chests, on the other hand, are much wider, especially the large breeds whose feet may be as large as a wolf’s. Dogs do not, therefore, place their hind foot inside the front footprint but beside the front footprint.

Wolves and other wild canids tend to walk in a straight line, what we could call a “beeline.”

Dogs, on the other hand, meander; their trails zig-zag.

http://www.dnr.state.wi.us/org/land/er/ ... s/wolf.htm

A wolf and other wild canids usually places its hind foot in the track left by the front foot, whereas a dog's front and hind foot tracks usually do not overlap each other. Wolves also differ from most dogs by having a narrower chest, longer legs, large feet, large head with cheek hair tufts, tail held down or straight but not curled, black tipped tail, and black spot on back of the tail.

Havign a-cup size breasts woudln;'t be much of an issue. It;d give the figure of the werewolf a slightly rounder, softer look. Sure.

*shrugs*

But anything bigger would just distract and become and issue when trying to CG animate the CG physics behind them.

WolvenOne · Post by **WolvenOne** » Thu Aug 04, 2005 12:26 am

Wow, this debate again.

Well, I'm gonna state again... equal size or smaller then human form. Taking them away completly really doesn't serve much purposes from the viruses standpoint or whatnot, and with both male and female werewolves running around it'd probably be handy to have at least subtle ways of telling them apart.

I should note though, that even if they stayed at the exact same size, they would appear smaller and more modest due to things like fur. Plus if the rest of the body grows in size it'll have a minamizing effect.

WolvenOne · Post by **WolvenOne** » Thu Aug 04, 2005 12:30 am

Er, for the record, I'm all for "not emphasizing" such things even if they are equal in size to pre-transformation levels. Like I said, fur can really help with modesty and if the rest of the body is getting bigger that'll have a real minamizing effect.

The two effects together in most cases would really effectivly "modest things down." Or at least I hope it would.

Trinity · Post by **Trinity** » Thu Aug 04, 2005 12:36 am

WolvenOne wrote:Wow, this debate again.

Well, I'm gonna state again... equal size or smaller then human form. Taking them away completly really doesn't serve much purposes from the viruses standpoint or whatnot, and with both male and female werewolves running around it'd probably be handy to have at least subtle ways of telling them apart.

I should note though, that even if they stayed at the exact same size, they would appear smaller and more modest due to things like fur. Plus if the rest of the body grows in size it'll have a minamizing effect.

If the body, as was noted previously, uses up a lot of energy, the fat reserves in them will dimisish quickly.

If I were to go to gesalt form and retained my boobs.., they'd be an issue. Even if they were to remain relative to the orignal size, rather then growing with the form itself.

WolvenOne · Post by **WolvenOne** » Thu Aug 04, 2005 12:49 am

Okay, although I'm not an expert, er, female chests are not entirely made up of fat, there's some other stuff in there that's a bit more solid then fat, forget it's name.

Second, that "well the energy from the transformation has to come from somewhere," argument, doesn't work so well. See, by that logic, once a female werewolf transformed back they'd be permenently, shrunk down up there. Besides that, we really cannot expect a virus or whatever to have the intelligence to decide what bodyparts it can break down to complete the transformation, it's just as likely to go after an arm or an internal organ after all.

Though I should stop there, cause we're getting into the missing matter debate again and I don't want to open that up again. See it was mostly resolved in favor of "fudging it," since no scientific explanation works here.

Now, I can understand why people "wouldn't" like them for werewolves. However there's no real reason not to have them so it's mostly a stylistic preference. That being said those sorts of "stylistic preferences," are best left up to the movie makers.