THE PACK Message Boards

Renorei wrote:I'll agree with Vuldari that the HP werewolf was indeed a werewolf...

...but it was a TERRIBLE werewolf. I hope that one of the future HP movies has a shifted werewolf that is not as sickly and ugly as Lupin. No werewolf should look like that. He was the Stephen Hawking of werewolves (minus the expert knowledge on physics).

I don't recall any shifted werewolves appering at all in books 5 or 6. There are werewolves involved in the story (besides just Lupin), but none of them shift in the books. Maybe in #7...


The way I see it, it's like looking at a strange car. It's new "modern" design looks terribly awful to you and you HATE everything about it, from the way you sit at the very front of the vehicle with no engine or hood in front of you (its underneath, on the bottom), to the shiny silver plasticy interior with all digital dials and the awful orange and purple color sheme.

...but regardless of how much you may hate it, the fact remains that it is a four wheeled vehicle with seating for 5, designed with the purpose of transporting individuals and their families and luggage to their desired destinations, fuels up at regular gas stations, and meets all of the legal requirements of a street legal automobile, and is sold as such.

Regardless of how much of an aesthetic abomination you may feel this thing is, there is really no point in denying outright that it IS in fact a "Car".


...on the other hand, if someone made an inclosed two-wheeled vehicle with wings with no storage space, which only met ONE of the requirements of a "Car" (that it carries a passenger), and the maker tried to pass it off as such, naming it the "Sky Car" would not, a Car, make it.


Likewise...a creature that is a man that transforms into a monster, but does not seem to have anything to do with wolves at all, or looks like a Gestalt werewolf, or an Anthro-Wolf but never transformes into a human ever, or a person who Thinks like a wolf, but never takes the physical form of one...regardless of what someone may choose to call them, is NOT a "Werewolf".

Vuldari wrote: I don't recall any shifted werewolves appering at all in books 5 or 6. There are werewolves involved in the story (besides just Lupin), but none of them shift in the books. Maybe in #7...

That's what I'm hoping for. I doubt it'll happen, but I'd love it if Fenrir Greyback shifted.

kitetsu wrote:

Morkulv wrote:- Upright standing wolves aren't werewolves.

For some disturbing reason i feel very intimidated by that statement.

You are a upright standing wolf?

I can accept a lot of things as werewolves, even if I don't like them. However, there has to be some kind of two-way transformation that happens, not a single, permanent transformation (I know that some werewolf movies, like Ginger Snaps, skirt close to this line, but said movie never made it totally clear that the transformations were non-reversible. After all, there was the sex scene in the car where she shifted farther, but was somewhat more human-looking the next day, and in the sequel there is the hand that shifts to a monster hand and then back to normal. However, if a movie makes it totally clear that there's no going back, then its a transformation but not a werewolf).

As to the "look" of the werewolf, I prefer something that resembles a wolf in some way (otherwise, how can you tell the difference between a werewolf and a werebear or wererat?) but I don't require it in order for the creature to count as a werewolf. Still, I draw the line somewhere. If the guy turns blue every time he transforms, or grows wings, or turns into a tree, or something bizarre like that, I wouldn't accept it as a werewolf. But, almost anything else that looks animalish I can accept, as long as it is labeled a werewolf in said piece of fiction and as long as its transformations are two-way. It doesn't mean I'll like it, but I can accept some pretty poor excuses for werewolves.

Morkulv wrote:You are a upright standing wolf?

No.

The thought of WW fans giving a damn about me portraying WWs much more differently is what makes me feel intimidated.

But i'm just that paranoid anyway.

I agree with the therian thing, I don't consider myself a werewolf at all. It's a spiritual thing really. Well for me it is. There are too many fake wannabe therianthropes around. It's sickening.

I'd class a werewolf as not having a choice at first as well, or under some sort of curse or magic, though I believe maybe they may have had a choice. Not nessessarily a bad thing.

But then again, if you look at the term 'were-wolf' isn't it 'man-wolf' so I guess you could look at it that way and not in traditional terms. But I guess I'd see a person who could become a normal, natural wolf at will as being a shape-shifter and not nessessarily a werewolf. Because he might be a demon, or possess some sort of magic, or something. Technically he is a 'man-wolf', but to what degree, if it hasn't got much of an in between transition as it does a man (or woman) simply -becoming- a wolf in a poof of light!

And a werewolf wouldn't disregard his or her nature during human form so much either, though they might try.

And goddamn, as much as there's good movies out there, I still like the tails I just can't a wolf without a tail, poor docked wolf! I understand why they ditch it but it's still sad!

But there are so many views and opinions on that topic those are just mine

When they ditch the tail and make it into some large furry linebacker ape shaped thing.

As for as I am concerned they are making Skunk Apes.

Fwah, my idea of what is a werewolf:

Someone who can change between human, wolf, and gestalt form. I've always included the feral wolf form, though I understand quite a few people disagree w/ that.
I also think werewolves (in my opinion) should have Digitigrade legs. But how could anyone possibly know that for sure?
Also, I think it should definetely have a tail XD (except in human form, duh)
Digitigrade: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digitigrade

A werewolf with plantigrade feet/legs should be considered a sin

Silverclaw wrote:A werewolf with plantigrade feet/legs should be considered a sin

Well generally speaking ... indeed.

But:

1. humaniforn - plantigrade
2. gestalt - digitigrade
3. wolf - digitigrade

Why is it just werewolves? There are other werecreatures. If it has the head of a lion, but the rest of the features are human-like, but are still close to a lion. Fur like a lion, and we can't forget the mane, guys. Once again Digitigrade legs come into play, as well as the tail. Call it a Werelion
If it looks like the face of a human severly distorted on a lion-like body but still close to human to say so, call it a really bad job with the prosthetics, and classify it a B-movie monster.
But if it looks like nothing close to man or lion, wolf, or whatever than you call it a demon.

bloodwolf_345 wrote:Why is it just werewolves? There are other werecreatures. If it has the head of a lion, but the rest of the features are human-like, but are still close to a lion. Fur like a lion, and we can't forget the mane, guys. Once again Digitigrade legs come into play, as well as the tail. Call it a Werelion
If it looks like the face of a human severly distorted on a lion-like body but still close to human to say so, call it a really bad job with the prosthetics, and classify it a B-movie monster.
But if it looks like nothing close to man or lion, wolf, or whatever than you call it a demon.

Yeah generally any werecreature, I guess depending on the animal side's anatomy (Ie a bird might be different) would have the same features sort of. Though like a were-bird might have different features well, I dunno he or she would have wings and a tail in Gestalt form. Haha X-Men Bird Brain man!

Were-Lobster...to the rescue!

Set wrote:What, to you, is not a werewolf?

In a word - The Howling III! Since when do wolves, let alone werewolves, carry their young in pouches? There was once an animal known as the tasmanian wolf that was actually a marsupial. But IMO, it hardly resembled a wolf.

Jamie wrote:If the guy turns blue every time he transforms, I wouldn't accept it as a werewolf.

Unless it's Jon Talbain of course. If you're referring to Michael, I agree. But then again (technically), he's a hybrid.

Silverclaw wrote:A werewolf with plantigrade feet/legs should be considered a sin

Not really I dont mind it that much as long the werewolf is muscular and wolfish.

A werewolf is what your image of a werewolf is. I mean come on, this is a mythical creautre here. I find it silly aguing about how this creature (which isn't real at all) should look like.

If some dude thinks a werewolf is a guy who needs a shave, fine! Don't go spouting YOUR belives on him because you don't like his. I myself hate those types of werewolves but I would go and bring someone down and tell them the "right" (which is more your opinion) type of werewolf. I hate to admit but some of you people here are too picky.


"Oh, the werewolf in VH had no tail!"
"Oh, the werewolf in Ginger Snaps had little fur!"
"Oh, the wereolf in DS was plantigrade!"


Maybe I'll complain here and there but I won't put down a movie because of one stupid little thing. I'm happy if the thing even have a muzzle!

Gotta say I agree with Hamster here, as long as the design is strong and the fx at least reasonably believable then you should just sit back and enjoy.

Normally I'm a muzzle man but one of my fave werewolves (and indeed fave werewolf movies, although I'll probably be slated for liking it! Ah well.) is from Howling VI: the freaks. The fx were first class, the movement superb, but the crowning achievement was the range of emotion they managed to put across.

But hey I'm easily pleased.

one thing to keep in mind is that werewolves are usually evil. And it is a... i forget the term... cenamatic device(?) to make evil things ugly. Or unattractive at least. The effect of a sleek, proportioned, healthy looking werewolf ripping people apart isn't quite the same as some bulky shaven beast with arms bigger than its legs, no tail, and a muzzle so flat it looks like an ape. Anyway, the more ugly grotesque, and horrific something looks, the more demonic or evil it will look to aduiances...

(i don't usually mind the ugly werewolves, because they almost always get waxed in the end. on the other hand, if a wolf like Goldenwolf's got waxed at the end of a movie, i'd be kinda dissapointed...)

I think of it two ways.

WEREWOLF: when i say this, i mean a person that changes into a wolflike creature. This is not magical (i mean, not like a druid, who can chnage into a bear or a tiger or something, it's not a spell). this person may be deranged while in wolf form. th9is person my have to change at the full moon. whever. but he or she does indeed sift physically. or, even, wolf-into-human. the main areas that i saw this and considerd ita werewolf was in a book where it turend out werewolves, who had been aruond for a while, actually were wolf-into-human. everyone thought it was the opposite, even the werewolves.

when, howver, i see the term in a book or it is used by someone els,e i am prepared to define it as anything between a wolf-human mix physically, to a therian, to whatever. but if you ask me, it's not truly a werewolf if there isn't some element of lost controll or mental change to it as well. even my favorite 'weretiger' charcter isn't so much a WEREtiger as a shapeshifter who has one other form which happens to be a tiger. The rest of my 'werebeasts' are like that too, iin my own story0universe. Outside of it however, iprefer there to be SOME strings attached.

Since the werewolf is a mythical construct, we don't really have a live example to say this is versus isn't. Therefore, the definition is one of consensus. And, while we die-hard fans, therians, and the occasional enthusiast who feels strangely inclined to spend a lot of time here in spite of only passing interest may have our own ideas, the concept of lycanthropy and werewolves is a broad one to humanity, so by "consensus," I don't mean our consensus so much as the general population's consensus.

To that end, unfortunately, the hairless, tail-less, evil slime monster does qualify as a werewolf. It fits the "cursed" archetype. (See my essay, which is around here somewhere.)

Hamster wrote:A werewolf is what your image of a werewolf is. I mean come on, this is a mythical creautre here. I find it silly aguing about how this creature (which isn't real at all) should look like.

But, I think that most of us would agree that there are limits somewhere. For example, let's say you see a movie where something is continually referred to as a "werewolf" but each time it transforms, it grows a thick coat of bright orange yarn on one side of the body, while the other side grows green scales and a few chicken heads. I think all of us could agree that, whatever that thing is, it isn't a werewolf. A shapeshifter, yes. But not a werewolf.

I have to agree with Scott on this.

I agree that werewolf typically suggests that there is some magic involved and usually means that the human cannot control the beast when it is time for it to surface (eg: full moon). BUT, I kinda like the idea of a werewolf having control over his/her shifts. The mythology behind Underworld was ideal (even though the creatures themselves weren't my ideal) explaining how the older "Lycan" could shift at-will and that the moon no longer held them prisoner.

A werewolf would also encompass everything that AWIL described. Even the creature was wolf like and ferocious.

With all this said, I cannot exclude the Howling movie wolves from being werewolves too even though they are bipedal. They are werewolves!

Another thought from earlier in the thread regarding Lupin in the HP movies came to mind for the first time while reading today. Maybe Lupin is so rat like because he loathes and fears the beast he becomes and makes it anemic. The ferociousness of the beast I think could be amplified by the personality of the human that is the alter form. In other words, a very angry and easily aroused human would be a more ferocious beast while in wolf form than say...Mr. Rogers. That would be funny...Mr. Rogers as a werewolf - eating the inhabitants of his world.

"Wolves on steroids" aren't werewolves.

Jamie wrote:

Hamster wrote:A werewolf is what your image of a werewolf is. I mean come on, this is a mythical creautre here. I find it silly aguing about how this creature (which isn't real at all) should look like.

But, I think that most of us would agree that there are limits somewhere. For example, let's say you see a movie where something is continually referred to as a "werewolf" but each time it transforms, it grows a thick coat of bright orange yarn on one side of the body, while the other side grows green scales and a few chicken heads. I think all of us could agree that, whatever that thing is, it isn't a werewolf. A shapeshifter, yes. But not a werewolf.

If that is a werewolf, then its a werewolf.

Hamster wrote:

Jamie wrote:

Hamster wrote:A werewolf is what your image of a werewolf is. I mean come on, this is a mythical creautre here. I find it silly aguing about how this creature (which isn't real at all) should look like.

But, I think that most of us would agree that there are limits somewhere. For example, let's say you see a movie where something is continually referred to as a "werewolf" but each time it transforms, it grows a thick coat of bright orange yarn on one side of the body, while the other side grows green scales and a few chicken heads. I think all of us could agree that, whatever that thing is, it isn't a werewolf. A shapeshifter, yes. But not a werewolf.

If that is a werewolf, then its a werewolf.

If that's a werewolf, then you've been rolling in some weird grass, buckteeth-o.